No friend to Israel

Ian Turner

A bit over the top, Melanie. Royals do not arrange their own tours it is the Government who decides where and when they go on an official visit. If you have a complaint it is against Messrs Brown and Milliband not Prince Charles.

field

Ian - These days royals like Prince Charles make their politics known in all sorts of ways. He's way too sympathetic to Islam and to the Saudis. This indiscriminate Defender of the Faiths is unfit to be king of a democratic country. Let's have an elective monarchy as have many countries over the years. I think most will vote for his brother Prince Andrew - a cheerful uncomplicated soul who will do fine as a figurehead.

Lisa

Why isn't Charlie going out to Israel? It's very woosy of him not to do so, but it's part of a pattern with this well-meaning but rather weak-minded man.

I'm afraid that beyond the Queen's generation there are few in the Royal family who understand just how dangerous the world is, or why it is so dangerous.

Charlie, bless him, has the best intentions by wanting to name himself Defender of Faith when he takes to the throne, but I doubt if he has any idea of what that implies.

I can see the argument for keeping the monarchy: what would we put in their place? Quite. Something far worse, I fear. But then perhaps that would be a good thing for the British people, who, a bit like Prince Charles seem to have lost any idea of what leadership is there for in the first place.

Israel is the canary in the tunnel and Charles should wake up to the fact that if it goes, we all go. Get yourself out there, Charles.

David M.

I realise that the truth can make people feel uncomfortable these days, but OTT? I am unconvinced that our beloved feudal minded, meddling prince is a friend of any democrat.

JJS

Ian -- not over the top at all. A bit subdued, if anything. "Burnishing" the image of Israel would be a very big statement, though it would annoy and irritate the Arabs. Which is why Charles won't. As for his staff, their snideness simply illustrates plain old you-know-what.

Joshua

I don't suppose many people will be surprised to learn that Clive Alderton who sent the offending e-mail is on secondment from the Foreign Office

Joel

Considering that even the Vatican finally decided to recognize Israel, the Royal Family is now the last hold out. Israel will survive with or without a Royal visit.Actually Charles was in the country briefly 12 years ago for Rabin's funeral.

Max Kaye

This Defender of Faith lark is a bit rum. Will he defend contradictory faiths? How is a 'faith' defined? What about mine - which I share with about 400,000 other Britons as reported in the 2000 census? - I am, of course, a follower of the Jedi Knights. Charles is very welcome to join. Alternatively he can ask his chums to allow Christain churches in Saudi Arabia. Now that would be some serious 'defending'. Perhaps he need a Jedi's light sabre...

Alex Brookes

Putting aside the obvious wish of HRH to cuddle up to and defend the Islam 'faith', what shocks me greatly is Clive Alderton's inability of checking his spelling. I would have thought that Foreign Office officials working in the offices of HRH, would take care to at least use a spell checker, even when being 'persued' (sic) by an ambassador. What price education these days? Give Clive a prize. :-) Alex London

Michael B

Well and truly and properly said. Needs to be said again and often enough, which is likely to be often indeed. Charles is a profound and preeminent disappointment; worse still, and this is not said lightly, he is an eminent fool. His secretary, however, should be applauded for he seemingly possesses preeminent moral, political and ideological instincts. It is precisely Israel's domocratic and classical liberal bona fides that are worthy of being showcased and applauded.

Nozedo

I may be wrong, but I don't think that any European royals have ever visited/or will in the foreseeable future visit Israel. Prince Charles is no exception to a tight rule.

Ian Turner

Oh dear! Everyone has got it in for Charles. I agree about the Defender of Faith bit. Either he takes the Coronation Oath in full or he does not become King it is that simple. Perhaps someone should spell that out for him.

Arthur

It's time all those in Britain who want to preserve our way of life made common cause.

Anna

The son wears Nazi uniforms for fun. What do you expect from the father?

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

Excellent, Melanie. Just blogged on it here: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/memo-to-prince.html

Michael

A first visit to Melanie's blog shows that there is a predictable pro Israeli/anti muslim theme which we could do without. HRH is totally right not to countenance a visit to Israel until a fair solution for the Palestinians is sorted out. Condi is 100% right to be pressurising Israel who as expected are doing their utmost to avoid any possibility of progress at the upcoming conference - after all progress can only mean letting go of their hold of illegally occupied territories. Melanie, hopefully your blog will improve

J. Isaacs

Is Michael, above, using the Royal "we" to refer to Melanie Phillips' approach, which he can do without? I can certainly do with it, having listened to the BBC's Jeremy Bowen last night editorialising for the Palestinians with no interviews or facts on a tellytaxpayers' freebie to Israel.

