Showing posts with label JERUSALEM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JERUSALEM. Show all posts
Sunday, August 03, 2025
OPEN LETTER TO THE UK PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY - DATED 3 AUGUST 2025 - TISHA BAV 5785 - 1955 YEARS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM
Dear Sir Kier,
I am appalled to learn of the illegitimate form of international blackmail you have employed in your recent foreign policy decision, that if Israel and Israel alone, does not agree to a ceasefire by September with Hamas terrorists in Gaza, you will instruct your government to recognize a State of Palestine. Ironically, it appears your belief and that of Foreign Secretary Lammy, that Israel must supply aid in the form of food and water to an enemy that initiated the conflict on the 7 October 2023, a Jewish sacred Holyday and Sabbath, by its deliberate cross border incursion from Gaza with over 6000 combats, members of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well as civilians.
How hypocritical, when these groups kidnapped over 250 hostages and still today hold 50 within the Gaza Strip and there has been a deafening silence from you in your proclamation to blackmail Israel. Furthermore, how is it HM Government has not protested that there has been no ICRC visits or delivery of medicines to the Israeli hostages in accordance with the international Geneva Convention in the last 666 days, whilst at the same time the bleating from Hamas propaganda about “starvation” in the Gaza Strip arouses you and your cabinet to condemn Israel. Evidence has now emerged that Hamas/PIJ deliberately starve Israeli hostages as shown by the recently released videos of Rom Braslavski and Evyatar David suffering from severe malnutrition.
In 1922 the League of Nations granted Britain the Mandate of Palestine and in 1947 Britain relinquished the Mandate having failed to impartially carry out the terms of the Mandate by showing favour to the Arabs in order to prevent the creation of a Jewish State in the Holy Land on their ancient homeland. The Jews had lived in this land for thousands of years prior and were only conquered by the Romans in the year 70, some 1955 years ago. Then, there was no Islamic religion, since its inception in Arabia only occurred in 610 CE, some 1415 years ago, hence any claims by Islam on the land being theirs by right is plainly dismissed by history. Then, as now, during the period of the Mandate, the British officials also employed blackmail against the Jewish population - except today some 77 years after the termination of the said Mandate you apparently still think that the UK is still in charge of operating the Mandate. HM Government has no say in events in Israel or the Holy Land but has on this occasion showed partiality against the Jewish People. Indeed, HM Government props up the puppet Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with subsidies and aid taken from the UK Tax Payers. Of course, the Hashemite were a tribe originating not from the Holy Land or adjacent but were displaced from “guarding” the holy sites in Mecca and Medina in Arabia by the tribe of Saud.
There still remains a deafening silence of condemnation from you and your Foreign Secretary, Lammy, of the failure of Yemen to prevent the terrorist group Houthis from attacking British shipping in both the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, effectively closing off the Suez Canal to international shipping traffic. Whist initially the UK carried out military action on the Houthi terrorists to prevent such international illegal criminal acts no blackmail was ever employed. Indeed, it is established that both the Houthis and Hamas are acting as proxies for the fundamental medieval state of Iran. In addition, due cognizance must be taken of the numerous ICBM missile and drones that the Houthis have fired against Israel some 2000 km away, constantly and without letup since 7 October 2023. Indeed, the recent attacks against Israel were at 15:30 BST on Friday 31 July 2025 and 14:33 BST on Sunday 3 August 2025 and yet there has been no concern or condemnation expressed in any international forums or indeed press/media statements by HM Government who appear far more concerned for the welfare of the families of the Gazan terrorist operatives of Hamas.
I should like to enquire why HM Government is more concerned with the establishment of yet another Muslim Arab state in the region, when there already exists 21 Arab countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. These countries in the region have vast amounts of territory and you now wish to decimate the State of Israel. The concept of a shared capital between Israel and the PA, Jerusalem, is an abomination, an affront to Judeo Christian religion and an insult to plain common sense – as said to a former British Prime Minister “ Jerusalem was our capital city 3000 years ago when London was still a ditch”.
PS – Don’t send me your standard bullshit reply produced by the Foreign Office mandarins, that ignore the text of all correspondence they receive – the citizens of the UK are entitled to receive a full open response!
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Open letter to Jerusalem Chief Rabbi Areyh Stern
21 July 2016 טו תמוז תשע"ו
Dear Chief Rabbi Stern,
I was pleased to learn that you had been able to persuade
the Mayor of Jerusalem, Barkat, that it was an affront for Gay Parade flags to
be displayed in Rechov King George outside the Great Synagogue.
However, I am concerned that you appear to be unable/unwilling
to persuade the Mayor to enforce the State Law that requires Rechov King George
to be closed during the periods of Tefillah in both the Great Synagogue and
Yeshurun Central Zionist Synagogue on Shabbat and Chagim. I have sent you
numerous requests since your appointment but have never received any form of
response.
I understand that the Jerusalem Police are closing the roads
commencing at 14.30 till the end of the parade after 18.00 including streets on
the route of the Gay Parade March including Rechov King George and Keren
Hayasod as well as adjacent streets. This period of closure will result
in traffic chaos in the city as well as the disruption of public
transport. Furthermore, numerous law enforcement personnel will be
employed including police, border guards and the shabak – at great public
expense – to ensure these people are permitted to openly express in public,
their free will.
However, when it comes to Shabbat and Chagim, it would
appear that the respective authorities refuse to openly allow expressions of
Orthodox Judaism in public by closing Rechov King George from Kikar Paris to
Rechov Maalot, as laid down in the State Law. It should be pointed out
that the disruption on Shabbat and Chagim would not affect public transport on
these streets since, fortunately, public transport currently does not run on
Shabbat and Chagim. To enforce the Law would not require the use of the
mammoth number of Law Enforcement officials as the Parade.
It appears that the Jerusalem Mayor and Police are far more
sensitive to offending Muslims than they are with Jews. On Yom
Yerushalaim the Annual Yom Yerushalaim Flag March through the Old City via
Shaar Shechem was initially refused by the Jerusalem Police, on the grounds
that it would offend the sensitivities of the Muslims prior to the start of
Ramadan. Eventually a compromise was reached whereby the march was
permitted but all participants had to be through Shaar Shechem by 18.15.
If the authorities can deem it their prerogative to enforce such draconian
measures on the expression of Jewish Nationalist pride, surely it is time that
the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem ensured that the Law Enforcement Authorities and
the Municipality were sensitive to the sanctity of Shabbat and Chagim so as not
to offend the observant Jews who reside in the area adjacent to the Great and
Yeshurun Synagogues.
Friday, March 22, 2013
OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama,
How strange was your visit to Israel.On the tarmac of Ben Gurion Airport you publically stated this was yor THIRD visit to Israel, but the following day you visited the Israel Museum Shrine of the Book, which contains Hebrew scrolls over 2000 years old.These attest to and suplement the Bible with respect to Jewish claims to the entire Land of Israel as given to the Jewish People over 3000 years ago. No people on earth can have a better historical record and claim. Those throughout the millenium who have sought to destroy the Jewish nation have dissapeared into oblivium - something you should take to heart. Our Holy Scriptures clearly define that the Jewish people must NOT make treaties with those who inhabit the land or they will be a thorn in our sides and could result in the destruction of the Jewish Nation.
So your address yesterday to a bunch of hand picked Israeli students was nothing but a sham - designed to push US interests above those of the Jewish Nation. Their reaction to your speech was only because you selected those who had the same ideas but you did not invite any students of the University of Ariel, situated in the heartland of Judea and Samaria as you knew they would object to your views - seems as if you have learnt from the former USSR. Save your breath - you are not our saviour.
Any visitor to Israel from the West treats a visit to the Shrine of the Book as a must on their first visit to Jerusalem - how strange therefore you never visited before - this I think sums up you real intention.
You selected to come on the eve of Passover causing disruption to the daily lives of the citizens of Jerusalem as they go about their preparations for Passover - you were badly advised and should have come at another time.
Your whole visit has been one big sham - I followed every aspect of your visit and not once did you show any humility as a couragous President, you slapped backs and shook hands, praised your friends,muttered a few words in Hebrew but in reality as you leave our land you have failed to show that alll men are equal - you ignored all the pleas to release Jonathan J Pollard despite this being within your ability to do so.
You are not honest.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
OPEN LETTER TO UK FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE
10 January 2011
Dear Mr. Hague,
The UK Ambassador to Israel Hon. Matthew Gould
I was amazed to learn that the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, on the 2 January 2012, made an unwarranted press statement condemning Israel based on false information provided by a UK FCO funded Israeli NGO, Ir Amim.
There are several aspects of this matter which are unacceptable:-
1. The fact that the British Ambassador relied upon information that had not been corroborated by any Israeli authoritative source and had not appeared in the Israeli media.
2. The Ambassador clearly made no attempt to obtain confirmation from either internal or external Embassy sources before issuing this condemnation
3. The Ambassador on behalf of HM government made such a statement without first consulting with his superiors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
4. The Ambassador relied solely on information provided to him by an Israeli NGO, that itself is supported by the FCO slush fund distributed in Israel direct from the UK Embassy in Israel based on recommendations of the Ambassador ( in this case the NGO in question has been funded since 2004 to the tune of £357,985 to the financial year 2009/10)
5. The information had been previously released during the planning stages by the various Israel Planning Committees and Ir Amim deliberately released this information, as if it was new, to coincide with the renewed preliminary Quartet talks in Amman, Jordan, taking place that day, so as to cast the Israeli Government in a bad light and acting in bad faith.
6. The condemnation was subsequently relied upon for the French President to follow suite.
7. No such statements are made about any actions of any other country by the accredited UK Ambassadors, even when gross denial of human rights takes place as well as the cold blooded murder of law abiding citizens as is happening in places as far apart as Syria and Sudan
8. The Ambassador’s attempt to back track when it was discovered he had made a faux pas only exacerbated the situation
9. The stated purpose of funding Ir Amim according to the answer to a question by Robert Halfon MP to Alistair Burt MP of the FCO on the 6 September 2010 was “To influence the nature and quality of public policy debate and ultimately Israeli policy in line with political options for a sustainable two-state solution.” (See extract from Hansard 6 September 2010 Column 219W enclosed). Well they certainly did not follow this objective on this occasion.
I have enclosed background information which was obtained from the Jerusalem Post and the Editorial clearly sums up the untenable position of HM Ambassador in Israel.
I should therefore like to enquire of HM government and the Foreign Secretary in particular, why the Ambassador has been permitted to act in such a fashion, shooting his mouth off in public, and what action HM government will take to immediately stop the funding to Ir Amim. If a decision is made to continue the funding the reasons why.
Yours truly,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
UK envoy slams, retracts criticism of J'lem building
By HERB KEINON AND MELANIE LIDMAN
03/01/2012
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=252062
The only problem is that there was no new announcement of a new construction project beyond the Green Line.
British ambassador Matthew Gould took Israel to task Tuesday for announcing new building projects beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem, but then retracted the criticism after learning there had been no such declaration.
Gould, at a briefing with journalists, said the announcement of new construction beyond the Green Line was “unhelpful” on a day when Israeli and Palestinian officials were meeting in Amman.
RELATED: Tenders issued for 1,028 units beyond Green Line J’lem committee to discuss Silwan tourism center UK slams 'provocative' J'lem building plans
“This is unhelpful and a disappointment to those who want to see the sides turn a corner,” the ambassador said to the reporters, who were unsure of what projects he was referring to. Gould said the announcement of a new construction project in the settlements “took the shine off” the Amman meeting between Yitzhak Molcho and Saeb Erekat.
The only problem is that there was no announcement of a new construction project beyond the Green Line. What there was, however, was publication by the Israel Lands Authority (ILA) of tenders for 312 housing units in Pisgat Ze’ev and Har Homa. These tenders were already announced a week ago.
After his initial condemnation, Gould clarified the matter and issued a statement saying that the Israeli government “has made clear to us that there has been no new announcement of tenders for building in east Jerusalem today, and that reports of such new tenders were incorrect. This is a welcome reassurance.”
One official said this incident reflects confusion over how the country’s planning process works, with the same project – which must go through numerous steps on its way from initial design to final approval – often being condemned at every new station along the way as an “announcement of a new settlement project.”
A British embassy representative said Gould based his initial condemnation on a statement put out by Ir Amim, a left-wing NGO that monitors building in Jerusalem.
According to that statement, “Today, January 3, as Israeli and Palestinian representatives meet in Jordan at the behest of King Abdullah in order to restart negotiations, the Israel Lands Authority published tenders for 312 units in east Jerusalem – in Har Homa B and Pisgat Ze’ev. The timing of this notice is a slap in the face to Jordan...”
The tenders published by the ILA represent the last step in the complicated approval process for construction in Israel, which can take up to a decade to complete.
The Har Homa and Pisgat Ze’ev projects have passed all of the approval steps from the Jerusalem municipality and the Interior Ministry, and have already been condemned by many in the international community.
After the ILA publishes these types of tenders, different contracting companies submit bids to build the projects. In special circumstances, including politically sensitive situations, the Prime Minister’s Office can ask the ILA to halt the publication of a specific tender, said ILA spokeswoman Ortal Tzabar.
