It's come to this: UK warns Russia to lay off Ukraine
It's come to this: The United States' prestige is so low that Britain has taken upon itself to warn Russia to lay off Ukraine.
Britain warned Russia on Sunday against intervening in Ukraine's
"complex" crisis, saying London wanted to contribute to an international
economic program aimed at shoring up the "desperately difficult"
situation of the Ukrainian economy.
...
In comments that may anger Moscow, British Foreign Secretary William
Hague said his government was in regular contact with the Russian
government to try to persuade it that closer ties between Ukraine and
the European Union should not worry it.
"If
there's an economic package, it will be important that Russia doesn't
do anything to undermine that economic package and is working in
cooperation and support of it," Hague told BBC TV.
When
asked if he was worried that Russia might "send in the tanks" to defend
the interests of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine, Hague warned
against what he called "external duress" or Russian intervention.
"It
would really not be in the interests of Russia to do any such thing. We
have to keep up the communication with Russia as we are doing ... so
that the people of Ukraine can choose their own way forward. There are
many dangers and uncertainties."
...
Hague said the priority was to persuade Moscow that the fate of
Ukraine - a country that was part of the Soviet Union and has been
within Russia's sphere of influence for decades - was not what he called
"a zero-sum game" and that closer ties with the EU were not a bad
thing.
"It's
in the interests of the people of Ukraine to be able to trade more
freely with the EU. It's the interests of the people of Russia for that
to happen as well."
He
said he didn't know what Russia's "next reaction" would be, but he
pushed the Ukrainian opposition to move urgently to form a government of
national unity, agree arrangements for new elections, and to crack on
with shoring up the economy.
"While
all this has been happening, the Ukrainian economy is in a desperately
difficult situation," Hague said. "And they need an economic program
that the rest of us, through the International Monetary Fund and other
institutions, can support so that they can stave of an even more serious
economic situation."
Isn't it amazing how the American role in international affairs has diminished over the last five years. If you can call it a 'success,' it's the only one Obama has had in the foreign policy field.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague has warned Israel not to 'undermine' the P 5+1 agreement with Iran.
"We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking
any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that
very clear to all concerned," Hague told parliament.
Hague, who gave an update on the nuclear talks in Geneva , added he had
not seen any signs that any country opposed to the agreement would try
to disrupt it "in any practical way" but said Britain would be "on its
guard".
Only "narrow" gaps separate Iran and P5+1 world powers from reaching
agreement on Iran's nuclear program, British Foreign Secretary William
Hague said Saturday.
Hague was among the foreign ministers who joined the talks Saturday
after hints a final agreement could be reached. The US State Department
announced Friday that "after consulting with EU High Representative
Ashton and the negotiating team on the ground, Secretary Kerry will
travel to Geneva later today with the goal of continuing to help narrow
the differences and move closer to an agreement."
Hague said that any deal must be "truly worthwhile," the BBC
reported. "There are narrow but important gaps," he said, "and it's
very important that any agreement is thorough, detailed and it's an
agreement in which the whole world can have confidence."
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is leading the
talks, which are being conducted by the United States, Russia, France,
China and Germany, vis-à-vis Iran.
The talks began Wednesday and were scheduled to end Friday.
In Britain a soldier was beheaded in the street, and in France a
soldier was murdered. Both attacks seem to be hate crimes of Muslims
against Christians.
60,000 British women were genitally mutilated due to a ritual practiced by Muslims, and 20,000 more are in immediate danger of being forced to undergo this procedure.
In Egypt, the original inhabitants of the country, Christian Copts, are been hunted down by the Muslims.
In Syria, the level of atrocities has reached a new high as chemical
weapons have been deployed. The death toll in the civil war is
approaching 100,000.
In Saudi Arabia, women are discriminated against and a culture of women as sex slaves is flourishing.
An important Palestinian Authority figure, Jibril Rajoub, has just
said that Palestinians, if they could, would nuke Israel. No
condemnation or rebuff of his statements was heard from any Palestinian
politician.
