British Parliament votes in favor of Palestinian state recognition 274 to 12

The motion was “”This House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.” Not only is it non binding, it said nothing. It didn’t say what the borders are or when Palestine should be recognized

JPOST

Britain’s House of Commons overwhelmingly approved the initial stage of the UK recognition of a Palestinian State, voting 274-12 in favor of the symbolic motion.

UK parliament

The British House of Commons voted in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state late Monday in a move that will not alter the government’s stance on the issue, but that carries symbolic value for Palestinians in their pursuit of statehood.

Lawmakers in Britain’s lower house of parliament voted by 274 to 12 to pass a non-binding motion stating: “That this House believes that the Government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.”

Britain does not classify “Palestine” as a state, but says it could do so at any time if it believed it would help peace efforts between the Palestinians and Israel. Government ministers were told to abstain and the non-binding vote will not force Britain to recognise a Palestinian state.

Nearly 50 MPs were in the chamber to hear pro-Palestinian Labor Backbencher Grahame Morris open the four hour debate which he said was a chance for the UK to atone for its historic mistakes – a clear reference to the Balfour Declaration.

He and party colleagues knew in advance that with the unprecedented backing of the Labor party – as traditionally the political parties do not tell MPs which way to vote in what is supposed to be backbench business – his motion calling for the British Government to recognise a Palestinian State would be passed, probably by a substantial majority.

Several senior pro-Israel Labor party MPs including a number of members of the shadow cabinet – angered by the decision of party leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander to order Labor backbenchers to back the Morris motion by issuing a ‘three line whip’ – were understood to be ready to defy the instruction and abstain on the vote which was due at 10 p.m. UK time, midnight in Israel.

Former Labor Foreign Secretary Jack Straw successfully moved a manuscript amendment which stated that recognition of a state should be agreed as a ‘contribution’ towards a two state solution. He said if Israel had its way and recognition should be delayed until an agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians, that – in effect – would amount to giving Israel a veto over Palestinian statehood.

The Palestinians, he reminded the Commons had no say or veto over the establishment of the State of Israel.

A counter argument was put forward by another former Foreign Secretary the Conservative Party’s Malcolm Rifkind who told MPs that it was not possible to recognize a state which has no boundaries, no army, nor a government. The Palestinians he said, currently have two administrations and simply did not qualify for ‘recognition’.

Also he noted wryly, Britain did not recognize the State of Israel until 1950 when its borders and government and been well established.

An amendment which had been proposed on an all party basis by members of the Conservative and Labor Friends of Israel and which would have made recognition conditional on the successful conclusion of a two state solution negotiation, was not selected by the Commons Speaker John Bercow.

As a result MPs were instead faced with a choice of voting for recognition “as a contribution” towards peace or voting against. Many Conservative MPs – who along with the Government Ministers were given a ‘free vote’ by their party managers – stayed away – in effect abstaining.

A leading supporter of Israel Guto Bebb summed the political choice he faced in an article in Monday’s Daily Telegraph, pointing out that regardless of the vote, the British Government’s position would not change and international opinion would not be swayed by a few squabbling MPs on Britain’s opposition benches.

He suggested that he and his Conservative colleagues should stay away from the vote whilst the Labor Party “turns the Commons chamber into its own policy forum”. And with it being the first day back from a recess, many MPs appeared to have taken a similar decision rendering the voting figures relatively meaningless.

That argument however was countered by Jack Straw, who made clear the symbolism of the vote regardless of how it was achieved was far more important and the message to all beyond the UK would be very clear.

Both the government Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood and the Labor Shadow spokesman Ian Lucas were due to address MPs during the debate, with the Minister expected to say that the UK wanted to see the establishment of a viable Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.

But he was due to tell MPs that only through a negotiated process and an end to the occupation could Palestinian statehood become a reality. As far as the current government was concerned they would choose when it was the most appropriate time to grant recognition and that would be when they considered it would best provide for a full peace.

The vote therefore was expected to give the Palestinian lobby both in the UK and further afield a feeling of historic victory but being symbolic and non binding, as Grahame Morris noted, it would not change the facts on the ground.