Tzabar said there were instances in the past when the Prime Minister’s Office has intervened to stop publicizing the tenders, including in the Har Homa and Pisgat Ze’ev neighborhoods.
Tzabar called Gould’s comments “cheeky,” and added that the ILA considers Har Homa and Pisgat Ze’ev part of Jerusalem.
“There are people outside of Israel that really don’t understand [the process], and just follow whatever the Arabs are saying,” she said.
Gould’s hullabaloo By JERUSALEM POST EDITORIAL
05/01/2012
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=252452
Yesteryear’s aggression shouldn’t determine today’s legalities.
As it turns out, UK Ambassador Matthew Gould’s righteous indignation last Tuesday was uncommonly instructive.
At a press briefing he hauled official Israel over the coals for supposed new building projects in beyond-Green-Line Jerusalem. Subsequently, however, his severe censure proved a tad embarrassing as it emerged that no new plans had been announced, no new tenders issued and no new pretexts for disapproval furnished. Gould’s blunder, of course, isn’t the heart of the matter.
What’s compellingly enlightening is the exceptional opportunity he afforded Israelis (and fair-minded observers everywhere) to peek into the actual mechanisms of demonization. By rushing to judgment, Gould (followed a day later by France, although the farce had already been exposed) showed all and sundry precisely how Israel is condemned, facts notwithstanding. Israel can apparently only do wrong – even when it does nothing.
Contending that new housing permits were publicized that Tuesday for Pisgat Ze’ev and Har Homa, Gould waxed irate: “This is unhelpful and a disappointment to those who want to see the sides turn a corner.” This, he charged, “took the shine off” that day’s Amman meeting, geared to restart moribund negotiations.
In other words, there’s already a designated culprit –Israel – for whatever might go awry. Even after Gould’s halfhearted retraction, the gist remains – Israel is in the dock, potentially guilty. And, as France showed, slander sticks.
This episode too, as in other cases in which Israel is besmirched, was instigated by an Israeli NGO’s alacrity to telltale. In this instance it was Ir Amim – Jerusalem’s left-wing, self-appointed monitor of Jewish construction, which reportedly enjoys EU/British financial largesse.
Ir Amim unequivocally proclaimed that new construction tenders were issued just as Israeli and Palestinian representatives convened in Amman. The timing, asserted Ir Amim’s communiqué, “is a slap in the face to Jordan.”
Gould evidently treated this unverified “revelation” as gospel. Ir Amim’s word alone sufficed to trigger a harsh rebuke of Israel. Presumably, checking up on the NGO’s claims was not warranted, to say nothing of the fact that Israel regards all of Jerusalem as its unified capital under its sovereignty. Israel isn’t even granted the indulgence accorded other democracies, where no venture is decreed overnight by a despot’s whim but where bureaucratic due process dictates the slow, labored implementation of any policy. Nonetheless, here, too, urban development isn’t the product of erratic impulses. We are an orderly society, bound by red tape and regulations galore.
Yet in our case we’re chided anew for each plodding step along the arduous road from blueprint to formal authorization. The projects that so peeved Gould (and France) were in the works for an extended period before construction tenders were published – way before Gould’s hullabaloo. Such tenders constitute the culmination of complex approval procedures for construction in Israel. These take up to 10 years to complete and aren’t under the government’s direct or constant supervision or control.
Although during his briefing Gould hotly denied an inherent anti-Israel bias in London and other European capitals, his knee-jerk eagerness to scold Israel powerfully indicates otherwise. The pattern is undeniable: first comes the stern supercilious admonishment and only later – perhaps – an unenthusiastic examination of whether the upbraiding was justified.
We may be forgiven for doubting that this is the order of things when Britain approaches other countries and other conflicts. Equally as disturbing was Gould’s retraction, which characterized the absence of new tenders as “a welcome reassurance.”
(Subtext: Israeli construction in parts of the Israeli capital remain intrinsically illegitimate. Gould thereby underscored his fundamental displeasure with Israel’s presence in given Jerusalem neighborhoods.)
Even if one doesn’t accept our attachment to the whole of Jerusalem – where an overwhelming Jewish majority existed since the first 19th-century census – plain decency should command the British envoy to at least portray it as disputed territory rather than as outrightly occupied. Media Eye comment – so much for HMG Ambassador’s ascertain of being a proud Jew and how delighted he was that his daughter was born as a Sabra!!!!!
After all, it was the Arab Legion in 1948 – under British leadership and active assistance – that conquered east Jerusalem, expelled its Jews and occupied it for 19 years in brazen contravention of 1947’s UN Partition Resolution. Yesteryear’s aggression shouldn’t determine today’s legalities.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100906/text/100906w0009.htm
Israel: Expenditure
Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department paid to (a) B'Tselem, (b) HaMoked, (c) Yesh Din, (d) Ir Amim, (e) Bimkom, (f) the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, (g) the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, (h) Gisha, (i) Association for Civil Rights in Israel, (j) Peace Now, (k) Mossawa and (l) Breaking the Silence in each financial year since 2005-06; for what purposes those payments were made; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's spending on each such programme or project undertaken by each such organisation. [11499]
Alistair Burt: The tri-departmental Conflict Pool and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Bilateral programme funds support the Government's aim of reducing conflict in the middle east and North Africa region in order to help safeguard British national security. Our Conflict Prevention programmes in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories are jointly managed by the FCO, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. They work to improve the political environment in support of the peace process, including tackling difficult issues such as settlements and alleged human rights violations on both sides. Our Bilateral programme strengthens our relations with countries in the middle east and North Africa region. We work with both the Palestinian Authority to enhance their capacity for tackling violence and with Israeli institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Many of the initiatives we support work to promote equality and human rights, build trust between communities, reduce violence inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories and advance peace. The NGOs we work with have helped to raise awareness of Israel's obligations under international law with regard to settlement activity and human rights violations. They also work to ensure due legal process is adhered to by Israeli authorities. Regular
6 Sep 2010 : Column 220W
monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of all programmes is a requirement for all our funding commitments. Since we began supporting these programmes there have been a number of changes to Israeli civil and military judicial practice and decisions, and increased public debate on these issues.
A vibrant, independent and diverse civil society is one of Israel's great strengths and we believe that continuing British support will assist in strengthening democratic processes. By raising awareness and creating an environment where people are able to learn more about the situation and realities on the ground, the projects we support play a crucial role in creating sustainable conditions for peace.
