All posts tagged problem

Israeli force, adrift on the sea

Letter to the Internation Herald Tribune

3rd June 2010

Dear Mr Oz,

I was most interested in your article today, about Israel, and, with respect, I suggest that some of your statements are somewhat inaccurate.  For example, you say “No idea has ever been defeated by force”.  I am not sure that the Chinese, who have been living for sixty years under Communist “force”, would agree with you.  Nor would the Russians, who lived under Communist “force” from 1917 for seventy years, agree with you.  Nor would the Greeks, who lived under Turkish rule for 376 years, agree with you.  All these ideas have been defeated by force.

You say that the Turkish vessels were civilian vessels “supplying humanitarian aid”.  Why were they also carrying seven hundred activists?  You further state that force should be used only as a preventative measure, or in self-defence, but the blockade of Gaza is self-defence, because once they are armed, Hamas will be able to send bombs and missiles into Israel. 

But your biggest misconception is the idea that this problem can be solved by agreement with the Palestinians.  Let us look at the past history.

In 1947, the United Nations produced a Partition Plan, which would have created two viable States – one Jewish and one Arab – in Palestine.  The Jews accepted the UN Plan, but the Arabs did not.  As a result, Israel declared its independence in 1948. Immediately after Israel had declared independence, all the Arab States declared war on Israel.  It was the Arab States that then advised all Palestinian Arabs to leave Israel, in order that they would not be in the way of the fighting.  No Arabs, however, were asked to leave by the Jews, and there are still many Arabs living in Israel.  Since then, the Arab States have declared four wars on Israel, something unheard of, all of which they have lost.  All of the wars were financed by Saudi Arabia.  Furthermore, the Arab States forcibly ejected all Jews from the Arab countries, a total of almost a million people.  There have been several attempts since then to move the Palestinians out of the camps.  On each occasion, the Arab States refused to allow the Palestinian Arabs to be moved, despite the poverty and discomfort in which they lived, in order to keep political pressure on Israel and the United States. Nor are the Palestinians allowed to become citizens of any Arab country.

In a recent poll taken of Palestinian Arabs, over 70% said they had no desire to return to Israel.  The results of this poll so infuriated the Arab terrorists, that they destroyed the offices of the company who had done the survey, and beat up its employees.

In 2000, Mr Clinton invited the Israeli Prime Minister and Mr Arafat to Camp David in the US, in order to make an agreement.  Mr Clinton first saw Mr Arafat alone, and insisted that he state on what terms he would have peace with Israel.  Under tremendous pressure, Arafat made very severe terms.  Clinton then went to the Israel Prime Minister, and insisted that he agree to Arafat’s severe terms.  When he did, Clinton was jubilant.  He thought he had solved the Arab/Israel problem.  But when he went back to Arafat to announce the news, he found that Arafat had already left America for the Middle East, and shortly after started a new terrorist offensive.

General Pacepa of Rumania was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the Soviet Block.  He has written in the Wall Street Journal that Arafat was a KGB agent who worked under him, and was also an active terrorist.  Indeed, it was the KGB who made Arafat Chairman of the PLO.  Arafat was not even a Palestinian, but an Egyptian.  Apart from heading the PLO, Arafat was also head, since 1957, of al-Fatah, the Palestinian terror organisation.

Finally, there are no Israeli suicide bombers, but there are plenty of Arab bombers.

It should be clear that the Arabs do not have the slightest intention of making any agreements with the Israelis.  They keep pretending that they do, but only children believe them. 

