William Hague deserves some credit for upgrading the status of the Palestinian mission to the UK. It is something that implacably zionist New Labour would never contemplate. But, unlike many other EU countries, the head of mission will still not be recognised as an ambassador, and there are interestingly divergent takes on this in
The Guardian
and Ha’aretz.
Still, progress of a kind. As much as it is a message to Palestine or Israel, it is a message to Obama after the US’ irrational sole veto of a security council resolution on Palestine that was a simple statement of fact.
What is most striking to me is how grovellingly obsequious the Foreign Office spkesman who spoke to Haaretz was.
Interesting reports on several U.S. blogs (*) that Israel is using US taxpayer money to hire mercenaries from African countries to fight on the side of Gadaffi who is, incidentally, Jewish. His mother was Jewish, which is the criterion for establishing Jewish nationality. Also interesting that the Saudi Royals are Jewish. This may explain the diffidence in the West to criticize the Saudis or Libya. Of course, none of this will be in any US/UK media and presumably, therefore, the reports are false.
(*) Alex Jones Infowars, Michael Rivero’s What Really Happened and others.
The Ha'aretz piece is interesting.
"If we don't take the initiative the entire world will recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders," Meridor said.
Bring it on!
Why do you use the term "Zionist"? If you have such a belief, why don't you just use the term "pro-Israeli"? Why do you have to use such a special term for Israel, when you know that the word invokes conspiracy?
What does "Zionist" mean to you?