Davids Blog

Ambassador’s Residence, Tel Aviv

Posted by David on Thursday, 01 March 2007 18:48:17

The Diplomatic service is clearly in the modern world - I've just read your responses to my last blog using a laptop and the Embassy's wi-fi.

An exhausting, but fascinating day.

Started at 6.30am in Jerusalem watching the sun rise over the old city, an incredibly beautiful sight. It will end after a dinner organised here by the Ambassador for me to meet a range of politicians, thinkers and business folk.

In between I've toured the old city on foot, driven round Jerusalem with a human rights lawyer, walked into the West Bank to a Palestinian village with Friends of the Earth and held meetings in Tel Aviv with the PM, Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres and Bibi Netanyahu. Add in about half a dozen interviews and that's just about does it (and me, incidentally).

Impressions?

The contrast between modern, high-tech Israel and antiquity.

Everyone talks about how close the holy sites are to each other, but seeing it for yourself is incredibly powerful.

The Western wall, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the site of Christ's crucifixion, just a few minutes away from each other. As my Foreign Office tour guide said - that's 2,000 years of history and three religions all in half an hour.

Meeting people gives an impression of the human aspect of the situation.

There was the Palestinian university professor whose campus is split by the new wall in Jerusalem and now spends hours of time crossing from one side to the other. There was the local rabbi and Palestinian village elder who were determined to work together, across the green line, ensuring that the Israeli town and the Palestinian village co-exist successfully. As we planted olive trees they said they were "laying their own green line" - a small thing perhaps, but an encouraging symbol of two communities working together.

Perhaps most incisive of all was the Human Rights lawyer who said that Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem were like Siamese twins: tied together and both reliant on the same vital organs.

Optimistic or pessimistic on the prospects for peace?

I am meant to be an optimist, but here it is tough.

Palestinians divided into factions with Hamas still committed to terror. The Israelis understandably frustrated that leaving Gaza has yielded so little. And the so-called "facts on the ground" of, for example, new settlements that make a two state solution that much more difficult to achieve.

And yet. The US seems more engaged than before, the moderate Arab world wants progress and the price of failing is getting ever higher.

The fact is we cannot afford to be pessimists.

Photo 1: With Prime Minister Olmert


Photo 2: Meeting children whilst visiting a irrigation project at Wadi Fukin, a village in the Palestinian Territories on the 'green line' border with Israel

Photo 3: Being filmed for Webcameron!

Post edited by David on Saturday, 03 March 2007 15:27:17

,

You could comment if you logged in | Read comments


 

Posted by srfielding on Thursday, 01 March 2007 19:41:15

I am sure you aren't thinking of your legacy, but Middle East peace could well be it!

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 01 March 2007 19:52:36

Well David - your photo is once again in the papers - with another mischievous child (without hoodie) in the background! You seem to be a magnet for naughty boys and girls! LoL :)

Can the lessons learned from the Northern Ireland situation be translated to the middle east? Is it time to bring in Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton for some 'talks'?

They worked wonders with Libya.

Posted by Tizzy on Thursday, 01 March 2007 19:58:53

As with Ireland, the US are key but must appear as bellicose to the Arabs and Iranians as they do to us in Blighty. The Brits have blotted their copy book big time in this arena. The picture of the girl, thumb down, tongue out - did you get the impression that was representative of the ordinary residents of the area towards a Brit? Don't you think it will take another generation before we are even listened to, let alone trusted, by either side?

Yet, as you point out, there may just be enough people who live there to start making a difference. Baby steps.

Posted by scrubsupwell on Thursday, 01 March 2007 21:31:07

The situation reminds me of David and Goliath. Young boys throwing stones at Israeli tanks! I am sure Balfour did mean a 'national home' not a state, didn't he?.

Posted by kozmicstu on Thursday, 01 March 2007 21:56:28

lol canvas' response to everything is to fly Nelson Mandella into the thick of it... :-)

I like that analogy from the Human Rights lawyer. I can't bring myself to have an opinion on the matter beyond the parent's favourite 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' remark. I can't bring myself to come down on either side of the fence because both have acted so atrociously. Another case of organised religion dividing the people into sets. The world becomes 'us' and 'them'. 'Catholics' and 'Protestants', 'Muslims' and 'Jews', 'Israelis' and 'Palestinians'.

In the words of the Joker (as played by Jack Nicholson) "Can't we all just... Get along?"

It's nice to see you're not loosing your head over it, or letting it get you down, Mr Cameron. There'll be a solution in the end - these things never last forever. Maybe Mr Mandella is the man to call after all...

Stu

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 01 March 2007 23:23:45

David - Your Party Chairman, Francis Maude MP, was dreadful on Question Time tonight. He completely misrepresented your views about marriage. Is it sabotage on his part? Bad PR. Peter Hain ate him for breakfast. How disappointing.

 

Comment edited by canvas on Thursday, 01 March 2007 23:24:36

Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 March 2007 12:13:36

Dear Webcameron Community -

Are you aware that David Cameron is now doing a regular 'written blog' under 'David's Blog' on this website?

https://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/david

Have a read! It's good stuff.



 

Comment edited by canvas on Friday, 02 March 2007 12:13:47

Posted by Henry2 on Friday, 02 March 2007 12:15:44

I agree Francis Maude did not do well on Question Time but then neither did anyone else except for the lady from the Telegraph. The audience paid no attention to the facts presented by her. She stated that research showed that children from broken marriages and single parents were more likely to have bad outcomes - they just did not want to listen. Peter Hain and Ming Campbell were in favour of any arrangement provided that the couple were committed. As the gentleman from the audience pointed out the panel just seemed to have a problem with marriage.

So, if we believe that the Question Time audience and most of the panel reflects British society as a whole then supporters of marriage are in big trouble!

What I did not like about Francis Maude's statements was that he said that the tax advantage would only be a small one. IT HAS GOT TO BE BIG ENOUGH SO THAT FAMILIES REALLY BENEFIT.

Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 March 2007 13:02:21

Henry2 - I'm not convinced this is about money and taxes. I believe DC was putting across an important message about marriage - but it remains unclear. I actually think the proposal could lead to discrimination and that would be wrong.

Francis Maude did not communicate effectively - hence David Cameron's words have been misconstrued. There were claims made on Question Time last night that this proposal was a 'right wing knee jerk reaction'. I can understand why those claims were made based on Francis Maude's argument. His words were feeble at best. However, I do not believe this argument was the essence of DC's original statement. It's amazing how easily 'words' can be misinterrupted. It was very disappointing - and it was clear that the public didn't like the points being made by Francis Maude.

I think David Cameron needs to get tough with his shadow cabinet. If they are going to speak on his behalf then they better get it right.

I thought David Cameron's initial statements sounded forward-thinking, modern and sensible. They made Peter Hain's views seem strangely out of touch and old fashioned. Sadly, Francis Maude MP managed to completely shatter that illusion.

How do you deal with old style Tories and make them tow the line? They are a huge liability for a new and progressive Conservative Party.

Anyway, I still think David Cameron can pull it off. He just needs to clarify his views with his own party to avoid these PR disasters.

 

Comment edited by canvas on Friday, 02 March 2007 13:10:50

Posted by AndrewFarnden on Friday, 02 March 2007 18:00:31

Francis really struggled last night, it was painfull to watch, he managed to turn the whole room against him. I agree that we need to be brave on this issue and make it count big time.Turning a society around is going to need Dave to challenge this recent Liberal consensus that everyone knows an unmarried couple that do a great job therefore there can't be a debate.

Its like those people that say my gran smoked till she was 93 so I'm not going to try and stop my kids smoking.

Peter Hain implied that a small financial incentive wouldn't keep a broken family together which is clearly true, (though its a cheap point) then he went on to imply that small amounts of cash directed at children would save the world. You could say that some young thug won't chuck a stone through your window because his mum got an extra £3 last week.

The point that Francis should of made last night was that society is clearly wanting in recent years and that we are going to be brave enougth to bring policy to bear where we feel it will have a positive consequence for the future.

