Further to my previous post on Churchill, I thought some of his other answers to questions put to him in March 1937 by the Peel commissioners might prove instructive.
Remember, as you read them, that the Palestinian Arabs - Muslims and Christians - constituted over 90% of Palestine's population when the Balfour Declaration, giving British backing to a Jewish National Home in Palestine, was issued in 1917, and that, despite the mass immigration of European Jews into Palestine from 1918 on, under the protection of British bayonets, they were still the overwhelming majority in their ancestral homeland in 1937.
Remember, also, that despite Britain's other myriad colonial crimes, stretching from the very beginnings of the empire 'upon which the sun never set and the blood never dried', no other colonised people that I am aware of were subjected to anything like the Kafkaesque nightmare of having their independence indefinitely postponed by a ruling colonial power with the express purpose that they would one day be superseded by another, 'superior' people, bent on the formation of an exclusive, ethnocratic, settler-colonial state.
Behold the Churchillian 'logic' behind this cruel experiment (or as one of the commissioners put it: 'a thing unheard of in history').
Q: What was the meaning and aim of the Jewish National Home?
A: The conception... was that, if the absorbtive capacity over a number of years and the breeding over a number of years... gave an increasing Jewish population, that population should not in any way be restricted from reaching a majority position.
Q: What arrangements would be made to safeguard the rights of the new minority - the Arabs?
A: That obviously remains open, but certainly we committed ourselves to the idea that some day... subject to justice and economic convenience, there might well be a great Jewish State there, numbered by millions, far exceeding the present inhabitants of the country and to cut them off from that would be a wrong... We said there should be a Jewish Home in Palestine, but if more and more Jews gather to that Home and all is worked from age to age, from generation to generation, with justice and fair consideration to those displaced... certainly... it was intended that they might in the course of time become an overwhelmingly Jewish State.
Q: When you said [in your 1922 White Paper] that the Jewish National Home in Palestine... may become a centre in which the Jewish people may take a pride, what did you mean??
A: If more Jews rally to this Home, the Home will become all Palestine eventually, provided that at each stage there is no harsh justice done to the other residents.
Q: Would this not constitute an injustice to the Palestinian Arabs?
A: Why is there harsh injustice done if people come in and make a livelihood for more and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves? Why is it injustice because there is more work and wealth for everybody? There is no injustice. The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be a desert for thousands of years.*
Q: Isn't continuing Jewish immigration a creeping invasion and conquest of Palestine spread over half a century, which is a thing unheard of in history?
A: It is not a creeping invasion. In 1918 the Arabs were beaten and at our disposition. They were defeated in the open field. It is not a question of creeping conquest. They were beaten out of the place. Not a dog could bark. And then we decided in the process of the conquest of these people to make certain pledges to the Jews. Now the question is how to administer in a humane and enlightened fashion and certain facts have emerged.
I could go on, but I'm sure you've got the idea.
[*Shades of Tony Abbott's words of 15/11/14: "As we look around this glorious city, as we see the extraordinary development, it's hard to think that back in 1788 it was nothing but bush."]
Showing posts with label Churchill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Churchill. Show all posts
Monday, March 11, 2019
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Q & A with Tony Abbott
If you're a Young Liberal, and you find yourself under siege by Bolshevik and Maoist academics, to whom should you turn for advice and guidance?
Silly question. Tony Abbott of course!
"Recently, some Liberal students asked me what might they do to armour themselves against their left-wing lecturers. My response: familiarise yourselves with the bigger story of which we Australians are but part. And a good place to begin is to read and regularly re-read the New Testament (it's our core document) and to read cover to cover Churchill's History of the English-Speaking Peoples, because you can't understand us without knowing that." (Covert brainwashing of our kids is taking its toll, The Australian, 9/3/19)
And why is our Suppository of Wisdom - Tony's own words, you'll remember - recommending dear old Winston to the troops? Could it be because, deep down, he shares Churchill's colonial, supremacist mindset?
Many examples of this mindset may be adduced from Churchill's long history of racism, but my particular favourite emerged in the context of the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission, aka the Peel Commission. Palestine at the time, of course, was in the throes of a full-scale rebellion against Zionist immigration and colonisation - imposed on the indigenous Palestinians by British bullets and bayonets:
Lord Peel:
"[Do you think] Britain might have some compunction if she felt she was downing the Arabs year after year when they wanted to remain in their own country?"
Churchill:
"I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." (Churchill & The Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p 120)
Churchill's testimony, btw, was kept secret by the commissioners.
Silly question. Tony Abbott of course!
"Recently, some Liberal students asked me what might they do to armour themselves against their left-wing lecturers. My response: familiarise yourselves with the bigger story of which we Australians are but part. And a good place to begin is to read and regularly re-read the New Testament (it's our core document) and to read cover to cover Churchill's History of the English-Speaking Peoples, because you can't understand us without knowing that." (Covert brainwashing of our kids is taking its toll, The Australian, 9/3/19)
And why is our Suppository of Wisdom - Tony's own words, you'll remember - recommending dear old Winston to the troops? Could it be because, deep down, he shares Churchill's colonial, supremacist mindset?
Many examples of this mindset may be adduced from Churchill's long history of racism, but my particular favourite emerged in the context of the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission, aka the Peel Commission. Palestine at the time, of course, was in the throes of a full-scale rebellion against Zionist immigration and colonisation - imposed on the indigenous Palestinians by British bullets and bayonets:
Lord Peel:
"[Do you think] Britain might have some compunction if she felt she was downing the Arabs year after year when they wanted to remain in their own country?"
Churchill:
"I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." (Churchill & The Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p 120)
Churchill's testimony, btw, was kept secret by the commissioners.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
The CIA's Regime Change Playbook (1953)
An absolute must-read, 1953 Iran coup - a crime authored in London and Washington, by John Wright (rt.com, 17/8/18):
"This week marks 65 years since the Western-orchestrated coup in Iran. August 19, 1953 is the day that Iranians were taught a hard lesson in the rules of the game when it comes to empire and hegemony. For on this day, the country's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown at the hands of Washington and London. It was, by any measure, an act of international banditry that continues to cry out for just redress.
"Operation Ajax was planned, organized and unleashed by the CIA in conjunction with MI6 in response to the decision that was taken by Mossadegh - acting with the support of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) - to nationalize Iran's oil and husband the resulting revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people. Up to this point, the lion's share of the revenue garnered from the exploitation of Iranian oil was sucked out of the country by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - the British state-owned oil company established in 1908 with this objective in mind and the forerunner of today's global oil conglomerate BP.
"London's colonial assertion of control over Iran's natural resource was undertaken at the point when its Royal Navy was moving from coal to oil-powered engines. In the interests of an empire that covered a quarter of the world at that time, the global reach of the Royal Navy was indispensable. Thus, the domination and exploitation of Iran's oil assumed, for London, a priority of critical strategic importance. None other than Britain's future prime minister, Winston Churchill, proclaimed the importance of Persian [Iranian] oil with customary bombast: 'Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams. Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.' Such an open celebration of the opportunity for national enrichment at another country's expense is so unabashed it would make a low-rent mafia hood blush.
"Over the years of Britain's control of Iranian oil, Tehran received a derisory percentage. It was a one-sided arrangement of such unabashed colonial arrogance that it could only succeed in triggering a rise in national consciousness. And it was on the back of this rise in national consciousness that Mohammed Mossadegh was appointed Iran's prime minister in 1951 by a reluctant shah, upon being nominated for the post by the country's parliament (Majlis) by an overwhelming majority. The young shah, Mohammad Reza, whose father had been forced of the throne in 1941 by the British and the Soviets due to his pro-German sympathies in World War II, sat on the throne as a constitutional monarch during this period.
"Mossadegh and the nationalist current he represented was anathema to the shah's ambitions that were encouraged by the British with the protection of its oil interests in mind, resulting in rising tensions as the country approached a crossroads in its history. Upon coming to power, Mossadegh carried through his plan of nationalizing and seizing control of Iran's oil reserves from the British, while confiscating the assets of the AIOC. Mossadegh justified his actions thus: 'Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries [over a just distribution of oil revenues] have yielded no results... With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people.' He went on: 'Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.'
"The British responded by making it impossible for Iran to sell its newly nationalized crude on the world market. However, for a colonial power whose empire had gone into steep decline, this wasn't enough to satisfy its desire for retribution. Lacking the requisite strength and ability to settle accounts on its own, it was then that London turned to Washington, which had been established as the first among equals of Western imperial powers, for assistance. The reasoning employed by London to draw the Americans into their feud with Mossadegh was that Iran was in danger of turning communist, citing the growing popularity of the country's Tudeh (Communist) Party as evidence. With Washington in the throes of anti-Soviet and anti-communist fever, it succeeded and the plan to topple Mossadegh - Operation Ajax - was put in motion with the CIA assuming the lead role. Key to its success was the bribing of senior army and police officers, along with journalists, religious clerics, and members of the Iranian parliament, who were tasked with whipping up anti-Mossadegh sentiment. A smear campaign, designed to inflame the religiosity of a large section of the Iranian population, accused Mossadegh of being a communist.
"According to declassified CIA documents, when it began on August 15, the coup appeared to have failed. Mossadegh's security forces made dozens of arrests and forced the shah, who was also in on the conspiracy, to flee the country. However, utilizing the momentum of mass demonstrations that were organized with money provided by the CIA, on August 19, 1953, Mossadegh was arrested along with thousands of his supporters. Thereafter, the shah returned from exile to become Washington's placeman, ruling the country with extreme brutality and corruption, until the Iranian Revolution removed him and his clique from power in 1979.
"The context to this history is, of course, Washington's unremitting demonization of Iran today. The false depiction of the country as a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to the region has been used to justify the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), the tightening of sanctions, and the looming threat of war. The fact that the precise opposite is the case - ie that Iran has been indispensable in combating Western-backed terrorism in the region and stands as a pillar of resistance to the sectarian regional ambitions of key US strategic allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia - has been willfully abstracted in favor of this Alice in Wonderland narrative.
"The CIA- and MI6-orchestrated coup to topple Mohammad Mossadegh reminds us that no region has endured more at the hands of US hegemony than the Middle East. It cements, as well, Mossadegh's place in history as a man with the courage to defy the West. It is a proud legacy of defiance that lives on in the refusal of the Iranian people to submit to Washington's writ in our time. While that will be rightly celebrated in Tehran on the 65th anniversary of the CIA-led coup, the eve of the occasion was marked in Washington this week by the creation of a so-called Iran Action Group, tasked with coordinating its policy towards Iran, and with 'changing its regime's behavior'."
As it happens, Friday's Australian republished a Wall Street Journal piece - part of the propaganda barrage currently softening us up for a hot war with Iran - contained an unctuous column by Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the late King of Kings and Light of the Aryans, Mohammad Reza. Some gems:
"My life's mission is not to assume a personal leadership role in the future state; it is... to serve as a source of hope... for the Iranian people."
On the other hand, if they really want me...
"The Iranian people have a message: we want our country back."
