Rifat Kassis, co-ordinator of Kairos Palestine, said he was “deeply troubled” by the Archbishop’s “inaccurate and erroneous remarks” about the situation of Christians in the Middle East. He called the Archbishop’s failure to mention the Israeli occupation and the regime’s oppressive policies “shocking”.

In a letter to the Archbishop he said:

We were deeply saddened by your declarations because we know that Your Grace is well informed… and you know very well that in the Bethlehem area alone there are 19 illegal Israeli settlements (such as nearby Har Homa built on Jabal Abu Ghneim) and the wall that have devoured Christian lands and put Bethlehem in a chokehold. You know well that only 13% of Bethlehem area is available for Palestinian use and the wall isolates 25% or the Bethlehem area’s agricultural land. Not to mention the situation of Christians in Jerusalem, which you know very well, since you should have received reports from the Anglican Bishop in the City whose residency permit was denied by the occupying power.

Mr Kassis ended by saying:

We would like to remind Your Grace that Christian Palestinians need advocates for the truth. It is the truth, and only the truth, that will lead to peace and justice in our home.

So what did Archbishop Rowan Williams say to the BBC that so infuriated his Palestinian brethren?

Apparently it was the way he talked about the ethnic cleansing of Christians referring to extreme pressure in Iraq while suggesting that the exodus of Christians from Palestine was due to “a much more un-dramatic but equally steady and strong pressure”.

Interviewer: But that’s a strong term to use isn’t it, ethnic cleansing?

Archbishop: It is a strong term but I think not disproportionate where Iraq is concerned. The level of violence has been extreme.

However, Williams seemed careful to avoid connecting the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ with Israel’s programme to dispossess and terrorise Palestinians.

The interviewer then asked: Do you think that the British government, other governments, should be more vocal in their support for Christians who you are seeing at the moment under great difficulty in a number of these countries?

Archbishop: “Well, to be honest I think at the moment there is quite a lot of support. And I can’t fault what’s been said by our government on this issue because I think the issue of religious freedom in general has very high priority in the Foreign Office at the moment. So I hope that continues.”

The truth is that the British Foreign Office is staffed with pro-Israel placemen and has not lifted a finger for religious or any other freedoms in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The Archbishop continued:

Also I think people in the West know perfectly well that if foreign powers take up the cause of a minority in another country, it can be utterly counterproductive.

Was he, by any chance, thinking about the foreign powers that implanted Jewish aliens in the Holy Land in 1947 and the running sore ever since?

He went on to  say:

I think there are still perhaps too few people in this country who are aware of the haemorrhaging of Christian populations from the Holy Land.   The fact that Bethlehem, a majority Christian city just a couple of decades ago, is now very definitely a place where Christians are a marginalised minority. We want that to be a little bit higher on people’s radar…

Interviewer: Would you see what’s happening in Bethlehem as another example of what you’ve described as ethnic cleansing?

Archbishop: It’s not ethnic cleansing exactly because it’s been far less deliberate than that I think. What we’ve seen though is a kind of Newtonian passing on of energy or force from one body to another so that some Muslim populations in the West Bank, under pressure, move away from certain areas like Hebron, move into other areas like Bethlehem. And there’s nowhere much else for Christian populations to go except away from Palestine.

I’m sure that trapped and imprisoned Palestinian Christians will be relieved to hear that their misery is all down to Newtonian energy effects.

Archbishop Williams’s comments about Bethlehem were “particularly faulty and offensive”, according to Rifat Kassis, especially his claim that Muslims coming into the Bethlehem area, where space is limited, was forcing Christians to leave.

Are the Archbishop and his Anglican Church the ‘advocates for the truth’ so desperately needed?

It is not the first time the Archbishop has upset Palestinian Christians. For decades the Israelis’ game has clearly been to obstruct and paralyse Christianity in the Holy Land. When Palestine was under British mandate, Christians accounted for 20 per cent of the population. Sixty-three years of hostilities, dispossession, interference and economic ruination have whittled their numbers down to less than 2 per cent. At this rate there will soon be no Christians left in the land where Christianity was born.

And in November 2008, while Israel was planning its murderous assault against Gaza’s civilians (including the Christian community), the Archbishop of Canterbury was gallivanting with the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, on a visit to the former Nazi camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland to demonstrate their joint solidarity against the extremes of hostility and genocide.

“This is a pilgrimage not to a holy place but to a place of utter profanity,” said the Archbishop, “a place where the name of God was profaned because the image of God in human beings was abused and disfigured. How shall we be able to read the signs of the times, the indications that evil is gathering force once again and societies are slipping towards the same collective corruption and moral sickness that made the Shoah possible?”

Evil was again gathering its forces and corruption and moral sickness were on the rampage even as he spoke. And did the Archbishop and the Chief Rabbi afterwards go to sniff the stench where the name of God had been profaned in the ruins of the Gaza Strip and utter the same brave words?

Did they hell!

When the Church of England’s head honcho finally visited Gaza, the Israelis refused him access to the Strip but at the last minute allowed him into the shattered enclave for just one-and-a-half hours, enough time to show his face at the hospital and no more. He said nothing about his experience to the House of Lords where he has a seat and the support of a large gaggle of bishops.

This despite his claim to be “in a unique position to bring the needs and voices of those fighting poverty, disease and the effects of conflict, to the attention of national and international policy makers”, despite his declaration that “Christians need to witness boldly and clearly”, and despite his urging greater awareness of the humanitarian crisis to ensure that the people of Gaza are not forgotten.

The Archbishop’s website, however, did report how he hobnobbed with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, paid his respects to Yad Vashem and the Holocaust, and talked with the President of Israel. There was no mention of any similar get-togethers with senior Islamic figures, leaving a question-mark over his real commitment to inter-faith engagement.

The Archbishop’s agreeing to accept the hospitality of Jewish political and religious dignitaries while they squished his wish to carry out his Christian duties in Gaza, tells us a great deal.

So is the guy a closet Zionist like so many other so-called Christians?

I’m reminded of the words of Desmond Tutu: “Where there is oppression, those who do nothing side with the oppressor.”

“Christianity destroyed not by Muslims but by Israel.”

The Archbishop has a chance to redeem himself with the international conference on Christians in the Holy Land he plans to hold next month. For two days I’ve been asking his press office for details of delegates, keynote speakers, etc. but have received nothing.  We are left to speculate.

It would be nice if the conference were addressed by that excellent trio from the Holy Land — Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church), Monsignor Manuel Musallam (Latin Catholic) and Mr Constantine Dabbagh (Executive Director of the Middle East Council of Churches)? These courageous spiritual leaders and human rights defenders toured Ireland last November to raise awareness of the situation in their homeland under Israeli military occupation and the plight of the dwindling Christian community. Their central message was simple: “We need only one thing, to be protected by the world against the crimes of Israel” (For details please see my article “No such thing as justice in the Holy Land”, 14 December 2010.)

Fr Manuel told members of the Irish Government:

Christianity in the region has been destroyed not by Muslims but by Israel. Israel destroyed the church of Palestine and the church of Jerusalem beginning in 1948. It, not Muslims, has sent Christians in the region into a diaspora… Christians in Palestine are not suffering persecution, because we are not considered to be a religious community, but rather the people of Palestine. We have the same rights and the same obligations.

We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the Government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink…  I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990.

However, given the Anglican Church’s recent form, it wouldn’t surprise me if the conference is hosted by the CMJ (the Church’s Ministry among Jewish People). The CMJ is “propelled by devotion to God and the fulfillment of His promises to His people Israel”. In its statement of faith the CMJ says Christians have “a special responsibility to love, defend and share the Gospel with God’s historic, chosen People, the Jews”.

The CMJ’s attitude to the Israel-Palestine struggle is unhelpful to the Palestinians. For example…

• Gentiles are “fellow-citizens with God’s people”…
• CMJ rejoices that, after 2000 years… the Jewish people now, at last, have returned to the land from which the majority were dispersed in AD70…
• CMJ recognizes that the State of Israel was set up as a result of a majority vote of the United Nations in 1947… However the Ministry does not hold any official position as to the appropriate location of the borders of the state.

That signifies approval for Israel’s continuing land-grab and lawlessness.  If CMJ recognizes the UN’s partition, it should also accept the borders on which it was based.

According to Wikipedia, “CMJ has always adopted a Zionist position, and expressed the view that the Jewish people deserved a state in the Holy Land decades before Zionism began as a movement.”

The CMJ was adopted as an official ministry of the Church of England in 1995 and has been operating in the shadows ever since. It is, if you like, the Church of England’s Zionist wing.

It’s in the report of the fact-finding mission set up by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks a year ago on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance to Gaza, during which nine people were killed and many others injured.

Contrary to international law

Reporting in September 2010, the mission was:

satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal…

The mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law… No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.

And that wasn’t all. the mission considered that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime.

As such, it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The action of the Israel Defence Force in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and could not be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (the right of self-defence).

Pack your bags, Mr Ban

“What has been unhelpful in resolving the basic economic problems in Gaza is the yellow-bellied failure of the UN to discharge its duty to implement its own resolutions and enforce humanitarian law.”

So just what did the secretary-general of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, think he was doing last week when he attempted to scupper the latest humanitarian effort by sending a letter to governments around the Mediterranean calling on them to use their influence to discourage any more flotillas such as the one due to sail towards the end of June, which he says “carry the potential to escalate into violent conflict”?

There is, of course, nothing potentially violent about an unarmed mercy ship. There is everything potentially violent about an illegal naval blockade that the United Nations should have squelched long ago.

A press release from Mr Ban’s office said that flotillas were not helpful in resolving the basic economic problems in Gaza, though the situation there remains unsustainable, and that assistance and goods destined to Gaza should be channelled through legitimate crossings and established channels.

No, Mr Ban. What has been unhelpful in resolving the basic economic problems in Gaza is the yellow-bellied failure of the UN to discharge its duty to implement its own resolutions and enforce humanitarian law.

The secretary-general ought to remind himself of Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009), which emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and calls for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”.

“Unimpeded”, Mr Ban, as in unimpeded. Do we need to buy a megaphone?

So what is this talk about using “legitimate crossings and established channels”? Everyone knows that those channels, operated by the criminal blockader itself, are designed to impede the flow of everything and everyone to and from Gaza.

It’s bad enough that the wimp Obama is busy rewriting international law, circumventing inconvenient UN resolutions and trying to give his Zionist friends the green light to keep the Palestinian lands and resources they have already stolen and create opportunities for them to grab more.

“… who are you working for, Mr Ban Ki-Moon? Why aren’t you, as secretary-general, exhorting member states around the Mediterranean to do their duty under the UN Charter and ensure that the aid gets through to Gaza direct?”

But who are you working for, Mr Ban Ki-Moon? Why aren’t you, as secretary-general, exhorting member states around the Mediterranean to do their duty under the UN Charter and ensure that the aid gets through to Gaza direct?

“Ban-chusa” the yes-man

I hear that back home in Korea Ban’s nickname is “Ban-chusa”, tagging him as a blasted pen-pusher. Some say he’s noted for his subservience. In other words, he’s a yes-man.

As if we hadn’t enough of them already.

If you cannot uphold international law or insist on compliance with the raft of UN resolutions requiring an end to Israeli occupation and a permanent halt to interference with the Palestinian territories, Mr Ban, you bring the UN into disrepute. You should pack your bags and clear off back to Korea.

The secretary-general’s spokesman, Martin Nesirky, sings the same tune and says that Freedom Flotillas are useless. He urges the government of Israel to take further meaningful and far-reaching steps to end the closure of Gaza, within the framework of Security Council Resolution 1860, and emphasizes that the operation of legitimate crossings must be adequate to meet the needs of Gaza’s civilian population. That’s real bright when everyone and his dog knows you can “urge” Israel all you like but the regime will take no notice until it is forced to.

Israel is a member of the United Nations and a signatory to the UN’s Charter, whose principles it happily violates repeatedly. It now plans to continue its crazed defiance of the law, the UN and international opinion by committing the same crime again and blocking the next flotilla. A 31 May report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz shows how futile the words of Ban and Nesirky are. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu warns that his military will if necessary use force against anyone who tries to disobey his navy’s orders and head to Gaza’s shore. There is also talk of deploying snipers.

It’s clear that peace-workers and the decent folk of the world cannot look to the UN for action under present management. For all its poncing around, it has done nothing effective. So while we wait for Mr Ban to be replaced by someone with guts and gumption, perhaps Mr Nesirky would kindly explain what is so “useless” about a humanitarian flotilla trying to burst through a cruel and illegal blockade that’s operated by a bunch of delinquents who may soon have to answer to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Especially when his employers just sit there scratching their ass.

A letter two months ago to my Member of Parliament about the need to protect the next Gaza flotilla from unlawful interference has gone unanswered. What arrangements were being made, I wanted to know, to defend these civilians from the sort of murderous harassment on the high seas that caused worldwide uproar last year?

The Mediterranean is full of NATO ships at the moment in the service of freedom and democracy, or so we’re told. It would not surprise me if the brass hats have agreed to steer well clear of the area where Israel does its marauding and leave the Zionist extremists free to terrorize and assault the unarmed crews and passengers of a brave little fleet of mercy ships.

There should be no hiding place. But international law never reaches into some corners because the levers that control the wheels of justice, we discover, are sometimes leaned on by the criminals themselves.

The International Criminal Court was supposed to change all that. It is governed by the Rome Statute and is the first permanent, treaty-based, international criminal court established “to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”.

The ICC says it is independent and not part of the United Nations system… but that is not strictly true, as we’ll see.

115 states have signed up to the Rome Statute. The UK is one of them, I’m pleased to say. And so too is Afghanistan. But states like the US and Israel rank alongside Saudi and Libya beyond the perimeter.

A further 34 countries, including Russia, have signed but not ratified the statute. These states are obliged, under the law of treaties, to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the Rome Statute. Three of these states—Israel, Sudan, and the United States—signed and then, presumably realising their conduct was not up to the standards expected and wishing to undermine the Statute whenever it suited them, “unsigned”.

The Court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed by nationals of a State Party or on the territory of a State Party since 1 July 2002, the date the Rome Statute came into effect.

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) lists some pretty woolly objectives including:

• To maximize the Office of the Prosecutor’s contribution to the fight against impunity and the prevention of crimes.
• To enhance cooperation with States and relevant actors, in particular for the execution of arrest warrants issued by the Court.

