This solution to the catastrophic situation in the Holy Land has troubled me greatly for some considerable time, and I can see no virtue in the so-called "Two-state solution" proposed to divide the land in a manner which recalls only too vividly the Bantustans of South Africa and the strictest form of apartheid.
When I read of the complaint in the Daily Telegraph (a right-wing newspaper published in London) by the 'Israeli Ambassador' to the Court of Saint James, I wrote the following letter on 12th June 2008 to The Rt Hon. David Miliband, M.P., Foreign Secretary, F.C.O., King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH:
Dear Mr Miliband,
It is shocking that Mr Ron Prosor should have attempted by his remarks made to the Daily Telegraph to suggest that the majority of the British public's views of what happens in what is the Holy Land to all of us who may be Jewish, Christian or Muslim can be qualified as "anti-Israeli sentiment". Obviously, all decent people will condemn the oppression and suffering inflicted on the Palestinians, wherever in the country they may live.
This man and his masters in Tel Aviv (and elsewhere in the Holy Land) wish us all to accept the idea of a 'state of Israel' encapsulating a series of apartheid bantustans to house those Palestinians who remain in their country. The object of this is that they can then serve as a reserve of cheap labour, as was previously the case in South Africa, and also keep the Untermenschen separate from the Zionist master race. This perpetuation of the hideously flawed racist theories so disastrously put forward by Wilhelm Marr, Theodor Herzl, Adolf Hitler and others is, to those of us who prefer justice and equality between all men and women without any sort of distinction of race, religion or ethnicity, totally unacceptable.
Such constitution as the said 'state of Israel' has by way of its "Laws of the Aliyah " made severe distinctions between the rights which they grant to those whom they classify as "Jews" as compared with those allowed to all others. What is interesting is that they do not follow the criteria adopted by Rabbinic rules over the centuries, but prefer those established by Marr and followed by Herzl, Hitler and other like racists.
Like many others in Britain and elsewhere, I hope that you will ignore this man's outburst which merely reveals his hatred for the indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Thompson
Avocat Honoraire au Barreau de Boulogne-sur-Mer
The reply from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Asia/Israel and North Africa Group, King Charles Street, London, dated 22nd July 2008, received on 25th July, reads:
Dear Mr Thompson,
Thank you for your letter of 12 July (sic!) addressed to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband about the Israeli Ambasador's letter to the Daily Telegraph. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.
We believe that the suffering of Palestinians on the one hand, and the fear and insecurity felt by many Israeli citizens on the other, need to be addressed together, and they can only be addressed through a two-state solution, which will be vital to long-term stability in the area. We believe that our position gives us scope to exert influence and encourage both sides to take the steps needed for progress through close engagement and ongoing dialogue. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security and I would like to assure you that we are doing our utmost to ensure that a long-term and broadly supported resolution is reached. This means a viable state of Palestine living next to a safe and secure Israel, consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the principle of land for peace. The British government continues to work with both parties, as well as the US, our EU partners and the international community, to achieve a just and lasting solution.
The Roadmap agreed in April 2003 sets out steps the Palestinian Authority and Israel need to implement to achieve a negotiated settlement. Both sides have accepted the Roadmap. At the Annapolis Conference on 27th November 2007, Prime Minister Olmert renewed his commitment to Israel's Roadmap obligations. Among others these obligations require that the Government of Israel freeze all settlement building, dismantle all settlement outposts and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, obligations include the need to undertake visible efforts to disrupt plans for violent attacks on Israelis, and undertake comprehensive political reform. We welcome the outcome of the Annapolis conference, which has put the Israelis and Palestinians on a path to real negotiations in 2008, leading hopefully to a final settlement of two states living side by side in peace and security.
Further information about our policies towards the Middle East can be found on the Middle East Peace Process pages of our website at www.fco.gov.uk . We are in the process of updating the Middle East Peace Process area of the FCO website and will be adding to the material available.
Yours
C M Galagher
Arab/Israel and North Africa Group
-o-o-o-
This extraordinary reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Asia/Israel and North Africa Group (which has by the end of the letter changed its name to become the Arab/Israel and North Africa Group) calls for many questions, but in particular on the following points:
- What according the FCO is the link between "the suffering of the Palestinians" and "the fear and insecurity felt by many Israeli citizens"?
- Does the FCO not realise that the Palestinians have much more reason to feel "fear and insecurity" than their oppressors?
- Why is it necessary still further to partition the Holy Land to achieve "long-term stability in the area", since this would seem a certain recipe for lasting insecurity?
- Why does the British government not recognise the basic rights of the Palestinians to a return of and to their land?
- What "steps are needed for progress"?
- Why does the British government not accept that the immediate implementations of all past United Nations Resolutions concerning the Holy Land would solve all outstanding problems, since it would allow the original proprietors to recover their homes and lands?
- Why does the United Kingdom wish to replace the existing, constantly flouted, Resolutions with the "Roadmap" which dramatically reduces the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population and also those of the refugees still living sixty years later in terrible and precarious conditions in many other countries as well as in refugee camps or in the Gaza Strip concentration camp in their own land?
- Why does the British government talk of "Both sides" when it still refuses to talk to the elected government of the so-called "Palestinian Territories" (i.e. the lands occupied after the Naqsa, the second invasion of 1967) and that there are therefore at least three sides to whom it should talk, unless it finally decides to accept the choice made by the resident Palestinians when asked?
I shall write in such terms to the signatory of the letter of 22nd July, and see what he or she has to say on these important points which show some lack of clarity on the part of the Asia/Israel (or Arab/Israel) and North Africa Group, and therefore presumably of the British government. I would remind those with short memories that the United Kingdom was the former colonial power under its successive League of Nations and United Nations Mandates and thus largely responsible for the present mess. I do not intend to leave such a time-gap between the date of reception of this letter (25th July) and my further enquiries, but it would be helpful if any reader would like to point out to me on robert@axisoflogic.com any further urgent questions which should be asked.
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
