‘ Queen Elizabeth believed that every Israeli was either a terrorist or a son of a terrorist’

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ex-president-rivlin-queen-elizabeth-believed-that-every-israeli-was-either-a-terrorist-or-a-son-of-a-terrorist-report/

Seems she was right.

 

king David hotel bombing 1946 just the first example.

3 hours ago, johng said:

Seems she was right.

 

king David hotel bombing 1946 just the first example.

Yes, Menachem Begin, who served as Prime Minister of Israel from 1977 to 1983, was leader of Irgun at the time, “personally approved” the attack. The Queen was a wise woman. 

91 British soldiers died in the bombing.

 

And Begin was awarded the the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978.

 

Somehow the western moral compass has always been upside down when it came to Israel.

 

Even when their own people were massacred.

1 hour ago, Somjot said:

91 British soldiers died in the bombing.

 

And Begin was awarded the the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978.

 

Somehow the western moral compass has always been upside down when it came to Israel.

 

Even when their own people were massacred.

So was Yasser Arafat.

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So was Yasser Arafat.

No mention of the OP?
 

How can you compare Yasser Arafat to Menachem Begin? Arafat earned the  Peace Prize because he made a historic and politically risky decision to renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and pursue peace through negotiation rather than conflict. As leader of the PLO, he had been the voice of a stateless people for decades, and by signing the Oslo Accords, he signalled a willingness to replace confrontation with diplomacy - something many thought impossible.  

Menachem Begin had a past marked by violent militant activity with the Irgun, a group responsible for bombings during the British Mandate period. While Begin’s peace treaty with Egypt was good, it did not address the Palestinians’ suffering or rights. Begin rejected any form of Palestinian sovereignty, referring to the occupied territories as “Judea and Samaria,” and instead proposed limited autonomy under continued Israeli control.Arafat’s prize therefore represented not just personal transformation, but a recognition of hope for peace and justice for millions who had long been voiceless.  

Arafat’s prize was a recognition of genuine reconciliation efforts, while Begin’s represented only a strategic peace that avoided addressing the root causes of the wider conflict.

On 10/23/2025 at 3:06 PM, JimCM said:

Yes, Menachem Begin, who served as Prime Minister of Israel from 1977 to 1983, was leader of Irgun at the time, “personally approved” the attack. The Queen was a wise woman. 

She was a smart woman and totally right on this - they had a kangaroo court for British soldiers and hung them like dogs on a olive grove. Evil people baked into the state. - Pathe News compared them to Nazis. Quite. Hamas didn't hang their hostages Zionists who became the government hung British soldiers caught in the middle. 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair

 

From that point time was critical for the Irgun group; it was clearly a matter of time before SHAI—and the British—were informed that Irgun were moving possible bodies. They drove east to a eucalyptus grove near the village of Even Yehuda, about four km from Netanya. They hung the bodies from two adjacent trees and pinned notes to them which read:

    Two British spies held in underground captivity since July 12 have been tried after the completion of the investigations of their "criminal anti-Hebrew activities" on the following charges: Illegal entry into the Hebrew homeland. Membership of a British criminal terrorist organisation known as the Army of Occupation which was responsible for the torture, murder, deportation, and denying the Hebrew people the right to live. Illegal possession of arms. Anti-Jewish spying in civilian clothes. Premeditated hostile designs against the underground. Found guilty of these charges they have been sentenced to hang and their appeal for clemency dismissed. This is not a reprisal for the execution of three Jews but a "routine judicial fact."[3]

An anti-personnel mine was then set.[17] Most accounts say that this was buried below the bodies, where it would have targeted anyone cutting them down. 

Queen Elizabeth lived through the whole period and as the monarch intent and later monarch, she was well briefed on all activities.

 

It's unsurprising she felt the way she did.

 

She probably felt the same way about Gerry Adams (vis-a-vis IRA and his later official roles).

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Queen Elizabeth lived through the whole period and as the monarch intent and later monarch, she was well briefed on all activities.

 

It's unsurprising she felt the way she did.

 

She probably felt the same way about Gerry Adams (vis-a-vis IRA and his later official roles).

Yet she did visit Ireland but never Israel, despite her mother in law being buried there.

14 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Queen Elizabeth lived through the whole period and as the monarch intent and later monarch, she was well briefed on all activities.

 

It's unsurprising she felt the way she did.

 

She probably felt the same way about Gerry Adams (vis-a-vis IRA and his later official roles).

Irgun had superb links with Sinn Fein /IRA - they both were enemies of Britain. How the times have changed !

 

 

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Irgun had superb links with Sinn Fein /IRA - they both were enemies of Britain. How the times have changed !

 

 

The first dude was given the Nobel peace prize and was PM of Israel.

@Jingthing were these guys terrorists or freedom fighters?

23 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

She was a smart woman and totally right on this - they had a kangaroo court for British soldiers and hung them like dogs on a olive grove. Evil people baked into the state. - Pathe News compared them to Nazis. Quite. Hamas didn't hang their hostages Zionists who became the government hung British soldiers caught in the middle. 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair

 

From that point time was critical for the Irgun group; it was clearly a matter of time before SHAI—and the British—were informed that Irgun were moving possible bodies. They drove east to a eucalyptus grove near the village of Even Yehuda, about four km from Netanya. They hung the bodies from two adjacent trees and pinned notes to them which read:

    Two British spies held in underground captivity since July 12 have been tried after the completion of the investigations of their "criminal anti-Hebrew activities" on the following charges: Illegal entry into the Hebrew homeland. Membership of a British criminal terrorist organisation known as the Army of Occupation which was responsible for the torture, murder, deportation, and denying the Hebrew people the right to live. Illegal possession of arms. Anti-Jewish spying in civilian clothes. Premeditated hostile designs against the underground. Found guilty of these charges they have been sentenced to hang and their appeal for clemency dismissed. This is not a reprisal for the execution of three Jews but a "routine judicial fact."[3]

An anti-personnel mine was then set.[17] Most accounts say that this was buried below the bodies, where it would have targeted anyone cutting them down. 

Here’s another one.

 

There's no evidence Queen Elizabeth actually said she believed "every Israeli was either a terrorist or a son of a terrorist."  That was merely the opinion of Reuven Rivlin, a former President of Israel.  He made that remark when speaking with Jake Wallis Simons, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, in front of 300 guests at a banquet.

 

"Speaking at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London, Rivlin caused a stir when he said: 'The relationship between us and Queen Elizabeth was a little bit difficult, because she believed that every one of us was either a terrorist or a son of a terrorist.'”  The original source for that quote is:

https://www.thejc.com/community/former-israeli-president-celebrates-countrys-oldest-university-with-colourful-comments-u5czk1ij

 

Rivlin did not elaborate on his statement: "Asked by Jewish News to clarify his surprising comments, he stated: 'These are my words, this is what I said.'”  https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/former-israeli-president-claims-queen-elizabeth-saw-israelis-as-terrorists/

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

There's no evidence Queen Elizabeth actually said she believed "every Israeli was either a terrorist or a son of a terrorist."  That was merely the opinion of Reuven Rivlin, a former President of Israel.  He made that remark when speaking with Jake Wallis Simons, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, in front of 300 guests at a banquet.

 

"Speaking at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London, Rivlin caused a stir when he said: 'The relationship between us and Queen Elizabeth was a little bit difficult, because she believed that every one of us was either a terrorist or a son of a terrorist.'”  The original source for that quote is:

https://www.thejc.com/community/former-israeli-president-celebrates-countrys-oldest-university-with-colourful-comments-u5czk1ij

 

Rivlin did not elaborate on his statement: "Asked by Jewish News to clarify his surprising comments, he stated: 'These are my words, this is what I said.'”  https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/former-israeli-president-claims-queen-elizabeth-saw-israelis-as-terrorists/

If a former President of Israel asserted it publicly, we can confidently believe she most likely said it or held that opinion. Britain did more for Israel than any other country, from the Balfour Declaration onward, to aid its foundation. Meanwhile, extreme Zionists hunted down Her Majesty’s armed forces like dogs and even assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, a peer of the Realm. So why, then, do many have a problem with Israel condemning terrorism, when it was, in fact, precisely such actions that helped establish the state and those terrorists later rose to the highest positions of power, like Menachem Begin? It never started on October 7th, despite Zionist apologists spinning disingenuous narratives to make it appear so. For a nation founded on stolen land in the mid-20th century, the colonial-era patterns of terrorism and violence remained raw and public, unlike the more concealed forms seen in previous centuries. That, in fact, is Israel’s biggest problem: cultivating an attitude that most reasonable people find unpalatable. They are losing that battle in the modern media age and rightly so. The truth hurts. 

