Australia FM: Don't call settlements illegal under international law

Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has more balls than William Hague.

Australia FM: Don’t call settlements illegal under international law 

In candid interview, Julie Bishop expresses skepticism about the peace process, says boycott Israel activists are ‘anti-Semitic’

More here http://www.timesofisrael.com/australia-fm-dont-call-settlements-illegal-under-international-law/

Canada, key allies storm out of UN nuclear meeting in protest of Iran’s ‘Israeli genocide’ remarks

Iran accuses Israel of genocide, some countries' representatives walk out but not William 'all mouth no trousers' Hague.

National Post have the details of which country's representatives have a moral backbone and which don't.

How Hamas (and the PA) brianwash children to hate Jews & to want to kill them and the result of this brainwashing

Just one example of the brainwashing

Nassur, the bear puppet host on a Hamas children's TV program, uses different words for "slaughter" to describe how to rid Israel of Jews.
First, the bear states that all Jews must be "erased from our land." Later he adds, "We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land." He repeats, "...We'll have to [do it] by slaughter." He first uses the Arabic expression for "slaughter," "Nidbah-hom," and later uses the word "Shaht."

Transcript from the children's program Tomorrow's Pioneers:
Nassur: "There won't be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They'll be erased."
Saraa: "Chased away."
Nassur: "And just like we will visit the Qaaba [in Mecca]... everyone will visit Jerusalem."
[Seven-year old Palestinian child on phone tells how his father, a member of the Hamas Al-Qassam Brigades, "died as a Shahid (Martyr)."]
Nassur to child on phone: "What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?"
Child on phone: "I want to kill them."
Saraa: "We don't want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land."
Nassur: "We want to slaughter (Nidbah-hom) them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?"
Saraa: "Yes. That's right. We will expel them from our land using all means."
Nassur: "And if they don't want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we'll have to [do it] by slaughter." (Shaht)
[Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Sept. 22, 2009]

I've posted other examples before on this blog. This one is from Palwatch.


Here's just one example of the results of such brainwashing

 At a rally in Gaza during a meeting of the Arab Summit, a Palestinian girl declared on official Palestinian Authority television that other countries should provide weapons to Palestinians so that young boys and girls like herself can kill all the Jews.

Palestinian girl:
"We ask that the countries stand by our side. We want them to help us. We only want them to give us weapons. We on our own, young boys and girls, will kill them (the Jews) on our own, murder them, shoot all of them. Just give us weapons. The boys and the girls themselves will kill them all (the Jews). We won't leave a single Jew. We won't leave a single Jew here."
[PA TV (Fatah), October 22, 2000]

So these people want peace? These people want a two -state solution?  Why do Obama, the United Nations, William Hague even think that that is what the Palestinians want?

William Hague - deluded or worse?

In today's House of Commons address, William Hague made a rather strange assertion, he said:

'Nevertheless, President Abbas has decided to press ahead—a decision we must respect. No one should be in any doubt that he is a courageous man of peace. Our central objective remains that of ensuring a rapid return to credible negotiations in order to secure a two-state solution. This is the guiding principle that will determine the way in which we will vote on any resolution at any time.'

President Abbas a 'courageous man of peace', ''secure a two-state solution'. Here's his Head of Foreign Relations, Nabil Shaath, from July 2011

"a formula that is unacceptable to us.. two states for two peoples... We will be a state for one people...The story of "two states for two peoples" means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative. We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country..."

That's just his Head of Foreign Relations, William Hague said that Mahmoud Abbas was a courageous man of peace, do I hear anyone making that claim? Here's Mahmoud Abbas, from October 23, 2011:

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a "Jewish state."

