April 8, 2013, - 1:24 pm

Margaret Thatcher Let Islam Take Over UK; Early Pal of Arafat/PLO, Pressured Israel – No “Iron Lady” on What Counts

By Debbie Schlussel

I’ll start out my remembrance of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died today at 87, with the first line of my review of the absurd, unfair movie about her, “The Iron Lady.”


“Iron Lady”? Not Exactly: Arafat & Maggie, Pals From the Start

Unlike so many ignorant conservatives who can’t be bothered to know better or give a damn, I was never a fan of Lady Margaret Thatcher because of her anti-Israel, pan-Islamist pronouncements and actions done to please her Saudi and other Mid-East Arab petro-dollar buddies and many Muslim Brits.

While Margaret Thatcher is thought of as a conservative, all things are relative. Yes, she was conservative on taxes (she lowered them), deregulation (she supported it), and unions (she made coal miners and others go back to work), but she was not conservative on anything else, including social issues or foreign policy (unless it meant the British Empire holding on to the Falkland Islands halfway around the world). She was what the liberals in America’s Republican Party want the GOP to be today: conservative fiscally . . . and like the liberal Democrats on everything else. Thatcher didn’t care about illegal aliens, especially those of the Muslim variety who now dominate her country today because she did nothing about secure borders in 12 years as Prime Minister and really didn’t do all that much to stem the tide of British entitlements and welfare for them, contrary to her rhetoric. She was, like most European “conservatives,” a liberal Democrat with a Republican fiscal policy. And that’s why Europe, no matter what policies its countries have, is lost. If you ignore the social issues and immigration, nothing else you do matters in the long run.

The “Iron Lady” was actually made of tissue when it came to the important things, such as jihad against the West.

Margaret Thatcher, like all British politicians on the left AND right, was bought and paid for by the Muslims who’ve now made the name Mohammed the most popular baby name in London and throughout her country. She may have won some brief battles against unions and for lower taxes, but she lost the war because none of what she achieves will make a bit of difference when those babies newly named Mohammed grow up and have more and more kids, like their parents did. They will have the lasting effect on the UKistan, not Lady Thatcher, who was in the back pocket of their wealthier Arab compatriots in Britain and helped all of this come about by doing nothing, saying nothing.

And then there is Thatcher’s conduct toward Israel. Although she’s cited by ignoramuses for one pro-Israel quote she made, her actions spoke louder than her words. In fact, Thatcher was a friend of the P.L.O., the Saudis and Jordanians and others, but not Menachem Begin, whom she constantly fought and pressured. She encouraged Ronald Reagan to open dialogue with the P.L.O. and blamed Israel for the West’s problems in the Middle East, just like the anti-Israel left does. Again, she knew on which side her British-baked pita was buttered (or hummused), which is why she hung out with Yasser Arafat.

Thatcher called Begin, “most difficult,” because he would not just roll over and appease her demands that Israel pull out from the so-called West Bank and Gaza and stop so-called “settlements,” including hundreds of thousands of Jewish homes in Jerusalem and surrounding neighborhoods. Yes, Maggie Thatcher was a supporter of redlining for Jews and telling them where they could and could not live in the Middle East. Thatcher was a supporter of Palestinian Muslims, but not apparently of Falklandian Argentinians. Can you say, “hypocrite”? She wasted British lives to defend some sort of fictional hegemony over islands that Great Britain should really have little claim to today, while Jews have lived in Israel non-stop for thousands of years.

Moreover, Thatcher opposed Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which was a tremendous success and an act that was not only a good thing, but necessary. Can you imagine if Israel had done nothing and Saddam Hussein had had nuclear weapons? But Thatcher condemned this.

Yes, Thatcher fought communism, together with Ronald Reagan, and she deserves credit for that. But while she was fighting communism, she let the much more dangerous and successful threat of Islam take over Europe.

And the UK and the rest of Europe can never recover.


Although I do not like the anti-Israel Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, I think this analysis from a year ago, by Azriel Berman, is spot on about Thatcher. Here are the important excerpts:

She began to see certain Israeli policies as a liability for Western interests, fearing they would exacerbate regional instability and undermine the security of Britain’s Arab allies. . . . Begin maintained that he could grant the Palestinians autonomy, but not sovereignty. His belief in Israel’s right to build settlements rankled with Thatcher. . . . Tensions with Begin grew worse when, in June 1980, the British premier offered her country’s endorsement of the EEC (now the EU ) Venice Declaration. The Begin government detested the initiative, which called for an end to Israel’s “territorial occupation” and expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the PLO’s role in negotiations. . . . Thatcher encouraged the Reagan administration to also open a dialogue with the PLO, and it did so during its final days in power, though the dialogue was short-lived.

