When the lady “not for turning”, turned
When I arrived at 10 o’clock, Margaret was outside pruning some roses. She took me inside and we chatted for more than an hour. She did almost all of the talking, telling me how she was going to change Britain and Europe. She left me in no doubt that she had no time for Europe’s male leaders. She loathed them all. While we talked, Denis was pacing in front of the fire place, drink in hand, and muttering insults of his own. One I recall was “David Owen is a c * * t.”
Eventually Britain’s prime minister to be said, “Now what is that you want to discuss with me?”
I told her about the Shah’s urgent need for temporary refuge. She was very open to the idea that it could be in the UK, at his country home in Surrey. But here’s the main point… Just before we said goodbye, she took both of my hands and held them close to her breasts. Then, with real passion in her voice and eyes, she said: “You tell His Majesty that I would be ashamed to be British if we could not give him refuge after all he has done for us.”
Before I drove away we agreed that I would report back to the Shah and Farah and that I would call her, Mrs. Thatcher, at about 8.30 on the morning of her election victory.
The Shah had two questions after I had briefed him.
The first was: “Is she definitely going to win the election?”
I replied, “Yes, probably with a 40-seat majority.” (That turned out to be a correct forecast).
The Shah’s second question was: “Can we believe her?”
I replied that I was in no doubt that she really, really meant what she had said when she said it, but only time would tell.
At 8.30 on the morning of her election victory, I telephoned Margaret. “Hello, Alan,” she said, “I’m cooking Denis’s breakfast.”
I asked her when she expected to have a decision on the Shah’s request for refuge. She replied: “I need to talk with Peter but I’m sure it will be alright. (Peter was Lord Carrington who was going to be her foreign secretary), Give me 48 hours and call me again.”
When I did make the follow-up call, Prime Minister Thatcher was not available to talk to me. She had performed her first U-turn and didn’t want to acknowledge it.
At the time I imagined that the foreign office advice to her had been something like the following: “Lady, you must be out of your mind. If we grant the Shah refuge, we’ll have enormous problems with the ruling mullahs and their fanatical followers.” It is possible, even probable, that she was so advised, but recently de-classified cabinet papers indicated another reason. Britain was already doing business with the mullahs.
The moral of the story? Leaders sometimes want to do what they believe to be right but are not allowed to do so. This, I believe, is the fix President Obama is in on policy for Israel-Palestine.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
David Evans:
April 10th, 2013 at 2:35 am
If Obama cannot do what is right, then I suggest that he needs to be reminded that the US constitutes a mere 5% of world population. Muslims make up 23% and are growing rapidly in numbers. Many are angry that the US continues to support Israel’s criminal activity despite what he said at Cairo. I suggest that he take this into consideration.
Debbie Menon:
April 10th, 2013 at 2:57 am
Oh Maggie, we never knew ye!
An opportunist unlike any ordinary politician.
Thanks for writing this post Alan.
These politicians and leaders are presented to us as actors. It’s difficult for us to know in advance who the real person is.
http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2013/04/thatcher-gay-icon-and-friend-of-israel.html
much of the same here :
http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2013/04/the-real-thatcher.html
pete:
April 10th, 2013 at 3:36 am
So Alan what is stopping O,Bama from doing what he believes is right. He is the President and cant be reelected so what the hell does he care, I was very disappointed in his last speech when he seemed to be groveling to our masters. Its time for him to grow a set of gonads and do what is right.He is the president and if push comes to shove he can tell our Israeli owned congress to pound salt in their ass,s. I think the American people would love it.What is Israel going to do about it, cut off importing bagels to the U.S.I hope to hear back from you so please educate me.
When the lady “not for turning”, turned | ShahidulNews:
April 10th, 2013 at 3:58 am
[...] By Alan Hart April 9, 2013 [...]
ontogram:
April 10th, 2013 at 4:26 am
You don’t think Obama has thrown Palestine under the train precisely, and in order, to get his domestic program approved and be remembered as the universal health care guy, the jobs guy etc.? Or are we suggesting the same thing — that Palestine was simply not doable and not worth the effort no matter what?
Gene:
April 10th, 2013 at 7:55 am
Alan, I usually like and agree with what you write (I think your “Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews”outstanding). But this paean to Thatcher is over the top. It seems to be more about you and your insider relationships with the political elite than with her.