Courageous? Man of peace? Do remember that for many years the PLO promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel. Indeed senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."... Also remember Mahmoud Abbas's statement that:

"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,"

Also remember what I blogged back in 2010: Israel National News has some recent quotes from Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that shows he's just as opposed to the continued existence of Israel as Hamas:

'Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Arab leaders that the PA is ready to wage war on Israel if the rest of the Arab world does, according to the PA daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida as translated by Palestinian Media Watch. “If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it,” Abbas quoted himself as having said at the March Arab League Summit in Libya. ... Abbas quoted his own statements to the Arab League while in a meeting with the PA's ambassador to Jordan. The statements were used in explanation of his opposition to the approach taken by Hamas. Hamas pushes for “resistance” - a buzz word used by Arabs to refer to terrorism – and refusal to negotiate with Israel. "What we hear from everyone is that the basis is negotiations. At a time that the entire world agrees about this... We are unable to confront Israel militarily,” Abbas told the PA envoy. Abbas, who is serving as head of the PA after unilaterally extending his term in office, has made several statements in recent years that have raised concerns as to his true intentions. In 2008, as Israel and the PA engaged in peace talks, Abbas told a Jordanian paper that he opposed terrorism “at present” but that “things may change.” In March 2010, the PA held a ceremony naming a main square in Ramallah for a terrorist who led a cell that murdered 37 Israelis. In June, a broadcast on official PA television referred to Jews as “our enemies” and to the entire state of Israel as “Palestine.” Earlier this week, Abbas eulogized terrorist Abu Daoud, the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, calling him “one of the leading figures in Fatah.”Israel has officially referred to Abbas a "moderate" leader, as opposed to the leadership of Hamas, whose charter calls clearly for destroying Israel. (IsraelNationalNews.com)'

The Palestinian Authority a 'partner for peace'? Mahmoud Abbas a 'corageous man of peace'? Of course Mahmoud Abbas follows another man of peace as leader of Fatah, Yasser Arafat. Here's Yasser in his own words from 1980:

"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations." "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel." "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." "The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine."

Fairly clear? Here's the same Yasser Arafat on the same day that he signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, explaining his actions on Jordan TV:

"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

Pretty clear? The west listens to and believes what Mahmoud Abbas says about wanting a two state solution and a return to 1967 borders because that fits in with their world view of an evil Jewish state stealing land from poor Palestinians. The truth is some way from this narrative but the western media, especially the BBC, and the British Foreign Office just don't care; facts will not be allowed to intrude into their decided narrative.

Dear William Hague - some historical facts re Jerusalem

'
Dear Mr Hague:

I write in support of a petition I have recently signed, asking the British Foreign Office to alter its position on what has become an unnecessarily vexed question concerning the capital of Israel. As you know, Israelis are unanimous in regarding Jerusalem as their capital, not Tel Aviv (where the British embassy is currently located), nor Haifa nor Jaffa nor Petah Tikva nor anywhere else in the country. 

It is not hard to understand why the first Israeli parliament chose Jerusalem as its seat, even before it had built an edifice suitable to the needs of the men and women who sat in its chamber.  For many centuries, Jews in the Diaspora had clung to a hope, not only of a return to the Holy Land, but to Jerusalem in particular, the erstwhile home of its holiest Temple and the scene of so many primary events in Jewish and Christian history. This might be dismissed on the grounds that religious belief should not determine a city’s status, but many cities derive their significance from their role as religious centres, from Mecca and Medina (the latter having been the first capital of Islam), to Karbala’ and Mashhad, to Varanasi (Benares) and the Vatican City. This original attachment, intensified by daily prayers while facing Jerusalem and repeated wishes to return there, was later supplanted by the governmental, educational, trading, defensive, legal and bureaucratic concerns of the capital of a secular state.

As a people who have been deeply wronged in the past, Jews have tried to build their own state along lines of equal citizenship, a single legal system, human rights, and the protection of all holy places. But when Jordan occupied East Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, Muslim holy places were renovated while 58 synagogues were destroyed and 38,000 Jewish graves were demolished. In addition, Jews were not allowed to set foot in their own holy places, notably on the Temple Mount. By contrast, when Israel retook Jerusalem in 1967, the Temple Mount was handed to a Muslim authority on account of two Islamic structures built on top of it, the al-Aqsa mosque and the Qubbat al-Sakhra or Dome of the Rock.

Such depredations and a lack of reciprocity have made Israelis wary of a Muslim takeover of East Jerusalem, where the holiest sites are located: the Temple Mount, the Western Wall (the Kotel), the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Mount of Olives, and the famous Jewish graveyards, still vandalized horribly by Arab criminals.

But the Palestinians have made it their business to turn Jerusalem into a bastion of Islamic holiness, not just because the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock are there, but because they now claim that there has never been any Jewish connection to the city or to the land of Israel. There was, they boast, no Jewish Temple there. All Biblical references to the Temple and to Jerusalem as a city built by King David are summarily and ahistorically dismissed. 

Given that Muslims have demolished the holy places of more than one religion, the Jews are rightly concerned lest Jerusalem fall under Islamic control. In Saudi Arabia for decades now, the government has been engaged in the destruction of Islamic holy places in Mecca and Medina. Lest you think me in the grip of some obscure fantasy, I should explain that the Wahhabi form of Islam, which governs Saudi Arabia, is utterly ruthless in its condemnation of anything that may be worshipped instead of God. They have demolished over 200 historical sites to prevent pilgrims praying at them. In Mali, a similar form of Islam – Salafism – has recently demolished dozens of shrines belonging to the Sufi form of Islam. And in Iran, the government has demolished all the holy places and cemeteries of the persecuted Baha’i religion. Israel, by way of contrast, protects and nourishes the large international headquarters and two holiest shrines of the Baha’is, places now recognized as UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Is it surprising that the Israelis, backed by Jews and others like myself round the world, are desperate to maintain the integrity of the city, knowing as they do that Muslim Arab rule would carry a greatly heightened risk to the Old City and its environs? Israel has been generous towards Muslims and their holy places, but they fear that if increased pressure were to come from Saudi Arabia or Iran or, nearer to hand from Hamas, everything Jewish might be eliminated. Palestinians have taken control of the Jewish Tomb of Rachel, the third holiest site for Jews. They have commandeered most of the Ma’arat Ha-Machpelah, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and made access for Jews to a tiny space very difficult, as I can personally attest. This is the second holiest site for Jews, containing as it does the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah.

In the earliest days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad adopted from his Jewish neighbours the practice of turning towards Jerusalem during the five daily prayers. But in the year 622, a few months after his arrival in Medina, he did an about turn during one prayer session and from then on directed his followers to pray towards his home city of Medina. He severed all direct ties with Jerusalem, and in the centuries that followed Jerusalem was never a provincial capital, nor the heart of a Muslim country or empire. Medina in the first years, then Damascus, Baghdad, Istanbul and other cities became the capitals of Islam. Cairo was the major city in North Africa, Fez and Rabat capitals of the west, Esfahan, Tabriz, Tehran and others the royal cities of Iranian dynasties. And so on. But Jerusalem was never given such signal importance. This is significant. Palestinian wishes to make Jerusalem defy centuries of insignificance would lock us into a dispute that could last one thousand years.

For this reason, Jews everywhere will refuse to relinquish a city that was theirs from the beginning, and they will not reward people who have tried to take what was never theirs, who have tried to deny the historical record concerning the Jewish presence in a city that has been Jewish for 3000 years. To confirm the place of Jerusalem at the heart of Jewish life and prayers and as the eternal capital of their only homeland, Jews and Israelis appeal to honest governments to do the right thing and recognize that Jerusalem is the city where all the key aspects of Israeli life converge. No Israeli regards Tel Aviv as his or her capital. It is demeaning to treat Israelis as children by telling them this or that foreign government knows better than they and their government when it comes to designating Jerusalem their capital. I do not think you treat any other capital city in this way. You do not call Cork the capital of Ireland, nor Glasgow the capital of Scotland, nor the cathedral city of St. David’s the capital of Wales, nor Marseilles the capital of France. I do not believe the Foreign Office means to be insulting in this matter; but if foreigners called Birmingham the capital of England and the UK, would you not feel aggrieved?

Israel’s enemies call in all seriousness for the destruction of the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on all Islamic nations to ‘exterminate Israel’ (my translation). The Arabs, faced by their repeated failure to achieve this by military means or terrorism, have turned to secondary means, saying that there never any Jews in Israel, that they themselves were there first, an impossible 9000 years ago, and that Jerusalem was always an Arab city (a claim that directly contradicts the accounts of Arab historians like al-Tabari). It is a cheap and dishonest attempt to rewrite history itself and to introduce confusion into a simple narrative. Denying the historicity and modern reality of Israel, of Jerusalem, and of Israelis by refusing to liberate the city from the string of fictions that has tied so many in knots, allows falsehood and deceit to rule in international affairs. Britain is still a great country that is admired the world round for its probity. I do not doubt that you, like myself, wish to see that image remain untarnished. But I have to say that it is in some measure tarnished when you try to steal the Israeli capital from the Israelis themselves.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Denis MacEoin'

This letter has been sent by Denis MacEoin to William Hague and others at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Please spread the word... I wonder if Tarik Kafala, the BBC's Middle East Editor, could usefully learn something from this letter?

William Hague shows his lack of understanding or maybe just the influence of the Arabists at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office

William Hague, a man who my respect for diminishes almost daily, has issued a statement to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Here is is in full, followed by my comments:

'Tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks

11 September 2011

Foreign Secretary William Hague has commemorated the victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, and of other global acts of terrorism since.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

"Today we commemorate the citizens of the United States and over 90 countries who perished in the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, including 67 British nationals. We remember the courage and dignity of the American people in the face of such appalling loss. And we also recall the victims of other global acts of terrorism since – including the attacks in London in 2005. Such attacks have only served to bring the international community closer together, and to bolster those who seek change through peaceful means, not through barbaric violence.

"In the decade since the 2001 attacks on the United States, terrorists have succeeded only in the murder of innocents, often from among those they claim to represent. Al Qaeda is now weaker than at any time in the decade since 9/11 – and political progress through peaceful protest in the Middle East and North Africa has shown it to be increasingly irrelevant to the future. The true expression of what people in the Muslim world aspire to was seen not at Ground Zero in 2001, but in squares and streets across the Middle East and North Africa this year. So while we remember the victims of 9/11, stand firm with our allies and remain tirelessly vigilant against future threats, we also face the future with confidence in our values and faith in human nature."'

In the first paragraph William Hague manages not to mention that the terrorists were Islamic terrorists carrying out their diabolical plan in the name of Islam. He might not like that fact, he may find that fact an 'inconvenient truth' but a fact it remains.

In the second paragraph William Hague ascribes motives and aspirations to the 'peaceful protest(s)' in the Middle East and North Africa that he should know are not true. The protests and revolts in much of North Africa and the Middle East have been shown time and time again to have an Islamist tinge. The cries of "Allahu Akhbar" have resounded across the squares, souks and mosques of the area and the number of placards and chants calling for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews have been noticed by many who do not rely on the BBC for the approved version of the news. Has William Hague not noticed what has happened in Egypt over the past few month, let alone the last couple of days?

I used to admire William Hague as a politician, however since the last general election he has shown himself to have little more understanding or interest in the truths of the world situation than did the leaders of the last Labour government.

Interesting breaking news re the killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher

I hear rumours that the Libyan rebel 'governmnet' has confirmed that they know the whereabouts of Matouk Mohammed Matouk, the man suspected of shooting WPC Yvonne Fletcher dead outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984. Will they extradite him back to the UK to finally face trial, or will they prove as obstructive, on this matter, as was Colonel Gadaffi's regime? If the latter then this should be unacceptable to UK government bearing in mind how much money UK have helping Libyan rebels defeat Gadaffi. However don't expect strong words, let alone deeds from William Hague.