 

"Really these acts by Lord Moyne were without meaning for us. They were useful only as propaganda, because they allowed us to explain to the people why we had killed him. What was important to us was that he symbolized the British Empire in Cairo. We weren't yet in a position to try to hit Churchill in London, so the logical second best was to hit Lord Moyne in Cairo."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne

In modern parlance she was an anti-semite or would have been accused of being one. 

 

 

Queen Elizabeth II maintained a complex and often strained relationship with Israel throughout her reign. Despite being the world's most-travelled monarch, she never visited Israel, and her interactions with Israeli officials were notably limited. Former Israeli President Reuven Rivlin described the relationship as "difficult," stating that the Queen believed "every Israeli was either a terrorist or a son of a terrorist." He added that she refused to accept any Israeli official into Buckingham Palace, except during international occasions (The Times of Israel).

This sentiment was reportedly rooted in historical events such as the 1946 King David Hotel bombing, which killed 91 people, including 41 British nationals, and was carried out by the Zionist militant group Irgun. Some sources suggest that the Queen's refusal to engage with Israeli officials was influenced by these events and her perception of Israel's founding through violent means (The New Arab).

Despite these tensions, Queen Elizabeth maintained a strong relationship with the British Jewish community. She elevated Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits and his successor, Jonathan Sacks, to the peerage and conferred knighthoods on several other British Jews. Additionally, she received Israeli presidents Chaim Herzog, Ephraim Katzir, and Ezer Weizman during their official visits to the UK (The Australian).

In contrast, her son, King Charles III, has shown a more open approach towards Israel. He made an official visit to Israel in 2020, following previous unofficial visits to attend the funerals of Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (The Australian).

In summary, Queen Elizabeth II's views on Israel were shaped by historical events and personal convictions, leading to a policy of limited engagement with the Jewish state during her reign.

It's interesting that much of this history was almost forgotten and because of the genocide in Gaza it's at the forefront of people's minds.

She had views ... 

 

Thought all she did .... IMHO ... was, hide the families heritage, tell the kids to behave themselves, keep it white, and pay millions out when they made the news.   Who would have thought  

 

Had to throw in  ... IMHO ... as I know you can say anything about Trump, but maybe not about Ol' Queenie  😎

 

 

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

It's interesting that much of this history was almost forgotten and because of the genocide in Gaza it's at the forefront of people's minds.

Yes, I had no idea that the Queen thought all Israeli terrorists, makes sense thinking about it. One positive thing from the genocide in Gaza is that Joe Soap now knows about the real Israel and are not afraid to call them what they are, unlike before when anyone Jewish was off limits to criticism. The antisemite card is now redundant.

23 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The usual bigots are out in full force.

Congratulations to Asean Now for providing a welcoming  host site for them.

You are smearing anyone who questions Zionism with historical evidence that the facts are much more nuanced than Israel good the displaced Palestinians bad. The fact remains is that hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians were murdered, raped, and looted when the early European settlers, understandably angered by the Holocaust, sought to establish the state as a refuge for worldwide Jewry. The Nakba (The Catastrophe) resulted in the forced flight or expulsion of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians. Furthermore, this mass dispossession was frequently accompanied by widespread violence and documented massacres in places such as Deir Yassin and Tantura, as settlers sought to establish control.

 

The historical context of the settlers being Holocaust survivors seeking safety does not negate the human rights violations committed during the establishment of the state. The fact that they and Arabs fought that unsuccessfully and lost doesn't suddenly make that fact any less an injustice, as the foundational act involved the destruction of over 400 Palestinian villages and the prevention of refugees from returning to their homes, which is a continuous violation of international law.

 

It didn't start on October 7th. Damaged people damage people ad infinitum.

