One rule for me ...

The BBC reports this story without one word of the usual high-moral journalistic delinquency. Apparently, there can be no charge of hate or racism ... none of the hard-edged Trot-speak that would be instantly spewed out if a politician of European descent were to make such an unequivocally plain and ethnocentric statement:-

Kadima was founded on the premise that Israel’s long-term survival depends on safeguarding its Jewish majority and preventing Palestinian Arabs becoming the majority at any time in the future.

Demography was the motivation for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal of troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip last year and Kadima’s election pledge to make future “territorial compromises” in the West Bank.

... “In the coming period we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel, a Jewish state with a Jewish majority,” Mr Olmert told Kadima supporters in a televised speech on election night.

He added: “We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Palestinians ... If not, Israel will take control of its own fate, and in consensus among our people and with the agreement of our friends in the world, especially US President George Bush, we will act.”

“The time has come to act,” he reiterated. Indeed, the time probably has come already.

... Kadima is trying to set the tone for this by talking about the Jews’ “national and historic right to the Land of Israel in its entirety” (ie including all the occupied territories).

But its manifesto continues by asserting: “The balance between allowing Jews to fulfil their historic right ... and maintaining the continued existence of Israel as the national Jewish home necessitates territorial compromise”.

So this is the realist, “compromising” Sharonite party speaking - the one that, if it overcomes the resistance of last-ditch Likudniks, will be applauded by all the mainstream media and every race-replacing Western government.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 02:15 PM in That Question Again
Comments (4) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 29, 2006, 10:40 PM | #

I made some changes to the original:

The WhiteParty was founded on the premise that Europe’s long-term survival depends on safeguarding its European majority and preventing Foreigners from becoming the majority at any time in the future

Demography was the motivation for Prime Minister John Smith’s withdrawal of troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip last year and WhiteParty’s election pledge to make future “territorial compromises” .

... “In the coming period we will move to set the final borders of the state of Europe, a European state with a European majority,” Mr Jones told WhiteParty supporters in a televised speech on election night. He added: “We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Foreigners .

.. If not, Europe will take control of its own fate, and in consensus among our people and with the agreement of our friends in the world, especially US President George Bush, we will act.” “The time has come to act,” he reiterated. Indeed, the time probably has come already.

... WhiteParty is trying to set the tone for this by talking about the Whites’ “national and historic right to the Land of Europe in its entirety” (ie including all the occupied territories).

But its manifesto continues by asserting: “The balance between allowing Whites to fulfil their historic right ... and maintaining the continued existence of Europe as the national European home necessitates territorial compromise”.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 29, 2006, 10:57 PM | #

BTW, the last paragraph being bold is accidental, I fat fingered the controls.

Posted by Matra on March 30, 2006, 02:30 AM | #

Earlier this week Arnold Kling wrote an article at the widely read Tech Central Station website called “Throwing the Jews under a bus”. It was about the controversial paper about the Israel lobby out of Harvard (now disowned by the university according the The Times of London). The article ends with “I do not believe that American interests will be advanced by throwing the Jews of Israel, or Jews in America, under a bus”.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032406B

A few days later up pops Kling again with an article about the US in which he laments the “new xenophobia”. In this article Kling addresses illegal immigration from an economic and security standpoint. For security he says the US would be better to increase surveillance and win hearts and minds in the Arab world (though he doesn’t suggest doing that by “throwing the Jews under a bus” though that would work better than invading Iraq).

Evidently Kling only thinks Americans should be worried about economics and terrorism. Like virtually every other commentator in the US media the conquest of the country itself is not even an issue worth discussing. Apparently homelands are for Israelis but not Americans.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 30, 2006, 02:58 PM | #

Apparently homelands are for Israelis but not Americans.

That’s standard Jewish hypocrisy. Nothing new in any of that.

I wonder what they will do when Israel has been destroyed by its festering Arab problem from within. Guesses anyone?

Next entry: Canada rejects amnesty for illegals

Previous entry: Innisfail is no New Orleans

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa