Enter your keyword

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Is it 1939 in Britain yet?

Lord Janner in Parliament

Lord Granville Janner was President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, representing most British Jews for 6 years. He's the founder of the Commonwealth Jewish Council and Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust. In short he's the most prominent and senior openly Jewish politician in Britain whose Jewishness is a major part of his identity who has repeatedly spoken out on Jewish issues.

On the 27th Lord Janner got into an argument with Lord Brammall in one of the rooms adjoining the Lords chamber over Israel. Lord Brammall, who was the Chief of the Defense Staff during that heroic era in English history known as the Falklands War has never missed an opportunity to get in a rant about Israel, no matter what the topic might actually be.

To give you a sense of his style, on January 16th 2003, when the topic was Reform of the Palestinian Authority, Lord Brammal in the predictable style of terrorist advocates made this convoluted remark linking the War in Iraq to making the West Bank and Gaza Judenrein.

"My Lords, will the Minister go further? Does she agree that any invasion of Iraq that has not meanwhile ensured a withdrawal of those illegal settlements, or at least meaningful negotiations towards it, risks incurring intense odium throughout the Middle East, which could invalidate any benefit that military action may bring?"

When the topic was the terrorists killing Jews, Bramall returned to his same old bugbear claiming that Israel could stop the terrorists by making Gaza and the West Bank Judenrein again and by extension that it was Israel's fault that Israelis were being killed for not making concessions.

"My Lords very briefly, does the Minister agree that the only way to stop these appalling suicide bombers is for the Israeli Government to say that if the bombers do stop, they will start to dismantle the illegal settlements in Palestine? That will give the Palestinians some hope instead of absolutely none."

On that day however Lord Bramall went beyond more rhetoric as the argument escalated physically striking Lord Janner. British newspapers reported the story as 'War Hero Hits Fellow Peer in Lords' a headline which begins by praising the perpetrator. It's no surprise then that in the Lords whose members pride themselves on addressing each other as "My Noble Lord" no disciplinary action whatsoever was taken against Lord Bramall, anymore than George Galloway or the Mayor of London were ever held accountable for their noxious anti-Semitic behavior.

Is it 1939 in Britain yet?


  1. Anonymous15/10/06

    Not surprised at the British paper's response.

    England is such an incredibly beautiful country, it's too bad that many of it's residents are prigs and mar the landscape.

  2. Now the world can see why America broke off from these people.
    They are beyond pandering.

  3. yes and it's just getting worse and if you think about that when someone of that generation is acting that way, what's the new generation acting like

  4. Anonymous16/10/06

    When you look at the way both countries pander to terrorists, illegals, etc., then when America split-off, it was just one group of morons breaking away from another group of morons. :]

  5. The fact that the British people let these comments go without even a hint of outrage speaks volumes. It tells me that they're just as racist as anyone else. Of course now Israel bashing is the 21st century variety of anti-Semitism.

    "oh no, honestly, I love the Jewish people. Don't get me wrong. I just don't agree with Israel's policies." Can't count the number of times I've heard variations of that statement. Anti-Semitism for the 21st century.

  6. Anonymous16/10/06

    The first Americans were hardly morons.
    They were strong minded freedom loving individualists who stood up for what they believed was right.
    The nation had the strong blessings of Almighty God from its beginnings.
    Europe was mired in awful thinking on religion and politics and social ranking in those days.
    There is no greater nation although today it is asleep.

  7. As of now, I think America is teetering on the edge when it comes to morality and conscience. It can go either way.

  8. If you'll indulge me, I have another comment:) As far as I see it, anyone that condones pro-Palestinian/Arab policies that clearly put Israeli (largely Jewish) lives in danger is as anti-Semitic as they come, no matter how much they try to qualify their positions and remarks.

  9. Anonymous16/10/06

    I still vote for morons. For instance, George Washington became anti-Britain only when he discovered he wasn't going to rise in rank. Until that moment, he didn't agree with separating. To me, ego is a moron motive.