Mauritania still has slaves; Indonesia still canes people; Iran
hangs homosexuals from cranes; Turkey has more journalists in prison
than any other country, including Iran and North Korea; Saudi Arabia
denies women freedom of movement; does not allow Bibles into the
country; and there is no equal justice under law, property rights, free
speech, free press, or free worship.
In Britain and across Europe, Israeli and Jewish speakers, Jewish
students or just plain Jews are routinely attacked by what can be
described as the new "Brown Shirts" of Europe (and occasionally also in
and American and Canadian Universities).
Oh wait.... You mean all those things aren't why Europe is losing its patience?
The Foreign Secretary of the country that did more than any other to prevent the State of Israel from being established at all is now claiming that the reason that Brits don't much care for Israelis is because of those darned 'settlements.' As if the average bloke in Birmingham or Liverpool can even find Beit El, Ariel or Haifa on a map. They're all 'settlements' as far as he's concerned.
Steinitz questioned why support of Israel among the British public is
"much less" than in the other Anglo Saxon democracies the US, Canada
and Australia. "When you think that all four are Anglo-Saxon
democracies, why should people in America, Australia or Canada have
different relations to or appreciations of the minuscule Jewish state
than the people of Britain," the minister queried, adding that this
difference may be reflected in the British Foreign Office and British
government policy.
In response, Hague told Sky News that
"Israel has lost some of its support in Britain and in other European
countries over time - this is something I've often pointed out to
Israeli leaders - because of settlement activity, which we condemn."
The
British foreign secretary added, "We strongly disagree with settlements
on occupied land. Israel is a country we work with in many ways but we
do disapprove of settlements."
Here's an indication of just how obsessed with Israel Mr. Hague is: He's currently in Israel and Reuters' Dan Williams reports that Hague claims he spends 70% of his time on the Middle East. I wonder how much attention he pays to Europe. Maybe if Hague and his ilk weren't so obsessed with Israel and paid more attention to what goes on in their own backyard, Israel wouldn't be such an object of hate for Britons.
Video: Syrian protestors destroy gold statue of Hafez al-Assad
Here's a video of Syrian protestors in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa destroying a gold statue of Hafez al-Assad, the father of current President Bashar al-Assad, and a billboard of Bashar.
60K dead in Syria, Iran and N. Korea going nuclear, and the world's most urgent priority is... the 'Palestinians'?
Former Industry and Trade Minister and Russian Prisoner of Conscience Natan Sharansky has promoted a 3-D test of anti-Semitism. The three D's are demonization, double standards and delegitimization. Here's how Sharansky describes double standards:
The second “D” is the test of double standards. From discriminatory laws
many nations enacted against Jews to the tendency to judge their
behavior by a different yardstick, this differential treatment of Jews
was always a clear sign of antisemitism. Similarly, today we must ask
whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively. In other
words, do similar policies pursued by other governments produce similar
criticism?
It is antisemitic discrimination, for instance, when
Israel is singled out for condemnation by the United Nations for
perceived human rights abuses while proven obliterators of human rights
on a massive scale — like China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and
Syria, to name just a few — are not even mentioned. Likewise, it is
antisemitism when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s
ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross.
By that definition, I would label British Foreign Secretary William Hague's statement at last week's London press conference with US Secretary of State John FN Kerry as anti-Semitic. With 60,000 dead in Syria, and with Iran and North Korea on the verge of becoming rogue nuclear states, Hague defines the world's top foreign policy issue for 2013 as... the 'Palestinians.'
As is customary, the two held a
brief press conference after their meeting – Kerry’s first abroad as secretary
of state – and Hague got the ball rolling with an opening
statement.
“We’ve had detailed and very thorough talks covering the full
range of global affairs,” he said. “Top of our agenda was the Middle East,
including the importance we both attach to ending the Israeli- Palestinian
conflict, and I welcome the focus that he has brought to bear on this issue
since his appointment. There is no more urgent foreign policy priority in 2013
than restarting negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The region and
the world can’t afford the current dangerous impasse in the peace process; for
if we don’t make progress very soon, then the two-state solution could become
impossible to achieve.”
There you have it. More than 60,000 Syrians have
been slaughtered in that country, Iran continues to march toward nuclear
capability, North Korea recently detonated another nuclear device, Europe’s
economy is teetering on the brink, but for Hague and the British Foreign Office
“there is no more urgent foreign policy priority in 2013” than Israel and the
Palestinians.
“So,” Hague continued, ”there’s a burning need for the
international community to revive the peace process in efforts led by the United
States and supported by European, Arab and other nations.
And my promise
to Secretary Kerry today was that the United Kingdom will make every effort to
mobilize the European Union and Arab states behind decisive moves for peace. And
I warmly welcome President Obama’s planned visit to the Middle East this spring
and, indeed, Secretary Kerry’s own travel to the region shortly.”
But the good news is that after President Obama was burned so badly by the 'Palestinians' in his first term, Kerry didn't take the bait.
Then Kerry took the podium and reversed that order.
He spoke first of trade, then support for fledgling democracies, then Syria,
Iran, Afghanistan and – at the very end – Israel and the
Palestinians.
“And finally, on the Middle East peace process, I
appreciate deeply William’s and the UK’s unwavering support for that goal,”
Kerry said, signaling that he was about to launch into the regular
platitudes.
“We share a vision, as I think people in the world do, of two
states living side by side in peace and security. Today, we talked about how we
can support the two parties reaching that end, because frankly that is the only
way to achieve a lasting peace. So I look forward to continuing to work with
William on these and so many other issues, including working together on the
agenda for the G8 summit later this year. And, I might comment, I know President
Obama is looking forward to his visit to the region in an effort to try to begin
to make decisions about the path forward.”
There you have it – Kerry put
the Israeli diplomatic process at the end of his to-do list, Hague put it at the
very top of his. And it is safe to say that Kerry put it at the tail end of his
remarks not because this is not something that is important to him and his boss,
but rather because, since Obama announced that he will be coming to Israel at
the end of March, the US has done everything it can to lower expectations of any
dramatic breakthrough during that visit.
Here'sa bit of a surprise: British Foreign Secretary William Hague is blaming Hamas for the war down south. But....
British Foreign
Secretary William Hague on Thursday denounced the barrage of rockets
fired by Palestinian terror factions into Israel, saying "I utterly
condemn rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israel by Hamas and other
armed groups."
"Hamas bears principal responsibility for the
current crisis," Hague continued, adding that the rocket fire "creates
an intolerable situation for Israeli civilians in southern Israel, who
have the right to live without fear of attack from Gaza."
Hague
called terror groups in Gaza immediately to cease attacks against
Israel, and called "on those in the region with influence over Hamas to
use that influence to bring about an end to the attacks."
Hague
concluded by expressing "grave" concern over the situation in Gaza,
which he said underlines "the fragility of the situation and the urgent
need for progress toward a two state solution which allows Israelis and
Palestinians to live alongside each other in peace and security."
He continues to live with the 'two-state solution' delusion.
Responding to Mr Hague's stark warning on condition of anonymity, a senior source within the Israeli government said that Israel received the Foreign Secretary's comments with "gravity and seriousness", adding that Israel would continue to communicate with the British government through diplomatic channels.
"There are regular talks taking place behind closed doors," the Israeli official added. "I think Mr Hague knows very well that he does not want us to share our plans with the UK because shared plans means shared responsibility, and the British government doesn't want that."
By the way, the good news is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has finally - over the past few weeks - managed to make Iran the big story rather than the 'Palestinians.' He's been trying to do that for nearly three years!
Britain's conservative government just doesn't get it
In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said last week that 'freedom is flowering' in the Arab spring.
Electoral success by parties rooted in Islam has led some to fear that change may be for the worse. But to say that Arab Spring has turned into cold winter is wrong. Such pessimism misses the extraordinary opportunities that popular demand for freedom and dignity bring, and could lead us to disengage at a time when we need to redouble our diplomatic and long-term support to the region.
The Arab Spring was always going to be a long process, not an instant fix. It was bound to take different forms in each country. The staging of genuine elections in countries that have been denied them for decades is significant. But it is what happens after elections that will determine success or failure.
The new governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya face enormous challenges as well as sky-high expectations from their people. Having paid a high price for their revolutions, they expect tangible improvements in daily life. As Eastern Europe after 1989 showed, this takes time.
It will be interesting to see what happens when these people discover that they have simply traded one stifling dictatorship for another (that may well be worse).
Acknowledging that governments always have to find some compromises between pragmatism and morality, it nevertheless seems that this government is finding it particularly difficult to locate a balance – and even harder to locate the consistency without which almost any efforts in the region are doomed.
Anyhow – doubtless this is all terribly pessimistic. Fortunately in his Times piece Mr Hague riffs on all the ‘positive’ things that those straw-man ‘pessimists’ keep ignoring. Perhaps simple ‘optimism’ is the foreign policy we’ve all been waiting for. So regarding the wider events Hague writes, ‘On the positive side, Tunisia has its first democratically elected parliament since the 1950s, with 24 per cent of the seats held by women’.
True. But then, on the negative side is the fact that the party of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ennahda) won the most seats. One might also add that on January 5th when the leader of the terrorist group Hamas arrived in Tunis (strange choice for such an early visit?) he was greeted by a couple of thousand supporters of the Ennahda party welcoming him with, among other familiar theme tunes, the chant: ‘Kill the Jews’. Anyhow – nobody wants to be a pessimist, so back to the bright side.
Mr Hague informs us of the ‘positive’ fact that ‘Turnout in the first phase of Egypt’s elections was above 60 per cent, compared with 23 per cent in the 2005 elections under the Mubarak regime’. True, that’s a wonderful upsurge in voter turnout. I’m simply not sure this ‘positive’ of increased turnout trumps the ‘negative’ fact that the parties which have been rushed into power are the Islamist parties. Nor, it seems to me, does it over-ride the fact that since March last year more than 100,000 Coptic Christian Egyptians have fled the country. Mr Hague finds an attempt to soften all this. For instance he describes the electoral success of ‘parties rooted in Islam’ and parties ‘drawing their inspiration from Islam’. Yet that is not the case. The Muslim Brotherhood parties coming to power across the region draw their inspiration from violent Islam, political Islam, and totalitarian Islam. For instance the ‘Freedom and Justice Party’ has already committed to withdraw Egypt from the major conventions protecting the rights of women. It is wrong to present them as Islamic versions of the Christian Democratic Union.
But Hague isn't the only British politician to ignore facts. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is also in the running for the dumbest statement of the week.
British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are "deliberate vandalism," underlining the UK government's hardening line, British The Jewish Chronicle reported Monday.
Speaking alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during his visit to the UK, Clegg condemned continuous settlement building in the "strongest possible terms."
Vandalism? What exactly are the 'settlements' (whose construction is far from continuous and only within their existent borders) 'vadalizing'? Arutz Sheva reports that Clegg even tried to explain.
Clegg justified his rhetoric and was quoted by the London Jewish Chronicle as saying, "Once you've placed physical facts on the ground that make it impossible to deliver something that everyone has for years agreed is the ultimate destination [peace via a two-state solution] ... it is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years. And that is why we have expressed our concerns as a government."
But 'everyone' does not agree, including both of the parties. And as Arutz Sheva points out, the 'negotiations' are not really negotiations.
The peace process has evolved not a long and drawn out diplomatic attempt to grant the Palestinian Authority all of its territorial and political demands under the guise of “negotiations” but which are in essence an ultimatum to Israel. The Palestinian Authority has said that if Israel does agree to its terms, it will make another attempt to win recognition on its terms by appealing directly to the United Nations.
