Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, has just completed a trip to the Middle East. He first spent a day and a half in Jordan, visiting the Roman city of Jerash, where his wife had had her picture taken when she was four years old. It turns out that the Middleton family had lived for several years in Jordan, where Kate’s father had worked for British Airways. Prince William had his photograph taken as he stood in the exact same spot as his wife, aged 4, had done. That was made much of in the reporting, but nothing was reported — and certainly Prince William would not have been told by his Jordanian guide Samia Kouri — about the 25 churches in the city that had all been destroyed by Muslims, nor about the circumstances of that destruction. He also watched the England-Panama match on television with Crown Prince Hussein. Bonding, presumably. He met with “refugees” in Jordan. Were they Syrians? Or did he meet, rather, with “Palestinian” refugees? And if the latter, would he have learned that they are by Jordanian law prevented from being full citizens, prevented from practicing many of the professions, or otherwise improving their lot, for the Arab states long ago decided that the more limited the life prospects for these “refugees,” the stronger their propaganda value. Prince William also met with “political figures” (unidentified) and “young scientists” whose names and achievements remain unknown.
Prince William described Jordan’s relationship with the United Kingdom as one of “historic ties and friendship.” That’s true, in a way: Jordan exists as a country only because the British decided back in the early 1920s, when they held the Mandate for Palestine, to ignore the stated purpose of the Mandate, and to prevent, rather than facilitate, any Jewish immigration to that part of the Mandate’s original territory that lay to the east of the Jordan river. Instead, all the land east of the Jordan, out to the desert, first became the Emirate of Transjordan, then the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, and finally, in 1949, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That’s one part of the “historic ties and friendship” between the United Kingdom and Jordan. Another part is represented by the role played by English military men, headed by Glubb Pasha, who both trained and led the Jordanian soldiers in the Arab Legion, helping them to take part in the war against the nascent Jewish state in 1948. Historic ties. Friendship.
The royal visitor also described Jordan as a “beacon of hope” — which I suppose it is, if it is being compared with Syria, or Iraq, or Libya, or Lebanon, or Yemen. But that dreamy description would certainly raise some eyebrows among the Jordanian masses, who just a few weeks ago rioted against the economic policies of the government so violently that the prime minister had to resign; his departure may have temporarily assuaged the protesters, but did nothing to ameliorate problems, which are not of one man’s making, but systemic. Jordan is a poor country, being propped up by a few billion dollars from Gulf Arabs, as well as by UNRWA aid for the local “Palestinian” population; it can hardly afford to feed itself, and its burgeoning population of Syrian refugees only makes matters much worse. It is no one’s idea of a “beacon of hope.”
Then Prince William arrived in Israel. He was widely reported to be the first member of the British royal family to have visited Israel. Not exactly. We all learned that before the arrival of Prince William, other members of the British royal family had indeed visited Israel. Prince Charles had attended the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin in 1990 and of Shimon Peres in 2016. So far, so ceremonial. But Prince Philip, William’s grandfather, went to Israel in 1994 to visit the grave of his mother, Princess Alice of Greece, whose remains, after her death in 1984, had been kept at a chapel at Windsor Castle, but in 1988 they were brought to Israel, where she was buried, as had been her desire all along, near her aunt and mentor Elizabeth, Grand Duchess of Russia, at the Russian convent of St Mary Magdalene, above the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives.
And it is the heroic example of Princess Alice that one would like to think could have a lasting effect on Prince William. For during World War II, Princess Alice of Greece sheltered in her palace in Athens three Jewish girls, Rachel, Tilda, and Michele Cohen. When men from the Gestapo, suspicions aroused, came a-calling, Princess Alice, who was indeed somewhat hard of hearing, pretended not to be able to hear a thing, and the Gestapo men finally left, unable to conduct a proper interrogation. For her actions, Yad Vashem bestowed the title of Righteous Among the Nations on Princess Alice. A Righteous Gentile, she now lies, a permanent pilgrim, in Israel.
When he visited her grave on his last day in Israel, Prince William would have looked upon the Mount of Olives below. Will he have learned what happened to the ancient tombstones at the Jewish cemetery on the Mount, all of them pulled up or knocked down or otherwise destroyed by the Jordanians when they controlled that part of Jerusalem? Many of the ancient tombstones were used to line the floors of the Jordanian army’s latrines. One hopes he — and through him, others — will have learned about this. It deserves to be better known. Perhaps he’ll be filled on this when he returns home.
