Prince Charles blames ‘foreign’ Jews for Mideast unrest in 1986 letter

Here's an interesting article that was published today on the jewish news site JTA:

https://www.jta.org/2017/11/12/defa...s-foreign-jews-among-causes-of-mideast-unrest

What do you think about the views that Prince Charles expressed in this letter? Was he right or wrong? And is it right of jewish activists like Gideon Falter to accuse him of "antisemitism"? As always, all opinions are welcome.

 

Well, he is German.

 

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree that the white Euro-Jew has illegitimately settled a territory they have no historical, and barely any ethnic, claim to. I'm not opposed to the idea of Israel itself, but not a fan of the predominance of white Europeans in it. It should be a homeland for black, brown, and middle eastern Jews. A bit racist, but that's incidental to the point.

 

Interestingly, this Prince Charles controversy comes right after we were treated to the Priti Patel scandal, which highlighted the huge influence that the jewish/Israeli lobby has in Great Britain:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/08/europe/uk-israel-priti-patel-row/index.html

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/no-10-knew-about-priti-patel-israel-meetings-1.447605

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...el-scandal-will-set-us-back-20-years-1.447752

 

And we blame Queen Elizabeth for Prince Charles.

 

We have complaint boxes along the wall on the Pal side, kindly stick your thoughts in the designated crack.

 

He's not an anti-semite for thinking that that Israeli state is illegitimate and should have never been created, he's an anti-semite for falling for the jew-hating stereotypes of the shadowy jewish cabal that manipulates all things

 

"Shadowy"? It's done in the open, for crying out loud. Why do you think the Balfour Declaration even saw the light of day? Why the pre-Presidential pledge to AIPAC? Why so many dual Israeli/US citizen in the US governemental decision-making process? Saud influence in the US spheres of power is "shadowy" - the zionist one is as bright as day.

 

There's a pretty big difference in pointing out the embrace of zionism by imperialist governments and alleging that there's some kind of racial proxy war going on

 

"...JERUSALEM (JTA) — In a newly revealed letter from 1986, Prince Charles suggested the “influx of foreign, European Jews” was a cause of turmoil in the Middle East..."​

Of course it was the mass of European Jews going into Palestine that caused the Problems? So Prince Charles is merely stating facts, unless someone wants to rewrite history... which is becoming very common lately?

"...After a visit to the Gulf with Princess Diana, Charles wrote to a friend that he had gained greater insight into Arab’s hostility toward Israel, the Daily Mail reported Saturday. He suggested the arrival of Jews from Europe was a driver of terrorism..."​

Of course the arrival of Jews into Palestine was a driver of terrorism since they were culturally alien, but it doesn't excuse it. Terrorism is a moral and spiritual problem, and should be seen that way. I include with this the terrorizing of people with bombs, something we seem to do quite well to those we see as culturally alien.

Islam is a political as well as a religious entity, so taking land from them is considered a humiliation to the Islamic faith. Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean the Muslims are entitled to lands they have occupied in the past, or lands that they now occupy in cities in Europe. Nor does it mean that they are entitled to certain holy sites in Jerusalem, any more than any other religious faith.

This doesn't excuse Israel and their responses, which tend to kill a lot more people than the terrorists do.

 

Prince Charles didn't say that Israel is illegitimate, and should never have been created. Those are your words, not his. He's merely stating what everyone knows anyway, and that has been stated a million and one times; 'that the influx of European Jews into Palestine created the problems.'

 

Prince Charles was correct and that was more than 30 years ago.. What does the JTA want now?

 

I don't think the difference is that big.

 

It's really damn important to not discredit legitimate anti-zionism with neonazi garbage

 

Infiltrating foreign governments and making war by proxies isn't neo-nazi - it's much more wiser and efficient. I'll tell you what is (neo) Nazi:

- A militaristic, nationalistic society
- Reliance on old fables about us ubermenschen and our nemesis, the untermenschen whose whole existance is devoted to make war on us, because jealousy. Sgregation based on race, apartheism.
- Desire for lenbensraum
- Putting opposants in concentration camps and claim they don't exist or if they do, they exist as criminals and/or terrorists.
- Having your agents execute false-flag attacks

It is no shame to admit that many zionists are racially motivated.

 

Well, of course he's right and courageous for telling the undeniable truth but sadly, because it's true that Zionist lobbies dominate both US & British foreign policy, his words will have no impact on those same foreign policies:
The Palestinian Arabs will continue to futilely resist the longest & most brutal foreign funded Occupation.
The right wing Israelis will continue with their Provoke-then-massacre Policy of ethnic cleansing & build more illegal Settlements.
The US & British politicians will continue to reward Zionist criminality with untold $ Billions, yearly.
Israel's gaggle of Hasbara Trolls will continue to attempt to defend the indefensible while howling the meaningless epithet "anti Semite"
The Islamic world will continue to cite Western hypocrisy as US support for Zionist aggression will engender continued Muslim "terrorism"
And senseless bloodshed will continue until the US & Britain enact an honest, fair & even-handed foreign policy by cutting off all aid to Israel until it complies with International Law

 

I don't disagree that Israel's actions heavily resemble the way Jewish people have been treated in the past, but I'm also not going to compare them to Nazi Germany because it just feels wrong to compare Israel to a country that committed the holocaust.

My point, however, was that anti-zionism should, on a tactical and moral basis, decisively reject hatred against the Jewish ethnicity

 

It probably did, as now, many new homes had to be built. The only problem is they were being built for Jew's only, on land, that the Palestinian people considered their land. When you are living in squalor and eeking out an existence; the last thing you want to see is housing being built for others. The other aspect of that is to wonder what is going to happen to the jobs that were available to Muslims ?

 

The British Royal family blaming anyone but themselves for Middle East problems is true hypocrisy.

 

Really?

 

what, forgot the history of WW1 already?

was Lawrence of Arabia a Jew?

 

You mentioned how the Jewish people were treated in the past. What you should have said is in the past in Europe, because they were never treated badly in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine), or in the Ottoman. Actually in the Ottoman Empire, they were used as accomplices in carrying out persecutions towards Christians... and many times it backfired on them in Europe. Venice comes to mind.

No matter, there were offenses on both sides. The extremes though in Central Europe is really a reflection of the cultures and their inherent intolerance. As an example, when Saint Francis sent his monks to Europe and N. Africa, they said that of all the people they encountered, the Germans were the cruelest.

 

100% false.

the Jews faced terrible pogroms at the hands of Eastern Orthodox Slavs, Along with expulsions.

They also faced severe restrictions under the Ottoman Empire.

 

Then you're saying they shouldn't have allowed European Jews to enter Palestine?

 

no, they shouldn't have conquered any part of the Middle East.

it was nothing but pure EuroChristian colonialism.