« PMQs: Liveliest House for some time | Main | A noble, but mercifully short, national struggle »


James Maskell got to the heart of the matter. 'Why are we so behind Israel? What's the point?'

I'm happy to accept that the Israelis are probably more sinned against than sinners but that doesn't mean that every Tory has support for Israel written into his DNA.

Nobody's answered this question yet.

Trad T

It's a good question, but I'd sum it up as this. I don't have any links to Judaism or Israel, but I passionately believe it should be supported as it is the frontline against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, and the world. Conservatives believe in freedom and equality - two things which Israel's enemies most certainly do not.

Putting it the other way - given the tiny size of Israel, why are people so virulently and fervently opposed to it?

Conservatives believe in freedom and equality

Freedom yes; equality no.

Equality is a key principle of the French Revolution. Conservatism arose specifically in opposition to that atrocious event.

Equality can be achieved only by destroying freedom.

Incidentally, why do you call yourself 'powellite'? Enoch Powell would have been appalled by that statement.

Interesting comments on equality trad t - I meant equality before the law and equality of opportunity - thanks for pointing it out.

As for Powell, I happen to admire him a great deal - it doesn't mean I would agree with everything he said.

As a question for you - which Tory 'tradition' do you align yourself with - Peel, Disraeli, Baldwin, Churchill, Heath, Thatcher, Cameron? I'd be interested to hear so I can understand where you're coming from as well.

Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher would be my choice out of those. I think I might also have felt comfortable with Salisbury and Bonar Law.

I'm not sure whether Powell ever pronounced on Israel but he was extremely anti-American and so it's unlikely he would have taken your side in Middle East matters.

Indeed so Trad T - it's one area where I'd definitely be at odds with him. It's an iron law of life that no matter how much one might admire someone or their views, on won't be in agreement with them all the time. Just ask my wife...

I think Geoffrey Wheatcroft's Guardian article of 22nd March repays reading in the light of David Cameron's glaringly obvious 'gesture' to CFI

It appears that the 'encirclement' is complete.

Cameron stands encircled by zealous Anglo-neocons

An influential coterie of Tory MPs is bent on a foreign policy driven not by Britain's interests, but those of the US and Israel

Last September, David Cameron queried Tony Blair's unwavering (and unrewarded) loyalty to the Bush administration. The speech made Cameron unpopular in Washington, but that should have done him no harm with the British electorate, given what most of them think of George Bush. Yet however welcome Cameron's apparent turn in foreign policy might be with the public, he has a problem with his own parliamentary party. For years past the Tories have been infiltrated by Anglo-neoconservatives, a species easily defined. Several of the younger MPs are fanatical adherents of the creed with its three prongs: ardent support for the Iraq war, for the US and for Israel.

You might think that the first of those prongs was dented after the disaster which has unfolded. What would have happened if the Tories had opposed the war is one of the more fascinating "ifs" of history; but they didn't, and the moment has passed when they could have adroitly dissociated themselves from the war because of the false claims on which it was begun and the incompetence with which it was conducted.

Even then, Iraq might have made Tories hesitate before continuing to cheer the US, but Stephen Crabb does just that. The MP was in Washington at the time of Cameron's speech, where, he said, there was "disappointment expressed". Many would have taken that as a compliment, but not Crabb, who says in best Vichy spirit: "We do need to be careful about how the Americans see us."

In most European countries there is a party of the right whose basic definition is its attachment to the national interest of that country. Only here is there a Conservative party, and Tory press, largely in the hands of people whose basic commitment is to the national interest of another country, or countries.

There was once a vigorous high Tory tradition of independence from - if not hostility to - America. It was found in the Morning Post before the war, and it continued down to Enoch Powell and Alan Clark. But now members of the shadow cabinet, such as George Osborne (whom even Cameron is said to tease as a neocon), vie in fealty to Washington - and this when US policy is driven by neocon thinktanks and evangelical fundamentalists, with whom Toryism should have nothing in common.

