Tag Archives: Fogels

Introducing Mike Guzovsky, the “Jewish militant”.

John Ray’s report on ITV’s 10 o’clock news about the upcoming Palestinian push for statehood at the UN referred to Israeli settler Mike Guzovsky as a “Jewish militant” on the basis that Guzovsky had dogs.

I know a few Jews with dogs, but, as far as I am aware, none are militants.

Ray claimed that Guzovsky’s dogs are for self-defence due to possible Palestinian violence that could occur after the UN vote.

You can understand Guzovsky’s concern taking into account the fairly recent massacre of five members of the Fogel family, including a three month old baby, on a settlement as they lay in their beds.

Then there was the more recent massacre of eight Israelis near Eilat.

And Guzovsky is right; many attempted attacks on Israelis, including settlers, take place every day. You just don’t hear about them on the news until someone is murdered.

Guzovsky also said that people want peace and security.

Although he might hold some very extreme and totally reprehensible views, Guzovsky is no militant.

(Updated 9am on 7th September on researching Guzovsky and finding he is a member of the extremist Kahane organisation. Ray did not point this out in his report last night. Apologies for that.)

British Minister wishes to treat settlers like Dead Men Walking.

Alan Duncan MP, 2nd from right, in the British Embassy in the UAE recently.

Alan Duncan MP, 2nd from right, in the British Embassy in the UAE recently.

Is this Conservative government turning into one of the most anti-Israel in recent memory?

Alan Duncan MP, the Minister in charge of Britain’s international aid budget, recently visited the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, as the Department for International Development, calls them.

He has produced this video of his visit which ranks alongside David Cameron’s “Gaza is a prison” camp jibe. Feel free to watch with sick-bag in hand:

He calls the wall a “land grab” and complains that:

“It hasn’t just gone along the lines of the proper Israeli boundary, it has taken in land which properly belongs to Palestine. So that’s not a security wall, that’s a perimeter wall trying to annex land that doesn’t belong to Israel.”

He delivers these lines with all the spite of a seasoned British anti-Israel activist, not a considered government minister.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the settlements, if the wall was situated on the “proper Israeli boundary”, as Duncan calls it, the settlers would be immediately exposed to the risk of having their sloats slit by the likes of Hakim Awad who murdered Udi and Ruthie Fogel and their three young children in their beds.

Does Mr Duncan really believe that all Israeli settlers should be dead men walking, for that is how he treats them?

Meanwhile, the distance of the wall from the “Israeli boundary” reduces the opportunities for suicide bombers to blow up Israeli restaurants, buses and discos and for Palestinian terrorists to snipe at Israeli civilians.

This also reduces the need for retaliatory attacks on Palestinian terrorist targets and, therefore, war.

As JFK said, “A wall is a hell of a lot better than a war”.

And as I understand it Israel’s eastern border is not a “proper Israeli boundary”, but merely an armistice line from 1949. Nothing has been agreed so, as it stands, Israel is not in breach of any law by positioning the fence where it has, subject to the decisions of Israel’s Supreme Court on its route.

As the short video progresses we see Duncan complain about the long queues of Palestinians waiting to go through security checks before going into Israel to work. Does he really expect Israel to let them through without stringent security checks?

He continues to express his hatred for the settlers when he accuses them of stealing water from the Palestinians. Finally, we come to the scene with which no anti-Israel video would be complete; that of a Palestinian baby.

Here Duncan talks of a “financial crisis”, but Page 23 of the Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2011 shows that the Palestinians received the second most amount of aid for any country between 2000 to 2009 at US$7.2bn, which is second only to Sudan at US$8.9bn.

While, ElderofZiyon shows that, on a per capita basis, this figure far outstips any other country, including Sudan, by a mile.

Duncan should ask why there is still a “financial crisis” when the Palestinians receive such huge amounts of financial assistance. Where has all the money gone?

Duncan’s pre-Parliamentary career was as an oil trader where he made millions.

And his website states describes him thus:

“A respected voice on the Middle East within the party, Alan continues to travel extensively in the region.”

Considering he doesn’t know the difference between an armistice line and a border and doesn’t seem to have too much of a problem with settlers having their throats slit, “respected” is not a word I word use to decribe our Minister of State for International Development.

And being the Arabist he is, one should question whether he should be in charge of an international department in the first place.


William Hague’s nasty Chatham House speech on Israel.

"Vague" Hague.

"Vague" Hague.

William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Minister, recently spoke at Chatham House about 60 years of diplomatic relations between Britain and Israel.

If you want a perfect example of how Britain’s foreign policy has waivered dangerously over the years towards Israel then this speech is a must read.

On the surface Hague’s speech seemed as fluffy and diplomatic as ever towards Israel.

He begins talking about Israel’s undisputed right to exist and to self-defence and Britain’s firm opposition to those who delegitimise and boycott Israel.

But near the end of the speech he states the following that seems to totally condradict this expression of support:

“The British Government has made very clear our concern about ongoing settlement expansion. We believe it is illegal, an obstacle to peace and a threat to a two state solution.”