Gisele from Beirut

Joel event the relations with the vaticans are not what they used to be http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/europe/EU-GEN-Vatican-Israel.php

David M.

Michael, you assert that there is a "predictable pro Israeli/anti muslim theme" in the responses to this blog. How do you justify that? The responses mostly express legitimate concerns and doubts about Charles. If you read Melanie's posts you will soon discover that they deal in facts and evidence. I know this is unfashionable these days but how would you improve on that? Michael, historically, the definition of what constitutes Palestine and a Palestinian has always been a slippery one to grasp. Could you help us out on this one? It certainly bears no relation to that which is claimed today. The "Palestinian problem" could have been resolved from the inception of Israel had there been the democratic will on both sides. The shifting sands of Arab politics combined with Islamic fanaticism have and always will obstuct any resolution. In consideration of all that has happened in living memory it's not really just about Palestine is it?

Max Kaye

Michael, you say "HRH is totally right not to countenance a visit to Israel until a fair solution for the Palestinians is sorted out."
I assume that this high minded principle applies across the board and thus counts out future visits to China until 'Tibet' is 'sorted out', or visits to Saudi Arabia (and most of the arab world) until all human rights abuses there are 'sorted out', etc. etc... Or does this high level of moral standards apply only to Israelis (aka Jews, the Zionist Entity')? I'd really like to know.

Marek

Until the Palestinian issue is resolved fairly HRH should keep his distance from Israel. Otherwise he may appear to condone the aweful suffering which is being inflicted on those poor people.

Mladen Andrijasevic

Could this have any relevance?: Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam? http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119

field

He's daft enough to convert. So was Princess Di. So was (still is?) Jemma Goldsmith - daughter of mega rich businessman James Goldsmith and wife of Imran Khan, famous cricketer - strange though, she seems to have given up on the headscarf and gone back to bikinis on the beach and cavorting with men in defiance of Shariah law (when not interfering in Pakistani politics on behalf of her ex husband). Actually secret conversion is a great tradition in the British Royal Family. In the 17th century more than one King is held to have secretly converted to Catholicism from the established religion. Even further back King John, one of our more useless monarchs of old, was believed to have seriously considered converting to Islam after the Pope excommunicated him. Who knows what the Emir Charles has in store for us?

Max Kaye

More likely a Bhuddist. From his taped conversations, I understood that Charles believed in reincarnation...

L A Clarke

Prince Philip's mother, Princess Alice, has been honoured by the Yad Vasham memorial in Jerusalem for her work in sheltering Greek Jews during the Second World War. Prince Philip visited Israel for a ceremony marking this in October 1994. He undertook some official events when there, including visiting some fellow veterens of the British armed forces.

George Steiner

Look chaps, would you not like to have four wives in this life (if you can afford it), 72 virgins in the next life (if you die heroically), and the certainity that woman are worth half of a man? Not to mention an easy opportunity for divorce. This is a dream deal for multi-faith Charlie.

David Lindsay

The neocon attack on the monarchy? It looks like the High Tory paleocon vote is now there to be won.

Spencer

The spectator is becoming an embarrassment.

Majid Salim

Perhaps Prince Charles objects to Israel's hideous treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Which are of course called the Occupied Territories for a reason, namely, that they are not part of Israel and kept under unceasing military occupation by them.

Vorax

International image of Israel might only suffer if visit of the royal excrement ever takes place. Melanie with all respect that isn't a topic worth mentioning. Royals are valued for what they are. Charles who has no power, no decency, no talent no wisdom is despised by everybody. One can respect Elizabeth for her decency. Older prince might be not hopeless as a man, as well. He is kind to Kate, seemingly. But all this is just private issues of one high class English family, not related to Israel whatsoever.

Mike

Michael & Marek. Be careful what you say about the controversial subject of Palestine/Israel or you will find that your posts will be either edited or rejected.

Gordon Ross

On Melanie's suggestion that Israel is Britain's "true ally" in the Middle East, I doubt that there are many in Britain who would agree. Most are busy sucking up to the Arabs. As for Israel, I think it manages well enough without British support. As the late Golda Meir once said: "With friends like these, who needs enemies !"