And if you want to believe that Obama has a heart and would like to do the right thing, but can’t, then I think, for all your connections you still can’t judge people. There is no moral to this story. It is immorality at its worst!
Fakhri:
April 10th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Dear Alan,
I think the comparison is not befitting.Regardless of whether one
agreed or did not with the late Thatcher’s policies, she invariably and steadfastly stood for what she believed in, no matter what the odds.It could have been her ‘turning’ on first becoming PM, but our friend ‘Obama’ has turned and turned on every
promise he made on Palestine.From his speech at Cairo University early in his first term, through faltering in his engagements with
Netenyahu on the colonies and the so-called ‘PEACE’,he turned at every corner, like Dryden’s ‘Absalom’.He has been consistent only
in his unwavering support for Israel and its security. In that sense, he has surpassed all previous American presidents combined.
Injustice in Palestine can’t be redressed by the likes of Obama.Fo he has neither the will nor the guts to tackle it.
ontogram:
April 10th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
@Fakhri @Gene
Obama is a consummate politician and he has done the calculation and determined that he would not use his second term to redress Palestine as it would take all his chits and perhaps not work in the end given both the Lobby and the wily (vicious) government of Israel. His better bet, as he probably sees it, is in the domestic programs and that he where he will use his power. As much as anybody in the US could, I sympathize with the Palestinian plight and work toward justice almost on a daily basis. Unfortunately, Obama’s calculation is probably right and, in his position, I can see arriving at this conclusion. The power is short-lived and its utility, the result of its application must be abiding to make sense. In this regard, I wish the domestic programs every success now that Palestine is abandoned for another administration. I think he will succeed: The opposition looks increasingly like wild-eyed extremists to the average American and they don’t seem to have moderated any after the election.
Vera Gottlieb:
April 11th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
No fan of the ‘Iron Lady’ but I think she had more backbone than Obama.
Gene:
April 11th, 2013 at 7:17 pm
@ontogram: Sorry, I cannot agree with you. Indeed, Obama has thrown the Palestinians to the wolves, but it’s not his doing. He’s beholden to those who chose him and put him in office. Same for foreign policies in the Middle East and Africa. Domestic policies have also been back stabbers. Look what they’re doing to Soc. Security and Medicare. Obama is not a president with a mind or will of his own. He’s a tool of the plutarchy. Pay no attention to what he says. Watch what he does – or doesn’t do.
ontogram:
April 11th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
@Gene With respect, I don’t think there’s any argument. If you are saying that Obama is morally repugnant, I wouldn’t disagree. And, yes, he is a tool. By “calculation”, I mean the deal he can complete, the deal he is offered by the plutocracy. It is a sober calculation but, without it, he risks having no legacy and then all that power is wasted. What is repugnant is not the individual, who may mean well, but the financial power that now controls American political life. Hell, Obama would probably like to free Palestine (there’s little doubt about his feelings for Netanyahoo), deliver the Kurds a Kurdistan, talk nice with Iran and stop sending massive aid to Israel above all. One step in these directions and his mandate will evaporate under the deluge of propaganda which Americans eat up. Look at how they managed to make Obamacare so questionable that even those who would benefit have second thoughts. I am sure that the thinking was to at least make it questionable and not institutionalized until all the cards of the administration had been dealt, which is now.
ontogram:
April 11th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
and with respect to “entitlements” I think he wanted to put these on the table before the hard trades started, to demonstrate reasonableness. He’s been bitten by this kind of thing before, but then it backlashed and made the Republicans look unreasonable. Maybe he is hoping for the same dynamic and there are encouraging signs that Republicans are having a hard time getting any broad support for their reprehensible programs.
Gene:
April 11th, 2013 at 8:40 pm
@ontogram: With reciprocal respect, I think you are too kind to Obama. I believe he is an empty suit, couldn’t care less about Palestinians or Kurds, or anything else, besides getting to the end of his mandate without a scandal, and on to his new job as some university president, or such. On the surface, he may not seem as evil as GWB or Tony Blair, but underneath that demeanor, I thinks he is worse. He loves flipping those baseball cards every week to see whom he’s going to drone next. Since the subject of this blog is about her,I won’t be sorry if he ends up like Thatcher.
ontogram:
April 11th, 2013 at 11:50 pm
@Gene: I do understand your loathing. I have felt much the same about him, very bitter about betrayal and all, the way he has worked his constituency, left us without choices. I don’t have an argument with these feelings. I was trying to understand how it is that we have such feelings. What happened politically, how did it work out that he gave Palestine false hope early on talking about ’67 borders and then threw them under the train. It’s just that, objectively, this is what happens when you play for power in this country. It is corrupting. Frankly, I don’t know much about him personally. Yeah, Thatcher – she was a piece of work.And Blair, that miserable fraud.
