British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and the implied threat of a “one state solution”

Harriet Sherwood summed up the British Foreign Secretary’s two day visit to Israel last week in an article which raises quite a few questions with regard to the British government’s policies and attitudes towards Israel, in addition to those already prompted by David Cameron’s “prison camp” remarks made in Ankara.

First, however, let’s take a look at some of the comments prompted by this article. A significant proportion of them seemed to accept unquestioningly Hague’s dubious axiom whereby the so-called ‘window of opportunity’ for a two-state solution to the conflict is closing, and duly leapt in with their own suggestion – the somewhat hackneyed ‘one-state solution’.

Obviously ‘NoNukesPlease’ has never heard of this institution in Jerusalem.

That seems to sound like a threat of violence.


And then we had the (later deleted) somewhat theologically challenged, if appropriately monikered, ‘Dumbo 3’.

And finally, someone who appears to be taking things very personally:

Obviously ‘Mark Thomason’ is unaware of the legal basis for the instigation of a maritime blockade. Then again, the same seems to be true of the British Prime Minister, whose unfortunate outpourings in Ankara represent official British Government policy, as William Hague made quite clear to the Israeli public in an interview he gave to Israel’s Channel 10 news during his recent visit.

The question which needs to be asked, of course, is what exactly does the British Foreign Secretary really mean to say when he talks about the closing of a ‘window of opportunity’? Upon what basis does he make this claim and why does he make it? Is he in fact engineering a situation in which the somewhat inevitable failure of the current round of negotiations would be laid exclusively at Israel’s door? By putting so much of the onus for potential failure upon the extension of the expired building moratorium, it certainly looks that way. Neither in Sherwood’s article nor throughout Hague’s visit in Israel did we hear any mention at all of his opinion on the subject of Palestinian responsibilities for the continuation of talks.

If Mr. Hague really thinks that the viability of a two-state solution is coming to a close is he in fact, like those  CiF commentators above, convinced that the future lies in a one-state ‘solution’ which would automatically compromise Jewish self-determination and lead to the end of the Jewish State? Or is Hague rather subtly threatening us with the possible lending of British support to the PA/OIC instigated maneuver already being embroidered in the corridors of the United Nations Security Council designed to bring about an imposed ‘solution’ to the issue which would inevitably completely by-pass the issue of Israel’s security?

In typical diplomatic fashion the picture is at present unclear; no official statement has been made either way and one doubts very much that one will be. However, Hague’s recent visit to Israel, along with the British Government’s foot-dragging over the issue of universal jurisdiction and Cameron’s ridiculously uninformed remarks in Turkey are a great cause of concern to all those both in the UK and in Israel who had hoped that Britain would adopt a more sane stance on Middle East policy under Tory rule.

Hague’s decision to meet and express solidarity with the ‘Popular Struggle Co-ordination Committee’ was nothing short of bizarre from a diplomatic standpoint. Responsible for injuries to hundreds of members of Israel’s security forces and for hundreds of thousands of shekels-worth of damage to property, these BDS-supporting extremists who claim to act “in the tradition of the first Intifada” and oppose any territorial compromise , try to destroy the anti-terrorist fence which has saved countless Israeli lives since its construction, as well as apparently trying to whitewash cases of the abuse of foreign nationals who support them. In other words, their credentials as promoters of human rights are far from impeccable.

In William Hague’s own country stone-throwers are classified as ‘yobs’ or ‘mobs’ and are dealt with by the police, who appear to be very much aware of the potential dangers of such violent behavior and prosecute accordingly.  Absurdly, Hague appears to see no wrong in providing stone-throwers in somebody else’s country with the media exposure and legitimacy that a meeting with a foreign dignitary supplies. In addition, the British Government can tell us till the proverbial cows come home that they oppose BDS and are committed to the security of Israel’s civilian population, but actions such as this one by Hague only serve to undermine any possible belief in such statements.

Of course whatever prestige the stone-throwers gained from Hague’s visit, the British Government lost. The Israeli people are hearing you loud and clear, London, and your credibility is yet again waning fast.

27 replies »

  1. “Yet again” waning fast??

    Most of us know how the British government feels towards Israel and there are so many Islamists employed by it in various positions of power and in NGOs that any semblance of “relationship” between it and Israel is a joke.

    And William “Billy Fizz” Hague is hardly credible in and of himself.

  2. William Hague is a member of “the conversative friends of Israel”.

    What is their official opinion on this matter?

  3. Apparently NoNukesPlease has not heard of Lebanon; of the troubles there, by virtue of his beloved idea of groups vying with each other (but not as to who could be the most wise and loving), since the 1950s. So much so that Eisenhower had to send a fleet in 1958 to straighten things out. (And of the civil war in the years 1975-90, the less said the better.)

    Leftists never let harsh realities take precedence to their high-flown ideals. The greater problem is, a lot of innocents end up paying for those leftists’ blind spot. Not least the people of Britain itself, seeing before their own eyes their country falling into the hands of Islamic law, courtesy of the very multiculturalism they demand Israel embrace.

  4. This government’s credibilty here is of a very low order. Cameron and Hague are probably saying what the FCO told them to say and their coalition partners reinforced.

    Sunday, November 07, 2010

    I listened to William Hague interviewed on the Marr programme and, to be honest I cringed at his evasions and ameliorations. This man is not a Conservative as I recognise it. To think that the Conservative Party will ever tackle the BBC hegemony is pure folly.

    Posted by David Vance at 08:46

    A comment:
    Cassandra King

    The months gone by have not been kind to Gay Billy have they? He looks hunted and beaten, he has the demeanour of a man with a gun to his head, he is not speaking for himself rather he has been given a cheat card/stock answer guide.

    Gone is the feisty no nonsense confident Hague replaced by a husk of a man, a puppet like tape recorder and you can almost see the strings being pulled. He is lying and he knows we know, its a charade because he isnt a foreign secretary in the classical sense of the word, he is a mere functionary reporting to his new mistress Ashton.

    If you want to see a prime example of the decay of the Tory party then look no further than Hague, look closely at his micro expressions and the direction of eye travel when answering questions. I dont know what is being held over the guys head by way of threats but this guy looks as if he would piss his panties if the local moggy farted.

    This new coalition dictatorship will not stop, they will not see reason and they are determined to betray us all, these traitors and Quislings are going to have to be exterminated.

    They are the borg and they really believe resistance is futile.

  5. Itsik, the Conservative or any other party’s Friends of Israel including Blair are quite capable of blaming things on “the occupation.” Now they have the joy of moralising about “the blockade” too.

    Greville Janner is a great loss to political life. Even the Chief Rabbi’s voice is scarcely heard these days.

  6. Ariadne, Lord Janner of Braunston is still active in Parliament as a member of the House of Lords. Last week, the 4th. Nov. 2010, he asked a question about the security problems caused by HAMAS leaders in Jerusalem.

  7. Israelnurse: Thanks for another succinct and excellent expose of the bias of CiF. Pity that some of the prolific posters here don’t learn from you. Keep up the good work – always a pleasure to read your posts

  8. Its actually funny to see these one-staters, like Nonukesplease, who seem to think that they are representing or helping Palestinians, when the Palestinians themselves absolutely refuse to have anything to do with e a “one state solution” (unless, of course, all the Jews in Israel leave … for … somewhere …).

    The only “reasonable solution”, to quote the second clip, is to finally admit that Jordan is the Palestinians’ country, add on part of the WB, and call it a day.

    I just saw the news about the Jordanian elections on Al jazeera. It had Moslem Brotherhood Arabs calling themselves Palestinians in a refugee “camp” (a town so clogged with traffic the reporter could hardly find a place to stand) demanding equal representation in the Jordanian Parliament while gun-wielding Bedouin supporters of “King” Abdullah making it clear what would happen to the “Palestinians” if they got to stroppy, and Hussein himself dressed up in a uniform that could have come out of a Marx Brother’s movie.

