The continuing decline of (the not so) Great Britain

The continuing decline of (the not so) Great Britain
 
David Burton 2010

The English John Bull
 

     Some recent events in Great Britian have raised the question of whether John Bull, the iconic symbol of Britain's former glory, is becoming senile. First, we have the absurdity of a British court issuing a subpoena for the arrest and indictment of Israel's former Prime Minister in response to a request by the terrorist organization, Hamas, and its British supporters. Then the Brtish Supreme Court told a Jewish religious school that it could not decide on whether a child met its religious definition of a Jew.

Is Everyone a War Criminal?

     The following is an edited and somewhat modified version of a tongue-in-cheek response to England's foolish decision to issue a subpoena for the arrest and indictment of Israel's former Foreign Minister on charges that he committed war crimes in battling Islamic terrorist organizations that had been attacking and murdering israeli civilians. (Ref. 1.)

     You may want to consider implications of the British Court's decision - In any war and in any armed response to terrorism where civilians inadvertantly happen to be killed or injured, any military or civilian leader who might have been involved in the fighting would be subject to arrest. Every United States President from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama, along with their civilian advisors and all our generals involved, would have to go to court in a foreign country and defend themselves against the charges. How stupid and foolish have the British become? To understand the implications of the British Supreme Court decision, consider the following ficticious petition to indict a prime minister submitted to the World Court in 1946.

     We, the Professors and Other Nice People for Peace and Justice (PONPPJ), do hereby call upon the International Court of Justice in The Hague to take immediate steps and seek the arrest and indictment of a war criminal. The Court must take a moral stand {and} make it clear that ex-Prime Ministers who have engaged in war crimes must be brought to justice.

     The war criminal in question, Winston Churchill, {should} be arrested and placed on trial if he enters . . . any countries that seek peace and justice.

     Churchill is guilty of unspeakable war crimes against innocent German civilians. In battling against German "terrorists", Churchill ignored the fact that masses of innocent German civilians were living in the areas of military conflict. Churchill sent in the Royal Air Force to indiscriminately bomb broad areas in acts of disproportionate response to German provocations.

     The English had no right to enter sovereign German territory in the first place in response to the bombings of London and other English cities. Churchill should have entered negotiations with Hitler if he really wanted the attacks on Britain to end.

     In addition, British land forces {invaded} German territories in many acts of aggression {and} the violence that resulted from British occupation of the legitimate territories of the German people is understandable.

     German activists have been killed mercilessly by British armed forces. The German victims were killed by British forces without so much as the benefit of a trial or a Miranda warning.

     The British have behaved barbarously in all of this. Numerous German churches and schools have been destroyed in indiscriminate bombings and artillery attacks by the British military. As prime minister of Britain during the {fighting}, Churchill bears direct personal responsibility for this.

     Indeed, when it was discovered that Wehrmacht and SS fighters were hiding among the civilian population in Germany, Churchill should have ordered an immediate halt to all bombing and fighting. Instead, he ordered an escalation. The deaths of those innocent German civilians now cry out for justice. Churchill must be held accountable.

Signed, Professors and Other Nice Peace for Peace and Justice (PONPPJ)

Who is a Jew?

     A decison by the Supreme Court in Britain last week, "in effect, told Jewish institutions in Britain how to define a Jew. The specific case involved a religious school's admission criteria, but the decision could also affect the policies of all Jewish institutions in Britain in regards to employment and the provison of goods and services as well." (Ref. 2)

     The case involved a 12-year old boy, whose father is Jewish and whose mother converted to Judaism under the auspices of a Progressive denomination Rabbi. The Orthodox Jewish School (formerly known as the Jewish Free School, JFS) rejected the boy's admission application, because the boy's mother was not coverted by an Orthodox Rabbi. The school "abides by the authority of the chief rabbi of Britain who ruled that this conversion did not comply with halachic requirements and therefore the child was not Jewish." (Ref. 2)

     "The ruling means Jewish schools in Britain can no longer base their admission on whether a child is Jewish according to the Orthodox tradition." (Ref. 3)

     " . . . while many Jews may disagree with the JFS admission policy, it is rooted in thousands of years of Jewish law." "Even the head of Movement for Reform Judaism in Britain has objected to government interference. 'JFS denies Jewish status to converts from Reform, Liberal and Masorti, and we abhor that,' Rabbi Tony Bayfield said . . . 'But we are also extremely worried about the state interfereing in our right as a Jewish community to define for ourselves who is a Jew.' " (Ref. 2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:

  1. Sir Winston A War Criminal?, Steven Plaut, The Jewish Press, Pg. 6, 25 December 2009.
  2. Britain decides who is a Jew, Opinions, The Jewish Advocate, Pg. 6, December 2009.
  3. TOP UK COURT: LONDON JEWISH SCHOOL DISCRIMINATED, The Jewish Press, Pg. 40, 25 December 2009.

 


  07 January 2010 {Article 69; Undecided_15}    
Go back to the top of the page