Wednesday, March 26, 2008


Sunday Telegraph 21 December 2007 "Let us hope for peace next year in David's city"

Having just read the above article that you penned for the Sunday Telegraph I wish to express concern about the distortion of information with respect to Israel that appears in this article. Time and time again, it has been observed pro-Palestinian advocates being given an open door to preach anti-Israel sentiment in the UK media but without proper balance being provided to put the Jewish/Israel view or the right to reply.

This trend apparently has now extended to HM Government Ministers, who have no right to engage in such polemics. Many of the on-line comments regarding your article which were published on the Sunday Telegraph web site, but not published by the newspaper, sum up the extent of the distortion as viewed by members of the public.

By using the story of a British government employee you deliberately sought to put over a subtle message. The mention of the Shu’fat camp – a normal town but designated as a "refugee camp" - conveys the impression that Jerusalem is off-limits. Palestinians cannot get an education, let alone jobs. Why did you not inquire where exactly UK and EU aid to UNWRA and the PA has gone in the past 60 years? Why did you not cite how the situation was in Beit Lechem before 1967 – the year of your birth? The town was then prosperous and mainly inhabited by Christians. They began fleeing when the area came under PA control at the behest of the international community including the UK.

You failed to identify the root causes of ‘the history of instability and conflict ‘ and apparently know neither the history nor what gave rise to suicide bombers. These only appeared on the scene when the International Community recognised the PLO. The PLO’s avowed aim was, and is, the destruction of Israel and the denial of any links with Judaism’s ancestral homeland.

UK taxpayers are aware that they are paying to prop up the PA and "support economic regeneration". The EU has never validated where its donations were going, nor verified if the money was ending up in the pockets of the elite. How many millionaires have been created through the siphoning off of international aid? This was not spelt out in your article.

Furthermore, you did not tell us why, following Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza, rockets began raining down on Israeli towns. Why was there was not a call for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank when these territories were under Egyptian and Jordanian control? Why had Israel suffered terror attacks before the ‘occupation’, even before 1948? What about the massacres of the Jewish communities in the Holy Land in the late 1880’s, as well as those during the Mandate period of the 1920’s and 1930’s? Why have Palestinian refugees, most of whom left on their leaders’ orders, have been kept as political pawns by the Arab states aided and abetted by the international community, while a greater number of peaceful Jewish citizens expelled from Arab countries were resettled at no cost to either the international community or the UK?

Such articles as yours portray bias and lack of context. In extreme cases, they may even amount to incitement against the peaceful, non-threatening Jews of this country.


Sunday Telegraph

Let us hope for peace next year in David's cityBy Douglas Alexander

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 23/12/2007 '