Does any of this help Palestine? The ICC’s website reports that on 22 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority lodged a declaration with the Registrar under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute which allows States not party to the Statute to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. “The OTP will examine issues related to its jurisdiction: first whether the declaration accepting the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court meets statutory requirements; and second whether crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction have been committed. The Office will also consider whether there are national proceedings in relation to alleged crimes.”

In October 2009 a delegation from the PNA and the Arab League presented the Court with a report in support of the PNA’s ability to delegate its jurisdiction to the ICC. In January 2010, the OTP sent a letter summarizing its activities to the United Nations then, in May, published a “Summary of submissions on whether the declaration lodged by the Palestinian National Authority meets statutory requirements.”

After 28 months the Prosecutor has still made no determination on the issue.

After wading through Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute describing the numerous crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocides the ICC is supposed to deal with — the sort of horrors Palestinians have to face every day — I found that Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute refers to Article 12(2) which refers to Article 13 (a) and (c)… which is enough to make one want to lie down in a darkened room and lose the will to live.

So I was very pleased to hear from Dr David Morrison in Dublin who periodically sends me excellent briefings and carefully researched articles from his organization, Sadaka – the Ireland Palestine Alliance. One of his latest pieces looked at the hypocrisy of referring Libya to the ICC.

The US wants impunity for itself (and Israel) while prosecuting others

Libya is not a party to the International Criminal Court and is among many states that do not accept its jurisdiction. Yet three months ago the UN Security Council voted unanimously, in Resolution 1970, to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Five of the states that voted for this referral – China, India, Lebanon, Russia, and the US – are not parties to the ICC and don’t accept its jurisdiction. So here we see the US among those forcing Libya to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, when it refuses to do so itself.

Dr Morrison points also to the case of Sudan in 2005 when the Security Council decided to refer the situation in Darfur to the ICC Prosecutor. Sudan isn’t a party to the ICC either. On that occasion the US and China abstained, but 3 states — Philippines, Russia, and Tanzania — which don’t accept the jurisdiction of the ICC voted for Sudan to be subjected to it.

The ICC charged the President of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, with genocide and two other Sudanese nationals with lesser charges.

How were these referrals possible, asks Morrison? The answer lies in Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute, under which the ICC may exercise jurisdiction if “a situation in which one or more crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations [action to maintain peace]”.

So the ICC is not the independent judicial body it pretends to be. Its jurisdiction can be extended or re-directed on the say-so of the Security Council to apply to states that have refused its jurisdiction.

Of course, says Dr Morrison, that can’t happen to non-Statute members of the Security Council who only have to wield their veto to block any attempt by UN colleagues to extend the ICC’s jurisdiction to their territory.

In his view a Court with universal jurisdiction is fair. A Court whose jurisdiction you, as a state, can choose to accept or reject has some semblance of fairness. But a Court like the ICC, whose jurisdiction can be targeted, at the whim of the Security Council, on certain states that have chosen not to accept it, but not on others, is grossly unfair.

Dr Morrison’s analysis reveals how evil this manipulation can be. The primary duty for prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity lies with the state in which they were committed, and the ICC only acquires jurisdiction to prosecute if the state fails to do so. The Court can prosecute any individual responsible for these crimes regardless of civilian or military status or official position.

This means that, in theory, a national of a state that is not party to the Statute, for example a US national, may be tried by the ICC for crimes committed in a state that is a party to the Statute. The US is particularly opposed to this, since it has civilian and military personnel in lots of states around the world, many of which are party to the Statute. It is US policy to prevent the ICC trying any US nationals.

Because of this, Resolution 1970 [the Libya referral] includes a paragraph exempting nationals from states not party to the ICC, including US nationals, from the jurisdiction of the ICC for acts committed in Libya… The hypocrisy surrounding this is staggering…

Indeed.

Dr Morrison also homes in on what are termed ‘Article 89 Agreements’. Under 89(1) of the Rome Statute, states that are party to the ICC are required to “comply with requests for arrest and surrender” by the Court. These could be for the arrest and surrender of US nationals. To prevent this, the US has taken advantage of Article 98(2), which says: “The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.” The US has negotiated agreements with more than a hundred states to block surrender of US nationals to the Court.

To ensure obedience, if states are party to the ICC they cannot receive military aid from the US without signing such an agreement. The American Service-Members’ Protection Act stipulates that “no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court”, although NATO members and certain non-NATO allies (including Israel of course) are exempted, as are those who signed an Article 89 agreement.

“Such are the lengths that the US is prepared to go,” says Morrison, “in order to exclude its own nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC, while voting in the Security Council to extend the jurisdiction of the ICC for others.”

Will the Court ‘bottle out’ over Goldstone?

In another article, ‘The Goldstone Report does not need correction’, Dr Morrison wonders if the ICC will be allowed to do its job as recommended by Goldstone.

The Israeli Government and others claim that Goldstone, in his recent Washington Post article, retracted completely all the Mission’s findings that Israeli forces had deliberately targeted civilians.

But he did no such thing, says Morrison. “The Mission came to the conclusion that in 11 incidents Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians. He made a case, based on information of uncertain reliability, that this number should be reduced to 10. The Mission recommended that these matters end up at the International Criminal Court, with individuals being indicted for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, if the evidence warrants…

“The ICC hasn’t got jurisdiction over these matters at the moment, since neither Israel nor Palestine are parties to the ICC. How can it acquire jurisdiction?”

In theory, he says, there are two ways. First, as mentioned, the Palestinian National Authority has made its submissions and informed the ICC that “the Government of Palestine hereby recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed in the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002”.

But it all depends on whether Palestine is a state within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. If the ICC were to accept jurisdiction, it would not only allow for the indictment of Israelis for offences committed during Operation Cast Lead, but also for other crimes such as settlement building.

Article 8.2(b)(viii) makes it clear that “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.

The second possibility is for the Security Council to refer Operation Cast Lead to the ICC, just as it did the Libyan unpleasantness and Darfur, neither of those countries involved being party to the ICC.

If, as Dr Morrison points out, the ICC did acquire jurisdiction, its investigations would encompass not only the damning material gathered by Goldstone but a whole host of evidence from other organisations such as Human Rights Watch (Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza; Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles; White Flag Deaths: Killings of Palestinian Civilians during Operation Cast Lead; Turning a Blind Eye: Impunity for Laws-of-War Violations during the Gaza War; “I Lost Everything”: Israel’s Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead), Amnesty International (Israel/Gaza: Operation “Cast Lead”: 22 days of death and destruction) and the Arab League Fact Finding Committee (No Safe Place).

It is nearly two-and-a-half years since the Palestinians’ declaration and the Prosecutor, despite having access to the best legal brains, still hasn’t made a decision to proceed. Why the delay? Goldstone’s Fact-Finding Mission recommended a decision “should be made by the Prosecutor as expeditiously as possible”, another reason perhaps why the poor judge incurred such displeasure in certain quarters.

So is the ICC ‘bottling out’?

In Dr Morrison’s view it is unlikely to accept jurisdiction because of the enormous political implications. “However, one cannot but hope that the matter will be pressed in the Security Council to the point where the US is forced to wield its veto to protect Israel.”

Presumably, the matter would then find its way to the General Assembly, which could urge the Security Council to take proper steps and refer the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the ICC, in accordance with article 13(b) of the Rome Statute.

And what of America’s chicanery? This week in London we’ve had to endure President Obama on a state visit lecturing us with words like: “We fight an enemy that respects no law of war, we will continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard — by living up to the values and the rule of law that we so ardently defend… We will proceed with humility… Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves… But we can and must stand with those who so struggle.”

Only a few days earlier he’d said: “No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state,” and he made the outrageous stipulation that if it did come into being it should be de-militarised – i.e., the Palestinians must be deprived of a basic universal right and rendered incapable of defending themselves. Not only that, they should “negotiate” with their tormentor — the brutal occupying power — and bargain for their freedom like merchants in a bazaar and be prepared to see even more of their trashed and fragmented country lost to Zionist greed.

After Obama’s address to both Houses of Parliament, which was received with rapturous applause, throngs of smitten MPs jockeyed for position to shake the fraud’s hand, a spectacle that must have turned the stomach of those with any inkling of what is actually happening.

But what exactly is it Goldstone now knows that suddenly weakens his devastating findings and recommendations?

Not that his report tells us more than we already knew from the multitude of accounts by eye-witnesses and other reliable sources. It’s devastating because the evidence is so damning. Its real value, though, is in the legalistic tone and immaculate packaging, which impressed the United Nations and prodded follow-up action.

The Mission’s mandate from the United Nations was:

to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.

The chief violator was, and still is, the lawless Israeli regime. Goldstone, a Jew and described as an ardent Zionist, was hardly the man to head the inquiry team. You ignore at your peril the First Law of tribal membership: don’t crap on your tribe’s doorstep. There are bound to be unpleasant consequences.

Goldstone blotted his copybook before he even got started. The Mission convened for the first time on 4 May 2009, but weeks beforehand three of the inquiry team – Goldstone himself, Col. Desmond Travers and Hina Jilani – signed an open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Security Council, calling for those who perpetrated “gross violations of the laws of war,” “gross violations of international humanitarian law” and “targeting of civilians” to be brought to account. The letter said: “The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core.”

South Africa’s chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, and UK columnist, Melanie Phillips, immediately pounced, claiming that such a statement, made before the Mission had begun its work, undermined the supposed impartiality of the inquiry.

It pains me to agree with anything Melanie Phillips says, but on this occasion I have to.

Goldstein complained that Professor Christine Chinkin, the fourth member of the inquiry team, signed a letter in the Sunday Times on 11 January 2009 – at the height of Israel’s blitzkrieg on Gaza and before the inquiry team was appointed – which stated that “Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defense, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary… the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.” The letter appeared under the heading “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defense – it’s a war crime.”

What she put her name to was undoubtedly true, but it should have disqualified her from membership of the Mission.

It’s almost as if the team was deliberately picked so that their indiscretions and prejudices could be shot down in flames later, at Netanyahu’s convenience.

When he introduced the results of his fact-finding Mission to the UN Human Rights Council in September 2009, Goldstone spoke of a barrage of criticism as well as public attacks against members of the team. He rejected the accusation that they were politically motivated. After the report was released they received a number of comments and, where relevant, inaccuracies in the final version were corrected. “We regret that the response to date of the Government of Israel avoids dealing with the substance of the report,” he said.

So Israel had its chance to participate and put the record straight. It cannot now snipe from the sidelines and expect to be taken seriously.

Undue Emphasis on Shalit Showed Goldstone’s True Colours

It seemed to me that Goldstone’s impartiality crumbled as soon as he accused Hamas of war crimes in the same tone as Israel. For Hamas the context is totally different. At the time of Israel’s onslaught they and their 1.5 million Gazans had been in the vice-like grip of an illegal blockade by land, sea and air for 18 months. The Zionists’ military occupied their airspace, territorial waters and airwaves and controlled their land crossings. They were bottled up in their tiny enclave with no room for manoeuvre and nowhere to hide. Hamas were entitled to resist with whatever limited weapons were to hand. It’s called the right of self-defence. But all they had were AK47s, RPGs and rockets made in the garden shed, and they rode into battle on pick-up trucks, not battle tanks.

The report finds that the Palestinian armed groups:

fail to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population and civilian objects in southern Israel. The launching of rockets and mortars which cannot be aimed with sufficient precisions at military targets breaches the fundamental principle of distinction. Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population. These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.

Funny how the report is so very precise about the number of projectiles fired into Israel from Gaza… 3,455 rockets and 3,742 mortar shells in the period16 April 2001 to 18 June 2008. Yet I don’t recall seeing any mention in its 452 pages of the number of Israeli shells, bombs, rockets, etc fired into the packed Gaza Strip over the same period, and how many Palestinian civilians they killed and maimed.

Hamas’s crude rockets, alas, have no guidance system so are erratic, some being lucky to clear the border fence. Perhaps if Israel and the Western powers were to lift the blockade, Gazans could import – or maybe the US would like to supply (in the interests of precision targeting) – state of the art rocketry with sufficient range and some hope of hitting only the Israeli military, so that Goldstone wouldn’t complain so much.

His whinge about one Israeli prisoner, Shalit, when Israel holds 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, shows the man’s true colours. Shalit’s father was allowed to appear before the Mission. Did Goldstone invite any family members of the Palestinian prisoners?

However, the report does say this:

The Mission analysed information it received on the detention of Palestinians in Israeli prisons during or in the context of the military operations of December 2008–January 2009 and found those practices generally inconsistent with human rights and international humanitarian law. The military court system to which Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subjected deprives them of due process guarantees in keeping with international law… The detention of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council by Israel violates the right not to be arbitrarily detained, as protected by article 9 of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Insofar as it is based on political affiliation and prevents those members from participating in the conduct of public affairs, it is also in violation of its articles 25 recognizing the right to take part in public affairs and 26, which provides for the right to equal protection under the law. Insofar as their detention is unrelated to their individual behaviour, it constitutes collective punishment, prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Also the detention of large numbers of children and their treatment by Israel points to violations of their rights under ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“Backtracking” a PR Prelude to Cast Lead Re-Play?

A central finding of the Goldstone Report is that Israel’s military directly targeted Gazan civilians. Now, it seems, the Israeli regime’s own belated internal inquiries find that Gaza’s civilians and infrastructure were not targeted as a matter of Israel policy after all.

In their long history of crimes against Palestinians (and even against foreign nationals like Rachel Corrie) Israelis have never carried out a credible investigation into their own conduct. Are we to believe that their self-investigation this time meets proper objective standards?

Besides, the UN Committee of Independent Experts following up on Goldstone’s work says:

There is no indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead.

The word is that Goldstone’s in deep trouble with his tribal leaders who demand loyalty to them rather than to justice and principle. They have been able to put him under intense pressure. That’s why he was the wrong man for the job. But having taken it and been “shocked to the core”, as he put it, by what Israel did to Gaza, why hasn’t he renounced the Zionist cause as any decent man would, and put himself beyond its influence? He must by now have the measure of its evil.

Meanwhile his Washington Post remarks are hailed as a “retraction” by the joyful pro-Israel lobby. At the time of making his report Goldstone said it reflected the unanimous views of all four members of the team. Is his so-called retraction also the view of them all? In any event it is a wonderful gift to the Zionist warmongers and especially Israel’s prime minister Netanyahu, who last year was moaning:

We face three major strategic challenges – the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.