Thatcher remained protective of British political and commercial interests in the Middle East, and was unwilling to risk them through automatic support for Israel. This explains her direct role in controversial arms sales to Arab countries (which both Shamir and Peres strongly opposed) and her readiness to cooperate with Whitehall over restrictions on arms sales to Israel and the refusal to sell it North Sea oil.

All of this may have some rather unsettling implications for Israeli policymakers today. Thatcher regarded herself as a steadfast friend of Israel, and was certainly viewed as such by many of her Jewish supporters. However, she was influenced to some degree by a view that was commonly held by British mandarins following the establishment of the State of Israel: the perception that the Arab-Israel conflict was at the core of the difficulties facing the West in the region. Arguably, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is almost an irrelevancy in the context of the current turbulence sweeping through the Middle East.

Yes, it is. And Margaret Thatcher constantly bet on the wrong side. And while she was betting on that wrong side, the wrong side slowly emigrated freely into her country and now runs the place.

Good luck with that, Great Britain . . . or is that Akbar Britain, these days?

That should be her epitaph. In the long run, it’s her real legacy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

64 Responses

Once again, you are the only blogger/journalist telling the truth. On one hand, she helped bring Great Britain back from the brink of disastrous union based policies.

On the other hand, she was definitely, like virtually all Brits, and all other Eurotrach, anti-Israel, demanding Israel return to Aushwitz borders while opposing the pullout from their own colonies (England only pulled out of Hong Kong because they knew that fighting China would be suicide…it is easier to pick on Argentina).

Jonathan E. Grant on April 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Right–She was a Brit. Brits hate Jews.

    lexi on April 8, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Yes, she lay down for Islam.

    How pathetic!

    As goes, so goes.. on April 8, 2013 at 4:01 pm

I think Thatcher had a personal hatred for Begin that preceded by decades Begin becoming Prime Minister of Israel.

I believe Thatcher served as a British army officer in what was then the British Mandatory of Palestine when Begin was leading the Irgun in the was against the British.

I_AM_ME on April 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm

I am more upset by the loss of Annette Funicello. I liked her.

Jonathan E. Grant on April 8, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    Annette is dead? Damn.

    As for Thatcher fighting communism: I’m quite sure that in hindsight, the ideology would’ve died anyway without her help.

    The Reverend Jacques on April 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm

She was a giant of her time and one of the greatest Prime Ministers ever.

Angela on April 8, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Anyone who is wrong on Israel isn’t worth much. Israel and it’s people and what happens to them is of vital importance to all the peoples of the world because it is important to G-d, and what could be more important than that? England is under judgement for this, this is why it is turning into another third world sewer.

RT on April 8, 2013 at 3:08 pm

Thatcher was a disaster, it even rhymes 🙂 Now the English must try to clean up her mess with the Muslims and Israel. It’s never too late to roll up your sleeves and take my free online course on modern Muslims that lays out the sheer size of the threat.


There’s also my free online course on the true history of Jerusalem and Israel, which Thatcher must have missed 🙂


T.L. Winslow (@historyscoper) on April 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm

yes good work Debbie.

The reason ignoramus’s are citing Thatcher as a friend of Israel is because she visited Israel. However they do not know the reason.

Thatchers constituency was Finchley, which is a Jewish area, and she needed their votes. So to curry favour she trotted off to Israel, no different to what any other Prime Minister would have done, to be fair. But to call her a friend of Israel because of that is ignorance.

Had her constituency been any other, she probably wouldn’t have bothered.

Trevor on April 8, 2013 at 3:46 pm

“I believe Thatcher served as a British army officer in what was then the British Mandatory of Palestine when Begin was leading the Irgun in the was against the British.”

That is completely untrue and absurd. She had a splendid record of friendship with the Jews of Britain and represented a heavily Jewish district of London (Finchley) for many years in Parliament. She was the first Prime Minister to visit Israel, was an admirer of Golda Meir, cooperated with Ronald Reagan and was eulogized by Prime Minister Netanyahu today whom I think knows more then you do.