Attempts by younger Tories to justify their allegiance to Washington and Israel are curious. One more from the latest vintage is Douglas Carswell MP, who insists that "it is in our national interest to support Israel". He would never wish to say anything critical of Israel, "because I believe they are a front-line ally in a war against people who wish to destroy our democratic way of life. Others may take a nuanced view. I don't."

This is extreme, but not unique. The Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) are a successful force, now claiming a large majority of Tory MPs as members. It is frankly perverse for Charles Moore to complain in the Daily Telegraph that the Conservatives have gone awry since the good old days, when the natural Tory outlook included "a greater sympathy for Israel than for those who were trying to destroy her", since if anything the change has been the other way round.

When does he think that greater sympathy for Israel was ever a distinctively Conservative position? In the days when I attended Tory conferences, you could be entertained one evening by the CFI, with the late Duke of Devonshire in the chair, but on the next by the Council for Arab-British Understanding and such luminaries as Ian Gilmour and Dennis Walters. Going further back, AJ Balfour was the Tory premier and then foreign secretary who signed the eponymous declaration in 1917 favouring a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and came to favour a Jewish state (as with many gentile Zionists, his attitude to Jews was highly ambiguous; he described privately how uneasy he once felt at a dinner party where "Hebrews were in an actual majority"). And yet his successor as foreign secretary took the opposite view. That highest of high Tories Lord Curzon deplored the Balfour declaration. He thought that a Jewish homeland could only mean a grave injustice to the inhabitants of Palestine. It would inflame hundreds of millions of Muslim subjects of the British empire. And as to the Jewish people themselves and the idea of transporting them to the Levant, "I cannot think of a worse fate for an advanced and intellectual community," Curzon said.

In his day Curzon might have seemed the truer Tory than Balfour, and it's only recently that his spirit has been stifled in his old party. That is all the more so with the arrival of MPs such as Crabb, Carswell, and the egregious Michael Gove, the Times columnist and MP for Surrey Heath, a copy of whose Muslim-bashing diatribe Celsius 7/7 is given to every lucky person who joins the CFI.

Despite these Anglo-neocons, many people would say that endorsing every US action has damaged British interests. As to Carswell's "in our national interest to support Israel", the words are plainly absurd, and his "frontline ally" comment is terrifying. Cameron himself is "proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel," he says; but does he share Carswell's belief that the British army in Basra and Helmand is fighting on behalf of Israel? And does he imagine that our troops want to be told that? They have enough problems as it is.

What Cameron might by now have grasped is that the position represented by those zealous Anglo-neocons on his benches doesn't actually enjoy much popular support. No US president has been more disliked in this country than Bush the Younger, no adventure more regretted than the Iraq war. Most British people are neither enemies of Israel nor "friends" in the CFI sense. They hope for a just settlement and deplore needless violence: during the bombardment of Lebanon last summer, one poll found that only 22% thought the Israeli response was justified. When Crabb says that the Anglo-US alliance has been "the single most important foreign policy relationship since the second world war", he could also recognise that never since then has the British electorate felt less enthusiastic about it.

No one expects Cameron to become the Hugo Chávez of Notting Hill. But if he's serious about winning an election, he could at least begin to forge a foreign policy which, unlike Blair's, is based on the national interest of this country and not another, and which expresses the views of the British people.

"the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country"

If only David Cameron felt the same way about the English and England !

Ken Stevens, June 15/14:04, says:
There are not discrete compartments of white, black, etc; rather a continuum of colour.

and yet says:

What I unashamedly am is a rabid culturalist. Trevor Macdonald and Moira Stewart are paragons of Englishness to me.

The suggestion that ethnic groups and races do not exist because of bleeding edges, when accompanied by the claim that national cultures, or 'cultures' at all, most certainly do exist always strikes an honest reader as a useful self-deceit.

If an English 'culture' does exist, it won't long survive the last self-identifying Englishman whose neighbours welcomed so many millions of Somalians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Poles, and Jamaicans, as potential Englishmen so long as they professed a belief in the correct political abstraction d'élite du jour.