Two sentences that say so much.

First, I take issue with the word “settlement”. They are actually towns or cities but, admittedly, one wouldn’t expect Hague to do away with such an in-vogue term.

Second, either something is legal or it is illegal. Murder is illegal. One cannot believe that murder is illegal. It is illegal because the law says so.

But there is no law that says the “settlements” are illegal. I suspect Hague knows this, which is why he says he “believes” their expansion is illegal. Very diplomatic.

Nevertheless, Britain voted for last month’s resolution that stated the settlements to be illegal. The resolution was vetoed by America.

But by stating that he “believes” that “settlement expansion” is “illegal” Hague plays straight into the hands of the delegitimiers and boycotters who target Israel because of this alleged “illegality” (see the Ahava boycott).

Hague’s loose talk is boosting the campaigns of those who wish to tear down the Jewish state. Why does he insist on doing this and what are the Conservative Friends of Israel doing on this matter?

Moreover, it was Britain in the first place, via the Balfour Declaration, that said that Jewish people should live where the “settlements” are now, so unless a law is enacted to the contrary how can something Britain once defined as legal suddenly be considered “illegal”? Hague’s position is illogical.

And what has Hague got against “settlement expansion” anyway? British towns expand as of necessity, so why not Israeli “settlements”?

As for Hague referring to “settlement expansion” as being “an obstacle to peace”, even the Palestinians have accepted the “settlements”. See Palileaks.  It is only Hamas they hinder because they block Hamas’ ultimate desire to destroy the Jewish state.

And as for Hague saying “settlement expansion” is “a threat to a two state solution”, well again this is just a load of baloney when the Palestinians will never sign a peace treaty with Israel in a million years even if the “settlements” were removed. We know what Hamas wants and Fatah are too scared of Hamas to ever sign a peace treaty with Israel.

In the same speech Hague gives an answer to the “settlement” conundrum when he talks of any peace deal involving “1967 borders with equivalent land swaps”. So why all this continued fuss over “settlement expansion”? The Palestinians will receive a 1:1 land swap in any eventual peace deal anyway.

Hague blathers on about the “settlement expansion”, but by doing so he is supporting the delegitimisation of Israel and of the settlers. And we have seen where delegitimisation of the settlers leads.

In his speech Hague did condemn the slaughter of the Fogel family in Itamar by two Palestinians. But he diluted the condemnation by referring to the loss of innocent life “on all sides”.

I don’t wish to see any innocent Palestinians killed but there is a huge difference between specifically targeting a three month old Israeli boy and slitting his throat and accidentally killing Palestinian civilians while in the process of trying to destroy Hamas positions to stop deadly rockets being launched into southern Israel.

If Hague really supports Israel’s right to self-defence then he should understand that the blame for the spilling of innocent Palestinian blood lies solely with Palestinian terrorists who fire rockets from civilian areas.

Israel does not target innocent civilians, but Hague’s attempt at moral equivalence infers that it does!

Honestly, has there ever been a Foreign Secretary as disingenuous as William Hague? Oh yes, David Miliband, his predecessor, who also spoke of Israel’s right to self-defence, but expelled an Israeli diplomat after Israel, probably, assassinated a Hamas terrorist in Dubai, and in circumstances in which not one civilian was killed or injured.

Palestine festival organisers call police to remove peaceful pro-Israel protest.

A small pro-Israel protest was held outside the “Celebrate Palestine” festival at SOAS today, but it wasn’t long before the organisers complained to security who called the police to have the protest removed.

While the pro-Israel protesters were outside arguing their case to remain, inside Lowkey was rapping to the students about Israel being an apartheid, supremacist, colonialist state.

Back outside the police eventually relented after realising how ridiculous it would be to remove a peaceful, static protest.

The protesters then moved on to Ahava in Covent Garden outside of which an anti-Israel mob had congregated for their usual Saturday hate-fest.

Ahava seemed to be doing alright and my friend, Ian, presented me with one of their Lavender and Chamomile Warming Pads as a belated birthday present.

When someone erected a placard with photos of the massacred Fogel family it was immediately surrounded and covered up by a Palestinian flag. Anti-Israel protesters were parroting the line from Palestinian Authority affiliated news agencies that the massacre at Itamar was committed by a Thai worker.

Well done to Stand With Us UK which produced the placards, leaflets and very eye-catching “We support a two-state solution” stickers.

Peacefully protesting outside SOAS before the police were called.

Peacefully protesting outside SOAS before the police were called.

Explaining Israel's case to a student.

Explaining Israel's case to a student.

Lowkey rages against the "Zionist state" in the JCR at SOAS.

Lowkey rages against the "Zionist state" in the JCR at SOAS.

Outside Ahava.

Outside Ahava.

Ahava besieged.

Ahava besieged.

Covering the placard of the murdered Fogel family with the Palestinian flag.

Covering the placard of the murdered Fogel family with the Palestinian flag.

Standing up for Israel and for all the oppressed in the Middle East.

Standing up for Israel and for all the oppressed in the Middle East.