Of those NGOs referred to in my hon. Friend's question, the following have been funded through our Conflict Prevention programmes (the Middle East and North Africa Conflict Pool-MENA CP):
B'Tselem
Project purpose: Using film and video documentation as a tool for accountability to improve the human rights situation in the west bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Funding: 2010-11-£135,000 (provisional allocation).
B'Tselem & HaMoked (jointly)
Project purpose: To support freedom of movement for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories through legal and administrative action, advocacy and public education. Funding: 2005-06-£140,000, 2006-07-£150,000.
Yesh Din
Project purpose: (2006 to 2008) Using legal action and public advocacy to challenge and ensure compliance with due process within Israeli military courts.
Project purpose: (2008 to 2010) To challenge Israeli settlement construction and increase Palestinian access to lands in the west bank through legal actions and public advocacy. Funding: 2006-07-£55,529, 2007-08-£74,256, 2008-09-£125,000, 2009-10-£142,000, 2010-11-£83,755 (provisional allocation).
Ir Amim
Project purpose: To influence the nature and quality of public policy debate and ultimately Israeli policy in line with political options for a sustainable two-state solution. Funding: 2005-06-£70,000, 2006-07-£100,133, 2007-08-£60,000, 2008-09-£127,850.
Bimkom
Project purpose: (2006 to 2010): To provide comprehensive information on the planning situation of Palestinian villages in Area C, to support the prevention of house demolitions and improve living conditions of residents. Funding: 2006-07-£11,366, 2007-08-£45,956, 2009-10-£22,978.
Gisha
Project purpose: To use legal actions and public advocacy to support free movement and access to goods, and to document human rights violations in Gaza. Funding: 2008-09-£70,010.
Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)
Project purpose: (2006 to 2008) To raise awareness of Israeli obligations under international law to safeguard the rights of Palestinians in Hebron, through public advocacy and legal actions.
Project purpose: (2008-2009) To raise awareness of Israeli obligations under international law to safeguard the rights of Palestinians and to reduce incidents of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Palestinians in the west bank through public advocacy and legal actions Funding: 2006-07-£42,000, 2007-08-£36,742, 2008-09-£73,000.
Peace Now
Project purpose: To record, highlight and challenge settlement expansion activities, through legal action, public advocacy and dialogue with Israeli officials. Funding: 2006-07-£109,990, 2007-08-£52,696, 2008-09-£117,000, 2009-10-£100,000, 2010-11-£93,000 (provisional allocation).
6 Sep 2010 : Column 221W
Breaking the Silence
Project purpose: To raise international and Israeli public awareness of human rights violations in the Hebron area. Funding: 2006-07-£19,144, 2007-08-£32,856, 2008-09-£26,701, 2009-10-£56,455, 2010-11-£74,434 (provisional allocation).
Two of the NGOs referred to were supported by our bilateral programme funds. They were:
Bimkom
Project purpose: (2005-06): To investigate planning considerations of the route of the Separation Barrier and assist Palestinian communities to raise concerns. Funding: 2005-06-£30,000.
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI)
Project purpose: To increase legal aid and advocacy work in cases of alleged torture and to support adoption of a human rights-based agenda. Funding: 2006-07-£15,000, 2007-08-£29,955.
Israeli Committee against House Demolition (ICAHD) and Mossawa have not been funded by either the MENA CP or the FCO Bilateral programme fund.
Dear Mr. Hague,
The UK Ambassador to Israel Hon. Matthew Gould
I was amazed to learn that the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, on the 2 January 2012, made an unwarranted press statement condemning Israel based on false information provided by a UK FCO funded Israeli NGO, Ir Amim.
There are several aspects of this matter which are unacceptable:-
1. The fact that the British Ambassador relied upon information that had not been corroborated by any Israeli authoritative source and had not appeared in the Israeli media.
2. The Ambassador clearly made no attempt to obtain confirmation from either internal or external Embassy sources before issuing this condemnation
3. The Ambassador on behalf of HM government made such a statement without first consulting with his superiors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
4. The Ambassador relied solely on information provided to him by an Israeli NGO, that itself is supported by the FCO slush fund distributed in Israel direct from the UK Embassy in Israel based on recommendations of the Ambassador ( in this case the NGO in question has been funded since 2004 to the tune of £357,985 to the financial year 2009/10)
5. The information had been previously released during the planning stages by the various Israel Planning Committees and Ir Amim deliberately released this information, as if it was new, to coincide with the renewed preliminary Quartet talks in Amman, Jordan, taking place that day, so as to cast the Israeli Government in a bad light and acting in bad faith.
6. The condemnation was subsequently relied upon for the French President to follow suite.
7. No such statements are made about any actions of any other country by the accredited UK Ambassadors, even when gross denial of human rights takes place as well as the cold blooded murder of law abiding citizens as is happening in places as far apart as Syria and Sudan
8. The Ambassador’s attempt to back track when it was discovered he had made a faux pas only exacerbated the situation
9. The stated purpose of funding Ir Amim according to the answer to a question by Robert Halfon MP to Alistair Burt MP of the FCO on the 6 September 2010 was “To influence the nature and quality of public policy debate and ultimately Israeli policy in line with political options for a sustainable two-state solution.” (See extract from Hansard 6 September 2010 Column 219W enclosed). Well they certainly did not follow this objective on this occasion.
I have enclosed background information which was obtained from the Jerusalem Post and the Editorial clearly sums up the untenable position of HM Ambassador in Israel.
I should therefore like to enquire of HM government and the Foreign Secretary in particular, why the Ambassador has been permitted to act in such a fashion, shooting his mouth off in public, and what action HM government will take to immediately stop the funding to Ir Amim. If a decision is made to continue the funding the reasons why.
Yours truly,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
UK envoy slams, retracts criticism of J'lem building
By HERB KEINON AND MELANIE LIDMAN
03/01/2012
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=252062
The only problem is that there was no new announcement of a new construction project beyond the Green Line.
British ambassador Matthew Gould took Israel to task Tuesday for announcing new building projects beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem, but then retracted the criticism after learning there had been no such declaration.
Gould, at a briefing with journalists, said the announcement of new construction beyond the Green Line was “unhelpful” on a day when Israeli and Palestinian officials were meeting in Amman.
RELATED: Tenders issued for 1,028 units beyond Green Line J’lem committee to discuss Silwan tourism center UK slams 'provocative' J'lem building plans
“This is unhelpful and a disappointment to those who want to see the sides turn a corner,” the ambassador said to the reporters, who were unsure of what projects he was referring to. Gould said the announcement of a new construction project in the settlements “took the shine off” the Amman meeting between Yitzhak Molcho and Saeb Erekat.