I would suggest strongly that Clegg examine closely what George Brown - Britain's Foreign Secretary at the time that Resolution 242 passed - and Lord Caradan, a Briton who was the chief author of that resolution, had to say about it. They certainly would not take the position that 'everyone' agrees that the solution is a 'Palestinian state' along the 1949 armistice lines.
British company with ties to Hague accused of selling phone tracking software to Iran
A British company with ties to Foreign Secretary William Hague is being accused of selling phone tracking software to Iran shortly after the 2009 elections.
The Telegraph writes that Creativity Software signed a contract two years ago to "provide lawful intercept solutions" to Iran, and alleges that this software could have been used to track protesters.
The deal was signed with one of the biggest mobile phone networks in Iran, Irancell, on 1 August 2009. An Iranian journalist, Saeid Pourheydar, says that the technology was used to track down protesters, even when they were not using their phones. He adds that he was "presented with his 'entire phone history' when he was arrested".
The newspaper report adds that a major shareholder in Creativity Software is a company called MMC Ventures; and both the CEO and chairman of this outfit contributed towards William Hague's private office.
However, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the newspaper that the software was not covered by export controls and therefore Creativity Software has done nothing wrong. A spokesman said: "The Government actively discourages all trade with Iran. We take any reports of exports being misused overseas seriously. It does not appear that the exporter has broken the law."
I must be missing something here. Does the government discourage all trade with Iran or only 'illegal' trade with Iran? There's far too much trade with Iran that is legal. But what's more important: A few schillings or the future of western civilization?
Statesmen aren't supposed to make comments like this. But British Prime Minister William Hague has already shown he's not much of a statesman.
Mr. Hague said the American intervention was "important because only the United States can really decisively deliver Israel into a peace agreement and give them the necessary assurances".
He added: "It means that as [President Obama] comes to the United Kingdom this week, on the Middle East process and the wider subject of the future of North Africa and the Middle East the policies of the UK and US are as closely aligned as they have ever been."
In an earlier post, I reported that Seif al-Arab Gadhafi and his three sons, a son and three of the grandsons of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, were killed on Saturday night in a NATO attack on one of the Gadhafi family compounds. On Sunday, the Libyan leader exacted his revenge, letting his supporters loose on various NATO countries' embassies in Tripoli. Among the embassies attacked was Britain's. The destruction may be seen in the pictures above and below, which I screen-captured from a BBC video which can be viewed here. The Brits, who didn't seem too phased when they discovered that they had been duped into releasing Pan Am 103 hijacker Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, finally decided enough was enough. They have given the Libyan ambassador to the UK, Omar Jelban (pictured below), 24 hours to leave the country.
"I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries," said the foreign secretary, William Hague. "The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed."
The statement went on: "As a result, I have taken the decision to expel the Libyan ambassador. He is persona non grata pursuant to article 9 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and has 24 hours to leave the country."
...
The Gaddafi regime appears to have mounted a symbolic attack on empty diplomatic residences and embassies in Tripoli. There are no British diplomats in the Libyan capital.
Other foreign residences were also targeted, as the UN announced it was taking all its remaining international staff out of Tripoli.
The Italian foreign ministry said its embassy and several others in Tripoli were damaged by vandals and accused the Gaddafi regime of failing to take measures to protect foreign missions.
Here's a report from al-Jazeera on the expulsion of Libya's ambassador to the UK. Let's go to the videotape.
Let's see if anyone thinks twice about sending an ambassador back when things die down.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague's reaction to Thursday's terror attack in the Gaza envelope is yet another example of moral equivocation.
Commenting on the attack today on a bus in southern Israel, the Foreign Secretary William Hague said:
“I unreservedly condemn today’s attack from Gaza on a bus carrying schoolchildren in southern Israel. The initial reports we have received suggest the bus was deliberately targeted and that a 16 year old boy has been critically injured. This is a despicable and cowardly act that stands in stark contrast to people’s desire for peaceful reform across the region. Violence will never deliver peace. I reiterate that Hamas must halt these strikes immediately, and rein in other militant factions in Gaza.
This attack further highlights Israel’s legitimate security concerns. As I have made clear, Israel has every right to protect its people. But it is also important that in so doing that it also shows restraint and makes every effort to avoid causing civilian casualties. I am very concerned about reports that several people in Gaza were killed and others wounded in retaliatory strikes.”
I'm generally a conservative type of guy, but I'm ready to say "Bring back Labour" if it means that this moron will be gone.
British Foreign Secretary Hague has condemned Israel's decision to build some 900 housing units in the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo, calling that decision and earlier decisions to build in five Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria 'illegal under international law.'
I condemn Israel’s decision to approve more than 900 settlement units in the East Jerusalem suburb of Gilo and the retrospective approval which has been given for construction in five West Bank settlements. This is not disputed territory. It is occupied Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and a threat to a two state solution. We call on the Israeli authorities to reconsider this decision, which undermines the prospects for peace. All those who support a secure future for Israel and a future Palestinian state should be working urgently to restart peace negotiations, not taking steps which make this more difficult.
Now condemn sounds like an awfully strong word. I decided to run a Google search and see what else Mr. Hague has condemned recently. Here's what I found (in reverse chronological order).
October 6, 2010 - Hague condemns a rocket attack on a car carrying the Deputy British Ambassador to Yemen.
Do you notice a pattern here? In only one instance does Hague condemn (or say that the UK condemns) something that doesn't constitute a murder or an attempt to murder someone: Israeli construction of housing units. Hague equates Israeli construction of housing units to murder.
Of course: British Foreign Office pledges continued support for the Goldstone Report
Never mind that its principal author has disavowed its main conclusion (that Israel set out to destroy the civilian infrastructure in Gaza). The British Foreign Office continues to support the Goldstone Report.
The Foreign Office, however, confirmed its continued support for investigations into Cast Lead and said it did not want to see the withdrawal of the Goldstone Report from the United Nations.
"Justice Goldstone has not made such a call, and he has not elaborated on his views surrounding the various other allegations contained in the report, allegations which we firmly believe require serious follow-up by the parties to the conflict," a Foreign Office spokesman told the Commentator on Monday evening.
...
One diplomat told the Commentator that his retractions would cause acute embarrassment to countries such as Britain that stand accused by Israel and its supporters of adopting a reflexively anti-Israeli position in order to placate oil rich Arab states in the Middle East, as well as Britain's growing Muslim population.
But the Foreign Office appeared undeterred, saying:
"Allegations of breaches of International Humanitarian Law made against all parties to the Gaza conflict are not limited to the Goldstone report and have arisen from certain other credible organisations. We firmly believe that any and all such allegations must be met with credible and independent investigations by the parties to the conflict."
What other organizations do they consider credible? Hamas?
Critics within Britain have accused the Foreign Office of undermining British national interests by giving credence to a report which could serve as a precedent for actions against British soldiers and officials involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As in Gaza, terror groups in the two countries embed themselves in the civilian population making it impossible for British and other allied forces to target them without the risk of hitting civilians too. In Iraq alone, the death toll stands at a minimum of 100,000. During Operation Cast Lead it was between 1,000 and 1,500 depending on whose figures are accurate.
But it's worth committing national suicide to damage Israel, isn't it Mr. Hague?
In Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Iran, the 'Palestinian territories' and Libya, recent public efforts to non-violently protest against undemocratic regimes have been violently suppressed. In Egypt and Tunisia, autocrats have been overthrown in the last two months and no one has replaced them yet. But British Foreign Secretary William Hague has his priorities straight. He worries about 'intolerance in Israel,' the region's only democracy.
The United Kingdom expressed concern that Knesset legislation targeting minorities and human rights defenders reflects “a growing climate of intolerance in Israeli society,” it said in a 2011 quarterly human rights report released Thursday.
The report is an addendum to the UK’s annual report, “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2010 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report,” which in part focused on 26 countries of concern with respect to human rights, including Israel.
The 2010 report was posted on the Internet, with an addendum for the first quarter of 2011. The UK Foreign Office said that it would publish updated quarterly reports online throughout the year.
