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.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU - BRING POLLARD HOME NOW
9 MAY 2011/ 4 IYAR 5771
HE Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Ministers Bureau
Rechov Kaplan
Jerusalem
Israel
By Fax 02-6496659
Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,
Jonathan Pollard, Gilad Shalit
In January this year you wrote to President Obama regarding the plight of Jonathan Pollard who has been incarcerated in a USA jail for over 26 years as a result of providing Israel with information with regard to Iraqi Chemical Weapons. Those who have spied for non-friendly nations against the USA with similar life sentences were freed within a few years of being sentenced as a result of pressure being exerted on the USA administration by the spies’ home country. In contrast your plea, those of the Knesset, President Peres and numerous former US executive and governmental officials and US Jewish religious and community leaders, have all been ignored. Pollard served the interests of the citizens of Israel and the Jewish people and is still suffering for this positive action which was performed without considering his own position. Surely, it is incumbent upon you during your visit in the forthcoming weeks to President Obama, to once and for all obtain a clear unequivocal positive response from the President. Your predecessors failed miserably and their actions only serve as a warning to Jews in the Diaspora not to take any actions on behalf of Israel because the State will NOT give them any support and be readily abandoned by it.
In addressing the issue of the release of Gilat Shalit, captured by terrorists from sovereign Israeli territory as a result of IDF incompetence. For the past weeks the media has not stopped in pushing the issue to the public’s forefront, day after day. But for some peculiar reason have decided to completely ignore the plight of Pollard. Even the rabbinical leaders do not recite Teffilah for Pollard but constantly do for Shalit.
You cannot justify considering releasing hundreds of Arab murderers with Jewish blood on their hands to be used as a bargaining chip for Shalit, irrespective of what documents they sign not to engage in terrorism anymore. Indeed, as a result of the tragic event at Itamar it must now be incumbent upon the government to introduce capital punishment both for this terrorist act and make it retrospective for past terrorist acts.
On this day of Yom Hazikoron I appeal to you to ensure that we must not forget or abandon Jonathan Pollard and that you will unequivocally during your visit to the USA put Pollard first on your public agenda with both the President and the media. You must bring home Pollard when you return from your visit.
HE Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Ministers Bureau
Rechov Kaplan
Jerusalem
Israel
By Fax 02-6496659
Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,
Jonathan Pollard, Gilad Shalit
In January this year you wrote to President Obama regarding the plight of Jonathan Pollard who has been incarcerated in a USA jail for over 26 years as a result of providing Israel with information with regard to Iraqi Chemical Weapons. Those who have spied for non-friendly nations against the USA with similar life sentences were freed within a few years of being sentenced as a result of pressure being exerted on the USA administration by the spies’ home country. In contrast your plea, those of the Knesset, President Peres and numerous former US executive and governmental officials and US Jewish religious and community leaders, have all been ignored. Pollard served the interests of the citizens of Israel and the Jewish people and is still suffering for this positive action which was performed without considering his own position. Surely, it is incumbent upon you during your visit in the forthcoming weeks to President Obama, to once and for all obtain a clear unequivocal positive response from the President. Your predecessors failed miserably and their actions only serve as a warning to Jews in the Diaspora not to take any actions on behalf of Israel because the State will NOT give them any support and be readily abandoned by it.
In addressing the issue of the release of Gilat Shalit, captured by terrorists from sovereign Israeli territory as a result of IDF incompetence. For the past weeks the media has not stopped in pushing the issue to the public’s forefront, day after day. But for some peculiar reason have decided to completely ignore the plight of Pollard. Even the rabbinical leaders do not recite Teffilah for Pollard but constantly do for Shalit.
You cannot justify considering releasing hundreds of Arab murderers with Jewish blood on their hands to be used as a bargaining chip for Shalit, irrespective of what documents they sign not to engage in terrorism anymore. Indeed, as a result of the tragic event at Itamar it must now be incumbent upon the government to introduce capital punishment both for this terrorist act and make it retrospective for past terrorist acts.
On this day of Yom Hazikoron I appeal to you to ensure that we must not forget or abandon Jonathan Pollard and that you will unequivocally during your visit to the USA put Pollard first on your public agenda with both the President and the media. You must bring home Pollard when you return from your visit.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
A message to UK Foreign Secretary
Hello Mr Hague,
It goes without sayng that you must have heard about the family in Itamar, Samaria Israel, who were wiped out by the very people you feel such a "sympatica" with.
Where's the outpouring of grief from the media, where's the message of condolence from our "head of foreign diplomacy?" - is there anything you can say to justify the slitting of a baby's throat, the stabbing of two other children in their sleep together with the killing of their parents?
Should the "boot be on the other foot" Mr Hague, I am sure the baying for even more Jewish lives and finger shaking by the rest of the Jew-Hating world be blood curdling.
I expect the arab world will approve of the £2000. this murderer will receive for this unholy deed as with other payouts in similar situations; this is the mentality of the very body of people you expect to be given even even more land in Israel. Could you live with these "beings?" Could you live each day expecting a rocket, a bomb, a knife in the back, a rock on the head Mr Hague? - or perhaps find your trees, farms and crops destroyed by them also, I doubt it but you expect the Israelis to apportion the land they have poured so much blood into, the land that was taken before and which they never left of their own accord and to which,after so many years, manage to return, yet had to buy it back, paying exhorbitant fees per acre than the richest land in America. Each Jewish household world-wide had a box in which spare change would be collected and this, Mr Hague is what was used to re- purchase the land of Israel which was left a dust-bowl by the Arab squatters.
If you condone this situation and all the others that are NOT publicised accordingly in favour of Jews and Israel, then I don't hold out much hope for this land you consider to be "free thinking, diplomatic and impartial."
You know, Golda Meir once said I don't hate the people who kill our children, I just hate them for making us kill theirs." - is this the next step to be taken or should it be the "stiff upper lip" English attitude and "turn the other cheek!" - Mr Hague, Jews have turned the other cheek so many times, after so many punches, that it is starting to feel like a massage!
Beryl
It goes without sayng that you must have heard about the family in Itamar, Samaria Israel, who were wiped out by the very people you feel such a "sympatica" with.
Where's the outpouring of grief from the media, where's the message of condolence from our "head of foreign diplomacy?" - is there anything you can say to justify the slitting of a baby's throat, the stabbing of two other children in their sleep together with the killing of their parents?
Should the "boot be on the other foot" Mr Hague, I am sure the baying for even more Jewish lives and finger shaking by the rest of the Jew-Hating world be blood curdling.
I expect the arab world will approve of the £2000. this murderer will receive for this unholy deed as with other payouts in similar situations; this is the mentality of the very body of people you expect to be given even even more land in Israel. Could you live with these "beings?" Could you live each day expecting a rocket, a bomb, a knife in the back, a rock on the head Mr Hague? - or perhaps find your trees, farms and crops destroyed by them also, I doubt it but you expect the Israelis to apportion the land they have poured so much blood into, the land that was taken before and which they never left of their own accord and to which,after so many years, manage to return, yet had to buy it back, paying exhorbitant fees per acre than the richest land in America. Each Jewish household world-wide had a box in which spare change would be collected and this, Mr Hague is what was used to re- purchase the land of Israel which was left a dust-bowl by the Arab squatters.
If you condone this situation and all the others that are NOT publicised accordingly in favour of Jews and Israel, then I don't hold out much hope for this land you consider to be "free thinking, diplomatic and impartial."
You know, Golda Meir once said I don't hate the people who kill our children, I just hate them for making us kill theirs." - is this the next step to be taken or should it be the "stiff upper lip" English attitude and "turn the other cheek!" - Mr Hague, Jews have turned the other cheek so many times, after so many punches, that it is starting to feel like a massage!
Beryl
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Open Letter to Tony Blair on a speech at Monterrey Tecnológico University in Mexico on Tuesday 15 February 2011.
Mr Blair,
It never ceases to amaze me how you travel the world espousing your incredible brilliance on how other countries should run their office, broach the subject on where their loyalties should lie and how erudite you are in the process.
All this from a man who left this country in tatters and is squirrelling away millions under the guise of a Foundation with a non-expose' of a fortune in the name of Windrush Ventures." - Fine, that is up to you, but how bloody dare you do this on the back of Jews and Israel!
This time Mr Blair, you have come a bit too far! 1947 Mexico abstained in a division of 'Palestine' into an Arab/Jewish State, so what is your problem? It is widely known that your preferences lie with the Muslim sector and it is obvious that you must appease them by slagging off Israel and its Jews and you have the audacity to spread your bile against a minority population which has contributed the most to this world. You have ponced off the the very people who put their faith in you by electing you to office and the Jewish groups to whom you gave your word that they would feel secure with your backing.
What backing?, Mr Blair, you don't only look the part but you also play a very good role as the devil incarnate!
Keep you misguided ideals and Arab assuage, under the guise of "Middle-East" resolve, to yourself and your missus, or isn't there any money in that! - and you say Jews are grasping! - you have so much to learn...
Windrush? "bullrush more like."
Beryl
see http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=208561
It never ceases to amaze me how you travel the world espousing your incredible brilliance on how other countries should run their office, broach the subject on where their loyalties should lie and how erudite you are in the process.
All this from a man who left this country in tatters and is squirrelling away millions under the guise of a Foundation with a non-expose' of a fortune in the name of Windrush Ventures." - Fine, that is up to you, but how bloody dare you do this on the back of Jews and Israel!
This time Mr Blair, you have come a bit too far! 1947 Mexico abstained in a division of 'Palestine' into an Arab/Jewish State, so what is your problem? It is widely known that your preferences lie with the Muslim sector and it is obvious that you must appease them by slagging off Israel and its Jews and you have the audacity to spread your bile against a minority population which has contributed the most to this world. You have ponced off the the very people who put their faith in you by electing you to office and the Jewish groups to whom you gave your word that they would feel secure with your backing.
What backing?, Mr Blair, you don't only look the part but you also play a very good role as the devil incarnate!
Keep you misguided ideals and Arab assuage, under the guise of "Middle-East" resolve, to yourself and your missus, or isn't there any money in that! - and you say Jews are grasping! - you have so much to learn...
Windrush? "bullrush more like."
Beryl
see http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=208561
Open Letter to The Times
17 February 2011
FOR PUBLICATION
Letters Editor
The Times
3 Thomas More Sq
London E98 1TY
By email : letters@thetimes.co.uk
Jewish Mourning Customs
Julie Neuberger who does not adhere to the Jewish Dietary Laws cannot claim to be a female Rabbi.
How she prays is her business and it was incorrect to cite the rulings pertaining to women reciting the Mourners Prayer in the Jewish communal rite. Two letters have appeared in your columns in recent days regarding the various rulings in this connection, but given the Jewish community is less than 0.5 percent of the UK population, one does not comprehend the point being made as it is of no concern or interest to the general public. No similar analysis is made of any other minor minority religious group. Furthermore, the story of the apparent non-Jewish footballers playing in a Jewish football league that appeared in yesterday’s edition is really another example of putting the Jewish community under the microscope as a follow-on from doing the same to Israel.
However, when numerous letters have been sent to be considered for publication by members of the Jewish community regarding the interview the Foreign Secretary Hague gave to The Times last week regarding Israeli government statements, not one letter has appeared. Even eminent Rabbis letters regarding this issue are treated with contempt (see enclosed).
However, The Times considers it is acceptable to publish letters regarding Jewish rite whose proper home is on the pages of the Jewish Chronicle. Perhaps there are too many Court Jews involved with The Times.
It would appear that you consider fair game to bash Jews and Israel but for decades have remained silent on the human rights abuse perpetrated by evil dictatorships in Arab countries, as well as their racism.
=================================================================================
"William Hague and Israel's belligerence"
Sir,
A few weeks ago I quipped to a friend that, somehow or other, a way would be found to lay the blame on Israel for all the upheaval in the Middle East. Your screaming headline ("Hague tells 'belligerent' Israelis to soften line", Feb 9)) did not, therefore, come as any surprise. The Foreign Minister has, most unworthily, latched on to the age-old scapegoat and, single-handedly, fanned the Middle Eastern flames and further encouraged Israel's enemies.
At a time of widespread conflict all around the Middle East, and with so many victims of state brutality, the mind of our Foreign Minister is focused primarily upon "the belligerent language" of Israel's Prime Minister! He also takes exception to the latter's quite legitimate call to his people to "prepare for any outcome" and his vow to "reinforce the might of the State of Israel". Given the political maelstrom surrounding Israel, any Prime Minister who did not take such measures would surely be remiss in his duty.
The sooner the popular, yet bitterly misleading and ironic, references to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 'The Middle East conflict' or 'The Middle East peace process', are discarded, the better it will be. They are a disingenuous diversion, whose objective is to obfuscate the true source of all the wider 'Middle Eastern' problems, a source that lies at the heart of the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt.
Dr Jeffrey M Cohen
FOR PUBLICATION
Letters Editor
The Times
3 Thomas More Sq
London E98 1TY
By email : letters@thetimes.co.uk
Jewish Mourning Customs
Julie Neuberger who does not adhere to the Jewish Dietary Laws cannot claim to be a female Rabbi.
How she prays is her business and it was incorrect to cite the rulings pertaining to women reciting the Mourners Prayer in the Jewish communal rite. Two letters have appeared in your columns in recent days regarding the various rulings in this connection, but given the Jewish community is less than 0.5 percent of the UK population, one does not comprehend the point being made as it is of no concern or interest to the general public. No similar analysis is made of any other minor minority religious group. Furthermore, the story of the apparent non-Jewish footballers playing in a Jewish football league that appeared in yesterday’s edition is really another example of putting the Jewish community under the microscope as a follow-on from doing the same to Israel.
However, when numerous letters have been sent to be considered for publication by members of the Jewish community regarding the interview the Foreign Secretary Hague gave to The Times last week regarding Israeli government statements, not one letter has appeared. Even eminent Rabbis letters regarding this issue are treated with contempt (see enclosed).
However, The Times considers it is acceptable to publish letters regarding Jewish rite whose proper home is on the pages of the Jewish Chronicle. Perhaps there are too many Court Jews involved with The Times.
It would appear that you consider fair game to bash Jews and Israel but for decades have remained silent on the human rights abuse perpetrated by evil dictatorships in Arab countries, as well as their racism.
=================================================================================
"William Hague and Israel's belligerence"
Sir,
A few weeks ago I quipped to a friend that, somehow or other, a way would be found to lay the blame on Israel for all the upheaval in the Middle East. Your screaming headline ("Hague tells 'belligerent' Israelis to soften line", Feb 9)) did not, therefore, come as any surprise. The Foreign Minister has, most unworthily, latched on to the age-old scapegoat and, single-handedly, fanned the Middle Eastern flames and further encouraged Israel's enemies.
At a time of widespread conflict all around the Middle East, and with so many victims of state brutality, the mind of our Foreign Minister is focused primarily upon "the belligerent language" of Israel's Prime Minister! He also takes exception to the latter's quite legitimate call to his people to "prepare for any outcome" and his vow to "reinforce the might of the State of Israel". Given the political maelstrom surrounding Israel, any Prime Minister who did not take such measures would surely be remiss in his duty.
The sooner the popular, yet bitterly misleading and ironic, references to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 'The Middle East conflict' or 'The Middle East peace process', are discarded, the better it will be. They are a disingenuous diversion, whose objective is to obfuscate the true source of all the wider 'Middle Eastern' problems, a source that lies at the heart of the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt.
Dr Jeffrey M Cohen
Friday, February 18, 2011
Open Letter to Rt. Hon. William Hague – UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Open Letter to Rt. Hon. William Hague – UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Interview with The Times – Wednesday 10 February 2011
It was nauseating to learn of your interview with The Times on 9 February 201. According to The Times you gave a blunt instruction to Israel’s Prime Minister to tone down the belligerent language he used since the uprising and protests, which have spread from Tunisia to Egypt and beyond. This is the same tone and type of language that was used to blame the Black Death [1348-49] on the innocent Jewish communities who it was claimed had poisoned the water wells. This brought about the worst massacre of innocent Jews from that period until the rise of the Nazi regime, some 600 years latter. Exactly what were you trying to achieve?
This was an unprecedented, unwarranted and unacceptable attack by you on the Israeli Prime Minister in the name of HM Government, yet there had not been one instance of belligerent language on these uprisings from Israel. Is not the duty of a Prime Minister of a sovereign democratic country to alert the citizens of a possible military or terrorist threat for an adjacent country by telling his country to prepare for “any outcome” and “reinforce the might of the State of Israel”? This is not belligerent but plain common sense and resembles Churchill’s warning the UK before and during the Second World War. Not only have you insulted the government and people of Israel but also the Jewish people worldwide by advising them that 56 years after the end of the Nazi German attempt to commit genocide against the Jewish people when six million unarmed Jews were annihilated in cold blood, that Jews should not prepare if necessary to defend themselves in their own country? Exactly, who do you think you are commanding a Prime Minister of another country what to do when you and HM Government have remained silent over the dictators, the abuse of human rights and the corruption etc in many of the Arab countries ranging from Tunisia, through Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Jordan, not one of whom is in any way democratic. Your temerity is beyond belief.
Both you and PM Cameron appear to do anything to appease the Muslim world and consider it acceptable to attack Israel when she legitimately takes internationally acceptable practices[1], including those used by the British Armed Forces overseas, to defend herself. PM Cameron commented on 27 July 2010 in Turkey that Gaza was a “Prison Camp” in relationship to the legitimate blockage of Gaza by Israel to prevent the entry into this area of offensive military hardware as stated in all the various Agreements and Protocols signed between Israel and the PLO and witnessed by both the USA and others since the Oslo Agreement in 1993. Furthermore, how dare Cameron have the temerity to say [2] that the “ Israeli attack on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza "was totally unacceptable"- knowing full well that it was a deliberately planned publicity stunt by the Turkish organisers of the flotilla to provoke Israel to prevent the entry in to Gaza of unchecked cargo – did not the doyen of British Intelligence MI5 & MI6 advise the British Prime Minister?
On the 2 June 2010 you stated in the House of Commons “stress to the Israeli Government the need for them to act with restraint and in line with their international obligations, given that their actions appear to have gone beyond what was warranted or proportionate[3]
Clearly you must have been aware of Britain’s actions when she held the Mandate and illegally and inhumanly restricted by military force of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, Royal Marines and the British Army against Jews fleeing from the Nazi persecution in Europe [4] attempting to gain access to the “Jewish National Home” as defined in the League of Nations Mandate. As a result of the Peel Commission, the authorities, despite pleas from the USA refused both during the Second World War and after, maintained a quota system to restrict Jewish immigration and totally ignored international obligations and the use of brutal force was totally unwarranted against unarmed people, many of who were survivors of the Nazi Concentration Extermination Camps. The action was totally disproportionate [4]! It is completely unacceptable for HM Government minister to make such statements given the actions of Britain during the period 1936 to 1948, for which no apology or inquiry has even been forthcoming or held.
Prior to 1967, Israel, was at it’s narrowest point according to the 1949 armistice lines less than 9 miles wide, less than half the distance across London, and HM Government is now openly calling for a return to this situation despite all military logic and plain common sense dictating the opposite, with the proposed establishment of another Arab state in the region, bringing the total to 22. Secretary of State for the Middle East Burt during his visit to Israel in January this year stated that the armistice lines of 1949 were actually pre 1967 borders – such ignorance is unbecoming of one of HM Majesty’s ministers.
You have stated you “made it clear that he (you) regarded the Israeli attitude to settlements as “disappointing”. What gives HM Government the right to deny the Jewish people the right to live anywhere in their Biblical homeland? It is insulting to say the least, that a country that acquired land by force during the preceding four hundred plus years and still occupies them ranging from Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to St Helene and 20 plus other British Overseas Territories is prepared to deny Jewish rights that extend back over 3000 years as delineated in the Bible. What gives HM Government the right to object to Jews living even in Jerusalem, in properties that HM Government forced the Jewish Communities to abandon during the period of civil unrest from the commencement to the termination of the Mandate. Perhaps this shameful period has got lost in the Foreign Office and former Colonial Office archives and you were not properly briefed by your subordinates. As Chaim Weitzmann quoted to Prime Minister Balfour, “We had Jerusalem as our capital when London was a marsh!”
I listened to your subsequent interview on the BBC radio 4 World at One last Friday and was amazed to hear that you stated all your actions were in the National Interests of the UK. If this is the case, is not Israel legitimately permitted to make statements and take in to account its National Interests as a priority over that of another country? Perhaps your advisers forgot to tell you that the British Mandate ended on the 14 May 1948.
References
1. Gaza-Jericho Agreement Annex I
4 May 1994
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Gaza-Jericho+Agremeent+Annex+I.htm...
Article XI
Security Along the Coastline and in the Sea of Gaza 1. Maritime Activity Zones b. General Rules of the Maritime Activity Zones 4. As part of Israel's responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, or for any other illegal activity. The Palestinian Police will be notified of such actions, and the ensuing procedures will be coordinated through the Maritime Coordination and Cooperation Center.
2. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/07/ress-conference-with-turkish-pm-53984
3.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100602/debtext/100602-0004.htm
4. Some web references to the disproportionate and inhuman action of the British Forces
See http://wertheimer.info/family/GRAMPS/WEBINDEX/haapalahindex.html
Also http://www.amazon.com/Royal-Palestine-Patrol-Whitehall-Histories/dp/0714682543
Regardless of what one might think about the British White Paper of 1939, which had the effect of severely curtailing Jewish immigration to Palestine just as the European Holocaust got underway, one can appreciate how the Navy had no recourse but to comply with the policy set by Whitehall for their own reasons of state
Also http://www.amazon.com/Britains-Political-Immigration-Palestine-1945-1949/dp/0714656372#reader_0714656372
Worth a look inside of sample texts
Best possible http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=164340
Waiting for the Exodus was a British cruiser and a convoy of destroyers, which trailed the ship for several days before stopping it 20 nautical miles (40 kilometers) from the shores of Eretz Yisrael. "On our last night, the British ships came in one at a time, rammed us, threw tear gas bombs and stun grenades, and succeeded in getting a large party of club-swinging marines on board," added Livney
The Pan Crescent (also known by its Hebrew name, Atzmaut) and Pan York (Kibbutz Galuyot), nicknamed the "pans," left from the port of Burgas, Bulgaria, on December 27, 1947 - 62 years ago to the day - with over 15,000 immigrants. Several days later they were also stopped by British warships, after passing through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles in Turkey into the Aegean Sea toward the Mediterranean
Also http://www.scribd.com/doc/32266821/IL-11-Israeli-Navy
On nearing Haifa, the British intercepted the boat, the British destroyer 'Ajax', which had trounced the German battleship 'Graf Spee' in a famous sea battle, rammed the boat, the soldiers boarded and captured the passengers and transferred them to Tent Camp No. 55 near Famagusta , on Cyprus[3].
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.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
TONY BLAIR'S FAILURE AS MID-EAST ENVOY - GAZA IS REALLY HIS FAULT
29 DECEMBER 2008
Mr. Tony Blair
Middle East Quartet Envoy
9 Grosvenor Square
London
WC1
Dear Mr Blair,
Your recent comment that Israel should immediately stop its military actions in Gaza is ironic since you are partially responsible for the situation.
Consider the many visits at this time of the year you and your family paid to the resorts on the Red Sea coast courtesy of the Egyptian Government. It was to your shame that with your meetings with President Mubarak at Sharem and Cairo during these visits you remained silent about the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza.
Given these opportunities, not once did you ever discuss the halting of the tunnels from Gaza into Sinai with Mubarack and certainly no public statements were ever made to this effect. You were approached as early as January 2004 but your office at number 10 Downing St advised this was the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and not yours – what duplicity. (Letter on 10 Downing St. notepaper signed by Robert Gardikiotis 8 January 2004 in response to my letter of 4 January 2004)
At a subsequent meeting on 7 March 2004 in Chequers with Mubarack, once again the tunnel issues were not discussed and no public statement was made despite the main topic on the agenda being the Middle East "Road Map".