N ow he’s crowing with delight.

Everything we said has proven to be true: Israel did not intentionally harm civilians, its institutions and investigative bodies are worthy, while Hamas intentionally fired upon innocent civilians and did not examine anything. The fact that Goldstone backtracked must lead to the shelving of this report once and for all.

Netanyahu has called on the UN to immediately revoke the report, giving new impetus to Tel Aviv’s old propaganda game.

The fix Goldstone has got himself into and the dangerous signal this sends to the world’s delinquents, illustrate perfectly why no Zionist, however upstanding, should be allowed a key post in government or international affairs.

A friend of mine is sure the Goldstone wobble is an orchestrated prelude, a public relations warm-up, to something big and nasty. “There will be another assault on Gaza,” she tells me, “this one more deadly than the last; and the people of Gaza will be blamed for it once again.  The inept UN will call for ‘restraint’, the US will provide the weaponry, and this will go on until there is no Gaza left.  It is the plan, has been the plan, and will continue until the objective is met… because no one cares, no one has the courage to stand up and say, stop or else.”

The wobble certainly coincides with several Israeli ministers beating the war drums and threatening to do it all over again – launch a Cast Lead Mk 2 against the still-dazed and half-starved Gazans.

I called the Foreign Office in London to ask if the British Government supports Netanyahu’s call for the Goldstone Report to be retracted. A spokesperson said:

No.  Justice Goldstone makes clear in his recent comments that the Goldstone report would have looked differently if it had been produced now, on the basis of fresh evidence released by a committee of independent experts, tasked to follow-up on the Goldstone report.  This latest insight into the events surrounding the Gaza conflict have come about because of the rocess that was set in train by his Fact Finding Mission.

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 organizations…

One reason being that church leaders, by and large, ignore the fate of the Holy Land, which, of course, underpins the whole structure of their faith.  The performance of our bishops, who have a voice in the House of Lords but never use it, is beyond pathetic.

However, every year at this time I make a point of visiting the parish church in the small market town of Fakenham, in Norfolk, to enjoy their dazzling Christmas Tree Festival. The event has been going for 10 years and this year raised money for 78 local and national charities.

Each charity decorates a tree supplied by one of the festival’s sponsors, a local garden centre, and under each tree is a collection box. The trees are displayed in the church for a week, then taken down in time to be used to good effect somewhere else in the run-up to Christmas. Last year 25,000 people visited the magical festival. This year the church was crowded and the admiring chatter was accompanied by a continual chink-chink of money falling into the boxes.

The charities taking part ranged from the Gurkha Welfare Trust and the East Anglian Air Ambulance to Chernobyl Children and numerous local nursery schools. Prayers are said every hour for the charities in turn. As usual I looked around hopefully for an appeal on behalf of the children of the brutally occupied Holy Land – and especially Gaza – who are always on my mind as Christmas approaches.

But no luck.

People are at their most generous about now, and there’s perhaps an opening here for those who work to alleviate the awful suffering of young and old living amid the wreckage of homes and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. The rector at Fakenham believes his church more or less pioneered the tree festival but he’s aware that other churches are taking up the idea. Are any of the UK’s 1500 mosques doing it? Is there an opportunity for inter-faith joint working?

I phoned the Islamic centre in the two nearest cities several times but they don’t answer. I left voice and email messages but no-one got back to me. So much for their front-line communication…

Last Christmas I wrote that our then prime minister, Gordon Brown, wished the Jewish community a happy Chanuka from Number10.gov.uk and recalled how he celebrated Israel’s 60th birthday with them.

But he had no festive greeting for the shivering and shattered Gazans who had been bombed and blasted by his ‘friends’ during their Christmas festival. And no word of cheer, either, for the Christian communities in Gaza and the West Bank endlessly persecuted by the Israelis.

One presumes that Brown, a staunch ally of Israel, knew about the hell that his friends were about to inflict on Gaza during the Christmas celebrations of 2008/9, just as Mr Abbas did according to leaked US cables. Christians living in the Strip were certainly aware of the invasion threat and abandoned plans to celebrate the midnight Christmas mass in protest. But they couldn’t have imagined the enormity of the devastation and slaughter that was about to be unleashed on them and their children while Western leaders stayed shtum.

And Brown is the son of a Church of Scotland minister.

Many of the 1.5 million people packed into the ravaged Strip, I hear, have had to scavenge through rubbish tips for food to survive.

So what sort of Christmas is in store for their little ones this year while the criminals who inflicted such savagery and torment, and continue to deny them their human rights, have their snouts in the Yuletide trough and enjoy a warm bed?

This year The Jewish Chronicle reports that David Cameron, our new prime minister, has wished the Jewish community around the world “a happy and peaceful Chanucah”.

He called the story of Chanucah “an inspiring message of the power of hope to sustain people through the toughest of times”.

From his echo-chamber Foreign Secretary William Hague, in a Chanucah video message, added: “It’s a great pleasure to send warm good wishes to the Jewish community in Britain and all over the world.”

I wonder if either of them will have the good grace to send similar messages of hope to sustain the good people of Gaza “through the toughest of times”.

The UN says that imports are only at 36 per cent of pre-siege levels, thanks to Cameron’s friends, and exports are still not allowed (except a few strawberries), so the hardship must still be unimaginable.

Last week, here in England, we were treated to the spectacle of the Royal Navy’s flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, returning to her home port for the last time, to be de-commissioned and turned into a museum or tourist attraction – or sold for scrap – after only 25 years’ service. The original Ark Royal was Lord Howard’s flagship in the naval actions to beat off the Spanish Armada’s invasion force in those swashbuckling days of 1588.

Fighting for freedom, you see.

A pity the present Ark Royal couldn’t have gone to her grave with a bang rather than a whimper… for example, by making a last voyage to the Eastern Med, perhaps with a multi-national crew, to bust the evil blockade and land supplies on Gaza’s beach… a long-overdue Christmas present for the imprisoned Christians and Muslims alike from a heroic Santa.

Fanciful thinking? Of course, given the international community’s spineless leaders.

The UN Special Rapporteur was speaking in London at a parliamentary briefing on Universal Jurisdiction, the principles of which the British government intends to undermine for the benefit of its Israeli friends.

“Universal jurisdiction is part of the struggle against impunity for the Israeli military and the country’s political leaders,” said Falk. “That impunity has been possible both because Israel itself doesn’t impose accountability on those who perpetrate violations of international criminal law and because the US, and to some extent European countries, have given a geopolitical insulation to Israel in relation to its responsibilities as a sovereign state.”

The UN’s Goldstone report and the international law panel appointed after the Gaza flotilla incident also raised the issue of impunity and accountability. Falk feels that the most effective way of implementing international law is now through the activism of civil society and through national legal institutions.

Universal Jurisdiction is a good tool for the job. A private individual may apply to a magistrate for an arrest warrant if he has serious evidence. The Attorney General’s consent is needed for the prosecution to go ahead, but even if that consent is withheld the magistrate may still issue a warrant if he considers there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the war crime was committed and admissible evidence is presented which establishes this.

The beauty of the private warrant is that it can be issued speedily.

The bringing of a private prosecution for a criminal offence is an ancient right in common law and, in the words of Lord Wilberforce, “a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of the authority.”

Lord Diplock, another respected Lord of Appeal, called it “a useful safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law”.

And that’s precisely what we’re up against – a capricious, corrupt and biased administration that wants to let ‘friendly’ war criminals off and protect them from arrest while they visit Britain. The government argues that foreign politicians, no matter how blood-soaked, should never be made to feel unwelcome and that the current law impedes Britain’s ability to use its diplomatic powers. In future the Director of Public Prosecutions will consider each application at the arrest warrant stage.

As protestors point out, this is a recipe for political interference and delay, which will enable suspects to slip away – the “inertia and partiality” Wilberforce warned about.

In short, the overriding principle that no-one, regardless of nationality, should feel able to commit war crimes with impunity, is being sacrificed so that the likes of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister who was responsible for launching the murderous assault on Gaza’s civilians nearly two years ago (an atrocity she was later reported to be proud of and happy to repeat), and other Israeli psychopaths need not fear arrest if they come here.

Meanwhile mountains of evidence of Israel’s war crimes are just waiting to be tested in court.

The UK, like all other countries that think themselves civilised, is under an obligation to enact legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. In other words, there should be no hiding place for the world’s vilest criminals.

But Britain’s heart isn’t in it. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the Foreign Office colluded with America to circumvent our obligation under the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which Britain signed along with 107 other countries. Leaked US embassy papers show that David Miliband, our previous foreign secretary, approved a ‘temporary exemption’ allowing the US to carry on storing cluster bombs offshore at Diego Garcia (a British territory) and transfer them onto US aircraft stationed on the island, hiding the arrangement from parliamentary scrutiny.

Wikileaks also revealed that Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise they would run a “pro-American regime”.

Britain’s barmy army of ‘Israel-firsters’

Running a pro-American regime means running a pro-Israel regime, since American policy is dictated by the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby. Stephen Walt, whose book exposed it, told Al Jazeera in the run-up to the US elections: “Almost all of the major candidates are falling over themselves to demonstrate how deeply committed they are to America’s special relationship with Israel. Hardly a word of criticism is directed at anything Israel does and that is due to the activities of the lobby.”

John Mearsheimer, co-author of the book, said: “If you look at who is pushing the US to use military force against Iran, the two driving forces are Israel and the Israel lobby.”

In a series of private meetings with British Conservatives, leaked US cables tell how foreign secretary-in-waiting, William Hagueo, offered a “pro-American” government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, “staunchly Atlanticist” and “children of Thatcher”. He said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. “We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.”

The US diplomat Richard LeBaron commented: “The UK’s commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled.”

Hague is, in his own words, “a longstanding friend of Israel and someone who joined Conservative Friends of Israel at the age of 15″. He once said: “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue.”

Liam Fox, now defence minister, was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”

Fox, Hague and David Cameron were known for their subservience to Israel long before they took power. In 2006 The Jewish Chronicle reported on the backers bankrolling David Cameron’s bid for power, providing a fascinating insight into how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and destroys the principles of integrity and accountability so necessary in public life. When Cameron became Conservative leader he proclaimed: “The belief I have in Israel is indestructible – and you need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel.”

CFI’s Parliamentary Chairman and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, James Arbuthnot, addressed the following remarks to Parliament praising Israel: “Everyone in this House should have an interest in Israel, because it is a country that embodies the values that we should stand for. Israel [has] become a bastion of the rule of law, democracy, free speech, business enterprise and family values. If that is not what this country also stands for, I am disappointed.”

Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel brazenly state that their first aim is “to maximise support for the State of Israel within the Liberal Democrats and Parliament”.

“You discredit the rule of law”

Our last foreign secretary, David Miliband, actually apologised to Tzipi Livni and Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman for the arrest warrant issued against Livni in London a year ago. He promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws.

But the general election overtook him. Miliband’s grovelling promise was echoed by his replacement, Hague, who announced: “We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on Universal Jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK…” He said it was “completely unacceptable… We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced… The Justice Secretary will bring into the House of Commons adding to legislation going through the House of Commons later this year and I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals”.

At the same time he insulted the public’s intelligence by saying: “The UK is committed to upholding international justice and all of our international obligations. Our core principle remains that those guilty of war crimes must be brought to justice.”

During a recent trip to Israel Hague had the door slammed in his face by the petulant racist regime, cancelling strategic talks in order to ratchet up the pressure.

Even the Zionists’ 63-year record of land thieving, piracy, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate slaughter, mass abductions and imprisonment, torture, everyday terror and wholesale contempt for international law and human rights, isn’t enough to diminish the blind loyalty of our high-placed elected servants to the thugs of Tel Aviv.

In the fight to preserve Universal Jurisdiction and some semblance of honour, we can see how the odds are stacked. The corruption, bias and inertia the law lords warned of run deep. I leave the last word to Richard Falk, who makes the point that if a country like Britain, with its proud constitutional tradition, applies international criminal law only to those its leaders don’t like at the time – for example, Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic – “you discredit, in a fundamental way, the rule of law which really does depend on equals being treated equally.

“If that is not done, then double standards become very manifest; it also has the effect of saying that geopolitics and foreign policy always trump the law.”

Some claim that the Wikileaks reye-openers are a ‘dirty tricks’ operation by people with a large axe to grind. It is certainly odd that ‘evidence’ is selected to portray Arab states as eager to see Iran zapped for an unproven nuclear threat when, actually, the Middle East is far more anxious about the very real and present nuclear threat from Israel.

That same mentality would no doubt wish to drive an ever bigger wedge between Fatah and political rival Hamas

So what are we to make of the documents claiming that in a June 2009 meeting between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and a U.S. congressional delegation, Barak said that the Israeli government “had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas”?

Fatah deny that it happened. Top aid to Palestinian president Abbas, Saeb Erekat, said: “We knew about the war because the Israelis were saying there was going to be a war.”

Several months before it started, at a meeting that he, Erekat, attended, Abbas asked Israel’s then-prime minister, Ehud Olmert, not to go to war, saying “he would not go to Gaza on an Israeli tank.”

So they admit they were talking about it…

I put the question to the Palestinian ambassador in London, Professor Manual Hassassian. “I am surprised to read the Wikileaks revelation that Mr Abbas, along with Mr Mubarak, was informed of Operation Cast lead in advance. I don’t recall his issuing a public warning to the unfortunate people of Gaza or appealing to the UN and western powers to intervene. Why would a Palestinian president keep quiet about an evil and horrendous war-crime he knew was about to be committed against his own people? Can you please throw any light on the matter?”

The ambassador replied: “I am surprised as you are, and cannot confirm the Wikileaks revelation whether they are authentic or not.”

No flat-out denial then, nor did he say he would refer the question upwards for clarification. You’d think the embassy would wish to show a clean pair of hands.

Abbas, as we all know, is living his elevated lifestyle on borrowed time. Since January 2009, when his term as president officially expired, western-backed Abbas has clung like superglue to power and overstayed his welcome. A year ago, having already taken a one-year extension regarded by many, including Hamas, as unlawful, he announced he had no wish to seek re-election at a presidential poll he promised for last January. But January came and went, and there was still no presidential election. Abbas is now nearing the end of his second year of illegitimate tenure.

I have two vivid images of Palestinians. The first, in Gaza, was the sight of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and the crusty old Catholic priest, Fr Manuel Mussallam, who had guarded his flock through utmost deprivation and the darkest of days (with many more to come), standing shoulder to shoulder in front of the microphones and cameras, both proclaiming that they were Palestinians first and Muslim/Christian second.

That’s unity of a welcome sort.

The other is of Fatah playing Israel’s armed poodle, reminiscent of the Vichy French government’s militia set up to fight the French Resistance and do much of the Nazis’ dirty work. Is Fatah prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Gaza Palestinians against the common enemy – the occupier – and proclaim themselves “Palestinians first” and Fatah/Hamas second?

Judging by their track record, no. Arrest and torture of their own people is more their game, we hear.

That’s disunity of the worst kind.

And you have to wonder why, if the story’s true, the Israelis felt comfortable discussing with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority what would happen after their tanks and aircraft had pulverized the Gaza part of Palestine and shredded and vaporized its women and children.

A genuine leader knowing about plans for such a mega-crime would surely have sounded the alert and raised merry hell at the UN for preventive action.

“Grave breaches” means willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war… the sort of atrocities that have been (and still are) committed wholesale by Israelis against civilians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and on the high seas.

In other words, for these vilest of criminals there should be no hiding place.

The British Government shirks its solemn duty. Fortunately the law at present allows private applications for arrest warrants.

However, your Coalition partners, the Conservatives, 80 percent of whom are claimed to be signed-up Friends of Israel, plan to interfere with our laws of arrest in order to protect those criminals they count among their friends. Apparently this will be done by ensuring that arrests for war crimes become strictly political decisions enabling the government of the day to pick’n choose.

Foreign secretary, William Hague, a Friend of Israel since his schooldays, recently told the pro-Israel lobby: “We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on universal jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK… We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced… I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals.”

You, the Liberal Democrats, have already agreed to this???

Has everyone forgotten that Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former foreign minister, was largely responsible for the terror that brought mega-deaths and unimaginable destruction to Gaza’s civilians nearly two years ago?

Showing no remorse for the 1,400 dead (including 320 children and 109 women), the thousands horribly maimed and the hundreds of thousands made homeless, Livni’s office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead, the murderous blitz she unleashed. Later at a conference in Tel Aviv she declared: “I would today take the same decisions.”

Many of you will recall how Israel violated the Egypt-brokered ceasefire to provoke a response that could then be used as an excuse to launch the onslaught Israel had been preparing for months.

You may also recall that in 2007 when Israel tightened the siege on Gaza, the prime minister’s adviser, Dov Weisglass, said “the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger”. Documents just released under a Freedom of Information petition by Gisha, an Israeli law centre, reveal that Israel operated “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods in the Gaza Strip.

The papers confirm that the siege was not for security reasons but to keep Gazans at near-starvation level in order to bring down Hamas, the people’s choice. Since around half the population are growing children this inhuman act of collective punishment has meant that hundreds of thousands of youngsters are undernourished and permanently damaged.

Gisha’s director accuses Israel of “paralyzing normal life in Gaza”, and adds: “I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place.”

Israel’s current foreign minister, ex-bouncer Avigdor Lieberman, is a convicted child-beater and has been variously described as “a virulent racist” and “a certified gangster”. He directly violates international law by living in one of Israel’s illegal settlements. “If you liked Mussolini, if you were missing Stalin, you’ll love Lieberman,” a member of Israel’s Meretz party observed.

All the same, Hague wants him freely walking the streets of London with Livni and the rest of the world’s psychopaths.

Whatever happened to the Liberal Democrats’ pledge to “reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, etc…” and to “fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services”. These fine promises are incorporated into the party’s Constitution.

Only last year Nick Clegg, LibDem leader and now deputy prime minister in the Coalition, was telling the Jewish Chronicle: “The very suggestion that I might explicitly or tacitly give cover for racism, I find politically abhorrent and personally deeply offensive.”

Who would have believed that any senior Liberal Democrat would support a move to undermine our justice system in order to make the UK a safe haven for blood-soaked foreign leaders whose policies and unspeakable crimes are alien to LibDem principles, disgusting to the British public and condemned by international law?

If we allow the warmongers to come and go as they please, civilized people will never be able to take back their world.

We read that Hague was sent away from Tel Aviv with a slap in the face the other day when the Israelis without warning suspended dialogue with Britain. As if that wasn’t embarrassment enough for such an ardent admirer, Hague now intends to humiliate us all by groveling and tinkering with British law to appease them.

If Parliament passes measures to undermine the important principle enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and weaken the law to enable those wanted for crimes against humanity to evade arrest, wouldn’t that make the whole British nation an accessory to those crimes?

And please reflect on how nodding it through would be just about the lowest thing anyone could do.

He seems desperate to divert attention from the mounting resentment around the world towards Israel. But his threadbare argument collapses straightaway because no distinction is made between criminal Israelis and Jews generally. The one remains carefully hidden behind the other.

And the anti-Semitism label tends to get pinned on anyone and everyone in European society, “from its most élite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes”, who speaks against or as much as frowns at the racist regime.

The after-dinner audience he was addressing no doubt lapped it up, but unfortunately for Mr Murdoch people are better informed nowadays. I doubt if the wider audience buys it.

What they find unacceptable is Israel’s lawlessness and unrestrained killing. The much-hyped religious dimension is only relevant insofar as the perpetrators hide behind religion’s skirts and misinterpret religious texts to whitewash their crimes.

What also undermines Mr Murdoch’s case is the fact that not all Jews support the state of Israel or approve the dispossession and removal of its indigenous (Arab) population. An increasing number, to their credit, actively campaign against it.

And not all of Israel’s supporters are Jewish. They include battalions of Christian Zionists.

It is not surprising that the “Jewish state” has come under strong criticism. Any state, with or without tribal or religious underpinnings, would be roundly condemned if it misbehaved in the same way.

As for the speech, Mr Murdoch kicks off by telling the ADL:

“You have championed equal treatment for all races and creeds.”

If only that were true. As their website and mission statement show, the ADL are preoccupied with supporting Israel. They are not interested in combating Israeli hate groups or defending the security of (let’s say) the Palestinians.

He continues:

“My own perspective is simple: We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews… Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by de-legitimizing it…  In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.”

Israel has already made itself a pariah by its hateful attitude, disregard for international law and defiance of UN resolutions. A question mark hangs over its own legitimacy while it attempts to isolate and de-legitimize the democratically elected government of neighbouring Palestine, whose remaining lands it covets and illegally occupies or blockades.

Murdoch: “Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.”

Disagreeing with Israel is anti-Semitic? We laughed at the Germans for having no sense of humour. Must we now laugh at the Israelis?

Israel’s unwillingness to accept criticism is part of its undoing. Rejecting out of hand the Goldstone Report in relation to war crimes against the Gazans only magnifies the regime’s arrogance. Are deniers of Goldstone any better than deniers of the Holocaust?

“For me, this ongoing war is a fairly obvious fact of life. Every day, the citizens of the Jewish homeland defend themselves against armies of terrorists whose maps spell out the goal they have in mind: a Middle East without Israel.”

Armies of terrorists? Every day? Really?

The principle of homeland defence, of course, applies equally to Arabs. The high-tech terror they face is real and bristles with state-of-the-art weaponry. It is a hundred times worse than any terror faced by Israeli citizens. Check the death and destruction statistics.

In case Mr Murdoch hadn’t noticed, Israel, itself, is widely regarded as a terror state frequently resorting, as it does, to assassinations and extra-judicial executions, abductions and torture, massacres and starvation sieges, air-strikes, armed incursions, the use of prohibited weapons on civilians and massive violations of human rights. It must be galling for the regime’s well-wishers to see how perfectly Israel fits the terrorist definition used by the US to blacklist and squelch countries that get in its way.

Talking of maps, I hear the Israelis have already deleted Palestine (and Palestinian place-names) from theirs. And it’s well known that they demolished and obliterated hundreds of Palestinian villages after putting the inhabitants to flight.

Murdoch: “Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran – a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel’s destruction – pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke.”

No fear of rebuke for Israel either. It is the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Given its 200 (or is it 400?) nuclear warheads and its freaky leadership, Israel poses a serious threat to its neighbours and far beyond. Moreover, it hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and hasn’t ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty or the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Can Mr Murdoch, by any chance, show proof of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme? And since Israel has spoken of nuking Iran, what is the point of claiming Iran wishes Israel’s destruction?

Murdoch: “Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel.”

Now you’re making sense, Mr Murdoch…

Murdoch: “My view is the opposite. Far from making peace more possible, we are making hostilities more certain.”

Now you’re not. Hostilities have been going on for years.

The latest panic in Western capitals over the “undetectable” printer cartridge bombs is a powerful warning that countries aligning themselves with the US-Israel axis are asking for trouble. Ordinary westerners are tired of being put in harm’s way by America’s coziness with Israel and by Britain’s sniffing around both of them like a bitch in heat.

Disengagement is what most people around here have long wanted.

Murdoch: “Far from making things better for the Palestinian people, sour relations between the United States and Israel guarantees that ordinary Palestinians will continue to suffer.”

Does this mean Israel would turn the screws on the helpless just for spite?

Murdoch: “The peace we all want will come when Israel feels secure.”

Peace will only come when everyone feels secure. It is not a one-way street.

As Mr Murdoch surely knows, Hamas have said they will accept Israel within its internationally-recognised 1967 borders, which is the same position adopted by the United Nations. This, the most obvious avenue to peace, is studiously ignored by Israel.

Murdoch: “Right now we have war. There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas… Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel.”

And some wage war on women and children and even target unarmed fishermen.

Some also commit acts of piracy and murder on the high seas against volunteers bringing humanitarian aid.

That’s war. And it’s dirty war, waged by Israel. But boycotting Israeli goods and tourism is not war. It’s exercising one’s freedom of choice. It’s registering one’s disgust. Israel’s tourism minister was this week doing the same thing, urging that “Turkey must be totally boycotted as a tourism destination”.

Face the truth, ask forgiveness

If Mr Murdoch, with all his persuasive powers, cannot put up a convincing defence of Israel, no-body can. He shows here that anyone attempting it is on a hiding to nothing.

The root of the problem is the fundamental evil of the Zionist Project and the fanatics in the US, Britain and elsewhere who backed it and still fan the flames.

I commend to Mr Murdoch the Jerusalem Declaration of 2006 by the Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, who daily have to operate amidst the disruption and devastation inflicted by Israel on Palestinian life. They reject Christian Zionist doctrines as “a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation”, and they reject the alliance of Christian Zionist leaders with the governments of Israel and the United States that impose pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine.

Christian Zionism supports these policies and “advances racial exclusivity and perpetual war”. The Declaration calls on everyone to “liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation”.

Perhaps Mr Murdoch is not yet ready for that kind of liberation. For the time being he talks up a “war against the Jews” when it is merely the flashpoint where propaganda lies finally collide with the sickening truth about Israel. It’s a slow motion train-crash that’s been waiting to happen.

So I haven’t given up on Mr Murdoch just yet. However you regard him he’s a remarkable man. Who knows – in the end he may decide there is no honour in Israel’s rogue schemes and it would be more sensible for the regime to stop the lies, face the truth, atone for its crimes, hand back what has been stolen, conform to international law, charter rules and normal codes of conduct, and respect neighbours’ rights.

That’s the way forward.

And it should not forget to ask forgiveness from God, from the US taxpayer and from those in the wider Jewish community who have winced with shame. Seeking a pardon from the Holy Land’s Arab communities – Muslim and Christian – for treating them so abominably for 60-odd years would be a hard road to take but is the only way to achieve reconciliation and ultimately find contentment.

That’s the British government’s latest contribution of Middle East peace.

The Zionist entity’s Trojan Horse at the heart of our government – otherwise known as the Conservative Friends of Israel – held a reception recently attended by our foreign secretary William Hague.

Hague told the 400 guests:

We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on universal jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK…

We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced… The Justice Secretary will bring into the House of Commons adding to legislation going through the House of Commons later this year and I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals.

Who can forget that Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former foreign minister, was largely responsible for the terror that brought unspeakable death and destruction to Gaza’s civilians nearly 2 years ago?

And who’d have believed a British government minister would undermine our justice system in order to make the UK a safe haven for the likes of her?

Showing no remorse and with the blood of 1,400 dead Gazans (including 320 children and 109 women) on her hands, and thousands more horribly maimed, Livni’s office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead (the murderous blitz she had unleashed). And speaking later at a conference at Tel Aviv’s Institute for Security Studies, she said: “I would today take the same decisions.”

Few of us would want to touch such a person with a barge-pole. But Hague is so smitten  that he said it was “completely unacceptable” that someone like Tzipi Livni felt she couldn’t visit the UK. “We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country. The situation is unsatisfactory [and] indefensible. It is absolutely my intention to act speedily.”

He even tried to make Livni’s monstrous crime look good by claiming, as reported on the CFI website, that “the immediate trigger for this crisis [the war on Gaza] was the barrage of hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel on the expiry of the ceasefire or truce.” It is well known that the ceasefire didn’t expire. It was deliberately breached by an Israeli raid into Gaza that killed several Palestinians with the intention of deliberately provoking a response that would re-ignite the violence and provide an excuse to launch Operation Cast Lead, which the Israelis had been preparing for months.

The foreign secretary concluded his talk to the CFI by encouraging stronger business links between Israel and Britain and saying he intended to visit Israel in coming weeks.

One of the delights awaiting Hague is a meeting with his opposite number, Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in an illegal squat on stolen Palestinian land and is a wanted criminal on that score alone. He is also pushing for 1.3 million Arabs currently living in Israel to be stripped of citizenship and forcibly transferred outside Israel’s future borders.

To that end Israel’s military and civil authorities have just finished an exercise rehearsing a crushing response to the riots this latest ‘ethnic cleansing’ programme will inevitably cause.

Few individuals are more obnoxious than former club bouncer Lieberman, who is a convicted child-beater and described even in Israel as “a virulent racist” and “a certified gangster”. He is also reported to be under investigation for corruption. All the same, Hague wants him freely walking the streets of London with Livni. No doubt the media will soon be sprouting propaganda photos of Hague and Lieberman triumphantly shaking hands, smirking, embracing and doing whatever else two crazies do when they get together.

