I knew that it couldn't last.
After last week's superb Observer column on the spread of hunger in Britain, he is back to pedalling blood libels.
This time, that the Copts are behind Innocence of Muslims. The Copts, about whom he clearly knows absolutely nothing. Except, of course, that they do not like a neighbouring State to Egypt in which they themselves have a small community.
This time, that the Copts are behind Innocence of Muslims. The Copts, about whom he clearly knows absolutely nothing. Except, of course, that they do not like a neighbouring State to Egypt in which they themselves have a small community.
Nor, to put it at its very politest, does that State like them very much, or indeed any of those whose ancestors converted to Christianity with the Roman Empire, and adopted Arabic (not exactly a big jump from what they had always spoken) at the time of the Muslim Conquest, but who constitute the aboriginal people of the Land.
A Land which has been under Christian sovereignty - Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, British - for at least as long as the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah ever existed, so that that sovereignty constitutes its historical norm.
A Land which has been under Christian sovereignty - Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, British - for at least as long as the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah ever existed, so that that sovereignty constitutes its historical norm.
No comments:
Post a Comment