We the people! LOL
"From the inception, the regime has sought to subvert Iran by transforming it from a nation into a cause... It denies our people the right to gather for special occasions at the tombs of their heroes."
What? The tomb of granddaddy, Reza Shah? Certainly not Mossadegh's.
"[Iranians] want to be sought out by other other countries as trusted friends and partners as they take charge of their country and lead it into a new chapter of history."
Reza wants a kiss and a cuddle from USrael, just like his Dad.
"This week marks 65 years since the Western-orchestrated coup in Iran. August 19, 1953 is the day that Iranians were taught a hard lesson in the rules of the game when it comes to empire and hegemony. For on this day, the country's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown at the hands of Washington and London. It was, by any measure, an act of international banditry that continues to cry out for just redress.
"Operation Ajax was planned, organized and unleashed by the CIA in conjunction with MI6 in response to the decision that was taken by Mossadegh - acting with the support of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) - to nationalize Iran's oil and husband the resulting revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people. Up to this point, the lion's share of the revenue garnered from the exploitation of Iranian oil was sucked out of the country by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - the British state-owned oil company established in 1908 with this objective in mind and the forerunner of today's global oil conglomerate BP.
"London's colonial assertion of control over Iran's natural resource was undertaken at the point when its Royal Navy was moving from coal to oil-powered engines. In the interests of an empire that covered a quarter of the world at that time, the global reach of the Royal Navy was indispensable. Thus, the domination and exploitation of Iran's oil assumed, for London, a priority of critical strategic importance. None other than Britain's future prime minister, Winston Churchill, proclaimed the importance of Persian [Iranian] oil with customary bombast: 'Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams. Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.' Such an open celebration of the opportunity for national enrichment at another country's expense is so unabashed it would make a low-rent mafia hood blush.
"Over the years of Britain's control of Iranian oil, Tehran received a derisory percentage. It was a one-sided arrangement of such unabashed colonial arrogance that it could only succeed in triggering a rise in national consciousness. And it was on the back of this rise in national consciousness that Mohammed Mossadegh was appointed Iran's prime minister in 1951 by a reluctant shah, upon being nominated for the post by the country's parliament (Majlis) by an overwhelming majority. The young shah, Mohammad Reza, whose father had been forced of the throne in 1941 by the British and the Soviets due to his pro-German sympathies in World War II, sat on the throne as a constitutional monarch during this period.
"Mossadegh and the nationalist current he represented was anathema to the shah's ambitions that were encouraged by the British with the protection of its oil interests in mind, resulting in rising tensions as the country approached a crossroads in its history. Upon coming to power, Mossadegh carried through his plan of nationalizing and seizing control of Iran's oil reserves from the British, while confiscating the assets of the AIOC. Mossadegh justified his actions thus: 'Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries [over a just distribution of oil revenues] have yielded no results... With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people.' He went on: 'Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.'
"The British responded by making it impossible for Iran to sell its newly nationalized crude on the world market. However, for a colonial power whose empire had gone into steep decline, this wasn't enough to satisfy its desire for retribution. Lacking the requisite strength and ability to settle accounts on its own, it was then that London turned to Washington, which had been established as the first among equals of Western imperial powers, for assistance. The reasoning employed by London to draw the Americans into their feud with Mossadegh was that Iran was in danger of turning communist, citing the growing popularity of the country's Tudeh (Communist) Party as evidence. With Washington in the throes of anti-Soviet and anti-communist fever, it succeeded and the plan to topple Mossadegh - Operation Ajax - was put in motion with the CIA assuming the lead role. Key to its success was the bribing of senior army and police officers, along with journalists, religious clerics, and members of the Iranian parliament, who were tasked with whipping up anti-Mossadegh sentiment. A smear campaign, designed to inflame the religiosity of a large section of the Iranian population, accused Mossadegh of being a communist.
"According to declassified CIA documents, when it began on August 15, the coup appeared to have failed. Mossadegh's security forces made dozens of arrests and forced the shah, who was also in on the conspiracy, to flee the country. However, utilizing the momentum of mass demonstrations that were organized with money provided by the CIA, on August 19, 1953, Mossadegh was arrested along with thousands of his supporters. Thereafter, the shah returned from exile to become Washington's placeman, ruling the country with extreme brutality and corruption, until the Iranian Revolution removed him and his clique from power in 1979.
"The context to this history is, of course, Washington's unremitting demonization of Iran today. The false depiction of the country as a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to the region has been used to justify the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), the tightening of sanctions, and the looming threat of war. The fact that the precise opposite is the case - ie that Iran has been indispensable in combating Western-backed terrorism in the region and stands as a pillar of resistance to the sectarian regional ambitions of key US strategic allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia - has been willfully abstracted in favor of this Alice in Wonderland narrative.
"The CIA- and MI6-orchestrated coup to topple Mohammad Mossadegh reminds us that no region has endured more at the hands of US hegemony than the Middle East. It cements, as well, Mossadegh's place in history as a man with the courage to defy the West. It is a proud legacy of defiance that lives on in the refusal of the Iranian people to submit to Washington's writ in our time. While that will be rightly celebrated in Tehran on the 65th anniversary of the CIA-led coup, the eve of the occasion was marked in Washington this week by the creation of a so-called Iran Action Group, tasked with coordinating its policy towards Iran, and with 'changing its regime's behavior'."
As it happens, Friday's Australian republished a Wall Street Journal piece - part of the propaganda barrage currently softening us up for a hot war with Iran - contained an unctuous column by Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the late King of Kings and Light of the Aryans, Mohammad Reza. Some gems:
"My life's mission is not to assume a personal leadership role in the future state; it is... to serve as a source of hope... for the Iranian people."
On the other hand, if they really want me...
"The Iranian people have a message: we want our country back."
We the people! LOL
"From the inception, the regime has sought to subvert Iran by transforming it from a nation into a cause... It denies our people the right to gather for special occasions at the tombs of their heroes."
What? The tomb of granddaddy, Reza Shah? Certainly not Mossadegh's.
"[Iranians] want to be sought out by other other countries as trusted friends and partners as they take charge of their country and lead it into a new chapter of history."
Reza wants a kiss and a cuddle from USrael, just like his Dad.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Making Australia Great Again with...
... senator Fraser Anning.
After perusing msm accounts of Mad Hatter's Australian Party senator Anning's reference to a "final solution to the immigration problem," you could be forgiven for thinking that his appropriation of the words "final solution" was the worst aspect of his speech.
You would, of course, be overlooking its primary focus: Australia's Muslims - the principal, if not the only, target of Anning's "final solution":
"Historically... the one immigrant group here and in other Western nations that has consistently shown itself to be the least able to assimilate and integrate is Muslims. The first terrorist act on Australian soil was in 1915, when two Muslim immigrants opened fire on a picnic train of innocent women and children in Broken Hill - and Muslim immigrants have been a problem ever since. To paraphrase the words of Sir Winston Churchill: The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power. The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those that follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
"I believe that the reasons for ending all further Muslim immigration are both compelling and self-evident. The record of Muslims who have already come to this country in rates of crime, welfare dependency and terrorism is the worst of any migrants... A majority of Muslims in Australia of working age do not work and live on welfare. Muslims in NSW and Victoria are three times more likely than other groups to be convicted of crimes. We have black African Muslim gangs terrorising Melbourne. We have ISIS-sympathising Muslims trying to go overseas to fight for ISIS and, while all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims. So why would anyone want to bring more of them here?"
I'll return to Anning's "final solution" later. Let's first unpack just some of the nonsense above:
1) The first terrorist act on Australian soil? Maybe... but only if you overlook the colonial-settler genocide of Australia's indigenous population.
2) To paraphrase... Churchill? So the arch British colonialist, Churchill, is some renowned authority on Muslims? Really? Be that as it may, Anning isn't, in fact, paraphrasing Churchill, but rather selectively quoting him, lifting the said quote from some Islamophobic shite that's been circulating on the internet for a few years: here it is with the with the missing bits restored (and highlighted): "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great force. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." Funny how the quote Anning's latched onto and recycled here never contains those missing words. We can't have the reactionaries' favourite Big White Man saying anything positive about Muslims now, can we?
3) Muslims in NSW and Victoria are 3 times more likely than other groups to be convicted of crimes? As today's Sydney Morning Herald revealed in its own fact check of Anning's speech: "The Herald repeatedly asked Senator Anning's office for the source of this claim, and did not receive a response. Both the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and Victoria's Crime Statistics Agency told Fairfax Media they did not possess or publish reliable data on the religious affiliation of criminals."
4) Black African Muslim gangs? Inconveniently for Anning, the religious background of Melbourne's South Sudanese community just happens to be Christian.
But back to Anning's "final solution," which, BTW, is, in his own words, "a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to decide whether they want wholesale non-English speaking immigrants from the Third World and, in particular, whether they want any Muslims or whether they want to return to the predominantly European immigration policy of the pre-Whitlam consensus." IOW, a ban on Muslim immigrants and/or a return to the White Australia Policy.
Interestingly, local Zionist spokesmen don't seem all that exercised over Anning's appropriation of the words "final solution" - if these curiously muted quotes from The Final Solution - in the Australian parliament (15/8/18, jwire.com.au) are anything to go by:
"Regardless of his intentions, Senator Anning's choice of words would have been unsettling for Jewish Australians... " Anton Block, President, Executive Council of Australian Jewry
"What a poor and inappropriate choice of words by Senator Anning to make a point about immigration... " Dvir Abramovich, Chairman, Anti-Defamation Commission
Could this softly, softly approach perhaps have something to do with Anning's use of his parliamentary platform last month to move - unsuccessfully as it happens - that Australia recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move our embassy there? (See my 23/6/18 post Time for a New Australian Party)
Of course, none of the msm media outlets, which are dubbing Anning's diatribe 'the final solution speech,' have shown any interest in his services to the country that admits as citizens only bona fide Jews.
After perusing msm accounts of Mad Hatter's Australian Party senator Anning's reference to a "final solution to the immigration problem," you could be forgiven for thinking that his appropriation of the words "final solution" was the worst aspect of his speech.
You would, of course, be overlooking its primary focus: Australia's Muslims - the principal, if not the only, target of Anning's "final solution":
"Historically... the one immigrant group here and in other Western nations that has consistently shown itself to be the least able to assimilate and integrate is Muslims. The first terrorist act on Australian soil was in 1915, when two Muslim immigrants opened fire on a picnic train of innocent women and children in Broken Hill - and Muslim immigrants have been a problem ever since. To paraphrase the words of Sir Winston Churchill: The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power. The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those that follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
"I believe that the reasons for ending all further Muslim immigration are both compelling and self-evident. The record of Muslims who have already come to this country in rates of crime, welfare dependency and terrorism is the worst of any migrants... A majority of Muslims in Australia of working age do not work and live on welfare. Muslims in NSW and Victoria are three times more likely than other groups to be convicted of crimes. We have black African Muslim gangs terrorising Melbourne. We have ISIS-sympathising Muslims trying to go overseas to fight for ISIS and, while all Muslims are not terrorists, certainly all terrorists these days are Muslims. So why would anyone want to bring more of them here?"
I'll return to Anning's "final solution" later. Let's first unpack just some of the nonsense above:
1) The first terrorist act on Australian soil? Maybe... but only if you overlook the colonial-settler genocide of Australia's indigenous population.
2) To paraphrase... Churchill? So the arch British colonialist, Churchill, is some renowned authority on Muslims? Really? Be that as it may, Anning isn't, in fact, paraphrasing Churchill, but rather selectively quoting him, lifting the said quote from some Islamophobic shite that's been circulating on the internet for a few years: here it is with the with the missing bits restored (and highlighted): "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great force. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." Funny how the quote Anning's latched onto and recycled here never contains those missing words. We can't have the reactionaries' favourite Big White Man saying anything positive about Muslims now, can we?
3) Muslims in NSW and Victoria are 3 times more likely than other groups to be convicted of crimes? As today's Sydney Morning Herald revealed in its own fact check of Anning's speech: "The Herald repeatedly asked Senator Anning's office for the source of this claim, and did not receive a response. Both the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and Victoria's Crime Statistics Agency told Fairfax Media they did not possess or publish reliable data on the religious affiliation of criminals."
4) Black African Muslim gangs? Inconveniently for Anning, the religious background of Melbourne's South Sudanese community just happens to be Christian.
But back to Anning's "final solution," which, BTW, is, in his own words, "a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to decide whether they want wholesale non-English speaking immigrants from the Third World and, in particular, whether they want any Muslims or whether they want to return to the predominantly European immigration policy of the pre-Whitlam consensus." IOW, a ban on Muslim immigrants and/or a return to the White Australia Policy.
Interestingly, local Zionist spokesmen don't seem all that exercised over Anning's appropriation of the words "final solution" - if these curiously muted quotes from The Final Solution - in the Australian parliament (15/8/18, jwire.com.au) are anything to go by:
"Regardless of his intentions, Senator Anning's choice of words would have been unsettling for Jewish Australians... " Anton Block, President, Executive Council of Australian Jewry
"What a poor and inappropriate choice of words by Senator Anning to make a point about immigration... " Dvir Abramovich, Chairman, Anti-Defamation Commission
Could this softly, softly approach perhaps have something to do with Anning's use of his parliamentary platform last month to move - unsuccessfully as it happens - that Australia recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move our embassy there? (See my 23/6/18 post Time for a New Australian Party)
Of course, none of the msm media outlets, which are dubbing Anning's diatribe 'the final solution speech,' have shown any interest in his services to the country that admits as citizens only bona fide Jews.
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Too Many Skeletons in the Closet
1) "More than 400 government documents have gone missing from the [UK] National Archives in the last 4 years. They include Foreign Office files from the 1970s* on 'military and nuclear collaboration with Israel' and a 1947 letter from Winston Churchill." (More than 400 government files missing from National Archives, Tom Bateman, bbc.com, 3/8/16)
2) "Israel is locking away millions of official documents to prevent the darkest episodes in its history from coming to light, civil rights activists and academics have warned as the country's state archives move online... Accusations of increased secrecy come as Israel marks this week the 49th anniversary of the 1967 war, when it seized and occupied Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights. Many of the the records to which access is being denied refer to that war and the first years of Israel's military rule over Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza... Nonetheless, some of the declassified material was revealing. Uzi Narkiss, who headed the army's central command at the time, suggested that he and other commanders hoped to ethnically cleanse most of the territories under cover of fighting. He told fellow officers: 'Within 72 hours we'll drive out all the Arabs from the West Bank'... One Israeli academic... has estimated that up to a third of records relating to the 1948 war that were declassified have been put under lock again. Given the large number of documents, many had yet to be examined by researchers." (Why Israel is blocking access to its archives, Jonathan Cook, aljazeera.com, 9/6/16)
[*1970-74 - Conservatives/ Heath; 1974-79 - Labour/ Wilson & Callaghan; 1979-83 - Conservatives/ Thatcher]
2) "Israel is locking away millions of official documents to prevent the darkest episodes in its history from coming to light, civil rights activists and academics have warned as the country's state archives move online... Accusations of increased secrecy come as Israel marks this week the 49th anniversary of the 1967 war, when it seized and occupied Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights. Many of the the records to which access is being denied refer to that war and the first years of Israel's military rule over Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza... Nonetheless, some of the declassified material was revealing. Uzi Narkiss, who headed the army's central command at the time, suggested that he and other commanders hoped to ethnically cleanse most of the territories under cover of fighting. He told fellow officers: 'Within 72 hours we'll drive out all the Arabs from the West Bank'... One Israeli academic... has estimated that up to a third of records relating to the 1948 war that were declassified have been put under lock again. Given the large number of documents, many had yet to be examined by researchers." (Why Israel is blocking access to its archives, Jonathan Cook, aljazeera.com, 9/6/16)
[*1970-74 - Conservatives/ Heath; 1974-79 - Labour/ Wilson & Callaghan; 1979-83 - Conservatives/ Thatcher]
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Invasion Day: 26 January, 2016
A fitting time to recall what the Zionist hero, Winston Churchill, speaking before British Mandate Palestine's 1937 Peel Commission, had to say about Indigenous Palestinians & Australians:
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Head for the Hills!
Just so you know, Colonel Blimp (aka Jordan Kitts) is alive and well, lives in Albany Creek, Queensland, and writes letters to The Australian:
"A fanatical Islamic army sweeps across a river valley that has nourished civilisations for thousands of years. Its leader calls on the Muslims to unite under his leadership in preparation for world conquest and the subduing of infidels. The defeated are sold into slavery. Sound familiar? It happened in the late 19th century when Muhammad Ahmad proclaimed himself the Mahdi - the expected redeemer of Islam and the world. His armies emerged from the deserts of what is now Sudan to conquer Khartoum and seize control of the upper Nile valley. British vacillation allowed the Mahdist state to terrorise and enslave its neighbours for 15 years until new British leadership finally resolved to launch a military expedition against the Mahdi's successor. Serving in this expedition was a young Winston Churchill who later wrote a history of the Mahdists and the British expedition that destroyed them in the climactic Battle of Omdurman. In facing the threat posed today by the Islamic State, President Barack Obama and all Western leaders should be given a copy of Churchill's The River War to instruct them in how a liberal Western country should respond to a fanatical Islamist army bent on death, destruction and enslavement. I suspect the US will require better leadership before this lesson is learned." (16/9)
As it happens, after reading Friday's Sydney Morning Herald, you'd have thought that Colonel Blimp's fanatical Muslim hordes were knocking on the gates of Sydney, and that the "climactic" Battle ofOmdurman Sydney was imminent.
Death, destruction & enslavement not being Herald reader Mark d'Arbon's cup of tea, this resident of Chittaway Bay responded appropriately in the circumstances - only to find that the reality didn't quite match the Herald's headline:
"When I opened the morning paper on Friday and read the headline 'Sydney under siege', I had the caravan hooked up to the four-wheel drive and was ready to head for the hills in less than 30 minutes. As a last farewell, I found a lookout and gazed towards the CBD, expecting smoke, flames and the distant screams of the dying. To my surprise, there was not a sign of the siege - no large engines of destruction, no bivouacked armies and importantly, no smoke, flames or screams. I have decided to await developments, at least until the small band of criminals that appear to have been the cause of the panic are either released or sent to trial. I await this with baited breath." (20/9)
As do we all, Mark.
"A fanatical Islamic army sweeps across a river valley that has nourished civilisations for thousands of years. Its leader calls on the Muslims to unite under his leadership in preparation for world conquest and the subduing of infidels. The defeated are sold into slavery. Sound familiar? It happened in the late 19th century when Muhammad Ahmad proclaimed himself the Mahdi - the expected redeemer of Islam and the world. His armies emerged from the deserts of what is now Sudan to conquer Khartoum and seize control of the upper Nile valley. British vacillation allowed the Mahdist state to terrorise and enslave its neighbours for 15 years until new British leadership finally resolved to launch a military expedition against the Mahdi's successor. Serving in this expedition was a young Winston Churchill who later wrote a history of the Mahdists and the British expedition that destroyed them in the climactic Battle of Omdurman. In facing the threat posed today by the Islamic State, President Barack Obama and all Western leaders should be given a copy of Churchill's The River War to instruct them in how a liberal Western country should respond to a fanatical Islamist army bent on death, destruction and enslavement. I suspect the US will require better leadership before this lesson is learned." (16/9)
As it happens, after reading Friday's Sydney Morning Herald, you'd have thought that Colonel Blimp's fanatical Muslim hordes were knocking on the gates of Sydney, and that the "climactic" Battle of
Death, destruction & enslavement not being Herald reader Mark d'Arbon's cup of tea, this resident of Chittaway Bay responded appropriately in the circumstances - only to find that the reality didn't quite match the Herald's headline:
"When I opened the morning paper on Friday and read the headline 'Sydney under siege', I had the caravan hooked up to the four-wheel drive and was ready to head for the hills in less than 30 minutes. As a last farewell, I found a lookout and gazed towards the CBD, expecting smoke, flames and the distant screams of the dying. To my surprise, there was not a sign of the siege - no large engines of destruction, no bivouacked armies and importantly, no smoke, flames or screams. I have decided to await developments, at least until the small band of criminals that appear to have been the cause of the panic are either released or sent to trial. I await this with baited breath." (20/9)
As do we all, Mark.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Poison Gas? Positively Churchillian!
This is hilarious. Here's Israel-loving court historian,* Andrew Roberts (of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 fame), a bloke who just can't reconcile himself to the decline of that colonial flight of fancy, the Anglosphere, getting stuck into Syria's Bashar al-Asad for allegedly "deploying chemical weapons against opponents of his regime":
"Only 4% of all battlefield deaths in the Great War had been caused by [mustard] gas, yet the foul nature of those deaths meant that gas held a particular terror in the public imagination. Since 1925, it has only been countries that are recognised to be outside the bounds of civilisation that have taken recourse to it. The latest outlaw to do so is Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who deployed chemical weapons against opponents of his regime in the suburbs of Damascus last Wednesday... The first was Benito Mussolini's fascist Italy, which unleashed mustard gas on the Ethiopian subjects of Emperor Haile Selassie in the Abyssinian campaign of 1935-41.** The gas dropped by the Italian airforce was known by the Ethiopians as 'the terrible rain that burned and killed'." (Time for Obama to step in on Syria's gas attack on civilisation, The Australian/The Wall Street Journal, 27/8/13)
Note the two-word sleight of hand here: "since 1925." Fascinating! Why 1925?
While the crafty Roberts doesn't say, there can only be one answer. That was when his Chosen People, the Britz, had finally finished 'pacifying' those Iraqis who'd had the gall to reject British control over their particular patch of God's green earth.
