Oh my: British PM Theresa May in 'unprecedented' attack on US over Kerry speech
In what's being called an 'unprecedented' attack, British Prime Minister Theresa May on Thursday issued a
blistering rebuke of US Secretary of State John Kerry's ranting attack on Israel on Wednesday.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said it was inappropriate of Mr Kerry, America's top diplomat, to attack the make-up of the democratically-elected Israeli government – a key ally of both the US and Britain.
Downing Street also rebuked Mr Kerry for focusing on the single issue of Israeli settlements and not the whole conflict.
Intervening in the increasingly hostile international dispute today, a spokesman for the British Prime Minister said: 'We do not... believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.
'And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally.'
'The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.'
It echoes Mr Netanyahu's riposte yesterday when he accused the US Secretary of State of being skewed against Israel' and talking 'obsessively' about settlements.
Mind you, Britain was one of the 14 countries that voted in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 last Friday, so why are they now attacking Kerry?
Apparently because they think he went too far.
And Britain is not the only country who went after Kerry today. So did
Australia's Julie Bishop.
In a statement released on Thursday, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
said Australia was not currently a member of the Security Council and
was not eligible to vote on the resolution.
However, she said, "in voting at the UN, the Coalition government has
consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel".
She
urged both sides to refrain from steps that damage the prospect for
peace and to "resume direct negotiations for a two-state solution as
soon as possible".
Meanwhile, in the US, it's not just President Elect Donald Trump who has been tweeting up a storm in support of Israel. So have many Representatives and Senators
from Kerry's own party (and of course from the Republican party).
“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader.
A
bipartisan chorus of lawmakers, upset with President Obama’s decision
last week to allow the passage of a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territory, made clear that they were looking past the departing administration.
Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Foreign
Relations Committee, said he shared Mr. Kerry’s concerns “with the lack
of forward progress on a two-state solution.” But Mr. Cardin also said
he was unhappy that Mr. Obama had not vetoed the United Nations
resolution, instead abstaining from the vote. He pledged to “explore
congressional action that can mitigate the negative implications” of it.
The most ardent supporters of Israel in Congress seemed just as liberated as Mr. Kerry was to let loose.
“Secretary
Kerry’s speech today was at best a pointless tirade in the waning days
of an outgoing administration,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of
Arizona. “At worst, it was another dangerous outburst that will further
Israel’s diplomatic isolation and embolden its enemies.”
Representative
Eliot L. Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, called Mr. Kerry’s speech “gratuitous” and “wrong.”
“There doesn’t seem any purpose to this other than to embarrass Israel,”
Mr. Engel said. “It just pained me to watch it.”
Democratic
members of Congress who are closer to Mr. Kerry, a former senator, and
the Obama administration were more measured. Many had been angered by
Mr. Netanyahu’s decision last year to accept an invitation from the
Republican-led House to deliver a speech in the Capitol, where he
confronted the president over the Iran nuclear accord.
Yet
even these Democrats — eyeing the arrival of a Republican
administration-in-waiting that has vowed strong support for Israel —
left little doubt that they were parting ways with Mr. Obama on the
substance of the United Nations resolution.
Senator
Bill Nelson of Florida, who is facing re-election in 2018, said he knew
why Mr. Kerry was frustrated over the settlements, which he called an
“impediment toward a negotiated two-state solution.” But he was quick to
note that he was among the 88 senators who signed a letter months ago
opposing the sort of United Nations resolution on Israel that the
Security Council approved last week.
Hopefully the reactions in Congress will keep the Obama administration from saddling Israel with their 'peace plan.' Perhaps this picture says it best.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Ben Cardin, Bill Nelson, Charles Schumer, Eliot Engel, John Kerry, John McCain, Julie Bishop, Theresa May, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
Arabs threaten Australia with trade sanctions
The Arabs are reacting the way they always do when someone doesn't see things they're way. They're acting like spoiled children whose candy was taken away by threatening Australia with
trade sanctions over its insistence on referring to 'east' Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as something other than '
occupied territory.' This is from the first link.
"We asked the government to reverse this position," Abdulhadi said of the diplomatic protest.
He threatened that trade sanctions could be put in place against Canberra if the government persisted with its stance, which he said left Australia isolated.
"It depends on the reaction of the Australian government," he said, adding that the issue could also be taken to the United Nations General Assembly. "Unfortunately I think there will be negative consequences for the (Australian) government."
Australia's export trade with the Middle East is significant, accounting for billions of dollars annually, particularly in wheat and meat, with Qatar and Jordan being major markets for live sheep.
"We want to maintain the trade and we will work very hard with them to ensure that that happens," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss told reporters on Friday.
Abdulhadi said he would meet Foreign Minister Julie Bishop next week and was hopeful that, after being threatened, Australia could explain the decision.
"Maybe we can avoid all this sort of thing if we can have good discussions," he said.
Something tells me that Julie Bishop is quite capable of handling Mr. Abdulhadi.
Heh.
Labels: Arab honor, Arab League, Australia, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation, Organization of Islamic Countries
'Palestinians' seeking Arab League and Islamic Conference review of Australia
Former 'Palestinian' chief
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat has written a letter to the Australian government saying that the 'Palestinians' will
seek a review of relations with Australia by the Arab League and the Islamic conference.
“Palestine will request that the Arab League and the Islamic Conference
[Organization of Islamic Cooperation] review the relations of the Arab
and Islamic world with Australia in light of Australia’s unlawful
recognition of the illegal settlement regime in occupied Palestine,”
Saeb Erekat wrote in the letter, dated June 5.
