Tag: United Kingdom

No to ‘Palestine’

Mike CotéLeave a comment

The recognition of a Palestinian state anytime soon would only reward terrorists.

There have been a whole mess of no good, very bad, absolutely awful ideas vis a vis the Israel-Hamas conflict tossed around the media and the internet since October 7 of last year. We’ve had serious arguments that Israel was responsible for the deaths of Jewish civilians on that horrific day, that the whole attack was a false flag meant to gin up antagonism towards Palestinians, that the well-documented atrocities against civilians – including mass rape – did not occur, and that there were no hostages taken into Gaza. On top of these egregious contentions, there has been widespread blame ascribed to Israel for purported war crimes, including destruction of civilian property (used, of course, as Hamas military camouflage), disruption of food and other necessities (basic screening of humanitarian aid that has historically been used to smuggle weapons to Hamas), ethnic cleansing (relocation of civilians outside of combat zones), and even genocide. The last allegation was leveled by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, making it all the more official-sounding, despite its complete fabrication. But these are complete bupkis compared to the new proposals coming out of major Western nations.

Over the past few days, both the British and American governments – ostensibly Israel’s allies – have floated trial balloons for the recognition of a Palestinian state in the immediate aftermath of the current Hamas-Israel war. David Cameron, former British Prime Minister and current Foreign Secretary (somehow a man who is bad at both jobs), has asserted that the UK may just decide to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations, so as to make the statehood process “irreversible.” He argues that “most important of all, is to give the Palestinian people a political horizon so that they can see that there is going to be irreversible progress to a two-state solution and crucially the establishment of a Palestinian state.” This would include recognizing Palestine as a state before negotiations commence, rather than doing so as a part of a final negotiated settlement.

The Biden administration has put the idea of near-term Palestinian statehood in the ether as well, hoping for it as a part of a broader Saudi-Israel normalization deal. The Palestinian issue was not part of any prior Israeli-Saudi negotiations, but the Biden team has forced the issue after the attacks of October 7. According to a senior White House official, “some inside the Biden administration believe that unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state should be the first step in talks to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict instead of the last,” dovetailing with the view embraced by Cameron. Of course, this information was promoted in the press by the White House’s chief useful idiot, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. The so-called “Biden doctrine” for the Middle East is replete with pie-in-the-sky idealism – famously something that works so well in the region – and assumptions about Palestinian and Iranian behavior that fly in the face of reality.

But we’re going to focus for now on the push for Palestinian statehood as part of the cliché “two-state solution,” which was, is, and should remain a dead letter. Here’s why.

Read More »

Requiem for a Queen

Mike Coté1 Comment

Mourning the last true link to the twentieth century, and perhaps the institution she so faithfully served.

Queen Elizabeth II, constitutional monarch and head of state for the United Kingdom since 1952, has died at age 96 in Balmoral, Scotland. She was the longest tenured monarch in British history, celebrating her Platinum Jubilee (70 years on the throne) earlier this year and nearly eclipsing the absurd 72 years King Louis XIV spent ruling France (unlike Elizabeth, he acceded to power when he was a boy of 4; she became Queen at age 26). From all accounts, Elizabeth was a kind woman who would often speak to anyone who she encountered, from any station of life. This care for the regular folks of Britain spoke to the Queen’s essential character aspect: her sense of duty.

Read More »

“Rule, Britannia!”

Mike CotéLeave a comment

The Union of Foreign and Domestic Politics in Mid-Eighteenth Century Britain

Introduction

“Rule, Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never will be slaves.”[1] This verse, from the poem “Rule, Britannia” by the Scot James Thomson, has had immense resonance for Britons throughout the past two and a half centuries, yet the poem was never more relevant than when it was initially written and popularized in the mid-eighteenth century. With the help of music composed by Englishman Thomas Arne, this new patriotic song promoting British maritime destiny became widely beloved almost immediately after its public debut in 1745 (it premiered to a royal audience five years earlier). What about this tune so instantly enthralled the British public? More than any other jingoistic anthem, “Rule, Britannia” captured the zeitgeist of this turbulent time; feelings of British exceptionalism in the areas of personal liberties, political freedom, and mercantile economics, as well as antagonism towards the absolutist monarchies of the Continent, were running high within the populace. The lyrics of this song depict, with accuracy and rhetorical flourish, the feelings of the era from 1740 through 1760, particularly the intimate connection between foreign and domestic affairs.

Thomson’s word choice is critical, especially in the chorus of the song, which was quoted above. In said chorus, Thomson exhorts Britannia to “rule the waves”, as well as mentioning that “Britons never will be slaves”[2]; this wording depicts the tenuous nature of the times, as the eventual British dominance of the seas and the security of her people were not guaranteed in 1740. The author has a clear concept of the connection between naval supremacy and political and economic liberty, setting Britain in contrast with the absolutist powers, namely France, who would deny her both. These themes of interconnectedness and the special role of Britain and her people are echoed in many of the poem’s later stanzas. In the second verse, Thomson writes: “The nations, not so blest as thee, Must in their turns to tyrants fall; While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.”[3] This describes contemporary British attitudes with respect to the importance of their political liberty and constitutional monarchy. By comparing other nations with their absolute monarchies to the freedom of Britain after the Glorious Revolution, Thomson shows how distinct the island is; all other nations, mainly on the Continent, are “not so blest as thee” and thus “dread and envy”[4] the British system. In the fifth stanza, Thomson pens the words: “To thee belongs the rural reign; Thy cities shall with commerce shine; All thine shall be the subject main, And every shore it circles thine.”[5] This set of lyrics brings up the economic power of Britain and its quest for colonial possessions to expand its mercantile empire. This power is based both in rural and urban settings, but chiefly in the joint operation of the two, as rural and colonial products supplied and were exported from the cities. The economic power of the island nation is tied back to naval ascendancy in the second half of the verse, “All thine shall be the subject main, And every shore it circles thine.”[6]; the ‘main’ in this case was the oceanic realm, which would be controlled by the British, along with all of the coasts bordering thereon. These aspirations of colonial and economic hegemony would resound throughout the mid-eighteenth century.

Read More »