From 1920-1925, the Britz forced colonial rule on rebellious Iraqis by means of the Royal Air Force. As a British colonial official candidly admitted at the time:
"If the aeroplanes were removed tomorrow the whole structure [of British colonial domination] would inevitably fall to pieces." (Britain in Iraq: 1914-1932, Peter Sluglett, 1976, p 91)
No, the Britz weren't showering Iraqis with leaflets on the need to swap their particular brand of native 'barbarity' for the virtues of British 'civilisation'.
As you'd expect of the jolly old RAF, they were showering bombs on these surly sandniggers. And not just your kosher common and garden bombs either - you know, the ones that merely tear their human targets limb from limb.
Oh, no, your paragons of civilization, the political ancestors of David Cameron and William Hague, were dropping - wait for it - mustard gas.
Hey - and this is where the hilarity of Roberts' insufferable sanctimoniousness kicks in - those political ancestors I speak of weren't just your common and garden political ancestors either. The greatest of all modern Britz; the one who took on Hitler in World War II and delivered us - those of us who really matter anyway - from the horrors of Nazism; the most civilised of the civilised; the subject of many a tome by the adoring Robertz, the Grand Poobah himself, Winston Bloody Churchill, gave the orders to unleash "the terrible rain that burned and killed" 15 years before Mussolini:
"One of the main features of British forces in the area would be increased use of the Royal Air Force. In a letter to Sir Hugh Trenchard of 29 August [1920], Churchill made a decision which has now become notorious, mentioned in virtually every television documentary in recent years, but never published in full. This is the complete letter: 'I think you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which should inflict punishment on recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them.' One can look at this infamous request in two ways. Yes, Churchill wanted to gas the rebels. No, Churchill did not want them killed, just put out of action. In fact, it would have been hard to drop mustard gas on Arab rebels without 'inflicting grave injury upon them,' and this proved to be the case, since many hundreds of Iraqi rebels died in the attacks." (Winston's Folly: Imperialism & the Creation of Modern Iraq, Christopher Catherwood, 2004, p 85)
Since 1925, eh? What a phony!
[*For a look at the work of another British partisan court historian click on the Niall Ferguson label below; ** Roberts can't even get his dates right. This particular war went from 1935-1936.]
"Only 4% of all battlefield deaths in the Great War had been caused by [mustard] gas, yet the foul nature of those deaths meant that gas held a particular terror in the public imagination. Since 1925, it has only been countries that are recognised to be outside the bounds of civilisation that have taken recourse to it. The latest outlaw to do so is Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who deployed chemical weapons against opponents of his regime in the suburbs of Damascus last Wednesday... The first was Benito Mussolini's fascist Italy, which unleashed mustard gas on the Ethiopian subjects of Emperor Haile Selassie in the Abyssinian campaign of 1935-41.** The gas dropped by the Italian airforce was known by the Ethiopians as 'the terrible rain that burned and killed'." (Time for Obama to step in on Syria's gas attack on civilisation, The Australian/The Wall Street Journal, 27/8/13)
Note the two-word sleight of hand here: "since 1925." Fascinating! Why 1925?
While the crafty Roberts doesn't say, there can only be one answer. That was when his Chosen People, the Britz, had finally finished 'pacifying' those Iraqis who'd had the gall to reject British control over their particular patch of God's green earth.
From 1920-1925, the Britz forced colonial rule on rebellious Iraqis by means of the Royal Air Force. As a British colonial official candidly admitted at the time:
"If the aeroplanes were removed tomorrow the whole structure [of British colonial domination] would inevitably fall to pieces." (Britain in Iraq: 1914-1932, Peter Sluglett, 1976, p 91)
No, the Britz weren't showering Iraqis with leaflets on the need to swap their particular brand of native 'barbarity' for the virtues of British 'civilisation'.
As you'd expect of the jolly old RAF, they were showering bombs on these surly sandniggers. And not just your kosher common and garden bombs either - you know, the ones that merely tear their human targets limb from limb.
Oh, no, your paragons of civilization, the political ancestors of David Cameron and William Hague, were dropping - wait for it - mustard gas.
Hey - and this is where the hilarity of Roberts' insufferable sanctimoniousness kicks in - those political ancestors I speak of weren't just your common and garden political ancestors either. The greatest of all modern Britz; the one who took on Hitler in World War II and delivered us - those of us who really matter anyway - from the horrors of Nazism; the most civilised of the civilised; the subject of many a tome by the adoring Robertz, the Grand Poobah himself, Winston Bloody Churchill, gave the orders to unleash "the terrible rain that burned and killed" 15 years before Mussolini:
"One of the main features of British forces in the area would be increased use of the Royal Air Force. In a letter to Sir Hugh Trenchard of 29 August [1920], Churchill made a decision which has now become notorious, mentioned in virtually every television documentary in recent years, but never published in full. This is the complete letter: 'I think you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which should inflict punishment on recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them.' One can look at this infamous request in two ways. Yes, Churchill wanted to gas the rebels. No, Churchill did not want them killed, just put out of action. In fact, it would have been hard to drop mustard gas on Arab rebels without 'inflicting grave injury upon them,' and this proved to be the case, since many hundreds of Iraqi rebels died in the attacks." (Winston's Folly: Imperialism & the Creation of Modern Iraq, Christopher Catherwood, 2004, p 85)
Since 1925, eh? What a phony!
[*For a look at the work of another British partisan court historian click on the Niall Ferguson label below; ** Roberts can't even get his dates right. This particular war went from 1935-1936.]
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Doug Anderson's Eureka Moment
Doug Anderson, the Sydney Morning Herald's resident square eyes, gives Peter Kosminsky's riveting drama, The Promise, the thumbs-up - and me a few laughs:
"The best drama series on television at present is this lacerating story about a feckless British teenager who runs away to Israel when her best friend, Liz, is called up for national service with the Israel Defence Forces - today's equivalent of the Irgun and the Haganah."
You said it, Doug! You should know that no less a Zionist than Churchill called the Irgun "the vilest gangsters." (See my 26/12/09 post A Murky Legacy) So, with your and Winston's blessing, I'll cap this off with a little syllogism: The IDF is today's Irgun. The Irgun were the vilest gangsters. Therefore, the IDF are the vilest gangsters. Neat, eh?
"Erin is 18 and has with her a diary compiled by her grandfather, Len. After serving with Allied forces during the liberation of German concentration camps at the end of World War II, grandad was posted to Palestine where his duties included helping to manage the foundation of Israel."
Managing the foundation of Israel? Oh, really? Churchill again, Doug. The old boy, who referred to the end of the British mandate period as a "Hell-disaster," would've choked on his cigar over your little circumlocution. I would have thought the more modern expression 'clusterfuck' not only more appropriate but more you, as in '... where his duties included mopping up after Britain's clusterfuck in Palestine'.
"His work was fraught with conflicts of every imaginable kind and Erin discovers that contentious issues in 1947 are just as potent 60 odd years later. Division and anger are continuous despite the tranquility and generosity she finds with Liz's family. Erin is just a wafty teenager really but her intuitive sense of conscience and a rapport with her grandad conspire to make the endless conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians very personal."
Endless conflict? Doug, must you keep on putting your foot in it? Seems like only yesterday you were banging on inanely about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... in perpetuity," and declaring this an "intractable dispute" for which "neither [side] can claim the high moral ground." (See my 2/7/09 post The Palestinian Golan Heights) Hopefully, The Promise will help dispel this wafty teenage illusion of yours and teach you that the conflict has a recent, colonial, history, thanks first to the Brits, and now to the Yanks, and that even seemingly intractable colonial problems sooner or later undergo, and must undergo, a decolonisation process.
"She isn't sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the complex politics but morality isn't logical and in following her feelings, Erin finds herself exposed to the same kind of ethical and moral issues that old Len faced in his unenviable role. This is powerful stuff, distilling enormous difficulties to a deeply personal level where conscience alone cannot determine the outcome. Peter Kosminsky's series is manifestly even-handed but it's hard not to feel that the Palestinians have been screwed - just as the European Jews were screwed during the Holocaust."
No, you're right for once, Doug. But you've gotta resist that feeling, OK? Thinking such a thing won't get you anywhere. In fact, you could be called an anti-Semite! True! Thankfully, help is at hand. Just learn the following neat little poem by heart and recite it over and over and over again till that crazy feeling about the Palestinians having been screwed has vanished:
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
North Korea is the only democracy in Asia.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a man of peace.
Attila the Hun was a man of peace.
My dog speaks 5 languages.
Zionism is not racism.
Apartheid was not racism.
The Earth is flat.
The U.S. is a peace-loving country.
The mafia is a peace-loving organisation.
The sun rises in the west.
Gillard is not Obama's poodle.
Buddy was not Clinton's labrador.
The Pope is not a Catholic.
"This isn't a historical treatise but it invites viewers to arrive at a more informed viewpoint based on facts, matters of expediency and the rather elastic concept of a fair crack of the whip." (9/12/11)
By George, I think he's got it!
"The best drama series on television at present is this lacerating story about a feckless British teenager who runs away to Israel when her best friend, Liz, is called up for national service with the Israel Defence Forces - today's equivalent of the Irgun and the Haganah."
You said it, Doug! You should know that no less a Zionist than Churchill called the Irgun "the vilest gangsters." (See my 26/12/09 post A Murky Legacy) So, with your and Winston's blessing, I'll cap this off with a little syllogism: The IDF is today's Irgun. The Irgun were the vilest gangsters. Therefore, the IDF are the vilest gangsters. Neat, eh?
"Erin is 18 and has with her a diary compiled by her grandfather, Len. After serving with Allied forces during the liberation of German concentration camps at the end of World War II, grandad was posted to Palestine where his duties included helping to manage the foundation of Israel."
Managing the foundation of Israel? Oh, really? Churchill again, Doug. The old boy, who referred to the end of the British mandate period as a "Hell-disaster," would've choked on his cigar over your little circumlocution. I would have thought the more modern expression 'clusterfuck' not only more appropriate but more you, as in '... where his duties included mopping up after Britain's clusterfuck in Palestine'.
"His work was fraught with conflicts of every imaginable kind and Erin discovers that contentious issues in 1947 are just as potent 60 odd years later. Division and anger are continuous despite the tranquility and generosity she finds with Liz's family. Erin is just a wafty teenager really but her intuitive sense of conscience and a rapport with her grandad conspire to make the endless conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians very personal."
Endless conflict? Doug, must you keep on putting your foot in it? Seems like only yesterday you were banging on inanely about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... in perpetuity," and declaring this an "intractable dispute" for which "neither [side] can claim the high moral ground." (See my 2/7/09 post The Palestinian Golan Heights) Hopefully, The Promise will help dispel this wafty teenage illusion of yours and teach you that the conflict has a recent, colonial, history, thanks first to the Brits, and now to the Yanks, and that even seemingly intractable colonial problems sooner or later undergo, and must undergo, a decolonisation process.
"She isn't sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the complex politics but morality isn't logical and in following her feelings, Erin finds herself exposed to the same kind of ethical and moral issues that old Len faced in his unenviable role. This is powerful stuff, distilling enormous difficulties to a deeply personal level where conscience alone cannot determine the outcome. Peter Kosminsky's series is manifestly even-handed but it's hard not to feel that the Palestinians have been screwed - just as the European Jews were screwed during the Holocaust."
No, you're right for once, Doug. But you've gotta resist that feeling, OK? Thinking such a thing won't get you anywhere. In fact, you could be called an anti-Semite! True! Thankfully, help is at hand. Just learn the following neat little poem by heart and recite it over and over and over again till that crazy feeling about the Palestinians having been screwed has vanished:
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
North Korea is the only democracy in Asia.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a man of peace.
Attila the Hun was a man of peace.
My dog speaks 5 languages.
Zionism is not racism.
Apartheid was not racism.
The Earth is flat.
The U.S. is a peace-loving country.
The mafia is a peace-loving organisation.
The sun rises in the west.
Gillard is not Obama's poodle.
Buddy was not Clinton's labrador.
The Pope is not a Catholic.
"This isn't a historical treatise but it invites viewers to arrive at a more informed viewpoint based on facts, matters of expediency and the rather elastic concept of a fair crack of the whip." (9/12/11)
By George, I think he's got it!
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Get George!
If there's one thing that gets me going it's playing fast and loose with history, otherwise known as cliocide (See my 11/1/11 post Casual Cliocide (to Oud Accompaniment)).
Arguably, no history has fallen victim to cliocide more than that of Palestine, whether modern or ancient. Here's just the latest example:
"Colin Firth's hopes of Oscar glory for his portrayal of George VI are under threat from an apparent internet smear campaign alleging that the wartime monarch had Nazi sympathies... His depiction of George VI's battle to overcome a stammer has won acclaim and box office success on both sides of the Atlantic for the British-made film The King's Speech... There are fears that its success at next month's Oscars could be hampered by an email apparently being circulated to members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, who vote on the awards, accusing the film of 'glossing over' history. It alleges that George VI, the father of the Queen, actively 'stymied' efforts by Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to settle in British-controlled Palestine... While historians have suggested George VI viewed Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement favourably, fearing that war would lead to the break-up of the Empire, he is remembered as an inspirational figure during the struggle that followed." (Nazi claim threaten's to ruin Firth's Oscar night, The Age, 20/1/11)
This report elicited the following corrective letter: "It seems a bit unfair to taint George VI with anti-Semitism in 1939 using facts not verified until years later... There was a large and bloody revolt by Palestinian Arabs from 1936 to 1939. A major trigger was illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. There was no obvious reason to support this immigration at the time - and there were plenty of reasons to be against it in terms of imperial policy, which would no doubt have been George's primary concern. Britain had previously promised Palestine to both the Arabs and the Jews, and the conflict this caused had started. More immigration would have been more fuel on the fire." Charles Meo, Northcote (21/1/11)
Which elicited in its turn, as surely as night follows day, the following claptrap from one of our usual suspects: "Charles Meo claims there was 'no obvious reason to support' Jewish immigration into Palestine in the late 30s. The perilous situation that Germany's more than 500,000 Jews found themselves in during those years was an obvious and very necessary reason. In addition, by restricting Jewish immigration into Palestine after 1939, Great Britain was in breach of its League of Nations obligation to help establish Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people." Merv Morris, East St Kilda (22/1/11)
Meo's clarification, while welcome, is by no means the end of the matter, however.
The subtext of the anonymous email smear seems to be that the main focus of the Zionist leadership in Palestine at the time was the rescue of German Jewry from Nazi persecution, but that they were 'stymied' in this endeavour by the perfidious British, who were at best cowards (Chamberlain) and at worst anti-Semites (George VI).
Now, if one can discern, in the following account of this period (by a Zionist historian), the faintest trace of concern for the plight of German Jews, as distinct from an overwhelming preoccupation with the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, then my critical faculties have completely deserted me:
"The [British] White Paper of 1939 which indicated a strong movement towards the Palestinian Arab position [a direct result of the 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt referred to by Meo] was seen by Weizmann and the mainstream Zionists as a deep betrayal of Jewish trust in British promises and as a self-evident vehicle to safeguard British interests in the event of an outbreak of war. 75,000 Jews would be admitted to Palestine over the following 5 years and thereafter Jewish immigration would be in the gift of the Palestinian Arabs. For the Irgun [the military wing of the Zionist revisionist movement], it was a defining watershed which initiated a new campaign - this time, not only against Palestinian Arabs, but also against the British... The Irgun issued a long statement which delineated its approach to the White Paper. It proclaimed that no nation in history had ever succeeded in winning its independence without resorting to military force. The British, the statement claimed, 'instigated, favoured and allowed to continue' episodes of Arab violence in order to backtrack on the Balfour Declaration and ultimately nullify the promises made to the Jews. It warned that 'a Jewish ghetto in Palestine will be established only over our dead bodies'... Weizmann was depicted as a British stooge and the Zionist Organization was condemned for its bequest of 'pacifism at any price'. The Round Table conference of early 1939, the Irgun argued, had brought them to this impasse and the only way forward was to 'reconquer the Land of Israel'... A week before the invasion of Poland, the Irgun killed 3 British CID members whom they accused of torturing an Irgun commander. The day before the Germans crossed the border with Poland, the British arrested and imprisoned the entire high command of the Irgun. As history records, [Vladimir] Jabotinsky immediately took the opportunity to throw his personal support and that of the Revisionist movement behind the Chamberlain government. [Irgun leader] David Raziel in a communique from prison resolved to do the same and declared a ceasefire - much to the surprise of [Avraham] Stern and the rest of the Irgun high command. This was the first step in a series of political and personal disputes between Raziel and Stern... It ended in a split with Stern leading his own group out of the Irgun. This was known perjoritavely by the British as 'the Stern Gang' - later as Lehi - which still saw the British as the central enemy. Stern devoutly believed that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' so he approached Nazi Germany. With German armies at the gates of Palestine, he offered co-operation and an alliance with a new totalitarian Hebrew republic. He hoped that with German assistance, he could now bring 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to Palestine to overthrow British rule." (The Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism & The Origins of the Israeli Right, Colin Shindler, 2010, p 217-218)
We also learn from Shindler that:
a) The British in 1939, far from blocking Jewish immigration into Palestine, had merely decided to reduce it. (Shindler, of course, neglects to explain that they had finally woken up to the fact that 'favouring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people', as per the Balfour Declaration of 1917, was, in the teeth of the violent and sustained Palestinian Arab resistance of 1936-1939, just another of those 'It seemed like a good idea at the time' ideas.)*
b) Chamberlain had broad Zionist support for his policy of appeasement.
c) The Sternists, who were later to bequeath Israel one of its prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir, were happy to solicit German support in their fight against the British.
In addition, the historical record indicates that even as ardent a gentile Zionist as Winston Churchill was in favour of restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine, recognising, as he proclaimed in parliament, that "[w]e have obligations to the Palestinian Arabs as well as to the Jews and world Jewry" (Churchill & The Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p 151).
It is not the makers of The King's Speech who are glossing over inconvenient facts, but rather the anonymous author of the email.
[* See my 19/1/10 post It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time...]
Arguably, no history has fallen victim to cliocide more than that of Palestine, whether modern or ancient. Here's just the latest example:
"Colin Firth's hopes of Oscar glory for his portrayal of George VI are under threat from an apparent internet smear campaign alleging that the wartime monarch had Nazi sympathies... His depiction of George VI's battle to overcome a stammer has won acclaim and box office success on both sides of the Atlantic for the British-made film The King's Speech... There are fears that its success at next month's Oscars could be hampered by an email apparently being circulated to members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, who vote on the awards, accusing the film of 'glossing over' history. It alleges that George VI, the father of the Queen, actively 'stymied' efforts by Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to settle in British-controlled Palestine... While historians have suggested George VI viewed Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement favourably, fearing that war would lead to the break-up of the Empire, he is remembered as an inspirational figure during the struggle that followed." (Nazi claim threaten's to ruin Firth's Oscar night, The Age, 20/1/11)
This report elicited the following corrective letter: "It seems a bit unfair to taint George VI with anti-Semitism in 1939 using facts not verified until years later... There was a large and bloody revolt by Palestinian Arabs from 1936 to 1939. A major trigger was illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. There was no obvious reason to support this immigration at the time - and there were plenty of reasons to be against it in terms of imperial policy, which would no doubt have been George's primary concern. Britain had previously promised Palestine to both the Arabs and the Jews, and the conflict this caused had started. More immigration would have been more fuel on the fire." Charles Meo, Northcote (21/1/11)
Which elicited in its turn, as surely as night follows day, the following claptrap from one of our usual suspects: "Charles Meo claims there was 'no obvious reason to support' Jewish immigration into Palestine in the late 30s. The perilous situation that Germany's more than 500,000 Jews found themselves in during those years was an obvious and very necessary reason. In addition, by restricting Jewish immigration into Palestine after 1939, Great Britain was in breach of its League of Nations obligation to help establish Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people." Merv Morris, East St Kilda (22/1/11)
Meo's clarification, while welcome, is by no means the end of the matter, however.
The subtext of the anonymous email smear seems to be that the main focus of the Zionist leadership in Palestine at the time was the rescue of German Jewry from Nazi persecution, but that they were 'stymied' in this endeavour by the perfidious British, who were at best cowards (Chamberlain) and at worst anti-Semites (George VI).
Now, if one can discern, in the following account of this period (by a Zionist historian), the faintest trace of concern for the plight of German Jews, as distinct from an overwhelming preoccupation with the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, then my critical faculties have completely deserted me:
"The [British] White Paper of 1939 which indicated a strong movement towards the Palestinian Arab position [a direct result of the 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt referred to by Meo] was seen by Weizmann and the mainstream Zionists as a deep betrayal of Jewish trust in British promises and as a self-evident vehicle to safeguard British interests in the event of an outbreak of war. 75,000 Jews would be admitted to Palestine over the following 5 years and thereafter Jewish immigration would be in the gift of the Palestinian Arabs. For the Irgun [the military wing of the Zionist revisionist movement], it was a defining watershed which initiated a new campaign - this time, not only against Palestinian Arabs, but also against the British... The Irgun issued a long statement which delineated its approach to the White Paper. It proclaimed that no nation in history had ever succeeded in winning its independence without resorting to military force. The British, the statement claimed, 'instigated, favoured and allowed to continue' episodes of Arab violence in order to backtrack on the Balfour Declaration and ultimately nullify the promises made to the Jews. It warned that 'a Jewish ghetto in Palestine will be established only over our dead bodies'... Weizmann was depicted as a British stooge and the Zionist Organization was condemned for its bequest of 'pacifism at any price'. The Round Table conference of early 1939, the Irgun argued, had brought them to this impasse and the only way forward was to 'reconquer the Land of Israel'... A week before the invasion of Poland, the Irgun killed 3 British CID members whom they accused of torturing an Irgun commander. The day before the Germans crossed the border with Poland, the British arrested and imprisoned the entire high command of the Irgun. As history records, [Vladimir] Jabotinsky immediately took the opportunity to throw his personal support and that of the Revisionist movement behind the Chamberlain government. [Irgun leader] David Raziel in a communique from prison resolved to do the same and declared a ceasefire - much to the surprise of [Avraham] Stern and the rest of the Irgun high command. This was the first step in a series of political and personal disputes between Raziel and Stern... It ended in a split with Stern leading his own group out of the Irgun. This was known perjoritavely by the British as 'the Stern Gang' - later as Lehi - which still saw the British as the central enemy. Stern devoutly believed that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' so he approached Nazi Germany. With German armies at the gates of Palestine, he offered co-operation and an alliance with a new totalitarian Hebrew republic. He hoped that with German assistance, he could now bring 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to Palestine to overthrow British rule." (The Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism & The Origins of the Israeli Right, Colin Shindler, 2010, p 217-218)
We also learn from Shindler that:
a) The British in 1939, far from blocking Jewish immigration into Palestine, had merely decided to reduce it. (Shindler, of course, neglects to explain that they had finally woken up to the fact that 'favouring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people', as per the Balfour Declaration of 1917, was, in the teeth of the violent and sustained Palestinian Arab resistance of 1936-1939, just another of those 'It seemed like a good idea at the time' ideas.)*
b) Chamberlain had broad Zionist support for his policy of appeasement.
c) The Sternists, who were later to bequeath Israel one of its prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir, were happy to solicit German support in their fight against the British.
