TR-38: Britain and Judah
Ten Tribes Tribal Report
4 August 2010 24 Ab 5770
Contents:
1. England is anti-Jewish, claims Israeli president
2. Albion and Israel - In the Same Boat, or Running Aground
3. Britain and the Creation of Israel
4. How Britain helped Israel get the bomb
5. The Academic Boycott: Why Britain?
|
Brit-Am Discussion Group 
|
Contents by Subject |
Research Revelation Reconciliation Contribute |
|
Site Map Contents in Alphabetical Order |
 This Site |
1. England is anti-Jewish, claims Israeli president
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/
europe/england-is-antijewish-claims-israeli
-president-2280513.html?
from=dailynews
By DAVID HARRISON and ADRIAN BLOMFIELD
Sunday August 01 2010
Extracts:
ISRAEL'S president has accused the English of being anti-Semitic and claimed that MPs pander to Muslim voters.
Shimon Peres, 87, said England was "deeply pro-Arab" and "anti-Israeli", adding: "They always worked against us." In an interview on a Jewish website, he went on to say: "There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." His remarks provoked anger from senior MPs and Jewish leaders who said he had "got it wrong".
But other groups backed Mr Peres and said the number of anti-Semitic incidents had risen in Britain in recent years.
He said: "There are several million Muslim voters, and for many Members of Parliament, that's the difference between getting elected and not getting elected," he said.
"And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment. They maintained an arms embargo against us in the 1950s. They always worked against us. They think the Arabs are the underdogs." By contrast, relations with Germany, France and Italy were "pretty good".
2. Albion and Israel - In the Same Boat, or Running Aground
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08/
albion-and-israel-in-same-boat-or.html
Extracts:
The British press is naturally outraged that Shimon Peres dared suggest that the British political establishment was pro-Arab and anti-Israel, and that MP's cowardly courted Muslim votes first. Peres has already been forced to apologize for his understatement. And an understatement it is, coming in the same week when British PM David Cameron visited Turkey, a Muslim country that has over 10,000 political prisoners, and continues to occupy Cyprus-- yet his only mention of human rights was to condemn Israel for defending itself against a Turkish provocation.
So first let's look at what Peres actually said, because everyone in the British press from the Daily Mail to the Telegraph, are paraphrasing what he said, rather quoting or than linking to the original interview.
Peres: Our next big problem is England. There are several million Muslim voters. And for many members of parliament, that?s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected. And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment. They abstained in the [pro-Zionist] 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution, despite [issuing the pro-Zionist] Balfour Declaration [in 1917]. They maintained an arms embargo against us [in the 1950s]; they had a defense treaty with Jordan; they always worked against us.
Morris: But England changed after the 1940s and 1950s. They supported us in 1967, there was Harold Brown and Mrs. Thatcher [who were pro-Israeli].
Peres: There is also support for Israel today [on the British right].
... Despite the Palestine Mandate, the goal of British foreign policy [in 1948] had become to prevent Israel from being created by any means necessary. That included reversing prior commitments, inciting Muslim massacres of Jews, blocking Jewish refugees from the Holocaust from escaping to Israel, arming and organizing Arab armies to invade Israel.
During Israel's War of Independence, Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (aka Glubb Pasha) and Brigadier Norman Lash commanded the Jordanian Legion. During the war it was Glubb who cabled Lash with the message, "I have decided to intervene in force in Jerusalem".
This is how the scene was described in "O Jerusalem" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lappiere.
A few minutes later, Colonel Bill Newman, the Australian commander of the Legion's Third Regiment, and Major Bob Slade, his Scottish deputy appointed to lead the task force, assembled their Arab officers... Spreading his maps in the white glare of a storm lantern, Newman stabbed his finger at Jerusalem. "That's where we're going," he said. An explosion of joy and shrieks of delight drowned his words.
Once the Arab Legion helped ethnically cleans the half of Jerusalem they captured of its Jewish inhabitants, England was the only country to recognize the Jordanian annexation of the city.
After the war British forces conducted aerial provocations and attempted to use those to stage an invasion. Jordan's King Hussein had a piece of paper handed to him, a request for British troops. Only when it was clearly evident that there was no support back home for renewed hostilities, was further violence averted.
To summarize, during and before the War of Independence, England played much the same role in regard to Israel and the Arabs, that the Soviet Union would later play. Both direct and indirect hostilities took place between British and Israel forces. British commanders oversaw the ethnic cleansing and annexation of East Jerusalem, the Kfar Etzion massacre and many more. There is a great deal of history here, and too much of it to go into.
Considering the hostility of the English political and cultural establishment to Israel in the present day, when unions and academic groups call for boycotts of Israel, when judges allow vandalism on the ground that Israel was the target, and when Baroness Jenny Tonge claims that Jews harvested organs in Haiti-- Peres' remarks are if anything an understatement.
....Egypt is on its last legs of the Mubarak dynasty, which is likely to be succeeded by the Muslim Brotherhood.
England may be the next step for a Muslim Brotherhood take over. But rather than stimulating rational behavior, it has only stimulated more anti-Semitism, as if bashing Israel can somehow avert the inevitable. Of course it cannot. And will not. Pandering to Muslims will not preserve England. It will only put the very people who want to destroy England in positions where they can better control the political process. Meanwhile Cameron rushes ahead to demand that Turkey be allowed into the EU, because the disaster won't be complete until 30 million more Muslims flood European cities.
In the 30's and 40's, the British policy was to pander to Muslims and bash the Jews in the hopes of controlling the territory of the Palestine Mandate. Today it is still policy to do the same... in the hopes of controlling England itself.