Only if the Labor Party were to be successful in next May’s general election, would they be in a position to implement the Commons vote and judging by the latest opinion polls it would be anybody’s guess in the current political climate as to who might take over in 10, Downing Street. But at present it appears more likely that David Cameron with his more balanced approach to the Arab-Israel conflict will be there and he will – in all probability just ignore last night’s vote as he has done on the three other occasions backbench votes have resulted in defeats for his government’s policies.

October 14, 2014 | 19 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

19 Comments / 19 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:

    “I see Google is your friend!”

    Not today actually (I’m racing the clock) — so I think I just heard an inadvertent compliment.

    “But I knew you would.”

    And now I know I just heard a set-up. It figures.

    But you still haven’t answered MY question:

    What’s the connection between the post in which you asked those dumb-assed old riddles and the one to which you referenced it, above?

  2. @ yamit82:

    “Two men play five games of checkers. Each man wins the same number of games. There are no ties. Explain this.”

    They aren’t playing each against the other, but against other players.

    “How far can a dog run into the woods?”

    Half-way.

    — After the half-way point, he’s running OUT of the woods.

    “A clerk in the butcher shop is 5? 10” tall. What does he weigh?”

    Meat.

    “Do they have a 4th of July in England?”

    Why wouldn’t they?

    If they have a July

    — then they have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th of July, etc.

    “A woman gives a beggar 50 cents; the woman is the beggar’s sister, but the beggar is not the woman’s brother. How come?”

    The beggar is another woman, not a man.

    “Let’s ee how smart you are”

    What do a bunch of silly riddles have to do with how ‘smart’ somebody is?

    And what’s the connection between this post and the one to which you referenced it, above?

  3. @ yamit82:

    “I identified them as Jew haters you didn’t.”

    Of course I didn’t. Didn’t need to. (Didn’t need to identify the usual color of the noonday sky as blue either.)

    TOLD you: Their being Jew haters was a given, a point of departure, a STARTING point.

    “you said because you wanted to know how they think so as to analyze them in-order to defeat them.”

    No. Getting a handle on them isn’t necessarily about knowing how they think; it’s about understanding what’s moving them. People aren’t necessarily moved by their thinking.

    And it isn’t even about ‘analyzing’ them either. I said it was about getting CLUES to what’s at play in them.

    “what did you learn and how from what you learned do you advise and suggest we defeat them.”

    The exploratory process has scarcely BEGUN regarding them. The speeches were a real shocker. (If you read them, you’d see that — yes, even you, I venture to say.) Next step is to let that discovery percolate, and give it space to show itself in its various implications.

    “If you have no cogent answer”

    Cogent answers will present themselves in their own way, and in their own time, if you keep your mind open.

    But you’re apparently afraid that if you keep your mind open, your brains will fall out. . . .

    “The only one I constantly call a coward is you”

    I’m hardly the ONLY one you call a coward.

    You’ve used the term a few times in the past week alone — and only once, as I recall, in that period, to me specifically.

    You use the term on me with some frequency, because of all the people you’ve used it against, I’m the only one here online with you who can actually defend himself over it.

    “A- Because it’s true”

    No. Rather, because you wish it were true.

    “B- because it bugs you, because it is true.”

    Again, no. Rather, because you keep hoping against hope that it WILL bug me. It doesn’t, however, as I’m really quite comfortable inside my own skin.

    Truth is, you secretly believe yourself to be a coward, Yamit. Laying that saucisson on me is simply your way of flagellating the coward within you.

    But you’ll never acquire courage that way.

    “The Truth Will set You Free”

    Nu, so why aren’t you free?

  4. @ dweller:

    Let’s ee how smart you are:

    Two men play five games of checkers. Each man wins the same number of games. There are no ties. Explain this.

    How far can a dog run into the woods?

    A clerk in the butcher shop is 5′ 10” tall. What does he weigh?

    Do they have a 4th of July in England?

    A woman gives a beggar 50 cents; the woman is the beggar’s sister, but the beggar is not the woman’s brother. How come?

  5. @ dweller:
    @ dweller:

    Cut to the chase and dump the psycho shit..

    I identified them as Jew haters you didn’t.

    You found their speeches informative and revealing.

    you said because you wanted to know how they think so as to analyze them in-order to defeat them.