I am enclosing a copy of a letter sent to you on the 9 March 2004 immediately after this meeting to which there has never been the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a reply. The sentiments I expressed in this letter were applicable then as they were up to last Friday night.
In your role as Prime Minister and subsequent Quartet Mid East Envoy you have employed double standards, duplicity and above all spin to denigrate Israel.
Ironically, for the past 60 years it has been the wealthy oil rich Arab Mid East states who ignored the plight of their Arab brethren and still only play financial lip service whilst turning up the anti Israel/Jewish politically rhetoric. If they would have provided financial assistance to their brethren instead of using the oil wealth to wallow in luxury the problems of the area would have been solved a long time ago.
It is not for the west to provide such aid and certainly not for Israel or the Jewish Diaspora to provide these funds – lets stop this nonsense once and for all.
The blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the British Government for appeasing the Arab tribes of today’s Saudi Arabia by their duplicity in handling the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
=================================================================
9 March 2004
Rt. Hon. Tony Blair
Prime Minister
10 Downing St
London SW1
By Fax
Dear Prime Minister,
Meeting with Egyptian President in Chequers 7 March 2004
I understand from press reports and the official Egyptian Government web site that at your meeting with President Mubarak of Egypt the main topic on the agenda was the situation in the Palestinian territories and the Middle East "Road Map" and that a Foreign & Commonwealth Office spokesman said that the meeting has a special significance due to the successive developments in the Middle East region.
On the 4 January 2004 I wrote to you after your meeting with President Mubarak in Egypt and stated. "Whilst Israel signed the Peace Treaty with Egypt over twenty years ago, this has been a cold peace, Israel returning Sinai and the Egyptian media still continue promulgating anti-Semitism of the highest order even today, not seen since the period of the Nazis. President Mubarak has made no effort to prevent this promulgation of anti-Semitism.
During your discussions with Mubarak over the role Egypt could play, you had a responsibility to clearly indicate the displeasure of the UK with this situation.
Furthermore, this responsibility extends to clearly and unequivocally advising Egypt that it can have no role to play whilst it allows the smuggling of weapons, explosives and ammunition through the tunnels from Egypt that terminate in the southern residential extremities of the Gaza Strip. The International Solidarity Movement who have a number of vocal UK members, deliberately hinders the work of the Israel Defence Forces which seek to destroy these tunnels since the munitions etc. are being used by terrorists against Jewish civilians, and no other purpose." (see enclosure).
It would appear that you chose not to discuss the matter of these tunnels with the President and Government of Egypt in January. Since then the Israeli Defence Forces have uncovered numerous tunnels that were and are still in active service today. How is it that you are prepared to accept that a sovereign country is prepared not enforce the rule of law to prevent the construction and use of these tunnels for smuggling weapons, ammunition and explosives to fan the flames and attack Israel? I have enclosed an article by Uri Dan that was published in The Jerusalem Post on the 4 March 2004 where he deals in depth with this issue and considers Egypt’s refusal an "Invitation to War".
I am also enclosing a reply from the Direct Communications Unit which advised me that the matter I raised in my letter of 4th January is the responsibility of the F&CO and my letter has been forwarded to them for a reply. Is it that the staff at the Unit cannot understand plain English since the letter related to topics that you personally discussed with the Egyptian President in January and not the F&CO, which incidentally still has not provided a response.
You have failed in your moral responsibility as Prime Minister to publicly apprehend President Mubark for his failure to act on this issue.
=================================================================
4 January, 2004
Rt. Hon. Tony Blair
Prime Minister
10 Downing St
London SW1
By Fax
Dear Prime Minister,
Meeting with Egyptian President in Sharm-el-Sheik
I understand from Israeli press reports that prior to your departure to Iraq you met with President Mubarak of Egypt to discuss the way forward with respect to Israel.
It is reported on the BBC website that you also spoke about the virus of Islamic Terror. In the latter context, Israel has suffered at the hands of Islamic terror since before the modern state came into being in 1948. It is somewhat ironic that you make such statements when as early as August 1929, during the period of the British Mandate, Islamic terrorists took to the streets to murder Jews, yet at the same time you have the temerity to say that the terrorism that Israel experiences currently is different from the Islamic terror you openly discuss.
Whilst Israel signed the Peace Treaty with Egypt over twenty years ago, this has been a cold peace, Israel returning Sinai and the Egyptian media still continue promulgating anti-Semitism of the highest order even today, not seen since the period of the Nazis. President Mubarak has made no effort to prevent this promulgation of anti-Semitism. During your discussions with Mubarak over the role Egypt could play, you had a responsibility to clearly indicate the displeasure of the UK with this situation. Furthermore, this responsibility extends to clearly and unequivocally advising Egypt that it can have no role to play whilst it allows the smuggling of weapons, explosives and ammunition through the tunnels from Egypt which terminate in the southern residential extremities of the Gaza Strip. The International Solidarity Movement who have a number of vocal UK members, deliberately hinders the work of the Israel Defence Forces which seek to destroy these tunnels since the munitions etc. are being used by terrorists against Jewish civilians, and no other purpose.
I am enclosing a copy of the editorial that appeared in the Jerusalem Post of 17 October 2003, entitled "Egypt's Responsibility", which summarised the position of three months ago and is clearly applicable today.
Unlike other correspondence that I have sent to you, on this occasion I believe I am entitled to a detailed reply. I appreciate, as Prime Minister, that you receive numerous letters, however there is a special department set up to deal with them. Regrettably this facet of your organisation does not have the courtesy to provide even an acknowledgement - a sad reflection on what you claim to be a 'Listening Government'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invitation to war by Uri Dan, Jerusalem Post 4 March 2004
The absurd idea that Israel should transfer responsibility for security for the southern Gaza Strip - the Philadelphia corridor - to Egypt arose during Labor Party leader Shimon Peres's visit to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak last week.
Peres returned with a rosy message: Egypt is willing to assume responsibility for security on its border with Gaza once Israel uproots its settlements there. Mubarak also demanded that Israel uproot the settlements in Judea and Samaria.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed his plan for disengagement from the Palestinians after he despaired, with good reason, of reaching even some kind of interim arrangement with the Palestinians in this generation. But transferring responsibility for the security of the southern Gaza-Egypt border to Cairo would endanger the cold peace with Egypt.
For years Egypt made no effort to prevent the smuggling of arms through Egyptian-controlled Rafiah into Palestinian Rafiah. Numerous discussions between the heads of the Shin Bet Egyptian intelligence boss Omar Suleiman - as well as direct appeals to Mubarak - have been to no avail.
If Egypt wanted, it could have stopped the smuggling years ago. Cairo did not hesitate to arrest - and kill - hundreds of Egyptian Islamic Jihad members, far from the media spotlight, who threatened the regime. Egyptian Jihad is the spiritual father of Bin-Laden's gang.
In contrast, on the border with Gaza the Egyptians prefer turning a blind eye to the numerous professionally excavated tunnels dug by the Palestinians. In this way, the Egyptians demonstrate their support for the Palestinian struggle.
Consequently, only the persistent and heroic efforts of IDF soldiers to detect and destroy the tunnels have prevented the smuggling of Katyushas capable of threatening Ashkelon and Ashdod, and AA missiles that would threaten Israel's air space.
The army has fought bitter battles in the Philadelphia corridor against Palestinian terrorists, destroying houses that conceal the entrances to the tunnels, and the tunnels themselves.
Yasser Arafat attaches tremendous importance to this smuggling route from Egypt. Only this week he lauded the battles there as Rafiahgrad.
DOES PERES really think that if Israel were to transfer total responsibility for security on this border to Egypt, Cairo would suddenly halt the weapons smuggling? Perhaps the Egyptians would find it politically convenient to halt the smuggling for a few months because of their relations with the US or in order to deceive public opinion here.
However, only a self-deluded politician or general could believe that Egypt intends to change its policy of encouraging Palestinian terror aimed at weakening Israel.