Angela on April 8, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Angela, there are many people, apparently you’re one of them, who do not equate being anti-Israel or anti-Israel policy with anti-semitism but most Jews and virtually all Israelis would disagree. We are a Jewish state, founded to be one because the Jewish people need a place of our own for no better reason than that we are Jews. Creation of this Nation was the opposite of genocide. It’s entirely possible to like individual Jews, to appreciate the Jewish contribution to the civilization of the world and to hate Israel but when you hate Israel or work for her destruction, which Thatcher did, you are engaging in ANTI-Semitism.

    Italkit on April 9, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Also, Angela, what do you think Netanyahu would do as a world leader? He can’t stay silent or criticize the dead. It’s part of politics and world diplomacy. He has to make pretty noises but they mean nothing. At least I hope they mean nothing.

    Italkit on April 9, 2013 at 1:14 am

Well I know it smacks of colonialism and all that but the fact is the UK has held on to the Falklands for a long time and almost all of the people who make it home are quite happy about that.

Plus their claim isn’t any more specious than anybody else’s. It’s an island. There’s no way to have a population there unless you want to colonize it.

Kind of sad, that her stand against terrorism wasn’t mentioned. Without her no stand may have been taken for instance in the SAS Raid on the Iranian Embassy, 1980. Also her strong stand against the IRA.

I think uncontrolled immigration is a huge problem but what makes it devastating are social entitlements. It remains to be seen if any western country with large scale social entitlements will be able to effectively control immigration in the long run.

Politically I do not think this is possible and I’m sure most socialists do not see it as desirable. Hence the conclusion.
The line in the sand was crossed decades ago.
Margaret Thatcher tried to beat back those entitlements but in the end they overwhelmed the western world.
There was never really any going back. Churchill knew that better than anybody.

Wish she had been stronger on Israel and I think one the reasons she thought she was, was because so many on the left in England would have been so much weaker.

Although I don’t agree completely with all of your article, thanks for remembering her Debbie.

Frankz on April 8, 2013 at 4:08 pm


Spot on commentary, and only on your site, I’m sure.

Heck, the Brits have been sucking up to the Arabs since TE Lawrence.

Prometheus on April 8, 2013 at 4:18 pm

Conservatives have a blind worship of her in the way that they have a blind worship of similar figures today.

If you don’t stand up for preserving your own country, nothing else matters. Sure, the UK won the Cold War but its losing to Islam at home.

Its become a very different country from the one Margaret Thatcher was born into. Her epitaph as Debbie rightly wrote, transformed it into Londonistan.

In more ways than one, the sun has set upon the country that once was the most powerful and feared in the Western World.

NormanF on April 8, 2013 at 4:39 pm

I don’t disagree with the comments about Thatcher, but Communism is more or less making a comeback. All the garbage about the 1%, most of the rallies around the world against ‘austerity’, the subversion of pro-West and traditional institutions, is consistent with a comeback of Communism, not to mention the idolization of Che, and other tyrants.

As Red Ryder has pointed out, much of what is going on today is consistent with Gramsci’s analyses almost a century ago. We have more than one enemy, and we must know all of them.

Little Al on April 8, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Apparently Arafat said, “she wasn’t the iron lady, she was the iron man” …but then Arafat saw men in lots of unusual places.

Frankz on April 8, 2013 at 7:23 pm

WELL, I was about ready to chime in support of Little Al, but then he trotted out my favorite Inquisitor and the Right’s second favorite villainous communist, Gramsci (Alinsky is #1, but that is as it should be).

So, I did a “web of science” search to see how often professionals actually cite Gramsci. The result was 326 references from Genesis to Today in English. Of those, the most frequent academic field was political science (my area of graduate expertise), in which there were about 70 references. I checked the authors of the articles citing Gramsci to see if there were any authors important enough to make it onto the dissertation lists. A few, maybe.

In other words, even though the social sciences are quite liberal, professional social scientists are just not citing this allegedly important author.

But I’m sure Red Ryder will assert otherwise.

skzion on April 8, 2013 at 7:47 pm

SKZ, instead of over-intellectualizing, take the trouble to learn something about Gramsci. Read his works, someting the U of C is supposed to encourage (i.e. reliance on primary sources), and make your own independent assessment. Whether others are citing him is secondary; he is extremely relevant to what is happening today. While I don’t agree with RR on everything, he is right about Gramsci.