In addition, the historical record indicates that even as ardent a gentile Zionist as Winston Churchill was in favour of restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine, recognising, as he proclaimed in parliament, that "[w]e have obligations to the Palestinian Arabs as well as to the Jews and world Jewry" (Churchill & The Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p 151).
It is not the makers of The King's Speech who are glossing over inconvenient facts, but rather the anonymous author of the email.
[* See my 19/1/10 post It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time...]
Friday, February 5, 2010
Hell-Disaster
Sir Ronald Storrs, the British Governor of Jerusalem from 1918-1926, relates the following anecdote in his memoirs: "Early in the afternoon the Chief Administrator [Sir Louis J Bols] formally handed over the Administration to the High Commissioner. He had humorously prepared for Sir Herbert [Samuel] a typewritten receipt for 'one Palestine taken over in good condition', which Sir Herbert duly signed, adding 'E. and O.E.'. The Staff lined up for his departure and cheered him farewell as he drove past the gate-house and down the hill for the last time; and O.E.T.E. [Occupied Enemy Territory Administration], as O.E.T.E, ceased to exist. Though mostly the same men sat, still in uniform, performing the same tasks at the same desks, we became from 1 July 1920 a Civil Government, which it was my privilege to assist in establishing upon a firm and, we hoped, lasting basis." (Orientations, 1939, p 405)
Palestine may have been taken over in good condition by its new civilian government in 1920, but twenty-eight years later, in 1948, it experienced another kind of takeover entirely. While Palestine's transition from British military to British civilian government in 1920 was obviously a jolly occasion for Storrs, for another Briton, wartime leader Winston Churchill, Palestine's transition from British Mandate to Jewish State in 1948 (while he was opposition leader) was anything but.
Churchill's views on the matter emerge in the correspondence of Zionist supremo Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) from 1920-31/1935-46, and first president of Israel:
In a 9/7/48 letter to his personal assistant, Meyer Weisgal, a peeved Weizmann wrote: "Incidentally, I would like to ask you whether there is much in the book concerning Mr Churchill, his relations with us and particularly me personally. I am asking this question because Mr Churchill's book has just appeared and there is not a single word in it either about Zionism or about Palestine or about his various negotiations with me throughout these years. It is no doubt a studied omission; possibly something may appear in his other volumes, but I doubt it. Should my supposition be true, I think I ought to say something about it in the epilogue. It will no doubt produce an outburst on the part of Winston, but I really do not care. Please advise me on the matter."
That Churchill, a confirmed Zionist, was not exactly over the moon about the manner and/or circumstances of the Zionist takeover of Palestine in 1948 is evident in a 29/7/48 letter to Weizmann from Walter Elliot, a member of Churchill's shadow cabinet: "I was recently talking to Winston, and mentioned the fact, which I had heard from Miss Solomon, that he had sent no message to you. 'Send him', said Winston, 'my warmest personal regards'. 'But', he said, 'the Palestine position now, as concerns Great Britain, is simply such a hell-disaster that I cannot take it up again or renew my efforts of 20 years. It is a situation which I myself cannot help in, and must, as far as I can, put out of my mind. But send Weizmann himself my warm regards'. I thought you would wish to know his personal feelings. He regards the mishandling of Palestine by the present Government as simply appalling. But he is conscious of possessing only a limited amount of energy now, and feels the necessity of concentrating it where it can have effect. His phrase 'a hell-disaster' was very expressive - it is his view of a position where only injury, and fruitless laceration of spirit, will result from an attempt to retrieve what has been done."
Weizmann, smooth operator that he was, put out a feeler to Churchill in the following letter, dated 6/8/48: "I was more than delighted to receive Mr Walter Elliot's message from you. This emboldens me to address these few lines to you. I meant to write before but I somehow felt instinctively that you do not wish to enter into a discussion of Palestine affairs. I understand and respect this sentiment and have no desire of raising these problems in this letter. I would like however to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your definition of the situation as a 'hell-disaster'.
"My mind goes back to the time when British statesmen like Mr Lloyd George, Mr Balfour and yourself had laid the foundation of the Jewish National Home, and in spite of many vicissitudes and very serious difficulties it has progressed and can enjoy the privilege of statehood. It is a small country surrounded by many enemies and will have to ward off deadly perils, but the major part of the Jewish population of Palestine are men of courage, vision and integrity, and they face an enemy who may be numerically far superior but possesses no stamina or courage. The headlong flight of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from Palestine at the mere approach of the Jewish army and the very poor military performance of Egypt in spite of its wealth and equipment testifies to the quality and the spirit of the Arab world; this is the spirit we have been hearing so much about for the last 25 years.
"It is a matter of deep distress to me, who laboured for a quarter of a century for cooperation between the Jewish and the British peoples, to see this work at any rate temporarily jeopardized. Instead of making the new state a friendly outpost of Great Britain in the East, the present Government prefers to build on the quicksands of Arab loyalty.
"I shall not weary you with an examination of the causes which have produced such a tragic situation. I pray that it may prove merely a temporary aberration, and that the tradition of friendship which began with Cromwell and continued for so many years will revive under the pressure of realities.
"Permit me to say, that you as practically the only survivor of this great group of architects in the British Isles might find it possible some day to overcome your present understandable reluctance, and speak to us as only you can do, about the ways we have to tread.
"I have very little to say for myself. A heavy burden not of my seeking has fallen on my shoulders and I intend to do my best in guiding the first steps of the young State on the path of peace, integrity and good intelligence with the world at large.
"I have little hope at present that our Arab neighbours will change their attitude. Only when they see that their fellow Arabs in the Jewish State are treated on equality with the Jewish citizens may they possibly change their minds...
"I have always believed that Providence selects the small countries to dispense its most precious gifts to humanity. Athens was merely one small city and Palestine was always a poor country subjected to pressure from North and South; yet what they gave to the world is still the bedrock of human civilization. It is thrilling to think, that after a desert in time of two thousand years, the ancient glories of Jewish culture may be revived again in a modern form."
There is no evidence of a response to Weizmann's sweet talk. Palestine, it seems, had stuck in Churchill's craw. From 'one Palestine... in good condition' to 'hell-disaster' perfectly sums up the legacy of imperial Britain's love affair with Zionism, an affair in which he played no small part.
To return to Ronald Storrs. I wonder if that colonial official's oft-quoted remark about the Zionist "enterprise" in Palestine "forming for England 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster' in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism"* ever crossed Churchill's mind at this time. If so, it must have sounded more like: a little disloyal Jewish ulcer in a sea of understandably hostile Arabism. [*Orientations, p 358]
[See also my 29/1/10 post Churchill: No Quarter for Zionists]
Palestine may have been taken over in good condition by its new civilian government in 1920, but twenty-eight years later, in 1948, it experienced another kind of takeover entirely. While Palestine's transition from British military to British civilian government in 1920 was obviously a jolly occasion for Storrs, for another Briton, wartime leader Winston Churchill, Palestine's transition from British Mandate to Jewish State in 1948 (while he was opposition leader) was anything but.
Churchill's views on the matter emerge in the correspondence of Zionist supremo Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) from 1920-31/1935-46, and first president of Israel:
In a 9/7/48 letter to his personal assistant, Meyer Weisgal, a peeved Weizmann wrote: "Incidentally, I would like to ask you whether there is much in the book concerning Mr Churchill, his relations with us and particularly me personally. I am asking this question because Mr Churchill's book has just appeared and there is not a single word in it either about Zionism or about Palestine or about his various negotiations with me throughout these years. It is no doubt a studied omission; possibly something may appear in his other volumes, but I doubt it. Should my supposition be true, I think I ought to say something about it in the epilogue. It will no doubt produce an outburst on the part of Winston, but I really do not care. Please advise me on the matter."
That Churchill, a confirmed Zionist, was not exactly over the moon about the manner and/or circumstances of the Zionist takeover of Palestine in 1948 is evident in a 29/7/48 letter to Weizmann from Walter Elliot, a member of Churchill's shadow cabinet: "I was recently talking to Winston, and mentioned the fact, which I had heard from Miss Solomon, that he had sent no message to you. 'Send him', said Winston, 'my warmest personal regards'. 'But', he said, 'the Palestine position now, as concerns Great Britain, is simply such a hell-disaster that I cannot take it up again or renew my efforts of 20 years. It is a situation which I myself cannot help in, and must, as far as I can, put out of my mind. But send Weizmann himself my warm regards'. I thought you would wish to know his personal feelings. He regards the mishandling of Palestine by the present Government as simply appalling. But he is conscious of possessing only a limited amount of energy now, and feels the necessity of concentrating it where it can have effect. His phrase 'a hell-disaster' was very expressive - it is his view of a position where only injury, and fruitless laceration of spirit, will result from an attempt to retrieve what has been done."
Weizmann, smooth operator that he was, put out a feeler to Churchill in the following letter, dated 6/8/48: "I was more than delighted to receive Mr Walter Elliot's message from you. This emboldens me to address these few lines to you. I meant to write before but I somehow felt instinctively that you do not wish to enter into a discussion of Palestine affairs. I understand and respect this sentiment and have no desire of raising these problems in this letter. I would like however to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your definition of the situation as a 'hell-disaster'.
"My mind goes back to the time when British statesmen like Mr Lloyd George, Mr Balfour and yourself had laid the foundation of the Jewish National Home, and in spite of many vicissitudes and very serious difficulties it has progressed and can enjoy the privilege of statehood. It is a small country surrounded by many enemies and will have to ward off deadly perils, but the major part of the Jewish population of Palestine are men of courage, vision and integrity, and they face an enemy who may be numerically far superior but possesses no stamina or courage. The headlong flight of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from Palestine at the mere approach of the Jewish army and the very poor military performance of Egypt in spite of its wealth and equipment testifies to the quality and the spirit of the Arab world; this is the spirit we have been hearing so much about for the last 25 years.
