Jordan in denial over Trump plan for Israel in Judea and Samaria

[Published 16 April 2019]

In a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — King Abdullah of Jordan reportedly said the White House had given him:

“zero visibility into the most fraught part of their peace plan: how it proposes to divide Israeli and Palestinian territory.”

His Majesty — in complete denial — could not bring himself to call that territory “Judea-Samaria and Gaza.”

Abdullah has seen Trump ditch the Palestine Liberation Organisation financially and diplomatically over its continuing refusal to negotiate with Israel on any Trump proposal to divide sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between Jews and Arabs.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan laid out Jordan’s pivotal role in negotiating any such division in 1980:

“Israel and Jordan are the two Palestinian states envisioned and authorized by the United Nations. Jordan is now recognized in some 80% of the old territory of Palestine. Israel and Jordan are the parties primarily authorized to settle the future of the unallocated territories in accordance with the principles of the mandate and the provisions of Resolutions 242 and 338”

In 1982 duly-elected President Reagan made it clear that peace could not be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state and the United States would not support the establishment of such a state.

Reagan added:

“There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.”

Reagan concluded:

“When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.”

Abdullah’s father — King Hussein — did not take up Reagan’s invitation.

The creation of an additional Arab State between Israel and Jordan — favoured by President Bush, President Obama and ostensibly Kings Hussein and Abdullah — is dead in the water following Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent re-election as Israel’s Prime Minister for another four years.

Netanyahu promised pre-election to apply Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

Having recognised Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights — Trump could do likewise for those parts of Judea and Samaria coming under Israeli sovereignty.

The circle will be completed for Netanyahu who told the United Nations on 11 December 1984:

“Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949.”

King Abdullah should not miss the opportunity his father rejected in 1982.

Zero visibility will disappear when King Abdullah opens his eyes.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

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.

Israel Ensures European Union Swallows Poison Pill

[Published 30 November 2015]


The European Union’s (EU) discriminatory and racist labelling requirements for Jewish goods and products originating from Judea and Samaria has now seen Israel effectively label the EU as “persona non grata” in the diplomatic process between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The EU finds itself in this sorry position following Israel’s decision to reassess the involvement of EU bodies in that diplomatic process and to suspend contacts with the EU and its representatives until that reassessment is completed.

The labelling requirements reflect the EU’s political position that settlement by Jews in Judea and Samaria is illegal in international law. This claim has never been the subject of any binding authoritative legal decision.

The International Court of Justice decision on 9 July 2004 was only an advisory opinion sought by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and not a legally binding precedent.

That opinion was itself deficient since the Court was never asked by the Secretary-General to consider the legal effect of two territory-specific pieces of international law applicable to Judea and Samaria. Those provisions - article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - vested and preserved the legal right to “close settlement by Jews” in Judea and Samaria for the purposes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home.

At best the EU’s longstanding position - that influenced its labelling laws - is only an opinion — and nothing more.

The EU should think very carefully before imposing any retaliatory trade action against Israel for freezing the EU out of the peace process — since Israel still has some more bitter medicine for the EU to swallow:

1. Forbidding the transfer of EU funds to non-government organisations in Israel engaged in activities designed to advance the interests of the Israeli Arab population and to interfere in the internal affairs of a member State of the United Nations.

2. Ending all co-operation with the EU in Area C in Judea and Samaria by terminating existing development and infrastructure programs for the benefit of the Arab population and forbidding any such EU activities there in the future.

The EU’s labelling laws contravene the joint statement issued by the Quartet — America, Russia, The European Union and the United Nations - on 10 April 2002:

“We reiterate that there is no military solution to the conflict and call on the parties to move towards a political resolution of their disputes based on UNSCR 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace‚ which formed the basis for the Madrid Conference of 1991. We reaffirm our support for the objective expressed by President Bush and spelled out in UNSCR 1397, of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.”

Attempting to influence any political resolution regarding secure and recognized boundaries - using its labelling requirements to pressure Israeli territorial concessions - could spell the death knell for President Bush’s Roadmap and its “two-state solution"

The EU is free to pursue any policy it wants — but also must take full responsibility for the consequences of its reprehensible labelling laws and Israel’s rapid response.

Should the EU now gracefully bow out of the Quartet due to its clearly revealed conflict of interest and one-sided bias — or does it have to be told to go packing by the other members of the Quartet if their impartiality in the peace process is to be maintained?

The EU cannot remain a member of the Quartet whilst implementing labelling requirements that favour Arab claims over Jewish claims.

The EU now faces swallowing a poison pill of its own making.

Israel - Clinton and Trump Must Honour Bush-Congress Commitments

[Published 4 August 2016]


Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have yet to signal their readiness to honour the commitments made by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Bush’s letter — overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day — supported Israel’s proposed unilateral disengagement from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank.