I've never married after 14 years with my partner and we have 2 children, and this debate has made me look long and hard at the lifestyle choices I made when i chose to have children before marriage and I have to say if you strip out all those people that would convince me my choice is as hounerable as someone that made the marrage commitment, I have to say I am a little ashamed at my selfish attitude for putting my self or my rights before what was clearly the best environment to bring up children.

If this policy makes people like me consider the positive messages and principles that it would send to my children after 14 years then I can see why as a government policy we may be able to change the attitudes for the bettter and shift our society onto a new track.

Andy

Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 March 2007 18:37:07

Andrew - I am wary of politicians preaching 'family values'. Remember what happened to the Tories (ala John Major) when their 'Family Values' campaign backfired and blew up in their faces!

David Cameron needs to tread very carefully. I under the important message that he is trying to put across - but it must be done with great delicacy - and the words must be well thought out. I am sure DC's intentions are not to make single mothers feel marginilised - but Labour will play that card.

It's not easy being a pioneer - but DC is doing a good job. It's important to have the courage to stand up for what you believe in - but it's also important to realise that the public still have fearful memories of the 'bad old days' of Conservative government.

Posted by Madasafish on Friday, 02 March 2007 18:47:38

Well I watched question time and gave up.Audiences can be unfair and I am not sure they are representative.

I agree Francis Maude is NOT a good speaker.. and frankly defending marriage to a bunch of special interests requires PASSION and FM cannot do Passion imo.

I admit I am biased. I have been married for 40 years with all the troubles and joys that brings. We have three children .. not all three are great successes in life.. but that's life.

I look around at those who oppose marriage and I see special interest groups, some people who have clearly got alternative lifestyles they clearly work at to succeed and of course those who have been brought up successfully by single parent families. Good for them. I have no complaints with them.

But I have major complaints with those who father children and do not support them financially ofr parenting wise, and rely on the state to do it. Indeed the state makes it economically attractive to single parents to be so. (this may be politically incorrect but so what.. it's factual from research)

Well I suggest we turn the entire benefits sytem around. So far everyone has rights and entitlements: pensions, job seekers allowance, free medical care etc.. and all for being born. No contribution needed.

Well in the long run this is clearly not the way to foster independence from teh state, healthy children etc...

I am not advocating a system of life control as the Labour Party wnat to do.. the intrusions of the state in personal life is too much at present. Nor am I advocating a change for those who are hooked on state benefits now.

But I suggest a gradual tapered reduction in state benefits (forget the CSA: a beauraucratic monster) for all thiose under the age of 65 starting from those entering the workplace at 16 or 18 or whenever so people depend far more on the resources of their families/themselves or non state entities (privately funded).
The aim would be long term to wean all new adults off a reliance on the state.

And the first step would be simple... NO system will mean that two separate parents will obtain more money from the state than two parents living together. That's obvious. And the ssystem wiull work on the basis that father /mother and children are entitled to a certain level of state support and its paid only to the supporter of the children. So if parenst wish to separate and leave one to look after teh children taht's fine.. but don't expect the state to fund in any way the absent parent.

How unfair I hear you say.. Yes it will force a few peopel to think before parenthood. in fact think a lot.. cos get it wrong and you lose out and are forced to make your way.

Become a persistent offender and criminal. Forget your entitlemt to any benefits for 12 months. Re-offend and it becoms 24.. and so on.

Why shoudl we taxpayers subsidise the lifestyle sof the criminal classes?

Impossible I hear you say...what about all the drug addicts? etc.

Well that's another issue.. but all I say is : teh war against drugs is a joke .. it makes teh Iraq war look like a raging success AND it make smillionaires of criminals... reminds me of Prohibition..

I'm sorry.. rant over...








Posted by canvas on Friday, 02 March 2007 18:58:35

Madasafish - we need to examine the role of education in tackling poverty. We must (as a fair society) look after the poor and disadvantaged.

However, this goes back to my original point - I don't believe this is just about taxes and £money£ - I believe David Cameron was putting across a more profound message about marriage being a worthy institution. Sadly, Frances Maude MP has caused DC to have a wee setback.

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 02 March 2007 20:24:06

How did we get from Tel Aviv to this?

Nice photos - very cool stuff

Don't miss these