Monday, January 19, 2009

Defence of whose Realm, Mr Brown?


Well, there was I thinking that when British servicemen and women join up to 'Defend the Realm' the realm in question was that of the United Kingdom.

It seems I got it totally wrong. British armed forces are, it seems, there to defend the Israeli Realm.

The BBC reports:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has offered British naval resources to help monitor events in the Gaza conflict and stop weapons being smuggled in.

He wants to help ensure protection and monitoring of the crossings into Gaza.
Mr Brown said: "We will do everything we can to prevent the arms trading at the root of the problems.


So there you have it, dear British readers, our Royal Navy, funded by your taxes, is going to be working for the Israeli government.

Do we, the British people, have any say in all of this?

Our country is all but bankrupt, and our armed forces hideously overstretched, but here is our Prime Minister offering 'naval resources' to assist a foreign power.

A foreign power incidentally, which is such a 'strong ally' of Britain that it carried on selling arms to the fascist Argentinian junta of General Galtieri during the Falklands war.

You might have thought that H.M. Opposition would make a big stir about Gordon Brown's announcement. But so far, not a word. In Britain's one party state, unequivocal support for the State of Israel is, it seems not negotiable.

It's about time that changed.

UPDATE: Charlie Marks has more on this shocking, if unsurprising news.

16 comments:

Dan, portsmouth said...

On his way to Israel, the Guardian has reported him saying : (We are yet to discover the full scale of the appalling suffering) .

I think pledging uncondiitonal support to Olmert regime, and donating navy ship for their use in managing the occupied Gaza strip before he even know the scale of the crime committed in Gaza is unimaginable.

People protested against Zionist crimes only after they saw pictures of the massacre.
And those who supported it, didn’t even wait for the news to come out, they supported first and looked for justification later…

David Lindsay said...

Truly, between tomorrow's events in Washington and any Likud victory next month, Britain will have the most Zionist government in the world.

And no wonder that former Cabinet Ministers of both parties have been among those telling me not to write, even in jest, about the drafting of our least accomplished 16-year-olds directly into the Israeli Defence Force, because "if the wrong people read that then it will happen". How long can we now have to wait?

Neal said...

Mr. Brown wants things two different ways. He wants to stand rhetorically with Palestinian Arabs but, when push comes to shove, he opposes Hamas.

That ought to give one pause. Why would he oppose Hamas? One reason may be that Saudi Arabia opposes Hamas and the UK cannot afford to offend Saudi Arabia. Another reason may be that the UK recognizes, notwithstanding its rhetoric, that unless the Islamist forces are undermined, there can be no peace in the Middle East. Lastly, there is the obvious point that Hamas is a group of religious fanatics who aim, if their covenent is believed, to commit genocide.

Please note that the death toll from Islamist wars is already in the many millions. That includes the long standing war in Sudan - 1 to 2 million died between 1985 and 2000 alone [and one wonders where the protesters during those years of savagery] was, in the effort to Islamize the Christian and animist regions in the south of the country. Tactics included intentionally starving villages, taking the children of Christians and forcing them to convert to Islam, etc., etc. And, it includes the reinstitution of slavery - something the country's leader defended as being proper for religious reasons - in the country, with slaves sold locally and into the various Arab countries in the Gulf.

And, then there is the Islamist war related to Kashmir, with 90,000 people dying in needless bloodshed during the 1990's.

And, it includes numerous wars in Africa, which have pitted Islamists on one side and other groups on the other side. Etc., etc. Millions have died in these needless blood lettings.

By the way, where was the hand-ringing while, during the time of Israel's attacks in Gaza, perhaps the same number of people were killed in Darfur?

Hypocrites and bigots.

Steve said...

Neil
I think Gordon's intention is to aid the peace process in the area. Peace in the area will not only benefit the people in the area but also the rest of the world, Britain included. The use of taxpayers' money can therefore be justified.

It must also be remembered that Britain has a historical responsibility to help the Israeli people after we turned a blind eye to Hitler's genocide, and introduced Jewish immigration quotas into Palestine during WW2.

jock mctrousers said...

Well, I think this is a good thing. For too long Britain's armed forces have been used for exclusively gentile ends. This can only be explained by traditional European anti-semitism, a striking illustration of which is that our Chief Rabbi (ever so humble, ever so kind to strangers) is only on 'Thought for the Day' twice a week.
I am impressed by David Lindsay's idea of drafting the children of the underclass to serve in the IDF - it is only just and right, a slight redress for longstanding wrongs, that the children of the European persecutors, rather than Israel's own, should hold the front line against the fanatic hordes of Islam. Then, perhaps, Britain will understand our anguish over those 10 Israeli children we shot ourselves during our heroic, against-all-odds, defence against the nuclear-armed genocidal invasion by Hamas.

It's time the last, lingering vestiges of antisemitism were finally cleared out of the UK, and the US; now is the time to finally bring political, residence and property ownership rights (amongst others) in line with the international community, e.g. Israel. And if your next monarch is not of the chosen faith, then you are not really trying. and we will have reconsider your position on the UN security council.

jock mctrousers said...