Little Al on April 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    Little Peter, you bore me.

    skzion on April 8, 2013 at 8:00 pm

      (If you want me to read you, you can use my proper nick.)

      skzion on April 8, 2013 at 8:01 pm

As for the substance of the article, I must disagree with Debbie overall. That communism was dealt such a serious blow under
Reagan & Thatcher that it now looks ludicrous does not mean that things would have gone the same way if Reagan were Carter II and Thatcher were Edward Heath. Thatcher’s support for Reagan on this issue was important. Furthermore, if we want to bash Thatcher regarding Islam and Israel, we’d have to bash Reagan as well. For example, Reagan was no fan of the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor.

Communism was the major foreign threat during Reagan’s time, as it was since the end of WW2. It seems a bit unfair to blast Thatcher and Reagan for not seeing Islam for what it is.

Finally, I will not blame anyone for “pressuring Israel” when Israel’s elite stratum has been playing political games with the Muslims there since the formation of the state. No US president ever demanded that Moshe Dayan give control of the Temple Mount to the Waqf. The Gaza “disengagement” was not an American idea. Thatcher was no more “anti-Israel” than Rabin, Peres, or Sharon.

skzion on April 8, 2013 at 7:59 pm


    Debbie’s article was correct.

    Thatcher,Reagan,Bush and other so-called conservatives should be bashed for campaigning as friends of Israel during election time to get Jewish support and campaign $, and then after the election, they governed as Arabists.

    Thatcher and Reagan should be criticized for their failures to address the Islamic threat. How the hell could they not know about it. All they had to do was look at the Arab attempts at genocide against Israel, or the international Islamic terrorism, or the Iranian revolution, Hezbollah murder of US Marines,etc,etc,etc.

    Whether or not Israeli leaders made bad moves such as Temple Mount or Gaza on their own doesn’t mean US and British leaders shouldn’t be bashed if they supported, or worse if they pressured Israel into making those bas moves.

    Anyway, you don’t know if the US pressured Israel into making those moves or not. We certainly supported them, especially the Gaza pullout.

    Scott on April 8, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      Scott, I’ve answered your comment in my comment to Italkit.

      “Anyway, you don’t know if the US pressured Israel into making those moves or not. We certainly supported them, especially the Gaza pullout.”

      I do not know of a single nuclear country that the US has “pressured” into being a puppet. Israel not only is nuclear, but it presumably has a triad (I grant that the land-based part of the triad can take advantage of only a fairly small amount of land in which to hid missiles, which does lessen its deterrent value a bit). So yes, I do know that the US did not pressure Israel into making those moves. I know very well that the US was in no position to doing anything about the Temple Mount. I know that Sharon was trying to avoid jail time for himself and his family on corruption charges via the “disengagement.” I know that, year after year, decade after decade, Israel’s political elites have been jockeying for position, using the Muslims as tools.

      skzion on April 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Um, skzion, that’s pretty “anti-Israel” although I do think that those gentlemen did and do believe they were/are doing what’s best for the country. It’s easy to vilify Peres but I do see a love for this country in him despite his wrongheaded notions as to how to save it. He’s not stupid and he’s not an addled old man. He has more wits about him than most people half his age. He just happens to be wrong politically.

    However, “the road to hell…” and all that. While their “feelings” and beliefs may not be anti-Israel, their actions and words, in fact, are.

    Italkit on April 9, 2013 at 1:20 am

      Italkit, as you know, I disagree with you regarding the good intentions of the Israeli political elite, although we all know where good intentions can lead. Politicians are generally the dregs of society in terms of public mindedness, but Israel’s political system encourages new lows.

      Ultimately, though, WHY Israel’s politicos endanger the Jews of Israel doesn’t matter in this particular discussion. The issue is why we should complain when our own politicians are not pro-Israel enough given that Israeli political elites would undermine any really pro-Jewish efforts from any country. As I know that Israel’s politicos are doing pretty much what they want to do (and using American Jews as stooges, encouraging them to believe that Israel is being “pressured” by other countries, including America), I do not ding a non-Israeli politician for policies toward Israel.

      skzion on April 9, 2013 at 1:09 pm

After the garbage you posted the last few days, you have lost any moral right to tell me anything.

Little Al on April 8, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Lol, Little Peter. More ad hominems from you.

    skzion on April 8, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Obviously the above comment was directed at SKZ.

