Who is the British Empire to cast aspersions against Israel?

The American Thinker publishes "Triple-Cross: How Britain Created the Arab-Israel Conflict," from John Landau and Rachel Neuwirth:

"Outside of the Muslim countries, no press in the world is as biased, as unfair, and as dishonest and vindictive towards Israel as the British press. The BBC and the newspapers The Guardian and The Independent take the lead in relentlessly vilifying the Jewish state, but Sky News, Reuters, The Economist and numerous other major media outlets do not lag far behind them in their race to see which can defame and malign Israel the most. Israel is incessantly castigated as an imperialist and colonialist power whose people stole their country from its "indigenous" and rightful owners, the "Palestinians."

That the press of a country that at one time or another conquered a substantial chunk of the entire world by the most ruthless and deceitful means imaginable (consider, for example, Sir Walter Raleigh's frank account of the murderous treachery that he employed to seize Trinidad from the Spanish, or Sir Francis Drake's ruthless plundering of the Spanish colonies) should castigate as colonialist, imperialist and racist a country that, even including the "occupied" territories, is only the size of Wales -- which, by the way, is yet another country that England conquered in a series of brutal wars -- is hard to fathom. So is the British press's outrage at Israel's "undemocratic" rule over perhaps a million and a half Arabs, when Britain ruled for centuries in the most autocratic manner hundreds of millions of subjects, many more people than lived in Britain itself, to whom it gave no democratic rights whatsoever. Britain only surrendered this Empire when it was bankrupt after two world wars, and no longer had the means to hold onto it. Even then, she surrendered it only under intense prodding from the United States, whose help she absolutely needed to rebuild her shattered economy and defend herself.

Yet the press and government of this nation that ruled vast territories thousands of miles from its own shores, countries that posed no threat whatsoever to Britain, have the gall to condemn Israel for maintaining a few checkpoints in the "Palestinian" territories, located only a few miles or in some cases only a few yards from her major population centers, in order to prevent terrorists from bringing bombs into these population centers and using them to murder thousands of Israelis. And they have the gall to call these checkpoints an "occupation," even after Israel unilaterally handed over most populated areas of the "occupied" territories (whose total size, in any case, is only equal to that of the English suburban county of Sussex) to her enemies, in a vain attempt to make peace with them. The British press creates the impression that Britain has no connection to "Palestine" except as a sympathetic observer of the suffering of its Arab inhabitants at the hands of "Zionism." One would never guess from reading it that it was not so long ago that Britain ruled Palestine, or that she set in motion the Arab-Israel conflict in the first place, or that the conflict would not even exist without decades of British broken promises and odious divide-and rule maneuvers in the Middle East. {...}

Britain, for her part, has done absolutely nothing to encourage the Arab states to make peace with Israel. Instead, its inflammatory press incessantly incites the Arabs to continue their war of terror against the Jews. The British Foreign Office has done nothing to discourage the British gutter press from indulging in this incendiary propaganda and misinformation campaign. And the BBC, a government owned and controlled station with close ties to the Foreign Office, has actively participated in the hostile propaganda and incitement against Israel, in both its Arabic and English-language services.

1 comment:

alan143 said...

I agree it’s an enjoyable article, and all its criticism of London’s bureaucrats, chattering classes and the London-based media’s love of Arab propaganda is fully justified. If anything it’s too gentle, and should have clobbered most of our left-wing politicians as well.

However, I think its author rather spoils things by revealing such an intense compulsion to lie in the service of his own bigotry that one might easily mistake him for an Arab himself.

His many errors of fact, and they are intentional, are too numerous to refute in detail so I’ll mention just two examples.

1) “Britain only surrendered this Empire when it was bankrupt after two world wars, and no longer had the means to hold onto it. Even then, she surrendered it only under intense prodding from the United States, whose help she absolutely needed to rebuild her shattered economy and defend herself.”

No. It was the policy of the Labour-led government in the 1930s to divest itself of the Empire. Labour was re-elected in 1945 and continued the process. “Intense prodding” by the US did occur, for example they immediately recalled vital food convoys in mid-Atlantic on VE-day, presumably to starve empire-building factory workers in the UK into returning to the UK from elsewhere in the Empire. However the prodding simply reflected an intense paranoia about the Empire among some in the US elite – the same segment that seems to have controlled the author’s schoolbooks.

2) “One would never guess from reading it that ... Britain ... set in motion the Arab-Israel conflict in the first place, or that the conflict would not even exist without decades of British broken promises and odious divide-and rule manoeuvres in the Middle East.”

Balls. Odious balls, and therefore from an odious, untrustworthy author. Muslim aggression began with the first major land purchases by Zionists in the 19th century. They continued and escalated when UK received its mandate in 1922. The were renewed in 1945 the instant that the new Labour government announced its plan to create Israel. British administrators caved in and appeased the natives at every opportunity, and postponed their plans.

Were these “oppressive” imperialists, as seen in American horror comics, displaying unexpected sensitivity simply so they could “break promises”? No. British administrators tried not to rile the natives anywhere, as a matter of policy, and their mandate in Palestine did not permit them to do so in any case. Nor did the British army want enthusiastic settlers creating a permanent war-zone. Who would?

In the crucial UN vote that created Israel, the UK abstained. Imagine if the Jewish dream of 1900 years could be turned into a reality of continual wars and nightmarish terrorism, as predictable from nearly 70 years of local history? Would you vote in favour and hope for the best? That is how the founders gambled with Israeli lives, in perpetuity.

Finally, please remember the Suez crisis of 1956. Britain and France allied with Israel but then the US smashed their alliance. The US effectively said to Israel “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” And here we are today.