Moss Page:
April 12th, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Alan, I would appreciate it if you put a summary of advice you gave to Farah and educating Shah through her on what was going wrong before the revolution.
Thanks
Fakhri:
April 13th, 2013 at 9:33 am
@ontogram,
Understand your reasoning for Obama’s failing the Palestinians and others in their quest.This,I think, is sometimes called ‘practical politics’. But politics is not always about ‘practicalities’.At times it does involve taking risks, especially in just causes.History is full of precedents:
The US president wtnt to war in 1940. Was it not for a just cause?
Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in the eighties; was it not for a just
cause?Bush senior massed the whole world against Saddam Hussein before that for the oil. Bush Junior and Tony Blair went to war
against Iraq for nothing just, and started the ‘Drone war’ that
killed far Afghan and Pakistani citizens fifteen-fold what it did among ‘terrorists’. Obama happily inherited that medium of murder and has even made it his ‘dear’ baby.
If all those wars were worth taking risk for, isn’t peace not worth taking it? Bill Clinton’s brave approach bringing Arafat and Rabin, and later Arafat and Barak, together-in the very last days of his second term- in a last-ditch attempt at a
breakthrough for peace in the longest-running conflict in the world was commendable. If Obama really had any feelings towards the Palestinians,it would have been opportune to do something;
it still is.But facts speak louder than empty talk.Obama is a bag
of wind.
le:
April 13th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
I was very suprised when Obama announced his trip to Israel.
With the election over he no longer needed to pander for the Jewish vote
The Democrats in congress are going to support him and his agenda even absent a trip to Israel. The Republican’s are not going to cooperate in any meaningful way with him regardless of how much he supports Israel. With no new proposals or initiatives to offer he knew the trip would not produce any benefits in terms of peace or help for the Palestinians. If he had something important to tell Netanyahu about Iran, he didn’t need a trip to Israel to do it. There really seemed no point to the trip.
What he said in Israel stunned me.
Yes, he made the speech to the Israel students about empathy with the Palestinians. (That’s not what stunned me and I believe he was sincere about that).
He actually seemed to identify with the Zionist narrative and with Jewish history. His compliments and warm words went above and beyond what was necessary for mere politness and diplomatic niceties. He even mentioned, in a heartfelt way, Jewish support for the civil rights movement in the US, something an Israeli audience could care less about.
ontogram:
April 13th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
@le Very good. Yes, he went out of his way on this one to endorse the Zionist narrative, the farce of Israel’s founding, etc. He certainly was playing to a domestic constituency. Not only did he not risk spending his political capital, he actively sought to enhance that capital stock.
@Fahkri I don’t think the instances you cite were very risky. Practical politics, as you identify, only allows little steps and little risks. If the American public were ready to understand IP and sympathize with Palestinians, it would THEN be brave for Obama to take the step of endorsing that narrative and demanding justice. (Clinton didn’t empathize with Arafat at all and blamed him for not willingly becoming a vassal state of Israel.) We all know that Obama HAD THE POLITICAL CAPITAL and we all hoped he would use it on IP, but he judged otherwise. I don’t commend him for this (I’d rather have Palestine free that US universal healthcare!) but I understand the choice he made. That Obama doesn’t exude integrity doesn’t necessarily mean he is bereft, even though many intimate reports suggest just that.
le:
April 14th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
sorry ontogram, I disagree
As an empathetic man he is a supporter of Palestinian rights
As a political leader and patriot he wants to see an end to the occupation, permanent peace and a Palestinian state, as that is in the interest of the USA.
But in his heart, I believe he is a Zionist.