Little Al on April 8, 2013 at 8:16 pm

    Yes, yes, yes, Little Peter. You’re so clever turning my nick into something pronounced “skuzz.” Meantime, the grown-ups will move on.

    skzion on April 8, 2013 at 8:23 pm

      I guess you and RA have something in common. When you can’t, in spite of your massive graduate credentials in Political Science (maybe — who knows, really) can’t answer substantively, you make fun of my name, rather than dealing with substance. Whether it is Little A1 or Little Peter, it is time to grow up and deal with substance. I didn’t realize you would be offended by my calling you SKZ. I did it because Debbie frequently uses abbreviations when she replies to comments.

      So now that I have agreed to call you skzion, we will see whether you are an adult.

      Little Al on April 8, 2013 at 8:28 pm

      Too bad you wrote that because the thought never entered my mind and I doubt it did anyone else’s. Now however, it’s there for all of us to remember every time LA or Debbie writes “SKZ.” Sometimes discretions is the better part of valor.

      Italkit on April 9, 2013 at 1:23 am

LOL skzion,
Glad to see you on here. Sorry to chime in with my own musings but maybe it will be useful, if not I apologize.

I also get tired of all the Gramsci stuff but I think he was quite influential in area of hegemony. Hegemony is a big deal for socialists. And then if you’re talking Saul Alinsky (very influential for Obama) you’ll see that his book “rules for radicals” primarily deals with the subversion of the existing hegemony in America which in my opinion has been very effective.
What really happened after the fall of communism is that people gave up on the direct revolutionary Bolshevic tactics that would have been employed by the Trotskies, Lenins and Stalin’s of the world in favor of more gradual subtle methods which are equally misguided and destructive but take a little longer.

Frankz on April 8, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    Frankz and Little Al:

    Regarding Gramsci, I’m not going to advocate ignorance. It may well be that if Gramsci does nothing else, he provides guidance on how the Marxoids are thinking. The reason I’m so skeptical is that two of Gramsci’s advocates here (Little Al and Red Ryder) have called me a liberal (Little Al) or a communist (Red Ryder). Typically, reading important work clarifies one’s thinking instead of clouding it.

    That said, it seems that a selection from his Notebooks is listed in the UC History of Western Civilization volume 9, which does indicate that there is some merit in the work.

    skzion on April 9, 2013 at 12:53 pm

@skzion, Didn’t want to hedge you in, I’d just be interested in your take on it.

Frankz on April 8, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Gentlemen, I’m tired but will respond tomorrow.

skzion on April 8, 2013 at 9:35 pm

no worries skzion

Frankz on April 8, 2013 at 9:41 pm

I too was disappointed in Thatcher after researching her life. While there is much about her to admire, she was no conservative. If American she’d be a moderate democrat at best.

Brian on April 8, 2013 at 11:47 pm

Debbie to be fair no one in England likes Jews and telling people in England you’re pro-Israel is the social equivalent of walking the plank. I’ve spent time there Debbie. You basically have to be left wing. Also Debbie please post pictures of you in your new petite shmatas from Target. I understand you may be camera shy due to the threats you get so if you want to pm me that’s fine too. And let me know if you want to see more pictures of H., I’ve got lots.

A1 on April 9, 2013 at 1:00 am

Hi Deb:

I was afraid you’d post something like this. It’s all true of course. Yet it is no less true of the Reagan Administration (and his rogue VP George H.W. Bush). They just did a better job of hiding their feelings. Moreover, the Reagan Administration was defined by the Cold War. Supporting a “Soviet Client” like the PLO would have been a serious political embarrassment. Not so for a UK Prime Minister and the “Iron Lady” was routinely called upon by the Reagan Administration to do their “dirty work” against Israel. For all your notations about the Thatcher/Arafat relationship, you did not mention a word of protest coming from the Reagan Administration. You also did not note that the Reagan Administration ALSO condemned the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor and followed this condemnation up with a costly delay (for both the U.S. and Israel) in the delivery of armaments Israel had purchased.

Yet in spite of all of what you posted, Thatcher was probably the most Pro-American British PM since Winston Churchill. Frankly, that’s not saying much, but I won’t elaborate on this now. Sadly, most Americans perceive the UK by Thatcher and Churchill. Through the historical experience with Thatcher and Churchill, Americans automatically perceive the UK as a friend and ally.

I prefer to perceive the UK by King George III and PM Clement Atlee. MY America was founded on the dead bodies of British soldiers who pillaged and burned American homes, communities and SETTLEMENTS. The UK Royal Family today cannot pay the heating bills on the royal palace. They subsist on the “gifts” made to them by “leaders” of the Gulf State oil producing countries. This has been going on for decades.

Yes, Thatcher and the British are no friends of the Jewish People. Yet one cannot criticize Thatcher in a vitriolic manner and leave her close collaborator(s) in the White House unscathed.

Like the UK, America has the best government petro-dollars can buy. What Americans don’t realize is how long this situation has existed HERE. It’s easy to point at the UK. It’s harder to look at OUR country and realize that we became like them a long time ago.


There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

There is NO Santa Claus on April 9, 2013 at 1:26 am

thanks Debbie.

it just goes to show that all politicians are generally more harm then good. very few do any good at all. Thatcher did some good but it probably did not cancel the bad.

the fact that the liberals never do any good doesn’t negate a “conservative” doing bad nor that they should be excused for it since others are worse.

General P. Malaise on April 9, 2013 at 4:36 am

I agree w/ Frankz about the Falklands. That wasn’t about Britain holding on to one of its colonies – it was about defending the right of people – ethnically Brits, not Argentine – not to be ruled against their will.

The Falklands was captured by an Argentine junta unpopular at home, which used it to rally nationalist sentiments. Only problem – once Britain recaptured the islands, the people turned against the junta, and it started the wave of democratic movements in Latin America. Largely successful, and paving the way for the Sharansky doctrine. Except that people who believed it started applying it towards Muslims, for whom it wasn’t applicable.

At any rate, I agree w/ the rest of what Debbie wrote about Thatcher’s foreign policy. She was completely in the pockets of the sheikhs, who managed to influence her policy towards both the PLO and Pakistan. And yeah, she did nothing about immigration, since there was only one threat that mattered at the time. Result – the other threat – Muslims – got completely ignored.

Although one thing I’ll say – Britain Islamized more under Tony Blair than it did under Thatcher.

Infidel on April 9, 2013 at 7:31 am


    Argentina wanted to belong to the West. Its basically what – Little Italy in Latin America.

    On the hand, the Muslim World hates us, its hates our ideas and wants nothing to do with us.

    While Bush’s heart was in the right place, he didn’t recognize that universalist arguments about human dignity, democracy and freedom were nonsense to begin with because not every one desires or wants them.

    Its one thing to have removed Saddam for building WMD, its another thing altogether to engage in nation-building in a country that had no real history as a nation at all. Bush fought the wrong war.

    His wiser Daddy was right all along. We should stay the heck out of it, something I didn’t understand at the time and now older and wiser, I realize that some things are simpy never going to be.

    NormanF on April 9, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Debbie. You are looking at the Iron Lady with the advantage of hindsight. Being somewhat older I may be able to give you a better perspective. When Mrs. Thatcher became PM, Britain was the sick man of Europe. She turned that around by smashign the unions, lowering taxes and through deregulation. She stood by Ronald Reagan in his effort to take down the evil empire. The loony left had taken over the Labour Party and was doing everything possible to support the Soviet Union. When George H. W. Bush hesitated about what to do with Saddam, she told him that this was not the time to wobble. The Falklands War brought down the Junta in Argentina and amde a powerful impression on the Politburo. She also knew that Gorbachev was not quite like his predecessors. All in all, she belongs in the conservative pantheon.

Pete on April 9, 2013 at 8:18 am

Ronald Reagan,also unfortunately, condemned Israel’s bombing of the Osirak reactor.

fs on April 9, 2013 at 9:24 am

Although a fervent supporter of Israel, I think back to the 80’s and terrorism in the world. Except for Quadafi and lack of future Islamist turmoil, shaped GB policies.Israel was still regarded highly as it always has been since the implementation of the Balfour Declaration(pact)by both America and GB. With the growth of Muslim dominant culture happening now in GB it was noticed little in her day. Again, I realize there are points against her, but considering the Leadership triangle of Reagan,the Pope and Mrs. Thatcher(others will disagree) having stifled the USSR as they fought for the ending the gulag mentality, so it should be remembered as her standout achievement.

John Collignon on April 9, 2013 at 9:34 am

    When we attacked Qadaffi in 1986 the planes took off from England. They had to fly around France and Spain because those countries would not even let us use their airspace. Maggie wa a true friend of the US.

