Read my blog at Huffington Post

I also blog at Huffington Post's new UK site; please click here to read my posts there.

Friday, 4 November 2011

Nick Clegg's comments on Iran

Fascinating to read Nick Clegg's comments on Iran and its nuclear programme, as reported by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15580907) and the Jewish Chronicle (JC - http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/57723/clegg-wont-rule-out-strike-iran). Of course, he is simply re-stating the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government's well-established position, but it is fascinating nonetheless. According to the JC (under the headline "Clegg won't rule out strike on Iran"), Mr Clegg said: "...we want to see a negotiated solution. But as for other outcomes, clearly, you don't rule anything out in a situation as grave as this."

12 comments:

  1. As grave as what? Iran is not breaking any laws - unlike Israel who maintains a brutal and racist occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Surely Iran's nuclear programme is in breach of those legally binding non-proliferation treaties of which it is a signatory?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You mean like Israels occupation of the west bank

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of which legally binding treaties is Israel in breach?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eh occupying the west bank and east Jursulem

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of which legally binding treaty or treaties is that a breach?

    ReplyDelete
  7. eh the oslo accord were it agree's to collect taxes for the palastinians and deliever them once a month but often does not

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that Israel and the Palestinians should abide by all provisions of the Oslo Accords and other agreements that they have entered into.

    I asked you to name a legally binding treaty that is breached by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. You did not name one. That is because the legal status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is indeterminate.

    In the 1920s, the League of Nations allocated all of Mandate Palestine (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) as a place that was open for Jewish settlement and some lawyers argue that this was never legally rescinded.

    In the 1940s, the UN allocated most of the West Bank to a proposed new Palestinian Arab state that was never created, and allocated the rest of the West Bank to the proposed Jewish state. Instead, Jordan illegally annexed all of the West Bank (and expelled the Jewish inhabitants), prior to Israel's occupying it in 1967.

    Also in the 1940s, the UN voted to create an international zone in East Jerusalem, but, again, Jordan annexed it instead and expelled the city's Jewish inhabitants, prior to Israel's taking it in 1967.

    The legal status of these places is therefore incredibly complicated and can only be resolved through negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Its not complicated its very simple...israel needs to pull back to its 1967 boarder, we in the lib dems should vote for santions against israel, we won't, because people like u and Ludford will vote against, use the negotitions argument which has never worked and never will, and Clegg will support u. Result, israel will build more settlements, the Lib Dems will vote against a palastinian state at the UN, and people like u clegg and Ludford will continue to lie through your teeth and claim you are in favour of a palastinian state.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am very much in favour of a Palestinian state. That's why I want there to be a credible peace process. I do not believe that imposing sanctions on Israel or the Palestinians would do anything to help the Israelis or the Palestinians.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of course you do. As long as santions are not imposed on Israel - Israel is free to build. Why don't you just admit that you favour Israel's occupation of the West bank and stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What have I ever written that makes you think that I favour Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

      Delete