Yours sincerely,

D P Marchessini


A credo for a revived capitalism

Letter to the Financial Times

7th May 2010

Dear Sir,

There are several interesting points in Sir Samuel Brittan’s column in your paper today.  The first is his statement that no-one “can really believe” that the government is the problem.  This is an attitude that is prevalent in the Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian worlds.  It is certainly not prevalent in the Latin world.  Let us take the United States.  The most severe financial crisis since the Second World War was entirely caused by the government of the United States.  They deliberately printed money, and at the same time, they deliberately artificially kept interest rates down.  This is the first time such a thing has been done in financial history.  It is like driving a car at 100 mph without any brakes.  Furthermore, the U.S. government owes approximately $13 trillion, which it does not have.  In short, it is broke.  Is that not the government’s fault?  Despite owing $13 trillion, they have recently passed a Health Insurance bill, which will cost at least an additional $1 trillion.  Is that not the government’s fault?  In Britain we are a Socialist country.  As there is no written constitution, the Socialists have been free to pass any Socialist measure that they want, regardless of people’s freedom.  Is that not the government’s fault?  Gordon Brown has also followed the American financial policy, with the same result.  There has been a lot of publicity about Greece recently, but no one mentions that England is in a worse financial condition than Greece.

Sir Samuel Brittan also makes the same mistake as many other people do by using the word “capitalism”.  In fact, there is no such thing as “capitalism”.  The word was invented by Karl Marx, in order to try and rubbish free countries.  Amazingly enough, the free countries of the world accepted Marx’s insult – and called themselves “capitalists”.  The implication of the word “capitalism” is that our countries are based on a system of “capital”.  But they are not.  They are not based on any system – they are simply based on freedom.  Included among many other personal freedoms is the right to accumulate capital.

This bring us to Sir Samuel Brittan’s most controversial statement, namely that the “pattern of rewards resulting from market transactions and inherited property rights is not a just one”.  This is, of course, standard Socialist dogma, but he goes on to say that “almost no one would disagree with this”.  In other words, anyone who does not agree with Socialism is a leper.  From a newspaper like the Financial Times, this is very startling.

The point that Sir Samuel Brittan seems to miss is that the world is not a just world, and was never meant to be.  I have no doubt that Sir Samuel Brittan considers himself very intelligent.  Joe Bloggs is very stupid.  Is it fair or “just” that he should be very stupid while Sir Samuel Brittan is intelligent?  Some women are beautiful; others look like the back of a bus.  Some people have talents, most do not.  Babies are being born in the world that are deformed and crippled.  Is that fair?  Is that just?  The fact is that all of the “goodies” in the world are handed out at birth, in a completely arbitrary way, by God or by Nature, if you prefer.  There is no point talking about what is fair and what is just.  There is only one important thing in the world, and that is freedom.  Without that, one lives in a dictatorship.

When I was a young man, I became interested in IQ tests, and I had my IQ tested.  My father also became interested, and he had his IQ tested.  Interestingly enough, my father and I had exactly the same IQ.  All my life, I have been told I look like my mother.  If I am allowed to inherit my father’s brains and my mother’s looks, why can I not inherit their money?  In 1924, when Lenin died, the Times of London, at that time the most respected newspaper in the world, ran an obituary.  The headline of the obituary was “Gospel of Hate”.  In 1924, everyone could see that Socialism was a gospel of hate, but clearly Sir Samuel Brittan does not see it.
Yours faithfully,

D P Marchessini


Abuse in the Catholic Church

Letter to the Financial Times

12th April 2010

Dear Sir,

I congratulate you on your sensible letter in the Financial Times over the weekend, but I regret that, because of the dishonesty of the press, you do not seem to be aware that “paedophilia” is not the problem.  As you know, paedophilia involves sexual abuse of children, and, according to the Dictionary, children are human beings from birth until puberty.  90% of the sexual abuse that took place in the Catholic Church was between priests and teenage boys.  This is not “paedophilia”, but good old fashioned homosexuality.  But because the press and many people have now accepted homosexuality, and do not wish to attack it, they instead call the abuse in the Church “paedophilia”.   This is a lie, and, what is worse, even when they have been corrected, they go on using the same lie.  I enclose a copy of an advertisement that was inserted in the New York Times by the Catholic League, which makes this point, as well as the other point that the press reports of the Father Murphy matter were also lies.

Yours faithfully,

D P Marchessini

1 2 3 4 Page 4 of 4

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.