As an American black man who came of age in the later half of the twentienth century, it is not as suprising as it may seem at first.
ontogram:
April 16th, 2013 at 12:04 am
@le You may be right. I have been disappointed so many times by him. And now, Americans face this Social Security cut … it appears he is just another power guy with no charisma and nothing to offer. Anti-Zionists and Blacks and Latinos and Americans should all be pissed off with him.
Fakhri:
April 20th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
@ontogram.I beg to disagree.If going to war is a little risk, what is real risk, then? Isn’t everybody ruing the day Bush went to war against Iraq in 2003? I agree that Clinton wanted to pressurise Arafat to make very grave concessions to the Israelis on East Jerusalem, and put the blame at his door when he hesitated,although all three-Arafat,Clinton and Barak- were desperate to get something out of it, each for his own reason.But at least Clinton tried and pressed hard; he didn’t mind incensing some Republicans. Besides,the American public was not more sympathetic to the Palestinians than it is now. Quite the contrary.And besides, the American public opinion rarely, if at all, figures out when American presidents make decisions about foreign policy issues.G W Bush and Tony Blair went to invade Iraq despite the fact that New York and Washington and London were teeming with anti-war demonstrations.But,at least, all Obama’s predecessors had the spines to go for what they believed in. If Obama has, as you say, some goodwill towards the Palestinians, he would still have good four years to show it.My gut feeling is, he wouldn’t.His trip yo the Middle East was such a waste. He culd have made a tele-address to Israeli teenagers from his, is it south lawn?
Rehmat:
April 20th, 2013 at 6:18 pm
“Thatcher said once that she thought she probably had more constituents in Tel Aviv than in Finchley”.
The British and western leaders and media has turned former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1979 to 1990) into a world heroe for her blind support for the Zionist entity and British Jewish lobby groups. The so-called “Iron Lady” died on Monday at age 87. She was the Conservative party leader and first woman prime minister of Britain.
The Israeli and its puppet western leaders have paid glowing tributes to Thatcher for appointing five Jewish cabinet ministers. The 2013 report by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show a Jewish population of 263,376 among the 62.6 million British population.
“She was truly a great leader, a woman of principle, of determination, of conviction, of strength; a woman of greatness,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement Monday. “She was a staunch friend of Israel and the Jewish people. She inspired a generation of political leaders.”
Baronnes Margaret Thatcher, a Zionist Christian and an “Israel Firster” to her last bone – had blamed Barack Obama for throwing Israel under the bus. Israeli columnist Aluf Benn, wrote in Israel daily Ha’aretz (January 30, 2011): “Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as “the president who lost Iran,” which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States (and Israel) to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who “lost” Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt (all three had pro-Israel governments in the past while both Turkey and Egypt still maintain diplomatic relations with the Zionist regime), and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled“.
British prime minister David Cameron called Thatcher a “great Briton”, and the Queen spoke of her sadness at the death. Baroness Thatcher did not have a state funeral but was accorded the same status as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother. The ceremony, with full military honours, took place on Wednesday at London’s St Paul’s Cathedral.
The majority of Englishmen didn’t mourn this mean spirited leader, who re-distributed the wealth from the poorest to the richest in British society, mostly controlled by Jewish Rothschild family empire. An anti-Thatcher song has already hit the No 1 spot in UK pop song charts, even before 24 hours of her death. Watch the video below.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/04/20/jews-glorify-thatcher-for-her-support-for-israel/
ontogram:
April 20th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
I do not like being in the position of defending Obama! Changing the game in the ME is high risk domestically and he wants to be known for domestic programs. Personally, he could very well be the Zionist some believe. He was certainly groomed by Israel Firsters in Chicago.
@Rehmat Thanks for the interesting comment on the Iron Lady. These creatures of the Lobby pick up “the white man’s burden” bringing “stability” and “democracy” to the world in the form of domination and exploitation. Israel is the fullest expression of Jewish power…yes, Jewish power..and it is hideous indeed. The Jewish people have created and allowed to be created this racist, exploitative state and should be forced to pay reparations and restitution for the murder and theft.
Steve Meikle:
April 23rd, 2013 at 9:14 am
Obama constrained against doing what is right?
I doubt it. Such a view is far too high and gives him far too much credit.
That man is an empty suit who turned on a friend (Rev Jeremiah Wright) to win votes.
That makes him a whore to the core like the rest of them.
I mean, he is too weak to stop the torture?
WISS:
May 2nd, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Maggie should not exist.