Bush further reassured Israel that in final status negotiations with the Palestinian Authority America would support Israel:

1. not returning to the 1949 armistice lines

2. demanding recognition as the Jewish state

3. refusing Palestinian Arab refugees being resettled in Israel

Bush’s assurances were absolutely crucial to Israel resuming negotiations with the Palestinian Authority — Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert telling world leaders gathered with Bush at Annapolis on 27 November 2007:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Former Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz revealed in an editorial that he raised the letter during Bush’s meeting with a group of Israeli journalists at the White House in May 2008:

“Bush did not at first realize that I was referring to the 2004 letter. [National Security Adviser] Hadley, who was also in the Oval Office, had to prompt him. “Okay, the letters,” the president then said, remembering.”

Bush’s apparent memory lapse could not be claimed by his successor President Obama who set out to deliberately circumvent Bush’s commitment supporting Israel’s position on territorial withdrawal.

Obama’s attack dog was Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State - who claimed on 17 June 2009 that the letter:

“did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

Elliott Abrams — Middle East Affairs point-man at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009 — had no qualms dismissing Clinton’s contention — stating in July 2009:

“Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation—the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step”.

Clinton made Obama’s sinister intentions clearer on 25 November 2009:

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Bush’s letter had never mentioned “agreed swaps” — signalling abandonment of the Bush-Congress commitments if Obama himself confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later that confirmation eventuated - Obama declaring on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Michael Oren - Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 — has called for the Bush letter to be resuscitated. Clinton can do this by distancing herself from Obama’s attempt to trash it.

Trump’s assertion that:

“your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them”

is meaningless unless Trump pledges to unconditionally honour those Bush-Congress commitments.

Halting America’s rapidly declining trustworthiness and diplomatic integrity demands Clinton and Trump so act.

Trump Targets Obama And Clinton Betrayal Of Israel

[Published 30 April 2016]


Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech has created expectations that he will match Marco Rubio’s pledge to stand by the commitments made by President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Bush’s letter dated 14 April 2004.

Rubio made his unequivocal pledge on 3 December 2015 at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum during his unsuccessful race to secure the Republican Party’s endorsement as its Presidential nominee:

“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders”

President Obama and his then former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did everything in their power to wriggle out of those Bush commitments — despite their having been overwhelmingly endorsed by the Senate 95-3 on 23 June 2004 and by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 24 June 2004.

Trump clearly had Obama and Clinton’s betrayal of Israel in his sights — when stating:

”... your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place.”

The Bush-Congress endorsed commitments made in that 2004 letter undoubtedly represent such an agreement.

President Bush’s letter acknowledged the risks Israel’s proposed unilateral disengagement from Gaza represented - and assured Israel that America:

1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.

2. Would maintain its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders,

3. Was strongly committed to Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state.

4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion

Sharon’s successor - Ehud Olmert - had neither forgotten nor overlooked the critical significance of Bush’s commitments when agreeing to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority - telling an international audience of world leaders at Annapolis on 27 November 2007:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Gaza by then had become a de facto terrorist State with Hamas firmly entrenched as Gaza’s governing authority.

Israel had since its disengagement been subjected to a sustained barrage of thousands of rockets and mortars fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza by a bewildering variety of terrorist groups and sub-groups who would have had no chance of operating so freely from Gaza if the Israeli Army had remained there.

President Obama’s attempt to disavow Bush’s commitments was first orchestrated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - as this report on 6 June 2009 disclosed:

“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.
They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.”

Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and

“did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

Clinton — doubling again as Obama’s attack dog — made Obama’s intentions clearer on 25 November 2009:

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Bush’s letter never mentioned “agreed swaps” — signalling trouble for Israel if Obama himself were to confirm Clinton’s latest statement.

Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when Obama declared on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Michael Oren — Israel’s Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 — called for Bush’s commitments to be resuscitated on 15 January 2015:

”... it’s time to revive the Bush-Sharon letter and act according to it.”

Others are making similar demands.

Trump is responding with his clearly articulated message.

Keep agreements made with your allies — don’t ditch them. Loyalty will always trump expediency.

Obama and Clinton’s shameful betrayal of Israel in this sordid affair seems set to be targeted by Trump.

Palestine - Trump Must Blow His Own Trumpet With Greater Clarity

[Published 12 March 2016]


One of the world’s greatest negotiators - Donald Trump - has walked straight into a political minefield when telling the GOP presidential debate in Miami last Thursday how he would resolve the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict:

“I will tell you, I think if we’re ever going to negotiate a peace settlement … I think it would be more helpful as a negotiator, if I go in and say I’m pro-Israel, but at least have the other side know I’m somewhat neutral to them so that we can maybe get a deal done,”

How can Trump be “somewhat neutral” to the “other side”?

Who indeed does Trump consider to be “the other side”?

If the “other side” is the PLO - Trump would have to renege on the following non-neutral positions adopted by his predecessor President Obama that any new Palestinian Arab State:

1. Be non-militarised

2. Recognise Israel as the Jewish State

Trump is certainly not bound by Obama’s position on these contentious issues and abandoning them would certainly be open to him. Israel however will not forego these demands which it has consistently stipulated during the last eight years are essential prerequisites for advancing any possible settlement of the conflict.

The only result of Trump’s neutrality on Obama’s position will see any peace settlement between Israel and the PLO becoming impossible to achieve.

Trump would also need to shred commitments binding America made by the last Republican President - George W Bush - to Israel on 14 April 2004. These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress 407-9. They were given to support Israel’s unilateral disengagement and total evacuation from Gaza - and included:

1. Like Obama - committing to Israel’s well being as a Jewish State

2. Settling Palestinian Arab refugees in any new Palestinian Arab State rather than in Israel.

3. Israel having secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

4. Recognition it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

Obama tried to downplay his obligation to uphold these American commitments but still was unable to broker an Israel-PLO agreement. Any attempt by Trump to follow in Obama’s footsteps would similarly fail.

More seriously however it would signal a gross betrayal by a Republican President of a former Republican President’s Congress-endorsed commitments to a loyal friend and ally that would send America’s reputation and integrity for honouring commitments made by it to other nations quickly sinking to rock bottom.

Rubio has already agreed to honour these Bush commitments. Trump’s stated neutrality position seems to indicate he might not.

Trump’s neutrality could be construed quite differently, however, if the “other side” is not the PLO.

Direct negotiations between Jordan, Egypt and Israel to replace the moribund Israel-PLO negotiations could allow Trump to adopt a “somewhat neutral” stance because Israel has had signed peace agreements with Egypt since 1979 and Jordan since 1994.

Peace is far easier to accomplish with States already at peace with each other than with a hostile non-State group pledged to destroy the other party to the negotiations.

CNN and Fox’s blanket coverage of the primaries over the coming weeks gives those interviewing Trump ample opportunities to get him to explain how he hopes to become “somewhat neutral” and with whom.

The interviewers may need to be “somewhat confrontational” in their questioning.

Trump needs to blow his own trumpet with greater clarity by providing more detail on how he hopes to succeed where previous Presidents have embarrassingly failed

Palestine - Rubio Challenges Clinton Support For Israel

[Published 6 March 2016]


Marco Rubio has directly challenged Hillary Clinton — and every other Presidential candidate — to honour the commitments given by President Bush to Israel on 14 April 2004.

Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum Rubio said:

“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders,”

President Bush’s letter — overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress — supported Israel’s proposed unilateral disengagement from Gaza - stating:

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Israel’s Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - who succeeded Sharon - had neither forgotten nor overlooked the critical significance of Bush’s commitments when agreeing to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority before an international audience of world leaders at Annapolis on 27 November 2007:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

It didn’t take too long thereafter for these Presidential commitments to be downplayed by Bush himself and his advisors.

In an editorial - published on 14 May 2008 - former Jerusalem Post editor - David Horovitz - revealed Bush’s shameful efforts to minimize the letter’s significance - following Bush’s meeting with a group of Israeli journalists at the White House:

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, has been known to minimize the significance of this four-year-old letter. Just last week, for instance, she told reporters that the 2004 letter “talked about realities at that time. And there are realities for both sides….”

... Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has also given briefings to the effect that Israel had tried to overstate the importance of a rather vague letter…

“Bush did not at first realize that I was referring to the 2004 letter. Hadley, who was also in the Oval Office, had to prompt him. “Okay, the letters,” the president then said, remembering.”

Bush was clearly reneging on his unequivocal commitments to Israel just six months after Olmert sought to rely on them.

Israel by then had already paid a high price - Gaza having become a de facto terrorist State with Hamas firmly entrenched as Gaza’s governing authority. Israel had been subjected to a sustained barrage of thousands of rockets and mortars fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza by a bewildering variety of terrorist groups and sub-groups who would have had no chance of operating so freely from Gaza if the Israeli Army had remained there.

President Obama has also disgracefully attempted to subvert his predecessor’s commitments for the last seven years - aided and abetted by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who reportedly laid the groundwork on 6 June 2009:

“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.

They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.

Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and “did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

Clinton — doubling as Obama’s attack dog — made Obama’s sinister intentions clearer on 25 November 2009:

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Clinton’s blatant disregard of Bush’s commitments - which had never mentioned “agreed swaps” - signaled trouble for Israel if Obama indeed confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when Obama declared on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Michael Oren — former Israeli Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 — has called for Bush’s commitments to be resuscitated:

.. it’s time to revive the Bush-Sharon letter and act according to it.”

Rubio has to his credit so reacted.

Motherhood-statements supporting Israel by the remaining candidates vying to become America’s next President pale into insignificance compared to Rubio’s coming out and pledging to honour Bush’s Congress-endorsed commitments to Israel.

Clinton - and for that matter Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Kasich - must do likewise - or allow America’s reputation as a trustworthy and reliable ally to be forever trashed.

Palestine - France Signals Surrender To PLO And Muslim Pressure

[Published 13 February 2016]


France’s extraordinary decision to try and resurrect the dead two-state solution smacks of:

1. Abject surrender to PLO demands for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State outside the parameters defined by Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

2. A desperate attempt to appease France’s 4.7 million Muslims as they protest against the continuing state of emergency declared after the series of co-ordinated attacks by Islamic State in Paris last November that saw 130 people murdered and 368 wounded.

France made its intentions clear in the following statement released on 30 January by Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius:

“France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the two-state solution”

Mr Fabius issued this veiled threat on France 24:

“If this attempt to achieve a negotiated solution reaches a dead end, we will take responsibility and recognize the Palestinian state,”

Respected commentator Aaron David Miller has already delivered his verdict on the proposed International conference in a scathing twitter:

“Another bone headed French play.Convene a peace conference doomed to fail; then recognize a faux Palestinian state”

In its Spring 2015 Global Attitudes Survey the Pew Research Centre found that 76% of France’s population had favourable views of France’s Muslim population whilst 24% had unfavourable views.

France no doubt hopes that calling this pro-Arab international conference will stem any growth in the anti-Muslim view in the next Pew Survey. Given the violent ongoing Muslim demonstrations such hope is doomed.

France’s Muslim population far exceeds that of the 475000 Jewish population whose number has been dramatically declining following 851 anti-Semitic incidents recorded in 2014 and 806 attacks in 2015.

Jews leaving France for Israel have also doubled and then doubled again since 2010 - reaching 8,000 last year - up from 1,900 in 2011. Such is the Jewish exodus that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was recently forced to acknowledge that French Jewry is in crisis and that France must work with:

“all its might to protect Jews”

France’s planned international conference and threatened recognition of a Palestinian State will have the opposite effect - ensuring an ever increasing number of French Jews will be fleeing to safer havens.

Any unilateral French declaration recognising Palestinian Statehood will only exacerbate the continuation of the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict - not contribute to its resolution.

Such a declaration could represent a complete turnaround in France’s stated foreign policy:

“France considers that the conflict can only be resolved by the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian State living in peace and security alongside Israel.”

Given the current authoritarian and undemocratic division of rule between two organisations pledged to wipe Israel off the map - the PLO in Areas “A” and “B” in Judea and Samaria and Hamas in Gaza - France needs to ensure that any State of Palestine it recognises is indisputably democratic.

France is being politically naive to believe the failed negotiations conducted over 23 years between Israel and the PLO can be revived.

An international conference aimed at jumpstarting negotiations to resolve sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan - not Israel and the PLO - would have made far more sense.

However the only winners from France’s proposed conference will be the airlines, the 5 star hotels, 3 hat Michelin restaurants, vignerons and limousine car companies catering to the needs of the delegations flying in for a talkfest that will go nowhere.

Hopefully the Islamic State will not spoil the politicians’ party.

Obama And Kerry Must Stop Playing Games With Israel's Future

[Published 9 September 2015]


Attempting to secure the Congressional vote required to confirm President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has necessitated Secretary for State John Kerry pledging Obama’s “rock solid” diplomatic support and increased military assistance for Israel — the bitterest opponent of Obama’s Iranian proposal.

Speaking at the National Constitution Center on 2 September—Kerry said:

"And diplomatically, our support for Israel also remains rock solid as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, or to pass biased resolutions against it in international bodies."

Kerry continued:

"I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the security of Israel, a commitment I demonstrated through my 28-plus years in the Senate. And as Secretary of State, I am fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice Israel must make…"

If Kerry is to be seriously believed then he must reassure Congress — irrespective of its vote on Iran - that the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 supporting Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will be scrupulously adhered to by the current Obama administration.

Kerry unequivocally supported those Presidential commitments when interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 18 April 2004:

RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

KERRY: Yes.

RUSSERT: Completely?

KERRY: Yes.

Those commitments included:

1. Preventing any attempt to impose any plan other than President Bush’s Roadmap envisioned by him on 24 June 2002.
2. Being strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.
3. Understanding that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
4. Accepting as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
5. Acknowledging that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,

Bush’s commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day (“the Bush/Congress Commitments”).

Obama attempted to water down these commitments in 2011 by suggesting possible Israeli land swaps be made for any territory Israel acquired in the West Bank.

Kerry piggybacked Obama in 2013 - inducing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel with this letter:

Dear Mr. President

In response to your question regarding our position on the issue of borders, this letter is to confirm that the position set forth by President Obama in his May 2011 speeches, that Palestine’s borders with Israel should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, still represents our position. As negotiations begin, I reiterate our commitment to this position. As you confirmed, this letter is and will remain private and confidential between you and me.”

Playing such furtive games with Abbas contrary to the Bush/Congress Commitments is now surely over following Kerry’s statement. Those commitments are set in concrete - binding all American administrations including Obama’s.

Palestine - Changed Narratives Need To Nurture New Negotiations

[Published 26 August 2015]


France is not expected to present its anticipated draft proposal for the declaration of a Palestinian State to the U.N. Security Council in September — having reportedly been criticized both by Israel - which does not want any external solution imposed on it - and by the PLO - which fears the Security Council will not meet its demands.

The Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap are dead and buried — even if the headstone is yet to be ceremoniously unveiled marking the actual date when the collective records, transcripts and secret minutes detailing fruitless negotiations conducted during the last 20 years between Israel and the now-disbanded Palestinian Authority were finally consigned to the graveyard of history.

It is now also becoming increasingly apparent that creating a 22nd independent Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt can:

1. ever peacefully eventuate without Israel, Jordan and Egypt’s express consent

2. be unilaterally imposed on Israel as a result of any resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council contrary to the express terms of its own Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

Filling this potentially explosive void will require the groundwork to first be meticulously prepared before any new negotiations can actually be undertaken to try and resolve competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 6% of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine — Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza — where sovereignty still remains undetermined (“the disputed territories”).

Such groundwork will require the following factual narratives to have been commonly agreed on and adopted by the negotiating parties prior to commencing negotiations to resolve the conflict:

1. Two of Israel’s immediately adjoining neighbours — Jordan and Egypt — have recognised the existence of Israel as a sovereign State in peace treaties signed by them with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively. These peace treaties have been honoured and respected during difficult periods when they might have been abrogated. They stand as a tribute to the determination of all three sovereign States to maintain a state of peace and avoid a position of confrontation as differences were resolved. Jordan and Egypt are accordingly indispensable parties to any new negotiations with Israel — if Arab sovereignty is to be established in any parts of the disputed territories.

2. Two of Israel’s other immediately adjoining neighbours — the PLO and Hamas — have since 1964 and 1988 respectively maintained in their respective Charters that the Jews have no claims to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine vested in the Jews by the unanimous vote of all 51 members of the League of Nations in 1922. Including either the PLO or Hamas in any new negotiations is pointless and meaningless whilst those Charters remain unrevoked.

3. The on-going conflict needs to be re-branded “the Jewish-Arab conflict” replacing “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. The current conflict had its origins in the events that took place during World War 1 — well before the State of Israel was declared in 1948. Marginalising the ongoing conflict by avoiding any consideration of the events that occurred between 1915 and 1948 has operated to paper over any proper discussion of the many opportunities presented to and rejected by the Arabs in relation to gaining territorial sovereignty in the disputed territories during that time - and indeed after 1948. This could impact on the current Arab claims to sovereignty over any of the disputed territories which may have been jeopardised or prejudiced as a result.

4. Recognition that the territory of the Mandate for Palestine is currently under Jewish sovereignty in 17% (Israel), Arab sovereignty in 78% (Jordan) with the remaining 6% comprising the disputed territories.

5. Claims that the building of Jewish settlements in the disputed territory are illegal in international law — based on the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention - need to be reconsidered having regard to the following prior territory-specific piece of legislation — Article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine — legalising such Jewish settlement:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

Pursuant to this provision — preserved in 1945 by article 80 of the UN Charter - Jews have legally settled in the disputed territories between 1922 and 1947 - and since 1967.

6. The continued use of language referring to the disputed territories as being “occupied territory” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” and the need for Israel to “end the occupation” fails to recognise that it was the Jews whose occupation in the disputed territories was first abruptly ended in 1948 — after every single Jew then living there was forcibly driven out by six invading Arab armies and not allowed to return until after the Six Day War in 1967.

Unless these narratives are changed, nurtured and mutually accepted by the parties before formal negotiations actually begin - one can confidently predict that any fanfare trumpeting yet another round of negotiations will be destined to see those negotiations inevitably end up in their own designated graveyard plot alongside the tomb housing the Oslo-Roadmap failed negotiations.

Negotiations based on shaky foundations without real substance can only guarantee their eventual death-throes.

Palestine - More Straight Talking - Less Doublespeak

[Published 13 August 2015]


The well-publicised “secret meeting” recently held in Jordan between Israel’s newest negotiations Minister Silvan Shalom and perennial PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat is but the latest in a 20 years old meaningless talkfest that has seen little tangible signs of ending the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict — despite two offers made by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 and rejected by the Palestinian Authority.

Talks have been conducted on Israel’s side within a framework comprising the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap (with 14 documented Israeli reservations.)

Mahmoud Abbas’s approach to those Israeli reservations should have sounded alarm bells from the start:

“They don’t interest me…

We do not accept each side picking and choosing only those specific elements that are convenient for them in the road map.

The map was prepared last December and we accepted it, despite our own comments and reservations. We wanted to give this initiative a chance, but it’s impossible to continue inventing comments and reservations after it was submitted.”

One of Israel’s reservations stated:

“In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel."

Abbas’s consistent refusal to accept these terms from the outset has seen the negotiations reduced to a farce.

Those proponents of the two-state solution who continue to allow Abbas to maintain this rejectionist stance are actively contributing to its demise.

The Roadmap further states unequivocally:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established….”

Those do-gooders particularly in the European Union and the United States still supporting the “two-state solution” seem to have lost sight of this clearly agreed democratic destination.

Democracy in any projected Palestinian State has been shoved under the carpet and out of sight — without a whimper from the world’s democracies.

Any signs of democracy are noticeably absent in both the West Bank and Gaza — where elections for the President have not been held since 2005, parliamentary elections were last held in 2006 and no single government exercises authority in both areas.

Tongue-tied Western democracies make no objection to this farcical state of affairs - guaranteeing continuing negotiations remain a diplomatic joke.

Another Israeli reservation consigned to the garbage bin by Abbas was allowed to pass without comment or objection by the Western democracies:

“The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel."

The Palestinian Authority no longer exists — having been disbanded on 3 January 2013.

By Decree number 1 for 2013 — Abbas unilaterally tore up the Oslo Accords:

“Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads of the Palestinian National Authority official and national institutions shall be amended by replacing the name ‘Palestinian National Authority’ whenever it appears by the name ‘State of Palestine’ and by adopting the emblem of the State of Palestine.”

Negotiating parameters established between identified parties pursuant to Security Council Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap have been replaced by a set of fictitious propositions lacking negotiating partners.

Western democracies supporting this disingenuous state of affairs should hang their heads in shame. Unless they engage in more straight talking and less doublespeak — any negotiated two-state solution will remain pure fantasy.

Palestine - Netanyahu Goes For Gold In Shoot-Off With Obama

[Published 28 May 2015]


Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s appointment of former United Nations ambassador Dore Gold to head up Israel’s Foreign Ministry - ensures that Israel will be confronting President Obama as he continues attempting to deviate from the commitments made to Israel by his predecessor President Bush in a letter dated 14 April 2004 to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (Bush Commitments).

The Bush Commitments acknowledged the risks involved in Israel unilaterally disengaging from Gaza and evacuating the 8000 Jews who had established 21 settlements there over the preceding 35 years whilst additionally agreeing to remove another four settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

President Bush assured Israel of the following:

1. the United States remained committed to President Bush’s vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap.

2.The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.

3. Palestinians would have to undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that included a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

4. The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

5. The United States was strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.

6.It seemed clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

7. As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

8. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It was realistic to expect that any final status agreement would only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

President Obama has attempted to subvert the Bush Commitments by proposing Israel withdraw from part of the West Bank and cede part of its own sovereign territory to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in exchange for the area of the West Bank to be retained by Israel - as announced by President Obama in May 2011:

”... the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps - so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

President Obama seems to have given up on the strong parliamentary democracy demanded by President Bush being established in the West Bank and Gaza - having failed to back up a recent call by another former American President - Jimmy Carter - for such elections to be held in the West Bank and Gaza - which would be the first held there since 2005.

Until such a democracy is established America should not expect any negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organisation to lead to anywhere but the dustbin of history.

Dore Gold well appreciates the significance of these Bush Commitments and the obligation of Obama to remain bound by them - stating in debriefing.org on 9 June 2009 -

“For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the U.S. Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.”

Writing in Jewish Current Issues on 3 June 2009 Rick Richman noted that the State Department had refused to confirm the Bush Commitments on 21 occasions during the previous week.

Richman then asserted:

“Since Israel met its obligations under the disengagement deal, the U.S. can no more rescind its agreement and commitment than it can restore the lost world of Gush Katif, or the lost security of southern Israel, or the lives that thousands of rockets traumatized, or the property that was destroyed.

Israel ended up having to fight a war in Gaza because of the disengagement. The least the United States can do is meet its own obligations.”

Michael Oren - former Israeli Ambassador in Washington and now a newly elected member of Israel’s governing coalition - called for the resuscitation of these Bush Commitments during his election campaign in January.

The Obama administration needs to clear the air and remove any doubts or concerns that it is trying to surreptitiously vary the Bush Commitments.

Let the shoot-off with the reluctant and recalcitrant Obama administration begin.

Palestine - Sharon's Ghost Returns To Haunt Obama

[Published 29 April 2015]


Michael Oren – one of seven members of the recently formed Kulanu party elected to Israel’s new Parliament – seems destined to play a pivotal role in torpedoing President Obama’s proposals for a two-state solution aimed at resolving the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Agreement has reportedly been reached between Israel’s Prime Minister elect Benjamin Netanyahu and Kulanu chairman Moshe Kahlon for Kahlon to be appointed Finance Minister. Fellow Kulanu members - Yoav Galant and Eli Alalouf - will serve respectively as Housing Minister and Environmental Protection Minister.

Still unannounced is the replacement for Tzipi Livni - who headed the Israeli team in peace talks with the PLO - but who now seems destined to enter into Opposition. These peace talks have remained in a state of suspended animation since April 2014 – despite intensive American efforts to have them resumed.

President Obama’s proposals – first enunciated in 2011 – were re-stated as recently as July 2014 by White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region Philip Gordon at the Ha’aretz Israel Conference for Peace:

“A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.

Negotiations should therefore result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. Any peace agreement will require robust security provisions that safeguard Israel’s security. And the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in an independent, sovereign and contiguous state.”

The idea that Israel should be required to make mutually agreed land swaps for territory it retains in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) was never stipulated or mentioned in the letter given by President Bush to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 – whose terms were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day. (“American Written Commitments”)

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had declared at the Annapolis International Conference convened by President Bush on 27 November 2007 that any resumed negotiations:

“will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Michael Oren – Kulanu’s diplomatic voice and former Israeli Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 - recently called for these 2004 American Written Commitments to be resuscitated:

“A decade ago, in April 2004, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon received a letter from American president George Bush, Jr. recognizing Israel’s right to build in long-standing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem like Talpiyot-East and Ramot. Furthermore, Israel was now allowed to build in settlement blocs crucial for Israel’s security, and in which some 80% of Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria reside […] According to the Bush-Sharon letter, these areas will remain within Israel’s borders in any arrangement arrived at with the Palestinians […] it’s time to revive the Bush-Sharon letter and act according to it.”

Obama is going to find it impossible to impose his land swap proposals – if Oren has any say.

Sharon’s ghost has tantalisingly returned to haunt Obama.

Palestine - Obama Admits Defeat On Renewed Negotiations For Two-State Solution

[Published 2 April 2015]


President Obama has finally admitted the death of any renewed negotiations for a two-state solution between Israel and the PLO for the next several years - telling the media on 24 March:

“there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a Palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time — which was always the presumption.”

President Obama has apparently accepted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s contention that such negotiations are not possible whilst conflicts involving radical Islam rage in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

President Obama had until now placed his faith in such negotiations:

“Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties.”

The rise of Islamic State in June 2014 has created a new ballgame and new dynamic.

Islamic State’s possible spill-over into Gaza and the West Bank cannot be ignored by Obama when Israel is being requested by Obama to withdraw from part of the West Bank and cede part of its own sovereign territory to the PLO in accordance with President Obama’s vision enunciated in May 2011:

”.. the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps - so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Abandoning territory as Israel did in Gaza in 2005 — will require ironclad security guarantees.

President Obama’s pledge to degrade and destroy Islamic State is a work in progress that could take up to three years — as Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted last September at a NATO Summit attended by President Obama and himself.

Six months later Kerry’s assessment has been thrown into serious doubt by Syria’s President Assad — who in a rare interview with 60 Minutes on 30 March declared:

"Actually ISIS [Islamic State] has expanded since the beginning of strikes — not like some Americans want to sugar coat the situation - to say that it is getting better, ISIS [Islamic State] is being defeated and so-on. Actually No — they have more recruits. Suggested estimates say they have 1000 recruits every month in Syria and Iraq. They are expanding in Libya and many Al-Qaeda affiliated organisations have announced their allegiance to ISIS.”

Israel cannot possibly be expected in these circumstances to negotiate with the PLO on establishing secure and recognized borders as stipulated by President Obama and Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 — until Islamic State is finally degraded and destroyed.

President Obama has announced he is going back to the drawing board.

“the evaluation that’s taking place is specific to what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians going forward. We’ll continue to engage the Israeli government as well as the Palestinians, and ask them where they are interested in going and how do they see this issue being resolved. But what we can’t do is pretend that there’s a possibility of something that’s not there. And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years.”

President Obama should — in such evaluation process - seriously explore the possibility of first demanding that President Mahmoud Abbas call Presidential and parliamentary elections in Gaza and the West Bank — last held in 2005 and 2006 respectively.

Let democracy replace these repressive dictatorships.

Palestine - Obama Confronts Embarrassing About-Face

[Published 7 November 2014]


The Republican Party’s stunning victory in the American mid-term elections offers real hope that President Obama will now be held to honouring the written commitments made to Israel by President George W Bush in his exchange of letters with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 12 April 2004 — as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day.

Those commitments were made in support of Israel’s decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza — which Israel duly honoured in 2005—when the Israeli Army and 8000 Israeli civilians left Gaza — many after living there for almost forty years.

That withdrawal brought Hamas to power in Gaza’s one and only election - which has since seen three wars, thousands of deaths and casualties, property destruction running into billions of dollars and 11000 rockets being indiscriminately fired into Israeli civilian population centres.

Bush’s Congress-endorsed commitments assured Israel that the United States:

1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.

2. Reiterated America’s steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders,

3. Was strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.

4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion

Commitments jointly made by an American President and endorsed by an American Congress cannot be unilaterally revoked

President Obama and his administration sought to circumvent these clearly stated American pledges — thereby encouraging continuing Arab rejectionism of Israeli peace overtures whilst souring the American—Israeli longstanding relationship.

Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly took the first steps to repudiate these commitments on 6 June 2009:

“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.

They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon."

Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and:

“did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

Clinton — doubling as Obama’s attack dog — made Obama’s intentions clear — when she stated on 25 November 2009

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

This blatant disregard for Bush’s written commitments - which had never mentioned land swaps -signalled trouble for Israel - if Obama ever confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when President Obama declared on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Israel’s curt response came the same day:

Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he:

“expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress”

Prior to Obama’s statement U.S. presidents generally had steered clear of saying any negotiations should start on the 1967 lines.

1. “It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.” — President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968

2. “In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. the bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.” — President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982

3. “Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.” — Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988

These Presidential statements were reiterating the personally expressed policy positions of those then Presidents.

Bush’s commitments — so overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress — are in an entirely different league.

With the Republicans now firmly back in control of both Houses — the President and Congress need to assure Israel — and indeed every other nation — that commitments jointly made by an American President and endorsed by an American Congress cannot be unilaterally revoked.

America’s honour and credibility — and any hope of ending the Jewish-Arab conflict — demand this happens very soon.

Palestine - European Union Can't Be Judge And Jury

[Published 22 July 2013]


The decision by the European Union (EU) to boycott Jewish organisations and institutions based in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will bring much joy to the Arab world’s on-going vicious hate campaign of denigration and demonization of the Jewish State.

The EU announcement heralds the end of any influence it has as a member of the Quartet - America, Russia, the United Nations and the EU - which itself can now no longer claim to act as an impartial negotiator seeking to bring about an end to the long running conflict between Jews and Arabs whilst the EU remains a member.

The EU cannot be surprised if Israel takes retaliatory action in response to its decision including any of the following:

1. Forbidding the transfer of EU funds to non-government organisations in Israel engaged in activities designed to advance the interests of the Israeli Arab population to the detriment of the Jewish majority.
2. Ending all co-operation with the EU in Area C of the West Bank by terminating existing development and infrastructure programs for the benefit of the Arab population and forbidding any such activities in the future.
3. Ordering the closure of the office of the Delegation of the EU to Israel.

A statement released by the EU Delegation on 16 July gave the following as one reason to justify the EU guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards:

“The guidelines are also in conformity with the EU’s longstanding position that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and with the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied territories, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law.”

The illegality of Israeli settlements has never been the subject of any binding authoritative legal decision to my knowledge by any court anywhere in the world.

At best the EU longstanding position is an opinion - and nothing else. It is counterbalanced by other opinions that take the view that Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is legal by virtue of the provisions of article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

In fact the courts of one of the EU member states - France - ruled that Israel did not violate international law by building a light rail line in eastern Jerusalem.

The ruling on March 22 by the Versailles Court of Appeals came in response to a lawsuit filed in 2007 by the Palestine Liberation Organization and the France-Palestine Solaridite association against three French firms that participated in the construction of the light rail network. The plaintiffs claimed that the firms were responsible for human rights and international law violations.

In the 32-page ruling, the judges wrote that international treaties applied to Israel’s occupation of lands captured in 1967 and that those conventions - including the Hague Convention of 1907 - state that:

“the occupying power can and even must establish normal, public activity in the occupied territory.”

The EU position is certainly on very shaky ground.

This latest decision by the EU is the first time the EU has acted to give teeth to the political decision taken by the foreign ministers of the EU Member States at the EU Foreign Affairs Council of 10 December 2012 - which stated

“all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967”

The statement makes the EU intentions abundantly clear:

“The purpose of these guidelines is to make a distinction between the State of Israel and the occupied territories when it comes to EU support.”

In declaring that the EU does not recognise any claim by Israel to sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - the EU has purported to pre-judge and dismiss Israel’s territorial claims to such areas in direct contravention of a joint statement issued by the Quartet on 10 April 2002:

“We reiterate that there is no military solution to the conflict and call on the parties to move towards a political resolution of their disputes based on UNSCR 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace — which formed the basis for the Madrid Conference of 1991. We reaffirm our support for the objective expressed by President Bush and spelled out in UNSCR 1397, of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders”

The EU decision has acted to interfere in the determination of secure and recognized boundaries between Israel and Palestine by pre-empting that Israel has no claim to sovereignty in any part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The EU is free to pursue any policy it wants - but also must accept the responsibility for the fall - out and criticism that will inevitably follow.

Does the EU now take the gracious step and bow out of the Quartet due to this conflict of interest - or does it have to be told to go packing by the other members of the Quartet?

The EU clearly cannot be both judge and jury and the remaining three members of the Quartet must make that very clear immediately - if they themselves wish to retain any credibility and influence in resolving a satisfactory outcome to the Jewish- Arab conflict.