Mladen Andrijsevic

Majid Salim writes that “ Perhaps Prince Charles objects to Israel's hideous treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.” I do think that “occupation” is the most successful word chosen in the history of propaganda. Coupled with years of distorted reporting by most western media the Palestinians milked the term with expertise. There were times during the latest intifada , especially after a major terror attack that reporting was almost absurd . Israeli troops would occupy the occupied territories In fact, from 1996 until 2001, only 2 (TWO ) percent of Palestinians lived under Israeli jurisdiction. The rest, i.e. 98 percent lived under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. Even this 2 percent of Palestinians living under Israeli control would have ceased to do so if Arafat had accepted a peaceful solution at Camp David. http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/What_Occupation$.asp Therefore the whole Palestinian justification for attacking Israel is based on a 2 percent occupation which Barak offered to end at Camp David in 2000. His offer was answered with 25000 terror attacks and 147 Palestinian suicide bombers who exploded since September 2000, all of whom were Muslim Palestinians and not a single Christian Palestinian among them, a significant fact that no Brutish paper will ever mention. By occupied territory Palestinians mean not the West Bank (or Gaza when Jews still lived there) but all of Israel. After all, Article 13 of the Hamas Charter reads : “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm Now that there are no more Jews living in the Gaza strip the Palestinian keep on launching rockets on Sderot from the Gaza strip. At the beginning of the school year, Islamic Jihad launched nine rockets at Sderot, one of which landed near a toddlers' daycare center. Islamic Jihad declared that the Kassam rockets were meant as a "gift" for the new school year. There is no precedent in history of a militarily superior force tolerating such a situation. Imagine the US tolerating rockets launched from Cuba falling on Key West or launched from Mexico falling on San Diego . Can you remember how Britain reacted to the V1 and V2 attacks? The hideous treatment is that of Israeli children by the members of Islamic Jihad and the Israeli civilians during those 147 suicide bombers and 25000 attacks in the last six years. Islamic Jihad do not do it because of occupation, since there are no Jews living in Gaza. They do it for the same reason they named their organization Islamic Jihad

Gordon Ross

Mike,I don't see where your posts on the Al Dhura piece have been edited or rejected ! My response,on the other hand,to your erroneous claim that you have "dealt with" me and my alleged "slur" on Saeb Erekat has not been posted. You and those of your persuasion have been given plenty of space in which to disseminate your propaganda.

Mike

Gordon Ross: Michael B had the interest to comment on my post referring you to the 'two vides'. Should wish to try and understand from where I'm coming from, and some of the sources from which I base my alleged 'propaganda', I suggest you take a look at my most recent exchange with Michael B. in Melanie's blog on al Durah. As far as this blog on Prince Charles is concerned I'm feel sure he will be delighted to pay an official visit to Israel once the monstrous historical injustices suffered by the Palestinians are recognised and Israel admits its culpability. It simply doesn't make for any moral or political sense for Prince Charles to make a visit at this time, as much as he may possibly be very keen to visit the holy sites of Jerusalem and elsewhere in this ancient land.

Gordon Ross

Mike, I think that Michael B has most ably dealt with you and your latest posts in the Al Dhura affair, all of which strayed from the main issue of the wilful falsehoods of the "Palestinians" and their Western media allies. You and your ilk would like Israel to apologize for its very existence, in the face of the ongoing intransigence of the "Palestinians" and their brainwashing of their children with hate and incitement to murder. On the Prince Charles issue, I think you misunderstand. I couldn't care less whether or not he visits Israel! See my comments on Melanie's suggestion that Israel is Britain's "true ally" in the Middle East.

Pat Viliors

As you say Melanie, heaven forbid our royal family would burnish Israel by visiting it. Better to cosy up to Saudi Arabia where today a rape VICTIM was given 200 lashes and 6 months jail! Perhaps the heads of states can discuss the 'common values' we nations share.

