The Queen stands for duty and justice. But do her ministers?
The Queen stands for duty and justice. But do her ministers?
by Stuart Littlewood
Friday, June 8th, 2012
The Queen’s Jubilee generated a week of intensely loyal outpourings and a feast of pageantry.
What did this express? Loyalty to the Crown? Loyalty to the monarch? Loyalty to the flag? Loyalty to “this sceptred isle, this demi-paradise, this little world, this precious stone set in the silver sea”?
It doesn’t matter. Deep down the British people for the most part love the way this elderly lady has performed over the last 60 years, with such unstinting care to duty.
But I doubt if popular affection extends to Her Majesty’s Government. Especially not to those of Her Majesty’s ministers who seem more admiring of rogue regimes abroad than the motherland here… “this fortress built by Nature for herself against infection and the hand of war”.
Addressing an Israeli university audience a few months ago our Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, Alistair Burt, said:
The world needs Israel’s values, of tolerance and justice… So be in no doubt, as we enter the turbulent waters of 2012 that your values are our values, your strength is our strength, your well-being is our well-being.
It was straight out of Tel Aviv’s propaganda training manual. What possesses a minister in the Queen’s Government to utter such cringe-making claptrap then post it on the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s website?
Burt went on:
In 2012, we will step up our efforts to stop the Iranian attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. The UK is a leading force in the international campaign to stop the Iranian regime acquiring a nuclear weapon – and arresting a progress which is clearly not intended for purely peaceful purposes. We work closely with Israel on this issue, and it is an extremely important aspect of our bilateral relationship… We share Israel’s determination to prevent Iranian proliferation.
But where is his appetite to curb Israeli nuclear proliferation? While Iran has no nuclear weapons at all, Israel’s arsenal of 200 to 400 warheads is obviously not for peaceful purposes and has long been the cause of aggravation in the region and beyond. As a consequence many feel Israel poses the biggest threat to world peace.
Neither Mr Burt nor his boss, foreign secretary William Hague, seems to have grasped that Israel hasn’t signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has. Let us recap…
Iran hasn’t any nuclear weapons, and the IAEA doesn’t claim that it has.
Iran has no nuclear weapons programme, Israel does.
Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection, Israel’s are not.
Iran is not in breach of any obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Indeed, the NPT gives Iran an “inalienable right” to uranium enrichment. Britain and the US and their allies are trying to rob Iran of that right by applying ferocious economic sanctions and threats of military action
This warmongering stance by Britain, the US, Israel and others against a non-nuclear country that hasn’t waged a war of aggression within living memory breaches Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which requires all UN member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. Article 6 of the UN Charter provides for the expulsion of member states, like the US and Israel, that persistently violate Charter principles.
Pursuing its present line puts Britain on the wrong side of the law and exposes her people to the sort of retaliation such bully-boy tactics are likely to provoke.
In case her Majesty’s ministers are still in a fog about what’s what, this simple guide to Iran’s nuclear activities [PDF] might be of help.
You can read the rest of this excellent article if you follow the link. Indeed Israel is dragging the West into a nuclear war and managing to pit Sunni against Shia at the same time.
As if after Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't have enough death.
With 80% of Conservative M.P.s belonging to Conservative Friends of Israel we should be very worried about whose interests they have at heart.
Sad isn't it that we get to vote for Con or Lab and both are the same. I love Stuart Littlewood's writing he really says it like it is. Imagine we had to have an elected head of state or even unelected, some one like Tony Blair. The Queen has been as steady as a rock.
I think it brings up that interesting battle between the pro vs. anti Monarch and I'm in the former camp. The Queen and her family aren't perfect as there have been a few issues in the past but IMO, I'd rather have them than a President like George Dubya or Blair. A President like the set up in the US, ends up having too much power and makes shockng decisions - Bush and his wars one of them. I'd have a Monarchy in place anyday.
Originally Posted by JerseyLily
Apart from all the tourism the royal family brings to the UK and the important trade/diplomatic work they do, that is a terrific reason to make sure we keep them in place for a very long time to come.
Originally Posted by Aky786Journalist
Imagine president Blair and tell me Lizzie is a bad idea.
Back to the OP.
JL has it pretty much bang on the button.
It's pretty clear Israeli interests do control the UK government. Cash paid in whatever form (Yes - I do mean bribes, although they may be called 'directorships') is a big deal.
She's also right about the Israeli influence on the press.
The press will print anything they think will sell papers and anything anti Muslim does that very nicely. There may well be a lot of Israeli cash in that system as well but it's politically popular to be anti Muslim at the moment and the papers will go with that popularity.
She has the British government's stand right as well.
Israeli has broken more international laws than pretty much any country in history but still gets support from the major western nations.
We're seriously in need of anti Israeli stories in the mainstream press.
The question is, how do we get them there?
This plan is something you've pushed quite strongly on the forum Fred and it's one aspect that I'd agree with. It's only ONE aspect of asserting some sort of pressure on Israel but it sounds too simplistic that having a continous stream of anti-Israeli stories will do some of the irrepairable damage that's been done in the years. Sure, it's a start but its got to be part of a broader agenda to bring Israel to task.
Originally Posted by fred