Cameron's reply about Jerusalem at PMQs

ummm...think you forgot something

blank post devoid of anything but title and signature

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Transcript of the recorded PMQs today, can be looked up in Hansard and also rewatched on HOC TV.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/cfb6f90e-444e-4cd6-bfaf-0e1cdfb0e294?in=12:01:33

ah ty

Now in The Independent Vic:

David Cameron blasts Israel's 'genuinely shocking' illegal settlements

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-blasts-israels-genuinely-shocking-illegal-settlements-a6893301.html

Netanyahu never wanted a 2 state solution and now he's proving it.

But Cameron must have known this for a long time. So why speak now? Must be some other motive.

Does make you wonder doesn't it?

Here's a video of him saying it:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3uaz0a

Is he finally trying to distance himself from Netanyahu?   Who knows with Cameron.

spamming

sassy wrote:Is he finally trying to distance himself from Netanyahu?   Who knows with Cameron.

Maybe. Natanyahu is an extremist. Maybe Cameron is trying to work with leaders to don't pander to the extremists.

The truth is, it won't make much of a difference to settlements. Even Obama condemned those years ago.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:Is he finally trying to distance himself from Netanyahu?   Who knows with Cameron.

Maybe. Natanyahu is an extremist. Maybe Cameron is trying to work with leaders to don't pander to the extremists.  

The truth is, it won't make much of a difference to settlements. Even Obama condemned those years ago.

I know, they just keep on spreading and spreading them and filling them with extremists of the worst kind.  Basically it's undercover state terrorism.

So why is it the left and the Islamist here ignore how Abbas and Fatah have refused to have any peace talks now and why they have rejected every proposal for a new nation?

Its not the settlements holding back any agreement, as the 1948 partition plan fundamentally proves

If the reason is to ethnically cleanse Jews from these settlements, then what does that say for the cause of human rights?

sassy wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Maybe. Natanyahu is an extremist. Maybe Cameron is trying to work with leaders to don't pander to the extremists.  

The truth is, it won't make much of a difference to settlements. Even Obama condemned those years ago.

I know, they just keep on spreading and spreading them and filling them with extremists of the worst kind.  Basically it's undercover state terrorism.

The focus is to annex east Jerusalem completely. I'm glad even Cameron finds that unacceptable.

Didge wrote:So why is it the left and the Islamist here ignore how Abbas and Fatah have refused to have any peace talks now and why they have rejected every proposal for a new nation?

Its not the settlements holding back any agreement, as the 1948 partition plan fundamentally proves

If the reason is to ethnically cleanse Jews from these settlements, then what does that say for the cause of human rights?

Reported for being off topic.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:So why is it the left and the Islamist here ignore how Abbas and Fatah have refused to have any peace talks now and why they have rejected every proposal for a new nation?

Its not the settlements holding back any agreement, as the 1948 partition plan fundamentally proves

If the reason is to ethnically cleanse Jews from these settlements, then what does that say for the cause of human rights?

Reported for being off topic.

So in other words you cannot answer my points on settlements

Which is no surprise

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:


I know, they just keep on spreading and spreading them and filling them with extremists of the worst kind.  Basically it's undercover state terrorism.

The focus is to annex east Jerusalem completely. I'm glad even Cameron finds that unacceptable.

Perhaps he should persuade others to say so very forcefully.  Every single negotiator acknowledges tha the main impediment to any peace process are the settlements and the annexations. (Which basically is why Netanyahu keeps authorising them)

Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat on Thursday slammed comments by British Prime Minister David Cameron in which he criticized conditions in East Jerusalem, questioning Cameron’s knowledge of the region and pointing a finger at the UK for its policies during the pre-state British Mandate.