"It is a matter of deep distress to me, who laboured for a quarter of a century for cooperation between the Jewish and the British peoples, to see this work at any rate temporarily jeopardized. Instead of making the new state a friendly outpost of Great Britain in the East, the present Government prefers to build on the quicksands of Arab loyalty.
"I shall not weary you with an examination of the causes which have produced such a tragic situation. I pray that it may prove merely a temporary aberration, and that the tradition of friendship which began with Cromwell and continued for so many years will revive under the pressure of realities.
"Permit me to say, that you as practically the only survivor of this great group of architects in the British Isles might find it possible some day to overcome your present understandable reluctance, and speak to us as only you can do, about the ways we have to tread.
"I have very little to say for myself. A heavy burden not of my seeking has fallen on my shoulders and I intend to do my best in guiding the first steps of the young State on the path of peace, integrity and good intelligence with the world at large.
"I have little hope at present that our Arab neighbours will change their attitude. Only when they see that their fellow Arabs in the Jewish State are treated on equality with the Jewish citizens may they possibly change their minds...
"I have always believed that Providence selects the small countries to dispense its most precious gifts to humanity. Athens was merely one small city and Palestine was always a poor country subjected to pressure from North and South; yet what they gave to the world is still the bedrock of human civilization. It is thrilling to think, that after a desert in time of two thousand years, the ancient glories of Jewish culture may be revived again in a modern form."
There is no evidence of a response to Weizmann's sweet talk. Palestine, it seems, had stuck in Churchill's craw. From 'one Palestine... in good condition' to 'hell-disaster' perfectly sums up the legacy of imperial Britain's love affair with Zionism, an affair in which he played no small part.
To return to Ronald Storrs. I wonder if that colonial official's oft-quoted remark about the Zionist "enterprise" in Palestine "forming for England 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster' in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism"* ever crossed Churchill's mind at this time. If so, it must have sounded more like: a little disloyal Jewish ulcer in a sea of understandably hostile Arabism. [*Orientations, p 358]
[See also my 29/1/10 post Churchill: No Quarter for Zionists]
Friday, January 29, 2010
Churchill: No Quarter for Zionists
"War is peace, freedom is slavery, & ignorance is strength." George Orwell, 1984
Had enough of waved, worn, daubed, tatooed, in-your-face Australian flags this week? Need a laugh after Tuesday's little proto-fascist festival? Then sit back and be entertained by the following cobber-ly correspondence between flag-waving uber-patriots, Chaim Weizmann and Winston Churchill:
"Dear Mr Prime Minister, May I appeal to you to consider once more the question of the Jewish Fighting Force? Ever since our conversation in September, 1940, I have known that we have your sympathy in this matter, and that it has not been for lack of goodwill on your part that the scheme, then approved, was allowed to drop. The disappointment among the Jews, and especially the Palestinian Jews, at being denied their own fighting force, national name, and flag, was very great, but such was their determination to take an active part in the war, that in spite of many further discouragements, 24,000 Palestinian Jews have volunteered for military service, and, I understand, have done well. Now I address to you a double appeal. First, that these men should be gathered into a Division of their own, and that that Division should be permitted to carry the flag with the Star of David to the European battle-field." Chaim Weizmann, 4/7/44
"My dear Doctor Weizmann, I am sorry to find that I have not yet replied to your letter of 4 July, about the question of the Jewish Fighting Force. I can assure you however that I have given my personal attention to your suggestions, with which as you know I have much sympathy... About the Flag. I should like to know what it looks like before I embark on this contentious ground." Winston Churchill, 5/8/44
"My dear Mr Prime Minister, Your letter of August 5th in reply to mine about the Jewish Fighting Force has given me great encouragement, and I thank you for it most warmly. In the first place it is a renewed assurance of your personal sympathy with the desire of the Jews to fight the Nazis under their own name and flag... The moment that the War Office is in a position to discuss concrete proposals, I and my colleagues will be more than ready. In the meantime, I have the greatest pleasure in sending you a sketch of the proposed flag - two horizontal blue stripes on a white back-ground with the Star of David in the centre. It is known to Jews all over the world as their national symbol. You helped us to raise it in Palestine a quarter of a century ago; its meaning has grown with our growth: under your supreme leadership we hope to see our young men follow it into battle alongside of the Union Jack." Chaim Weizmann, 5/8/44
"My dear Mr Prime Minister, The Government publishes to-day the announcement about the formation of a Jewish Brigade Group... We know how much we owe to you for the consummation of this project, and I would like at once to send you some expression - even if brief and inadequate - of our gratitude, both on my own behalf and on that of my colleagues, for all your help in this matter, as well as for your unwavering sympathy and encouragement in all our struggles. The decision to form a Brigade Group is one of great symbolic significance at this time of stress and strain for the Jewish people. We shall not forget." Chaim Weizmann, 20/9/44
"Dear Mr Prime Minister, Following on my letter of September 20th, I should still like to raise the question of the Flag for the Jewish Brigade Group. In my letter to you of August 5th, I enclosed, as asked by you, a sketch of our national flag. May I now submit to you a suggestion and a request? It is our conviction that the future of the Jewish nation is bound up with the British Empire, and this Jewish Brigade Group (the first self-contained all-Jewish fighting unit since ancient times) is part of the British Army. A strong feeling is arising amongst us that these facts should be expressed through the Jewish Flag carried by the Brigade being quartered with the Union Jack, as in the enclosed sketch. Would this meet with your approval?" Chaim Weizmann, 21/9/44
"My dear Dr. Weizmann, I think it would be better to adhere to the original design for the flag for the Jewish Brigade, which you sent me with your letter of August 10 last. I am glad to inform you that this design has been approved by the War Cabinet. As a matter of convenient administration, it would be better that the flag should not be flown in Egypt. But authority is being given for the Jewish Brigade to fly it as soon as they land in Italy." Winston Churchill, 28/10/44
Had enough of waved, worn, daubed, tatooed, in-your-face Australian flags this week? Need a laugh after Tuesday's little proto-fascist festival? Then sit back and be entertained by the following cobber-ly correspondence between flag-waving uber-patriots, Chaim Weizmann and Winston Churchill:
"Dear Mr Prime Minister, May I appeal to you to consider once more the question of the Jewish Fighting Force? Ever since our conversation in September, 1940, I have known that we have your sympathy in this matter, and that it has not been for lack of goodwill on your part that the scheme, then approved, was allowed to drop. The disappointment among the Jews, and especially the Palestinian Jews, at being denied their own fighting force, national name, and flag, was very great, but such was their determination to take an active part in the war, that in spite of many further discouragements, 24,000 Palestinian Jews have volunteered for military service, and, I understand, have done well. Now I address to you a double appeal. First, that these men should be gathered into a Division of their own, and that that Division should be permitted to carry the flag with the Star of David to the European battle-field." Chaim Weizmann, 4/7/44
"My dear Doctor Weizmann, I am sorry to find that I have not yet replied to your letter of 4 July, about the question of the Jewish Fighting Force. I can assure you however that I have given my personal attention to your suggestions, with which as you know I have much sympathy... About the Flag. I should like to know what it looks like before I embark on this contentious ground." Winston Churchill, 5/8/44
"My dear Mr Prime Minister, Your letter of August 5th in reply to mine about the Jewish Fighting Force has given me great encouragement, and I thank you for it most warmly. In the first place it is a renewed assurance of your personal sympathy with the desire of the Jews to fight the Nazis under their own name and flag... The moment that the War Office is in a position to discuss concrete proposals, I and my colleagues will be more than ready. In the meantime, I have the greatest pleasure in sending you a sketch of the proposed flag - two horizontal blue stripes on a white back-ground with the Star of David in the centre. It is known to Jews all over the world as their national symbol. You helped us to raise it in Palestine a quarter of a century ago; its meaning has grown with our growth: under your supreme leadership we hope to see our young men follow it into battle alongside of the Union Jack." Chaim Weizmann, 5/8/44
"My dear Mr Prime Minister, The Government publishes to-day the announcement about the formation of a Jewish Brigade Group... We know how much we owe to you for the consummation of this project, and I would like at once to send you some expression - even if brief and inadequate - of our gratitude, both on my own behalf and on that of my colleagues, for all your help in this matter, as well as for your unwavering sympathy and encouragement in all our struggles. The decision to form a Brigade Group is one of great symbolic significance at this time of stress and strain for the Jewish people. We shall not forget." Chaim Weizmann, 20/9/44
"Dear Mr Prime Minister, Following on my letter of September 20th, I should still like to raise the question of the Flag for the Jewish Brigade Group. In my letter to you of August 5th, I enclosed, as asked by you, a sketch of our national flag. May I now submit to you a suggestion and a request? It is our conviction that the future of the Jewish nation is bound up with the British Empire, and this Jewish Brigade Group (the first self-contained all-Jewish fighting unit since ancient times) is part of the British Army. A strong feeling is arising amongst us that these facts should be expressed through the Jewish Flag carried by the Brigade being quartered with the Union Jack, as in the enclosed sketch. Would this meet with your approval?" Chaim Weizmann, 21/9/44
"My dear Dr. Weizmann, I think it would be better to adhere to the original design for the flag for the Jewish Brigade, which you sent me with your letter of August 10 last. I am glad to inform you that this design has been approved by the War Cabinet. As a matter of convenient administration, it would be better that the flag should not be flown in Egypt. But authority is being given for the Jewish Brigade to fly it as soon as they land in Italy." Winston Churchill, 28/10/44
Saturday, December 26, 2009
A Murky Legacy
Bear with me while I marshal the expert evidence:
1) "For Zionists to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky." (Mussolini on Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the Revisionist Zionist* movement, quoted in The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir, Lenni Brenner, 1984, p 98)
2) "It is a sign of the bitter hostility of Labour Zionism* to the memory of the man [Jabotinsky] that David Ben-Gurion routinely referred to as 'Vladimir Hitler' that the Israeli government did not issue an order [to transfer his remains** to Israel] until July 1964, 16 years after the establishment of the Israeli state." (ibid p 108) [** Jabotinsky died in New York in 1940 but wanted his remains transferred to a future Jewish state in Palestine.]