Mike

Gordon Ross: Putting aside the long-running daily commentary from both sides on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict,(wouldn't want to put Melanie out of a job!)let's stop for a moment and consider the following: Israel established a sovereign state in 1948. Israel exists - fact. The Zionists, by their own definition, were not content with that because if they had been, Israel would have withdrawn after 1967. Fact. Instead they pushed to extend Jewish sovereignty through the settler movement. Fact. Conclusion. The Palestinian response has been violent due to this constant threat. Fact. Therefore, if Israel withdraws to its pre 1967 borders the threat will cease. Fact. Since this could done unilaterally, the choice and responsibility rests with Israel. Fact. Since you are self-declared Zionist, I don't for one second expect you to agree and compromise isn't your style - but please don't take that too personally.

Pat Viliors

Mike, Israel WAS within the pre-1967 borders - pre 1967! She was about to be anihilated by people who did not want her to exist AT ALL, and who still don't. Are you really not aware that the very existance of Israel, in any form, is an affront and abomination to Islam. Muslims openly state their desire to conquer and Islamify Christian states such as USA and Europe, so do you really think that they will tolerate any sort of Jewish state in their midst? Have you not heard Aminajad's rantings, or are you thinking "aw he doesn't really mean it"?

Ivor, Chelmsford

Mike, I can only assume that you are NOT a bible-believing Christian, Jew or Muslim. Otherwise you would know that God promised this entire land to the Jews, and that Jews have 'occupied' it for over 3000 years, so we're going a little further back than '67 here. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the historical timeline at: http://contenderministries.org/middleeast/timeline.php

Mike

Pat Viliors. Just as there is there are huge differences of opinion between a minority of Jews who support Zionism and the vast majority of those that don’t, so there are Muslims who support the ranting of Aminajad, but the vast majority don’t. The facts about the 1967 war are well documented and I suggest you read my post of November 17 (11:30am) under Melanie’s blog ‘Al Durah blood libel’ in which I set out to lay to rest the myth that Israel was about to be annihilated in 1967. It’s an insult to the IDF to suggest it was. Israel was so superior in the ground and in the air it should have been over in 4 days, not 6, if President Johnson hadn’t delayed a Security Resolution calling for a ceasefire, thereby enabling Dayan to create the so-called ‘Greater Israel’; the source of so much conflict to this day. Ivor, Chelsford. We no longer live in an age when one religion can demand belief from all over this planet. That ‘God gave Israel to the Jews’ requires belief in the existence of the Jewish God and in the bible as the word of God. No amount of respect for others beliefs can require accepting those beliefs as true. Religions contradict each other. The idea that the Bible or Judaism can in any way validate Zionism doesn’t deserve any further discussion. Your self-righteousness doesn’t do you any credit; it's a hallmark of Zionism!

Gordon Ross

Mike,where's the evidence that only a minority of Jews support Zionism! Throughout the ages of our dispersion among the nations following the Roman destruction of our national sovereignty and our homeland some 1900 years ago, we have asserted and maintained our right and claim to that land, witness our daily prayers and our literature. The Roman Emperor Hadrian tried to break the bond between the Jewish people and our homeland by renaming it "Palestina" (derived from the Philistines who occupied a small coastal strip of land for a brief period in ancient pre-Roman times),but that failed. The 18th century philosopher and anti-Semite (despite his Hebrew forename!)Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews confined to the Frankfurt ghetto as "the Palestinians living among us". So you see,this is what 'Zionism' is all about, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people in our homeland. Too bad it doesn't suit people like you. You repeatedly use the phrase "..you can see where I'm coming from". Oh, I can indeed! People like you can do your worst towards making 'Zionism' a dirty word. People like me will continue to maintain our pride in being Jews and Zionists.

Mike

Gordon Ross: I hesitate to say it but I'm afraid you are confused. Indeed you really don't understand 'where I'm coming from'. My argument will never be about spiritual Zionism, but is positioned against political Zionism and all it stands for. Between us we seem to have 'hijacked' Melanie's original blog, and I'm out of here as of now. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Gordon Ross

Mike, It may well be that The Spectator will not post this response to your last comments, and so allow you to have the last word, as has happened at certain previous stages in the dialogue on this blog and others, but I'll risk wasting my time! I'm not at all confused. As they say, "I've got your number" completely! "Spiritual" Zionism has your blessing. We are to be free to dream about and aspire to our national redemption and self-determination in the land of our forefathers, but all the "political" measures that have been and are being taken to bring about and secure those rights are to be opposed by people like you, because you are "positioned against" them. You are one of a growing band of people that champions the "human rights" and right to self-determination of all manner of divers peoples, but draws the line when it comes to the Jews!