Striking then that the over-riding political obsession of the day is to consult all minority ethnic groups on how best to create a new 'National Identity', while ignoring the sleeping elephant in the corner – the English nation - whose territory and national inheritance is being carved up and redistributed so surgically. Is it mere forgetfulness, or do 'our' leaders know that the project they are embarked upon does not have our support, and if consulted and heard, our views would throw quite a spanner into the works?

Ken Stevens also says: Long live Israel. Reinstate England.

But 'Israel' is a people with a state devoted to its interests, and the ONLY England that Ken wants 'reinstated' is a state avowedly NOT people-specific.

(I ignore his smears about Hitler which are better directed to Zionists like him who would deny the same (Cameronian) 'right' to 'homeland' to the ethnic English - racists in other words).

Powellite (sic) asks: What about the people who lived in those lands before the Muslims came and took them over and forced them to live as Dhimmis?

P, what is the equivalent term for a Tory party committed to the national rights of Jews but hostile to extending equal rights to Englishmen?

Jimmis, perhaps?

And let us not attack the Tories alone - ALL the major parties express a belief that 'Israel', a Jewish ethnic-nationalist state has a 'right to exist', yet they are ALL similarly committed to the notion that an English ethnic-nationalist state has no 'right', nor 'reason' to exist.

Did the Jimmitudists beat the Dhimmitudists to the punch P? If not, how to explain our current situation?

A more resonant question for subjugated peoples everywhere concerns this 'right to exist' trope used so freely for the Jewish state, but so sparely for all gentile peoples seeking statehood.

What does it mean when we say Palestinians ought to recognise Israel's 'right' to exist? Should the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the America's have recognised the 'right' of the European colonial powers to exist - and by so doing accede to their dispossession?

What 'rights' are these? Surely we hope merely that the Palestinians give up a fight they cannot possibly win without OUR turning against the people that have us in 'Jimmitude'?

Let's not paint this history of the vilest human aggression a pretty colour to sell it to ourselves. We know what it is. And it's not nice.

But at the least, let us strive to have what the Jews and our politicians say is a 'right': let us have a state committed to our ethnic group, that seeks above all to safeguard our interests and continued existence.

Cameron, by supporting this for Jews as a 'right' becomes either an English nationalist or an anti-English aggressor by his response to OUR equal claims.

Dear saltynick June 16, 16:51,

We seem to have a similar notion about regaining an English nation, though with some considerable variations in our opinion of what that concept means! It seems that the skin colour of those who would deny me my rightful nationhood is white, whereas the two English icons I cited are dusky. As for the plummy county sounding Jane Omorogbe on the motorbike programmes

I'm not sure that I warrant the compliment of Zionist, as it implies a depth of intellectual feeling on the subject that I am not bright enough to possess. My only substantive connection with Jewry has been to intervene at (grammar) school 50 years ago to stop a bully from thumping a little Jewish kid "'cos he killed Jesus". My pro-Israel viewpoint is therefore purely secular, in admiration of their patriotism.

[breaks off patriotically to watch highlights of Trooping of the Colour on the telly - and hey there's a range of colours trooping under those busbies! So, by your definition they can't be English? Must be from the Celtic fringe then]

Re your parting shot- as a further irony, Hitler also swiped the ancient Hindu good luck symbol - "svastika" in Sanskrit. That's not a smear; merely a factual comment.

Ken, you appear to be without people, principle, or position. I guess our exchange is concluded.

'Spose you're off back to BNP HQ for a cuppa?

Dear Mr. Cameron

After reading the published text of your answers to questions put to you by Danny Finkelstein at the annual business lunch of the Conservative Friends of Israel, the following question occurred to me:

Would you still declare yourself to be a “Zionist” if you knew what Zionism actually was and is?

I’ll be suggesting, no asserting, that if your answer is “yes”, it would amount to an endorsement by you of Zionism’s crimes, as well as putting you at odds with the moral values and ethical principles of Judaism.

But let’s start with what you actually said. “If (my emphasis added) what you mean by Zionist is someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country, then yes I am a Zionist, and I’m proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about.”