The only problem is that there was no announcement of a new construction project beyond the Green Line. What there was, however, was publication by the Israel Lands Authority (ILA) of tenders for 312 housing units in Pisgat Ze’ev and Har Homa. These tenders were already announced a week ago.
After his initial condemnation, Gould clarified the matter and issued a statement saying that the Israeli government “has made clear to us that there has been no new announcement of tenders for building in east Jerusalem today, and that reports of such new tenders were incorrect. This is a welcome reassurance.”
One official said this incident reflects confusion over how the country’s planning process works, with the same project – which must go through numerous steps on its way from initial design to final approval – often being condemned at every new station along the way as an “announcement of a new settlement project.”
A British embassy representative said Gould based his initial condemnation on a statement put out by Ir Amim, a left-wing NGO that monitors building in Jerusalem.
According to that statement, “Today, January 3, as Israeli and Palestinian representatives meet in Jordan at the behest of King Abdullah in order to restart negotiations, the Israel Lands Authority published tenders for 312 units in east Jerusalem – in Har Homa B and Pisgat Ze’ev. The timing of this notice is a slap in the face to Jordan...”
The tenders published by the ILA represent the last step in the complicated approval process for construction in Israel, which can take up to a decade to complete.
The Har Homa and Pisgat Ze’ev projects have passed all of the approval steps from the Jerusalem municipality and the Interior Ministry, and have already been condemned by many in the international community.
After the ILA publishes these types of tenders, different contracting companies submit bids to build the projects. In special circumstances, including politically sensitive situations, the Prime Minister’s Office can ask the ILA to halt the publication of a specific tender, said ILA spokeswoman Ortal Tzabar.
Tzabar said there were instances in the past when the Prime Minister’s Office has intervened to stop publicizing the tenders, including in the Har Homa and Pisgat Ze’ev neighborhoods.
Tzabar called Gould’s comments “cheeky,” and added that the ILA considers Har Homa and Pisgat Ze’ev part of Jerusalem.
“There are people outside of Israel that really don’t understand [the process], and just follow whatever the Arabs are saying,” she said.
Gould’s hullabaloo By JERUSALEM POST EDITORIAL
05/01/2012
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=252452
Yesteryear’s aggression shouldn’t determine today’s legalities.
As it turns out, UK Ambassador Matthew Gould’s righteous indignation last Tuesday was uncommonly instructive.
At a press briefing he hauled official Israel over the coals for supposed new building projects in beyond-Green-Line Jerusalem. Subsequently, however, his severe censure proved a tad embarrassing as it emerged that no new plans had been announced, no new tenders issued and no new pretexts for disapproval furnished. Gould’s blunder, of course, isn’t the heart of the matter.
What’s compellingly enlightening is the exceptional opportunity he afforded Israelis (and fair-minded observers everywhere) to peek into the actual mechanisms of demonization. By rushing to judgment, Gould (followed a day later by France, although the farce had already been exposed) showed all and sundry precisely how Israel is condemned, facts notwithstanding. Israel can apparently only do wrong – even when it does nothing.
Contending that new housing permits were publicized that Tuesday for Pisgat Ze’ev and Har Homa, Gould waxed irate: “This is unhelpful and a disappointment to those who want to see the sides turn a corner.” This, he charged, “took the shine off” that day’s Amman meeting, geared to restart moribund negotiations.
In other words, there’s already a designated culprit –Israel – for whatever might go awry. Even after Gould’s halfhearted retraction, the gist remains – Israel is in the dock, potentially guilty. And, as France showed, slander sticks.
This episode too, as in other cases in which Israel is besmirched, was instigated by an Israeli NGO’s alacrity to telltale. In this instance it was Ir Amim – Jerusalem’s left-wing, self-appointed monitor of Jewish construction, which reportedly enjoys EU/British financial largesse.
Ir Amim unequivocally proclaimed that new construction tenders were issued just as Israeli and Palestinian representatives convened in Amman. The timing, asserted Ir Amim’s communiqué, “is a slap in the face to Jordan.”
Gould evidently treated this unverified “revelation” as gospel. Ir Amim’s word alone sufficed to trigger a harsh rebuke of Israel. Presumably, checking up on the NGO’s claims was not warranted, to say nothing of the fact that Israel regards all of Jerusalem as its unified capital under its sovereignty. Israel isn’t even granted the indulgence accorded other democracies, where no venture is decreed overnight by a despot’s whim but where bureaucratic due process dictates the slow, labored implementation of any policy. Nonetheless, here, too, urban development isn’t the product of erratic impulses. We are an orderly society, bound by red tape and regulations galore.
Yet in our case we’re chided anew for each plodding step along the arduous road from blueprint to formal authorization. The projects that so peeved Gould (and France) were in the works for an extended period before construction tenders were published – way before Gould’s hullabaloo. Such tenders constitute the culmination of complex approval procedures for construction in Israel. These take up to 10 years to complete and aren’t under the government’s direct or constant supervision or control.
Although during his briefing Gould hotly denied an inherent anti-Israel bias in London and other European capitals, his knee-jerk eagerness to scold Israel powerfully indicates otherwise. The pattern is undeniable: first comes the stern supercilious admonishment and only later – perhaps – an unenthusiastic examination of whether the upbraiding was justified.
We may be forgiven for doubting that this is the order of things when Britain approaches other countries and other conflicts. Equally as disturbing was Gould’s retraction, which characterized the absence of new tenders as “a welcome reassurance.”
(Subtext: Israeli construction in parts of the Israeli capital remain intrinsically illegitimate. Gould thereby underscored his fundamental displeasure with Israel’s presence in given Jerusalem neighborhoods.)
Even if one doesn’t accept our attachment to the whole of Jerusalem – where an overwhelming Jewish majority existed since the first 19th-century census – plain decency should command the British envoy to at least portray it as disputed territory rather than as outrightly occupied. Media Eye comment – so much for HMG Ambassador’s ascertain of being a proud Jew and how delighted he was that his daughter was born as a Sabra!!!!!
