Mandate for Palestine - July 24, 1922

Mandate for Palestine - July 24, 1922
Jordan is 77% of former Palestine - Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza comprise 23%.

Saturday, April 7, 2018

Trump Or Clinton Victory Could Depend On Non-Voters


[This article was submitted for publication to Canada Free Press on 4 November 2016 but was never published.

When I enquired as to reason why - I received the following response:
CFP-Copy
09/11/2016

Dear David,

Apologies.

I just site searched the article and found it in our spam folder. For some reason unknown to us, a few of our writers — in the last week— had their submissions arrive in spam.

Not sure why this happened, but sorry it did

Brian and Judi

Russian conspiracy theorists - here is something for you to go ballistic about.
]




It would indeed be ironic if the next President of the United States was determined by the number of previous voters who this time did not exercise the most fundamental right bequeathed to them by their forefathers - the inalienable right to vote.

An increase in this class of non-voters has become more likely with the release of a Washington Post-ABC News poll - which found 46% of likely voters saying Trump is more honest and deserving of trust as against 38% for Clinton. That is seen as a wide lead for Trump since both he and Clinton were tied when the same question was asked by the Washington Post-ABC poll in September.

Clinton's decline comes amidst some extraordinary events:
1. the FBI reopening an investigation into Clinton’s private email server, having found more emails on the private computer of her senior aide Huma Abedin.

2.Interim Democratic National Committee Chairperson Donna Brazile being caught out - whilst a contributor at CNN - feeding two questions to the Clinton camp likely to be asked in a Democrat debate without the knowledge of her Presidential opponent Bernie Sanders.

3. An undercover video surfacing that tied Robert Creamer - a White House visitor on 340 occasions meeting with President Obama 45 times - to plans to incite brawls at Trump rallies and illegally bus voters to polling stations.
These latest developments could influence many previous voters - both democrats and disenchanted republicans intending to vote for Clinton - into not voting.

Bernie Sanders supporters are no doubt outraged by the treatment accorded to him by two Democratic National Committee Chairpersons.

Brazile's predecessor Senator Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been forced to resign that position after hacked emails revealed a plot to embarrass and undermine Sanders in the Democratic primaries as the Democratic Party nominee.

Brazile survives - defiant, unrepentant and unscathed.

Many other Democrats might not be prepared to vote for a candidate who could be embroiled in a lengthy FBI investigation extending well into her Presidency - that could both hamstring her administration and impact on her decision making capacity.

Republican voters - such as the Bush family - affronted and publicly distancing themselves from Trump's policies and his sometimes irrational and explosive behaviour not to mention his alleged sexual indiscretions - will now reflect on voting for Clinton in the face of these latest developments but decide they still cannot vote for Trump. They could opt to vote for neither.

The crowds flocking to Trump's rallies are far larger than Clinton's. One can reasonably conclude that the enthusiasm of Trumps's supporters far outweighs that of Clinton's - and that the likelihood of Trump voters turning out to vote will probably not diminish no matter what happens in the next few days.

Voter turnout dipped from 62.3% of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5% in 2012.

The low 2012 turnout could be explained by the fact that President Barack Obama was running for his second term whilst enjoying a high popularity rating.

It would therefore be more circumspect to accept the figure of 62.3% as setting the bar that both Trump and Clinton should be watching closely as the votes are being counted.

If the voter turnout is less than 62.3% - then Trump is more likely to win. If higher than 62.3% - then Clinton is more likely to win.

There is no doubt that this has been the most volatile Presidential election campaign ever and that the popularity of both Trump and Clinton is very low.

Hopefully dedicated past voters choosing to not vote in 2016 will never again be faced with this difficult choice of rejecting both the Republican and Democratic parties nominees.


[PS:I received the following reply from Fox News pollster Larry Sabato on 10 November 2016 after I sent him this article:

David,

It’s an excellent piece. I am going to share it with my entire team; I want every one of them to read it.

I appreciate your kind words. Most people wrote to suggest an early retirement — or a firing squad! So I salute your humanity.

Best wishes,

Larry

Dr. Larry J. Sabato
Director, Center for Politics
University Professor of Politics
University of Virginia
sabato@virginia.edu]



Monday, April 2, 2018

Trump Thrashes Clinton On Ending Sexual Violence In Syria And Iraq


[Published 16 October 2016}


Mainstream American media’s obsession with groping allegations against Donald Trump going back twenty years or more has papered over public discussion of major policy differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton on defeating Islamic State and ending the horrific sexual violence perpetrated on women and children in Syria and Iraq for the last two years.

In a stark report to the UN Security Council on 30 September — UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon warned:
“ISIL [Islamic State] continues to systematically use sexual violence against Yazidi women and girls in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as against other minorities caught up in the conflict. Even though some women have managed to escape their captors, around 3,800 abducted Yazidis were still missing at the time of writing. This is a matter of grave concern. Those who have escaped have described the appalling conditions under which they were bought, sold, traded and abused. Both girls and boys are advertised online and traded for weapons, suicide vests, cars and a range of other commodities. Thus far, no formal mechanisms have been established to secure the release of those held captive by ISIL. Those who have managed to escape have done so with the help of their families and smugglers or by taking advantage of other opportunities. Some have resorted to suicide as their only escape. The children of women who commit suicide, or who attempt to escape, are beaten or killed as punishment”
You have to search high and low to find any American media discussion of these highly disturbing revelations.

America and Russia have become embroiled in these conflicts raging in Syria and Iraq and both bear a major role in ending this ongoing dehumanisation of women and children. Yet American media has not critically examined Trump or Clinton’s views on what each would do under their Presidency to defeat Islamic State and end such reprehensible sexual violence.

Co-operation with Russia to achieve these objectives — as espoused by Trump — has been rejected by Clinton - who promises to follow President Obama’s resolute refusal to co-operate with Russia in defeating Islamic State in Syria since November 2015.

Clinton made her policy crystal clear in the second Presidential debate:
“It’s also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations.”
Who these Muslim nations are and how Clinton intends to defeat Islamic State in Syria without Russian co-operation remains unexplained. It is a pipedream the American media should be grilling her on every day until they get an answer.

Trump however indicated in the same Presidential debate that he would welcome co-operation rather than confrontation with Russia:
“I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example.”
Trump and Putin acting in concert or going hand in hand to the Security Council jointly sponsoring a commonly agreed plan of action to eradicate Islamic State represent two possible ways forward.

Meanwhile new allegations of decades-old sexual transgressions by Trump surface in the American media accompanied by sanctimonious expressions of indignation to justify his unfitness to be America’s next President.

Makes for salacious reading — but keeps voters in the dark on whether Trump or Clinton is the best candidate to:
1. See Islamic State defeated

2. End the ongoing sexual violence in Syria and Iraq

3. Extricate America from Obama’s disastrous forays in the Middle East that continue to cause American military casualties and bankrupt America both morally and financially.
Trump may not be perfect but America’s media should hang its head in shame.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Clinton Will Continue Obama Policy Confronting Russia In Syria And UN


[Published 10 October 2016]


Hillary Clinton has made it very clear in the second Presidential Debate that if elected next President of the United States she will continue President Obama’s confrontation with Russia both in Syria and at the United Nations.

Clinton told 66.5 million viewers:
“Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.
Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me.”
Clinton’s no-fly zone over Libya proved disastrous and has already been rejected by Russia over Syria.

She left unexplained what leverage she could put on Putin to get him to the negotiating table.

Her assessment that Russia wanted Trump elected as President of the United States was probably correct for the following reasons enunciated by Trump during the debate.
“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS..

... I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she [Clinton] made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.”
The choice for America’s voters could not be clearer:
1. co-operation with Russia to first get rid of ISIS and - unmentioned during the debate - al-Nusra threats to world peace and security already declared by the UN Security Council or

2. continuing confrontation with Russia seeking to resolve the Syrian civil conflict which has raged since 2011.
Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov extended the following olive branch to America on 18 November 2015:
“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.
Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position.

Trump seems ready to take up Russia’s offer of defeating ISIS first.

American voters have been presented with a stark choice between Clinton and Trump on America’s future involvement in Syria.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

United Nations Rebuked For Promoting Palestinian Ethnic Cleansing Of Jews



[Published 15 September 2016]


United Nations member States need to examine their own consciences and policies following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu castigating them for promoting a Jew-free Palestinian Arab State in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem.

In a video presentation last week — Netanyahu declared:
“Israel’s diversity shows its openness and readiness for peace.

Yet the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews.

There’s a phrase for that: It’s called ethnic cleansing.

And this demand is outrageous. It’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find this outrageous.

Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”
The Oxford Dictionary defines “enlightened” to mean “having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook”

Enlightened United Nations member States lost their moral and humanitarian compasses when supporting United Nations Resolution A/67/L.28 passed on 29 November 2012 (“the Resolution”) which reaffirmed:
“the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”
Among the 138 countries voting for the Resolution were enlightened States such as:
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay and Venezuela
Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, and the United States voted against the Resolution whilst 41 others — including Australia - abstained.

800000 Jews currently live in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem under rights vested in them by:
1. Article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine,
2. Article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter,
3. Israel’s 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem
4. The 1993 Oslo Accords.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared in 2010:
“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,”
Like Hitler — Abbas made no secret of his racist plan to create a Jew-free State.

Member States of the United Nations remained silent. In voting for the Resolution they chose to march to the same tune.

Abbas repeated his evil message in 2013:
“But when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it.”

Enlightened States still said nothing.

They had said nothing after every single Jew had been ethnically cleansed from Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem following Jordan’s conquest of these areas between 1948 and 1967 when the following events happened:
“After the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites began and continued. 57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. The city’s foremost Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an ‘open city’ and stop this destruction, but there was no response.”
The independent Jew-free Palestinian State promoted by the United Nations in 2012 could have been created between 1948 and 1967 with the stroke of an Arab League pen when not one Jew lived in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. That 19 year window of opportunity will not return.

Netanyahu’s rebuke was certainly justified.

Enlightened — and unenlightened - States need to affirm their total opposition to any settlement of the Jewish-Arab conflict involving the ethnic cleansing of any Jews from Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Palestine - Abbas Abandons Peace Negotiations With Israel


[Published 18 August 2016]


Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to prosecute Britain for publishing the 1917 Balfour Declaration amounts to an outright rejection of the right of the Jewish people to have their own State in former Palestine - the major stumbling block to peacefully resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict for the last 100 years.

Abbas effectively abandoned further peace negotiations with Israel when his Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki announced Abbas’s decision during an Arab League meeting in the Mauritanian capital of Nouakchott on 25 July:
“We are working to open up an international criminal case for the crime which they [Britain] committed against our nation — from the days of the British Mandate all the way to the massacre which was carried out against us from 1948 onwards ...

... With the commemoration of 100 years since this historic massacre, and following the continuity of this tragedy, we request that the Secretary General of the Arab League assist us in prosecuting the British government for publishing the Balfour Declaration which caused this catastrophe against the Palestinian people.”

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) — from its founding in 1964 — had labelled the Balfour Declaration a “fraud” - revising this position in 1968 by claiming it was “deemed null and void.”

Such unsubstantiated assertions of British fraud and illegality are supposedly now to be legally challenged — but can Abbas be taken seriously?

Abbas has not similarly threatened France - although France’s Secretary General For Foreign Affairs - Jules Cambon — informed Nahum Sokolow on 4 June 1917 — 5 months before the Balfour Declaration:
“You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine. You consider that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.

The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies.

I am happy to give you herewith such assurance.”

Abbas is not proposing to sue all 51 member States of the League of Nations who unanimously adopted and incorporated the Balfour Declaration in the Mandate for Palestine — when calling for the “reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine”.

Threatened legal action against Britain only will probably never eventuate — let alone have any chance of success.

Abbas’s latest grandstanding ploy comes as he desperately tries to recover lost political ground to Hamas by reinforcing his own Jew-hating credentials.

The Nouakchott Declaration has however served to focus attention on thirty years of long-overlooked international political decisions taken between 1917 and 1947 which resulted in:
1. 99.99% of the Ottoman Empire lands conquered by Britain and France in World War 1 being set aside for Arab self-determination whilst only 0.01% - Palestine — was set aside for Jewish self-determination

2. 78% of Palestine being closed in 1922 to Jewish settlement and development of the Jewish National Home — such territory subsequently becoming an independent sovereign Jew-free Arab State in 1946 — today called Jordan.
Burying Arab heads in the sand by refusing to accept these decisions remains an exercise in futility.

When Arab minds acknowledge these historic and legal realities - the peaceful resolution of the century-old conflict between Arabs and Jews becomes certainly attainable.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Palestine - France Farce And Folly


[Published 9 June 2016]


France embarked on a journey to nowhere when it hosted 28 delegations in Paris for a ministerial meeting on 3 June marking the first phase of its initiative aimed at promoting peace in the Middle East.

Amid the pomp and ceremony, photo opportunities and handshakes - the final communique revealed:

1. Support was reaffirmed for a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The conflict actually requiring resolution is the Jewish-Arab conflict going back to 1917—well before Israel’s creation in 1948 — which still sees 20 Arab States today denying the Jews the legal rights vested in them by the Mandate for Palestine to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in its ancient biblical and historical homeland.

Only Jordan and Egypt have recognised and signed peace treaties with Israel.

The “Palestinians” were regarded as part of the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” by the League of Nations in 1922 and not recognized as a people by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan.

The 1964 PLO Covenant is their birth certificate.

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s claim on 6 June that the “Palestinians” had a 5000 years old history is farcical.

Paris remained blinded.
2. A negotiated two-state solution was reaffirmed as the only way to achieve an enduring peace, with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
That “two-state solution” - first proposed in 1947 - was available at any time between 1948 and 1967, was again offered in 2000/1 and 2008 but was always rejected by the Arabs.

Flogging that dead horse is a waste of time.

The “two- state solution” envisioned by the League of Nations in 1922 and the Peel Commission in 1937 provides the best opportunity for peacefully resolving Jewish and Arab territorial claims in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza.

Guess the delegates were too busy quaffing champagne and tasting canapes to focus on other solutions than the artificially contrived, totally failed and utterly discredited 1947-2016 “two-state” solution.
3. Rebuilding trust and creating the conditions for fully ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and resolving all permanent status issues through direct negotiations based on resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), and also recalling relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and highlighting the importance of the implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative.
"Fully ending” the 1967 occupation means kicking 650000 Jews out of their homes. What were they thinking — and drinking?

Israel agreed to negotiate with the PLO under the 2003 Bush Roadmap only on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

Introducing new negotiating parameters now is incredibly fanciful.
4. Possible ways in which the international community could help advance the prospects for peace, including by providing meaningful incentives to the parties to make peace.
Direct negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt would fit these objectives.
5. The participants highlighted the key role of the Quartet.
The Quartet lost its key role in July 2015 when:
(i) The Quartet’s representative Tony Blairstood down with no replacement

(ii) Blair’s office — the Office of the Quartet Representative (OQR) - was renamed the Office of the Quartet (OQ) and its stated mandate was expressed:
“to support the Palestinian people on economic development, rule of law and improved movement and access for goods and people, as they build the institutions and economy of a viable and peaceful state in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

(iii) Jews became persona non grata overnight as the Quartet’s previously independent non- partisan role was superseded.
France’s follow-up international conference being organised before the end of the year promises further farce and continuing folly.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Palestine - Rhiannon Propaganda Pamphlet Threatens Greens Political Integrity


[Published 26 May 2016]


Australian Greens Leader Senator Richard Di Natale needs to immediately shred a misleading and deceptive pro-Palestinian pamphlet authorised and printed by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon.

The pamphlet contains two statements purportedly made by Israel’s Moshe Dayan in 1969 and Ariel Sharon in 1973.

Dayan is quoted as saying:
“We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs and we set up a Jewish State… Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages”

Dayan actually said:
“We came to a region that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In many places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.”

Dayan’s statement refutes the canard repeated in Palestinian text books and media that
“the Zionist gangs stole Palestine”

Why Rhiannon deleted Dayan’s highly significant remarks remains unexplained.

The authenticity of Sharon’s supposed statement is shrouded in uncertainty.

Michael Shaik writing in the Greens Left Weekly claimed the statement was made by a British journalist boasting at Israel’s National Press Club.

Max Blumenthal writes it was made in a private chat with Winston Churchill’s grandson in 1973.

On 18 July 2002 George Hishmeh - an Arab-American journalist based in Washington elucidated:
"Winston S. Churchill III, grandson of the famed British prime minister, recalled last October [11 October 2001—Ed] at the National Press Club here a telling encounter he had had in 1973 with the hawkish Ariel Sharon, now the Israeli prime minister, about Zionist objectives. “What is to become of the Palestinians?” Churchill asked. “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them,” Sharon said. Churchill responded, “What?” “Yes, we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”

Hishmeh identified as his source — Geoffrey Aronson:
“who is recognized in the US as the preeminent American expert on the Israeli settlement movement, loves to relate this significant exchange as he did in an interview with The [Lebanon—Ed] Daily Star on two different occasions.”

Churchill recounting a 1973 private discussion in such precise detail at the Washington National Press Club twenty eight years later — is highly suspect.

Churchill never made any mention of this conversation with Sharon in his published speech at the Press Club — although he could have recalled the conversation as an aside or in some discussion with Aronson or others afterwards.

Churchill’s bombshell revelation seems to have gone unnoticed as this contemporaneous report indicates. No other reports have been found.

I have been unable to listen to or download a copy of a tape that apparently exists and could possibly shed some light on what Churchill said.

Please help me retrieve it if you can.

Whether that tape surfaces or not — a question mark must hang over the accuracy of Sharon’s previously unpublished 1973 private remarks — only disclosed by Churchill in 2001

Sharon and Churchill are not alive to confirm or deny what was said — yet the terms of this private conversation are quoted with unerring accuracy and entrenched as gospel in Rhiannon’s pamphlet.

Rhiannon’s continuing use of Sharon’s “statement” — compounded by her excluding part of Dayan’s statement - raises questions as to the propriety of the Greens using this pamphlet to garner votes in the upcoming July Federal elections.

Shredding these pamphlets has become an urgent priority.

The Greens political integrity requires its support for the Palestinian Arabs be based on solid grounds — not shaky foundations.