Neal - I find religion offensive, but you are the sort of person that makes me hope there is a Hell.

I grudge responding to your lies, but:
" during the time of Israel's attacks in Gaza, perhaps the same number of people were killed in Darfur?"
Or perhaps there weren't. One thing's for sure: if you have any information, not available to the rest of us to support this, no-one will believe you now.

Anonymous said...

"It must also be remembered that Britain has a historical responsibility to help the Israeli people after we turned a blind eye to Hitler's genocide, and introduced Jewish immigration quotas into Palestine during WW2."

Err, no we don't. Ever so humbly suggest you look up how many refugees Britain took in compared to America. Also, which specific groups were against Britain and America taking in Jewish refugees because they wanted the refugees to go to Palestine. Britain in the midst of a world war had her own survival to concentrate on. Before the Zionist went to the British they went to the Ottomans and tried their luck with the Germans.
Scroll forward several decades and get this, we didn't and don't owe Israel anything. Emotional blackmail is unbecoming, Britain lost millions of her own people during WW II yet you go on about some 'historic responsibility to the Israeli people.'
There's been more than one genocide and they didn't all happen to people of the Jewish persuasion but as you want to point fingers.
Chaim Weizmann, " The hopes of Europe's six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked: 'Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?' I replied 'No.' From the depths of the tragedy I want to save young people [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world. Only the branch of the young shall survive"
In, The Jews of Iraq by Naeim Giladi it isn't the British he blames for the terrorism that made him and family leave their country for Israel.

"Whose realm Mr Brown," I think they mean this one, Neil. http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Dan, portsmouth said...

Jock on Neal;
Don't bother, this is the last ditch of frustration for Zionists.. and the bottom line is:

Don't blame israel for killing, others have done the same.
Dong protest for the murdering palestinians... other crimes are happening.

Remember those Zionists are the ones who cried their eyes out for ONE single Rabbi killed in India.. Tell them its only one, hudreds are being killed in world.... ONLY THEN then will feel the heat and see how offending justifying crime is.

Chas Newkey-Burden said...

The only problem with Brown is that he is not pro-Israel enough.

Neal said...

Jock mctrousers,

I have not lied. There is an ongoing massacre/war in Darfur going on as we speak, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. See for example this:

Hypocrite!!!

neil craig said...

I suppose if we are to claim to be engaged in a War Against Terror we should try not to be on the side of another terrorist group. Why exactly should we not be willing to make a very token showing of the flag to stop Hamas getting more rockets in by sea? Though of course we all kniow they come in by land.

Jock it is claimed that Darfur deasths have gobe up by 100,000 over 2 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7361979.stm ie 1,000 a week which is about 3 times what is claimed in Gaza. I am perfectly willing to accept that the entire Darfur coverage is as much propaganda as the Gaza stuff. Nonetheless what you accuse of being a "lie" is merely a very conservative extrapolation of what the BBC claim. Perhaps you have irrefutable evidence that it is impossible for the BBC, UN etc to be telling the truth, indeed if your claim of "lie" is in any way honest you must have 7 be able to produce it.

Not being a complete hypocrit you will also be on record of having publicly accused the BBC, NATO etc of being completely dishonest.

jock mctrousers said...

Neal - that site you linked to re Darfur is just photos and a headline. There is nothing whatever there to support your assertion that there is an ongoing massacre in Darfur.

Neil Craig - " it is claimed that Darfur deasths have gone up by 100,000 over 2 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7361979.stm "
Well, it's not claimed on the site you linked to, which is a report on a UN official putting forward a revised (and speculative) estimate of the deaths from the Previous troubles there, the ones that got everyone's attention. This is either further proof of your dishonesty, or proof that you have 'learning difficulties'.

Neal said...

jock mctrousers,

You deny the ongoing massacres in and around Darfur, claiming that the blog post I cited proves nothing. Of course, I did not say there were ongoing massacres, so your comment is off base. I said there was ongoing fighting - which is in the newspapers, if you are interested - and that there were likely similar numbers of people dying. I stand by that.

And, while I cannot confirm this point, I would bet there were actual massacres in Darfur during the time of the fighting in Gaza - meaning civilians targeted merely as civilians and not, instead, due to their being somewhere near combatants or being mistaken for combatants.

For your interest, there are innumerable website which discuss the fighting in and around Darfur as a current event, not an historical event.

It would be appreciated if you would read what I post carefully.

Neal said...

Jock,

I want to amend what I said, I did speak of a massacre/war, so you are half right.

Anonymous said...

Neil:
'You deny the ongoing massacres in and around Darfur, claiming that the blog post '

what has Dafur got to do with the subject in hand? Or is it your antisemitic hatrd of arabs that make you interested in the fate of dafur?

Brian

Anonymous said...

Neil Craig:


'I suppose if we are to claim to be engaged in a War Against Terror we should try not to be on the side of another terrorist group'

There is no War on Terror:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02042009.html

Note: if there was a war on terror, the US wouldnt be harboring terrorists! Like Posada Carriles.

Brian