    Pete on April 9, 2013 at 1:01 pm

She did not put the miners to work. She intended from the beginning to destroy the coal industry, and sack the lot. Her endgame – before the current fad for gas – was to import coal from Colombia while British coal miners drew the dole. So she was even worse than you think, but it’s nice to see that someone else can see through her hot air. Also, she was a curious combination of racist (she refused to admit a single Vietnamese refugee into Britain, back when the Boat People were a serious humanitarian concern) and “social liberal”, whose positions on abortion and divorce are not easily distinguished from President Obama’s.

Laura Latini on April 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm

The mining industry had already been destroyed by decades of labour union stupidity that made its product uncompetitive without government subsides that tax payers carried the bill for.
That’s why they imported coal from Columbia.

If you really dislike her opinion on abortion then I can assure you it was no more extreme than the overwhelming majority of politicians in the UK and the majority of people who share your economic views.

The left will not tolerate the influence of people such as yourself for very long Laura.

Frankz on April 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm


Frankz on April 9, 2013 at 1:01 pm

I generally follow the principle that anything RR says must be suspect but when it comes to Gramsci I’ll offer him some leeway although that doesn’t mean I think RR actually understands him.

In terms of Marxist brain candy he’s a hit.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

This is clearly influenced by Gramsci’s notion of the ‘manufacture of consent’.

Gramsci was in turn clearly influenced by prison and prison guards which is where his ideas should have stayed.

Frankz on April 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Frankz, you make interesting points.

    skzion on April 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm

On the + side she and Reagan won the cold war; she destroyed socialism in the UK; she promoted the rights of individuals; she turned Britain back into a first class country; and she was very pro – Jewish. On the – side she wasn’t as vigilant as she should have been in stopping Muslim immigration (though most of that occurred under Tony Blair), had she let in 2,000,000 Chinese from Hong Kong when that territory was taken over by the Mainland imagine how enriched GB would be now; and she was not a massive friend of Israel (not an enemy, more neutral)

On the whole, a fantastic record – we in America would be so lucky as to have her as our president.

Tony George on April 9, 2013 at 1:38 pm

Thanks skzion, your comments are always interesting.

Frankz on April 9, 2013 at 2:04 pm

I know all that Deborah Lynn, but watch the old girl give these liberal bastards a good dressing down The Iron Woman!!

Wild Jew man on April 9, 2013 at 2:13 pm

I was just joking.

Wild Jew man on April 9, 2013 at 3:05 pm

That’s the real Maggie wjm, good link.
They’ve been tightening the noose ever since, it’s all they know.

Frankz on April 9, 2013 at 3:21 pm

i did not know that she was pro raghead and anti-israel.israel has discovered huge gas deposits and will be energy antecedent in two years.they have some thing we don,t that is a missile defence which is getting better all the time.in three years israel will have it,s own defence industry and will no longer be dependent on america or europe for weapons.

bruce on April 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm

Thatcher must be judged by the TIME.

World leaders almost everywhere favored Muslims because Muslims controlled the envieonment surrounding Western business interests. Bush 2 continued the same even after 911.

During Thatcher’s time, NO ONE with influence foresaw the destrictive future of this attitude.

Some “outliers” like Daniel Pipes predicted a grim future, but for most of us, they simply didn’t believe what was right in their face – including Thatcher, Reagan, Bush 1, and clinton, along with many others.

Frank Zavisca on April 10, 2013 at 9:45 am

It’s time to forget it and start celebrating because this spawn of satan no longer walks the planet Earth.

Mario on April 10, 2013 at 11:09 am

Dear Author

Since when Islam is worse than Communism ? Could you please explain ?

Courious John Doe

John Doe on April 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm

America is the best friend Israel has had or will ever have. The amount of aid and support the United States has given is unprecedented. So Lets stop the bashing of Americas policies towards Israel.
In terms of Margaret Thatcher every ones life is open to criticism and a balanced take on he accomplishments is warranted . Perspective is also important. By the yardstick many of the commentators are using no one is a conservative nor worthy of praise. Being a world leader is a lot harder than being a cowboy or hawk on the internet.Ms. Thatcher was a strong leader who became broke the all boys club of the English political system
I choose to remember her fondly.

Sanjay on April 12, 2013 at 10:42 am

I prefer to remember her by her famous nickname “Thatchmo”.

Why let the Falklands being taken over by some South American dictator? Stick it to the dictators. If everyone did that, we’d have no problems with the middle east.

Opposing the destruction of the Iraqi reactor? Yeah, on paper, her and Reagan had to. In actually, they probably approved it (unless they were both dumber than I thought).

Charlie Tuned Out on April 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field