We always suspected the UK’s possible next King, Prince Charles, had a grudge against Jews in Israel. Today the Daily Mail has published exactly what Prince Charles thought in 1986 as he toured the non-Jewish parts of the Middle East and soaked up every bit of Islamic Arab propaganda he could. Despite his “Christian” upbringing, it would seem that being told every single supremacist lie of Islamic “history” was all it took to undo anything Charles could have learned by reading the Christian Bible.
Here’s the basic problem with what Charles was told by the Arabs: they convinced him of three major lies:
- The Islamic Arab conquest of Israel was peaceful and the Jews just gave up their land willingly;
- Jews expressing Judaism don’t need self determination and can live as dhimmi slaves;
- Muslim rulers will respect the “rights” of Jews and “protect” them.
If you swallow those three lies, and throw in a belief in the central thesis of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (and by extension Hitler’s Mein Kampf): there is a powerful “Jewish Lobby” directing events, then you arrive at a belief that Jews shouldn’t have taken back our ancient, indigenous homeland. That’s what Charles is saying in his letter.
Also remember this: despite his grandmother (Prince Phillip’s mother) being buried here, neither he nor any other UK Royal has ever made a state visit to Israel. There have been a few private visits (like Charles attending Rabin’s funeral) but no official recognition that Jews reclaimed and rebuilt the only pluralistic, modern state in the Middle East on their ancient homeland. Other than some associations with British court Jews (who have a vague relationship at best with Zionism) it would appear that he’s never been exposed to the full power of the argument for why Israel is a Jewish State and why it needs to be here.
Here’s his full letter (highlights are by the Daily Mail):
The Daily Mail’s article goes into some obsessive detail over whether the phrase “Jewish lobby” in and of itself is “antisemitic”. I don’t believe in the power of single phrases but the overall effect of his beliefs which clearly point to a denial of Jewish rights of self determination in the Jewish ancient homeland, Israel, are anti-Zionist. And by extension, unless Charles believed that many other nations shouldn’t exist (does he question the existence of Jordan or Saudi Arabia?) by the modern, UK accepted definition of “antisemitism” what Charles wrote there is antisemitic.
It is the aspect of blaming the victim of aggression for that aggression that is most telling:
He’s blaming Jews for the violence perpetrated against them by Arabs. Is he calling the “influx of foreign European Jews” the cause of terrorism? I think so. This is like blaming Rotherham schoolgirls for being raped by Muslim men. Remember: Judaism is indigenous, anyone who wants to practice and be Jewish (whether by birth or conversion) is or BECOMES indigenous. It is the entire combination of the person (the Jew) and their cultural and religious expression (Judaism) that belong here in Israel. You only deny this if you’ve fallen for the Islamic identity theft “narrative”. Islam has usually destroyed indigenous cultures, Judaism survived, recovered and now thrives.
Charles is siding with the Arab Islamic conquerors and colonial invaders who are perpetually upset over the shrinking of their empire by the tiny part of little, modern Israel. The Arabs are still holding much of the ancient lands of Israel, for example the invented, modern nation of Jordan which the British carved out of Israel for a foreign Hashemite king as a gift.
The Daily Mail even manages to throw in a “some of my best friends are Jewish” defence of Charles:
This letter is over thirty years old. The problem is that the general feeling toward Israel in the UK has got considerably worse since then. The infection of the UK media by this Islamic narrative that Jews don’t belong in our homeland has been massive. As I saw at Associated Press TV News in Camden and we see throughout UK media, the “Arab narrative” is pushed hard and constantly.
When one takes into account the Prince’s hugely positive views toward Islam (which the Daily Mail summarises quite well), one can’t help but fear for the future of the UK under his reign. Will he one day oversee the conversion of the UK to a dhimmi Muslim state arguing that native Britains hostility to Islam is the reason for Islamic terror in the UK?
We can only hope his reign is brief (or non-existent) and power passes swiftly to his son because this man will only lead the UK to disaster.