Once in royal David's city/Stood a lowly cattle shed/Where a mother laid her Baby/ In a manger for His bed." It is one of the most popular of all our Christmas carols and it will be sung by millions of people in high streets and in churches all over the world this week. This classic Victorian carol has a special place in my family because it was written by my great-aunt, more than 150 years ago. But Cecil Frances Alexander's hopeful vision of the Bethlehem she called "royal David's city" bears little resemblance to the beleaguered Palestinian communities I visited in the West Bank in recent days. While she imagined the dawn of hope in the place where King David is said to have been born, today the inhabitants of Bethlehem are struggling to keep any hope alive. I talked with a British government employee, Nassim, who is raising his family in Bethlehem. His commute to work in Jerusalem should take him only 30 minutes, but negotiating the security barrier and the repeated security checks means it takes at least an hour and a half, twice a day. Like any proud parent he showed me a picture of his two daughters, Warrd and Ghazal, aged six and four. ­Although they live just 25 miles from the sea, neither has ever played on the beach, or even seen the sea. As a family they simply cannot get there - the security situation makes it impossible. Visiting the security barrier next to Shu'fat refugee camp in east Jerusalem, I saw how sometimes it can almost completely exclude Palestinian communities from Jerusalem and from vital services - such as schools and doctor's surgeries. At a school in the Qalandiya refugee camp, a Palestinian mother told me of her fears for her teenage son. His prospects are so limited that she now chooses not even to raise the question of what he will do when he grows up. She herself lives with the quiet fear that in the absence of educational and employment prospects he might instead succumb to the persuasion of Islamic radicals. I could see in her face the aspiration for her children that any mother has, but it was also clear that she was beginning to lose hope. No one in my generation can fail to be aware of the history of instability and conflict between Palestinian and Israeli, nor the seemingly intractable positions of both sides. Neither is there any dispute that the first duty of any government - including Israel's - must be the security of its people in an era of terrorist threats. But mine is the generation in which walls and barriers have been coming down - from the Soviet Union to South Africa and Northern Ireland. The security barrier - built to protect Israeli citizens from the terror of suicide bombing - also creates physical and economic hardships that the Palestinian people now endure. This is why the talks that began in Annapolis last month are so urgent. And while we are all acutely aware of the false dawns that accompany the history of the peace process, it was a genuinely hopeful sign when the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, led their respective peoples to the negotiating table, watched by representatives from the whole world. And after attending the Paris Conference alongside Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleezza Rice, I believe this Advent season there is a case for cautious optimism. In Paris, on behalf of the UK, I was able to pledge up to £243 million to the Palestinian Authority over three years. The funds are linked to the peace process and will support economic regeneration if significant political progress is made. At that conference, last week, the international community came together to reward the bravery of Abbas and Olmert with substantial promises of support. These financial pledges are only the start and for confidence to be maintained, the Palestinian Authority will have to make the hard yards, especially in the area of security. In the coming year Israel, too, as President Bush underlined, has to demonstrate its commitment by freezing settlement expansion and removing outposts. As Israeli foreign minister Livni has recognised, the security of the people of Israel and the welfare of the Palestinian people are linked. Of course, many are sceptical about these latest steps towards a final peace. And no one can ignore the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza. But I believe that as this year draws to a close, we may be on the brink of a new opportunity for peace. Like many Victorian hymn writers, Cecil Frances Alexander had what looks to us to be a highly idealised, even sentimental, notion of childhood, with her hope that "Christian children all must be/ Mild, obedient, good as He". But I believe she would have agreed with me that what today's children of Bethlehem, like Warrd and Ghazal, are looking for this Christmas is a chance to grow up in a place of peace and security, a place where they and their families can live rewarding lives in friendship with their neighbours. It's a big hope that 2008 might be the year when we work towards this final peace deal. But Christmas is a time of hope and that hope is needed today in royal David's city. • Douglas Alexander is Secretary of State for International Development;jsessionid=GXE22WMGVJSZ5QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/12/23/do2306.xml


Wishful thinking, Mr. Alexander. Politicians never learn - that is why the palestinians can try out their pretences at peace-making with each new crop of western leaders. Abbas can fool you with 'peace talk' all he likes - with his hand wide open to collect as much as he can financially - but he does not fool the Israelis. His TV channel has resumed the glorification of suicide bombing, just as arafat did in order to provoke the intifada in 2000. All the proof of his malevolence is here: link You, Mr. Alexander, together with the other western leaders, have made terrorism a very lucrative palestinian career. They have no incentive to stop while you continue to hand them the hard-earned income of your taxpayers.

Posted by Lily on December 23, 2007 5:05 PM

Douglas. I greatly admire your great aunt, we still sing many of her hymns in my church. You would do well to study the Scriptures yourself regarding the hope for peace in the Middle East, the appearance of the Antichrist, etc. Regards, ChrisPosted by Chris Perver on December 23, 2007 4:12 PMReport this comment A good try by Douglas Alexander who is fortunate indeed to be related to a writer of beautiful hymns. I wish we could see the difference between aid which creates dependency and builds nothing, even when it isn't being siphoned off as one tends to feel has always happened in the case of the Palestinians - and contributions which effect permanent change. I don't believe that their real enemy is Israel at all, no matter the hatred taken in at the Mother's breast and the lack of anything to do other than perhaps become a militant. Sometimes it is your supposed friends who hold you back, not those you have always been told are your enemies. An agenda amongst states in the region to remove Israel will never go anywhere - but it drives the way the Palestinians are kept in deprivation to form a 'cause' - a rallying point for terror and hatred. Organised and in synergy - for Israel surely has the businesses and the entrepreneurs - and the Palestinians the plentiful labour - there is much that could be done to give everyone a better life in peaceful coexistence. Posted by simon coulter on December 23, 2007 1:55 PM Report this comment The chances of Christian children gowning up in Bethlehem are getting more and more remote as the world turns the other way to Islamic oppression of Palestinian Christians, preferring to scape goat the Israelis instead. Posted by Man in a Shed on December 23, 2007 11:48 AMReport this comment Whilst the Secretary of State's sincerity is beyond doubt, as someone of his generation for whom the difficulties of the Middle East have been a lifelong buzz in the background, I would rather hope that one of his intentions for 2008 would be to devote his intelligence and vigour to trying to keep his own country together, as opposed to sorting out other peoples'.