The first thing you need to know if you are to be anything other than a Zionist propagandist (like Tony Blair was and I fear Prime Minister Brown might be) is the difference between Judaism and Zionism and why they are total opposites.

JUDAISM is the religion of Jews (not “the” Jews because not all Jews are religious) and, like Christianity and Islam, it has at its core a set of ethnical principles and moral values.

ZIONISM, which proclaimed its existence some four decades before the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, is a secular, colonialist ideology, which made a mockery of, and has contempt for, the moral values and ethical principles of Judaism. How so? Short answer in two related parts.

The first is that the return of Jews to the land of biblical Israel by the efforts of man – one possible but woefully inadequate definition of Zionism - was PROSCRIBED by Judaism. (Not many of today’s Jews seem to be aware of this but it is a fact). Put another way, Zionism was, is, a rebellion against Judaism.

The second is that Israel was created, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing. And this crime, which dispossessed about three quarters of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine of their land and their rights, didn’t happen by accident. It was pre-planned.

At this point, Mr. Cameron, I’ll recommend two books which you and your shadow foreign secretary would be well advised to read if you want to be informed enough to play a part if stopping the countdown to Armageddon.

The first is The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. It’s the latest work of Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “new” or “revisionist” (honest) historian. Though at the very top of Zionism’s official “S.H.I.T” (“Self Hating Israeli Traitor”) List, Ilan is respected and admired by many people of all faiths and none around the world, for his humanity and his courage as well as his scholarship.

The second is A Threat From Within, A CENTURY OF JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM. Its author is a Canadian Jew, Yakov Rabkin, who is Professor of History at the University of Montreal. When Yakov was in London, I asked him, on the record, a very explicit question: “Is it reasonable to say that the Jews of the world now have a choice to make – either to reaffirm their commitment to Judaism and renounce Zionism, or to reaffirm or affirm their commitment to Zionism and renounce Judaism?” He replied with one word, “YES!”

You said “the Jews”(presumably meaning any Jew and/or all the Jews of the world) have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to “their country.”

Let’s take first of all the notion of “their country”.

It is a fact that many if not most of the Jews who went to Palestine in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews. The incoming Zionist Jews were mainly foreign nationals of many lands, descended from those who became Jewish by conversion to Judaism centuries after the fall of the ancient Jewish kingdom of Israel and what is called the “dispersal” into “oblivion” of its people. The notion that there are two entire peoples with an equally valid claim to the same land is an historical nonsense. The relatively few Jews with a valid claim were, are, the descendants of those who stayed IN Palestine through everything. They numbered only a few thousand at the time of Zionism’s birth; they regarded themselves as Palestinians; and they were fiercely opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise – because they rightly feared that it would make them as well as the incoming, alien Zionist Jews enemies of the Arabs among whom they had lived in peace and security.

Now let’s come to grips (all too briefly and therefore inadequately) with the matter of Israel’s right or not to exist.

According to first and still existing draft of Judeo-Christian history which is constructed on Zionist mythology (more on this in a moment), Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is nonsense.

• In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

• Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.

• The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for a policy decision. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

• So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being as a consequence of Zionism terrorism and ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.

The question which should be put to all who are demanding that Hamas recognise Israel is this: WHICH ISRAEL is to be recognised…. Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war and thus in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242; the Greater Israel of today, which, on a daily basis, is expanding its illegal settlements on the occupied West Bank; or (possibly) a slightly reduced Greater Israel of tomorrow – i.e. an Israel inoccupation for ever of some of the land it grabbed in 1967?

What, Mr. Cameron, is your answer to that question?

I said above that the first and still existing draft of Judeo-Christian history (of the making and sustaining of the Arab-Israeli conflict) is constructed on Zionist mythology – a version of history which is not in accordance with the facts and documented truth and is little more than pure propaganda.