A Masterclass in grovelling

The “universal jurisdiction” fuss flared up again last year after Israeli top brass, including Ehud Barak, Livni and retired general Doron Almog, cancelled engagements in London for fear of being arrested. Israel complained bitterly. The then British foreign secretary David Miliband apologized and, according to a press report, “promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws that enable the issue of arrest warrants against Israeli officials accused of war crimes”.

Outraged members of the public were immediately asking who Miliband thought he was, grovelling in their name to Israeli thugs who had the temerity to whinge about the perfectly proper operation of British law, especially when the warrants were issued to answer well-founded charges.

Under universal jurisdiction all states that are party to the Geneva Conventions are under a binding obligation to seek out those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them, regardless of nationality, to justice. There should be no hiding place for those suspected of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Applications can be made to a court for private arrest warrants, and this has been happening because the government itself shirks its duty under the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention and drags its feet until the bird has flown.

Livni bleated: “It’s about the entire State of Israel and our ability to go on working together against common threats.”

The threats Israel faces are caused by its racist expansion, land theft, general lawlessness and hateful attitude towards its neighbours, and by the nuclear threat Israel itself poses to others in the region and the Islamic world generally.  To suggest we have anything in common is an insult.

Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s office butted in with this arrogant statement: “We will not agree to a situation in which [former prime minister] Ehud Olmert, [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak and [opposition leader and former foreign minister] Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the bench. We utterly reject the absurdity that is happening in Britain.”

And the Israeli ambassador in London, Ron Prosor, had the cheek to chastise the British foreign secretary telling him it was time the British government took action.

Miliband obligingly called the warrants intolerable and said he had asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Jack Straw to find an urgent solution.

Dancing to Tel Aviv’s tune

The solution is simple enough. If Israel wants talks in London they send people with clean hands. There should be no concessions, anyway, to a regime that shows such contempt for international law and normal codes of conduct.

Instead Brown, a patron of the Jewish National Fund, said Livni was “most welcome in Britain any time”, and our Ministers of the Crown are dancing to Tel Aviv’s tune. No moves were made by Labour in their last days in office, but it seems the incoming Conservatives and their Liberal-Democrat partners are planning to put the Director of Public Prosecutions in charge of issuing arrest warrants. This turns what should be a strictly judicial process into a political one that keeps any warmongering child-killer our ministers happen to admire out of the clutches of the UK’s courts.

William Hague was recruited into the Conservative Friends of Israel at the worryingly tender age of 15.

In 2007, while shadow foreign secretary, he said: “We will always have strong economic and political ties with Israel. We will always be a friend of Israel.”

In 2008 he declared: “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time.”

Hague told the Jewish Chronicle in an interview: “We don’t approve of expanding settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem because it makes the two-state solution more difficult.” Not because it’s a barbaric crime to dispossess Arabs of their lands, homes and livelihoods… he doesn’t approve because it’s a bit awkward politically.

“I’ve traveled across the country,” he continued. “I’ve stood on the Golan Heights and swam in the Sea of Galilee. I’ve stood on the part of the West Bank where you can see the Mediterranean, where you really understand Israel’s strategic fragility.”

If he had stood in the rubble of Gaza and seen the devastation to homes and infrastructure and visited the shattered schools and hospitals there… if he had stood in Bethlehem, imprisoned on all sides by the evil separation wall, and made his way on foot with Palestinian workers (those with permits) through the sinister steel barriers and holding pens of the Israeli checkpoint – a process that can take hours – before beginning the journey to Jerusalem, he might have understood how the Israeli jackboot chokes the life out of the Palestinian people.

Hague’s Zionist sympathies visibly ooze from every pore. Livni appears to have him eating out of her hand. If Parliament passes his measures to weaken powers of arrest in order to harbour those wanted for crimes against humanity, doesn’t that make the whole British nation an accessory to those crimes?

And before MPs approve such measures they should reflect on how it would be the lowest thing they could do.

“The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time.”

No prize for guessing which leading politician uttered these words.

It was your good self, Mr Foreign Secretary, back in 2008.

Now for a reality check. I want to share with you, Mr Foreign Secretary, this powerful and moving interview with Lilian Rosengarten by Philip Weiss.

75 year-old Lilian, an American, was on board Irene, the Jewish boat to Gaza, when the vessel was assaulted by “dehumanized” Israelis. Lilian and the other passengers were abducted. She was later deported and told never to come back.

It seems to Lilian that the Israelis, in their own best interests, would have been wiser to send a small boat to intercept the catamaran Irene, “no guns, but an ambassador coming on to the deck to say, ‘Sorry folks, we can’t let you through’.”

Instead they chose the terror option against these elderly, unarmed peace voyagers. “We saw 9 or 11 warships, some with guns, and then they were at the front and the back and the side of our little boat — and why? It was inexplicable to me. Inexplicable. That our little catamaran with nine Jews, survivors in their 70s and 80s and all of them human rights activists, that they should send nine boats with guns pointed…”

Lilian and her friends were surrounded by “soldiers dressed to the gills with the boots and the Tasers and the helmets and the gloves with the fingers showing… What war was this? Who were they fighting?… And since I got back I read Gideon Levy saying that each year of occupation has made the Israelis harder. Gradually they have become dehumanized.”

Lilian describes how Israel’s much-vaunted military behaved. “They had kicked Glyn [that’s Glyn Secker, the captain] to the ground to get him off the wheel… Itamar’s being tied up on the other boat, and they’re tasering Yonatan. He was screaming. It was just fascistic. It could have been Haiti under Duvalier, it could have been Chile under Pinochet, it could have been Franco’s Spain.

I saw first hand the dehumanization and the brutality…and rigid tunnel vision. I could see the truth of the most moral army in the world. No army is moral. And this army, it is brutal, not only to others in Palestine, but to Jews who dissent.

“Dissent has to be crushed to keep the myth of Israel going…”

So, Mr Foreign Secretary, here was a harmless little sailboat carrying symbolic relief supplies such as a high-tech device for purifying water, children’s books from a German school, backpacks, and musical instruments, surrounded by 9 or 11 warships. “What is this paranoia?” asks Lilian. “What is this fear?”

Jews who dissent against fellow Jews who have become a military state that seizes Palestinian land and imposes a siege on the entire Palestinian population… “that dissent has to be crushed to keep the myth of Israel going. Look at Yonatan. When a man of conscience decides he can’t bomb Palestinians, and says, no, I can’t do it, he is seen as a traitor instead of a patriot. And now it is to the point that a Jew who doesn’t go along with the right position is deported.”

Asked what it means to flee Nazi Germany as a young Jew and now be kicked out of Israel as an older one, Lilian weeps. “I think about my mentor Hans. He is 91. I can’t ever go to visit him. I can’t go there if he dies. And my Palestinian friends, I can’t see them again either… My response is sheer nausea – at the truth of what Israel has become.”

Lilian’s revelations are reinforced by a letter in The Guardian from Glyn Secker, who skippered the little Irene.

“The Israeli Defence Force says that there was no resistance and no violence in the boarding of The Jewish Boat,” writes Secker. “In fact, when boarded, we cut the engines and I held the wheel with all my strength. With one commando standing by with an electric Taser, two others removed me (I am 66) and threw me hard to the floor.”

Commandos singled out Yonatan and Itamar Shapira, our two refuseniks. Itamar was violently dragged backwards across the safety wires to their boat and restrained dangerously by a commando who pushed his fingers deep into Itamar’s jugular artery. Yonatan was hugging Rami Elhanan, our Bereaved Families passenger. The commander fired his Taser twice into Yonatan’s shoulder, then with deliberation moved Yonatan’s lifejacket aside, placed his Taser directly over Yonatan’s heart and fired. Yonatan’s whole body went into spasm, he let out a fearful scream, crashed across the cockpit and was dragged backwards over the safety wires to the commandos’ boat.

So there you have it, Mr Foreign Secretary. The military wing of the lawless entity you so admire behaves towards its own brethren in much the same brutal manner as it has done for the last 62 years towards their Arab neighbours, and more recently towards innocent internationals peacefully going about their humanitarian business on the high seas.

It must be a disappointment, Mr Foreign Secretary, that your enthusiasm for Israel and its Zionist project is no longer shared by a British public that’s now better informed and not so easily duped.

We are repeatedly told by ministers that Israel is an important ally, but nobody buys that any more. We are judged globally by the friends we keep, and the “unbroken thread of support for Israel” misguidedly perpetuated by our political leaders only brings us grief and a stained reputation, and this is cause for real anger.

The Irene was a British flagged vessel, but what action has the Foreign Office taken in response to her violation by Israel’s armed thugs? Come to think of it, the Foreign Office was also strangely subdued about the wanton barbarity towards the 28 British nationals aboard the Mavi Marmara and other vessels in the flotilla when it was attacked by the same hooligans with guns blazing. Has proper compensation been paid and property returned?

Dignity, Mavi Marmara and now Irene … menaced, mauled and hijacked by marauding Israelis. The international waters of the Eastern Mediterranean are clearly unsafe. Is it not up to the British government and its UN partners to keep the seaways open and guarantee free movement as required by numerous treaties, charters and the law?

First I read Mark Glenn’s scary piece, “Exodus of Jewish Advisors from Obama White House Likely Not an Omen of Good Things to Come”, in which he suggests the unexpected departure of Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod and Larry Summers from the top echelons of the White House might indicate that some sinister and possibly cataclysmic event is imminent.

Then I saw reports in Haaretz and elsewhere about a leaked letter from Obama to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, showering him with gifts if he, Netanyahu, would only save Obama’s political bacon and see him through next month’s primaries by extending Israel’s freeze on settlement building for just a few months.

Obama’s letter, we’re told, grants a list of reckless American favours. He agrees not to ask for any more construction freezes and to veto any anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution in the year ahead. He also agrees that the future fate of the illegal settlements will be dealt with only as part of a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

In short, he gives a green light to Israel’s various criminal schemes.

As if that weren’t enough, Obama, in his desperation, also offers to increase the $3 billion security aid Israel receives annually from America’s hard-pressed taxpayers and to supply advanced weapons and early warning systems, including satellites. In addition the US president guarantees to prevent the smuggling of weapons and missiles into a future Palestinian state, and he OK’s a lengthy period of interim security measures in the Jordan Valley (read permanent occupation) and a regional anti-Iran defence pact (read war plan).

Most little boys are overjoyed to receive a bike or computer game. But spoilt brat Bibi Netanyahu must have the biggest and most dangerous toys on the planet so that he can continue to terrorise all the other boys on the block. And indeed all the weak-kneed adults around the globe.

Although the White House is prepared to deliver most of what’s on his wish-list, and doesn’t ask much in return, it seems little Bibi has rejected America’s extravagant gesture. Israel-watchers say he fears being tipped out of his pram by the psychopaths and extremists who push it if he doesn’t drive an even harder bargain with big softy Obama.

Settlements “have no legal validity” and are a serious obstacle to peace – official

It’s obvious lawyer Obama needs a refresher course in United Nations rulings and codes of conduct before this pathetic relationship gets hopelessly out of hand.

Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council (and therefore fully binding) requires the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict and respect for, and acknowledgement of, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

242 also requires freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area, a just settlement of the refugee problem and the guaranteeing of territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area.

And Security Council Resolution 338 (1973) calls on the parties concerned to get on with implementing 242 immediately.

Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) determines that Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 “have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East… “

It calls once more on Israel, as the occupying Power, “to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories”.

Got that, Mr Obama?

The reason why none of it has been implemented is that US presidents up to, and including, Obama didn’t give a toss about international law or peace in the Holy Land, preferring to let themselves be emasculated and led by the nose by the Israel lobby.

We are all in trouble if the US president takes leave of his senses and jettisons integrity. The most powerful man in the world then becomes the most dangerous. I’m sure someone (though obviously not Emmanuel, Axelrod or Summers) has reminded Mr Obama that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it crystal clear that the occupying power is forbidden to transfer parts of its own civilian population – Israel’s half-million squatters – into the territory it occupies. What’s more, in 2001 the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention unanimously reaffirmed its applicability to the Palestinian Occupied Territories including East Jerusalem.

But he still rides roughshod and seems to think he can re-write international law and the Geneva Conventions to suit his Israeli friends.

Cuddling the quislings

The Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe), which saw more than half the Palestinian population expelled and more than 530 of their villages depopulated and completely destroyed, took place 13 years before Obama was born. And it’s still going on… on Obama’s watch. Every day more Palestinians are forced to look on while Israeli bulldozers demolish their homes, rip up their orchards and olive groves, barricade them from their farmlands and annexe their water supplies.

Obama wasn’t even born when Resolution 242 and the Geneva Conventions were solemnly signed. He fails in his obligation to uphold the precious principles they enshrine and snaps a contemptuous finger at the work of those men and women who thought they had brought universal fairness and justice to the community of nations.

“Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it…” That’s what Ariel Sharon told Shimon Peres at an Israeli cabinet meeting in 2001, according to Kol Yisrael radio. Israel’s propaganda machine, of course, denies it.

Nevertheless, the US House of Representatives felt obliged to endorse, by 390 votes to 5, Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008/9, an atrocity that killed over 1,400 (mostly Palestinian civilians including a large number of women and children), wounded and maimed thousands more and left tens of thousands homeless.  It was an act of utter barbarism coming immediately after Israel blatantly broke the ceasefire with Hamas. It horrified and disgusted the rest of the world but not, it seems, America’s politicians.

And how is Obama’s compromised democracy, or Netanyahu’s fake democracy (it’s actually an ethnocracy with a deeply offensive racist structure), superior to Palestine’s fledgling democracy which produced a Hamas government in fair and proper elections?

Perversely Obama, ‘king’ of the free democratic world and self-proclaimed honest peace broker, refuses to recognise Palestinian democracy and rejects the people’s choice – even to the point of denying Hamas a place in peace talks.  Instead, Obama props up and arms ruthless Fatah, the sore losers, and their leader, Abbas, whose term as Palestinian president expired long ago but who clings to power like a nasty blot that’s resistant to stain remover. Obama sets one faction against the other, cruelly undermining the Holy Land’s democratic processes and sabotaging the Palestinians’ right to self-determination – the sort of grubby act no respectable politician should ever contemplate.

The laugh is on Obama, however. Hamas are increasingly likened to the Maquis, or French Resistance, who struggled heroically against the Nazi occupation in World War 2, while Fatah are seen as the hated Vichy ‘government’ who actively collaborated with the Nazi occupier.

When liberation finally came the vengeful French rounded up and executed many of the Vichy quislings.

Abbas and his henchmen would do well to reflect on that, and so should their backers – including our own dear government here in London.

Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is deputy prime minister and gets to play PM from time to time, like now when Zionist Dave appears to still be enjoying a perk that’s laughably called ‘paternity leave’.

Cameron too came from nowhere to lead a party that’s said to be 80 percent loyal to Israel. This patron of the Jewish National Fund then became prime minister… with Clegg’s help.

But what exactly is Clegg’s little game on the foreign affairs front? Last year he seemed to be his own man and was writing this about Gaza in the Guardian:

…And what has the British government and the international community done to lift the blockade? Next to nothing. Tough-sounding declarations are issued at regular intervals but little real pressure is applied. It is a scandal that the international community has sat on its hands in the face of this unfolding crisis.

No doubt the febrile sensitivities of the Middle East have deterred governments, caught between recriminations from both sides. No doubt diplomats have warned that exerting pressure on Israel and Egypt may complicate the peace process.

But surely the consequences of not lifting the blockade are far more grave?

It was shockingly provocative stuff in the cesspit of pro-Israel Westminster.

Around the same time he was telling the Jewish Chronicle:

“There is simply not a shred of racism in me….The very suggestion that I might explicitly or tacitly give cover for racism, I find politically abhorrent and personally deeply offensive.”

I presumed this to be a warning not to count on his support for the Zionist Project.

But now, following the freaky electoral good fortune that catapulted him to the top, and in the wake of Israel’s murderous assault on the Mavi Marmara, Clegg has begun to change his tune. He welcomed the appointment of Lord Trimble to the racist entity’s farcical inquiry into its own entrails, well aware that Trimble is a founding member of the new international movement “Friends of Israel Initiative”.

And at the Liberal Democrats’ annual conference a few days ago he abandoned any non-racist credentials he may have had by attending a fringe meeting of his party’s Friends of Israel group along with the new deputy Israeli ambassador to the UK.

According to a report in Middle East Monitor, Clegg thanked Friends of Israel for all the work they had done to promote themselves within the party and declared himself an admirer of “the democratic traditions and liberal ethos of life within Israel”.

Clegg has a lot to learn if he seriously thinks Israel is some kind of western-style liberal democracy. He wasn’t even-handed enough to attend a meeting of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine where Britain has helped crush a blossoming, non-racist democracy.

And, in harmony with the puppet-masters in the White House, he said that so much hinges on “the talks”. It is remarkable how those who promote “the talks” never speak of the Israelis’ automatic peace-wrecking tactics – their defiance of international law requiring them to get the hell off Palestinian territory and their continuing killing spree and land thieving, which continue unabated while Palestinians are required to meekly submit to the humiliation of going through the motions of negotiation.

Instead, they whisper respectfully of Israel’s partial “moratorium” on its illegal construction of settlements, as if suspending a criminal programme to seize more land and insert more armed squatters to terrorise Palestinian villagers amounts to a major concession.

The international community has unfinished business

And how can Clegg or any other respectable leader go along with talks that stand democratic principle on its head and invite Abbas, whose presidential term ran out long ago, who has no popular mandate from the Palestinians and who assumes brutal, dictatorial powers?

Are they all barmy? Their idea appears to be to get an agreement – any agreement, even one signed by a chancer like Abbas who has no legitimacy – just to save a few worthless faces rather than deliver justice to millions and resolve the decades-old bloody conflict.

They show no respect whatever.

Hamas’s chief is right when he says that the massive imbalance of power on the ground makes negotiation at the present time grossly unfair and would play into the enemy’s hands. That’s another fundamental point of principle studiously ignored by the West’s political élite.

The international community has unfinished business to take care of before meaningful talks can take place. And it stands to reason that the correct sequence of events should be (1) Israel ends the occupation and siege, (2) Israel withdraws behind its pre-1967 borders in compliance with UN resolutions and international law, (3) talks begin with no gun to the Palestinians’ head, (4) the Palestinians are properly represented by their elected leadership, even if that’s Hamas.

If the Americans have a problem with these basics they should keep away from the process and let the UN handle it. Actually the UN should have insisted on handling it in the first place. Why don’t they get a grip on their responsibilities?

Meantime Nick Clegg might find it refreshing to stop and re-read the Preamble to his own party’s Constitution, a very fine document indeed especially where it says:

We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience…”

We reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality. Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government…

Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services.

These principles are as good as any for guiding a person through political life. But how many of them are reflected in the coalition’s policy dealing with the scandal of the Holy Land and in Clegg’s recent pronouncements?

I wait with interest to see how he and Cameron react when Israel’s “moratorium” on squatter settlements expires this weekend.

Will our dynamic duo call for sanctions against Israel for persistent land theft, endless breaches of international law, ongoing lethal violence and continuing defiance of UN resolutions?

And, if necessary, will they show the way and take unilateral action, as principled leaders should?

Hamas have been criticised recently for dragging their feet over the need to re-think their image.

They now seem to have at least made a start on this important task judging by a remarkable interview with Hamas chief Khaled Mesh’al by Middle East Monitor.

Headed ‘Khaled Mesh’al lays out new Hamas policy direction’, the interview runs to 14,000 words and is not an easy read unless you find yourself on a long train journey without an attractive companion.

Nevertheless it makes a real effort to begin the process of ‘coming in from the cold’ and deserves a wide audience.

I hope Mr Mesh’al won’t mind too much if, for convenience, I reduce his lengthy and carefully worded position statement – for that is what it is – to a few bullet-points…

• Hamas is a grassroots movement rather than a military group which exists to serve the interests of Palestinians at home and abroad. It is also a national liberation movement with resistance its main tool.

• Hamas’s objective is ending the Zionist occupation and restoring Palestinian rights. Resistance is the means of achieving this.

• Hamas only employ “legitimate resistance” – i.e. against the enemy occupying Palestinian land and holy places. They do not use resistance against their enemy’s allies who supply the weapons and munitions used to kill Palestinians. Nor do they extend resistance outside Palestine.

• Resistance is a realistic option for Hamas. It has succeeded in removing the occupier from southern Lebanon and Gaza and is clearly effective in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Armed resistance against Israel is the result of Israeli occupation, injustice and oppression, not religious differences.

• In Palestine there is a ‘special relationship’ between Muslims and Christians and they are united in the defence of Jerusalem and the cause.

• Women are playing a wider role at the organizational level in Hamas.

• Hamas believe that negotiations right now would only benefit Israel. Peace cannot be made when one party is so powerful and the other so weak. For the Palestinians negotiation under these circumstances means surrender.

• Hamas do not recognise Israel. Doing so would effectively legitimize the occupation and the rest of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. Such recognition would be unacceptable in terms of international law and human values.

• Israel’s drip-drip demand for recognition is a sign of weakness bordering on an admission of illegitimacy.

• Hamas is not looking for recognition by the West. It already has the legitimacy of the ballot box and its long struggle for justice.

• Hamas aim to promote their just cause and win more friends internationally to support their legitimate right to resist the occupation.

• There will be no peace in the region until the powers deal with Hamas and respect their interests and rights and quit favouring Israel at Palestine’s expense.

• Hamas believe the Zionist entity is weakening and its “Greater Israel’ project is doomed. Israel is in a state of moral collapse and its ugly face has been exposed. Reading all the signs it is unnecessary to bow to demands to negotiate a political settlement.

• Hamas are in no great hurry. They’ll wait.

It will be hard for western readers, unless they are dyed-in-the-wool Israel stooges, to find much that’s objectionable in the new policy. Given the decades-long suffering and the 90 years of betrayal, many will feel it makes perfect sense from the Palestinian perspective. So it is a powerful weapon – or would be if edited down to a manageable size and presented as a discussion document or released as a promotional leaflet.

Mesh’al is at pains to explain that resistance is a means not an end; it is a strategic tool for liberation and the backbone of their working system. He introduces a chilling note, however, in the context of jihad and the struggle when he talks about innovative methods, tactics and tools “such as expanding martyrdom operations and developing them to become a lethal weapon against the enemy, and striking deep at its security”.

And this is where he nearly derails himself. People who were with him up to that point are likely to leave in droves. Saying such a thing is shocking to western ears and Mesh’al is committing public relations suicide if he doesn’t ruthlessly blue-pencil that bit.

Right now negotiation is “a fruitless gamble”

Addressing the thorny question whether Abbas, a minority factional leader propped up by the US and Israel, should be negotiating with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians, Mesh’al scores some good points: “Negotiation needs to be based on unity at a national level. If one party sees benefit in a certain step towards negotiation, and pursues such a decision alone and without referring to the people, they will be placing themselves in a difficult situation and will grant the enemy an opportunity which it will certainly use against them…

“Negotiation today – under the current balance of power – is in the service of the enemy, and does not serve the Palestinian side. The conflict on the ground has not developed in a manner that has forced the Zionist enemy to resort to negotiation; it refuses to this day to withdraw from the land, and does not recognise Palestinian rights. Thus negotiation in such conditions is a kind of fruitless gamble.

“Israel is exploiting negotiations to normalise its relations with the Arab and Islamic world and to penetrate it, and to distort the nature of the conflict; Israel is the sole beneficiary of the negotiations as they stand…

“Just as there is currently no parity in the field of confrontation, there is also no parity around the negotiating table.”

As regards the mantra endlessly mouthed by western powers that Hamas must recognize Israel, Mesh’al says: “We refuse to recognise the legitimacy of Israel because we refuse to recognise the legitimacy of occupation and theft of land.”

Well, who can argue with that?

He makes a nice point about religion and how this is not the driver of resistance: “For us, religion is a cornerstone to our lives, belonging and identity, our culture and our daily actions; it is the energy that promotes patience and steadfastness, and gives rise to more sacrifice and generosity. This is a tremendous energy in the face of injustice, aggression and the powers seeking to harm our people and our nation. But we do not make of religion a force for engendering hatred, nor a cause or a pretext for harming and assaulting others, or grabbing what is not ours, or encroaching on the rights of others.”

Mesh’al points to how Palestine is famed for coexistence and tolerance among all faiths, and to illustrate the relationship between Muslim and Christian he quotes a verse from the Qur’an: “You will surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who believe are the Jews and those who are polytheists; and you will certainly find that, of all people, the nearest in friendship to those who believe are those who say: ‘We are Christians.’”

Looking ahead, Mesh’al acknowledges Israel’s military might but points to its increasing failures. “Yes, it is capable of waging war, but it has long been unable to achieve victory.”

The Greater Israel project is dead, he says, “because the Zionist enemy is no longer able to accomplish it, and because Israel continues on the same path as did apartheid South Africa”.

Hamas see no quick fix but are sounding pretty upbeat. Are they deluding themselves?

Perhaps the answer lies in this appealing little saying from the Qur’an, which ends the interview: “For it is by turns that We apportion unto people such days of fortune and misfortune”.

The talks are silly because they seek to overturn what the United Nations has already decided for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict and drive a bulldozer through the building blocks of justice.

It might be music to Zionist ears, but to people of good will it’s a cruel, futile and immensely damaging ploy.

The talks are also silly because they bring together two people who by no stretch of the imagination could qualify as partners for peace. And they sit down under the auspices of a third party with an appalling track record in the Middle East and whom no-one trusts to act fairly.

So Mitchell has been dealt a crap hand. The former US senator, we’re told, has had an illustrious career in politics. Honours have been heaped upon him for his part in the Northern Ireland ‘Good Friday’ agreement.

Accepting one of those awards – the Liberty Medal in 1998 – Mitchell said: “I believe there’s no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended… No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how hateful, no matter how hurtful, peace can prevail. But only if those who stand for peace and justice are supported and encouraged, while those who do not are opposed and condemned. Seeking an end to conflict is not for the timid or the tentative. There must be a clear and determined policy not to yield to the men of violence…”

How about that? Conflict can be ended only by supporting those who stand for peace and condemning those who don’t. But does he know – has he really taken the trouble to find out – who actually stands for peace and justice in the ever-escalating obscenity of the Israeli occupation of Palestine? And is he absolutely clear who “the men of violence” are? Get it wrong and matters are made worse.

Mitchell is such an awesome peace-monger that he has become a visiting Professor at Britain’s Leeds Metropolitan University’s School of Applied Global Ethics, and the University is developing a new Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution bearing his name.

If Mitchell is so clued up you have to wonder why he took the job – a veritable poisoned chalice. And you’d think a person with his vast experience would stick to accepted rules of engagement for conflict resolution and peace-making. I’ll mention just three…

• Talk directly with the people who are concerned or with whom there are concerns.
• Attack the issues, not the people with whom there is disagreement.
• No issue can be ‘off limits’.

There is no-one more concerned than Hamas. As the democratically elected authority they are the principle stakeholder on the Palestinian side. Obviously they must be allowed to represent the Palestinian case. It matters not one jot or tittle that the White House has “identified” Hamas as a terrorist organization. They have legitimacy. Besides, millions outside the White House can point to Israel’s much worse terror crimes.

Mitchell, besides barring Hamas, bends even further to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s demands and has ruled there must be no pre-conditions. Which means that Israel’s criminal conduct such as settlement construction, dispossession, ethnic cleansing, the land and sea blockade of Gaza, the occupation, the strangulation of the economy and their taste for piracy and extra-judicial killing, and their trampling of human rights including those of self-determination, are allowed to continue while the hapless Palestinians face them across the table.

And never mind that Netanyahu is permitted to enter these talks with his own pre-conditions, saying that the return of Palestinian refugees to the homes they were forced to flee, and the continuing occupation of East Jerusalem including the Old City, are not for discussion, and threatening to resume the (temporarily suspended) illegal settlement building.

If Mitchell is truly a person of integrity and a champion of “global ethics” how could he show such favour to one side?

What, I wonder, will he be saying to the Israeli team about UN Resolution 181 of 1947, which deals declares that “the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum“ administered by the United Nations?

What will he say to them about Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council and therefore fully binding? This insists on:
(i) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

242 also emphasizes the need for
(a) guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

Will Mitchell bang the table to demand long overdue action on Security Council Resolution 338 (1973), which called on the parties concerned to start immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 242?

Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) leaves absolutely no wriggle room. It “determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace… Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”

It’s all there, Mr Mitchell, in black and white. The UN has set it out. The world is waiting for the UN to implement it.

Stand up, any suitable partners for peace and any genuine peace-brokers

Israeli foreign policy is driven by manifesto promises like…
• “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”
• “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.”
• The claim to a national and historic right to the Land of Israel “in its entirety” and the pledge to keep Jerusalem and the settlements.

Netanyahu’s belligerent coalition government probably won’t survive unless he uses all means to achieve these unlawful and hugely provocative aims and resists demands to give back Israel’s ill-gotten gains. A thief is clearly no partner for peace.

Neither is the PLO’s Mahmoud Abbas, who dances to America’s tune and whose authority is in question. Any agreement he makes will be open to challenge by his own people.

Obama is US president courtesy of the pro-Israel lobby. He is like putty in their hands. And he’s so ill-informed that he told AIPAC it’s OK for Israel to grab the hallowed City of Jerusalem and turn it into the permanent headquarters of the Zionist regime. Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” he blurted. When it dawned on him that he’d made a monumental blunder he tried to wriggle out: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations… And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem, but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

A legitimate claim? Who says? And negotiate what? Has the President forgotten that the UN decided long ago that Jerusalem, along with Bethlehem, was to become an international zone?

And how can it be right for weak, unarmed and impoverished Palestinians to have to negotiate with a brutal, lawless military regime for their universal rights and freedoms, which are supposed to be guaranteed by the international community but have been denied them for decades?

Obama is clearly no genuine peace-broker.

And George Mitchell, despite his awesome reputation elsewhere, has so far failed in the Holy Land. He and his boss are getting desperate. Staging farcical, lopsided talks in order to achieve a fake, temporary peace will no doubt save a few worthless political skins for the timebeing. But they benefit no-one else. And they don’t do an envoy of Mitchell’s calibre any credit. He would be better employed banging heads together at the United Nations, to finish the unfinished business there and ensure all the resolutions they have passed and all the other solemn declarations they have endorsed are implemented. No need for conflict resolution, judgment has already been handed down.

Then peace talks can begin, if genuine partners and an honest broker can be found.

It’s called justice, Mr Mitchell. There’ll be no real peace until justice is delivered.

The rules of chivalry don’t apply, so the outcome is not in doubt.

However, the White Knight is not quite as white or brave as he seems. Eager to do his lord’s bidding, Mahmoud Abbas is a willing fall guy. On this occasion Obama has imperiously snapped his fingers and announced he wants direct talks started “well before” the Black Knight (aka Israeli prime minister Netanyahu) ends the partial freeze on illegal settlements in a month’s time.

And, by the way, US mid-term elections are coming up in two months’ time and Obama has to look good.

So Abbas jumped.

And Abbas is at least 18 months past the pack-your-bags date when he should have stepped down from his presidential position. He has twice unilaterally extended his stay and called off scheduled elections. He has no popular mandate and continues to blot the Palestinian escutcheon, staining the only democracy in the Middle East (Israel being altogether something else: an ethnocracy).

In the excitement everyone has forgotten that Hamas are the democratically elected power in Palestine even though they have been forced by Abbas and his US-armed gang and their Israeli back-up into confinement in the Gaza Strip. Hamas are not invited to the peace table, so what legitimacy can the encounter possibly have, anyway?

No preconditions except Israel’s

The talks are being held while Israel continues to pound Palestinian civilians in Gaza, maintains the cruel land and sea blockade and murders any unarmed humanitarians sailing to break it, disallows exports, severely restricts travel within the Occupied Territories, carries on with house demolitions, denies access to universities and places of worship, and generally behaves in a brutal and barbaric manner.

Israel has failed to honour earlier peace pledges and gives every indication of wishing only to expand its borders further.

The idea that there can be meaningful talks under these conditions is an insult to the intelligence of the civilized world. Abbas said earlier that he didn’t see much point in talking but he’s been pressured to change his mind.

Netanyahu loudly insists there can be no pre-conditions while busily laying down pre-conditions of his own, in particular ruling out any return by Palestinians to East Jerusalem, which as everyone knows belongs to the Palestinians and is earmarked as their capital, and refusing to extend the temporary halt to settlement building on stolen land.

Palestine, as always, is led by losers. Abbas’s senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, is described as a newspaper editor, but he doesn’t seem very adept at bringing the Palestinian cause to media attention in the outside world.

His opening shots warn the Israelis that they must choose between “settlements or peace… they cannot have both”. Is this Erekat’s magic bullet for unseating the Black Knight?

Law and justice are not à la carte

Netanyahu leads a fragile coalition of right wingers and religious nutters. He says that if he were to prolong the moratorium on settlements it could trigger the collapse of his government.

So he must continue in his criminal ways to survive.

To prove his playful sense of humour hasn’t yet deserted him, he goes on to say: “We are coming to the talks with a genuine desire to reach a peace agreement between the two peoples that will protect Israel’s national security interests, foremost of which is security.”

The Palestinians’ national security interests are, and always have been, irrelevant.

And you’ll die laughing at this bit: “Now it is time for the Palestinians and the Arab States to grasp Israel’s outstretched hand and match the Jewish state’s unyielding commitment to peace with actions of their own.”

Another pro-Israel group, J-Street, claims the talks could be the last opportunity to save the two-state solution. “The window of opportunity for progress is brief and closing. We believe Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic home, not to mention vital American interests in the region, hang in the balance,” says J-Street’s Vice President for Policy and Strategy, pretending that America’s best interests are geared to the success of Israel’s unlawful and racist expansionism.

From the way America conducts itself internationally, anyone would think that law and justice are some kind of à la carte menu items to be dispensed on a pick-and-choose basis, or not dispensed at all. Or something Americans can send back to the kitchen if their taste buds don’t fancy it.

It is outrageous that Netanyahu should be encouraged to think compliance with the law is optional and in the meantime further concessions can be wrung, under duress, from people the Israelis have oppressed and cheated for 60 years.

Reports that the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), in one of its wackiest statements to date, has called on the Palestinian Authority to “abandon its longstanding attempts to avoid making difficult choices at the negotiating table and cease incitement against Israel at home and abroad”.

The talking’s all done

The talks, of course, have nothing to do with peace. They are about greed, dominance and more land theft. The plan is to get a weakling Palestinian leader into a corner and arm-twist more concessions from him, until there’s nothing left.

Is this really a good time to bend the knee or tug the forelock to someone as unreliable as Obama or as criminal as Netanyahu?

It is surely an occasion to stand on principle and go over the heads of corrupt meddlers, making a strong Palestinian case anchored firmly in established law and justice so that there is no room to wriggle, and demand that same law and justice from the international community that endorsed it.

It would call for a carefully planned and professionally executed communications campaign to make the world listen, something the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, under Abbas, have fatally neglected.

But Abbas says it’s his “national responsibility” to go along with the talks. Those in Ramallah who dared to disagree were quickly stamped on by his security goons.

Abbas and Erekat belong to the shabby failures of the past. For Palestine the future has to start somewhere. It might as well be here and now.

America cannot – no, will not – uphold international law or UN resolutions. Like Israelis, the Americans have a cynical disregard for human rights except their own. It goes against all notions of fair play, therefore, to see America acting the host and pretending to be an honest broker.

Abbas should have none of it. If he cannot be persuaded to do the decent thing and go, he at least ought to take the line that the talking’s all done. It was done in the UN. And the UN has treated Israel with gob-smacking generosity at Arab expense, first with its 1947 Partition gift and later by nodding OK to Israel’s territorial gains represented by the Armistice ‘Green Line’. The Israelis should accept this staggering munificence with proper humility, and be content.

Obama would do well to acknowledge that the decisions have already been made. They are enshrined in UN resolutions, in international law, in the Geneva Conventions and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They wait to be implemented by the nations that are party to those solemn undertakings, including the US.

So please, Mr Obama, no more talking. Cut the charade and do your duty.

Earn that peace prize.  Or give it back.

“The decision is a response to a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a growing number of Jewish organisations, both inside Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches,” said the press release.

Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships, remarked: “This decision has not been taken lightly, but after months of research, careful consideration and finally, today’s debate at the Conference. The goal of the boycott is to put an end to the existing injustice. It reflects the challenge that settlements present to a lasting peace in the region.”

Predictably the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which calls itself “the chief voice of British Jewry”, blew a gasket. In a joint statement with the Jewish Leadership Council they said the Methodists should “hang their heads in shame”. The Chief Rabbi led the verbal assault warning that the implications would “reverberate across the hitherto harmonious relationship between the faith communities in the UK”.

What seemed to have inflamed the Chief Rabbi this time was the report ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’ submitted to the Methodist Conference. Its recommendations include the following…

In listening to Church Leaders and our fellow-Christians in Israel Palestine as well as leaders of Palestinian civil society we hear an increasing consensus calling for the imposition of boycott, divestment and sanctions as a major strategy of non-violent resistance to the Occupation. The Conference notes the call of the WCC [World Council of Churches] in 2009 for an ‘international boycott of settlement produce and services’ and calls on the Methodist people to support and engage with this boycott of Israeli goods emanating from illegal settlements (some Methodists would advocate a total boycott of Israeli goods until the Occupation ends).

Elsewhere it says:

The Methodist Church has consistently expressed its concern over the illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands by the State of Israel. That Occupation continues not only compounds the state’s illegal and immoral action but also makes any accommodation with the Palestinian people and future peace in the region much less possible.

The Chief Rabbi nevertheless denounced the report as “unbalanced, factually and historically flawed” without saying in what way it was inaccurate. Actually it is a very well put together document, which hits the mark and is hard to fault.

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said the authors of the Methodists’ report had “abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage on this issue, only to find our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction”. Here is the full text:

Statement on the Flawed Document Endorsed by the Annual Methodist Conference

This is a very sad day, both for Jewish-Methodist relations and for everyone who wants to see positive engagement with the complex issues of Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Methodist Conference has swallowed hook, line and sinker a report full of basic historical inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of Jewish theology and Israeli policy. The deeply flawed report is symptomatic of a biased process: The working group which wrote the report had already formed its conclusions at the outset. External readers were brought in to give the process a veneer of impartiality, but their criticisms were rejected. The report’s authors have abused the trust of ordinary members of the Methodist Church, who assumed that they were reading and voting on an impartial and comprehensive paper, and they have abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage with this issue, only to find that our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction.

This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and as an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations, Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the Methodist Conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the Conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines.

Empty barrels, they say, make the most noise.

If arrogance is the only response to serious concerns about Israel’s unending barbarity towards Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land, it’s time that implications did indeed “reverberate” across the faith communities, not only in the UK but around the world.

Zionist cuckoos in the Methodist nest

Lo and behold, before the dust could settle another new product from the Zionist drawing-board popped up, calling itself Methodist Friends of Israel. “We are Christians who are members or adherents of the Methodist Church, who love Israel and want to bless her and who fully accept God’s everlasting covenant with His chosen people,” they announced. “While recognising that the nation of Israel is, like all nations of the world, an unrighteous nation that does not always get things right, we firmly stand with her at all times and continue to support her in an increasingly hostile world. We will not turn our backs as so many did in the 1930s.

We see that anti Semitism is on the rise throughout the world with synagogues and graveyards vandalised and Jews being attacked both verbally and physically and that there appears to be a direct relationship between the increased attacks on Jews and the blanket condemnation of Israel by the media, many charitable organizations and world bodies such as the UN. We are concerned that the whole, true picture of what life is like in Israel is given to the world rather than the biased half truths, distortions and lies that are presently reported.

We are concerned that many churches are going down the politically correct line of condemning Israel’s policies and are thus contributing to the strong anti Semitic views of the world.

Note that they are concerned only with “what life is like in Israel”, not the hell Israel has created in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for Christians and Muslims.

And what else do they believe in?

• They recognize that Israel is the land given by God to the Jews and Jerusalem is its only capital.
• They believe that God’s word for, promises to, and covenants with Israel — people and land, through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) are everlasting and that the church has not replaced Israel.
• They believe that Scripture prophesies the restoration of the Jews to the land of Israel and what they are seeing today is a fulfilment of prophecy. It is a privilege that they are witnesses to this fulfilment.
• They believe that Israel is central in the enactment of God’s purposes as we move in these last days.
• They believe in finding out from many sources the whole picture of what is happening in Israel so that they can pass on the facts to those whose view is based solely on biased media coverage, and so correct mistaken beliefs (achingly funny, this).
• They believe in blessing Israel however possible including buying goods and produce from Israel and resisting all calls for boycotts.
• They believe in supporting Israel’s defence of its people and their right to live without the threat of missile attacks, homicide bombings etc.
• They believe in standing against libelous attacks against Israel.
• They believe in fully supporting Israel’s right to the land given them by God

According to The Jewish Chronicle, the group was set up by preacher Pam Smith from South Wales in reaction to her Church’s call to boycott Israel. Naturally Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation, was overjoyed and said: “I hope this will be the start of a grass-roots movement within the Methodists to reverse the motion passed at the Methodist Conference, which was theologically invalid, maligned Zionism and demonised Israel.”

Needless to say, the Methodist Friends of Israel website editorial reads like pages from some Israeli propaganda rag.

Have they not heard of The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a statement by the Latin Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem issued in 2006? It is neatly summed up in its first sentence:

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

Those guys are on the ground, in the front line. They know the score. It’s time Preacher Pam visited Gaza and the West Bank (not by Israeli tour bus or as guests of Israel’s ‘establishment’) and got a grip on reality. She and others have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into supporting a sinister political movement that is intent on stealing the Holy Land from under our noses.

I wonder how long these cuckoos will be allowed to foul the Methodist Church’s nest.

So I reread William Hague’s statement to the House of Commons on 2 June, and it struck me as something the Israeli government spin doctor, Mark Regev, might have penned. Here are some extracts:

• “Our clear advice to British nationals is not to travel to Gaza.”

Just what Israel wants to hear. This “advice” serves to legitimize Israel’s illegal sea blockade and use of lethal force against unarmed British citizens and other nationals peacefully going about their lawfully business in international waters.

• “We deeply deplore the loss of life… There must be stinging consequences for this latest barbaric act.”

The word “deplore” is for the spineless, do-nothing handwringers.

• “Their welfare [meaning the British nationals on board] is our top priority.”

