Zionism is the winner in British elections

"I would never turn my back on Israel" says David Cameron (R) with Israeli President Shimon Peres (L).

The battle of the Israel stooges in Britain’s general election has ended inconclusively in what’s called a "hung parliament" – i.e. no overall winner.

We can now expect a few days of horse-trading between David "I’m-a-Zionist" Cameron” and Gordon “Me-too Brown" to see which stooge can form a credible government.

But regardless of who finally enters Number 10 Downing Street, the real winners will be the Zionists.

Either party chief will ensure Israel has a staunch friend who’s faithful to the thuggish regime. Cameron and Brown are both patrons of the Jewish National Fund and have surrounded themselves with lieutenants who are equally supportive of the Zionist entity’s lawless expansion and barbaric conduct. Their loyalty to the British Crown is of course suspect, nevertheless many of them will occupy ministerial or key posts, especially in the Foreign Office and on intelligence, security and defence committees, as was the case under the previous Labour administration.

Britain’s safety and reputation are therefore the losers.

Both leaders are on such friendly terms with Israel’s criminal élite that they wish to change our laws to protect them from arrest on war crimes charges and provide them with a safe haven.

Both talk earnestly of "our national interest" in these ticklish times, but where this potentially conflicts with the US-Israel interest it is feared that what’s good for Britain will be sidelined.

The voting public have even elected to Parliament the former political director of the Conservative Friends of Israel, most of them no doubt blissfully unaware of his sympathies with the foreign power and the influence his promotional activities are intended to have on the party’s already distorted foreign affairs thinking.

What happened, you might be wondering, to Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats who were such outsiders that they hadn’t yet been groomed by Washington and Tel Aviv and were therefore relatively uncorrupted?

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports how diplomats in the Israeli embassy heaved a sigh of relief when they heard about Clegg’s poor showing on election day. They feared the Liberal Democrats would not be such a soft touch as the two main parties.

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown (R), opposition Conservative Party leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg (L) take part in the first of Britain’s leadership election debate; 15 April 2010. Polls handed a surprising victory to the third place Liberal Democrats’ Nick Clegg.

(Reuters)

Many of us warned that the sudden upsurge in their popularity after Clegg’s acclaimed performance in the first leaders’ TV debate would fizzle out. Why? When the talk turned to foreign policy and immigration their blind support for the EU, their unwillingness to throw out illegal immigrants and their inability to tackle the flood from Eastern Europe were laid bare.

My prediction a few weeks ago was that they would not achieve more than 24 to 25 per cent of the vote, and that is exactly what they’ve had to settle for.

During the election campaign some senior politicians have talked about the British political system being “broken”. It isn’t. Too many MPs are delinquent. They lack integrity and disregard the principles of public life. Party leaders have neither the will nor the moral backbone, it seems, to uphold those principles – such as not placing themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

It is easier to blame the system than behave honourably.

We can expect more of that.