    And as for a greater nation, the nation of Israel, though scattered across the globe is still the greatest. :] We always were and always will be. (even bigger grin)

  10. As of now America and the world are seperating into 2 factions: good and evil.
    Europe is going that way also.
    We will see Europe split between islamofascists in alliance with european fascists and decent people on the other side.
    The same will happen all around the world.

  11. Anonymous16/10/06

    Calling the founding fathers morons is disgusting.Why live in America if you hate its foundations?

  12. Al, are you saying America--love it or leave it? Well, I love this country and I don't want to leave it. Nor do I want to see it abandon Israel, as it appears Condi Rice is doing albeit in drips and drabs so that the voting public will warm up to the idea of caving into Israel's enemies (which are also enemies of the free world).

  13. Anonymous16/10/06

    I don't wear blinders when it comes to those who were the founders. I don't make them more than they were. Washington's rebellion was based on his ego. His own journals say so. Franklin had 18 illegitimate kids. Jefferson re-wrote the bible because he didn't believe in miracles and created what's called the "Jefferson" bible. Like any politicians they did what they did for themselves. They did it for personal gain. Feel free to consider that greatness, I don't. :]

  14. I gotta call you on your conclusions, there, yobeeone.
    The founding fathers of this nation were not rash revolutionaries prone to turning the world upside down for some personal advancement. They all sought diplomatic solutions to their grievances and wished to see their loyalty to Great Britain substantiated- perhaps not unlike an abused wife who tries, oh-so-hard, to find the virtues in her abusive husband and, thence, legitimize her adorations which, with a proper partner, would be a noble sentiment.

    Recall the part in the Declaration of Independence where they pledged their "lives, fortunes, and honor" for the cause of independence and liberty? That is no small statement. The founding fathers were all rather well-to-do and enjoyed priveleged social and political status in the colonies/English system. Surely it would be considered foolish to jeopardize their social standing, their money, even their lives for such a gamble. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew they were all very well risking finding themselves at the end of a rope as traitors to the crown should their ragtag group of undisciplined yankee bums and hillbillies prove unable to bring down the King's professional army and hired Hessian mercenaries.

    Washington took pride in position, yes. He felt slighted when as a soldier of the crown he was denied an officer's commission since he was just a colonist. He endeavoured to ever be the gentleman. As it was, he was a respected veteran of the English army and prosperous farmer. (It helps to marry well.) But a vain man is not unconcerned about his posterity. Washington and the rest knew that in the (likely?) event that the revolt should prove unsuccessful, they would all be remembered- not as noble men of character and intellect who tried to do right by their fellow man- but as murderous and treacherous traitors to their rightful king. And they wouldn't get to keep their money after they were hung.

    The upper class Mexicans in pre-1848 Mexico, by sharp contrast, would individually sell out the interests of the peasant rabble, their fellow upper-classmen, and their very nation to whomever in Mexico City or Madrid in order to self-serve their particular interests in money, land, or political position. This helped enormously in the efforts of the United States to conquer the present-day American Southwest during the Mexican-American war.

    Far from being self-serving, the founding fathers of the U.S. gambled more than almost any person in history for.... an ideal.

    You have to look in TaNaCh, to some of our Gedolim, and precious few individuals throughout history to find greater than that.

    True about the world being split into good and evil factions like lemon-lime moon (what a cute name!) was saying.
    In the 20th century of the Christian Era, the world- nations and individuals- made a choice between the Allies and the Nazis. Then everyone chose sides between the Free World and the Soviet Union. Now it's between the Jews and, l'havdil, the Arabs/Muslims.
    In all three cases the U.S. has been the champion of the forces of good.
    Oh, she's not perfect? Well neither was King Saul and frum people still see fit to name their sons after him (not me, though).
    The way I see it, America got hit- and hard- for being such a persistent supporter of Israel. This is a great z'chus for her. The U.S. would have to commit a whole lot of deliberate evil to catch up to Europe. I expect to look with a significant degree of satisfaction as the various z'chusim- merits- of the U.S. stand her in good stead when all of the nations are judged.

    Moshiach better get here quick, though, before more Muslims get elected to high office.



Blog Archive