It was an earlier delusion that explains why Yitzhak Rabin and Peres allowed Arafat to return to Gaza from Tunis in the summer of 1994. Arafat promptly smuggled weapons and known terrorists in the trunk of his Mercedes. In Oslo days, arms intended for the PA passed freely across the Egypt-Gaza border.
Ceding the security of southern Gaza to Cairo after an Israeli withdrawal would endanger the cold peace. Not only would there be no peace with the Palestinians, but even the peace agreement with Egypt would be undermined. Israel would then return to square one, but under more dangerous conditions.
Recall that Israel was forced to go to war against Egypt in 1956 when terrorist attacks from the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip against the south became unbearable. In 1967, as a first step in the build-up of Egyptian forces in Sinai, president Gamal Abdul Nasser expelled the UN forces from the Gaza Strip, where they had been deployed since 1957 in accordance with the cease-fire agreement between Israel and Egypt.
Peres should have remembered these facts, since he was a member of the government that went to war against Egypt. Is Peres now prepared to transfer responsibility for security on the Israeli-Egyptian border to Mubarak and thus invite the possibility of another war with Egypt? It is not surprising that the Egyptians themselves hesitate to accept this poisonous gift. At least they remember the destructive results of those wars with Israel.
The writer is a correspondent for The New York Post.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1078373358451
Mr. Tony Blair
Middle East Quartet Envoy
9 Grosvenor Square
London
WC1
Dear Mr Blair,
Your recent comment that Israel should immediately stop its military actions in Gaza is ironic since you are partially responsible for the situation.
Consider the many visits at this time of the year you and your family paid to the resorts on the Red Sea coast courtesy of the Egyptian Government. It was to your shame that with your meetings with President Mubarak at Sharem and Cairo during these visits you remained silent about the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza.
Given these opportunities, not once did you ever discuss the halting of the tunnels from Gaza into Sinai with Mubarack and certainly no public statements were ever made to this effect. You were approached as early as January 2004 but your office at number 10 Downing St advised this was the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and not yours – what duplicity. (Letter on 10 Downing St. notepaper signed by Robert Gardikiotis 8 January 2004 in response to my letter of 4 January 2004)
At a subsequent meeting on 7 March 2004 in Chequers with Mubarack, once again the tunnel issues were not discussed and no public statement was made despite the main topic on the agenda being the Middle East "Road Map".
I am enclosing a copy of a letter sent to you on the 9 March 2004 immediately after this meeting to which there has never been the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a reply. The sentiments I expressed in this letter were applicable then as they were up to last Friday night.
In your role as Prime Minister and subsequent Quartet Mid East Envoy you have employed double standards, duplicity and above all spin to denigrate Israel.
Ironically, for the past 60 years it has been the wealthy oil rich Arab Mid East states who ignored the plight of their Arab brethren and still only play financial lip service whilst turning up the anti Israel/Jewish politically rhetoric. If they would have provided financial assistance to their brethren instead of using the oil wealth to wallow in luxury the problems of the area would have been solved a long time ago.
It is not for the west to provide such aid and certainly not for Israel or the Jewish Diaspora to provide these funds – lets stop this nonsense once and for all.
The blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the British Government for appeasing the Arab tribes of today’s Saudi Arabia by their duplicity in handling the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
=================================================================
9 March 2004
Rt. Hon. Tony Blair
Prime Minister
10 Downing St
London SW1
By Fax
Dear Prime Minister,
Meeting with Egyptian President in Chequers 7 March 2004
I understand from press reports and the official Egyptian Government web site that at your meeting with President Mubarak of Egypt the main topic on the agenda was the situation in the Palestinian territories and the Middle East "Road Map" and that a Foreign & Commonwealth Office spokesman said that the meeting has a special significance due to the successive developments in the Middle East region.
On the 4 January 2004 I wrote to you after your meeting with President Mubarak in Egypt and stated. "Whilst Israel signed the Peace Treaty with Egypt over twenty years ago, this has been a cold peace, Israel returning Sinai and the Egyptian media still continue promulgating anti-Semitism of the highest order even today, not seen since the period of the Nazis. President Mubarak has made no effort to prevent this promulgation of anti-Semitism.
During your discussions with Mubarak over the role Egypt could play, you had a responsibility to clearly indicate the displeasure of the UK with this situation.
Furthermore, this responsibility extends to clearly and unequivocally advising Egypt that it can have no role to play whilst it allows the smuggling of weapons, explosives and ammunition through the tunnels from Egypt that terminate in the southern residential extremities of the Gaza Strip. The International Solidarity Movement who have a number of vocal UK members, deliberately hinders the work of the Israel Defence Forces which seek to destroy these tunnels since the munitions etc. are being used by terrorists against Jewish civilians, and no other purpose." (see enclosure).
It would appear that you chose not to discuss the matter of these tunnels with the President and Government of Egypt in January. Since then the Israeli Defence Forces have uncovered numerous tunnels that were and are still in active service today. How is it that you are prepared to accept that a sovereign country is prepared not enforce the rule of law to prevent the construction and use of these tunnels for smuggling weapons, ammunition and explosives to fan the flames and attack Israel? I have enclosed an article by Uri Dan that was published in The Jerusalem Post on the 4 March 2004 where he deals in depth with this issue and considers Egypt’s refusal an "Invitation to War".
I am also enclosing a reply from the Direct Communications Unit which advised me that the matter I raised in my letter of 4th January is the responsibility of the F&CO and my letter has been forwarded to them for a reply. Is it that the staff at the Unit cannot understand plain English since the letter related to topics that you personally discussed with the Egyptian President in January and not the F&CO, which incidentally still has not provided a response.
You have failed in your moral responsibility as Prime Minister to publicly apprehend President Mubark for his failure to act on this issue.
=================================================================
4 January, 2004
Rt. Hon. Tony Blair
Prime Minister
10 Downing St
London SW1
By Fax
Dear Prime Minister,
Meeting with Egyptian President in Sharm-el-Sheik
I understand from Israeli press reports that prior to your departure to Iraq you met with President Mubarak of Egypt to discuss the way forward with respect to Israel.
It is reported on the BBC website that you also spoke about the virus of Islamic Terror. In the latter context, Israel has suffered at the hands of Islamic terror since before the modern state came into being in 1948. It is somewhat ironic that you make such statements when as early as August 1929, during the period of the British Mandate, Islamic terrorists took to the streets to murder Jews, yet at the same time you have the temerity to say that the terrorism that Israel experiences currently is different from the Islamic terror you openly discuss.
Whilst Israel signed the Peace Treaty with Egypt over twenty years ago, this has been a cold peace, Israel returning Sinai and the Egyptian media still continue promulgating anti-Semitism of the highest order even today, not seen since the period of the Nazis. President Mubarak has made no effort to prevent this promulgation of anti-Semitism. During your discussions with Mubarak over the role Egypt could play, you had a responsibility to clearly indicate the displeasure of the UK with this situation. Furthermore, this responsibility extends to clearly and unequivocally advising Egypt that it can have no role to play whilst it allows the smuggling of weapons, explosives and ammunition through the tunnels from Egypt which terminate in the southern residential extremities of the Gaza Strip. The International Solidarity Movement who have a number of vocal UK members, deliberately hinders the work of the Israel Defence Forces which seek to destroy these tunnels since the munitions etc. are being used by terrorists against Jewish civilians, and no other purpose.
I am enclosing a copy of the editorial that appeared in the Jerusalem Post of 17 October 2003, entitled "Egypt's Responsibility", which summarised the position of three months ago and is clearly applicable today.
Unlike other correspondence that I have sent to you, on this occasion I believe I am entitled to a detailed reply. I appreciate, as Prime Minister, that you receive numerous letters, however there is a special department set up to deal with them. Regrettably this facet of your organisation does not have the courtesy to provide even an acknowledgement - a sad reflection on what you claim to be a 'Listening Government'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invitation to war by Uri Dan, Jerusalem Post 4 March 2004
The absurd idea that Israel should transfer responsibility for security for the southern Gaza Strip - the Philadelphia corridor - to Egypt arose during Labor Party leader Shimon Peres's visit to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak last week.
