"regretting the war on terror".

There have been lots of postings on here ranting about how Miliband is in the pocket of Israel, is a Zionist, hasn't appreciated what is going on in Gaza, and so on.

But it's a bit more complex than that. Yes, he's been critical of Hamas. But he's also pressed for peace, against Israel's wishes.

Here's some extracts from what Miliband told Parliament this week. You won't like all of it, but don't claim he's entirely pro-Israel:

"Whatever the trigger, the immediate consequence of Israeli military action over the last fortnight is also very clear. Over 800 dead, many of the civilians, apparently over 250 of them children - the most terrible statistic of all - and thousands injured: the horror of war on top of months of deprivation.

"The Quartet envoy, Tony Blair, went so far as to call the situation in Gaza "hell". The shortages of food, fuel, and medicine are acute. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has had to suspend its activities, fortunately restarted. The Swedish Foreign Minister told me yesterday that a church-run medical centre was bombed. The scale of suffering that is already evident, before the entry of journalists, is immense.

"Today I met with a group of leading independent NGOs who are active in delivering humanitarian aid in Gaza. Every day these NGOs have to decide whether it is safe for staff to work in Gaza. Tragically several have been killed or injured. Their concerns bear reporting to this House. Sixty trucks a day are currently entering Gaza - less than one sixth of the 400 deemed to be necessary. The current three hour daily pause in fighting, while better than nothing, is deeply flawed in its practical effect. The blockages on people leaving Gaza for medical attention are profound.

"Extremely serious allegations about the conduct of both sides during this conflict have been made by the ICRC and others. These allegations must be properly investigated.

"Since the beginning of Israeli military action in Gaza, both the Prime Minister and I have called publicly and privately called for an immediate ceasefire. On the first day of the conflict the United Nations Security Council, with the support of the British government, called for an "immediate halt to the fighting". The EU Presidency also called for "an immediate end to hostilities" and described the use of force as "disproportionate". The British government supports this view.

"The emergency meeting of EU Foreign Ministers called with my support on 30 December for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, urgent humanitarian steps including opening of crossings, and action on the illegal traffic in arms and their components into Gaza.

"On 3 January we said that the escalation of the conflict to include a ground offensive would cause alarm and dismay - as well as more death and destruction.

"These issues were at the heart of three days of negotiations last week at the UN. Our priority was for a loud, clear and unified message to come from the UNSC. This was achieved in UNSC Resolution 1860, introduced in Britain's name and the product of intensive unified work by Secretary Rice, French Foreign Minister Kouchner and myself, working to find common ground with the Arab League delegation led by HRH Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia.

"SCR 1860 is clear in its call for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire leading to full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. It also denounces all acts of terrorism. It summarises well the agenda of action of the British government in the search for a ceasefire and sets out authoritatively what the international community expects to be implemented. This is what the Prime Minister and I have been working on over the weekend and will continue to focus on this week.

"First, relief is needed for the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza. Emergency aid is essential, and Britain has added £10m to its aid contribution since the conflict began. We will continue to support the United Nations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, and other international agencies who have the infrastructure and expertise to lead the humanitarian response in Gaza. But international aid agencies need the whole hearted support of the Israeli Government and I urge the Israeli Government to provide it. But in truth only a ceasefire and opening of the crossings on the basis of the 2005 Israel/PA agreement can deliver sustained progress.

"Second, there need to be security improvements, above all a curb on the trafficking of illegal arms into Gaza. These armaments are the source of fear for hundreds of thousands of Israelis, some of whom I talked to in Sderot in November. They are also a threat to any prospect of Palestinian reconciliation, designed as they are to entrench the power of Hamas in Gaza in defiance of President Abbas' call for "One Authority, one source of security". I spoke twice yesterday with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit on this issue, and commend Egyptian efforts to develop further action on this front, and urge that the direct talks between Egypt and Israel to brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.

"Finally, there is a political imperative to re-establish the unity of the Palestinian people under the leadership of the PA. I continue to be convinced that the division of Palestinian political authority needs to be addressed. Egypt and the Arab League continue to mediate between Fatah, Hamas, and other Palestinian factions. The aim must be a strong Palestinian Authority, speaking for all Palestinians, committed to the two state end and peaceful means upheld by the vast majority of Palestinians.

"So the Resolution is clear. But the passage of the Resolution on Thursday night New York time was followed within hours by its rejection by both sides to the conflict.

"The resolution calls on all states in the region to support peace efforts. The Prime Minister and I have been in close touch with the Israeli government since the onset of this crisis. The Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defence Minister argued strongly against any UN Resolution. Their argument is that there can be no equivalence between a democratic state and a terrorist organisation.

"There is and can be no equivalence. Hamas have shown themselves over a number of years ready to be murderous in word and deed. Their motif is "resistance" and their method includes terrorism. Israel is meanwhile a thriving, democratic state with independent judiciary.

"But one consequence of the distinction between a democratic government and a terrorist organisation is that democratic governments are held to significantly higher standards, notably by their own people. That is one reason we supported Resolution 1860 - to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend. As a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Israel's best defence is to show leadership in finding a political solution to this crisis and to comply with the standards of international humanitarian law.

"Mr Speaker, a week before the onset of a new American Presidency, there are immediate issues of life and death that need to be addressed. We are working with Egypt, the US, European partners, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon and Syria, all of whom are playing a role in talking to various of the parties. The UN Secretary General is in the region today. The focus of all our efforts is to implement the resolution.

"Over the last forty years in the Middle East the immediate has become the long term. Short term conflict has become long term division. So while the current hostilities require urgent attention and action, so too does the medium and long term. And war cannot address that.

"The government stands four-square behind UNSCRs 1850 and 1860 which call for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace. Security and justice for a Palestinian state depends on a political settlement that defends its existence and cherishes its rights."

"The aim must be a strong Palestinian Authority, speaking for all Palestinians, committed to the two state end ......."

So, he IS a zionist........ agreeing that the indigenous people should be allocated tiny pockets of their homeland while the 'Jewish state' takes the lions share . A vision shared by many outside of Israel in the Orwellian world that we live in.

Milliband is a lying shit who sat in the UN spouting all sorts of fence-sitting bollocks whilst knowing full well that ambassadors were under instruction to support the veto of the Security Council.

No person with the level of his briefing could possibly entertain what is happening in Gaza is anything but illegal aggression by Israel.

Duplicity... Sophistry... deception... basically, a lying little shit.

Any person with any moral rectitude in his position would have a very clear course of action:

1. Remove diplomatic staff from Israel

2. Declare Israel's actions to be war crimes and promise that anyone within the UK supporting these crimes (see Raytheon & ITT/MBM & USAF & DTI & banks * freight shippers) will be prosecuted under our obligations to International Law.

3. Call for economic sanctions against Israel and start a process of State divestment ( as with South Africa).

So there you go 3 easy (well if you are honest they are) steps to take as Foreign Secretary.

But hey, we all know we are just the 51st State, as milk monitor Milliband demonstrated today by his Damascene conversion to his new Boss Barack Obama's order today, declaring the War on Terror a pile of old bollocks... which it is, but his timing is comedic- as is his hypocrisy.

 http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=8620160




Speech by UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband

Annual Lunch of Labour Friends of Israel, Whitehall, London, 4 November 2008


I want today to talk about the future of Israel and the future of the wider Middle East. I will do so with urgency and concern because the Middle East is undergoing one of the most tumultuous and dangerous periods of its contemporary history. What happens over the next few years – whether a two state solution is reached, whether a model of extremism and violence is viewed as inspiration or illusion, whether Arab public opinion moves towards acceptance of Israel or denial of its right to exist – will be of vital importance for many years to come.

To chart a way forward, we need first to acknowledge the past.

Over the last twelve months we have marked the 90th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. Next week seventy years since Kristallnacht – the terrible harbinger of the Holocaust. And sixty years ago, out of that valley of despair, the State of Israel emerged. Israel became no less than an affirmation of life in the face of death. And each time Israel wins a Nobel Prize, sends humanitarian aid workers to help victims of natural disaster in countries far away, educates its own people, signs a peace treaty with a neighbour, it reaffirms its place as a leading state of the modern world.

I saw this for myself on a visit last November, and will do so again when I return in a couple of weeks. One of the world's liveliest democracies; a distinguished independent judiciary; a vibrant market economy; a cultural mosaic; and a country with global links.

For these and other reasons I am proud to say that the Government shares with Labour Friends of Israel a profound conviction that a stable Middle East starts with a secure Israel at its heart.

It is 170 years ago exactly that Britain was the first great power to open a Consulate in Jerusalem. Today the links are personal, cultural, political and economic. Young British students are benefiting from exchange programmes in large numbers. Trade ties between Britain and Israel now stand at £2.3 billion pounds. British tourism to Israel is the highest it has ever been. And let us also celebrate academic exchange between the UK and Israel, and say the more the better.