Posted by Martin on December 23, 2007 7:36 AM

Douglas, Are you helping the Palestinians run an election?

Posted by Brian D Finch on December 23, 2007 1:00 AM

So what exactly is Mr Alexander saying here? To summarise:

1 - Isn't it a shame that the Israelis have found it necessary to build a wall and that this impedes travel? Yes it is, and the blame lies squarely on Arafat, and his successors. If they make some agreements and stick to them, the wall can come down.

2 - Let's hope Annapolis gets the "peace process" back on track. Get real, Annapolis is just going through the motions. The destruction of Israel is more important to the Arabs than a million lives of their own brothers, so why waste your pity on people for whom their own kin care little?

3 - Isn't is good of me to give money to the PA? Is it, particularly as it is not your money, Douglas, it is ours? So they can spend their scant resources on arms, instead of food, because some daft Brit will will feed them? How does that help, Douglas? Would you have given George Best a few quid for a bottle of Whiskey? I suppose it behoves a government minister to make optimistic noises, even if they be facile platitudes, but what the Palestinians really need is tough love, not an unconditional meal ticket from the West, and Semtex from the Arabs - both are mere fuel to the flames.

Posted by Richard Dell on December 23, 2007 12:55 AM

Monday, March 17, 2008


In 1290 the Crown expelled the Jews of England and their financial and physical assets were seized. In 1656 Oliver Cromwell permitted the Jews to resettle in England, some 366 years after the expulsion. A century before the expulsion, massacres were perpetrated against the Jews of York and a large number of towns like Bury St. Edmunds, East Anglia and the Home Counties, yet, apart from York, there are not one other plaque to be found in the United Kingdom to commemorate these events. No compensation has ever been offered for the assets that were seized as a result of these massacres nor for those acquired as a result of the expulsion. After the resettlement, waves of Jewish immigration took place where the immigrants added to the benefit of the communities in which they lived and did not act as a drain on the economy nor refuse to learn the language of the country they chose to settle in, but still retaining their religious rites and practices. Their contribution to the United Kingdom economically, culturally and charitably, far exceeds that of any other minority group in the history of the United Kingdom up to the present day.

In past years HM Government has taken the approach to scrutinise every action of the Israeli Government and now apparently its opposition parties beyond that given to any other country in the world. In international forums such as the United Nations or the Council of Europe, the Government’s policy appears to be one which questions the legitimacy of Israel being a sovereign state and treats the country much as it would have done in the days of the Empire and of the Mandate, even funding NGO’s opposed to the state. As a result of this, media attention in the UK is focused on the actions of Israel over and above any other country. This critical attention has resulted in excessive anti-Semitism that has manifested itself on attacks on Jewish premises and persons in the UK. Such criticism however, has not been levelled in both the quantity and degree to any other country in the world. The massacres in Rwanda were in comparison treated as a by the way as have those in Darfur. Indeed, the silence over what has occurred recently in Kenya is deafening.

However, whilst Israel is defending its Jewish citizens and particularly those in the towns of Sedrot, Ashkelon and the villages in the north-west Negev which have been subject to more rockets attacks in the last year (4,500) than the number of V-2 rockets that hit London in 1944 (1,358) HM Government together with the media have been critical beyond reproach of any action taken by Israel to stop these attacks whether by military means or the reduction in the supply of electricity and gas, despite having disengaged from the Gaza Strip some 31 months ago as a result of pressure exerted upon it by a number of countries including the UK. Yet in 1944/45, as you are well aware, HM Government carried out saturated bombing raids on German cities causing immense civilian casualties to that population. In the last few years, HM Forces have been engaged in theatres of operation that stretch from Bosnia through Iraq to Afghanistan yet they have and did attack locations where there were known civilians, resulting in civilian casualties. Clearly a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

It was was amazing to see on the front page of the London Jewish Chronicle of 7 March 2008, that the leader of the second largest faction within the Israeli Likud Party, had received notification from the Border & Immigration Agency, that he was banned from entering the United Kingdom for three years, despite not even applying for a visa or even planning a visit to the UK. However, as has been widely seen, HM Government has permitted the entry into the United Kingdom of radical preachers and spokesmen for such organisations as Hamas, Hizballah etc. who preach open terrorism and anti-Semitism not only calling for killing the Jews but openly calling for the destruction of Israel. Indeed, Arafat, as terrorist leader, who preached and organised terrorist actions, was a welcome guest to these shores from the governments of Edward Heath onward . HM Government allowed the preacher Abu Hamza to preach this racial hatred and provided police protection for many years. Thus the banning of the leader of the second largest faction within the Likud Party clearly shows racial discrimination. This is not the first time HM Government has acted in this manner but unlike the previous case in the 1970s with Rabbi Meir Kahne (H"YD) had intended to address a meeting in the UK, Mr. Feiglin had and has no intention of visiting this country.

