20 And the west side shall be the Great Sea, from the border as far as over against the entrance of Hamath. This is the west side.
The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights are territories which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.
There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment.
EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications [what does that imply?] of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice.
We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was in order to enable consumers to make a more fully informed decision concerning the products they buy that, in December 2009, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) introduced voluntary guidelines to enable produce from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories to be specifically labelled as such. See Defra’s technical advice on the labelling of produce grown in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Since 1 February 2005, products produced in Israeli settlements are not entitled to benefit from preferential tariff treatment under the EU-Israel Association. On 3 August 2012, the European Commission published a revised Notice to Importers (see OJ C 232 page 5) concerning imports from Israel into the Union, including a revised list of non-eligible locations.
A common conception of time is also important in understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Three key years in the conflict, 1917, 1947 and 1967, mark three sets of events, each year with its own significance, on which in principle an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians can be based.
...the beginning of the conflict...designate[s] the Balfour Declaration as its opening shot. It is unique in how it created the national narrative of the two sides. The Jewish-Zionist side views it as international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to establish an independent state in the Land of Israel. The Arab-Palestinian side sees it as a historic injustice because it did not apply the principle of self-determination to the Arabs of Palestine, who constituted a decisive majority in the country at the time.
...1917 was therefore the “big bang” that set the conflict in motion. 1947, despite its being the culmination of the process, is one of the consequences of 1917. That is all the more so regarding 1967. That year’s events stemmed mainly from the Arabs’ refusal to accept 1947 as an established fact. Even if 1967 created new possibilities for a settlement of the conflict through Resolution 242, which was adopted in the aftermath of the war, it is clear that it should not be viewed as the point of departure of the conflict, because the negotiations also concern mutual recognition with its origins in 1917, and the refugee issue from 1947...The different narratives cannot currently be bridged, due to the residue of the past and its consequences for the outcomeof the negotiations.
...it is not possible to come to a final peace agreement without complete adoption of Resolution 242, which represents the 1967 conception. The 1967 war was a watershed in the conflict. It brought about fundamental changes that not only brought problems to the surface that required a solution, such as the “legacies” of the 1948 War of Independence - borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees.
Bypassing the narratives can make it possible for the Palestinians to maintain the dream of the homeland, meaning all of Palestine of the British Mandate, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River...
I think it is important to go back to even earlier than 1936 in order to understand it. You have to go back to the late nineteenth century when Zionism appeared as a movement. It had two noble objectives, one was to find a safe place for Jews who felt insecure in a growing atmosphere of anti-Semitism, and the other was that some Jews wanted to redefine themselves in a national group, not just as a religion.^
The problem started when they chose Palestine as a territory in which to implement these two impulses. It was clear — because the land was inhabited — that you would have to do it by force and you had to contemplate the depopulation of the indigenous people. It took time for the Palestinian community to realize that this was the plan....
... As far as the West Bank is concerned, you see why a two-state solution is attractive. It could mean the end of military control. One can understand this. But this disregards the other Palestinians: the refugees, the ones from Gaza and the ones that live inside Israel.
That’s one of the difficulties. You have certain groups of Palestinians that, in my opinion, wrongly, believe that this is the quickest way to end the occupation. I don’t think it is.
The second reason is that the two-state solution has a logical ring to it. It’s a very Western idea, a colonialist invention that was applied in India and Africa, this idea of partition. It became a kind of religion to the extent that you do not question it anymore. You work out how best to get there. That is surprising. To my mind it makes very intelligent people take this as a religion of logic. If you question the rationality of it, you are criticized.
You noted that in Abu Dhabi the Arab press boycotted your film because it was considered “pro-Israeli.” In the wake of the choice to have the film open the Jewish Film Festival, were you urged to take part in the boycott against Israel?“Not personally, but I know that tendency exists. I find no logic in it. A cultural boycott is a paradox: To resolve conflicts, dialogue is necessary, the sides have to talk to each other. The whole idea of the movie is to get Israelis to become acquainted with a different type of Muslim Arab: a down-and-out guy who is looking for love in the big city, just like a lot of other young guys. I am a great believer in the ability of the cinema to advance understanding and dialogue, and in that sense I am an idealist.”