In two weeks, we welcome President Peres here on a Guest of Government visit. We will repay the compliment paid to our Prime Minister Gordon Brown who became the first British Prime Minister to address the Knesset earlier this year. Gordon’s visit was a powerful affirmation of shared values and shared commitments. His speech put it best when he said to Israel’s Parliament: “Britain is your true friend.”


There is another anniversary that we should mark. I believe Yitzhak Rabin was not just one of the great leaders that Israel has produced; he was one of the great leaders the world has produced.

People of an older generation say they remember where they were when JFK was shot. I remember the day Rabin was shot. It was a Saturday in 1995. I was at home. I switched on the news and the shock was electric, the grief real, the sense of foreboding telling.

The date: 4th November, 13 years ago today.

Rabin talked of himself as a soldier. He remembered and quoted his military ID number: 30743. And he often remarked that those who have known the horror of war are the best soldiers in the army of peace.

This is what he said to King Hussein, President Mubarak, Chairman Arafat and Bill Clinton at the White House in 1995, celebrating the peace with Jordan:

“We all love the same children, weep the same tears, hate the same enmity and pray for reconciliation. Peace has no borders...Here is where we were born. Here is where we created a nation. Here we forged a haven for the persecuted and built a model of a democratic country. But we are not alone here on this soil, in this land...Our neighbours, the Palestinian people – we who have seen you in your difficulties, we saw you for generations; we who have killed and been killed are walking beside you now toward a common future, and we want you as good neighbours.”

The Rabin vision was a good one. It was not unique to him. In fact its roots go back to the Peel Commission presented to Parliament by one of my predecessors in 1937 which concluded: “To both Arabs and Jews Partition offers a prospect – and there is none in any other policy – of obtaining the inestimable boon of peace”.
The basics of an agreement command an unparalleled level of consensus:
- two states based on 1967 borders;
- Israel secure from attack and recognised by and at peace with its neighbours;
- a democratic, viable and contiguous state of Palestine committed to live peacefully alongside Israel;
- Jerusalem as the capital for both;
- and a just and agreed settlement for refugees.
It is in the nature of our party’s traditions to be optimistic about the future. To resist the temptations of fatalism. But today we must be honest with ourselves. Surveying the Middle East now, it is hard not to feel a deep sense of apprehension about the future.

Not because Rabin’s vision has lost support; in fact, the world, Israeli and Palestinian leaderships included, is united as never before in its belief in a two state solution. But our efforts to achieve it are not succeeding.

For so many in Israel, the never-ending peace process appears as an endless disenchantment. They feel threatened and under siege. They have faced attacks from Gaza and Lebanon after unilateral withdrawal. They saw an electoral victory handed to Hamas which vows to destroy them. They fear growing militancy in the region, led by the looming shadow of a nuclear Iran.

At risk is that which Israelis most crave and need: normalcy, security, acceptance as a proud state that they can call home.

For Palestinians, feeling cheated and abused, there are equal fears. That the grandiose peace promise is a scam. That talks are a screen to cover continued settlement expansion, home demolition, land confiscation and the daily indignities of occupation. They talk with Israel, but fear they are being robbed of that which they are supposed to be talking about.

At risk is that which they most crave: a secure home of their own.

Both peoples are told talks are progressing. That more time is needed. But the Israeli and Palestinian people are losing faith in a fair settlement, not because it is outlandish but because it is at once so close and so elusive.

They are tiring of the conflict. But they are also tiring, faster, of efforts to resolve it, a condition that is far worse.

One reason is that, as Tony Blair has repeatedly emphasised, most recently in his presentation to European Foreign Ministers in July, the practical situation on the ground undermines the political process, just as the political process frames the situation on the ground. There is a vicious circle.

Settlements are one reason. At Annapolis the Israeli government re-committed to the Roadmap provisions to freeze settlements. But in the first six months after Annapolis there was an 80 per cent increase in new construction in the West Bank initiated by the Ministry of Housing and Construction. Those figures do not include East Jerusalem: there, tenders have been published for over 1,700 housing units since Annapolis. Settlement activity is illegal; it also makes a Palestinian state more difficult to achieve by the week.

But settlements are not the only reason for the loss of confidence in the peace process. So are rocket attacks. So is the flow of increasingly lethal arms to Hizbollah and Hamas. And pragmatic and moderate Palestinian leadership is under threat: if Mahmood Abbas and Salaam Fayyad cannot broker a deal, there are extremists waiting in the wings and ready to pounce.