It was to provide the first ever comprehensive account of the truth of history that I devoted more than five years of my life to researching and writing my latest book – Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jew. Given that it’s a re-writing of the entire story of the making and sustaining of the Arab-Israeli conflict, replacing Zionist mythology with the facts and documented truth, you might ask why I chose such a title…. I insisted on Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews because it reflects in seven words two related truths for our time. The first is that the sleeping giant of classical anti-Semitism has been re-awakened in the Western nations where most of the world’s Jews live. The second is that the prime cause of the re-awakening is the behaviour of the Zionist state of Israel.

That said, I wonder, Mr. Cameron, if you are aware of the fact that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, most of the best Jewish minds of the time were OPPOSED to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. Why? They believed it to be morally wrong. They feared that it would lead to unending conflict given the opposition of the entire Arab and Muslim world. They also feared that the creation in the Arab heartland of a Zionist state for some Jews (a minority) would not be in the best interests of those (the majority) who preferred to live, as they still do, as integrated citizens in the many lands of the mainly Gentile world. Simply stated, they feared that Zionism, if it was allowed by the major powers to have its way, would provoke anti-Semitism.

A more recent expression of the latter fear can be found in Israel’s Fateful Hour by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving and most enlightened Director of Military Intelligence. In this seminal book, published in English in 1988, Harkabi wrote the following (my emphasis added):

“Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”

My attempt to tell all of the knowable truth with global context required two volumes, but I can sum up the essence of it in four short paragraphs. Before I do so, I must emphasise that my book is the opposite of anti-Semitic. Stripped down to its absolute essence, Zionism, The Real of the Jews is my Gentile call for the Jews, described by me as “the intellectual elite of the Western civilisation”, to become the light unto nations, by demonstrating that there is a place for morality in politics and that right can triumph over might.

Now to my four-paragraph summary of the essence of the truth of history.

* Since its unilateral declaration of statehood in 1948, Israel’s existence has NEVER, EVER, been in danger from any combination of Arab military force – not in 1948, not in 1967 and not even in 1973. Put another way, the prospect of Israeli Jews being “driven in the sea” was NEVER A REAL ONE. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary – the myth upon which the first and still existing draft of Judeo-Christian history is constructed – was the cover which allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most, Western Europe and North America, with presenting its aggression as self-defence; and itself as the victim when, actually, it was and is the oppressor.

* As the record of de-classified documentation shows, it was Israel NOT the Arabs which spurned opportunity after opportunity to make peace – the latest of them being the re-presentation of Saudi Arabia’s initiative. Israel’s often repeated claim that it had “no partner for peace”, and the assertion that it has lived in danger of annihilation, are the main planks of one of THE BIGGEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PROPAGANDA LIES IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. Chutzpah, one might say, at its most brilliant and terrifying best.
* The man who did most to make peace possible on terms which any rational Israeli government and people would have accepted with relief was Yasser Arafat, which was why, from Zionism’s perspective, he had to be demonised and destroyed.

* The colonial enterprise that Zionism is has CORRUPTED everything it touched, beginning with the United Nations and including the media, what passes for democracy in the Western world (America especially) and Judaism itself.

Why, really, is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism so important?

The short answer in two parts.

The first is that it, the knowledge, is the explanation of why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (anti-Zionism’s colonial and criminal enterprise) without being in any way, shape of form anti-Semitic. The bottom-line point is this. The false charge of anti-Semitism in response to criticism of Israel is the blackmail card which the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust enabled and enables Zionism to play to silence criticism of its self-righteous and aggressive child, Israel, and to suppress informed and honest debate about who must do what and why for justice and peace. But when citizens know the difference between Judaism and Zionism, they do NOT have to be frightened into silence, as most Gentiles currently are, by the fear of being falsely charged with anti-Semitism for criticising Israel. In other words, knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism is the key to neutralising (or trumping) Zionism’s blackmail card in order to make informed and honest debate possible.

The second is that if the citizens of the mainly Gentile nations of the Judeo-Christian world in which most Jews live are not informed of the difference between Judaism and Zionism, there is a very real prospect, at a foreseeable point in the future, that all Jews everywhere will be blamed for the crimes of the hardcore Zionist few.

To give the statement immediately above some necessary context, I’m now going to paste in some extracts from a short as yet unpublished paper I have written on the subject of How to stop the monster of anti-Semitism going on the rampage again.