In its first quarterly report on Israel in 2011, the UK critically noted Knesset legislation on the withdrawal of funds from NGOs that participate in Nakba Day events. It also chastised the passage on the first reading of a bill that would impose fines on Israeli citizens who participate in, or encourage, boycotts against Israel – including the settlements.
The 2011 first quarterly report took issue with the detention of Palestinian children under 12, and the Israeli demolition of Beduin homes and villages in the Negev.
“The Al Araqib Bedouin village in the Negev, which has been demolished 21 times in total, and nine times since the beginning of the year, is of particular concern,” the report said.
When you do it, it's an outrage, and when we do it....
Fortunately for Britain, David Miliband (pictured) is no longer the foreign secretary, or this could look really embarrassing.
Miliband, as you might recall, was the foreign secretary a year ago, who called Israel's alleged use of British passports in its alleged Mahmoud al-Mabhouh liquidation an 'outrage,' and after expelling an Israeli diplomat, insisted on a written commitment from Israel never to do it again as a precondition for being allowed to name a replacement (I don't know whether that last condition was ever fulfilled).
On Monday, I reported on a group of British intelligence officers being caught by Libyan rebels in Beghazi. The report mentioned that the agents were carrying 'multiple passports.' What that report didn't mention is that the agents were carrying "passports from at least four different nationalities."
At least three of those four countries were not Britain. Were the foreign secretaries of those countries 'outraged'? Was Mr. Miliband? Was current foreign secretary William Hague? Are the Brits going to promise those four countries that they will never ever use their passports like this again? Are those four countries going to expel any British diplomats?
Gadhafi's son meant it - Libyan jets firing on civilians in Tripoli
When Muammar Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam told Libyans on Sunday night that the regime would "fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet," he apparently wasn't exaggerating. Israel Radio reports that Libyan Air Force jets are firing on civilians in Tripoli.
By the way, the crews of those Libyan jets and helicopters (two each) that landed in Malta around 5:30 local time on Monday have asked for asylum. The pilots asked for asylum because they did not want to shoot at their own people anymore. There was a French passenger on one of the jets according to someone in Malta. There are seven people on the aircraft in all. Their escape was not planned and they did not have permission to land.
Here's more from Seif al-Islam Gadhafis speech.
Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, in the regime's first comments on the six days of demonstrations, warned the protesters that they risked igniting a civil war in which Libya's oil wealth "will be burned."
...
"We are not Tunisia and Egypt," he said. "Moammar Gadhafi, our leader, is leading the battle in Tripoli, and we are with him.
"The armed forces are with him. Tens of thousands are heading here to be with him. We will fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet," he said in a rambling and sometimes confused speech of nearly 40 minutes.
Although the elder Gadhafi did not appear, his son has often been put forward as the regime's face of reform.
...
In his speech, the younger Gadhafi conceded the army made some mistakes during the protests because the troops were not trained to deal with demonstrators, but he added that the number of dead had been exaggerated, giving a death toll of 84.
He offered to put forward reforms within days that he described as a "historic national initiative" and said the regime was willing to remove some restrictions and begin discussions for a constitution. He offered to change a number of laws, including those covering the media and the penal code.
Dressed in a dark business suit and tie, Seif al-Islam wagged his finger frequently as he delivered his warnings. He said that if protests continued, Libya would slide back to "colonial" rule. "You will get Americans and European fleets coming your way and they will occupy you.
He threatened to "eradicate the pockets of sedition" and said the army will play a main role in restoring order.
"There has to be a firm stand," he said. "This is not the Tunisian or Egyptian army."
Protesters had seized some military bases, tanks and other weapons, he said, blaming Islamists, the media, thugs, drunks and drug abusers, foreigners — including Egyptians and Tunisians.
He also admitted that the unrest had spread to Tripoli, with people firing in central Green Square before fleeing.
And the 'civilized' nations of the world? British Foreign Secretary William Hague called the younger Gadhafi and told him that he has to embark on dialogue and implement reforms. Good luck with that.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