So disillusion creates danger; and danger needs to be addressed.


The status quo, the stalled search for a two state solution, has already put the idea of a binational state back on the agenda. But do not be fooled. As President Peres himself has said "If Israel loses its Jewish majority, it will cease to be a Jewish state. If it tries to maintain its Jewish character by force, it will no longer be democratic." So the stakes could not be higher.

As America votes today, and elects a new Government that will start work on January 20th, and as Israel gears up for an election on February 10th, we all have to decide our own contribution for the time when those two governments are in place.
Some reflections are obvious.
- That while Annapolis has not delivered on the goal of a Palestinian state, there is no substitute for political process, and the Annapolis process needs to be consolidated.
- That countries like Britain can support the vision of a two state solution by training the Palestinian Security Forces that are now patrolling Jenin and Hebron, and supporting the economic development plan of Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad.
- That however helpful outside support, it can never substitute for the leadership that is required from the parties themselves.
- That whatever the strength of European efforts, the Middle East needs American engagement.
But I want to share with you another thought that is more challenging to all of us.

It starts with a paradox of the Annapolis process: for all the complaints last year about the narrow focus on the Palestinian track, one year on not only have there been very close discussions between Israel and the Palestinians, but there is now a live Syrian track, Lebanon now has a government with whom Syria has agreed to establish diplomatic relations, and Egypt has mediated a ceasefire in Gaza.

In other words, from a situation where for seven years things were frozen, now all the balls are in the air. And my conclusion is that the only way to settle the Palestinian issue is as part of a wider drive for a new alignment in the wider Middle East. At the UN Security Council in September I called it a comprehensive approach. At its core is a Palestinian state, but as part of a broader peace between Israel and the whole Arab world, in which all exercise their rights and fulfil their responsibilities.

A comprehensive approach is in some ways more complex than a single-minded focus on the Palestinian issue. But in truth security for Israel depends on peace with the Arab world and not just the Palestinians; and an end to the stateless tragedy of the Palestinians depends not just on support from Israel but support from their Arab neighbours.



The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 - which offers full normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for withdrawal from occupied land - was one of the most significant and promising developments since the onset of the conflict. The recent interest that both Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak have expressed in it is important. Not only do we need Arab countries to reassure Israelis about Arab commitment to normal, peaceful relations, but we need them to endow the Palestinian leadership with the Arab political support they need to do a deal. 

Syria is important to this. That is one reason I met the Syrian Foreign Minister last week. I set out what I see as the profound responsibilities of his country – to curb the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and arms to Hizbollah as well as to respect the sovereignty of Lebanon. But I also emphasised that a secular Syria had much to gain from playing a full role in an Arab coalition committed to the normalisation of relations with Israel – gains well beyond Syrian interest in settlement of the Golan Heights.

It is easy to say we have been here before. Some Arab leaders say it, and so do some Israelis. But what we have not had before is an Iranian nuclear programme that poses a threat not just to Israel but to the stability of the entire Middle East. And that makes the case for a comprehensive approach that much more urgent. We must ensure that the unfinished business of Israel’s relationship with the Arab world is not a barrier to dealing properly with the Iranian nuclear issue.

We have made Iran serious offers of engagement, reintegration, and support with civilian nuclear capacity, if they halt their enrichment-related activities as required by five UN Security Council Resolutions. Tehran should be in no doubt that unless they stop enriching uranium we will continue to step-up the pressure. In this, we need to work closely with Israel, and we will, not least through the Strategic Dialogue established between our two countries. But we also need to work with Iran’s Arab neighbours. The rhetoric of President Ahmedinejad is directed against Israel. The support for Hamas and Hizbollah is directed against Israel. But there is a growing awareness that Iran’s nuclear programme poses a threat to regional stability and therefore to all countries in the region.

I don’t underestimate the scale of the challenge or the size of the task. As Prime Minister Olmert said recently this opportunity "is limited in time – a time so short as to cause terrible distress”. But the scale of the challenge is what makes our engagement – all of our engagement, in Government, in Parliament, in business, in civil society, in strong and proud organisations like LFI – all the more necessary.

Yitzhak Rabin was fond of pointing out that in the Bible peace is mentioned in its various idioms 237 times. I am not a religious person but today I feel it is appropriate to say that we, Israel’s most committed friends, need to do everything we can to serve Rabin’s vision, to ensure that the repeated Biblical injunction is not lost, and that the flame of peace is kept alive. I assure you that is what our government, your government, will do.