The giant of classical anti-Semitism is being re-awakened in the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian world. A prime cause of the re-awakening is the behaviour of the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel. (In my original text Harkabi’s warning as quoted above is here).

It’s my view that after the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, and because of it, the giant most likely would have gone back to sleep, remained asleep and, in all probability, would have died in its sleep – IF Zionism had not been allowed by the major powers, first Britain, then America, to have its way, as Balfour put it, “right or wrong”. (There is a case for saying that with British and American politicians as “friends”, the Jews of the world have not needed enemies).

What, really, is the basis for believing that anti-Semitism is seriously on the rise? The increase in the desecration of synagogues and Jewish graves (and the like), verbal abuse and assaults on Jews are a pointer. But there is something far more sinister. It’s what a growing number of Gentiles, middle to upper class people in particular, are thinking and now beginning to say behind closed doors and at dinner parties. What do they say? “These fucking Jews!” And it’s grown, this antipathy, in response to Israel’s arrogance of power and the correct perception of Israel as the oppressor. And the more it becomes apparent that Israel is the obstacle to peace on any terms most Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims can accept, the more this antipathy will grow, with the real danger that it will break out, become unsuppressed, and manifest itself as violent anti-Semitism.

As things are, and look like going, Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews, is a real possibility in a foreseeable future.

It’s also my view, which I know is shared in private by not a few eminent Jews, that if the monster of anti-Semitism does go on the rampage again, it might well start its journey in America.

Two summary reasons why:

* Many members of Congress (past and present) hate themselves for doing the bidding of the Zionist lobby. If the opportunity to let rip with their suppressed, guilt-driven anger arises, they will want revenge.

* The prime pushers for the invasion of Iraq were neo-cons who are also hardcore Zionists. While few want to admit this publicly, many know it to be so.

QUESTION: What can be done to eliminate the danger of the monster of anti-Semitism going on the rampage again?

Short answer… The Gentiles of the Western nations among whom most of the world’s Jews live must be informed and educated about the differencies between Judaism and Zionism, and thus why it is wrong to blame all Jews for the crimes (yes crimes) of the hardcore Zionist few.

And that’s why I devoted more than five years of my life to researching and writing Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews.

When I take to the public speaking and debating trail coast-to-coast across America, the following are three main points I’ll be making to Americans:

• DON’T blame the Jews who live among you for Zionism’s crimes.

• DON’T even blame the Zionist lobby for buying influence on American foreign policy because it, the lobby, has only played the game according to the rules.

• DO blame your corrupt, pork-barrel system of politics which puts what passes for democracy up for sale to the highest bidders.

The essential difference between the Gentile me and hardcore Zionists can be summarised a follows. I want to do my bit to stop the monster of anti-Semitism going on the rampage again. They want, even need, anti-Semitism, to justify their crimes - past, present and future.

I’ll conclude (well almost) with a definition of what a Zionist is today. (A definition which has been endorsed by, among others, Professor Ilan Pappe).

A Zionist today is one, not necessarily a Jew, who, to quote Balfour, supports the Zionist state of Israel “right or wrong” and who cannot or will not admit that a wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism, (a wrong that must be righted on terms acceptable to the Palestinians for justice and peace).

In the light of the above are you, Mr. Cameron, still content to declare yourself to be a Zionist?

Yours sincerely,

Alan Hart

P.S. I will send a hard copy of the text of this blog post to your office by snail mail. Would you also like complimentary copies of both volumes of my book?

Which is why those most often described as “ultra orthodox” religious Jews say, and the Gentile me believes they are right, that Zionism is destroying Judaism.

In order to make the charge that all criticism of Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism (meaning anti-Jew), supporters and defenders of the Zionist (not Jewish) state right or wrong assert that Zionism and Judaism are somehow one and the same.

There is, however, another element of the truth that must be told if the citizens of the Western nations are to be empowered to play their necessary part in making democracy work for justice and peace in the Middle East. They must be informed of the difference between Zionism and Judaism – a difference all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere have always understood. In my view knowledge of this difference is THE KEY to understanding.