After all, it was the Arab Legion in 1948 – under British leadership and active assistance – that conquered east Jerusalem, expelled its Jews and occupied it for 19 years in brazen contravention of 1947’s UN Partition Resolution. Yesteryear’s aggression shouldn’t determine today’s legalities.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100906/text/100906w0009.htm
Israel: Expenditure
Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department paid to (a) B'Tselem, (b) HaMoked, (c) Yesh Din, (d) Ir Amim, (e) Bimkom, (f) the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, (g) the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, (h) Gisha, (i) Association for Civil Rights in Israel, (j) Peace Now, (k) Mossawa and (l) Breaking the Silence in each financial year since 2005-06; for what purposes those payments were made; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's spending on each such programme or project undertaken by each such organisation. [11499]
Alistair Burt: The tri-departmental Conflict Pool and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Bilateral programme funds support the Government's aim of reducing conflict in the middle east and North Africa region in order to help safeguard British national security. Our Conflict Prevention programmes in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories are jointly managed by the FCO, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. They work to improve the political environment in support of the peace process, including tackling difficult issues such as settlements and alleged human rights violations on both sides. Our Bilateral programme strengthens our relations with countries in the middle east and North Africa region. We work with both the Palestinian Authority to enhance their capacity for tackling violence and with Israeli institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Many of the initiatives we support work to promote equality and human rights, build trust between communities, reduce violence inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories and advance peace. The NGOs we work with have helped to raise awareness of Israel's obligations under international law with regard to settlement activity and human rights violations. They also work to ensure due legal process is adhered to by Israeli authorities. Regular
6 Sep 2010 : Column 220W
monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of all programmes is a requirement for all our funding commitments. Since we began supporting these programmes there have been a number of changes to Israeli civil and military judicial practice and decisions, and increased public debate on these issues.
A vibrant, independent and diverse civil society is one of Israel's great strengths and we believe that continuing British support will assist in strengthening democratic processes. By raising awareness and creating an environment where people are able to learn more about the situation and realities on the ground, the projects we support play a crucial role in creating sustainable conditions for peace.
Of those NGOs referred to in my hon. Friend's question, the following have been funded through our Conflict Prevention programmes (the Middle East and North Africa Conflict Pool-MENA CP):
B'Tselem
Project purpose: Using film and video documentation as a tool for accountability to improve the human rights situation in the west bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Funding: 2010-11-£135,000 (provisional allocation).
B'Tselem & HaMoked (jointly)
Project purpose: To support freedom of movement for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories through legal and administrative action, advocacy and public education. Funding: 2005-06-£140,000, 2006-07-£150,000.
Yesh Din
Project purpose: (2006 to 2008) Using legal action and public advocacy to challenge and ensure compliance with due process within Israeli military courts.
Project purpose: (2008 to 2010) To challenge Israeli settlement construction and increase Palestinian access to lands in the west bank through legal actions and public advocacy. Funding: 2006-07-£55,529, 2007-08-£74,256, 2008-09-£125,000, 2009-10-£142,000, 2010-11-£83,755 (provisional allocation).
Ir Amim
Project purpose: To influence the nature and quality of public policy debate and ultimately Israeli policy in line with political options for a sustainable two-state solution. Funding: 2005-06-£70,000, 2006-07-£100,133, 2007-08-£60,000, 2008-09-£127,850.
Bimkom
Project purpose: (2006 to 2010): To provide comprehensive information on the planning situation of Palestinian villages in Area C, to support the prevention of house demolitions and improve living conditions of residents. Funding: 2006-07-£11,366, 2007-08-£45,956, 2009-10-£22,978.
Gisha
Project purpose: To use legal actions and public advocacy to support free movement and access to goods, and to document human rights violations in Gaza. Funding: 2008-09-£70,010.
Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)
Project purpose: (2006 to 2008) To raise awareness of Israeli obligations under international law to safeguard the rights of Palestinians in Hebron, through public advocacy and legal actions.
Project purpose: (2008-2009) To raise awareness of Israeli obligations under international law to safeguard the rights of Palestinians and to reduce incidents of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Palestinians in the west bank through public advocacy and legal actions Funding: 2006-07-£42,000, 2007-08-£36,742, 2008-09-£73,000.
Peace Now
Project purpose: To record, highlight and challenge settlement expansion activities, through legal action, public advocacy and dialogue with Israeli officials. Funding: 2006-07-£109,990, 2007-08-£52,696, 2008-09-£117,000, 2009-10-£100,000, 2010-11-£93,000 (provisional allocation).
6 Sep 2010 : Column 221W
Breaking the Silence
Project purpose: To raise international and Israeli public awareness of human rights violations in the Hebron area. Funding: 2006-07-£19,144, 2007-08-£32,856, 2008-09-£26,701, 2009-10-£56,455, 2010-11-£74,434 (provisional allocation).
Two of the NGOs referred to were supported by our bilateral programme funds. They were:
Bimkom
Project purpose: (2005-06): To investigate planning considerations of the route of the Separation Barrier and assist Palestinian communities to raise concerns. Funding: 2005-06-£30,000.
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI)
Project purpose: To increase legal aid and advocacy work in cases of alleged torture and to support adoption of a human rights-based agenda. Funding: 2006-07-£15,000, 2007-08-£29,955.
Israeli Committee against House Demolition (ICAHD) and Mossawa have not been funded by either the MENA CP or the FCO Bilateral programme fund.
Friday, July 31, 2009
OPEN LETTER TO UK FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND
31 July 2009
Dear Mr Miliband,
I was amazed and appalled to learn that HM Government has been instrumental in initiating world opposition to the presence of a Jewish Community in what was the Shepherd’s Hotel in Jerusalem and previously the home of the Mufti of Jerusalem, built in the mid 1930’s. It is clear that according to statements issued by the government, certain areas of Jerusalem must be, to use Nazi terminology, Juden Rein (Jew Free), including the area of the Shepherd Hotel. It is not acceptable that HM Government should make such unprecedented statements, possibly citing that the status of the city should be left to final status negotiations and nothing must be done to alter the existing status. Strange as it may seem, Jews and Arabs can purchase properties in any part of Jerusalem, be they pre 1967 Israeli city or the illegally Jordanian occupied pre 1967 Jerusalem incorrectly referred to as “East” Jerusalem. HM Government is promoting both pure racism and a denial of basic Human Rights – why should Jews not live anywhere in the Biblical Holy Land? Of course, the Jewish people have not forgotten how the Arab countries have deliberately made their countries Juden Rein and in some cases deny entry of any Jew, even to this day.
The news that you had rescinded Arms Export Licences for certain materials to Israel is, despite the denials, a full blown arms embargo. On Monday you stated to a NATO meeting in Brussels that the presence and actions of UK troops in Afghanistan, some 3500 miles from the UK, is to preventing terrorism in this country. How can you rescind Arms Export Licences to Israel which is facing terrorism, not 3500 miles away, but literally on its border. One cannot accept that Operation Cast Lead in Gaza earlier this year was anything but a war against terrorism. Perhaps you would care to explain these hypocritical double standards, or is it that Jewish blood in Israel is far cheaper than the blood of UK citizens?