Jerusalem compare and contrast actions by Jordan and Israel

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War the Western Wall came under Jordanian control and Jews were barred from the site for 19 years until Israel captured the Old City in 1967.

Since 1967 Israel has not restricted access for Muslims to the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa Mosque despite them being partly built on top of the site of 'the Temple'; what would be the holiest site in Judaism had it not been destroyed. Indeed the Western ('Wailing') Wall is all that remains of the Second Temple.

Quite a contrast isn't it but not one that the BBC, William Hague, Barack Obama or the United Nations are in the slightest bit interested in.


For more truths about Jerusalem take a look here.

Post of the day re Israel and the way it is being treated by this Conservative (in name only) government

The UK Foreign Secretary, channeling the spirt of Neville Chamberlain (though I have less hope he will, as Chamberlin did in the end, see the error of his ways):

Foreign Secretary William Hague said he is deeply concerned by reports that protesters have been killed in the Golan Heights on 5 June.

The Foreign Secretary said:“I am deeply concerned by reports that a number of protesters have been killed and others injured following protests in the Golan Heights yesterday. We recognise Israel’s right to defend herself. It is vital that any response is proportionate, avoiding lethal use of force unless absolutely necessary, and that the right to protest is respected. I continue to call on all parties, including the Governments of Israel and Syria, to do everything they can to protect the lives of civilians and to avoid provocative acts.”

The remarks came after Israeli troops fired at protesters from Syria in the occupied Golan Heights.

How about ending with “The remarks came after the murderous Syrian regime bussed cannon fodder to the border and bribed them to attack Israel”.

Yesterday the world’s media gleefully parroted the Syrian State media’s LIES without a moment’s thought or hesitation. Not one serious outlet reported what I wrote here yesterday afternoon:

On the Syrian border the IDF had a three step process:

1. Verbal warnings in Arabic
2. Firing in the air
3. Shoot specific protesters who touch the Israeli border fence in the FEET

The other thing revealed was that when the IDF responded to a request from the Red Cross (Red Crescent?) for a cease fire to remove casualties (send in the chiropodists) some of the rioters took this as a great opportunity to attack again. Typical.

Last night, upon the invitation of the UK’s Embassy, I attended a brilliant lecture by the historian Sir Martin Gilbert about the behaviour of the British between the end of WWII and Israel’s recreation. It was a devastating tale of the abhorrent treatment of 100,000 (that’s all that were left) of the most persecuted and tortured people on the planet.

This is directed at William Hague and the team at the UK in Israel: Amazing. You didn’t take the time to find out that the IDF did not shoot to kill, like the Syrian forces who indiscriminately murder their own people. The IDF shot at FEET and only after multiple warnings. You and your helicopter gun ships are far more indiscriminate in Libya than the IDF ever is and you’re not even defending your own borders! What give you the RIGHT to tell Israel how to stop an invasion?


Why not commend Israel for its restraint? You know that an unrestrained Arab dictator would have shot hundreds. Oh, wait, Syria did that last week and the world snoozed because the Internet was cut off.

The UK is doing again what Sir Martin Gilbert explained last night: backing the Muslim and Arab horse against the JEW because of sordid internal interests in getting elected again. Only this time you don’t have 80 million Muslims as constituents in India, you have 2 or 3 million at home.

After listening to Sir Martin last night, I would hope the updater of the UK in Israel Facebook page is feeling a little self doubt: perhaps you’ll have the courage to resist your government’s revolting policies like the few brave UK ambassadors across Europe who did try to help destitute Jews reach their promised land after the nightmare of the Holocaust.'

That's from Israelly Cool - a piece entitled 'Evil Again Wears A Savile Row Suit'.

Is William Hague really a total f**kwit?

from William Hague's speech at the Mansion House about the Middle East comes one of the most delusional comments ever:

'The EU already has the tools and the resources for the task. What it has lacked is the will to use them well. We should use the EU’s economic magnetism to encourage and support real political and economic reform. That means a new partnership with the southern neighbourhood with a simple proposal at its heart: that the EU will share its prosperity and open up markets in return for real progress on political and economic reform.

The EU should offer broad and deep economic integration, leading to a free-trade area and eventually a customs union, progressively covering goods, agriculture and services, as well as the improvement of conditions for investment. All of this must should be accompanied by our partners achieving clear and sustainable political and economic reform.'

There's a lot of crap in thre but this phrase really does take the biscuit - "the EU’s economic magnetism" - this on the day that I hear rumours of a crisis meeting in Germany - will Greece quit euro?

If William Hague truly believes that the EU is the answer to the Middle East's problems then maybe he has truly lost the plot.

Has William Hague heard of the Fogel family?

The Foreign Office have released William Hague's latest thoughts on the 'escalating violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories over the past week'. Here's what he says, can you spot what's missing?

'Speaking today the Foreign Secretary said:

“I am extremely concerned at the escalating violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories over the past week. We have seen a surge in rockets and mortars launched at Israeli civilians from the Gaza strip. This is abhorrent. Three people have been injured, many more are living in fear. Six Palestinian civilians, including four children, have been killed as a result of Israeli actions in the Gaza strip. We have urged the Israeli government to ensure everything is done to avoid further civilian casualties while calling for a complete end to attacks on Israel.

“And we have seen the terrible sight – which we hoped belonged to the past - of a bomb at a bus station in Jerusalem. A British woman was killed and more than 30 injured. I condemn this attack in the strongest terms and call for those responsible to be held to account. Elsewhere, we have seen Israeli settlers opening fire on a Palestinian funeral procession, wounding two mourners. Also, another Palestinian was stabbed in an unprovoked attack.

“We condemn the extremists who are instigating this violence and who are deliberately attempting to wreck the chances of peace. We call on all sides to do all that they can to prevent further loss of innocent life, to bring the perpetrators to justice and to reduce current tensions.”'

No mention of the cold-blooded murder by Palestinians of five sleeping Israelis, including three children, one of them under six months old.

Why no mention of the murdered Fogel family Mr Hague? Have you heard of their deaths and if so why mention the wounding of three Palestinians and not the violent deaths of the Fogel family? I and plenty of others in the UK are getting very sick and tired of the way Israel is treated by the UK media and politicians, we will not keep quiet for ever.

Blaming all that happens in the Middle East on Israel

An emailed letter to The Times has been forwarded to me. It's a letter that I do not belive The Times has published, so I will...

From: jeffrey cohen
Subject: William Hague and Israel's 'belligerence'
To: "Letters to the Editor The Times" letters@thetimes.co.uk
Date: Wednesday, 9 February, 2011, 11:37
"William Hague and Israel's belligerence"

Sir,

A few weeks ago I quipped to a friend that, somehow or other a way would be found to lay the blame on Israel for all the upheaval in the Middle East. Your screaming headline ("Hague tells 'belligerent' Israelis to soften line", Feb 9)) did not, therefore, come as any surprise. The Foreign Minister has, most unworthily, latched on to the age-old scapegoat and, single-handedly, fanned the Middle Eastern flames and further encouraged Israel's enemies.

At a time of widespread conflict all around the Middle East, and with so many victims of state brutality, the mind of our Foreign Minister is focused primarily upon "the belligerent language" of Israel's Prime Minister! He also takes exception to the latter's quite legitimate call to his people to "prepare for any outcome" and his vow to "reinforce the might of the State of Israel". Given the political maelstrom surrounding Israel, any Prime Minister who did not take such measures would surely be remiss in his duty.

The sooner the popular, yet bitterly misleading and ironic, references to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 'The Middle East conflict' or 'The Middle East peace process', are discarded, the better it will be. They are a disingenuous diversion, whose objective is to obfuscate the true source of all the wider 'Middle Eastern' problems, a source that lies at the heart of the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt.

Dr Jeffrey M Cohen
London, N2

Some good points and I must say at this point that whilst David Cameron's liberal (and maybe Liberal) tendencies have come as no surprise, the pusillanimousness of William Hague has shocked me - I expected better from him.

The one hundred and sixteenth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award goes to the less and less impressive by the day Foreign Secretary, William Hague for his inciteful comment as reported by Sky News that 'A broad-based government is "preferable to Egypt falling into the hands of extremism or a more authoritarian system of government,"'

"No shit, Sherlock" 

The Europhile answer to everything - "In order to consolidate the euro we need to harmonise our economic, fiscal and social policies, hence we are going toward greater integration."

Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph reports the words of the French Prime Minister François Fillon as he supposedly tries to find a solution to the Euro disaster:
"In order to consolidate the euro we need to harmonise our economic, fiscal and social policies, hence we are going toward greater integration. We need to put in place an economic system of governance for the euro-zone. Great Britain is not part of the euro-zone; but the decision we take will have great importance for Great Britain"

I can do no better than repeat Dan Hannan's conclusion:

'This is, of course, the reflex response of the Euro-elites to any difficulty. Whatever the problem, the solution is always More Europe. Sadly, the fact that they have abandoned logic and reason doesn’t mean that the Eurocrats won’t push ahead. On the contrary, they have already started.'

With LibDems at the heart of government and an ever weaker William Hague seemingly disinterested in the problem of the EU, I have very little faith in David Cameron keeping the EU from getting even more involved in the UK's affairs.

William Hague swallowing it hook, line and sinker

William Hague Tweets "Just met Pres of Maldives to discuss climate change. Their very existence threatened by it. Cancun conference underway to seek global action"
I have replied "The Maldives are not sinking; please read the evidence don't just fall for the propaganda - http://goo.gl/eKM2t"

Please someone take William Hague aside and tell him to use his brain not fall for the environmentalist narrative; hook, line and sinker.

That was resounding

Round 1: David Miliband 37.78%, Ed Miliband 34.33% Diane Abbott eliminated
Round 2: David Miliband 38.89%, Ed Miliband 37.47%. Andy Burnham eliminated
Round 3: David Miliband 42.72%, Ed Miliband 41.26%, Ed Balls eliminated
Round 4: David Miliband 49.35%, Ed Miliband 50.65%. Ed Miliband wins.

So Ed Miliband wins the Labour leadership, beating his elder brother David, thanks to second preferences. On first preferences David beat Ed by 3.35%. Diane Abbott's votes went to Ed 3.14% and David 1.11%, Andy Burnham's votes split almost eavenly to David 3.83% and Ed 3.79% and Ed Balls's votes went to Ed 9.39% and to David 6.63%. So on a first past the post basis David Moribund would have won the Labour leadership but thanks to the second preferences of those consensual figures Dianne Abbot and Ed Balls, Ed Miliband emerges victorious.

I wonder if David Miliband is now regretting assisting Diane Abbot to get the required nominations to get through to the final stage?

It is odd how in leadership elections for the main opposition party the early favourite keeps on losing. This time Ed Miliband beats David Miliband. In the last three Conservative leadership elections (going backwards in time) David Cameron defeated David Davis, Ian Duncan Smith defeated Ken Clarke and William Hague defeated Kenneth Clarke & Michael Howard. Remember that Michael Howard won the Conservative leadership in 2003 unopposed, just as Gordon Brown did in 2007.

William Hague and Georgina Baillie

Foreign Secretary William Hague and Satanic Slut Georgina Baillie aka Voluptua do not seem like natural bedmates but on this blog they are. Because despite all the excellent deeply incisive blogging that I have done over the years, the only days on which I have exceeded 1500 hits have been when I blogged about Andrew Sachs' granddaughter being the subject of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross's "humour" back in 2008 and yesterday when I blogged about the peculiar willingness of the mainstream media to report claims about William Hague's sexuality, in stark contrast to their silencing of all rumours of the sexuality of leading Labour politicians in the recent past.

I find it interesting that just as in 2008 my piece from yesterday was for a time number two in the relevant Google search, although it has now dropped to position nine. The piece being returned at position two for the Google search 'is William Hague Gay' is rather odd as the page summary (as reported by Google) says:

'William Hague is the leader of the opposition parties in Britain, ... but a couple of years ago he announced that he was gay - or at least had 'had ...'

That's odd and not right I thought and indeed if you examine the page referred to, you will see that between the first and second part of that passage there is a fair amount of writing and that the politician who 'announced that he was gay - or at least had 'had...' was Michael Portillo not William Hague. Odd things search engines!

Is William Hague gay?

The Telegraph feel able to allude to this question and the BBC seem also willing to dip their toes in to the water.

Oddly I don't remember any of the mainstream media being at all willing to report the many and varied allegations about the sexuality of Gordon Brown. Indeed until Matthew Parris let the cat out of the bag about Peter Mandelson's sexuality this too was apparently a forbidden subject at the BBC, despite being well known in the real world.

I must be clear that I do not care one way or the other what William Hague's true sexuality is, I do care about the double standards that the BBC and other media apply in their reporting.

Explaining the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel feelings at the top of the Conservative party and in the Foreign Office

A small piece in The Sunday Telegraph had the headline 'Hague's new chief left job over love for PLO official' and revealed that:

'Having provoked anger with his description of Gaza as a "prison camp", David Cameron's latest appointment is likely to raise further suspicions among supporters of Israel about the direction of his policy in the Middle East.

Mandrake can disclose that the new head of the Foreign Office, Simon Fraser, left his post working for a minister in the last Conservative government after he became romantically involved with an official of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which was considered to be a terrorist organisation at the time.

...


"Simon established a cohabiting relationship with a Palestinian woman who was an official of the PLO," confirms his colleague. "Simon considered his position and decided that this relationship, which was a loving one, could cause problems among the government and in his professional life.'

And then just to show that the new bosses might very well be too similar to the old ones:

'Fraser had previously worked as the permanent secretary at the Department for Business to Lord Mandelson, for whom he was Chef du Cabinet at the European Commission for four years.'

Yes it seems as though its just the names that may have changed but the policies and officials stay the same.

'A Foreign Office spokesman says: "It is not our policy to comment on gossip."'

Gossip/facts, the Foreign Office don't care as their role involves keping Islamic countries talking to the UK and if that involves selling out Israel then no great problem.

PMQs 3 March 2010

With Gordon 'fearty' Brown occupied elsewhere it fell to Harriet Harman to answer at PMQs today and she was woeful, possibly the worst performance by a stand-in that I can remember - yes that does include John Prescott. She had some pre-prepared lines about Lord Ashcroft and she was just too eager to use them. Speaker Bercow told her off twice for raising matters that were not pertinent to PMQs and she called William Hague the Foreign Secretary and couldn't laugh off the error, and that's the trouble with Brown and Harman compared with Tony Blair, he had a sense of humour and could laugh at himself (in public anyway) whilst Brown and Harman are without humour or the skill of self-deprecation.

When William Hague asked about policy Harriet Harman floundered badly, it seems that she doesn't understand the difference between UK Government bonds and the exchange rate, doesn't realise that PMQs are about areas of Government responsibility and seems incapable of answering a straight question.

It was good to hear that William Hague followed, at least in part, my suggested line of questioning.


It strikes me that maybe Gordon Brown misses so many PMQs just so his party get to see how poor the best elected alternative to him is, so as to keep them sticking with the devil they know.

It also strikes me that the BBC must realise how bad Harriet Harman's performance at PMQs was as they have taken down any references to today's PMQs from the politics area of their news website.