I've always wondered how it feels to be officially and diplomatically
persona non grata, along with two worthy other personae non gratae.
Here's the next chapter in Medad's battle with (what's left of) the British Empire (and
here's the previous chapters):-
'Keep settlers out of official events'British Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has vowed to ensure that settlers will not be invited to future events hosted by the British embassy in Israel following a complaint by a Member of Parliament that Israeli settlers took part in a party to celebrate the Queen's birthday at the residence of the British ambassador to Israel in June.
Conservative MP Crispin Blunt wrote to Howells on July 25, after raising the issue in Parliament the previous day, stating that the invitation to "settler leaders" gave the impression of a "weakening in the government's long-held position that settlements were illegal and an obstacle to peace."
"Entertaining the pioneers of this colonization movement has certain given the strong impression that Britain tacitly endorses it or no longer objects to it," Blunt said.
Three representatives of the Yesha Council - chairman Dani Dayan, Shaul Goldstein and Yisrael Medad - attended the celebration at the residence of British Ambassador Tom Phillips in Ramat Gan in June.
...In response, Howells has said that the presence of the settlers at the celebration "was not helpful" and that the British Embassy will ensure it does not happen in the future.
In a letter sent to Blunt on July 31, Howells said: "I should like first of all to reiterate our firm position that all Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory are illegal under international law"...Howells added that the British Embassy in Israel has cultivated links with the settler community to make clear the government's view on the issue and convince them that settlements are "a significant obstacle to peace."
"Our Embassy in Tel Aviv's contacts with the settler community have been with the goal of setting out the British Government's view on this issue, and to seek to convince them that settlements are a significant obstacle to peace. But you are right that their presence at this event was not helpful and the Embassy is reviewing its procedures to ensure that it does not happen in the future."
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Karen Kaufman, Press and Public Affairs Officer at the British Embassy reiterated that they are reviewing procedures.
She said: "As the minister states, the Embassy is reviewing its procedures to ensure that it does not happen in the future."
Asked about embassy contacts with the settler community, mentioned by Howells, she said: "Embassy officials periodically hold meetings with representatives of the settler community and we take every opportunity to make our position on settlements clear to these contacts, as well as to the Israeli government."
Blunt is joint chairman of Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU)...
Here's Howells with a friend, M. Ahmed Tawfiq, Moroccan Minister of Habous [Islamic Property Law] and Islamic Affairs
and here is Kim (*) with Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari
By the way, here was the letter I had sent the Minister:
9 July 2008
The Rt. Honorable Kim Howells
Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London
I was directed to this site where I read the following exchange:
"Crispin Blunt:
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and agree with his points. I am interested, however, to know what he means by "location of settlements". Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention is extremely clear that colonisation of occupied territory is illegal. The settlements in all of the occupied territory are the biggest physical obstacle to a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Now that a ceasefire is in place, surely the Palestinians can expect us to pursue the matter under international law. What kind of signal does it send when settlers' leaders are then invited by Her Majesty's ambassador to Israel to a party celebrating the Queen's birthday?
Kim Howells:
Not very helpful signals, and I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that this is the time to push the Israelis hard on the question of illegal settlements. Clearly, they are illegal and are not helping the Annapolis process in the least. Indeed, they are an obstacle to progress.
I found it disturbing that you, Sir, would so readily agree with MP Blunt that my invitation, along with two others, to the Queens birthday celebration at Ambassador Phillips' official residence as well as on the issue of the presumed "illegality" of my home village was not helpful and that there is a need for a "push".
I would suggest to you that my home village of Shiloh is not an "obstacle" nor illegal and that Amb. Phillips' invitation was entirely in order. This seems to appear to you, surely, a complex issue but it need not be coloured by personal biases based on political ideologies obtained some 40 years ago.
To be concise: the Jewish people's homeland for over 1500 years was lost as a political entity after being conquered by the Romans, a second time, in 135 CE (your AD). It then became known as "Palestine". It was conquered by Arabs only in 638 CE. In 1917, HMG recognized the right of Jewish return to its homeland. 1919, at the Versailles Peace Conference, in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and in 1922, at the Supreme Council of the League of Nations, that right was eternalized in international law as the "reconstitution of the Jewish homeland". The territory of that right, which included "close settlement", extended to both sides of the Jordan River. The following year, Great Britain backtracked and authored a territorial partition, to be followed by yet another partition plan in 1937 and consummating in the 1947 UN Partition Resolution. All these comprised a reneging on that primary right. No Arab entity, genuine or fictitious such as the "Palestinian people", ever agreed to accept any Jewish presence anywhere in the area. Thus, in the post-1967 era, Jews have simply, Mr. Minister, returned home.
Of course, my full explanation of such would be too long for a letter but I am sure that your staff could prepare for you a brief from these sites: here, and here and also here.
As regards the matter of my physical presence at the celebration, I am sure that you, Sir, would find it offensive to be rejected and nullified simply for being what you are rather than doing anything criminal or illegal and that is my reaction. On a more pragmatic level, how could HMG ever learn anything if the officials simply ignore a situation. I have been engaged in discussions with FO diplomats for three decades, have visited the FO at King Charles Street and at my home in Shiloh have received delegations of MPs and others. I find your attitude quite shortsighted.
If you wish to continue this discussion, even if for your position as Minister of State, if not your own personal edification, I am, Sir, at your service.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
The bloke never replied!
The affront of it all. Not only is he wrong, not only is he uncultured but he's downright unmannered. At least he could have written to me in reply.
Please stay with me.
This isn't over yet.
===================================
(*)
Remember Kipling?
Kim is seeking to find his place in the country in which he was born, while at the same time struggling to find, or create, an identity for himself. 'Who is Kim?' 'What is Kim?' Kim asks himself at several points in the novel...the theme of Kim's need to find himself seems to be the backbone of the story...as we see in Chapter 1, he has grown up as an orphan on the streets of Lahore, 'a poor white of the very poorest', looked after by a half-cast woman, probably a prostitute; 'she smoked opium and pretended to keep a second-hand furniture shop by the square where the cheap cabs wait'. With his skin 'burned black as any native' he looks and lives like a low-caste Hindu street-urchin, unable to read or write, or speak English very well, and known to all as 'Little Friend of all the World'. So right from the start he is neither wholly British nor wholly Indian, and his being neither wholly one nor the other, but a unique 'mixture o' things' (Ch.6 p.160) remains a constant in his quest for his identity.
================================
Well, I guess I'll just have to register a diplomatic protest, one way or the other.
================================
Here's the full correspondence:
The following letter was received today from the UK Foreign Minister, Dr Kim Howells MP in response to a letter from CAABU. It confirms that measures are being put in place to ensure that Israeli settler leaders will not be invited to Embassy parties in the future.
http://www.caabu.org/
CAABU welcomes the Minister's response and also with regards to his reiteration that the UK position on illegal Israeli settlements has not changed.
However, CAABU continues to urge the Government that further action is required to ensure that Israel meets its obligations under international law and peace agreements to immediatley halt all settlement activity.
25th July 2008
Dear Mr Blunt,
Thank you for your letter of 1st July about the presence of some Israeli settlers at Her Majesty the Queen's Birthday Party at our Embassy in Tel Aviv.
I should like first of all to reiterate our firm position that all Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory are illegal under international law. You will indeed have seen that the Prime Minister spelt this out very clearly during his recent visit to the region and made clear including in a speech to the Israeli Knesset on 21 July that we want to see an immediate freeze of settlement activity and indeed withdrawal from them.
Our Embassy in Tel Aviv's contacts with the settler community have been with the goal of setting out the British Government's view on this issue, and to seek to convince them that settlements are a significant obstacle to peace. But you are right that their presence at this event was not helpful and the Embassy is reviewing its procedures to ensure that it does not happen in the future.
Kim Howells
Minister of State
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
CAABU letter
Dr Kim Howells MP
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles St
London SW1A 0AH
25 June 2008
Dear Dr Howells,
We were very pleased that you agreed with me in Parliament on Tuesday 24 June that the invitation of the British Embassy to settler leaders to attend the Embassy's Queen's Birthday party sent out, "Not very helpful signals".
We were pleased because of course it had given the impression of a weakening in the government's long-held position that settlements were illegal and an obstacle to peace. Entertaining the pioneers of this colonisation movement has certain given the strong impression that Britain tacitly endorses it or no longer objects to it. Dani Dayan, for example who reportedly attended, is strongly in favour of expanding these settlements and even return settlements dismantled in the 2005 disengagement plan.
Given your comment, we would like to know what steps are being taken to ensure that this never happens again and that British tax payers' money is spent entertaining those who violate the Fourth Geneva Conventions and whose very presence has been an obstacle to a vital and much needed peace deal in the Middle East.
Yours sincerely,
Crispin Blunt MP
Joint Chairman, CAABU
Posts