    What was the key demand of the “Palestinians” in Jordan? That the US and Arab countries grant “Palestinians” their undefined rights. But they don’t demand rights in Jordan because they remember what Abdullah’s father did to them when they got too uppity there.

  9. If Mr. Hague really thinks that the viability of a two-state solution is coming to a close is he in fact, like those CiF commentators above, convinced that the future lies in a one-state ‘solution’ which would automatically compromise Jewish self-determination and lead to the end of the Jewish State?

    Of course not! How on earth can you suggest that his views are even vaguely similar to those horrible CiF posters cited?!

    The headline is completely disingenuous.

  10. As for the CiF posts cited:

    MarkThomason’s warmongering and detached-from-reality post got a stunning 35 recommends. How sad and pathetic.

    But at least Dumbo’s hilariously deranged mutterings cheered me up, so ta for that.

  11. I’ve just pictured a comedy sketch centering on Dumbo3’s posts. It’s a one-man affair, with them on the phone talking to some anonymous (but less unenlightened) individual.

    – “blah blah … mythical estate agent … the Jews … ”
    – (unheard response)
    – “OK, so the Jews didn’t top said estate agent, BUT ….”


  12. And as for NoNukesPlease’s reference to “one parliament in Jerusalem and the religion of each group could vie with one another as to who could be the most wise and loving” I was immediately reminded of this scene from Lawrence of Arabia:

    (naughty me)

  13. Pretzel – the one thing which must be said about the Pythons is that they knew their history, which is why they were so successful at satirising it.
    I don’t think poor Dumbo reaches the realms of satire, at least not intentionally.

  14. @ Israelinurse

    It’s the likes of Dumbo that provide us with material for satire – although normally the source is at least a tad subtler.

    I’ve always wondered: while The Life of Brian satirizes various Biblical episodes, surely the whole People’s/Popular Front of Judea etc. was a reference to the PLO/PFLP as well as various South American groups from the time the film was made.

  15. Your question is a crystal clear mirror of your overwhelming ignorance of the subject you are writing about.
    To define the borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state is not the job of this site, but the democratically elected government of Israel and the leaders of the Palestinians. Israel proposed these borders in Camp David (2000), in Taba (2001) and in Annapolis (2008). Until today the Palestinians didn’t accept these propositions but didn’t come out with any counterproposal. Maybe you should ask your question from the them. You would be surprised to hear from that they are with full agreement with you – their idea of a future border would follow the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.
    This concept can be accepted by you and your comrades but as you know already very well your opinion has zero significance.

  16. Hi Richard

    I wonder if any intelligent debate is possible on this site

    I can assure you that with you any reasonable/intelligent debate is absolutely and totally impossible.
    To debate on any subject the first requirement is that both sides have to have some basic knowledge of the subject of the dispute. Reading your input everyone minimally familiar with the ME can see that you are light years away from meeting with this condition, you know nothing about Israel or Palestine – Jews and Arabs. (I don’t take into account your widespread ideas taken from Jew-hater websites and literature)
    The second condition is some minimal openmindedness and the ability to see the virtues of your debating partner’s arguments. In your case you being an anti-semite racist bigot there isnt any hope to expect you to fulfill this requirement.

  17. Thee is no “one state solution” possible except in the minds of some who do not live in the area. The vast majority of Israelis and WB Arabs reject it.

    As for Gaza … no-one wants them in the big tent.

  18. Over the years the largest amount of land I’ve seen mentioned for retention from Judea and Samaria is 7%. The current figure is far less than that.

    Jordan has four times the land area of Israel so as an undeserving beneficiary of the Palestine Mandate it could hand some over,

  19. Richard Tebboth – the “expanding settlers” occupy, in actual area, about 1% of the WB. It is simply nonsense to say that they will “effectively take it over’.

    With the exception of a few well-known towns like Arial and maale Adumim, the rest can be shut down just as Gaza was.

    Of course, it all depends on the rather dubious proposition that the PA actually wants to have a state of it own at all. I doubt it. They like the current situation too much.