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

You are smearing anyone who questions Zionism with historical evidence that the facts are much more nuanced than Israel good the displaced Palestinians bad. The fact remains is that hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians were murdered, raped, and looted when the early European settlers, understandably angered by the Holocaust, sought to establish the state as a refuge for worldwide Jewry. The Nakba (The Catastrophe) resulted in the forced flight or expulsion of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians. Furthermore, this mass dispossession was frequently accompanied by widespread violence and documented massacres in places such as Deir Yassin and Tantura, as settlers sought to establish control.

 

The historical context of the settlers being Holocaust survivors seeking safety does not negate the human rights violations committed during the establishment of the state. The fact that they and Arabs fought that unsuccessfully and lost doesn't suddenly make that fact any less an injustice, as the foundational act involved the destruction of over 400 Palestinian villages and the prevention of refugees from returning to their homes, which is a continuous violation of international law.

 

It didn't start on October 7th. Damaged people damage people ad infinitum.

 

 

 

 

You have used a questionable claim to go off on a tangent about Israel. The reality of Israel is quite different than what you write. Nothing I write will change your view. The only one who can do that is you and I suggest that if you care, go visit Israel and check out the actual history, the good and the bad. it is not what you say.

 

In respect to elizabeth, her position was understandable. She  could only invite foreigners who she was allowed to invite. If the UK government said no Israelis, she was not inviting Israelis. Elizabeth is blamed by ignorant people like the former professional politician Rivlin who is 89 years old and hasn't been  president since 2014. When he was President of Israel, the UK was dependent upon Gulf money for its survival. The  financial crisis of 2007 put the UK economy into a tailspin. Then Cameron came in and the economy worsened. The UK was desperately trying to close trade deals with. Arab countries. The last thing the UK was going to do was to be nice to Israel in public. You forget that elizabeth's favourite son was  special trade ambassador from 2001 to 2011 and was very close to certain influential Arab leaders.

If Queen Elizabeth could smile and shake hands with the IRA leadership who ordered the murder of Lord Mountbatten, uncle of Prince Philip and much beloved to the Queen, I doubt she would have lost sleep over a reception with an Israeli delegation. The reality is very different than what is claimed. Prince Philip had been a strong friend of Israel and  attended multiple fundraisers for zionist affiliated organizations. He visited Israel in 1994  in respect to his mother Princess Alice, who had a close relationship with the country, far closer than her saving a jewish family in WWII. Princess Alice is buried in Israel. She was an active supporter of Israel, which today would be called, a "zionist".

Queen Elizabeth did what she had to do for the sake of the UK. Sometimes it was not to her liking, but often she was compelled to do so, by the government at the time.

8 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

leading to a policy of limited engagement with the Jewish state during her reign.

She was a very smart woman and a good judge of character.

 

I don’t like them either.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The usual bigots are out in full force.

Congratulations to Asean Now for providing a welcoming  host site for them.

I think everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.

These days, there are enough Muslim extremists in the UK to give the Brittish people a clear sense of what Israelis have been dealing with for all these years.

Posts using harsh and disrespectful language, including insults towards other members, were removed. Please debate the subject, without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Thank you. 

14 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

I think everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.

Yes, but yours are calculated volleys of hatred  intended to incite acrimony and to further prejudice.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

You have used a questionable claim to go off on a tangent about Israel. The reality of Israel is quite different than what you write. Nothing I write will change your view. The only one who can do that is you and I suggest that if you care, go visit Israel and check out the actual history, the good and the bad. it is not what you say.

 

In respect to elizabeth, her position was understandable. She  could only invite foreigners who she was allowed to invite. If the UK government said no Israelis, she was not inviting Israelis. Elizabeth is blamed by ignorant people like the former professional politician Rivlin who is 89 years old and hasn't been  president since 2014. When he was President of Israel, the UK was dependent upon Gulf money for its survival. The  financial crisis of 2007 put the UK economy into a tailspin. Then Cameron came in and the economy worsened. The UK was desperately trying to close trade deals with. Arab countries. The last thing the UK was going to do was to be nice to Israel in public. You forget that elizabeth's favourite son was  special trade ambassador from 2001 to 2011 and was very close to certain influential Arab leaders.

