Thursday, March 1, 2018

UK "Royal" to visit Israel

Michael Lumish

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Michael Bachner and Raoul Wootliff of the Times of Israel tell us:
Prince William will travel to Israel this summer, in the first-ever official visit by the British royal family to the Jewish state, his residence declared Thursday.

While royals have traveled to Israel in the past, no member of the British monarchy has ever come to country on an official tour.
I must admit that I am of two minds on this.

On the one, of course, I think that it is very nice that William is coming to Israel this summer. Perhaps he will get his first good taste of falafel.

Also, needless to say, anything that we can do to foster friendship between the State of the Jewish People and the Brits is a good thing.


Of course, on the other hand, fuck 'em.

The British have never been friendly toward the Jews and certainly never friendly toward Israel.

They even sought to confiscate Jewish weaponry just before their departure from Israel in '48, thereby potentially leaving our friends and families at the tender mercies of a much larger, hostile Arab population that sided with the Nazis during World War II.

So, from my perspective, at least, this is a mixed bag.

It is nice that a British "royal" is coming to Israel this summer.

I just do not want to see the Jews scrape and bow.


  1. Some Brits are friendly toward the Jews. After all, there was the Balfour Declaration. But I know what you mean. It is strange, because many of their politicians do claim to be a friend to Israel, yet the elite media, many politicians and public engage in a narrative not very flattering to Israel or Jews. They have an Arabist tradition. It is a curious case.
    Make no mistake. I am furious at them for their current anti-Zionist and antisemitic shenanigans.

  2. The question is why now after all this time. The answer is in the whole story. He is really going to Jordan and Palestine. The future King couldn't really do that and ignore Israel could he.

    1. Why not? I can't imagine that the British media would be outraged by this. Quite the opposite actually. I expect them to take him to task for visiting Israel while it still "occupies 'Palestinian land' and 'brutalizes' its fluffy bunny rabbits."
      Jordan has received official visits going back decades to when they were militarily equipped, trained, and even led by British officers to attack and destroy the nascent Jewish State, and thereafter while occupying the "West Bank" and Jerusalem in violation of an international mandate.
      Either that or the media will talk of his bravery for trying to bring "peace" to this volatile region, and express the volatility is caused by the "provocative" presence of Jews.
      I would want to know how the names "Jordan" and "Palestine" support the purported nativeness of Arabs.

  3. OT, Capetown SA's countdown to Day Zero; the day they run out of water. Now being blamed on the Jews....

    "Last Friday, the A.N.C.’s Sharon Davids, a member of the Western Cape’s provincial legislature, suggested that the Democratic Alliance had manufactured the crisis to justify entering into water-desalination contracts with “the Jewish mafia.”

    Cf: the ANC rejected offers by Israel to develop water resource management technologies, years ago.

    1. Hot on its heels, the landslide vote for confiscating white farmers' land a la Zimbabwe. As Julius Malema said, enough with reconciliation, time for justice!

      SA has always the poster child for Israel giving up everything: "See, nothing bad happened after ending Apartheid, so nothing bad will happen after implementing the Right of Return." So much for that. Let "justice" roll, let South Africa go from First to Third World status, and let Palestine go back to the malaria ridden swampland of 1882. Justice, it's what's for dinner.

    2. But be clear, nothing about ZA was in reality anything to do with colonialism. ZA wasn't a colony, it was a Commonwealth Nation, essentially self ruled from 1910. There was no post colonial transition vis a vis any of the other African nations in the 20th Century. It just happened that the leadership was white. But in practice every African nation in varying degrees was lead by some form of political elite, which, from the black African point of view was literally no different than white vs black. For example Rwanda and Nigeria were lead by their own elites, who, while black were ethnic and linguistic minorities. So is Zimbabwe today. And the people who aren't in charge in those places consider themselves oppressed as a result. Those second class citizens are excluded from choice jobs and schools and roles in civil society. In Cote d'Iviore the elites are largely from the Dan group. If you're not of the Dan then you're not going very far in life. In Nigeria the Ibo, once on top were nearly exterminated in the Biafran war. Zimbabwe is run by the Shona for the Shona. It often erupts into genocides that have nothing to do with western ideas of race but they are entirely in the scope of African ideas of ethnicity.

      In fact ZA's own Xhosa, from which Nelson Mandela came, are considered newcomers, invaders and interlopers. If anything, North and North East ZA was, in western terms, occupied by the Xhosa who proceeded to kick the indigenous people's off their land around the year 1600. And what's funny in a dark way is that agriculture isn't embedded in their cultural DNA. They don't do farming they're herders.