Michael Freund: Britain's Occupied Territories
Even as its armed forces are valiantly prosecuting the war on terror overseas, Britain's diplomats at home are doing their utmost to ensure that this will not be remembered as their country's finest hour.
In a baffling turn of events, the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown has quietly begun turning up the political heat on Israel in recent weeks, seeking to impose an economic choke hold on the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria.
On November 3, the UK Independent newspaper reported that London is pressing the European Union to clamp down on imports produced by Jews living beyond Israel's 1967 borders.
In a circular distributed to all 27 EU member states, the British Foreign Office grumbled that "there has been an acceleration in settlement construction," and it urged Europe "to look at how UK and Community policies can avoid inadvertently supporting or encouraging settlement activity."
Israeli officials are said to be concerned that this may be the first step in a British campaign to bring about a total boycott of Jewish goods from Judea and Samaria.
And so, while Palestinian terrorists in Gaza are busy firing rockets into the Negev, the British government is more concerned about Israeli tomatoes being grown in the West Bank.
This latest British intrusion into Israel's internal affairs will likely get an additional boost next week, when Foreign Secretary David Miliband visits here and reportedly plans to raise the issue of settlement construction in Judea and Samaria with his hosts.
Well, if the Brits want to have an open and frank discussion about "occupied territories," I say bring it on. A good place to start would be with Britain's own "occupied territories," which are far more extensive and widespread than anything it accuses Israel of possessing.
Indeed, from Europe to South America to the Middle East to the South Pole, there is hardly a corner of the world in which Britain isn't involved in some territorial dispute or another as it obstinately clings to control over disparate chunks of terrain.
The most famous of these, of course, are the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, which are claimed by Argentina. Although the islands are of little economic value and are home to more penguins than people, Britain fought a brief war with Argentina over them in 1982 which left 900 dead. And just last week, the British sparked a diplomatic row with Buenos Aires by issuing a new constitution for the Falklands, which it said is intended "to protect UK interests."
This prompted Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taina to call a press conference at which he denounced the British for attempting to perpetuate "an anachronistic colonial situation."
And they call us stubborn occupiers?
Half way around the world lies another fine example of British hypocrisy - the Chagos Archipelago, which London refers to as the British Indian Ocean Territory. Both Mauritius and the Seychelles have strong claims to it as their own, but that didn't stop Britain from forcibly expelling all the inhabitants between 1965 and 1971 to make way for a military base it wanted to lease to the US.
And though the Chagossians, as they are known, have repeatedly won court cases against the British government demanding their "right of return," the Brits will have none of it, and have largely left the islands' former residents to fend for themselves in exile.
As prominent British columnist Matthew Parris put it in the Times of London last week: "The saga is a stinking disgrace, a slur on Britain's good name." Nonetheless, her majesty's government simply refuses to let go.
Thousands of miles to the south, even the polar icecaps of Antarctica have not escaped London's lust for land. Britain has staked a claim to a whopping 1.7 million square kilometers of the South Pole's frozen terrain, part of which overlaps with territories claimed by Chile and Argentina.
But the fact that it is stepping on other nations' toes, and ignoring their rightful claims, does not seem to trouble Britain's Foreign Office one bit.
Back here in the Middle East, our neighbors in Cyprus continue to suffer from some good old-fashioned British colonial covetousness. While efforts are under way to reunite the Greek and Turkish controlled parts of the isle, Britain doggedly continues to cling to 254 sq. km. of Cypriot territory in the form of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia sovereign military bases. This has sparked the ire of Cyprus' new president, who vowed earlier this year to remove the British "colonial bloodstain" from his country.
While we are on the subject of British colonialism, need we mention the territory of Gibraltar, which Spain wants back? And what about Northern Ireland?
So before Britain decides to preach to Israel about the issue of "occupied territories," it would do well to put its own house in order.
Put in perspective, it is clear that all of London's harrumphing about Israel's "occupied territories" is just a lot of duplicitous hot air.
By contrast, Judea and Samaria are the ancient heartland of the Jewish people, the cradle of our civilization, and Israel has every right - morally, historically, theologically and militarily - to be there.
The same can hardly be said for Britain's dubious claims to various specks of land at other nations' expense.
As Winston Churchill once famously pointed out: "The English never draw a line without blurring it."
And nowhere is that line presently more blurred than when it comes to London's barefaced hypocrisy on the subject of "occupation."
In a baffling turn of events, the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown has quietly begun turning up the political heat on Israel in recent weeks, seeking to impose an economic choke hold on the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria.
On November 3, the UK Independent newspaper reported that London is pressing the European Union to clamp down on imports produced by Jews living beyond Israel's 1967 borders.
In a circular distributed to all 27 EU member states, the British Foreign Office grumbled that "there has been an acceleration in settlement construction," and it urged Europe "to look at how UK and Community policies can avoid inadvertently supporting or encouraging settlement activity."
Israeli officials are said to be concerned that this may be the first step in a British campaign to bring about a total boycott of Jewish goods from Judea and Samaria.
And so, while Palestinian terrorists in Gaza are busy firing rockets into the Negev, the British government is more concerned about Israeli tomatoes being grown in the West Bank.
This latest British intrusion into Israel's internal affairs will likely get an additional boost next week, when Foreign Secretary David Miliband visits here and reportedly plans to raise the issue of settlement construction in Judea and Samaria with his hosts.
Well, if the Brits want to have an open and frank discussion about "occupied territories," I say bring it on. A good place to start would be with Britain's own "occupied territories," which are far more extensive and widespread than anything it accuses Israel of possessing.
Indeed, from Europe to South America to the Middle East to the South Pole, there is hardly a corner of the world in which Britain isn't involved in some territorial dispute or another as it obstinately clings to control over disparate chunks of terrain.
The most famous of these, of course, are the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, which are claimed by Argentina. Although the islands are of little economic value and are home to more penguins than people, Britain fought a brief war with Argentina over them in 1982 which left 900 dead. And just last week, the British sparked a diplomatic row with Buenos Aires by issuing a new constitution for the Falklands, which it said is intended "to protect UK interests."
This prompted Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taina to call a press conference at which he denounced the British for attempting to perpetuate "an anachronistic colonial situation."
And they call us stubborn occupiers?
Half way around the world lies another fine example of British hypocrisy - the Chagos Archipelago, which London refers to as the British Indian Ocean Territory. Both Mauritius and the Seychelles have strong claims to it as their own, but that didn't stop Britain from forcibly expelling all the inhabitants between 1965 and 1971 to make way for a military base it wanted to lease to the US.
And though the Chagossians, as they are known, have repeatedly won court cases against the British government demanding their "right of return," the Brits will have none of it, and have largely left the islands' former residents to fend for themselves in exile.
As prominent British columnist Matthew Parris put it in the Times of London last week: "The saga is a stinking disgrace, a slur on Britain's good name." Nonetheless, her majesty's government simply refuses to let go.
Thousands of miles to the south, even the polar icecaps of Antarctica have not escaped London's lust for land. Britain has staked a claim to a whopping 1.7 million square kilometers of the South Pole's frozen terrain, part of which overlaps with territories claimed by Chile and Argentina.
But the fact that it is stepping on other nations' toes, and ignoring their rightful claims, does not seem to trouble Britain's Foreign Office one bit.
Back here in the Middle East, our neighbors in Cyprus continue to suffer from some good old-fashioned British colonial covetousness. While efforts are under way to reunite the Greek and Turkish controlled parts of the isle, Britain doggedly continues to cling to 254 sq. km. of Cypriot territory in the form of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia sovereign military bases. This has sparked the ire of Cyprus' new president, who vowed earlier this year to remove the British "colonial bloodstain" from his country.
While we are on the subject of British colonialism, need we mention the territory of Gibraltar, which Spain wants back? And what about Northern Ireland?
So before Britain decides to preach to Israel about the issue of "occupied territories," it would do well to put its own house in order.
Put in perspective, it is clear that all of London's harrumphing about Israel's "occupied territories" is just a lot of duplicitous hot air.
By contrast, Judea and Samaria are the ancient heartland of the Jewish people, the cradle of our civilization, and Israel has every right - morally, historically, theologically and militarily - to be there.
The same can hardly be said for Britain's dubious claims to various specks of land at other nations' expense.
As Winston Churchill once famously pointed out: "The English never draw a line without blurring it."
And nowhere is that line presently more blurred than when it comes to London's barefaced hypocrisy on the subject of "occupation."
Tags: british, diplomacy, eu hypocrisy, michael freund, sanctimonious brits, uk
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ralph Levy on -
RALPHS RANT HOSTILE COUNTRIES AND DETERANTS
This is My Response
http://ralphsrant1.blogspot.com/2008/11/hostile-countries-and-deter...
With the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States, and moving British companies from Judea and Samaria and hostile calls by the British Government to stop Settlements Israel must develop extensive and effective deterrents to financial, political, and military pressure from who every in the world that will threaten the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. Israel needs a policy of deterrence, and the will to use it. For over fifty years the United States has followed a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD which has basically kept war from breaking out with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War and continues more on a limited basis today. The idea is that if the United States would destroy any country that threaten the United States with destruction. I also believe that the United States would have used nukes in the event of a economic threat in the even of a massive oil cut off by Arab countries. While nuclear weapons are a abhorrent weapon the deterrent factor of MAD does work. Indirectly and unofficially Israel has had a limited version against the Arab countries for years even though Israel has never officially indicated that she had nukes.
Maybe now Israel needs to openly declare a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and announce she has nukes as a way to combat growing anti Israel feelings around the world, and hostile nations. Nukes should be used by Israel in my opinion if a Jewish community is threaten with destruction such as the Holocaust, Massive economic blockade or embargo of goods and trade, and physical destruction of Israel. Israel should also develop a Cyber Warfare strategy as a offensive weapon against those hostile countries, since the world is more and more reliant on technology. In my opinion Israel as a policy should target as the US target countries, that represents such threats such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others as well as ones that probably are not on the list but could prove just as deadly to Israel. I would also suggest to Israel as a policy to also target some European nations that have or who carry out a full trade embargo on Israel. Israel does not have oil as a weapon nor does she really have anything that Europe if she needed to could not find elsewhere. Israel cannot depend on the United States because who knows who would be in the White House if such a embargo is done. With the growing anti Israel feeling growing in Europe it's time for Israel to prepare for all eventualities.
Ralph Levy
Ralphs Rant A Pro Israel Blog
-
Permalink Reply by Ralph Levy on
-
WHAT THE BRITISH IS ALSO DOING
RALPHS RANT A PRO ISRAEL BLOG
British Funding of Israeli Left Wing Organizations My Opinion and Criticism
http://ralphsrant1.blogspot.com/2007/08/british-funding-of-israeli-...
I know that in essence my job is to give the pro Israeli point of view but in light of boycotts in the UK and growing anti Israeli and Anti Jewish feeling around the world especially in Europe I feel it is my duty of a Jew to speak up when I see injustice. But for years I have always suspected some foreign government help to Israeli Left Wing so called peace organizations. I have also seen some reports on the net regarding this, but the recent actions by organizations such as the Israeli section of Peace Now in regards of challenging the legality of settlements in Judea and Samaria have led me for the quest to find out why such organizations act in such disregard to Israeli legitimate security concerns. It took me less than ten minutes to find UK government documents on the web proving that there was British Governmental financial support for several left wing organizations in Israel. According to parliamentary inquiries as describe in the three links I provided pointing to the British Parliament web site even the Ministry of Defense gave funds. Hilary Benn who was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State who is the head of Department of International Development (DFID) in October 2006 under the Tony Blair administration made the statements during parliamentary inquires. Settlement Watch getting British Government funds to spy on Israeli Settlements?? Interesting in many countries that would be considered espionage. Any way I am very surprised this information was not found earlier and the organizations confronted on their receiving donations. Well since these gentlemen worked during the Tony Blair government and this funding was given to these groups then I would think this would raise some eye brows as to the objectivity of former PM Blair. Below is a series of links to the above mentioned websites. Please note based on these UK government web links the British Ministry of Defense also contributed funds to the pool. Such Blatant interference in Israeli domestic affairs is abhorrent and reminds me of the dark days of British Colonialism. If the situation was reversed I don’t think the British people would accept it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061009...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060710...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060724...
Example of Questioning on Website
9 Oct 2006
Israel
Mr. Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what joint projects his Department conducts with Israeli non-governmental organisations. [90264]
Hilary Benn: The Global Conflict Prevention Pool, jointly managed by the Foreign and Commonwealth 9 Oct 2006 : Column 155WOffice (FCO), DFID and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is funding the following projects with Israeli non-governmental organisations:
Peace Now—Settlement Watch;
Ir Amin—advocacy project on status of Jerusalem;
Council for Peace and Security—advocacy work on Israeli separation;
Economic Co-operation Foundation—Gaza disengagement; andHaMoKed/B’Tselem—Freedom of movement for Palestinians
Ralph Levy
-
Permalink Reply by RonaldH on -
Thanks Ralph, for your insight. I never really thought about it as UK spying. I have realized that the British government, and many other nations for that matter, are meddling in Israel's affairs in ways that are harmful to the interests of the Jewish state.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Hale on -
I say to all those nations who persecute the nation of Israel..stop while you can before it's too late..because you will suffer the greatest calamities that you've never seen in all your lives..The God of Jacob, Isaac and Moses will defend His people..
In the end, a great battle will take place and it will take Israel 7 years to bury those who have died in the battle and will burn their machinery..Read Ezekiel 38 & 39.. Many miracles took place in past battles that Israel has had to fight against their enemies. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem..
About
Jew-Safe Search!
Read more how you can help.
Apply for the Discover® Miles Card today! link goes direct to application
Top Stories
Loading feed
Support our Advertisers!
II top views
Loading feed
Visit our Sponsors!
Birthdays
Birthdays Tomorrow
Wear Your Pride, Insider Out!
© 2009 Created by Israel Insider