Peres returned with a rosy message: Egypt is willing to assume responsibility for security on its border with Gaza once Israel uproots its settlements there. Mubarak also demanded that Israel uproot the settlements in Judea and Samaria.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed his plan for disengagement from the Palestinians after he despaired, with good reason, of reaching even some kind of interim arrangement with the Palestinians in this generation. But transferring responsibility for the security of the southern Gaza-Egypt border to Cairo would endanger the cold peace with Egypt.
For years Egypt made no effort to prevent the smuggling of arms through Egyptian-controlled Rafiah into Palestinian Rafiah. Numerous discussions between the heads of the Shin Bet Egyptian intelligence boss Omar Suleiman - as well as direct appeals to Mubarak - have been to no avail.
If Egypt wanted, it could have stopped the smuggling years ago. Cairo did not hesitate to arrest - and kill - hundreds of Egyptian Islamic Jihad members, far from the media spotlight, who threatened the regime. Egyptian Jihad is the spiritual father of Bin-Laden's gang.
In contrast, on the border with Gaza the Egyptians prefer turning a blind eye to the numerous professionally excavated tunnels dug by the Palestinians. In this way, the Egyptians demonstrate their support for the Palestinian struggle.
Consequently, only the persistent and heroic efforts of IDF soldiers to detect and destroy the tunnels have prevented the smuggling of Katyushas capable of threatening Ashkelon and Ashdod, and AA missiles that would threaten Israel's air space.
The army has fought bitter battles in the Philadelphia corridor against Palestinian terrorists, destroying houses that conceal the entrances to the tunnels, and the tunnels themselves.
Yasser Arafat attaches tremendous importance to this smuggling route from Egypt. Only this week he lauded the battles there as Rafiahgrad.
DOES PERES really think that if Israel were to transfer total responsibility for security on this border to Egypt, Cairo would suddenly halt the weapons smuggling? Perhaps the Egyptians would find it politically convenient to halt the smuggling for a few months because of their relations with the US or in order to deceive public opinion here.
However, only a self-deluded politician or general could believe that Egypt intends to change its policy of encouraging Palestinian terror aimed at weakening Israel.
It was an earlier delusion that explains why Yitzhak Rabin and Peres allowed Arafat to return to Gaza from Tunis in the summer of 1994. Arafat promptly smuggled weapons and known terrorists in the trunk of his Mercedes. In Oslo days, arms intended for the PA passed freely across the Egypt-Gaza border.
Ceding the security of southern Gaza to Cairo after an Israeli withdrawal would endanger the cold peace. Not only would there be no peace with the Palestinians, but even the peace agreement with Egypt would be undermined. Israel would then return to square one, but under more dangerous conditions.
Recall that Israel was forced to go to war against Egypt in 1956 when terrorist attacks from the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip against the south became unbearable. In 1967, as a first step in the build-up of Egyptian forces in Sinai, president Gamal Abdul Nasser expelled the UN forces from the Gaza Strip, where they had been deployed since 1957 in accordance with the cease-fire agreement between Israel and Egypt.
Peres should have remembered these facts, since he was a member of the government that went to war against Egypt. Is Peres now prepared to transfer responsibility for security on the Israeli-Egyptian border to Mubarak and thus invite the possibility of another war with Egypt? It is not surprising that the Egyptians themselves hesitate to accept this poisonous gift. At least they remember the destructive results of those wars with Israel.
The writer is a correspondent for The New York Post.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1078373358451
Monday, February 02, 2009
OPEN LETTER TO UK PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN (26 JANUARY 2009)
My friends in Jerusalem advise me that last week they were subject to great inconvenience as a result of the Tel Aviv / Jerusalem main highway being closed so that you and the President of France Sarkozy, Prime Minister of Spain Zapatero, Prime Minister of Italy Berlusconi and Chancellor Merkel of Germany could go to Jerusalem to pressurise the Israeli Government to open the crossing points into the Gaza Strip after Israel’s unilateral cease fire.
I am surprised that when you all met President Mubark in Sharem el Sheikh you did not pressurise him to stop the trafficking in weapons and ammunition and rockets that pass through Sinai to the Egyptian / Gaza border or forcing him to open up the crossing point into Gaza from Egypt, after of course ensuring that the material passing through the crossing could not be put to military / terrorist use. This was drawn to the attention of your predecessor, Tony Blair, twice in 2004 about the tunnels from Egypt to Gaza requesting he exert pressure on Egypt to take preventative action against smuggling. These communications were utterly ignored as recent history has shown.
The concern of your Government for the inhabitants of Gaza by increasing direct UK Government aid to the tune of £50m, does not take into consideration the reality on the ground.
I am one of the few UK citizens who had the privilege in the late 1970s of visiting Gaza and the surrounding areas. I well recollect travelling through the barren sand dunes where there were no villages or agricultural enterprises to get from Israel to Gaza City. For 19 years under Egyptian rule from the termination of the mandate, not one world body let alone Arab countries, showed any concern for the inhabitants of what is commonly known as the Gaza Strip but deliberately kept the people in abominable conditions, to be used as a political pawn to attempt to bring about the destruction of Israel. Between 1948 and 1956 the nascent State of Israel was subject to constant Fedayin raids emanating from Gaza and encouraged by the Egyptian Government, during that period over 500 Jews were slaughtered in cold blood by these terrorists. This culminated in the 1956 Sinai Campaign. When I visited Gaza City I was shown the two storey buildings that the Israeli Government had constructed to rehouse the residents of the shanty towns where I saw the raw sewage run through the streets and the buildings were constructed of flimsy materials with little adequate covering. However, year after year, until 2005, as a result of the Israeli so-called disengagement, HM Government together with those of Europe and most western states, voted in the United Nations for a Resolution that condemned Israel for attempting to rehouse these Gazan residents in proper acceptable residential accommodation with piped running water, electricity and sewage disposal facilities.[1] Thus, the blame for the condition of the Gazan people rests solely upon those governments including HM Government, who prevented Israel from rehousing these people.
Furthermore, as a result of disengagement in 2005, some 30 months ago, Israel left behind over 22 prosperous agricultural villages that had been built on the neglected sand dunes. Included amongst the items left behind were public buildings (schools, libraries, communal centres and synagogues) industrial buildings, offices, factories and greenhouses, yet the Gazan residents instead of using these premises to make themselves economically viable and increase their prosperity, deliberately destroyed all traces of these villages, their buildings and their agricultural equipment. Israel, having withdrawn from the Gaza district on the basis of the world demand that this would result in peace, both the Palestinian Authority and the various factions decided that this wasn’t sufficient for them and they continued their barrage of rockets and mortars, akin to the doodle bugs of WW2 in London, into the Israeli towns and villages adjacent to and within firing range of the Gaza Strip. In this they destroyed homes, schools, synagogues, medical centres and the citizens of Israel suffered trauma, injury and were killed just as they had been in the 5 previous years before Israel disengaged in the Gaza Strip.
The responsibility for the actions of both the Palestinian Authority and the associated terror groups lies clearly with the western governments and with the United Nations Agencies. It was noticed that prior to the disengagement, the world media, including the UK state operated BBC, (the World Service being operated from finance provided by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office) showed pictures of Gaza as if it was composed of hovels and shantytowns. But immediately after disengagement it was observed that these had suddenly disappeared overnight and had been replaced by villas, two storey and multi storey homes, all of which had been constructed after the 1995 interim arrangement between Israel and the PA. These buildings were constructed out of the equivalent of the UK cinder or breeze blocks, just as they are in Israel and there cannot be any subtle distinction between them. However, both the UN agencies and those of so-called international charities, currently appear to think that they are tugging at the heartstrings of the world pubic who are so gullible by pointing out that these buildings were made from blocks as opposed to brick or stone.