On Wednesday, Cameron told Britain’s Parliament that Israeli construction in East Jerusalem was “genuinely shocking,” even as he insisted that he was a “great friend of Israel” and defined Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“I am well known for being a strong friend of Israel, but I have to say the first time I visited Jerusalem and had a proper tour around that wonderful city and saw what had happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem, occupied East Jerusalem, it is genuinely shocking,” Cameron said during a weekly question-and-answer session.

Barkat said Cameron’s statements were “incorrect, based on a lack of awareness of facts and the reality on the ground,” in a statement released by the Jerusalem municipality.

The mayor rhetorically asked what it was that specifically shocked Cameron, highlighting investment in schools, infrastructure and community centers in East Jerusalem.

Cameron’s comments were likely referring to a 2007 trip he took before being elected prime minister and before Barkat was elected mayor. During that visit he toured several parts of Jerusalem and the surrounding area, including a promenade that skirts the Jerusalem seam line.



Jerusalem’s municipality is often accused of failing to provide equal services to Arab and Jewish parts of the city, something Barkat has claimed he is working to remedy.

The city’s response included a pointed criticism of Britain’s own administration of Jerusalem from 1923 to 1948.

“The quality of life for East Jerusalem residents is constantly progressing and is far superior to the quality of life for residents in any of our neighboring countries, certainly better than the time of the British Mandate in Israel,” read the Barkat statement in Hebrew.

Notably, however, the reference to the British Mandate was left out of the English translation of statements circulated by the municipality.

A spokeswoman for Barkat said it was normal practice to edit comments in translations in order to make statements appropriate for different audiences.

“Sometimes we add some explanation and sometimes we take things out,” she told The Times of Israel. “In this case, we didn’t need to include the statements on the British Mandate in English as you can assume that the British public know about the Mandate and what went on. Those comments were directed at Israelis who may not.”

Some 200,000 Israelis live alongside about 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, most of them in Jewish neighborhoods built after 1967.

While Israel maintains it has the right to build anywhere in the capital, the international community never recognized its annexation of East Jerusalem, and building there is frequently condemned.

Cameron said on Wednesday: “What this government has consistently done and gone on doing is saying, ‘Yes, we are supporters of Israel but we do not support illegal settlement, we do not want to support what is happening in East Jerusalem, and it’s very important that this capital city is maintained the way it was in the past.’”

Britain's opposition Conservative party leader David Cameron pauses during a tour in Jerusalem on Thursday March 1, 2007. (AP/Sameer Bazbaz)
Britain’s opposition Conservative party leader David Cameron pauses during a tour in Jerusalem on March 1, 2007. (AP/Sameer Bazbaz)

Barkat encouraged Cameron to visit Jerusalem again instead of speaking out against it.

“I invite Prime Minister Cameron to work with us to advance the development of the city of Jerusalem, rather than work to build walls and sharpen divisions in the heart of Jerusalem.”


Last week group of British lawmakers on a visit to the region clashed with senior Palestinian Authority officials Wednesday during a meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah, after a PA representative blamed the MPs, as Britons, for causing the entire Israel-Palestinian conflict with the British Mandate.

A lunch meeting between a delegation from the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and veteran PA negotiator Nabil Shaath turned hostile with Shaath and other Palestinian officials hurling accusations against the group for their implicit support of the 1923-48 British Mandate in Palestine.



That was “years and years before I was even born,” said one of the MPs wryly later.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/barkat-slams-cameron-east-jerusalem-better-off-now-than-under-uk/

It seems America is catching on as well:

The Fading Two-State Solution




Given the brittle relations between the Obama administration and Israel, even truth-telling can ignite a firestorm. That happened this week when Daniel Shapiro, Washington’s ambassador in Tel Aviv, delivered a speech that drew unfair rebukes from Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his right-wing government.

Speaking at a security conference, Mr. Shapiro said, correctly, that Israel’s quick-moving expansion of settlements on Palestinian lands “raises honest questions about Israel’s long-term intentions” and commitment to a two-state solution. What really enraged his critics was an observation that during a time of increased violence in Israel and the West Bank, “Too many attacks on Palestinians lack a vigorous investigation or response by Israeli authorities, too much vigilantism goes unchecked, and at times there seem to be two standards of adherence to the rule of law: one for Israelis and another for Palestinians.” A statement from Mr. Netanyahu’s office denounced the second comment as “unacceptable and incorrect.”
Considering the relentless violence and attacks on Israel’s very existence, Israelis are understandably on high alert to defend themselves. On the day Mr. Shapiro spoke, an Israeli mother of six, who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist, was buried, and a pregnant woman was injured in a separate attack. But Palestinians have been victims of assaults and acts of vandalism by Jewish extremists, including an arson attack in July that killed a toddler and his parents in the West Bank village of Duma. None of this is acceptable.

The criticism of Mr. Shapiro, a vigorous advocate for Israel, was unusually personal and unfair. He correctly identified a serious problem. Since 1967, there has been a dual legal system in the West Bank in which Palestinians are subject to military courts, where, experts say, they are almost always convicted. Israeli settlers fall under the Israeli civilian judicial system, with its greater rights and protections. The disparity is likely to become more acute if Israelis abandon the two-state solution in favor of a single state, as some in Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet desire.

Mr. Shapiro called indictments in the Duma case an important sign of Israel’s commitment to prosecute acts of terror against Palestinians, and he urged Israel to “develop stronger, more credible responses to questions about the rule of law in the West Bank.” He also said America had been “asking tough questions of the Palestinians and of Israel’s Arab neighbors, questions about murderous incitement, about withholding recognition, questions about threats to end security cooperation, about support for terror groups and about misuse of the U.N. system.”

Israel is moving quickly to establish facts on the ground that preclude a Palestinian state, leaving Palestinians increasingly marginalized and despairing. “It is starting to look like a de facto annexation,” one American official said. In a speech last month, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that violence, settlement-building and demolitions of Palestinian homes were “imperiling the viability of a two-state solution.” He said the number of settlers had increased by tens of thousands in five years. Thousands of Palestinian homes are said to be pending demolition.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/opinion/the-fading-two-state-solution.html?referer=&_r=0

Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.

Yes it certainly did and you stating only having one that denies Israel is racist my boy

They could have had a state 3 times and 3 times denied this happening

Nothing is impossible, when it comes to nations being able to come to peace

What you are really saying is you do not want peace

Proving how much you hate the Jews

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.

Given the number of Palestinian homes they are demolishing as well.    These people (the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions) are doing their best:  http://icahd.org/get-the-facts/faq/   But even they agree a 2 State solution is no longer possible:



Other than the demolition of homes what other international laws does the Israeli Occupation violate?
Virtually all of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands violates human rights conventions – and especially the Fourth Geneva Convention that forbids an occupying power from making its presence a permanent one. Thus:

• Articles 50 and 51 of the “Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention” emphasize the protection of civilians in time of war. “The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians…. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.”
  

• Article 3 prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,” a routine element of Palestinian life under Israel’s occupation.
  

• Article 32 forbids assassinations, and any brutalization of the civilian population, including their treatment at checkpoints and in “security searches.”
  

• Article 33 prohibiting pillage would obtain to Israel’s extensive use of West Bank and Gazan water resources, especially as they are denied the local population. It also prohibits the use of collective punishment, as represented by the imposition of closure, curfew, house demolitions and many other routine actions of the Occupation Authorities.
  

• Article 39 stipulates: “Protected persons [residents of occupied lands] who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment.” It thereby prohibits the imposition a permanent “closure” on the Occupied Territories, such as Israel has done since 1993.
  

• Article 64 forbids changes in the local legal system that, among other things, alienate the local population from its land and property, as Israel has done through massive land expropriations.
  

