Let’s avoid those pushy Joos

England recently made a very big to do over a state visit from the King of Saudi Arabia, the land in which women are veiled, rape victims are beaten, thieves are dislimbed, and Bible owners are imprisoned and killed. That place. That place that is the antithesis of all Western values. However, it appears that royal England is less enthused about the single Middle Eastern nation that has a Western style rule of law, that provides equal rights and protection to women, and that allows freedom of worship. That nasty place, Israel, just isn’t on the royal family’s to do list:

Leaked emails between senior staff Clarence House have put Prince Charles at the centre of a row about the Royal Family’s attitude towards Israel.

Exchanges between Sir Michael Peat, the Prince’s principal secretary, and Clive Alderton, Sir Michael’s deputy, contained apparently disparaging remarks about the Jewish state.

Earlier this year the Israeli embassy invited the two senior aides to Israel for a four-day visit as guests of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

Sir Michael initially replied enthusiastically, saying: “The invitation is hugely appreciated and Clive and I would love to come.”

The comments which have caused offence came a month later in an exchange of emails between Mr Alderton and Sir Michael which were apparently accidentally copied to Zvi Heifetz, the outgoing Jewish ambassador.

In the emails, obtained by the the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Alderton complains of being “pursued” by the ambassador and says to his boss:

“Safe to assume there is no chance of this visit ever actually happening?

“Acceptance would make it hard to avoid the many ways in which Israel would want HRH [Prince Charles] to help burnish its international image.

“In which case, let’s agree a way to lower his expectations.”


The Royal Family has never made a formal state visit to Israel.

In 1994 the Prince Philip went to Yad Vashem and planted a tree in memory of his mother and in 1995 Prince Charles attended the funeral of the assassinated prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.

The royals are spinning frantically, and Israel is being polite, but the fact remains that the future king of England, who has long had a love affair with Islam, is pursuing a course that can only mean he welcomes the embrace of the 7th Century and turns his back on the type of liberal democracy that his country helped create.  Political expediency is one thing, but an absolute lack of moral values is another.  Pardon me for saying this, but what scum.


18 Responses

  1. I inow a little bit about this (repeat: a LITTLE bit) owing to having a friend involved, and though I can’t speak to Charles I can speak to why no one regnant has ever visited Israel, and it’s really pretty simple.

    They don’t knowingly allow the monarch to be in range of hostile missiles, which most of Israel certainly is. Potential war zones aren’t seen as reasonable destinations by those who do the guarding, which is why she doesn’t even visit a good many of the Commonwealth countries (of which she is nominal queen) these days, either.

    Different for the heirs. Charles could visit, either of his sons could visit – any of them, all being military, could even go to war – but not her. (And yes, I know Harry was recently yanked out of a posting to Iraq – but that was because he was deemed to be such a target of opportunity for jihadists that it would end by endangering everyone around him. His presence would put 500 other people in the crosshairs.)

    In other words, it would be okay – or at least acceptable – for any one of the heirs to be blown up, but not for whoever’s sitting on the throne. She is eminently replaceable of course – that’s the point of all the heirs – but it’s not acceptable to put the regnant body in a place where it would be a large target.

    They don’t even, for the most part, let her ride a helicopter – which the heirs certainly do. They don’t let her go for a cruise on the “Britannia” any more, either: it’s too vulnerable.

    All that being said, however, Charles is a knothead.

  2. Thank you, jj. That’s very helpful information, explaining why the Queen won’t go. However, as to Charles, I totally agree with your conclusion!

  3. The weird thing is that Britain accrues no benefit from safe guarding their royal line. Their royal line, after all, is not where near as important as a US President. If one dies… their country won’t go into turmoil nor will they get a Lyndon B Johnson that decides their nation’s most critical war effort.

    The British isn’t even a Constitutional monarch because the monarchy doesn’t even have any powers at this time. Unless somebody knows something I don’t about what a British Queen can do in terms of actual policy/power projection.

    The Brits are conservative where it no longer matters and are revolutionary where it would be wiser to stay conservative.

  4. Wise words, Y. Pretty much sums up modern pretty in a nutshell.

  5. Charles could visit, either of his sons could visit – any of them, all being military, could even go to war – but not her.

    Diane’s son can’t even go to war in Iraq. Totally useless in my view. What is the point of having royalty if they won’t go out and slaughter your enemies? Modern decadence (mutters)

  6. The weird thing is that I think the two heirs are rebelling extraordinarilly. One of them wore a SS uniform to Halloween, which pissed off Charles to no end it seems. Then the same one, or the other, tries to go to Iraq!! Talk about “not like the father”.

  7. that it would end by endangering everyone around him.

    Then why do the British allow reporters, BBC reporters, to go to Iraq? Why would they endanger their soldiers in one instance and try to protect them just because of royalty?

    The logic doesn’t parse, certainly not for Britain.

    The British have no interest in protecting their soldiers. Rather they want to avoid embarassment and shame, like the Prince being taken hostage. That is what they are worried about. The amount of ransom Charles and the royal family would pay out then would be brutal.

  8. Folks, the above is how modern anti-Semitism looks, complete with scholarly references to Holocaust deniers. I debated deleting this as spam, but thought that I’d leave it at least for a day or two if anyone has anything to say about it.

  9. Hmm, don’t have time to point out all of Joey B’s errors and omissions, but his is a frightening post. Yes, indeedy, Book, this is modern anti-Semitism all right.

    Joey B might give some thought to the Israelis who used to live in Arab countries, whose ancestors lived there long before Mohammed was born, and who are certainly not foreigners to the Middle East. But, Joey won’t do this because only the most virulently anti-Israel, anti-Semetic writers are cited and other, saner voices are conveniently ignored.

    Wonder if Joey B is a Ron Paul supporter.

  10. We have Joey B’s number, Book. No need to bother with this trash. As Chilynne says, there is no need to waste time pointing out all the errors and omissions in his post because there is no point to be served, nothing to be learned, and much time to be wasted in feeding this troll.

  11. You’re right, Danny. Joey B’s post will go into the trash, along with the others I already deleted, along with a reminder to WordPress not to let him post here anymore.

  12. Folks, the above is how modern anti-Semitism looks, complete with scholarly references to Holocaust deniers. I debated deleting this as spam, but thought that I’d leave it at least for a day or two if anyone has anything to say about it.

    I don’t got anything to say. Which of course, speaks for itself.

    The arguments are pretty standard and very easily understood. It is not the arguments that are important, rather it is the purpose behind them that is important.

    I knew that purpose not too long after Joey started it up. So what is there to say to something you’ve seen many times over? Creativity has its limits, after all.

  13. Btw Book, this just shows again that you and Neo are linked by destiny and fate.

    # Richard Aubrey Says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    There is a site, Bill Quick, I think, who used to have a lefty who would write long, long screeds, much better organized than this. Long, long ones. Over and over. Same points. Same falsehoods. Same obviously planted axioms. Unfortunately for him, they didn’t look pre-fab. It appeared they were all real-time compositions. He had to actually write this stuff, rather than clicking on a link or inserting a previously-used essay.
    Keeps’em out of trouble, I guess.

    A comment on a NNcon thread that mirrors this one

  14. Dang, I missed the Joey B anti-semitic post. I have a dreadful fascination with philosophical traffic accidents, and I sort of would have liked to read that one.

    I appreciate jj’s explanation of why the royals do not visit Israel. However, it cannot be refuted that Prince Charles has been highly complimentary of Islamic culture and never of Israel’s. That makes these negative emails in his team very telling. In conjunction with the celebratory nature of their welcome of various Muslim leaders, it is enough circumstancial evidence to convince me of large bias.

  15. Considering that the Saudis have a habit of paying for public support from Westerners, I have to wonder if Charles’ demonstrated bias came with a price. Yes, I know that’s a conspiratorial thing to say, but conspiracies are fun 🙂


  16. For anyone’s amusement — proof (assuming it’s for-real) that not everyone in England sees it from Charles’ POV: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxM2E1Y2Y0ZmQ0YTQzMDQ4NmJmNWNhMjM1ODdlNWY=

    (HT: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/11/oh-my-gawd.html)

    (For those too lazy to click — apparently the military band at Buckingham Palace played the Imperial Death March to welcome the King of Saud. Bet you want to click now!)

  17. Muslims will indeed obey the law in Britain. That is why they need more popular support to change such laws. Popular support they will acquire through terrorizing Muslims and Brits.

    Even within British law, you can do a lot of terrorizing. No guns, remember. Not for citizens. Not for you if you live there. Not unless you have power.
    apparently the military band at Buckingham Palace played the Imperial Death March to welcome the King of Saud. Bet you want to click now!

    I tend to think Elizabeth II ordered that, not Charles. I’m not sure who holds sovereignty and authority over the Palace Band and diplomatic accoutrements. However, I doubt the Prime Minister would have ordered or the Foreign Ministry. So that only leaves the royalty with enough influence to do so.

  18. Still, whoever did it, it was very appropriate, Lissa.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: