The American Spectator

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.29.10 @ 7:58AM

Aaron,
Follow the money.

Do a little research on the mid-east oil money flowing into and through Great Britain. It literally floats the island these days.

Alan Brooks| 7.30.10 @ 12:55AM

Good news is many Sunnis want us to stop Iran from going nuclear so they don't have to keep up with the Ahmadinejads, er I mean Joneses, nuke-wise.

Doctor Right| 7.29.10 @ 7:58AM

It's twilight for the Empire.

Britain is doomed.

The decline began right before the end of World War II when Clement Atlee displace Winston Churchill as PM, and socialism became official policy in Britain.

The nation was briefly revived in the late 70's with the arrival of the great Margaret Thatcher. However, her successor, John Major, was a feckless Conservative at best (like George H.W. Bush), whose lack of leadership gave Britons no real reason to continue to vote Tory.

And so the era of "Cool Britannia" and "New Labor" (yeah, right...) was ushered in, with Tony Blair the perfect British doppelganger of Bill Clinton, minus the sleaze. Blair redeemed himself in the eyes of most Americans with his staunch support of the war on terror in the post 9/11 era, but was otherwise a typical "new" lefty - in other words, a socialist through and through, but likeable...And with the lack of real Conservative alternatives from the Tories, and a pliant, left-wing press, he was re-elected.

But finally, the polish was off the apple with the execrable technocrat Gordon Brown, who was so distasteful even the left couldn't stomach him.

And now we have David Cameron, a British "Conservative" who would probably be a playing footsie with Nancy Pelosi were he an American. Cameron is foolishly cozying-up to Turkey, and by doing so he is opening the floodgates to continued Muslim migration to western Europe, as well pressing for Europe's most heavily populated (and increasingly Muslim) country to be admitted to the already fragile E.U.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Assuming we can get rid of the socialists within our own borders (which is NOT a sure thing - say what you will about Comrade Obama, but he will not flinch from his agenda), will we one day be forced to send hundreds of thousands of American boys (and girls) to Europe (or Britain) again in the near future to save them from their own idiotic policies?

I hope not.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.29.10 @ 8:42AM

Doctor Right,
You so often hit the nail squarely. Thank you.

It occurred to me while reading your comment, that perhaps it really IS a good idea to keep troops and armor stationed/prepositioned in Europe...

...not to stave off Russians...but to stave off militant Sharia there.

Carol| 7.29.10 @ 1:39PM

Good letter. Doomed indeed! I wasn't born a year to soon.

Harry the Horrible| 7.29.10 @ 1:42PM

Dunno. The yobs, hooligans, EDL, etc., may yet save the UK. We might not like what it becomes, but it would better than a UKstan.

martin j smith| 7.29.10 @ 8:02AM

It is among the many reasons why I have no interest in Visting Great Britian,Scotland or Ireland. Why spend money in a place that virtually supports terrorism ? Its enough I spend it in the USA. Especially the upcoming tax hikes I mean.

Melvin| 7.29.10 @ 8:53AM

If Americans even paid a scant attention to the amount of foreign money, influence, and access to Washington D.C. you would look like a stomped on Bull Frog.
There are sitting politicians that have literally been bought and paid for by various foreign Countries, to formulate and enact legislation that benefits Country X.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were the main beneficiaries of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, and the House of Saud with massive, massive amounts of cashola.
Former Republcian Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was owned by the Country of Turkey, and Dennis did dance and dance big to Turkey's tune.
Foreign influence has gotten to the point of being obscene because of the wanton greed of all the political Koi aka Carp that rise to the surface of Foggy Bottom to feed off all the Foreign political chum.

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 9:29AM

When was GB ever a friend of Israel? Their levantine hegemony was specatularly ended at the end of a Nazi barrel, with the US and Zionists the only ones left standing.
But now, everyone, except on the surface, the US, sees Israel drifting away from righteous struggle to tiring intransigence on pretty much anything.
If it were not for AIPAC's constant bombardment of pols here, the US would have isolated the Israeli government more acutely and sued for a settlement long before now. GB is a useful proxy, just like Blair's hat-in-hand trip to Ghaddafi on behalf of Junior, and their fateful joining of the coalition of the absurd in 2003.
They have been our best friends for generations, and deriding them over Israel is curious and revealing at the same time.
Their position on Israel will be the US's within 10 years, and not a year too soon.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 10:01AM

Do you really think that will end anything? This lot is still fighting the Crusades and seeking to restore the Caliphate. As Samuel P. Huntington wrote, "Islam has bloody borders".

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 3:28PM

The Crusades ended? When?
No tribe has been more effective at pure killing than the white man in the history of this planet. Period.
We've turned it into a business, and we don't even get our hands really dirty anymore.
Heck, we don't even pay for wars anymore!
Rumsfeld used bible quotes on his war reports to Junior. 'nuff said.
The crusades never ended, just like the douchebags here who bitch about the war of northern aggression as an open sore on dixie gentry asses. It doesn't end.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 10:48PM

Do you read history or do you make this stuff up?

Never mind!

KyMouse| 7.29.10 @ 10:30AM

How can Israel or anyone else "sue for a settlement" with enemies such as Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement)? That terrorist group's 1988 charter says, among other things:

In Article 11: “…The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up…”

In Article 13: …"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of [the Islamic] religion…”

In Article 15: “…The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.”

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 3:17PM

So what?
The Brits talked to "terrorists" in NIreland, Kenya, Cyprus. The US dealt happily with Hussein and the Taliban, when it served their interests to do so.
Each of these examples had groups in their "charters" calling for the expunging of oppressors on lands they perceived their own.
Boston New York and Toronto had open fund raisers for IRA fronts for years - attended by the elites in both countries.
When a minority puts the majority under unwanted conditions, it always ends, but the minority only has a short time to negotiate for an arrangement that provides for more than nothingness.
I resent Hamas, but they have the numbers, and the upper hand in PR right now. Israel should be aware of this erosion in sympathy.

KyMouse| 7.30.10 @ 9:14AM

The IRA did not take over England and murdered all of its English inhabitants. Hamas remains sworn to rid Israel of all Jews, and has the support of many Muslim nations. Even if your points about Kenya, Cyprus et al. were truly parallel, it remains to be seen whether Hamas and their allies will try to carry out their threats against the Jews on a scale that was not seen in those countries.

Why did you put "terrorists" in quotation marks? Do you think the term shouldn't be used to describe the IRA?

Convet| 7.29.10 @ 5:34PM

Ate any good books lately?

Ezra| 7.30.10 @ 9:59PM

canuckistani - What you say has more truth to it than you think. Many i.e. the anti Israel crowd seem to not only disparage Israel but seem to speak with glee at what they see as her demise. Please understand something, Israel is going nowhere, yes all will abandon her in time but there will be a sting in the tail of her supposed demise that will shake the world and God help the recipients of that sting.

JimH| 7.29.10 @ 9:31AM

I'm curious. Have we found out what was in those ships? Weapons or West Bank contraband like candy?

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 9:55AM

Answer: it doesn't matter now.
International waters, uzis repelled with bars. Moral high ground: lost.
Their whining at being outed as another bully is similar to Lord's walking back and walking forward of his failed thesis on Sherrod last week. Empty.

Vaemar| 7.29.10 @ 9:56AM

"What if the IRA had suddenly resumed engaging in terrorist activities and had embarked on a campaign to send flotillas to Northern Ireland full of weaponry to be used against British civilians and Irish Protestant activists under the guise of a humanitarian mission? What if a Royal Navy commander had instructed the IRA flotilla to dock in the Welsh port of Holyhead instead of Belfast? What if the IRA flotilla told the Royal Navy commander, "Death to the Queen!!!"? Do you think for a moment that David Cameron would hesitate in sending Her Majesty's Armed Forces aboard an IRA flotilla? "

Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what Clegg's witless asnd spineless glove-puppet would do. And when the m,oment was passed he would then go on hesitating.

Will| 7.31.10 @ 4:46PM

An ironic analogy, given that the IRA were heavily supplied in the 70s and 80s by US "charities" like NORAD, with the support and patronage of politicians from New York & Boston

A. C. Santore| 7.29.10 @ 10:41AM

I take no sides in the Israel/Gaza matter; and I neither support nor condemn David Cameron –

I write simply to point out the plentitude of hypocrisy of language in Aaron Goldstein’s essay.

1. “effectively endorsed” is not the same as “endorsed.”

2. “for all intents and purposes declared” is not the same as “declared.”

3. [Aside: “bo**ocks” is a word not considered polite in British society, nor in a purportedly erudite essay.]

4. “For Cameron to suggest” is not the same as “Cameron said.”

5. Cameron did not say or “suggest” that “Israel wantonly launched an unprovoked attack.” “Israel wantonly launched an unprovoked attack” is not the same as “The Israeli attack . . . was completely unacceptable.”

6. Goldstein says that “Israel was left with no choice but to board the ship,” but apparently the crewmen did not have the choice to defend themselves.

7. Goldstein condemns the crew’s use of “metal bars,” etc., but does not mention the fact that the IDF forces who boarded the ship were elite commandos heavily-armed with sophisticated automatic weapons.

8. “Cameron’s apparent ignorance of the intentions of those aboard the flotilla” is an unwarranted and unsupported assumption on Goldstein’s part.

9. Without proof, Goldstein posits the comparative number of Muslims and Jews in the U.K. as the reason for Cameron’s position [assumed or manufactured position, note]. Instead of proof, Goldstein creates both the “position” and the “reason” for it based on his own bias.

10. “it is more politically expedient for Cameron to vilify Israel and support Turkish entry into the E.E.” is another Cameron attitude that Goldstein manufactures. Two manufactured attitudes, in fact – “politically expedient” and “vilify Israel.”

Truly, this essay is not American Spectator’s “finest hour.”

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.29.10 @ 11:01AM

Hey Abdul Santori,

Wow you must be dizzy after that spin piece.

That's OK though, you are blessed by Allah for lying to we infidels.

Hi canukistani,
still stuck on stupid I see.

Wasted effort here, twits. You are among adults.

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 11:58AM

Why should we not criticize their actions if they openly refuse to address ANY of our concerns?

Britain does our wetwork on the international stage because we are so clouded by our devotion to a fantasy Israel that oscillates between a zionist dream and an evangelical 3rd-temple preclude to Jesus' return.
When Reagan cut and run from Lebanon, he was on to something.
Ken, your inability to see the world outside of infantic absolutes is discouraging. It's no wonder our worst episodes of presidential failures has come from Texas. What do your mommas teach you? It ain't nuance.
I don't like it, but Hamas was elected fair and square, under Junior's and Rice's urging for elections, and now we are complaining they are not what we wanted?

At least Cameron has the guts to make a statement and let it hang out there for posterity. We cower under our inability to call the Israeli issue for what it is: dishonest, just as we permitted zionists like Fleischer and Senor be our mouthpieces as we invade Muslim countries. Would you be supicious if a carpet-bagging yankee came to your town and told you everything was just a-ok?
Betcha you'd be the first in line at the righteous indignation queue.
The problem is with the government in place there now. It has taken years to build up the Turkey relationship. They are the ONLY muslim country to do open business with Israel, often act a useful intermediaries and are under constant attack to remove the moderates from their regime.
My Christian Arab friends, yes Christian, are pained to watch the devolution of Israeli outreach in just a few years under Bibi. Even the war-heroes Rabin and Sharon knew a black and white approach was doomed by simple numbers. NIreland, SAfrica, India, perhaps California latinos all had transformations because the victims became validated as partners after years of struggle. Texas will need to go through this as well with the same outcome. You, likely will be another bump in the long road to the future.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.29.10 @ 12:48PM

Abdul Canukistani,

We Texicans (true Texans) are THE bump in the road for you scumbags.

Your "nuances" can't trump a bullet in your butt while you try to hide under mommie's bed.

...UH...and we got the oil and gas that keeps your computer and your foodstamps coming.

Just keep playing pretend until you starve in the dark. Sucker.

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 2:25PM

So when Junior is holding hands with the Saudi king, is that in our interests or in the oil companies' interests?
When the taliban met with Unocal in Houston, was that in America's interest or the oil company's?
When the taliban are now shooting down our helos with stingers WE gave them, is that in America's interests?
When Karzai, a Unocal lackie, gets promoted to lead gangster, is that in the US's interest or in the oil company's?
When Halliburton moves their world headquarters from Texas to Dubai, in who's interest is that?
You're a fool.
My electricity comes from nuclear and coal, my gasoline is refined in Montreal, my natural gas comes from Alaska (I think).
One of your own buttbuddies, T. Boone Pickens, is playing the eco card all the while stealing the water from right under your sunburnt noses - and you don't even consider it a problem.
You're a fool and our young soldiers are dying for issues that have nothing to do with Americans, much less Texans, and it has never been a Texan to get us out of the sh!t, it's only them who get us into it. I pray we learn to segregate Texans from any further high office. The country needs a break.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 3:40PM

As to you first question. When are your interests and the oil interests not aligned. You disparage an industry which enables wealth as we know it to exist. Oil, of course, isn't the only straw man, there is the dirty coal industry, the dangerous nuclear industry, and those nasty (electrical) energy companies. The only things the left has championed are the failed synfuels of the Carter administration, famed conservation and the green energy companies of today which are bankrupting Spain, have got the Brits tired of the taxes and enriched Al Gore.

You have an industry which earns an ROI more than some and less than many. They have huge profits and huge capital investments. Yet they still manage to suck it out of the ground and get it into the economy competitively. Governments make more profit out of a barrel of oil than the oil companies yet this is good because those who produce nothing get to spend money on their pet projects which the private market never found cost effective to deliver. You have retirees in Britain begging Obama to quit bashing BP and deflating their retirement incomes. I guess those guys should have been putting their money in something safer than energy. If you want some of that "obscene profit", invest in the company.

Are you in support of the suggestion that we tax the oil so we use less of it? Was $150/barrel oil good for you? Or are you in support of the suggestion that we tax the oil company profits like we did during the last oil upset. All it did was deflate U.S. oil production.

You so smuggly suggest that because your physical suppliers are local, there is some advantage (unclear) to you. FYI, do you know from whom the U.S. imports the most oil? Canada! Then Mexico, Venezuala, Norway and Nigeria. Obviously the fact that we don't import much Saudi oil is immaterial to the price of oil. For that matter, transport costs tend to make all cosumption of all goods locals with respect to that goods production points.

As you write "My electricity comes from nuclear and coal, my gasoline is refined in Montreal, my natural gas comes from Alaska", may I presume you are a consumer of energy? I'm sure you'd like to pay less for it (who doesn't) but you still pay for it which can only be at your marginal utility rate. You turn to light on at night because it is worth it for you to see. You plug your computer in because it is worth it to you to post your silliness here.

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 4:19PM

I agree with your approach.
I do not separate US foreign policy from Oil policy. I consume as much as the next guy and have no issue fighting a war for oil, as WW2 and DS and these two current ones testify. We're good at it - when we focus on business potential.
The piece we are referring to is GB's apparent shift in Israeli policy. It is a shift the US needs as well.
Oil policy has always been divorced from any fundamental "American" values, because it feeds our ability to remain strong.
There is nothing strategic in the near-east for America that cannot be negotiated through a business deal. One thing muslims are, in spite of their religious defects, are deal-makers, but are enormously lazy people, and are willing to allow any foreign player do the work as long as bags o'cash are the payoff. Ask the Copts in egypt who runs the joint. They make up 15% of the population, but 80% of the business deals. They payoff the regime and continue to prosper. THAT SHOULD BE OUR POLICY.
Having a religious state propped up by the US with no value to us is bad policy and a sad cold war holdover that has no end.
For us to not even begin to criticize Israel's bad policy is dishonest and only makes doing business with the real players there more difficult.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 4:58PM

The "real players" care no more about you and I than camel dung. They want our money! Then they spend it in ways which does NOT benefit us. It is precisely because they wish to bring the world under Islam that they will be happy to play us for the useful idiots. Sometimes to our advantage, other times, not.

I've lived in the region and worked with Arabs, (no Persions - it was after the Shah), Pakistanis and Indians. They each have their agenda (no surprise) which always includes looking inward. Whenever it looks out, it is to project, not to become allied. Look what happened to Nasser's pan-Arab initiatives; and it goes on today with the Pakistani OSI in Afghanistan. It was Syria which invaded Lebanon - the Paris of the Middle East. It is Iran using Hamas which controls Gaza. And it is Israel, given land which was not a country (Trans-Jordan - left over from the defeated Ottoman empire) which seeks to DEFEND its borders and you protest.

Israel is NOT a religious state if you mean theocracy. All the others are. Why single out Israel? If it is religious, it is because it is unabashedly Jewish; a Jewish state which lets Arabs in the Knesset. Don't even think of taking a Bible into Saudi Arabia. What's your point?

You say the Copts -- did you realize that before Islam, Egypt was Christian? -- in Egypt do all the work. The ex-pats in Saudi Arabia certainly did. And Israel made the desert bloom. They are the most diverse economy in the region and don't mind employing non-Jews. And you think supporting them is a problem?

After Israel's conquest, look far more trouble in the Caucasus Mountains, southern Russia and sub-Saharan Africa.

And the "real players" will still want our money.

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 10:29PM

So, what you are saying is we are the cause of the problems in the middle east through our continuing to buy their oil and thereby underwriting islamic expansion?
I wholeheartedly agree. Saud made the deal 100 years ago with the sheikhs and especially the Wahabis for a grand compromise of his own. Roosevelt, in his wisdom, made his own deal securing oil rights for generations to come. A deal, we should be clear on, also secured the US's place as a superpower after WW2.
The American people will not want to hear they are accomplices in the mess that exists there. The solution is to make a statement of our position on statehood, borders and proxies, and actually stick to them come hell or high water.
The eternal mistake of mixing Israeli politics with true American interests is tiresome and it needs to end.
There is no case for Israel not going it alone if they refuse to concede to US demands.
As for the real players wanting our money, we've spent $1T on invasions in muslim countries that will result in a net zero benefit for the US. $1T could have bought 10 shah's for years to come, and bribed the Palestinians to the table.
Now, we have nothing to show for it but a ravaged reputation, thousands dead, and Israel more threatened than ever since '73.
Muslims outnumber Jew worldwide by a factor of at least 100 to 1. At some point, the sheer weight of their influence will overcome any questions of legitimacy, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about without a drastic move of our own. Make the deal and encourage our women to push out more babies, or grab the shotgun and a jug of wine and wait for them on the porch.

Convet| 7.29.10 @ 5:35PM

Once a moron, always a moron.

A. C. Santore| 7.30.10 @ 10:10AM

Ken: Childish name-calling only emphasizes the fact that my post went completely over your head.

I was not defending or spinning for anyone - just pointing out excessive inaccuracies of language not fit for American Spectator.

You name-called the other person whose post you criticize. I'm sure you're doing your best, though.

Melvin| 7.29.10 @ 11:41AM

Any civilized person that has entered into a armed conflict or those that enter the civilized person into a armed conflict eventually tire and the original reason for the armed conflict is greatly diminished.
I hope the above makes some sort of sense to you.
Gamal Abdel Nasser entered into a war of attrition with Israel shortly after he and the rest of the Arab Nations realized that they could not defeat militarily with Israel. The defeat after the Six Day War drove that point home.
But since the Arabs viewed Nassar as a symbol of Arab dignity and freedom, the plan was drawn up to enter into a war of attrition with Israel. A war without end if you will.
This is where the Palestinians enter into the fray as willing or unwilling duped participants if you will. Especially since they had failed at overthrowing the sitting government of Jordan.
Israel is not driven by religious or political doctrine, but by mere survival. That is what they base the majority of the political decisions and or actions on, the survival of Israel period.
The Arabs on the other hand are not driven by survival but by revenge for getting hammered by Israel militarily. But the long and short of this is combatants eventually tire of war. But since the Arab states are not actually entered into a actual war with Israel and always a ready supply of Palestinians to throw into Israels military meat grinder there is no sense of urgency on the Arabs part to participate in the peace process or at least the recognizing Israel as a state.
Ever since since the Balfour Declaration/Partitioning have been looking to wash their hands of the Palestinian/Israel situation for years now, and will grasp at almost anything to achieve that goal.
Since the Arabs are only providing money to continue this war of attrition with Israel and not actually losing bodies and material there happy as clams to continue the status quo, despite the consternations of her Majesty's Government.

Jim O'Brien| 7.29.10 @ 11:49AM

Cameron and Obama must be pals now. Birdbrains of a feather flock together.

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 12:10PM

Wasn't Cameron the darling of righties saying a new dawn is upon us?
You're probably another toadie that thought Obama was being too hard on BP as well.

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 6:48PM

Cameron isn't going to be too popular with Conservatives on this side of the Atlantic. He's pragmatic and tries to get things done (witness his alliance with the liberal democrats). Here, current conservatives have a Maoist tendency to value ideology above everything. You either toe the line, or you're a traitor and a socialist.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 7:22PM

Good call DRed!!!

Cameron is a real conservative because he acts as what Margaret Thatcher would call a "wobbly", but US conservatives are Maoists. Have you not noticed that there is a considerable debate within the province of the "right" (Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party adherants) as to how to move forward? It would seem that, were you a Republican you would be of the Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter wing of the conservative. Am I wrong?

That could be made funny if you were Ricky Garvais, but it is just meaningless blather. You couldn't defend a single assertion if you had to.

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 6:29PM

For the record, there is also a Jewish law court in England, the land of the Magna Carta.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 7:11PM

And it specifically doesn't deal with anything criminal. One might obtain a divorce or settle a business dispute, but both parties must be Jewish. Companies must be privately held.

There is no notion of projecting this structure onto anyone else. Not so with Islam and Sharia.

The comparison completely inapt. This is more like binding civil arbitration. Just what are you suggesting?

Will| 7.30.10 @ 11:43AM

Neither the Sharia courts nor the Orthodox Jewish courts have any jurisdiction over criminal law, both deal with civil law. There is no real difference between the two

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 7:18PM

That's how the Sharia courts in England also work. They're analagous. Sharia courts in England don't handle criminal matters.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 7:26PM

No? What is domestic violence? Why do the Muslims seek to have Sharia fully integrated into English Common Law?

DRed| 7.29.10 @ 7:35PM

As far as understand, the Sharia courts can recommend a sentence to the crown prosecutor in domestic violence cases, but the decision whether or not to prosecute rests with the prosecutor.

Listen, I'd hate for any sort of religious courts to be set up in America. If I was British, I'd hate that there were Jewish and Sharia courts set up, even for purely civil matters. My whole point was that there was precedent for what they were doing with these courts.

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 10:54PM

I have to disagree with your conclusion as it assume the two are similar.

Whereas the Jewish Courts are set up to handle purely civil disputes along the lines of arbitration, they do no accept cases in which both parties are Jewish and accept the jurisdiction of the court. The divorces case are akin to annulment.

The Sharia courts claim jurisdiction over all Muslims. The beaten woman, or one seeking divorce, has no right to deny their jurisdiction. The woman's testimony counts for 1/2 of a man'.

Is there really a precedent for this?

John Navratil| 7.29.10 @ 10:59PM

My flying fat fingers have failed me again...

The Jewish courts do not accept cases in which either parties IS NOT Jewish and when either party does NOT accept the jurisdiction of the court.

DRed| 7.30.10 @ 12:14PM

It's the same with the Sharia courts. It's like a form of arbitration. You can't force someone to go to one, so you absolutely can deny the jurisdiction. I have no idea why a woman would ever go to one of these courts, but for what it's worth, nobody can be (legally) compelled to go to one.

Jayson Rex| 7.29.10 @ 7:53PM

THIS IS A NEVER-ENDING DISCUSSION. IT IS A SHAMELESS LIE THAT GAZA'S NEEDS HUMANITARIAN AID. IT REQUIRES, YES, WEAPONS TO KILL ISRAELIS. BUT TO THE BRITS (INCLUDING MANY MEMBERS OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT) THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE NEW GAZA SHOPPING THAT HAS RECENTLY BEEN OPEN WITH GREAT FANFARE. WHERE DID THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE MONEY COME FROM? AND THE GOODS THAT STOCK THE BEAUTIFULLY APPOINTED STORES?

AS FAR AS THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER IS CONCERNED, NOT TO WORRY. ISRAEL WILL SOON SUE H. M. GOVERNMENT FOR HAVING APPROPRIATED LAND THEY HELD IN TRUST FOR THE NEW JEWISH STATE. IT USED, ILLEGALLY, 87% OF THE TERRITORY AS BRIBE TO A FEW ARAB SHEIKS IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR LOYALTY TO THE CROWN. OF COURSE, THE BRITS GOT EXACTLY THE SAME RETURN ON INVESTMENT MADE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY (THE JEWS, IN THIS CASE) AS THEY DESERVED. DURING WWII THE ARABS SIDED WITH THE NAZIS AND SUPPLIED THE "THIRD COLUMN" THAT SPIED ON THE BRITS AND, LATER, THE AMERICANS.

PAYMENT DATE SHOULD BE DUE SOON, ESPECIALLY SINCE DUE TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S ANTI-SEMITIC FOREIGN POLICY SO MANY JEWS WERE LEFT STRANDED IN EUROPE, READY TO MARCH TO THE NAZIS' GAS CHAMBERS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE BRITISH HELPED EICHMANN FILL THE TRAINS TO AUSCHWITZ, DACHAU, ETC. WHY SHOULD THE PERFIDIOUS ALBION GET AWAY WITH MURDER?

canuckistani| 7.29.10 @ 10:37PM

Now you're talking.
Ever watch gentleman's agreement?
America has its skeletons as well. The Israelis, more than anybody, know the score: TRUST NOONE.
(Easy with caps...though)

Joe Hamilton| 7.31.10 @ 6:09PM

I have tried to ignore your rivers of disinformation. However, you analogy of the British recognizing terrorists in Kenya with Israel recognizing Hamas was much too idiotic too ignore. Obviously, the British had a country to go home to.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.30.10 @ 1:22AM

There you go - UKs' newest PM has learned how to bow!

And, after a timely meeting with BHO - yet.

Simon| 7.30.10 @ 3:11AM

Who cares? Fuck Israel. It owns all those "politicians" who are supposed to be our representatives. Fuck Israel to death.

Ezra| 7.30.10 @ 10:13PM

Wow Simon is your surname Arafat and your mentor Lenin. If I am not incorrect Clinton was not under the thumb of Israel, try the Saudis. How about king obama, don't think he is too enamored with the Jews. He seemed to show it when he bowed to the king of the Saudis. What is it about you lefties that gives you such a hatred for Israel. Perhaps as indicated by your outburst you should join hamas and go help out in the "poverty stricken" Gaza.

Will| 8.1.10 @ 1:27AM

By the Saudis I presume you mean "loyal allies for decades and suppliers of all your oil"

Joe Hamilton| 7.31.10 @ 6:02PM

Fuck you Simon you punk ass keyboard warrior.

Vaemar| 7.30.10 @ 6:48AM

"The crusades never ended" That's the best and most heartening thing I've read for a long time!

Will| 7.31.10 @ 7:44AM

This article is bollocks.

1. Gaza is a prison camp. Unemployment is up around 80%, business has been destroyed by the blockade, the Gazan people are without clean water, many foodstuffs, a proper sewage system and real medical supplies. Disease is rife, and it is virtually impossible for any of the 1.5 million inmates to leave.

2. What is so bad about making pro-Turkish statements? Turkey is by far the most democratic country in the Muslim world, it is also largely secular. The ruling AK party are Islamists, but if they lose the next election (as now seems likely) they will leave without resorting to a coup. The power of the generals has also been reduced in recent years. For years, Turkey has been the West´s policeman in the Middle East, along with Egypt, keeping order in the region- Turkish support in Iraq, allowing unlimited US access to it´s airspace, was very important. In the Cold War, American missiles were based their, which greatly unnerved the Soviets. Turkey is a rising economy, a member of the G20, a regional superpower, and an absolutely key ally for the USA, Britain and Europe. Turkish entry into the EU is the next logical step in its development as a developed country.

3. But this is my main problem with the article, because it goes straight to the heart of "The American Spectator´s" flaws. The logical step the author makes- from describing Gaza as a "prison camp" and making pro-Turkish statements to supporting the boat and denying Israel´s "right to exist"- is completely absurd. The man can hate the situation in Gaza, and be pro-Turkish, whilst being a supporter of Israel and be sympathetic to its action with the flotilla. Cameron actually has a history of pretty pro-Israeli statements, standing behind the Blair government´s tough line on the 2006 Israeli invasion of Gaza. The problem with the American Spectator is its "with-me-or-or-against me" attitude, which leaves absolutely no room for pragmatism, thoughtfulness, empiricism or nuance. You fit exactly to George Orwell´s definition of nationalism, as opposed to patriotism. Instead of approaching current events from a conservative standpoint, you act like a Tea Party pravda. Thats why nobody reads your magazine.

Joe Hamilton| 7.31.10 @ 6:05PM

Have you seen the new indoor shopping mall in Gaza. Have you heard about the oversupply of food in Gaza. An Egyptian newspaper (hardly pro-Israel) said Gaza has such an abundance of food the prices in Gaza are 25% of the price for similar items in Egypt.

Will| 7.31.10 @ 4:41PM

Just a word about your analysis of British voting trends- the "there are lots of Muslims so politicians need to please them" argument.
It is true that there are far more British Muslims than Jews. However, the Muslims overwhelmingly live in a constituencies in big cities- London, Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford- which are Labour heartlands. Muslim voters overwhelmingly vote Labour, with the Liberal Democrats in 2nd. So, winning over a few Muslim voters would not help the Tories at all in terms of seats. They are completely unimportant for the Tories, and even Labour do not really need them, as they won the 2005 election easily despite huge Muslim anger over Iraq.
Jewish voters, however, mainly live in surburban London constituencies. These seats are vital marginals, and any party that wants to form a government needs to win them. One of the hardest-fought races in the recent general election was in Richmond Park, in South London, where Jewish Tory Zac Goldsmith narrowly beat Jewish LibDem Susan Kramer. So, for Conservative leaders, winning the Jewish vote is much more important than winning the Muslim vote.