Who would have thought that the Three Stooges would return in 2025, thinking that they could create something out of nothing? But here they are in the full light of self-exposure: Keir Starmer, P.M. Carney, and Antony Albanese. Albanese can speak first.
“Australia recognises the legitimate and long-held aspirations of the people of Palestine to a state of their own,” he said with his Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
But where is this Palestinian state? Does it include Gaza? Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem? None of the “triple pillars” will be able to tell us. Starmer collapsed into the ubiquitous nonsense about hate, “Not only must we reject hate… We must redouble our efforts to combat hatred, in all its forms." Really? What is he talking about?
Who is guilty here? It must be Israel. The British Jew and commentator Melanie Phillips is right. Yes, we have an example of Schrodinger’s state---The geopolitical version of the thought experiment that the cat was at once both present and not present inside the box.
Perhaps the Canadian prime minister's comments are the most revealing. In the context of a statement that can only be described as waffle, he says, “The current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established.”
Mr Carney has not been reading his history books. At least three times, attempts have been made to establish a Palestinian state. The Palestinians, more accurately, the Arabs, have opposed each attempt, while Israel has accepted them. Mr Carney also says that Israel “has pursued an unrelenting policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law.”
In 1947. Jordan and other countries invaded the emerging Israel, and the West Bank, so-called, was annexed by Jordan. In 1967 (the Six-Day War), Israel won back Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem (the West Bank) from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, Sinai and Gaza from Egypt. For a lasting peace, Israel gave back the Sinai and a developed and viable Gaza to Egypt. In what real world could it be possible for Israel’s winning back its own territory after annexation by the invading Jordan be Illegal?
The Canadian Prime Minister continues to misinterpret reality. Continuing to condemn Israel, he claims, “Its sustained assault in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of civilians, displaced well over one million people, and caused a devastating and preventable famine in violation of international law. It is now the avowed policy of the current Israeli government that ‘there will be no Palestinian state’.”
Wow! A crucial question comes to mind. Is there such a thing as a just war? And is Israel's defence of itself just? The Canadian prime minister’s confused logic would cast Israel as the aggressor when, in fact, it has been defending itself against annihilation since 1947. Its “sustained assault in Gaza” is Israel's legitimate response to destroy a terrorist organisation that would wipe it off the map if it could.
Only last year, the Canadian Parliament voted by 204 votes to 117 not to support a unilateral call for Palestine, but to have a negotiated solution, based on preconditions, complete disarmament of the terrorists, and for Hamas to have no role in the future. So what is Mr Carney thinking?
There is no devastating or preventable famine in Gaza. Most of the images we see on our television screen suggesting famine are either fake or designed. The BBC and the New York Times know this. Israel has allowed more than two million tonnes of aid into Gaza since the war began. The UN admits that Hamas has stolen eighty per cent of it, so Mr Carney is wrong when he accused Israel of having cruel and unacceptable restrictions at the border.
Starmer claims that the British people want peace for both Israel and the Palestinians. However, a recent Telegraph poll has 90 percent of the British public opposing the unconditional recognition of a “Palestine”—only 13 percent support it. Starmer covets the Muslim vote. There are already 25 Muslim members of parliament and at least three Muslim majority electorates. The claim that by 2050, fifty percent of the British population could be Muslim might be an exaggeration. But there will undoubtedly be more.
All three prime ministers make a common error of our time, which is that all conflicts can, indeed, must be solved by negotiation and compromise. Appeasement is the name of the game. I wait anxiously to see what Mr Luxon will do. I wonder if he would be brave enough to have a poll.
Bruce Logan a Christchurch based writer, retired teacher, and founder and retired Director of the Maxim Institute. This article was published HERE.
“Australia recognises the legitimate and long-held aspirations of the people of Palestine to a state of their own,” he said with his Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
But where is this Palestinian state? Does it include Gaza? Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem? None of the “triple pillars” will be able to tell us. Starmer collapsed into the ubiquitous nonsense about hate, “Not only must we reject hate… We must redouble our efforts to combat hatred, in all its forms." Really? What is he talking about?
Who is guilty here? It must be Israel. The British Jew and commentator Melanie Phillips is right. Yes, we have an example of Schrodinger’s state---The geopolitical version of the thought experiment that the cat was at once both present and not present inside the box.
Perhaps the Canadian prime minister's comments are the most revealing. In the context of a statement that can only be described as waffle, he says, “The current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established.”
Mr Carney has not been reading his history books. At least three times, attempts have been made to establish a Palestinian state. The Palestinians, more accurately, the Arabs, have opposed each attempt, while Israel has accepted them. Mr Carney also says that Israel “has pursued an unrelenting policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law.”
In 1947. Jordan and other countries invaded the emerging Israel, and the West Bank, so-called, was annexed by Jordan. In 1967 (the Six-Day War), Israel won back Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem (the West Bank) from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, Sinai and Gaza from Egypt. For a lasting peace, Israel gave back the Sinai and a developed and viable Gaza to Egypt. In what real world could it be possible for Israel’s winning back its own territory after annexation by the invading Jordan be Illegal?
The Canadian Prime Minister continues to misinterpret reality. Continuing to condemn Israel, he claims, “Its sustained assault in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of civilians, displaced well over one million people, and caused a devastating and preventable famine in violation of international law. It is now the avowed policy of the current Israeli government that ‘there will be no Palestinian state’.”
Wow! A crucial question comes to mind. Is there such a thing as a just war? And is Israel's defence of itself just? The Canadian prime minister’s confused logic would cast Israel as the aggressor when, in fact, it has been defending itself against annihilation since 1947. Its “sustained assault in Gaza” is Israel's legitimate response to destroy a terrorist organisation that would wipe it off the map if it could.
Only last year, the Canadian Parliament voted by 204 votes to 117 not to support a unilateral call for Palestine, but to have a negotiated solution, based on preconditions, complete disarmament of the terrorists, and for Hamas to have no role in the future. So what is Mr Carney thinking?
There is no devastating or preventable famine in Gaza. Most of the images we see on our television screen suggesting famine are either fake or designed. The BBC and the New York Times know this. Israel has allowed more than two million tonnes of aid into Gaza since the war began. The UN admits that Hamas has stolen eighty per cent of it, so Mr Carney is wrong when he accused Israel of having cruel and unacceptable restrictions at the border.
Starmer claims that the British people want peace for both Israel and the Palestinians. However, a recent Telegraph poll has 90 percent of the British public opposing the unconditional recognition of a “Palestine”—only 13 percent support it. Starmer covets the Muslim vote. There are already 25 Muslim members of parliament and at least three Muslim majority electorates. The claim that by 2050, fifty percent of the British population could be Muslim might be an exaggeration. But there will undoubtedly be more.
All three prime ministers make a common error of our time, which is that all conflicts can, indeed, must be solved by negotiation and compromise. Appeasement is the name of the game. I wait anxiously to see what Mr Luxon will do. I wonder if he would be brave enough to have a poll.
Bruce Logan a Christchurch based writer, retired teacher, and founder and retired Director of the Maxim Institute. This article was published HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment