What's the reason behind Miliband's Israel snub?
Peter Hoskin 6:45pm
So why has David Miliband cut his trip to the Middle East short? The plan was for him to be in Israel today, meeting with luminaries including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, before hopping on a plane tonight to be back in time for tomorrow’s 42-day detention vote. Ben Brogan charts what actually happened:
“Instead Geoff Hoon told him to come back early, ostensibly because of difficult votes today. Mr Miliband and the rest of us duly got on a dawn flight in Jerusalem. Yet there is no sign of trouble at Westminster this afternoon, prompting some jolly speculation about the reason for the rushed return.”
Miliband is supposed to be one of Britain’s most important representatives on the world stage. For him to snub the Israelis like this, and be back in Westminster today – as Brogan puts it, “voting on the role of coroners” – is beyond disgraceful.
Previous
Chuck Unsworth
June 10th, 2008 7:10pm Report this commentHoon, eh?
Always behind any trouble.
John
June 10th, 2008 8:36pm Report this commentTo say nothing about troughs ...
Max
June 10th, 2008 9:01pm Report this commentPriorities eh?
Max
http://theerrorlog.blogspot.com
Austin Barry
June 10th, 2008 9:04pm Report this commentThe imminent IDF attack on the Gaza? "I didn't meet with the Israelis and was thus unable to dissuade them from an unfortunate decision."
TGF UKIP
June 10th, 2008 9:18pm Report this commentThis stinks of Labour Party politics. There's Labour Friends of Israel, influential because of fund raising, but tiny numerically and out of step with the mainstream party who are pathalogically anti-Israel. One reading of this might be, admittedly superficial, that Hoon knows the 42 day vote is lost, that Gordon is going to go and that Hoon is throwing his hat in the Miliband camp. Unlikely, maybe, but whatever it is, it looks like Geoff is looking out for young and jewish Dave.
James Forsyth
June 10th, 2008 10:09pm Report this commentAdrian, we know that is not the case.
Diablo
June 10th, 2008 11:08pm Report this commentMaybe there is to be (yet)another push by Bush to get his legacy back on track - see The Times interview tomorrow - and he didn't want Miliband queering the pitch with the Israelis?
(PS: Is TGF UKIP the "Adrian" you refer to, James?)
James Forsyth
June 11th, 2008 12:25am Report this commentTo be less cryptic, Adrian Drummond mande a perfectly innoncent post but which could, inadvertently, have caused distress to the Miliband family. So, we have held it back. Apologies to Adrian
Chuck Unsworth
June 11th, 2008 7:57am Report this commentJames,
'could, inadvertently'? Not sure I'm getting the syntax here.
But anyway, since when did 'causing distress' to anyone ever bother Mr Milliband - except when he felt it was in his personal interests not to do so? I am deeply unimpressed by his actions over, for example, the Translators and Local Employees in Iraq. Let's be realistic, these people and their extended families have suffered considerable 'distress' - to the point of death - directly as a result of his inactions.
A professional politician, he knows exactly what the risks of embarrassment and distress may be to him and to his kith and kin. It's his choice to stand in the arena.
Dolly Daydream
June 11th, 2008 10:09am Report this commentDid he leave before or after the uncouth Israeli Ambassador started breaking all the diplomatic rules by slagging off the British people in the press?
peter watkins
June 19th, 2008 12:38pm Report this commentDolly - top point!
Anyway - maybe British politics come before Israeli schmoozing.
Amazing to those that think British politics should revolve around Israel's welfare, I know.
Back to top