3) "To some British officials... the atrocity at Deir Yassin [perpetrated by the Revisionist Zionist terror organisations, the Irgun and the Stern Gang] came as a revelation about the nature of the new Jewish state. Sir John Troutbeck, the head of the British Middle East Office in Cairo, wrote that 'Deir Yassin is a warning of what a Jew will do to gain his purpose'. On the eve of the Arab-Israeli war the British were apprehensive about its outcome, but virtually no one anticipated the extent of the Arab collapse and the Israeli victory. The British associated themselves with the Arab cause as one that was ultimately compatible with their own sense of mission in the Middle East, and during the course of the war they became convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated because of American support of the Israelis. The resentment towards the US still smoulders in the files at the Public Record Office. It existed as the main sentiment underlying official policy, and it was perhaps most indignantly expressed by Troutbeck, who held that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by 'an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders'." (The Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez & Decolonisation, William Roger Louis, 2006, pp 445-446)
4) "When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people." Albert Einstein's written response to an American Stern Gang (LEHI) fundraiser on 10/4/09, the day after the Deir Yassin massacre. [Einstein's letter can be viewed at Deir Yassin Remembered, deir.yassin.org]
5) "In September 1948 Churchill was in the South of France... Among those who visited him there was a Conservative Member of Parliament, Robert Boothby, a strong supporter of Zionism, who had written to The Times protesting against the Arab Legion shelling of Jerusalem. Boothby later recalled that when the conversation turned to the future of the Jews then fighting for their survival on the battlefield, 'I said that they were going to win hands down in Palestine, and get more than they ever expected'. To Boothby's remark, Churchill replied: 'Of course. The Arabs are no match for them. The Irgun people are the vilest gangsters. But, in backing the Zionists these Labour people backed the winners; and then ran out on them'. Churchill also told Boothby he was 'quite right' to send his letter to The Times." (Churchill & The Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p 270)
[*Although the difference between the Revisionist and Labour Zionism is more a matter of style than substance, Uri Davis has pointed out that: "Labour Zionism is an attempt to reconcile the basic tenets of political Zionist and colonial practice with the tenets of the Enlightenment. Since these two sets of values are mutually exclusive, Labour Zionist literature has been largely predicated upon obfuscation of Zionist colonial practice, and upon mystification, ignorance and cultivated deception. Revisionist Zionism has largely escaped the Labour Zionist predicament of attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. In contra-distinction to Labour Zionism, it has attempted, with considerable success, to locate Zionism ideologically and practically inside the tradition of modern secular racism and imperial colonialism." (Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, 2003, p 19)]
Hm... gangsters, terrorists, criminals, fascists and Nazis. Well the progeny of this lot, via the mechanism of Irgun leader Menachem Begin's Likud Party, are now in power in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister and Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu's father was a senior Jabotinsky aide. Ex-Likud, now Kadima leader (reportedly being 'wooed' by Netanyahu) Tzipi Livni is the daughter of Eitan Livni, the Irgun's Chief of Operations. And they're so proud of their legacy of gangsterism, terrorism, criminality, fascism and Nazism that they want Israeli kids to share it:
"The Education Ministry is introducing a study unit on the 12 underground fighters who were hanged or committed suicide in prison during the British Mandate in Palestine. The 12, known as 'Olei Hagardom' ('those hanged on the gallows'), belonged to the pre-state militias Etzel [Irgun] and Lehi [Stern Gang]. The program, intended for eighth and ninth grades, will include lessons plus a national competition for essays, poems and drawings on subjects such as 'an imaginary conversation I had with one of Olei Hagardom in his last moments in prison' or 'the last letter of a condemned man to his family'. The new unit is already proving controversial. 'Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar is advancing ideological matters close to his heart in the education system', a ministry official charged. 'His ideology is entering the curriculum'. 'It's worrying that the education Ministry is conveying a message sanctifying death and portraying it as sublime', added a senior university historian. Until now, details of the 12 Olei Hagardom - 9 Etzel combatants and 3 Lehi fighters - were taught as part of history lessons, ministry sources said. In a letter announcing the new program, Sa'ar wrote, 'I hope the program, recounting Olei Hagardom's devotion to the struggle for Israel's independence, will bolster the students' ties with their people and heritage... and that their devotion will serve as an ideological model for our youth'... The education system intends to mark Jabotinsky Day next week as required by a law enacted in 2005, the Education Ministry said Monday. Schools were instructed earlier this month to prepare ceremonies and special activities, including lessons about Jabotinsky's character and work. Sa'ar himself will give a civics lesson on Jabotinsky in a high school in the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim." (New study unit on pre-state fighters proves controversial, Or Kashti, Haaretz, 22/12/09)
Way to go! Except that Zionist propagandists of whatever stripe are nothing if not hypocritical. Here's David Feith* in the Wall Street Journal on August 21 pondering (in the words of The Australian where I found it) "the murky legacy of Fateh leader Yasser Arafat": "What's Arabic for plus ca change? Because that was the message last week from the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, where the 'moderate' Fateh party held its first general congress since 1989. Fateh - founded by Yasser Arafat in the 1960s and led since 2004 by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - demonstrated that Palestinian national politics remain mired as ever in conspiracy, duplicity and the glorification of terrorists... Fatah's leaders continue to walk in their founder's footsteps... Fatah's demonstration last week that it remains ideologically stuck in the terrorist pleasantries of the 70s ought to be a stark reminder that when it comes to Palestinian 'moderates', moderation remains a highly relative term." (Fatah's 'moderates' still rejoice in their founder's terrorism, 26/8/09) [* That's correct, son of neocon Douglas]
It doesn't get much more pot & kettle than that.
1) "For Zionists to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky." (Mussolini on Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the Revisionist Zionist* movement, quoted in The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir, Lenni Brenner, 1984, p 98)
2) "It is a sign of the bitter hostility of Labour Zionism* to the memory of the man [Jabotinsky] that David Ben-Gurion routinely referred to as 'Vladimir Hitler' that the Israeli government did not issue an order [to transfer his remains** to Israel] until July 1964, 16 years after the establishment of the Israeli state." (ibid p 108) [** Jabotinsky died in New York in 1940 but wanted his remains transferred to a future Jewish state in Palestine.]
3) "To some British officials... the atrocity at Deir Yassin [perpetrated by the Revisionist Zionist terror organisations, the Irgun and the Stern Gang] came as a revelation about the nature of the new Jewish state. Sir John Troutbeck, the head of the British Middle East Office in Cairo, wrote that 'Deir Yassin is a warning of what a Jew will do to gain his purpose'. On the eve of the Arab-Israeli war the British were apprehensive about its outcome, but virtually no one anticipated the extent of the Arab collapse and the Israeli victory. The British associated themselves with the Arab cause as one that was ultimately compatible with their own sense of mission in the Middle East, and during the course of the war they became convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated because of American support of the Israelis. The resentment towards the US still smoulders in the files at the Public Record Office. It existed as the main sentiment underlying official policy, and it was perhaps most indignantly expressed by Troutbeck, who held that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by 'an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders'." (The Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez & Decolonisation, William Roger Louis, 2006, pp 445-446)
4) "When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people." Albert Einstein's written response to an American Stern Gang (LEHI) fundraiser on 10/4/09, the day after the Deir Yassin massacre. [Einstein's letter can be viewed at Deir Yassin Remembered, deir.yassin.org]
5) "In September 1948 Churchill was in the South of France... Among those who visited him there was a Conservative Member of Parliament, Robert Boothby, a strong supporter of Zionism, who had written to The Times protesting against the Arab Legion shelling of Jerusalem. Boothby later recalled that when the conversation turned to the future of the Jews then fighting for their survival on the battlefield, 'I said that they were going to win hands down in Palestine, and get more than they ever expected'. To Boothby's remark, Churchill replied: 'Of course. The Arabs are no match for them. The Irgun people are the vilest gangsters. But, in backing the Zionists these Labour people backed the winners; and then ran out on them'. Churchill also told Boothby he was 'quite right' to send his letter to The Times." (Churchill & The Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p 270)
[*Although the difference between the Revisionist and Labour Zionism is more a matter of style than substance, Uri Davis has pointed out that: "Labour Zionism is an attempt to reconcile the basic tenets of political Zionist and colonial practice with the tenets of the Enlightenment. Since these two sets of values are mutually exclusive, Labour Zionist literature has been largely predicated upon obfuscation of Zionist colonial practice, and upon mystification, ignorance and cultivated deception. Revisionist Zionism has largely escaped the Labour Zionist predicament of attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. In contra-distinction to Labour Zionism, it has attempted, with considerable success, to locate Zionism ideologically and practically inside the tradition of modern secular racism and imperial colonialism." (Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, 2003, p 19)]
Hm... gangsters, terrorists, criminals, fascists and Nazis. Well the progeny of this lot, via the mechanism of Irgun leader Menachem Begin's Likud Party, are now in power in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister and Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu's father was a senior Jabotinsky aide. Ex-Likud, now Kadima leader (reportedly being 'wooed' by Netanyahu) Tzipi Livni is the daughter of Eitan Livni, the Irgun's Chief of Operations. And they're so proud of their legacy of gangsterism, terrorism, criminality, fascism and Nazism that they want Israeli kids to share it:
"The Education Ministry is introducing a study unit on the 12 underground fighters who were hanged or committed suicide in prison during the British Mandate in Palestine. The 12, known as 'Olei Hagardom' ('those hanged on the gallows'), belonged to the pre-state militias Etzel [Irgun] and Lehi [Stern Gang]. The program, intended for eighth and ninth grades, will include lessons plus a national competition for essays, poems and drawings on subjects such as 'an imaginary conversation I had with one of Olei Hagardom in his last moments in prison' or 'the last letter of a condemned man to his family'. The new unit is already proving controversial. 'Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar is advancing ideological matters close to his heart in the education system', a ministry official charged. 'His ideology is entering the curriculum'. 'It's worrying that the education Ministry is conveying a message sanctifying death and portraying it as sublime', added a senior university historian. Until now, details of the 12 Olei Hagardom - 9 Etzel combatants and 3 Lehi fighters - were taught as part of history lessons, ministry sources said. In a letter announcing the new program, Sa'ar wrote, 'I hope the program, recounting Olei Hagardom's devotion to the struggle for Israel's independence, will bolster the students' ties with their people and heritage... and that their devotion will serve as an ideological model for our youth'... The education system intends to mark Jabotinsky Day next week as required by a law enacted in 2005, the Education Ministry said Monday. Schools were instructed earlier this month to prepare ceremonies and special activities, including lessons about Jabotinsky's character and work. Sa'ar himself will give a civics lesson on Jabotinsky in a high school in the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim." (New study unit on pre-state fighters proves controversial, Or Kashti, Haaretz, 22/12/09)
Way to go! Except that Zionist propagandists of whatever stripe are nothing if not hypocritical. Here's David Feith* in the Wall Street Journal on August 21 pondering (in the words of The Australian where I found it) "the murky legacy of Fateh leader Yasser Arafat": "What's Arabic for plus ca change? Because that was the message last week from the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, where the 'moderate' Fateh party held its first general congress since 1989. Fateh - founded by Yasser Arafat in the 1960s and led since 2004 by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - demonstrated that Palestinian national politics remain mired as ever in conspiracy, duplicity and the glorification of terrorists... Fatah's leaders continue to walk in their founder's footsteps... Fatah's demonstration last week that it remains ideologically stuck in the terrorist pleasantries of the 70s ought to be a stark reminder that when it comes to Palestinian 'moderates', moderation remains a highly relative term." (Fatah's 'moderates' still rejoice in their founder's terrorism, 26/8/09) [* That's correct, son of neocon Douglas]
It doesn't get much more pot & kettle than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)