Prince William spent an hour and a half at Yad Vashem. He was clearly overwhelmed, as anyone decent should be. He wrote this in the museum’s guestbook: “It has been a profoundly moving experience to visit Yad Vashem today. It is almost impossible to comprehend this appalling event in history. Every name, photograph and memory recorded here is a tragic reminder of the loss suffered by the Jewish people. The story of the Holocaust is one of darkness and despair, questioning humanity itself.”
“We must never forget the Holocaust — the murder of 6 million men, women and children, simply because they were Jewish. We all have a responsibility to remember and to teach future generations about the horrors of the past so that they can never reoccur. May the millions of Jewish people remembered by Yad Vashem never be forgotten.”
At Yad Vashem he met, as well, with two elderly Israelis, who were among the 9,000-10,000 children (at least 7,500 of whom were Jewish), who were brought to England between 1938 and 1940 from Germany and German-annexed territories (Austria, the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and part of Poland) in order to save them from what awaited them at the hands of the Nazis. Prince William was surely moved by this meeting. And perhaps here, too, someone will remind him not only of those thousands who were saved, but of the one and a half million Jewish children who were murdered by the Nazis, some of whom might have been saved had they been allowed to go to Mandatory Palestine. But the British government prevented Jews from going to Palestine at the time of their greatest need, maintaining a blockade throughout the war, and then continuing it even after the war, with the Royal Navy turning back ships carrying survivors of the Nazi camps, preventing them from landing in Mandatory Palestine. This unhappy history should also be conveyed to Prince William. It ought to give him pause.
Along with his visit to the Western Wall, Prince William visited the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, where he undoubtedly learned from his “Palestinian” guides that Muslims are certain that Muhammad rode his winged steed Al-Buraq from Mecca to “the farthest mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa) in Jerusalem, from which point he travelled to the Seventh Heaven and then back to Mecca. But will he also learn that “Jerusalem’’ is not mentioned even once in the Qur’an? Will someone tell Prince William that the “farthest mosque” could not possibly have been the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, because that Umayyad mosque was only completed in 705 A.D., 73 years after Muhammad’s death?
Prince William seems to have been equally moved by his trip to Ramallah. Jewish suffering memorialized at Yad Vashem, “Palestinian” suffering memorialized in the tall tales and taqiyya of Mahmoud Abbas and his corrupt confederates. He began it by referring to “Palestine” as a “state” — which is what the U.N. would have you believe. But if it is a state, it’s a state run by a corrupt despot, Mahmoud Abbas, who with his two “businessmen” sons has helped himself to nearly a half-billion dollars between them of aid meant for the “Palestinians.” It’s a state that relies on another state, Israel, for the collection of taxes, and relies almost completely on endless foreign charity — from UNRWA and others — to survive. Its reason for existence is not to live in harmony with, but to be the vehicle for the destruction of, another state. The “Palestinian people” were invented after the Six-Day War to make plausible the notion that this was not a war of 22 Arab states against Israel, but a conflict between “two tiny peoples, each struggling for its homeland.” This propaganda victory has been devastating to Israel, which realized too late the effect that “Palestinian people” business was having.
In Ramallah, the story of “Palestinian” suffering and Israeli cruelty was undoubtedly presented to Prince William by those “Palestinians” at their most welcoming and on their best behavior. Songs may have been sung, but they weren’t the songs sung on Palestinian children’s shows that encourage them to “kill Jews.” Prince William would not have seen what is in the Palestinian textbooks that are hair-raising in their antisemitism. No one would have pointed out to him that so many of the streets and squares and schools in the “Palestinian” cities he passed are named after “martyrs” — that is, dead terrorists. No one will have told him about the “Palestinian Pay for Slay” program — that is, the very generous (many times more than the average West Bank wage) permanent subsidies given by the Palestinian Authority to the families of terrorists who have been killed, or to “Palestinian” prisoners for as long as they are imprisoned.
Prince William appears to have been most affected by whomever he met with last. He seemed genuinely touched by his visit to Yad Vashem. He might have made the connection between Jewish defenselessness during the Holocaust, and the defense, and refuge, that the Jewish state of Israel can now provide. And if Israel is to exist, it needs to exist within “secure and defensible borders,” as stipulated by U.N. Resolution 242. But having uttered, and written in the guestbook, all the right sentiments about Yad Vashem (that by now are boilerplate), he continued his journey, and things began to go wrong from there. He refused, for example, to meet the mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barakat, in his city, suggesting Ramat Gan instead. Apparently he felt that such a meeting would lend too much legitimacy to Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital. Barakat refused, and the meeting never took place. Does Prince William think Jerusalem was ever the capital of another people? Which people? When? Does he know how many thousands of years it has been the capital of the Jewish people? In “not taking sides” by refusing to visit the Mayor of Jerusalem, even in the western part of the city, he is indeed “taking sides” — the side of Arab and Muslim denial of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. History, it seems, is not Prince William’s strong suit.
Then came his visit to the “Palestinians.” In Ramallah, he heard Mahmoud Abbas declare how much he, and all the “Palestinians,” wanted peace. The Prince, unaware of the countless refusals of Abbas to engage in peace talks with Israelis, not to mention the celebration and support his government gives to terrorists and their families, took it all at face value. The “Palestinians” pulled out all the stops: what were billed as “Palestinian” folk dances (in reality, the Dabke dances that many Arabs do), a visit to the Jalazone refugee camp (touring its clinic and school, to see what good works these touching people managed to build), where smiling young women showed him their books. There was a red carpet, a marching band, an honor guard. During the Prince’s walkabout, he was cheered and photographed, according to the script, and a good time was had by all. No mention of why there were still people kept in “refugee” camps at all, when the Israelis had managed to quickly incorporate into their society a far larger number of Jewish refugees who fled from Arab lands during and after the 1948 war. No discussion of the Pay-for-Slay arrangements, nor of the streets named after terrorist murderers. No mention of the thousands of Muslim terror attacks on Israel. What did any of that matter now that Mahmoud Abbas had declared himself roundly for peace — he wouldn’t lie, would he? — through “negotiations,” declaring his “full commitment to achieving a full and lasting peace based on a two state solution where the state of Palestine lives side by side with the state of Israel with both supervising peace and security.”
That’s a curious way for Abbas to describe his refusal to engage in negotiations with Israel, as he has been doing for some time, even to the extent of infuriating other Arabs, including the Saudis, who are tiring of the “Palestinian” cause, and aware that Israel is a useful ally against Iran. Crown Prince Muhammad reportedly told Abbas recently that he should accept whatever is offered.
The Duke replied to Abbas’s welcome in Ramallah: “Thank you for welcoming me and I’m very glad that our two countries work so closely together and have had success stories with education and relief work in the past and long may that continue.”
In his heedless enthusiasm for the “Palestinians,” Prince William elevated the “Palestinian Authority” to the status of a country, which will come as a surprise to many.
As for “success stories” with “education and relief work” — would he include as a “success story” in education the songs for children on Palestinian television, about killing Jews? Would “relief work” be considered a success even if it relies almost entirely on the endless generosity of the Infidel West, especially through the U.N., and refugee rolls that never diminish, but only increase?
Is there any way to let Prince William know about all the things he touched on, however tangentially, but that he didn’t know enough about to understand correctly? His whirlwind trip now over, he can perhaps study the very matters that confronted him in the Middle East. He should learn that Great Britain failed in its solemn duties as Mandatory authority, splitting off territory intended originally for the Jewish National Home in order to create the Emirate of Transjordan, and that originally the Mandate for Palestine was to include territory on both sides of the Jordan. He should learn about how Britain sealed off the escape route to Palestine for Jews before, during, and after World War II, so that along with the inspiring story of the 10,000 saved by the Kindertransport, he learns as well about the one-and-a-half million Jewish children who were murdered, when many might have been saved had they been allowed by the British into Palestine. He should learn about the role of the British soldiers who trained, and officered, the Arab Legion in the 1948 war. He should learn about the invention, for propagandistic purposes, of the “Palestinian people” after the Six-Day War. He should find out about Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal to negotiate except on his terms — meaning that the Israelis should return to something like their 1949 Armistice Lines, a preposterous demand. He should learn about the “Palestinian” children’s songs promoting the murder of Jews, about the subsidies given to the families of terrorists, about the many streets and squares named after many terrorists.
That’s a lot to take in. But, especially if he’s far from the Arab marching bands and red carpets and honor guards, and the cheering crowds of welcoming “Palestinians,” he should take the time to engage, once back in London, in the sober study of what he clearly needs to learn about Israel and the “Palestinians.” It’s not beyond him. After all, he’s a Prince among men.
11B40 says
Greetings:
I wonder if they talked about “occupied” Northern Ireland ???
Rob says
I recall that Palestinians in Jordan had a window of opportunity to reside legally in Jordan. When the government saw what the co-religionists were capable of (in Lebanon) they quickly closed the loophole.
Cicero says
UB40 Why this red herring comment ?
Doris Frech says
I knew in advance what would come out of this visit. Every shekel you spent on this visit was wasted money and the question remains: Had it not been better not to accept P. Williams visit to Israel? I think so, at least when we learnt that he would go and see the phalestinians afterwards. What a slap in the face of Israel.
Benedict says
“he should take the time to engage, once back in London, in the sober study of what he clearly needs to learn about Israel and the “Palestinians.” – – –
– and the Mayor of London could probably help him with his studies.
Cicero says
Yes the Prince also learn a lot about Truth from the Muslim Mayor of the Global City called London
Carol the 1st says
Seems like another blatant “signal” as to who fancies they own England now. Why didn’t the prince have Sadiq Khan and Javid Sadiq accompany him as bookends?
It would be excellent for the royals to be sent copies of this article by Mr. Fitzgerald. Google shows how to go about snail mail, but it appears they do have a Twitter account:
the official Twitter account for the Royal family is https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily (@RoyalFamily
Janette Wells says
I agree. Someone send this excellent article to Prince William.
J D S says
I believe his trip was just that….a trip…May be an ego trip..What good it did for Britain other than showing his relationship to Muslims I’ll never know. Waste of MONEY needed by Britain. and what about all those Christian churches in Jordan that were destroyed by Muslims.
shoehorn says
2-state solution since 1948: Israel and Trans-Jordan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sSfNHghZc
Walter Norman says
Great movie.
mgoldberg says
He’s there to wave his wee wave, promise to understand that it’s all a zero sum game: victims vs oppressors, and to give equal weight to all the oppressed- ie the fakestinaians are oppressed so give them more money and more a state, from the jews. Back to england to play polo.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Prince William’s Middle East Visit Started Out Well, and Then…..
…………………
This is what happens when decent people are ignorant of Islam and its savage history. We sadly see this all the time.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes, alas.
I see very nice, middle-class, reasonably-well-educated people in my own church who are totally fooled by the ‘Palestinian’ pantomime of victimhood. People who are not, I would think, antisemitic as such. But over time, if they keep on being barraged by the sob stories – utterly fake – of the mohammedans, they *believe* them.. and then they start to *become* Jew-haters… it’s awful to watch. And they tend to be seduced into a fawning Islamophilia at the same time.
Elisha says
So called Christians who ignore things like Zechariah 12 and many other prophetic texts. Hosea 4:6.
carpediadem says
Hello DDA,
recommend to them the book The Rape of Palestine by Willam B Ziff. It would open their eyes. It’s about bow the British treated the Jews during the Mandate period, esp. the 1940s in then Palestine.
Cicero says
Us Ivisited a church gathering once in Forest Gate Durning Hall East London where the “Asian “ vicar gave a very one sided sermon vilifying the Israeli struggle against Palestinian Jihad. A lot of th3 congregation was “Asian “. I was appalled at his bias !
gravenimage says
Grimly true, DDA.
Amnon says
Many Israelis are from kazar converts, this also was over looked by the trip to yad vashem.
gravenimage says
I see that Amnon is again ranting about the Jews–this time making the claim, frequently held by neo-Nazis and Muslims–that all Jews are actually converts from a small, obscure tribe from the Asian steppes, and that Muslims hence have the right to destroy Israel and slaughter all the Jews.
Nice try, creep.
Strong Aingel says
Actually the “jews” in Israel today are largely derived from Turkish (Khazar) origins and these converts, are not so obscure, certainly not where politics and finance is concerned. The biblical record shows that the females and children of Judah, Benjamite and other South Israel taken into captivity by Nabopolassor and Nebuchadnezzar were made cognate; the men, those not butchered, were castrated and put to work. We are told Jeremiah secreted a Judah Princess away, to a place believed by some (i.e. Herbert W Armstrong) to be Eire. It is reasonable to assume the Talmud is the product of the Babylonian cognate descendants POINT ONE: Do I or other normal people care about any of this… No. POINT TWO:If people have not worked out by now the Powers brokering millennium long hostilities don’t give a damn about normal people, then they deserve the outcomes the Power brokers repeatedly foist on Humanity. Destroying islam has zero to do with “Jews” (a relatively new term designed to be Western friendly). It would be equally helpful to humanity if the Talmud was exposed for what it is and destroyed. Indeed only the NT is worth a thought of salvage from all Semitic scripts, and that only because it has been Westernised to a rational document as opposed to a template for lunatics and scoundrels. That said we would all fare far better on Earth if observance of “revealed” religions was recognized as a serious mental dysfunction.
martin says
Go back to your 4 legged boy friend muhamad
martin says
Above to amnon
mgoldberg says
False…. but you know that, don’t you. Believing that Jews are not ‘real’ jews is a not very subtle lie. But then, you don’t really fear being a liar, now, do you.
elisheva says
What a load of ignorant tosh. The majority of Jews in Israel are from Arab countries or their descendants. It’s just that when ignoramuses see pictures of sephardi Jews they assume that they are Arabs, when in fact they are Jewish. There are also many ashkenazi Jews, as well as Ethiopians and others. Furthermore, Ashkenazi Jews have a well documented history following the expulsion of the Jews from the land of Israel by the Romans. All the kazhar stuff is pure unsubstantiated nonsense.
Julea Bacall says
What? This is a real old time antiSemitic idea that has been proven false. Majority Jews in Israel are Mizrahi 1st, Sephardi 2nd and then mixed Ashkenazi. These are from several regions of Africa, Asia, India, Iran and some other Islamic lands, like Egypt, Saudi, Yemen. Newer immigrants of smaller numbers came from Turkey (Khazar) Old Soviet, some more from India, Argentina(Ashkenazi) Russian (Ashkenazi) There was an old Theory that the Russia Jews were from Khazars but now false. Maybe you are thinking of 1492 when all the Jews from Spain/France had to leave during the inquisision but they went to Israel & Turkey but those later to Israel. (of course many from old Saudi, Yemen, Iran went to Turkey before leaving from Israel when it was safer.) So, are you antiSemitic?
Mockingjay says
Btw –
Prince William´s car got pelted with stones while touring a `refugee camp` in Ramallah:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=https://www.qudsn.co/article/151955&prev=search
– Kinda funny you don´t hear about this in the media, isn´t it?
Mockingjay says
`…at their most welcoming and on their best behavior`.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, Mockingjay.
Mockingjay says
Welcome!
Indiana Tom says
Stones and stone children threw stones at the convoy of British Prince William Duke of Cambridge on Wednesday after his tour of the Jalazun refugee camp east of Ramallah.
Rocky Welcome by the Muslims.
Rarely says
I am certain that every part of his trip was orchestrated by the British Foreign Service. We have no idea what his personal opinions might be but we certainly get confirmation of British foreign policy for the region. Britain seems eager to side with the Palestinians (probably to win Arab favour) and, if necessary, would throw Israel under the bus.
British aristocracy has traditionally been pro-Arab and anti-Jewish long before Israel existed.
RS points out that Britain severely restricted Jewish migration to the mandate during the Nazi era. What often goes unmentioned is the minute number of Jews allowed into Britain itself at the time.
Indiana Tom says
that Muslims are certain that Muhammad rode his winged steed Al-Buraq from Mecca to “the non-existent mosque” (al-masjid al-vapor ware) in Jerusalem,
Lia says
A Muslim historian (but I do not know his name) wrote that ‘the furthest mosque’ was probably the mosque at Taif.
gravenimage says
Yes–could be. Or it might have been some sort of mythical reference. Certainly, it had nothing to do with Jerusalem.
Strong Aingel says
It is certainly not as distant as those in China, e.g Huaisheng_Mosque (627AD)
Spiro says
He was smoking the good stuff with
12 year old bride
strong aingel says
The hadith proves the “Night Journey” to be a flagrant deception; and thus all connected material. .. “Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her. He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth” _ (Dawud Book #41, Hadith #4914) ..”. The mentioned battles took place at Khaybar(h) May/June 628 .. and Tab(o)uk October/December 630. By any sane standard the encounter Aisha describes here is the moment the seed is planted for. “Isra and Mi’raj”.. aka “The Night Journey”.
Voytek Gagalka says
“But that dreamy description would certainly raise some eyebrows among the Jordanian masses,”
But of course, Jordanian masses do not speak or understand English to comprehend dreamy description of the Prince William. How fortunate! So he could continue his dreams without much disturbances or rising of some eyebrows…
Dapto says
The British Monarchy has always hated the Jews, this is the reason it has embraced Islam cause they know in time Islam will kick out all the Jews, Prince Idiot just let the mask slip for a second.
gravenimage says
Actually, Prince William himself fought Jihadists in Afghanistan.
Dapto says
He was a soldier and the British government sent the military to Afghanistan nothing to do with him and whether he hates Jews or not. So your point is mute.
carpediadem says
Moot, not mute.
gravenimage says
Prince William had the option not to go to Afghanistan–in fact, for his own safety he was urged not to go. If he had been as Islamophilic as his father, I doubt he ever would have fought against Jihadists.
Also, Prince William prayed at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. He would not have done this if he hated Jews.
“Why Prince William’s Israel visit meant so much to British Jews”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/29/prince-williams-israel-visit-meant-much-british-jews/
He is just–like so many–ignorant of the threat of Islam.
Julea Bacall says
I would imagine he thought he was fighting with the good, moderate Muslims against radicals. I do not think he ever saw what the moderates do with little dancing boys.
Doris Frech says
Wasn’t it Prince Harry who fought in Afghanistan and wouldn’t listen to his consultants telling him he’d bring himself and his comrades in harms way by attending?
gravenimage says
Actually, this was true of both William and Harry.
somehistory says
Is it any wonder that moslims and their enablers wish to re-write history?
Erase it al, all of the truth for the past 140+ yearsl and re-write it to make themselves the victims…always, in every sense, in every place and time. Shoot, they want to re-write history from ‘Creation’s beginning until now.” They would if they could.
Elisha says
History has already been written:
“The Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them. It shall be in that day that I WILL SEEK TO DESTROY ALL THE NATIONS THAT COME AGAINST JERUSALEM.” – Zechariah 12:7-9
God bless.
somehistory says
Absolutely correct. What God has born Witness to and has written cannot b changed.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Does this not violate the precepts of the Christian belief in ‘free will?’
If it is already ‘written’ then it cannot be changed. If it cannot be changed then there is fate. If there is fate then there is no free will.
Julea Bacall says
Its really up to all of us. What will we decide?
somehistory says
You are reading more into what I wrote than is there.
first of all, God gave each person free will. But that does not limit God from looking far into the future and having a prophet write down what God has seen.
If God says it will happen, it will.
However, what I wrote is that God has had history written down *already.* He saw what happened with His creation, He saw what those He created did, and heard what they said. He had a history of His people and those interacting with His people written down.
This is writing that “cannot be changed.” God Himself does not change. If he says He will do a certain thing, He will do it even though thousands of years may pass before He takes the action.
We each can choose whether we listen and learn from our Creator or not. If we choose to listen and learn, we reap many benefits. If we choose to turn away from Him, we will suffer the consequences. Either way, it is our “free will” to choose.
As He told the people in the time of Moses: “choose life.”
That is part of the “history” that He had written down and that “cannot be changed.”
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
somehistory, you have invoked the famous “omniscient God/free will” paradox. The only way to resolve this paradox is to abandon logic (which I am not prepared to do) and invoke ‘mystery.’
somehistory says
And you are much mistaken.
Consider this: God is our heavenly Father. He gave all of us life.
A human father “gives life” to his children. He raises them and teaches them and loves them. He also expects love and respect in return.
Each of his children has the same choice: Listen to dear dad and do what he says and grow up. If the child listens to the wise advice of his father, he learns to make good decisions and reaps the benefit. However, if the child is stubborn and rebellious, he refuses to listen to his father, makes mistakes and suffers the consequences.
Of course, our heavenly Father is Perfectly Wise and always knows what is best for His children; after all, He created us and knows every thing about each of us. He loves us and wants what is best for us and has given us all “good and perfect gifts.”
Anyone with a father who took care of, taught, worked hard for, loved, and all the things a good father does for his children, can understand this.
Even someone who had no “good father” can understand the concept. Our earthly fathers raise, teach, love and help and expect love and respect in return.
If love and respect is given, benefits are reaped.
Our heavenly Father offers so much more. He is worthy of our love and respect. But He doesn’t force anyone to accept the blessings He wishes to “pour out until there is no more want.”
But all people who refuse His love and kindness will not reap the blessings and will suffer consequences. Just as one does who rejects the love of his earthly father.
One might say it is the ‘law of choices.’ Make good choices, and benefit. Make bad choices, and suffer from them.
And that is Logical.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
You did not address the following logical paradox:
Premise 1: We humans have free choice. That is, our destiny is not predetermined. Our destiny/life is formed as we live by the choices and actions that we take.
Premise:2: God is omniscient. This means he knows, with certainty, everything that will happen in the future. Therefore, the future is predetermined in God’s “mind.”
Then it follows that we do not have free choice because the future is predetermined. No amount of theology can remove this paradox. The only thing to do is to abandon logic and rely on invoking ‘mystery.’
(I’ll stick with logic.)
somehistory says
Personally, I don’t care what you do, or “stick with” thinking what you will.
for one last thought that might get through your fog:
Boss: Employee, take this shovel and dig a ditch.
Employee: Yes, Sir. (and the ditch is dug)
Boss: Here is your pay.
Boss: to second employee, “Take this shovel and dig a ditch.”
Employee: “Dig it yourself.”
Boss: You are fired. Get off my property.
It is God’s Right as owner of His Creation, including the earth, to say who stays and who doesn’t. He tells us what will happen upon the choices we make. it’s up to us to make the right ones.
I’m now done with this conversation.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Italy to close ports to NGO migrant ships ‘all summer’ – minister”
https://www.rt.com/newsline/431283-italy-close-ports-ngo/
infidel says
Dhimmi Billy sat on the Gaza wall
Dhimmi Billy had a great fall
All the appeasement and jizzia
couldn’t put Dhimmi Billy back again.
Sarahf says
There are comments that the Royal Family do not like Jews – but perhaps the commenters do not realize that King Edward VII’s financial adviser was Sir Ernest Cassel and whose granddaughter married Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Sir Ernest really put the Royal family’s finances on a sound footing.
R Russell says
I wonder why the author missed out the Christian ‘holy’ sites?
I wonder why he never commented on the reports that stones were thrown at Prince William in Ramallah?
Then there is the recent media reports that William’s grandmother – and thus himself is a direct descendent of Mohammed, through this daughter Fatima.
All of this missed out. Why?
gravenimage says
R Russell wrote:
Then there is the recent media reports that William’s grandmother – and thus himself is a direct descendent of Mohammed, through this daughter Fatima.
………………….
This claim has been floating around since at least the ’80s. I would not take it seriously; it certainly doesn’t mean that either the Queen or Prince William are pro-Jihad. Prince Charles *is* pro-Islam–but this is because he is a creep, not because of his alleged ancestry.
Julea Bacall says
The grave of the relative he visited was a Circassian Christian I think.
gravenimage says
True, Julea.
David says
There was quite a lot of repetition in the article, but the message is clear. William was shown selective propaganda. Perhaps he could have an advisor give him some lessons on the aim of Islam for world domination, which although long term, it is the strongest wish. Death to all Jews is a part of the plan.
Palestinians will continue to live in poverty, because of the propaganda value. They have been given enough foreign aid ease their plight, but very little has filtered down. NO surprise there!
Doris Frech says
I knew in advance what would come out of this visit. Every shekel you spent on this visit was wasted money and the question remains: Had it not been better not to accept P. Williams visit to Israel? I think so, at least when we learnt that he would go and see the phalestinians afterwards. What a slap in the face of Israel.
Soteria Allen says
Thank you!!
And God bless you!!
He (jesus) is using you greatly!!
CelticToTheBone says
One of your best Hugh. I sense Williy-boy is as inchoate as his befuddled father (assuming Charlie-boy actually is his pop). It surely by now, after Williy’s ME performance, has become clear to all those worshippers of the Monarchy why elimination of all Elites is necessary for the survival of humanity. – An Irishman who roves.
Garfield says
Excellent article. Should be in USA Today or the tabloids at the grocery store. This info needs to reach more people!
Mike C says
The house of Windsor has never been known for its high intellect.