Submit your comments on this article |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
UK distances itself from Kerry's speech on Israel settlement expansion |
2016-12-31 |
![]() I was in Vietnam, you knowKerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat,conqueror of Cambodia, unsuccessful presidential candidate, and utterly failed Secretary of State... , saying peace between Israel and the Paleostinians cannot be brokered solely on Israeli settlement construction. British Prime Minister Theresa May's spokesperson said Britannia supports a two-state solution and considers the construction of settlements on Paleostinian lands illegal. However the statement added that the issue of settlements was only part of the problem. "But we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict," the spokesperson said. "In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long," Without referring to the secretary of state's comments, the British government's comments appeared to criticise Kerry's speech, even though the UK voted in favour of the Security Council resolution last week that deemed Israel settlements beyond the 1967 border illegal. "We do not, therefore, believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Paleostinians is so deeply complex," May's spokesperson said. "And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally. The government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community." |
Posted by:Fred |
#4 The UK voted for the UNSC resolution because, the avowed Israel-lover PM May explained, it is balanced. She objected to Secretary Kerry's subsequent speech (after Israeli PM declined to meet with her in response to that vote), because it was unbalanced. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2016-12-31 17:23 |
#3 Hmmm...UK is a permanent member of the Security Council and thus could have vetoed the resolution themselves. See- horse, barn door |
Posted by: P2Kontheroad 2016-12-31 16:32 |
#2 ![]() |
Posted by: Besoeker 2016-12-31 08:06 |
#1 "No need to be impolite to people we're trying to railroad to extermination"? |
Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-12-31 03:27 |