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.

Abbas dumps Trump, embraces United Nations

[Published 25 February 2018]


PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas signed his own suicide note after another blistering attack on America in the United Nations Security Council on 20 February.

Abbas told the Security Council:

“The United States has contradicted itself and contradicted its own commitments and has violated international law and the relevant resolutions with its decision regarding Jerusalem. So, it has become impossible today for one country or State alone to solve a regional or international conflict without the participation of other international partners. Therefore, to solve the Palestine question, it is essential to establish a multi-lateral international mechanism emanating from an international conference and in line with international law and the relevant resolutions.”

Exiting the meeting immediately after this verbal barrage – Abbas did not hear US Ambassador to the UN – Nikki Haley – giving him this serve:

“I will decline the advice I was recently given by your top negotiator, Saeb Erekat. I will not shut up. Rather, I will respectfully speak some hard truths.

The Palestinian leadership has a choice to make between two different paths. There is the path of absolutist demands, hateful rhetoric, and incitement to violence. That path has led, and will continue to lead, to nothing but hardship for the Palestinian people.

Or, there is the path of negotiation and compromise. History has shown that path to be successful for Egypt and Jordan, including the transfer of territory. That path remains open to the Palestinian leadership, if only it is courageous enough to take it.”

Haley was still smarting from Erekat's intemperate "shut up" outburst on 31 January when he also described Haley as "impudent" - whilst Abbas’s two hour anti-American diatribe on 14 January and Abbas’s refusal to meet American Vice-President Mike Pence also contributed to Abbas's public dressing down.

Abbas is perfectly entitled to choose the United Nations path to pursue his agenda seeking to create a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan which comprises 78% of former Palestine. However he cannot possibly achieve that result facing a certain US veto in the Security Council.

Haley made Abbas's choices and America's intentions crystal-clear - warning Abbas:

"You can choose to denounce the United States, reject the U.S. role in peace talks, and pursue punitive measures against Israel in international forums like the UN. I assure you that path will get the Palestinian people exactly nowhere toward the achievement of their aspirations.

Or, you can choose to put aside your anger about the location of our embassy, and move forward with us toward a negotiated compromise that holds great potential for improving the lives of the Palestinian people.

Putting forward old talking points and entrenched and undeveloped concepts achieves nothing. That approach has been tried many times, and has always failed. After so many decades, we welcome new thinking."

Choosing the United Nations over direct negotiations with Israel will disqualify the PLO from participating in Trump’s proposed "ultimate deal" to end the Arab-Jewish conflict - details of which still remain shrouded in secrecy.

President Trump's "new thinking" could see Jordan and Egypt replacing the PLO in future negotiations with Israel to determine the allocation of sovereignty between these three States in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza – the last remaining 5% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine still claimed by both Arabs and Jews.

Abbas's "new thinking" - claiming Palestinian Arabs are descended from the long-extinct Canaanites - grossly insulted the Security Council's intelligence.

Abbas has committed political suicide dumping Trump and embracing the United Nations. Trump's response will be far-reaching and the consequences dire for those whom Abbas purports to represent.

Trump promotes Jordan, downgrades PLO and defunds UNRWA

[Published 18 February 2018]


US Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson – was in Jordan this week delivering some very good news for Jordan - but not for the PLO and UNRWA.

Tillerson announced America’s commitment to fund Jordan to the tune of $1.275 billion per annum for the next five years - an increase of $275 million per annum over the previous annual commitment of $1 billion per annum during 2015-2017.

Part of this increased funding seems certain to come from defunding UNRWA – which receives about $355 million per annum from America. $65 million to UNRWA has already been frozen following President Trump’s earlier warning.

Tillerson stated that America’s ongoing contribution to UNRWA is dependent upon what other non-donor States who can afford to contribute to UNRWA are willing to do.

Trump has also expressed his annoyance at countries that take America’s money then show hostile intent in the United Nations when voting on matters inimical to American interests – such as America’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there.

Jordan had voted with 127 other nations at a rare emergency meeting of the General Assembly on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

Yet Jordan has not been punished financially by Trump for that decision but has seen its funding substantially increased.

Secretary Tillerson justified America’s decision at his joint press conference with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ayman Safadi - citing:

1. The truly indispensable strategic partnership for decades between the United States and Jordan that’s been critical to the security of both nations, as well as contributing to the region’s security.

2. Jordan receiving [650000] displaced Syrian refugees.

3. Jordan actively participating in the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State

4. Jordan cutting diplomatic ties with North Korea

Tillerson’s North Korea remarks were particularly significant since the “Embassy of Palestine” remains open in North Korea.

Trump has also certainly not forgotten PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s extraordinary two-hour-long anti-American and Jew-hating diatribe delivered on January 14.

Tillerson also stressed President Trump’s commitment to respecting Jordan’s role as the Custodian of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. This special role was assigned to Jordan in the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty and seems set to be one of the cardinal planks in President Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Foreign Minister Safadi pointedly remarked:

“We’ll continue to work with this current administration [to resolve the conflict] because we believe in the key role of the United States in delivering that peace. We cannot give up. It is a difficult situation. The challenge is not to make it worse and to find a way of moving forward. If we do not have the two-state solution, then I think we’re looking at a longer period of conflict that would only play into the hands of the spoilers and radicals who want to exploit the suffering and despair of people to spread their agenda of hate.”

Jordan’s position starkly contrasts with the PLO which will not accept America’s pivotal role.

Any negotiated two-state solution involving the creation of another Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history was rejected by the Arabs in 1947 – could have been created at any time by the Arab League between 1948 and 1967 – and was again rejected by the PLO in 2000/1 and 2008.

Jordan – comprising 78% of former Palestine – has now signalled its readiness to move forward with Trump on achieving his “ultimate deal”. Trump’s latest funding commitment to Jordan guarantees Jordan’s co-operation for the next five years.

The PLO’s anti-America stance continues to test Trump’s patience.

UN Secretary-General Guterres ignores Jordan-Palestine nexus

[Published 11 February 2018]


United Nations Secretary-General — Antonio Guterres — displayed how little he knows of the history, geography and demography of Palestine when addressing the opening of the 2018 Session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (“CEIRPP”).

Established by the General Assembly in 1975 - CEIRPP was responsible for the publication in 1978 of a false narrative of the Arab-Israel conflict - “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1947” (“UN Study”) - which has undoubtedly influenced United Nations thinking and decision-making.

Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:

1. Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181 spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:

“After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”

The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:

“Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine….”

2. Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

3. Falsely alleging:

“The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”

The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations own archives.

That evidence comprises:

(i) Meetings of the Palestine Arab Delegation (Delegation) with the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies - Winston Churchill - on 12, 22 and 23 August 1921

(ii)Letters from 21 February 1922 to 23 June 1922 between the Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies during the Delegation's stay in the Hotel Cecil in London.

CEIRPP concealed this crucial archival evidence - falsely inferring the Palestinian Arabs wishes had not been taken into account when in fact they had been fully considered.

Secretary-General Guterres told the CEIRPP opening session:

“I remain steadfast in the United Nations and my commitment to supporting the parties in their efforts to make the two-State solution a reality.

There is no Plan B.

A two-State solution is the only way to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and secure a sustainable solution to the conflict.”

Secretary-General Gutteres is apparently unaware that:

1. The term “Palestinian people” was invented in the 1964 Palestine Liberation Organization Charter which also specifically excluded any claim to exercise regional sovereignty “over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and “on the Gaza Strip”

2. The Palestinian Arabs were never mentioned in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - being grouped in with “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”

3. The “two-State solution” - Israel and Jordan — first envisaged in 1922 and actually proposed in 1937 - was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs on both occasions. It was 95% achieved in 1994 when the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty was signed.

4. The “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” went walkabout between 1948 and 1967 when an additional Arab State between Jordan and Israel could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen after all Jews living there had been forcefully expelled.