Mr Hague must have been alerted to advance warnings that Israel would go to any lengths, including violence, to stop the mercy ships but he took no precautionary action. Where is the mighty Royal Navy when not cruising the Caribbean or sunning itself in the Gulf? When consular access was then denied to some of the 37 Britishers abducted and jailed by Israel the Foreign Office meekly accepted the insult.

• “…those individuals who are allegedly involved in violence against Israeli servicemen during the boarding.”

Mr Hague doesn’t seem to grasp that the violence was committed by Israeli storm-troopers dropping from helicopters with guns blazing under cover of darkness.

• “Restrictions on Gaza should be lifted – a view confirmed in United Nations security council resolution 1860.”

Resolution 1860 goes much further and calls for the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, which provides for

a) the reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank;
b) bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza;
c) the building of a new seaport in Gaza; and,
d) re-opening of the airport in Gaza.

Nearly eight months ago the European Council repeated the EU’s call for “an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza” and for “full implementation of The Agreement on Movement and Access.” What is the point of mouthing this stuff again and again and not backing it up with ACTION?

• “Hamas now has near total control of the economy.”

Perhaps our Treasury people should take lessons from them…

• “We will, therefore, continue to press the Israeli government to lift the closure of Gaza, and plan early discussions… about what more can be done to ensure an unfettered flow of aid.”

The Foreign Office is exceedingly well practised at pressing and urging. However, “unfettered flow” is not going to happen without a naval escort and/or sanctions. If Mr Hague hasn’t learned this he hasn’t been paying attention.

• “The House should not forget the role played by Hamas in this conflict. They continue to pursue an ideology of violence and directly to undermine prospects for peace in the region.”

Mr Hague must take everyone for fools. Hamas won the 2006 elections fair and square and has been subjected to a relentless blockade, armed incursions, air strikes, sanctions, assassinations, an attempted putsch and a devastating 22-day blitzkrieg. Continually accusing Hamas of undermining prospects for peace is the ultimate absurdity.

• “Violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in Gaza and Israeli military incursions and air strikes in response.”

On the question of who provokes and who responds Mr Hague should consider how Israel violated the cease-fire to pave the way to the Gaza war of December 2008 and still carries out air-strikes on a daily basis.

• “We call on Hamas to make immediate and concrete steps towards the quartet principles – unconditionally to release Gilad Shalit.”

Something like 11,000 Palestinian civilians are held (and believed tortured) in Israeli jails, many without charge. Why isn’t Mr Hague calling for their release? Shalit is a tank gunner captured in 2006. In the three years following Israel’s troop withdrawal to Gaza’s perimeter in 2005 some 1,250 Gazans, including 222 children, were killed by tank gunners and other Israeli military personnel while 11 Israelis were killed by Palestinian rocket fire.

• “The only long-term and sustainable solution to the conflict which produced these tragic events is a two-state solution.”

Politicians like Hague have stood back and allowed Israel to seize so much key Palestinian territory and establish so many ‘facts on the ground’ that the chances of a viable Palestinian state are vanishing fast.

• “The proximity talks that are currently underway are more important than ever.”

Is he serious? How credible are ‘talks’ when one party has a gun to the other’s head and continues to steal its land, colonize its territory and murder its citizens? What honest broker would be party to such a farce?

William Hague is our top international representative. He has the power to heavily influence whether Britain makes war or peace, whether we make friends or enemies, and whether our soldiers live or needlessly die. Yet he seems to have trouble interpreting intelligence. One can see how the poor chap got his knickers in a fearful twist over Iraq and voted enthusiastically to get us mired in that shameful war… And did anyone hear him speak out against the folly of invading Afghanistan when it was his duty, as a leading Opposition figure at the time, to hold our lunatic Labour government to account?

Now he rattles his sabre at Iran and wants to turn Britain into a safe haven for Israel’s war criminals.All things considered the guy is a big worry.

Prime minister David Cameron was a little nearer the mark when he called the blockaded Gaza Strip a “prison camp”. That brought loud squawks from the usual suspects. Plain speaking earns him a cheer but Cameron, like Hague, is an avid admirer of Israel and calls himself a Zionist. He too only talked of “humanitarian access”, failing to acknowledge that Gazans are not allowed to export anything and therefore cannot make a living.

He has nothing to say about the 3,500 licensed fishermen who are shot up by Israeli patrol boats whenever they put to sea. Or Gaza’s students who are blocked from studying at their West Bank universities.

Or all the Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters who are prevented from worshipping at their holy places in Jerusalem.

Or even Gaza’s marine gas field, which Israel has its greedy eyes on and Palestinians can’t go near.

Mr Hague, according to the Jewish Chronicle, told David Cameron as soon as he became Conservative party leader in 2005 that a deep understanding of the Middle East would be crucial to his claims to be taken seriously as a statesman. “We have to be steeped in the Middle East, way back to historical matters. Because you can’t understand it without the history. That’s been one of the failings sometimes with the Western governments.”

Yes, but when is the history lesson, and the story of the West’s betrayal, going to sink in?

Finally, Viva Palestina has just sent this message: “Despite the recent claims by Israel that they have ‘eased’ the siege on Gaza, vital medical supplies and equipment are still prohibited from entering the besieged region. In June, the World Health Organization reported that Israel blocked the delivery of essential medical equipment, including a CT scanner, defibrillators and monitors.

“In addition, the Palestinian Health Ministry said Israel confiscated seven oxygen machines, donated by a Norwegian development agency, and refused to allow delivery of x-ray machines, claiming they could be used for military purposes.”

Consequently, says the message, there is a critical shortage of vital medicines and essential life saving equipment, and other supplies are expected to run out very soon.

What does it take for Cameron, Hague and Britain’s Foreign Office to run out of patience and forcibly smash this cruel blockade?

Yes, our brand-new coalition government intends providing a safe haven for the vilest of criminals.

When Israel’s ex-foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, and other architects of the terror campaign against Palestinian civilians, recently cancelled trips to the UK for fear of being arrested under universal jurisdiction laws on charges of war crimes, it sparked a diplomatic row. Britain’s then foreign secretary-in-waiting, William Hague, an avid Friend of Israel since boyhood, said: “We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country. The situation is unsatisfactory [and] indefensible. It is absolutely my intention to act speedily.”

He found it “completely unacceptable” that someone like Livni felt she could not visit the UK. He didn’t explain how welcoming Livni with open arms was possible “without weakening our commitment to hold accountable those guilty of war crimes”.

Gordon Brown, the then prime minister, expressed his regret over the incident, saying that Livni was “most welcome in Britain any time” — even though she was no longer a government minister in Israel.

Under universal jurisdiction all states that are party to the Geneva Conventions are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them, regardless of nationality, to court.

“Grave breaches” means willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war… the sort of atrocities that have been (and still are) committed wholesale by Israel in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Lo and behold, new Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has announced, just as MPs are about to disappear on their long summer recess, that “it would be appropriate to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued to a private prosecutor in respect of an offence of universal jurisdiction.”

Alerts have gone out from activist groups. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign urges its members to write to their MPs immediately: “This would seriously hamper the work of human rights lawyers in this country who are attempting to bring these war criminals to justice, and would deny the Palestinians yet another chance at justice.

“Between September and December 2009, lawyers issued arrest warrants against three Israeli ministers who were planning to visit Britain. Two of them — Livni and Moshe Ya’alon — cancelled their visits as a result. The third – Barak – had his status upgraded by the then Labour government, so that he could attend the Labour Party Conference in Brighton.

“If the Government’s plans become law, warrants such as these will become much harder to serve.”

Meanwhile, in his report to the UN, Judge Richard Goldstone found masses of evidence of war crimes by Israel in Gaza and has called for individual states in the international community to “start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949″.

Hague and Clarke, however, seem determined to make the likes of Livni and Barak and their murderous military henchmen a protected species.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, a supposedly independent figure, is answerable through the Attorney General. The new Attorney General is Dominic Grieve. In 2007 he was in Israel with a Conservative Friends of Israel delegation. He spoke up for the release of captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, but his sense of justice apparently didn’t prompt him to mention the thousands of Palestinian civilians tortured and rotting in Israeli jails.

Grieve’s deputy is Solicitor General Edward Garnier. In February, while still in opposition but warming up for the general election, he and Kenneth Clarke visited Israel as delegates of Conservative Friends of Israel when they could (and should) have gone under a neutral parliamentary flag. They met with deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, and leader of the Opposition, Livni. Ayalon is also on the wanted list but was able to visit London after receiving a letter from the Foreign Ministry promising he would be safe from arrest while in England.

At the height of the Gaza blitz (which killed 1,400 including 350 children, destroyed or damaged 58,000 homes, 280 schools, 1,500 factories, water and sewage installations and 80 percent of agricultural crops), Hague said in Parliament: “The immediate trigger for this crisis… was the barrage of hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel on the expiry of the ceasefire or truce.”

Wrong. A person in his position should know better than mouth off the Israeli propaganda line. The truce with Hamas didn’t just “expire”. It was violated after five months by Israeli forces, killing six Palestinians in air strikes and other attacks, in order to provoke Hamas. Israel had also failed to deliver its side of the ceasefire bargain, which was to lift the blockade.

While the evidence piles up against Livni and others, the Justice Secretary assures us that “our commitment to our international obligations and to ensuring that there is no impunity for those accused of crimes of universal jurisdiction is unwavering”. How can that be if universal jurisdiction cases in future are filtered and processed solely by the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The fear is that the DPP’s wheels turn so slowly that the birds will have flown before arrests can be made, and the change in the law will simply enable the DPP to thwart private efforts to bring to book those criminals the British government regards as friends.

Let’s remember that after the 22-day devastation of Gaza and the mega-deaths and maimings, their friend, Livni, bragged how she would happily do it again.

Hague, after just two months in the top job at the Foreign Office, is already an embarrassment to English people who yearn for moral leadership in foreign affairs. It was Hague who uttered these words in 2008: “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time.”

Undiminished by the passage of crime, too.

Neither had I until I saw a parish magazine recently announcing a talk by the CMJ’s Director of Advocacy to a local Church of England study group about “God’s purpose for the Jewish people and Great Britain’s involvement in the formation of modern Israel”.

Apparently the CMJ has a proud 200-year history and is a worldwide ministry sharing with Jewish people its belief that not only is Jesus the Saviour of the world, He is the Jewish Messiah. CMJ is “propelled by devotion to God and the fulfillment of His promises to His people Israel”, and it feels a need to provide in-depth teaching on the Jewish roots of the Christian faith.

CMJ’s USA website talks of “the spiritual rebirth of the Jewish people and the education of the Christian church in its call to take the Gospel to ‘the Jew first’.”

And in its statement of faith the CMJ says Christians have “a special responsibility to love, defend and share the Gospel with God’s historic, chosen People, the Jews”.

The Israelis are still building the barrier and love nothing better than destroying whole groves of olive trees.

• Gentiles are “fellow-citizens with God’s people”… God loves all people equally. This means that he loves the Israelis and the Palestinians equally.

So all those claims to be God’s “chosen ones” are meaningless?

• CMJ… has always seen the return of the Jewish people to their ancient land, and on a national scale to their Messiah, as a precursor to the return of Jesus in glory.

Their return is achieved by ethnically cleansing the Holy Land, expelling the Arabs (whom God loves equally), slaughtering those who resist and trashing just about all of God’s commandments. Jesus is really going to appreciate that when he arrives.

• CMJ rejoices that, after 2000 years… the Jewish people now, at last, have returned to the land from which the majority were dispersed in AD70…

Rejoice in the Jewish occupation and you rejoice in the murderous crime spree it entails.

• Israel is a secular state which is no more religious than Britain.
• CMJ recognizes that the State of Israel was set up as a result of a majority vote of the United Nations in 1947… However the Ministry does not hold any official position as to the appropriate location of the borders of the state.

But greedy Israel isn’t satisfied. If CMJ recognises the UN’s partition it should also accept the borders on which it was based. To do otherwise only serves to legitimise Israel’s ongoing land-grab and lawlessness.

• CMJ believes that the term “Restoration” when applied to the Jewish people is primarily restoration to their Messiah… The focus of New Testament doctrine of the end times is on Jesus and holy living, rather than land.

So why rejoice in their seizing the land and dispossessing the rightful owners?

• CMJ affirms that God is a God of justice and peace, and that he desires justice and peace for all people groups.

How can there be justice or peace under illegal occupation?

• CMJ Ministry recognizes that the Israelis, after 2000 years of anti-Semitism, face a resurgence of anti-Semitism, a military threat from various nations, Palestinian terrorism and a threat to the stability of their safe homeland through demographic factors.

Israel, with its nuclear arsenal and American-supplied state of the art weaponry, easily outguns the other nations in the Middle East. Its lack of restraint and contempt for international law, demonstrated many times, makes it the prime military and terror menace to the region. Meanwhile Palestinians have every right to defend their homes as best they can.

• [The Palestinians] experience economic disaster and lack of infrastructure, partly through Israeli policies and partly through the failures of the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinian infrastructure is regularly destroyed by Israel. Left in peace the Palestinians would have prospered like other nations. The PA has no legitimacy, it is a tool of the West.

Bombshell

Some say the CMJ encourages the physical restoration of the Jewish people to the biblical Land of Israel despite the suffering this causes, and published statements seem to confirm it.

Wikipedia says: “CMJ has always adopted a Zionist position, and expressed the view that the Jewish people deserved a state in the Holy Land decades before Zionism began as a movement.”

CMJ is also accused of propagating Zionism rather than Christianity.

Ready for the bombshell? The CMJ was adopted as an official ministry of the Church of England in 1995. It has been operating in the shadows for 15 years.

So is this the Church of England’s official Zionist wing?

Within the Church it is said that some believe the mission to Jewish people is inappropriate. Others maintain that Jewish people cannot be excluded from the scope of Christian mission.

And what about the local parish study group, and all the other study groups targeted by the CMJ? Did they know enough about the facts on the ground to challenge the CMJ’s advocacy?

Here are the thoughts of the Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, as set down in their Jerusalem Declaration of 2006… and they are in the front line, in the cauldron of brutal reality, facing the disastrous consequences of evangelical meddling by America and Britain.

• We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.
• We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine.
• We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war…
• Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation.

Amen to that.

]]> http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/christian-zionism-in-the-uk/feed/ 2