Posts Tagged ‘Jerusalem’

UK embassy staff in Jerusalem charged with gun-running for Hamas, cat out of the bag for Britain’s MidEast diplomacy

Tuesday, January 4th, 2011

Friendly with dictatorships however vile, accommodating of an anti-Semitism that knows no parallel since Germany in the 1930s, and willfully contemptuous of Britain’s long term interests in the war against terrorism, UK foreign policy in the Middle East had surely reached rock bottom long, long ago. Not so. When it comes to the British Foreign Office and its relations with Israel, there are always new depths to be plumbed.

And so it is that we wake up today to the news that two staff at the British consulate in Jerusalem have been arrested by the Israeli authorities for gun-running for Palestinian (Hamas) terrorists planning to cause carnage by bombing a packed football stadium.

The Foreign Office is being quoted as saying that security procedures will be reviewed and that the Israeli authorities do not believe the incident has anything to do with the staffers’ jobs at the embassy. But how can British embassy security procedures be anything other than severely compromised when the Foreign Office itself adopts such a conciliatory line towards Palestinian terror groups?

Read the rest of this article »

Share


Prime time BBC documentary on Jerusalem: An anatomy of bias and distortion

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

On Monday night, the BBC’s flagship documentary programme Panorama was devoted to Jerusalem. Rarely will you get a clearer insight into the flagrant institutional bias inside the world’s most powerful media outlet than this. The slipperiness of the tactics employed, the unabashed censorship of vital historical context, and the blatant pursuit of a political agenda constituted a lesson in the techniques of modern day propaganda. It was something to behold.

Entitled “A Walk in the Park” — a reference to the parkways which link settlements across East Jerusalem — the programme was introduced by veteran BBC reporter Jeremy Vine: “Palestinians are being thrown out of their homes; Israelis are moving in, even underground,” he tells us. The drama then shifts to Jerusalem itself where Jane Corbin, narrator and reporter on the ground, is ready to begin a demolition job all of her own.

Right away, the documentary cuts to the destruction of a Palestinian home: “…roads were sealed. The Israelis don’t make it easy to see what’s going on,” we are ominously told as she skips daringly down a dirt track to avoid the watchful eye of the dastardly Israelis.

So why, one wonders, would the Israelis be so keen to hide their dirty little secret? “Under international law,” she tells us earnestly, “East Jerusalem is occupied territory; its status shouldn’t be changed.”

Read the rest of this article »

Share


British government must issue clarification over Jerusalem evictions controversy

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

The Israel-Palestine conflict is surely complicated enough without the British government injecting ambiguity into the situation via statements which appear to contradict Britain’s commitment to the rule of law.

Responding to Israel’s decision to evict nine Palestinian families from two houses in east Jerusalem, the British Consulate in Jerusalem has issued an extraordinarily aggressive press statement condemning the move. The evictions followed long and complicated court cases in which it was established that Jewish families held the title to the properties while documents produced by the Palestinian residents were found to be forgeries. On Sunday, the police moved in to enforce the court decision.

The British consulate’s statement says:

“We are appalled by the evictions in East Jerusalem. Israel’s claim that the imposition of extremist Jewish settlers into this ancient Arab neighbourhood is a matter for the courts or the municipality is unacceptable. Their actions are incompatible with Israel’s desire for peace. We urge Israel not to allow extremists to set the Agenda.”

I’m struggling with this. In countries governed by the rule of law, it would seem clear that matters of such complexity can only be decided by the courts. Could the British embassy explain who else should have been called upon to adjudicate? And whilst we’re at it, I wonder if they could issue clarifications on a couple of other matters?

Read the rest of this article »

Share