Last week it emerged that opposition leader Tzipi Livni had cancelled her trip to London due to a British court issuing an arrest warrant for her on the charges of war crimes. The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband said that the British government hadn’t known about it and they were actually really quit shocked. I can just imagine!
I have been proudly told by many members of Anglo Jewry that David Milband is Jewish. In fact, a little Googling revealed that Miliband is a self confessed atheist, was born halachicly Jewish although his parents were Marxists and his family had little or no connection with the Jewish community.
(See http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-12/200912-David_Miliband.html ).
That hasn't stopped the British media however from talking about his Jewishness as a facture in his job as British Foreign Secretary.
One choice quote from the BBC for instance as found here:
“The BBC website greeted David Miliband's appointment as British Foreign Secretary with the following comment: ‘[his] Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East. Israel will welcome this - but equally it allows him the freedom to criticize Israel, as he has done, without being accused of anti-Semitism.' The assumption is clear; that there is some power out there ready to accuse anybody who criticizes Israel of antisemitism.”
Actually how much Israel will look forward to a British Foreign Secretary who’s father was a leading Marxist and Ant-Zionist, accusing Israel of imperialist aspirations after it won the Six Day war is debatable. The article continues:
“Anatol Lieven, a professor at King's College, London, claimed that ‘this accusation of antisemitism... has no basis in evidence or rationality.' Lieven said that it is ‘not the kind of accusation which in any other circumstances would even be allowed to be printed.' What is the power which licenses this accusation when other similar ones would not be allowed to be printed? ‘It is simply being used' he went on ‘as a way of trying to terrify, to frighten, critics of Israel and of American support for Israel into silence'. There is some powerful ‘Zionist' conspiracy ‘trying to terrify, to frighten critics...'”
The notion that Jews will scream “anti-Semitism” if anyone dares to criticise Israel is very common in Britain. The truth is actually quite the opposite. Anglo Jewry is nauseatingly low-key and rarely make public criticisms. They are too scared of the anti-Semitic back lash. In fact anti-Semites use this claim to protect themselves when they do make blatantly anti-Jewish comments in the cheap guise of anti-Zionism.
I myself heard this accusation being made with my own ears on the 15th June 2009 when a leading radio presenter on LBC radio, James O’Brien used it to great effect.
He went on to say that it was clear that the Israelis don’t really want peace because they insist that Israel remain “armed to the teeth” yet demand that the Palestinians have no army and no control of their air space. He simply couldn’t see how anyone could disagree with this assessment and called his comments “a no brainer”. He agreed with the Palestinian spokesman who said that, by denying the Palestinians a proper army, Bibi had destroyed any chance of peace.
Anyone who phoned up that day and suggested that peace could only be achieved if the Palestinians were prevented from launching terrorist attacks against Israel was cut off and insulted. He said something like “How can you even have a rational conversation with people like that?” He abused his position as radio host, badgering, interrupting and bullying anyone who tried to present Israel’s view point.
His introductory speech at the beginning of the show effectively gave him a free license to be as anti-Semitic as he liked having just “proved” that any accusations of ant-Semitism against him were the desperate acts of fanatical Zionist/Jews.
Getting back to Tzipi’s arrest warrant. I was particularly impressed with a statement made by an “expert” that I read here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_britain_livni
"[Legal ] Experts said the legal concept would face decisive scrutiny if, instead of targeting Israelis, a judge's arrest warrant targeted a past or current American or European head of state."
That's right, while its just those Israelis (read Jews) who are probably guilty of war crimes, poisoning wells and putting Xtian blood in their Matzot in any case, let's not bother changing the law.
“Pro-Palestinian activists in Britain long have hoped to capture Israeli officials in the same net that once held Pinochet [when he visited London].
"We cannot talk tough on terrorism and be weak on war crimes," said Chris Doyle, director of a lobbying group called the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
"Parties in Israel must realize there is a consequence to their behavior. For decades they've violated Security Council resolutions and international law with little or no consequence," Doyle said.”
I would guess that Mr Doyle and his gang used a list of false accusations against Israel in order procure the arrest warrant. This list ought to be scrutinised to see if there are grounds to prosecute Mr Doyle for slander, done with malicious intent.
I wonder why no one is doing this in Britain?
According to The Jerusalem Post:
British Foreign Secretary is "shocked" at the warrant issued for Livni.
"According to diplomatic officials, the British - from former foreign secretary Jack Straw onward - have all pledged to close the gap in British law that allows for this type of occurrence, but nobody has actually taken action.
Since such a move necessitated legislation, one official said, the British have always said it was not the right time. "They said this in 2006 after the war in Lebanon, and again earlier this year after the Gaza operation," one official said. "
This kind of British response reminds me of that great Political Comedy "Yes Prime Minister" which politicians admitted was truer to life than was generally realised.
In answer to a Yes/No question whether the government intended to act upon an issue, Sir Humphrey Appleby answers:
'Oh yes, Prime Minister.' (By yes he [really] meant no). 'Indeed it is, beyond question,………at the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time.' (Yes Prime Minister I, p. 190)
Yes Prime Minister was called to mind again today when I read Melanie Phillips’ blog post on Britain's non-action on the threat of a nuclear Iran.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5637066/white-flag-politics.thtml
From the episode "A Victory for Democracy"
Sir Richard: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Stage One, we say that nothing is going to happen.
Stage Two, we say something may be going to happen but we should do nothing about it.
Stage Three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage Four, we say maybe there is something we could have done, but it's too late now.
2 comments:
Reminds me a bit of "What the Papers Say" I used to watch on telly, before bed.
I'm sure my article put you to sleep a lot quicker.
Post a Comment