To Blog Editor,

At the end of of lengthy open letter to David Cameron - that is after my two sentence PS, there are three bits from my construction and editing notes which I should have deleted. Error on my part. Could you, please, delete them.

Many thanks


The Jews have cultural certainty that the land is theirs - those displaced, have a visceral certainty that the land is theirs.
They both have thousands of years of certainty behind them. Any chance of a second coming of Soloman?

Cameron is an arse about Lebanon.

If Scotland had 11,000 missiles with cluster munitions pointed at population centers in London, kidnapped English soldiers, constantly called for annihilating England and hisd those missiles in population centers (where civilians were family of the terrorists as with Hizballah), would this arse call any repsonse disproportionate. Israel did not use cluster bombs that were banned by international law. The rockets fired into Israeli communities were cluster bombs. Cameron falls prey to the usual Arab propaganda, manipulated photos, etc. His support of Israel is welcome, not so his attitude that Israel must accept the murder of its citizens to reply in a manner he (not a military man) considers "disproportionate."

Anyone who tells you he isn't a anti-semite most probably is.

Anyone who tells you their is no diff. between the democratic State of Israel and the Arab world, is not educated or hasn't read a book or a newspaper.

Anyone, who doesnt support Israel in its struggle for existance is either a Trot as David Cameron refers, a neo-Nazi, or a Jew hater.

Why they just don't come out and say it is beyond me?

Do they honestly think people can't read BETWEEN what they say, to get what they really mean?

I mean I know we are supposed to be the stupid party, but do we really have anyone THAT stupid.

Here are a few home truths.

1. Israel is going nowhere.So its pointless any anti-semite hoping against all hope that the Jews are going to be pushed into the Med.

2. Land for peace, will be what the Israelis want to give away ( and considering they won the land fair and square due to the Arabs starting the wars, quite right) in exchange for peace.

3. Israel has ALREADY given away Gaza and most of the West Bank in all but name.

4. Israel was established because of the Balfour Dec. in most part - and so we DO have a resp. to protect Israel.

5. European anti-semitism - and all thoes anti-semites within it - created the mass movement of Zionism, due to the Germans trying to murder the entire European Jewry.

6. Israel offers black, white, chinese, Indian Jews a home. The Arabs can and do have the vote, elect Knesset members, and are Minister in the Israeli government.

The Arab Druze population of Israel also SERVES in the Israeli Defence Force, gay people (Arab gays find refuge in Israel from homophobic violence and even death) have legal rights and are protected from discrimination.

Compare this to the way Jews and Gays are treated in the West Bank and Gaza, and I know where REAL democracy lies, and where I'd want to live.

All in all, can I suggest that any covert Jew hater in here is ignored. Truth is we get so worked up about these obvious Jew haters.

They are never going to admit in public they are Jew haters, it would just make people go off their far fetched ideas fast, and make them social outcasts. Instead they will continue to bleat on and on about how they are ' anti-Zionist' 'anti-Israel'.

They havent the balls, and most of them the intelligence, to put forward an argument that goes...Im a Jew hater...this is why. Because to hate a Jew because he is a Jew, or a black man because he is black, cant be based on argument. Its based on emotional hatred.

So lets just ignore them - and stick to the postive - and declare our love and affection as Brits and Tories for the good old people of Israel.

And lets leave the rag bag of Jew haters, Communists, neo-Nazis, and fruit cakes to their own mental illness, shall we?

Oh and the well worn argument put about that Jews attack Israel too, doesnt make you NOT a Jew hater. It just shows more and more that their are a lot more loony self hating Jews out there, than we knew about.

Hardly a now pheno. - I mean Karl Marx was Jewish, but he was a self hater.

So lets nip that daft atempt and excuse by our Jew hating friends, in the bud.

Oh, and just because a few Jews hate Israel and Zionism, doesnt make you not a Jew hater.

It just makes them a Jewish Jew hater. Not something unknown. Karl Marx, Bobby Fischer? Etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker