America erases its past as Israel resurrects 3000 years-old history

[Published 15 June 2020]

It is amazing that in the midst of an unprecedented global economic shutdown—some Americans are presently hell-bent on erasing America’s past by pulling down statues of ionic people from America’s history and engaging in cultural cancelling —whilst Israelis are simultaneously planning to resurrect Jewish history by restoring Israeli sovereignty in the Jewish people’s biblical heartland—Judea and Samaria — after 3000 years.

Trashing America’s past is violent and unlawful—whilst Israel’s democratically elected Government is reinstating the Jewish People’s past in tandem with President Trump’s Peace Plan published on 28 January 2020.

Many American mayors and Governors have watched on — restraining their police forces from doing anything to halt these monuments to history being torn down by chanting mobs. Residents and businesses located in the affected cities will continue to pay a high price for these elected officials failing to allow the police to take back control of the streets and restore safety and security for all.

Alarmingly many of these mayors and Governors are now considering defunding or replacing their police forces in what can only be described as abject surrender in the face of extreme provocation by rampaging and looting protestors out of control and oblivious to maintaining any semblance of complying with the laws of social distancing that the majority populations in these cities under attack follow, respect and obey.

As this epidemic of unbridled lawlessness spreads world-wide — the international community’s response to Israel’s intended application of sovereignty in 1697 km2 of Judea and Samaria’s 5655 km2 is deeply troubling.

An avalanche of international opposition – led by the United Nations and European Union – falsely claims that Israel is acting “in flagrant violation of international law” — ignoring:

1. The San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sevres 1920
2. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922
3. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter 1945
4. President Bush’s written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 overwhelmingly approved by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (America’s Commitment) – promising that Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza would not require Israel to withdraw from all of Judea and Samaria.
5. The Quartet – Russia, United Nations, European Union and America – endorsing America’s Commitment on 4 May 2004
6. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert acknowledging Israel’s reliance on America’s Commitment at the Annapolis Conference on 27 November 2007:
“The negotiations [with the PLO] 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.”

51 nation states comprised the League of Nations that unanimously approved Judea and Samaria forming part of the area proposed for reconstitution of the Jewish National Home:

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.

These states who are now United Nations and/or European Union members supporting the current cacophony of “flagrant violation of international law” - need to hang their heads in collective shame. They are encouraging an atmosphere of Jew-hatred and incitement to violence.

Pray for America as its past is being trashed and its future is distinctly uncertain.

Recognise the resurrection of sovereignty in the Jewish people’s biblical heartland after 3000 years as a modern-day miracle that could help end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

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.

Netanyahu goes into Judea and Samaria where Gantz fears to tread

[Published 19 February 2020]

The formation of a joint America-Israel committee to map out the areas of Judea and Samaria within which Israel’s sovereignty will be recognized by America has presented Israeli voters with a real choice between the policies of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his rival Benny Gantz at upcoming March 2 elections.

Addressing Likud Party supporters at a campaign launch event in Jerusalem on January 21, Netanyahu promised to “impose Israeli sovereignty on the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea” and to all Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria “without exception.” Netanyahu’s proposal to take such unilateral action was tempered with the release of President Trump’s deal of the century on January 28 containing the following conceptual map indicating those areas of Judea and Samaria where America would recognize Israel’s claim to sovereignty:

America’s Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, warned Netanyahu against precipitately undertaking his own sovereignty plan — explaining there was a waiting period before sovereignty could be extended:

“The waiting period would be the time it takes for them to obtain internal approvals and to obviously create the documentation, the calibration, the mapping, that would enable us to evaluate it, makes sure it’s consistent with the conceptual map. If they wish to apply Israeli law to those areas allocated to Israel, we will recognize it"

Both Israel and America probably would have prepared their own maps already. Jared Kushner - chief architect of the Trump plan — has virtually confirmed this — saying it will take only “a couple of months” for the Committee to complete its work. Marrying the two maps to achieve this truly historic outcome is that close.

Ambassador Friedman heads the three-man American delegation now sitting down with the three-man Israeli delegation on the Mapping Committee.

Gantz has been powerless to stop the formation and work of the Mapping Committee. Indeed Gantz urged Trump to release his peace plan before the elections. Gantz has not even requested that one of his nominees be part of the Israeli delegation on the Mapping Committee.

In ignoring the Mapping Committee, Gantz is signalling the continuation of his policy opposing Israel extending its sovereignty into Judea and Samaria with America’s approval.

Gantz has made his own policy very clear:

“After the elections, we will work to apply [Israeli] sovereignty on the Jordan Valley. We will do this in a nationally agreed process and in coordination with the international community.”

Believing the international community would ever agree to Israel extending its sovereignty into any part of Judea and Samaria — without swaps of existing Israeli sovereign territory — is totally unrealistic. The international community has been fixated for decades on seeing another Arab State created in the entirety of Judea and Samaria — or in an area of the same size including land currently part of Israel.

Gantz — in limiting sovereignty to just the Jordan Valley — is dashing the hopes of an estimated Jewish population of 464,353 in 131 settlements seeking unification with Israel.

Israeli voters now have a clear choice to end the political deadlock that has followed two indecisive elections held in the past twelve months:

1. Is it Netanyahu — promising the restoration of sovereignty in parts of the heartland of the Jewish people’s historic and biblical homeland for the first time in 3000 years?
OR
2. Is it Gantz — promising more of the same in Judea and Samaria that has been going on for the last 53 years?

A third deadlocked election result now seems increasingly unlikely.

The choice is stark and the direction Israel will take for generations to come is at stake.

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.

United Nations, Egypt and Jordan could scuttle Trump's peace plan.

[Published 12 December 2018]

President Trump’s long-awaited peace plan to end the Arab-Jewish conflict — slated for release by the end of January 2019 — could be indefinitely shelved.

This possibility has emerged following the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) failing to pass an American-sponsored resolution A/73/L.42 (“Resolution”) - condemning Hamas and other militant organisations in Gaza for indiscriminate attacks on Israel’s civilian population.

Protecting all civilian populations from the ravages of conflict and war was turned on its head when the Resolution failed to attract a two-thirds majority vote demanded by UN Arab-member states - rather than a simple majority argued for by America which was lost by a narrow margin of three votes.

The Resolution had sought to condemn Hamas — whose Covenant calls for the destruction of Israel - for the first time since Hamas was created in 1987.

The Resolution served as a barometer to measure whether 134 of the 193 UN members comprising the Group of 77 would be prepared to support one pro-Israel humanitarian resolution being passed to break the cycle of over 700 UNGA anti-Israel resolutions their voting bloc had always guaranteed. Only 35 possessed the moral integrity to break ranks and support the Resolution, 32 abstained and 15 did not vote.

Trump was publicly humiliated — and Hamas considerably boosted - when the Resolution only mustered 87 votes “for” to 57 “against” — 9 votes less than the 96 required for its successful carriage.

41 of the 57 dissenting votes were cast by Islamic States of whom only 6 — Azerbaijan, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Senegal and Turkey — maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Solidarity with the Islamic bloc took precedence over humanitarian concerns to protect Israel’s civilian population under daily attack.

The other 16 dissenters were:

Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, China, Congo, Cuba, Lao, Mauritius, Namibia, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. America would have reasonably expected support for the Resolution from some of the remaining 13.

Egypt and Jordan were the two Arab states Trump would have probably been focusing on to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in negotiations with Israel —after the PLO had made it clear on many occasions that it would not negotiate with Israel on Trump’s proposals under any circumstances.

Egypt and Jordan’s credentials as replacement negotiators were unique — being the last two Arab states to respectively occupy Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between 1948 and 1967 — the specific territories that Trump’s plan will address and whose sovereignty still remains disputed between Arabs and Jews.

Egypt and Jordan’s dissenting votes are not what Trump would have anticipated from these two major recipients of America’s generous largesse. Their readiness to risk losing substantial foreign aid and American protection rather than assist Trump in getting his Resolution adopted is bad news for Trump. Without securing their prior agreement to negotiate with Israel — Trump’s plan seems destined to never see the light of day.

Other dissenting Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Oman also showed their preparedness to risk losing ongoing American support rather than white-ant the UN Islamic-voting bloc.

Trump’s United Nations ambassador — Nikki Haley — disclosed:

“The president called and he said, ‘Nikki what happened?’ And I told him, and he goes, ‘Who do we need to get upset at? Who do you want me to yell at? Who do we take their money away?’” “I’m not gonna tell you what I told him,” she added.

Trump’s revenge on those 57 dissenting states will be but a small consolation prize if his “deal of the century” is prematurely trashed in the White House shredder.

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

Trump rejects UN and UNESCO's fictitious Palestinian State

[11 October 2018]

President Trump’s National Security Adviser - John Bolton - has exposed the fiction that there is a legally-constituted “State of Palestine” — shredding United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations (UN) resolutions misleadingly recognising such a state when none - in fact— exists.

Bolton was unequivocal in his statement:

“Palestine” is not a state… It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it’s not a state.”

Article 1 of the 1934 Montevideo Convention completely substantiates Bolton’s claim.

Holding out the carrot after administering the stick — Bolton continued:

“It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others… We have consistently, across Democratic and Republican administrations, opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the UN as a state, because it’s not a state.”

Bolton’s tempting offer may have been made to try and get the PLO to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s soon to—be-released peace plan. It seems certain to fall on deaf ears as the PLO wants nothing to do with Trump’s plan.

The PLO will only be more infuriated at this latest Trump effort to engender some reality into the Arab-Jewish conflict — as happened when Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member in 2011 in clear breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance - with America and Israel quitting UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions made since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

1. January 2014 — cancelling an exhibition at its Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel

2. October 2016 - disregarding Jewish ties to the Temple Mount - only referring to it by its Muslim names — then several weeks later - passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name - though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.

3. July 2017 - designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart‚ - the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly granted Palestine “non-member observer state” status.

Pure fiction

The PLO hopped on the UN bandwagon - PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas decreeing on 3 January 2013:

“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.”

Pure fiction.

In November 2014 - Sweden became the 135th member of the UN to officially recognize Palestine as an independent state.

Pure fiction - 135 times over.

More truth-telling involving Jordan-Israel negotiations are on the Trump agenda — Bolton having signalled on 18 January:

“In fact, [Jordan’s] King Abdullah II should be preparing himself for a larger role in the West Bank. Before the 1967 war, Jordan had no hesitation asserting sovereignty over West Bank territory from Britain’s former Palestinian mandate, territory conquered by Jordan’s Arab Legion during the 1948 to 1949 war with Israel.

Once it becomes clear the two-state solution is finally dead, Jordan should again be asked to exercise control over suitably delineated portions of the West Bank and have the monarchy’s religious role for holy sites like the Temple Mount reaffirmed.”

Fact — not fiction — will resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.

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

Trump and Putin focus on Syria-Israel, Arab-Jewish conflicts

[Published 19 July 2018]

Defusing the Syria–Israel conflict and resurrecting the primacy of Security Council Resolution 242 in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict have emerged as positive outcomes from the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki this week.

President Putin expressed America and Russia’s joint resolve with this succinct statement:

“The south of Syria should be brought to the full compliance with the treaty of 1974 about the separation of forces, about separation of forces of Israel and Syria. This will bring peace to Golan Heights. And bring more peaceful relationship between Syria and Israel and also to provide security of the state of Israel. Mr. President paid special attention to the issue during today’s negotiations. I would like to confirm that Russia is interested in this development and this will act accordingly. Thus far, we will make a step toward creating a lasting peace in compliance with the respective resolutions of security council, for instance the resolution 338.”

Article 1 of the 1974 Syria-Israel Separation of Forces Agreement provides:

“Israel and Syria will scrupulously observe the cease-fire on land, sea and air and will refrain from all military actions against each other, from the time of the signing of the document, in implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 338 dated October 22, 1973.”

Security Council Resolution 338 - adopted following the 1973 Yom Kippur War:

“Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts";

Article 1 of Security Council Resolution 242 - adopted following the 1967 Six Day War:

“Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

When Security Council Resolution 242 was passed on 22 November 1967:

1. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was not the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs - having only being so appointed at the 7th Arab League Summit held in Rabat in October 1974.

2. Arabs living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) (“Territories”) were Jordanian citizens and possessed Jordanian passports following these Territories being unified with Transjordan on 24 April 1950 and subsequently being renamed Jordan.

3. The PLO was expressly not claiming territorial sovereignty in the Territories or Gaza - article 24 of the PLO Charter proclaiming:

“This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

4. No additional Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – was contemplated.

5. Hamas had not been founded.

Resolution 242 still contains the only internationally agreed formula for peacefully ending the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

A conference to resolve this long-running conflict in accordance with Resolution 242 - co-chaired by America and Russia – would see Israel and every Arab State in the area attending but would exclude non-States PLO and Hamas. Such a conference now looms as a possible Trump-Putin initiative - putting Trump’s unannounced “ultimate deal” on the backburner.

Going back to 1967 could indeed be the key to resolving the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

PLO rejects Trump lifeline on negotiations with Israel

[Published 14 June 2018]

President Trump — still mulling over the release of his ultimate peace deal to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict - has seen the swift rejection of the call by Jason D. Greenblatt — Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations - to have Dr Saeb Erekat replaced as chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in future negotiations with Israel.

Greenblatt raised America’s objection to Erekat in stark and uncompromising terms — alleging Erekat:

1. failed to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to peace

2. used rhetoric and made claims that were in many respects simply inaccurate

3. had baselessly claimed that Trump’s decision to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem was part of a U.S. attempt to force an Israeli-written agreement on the Palestinians.

4. had failed to acknowledge a significant escalation of rockets fired by Hamas and other militant groups into Israel, which clearly represented the danger that Hamas and these groups present.

Greenblatt asserted that the Palestinian leadership need not shackle themselves to Hamas’ failure — in fact, this should be the Palestinian Authority’s opportunity to do the right thing for the people they lead.

Greenblatt called on Erekat and the Palestinian Authority to reject Hamas’ violence and lies and work with America to bring relief to Gaza where America believed real progress could be made that would lay the foundation for a more hopeful future.

Greenblatt’s reference to the “Palestinian Authority” was strange indeed - since it had been disbanded by written decree issued by PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013.

Greenblatt stressed it was time to stop indulging in overwrought rhetoric and give the Palestinian people something beyond words. Palestinian leadership must create better lives, not sacrifice those lives for Hamas’ grim agenda of terror.

Greenblatt claimed he had heard many Palestinian voices over the past 16 months and many did not agree with Erekat or his approach. Yet, the sad thing is that most would only meet and speak honestly and openly in private because they are afraid to speak publicly.

Greenblatt summed up:

“Dr. Erekat — we have heard your voice for decades and it has not achieved anything close to Palestinian aspirations or anything close to a comprehensive peace agreement. Other Palestinian perspectives might help us finally achieve a comprehensive peace agreement where Palestinian and Israeli lives can be better.

The time for leadership and responsibility is now. The time for meeting after meeting of government officials repeating the same talking points is over. The Palestinian people want real action, and they need honest, realistic and decisive solutions.

The notion that Israel is going away — or that Jerusalem is not its capital — is a mirage. The notion that the United States is not the critical interlocutor for the peace process is a mirage.”

In a stinging, vitriolic reply Erekat immediately responded:

“In dozens of meetings we had with Mr. Greenblatt he refused to discuss substance: no borders, no settlements, and no two-state solution. Today, his role is nothing less than peddling Israeli policies to a skeptical international community, and then becomes upset when he’s reminded of this.”

Erekat will remain in his decades-long position unless pulmonary fibrosis prevents him physically discharging his current role. Erekat’s replacement would undoubtedly continue the same failed tactics adopted by Erekat.

Erekat’s predictable response should be seen as yet one more reason justifying Trump’s emerging strategy to replace the PLO with Jordan, Egypt and possibly Saudi Arabia in negotiations with Israel on the future of Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem.

Rejecting Trump’s proffered lifeline ensures the PLO will play no part in future negotiations on Trump’s ultimate deal.

Trump Thrashes Clinton On Ending Sexual Violence In Syria And Iraq

[Published 16 October 2016}


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

In a stark report to the UN Security Council on 30 September — UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon warned:

“ISIL [Islamic State] continues to systematically use sexual violence against Yazidi women and girls in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as against other minorities caught up in the conflict. Even though some women have managed to escape their captors, around 3,800 abducted Yazidis were still missing at the time of writing. This is a matter of grave concern. Those who have escaped have described the appalling conditions under which they were bought, sold, traded and abused. Both girls and boys are advertised online and traded for weapons, suicide vests, cars and a range of other commodities. Thus far, no formal mechanisms have been established to secure the release of those held captive by ISIL. Those who have managed to escape have done so with the help of their families and smugglers or by taking advantage of other opportunities. Some have resorted to suicide as their only escape. The children of women who commit suicide, or who attempt to escape, are beaten or killed as punishment”

You have to search high and low to find any American media discussion of these highly disturbing revelations.

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

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

Clinton made her policy crystal clear in the second Presidential debate:

“It’s also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations.”

Who these Muslim nations are and how Clinton intends to defeat Islamic State in Syria without Russian co-operation remains unexplained. It is a pipedream the American media should be grilling her on every day until they get an answer.

Trump however indicated in the same Presidential debate that he would welcome co-operation rather than confrontation with Russia:

“I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example.”

Trump and Putin acting in concert or going hand in hand to the Security Council jointly sponsoring a commonly agreed plan of action to eradicate Islamic State represent two possible ways forward.

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

Makes for salacious reading — but keeps voters in the dark on whether Trump or Clinton is the best candidate to:

1. See Islamic State defeated

2. End the ongoing sexual violence in Syria and Iraq

3. Extricate America from Obama’s disastrous forays in the Middle East that continue to cause American military casualties and bankrupt America both morally and financially.

Trump may not be perfect but America’s media should hang its head in shame.

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.

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.

America and Israel quit UNESCO over “Palestine” fiasco

[Published 16 October 2017]


UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member state in 2011 in apparent breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance – as America and Israel now give formal notice of their intention to quit UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert asserted America’s decision was not taken lightly and reflected U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.

American arrears owing for UNESCO dues now total US$550 million.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

1. January 2014 – the cancellation of an exhibition at its Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the land of Israel

2. October 2016 - disregarding any Jewish ties to the Temple Mount - only referring to it by its Muslim names – then several weeks later - passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name - though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.

3. May 2017 – UNESCO’s executive committee passing a resolution critical of Israeli conduct in Jerusalem and Gaza.

4. July 2017 - designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart — the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

UNESCO appears to have acted outside the terms of its own Constitution in admitting “Palestine” to membership.

That decision was open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO under Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution - and “Palestine” was not a state,

2. 129 votes from 193 members were required to admit “Palestine” – not the 107 votes received from those “present and voting”. 14 had voted against, 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote.

UNESCO’s questionable and highly controversial decision should have been referred to the International Court of Justice under Article XIV (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution to determine whether:

1. “Palestine” was a “State” entitled to membership of UNESCO.

2. 129 votes or 107 votes were required for “Palestine’s” admission to UNESCO

UNESCO did not seek this judicial interpretation - which would have cost it US$100000 – even though I presented it with detailed reasons why it should.

Had the International Court ruled “Palestine’s” admission to UNESCO was unlawful – then the American funding tap would have been turned on again five years ago.

Instead UNESCO lobbied the Americans to cough up what amounted to 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget. That lobbying was never going to succeed – since the chances of Congress backing away from America’s domestic law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepted the PLO as a full member – outside of negotiations with Israel – was doomed to failure

Australia’s Head of Mission – Ms Gita Kamath – gave Australia’s reasons for its negative vote at the time:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora.

Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

UNESCO would not be in the parlous financial straits and ignominious position it finds itself today had its member States heeded Australia’s sage advice.

UNESCO’s foray into the Arab-Jewish conflict has been an unmitigated disaster.

Trump should move Pollard to Jerusalem

[Published 5 June 2017]


President Trump’s delay in moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem presents the President with a wonderful opportunity to commute Jonathan Pollard’s sentence - freeing Pollard to move from New York to Jerusalem.

Trump made his unequivocal Embassy pledge on 22 March 2016:

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

A White House statement on 1 June put this brave face on Trump ‘s decision delaying the Embassy move:

“While President Donald J. Trump signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance. President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs have so far extended over a period of 23 years without any real success - so one can only wonder when the Embassy move is likely to occur.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response was quite philosophical:

“Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future,”

Trump’s friendship would be confirmed were he to commute Pollard’s life sentence and harsh parole conditions to enable Pollard’s move to Jerusalem,

Pollard - an intelligence analyst with the US Government - received his life sentence for passing classified information to an American ally - Israel. No other American has received such a crushing sentence.

Pollard - released in 2015 after serving 30 years penal servitude - was placed on harsh parole conditions requiring him to wear an electronic tracking device, obey a curfew and allow his computers to be monitored. He must remain in the United States until November 2020.

Pollard’s appeal to relax his parole conditions was recently rejected.

Pollard’s treatment can be contrasted to that meted out to Bradley (now known as Chelsea) Manning - who leaked more than 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 whilst serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence in January - three days before vacating the White House - from 35 years to just over 7 years, the majority of which Manning had already served. Trump said Manning should never have been released from prison.

Manning was freed from federal custody on May 17th.

Israeli Prime Ministers from Yitzchak Rabin to Netanyahu had unsuccessfully lobbied successive Republican and Democratic Presidents for Pollard’s release and permission to resettle in Israel.

Pollard is recently reported to have remarked:

“As much as Trump needs to be held to his promise to move the embassy, it is just as important that the prime minister keep his promise to bring an agent home”

President Obama’s precedent in freeing Manning whilst resisting similar overtures for Pollard’s release was reprehensible.

Commuting Pollard’s sentence at this particular moment in Trump’s presidency will help cement the blossoming post-Obama relationship between the United States and one of its staunchest allies - Israel.

Pollard’s move to Jerusalem as it celebrates the 50th anniversary of its liberation from 19 years of illegal occupation by Jordan would alleviate the disappointment of the Embassy not moving there.

That is what Trump-style dealmaking is all about.

Trump must honour Bush-Congress deal with Israel

[Published 18 May 2017]

President Trump’s historic visit to Israel on 22 May presents the perfect opportunity for him to deliver on the promises he made to Israel during last year’s Presidential election campaign.

Trump’s broad-ranging foreign policy speech on 27 April 2016 highlighted the disgraceful way Israel had been treated by the Obama Administration:

“Israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the Middle East has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity.

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel.”

Trump’s claim was certainly justified.

Obama — aided and abetted by his two Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry — had deliberately undermined the written commitments made to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by President Bush on 14 April 2004 and subsequently endorsed overwhelmingly by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (“Bush/Congress Commitments”).

Trump promised:

“To our friends and allies, I say America is going to be strong again. America is going to be reliable again. It’s going to be a great and reliable ally again. It’s going to be a friend again. We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests and the shared interests of our allies.”

The shared interests of Israel and America became inextricably entwined after the Bush/Congress Commitments had:

1. secured Israel’s total disengagement from Gaza and a part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) in 2005

2. promised President Bush’s stalled 2003 Roadmap proposing the two-state solution a real chance of coming to fruition.

The Bush/Congress Commitments were also crucial to Israel’s agreement to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as publicly declared by Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the international conference called by President Bush in Annapolis in 2007:

“In the course of the negotiations, we will use previous agreements as a point of departure. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map, and the letter of President Bush to the prime minister of Israel dated April 14, 2004.”

Obama’s treachery in derogating from the Bush/Congress Commitments was compounded when he refused to veto Security Council Resolution 2334 passed during the dying days of Obama’s Presidency on 23 December 2016.