Only yesterday it was revealed that HM Government is deliberately funding political activities in Israel (see enclosed report in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post). One must ask how would HM Government feel if another country funded political activities of groups within the UK. It is detestable for this external interference by the UK in Israel in such funding activities. Under the circumstances, I believe HM Government have no right in funding the Breaking the Silence group's trips and activities in Hebron. Is it that since the massacre in 1929 of the 79 Jewish residents of Hebron, who had lived in the city for millennium after which HM Government decided to make the city Juden Rein, because it refused to provide protection for them from the Arab murderers a reason to investigate the current position. Hebron was and is the second holiest city for Judaism after Jerusalem, being the burial place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish Nation which our forefather Abraham purchased in perpetuity for the Jewish People.
I should like to enquire of HM Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular how it can promulgate racist policies in denying Jewish presence in any part of Jerusalem and the Holy Land as well as selectively cancelling Arms Export Licences. Furthermore, in the light of yesterday’s report why is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding such activities in Israel which represent a gross breech of Israeli sovereign rights and is denigrating Israel in the minds of the UK population thereby creating and fostering Anti Semitism. Would you advise which other organisations in Israel receive such funding, the value in financial terms, the rationale, the time duration and when the funding commenced. Furth more, would you provide details of similar activities in Arab/Muslim countries.
=================================================================================
UK funding political activity in Israel
Jul. 30, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israel is up in arms over a declaration by a British government spokesman that the UK is funding political activity in Israel.
British spokesman Martin Day said in an interview in Dubai with Al-Arabiya television last week that the British government was "taking practical steps towards freezing settlement activities."
"For instance," Day said, "we finance projects aimed at halting settlement activities. One of these projects seeks to build new Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and save Palestinian houses from demolition."
In addition, Day said in an Arabic interview, "we also finance organizations that monitor settlement activities."
He further stated that "products from the settlements do not enjoy preferential custom duties that we offer to products coming from Israel. In light of this, we can say that we are taking effective and practical steps against settlement activities."
The Foreign Ministry's senior deputy director general, Rafi Barak, spoke with British Ambassador Tom Phillips two days ago and asked for an explanation. He met with the British envoy again on Wednesday to again discuss the matter and voice Israel's displeasure.
Phillips, according to Barak, said he was looking into the matter.
Karen Kaufman, the British Embassy's spokesman in Tel Aviv, said in response that the British government was "not involved in the actual construction of new Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem."
"The UK is spending £450,000 over 4 years to support projects in east Jerusalem and the West Bank that help Palestinians better understand and effectively use the Israeli planning laws to gain permission both retrospectively for existing homes, and prospectively for new homes on their side of the Green Line," she said.
Yossi Levy, the ministry's spokesman for the Hebrew press, characterized Day's comments as the "height of chutzpah," and said such activity was "unheard of."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said, "We can't recall any other case of a democratic country funding political activities inside another democratic country."
Additionally, he said, this makes no sense from their point of view because any political activities they are backing will lose credibility in the eyes of the Israeli public when it is revealed that these activities are funded by a foreign government.
"How would the British feel if another country funded political activities of groups within the UK?" he asked.
Barak's conversation with Phillips came fast on the heels of revelations that the British, Dutch and Spanish governments were funding Breaking the Silence, an Israeli NGO that recently published a report in which unnamed soldiers alleged IDF misconduct during Operation Cast Lead.
Following The Jerusalem Post's revelations of the group's funding, Ha'aretz reported earlier this week that Israel's ambassador to Holland met with the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry, complained about the Dutch embassy's funding of Breaking the Silence, and urged the funding be terminated. According to this report, the Dutch Foreign Minister - considered a strong friend of Israel - was unaware of the funding and gave instructions to launch an internal investigation into the matter.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277926821&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2009 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
==================================================================================Israel targets U.K. funding of controversial leftist group By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: EU, Israel News, U.K. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1103748.html
Israel continues to ratchet up diplomatic pressure against European Union funding of a controversial left-wing group.
The deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Rafi Barak, expressed "concern" last week over Britain's financial contributions to "Breaking the Silence," an organization founded by Israel Defense Forces veterans which collects testimonies from soldiers serving in the Palestinian territories.
Barak communicated Israel's dissatisfaction over Britain's funding of the group during a meeting with London's ambassador to Tel Aviv, Tom Phillips.
Barak met with Phillips to discuss efforts by various British organizations to institute a boycott against Israel. During the meeting, Barak also raised the subject of funds which the British government channels to Breaking the Silence.
The organization recently became the subject of scrutiny after it published the testimonies of IDF soldiers who served in the military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip earlier this year.
Barak requested clarifications as to the reasons behind Britain's funding of the group and whether the money was used to fund the recent report on Operation Cast Lead.
According to information obtained by Barak, the British embassy in Tel Aviv received 40,000 pounds in 2008. Phillips told Barak that the money transfer to the group presents no problem since Breaking the Silence is a legal organization.
Phillips added that the money was meant to fund the group's trips and activities in Hebron, and that none of the money was used for compiling and publishing its report on the Gaza war.
The move is part of a continuing Foreign Ministry campaign to halt EU funding of the group's activities.
Last week, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Harry Knei-Tal, met with the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry and complained about the Dutch embassy's funding of Breaking the Silence.
In the meeting last week between Knei-Tal and the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry, the Israeli ambassador suggested that the Netherlands' funding of the organization should be terminated, according to a source.
"The Dutch taxpayer's money could be better used to promote peace and human rights," the source quoted Knei-Tal as saying.
In response, Breaking the Silence accused the Foreign Ministry of "endangering democracy" by engaging in a "witch hunt" against the organization.
Dear Mr Miliband,
I was amazed and appalled to learn that HM Government has been instrumental in initiating world opposition to the presence of a Jewish Community in what was the Shepherd’s Hotel in Jerusalem and previously the home of the Mufti of Jerusalem, built in the mid 1930’s. It is clear that according to statements issued by the government, certain areas of Jerusalem must be, to use Nazi terminology, Juden Rein (Jew Free), including the area of the Shepherd Hotel. It is not acceptable that HM Government should make such unprecedented statements, possibly citing that the status of the city should be left to final status negotiations and nothing must be done to alter the existing status. Strange as it may seem, Jews and Arabs can purchase properties in any part of Jerusalem, be they pre 1967 Israeli city or the illegally Jordanian occupied pre 1967 Jerusalem incorrectly referred to as “East” Jerusalem. HM Government is promoting both pure racism and a denial of basic Human Rights – why should Jews not live anywhere in the Biblical Holy Land? Of course, the Jewish people have not forgotten how the Arab countries have deliberately made their countries Juden Rein and in some cases deny entry of any Jew, even to this day.
The news that you had rescinded Arms Export Licences for certain materials to Israel is, despite the denials, a full blown arms embargo. On Monday you stated to a NATO meeting in Brussels that the presence and actions of UK troops in Afghanistan, some 3500 miles from the UK, is to preventing terrorism in this country. How can you rescind Arms Export Licences to Israel which is facing terrorism, not 3500 miles away, but literally on its border. One cannot accept that Operation Cast Lead in Gaza earlier this year was anything but a war against terrorism. Perhaps you would care to explain these hypocritical double standards, or is it that Jewish blood in Israel is far cheaper than the blood of UK citizens?
Only yesterday it was revealed that HM Government is deliberately funding political activities in Israel (see enclosed report in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post). One must ask how would HM Government feel if another country funded political activities of groups within the UK. It is detestable for this external interference by the UK in Israel in such funding activities. Under the circumstances, I believe HM Government have no right in funding the Breaking the Silence group's trips and activities in Hebron. Is it that since the massacre in 1929 of the 79 Jewish residents of Hebron, who had lived in the city for millennium after which HM Government decided to make the city Juden Rein, because it refused to provide protection for them from the Arab murderers a reason to investigate the current position. Hebron was and is the second holiest city for Judaism after Jerusalem, being the burial place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish Nation which our forefather Abraham purchased in perpetuity for the Jewish People.
I should like to enquire of HM Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular how it can promulgate racist policies in denying Jewish presence in any part of Jerusalem and the Holy Land as well as selectively cancelling Arms Export Licences. Furthermore, in the light of yesterday’s report why is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding such activities in Israel which represent a gross breech of Israeli sovereign rights and is denigrating Israel in the minds of the UK population thereby creating and fostering Anti Semitism. Would you advise which other organisations in Israel receive such funding, the value in financial terms, the rationale, the time duration and when the funding commenced. Furth more, would you provide details of similar activities in Arab/Muslim countries.
=================================================================================
UK funding political activity in Israel
Jul. 30, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israel is up in arms over a declaration by a British government spokesman that the UK is funding political activity in Israel.
British spokesman Martin Day said in an interview in Dubai with Al-Arabiya television last week that the British government was "taking practical steps towards freezing settlement activities."
"For instance," Day said, "we finance projects aimed at halting settlement activities. One of these projects seeks to build new Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and save Palestinian houses from demolition."
In addition, Day said in an Arabic interview, "we also finance organizations that monitor settlement activities."
He further stated that "products from the settlements do not enjoy preferential custom duties that we offer to products coming from Israel. In light of this, we can say that we are taking effective and practical steps against settlement activities."
The Foreign Ministry's senior deputy director general, Rafi Barak, spoke with British Ambassador Tom Phillips two days ago and asked for an explanation. He met with the British envoy again on Wednesday to again discuss the matter and voice Israel's displeasure.
Phillips, according to Barak, said he was looking into the matter.
Karen Kaufman, the British Embassy's spokesman in Tel Aviv, said in response that the British government was "not involved in the actual construction of new Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem."
"The UK is spending £450,000 over 4 years to support projects in east Jerusalem and the West Bank that help Palestinians better understand and effectively use the Israeli planning laws to gain permission both retrospectively for existing homes, and prospectively for new homes on their side of the Green Line," she said.
Yossi Levy, the ministry's spokesman for the Hebrew press, characterized Day's comments as the "height of chutzpah," and said such activity was "unheard of."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said, "We can't recall any other case of a democratic country funding political activities inside another democratic country."
Additionally, he said, this makes no sense from their point of view because any political activities they are backing will lose credibility in the eyes of the Israeli public when it is revealed that these activities are funded by a foreign government.
"How would the British feel if another country funded political activities of groups within the UK?" he asked.
Barak's conversation with Phillips came fast on the heels of revelations that the British, Dutch and Spanish governments were funding Breaking the Silence, an Israeli NGO that recently published a report in which unnamed soldiers alleged IDF misconduct during Operation Cast Lead.
Following The Jerusalem Post's revelations of the group's funding, Ha'aretz reported earlier this week that Israel's ambassador to Holland met with the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry, complained about the Dutch embassy's funding of Breaking the Silence, and urged the funding be terminated. According to this report, the Dutch Foreign Minister - considered a strong friend of Israel - was unaware of the funding and gave instructions to launch an internal investigation into the matter.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277926821&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2009 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
==================================================================================Israel targets U.K. funding of controversial leftist group By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: EU, Israel News, U.K. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1103748.html
Israel continues to ratchet up diplomatic pressure against European Union funding of a controversial left-wing group.
The deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Rafi Barak, expressed "concern" last week over Britain's financial contributions to "Breaking the Silence," an organization founded by Israel Defense Forces veterans which collects testimonies from soldiers serving in the Palestinian territories.
Barak communicated Israel's dissatisfaction over Britain's funding of the group during a meeting with London's ambassador to Tel Aviv, Tom Phillips.
Barak met with Phillips to discuss efforts by various British organizations to institute a boycott against Israel. During the meeting, Barak also raised the subject of funds which the British government channels to Breaking the Silence.
The organization recently became the subject of scrutiny after it published the testimonies of IDF soldiers who served in the military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip earlier this year.
Barak requested clarifications as to the reasons behind Britain's funding of the group and whether the money was used to fund the recent report on Operation Cast Lead.
According to information obtained by Barak, the British embassy in Tel Aviv received 40,000 pounds in 2008. Phillips told Barak that the money transfer to the group presents no problem since Breaking the Silence is a legal organization.
Phillips added that the money was meant to fund the group's trips and activities in Hebron, and that none of the money was used for compiling and publishing its report on the Gaza war.
The move is part of a continuing Foreign Ministry campaign to halt EU funding of the group's activities.
Last week, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Harry Knei-Tal, met with the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry and complained about the Dutch embassy's funding of Breaking the Silence.
In the meeting last week between Knei-Tal and the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry, the Israeli ambassador suggested that the Netherlands' funding of the organization should be terminated, according to a source.
"The Dutch taxpayer's money could be better used to promote peace and human rights," the source quoted Knei-Tal as saying.
In response, Breaking the Silence accused the Foreign Ministry of "endangering democracy" by engaging in a "witch hunt" against the organization.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
OPEN LETTER TO UK SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT - DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
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
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GXE22WMGVJSZ5QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/12/23/do2306.xml
PUBLISHED COMMENTS
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
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL UNDER SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969) and GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 2254 (ES-V)
Addendum
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."
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL UNDER SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969) and GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 2254 (ES-V)
Addendum
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)