Leaked document blasts Israel
November 27, 2005 18:21 by BackSpin EditorThe Guardian, The Independent and the NY Times were all recipients of a leaked EU draft document blasting Israeli policy in and around eastern Jerusalem. Was the anonymous source trying to discredit the document, or simply grabbing an opportunity to smear Israel? Compare the three reports and share your comments below.
Charles Barton
8:05 pm
Nov 27, 2005
Europeans assume that in seeking long term control of East Jerusalem Israel is seeking to thwart the wishes of Jerusalem’s Arab citizens, but why would the people of East Jerusalem want to live under Palestinian rule? The Palestinian Authority is corrupt, despotic, and engages in acts of violence against Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority tolerates the activities of death squads. Pubic openion shows that most citizens of East Jerusalem prefer Israeli to Palestinian rule. An increasing number of Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem are applying for Israeli citizenship. If Europeans are concerned about Palestinian rights, then they should support a parasite to determine the eventual fate of East Jerusalem.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
aunursa
4:11 am
Nov 28, 2005
The European Union diplomats, who deal with the Palestinians, made a number of recommendations, including having political meetings with Palestinian Authority ministers in East Jerusalem instead of in the West Bank, as they currently do…
If they are not simply pro-Palestinian — as they suggest — will these European nations be moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to (West) Jerusalem … to support its status as capital of Israel?
Not holding my breath.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Adrian
1:05 pm
Nov 28, 2005
Charles, surely you mean they should support a PLEBISCITE to determine the fate of East Jerusalem!
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Cynic
3:06 pm
Nov 28, 2005
“If Europeans are concerned about Palestinian rights, …”
No, they’re not. As they agreed to when they made their alliance with the Arab League in the middle 70s they are using the Palestinians as a proxy against Israel.
Why do you think they have gone along with the Arab’s insistence that the Palestinians remain in ‘camps’ all these years?
They even got UN resolutions to that effect:
UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15 of Nov. 23, 1976:
UNGA Resolution 34/52 of November 23, 1979
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Cynic
3:14 pm
Nov 28, 2005
See ” How the Foreign Office sees Israel”
http://www.anglicansforisrael.com/docs/2005/11/25/how-the-foreign-office-sees-israel/
“A leaked document from the British Foreign Office shows clearly the pro-Arab leanings and anti-Israeli stance that we have come to expect from that particular branch of Her Majesty’s Government. Appropriately enough, it was leaked to The Guardian: “
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Brad Brzezinski
4:00 am
Nov 29, 2005
In 1947/48, the British military with knowledge of the Foreign Office, worked assiduously to ensure the Arabs were armed and the Jews were not. They also knew the Arabs were using German and other Nazis with WW2 experience to assist in their conflict with the Jews. France assisted Britain with this. (I think it fair to acknowledge that this was not necessarily British govt. policy.)
In 1967 de Gaulle declared a “pro-Arab policy.” This must be taken as an anti-Israel policy since the Arabs have such major internecine struggles. France was the first after the USSR (the Arabs’ arms supplier) to insist Israel give up all land taken irrespective of any peace deals. France is a leader of the EU.
In 1973, with Israel in desperate need of re-supply, the Euro block, especially including Britain which had been a major arms supplier to Israel, caved to OPEC pressure and refused to re-supply Israel and also to allow US flights to overfly to re-supply Israel. At the same time they allowed the Russians to re-supply the Arabs. There was a clear risk of the extermination of Israel by its enemies. (At that time, Europe was full of US troops there to guard against an attack on Europe by the USSR.)
The European bloc has clearly stated that they take Resolution 242 to mean that Israel must hand back all land taken in 1967. This is not what was meant by the authors of 242 and it sends a clear message to Arabs that attacking Israel bears no consequences.
In the absence of any events to derail the general thrust of what I have written, the intention of the EU and the British Foreign Office is clear.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
1
Tim
3:55 pm
Jan 18, 2012
I came across this site purely by accident. I note that it claims to be completely free of bias, and that it stops bias in other media. My parents told me, long before they died, that Nazi Germany made the the same claims – that eveybody else was biassed and only they spoke the truth. Isn’t it amazing how the wheel turns full circle.
My parents taught me to look at facts, and ignore wild media claims, and propaganda. The facts speak for themselves. I feel as sick now as I am sure I would have felt had I been old enough when Nazi Germany was at its heyday.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0