5. There are many Plan B’s involving Jordan — the major part of former Palestine — which remains the key to resolving this conflict.

Secretary-General Gutteres — with the greatest respect — needs a crash-course in the actual— not fictitious-history of the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict. Relying on this false UN Study to gain his knowledge and understanding of the conflict is not recommended.

Trump credits Senate bipartisanship for Jerusalem Declaration

[Published 4 February 2018]


President Trump’s State of the Union address was mainly met in stony silence by the Democrats as their Republican rivals continually jumped to their feet to loudly applaud the President’s many achievements at home and overseas during the past twelve months.

Sustained Republican applause greeted Trump’s statement:

“Last month, I also took an action endorsed unanimously by the U.S. Senate just months before. I recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

Yet the Democrats chose not to stand and applaud this special moment that was theirs as much as the Republicans - President Trump unreservedly acknowledging the Senate’s pivotal role in his historic Jerusalem Declaration.

Senate Resolution S.Res.176 - passed on 5 June 2017 by 90 votes to 0 — had declared:

“RESOLUTION

Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.

Whereas June 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War and the reunification of the city of Jerusalem;

Whereas there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for 3 millennia;

Whereas Jerusalem is a holy city and the home for people of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths;

Whereas, for 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been Judaism’s holiest city and the focal point of Jewish religious devotion;

Whereas, from 1948 to 1967, Jerusalem was a divided city, and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jews of all nationalities were denied access to holy sites in eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, in which the Western Wall is located;

Whereas, in 1967, Jerusalem was reunited by Israel during the conflict known as the Six Day War;

Whereas, since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city, and persons of all religious faiths have access to holy sites within the city;

Whereas this year marks the 50th year that Jerusalem has been administered as a united city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected;

Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45), which became law on November 8, 1995, states that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; and

Whereas it is the longstanding policy of the United States Government that a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved through direct, bilateral negotiations without preconditions for a sustainable two-state solution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

1. recognizes the 50th Anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and extends its friendship and hopes for peace to the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel;

2.reaffirms its support for Israel’s commitment to religious freedom and administration of holy sites in Jerusalem;

3. continues to support strengthening the mutually beneficial American-Israeli relationship;

4. commends Egypt and Jordan, former combatant states of the Six Day War, who in subsequent years embraced a vision of peace and coexistence with Israel and have continued to uphold their respective peace agreements;

5. reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States Government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution; and

6. reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) as United States law, and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions."

Republicans and Democrats had come together to draft and unanimously endorse this historic resolution, which had clearly inspired President Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration.

Such bipartisanship has now seemingly disappeared with the release of the Nunes Memo

Recapturing that bipartisanship remains the greatest challenge to Trump making America really great again.

Trump readies to dump PLO for Jordan-Israel negotiations

[Published 28 January 2018]


President Trump and America’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley - virtually within hours of each other - have laid the groundwork for Jordan to replace the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner under President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap — endorsed by the United Nations, European Union, and Russia - and Bush’s 2004 Congress-endorsed commitments to Israel.

Haley told the UN Security Council:

1. Real peace requires leaders who are willing to step forward, acknowledge hard truths, and make compromises. It requires leaders who look to the future, rather than dwell on past resentments. Above all, such leaders require courage.

2. Abbas’s two-hour speech to the PLO Central Council on 14 January

(i) Declared the landmark Oslo Peace Accords dead.

(ii) Rejected any American role in peace talks.

(iii) Insulted President Trump

(iv) Called for suspending recognition of Israel.

(v) Invoked an ugly and fictional past, reaching back to the 17th century to paint Israel as a colonialist project engineered by European powers.

Such a speech indulging in outrageous and discredited conspiracy theories is not the speech of a person with the courage and the will to seek peace.

3. King Hussein of Jordan was a leader with courage. In 1994, he ended 46 years of war and entered into a peace agreement with Israel that holds to this day. When King Hussein signed the peace treaty, he said:

“These are the moments in which we live, the past and the future. When we come to live next to each other, as never before, we will be doing so, Israelis and Jordanians, together, without the need for any to observe our actions or supervise our endeavors. This is peace with dignity; this is peace with commitment.”

Abbas’s recent actions demonstrate Abbas is the total opposite of King Hussein.

Haley certainly pulled no punches.

Trump — attending the World Economic Forum in Davos — had some additional dismissive remarks to make about the PLO:

(i) The PLO disrespected America by not allowing America’s great Vice- President Mike Pence to see them.

(ii) Money was never on the table. America gives the Palestinian Arabs tremendous amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That money is on the table. Because why should America do that as a country if they’re doing nothing for America?

(iii) Trump doesn’t know whether Israel-PLO negotiations will ever take place.

Trump and Haley have clearly indicated that the ground is rapidly shifting under a corrupt PLO edifice that:

1. unashamedly continues to fund murderers of Israelis and non-Israelis

2. is not yet tired and disgusted of such killing

Replacing Abbas will not solve the PLO’s dilemma. Abbas’s speech to the PLO Central Council was frequently interrupted by loud applause from the entire PLO leadership gathered in Ramallah.

Trump ominously remarked that Israel would have to pay for Jerusalem being taken off the table as the toughest issue requiring resolution in any negotiations.

Israeli concessions can be more easily negotiated if Jordan — not the PLO - is Israel’s negotiating partner — because:

(i) Amman is Jordan’s long-established capital

(ii) Jordan also enjoys negotiating rights on Jerusalem’s future under article 9 (2) of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty:

“In this regard [freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance] in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.”

Israel-Jordan negotiations indeed represent the best opportunity to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

The PLO has seemingly done its dash — and hundreds of millions in cash — in defiantly taking on Trump.

PLO ditches Trump, undermines future UN and EU support

[Published 21 January 2018]


PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s extraordinary two-hour-long anti-American and Jew-hating diatribe delivered on January 14 must inevitably see:

1. Israel refusing to resume negotiations with the PLO

2. Another Arab partner replacing the PLO to negotiate with Israel in implementing President Trump’s eagerly-awaited ultimate deal.

The viciousness and vindictiveness of Abbas’s attack on the internationally-recognised legal right of the Jewish people to its own independent State — as endorsed by:

(i) the United Nations (“UN”) 1947 Partition Plan

(ii) the European Union (“EU”) 1980 Venice Declaration

(iii) UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

(iv) The 1993 Oslo Accords

(v) President Bush’s 2003 Road Map - supported by both the UN and the EU

requires the UN and EU to unequivocally reject Abbas’s racist, false and misleading claims.

Abbas’s speech was delivered at what has been described as “a Palestinian Central Council meeting in Ramallah”.

In fact it was a very well stage-managed event involving the attendance of some 80 of the 132 Councillors and about 500 other persons. One vacant seat was reserved for the “Republic of Lithuania”. Diplomats from other countries were undoubtedly present

The backdrop included two huge screens each containing five maps of Palestine from 1947 onwards — conveniently excluding 78% of Palestine — today called Jordan - granted independence by Great Britain in 1946.

President Trump has already reacted to Abbas’s following inflammatory remarks by withholding US$65 million to UNRWA:

1. “Let them [the US] not do us a favor by paying us money… We do not want anyone to pay us.”

2. “We will not accept the deals the US wants to impose on us. We will not accept its mediation after the crime it committed against Jerusalem.”

3. “There are two names that I don’t want to mention, but my conscience is bothering me, so I have to mention them. American Ambassador David Friedman… He says: “There is no occupation, who said there’s an occupation? Israel is building on its lands.” ... The second name, their Ambassador to the UN Ms. Haley… who said: ‘I wear high heels not for fashion, only to hit whoever attacks Israel.’ I say to her — and may she hear me — [our] response is going to be worse, but not by way of high heels.”

4. “The Americans are always telling us that we must stop paying salaries to the families of the martyrs and the prisoners. We categorically reject this demand.”

Further retaliatory action by Trump seems certain.

Interestingly Abbas also claimed:

“We made a decision at the [Arab] Summit in Amman in 1980 that every state that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, or that transfers its embassy to it — we must cut our relations with it.”

The Minutes of that Summit actually record:

“The Conference also emphasized that the liberation of Arab Jerusalem was a national duty and a national obligation, proclaimed the rejection of all measures taken by Israel, requested all nations of the world to adopt clear and defined positions in opposition to the Israeli measures and resolved to break off all relations with any country recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or transferring its embassy there.”

Attendees at the 1980 Summit were:

Bahrain
Djibouti
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

How many of these countries will now break off diplomatic relations with America following its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will serve as a useful indicator of the support the PLO can continue to receive in the Arab world.

Abbas’s Ramallah rant has provided irrefutable evidence that the PLO has no further role to play in peacefully resolving the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Israel-Jordan negotiations could follow PLO threat to boycott Trump

[Published 15 January 2018]


The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) threat to refuse to negotiate with Israel unless President Trump withdraws his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel could see Jordan replacing the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

This threat — unless unconditionally revoked — would give Trump the opportunity to consign the PLO to the political wilderness by inviting Jordan to step in and negotiate with Israel over Trump’s eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal‚”.

Jordan-Israel negotiations would offer Jordan the opportunity to recover a substantial part of Judea and Samaria (“West Bank‚”) annexed by Jordan in 1950 — albeit illegally — but subsequently lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War (“disputed territory‚”).

Should Jordan buck at entering into such negotiations — some 60% of the disputed territory - under Israel’s full administrative and security control since the 1995 Oslo Accords and containing just 5% of the West Bank’s entire Arab population (“Area C‚”) - could be annexed by Israel.

PLO-Israel negotiations over the last twenty-five years — with United Nations, UNESCO and European Union backing — aimed at creating a 22nd Arab state in the disputed territory for the first time ever in recorded history - have failed abysmally.

Such a State was an artificially-contrived creation that could never be justified on historic, geographic or demographic grounds. It had actually been rejected by successive Arab leaderships on many occasions since first being proposed by the 1937 Peel Commission.

Joint 1994 Nobel Peace Prize winners — Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat — all understood Jordan’s pivotal role in ending the Jewish-Arab conflict:

1. Jordan is the major part (78%) of the Palestinian Arabs’ homeland according to article 2 of the PLO Charter.

Farouk Kadoumi - Head of the Political Department of the PLO — reinforced this reality - telling Newsweek on 14 March 1977:

“Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.”

2. Peres declared on 31 August 1978:

“Jordan is also Palestine… I’m against two Arab countries and against another Palestinian country, against an Arafat state. Today 50 percent of the inhabitants of Jordan are Palestinians and that is the Palestinian state…

Peres backed this up - telling the Jewish Telegraph on April 19, 1991:

“It is not obstinacy to regard the populations of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as having greater similarities than differences. The Jordan River is not deep enough to turn into a knife blade serving to cut one piece of territory into three slices. Most of Jordan’s population are Palestinians: the residents of the West Bank are Jordanian citizens and Jordan has distributed tens of thousands of passports to residents in the Gaza Strip. Jordan is therefore an existing State. It has an army. There is therefore no need to set up another State, another army."

3. Yitzchak Rabin told The Australian newspaper on May 27, 1985:

“One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb.”

Rabin’s solution to end the conflict:

”... the Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the Jordan River there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees.”

Jordan-Israel negotiations on the political future of the disputed territory open up options to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict never before considered. If Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration helps bring such negotiations about - then Trump could well succeed where all other American Presidents before him have failed.

Taking on Trump could herald the PLO’s political demise after 54 years of failed leadership.

Trump odds-on to defund UNRWA if PLO won’t negotiate with Israel

[Published 6 January 2018]


President Trump appears determined to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) should the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) refuse to resume negotiations with Israel.

Such negotiations — suspended since April 2014 — won’t re-commence until Trump’s eagerly-awaited peace plan — his “ultimate deal” - sees the light of day. Until then current UNRWA funding will probably continue.

Trump will have been singularly unimpressed with PLO Executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi describing America’s threat to defund UNRWA as “blackmail”.

US Ambassador to the United Nations - Nikki Haley - explained America’s future intentions regarding UNRWA:

“The President has basically said he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table. We still very much want to have a peace process. Nothing changes with that. The Palestinians now have to show they want to come to the table.

As of now, they’re not coming to the table, but they ask for aid. We’re not giving the aid. We’re going to make sure that they come to the table.”

America has long borne the lion’s share in funding UNRWA’s refugee program.

Contributions to UNWRA are purely voluntary.

US$1243 million was donated to UNWRA in 2016 by:

1. America - US$368 million

2. The European Union - US$160 million

3. Saudi Arabia - US$148 million

4. The rest of the world - US$567 million

5. China donated US$300000, Indonesia US$5000 - whilst only 9 of the 22 members of the Arab League donated to UNWRA and their contributions (apart from Saudi Arabia) totalled US$31 million.

UNRWA is doing nothing to relieve itself of its ongoing financial liability and responsibility for an ever increasing number of refugees-who comprise:

1. those persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period from 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israel War. (“Qualifying Refugees”)

2. the descendants of male Qualifying Refugees, as well as their legally adopted children.

Palestine refugees constitute the only group of refugees in the world whose descendants can claim refugee status long after the death of their refugee ancestors. Their numbers have increased from 750000 in 1950 to 5 million in 2017.

UNRWA could reduce this ever-burgeoning number of refugees by closing many refugee camps in the West Bank like Dheisheh — which UNRWA states:

“was established in 1949 and is located along the main street in Bethlehem. The camp was built to serve 3,000 refugees. Today, the number of residents in Dheisheh has reached roughly 15,000.”

UNRWA acknowledges that Dheisheh has been “under full Palestinian control (Area A)”since the 1995 Oslo Accords.

How can Dheisheh’s residents then continue to be classified as “refugees” when they are being governed by the PLO — the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” — along with 200000 other Palestinian Arabs living side by side with them as their next door neighbours?

Shouldn’t Dheisheh’s four schools, one health centre, Shams Health Centre for Non-Communicable Diseases and the Environmental health office be open to all Bethlehem residents - and the 15000 Dheisheh residents taken off the UNRWA register and absorbed into the Palestinian Arab population of Bethlehem?

UNRWA keeps Dheisheh open in apartheid-style segregation from Bethlehem - causing ongoing stress, suffering and dependency on its hapless residents.

Political — rather than humanitarian — concerns dominate UNRWA’s agenda preventing the closure of Dheisheh and other similar humanitarian eye-sores in the West Bank.

No wonder most countries contribute precious little to UNRWA. America seems set to emulate their example — especially if Israel/PLO negotiations aren’t resumed.

UN vote on Trump’s Jerusalem decision reaches new legal low

[Published 31 December 2017]


The United Nations General Assembly resolution on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem (“Resolution”) was adopted by 128 of the 193 member States acting in breach of three specific articles in the UN Charter.

1. Article 2(7):

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”

President Trump’s decisions to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were made in accordance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed on 24 October 1995 by the Senate 93-5 and the House 374-37.

Trump’s decisions fell squarely within the framework of America’s domestic jurisdiction.

Other countries wanting to follow America by locating their Embassies in Jerusalem are perfectly entitled to do so free of UN condemnation or interference.

2. Article 12(1):

“While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.”

The Security Council had considered the situation brought about by President Trump’s decisions three days prior to the General Assembly meeting - when a draft UN Security Council resolution rejecting US policy shift on Jerusalem was vetoed by the United States.

The General Assembly was not empowered to make any recommendations whilst the Security Council remained seized of the issue - unless the Security Council requested the General Assembly to so act — which was not the case.

The General Assembly’s Resolution was passed in breach of Article 12 (1).

3. Article 80 (1):

”...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

This article preserves the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine—unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

50 of those League of Nations member States are members of the United Nations and voted on the Resolution as follows:

(i) 11 abstained: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Haiti, Latvia, Panama, Paraguay, Poland and Romania,

(ii) 1 did not vote: El Salvador

(iii) 2 Voted against the Resolution: Guatemala and Honduras

(iv) 36 voted for the Resolution: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Venezuela,

The votes of these 36 States delimited the legal rights of the Jewish people that their very own respective countries had been instrumental in creating in 1922.

The other 92 member states who voted for the Resolution also apparently had no qualms in ignoring article 80 (1)

.
Trump was clearly not happy with the UN’s intrusion into America’s domestic affairs - immediately cutting $285 million from America’s proposed 2018 UN Budget with more financial cuts likely to occur.

UN member States reached a new legal low engaging in cavalier conduct involving flagrant breaches of the UN Charter.

The UN slide into irrelevancy continues to gather momentum.

UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump retaliation

[Published 24 December 2017]


Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” - spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised — but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress.

Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law — making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN—Nikki Hale — put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget — when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace — the American people lose their patience.”

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 — attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” - which will require another US$143 million - 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget - to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal”Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution — which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state — in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan — on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014..

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution — including Abbas and the PLO - from his ultimate deal — after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

“The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States,”

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000-2001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

OIC in legal fantasyland over Trump, Jerusalem and Israel

[Published 18 December 2017]


The 57 member States of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are living in a legal fantasyland of their own creation where non-existent principles of international law supposedly apply.

The final communique issued by the OIC following its Extraordinary Summit held in Turkey on 13 December 2017 makes their flight into legal unreality crystal-clear:

1. OIC members pledged to take joint action on the basis of international law against the statement of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Yet international law unreservedly recognises the sovereign right of each State to designate its capital and the sovereign right of other States to decide whether to recognise that State and to locate their Embassies in such capital.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 passed overwhelmingly by the United States Congress recognized and affirmed these long-established legal principles:

“Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital…

... Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel

... The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.”

2. The OIC condemned the illegal settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The “occupied Palestinian territories” are in fact “disputed territories” in international law where competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty remain to be resolved.

No binding legal ruling exists to substantiate the OIC’s mendacious claim.

There is however territory-specific legislation that negates this OIC claim — namely article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

3. The OIC declared President Trump’s statement to be “null and void”.

The OIC acting as judge, jury and Lord High Executioner has deigned to tell an American President he cannot act in accordance with international law.

Dismissing international law by claiming it to be “null and void” has also been adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization - whose Charter proclaimed that two cardinal planks in international law — the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine and all that had been based on them were:
(i) “considered fraud” in 1964 (article 18) and

(ii) “deemed null and void” in 1968 (article 20)

The fictitious “State of Palestine” is among the 22 Arab States that are OIC members.

The Jewish-Arab conflict remains unresolved because the Arabs have never accepted the binding validity in international law of the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by all 51 then-member States of the League of Nations in 1922:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Many of these countries have chosen in 2017 to disregard their own decisions in 1922 which established the framework for two States — one Jewish, one Arab - being eventually created in Palestine.

Today sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine resides in those two States - Israel (17%) and Jordan (78%).

Resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict will become realistically attainable when the OIC:

1. affirms that the Mandate for Palestine is legally binding in international law and

2. recognizes the State of Israel

Cherry-picking bits and pieces of International law or even worse — making it up and refusing to acknowledge its falsity — is a recipe for continuing chaos and disorder.

Media falsely discredit Trump as he confronts UN on Jerusalem

[Published 10 December 2017]


The media has discredited President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital - falsely claiming the President has reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy. Trump’s decision has pitted America squarely against the United Nations.

The New York Times led the pack declaring:

“President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy ...”

Australia’s publicly-funded national broadcaster — the ABC-followed suit with this headline:

“Donald Trump recognises Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, in reversal of decades of policy”

News outlets including Reuters, Financial Times, Iraqi news, Gulf news, and Today parroted this false claim.

America’s policy on Jerusalem is actually laid out in “The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 (Act)” passed by the Senate (93-5) and the House (374-37) on 24 October 1995 — specifically highlighted by Trump when announcing his decision:

“In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city — and so importantly — is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.”

The Act unequivocally states:

“SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.

(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.

1. Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.

2. Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

3. the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

The Act’s preamble details the following facts critical to Congress’s overwhelming vote:

1. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

2. Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

3. The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

4. The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

5. From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

6. In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

7. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

8. The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

9. In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.

The morally-bankrupt United Nations has ignored these facts for the last 22 years - choosing instead to pass countless resolutions supporting spurious Arab claims to East Jerusalem that could have been satisfied at any time between 1948 and 1967 following six Arab armies illegally invading Western Palestine and ethnically cleansing East Jerusalem’s entire Jewish population, destroying synagogues and desecrating Jewish cemeteries.

United Nations member States who vote — or abstain from voting — on future resolutions supporting specious artificially-contrived Arab claims in East Jerusalem risk being collectively shamed and internationally castigated.

The media’s latest myth remains unretracted and uncorrected. Trump’s principled decision follows United States policy adopted since 1995.

God bless America.

Trump should adopt Bush strategy to encourage Israel to negotiate

[Published 4 December 2017]


President Bush’s strategy to secure Israel’s agreement to negotiate under the Bush Roadmap should be given serious consideration by President Trump as he puts together his eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal”to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Bush’s strategy involved him firstly stating his “vision” before actually announcing the Bush Roadmap to turn that vision into reality.

Israel was required to make concrete territorial withdrawals from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) — possibly compromising Israel’s security in the process. Publicly confronting Israel with the Bush Roadmap first up could have seen its outright rejection by Israel before the ink was even dry.

President Reagan had succeeded in doing just that when announcing his peace plan on 1 September 1982. Reagan’s plan was unanimously rejected out of hand by Israel’s cabinet the very next day — whilst America pleaded with Jordan to accept it over the next twelve months as a means of putting pressure on Israel to cave in and negotiate. King Hussein of Jordan did not take the bait. The Reagan plan was dead in the water.

Bush was savvy enough to not repeat Reagan’s mistake.

Bush first enunciated his “vision” in a speech on 24 June 2002:

1. Two states, living side by side in peace and security.

2. The Palestinian people electing new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror, building a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

A draft version of the Bush Roadmap dated 15 October 2002 was “provided” to the New York Times and published on 14 November 2002.

After talks on 31 March 2003 at the White House with President Bush, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that Israel was:

“adopting the vision of President Bush, and anything that will be a genuine, accurate reflection of this vision will be something that we will be able to work with.”

Bush’s Roadmap in final form was made public on 30 April 2003.

Israel’s response was markedly different to its response to Reagan’s proposal:

“The Government of Israel, today (Sunday), 25.5.03, considered the Prime Minister’s statement on the Roadmap, as well as Israel’s comments on its implementation. Following its deliberations, the Government, by a majority vote, resolved:

Based on the 23 may 2003 statement of the united states government, in which the united states committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the roadmap during the implementation phase, the prime minister announced on 23 may 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the roadmap.

The government of Israel affirms the prime minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the roadmap.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had given the following assurances to Israel from the lawns of the White House on 23 May 2003:

"The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace. The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap. The United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the roadmap to fulfil the President’s vision of June 24, 2002."

This astute and finely-crafted process paid off handsomely — with Israel being sufficiently encouraged by Bush’s assurances to agree to enter into negotiations based on Bush’s Roadmap.

The success of Trump’s ultimate deal could depend on Trump rejecting the Reagan approach and adopting the Bush strategy.