Prince Charles was recently in Israel, along with many world leaders, for the observance of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. He visited the President’s Residence, where he told President Reuven Rivlin that “For me, this [visit] is a very significant experience. Many of my teachers at school were Holocaust survivors, and we are all deeply committed to combating antisemitism.” He went to the Israel Museum, and saw the Dead Sea Scrolls and other artifacts that provided irrefutable evidence for the thousands of years of Jewish history made in the Land of Israel. He went to Yad Vashem for the main ceremony. He was, of course – how could he not be? – deeply moved. He proclaimed his sympathy for the past sufferings of the Jews. And he meant it.
Later, at a reception at the British ambassador’s residence in Ramat Gan, the Prince expressed his admiration for the Start-Up Nation’s remarkable display of ingenuity and creativity. After meeting the people behind technological projects, he said: “It seems to me like Israeli genius is maintaining the entire structure of the NHS, along with a great deal of other technology,” and he spoke of “riveting developments and ingenious inventions.” That’s quite something: stating that the entire structure of Britain’s National Health Service is being maintained by “Israeli genius.” Israel’s unstoppable inventiveness is now resulting not just in patents and profits and worldwide wonderment, but also in political benefits.
Prof. Hossam Haick of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology presented the Sniff Phone, an electronic nose that can detect diseases from exhaled breath, to the crown prince. Hayah received a UK-Israel bilateral scientific research excellence grant. Prof. Tal Dvir of Tel Aviv University showed the prince his work on 3D printed hearts.
Prince Charles was also presented with sustainability projects: HomeBiogas, a device to produce natural gas from home waste, and Watergen filtration system, which draw waters from humidity in the air.
So far, so good.
But then there was this:
A speech by the heir to the UK throne, urging ‘freedom, justice, equality,’ was described by a TV station as ‘biggest show of support ever’ for the Palestinians by a member of the royal family.
Britain’s Prince Charles said on Friday that he was heartbroken to witness the “suffering” and “hardship” endured by the Palestinians.
The remarks by the heir to the British throne, who was visiting the West Bank town of Bethlehem, were described by Britain’s Sky News TV as constituting “the biggest show of support that a member of the Royal family ever has [expressed] for the Palestinians.”
Visiting the town revered by Christians as the birthplace of Jesus, Charles said: “It breaks my heart therefore that we should continue to see so much suffering and division. No one arriving in Bethlehem today could miss the signs of continued hardship, and the situation you face.”
It breaks Prince Charles’s heart to see – in Bethlehem – “so much suffering and division.” That statement demands discussion. There has certainly been “suffering and division” in Bethlehem – it’s the “suffering” of Bethlehem’s Christians. And there is “division” in Bethlehem, between the town’s Muslims and its Christians. In 1950, 86% of the population of Bethlehem was Christian; now it has plummeted to below 10%. Why should this have happened? Prince Charles undoubtedly does not know how that Christian town turned into a Muslim one. So let’s explain it to him.
As Muslim numbers grew, and Muslims became more aggressive, the Christians in Bethlehem suffered. They felt keenly that they were being inexorably replaced by those who despised them. There were more mosques. There were more shops owned by Muslims who were happy to sell Christian themed souvenirs to tourists. In the schools, as the student population became more Muslim, the subjects taught reflected that fact: less attention to Christian history, much more to Muslim history. There were often clashes between Muslims and Christians: who was hogging the best spaces in the open markets, who was badmouthing whom to tourists, who received preferential treatment from the municipality – it all contributed to bad blood and to the decisions of so many Christians to leave their native town of Bethlehem.
Israel had nothing to do with that “suffering” of Bethlehem’s Christians, and as a matter of fact, it was only when Bethlehem was governed by the Israelis, after the Six-Day War, that the outflow of Christians noticeably decreased. But ever since Bethlehem came under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, Christians have again been leaving Bethlehem. The same phenomenon could be seen in Gaza, where there were 5,000 Christians when Israel pulled out in 2005; now there are fewer than 1,000.
Muslims in Bethlehem have made life difficult and unpleasant for the Christians who remain. It is hard for them to conduct normal and secure lives living, as they do, in a Muslim sea. The Christians have to worry about angering the Muslim majority; they mustn’t say or do the wrong thing lest thin-skinned Muslims, quick to anger, take offense. Christians in Bethlehem need to show that they know their place. And the Palestinian Authority makes it hard for the Christians to conduct their business without interference. A Christian souvenir shop or restaurant might want to expand, but a Muslim competitor can put the kibosh on all such projects. A muezzin’s wail, the azan electronically amplified, can make it hard for Christians to stay sleep before dawn or fall asleep after dusk. It can drown out the sound of church bells. When 9 out of 10 residents are Muslim, Christians are not wrong to feel uneasy in Bethlehem.
Of course the PA makes life difficult for Muslims, too. There is massive corruption; Mahmoud Abbas and his two sons are worth $400 million, while lesser leaders, like Saeb Erekat, have helped themselves only to millions. This corruption is cause, too, for Palestinian “suffering,” for ordinary Palestinians have to endure the spectacle of the lavish villas and lifestyles of those who rule over them, while they must scramble to survive. No wonder that 2/3 of the Palestinians say they want Mahmoud Abbas to quit. But he won’t. The grasping Mahmoud Abbas is in the 15th year of his four-year term. He needs to make more money before he retires; Arafat made off with billions; why shouldn’t Mahmoud Abbas have the same opportunities? But what does credulous and ignorant Prince Charles know about any of this? If there is “suffering” and “hardship” in Bethlehem, it should be laid squarely at the door of the Palestinian Authority. Israel is no longer in charge, and cannot be blamed either for the mistreatment of Christian by Muslim Arabs, or for the corruption and mismanagement both of the local government and of the Palestinian Authority.
Speaking at Casa Nova, a Franciscan pilgrim house near the Church of the Nativity, Charles went on: “And I can only join you, and all communities, in your prayers for a just and lasting peace. We must pursue this cause with faith and determination, striving to heal the wounds which have caused such pain.”
Charles says he wants to “pursue this cause of a just and lasting peace…striving to heal the wounds which have caused such pain.” What exactly are those “wounds” that need to be healed? Does he know that there is no way to establish a permanent peace between Muslims and Unbelievers, because of the more than 100 verses in the Qur’an that command Muslims to engage in violent Jihad against Unbelievers? How does Prince Charles propose to do away with those verses that instruct Muslims to fight, to kill, to smite at the necks of, to strike terror in the hearts of, the Infidels? The Qur’an is immutable and uncreated; it cannot be changed. And how would Charles attempt to deal with the Qur’anic verses that tell Muslims that they are the “best of peoples” and that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings”? I suspect that Prince Charles has no idea what’s in the Qur’an. Or he may have been shown the abridged version of 5:32, which seems to denounce killing instead of what it really does, which is to describe when killing is permissible, and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”). Perhaps, when he returns to Clarence House, he can take time from his busy schedule of handshaking and ribbon-cutting, and read the Qur’an. If he really manages to take it in, to not read but comprehend, the resulting revelation would do him, and his country, good.
He added: “It is my dearest wish that the future will bring freedom, justice and equality to all Palestinians, enabling you to thrive and to prosper.”
In what Muslim country, of the 57 members of the O.I.C, is there “freedom, justice, and equality” for everyone? There is no such Muslim country. And neither Hamas that rules in Gaza, nor the Palestinian Authority that rules in the West Bank – offers that “freedom, justice, and equality” for the Palestinians which is Prince Charles’ “dearest wish.”
Later, after he held talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the official PA news agency WAFA said Abbas told the prince he was grateful to the UK “for accepting the two-state solution and rejecting the US-led ‘deal of the century’.”
Prince Charles did not “accept the two-state solution.” He said nothing about it. Nor did Charles reject the American “deal of the century.” He said nothing about it. But that doesn’t matter to Mahmoud Abbas. President Abbas was doing what he so often does: putting words in the mouth of an interlocutor, knowing full well when that other person will not deny the false attribution, but pass over it in dignified silence.
US President Donald Trump said Thursday he would unveil his Israeli-Palestinian peace plan within days. The PA has preemptively rejected it. The UK has not taken an official position on it.
Sky quoted officials representing the prince as saying he was trying to remain “neutral” in the course of his trip — his first official visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.
If Charles was trying to remain “neutral,” he wasn’t trying very hard. He seems to have been deeply affected by his meetings with the “Palestinians,” who no doubt had been thoroughly coached in how they were to wear their “suffering” on their sleeves. Some may even have been schooled to tell the Prince their own sad stories, carefully rehearsed, of what they had endured at the hands of the malevolent Israelis. Prince Charles may well have been taken in, but it is never to late to set him straight, which is what we will attempt to do – tomorrow.
No Muzzies Here says
So, this clown will become king? It breaks my heart to think of the future of the UK under him. He is telling us that he will be bowing down to the UK’s new overlords.
James Lincoln says
No Muzzies Here,
You are correct. Prince Charles bowing down to the UK’s new overlords.
This is the future of the UK…
mortimer says
What the prince did not take into account is that the suffering of Arabs under Pally administration is caused by the Arab administrators who consistently line their own pockets with the vast wealth thrown at them by misguided foreigners.
The entire Arab population of Israel individually could now be millionaires if the vast wealth transferred to their leaders had been evenly distributed.
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
Interesting how the “Palestinians” NEVER hold their own leaders accountable…
mortimer says
Quick … someone who knows HRH Prince Charles should hand him a copy of the ‘PALESTINIAN DELUSION’ by Robert Spencer. I think he will probably read it. His father Prince Phillip is an independent thinker and would certainly read it.
mortimer says
The corrupt Pally leaders have their vast personal fortunes squirreled away in off-shore banks in Cyprus … one of the biggest off-shore bank operations in the world catering to some of the most unsavory scoundrels in the world … including the Pally leaders.
owensgate says
I must be getting old… It took me the better part of two minutes to understand that “Pally” was a short for “Palestinian”, not a reference to a “Sir Pally” of some earlier Foreign Office of the UK!
ronald says
Good book http://prophetofdoom.net/pdf/Prophet_of_Doom_Entire_Book.pdf
ntesdorf says
Pray for the continuing good health of Her Majesty the Queen that she may live for ever and this Giant Drongo Prince Charles never gets to be King of England.
libertyORdeath says
“The PA has preemptively rejected it.”
How can you make any kind of peace plan work if one side rejects it without ever reading it?
Max says
When this clown becomes king, Australians will declare a republic.
tim gallagher says
I think you might be right, Max. As an Australian, I’d say that this half wit, Charles, with his assortment of weird ideas ,and his apparent dangerous liking for Islam, could finally lead Australia to ditch our attachment to the English royal family. I guess it is a very strange idea for us to have a Head of State (the English Queen) who lives so far away in Europe. I think the present Queen has been so sane and steady that she has been an acceptable type of figurehead Head of State for Australia. Charles seems to be a very strange and, I’d say, dangerous person.
Carpediadem says
G’day Tim,
even as islamic-loving a pervert as this may or may not have influence over Australia beyond what the RF has now.
tim gallagher says
Probably right, Carpediadem. Of course, the royal head of state isn’t meant to have any power at all, as you point out, only the democratically voted in politicians have the power, whether in the UK or Australia, but I do think this opinionated buffoon, Prince Charles, would try to butt in and wield a bit of power, which I don’t think the present Queen would have done. He just seems like that sort of person. I’m sure the politicians would be sensible enough to tell him to bugger off. I used to be a republican years ago, but then I thought, well, I don’t mind having someone (like the present Queen) who isn’t a politician sort of sitting symbolically above the political crowd. Charles I can’t cop, I suppose just as human being. He seems so pompous and being a fan of islam seals it for me. It is definitely weird though that we have our Head of State living in Europe. It’s a strange set up. Pretty hard to explain, that’s for sure. I do have the feeling Australians might grow to dislike Charles so much that they might decide they have had enough of the English royals.
Terry Gain says
Unfortunately we Canadians won’t be able to rid ourselves of this dimwit unless Parliament and all 10 Provincial Legislatures agree.
tim gallagher says
Terry, in Australia, we did actually have a vote quite a few years ago to decide whether we would become a republic and it failed by a long shot, at least I think it was very comfortably defeated. I think it was because of the intense distrust of politicians that the decision to become a republic was defeated. I think many people thought, don’t put more power in the hands of the politicians, as in having a very partisan political type as President. Maybe better to keep the current arrangement. It sounds as if it might be more complicated in Canada to get a change.
Terry Gain says
Usually Constitutional Amendments require 2/3 to 3/4 of the people and legislatures to vote for the change. Pierre Trudeau’s poison pill makes it virtually impossible for Canada to disconnect itself from the Monarchy.
There is of course great affection in Canada for Queen Elizabeth. I do not think her dimwit son will be well received when he becomes King, but we are stuck with him.
The Monarchy has no actual power in Canada. Its role is entirely symbolic. In the 21st century the symbolism is all wrong. It is nothing but a way for people to demonstrate their sycophancy.
tim gallagher says
It’s the same here in Australia, Terry, with the English monarchy having no power. It certainly is a very weird concept that Australia, New Zealand and Canada have their symbolic Head of State living in Europe. I do suspect that having Charles as our Head of State might do the trick and make the people in our countries decide to ditch the strange arrangement. As you mentioned about Canada, in Australia there is a great deal of respect and affection for the present Queen, which has probably kept the current arrangement going.
Battle says
The queen was publicly promoting Mad Cow prevention measures.
The prince was where?
Did the prince get affected by Mad Cow?
gravenimage says
Prince Charles in Bethlehem: “It breaks my heart” to see Palestinian suffering (Part 1)
…………………
The only way those in Bethlehem are suffering is Christians at the hands of ravening Muslims.
In 1950, Christians made up 85% of the population there; in 1998 the figure was down to 40%. The last year I can find figures for is 2016, when the population of Christians there was only 16%. Soon Christians will disappear from the literal birthplace of the faith.
Does Prince Charles care about *this*? I rather doubt it.