It is past time, that this very same establishment was forced to confront the bitter truth that its policies on the Middle East have backfired badly, that pandering to Muslims has turned its cities into war zones, and that worse is yet to come. England is coming into the same boat as Israel. Only as it has done before with Rhodesia, it is trying to sink the boat, rather than help bail it out. If England could work together with Israel when the Suez Canal was endangered, yet cannot when its own cities are endangered, one wonders exactly where its priorities are, and whether that is not exactly the same kind of misplaced priorities that has placed it in such peril today.
See Also:
Hosea 9 and Muslim Hatred of All Israelites
http://britam.org/Hosea9Mahomed.html
3. Britain and the Creation of Israel
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m2242/is_1664_285/ai_n6272938/
Contemporary Review, Sept, 2004 by Charles Foster
God, Guns and Israel: Britain, the First World War and the Jews in the Holy Land. Jill Hamilton. Sutton Publishing. [pounds sterling]20. xx 294 pages. ISBN 0-7509-3323-2.
Extracts:
If one leaves frank supernaturalism out of it, there are broadly three schools of thought about the origins of Israel. The first is that the pioneering, swamp-draining Israelis, inspired by the dreams and machinations of Herzl, were the midwives of their own nation. The second is that Israel was the creation of an international consensus represented by the United Nations which, compelled by collective guilt and pity at the horrors of Auschwitz and the millennia of pogroms which preceded it, cathartically carved the new state. The third is that Israel is an outpost of a Christian Zionist empire. Each school is more or less true, and each feeds the other. But the evidence increasingly suggests that Christian Zionism was the most important of the factors.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was, incontrovertibly, the cornerstone of modern Israel. Many Arabs never mention it without a curse. It expressed, on constitutionally dubious authority (it was never debated in the House of Commons), the support of His Majesty's Government for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It was really the handiwork of Lloyd George. Many motives for his sponsorship have been suggested: a wish to safeguard the Suez Canal; the pre-empting of French claims in Palestine by giving an altruistic pretext for British control; the protection of trade routes to British Imperial possessions; and the desire to recruit worldwide Jewry (and particularly Jews in the US and Bolshevik Russia) to the Allied war effort. Lloyd George himself said, in his memoirs, that there were two reasons--to encourage Jews to join the Allies, and to reward Weizmann for his revolutionary synthesis of acetone (crucial in the manufacture of explosives).
...We get closer to the heart of things when we learn that Lloyd George's heart leapt when he heard Weizmann say that Palestine was a 'little mountainous country' -- just like Wales. But even that will not do: the world is full of little mountainous countries with passionate national zealots. It is more significant that Lloyd George admitted to knowing the names of the towns in the Holy Land better than those on the Western Front. He stood, in short, in the long tradition of Christian Zionism.
This was an almost exclusively Protestant, Nonconformist tradition. ...What happened to the Land mattered; some awesome Messianic promises depended on it. ...There was a sectarian dimension too. The Roman Catholic Church had re-built a sort of metaphorical Jerusalem in Rome. To stress the Palestinian origins of Christianity was to imply that Rome had strayed too far from its roots -- to imply that Rome was dangerously inauthentic.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the Nonconformist-Evangelical ethos had worked its way deep into the British body politic. In the first half of the twentieth century the influence was even more deep and obvious. Prime Minister after Prime Minister had imbibed a mystical, Messianic philo-Semitism with their mothers' (or their Presbyterian nannies') milk...
So Israel was established. She has been sustained since by the votes and the colossal lobbying power of US Christian Zionists -- votes and power which seem to be increasingly and frighteningly determinative of US foreign policy. The biblical Israel is, in the sermons of the Christian Zionists, identified wholly with the modern state of Israel. The leading US evangelist, Pat Robertson, says: 'The future of [America] may be at stake, because God will bless those that bless Israel'.
The thesis of this very good and highly readable book by Jill Hamilton is that the history of Zionism over (at least) the past five hundred years is the history of Christian Zionism, which, in turn, is the history of the use which Christians have made of the Old Testament. ..the Balfour Declaration is the crime (she makes little secret of her own stance on Israel), and the criminal who is finally run to ground is the Old Testament as interpreted by the Congregationalists of the rural chapels.
4. How Britain helped Israel get the bomb
Newsnight reporter Michael Crick tells the story of how Britain helped Israel build the bomb - without telling the Americans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
programmes/newsnight/4743493.stm
5. The Academic Boycott: Why Britain?
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-36.htm
Extract:
Why has the boycott won so much support in Britain? First, academics are more organized there than in the United States or Western Europe and the labor unions allow the activists, many of them left-wing, to decide policies. More generally, labor unions have traditionally been powerful in Britain. Other reasons include the identification of Israel with Britain's colonial past and Britain's long association with the Middle East; the Balfour Declaration; leftist support for the Palestinians, which began during the 1960s and was complete by the time of the Lebanon War in 1982; an atmosphere of severe criticism of Israel including demonization, double standards, and the implicit denial of its right to defend itself;34 condemnation of Israeli actions by self-hating Jews in a left-wing context; and of course, Judeophobia.
Traditionally, UK Jewry has not wanted to be identified as an ethnic immigrant community, but instead as part of the establishment. In contrast, recent immigrant groups such as the Muslims and the Hindus have sought to maintain their distinct profiles. Indeed, for the past 120 years, UK Jewry's attitude has been to play by the rules, for fear of a possible upsurge in anti-Semitism. Nor has the community used the "Jewish vote" to defend its interests, not even formerly when it was the largest ethnic group in the country. Hence, the Board of Deputies and other leaders often take a low-key, behind-the-scenes approach that is consistent with English reserve.
Pleased with what you read'
We do this because we have a duty to do so and we believe in it.
Click Here to make an offering. |
'It is impossible to rightly govern the world
without God or the Bible'
George Washington
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.
 |