This blog is now off for a few days to find the end of the rainbow. Back early in the new year. Have a good one.
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (14)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
1 There is only one question that frightens Brussels - Fraser Nelson
2 Printing money is not the solution - Humphrey Carpenter
3 Labour and the KGB - Fraser Nelson
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Nigel
December 24th, 2007 8:21amFind the end of the rainbow?Something else lost by this government?
J. Isaacs
December 24th, 2007 1:07pmHappy holidays and happy New Year.
Chris
December 24th, 2007 4:27pmNot even a Merry Christmas? Bah humbug!
zardoz
December 27th, 2007 2:55pmI didn't realise that you were doing panto this year!
Jack R
December 28th, 2007 10:24amIt's no good you going to Pakistan to try and sort it all out.
Jim
December 30th, 2007 1:48pmA "Merry Xmas" would certainly have been nice, and I hope Melanie will accept one from me. I admire and support her defence of traditional values in Britain and she has herself pointed out that Christianity is central to them.
Elizabeth
December 30th, 2007 4:13pmHope you're somewhere warm and relaxing. You'll need it with the year to come.
Jeremy Jacobs
December 31st, 2007 1:56pmChris, Jim. Point taken but really...........
simon
January 2nd, 2008 10:38pmMelanie--
I'm curious as to your take on the following:
Buried deep in a long open thread on the Biased-BBC website is the following exchange between BBC employee "John Reith" (a pseudonym for several BBC employees, as admitted further down in the thread) and commenter "Edna." Reith essentially uncritically presents an "interpretation doing the rounds" that rather than springing from innate British support for the Zionist cause, the (Balfour) Declaration was more or less extorted from the British as the price of access to war loans from Jewish-owned banks." Reith goes on to condemn the "Protocols" strain of anti-semitic writing this "fact," and the "fact" that there were "German Jewish bankers in New York...enthusiastically backing Germany", inspired, but nonetheless he presents the argument as though it were fact, and possibly the predominant reason for the adoption of the resolution. The implication is that somehow the realpolitik of "Jewish money" and "political power" in the US led to the declaration, rather than sympathy for the cause. Here is Edna's response, and Reith's rejoinder, where he pontificates on the positive aspects of what might have been had Germany WON World War 1:
Edna: So the 'Zionists' managed to bring America into the War, according to JR, because of the Balfour Declaration- a bribe in other words. And so? If true, it possibly prevented a German success in WWI. Was that a bad thing? And even according to your post JR, the 1916 agreement was made with the approval of the Arabs. Or have I misunderstood? Edna | 31.12.07 - 1:34 pm | #
John Reith: Edna | 31.12.07 - 1:34 pm If true, it possibly prevented a German success in WWI. Was that a bad thing? Hard to say, really. You could mount a pretty plausible 'what if'? case along the lines that a German victory would have meant: 1. No WWII 2. No Holocaust 3. Little impact on Britain or its Empire 4. Soviet Communism might have been quickly squashed 5. The brunt would be felt chiefly by the French and Belgians sounds almost attractive John Reith | 31.12.07 - 2:14 pm
The first entry by Reith was made on 31.12.07 at 1:21 pm. You can find it in the "General BBC-related thread" labeled "ed thomas" from Thursday December 20,2007
field
January 5th, 2008 2:50amWhen does an intermission become a three week holiday? We've had Bhutto assassinated, Kenya in flames and further mayhem in Gaza since our MP went away. She's neglecting her constituents!
Lauren Knapp-Resnik
January 5th, 2008 6:28amThe world sorely needs Melanie Phillips. Get it on back! Bring it on home, we miss you. Bottom line, you ROCK. Lauren Resnik Texas
Yisrael Medad
January 6th, 2008 9:05amAs for Simon's post, I wonder what JR would respond to the fact that if his suppositions are true (they aren't), the Brits sure got a better deal than that they made, exactly the same bribe-ish way (except that they had to give the bribes, not receive them) with the Arabs - you know Lawrence & Co. - but with much less success, either militarily (Jewish Legion vs. the "Great Revolt") and diplomatically. Of course, obtaining and controlling oil (Mesopotamia, Mosul, Saudi Arabia) was always the most moral of British acts, right?
zardoz
January 6th, 2008 10:55amFear not Melanie will be back tomorrow. As I mentioned earlier, she has been appearing as the Fairy Godmother in Cinderella at the Sunderland Empire. The run ends tonight so she, and her magic wand, will be able to resume 'the day job' on Monday 7th. Oh YES she WILL ........
Chris (another one)
January 6th, 2008 5:36pmGot lost, or something?