    Well genius (in your own mind), what did you learn and how from what you learned do you advise and suggest we defeat them.

    If you have no cogent answer then we can confirm what we know you are; just a slimy sophist, an empty piece of ofal who likes to hear himself bloviate ad-nausea.

    In the vernacular: Put up or shut up!!!

    The only one I constantly call a coward is you
    A- Because it’s true
    and
    B- because it bugs you, because it is true.

    “The Truth Will set You Free”

  6. @ yamit82:

    “Either way by conviction or ignorance they are all Jew haters and enemies of the Jews.”

    “And that’s all you need to know. . . .?”

    “When somebody wants to kill me I don’t try to analyze why.”

    Then you haven’t got the brains of a boxa rox — because getting a handle on him may well give you clues as to how to defeat or destroy him.

    Instead you let him wave his red rag in your face, and you let it trigger you into mindlessly charging. Thus the matador becomes the bull.

    Newsflash, pancho: It’s the bull that dies. . . .

    “If I am able I kill him first and if not upgrade my defenses to that the option in minimized….”

    If you don’t know what’s moving him, you won’t know which of your defenses needs upgrading; and MAYBE not how to upgrade it either.

    “Enough with this christian corrupted moral sickness… “

    It’s YOU who’s corrupted with a moral sickness (may have even gotten FROM Christians).

    “…(love your neighbor crap).”

    Until you know what “love” means, you won’t know whether the adage IS or ISN’T crap.

    “My enemies are not my neighbors.”

    “Neighbor” is a spatial term, not a relational one.

    “You can know who people are by what they are willing to believe about you… That you seem to deny this truism…“

    “I haven’t ‘denied’ it. I’m simply not satisfied with it. Seems to me there’s more going on there (but only reading the ‘debate’ would show you that).

    The difference between you and me is that you take this ‘truism’ as a point of arrival — while for ME it’s only a starting point, a jumping-off point.”

    “Your main problem is you always arrive at the wrong conclusions…”

    Not once yet, shmendrick. YOUR main problem is that you’ve never been able to successfully identify an instance in which I’ve arrived at the ‘wrong conclusions.’ (And boy, have you tried!)

    But the worst part (for you) is that I did it all without ever putting anybody on a couch, or reading their mail

    — or breaking a sweat.

    And THAT’s the part that frosts your coffee & drives you meshugge.

    “Either way you are a cowardly schmuck.”

    This ‘cowardly’ thing with you is a constant refrain; it’s never far from your consciousness, is it?

    Methinks thou dost protest too much. . . .

  7. @ bernard ross:

    EU is collapsing yet they have funds for venting their irrational Jew hatred.

    The Eu is disintegrating culturally yet they find resources to boycott ours.

    EU is collapsing under the cultural and economic weight of some 30 millon worthless parasitic Muslims yet they have time to tell the Jews how to behave in our own country.

    Bernie while I like your idea I fear just like Hitler, in losing never gave up on his sacred mission of Killing Jews. Nothing will deter them from their mental sickness….

    Fuck em!!! Europe is finished with out a good reason to exist.

    Either the Muzzies will bring them down or their own nihilism. Either way it’s a matter of time and the Clock is not only ticking it’s quickening it pace….

  8. @ dweller:

    And that’s all you need to know. . . .?

    When somebody wants to kill me I don’t try to analyze why. If I am able I kill him first and if not upgrade my defenses to that the option in minimized…. Enough with this christian corrupted moral sickness (love your neighbor crap).

    My enemies are not my neighbors.

    The difference between you and me is that you take this “truism” as a point of arrival

    Fine psychobabble em to death AH. Your main problem is you always arrive at the wrong conclusions using your Voodoo methods of Ruach HaKodesh intuitive messaging service; either his transmitter is out of whack or your mind receptors are.
    Hmmmmmmmm
    Either way you are a cowardly schmuck.

  9. Let’s remember that the British were entrusted to facilitate the immigration, and encourage the close settlement, of Jews to the Palestine mandate territory which they proceeded to immediately sever 80% and appoint their Hashemite imported foreign stooges. After they finished swindling the Jews and resigned their trusteeship they immediately armed, financed, trained and led the hashemite invasion of the balance of the mandate territory against the former beneficiary of the Trust they were meant to protect.
    The British are greater Schnorers than the UNHRC. Rather than try to convince swindlers, goniffs, crooks, con artists and schnorers one should seek their incapacitation or destruction using the same means of deceit which the schnorers themselves employ. I submit that a covert policy of facilitating muslim terrorists to bring the arab spring to Europe would deflect the euros attention from Israel and towards protecting their own existence. This would also provide the muslims with a fat pig to eat rather than the small nation of Israel which would bring them nothing. This should be done with plausible deniability, just like they do.

  10. @ yamit82:

    “The speeches in the Commons are at the same time extraordinarily articulate and unselfconsciously witless. To a man, the speakers are unrelievedly & proudly ignorant.”

    “I didn’t read the speeches I’m no masochist”

    There are more reasons to read them than personal pleasure.

    “They are totally irrelevant.”

    “Irrelevant” to what? — to a finding that they have a problem with Jews? But that goes without saying. I thought you said you maintain a scientific attitude.

    Are you not the least bit curious to see what makes these people tick???

    “You can know who people are by what they are willing to believe about you.”

    Yes indeed; you’ve shown ME quite a bit about yourself by way of that very avenue. . . .

    “Either way by conviction or ignorance they are all Jew haters and enemies of the Jews.”

    And that’s all you need to know. . . .?

    “That you seem to deny this truism

    I haven’t ‘denied’ it. I’m simply not satisfied with it. Seems to me there’s more going on there (but only reading the ‘debate’ would show you that).

    The difference between you and me is that you take this “truism” as a point of arrival

    — while for ME it’s only a starting point, a jumping-off point.

    So much for your scientific method, it would appear.

  11. dweller Said:

    The speeches in the Commons are at the same time extraordinarily articulate and unselfconsciously witless.

    To a man, the speakers are unrelievedly & proudly ignorant.

    I didn’t read the speeches I’m no masochist and I’msure they are every bit as you ascribed to them.. They are totally irrelevant. If they were not Jew haters they would not have so readily voted yes almost to a man and woman….

    You can know who people are by what they are willing to believe about you. Either way by conviction or ignorance they are all Jew haters and enemies of the Jews.

    That you seem to deny this truism belies what and who you are. You are either insidious, nefarious or just a simpleton. You choose!!!

  12. @ yamit82:

    “The speeches are most revealing. Hard to tell whether the speakers were animated more by historical & legal ignorance — or compulsive & invincible stupidity.”

    “No you are the stupid one or intentionally obtuse.”

    How?

    Jew Bashing, Written & Directed by Martin Himel”

    Simple catch-alls like “antisemitism” don’t come close to addressing the point. But you won’t know that till you’ve actually read the speeches. (Have you read them, even now?)

    The speeches in the Commons are at the same time extraordinarily articulate and unselfconsciously witless. Like something out of Monty Python. John Cleese could’ve had a field day with this material.

    To a man, the speakers are unrelievedly & proudly ignorant.

  13. @ Ted Belman:

    “This is the debate.”

    The speeches are most revealing.

    Hard to tell whether the speakers were animated more by historical & legal ignorance

    — or compulsive & invincible stupidity.

  14. Who were those 12 MP’s who voted against??? Those representing Goder’s Green????

    Makes me want to root for the Muzzies!!!!

    Looks like we in Israel are alone and a stronger statement could not be made of that fact than the Vote in the British Parliament.

    Seems to me the Jews in Britain are going to have to make a choice. That choice is being forced on them and I am confident they will mostly stand with the British Parliament..

    Bye Bye English Jews and good riddance to you all!!

    As my ‘Hero’ G W Bush said: “Either you are with us or with the terrorists”

  15. Blah humbug…
    What did we expect from the Brutish innate anti-Semites?
    That garbage started the Pogroms in Kent and created the Crusaders. Not content by that they “mandated” our Land and persecuted our people including by attacking Holocaust refugee ships, etc.
    To hell with them all. Let them wallow with their choice of companions. Their choice prospects are that they will all be raped and decapitated by the Muslims.