"I am reasonably well considering my advanced age -- I am 96 and shall be 97 in February. I wear two Hearing Aids, have only one eye and that has Glaucoma, Arthritis in both legs and I walk with a stick, but my heart is sound, my brain is still working well, and, what is most important, my spirits are as high as ever. Unfortunately, however, I am unable now to fly (the airlines won't accept "an old cripple") so it is most unlikely that I shall ever visit Israel again, which I deeply regret !!!
...I had personal contact [with refuseniks] during the twenty or so years that I made my (approximately) 5,800 telephone calls to the USSR. Yes, that's right, (five-thousand-eight-hundred). I didn't keep a record at the time, but shortly after Gorbachov threw open the gates I worked it out as about 5,800 calls. I was given a free hand by a wealthy, deeply-Jewish-at-heart man, named Cyril Stein, who died only recently in Israel, who paid all my telephone bills during those hectic years. Otherwise I could not have done it. Did you know that I also coined the word "refusenik" (as a translation of the Russian "otkaznik") in early spring 1971.
...My dear wife Muriel, died of cancer in Israel in 1995 and life has not been the same since then. Even now, after more than 18 years, I feel the pain as if my right arm has been pulled off. And my three brothers have gone "the way of all flesh", as well as ALL my old friends, but I am fortunate in having good neighbours.
I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to bore you."
I became a convinced Zionist at the age of 16, in 1933 and I joined an organisation called "Histadrut Hechalutz B'Anglia" on my 18th birthday in 1935. At the time there was a lot of unemployment in England, so when I left "a good job" in the Civil Service to go to the Hachshara Farm in Kent, to train for Aliyah, in 1937 when I was 20, I had a terrible row with my family, who thought I had gone raving mad, and (you may find this incredible) but 20 years later in 1957 my mother said to me "I've never forgiven you for what you did to me in 1937 when you left home to go to that farm". !!!!! And she never did forgive me till the day she died.
Two years later in 1939 we received Immigration Certificates (Remember this was during the British Mandate) and it was shortly before the outbreak of War) One certificate was for a married couple, so the rest of the group looked at me and my girl friend whom I had met on the farm and said "Well you two should get married !" So we did and 9 of us left for Palestine. more or less as War was starting !!! We had a nightmare journey through France to Marseilles and and even worse journey by ship to Haifa. Normally
a 4 day voyage but because it was thought that Italy was going to come into the war at once, we had to dodge possible submarine attacks by the Italian Navy and instead of 4, it took us 14 days to get there.
We arrived on Rosh Hashana (1st day) 1939 with no one to meet us.
But this is becoming too long. so in brief, we joined Kibbutz Anglo-Balti in Binyamina and later we took part in the founding of Kfar Blum in Upper Galillee. But when we had news that my younger brother had been badly wounded by the Germans and taken prisoner, (and was a POW for the next 5 years !) I left the Kibbutz and was with the Royal Navy in Haifa throughout the War.We returned to England after the War in 1946 but I couldn't settle in England and in December 1947 we retuned to Palestine with two very young daughters (aged 4.1/2 and 1.1/2) and I imediately joined Haganah which very soon became Tzahal. I was in Hativah Sheva, at the battles for Latrun against Abdullah's Arab Legion and we had very heavy casualties. Meanwhile my wife with the 2 babes was almost starving, living in a hut with no piped water and no electricity and by the time I left the Army it was obvious that she was very ill. We returned to England (another nightmare voyage) and she was diagnosed as having T.B. (tuberculosis) in both lungs and a forecast of maximum of 2 years to live. But she cheated the doctors, and one lung was removed, and she lived until 1995, when she died of Breast Cancer.
Meanwhile I trained to become a techer, and in reply from a communist friend who knew how anti-communist I had become (that;s another long story by itself) challenged me to learn Russian. I took it up and became quite fluent and in 1962 at the age of 45 I gained a University degree B.A. Honours 2nd Class Russian language and Literature with Spanish and French.
I'll omit many years now and jump to 1969 when I joined the local AJEX Soviet Jewry Committee and began phoning to the USSR. I coined the word "REFUSENIK" in 1971, and over the next 20 years I made over 5,000 (five thousand) calls to Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov, Gomel, Minsk, Grodno, Sverdlovsk, Smolensk, Tbilisi, Yalta, and ... and ... and ..wherever there were Jews who were having problems, even to Vladivostok in the very Far East. I had regular calls 2 or 3 tmes a week to Sharansky, Dina Beilin, Ida Nudel, and ALL the leading refuseniks, as well as gathering new names every time. We had to have this information because Levanon (the B_______ !!) openly refused to help us. I could write a whole book about my experiences. It was very tiring but I was enthralled by it, and my name became a by-word and a password among the Refusenik circles, I gave them information on a more or less daily basis and all the info. that they gave me I passed to 1. The Israeli Embassy in London, (where, I learned later they did not even study it but threw it in the waste bin) 2. To the 35's and separately to Barbara Oberman with whom I worked in close co-operation, and 3. and this was most important, to the USA, where I had built up a network so that I only needed to make ONE phone call, say to Detroit, and I knew it would all over the USA within an hour or so. I had contacts in New york, Boston, Washington, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, Momtgomery (Alabama), Miami, Los Angeles, San Frncisco and I forget where else. So I became a cenre of Information and today I have very many friends in Israel who know me from those hectic days when they wee refused an Exit Visa to "return home" to Medinat Yisrael.
6 Dec 2009 14:16Subject: Soviet Jewry CampaignTo: firstname.lastname@example.org
To the Editor,Jerusalem Post, Israel. Dear Sir,
I am very disappointed to note that Sheila Silver RAVIV has chosen to repeat her story, which contains, unfortunately, a number of inaccuracies, which had already been pointed out to her.
She states that her husband, Zvi Raviv, and his fellow students, organised "demonstrations which acted as a catalyst to challenge the Israeli Government to initiate the world wide campaign for Soviet Jewry".
I fully agree with her that the Israeli Government was literally doing nothing in this respect, which is probably why the public in Israel had no idea that the world wide campaign had been started ("initiated ?") several years before. Yakov Birnbaum in New York had formed the Students Struggle for Soviet Jewry as early as 1961. Hal Light had started a very active campaign for Soviet Jews in San Francisco in1963 and in that same year, 1963, Dr.Louis Rosenbloom and a number of his fellow scientists started their own campaign in Cleveland, Ohio, which soon joined those on the West Coast and rapidly formed the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews in cities all over the United States, from Minnesota in the North, through Chicago, Omaha, Denver, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, Montogomery (Al), with massive demonstrations in every part of the United States by the middle and late 60's.
There was also a very active group in Britain, founded by Barbara Oberman, called the "35's Women's Campaign for Soviet Jewry".
This was achieved not only without the approbation or support of any kind from the Israeli Government but it encountered active opposition from the very secret committee which Golda Meir may have formed in response to Raviv's (no doubt courageous) standing up to her, This active opposition led me to accuse Nehemia Levanon the Head of this "secret" office of attempting to sabotage our campaign. I accused him in writing, and openly at a meeting in Jerusalem. I called his committee "The Office With No Name", a title which stuck until he began to give it various names, such as "Lishkah" or "Nativ" and other fancy names.
Sheila Silver Raviv refers to Golda Meir's "determination to free Sharansky". This may well have been so, but in fact, Nehemia Levanon and his "Office with (now) Several Names" were in active opposition to Sharansky as he was "a dissident", and, as Levanon told a number of M.K.'s "Sharansky's case is no concern of Medinat Yisrael".
Chairman of the South African Zionist Federation Avrom Krengel said in a statement...Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had been a major influence of Mandela's. "The strength he drew from Zionism came from Menachem Begin’s book which inspired him to initiate the creation of Umkonto We Siswe. In turn, people across the world drew inspiration from him and his amazing ability to draw people together."
"...There are young people, teenagers that I met both in Israel and in the Palestinian Territories that want to get out from under this history and seek a future that is fundamentally different for them. And so if, in fact, we can create a pathway to peace, even if initially it’s restricted to the West Bank, if there is a model where young Palestinians in Gaza are looking and seeing that in the West Bank Palestinians are able to live in dignity, with self-determination, and suddenly their economy is booming and trade is taking place because they have created an environment in which Israel is confident about its security and a lot of the old barriers to commerce and educational exchange and all that has begun to break down..."
ON ONCE desolate hills in the West Bank, a modern city is being built which is fast becoming a symbol of Palestinian pride.
A huge Palestinian flag flies over Rawabi, a signal to Israeli settlers living nearby that the first new Palestinian city to be constructed since Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 isn’t just about property development.
“It’s a message … that we can also put facts on the ground,” said Palestinian-American developer Bashar Masri, using a phrase associated with Israel’s settlement construction on lands Palestinians want for a state.
The city looks like the large Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with neat rows of flats, and will have amenities unheard of in most Palestinian towns.
It was announced yesterday that Israeli actress Gal Gadot would be taking on the role that feminists and fanboys oft-speculate on: Wonder Woman. Immediately, the internet erupted with two reactions—"Who?" followed quickly by "She's too skinny to play Wonder Woman." And so begins yet another cycle of outcry over a no-name being cast as a beloved superhero. But is casting someone with little to no fan following really such a gaffe?
Since the beginning of 2013, terrorists have attempted dozens of kidnapping attacks, and their motivation to abduct soldiers remains high. The goal of their efforts is clear: to trade IDF soldiers – captured dead or alive – for the release of Palestinian prisoners.
On October 18, 2011, Israelis everywhere celebrated the release of Sergeant First Class Gilad Shalit after five years in terrorist captivity. On that day, Hamas terrorists freed SFC Shalit – an IDF soldier whom they kidnapped in 2006 – in exchange for about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. Despite the overjoyed reaction in Israel, the threat of kidnapping has remained high ever since. Until today, Palestinian terrorists view the capture of SFC Shalit as a key accomplishment, increasing their determination to kidnap Israelis and trade them for Palestinian prisoners.
The most remarkable fact in the Times report was not the 5,000-person turnout—although such a turnout in isolationist America was remarkable enough—but the fact that the ZOA leaders had been conspicuously absent. What made them unwilling to attend a huge outpouring of Jews, at the Manhattan Center, a few blocks from their offices? The brief answer is that American Jewish leaders considered Jabotinsky “right wing,” while they were liberals allied with Roosevelt and his party; they considered him a “militarist,” which they thought inconsistent with Jewish values; they considered him an “extremist” in matters they thought needed quiet diplomacy, given America’s neutrality; and they wanted to avoid having Jews perceived as an ethnic group pushing a pro-war agenda.
After Jabotinsky’s Manhattan Center speech, a prominent Zionist leader wrote his colleagues that Jabotinsky was “making an impression on American Jews” and that it was necessary to “destroy [his] influence … on the American public.” The Zionist organizations combined to print a 36-page pamphlet warning Jews against the “seductiveness” of Jabotinsky’s rhetoric, “particularly when supported by [his] powerful personality.” They castigated his “notorious” 1937 “Evacuation Scheme,” accusing him of “abetting the anti-Semitic desire to treat Jews as aliens and drive them out of their lands of residence” in Europe.
Benzion Netanyahu, Jabotinsky’s executive assistant (and father of the current prime minister of Israel), booked the Manhattan Center again, this time for June 19, and Jabotinsky was determined to make the event a broad show of support for a Jewish army. He sent a representative to meet in Washington with Lord Lothian, the British ambassador. Three days later he sent Col. Patterson to meet Lothian. Then Jabotinsky and Lothian themselves met for lunch in New York. The week before the rally, the British embassy informed Jabotinsky that the British consul general in New York would attend.
The American Zionist organizations learned of Lothian’s decision and mobilized to reverse it. Two days before the rally, they sent a delegation to Washington to meet Lothian, led by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise. After the meeting, a curt statement was issued to the media: “American Zionist organizations are not associated with Mr. V. Jabotinsky’s activities in any way.” Lothian thereafter withdrew the British consul general from the rally.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday that he had provided Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel with “some thoughts” about security arrangements that could be put in place if Israel and the Palestinians negotiated a peace agreement. Mr. Kerry presented the ideas on security arrangements in the West Bank and in the Jordan Valley along with John R. Allen
Secretary's Remarks: Statement Following Meeting With President Mahmoud Abbas12/05/2013 12:01 PM EST
Statement Following Meeting With President Mahmoud Abbas
...the goal here for everybody is a viable Palestinian state with the Palestinian people living side by side in peace with the state of Israel and with the people of Israel.
I think the interests are very similar, but there are questions of sovereignty, questions of respect and dignity which are obviously significant to the Palestinians, and for the Israelis very serious questions of security and also of longer-term issues of how we end this conflict once and for all.
So we will continue. I’m returning now to Jerusalem to have further conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and then shortly, perhaps in a week or so, may return for further discussions
Palestinians held talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday on a possible future peace accord with Israel and emerged with mixed descriptions of how much common ground they had found with Israel's most vital ally.
One Palestinian official told Reuters his side had rejected Kerry's ideas for future security arrangements, without giving details of the proposals.
"...for the settlers, by the settlers, from the settlers.”
The Palestinian negotiating team [aka Erefat] has already presented its resignation over the issue, but Abbas has not yet accepted it.
Do you believe that the negotiations underway now will reach a peace
agreement with the Palestinians?
Yes 6% No 87.5% Don't know 6.5%
Y. Harari (Progressives): We all want a great many things, but one has to know how and when to accept facts, and not to miss opportunities. The fact that Israel agreed to the partition borders does not mean that Rachel's Tomb has ceased to be a national monument for us, the Cave of Machpelah will always be the site where our forefathers are buried, Jericho will still be the town whose walls fell at the sound of the trumpets and the historical borders in the Bible will never change. But this did not prevent us agreeing to the possible borders at the appropriate moment. Did we fight less for the areas which were not within the partition borders of 29 November 1947? Did we not do everything possible at the right moment, in the war, to conquer them?
H. Landau (Herut): Of course you didn't.
Y. Harari (Progressives): Only you did!
H. Landau (Herut): The Gentiles stopped and our Government surrendered.
Y. Harari (Progressives): One also has to know when to stop during a ceasefire.
Y. Bader (Herut): One also has to know when not to stop.
Following is an excerpt from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks today, after his meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Jerusalem:
...Now, on the Palestinian issue, I want to say that Israel is ready for a historic peace, and it's a peace based on two states for two peoples. It's a peace that Israel can and must be able to defend by itself with our own forces against any foreseeable threat. We don't need artificial crises. What we need is not grandstanding, but understanding and agreements and that requires hard and serious hard work. I'm fully committed and Israel is fully committed to such an effort and I hope the Palestinians are committed to this goal as well."
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, told diplomats at a dinner in Jerusalem on Friday night that they needed to put more pressure on Israel for the peace talks to progress. Since the latest round of negotiations began, Mr. Erekat said, Israel has demolished 159 Palestinian homes, killed 23 Palestinians and moved forward on constructing 5,992 new apartments in West Bank settlements.“We can deliver an agreement if we have a partner in the state of Israel willing to stand up and say, ‘We want a two-state solution on the 1967 border,’ ” Mr. Erekat said in a speech marking the United Nations-declared day of solidarity with the Palestinians. “I am the most disadvantaged negotiator in the history of the world — I have no army, no navy, no air force, no border; I have no economy.”
Mr. Erekat told the diplomats that the Palestinians could never accede to Israel’s demand that they recognize it as the nation-state of the Jewish people. “I cannot change my narrative,” he said. “The essence of peace is not to convert each other’s stories.”
2. (b) Whosoever does anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.
there is something unreasonable in the world's continued adherence to the Oslo paradigm, tattered and battered as it is by years of a bloody fiasco.
Franks Introduces Bill to Recognize Jerusalem and Golan Heights, Move American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-08), Chairman of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, today announced the introduction of the Israel Sovereignty and Security Recognition Act (ISSRA). The bill recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the Golan Heights as Israel's sovereign land, recommends selling or repurposing the current embassy in Tel Aviv in favor of an existing location in Jerusalem, and repeals the 1995 Presidential waiver in Section 7 of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which successive Administrations have used to postpone just such a relocation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
According to Franks, "Given the turmoil and increasing dangers Israel faces in the Middle East, it is imperative that we affirm America’s respect for Israel's sovereignty, security and legal rights to its lands.
"The Israel Sovereignty and Security Recognition Act both recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's eternal, undivided capital and the Golan Heights as Israel's sovereign land.
"In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited after Israel was attacked by Jordan during the conflict known as the Six Day War. Since then Israel has restored and guaranteed freedom of religion and full access to holy sites for people of all faiths.
"Likewise, the Golan Heights was restored to Israel after Israel was attacked by Syria during the Six Day War, and this region remains vital and strategically indispensable to the security, well-being and continued existence of the State of Israel, allowing it to detect and defend from infiltration, attacks, and hostilities that continue to emanate from Syria.
"The bill also provides significant cost-savings because it recommends that the United States government either repurpose the current Embassy property in Tel Aviv to a consulate, or sell the property. In either instance, our Embassy would move to an existing, more modern, and more secure location in Jerusalem. It is important to note that there is no language appropriating any funds to build a new Embassy.
"We have assisted the Jewish People in restoring their ancient state. We must act and recognize her ancient and eternal city as her undivided capital, and her rights to her lands, now and forever."
The initiative has drawn bipartisan support. Primary sponsors of the legislation include Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Representative Gene Green (D-TX), and Representative Mike McIntyre (D-NC).
1. What is your position on holding peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority?
1. Strongly in favor 39.4/31.0/80.9
2. Somewhat in favor 27.5/31.5/7.9
3. Somewhat opposed 9.6/11.5/0.0
4. Strongly opposed 17.6/19.2/9.8
5. Don’t know/Refuse 5.8/6.7/1.4
2. Do you believe or not believe that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians
in the coming years?
1. Strongly believe 9.8/6.0/28.9
2. Somewhat believe 19.2/18.3/23.7
3. Somewhat don’t believe 25.1/25.6/22.5
4. Don’t believe at all 45.2/49.5/23.3
5. Don’t know/Refuse 0.7/0.6/1.6
3. In your opinion, does the Palestinian Authority actually want or not want to reach a permanent peace settlement with Israel based on mutual compromises?
1. I’m sure it wants to 12.1/4.9/48.5
2. I think it wants to 19.3/17.6/28.0
3. I think it doesn’t want to 25.3/27.1/16.2
4. I’m sure it doesn’t want to 38.9/46.1/2.8
5. Don’t know/Refuse 4.4/4.3/4.6
4. And does the Israeli government actually want or not to reach a permanent peace settlement with the Palestinians based on mutual compromises?
1. I’m sure it wants to 26.3/25.6/29.3
2. I think it wants to 38.8/40.3/31.2
3. I think it doesn’t want to 16.8/17.1/15.7
4. I’m sure it doesn’t want to 12.3/11.0/18.8
5. Don’t know/Refuse 5.8/6.0/5.0
5. In your assessment, to whom is it more important to reach a permanent peace settlement - the Palestinians or Israel?
1. More to the Palestinians 21.4/17.1/42.4
2. More to Israel 46.8/52.8/16.8
3. To both sides to the same extent (not read) 25.5/23.8/33.7
4. Reaching a settlement is not important to either side (not read) 3.6/3.4/4.4
5. Don’t know/Refuse 2.8/2.8/2.6
Mr. Medad.I take your point.My information was received early on but was incorrect.It needs to be made good.I've taken corrective action.
You are very much correct that the attackers were Palestinian, contrary to earlier reports I had received.
Responsibility must be assigned to the Palestinian perpetrators.
This requires early correction and I have taken the necessary steps to do so.
A British man is facing a prison sentence after Italian police accused his son of vandalising a cathedral.
Seven-year-old Simon Rowe allegedly broke off pieces of stone from the Renaissance Duomo in Florence then threw them into the piazza below.
He was arrested and kept in police custody for more than two hours with his father, Jonathan.
On returning to England, Mr Rowe, a 38-year- old nurse, was contacted by the Italian authorities who told him charges would be dropped if he paid a £100 fine and £250 in legal fees.
But he has refused to pay and has been told he must return to Florence to answer charges as the legal guardian of his son, who is under the age of criminal responsibility.
Under Italian law, he could be fined or sent to jail for up a month if found guilty.