...
In the letter, Erekat responded to Brandis’
statement, saying it showed that Australia “does not intend to comply
with its duty under international law not to recognize Israeli
sovereignty over any part of the Palestinian territory occupied by
Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem.”
He added that the term “occupation” reflects a “legal fact” based on UN resolutions.
...
In May, Australia’s ambassador to Israel, Dave
Sharma, drew fire after meeting with Housing Minister Uri Ariel in the
latter’s East Jerusalem office.
“It should be noted that diplomatic
recognition of the situation created by the attempted annexation of our
capital is a flagrant violation of international law,” Erekat wrote to
Canberra after that meeting.
Hey Saeb! If it's illegal, why don't you just take them to court? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Background
here.
Labels: Arab League, Australia, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation, Organization of Islamic Countries, Saeb Erekat
Australia says 'east' Jerusalem is not 'occupied'; little rump king seethes
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
This should have made a much bigger splash. The government of Australia announced on Thursday that as far as it is concerned,
'east' Jerusalem is not 'occupied.'
“The description of east Jerusalem as ‘Occupied East Jerusalem’ is a
term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither
appropriate nor useful,” George Brandis said, reading out a statement
written following a conversation with Australia’s foreign minister,
Julie Bishop.
“It should not and will not be the practice of the Australian government
to describe areas of negotiations in such judgmental language,” he
said.
Brandis said the description of areas, which are the subject of negotiations, by reference to historical events was “unhelpful.”
He added that Australia supported a peaceful solution to the
Palestinian- Israeli conflict that “recognizes the right of Israel to
exist peacefully within secure borders and also recognizes the
aspiration to statehood of the Palestinian people.”
The comments came following a heated debate Wednesday evening in the
Senate, where Brandis took issue when a Greens party senator referred to
“occupied east Jerusalem.”
Bishop - and the Australian government in general - is apparently even more sympathetic to the Israeli position.
In January, Bishop – during a short visit to attend Ariel Sharon’s
funeral – took issue with those calling the settlements illegal. Indeed,
Australia now refrains from using the term “illegal” to refer to
settlements. Canberra also does not refer to the West Bank as “occupied”
territory, but rather “disputed” territory.
Although the European Union routinely states the settlements are
“illegal,” the US – which is adamantly opposed to Israel’s settlement
policy – refrains from using that term, now generally calling them
“illegitimate” or “unhelpful.”
Last month, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat wrote Bishop slamming
Australia’s ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, for meeting Construction
and Housing Minister Uri Ariel in his east Jerusalem office.
Erekat said the meeting had the “effect of attempting to legitimize the
illegal situation on the ground and may be deemed as aiding, abetting or
otherwise assisting illegal Israeli policies.”
Canberra simply ignored the protest.
Meanwhile, the
little rump king in Amman is
fuming.
The report cited Jordanian government spokesman Barbat Amon as stating
that all territory gained by Israel in the "Six Day War" of 1967 is
considered "occupied territory" by international law. Those territories
include east Jerusalem and the Old City, which were wrestled
from Jordanian control in the war.
It's hard for the Arabs to hear the truth, isn't it? What 'international law'?
Labels: Australia, East Jerusalem, Jordan is Palestine, Jordanian occupation, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation
Will she have to apologize to Kerry too?
In an interview with the Times of Israel, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that
Israel's 'settlements' are not illegal under international law.
In an exclusive interview with The Times of
Israel, Julie Bishop suggested that, contrary to conventional diplomatic
wisdom, the settlements may not be illegal under international law. She
refrained from condemning Israeli initiatives to build additional
housing units beyond the Green Line or from calling on Israel to freeze
such plans, merely saying the fact that settlements were being expanded
showed the need for the sides to quickly reach a peace agreement.
“I don’t want to prejudge the fundamental
issues in the peace negotiations,” Bishop said. “The issue of
settlements is absolutely and utterly fundamental to the negotiations
that are under way and I think it’s appropriate that we give those
negotiations every chance of succeeding.”
Asked whether she agrees or disagrees with the
near-universal view that Israeli settlements anywhere beyond the 1967
lines are illegal under international law, she replied: “I would like to
see which international law has declared them illegal.”
...
“Our interest is in a negotiated peace between
the Israelis and the Palestinians and we believe that every opportunity
should be given to those negotiations to proceed to its solution,” said
Bishop, who came to Israel on Monday to attend the funeral of former
prime minister Ariel Sharon. “I don’t think it’s helpful to prejudge the
settlement issue if you’re trying to get a negotiated solution. And by
deeming the activity as a war crime, it’s unlikely to engender a
negotiated solution.”
The issue of Israeli settlements should be determined in the course of the current US-brokered peace talks, she added.
...
Bishop also condemned what she said was
excessive pressure exerted on Israel by Western states and civil
society, including the threat of boycotts.
“Israel has
to be ever vigilant against such tendencies on the part of the
international community,” the minister said. While private organizations
were free to boycott whomever they wanted, any Australian body that
received state funding should be barred from calling for boycotts, she
continued.
She also
strongly condemned the global anti-Israel BDS movement: “It’s
anti-Semitic. It identifies Israel out of all other nations as being
worthy of a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign? Hypocritical
beyond belief.”
Will Bishop have to apologize to Kerry for undermining his 'peace efforts'?
Labels: BDS, Julie Bishop, Middle East peace process, settlements are legal
