From: Jerusalem Post
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s military secretary, Maj.-Gen. Yohanan Locker, did not accompany the prime minister on his trip to London for fear he might be arrested, Channel 1 reported on Wednesday evening.
Locker is a permanent member of Netanyahu’s entourage, but he was warned that since the British law on universal jurisdiction had not yet been changed, he might be detained upon landing in the UK over allegations of war crimes that human rights groups have accused Israel of committing during Operation Cast Lead.
Locker was deputy head of the Israel Air Force during the Gaza offensive two years ago.
In the past, several Israeli officials canceled visits to the UK after being advised by the Foreign Ministry that pro-Palestinian NGOs planned to take advantage of British law to arrest them when they set foot in the country.
In December 2009, an arrest warrant was issued for opposition leader Tzipi Livni. She served as foreign minister in the Kadima-led government that initiated the operation.
At the time, British foreign secretary David Miliband called her and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and according to a statement put out by Livni’s office, expressed “shock” at the warrant, and promised to work immediately to ensure that a similar occurrence would not happen in the future against any Israeli official.
“The procedure by which arrest warrants can be sought and issued – without any prior knowledge or advice by a prosecutor – is an unusual feature of the system in England and Wales,” Miliband said in a statement.
“The government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed in order to avoid this sort of situation arising again.”
The Labor government, in which Miliband served, did not change the law. In July last year, two months after the current British government took power, Israeli diplomatic officials lauded its announcement of plans to amend it.
UK officials said the government of Prime Minister David Cameron was moving on the issue, whereas the previous Labor government provided empty rhetoric.
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
UK, France lay red lines on terms for Palestinian state
From: Jerusalem Post
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu returns to Israel Friday having secured the support of two key European countries — France and England — against any Palestinian government that fails to renounce terror and refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Speaking to the press after his meeting with Sarkozy on Thursday, Netanyahu said that the French leader “spoke of his commitment to Israel’s security and the clear principle that those who want to make peace have to abandon the goal of destroying Israel and make peace with Israel,” Netanyahu said.
He added that according to Sarkozy, that included a recognition “Israel’s right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people. He was very clear about that,” Netanyahu said.
"Just like any fair minded person, Israel can only make peace with those who have abandoned the goal of destroying Israel,” Netanyahu said.
Hamas has not done that, he said, adding that more to the point, it continues to fire rockets at Israel.
“An enemy that wants to destroy us is not a partner for peace,” he said.
Only the day before, Sarkozy had told French news magazine L’Express that he would consider recognizing a Palestinian state in September should no progress be made in the peace process.
Until last week when Fatah announced its intention to unity with Hamas, support for a unilateral Palestinian statehood in September had been gaining steam.
But European leaders who have long wanted to see both a Palestinian state, particularly one that unifies Fatah and Hamas, are hesitant to support a Palestinian government that is composed of a group which has not renounced its goal of destroying Israel.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu returns to Israel Friday having secured the support of two key European countries — France and England — against any Palestinian government that fails to renounce terror and refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Speaking to the press after his meeting with Sarkozy on Thursday, Netanyahu said that the French leader “spoke of his commitment to Israel’s security and the clear principle that those who want to make peace have to abandon the goal of destroying Israel and make peace with Israel,” Netanyahu said.
He added that according to Sarkozy, that included a recognition “Israel’s right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people. He was very clear about that,” Netanyahu said.
"Just like any fair minded person, Israel can only make peace with those who have abandoned the goal of destroying Israel,” Netanyahu said.
Hamas has not done that, he said, adding that more to the point, it continues to fire rockets at Israel.
“An enemy that wants to destroy us is not a partner for peace,” he said.
Only the day before, Sarkozy had told French news magazine L’Express that he would consider recognizing a Palestinian state in September should no progress be made in the peace process.
Until last week when Fatah announced its intention to unity with Hamas, support for a unilateral Palestinian statehood in September had been gaining steam.
But European leaders who have long wanted to see both a Palestinian state, particularly one that unifies Fatah and Hamas, are hesitant to support a Palestinian government that is composed of a group which has not renounced its goal of destroying Israel.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Fixing Britain's Immigration Policy
A leader who gets it
From: British Prime Minister David Cameron
From: British Prime Minister David Cameron
A year ago, we were in the middle of a general election campaign. And there was one message I heard loud and clear on the doorstep: we want things to be different. People said they wanted a government that didn't just do what was good for the headline or good for their party but good for the long term and good for our country. That's what we're engaged in.
Clearly, cutting public spending isn't popular, but it's right to bring sense to our public finances. People said they wanted a government that actually trusted them to use their own common sense. That's the kind of government we want to be - giving neighbourhoods and individuals a whole range of new powers . . . scrapping so much of the bureaucracy that drove us mad.