• Article 146 holds accountable individuals who have committed “grave breaches” of the Convention. According to Article 147, this includes many acts routinely practiced under the Occupation, such as willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury, unlawful deportation, taking of hostages, extensive destruction, and appropriation of property. Israeli courts have thus far failed to charge or prosecute Israeli officials, military personnel or police who have committed such acts.
  

• The PLO also bears a measure of responsibility for the violations of its own people’s rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. According to Article 8, the PLO had no right in the Oslo Agreements to abrogate their rights and suspend the applicability of the Convention, since “Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention.” Had international humanitarian law been the basis of the Oslo peace process rather than power-negotiations, the Occupation would have ended and the conditions for a just peace would have been established, since virtually every element of Israel’s occupation violates a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  

What solution does ICAHD advocate?
ICAHD does not advocate for a particular solution, believing that that is the Palestinians’ prerogative. If the Palestinians think a two-state solution would work (and this is still the policy of the PA), we would support it. We would also support a one-state solution, be it bi-national or democratic, and also other possibilities – a regional confederation, for example.
ICAHD will support any solution that it inclusive of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples, will bring an end to all violence, and is rooted in human rights. Rather than a particular solution, we advocate for an approach to peace that contains the following elements:
Is a two-state solution still possible?
We at ICAHD have come to the conclusion that the two-state solution is gone, buried by the settlements, the Israeli-only highways, the Wall and the other massive, permanent “facts on the ground” that Israel has imposed on the OPT. There is simply no place left for a Palestinian state that would be truly sovereign, economically viable, and territorially congruent. The Palestinians cannot be blamed for the demise of the two-state solution; it is the Israeli government that eliminated the possibility. To the degree that Israeli rule over the entire Land of Israel has been made a permanent reality, we are witnessing the establishment of a new apartheid regime. Israel has separated the Jewish from Palestinian populations (“apartheid” literally means separation in Afrikaans), and has then imposed a regime by which the Jewish population institutionally and physically dominates the Palestinians.
Do Israelis support the work of ICAHD?
The Israeli public has disconnected from the issue of the Occupation and peace with the Palestinians. As life becomes ever quieter and more normalized Israelis feel less and less a need to change the status quo, especially if it means removing settlements. And as peace with the Palestinians disappears from the public discussion, so does the ability of the peace movement to engage the Israeli public, the media or decision-makers. ICAHD’s message is not necessarily rejected by Israelis, but is completely outside the public debate. That is why we devote most of our advocacy to civil society abroad.
What aspects of the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are most likely to be denied or ignored by the average Israeli?
All of it. It’s hard to convey, but Israeli Jews just don’t care about the Occupation. They don’t see it, it does not affect their lives, they live in relative prosperity and security, the “Arabs” (the term Palestinians is not even used) are “over there” somewhere – in short, the Occupation (another term we don’t use in Israel, preferring just to refer to “the Territories”) is a non-issue.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Even the plan negotiated under Clinton didn't make a 2 state solution viable. Now it's utterly impossible.

Yes it certainly did and you stating only having one that denies Israel is racist my boy

They could have had a state 3 times and 3 times denied this happening

Nothing is impossible, when it comes to nations being able to come to peace

What you are really saying is you do not want peace

Proving how much you hate the Jews

A childish answer from a weak man.

The West Bank was cut in at least 2 under the Clinton plan. Making a 3 state solution. Not viable at all.

What about the Israel arabs that have settled in the settlements?

Not think of that you too?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes it certainly did and you stating only having one that denies Israel is racist my boy

They could have had a state 3 times and 3 times denied this happening

Nothing is impossible, when it comes to nations being able to come to peace

What you are really saying is you do not want peace

Proving how much you hate the Jews

A childish answer from a weak man.

The West Bank was cut in at least 2 under the Clinton plan. Making a 3 state solution. Not viable at all.

The next plan offered 98% of the west bank and East Jerusalem

They rejected this as they did the partition plan

That shows the fault is with the Palestinian authorities

You are the one religious, showing how weak you are to the fear of death itself