If Queen Elizabeth could smile and shake hands with the IRA leadership who ordered the murder of Lord Mountbatten, uncle of Prince Philip and much beloved to the Queen, I doubt she would have lost sleep over a reception with an Israeli delegation. The reality is very different than what is claimed. Prince Philip had been a strong friend of Israel and  attended multiple fundraisers for zionist affiliated organizations. He visited Israel in 1994  in respect to his mother Princess Alice, who had a close relationship with the country, far closer than her saving a jewish family in WWII. Princess Alice is buried in Israel. She was an active supporter of Israel, which today would be called, a "zionist".

Queen Elizabeth did what she had to do for the sake of the UK. Sometimes it was not to her liking, but often she was compelled to do so, by the government at the time.

 

I totally understand that for many Jews, the continuing existence of Israel is an act of faith a living affirmation of survival after near-annihilation. But that faith has often required minimizing the suffering of those displaced in its creation: the native people of that land, who for countless generations lived there before being driven out at gunpoint and forced into crowded refugee camps. They became strangers in their own country, while newcomers from across the world a Brooklyn Jew, say could settle in homes and fields taken from them.

 

And Palestinian violence, for all its horror, is also an existential howl a cry of despair and anger passed down through generations, steeped in memory and loss. It is ugly, yes, but so too is the condition that produced it. How else would anyone feel if their land and future had been taken, and the world called it destiny?

 

Meanwhile, Israel itself faces internal contradictions that erode any claim to liberalism it might once have had: a state divided between its Arab citizens and an expanding ultra-Orthodox population that largely refuses military service, depends on state subsidies, and grows rapidly in number. A society built on such disparities cannot forever reconcile faith with freedom, nor democracy with domination.

And in this modern media age where everyone with a phone is a witness the true human cost of conflict can no longer be hidden behind censorship. Images of devastation and grief reach the world in moments, confronting it with realities that cannot be explained away. No amount of denial or distraction can lessen the moral weight of what is seen.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

I totally understand that for many Jews, the continuing existence of Israel is an act of faith a living affirmation of survival after near-annihilation. But that faith has often required minimizing the suffering of those displaced in its creation: the native people of that land, who for countless generations lived there before being driven out at gunpoint and forced into crowded refugee camps. They became strangers in their own country, while newcomers from across the world a Brooklyn Jew, say could settle in homes and fields taken from them.

 

And Palestinian violence, for all its horror, is also an existential howl a cry of despair and anger passed down through generations, steeped in memory and loss. It is ugly, yes, but so too is the condition that produced it. How else would anyone feel if their land and future had been taken, and the world called it destiny?

 

Meanwhile, Israel itself faces internal contradictions that erode any claim to liberalism it might once have had: a state divided between its Arab citizens and an expanding ultra-Orthodox population that largely refuses military service, depends on state subsidies, and grows rapidly in number. A society built on such disparities cannot forever reconcile faith with freedom, nor democracy with domination.

And in this modern media age where everyone with a phone is a witness the true human cost of conflict can no longer be hidden behind censorship. Images of devastation and grief reach the world in moments, confronting it with realities that cannot be explained away. No amount of denial or distraction can lessen the moral weight of what is seen.

 

 

 

Such a superficial view.
Now back to reality. What do you offer to 8 mln Israeli Jews, 90% of whom were born in Israel and for whom this country is their only home? The offer from so called Palestinians is quite clear: leave the place or we will cut your heads off. No illusions here - it is their only offer. 
And another question: should such kind of medieval and barbaric intolerance be rewarded in the 21th century? What about consequences for the rest of the civilized world?

5 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

She was a very smart woman and a good judge of character.

 

I don’t like them either.

Are we allowed to say that without being called antisemites?
I well said.

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Yes, but yours are calculated volleys of hatred  intended to incite acrimony and to further prejudice.

Anti-psychotic medications are often used to help reduce a person's symptoms of persecution. In addition, a combination of individual therapy and group therapy may be used to help the person make changes to their thought process and gain insight into their illness.

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

They became strangers in their own country, while newcomers from across the world a Brooklyn Jew, say could settle in homes and fields taken from them.

This happens regularly. This settler thief has a Brooklyn accent.