People said they were sick of seeing those who did the right thing get punished and the wrong thing rewarded. Again, that's what we're acting on. In welfare we're ending the system that took money from hard-working taxpayers and gave it to people who refused to work. These are the differences we are trying to make - listening to people, doing the hard and necessary work of changing our country for the better.
But there was something else we heard on the doorstep - and it was this: "We are concerned about the levels of immigration in our country . . . but we are fed up of hearing politicians talk tough but do nothing." Here, again, we are determined to be different.
Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject . . . and it's a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We've all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is an unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness . . . the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.
The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hard-line credentials by talking tough . . . but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.
This approach had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration . . . but also in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren't listening to their concerns or doing anything about them. I remember when immigration wasn't a central political issue in our country - and I want that to be the case again. I want us to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all.
Above all, I want to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration. That's why I believe it's time for a new approach - one which opens up debate, not closes it down; where politicians don't just talk, but actually act.
Let's start with being open. The British people are fair-minded - and I want them to feel they can be honest about what they think about this subject. Here's what I think. Our country has benefited immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life. Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music - all these sectors are what they are because of immigration. So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that - and we welcome it.
But I'm also clear about something else: for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had . . . and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country.
Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare - though those have been serious . . . but social pressures, too. Because real communities aren't just collections of public service users living in the same space.
Real communities are bound by common experiences . . . forged by friendship and conversation . . . knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.
That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods . . . perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there . . . on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate . . . that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.
This has been the experience for many people in our country - and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.
So, taking all this into account, I believe controlling immigration and bringing it down is of vital importance to the future of our country. That's why during the election campaign, Conservatives made a clear commitment to the British people . . . that we would aim to reduce net migration to the levels we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now we are in government, we are on track to meet that aim. We are controlling legal immigration - having introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants. We are clamping down on illegal immigration. And we are getting to grips with the asylum system, too. The UK Border Agency is now close to clearing the backlog of almost half a million asylum cases. Our action is working.
But some myths have crept in - about what we're doing and the impact our policies will have. There are those who say that whatever measures we put in place, we can't control immigration significantly. And there are those who accept we can control immigration, but argue that the way we propose to do it will damage our economy and universities. Today I want to take those myths head-on.
Clearly, cutting public spending isn't popular, but it's right to bring sense to our public finances. People said they wanted a government that actually trusted them to use their own common sense. That's the kind of government we want to be - giving neighbourhoods and individuals a whole range of new powers . . . scrapping so much of the bureaucracy that drove us mad.
People said they were sick of seeing those who did the right thing get punished and the wrong thing rewarded. Again, that's what we're acting on. In welfare we're ending the system that took money from hard-working taxpayers and gave it to people who refused to work. These are the differences we are trying to make - listening to people, doing the hard and necessary work of changing our country for the better.
But there was something else we heard on the doorstep - and it was this: "We are concerned about the levels of immigration in our country . . . but we are fed up of hearing politicians talk tough but do nothing." Here, again, we are determined to be different.
Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject . . . and it's a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We've all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is an unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness . . . the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.
The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hard-line credentials by talking tough . . . but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.
This approach had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration . . . but also in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren't listening to their concerns or doing anything about them. I remember when immigration wasn't a central political issue in our country - and I want that to be the case again. I want us to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all.
Above all, I want to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration. That's why I believe it's time for a new approach - one which opens up debate, not closes it down; where politicians don't just talk, but actually act.
Let's start with being open. The British people are fair-minded - and I want them to feel they can be honest about what they think about this subject. Here's what I think. Our country has benefited immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life. Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music - all these sectors are what they are because of immigration. So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that - and we welcome it.
But I'm also clear about something else: for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had . . . and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country.
Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare - though those have been serious . . . but social pressures, too. Because real communities aren't just collections of public service users living in the same space.
Real communities are bound by common experiences . . . forged by friendship and conversation . . . knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.
That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods . . . perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there . . . on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate . . . that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.
This has been the experience for many people in our country - and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.
So, taking all this into account, I believe controlling immigration and bringing it down is of vital importance to the future of our country. That's why during the election campaign, Conservatives made a clear commitment to the British people . . . that we would aim to reduce net migration to the levels we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now we are in government, we are on track to meet that aim. We are controlling legal immigration - having introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants. We are clamping down on illegal immigration. And we are getting to grips with the asylum system, too. The UK Border Agency is now close to clearing the backlog of almost half a million asylum cases. Our action is working.
But some myths have crept in - about what we're doing and the impact our policies will have. There are those who say that whatever measures we put in place, we can't control immigration significantly. And there are those who accept we can control immigration, but argue that the way we propose to do it will damage our economy and universities. Today I want to take those myths head-on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