Having been given the opportunity 30 months ago to engage in complete self rule, all the Gazans could do was to ignore making themselves economically self sufficient and instead set themselves up as a military base especially after the Hamas terrorist party came to power in 2006. Instead of setting up industries for export or making themselves self sufficient, they set up a military arms industry to manufacture missiles, rockets, mortars etc. As they continued to do so, Israel which had been subject to suicide bombings for so many years, decided as the UK would have done, to restrict the entry of labourers from this area. As a result there was a world outcry led by your predecessor in 10 Downing Street. At the same time, Israel imposed restrictions on what passed through the crossings between Israel and Gaza to attempt to ensure that no precursor material for either the arms industry or the manufacture of explosives could enter. Of course we all know how HM Government stated that this was inhumane.
Several generations of Gazans have grown up and been educated in UNWRA schools. Instead of these schools providing a basic education, which would be aligned to producing industrious citizens, they educated the children in hate against Israel and the Jewish People. They inculcated in every possible way their hatred, be it in their mathematical or geographical lessons and certainly in their religious teachings. All this was going on under the auspices of the eagle eyed world body with a clear agenda to denigrate Israel and the Jewish People at every possible opportunity. This brainwashing has continued unabated for years yet no government has had the conviction to condemn this but has turned a deliberate blind eye. Indeed, when film was shown years ago of children in military uniform and carrying out paramilitary training exercises there was no word of condemnation from any world government. Are these the children that HM Government and UK charities are crying out for?
To look at those children compared with those of Darfur, Chechnya, Zimbabwe, is comparing chalk and cheese. The former in Gaza look well fed and well clothed and certainly not under nourished or diseased. Yet those of the latter are suffering from starvation as are their parents, clothed in rags and under nourished and subject to disease brought about by the political circumstances in which they live. Why don’t you and your government treat their plight to a higher degree of concern than that in Gaza? Added to this one can ask why the UK media and charities don’t make a play about these people’s plight to the same magnitude as they express their concern about Gaza? Could it possibly be that the correspondents and workers are loathed to go to places in their masses because of the absence of suitable luxury accommodation where they can draw on large expense accounts?
At every possible opportunity the media together with UK charities has expressed their concern of the plight of the children of Gaza. However, on careful analysis it has become clear that each family in Gaza has between 5 – 12 children and the average woman in Gaza gives birth to more than 5 children whilst each husband is permitted under Islamic law to have up to 4 wives. Of course monogamy, the norm throughout Europe, is exempt when it comes to Islamic immigrants as exhibited by the UK State Benefit System where the additional wives are also provided with Benefit Allowances [2] as you personally well know from your period as Chancellor. So instead of encouraging the Gazan citizens to live within their means the UN international agencies as well as UK based charities are encouraging them to procreate well beyond their economic means by giving them financial aid. How can this be possible that these organisations have turned such a blind eye to this stupidity?
On this basis there can be no grounds for HM Government to pour more money into this leaking bucket since it does not encourage the Gazans to be self-sufficient. The enormous wealth of the Arab oil producing countries has been squandered on luxuries rather than help their brethren. Instead of rehabilitating these so called ‘refugees’ into one of the 21 Muslim countries they have like no other refugee body not been resettled or rehoused but deliberately maintained in this refugee status for generation after generation by UNWRA.
It is time the Islamic dream of destroying the reborn Jewish State after 2000 years in its Biblical homeland was forced to come to an end. Islam is a modern religion, created some 1600 years ago and should not be permitted to practice such racism. Certainly Islam does not tolerate either Judaism or Christianity but considers these people to be second class citizens - dhimmis.
Their objective is to once again establish a Caliphate across Europe and the Middle East.
[1] While decrying the plight of the piteous refugees supposedly victimized by Israeli aggressors, Arab governments have caused the UN to pass resolutions that decried Israeli attempts to resettle refugees in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Any effort by Israel to improve the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip or to give them new homes outside the refugee camps, was met with UN resolutions with wording such as this:
Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;
2. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report to the General Assembly by the opening of the thirty-fifth session on Israel's compliance with paragraph 1 above. ( UN A/RES/34/52(A-F) 23 November 1979 )
[2] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/claims-processing/operational-manuals/hbgm/parts/ptbw_03b.asp,
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
Monday, March 17, 2008
OPEN LETTER TO UK HOME SECRETARY JACQUI SMITH
In 1290 the Crown expelled the Jews of England and their financial and physical assets were seized. In 1656 Oliver Cromwell permitted the Jews to resettle in England, some 366 years after the expulsion. A century before the expulsion, massacres were perpetrated against the Jews of York and a large number of towns like Bury St. Edmunds, East Anglia and the Home Counties, yet, apart from York, there are not one other plaque to be found in the United Kingdom to commemorate these events. No compensation has ever been offered for the assets that were seized as a result of these massacres nor for those acquired as a result of the expulsion. After the resettlement, waves of Jewish immigration took place where the immigrants added to the benefit of the communities in which they lived and did not act as a drain on the economy nor refuse to learn the language of the country they chose to settle in, but still retaining their religious rites and practices. Their contribution to the United Kingdom economically, culturally and charitably, far exceeds that of any other minority group in the history of the United Kingdom up to the present day.
In past years HM Government has taken the approach to scrutinise every action of the Israeli Government and now apparently its opposition parties beyond that given to any other country in the world. In international forums such as the United Nations or the Council of Europe, the Government’s policy appears to be one which questions the legitimacy of Israel being a sovereign state and treats the country much as it would have done in the days of the Empire and of the Mandate, even funding NGO’s opposed to the state. As a result of this, media attention in the UK is focused on the actions of Israel over and above any other country. This critical attention has resulted in excessive anti-Semitism that has manifested itself on attacks on Jewish premises and persons in the UK. Such criticism however, has not been levelled in both the quantity and degree to any other country in the world. The massacres in Rwanda were in comparison treated as a by the way as have those in Darfur. Indeed, the silence over what has occurred recently in Kenya is deafening.
However, whilst Israel is defending its Jewish citizens and particularly those in the towns of Sedrot, Ashkelon and the villages in the north-west Negev which have been subject to more rockets attacks in the last year (4,500) than the number of V-2 rockets that hit London in 1944 (1,358) HM Government together with the media have been critical beyond reproach of any action taken by Israel to stop these attacks whether by military means or the reduction in the supply of electricity and gas, despite having disengaged from the Gaza Strip some 31 months ago as a result of pressure exerted upon it by a number of countries including the UK. Yet in 1944/45, as you are well aware, HM Government carried out saturated bombing raids on German cities causing immense civilian casualties to that population. In the last few years, HM Forces have been engaged in theatres of operation that stretch from Bosnia through Iraq to Afghanistan yet they have and did attack locations where there were known civilians, resulting in civilian casualties. Clearly a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
It was was amazing to see on the front page of the London Jewish Chronicle of 7 March 2008, that the leader of the second largest faction within the Israeli Likud Party, had received notification from the Border & Immigration Agency, that he was banned from entering the United Kingdom for three years, despite not even applying for a visa or even planning a visit to the UK. However, as has been widely seen, HM Government has permitted the entry into the United Kingdom of radical preachers and spokesmen for such organisations as Hamas, Hizballah etc. who preach open terrorism and anti-Semitism not only calling for killing the Jews but openly calling for the destruction of Israel. Indeed, Arafat, as terrorist leader, who preached and organised terrorist actions, was a welcome guest to these shores from the governments of Edward Heath onward . HM Government allowed the preacher Abu Hamza to preach this racial hatred and provided police protection for many years. Thus the banning of the leader of the second largest faction within the Likud Party clearly shows racial discrimination. This is not the first time HM Government has acted in this manner but unlike the previous case in the 1970s with Rabbi Meir Kahne (H"YD) had intended to address a meeting in the UK, Mr. Feiglin had and has no intention of visiting this country.
Under the circumstances, why HM Government, Border & Immigration Agency, have banned Mr. Feiglin. Having heard Mr. Feiglin speak in Israel, this ban is a farce. Clearly is it that British Diplomats or members of MI5, MI6 etc. in Israel had attended any of his public meetings as they would certainly have looked out of place – thus they would be unaware of what he says at his public meetings unless they had recruited Jewish sleepers as British spies. Furthermore, in the last 11 plus months the Border & Immigration Agency has been operating, it has totally failed to stop the illegal immigration into the UK but has spent time to scrutinise to an infinite degree Mr. Feiglin. In doing so it has obviously wasted a considerable amount of public money and time which could have been put to better use in preventing illegal immigration.
===================================================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE----PRESS RELEASE----FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Moshe FeiglinCo-Founder & President
Contact:
Tova Abadi, media liaison(917) 301-0997 (cell phone)tova@jewishisrael.org
Shmuel SackettCo-Founder & International Director
Feiglin Banned In Britain For Being a True Jewish Leader
March 12, 2008...
Recently the government of Great Britain formally placed Moshe Feiglin, the President of Manhigut Yehudit, on a list of people who are not permitted to enter England. Mr. Feiglin, who recently finished in 2nd place behind former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the head of Israel's Likud party, had no plans to visit England.
For reasons unknown, the British government decided to research quotes from articles written by Mr. Feiglin many years ago. These articles, in which Mr. Feiglin spoke about the necessity to fight terror and to analyze the culture which breeds terrorists, seem to have greatly upset the British government. Britain banned Mr. Feiglin because they claimed that his views will "foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK." In reality, it is Mr. Feiglin who is working tirelessly to combat those who would use violence against innocents throughout the world.
Manhigut Yehudit officials would like to clarify that the "extremists" are the Israeli leaders (and other world leaders) who have provided and continue to provide guns, ammunition, funding and logistical help to the terrorists who have repeatedly killed Jews; the Israeli leaders who have released terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands, and also the Israeli leaders who have evicted Jews from their homes solely for being Jewish. This list includes but is not limited to every Israeli Prime Minister since the Oslo charade commenced in 1993. The Oslo "peace" process is a charade because of the direct correlation between the amount of land that Israel has ceded and the amount of Jews who have been murdered.
Mr. Feiglin is being targeted because he is the lone voice in the Israeli political establishment fighting to save Jewish lives and the State of Israel.
In response to this disgraceful injunction, Mr. Feiglin issues the following statement:
25 Adar I, 5768
March 3, '08
To the British Government
Home Office
Border and Immigration Agency
Dear Sirs,
Two months ago, I received a letter from your office in which you stated that I am not welcome in your country. As I was under the impression that the letter was a practical joke, I attempted to clarify its authenticity before I replied. Now that I have ascertained that the letter is indeed authentic, I wish to give you my reply:
I did not request entry into Britain and I have no immediate plans to do so.
It would be proper to investigate the reasons for this strange initiative against a political figure in Israel. This initiative represents yet another example of European interference in Israel's internal affairs.
Being that infamous terrorists such as Ibrahim Moussaui of the Hizbollah are actually most welcome in Britain, while I -- who have never harmed anyone - am not, I conclude that your policy is to encourage and support terror.
As is clarified in your letter, the grounds for your decision is material that I had written years ago citing the necessity to fight Arab terrorists and my analysis of the culture from which terror grows. Among other facts, you quote my article in which I wrote that "The Arab is not the son of the desert, but rather, its father."
For your information, that quote was taken directly from the book "The Desert Yesterday and Today" written by none other than British High Commissioner of Sinai, Sir Claude Jarvis in 1938.
Considering the moral depths to which your nation has sunk, I find your letter most complimentary. It is a great honor for me to join the illustrious list of former prime ministers of Israel, Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir, who also received similar letters from your offices.
Sincerely,
Moshe Feiglin
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Blair, Catholicism and Government House Jerusalem
Having been accepted in to the Catholic Church last month, the Quartet’s representative approach will be to follow the Vatican’s stance on Jerusalem, rather than that of an impartial interlocker. The Quartet, comprising of the USA, Russia, EU and UN, by virtue of its composition certainly cannot be considered an impartial neutral international body but one whose ultimate objective is to serve their economic masters, namely the major oil producing countries, followed in close proximity by those of the church.
When UK Prime Minister, Blair’s foreign policy with regard to the status of Jerusalem was that of the 1947 Corpus Separandum, to internationalize the city. Lest it be forgotten that when this failed to materialize in 1948 and the city was split between Israel and Jordan, only the UK and Pakistan recognized the Jordanian occupation. At the same time the UN attempted to give lip service to the Corpus Separandum by illegally occupying Government House (under the guise of it becoming UNTSO HQ) in a so called "No mans land" overlooking the City as if to send us a subtle message.
Initially, the UK as the Mandatory Authority on behalf of the League of Nations established its Government House to serve as the headquarters for the British high commissioner to Palestine in the Augustus Victoria Complex. In 1931 Government House moved to a purpose built elegant white sandstone chateau located in a 16-acre compound strategically located on a hilltop overlooking the Old City where this colonial edifice was hidden among pines and cypresses. The structure, built in an octagonal shape of locally quarried stone, was designed by architects A. Harrison and C. Holliday. Under its Arab-style roof domes are banqueting halls, while landscaped gardens offer views across to the Old City of Jerusalem and a well-appointed penthouse apartment in the impressive main tower crowns the entire structure. The unusual shape seems to have been a favorite of the architects. It is evident in the private apartment of the high commissioner as well as in the fountain – similar to those found in North African palaces – in the formal garden. Other distinguishing features of the building are its domes, interior arches, crossed vaults and a monumental four-meter high ceramic fireplace of Armenian tiles created by David Ohanessian. Clearly it was the British intention never to implement the purpose of the Mandate otherwise it would not have been built with Arab features. Opened in Sir Arthur Wauchope, the then High Commissioner for Palestine, it served as the residence of a number of British high commissioners.
The British Military Headquarters was located in the King David Hotel facing the Old City walls, located on the "Inner Parkway", subsequently Julian’s Way. The land was purchased from the Greek Orthodox Church in 1928 for $150,000. The hotel was built in 1929 at the height of the Arab riots and the Hebron massacre. Over 87 percent of the workforce were Jewish. The hotel being opened in January 1931. In 1939 the British Army expropriated 40 rooms and 17 offices on the top floor and subsequently established it as their headquarters. Of course this was several kilometers north from Government House.
At the termination of the Mandate on May 15, 1948, the Union Jack was lowered from the roof of the King David. The British High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham had left Jerusalem the day before. As fighting between Jews and Arabs broke out in the city, the hotel was turned into the Red Cross headquarters. The hotel's manager succeeded in reaching an agreement between the nascent Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Jordanian Arab Legion (under its British Commander Glub) to declare the King David a demilitarized zone. However, this was not respected due to its vital location and the hotel once again remained in the battle zone, and the Red Cross who had taken over the building subsequently evacuated the building and it was taken over by the United Nations. However whilst the UN flag flew from the hotel’s flagpole, the hotel still remained in the firing line.
In the meantime, the Red Cross relocated to the abandoned Government House and due to the former’s presence it was considered a demilitarized zone, just like the King David. However, the complex was found unsuitable for the Red Cross purposes and it relocated. As with the King David Hotel, the UN followed on the heels of the Red Cross to occupy the complex and according to the story was finally leased (but from who nobody knows) to the United Nations in the same year for the amount of one dollar per year
In 1967 the Jordanian’s opened up the front with post 1948 Jewish Jerusalem by attacking Government House at 11:30 a.m. on 5 June and the IDF lost 21 troops in recapturing the complex and immediately handed it back to the UN.
Clearly, as representative of the Quartet, the new catholic, would be serving his new Papal masters well if he pressed their agenda for the Corpus Separandum. To effect this, what better place to administrate the City from than UK built Government House in Armon Hanatziv, with Spin Tony as the Governor General on behalf of the "International Community". He tried to use the complex on July 2007 as Quartet representative, fortunately with no success, but not for the lack of trying!
Deputy Prime Minister Ramon, had been sending out trial balloons to divide the city before Annapolis and Olmert has on more than one occasion loudly hinted he was prepared to cede parts of the city, whilst Abbas wants the whole of the Old City. Now Olmert is openly talking of capitulating to pressure to divide the city – no doubt under Blair’s influence. Lest it be forgotten, several years ago one very senior Israeli politician promised the Vatican that the city would be internationalized and they could control it.
What a feather in Blair’s cap if he could get a compromise deal by internationalizing the City thereby making us once more subservient to the non Jews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)