Under the circumstances, why HM Government, Border & Immigration Agency, have banned Mr. Feiglin. Having heard Mr. Feiglin speak in Israel, this ban is a farce. Clearly is it that British Diplomats or members of MI5, MI6 etc. in Israel had attended any of his public meetings as they would certainly have looked out of place – thus they would be unaware of what he says at his public meetings unless they had recruited Jewish sleepers as British spies. Furthermore, in the last 11 plus months the Border & Immigration Agency has been operating, it has totally failed to stop the illegal immigration into the UK but has spent time to scrutinise to an infinite degree Mr. Feiglin. In doing so it has obviously wasted a considerable amount of public money and time which could have been put to better use in preventing illegal immigration.



Moshe FeiglinCo-Founder & President
Tova Abadi, media liaison(917) 301-0997 (cell phone)
Shmuel SackettCo-Founder & International Director

Feiglin Banned In Britain For Being a True Jewish Leader

March 12, 2008...
Recently the government of Great Britain formally placed Moshe Feiglin, the President of Manhigut Yehudit, on a list of people who are not permitted to enter England. Mr. Feiglin, who recently finished in 2nd place behind former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the head of Israel's Likud party, had no plans to visit England.

For reasons unknown, the British government decided to research quotes from articles written by Mr. Feiglin many years ago. These articles, in which Mr. Feiglin spoke about the necessity to fight terror and to analyze the culture which breeds terrorists, seem to have greatly upset the British government. Britain banned Mr. Feiglin because they claimed that his views will "foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK." In reality, it is Mr. Feiglin who is working tirelessly to combat those who would use violence against innocents throughout the world.

Manhigut Yehudit officials would like to clarify that the "extremists" are the Israeli leaders (and other world leaders) who have provided and continue to provide guns, ammunition, funding and logistical help to the terrorists who have repeatedly killed Jews; the Israeli leaders who have released terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands, and also the Israeli leaders who have evicted Jews from their homes solely for being Jewish. This list includes but is not limited to every Israeli Prime Minister since the Oslo charade commenced in 1993. The Oslo "peace" process is a charade because of the direct correlation between the amount of land that Israel has ceded and the amount of Jews who have been murdered.

Mr. Feiglin is being targeted because he is the lone voice in the Israeli political establishment fighting to save Jewish lives and the State of Israel.

In response to this disgraceful injunction, Mr. Feiglin issues the following statement:

25 Adar I, 5768
March 3, '08

To the British Government
Home Office
Border and Immigration Agency

Dear Sirs,

Two months ago, I received a letter from your office in which you stated that I am not welcome in your country. As I was under the impression that the letter was a practical joke, I attempted to clarify its authenticity before I replied. Now that I have ascertained that the letter is indeed authentic, I wish to give you my reply:

I did not request entry into Britain and I have no immediate plans to do so.

It would be proper to investigate the reasons for this strange initiative against a political figure in Israel. This initiative represents yet another example of European interference in Israel's internal affairs.

Being that infamous terrorists such as Ibrahim Moussaui of the Hizbollah are actually most welcome in Britain, while I -- who have never harmed anyone - am not, I conclude that your policy is to encourage and support terror.

As is clarified in your letter, the grounds for your decision is material that I had written years ago citing the necessity to fight Arab terrorists and my analysis of the culture from which terror grows. Among other facts, you quote my article in which I wrote that "The Arab is not the son of the desert, but rather, its father."

For your information, that quote was taken directly from the book "The Desert Yesterday and Today" written by none other than British High Commissioner of Sinai, Sir Claude Jarvis in 1938.

Considering the moral depths to which your nation has sunk, I find your letter most complimentary. It is a great honor for me to join the illustrious list of former prime ministers of Israel, Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir, who also received similar letters from your offices.


Moshe Feiglin

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Blair, Catholicism and Government House Jerusalem

Having been accepted in to the Catholic Church last month, the Quartet’s representative approach will be to follow the Vatican’s stance on Jerusalem, rather than that of an impartial interlocker. The Quartet, comprising of the USA, Russia, EU and UN, by virtue of its composition certainly cannot be considered an impartial neutral international body but one whose ultimate objective is to serve their economic masters, namely the major oil producing countries, followed in close proximity by those of the church.
When UK Prime Minister, Blair’s foreign policy with regard to the status of Jerusalem was that of the 1947 Corpus Separandum, to internationalize the city. Lest it be forgotten that when this failed to materialize in 1948 and the city was split between Israel and Jordan, only the UK and Pakistan recognized the Jordanian occupation. At the same time the UN attempted to give lip service to the Corpus Separandum by illegally occupying Government House (under the guise of it becoming UNTSO HQ) in a so called "No mans land" overlooking the City as if to send us a subtle message.
Initially, the UK as the Mandatory Authority on behalf of the League of Nations established its Government House to serve as the headquarters for the British high commissioner to Palestine in the Augustus Victoria Complex. In 1931 Government House moved to a purpose built elegant white sandstone chateau located in a 16-acre compound strategically located on a hilltop overlooking the Old City where this colonial edifice was hidden among pines and cypresses. The structure, built in an octagonal shape of locally quarried stone, was designed by architects A. Harrison and C. Holliday. Under its Arab-style roof domes are banqueting halls, while landscaped gardens offer views across to the Old City of Jerusalem and a well-appointed penthouse apartment in the impressive main tower crowns the entire structure. The unusual shape seems to have been a favorite of the architects. It is evident in the private apartment of the high commissioner as well as in the fountain – similar to those found in North African palaces – in the formal garden. Other distinguishing features of the building are its domes, interior arches, crossed vaults and a monumental four-meter high ceramic fireplace of Armenian tiles created by David Ohanessian. Clearly it was the British intention never to implement the purpose of the Mandate otherwise it would not have been built with Arab features. Opened in Sir Arthur Wauchope, the then High Commissioner for Palestine, it served as the residence of a number of British high commissioners.
The British Military Headquarters was located in the King David Hotel facing the Old City walls, located on the "Inner Parkway", subsequently Julian’s Way. The land was purchased from the Greek Orthodox Church in 1928 for $150,000. The hotel was built in 1929 at the height of the Arab riots and the Hebron massacre. Over 87 percent of the workforce were Jewish. The hotel being opened in January 1931. In 1939 the British Army expropriated 40 rooms and 17 offices on the top floor and subsequently established it as their headquarters. Of course this was several kilometers north from Government House.
At the termination of the Mandate on May 15, 1948, the Union Jack was lowered from the roof of the King David. The British High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham had left Jerusalem the day before. As fighting between Jews and Arabs broke out in the city, the hotel was turned into the Red Cross headquarters. The hotel's manager succeeded in reaching an agreement between the nascent Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Jordanian Arab Legion (under its British Commander Glub) to declare the King David a demilitarized zone. However, this was not respected due to its vital location and the hotel once again remained in the battle zone, and the Red Cross who had taken over the building subsequently evacuated the building and it was taken over by the United Nations. However whilst the UN flag flew from the hotel’s flagpole, the hotel still remained in the firing line.
In the meantime, the Red Cross relocated to the abandoned Government House and due to the former’s presence it was considered a demilitarized zone, just like the King David. However, the complex was found unsuitable for the Red Cross purposes and it relocated. As with the King David Hotel, the UN followed on the heels of the Red Cross to occupy the complex and according to the story was finally leased (but from who nobody knows) to the United Nations in the same year for the amount of one dollar per year
In 1967 the Jordanian’s opened up the front with post 1948 Jewish Jerusalem by attacking Government House at 11:30 a.m. on 5 June and the IDF lost 21 troops in recapturing the complex and immediately handed it back to the UN.
Clearly, as representative of the Quartet, the new catholic, would be serving his new Papal masters well if he pressed their agenda for the Corpus Separandum. To effect this, what better place to administrate the City from than UK built Government House in Armon Hanatziv, with Spin Tony as the Governor General on behalf of the "International Community". He tried to use the complex on July 2007 as Quartet representative, fortunately with no success, but not for the lack of trying!
Deputy Prime Minister Ramon, had been sending out trial balloons to divide the city before Annapolis and Olmert has on more than one occasion loudly hinted he was prepared to cede parts of the city, whilst Abbas wants the whole of the Old City. Now Olmert is openly talking of capitulating to pressure to divide the city – no doubt under Blair’s influence. Lest it be forgotten, several years ago one very senior Israeli politician promised the Vatican that the city would be internationalized and they could control it.
What a feather in Blair’s cap if he could get a compromise deal by internationalizing the City thereby making us once more subservient to the non Jews.


1. Since the publication of the report of 18 February 1971 (A/8282, S/10124), a further exchange of communications concerning the status of Jerusalem and the United Nations premises at Government House in Jerusalem has taken place between the Secretary-General and the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations.
2. On 8 March 1971, the Permanent Representative of Israel addressed the following note to the Secretary-General in reply to the latter's two communications of 26 January 1971 (A/8282 and S/10124, para. 4):
"The Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour, on instructions of his Government, to refer to the Secretary-General's two notes dated 26 January 1971 (A/8282, S/10124), one dealing with the premises known as Government House and the other dealing more generally with building construction in Jerusalem.
"The Permanent Representative of Israel is instructed to state that these two communications have been carefully examined and that the Government of Israel's position remains as it has been conveyed to the Secretary-General in its various communications on the subject. At the same time, the Government of Israel wishes to place on record its reservations to the various legal and other considerations advanced in those two notes, and more particularly to the references made in them to claims of the United Nations 'to the occupancy and possession of the whole of the premises' of Government House.
"The Permanent Representative of Israel avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the expression of his highest consideration."
5. On 12 April, the Secretary-General sent the following note to the Permanent Representative of Israel:
"The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Permanent Representative's note of 8 March 1971 in response to two notes from the Secretary-General of 26 January 197 - one relating to the status of Jerusalem and the other to the question of the return to the United Nations of the whole of its premises, as constituted on 5 June 1967 - at Government House in Jerusalem.
"The Permanent Representative's reply of 8 March 1971 is to the effect that the Secretary-General's two communications have 'been carefully examined and that the Government of Israel's position remains as it has been conveyed to the Secretary-General in its various communications on the subject'. At the same time, the Government of Israel wishes to place on record its reservations to the various legal and other considerations advanced in those two notes, and more particularly to the references made in them to claims of the United Nations 'to the occupancy and possession of the whole of the premises of Government House.'
"The Secretary-General notes that, presumably because of the reservations referred to in the above reply, no copy of the reported Jerusalem 'Master Plan' has been provided, nor has any information regarding it been furnished to the Secretary-General, notwithstanding the requests contained in his notes of 10 December 1970 and 26 January 1971.
"In so far as the Permanent Representative's reply of 8 March 1971 relates to the Secretary-General's note of 26 January 1971 regarding the status of Jerusalem, that reply will be communicated to the Security Council and the General Assembly pursuant to the Secretary-General's obligations to report under the relevant resolutions.
"In so far as the Permanent Representative's reply relates to the Secretary-General's communication of 26 January 1971 requesting the return of the whole of the United Nations premises at Government House as constituted on 5 June 1967, the Secretary-General notes that the reply contains no direct response to this request. Nor is any precise information given on the exact terms of the reservations which are at present held by the Government of Israel regarding the Secretary-General's request.
"The Secretary-General observes that the reservations referred, to in the Permanent Representative's note are now raised for the first time. They were not mentioned when part only of the Government House premises was returned to the United Nations. At that time the position of the Government of Israel, set out in the Permanent Representative's letter of 22 August 1967, indicated no such reservations, although the Secretary-General had previously expressly preserved the rights of the United Nations to the occupancy and possession of the whole of the Government House premises as constituted when UNTSO was forced to evacuate them on 5 June 1967. The Secretary-General would also observe that it was in reliance on the preservation of these United Nations rights that the Secretary-General authorized the return of the Chief of Staff of UNTSO and his staff to the lesser area, in the circumstances and under the conditions indicated in the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council of 11 August 1967 (S/7930/Add.27). As the reservations referred to in the note under reply relate in part to 'legal... considerations', it may be mentioned that one way of resolving any differences now arising would be to have resort to the procedure for settlement laid down in section 30 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
"In all the circumstances of the case, and taking into account both current works by the Israel authorities within and bordering upon Government House property as constituted on 5 June 1967 as well as the absence of a direct reply to the specific request of the Secretary-General in his note of 26 January 1971, the Secretary-General is constrained to reiterate that request, namely, for the unreserved return to the United Nations of the remainder of its Government House premises.
"The Secretary-General avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Permanent Representative of Israel the assurances of his highest consideration."