Trump needs to repeat this part of his 2016 message loudly and clearly in Israel:

”... 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. “

Sticking by the Bush/Congress commitments will sound a clear warning to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Arab League that PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas will become irrelevant if he continues to:

1. press for a complete withdrawal by Israel from Judea and Samaria (West Bank)

2. refuse to accept Israel as the nation State of the Jewish people

3. maintain a claimed right of return to Israel for millions of refugees and their descendants contradicting the unequivocal terms of the Bush/Congress Commitments.

Trump - as only he can — has put Abbas on notice this could well happen:

“We have to look to new people because many of the old people frankly don’t know what they’re doing, even though they may look awfully good writing in The New York Times or being watched on television.”

Bipartisan Congressional support will welcome Trump honouring the Bush/Congress Commitments - confirming Trump’s bold vision:

“We need a new rational American foreign policy, informed by the best minds and supported by both parties, and it will be by both parties—Democrats, Republicans, independents, everybody, as well as by our close allies.”

Integrity always trumps betrayal.

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.

Trump and Congress can make America great again

[Published 15 February 2017]


President Trump and Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders this week have the last opportunity to resuscitate the two-state solution laid out in President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap adopted by the Quartet — America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations (“Bush-Quartet Roadmap”).

This can only happen if President Trump and the Congress re-affirm the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 — as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House 407-9 and the Senate 95-3 (“Bush-Congress Commitments”).

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly sees this outcome flowing from his White House visit on 15 February:

“Trump believes in a deal and in running peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” the prime minister was quoted as saying. “We should be careful and not do things that will cause everything to break down. We mustn’t get into a confrontation with him.”

The last six years have seen those negotiations teeter on the brink of total collapse because the framework for such negotiations - the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress commitments — has been successively trashed by President Obama, the European Union and the United Nations.

President Obama’s failure to honour the Bush-Congress commitments first emerged on 19 May 2011 - when he stated:

“We believe 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.”

Obama’s statement put him on a collision course with America’s position as laid out in the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had declared before an international meeting of world leaders called by President Bush in Annapolis on 27 November 2007 — including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would resume on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Land swaps from Israel’s sovereign territory for any territory Israel retained in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was never mentioned or contemplated in the Bush-Congress Commitments or indeed the Bush-Quartet Roadmap.

Certainly Israel might decide to make land swaps if deemed to be in Israel’s national interest — but that was for Israel to decide — not for Obama or Bush to influence or impose.

Obama appeared to flip flop during his speech on 21 March 2013 at the Jerusalem International Convention Centre:

“I know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders — Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin — reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets.”

However those “credible proposals at Annapolis” had never suggested that the “1967 lines” and “land swaps” be the starting point for negotiations.

Yet Obama, the European Union and the United Nations persisted with these demands until the dying days of Obama’s Presidency — when America abstained — rather than veto - Security Council Resolution 2334 which expressed:

“grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,”

The Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments comprise the only mutually agreed two-state negotiating process.

President Trump and the Congress can ensure the survival of that process — though not necessarily a successful outcome of any negotiations to be conducted under that process - by reaffirming the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Trump and the Congress in so doing would be meeting Netanyahu’s expectations.

America’s restored reputation for keeping agreements made with its closest allies would resonate with Trump’s campaign promise to “Make America Great Again”.

Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American policy on Israel

By a vote of 342-80 Congress resolved on 5 January 2017:

“the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 undermined the long-standing position of the United States to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel, reversing decades of bipartisan agreement;”

Congress’s decision goes a long way to restoring America’s reputation and integrity.

Vice President-elect Pence has certainly signalled the incoming Trump Administration’s approval of such Congress action with the following tweet:

"Great to see strong bipartisan vote in Congress opposing recent UN resolution against our most cherished ally. America stands with Israel"

Congress now needs to rectify Obama’s abandonment of the written commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (“Commitments”).

Congress has a vested interest in seeing those Commitments restored - because it overwhelmingly approved Bush giving those Commitments to Israel by a massive vote of 502 to 12.

Among those voting to support those Commitments was Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator John Kerry — whilst not casting a vote in the Senate - made his position very clear to Moderator 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.

Subsequent decisions by both Clinton and Kerry respectively as Secretary of State played an active role in aiding and abetting Obama’s abandonment of the Bush Commitments - marking a shameful period in American history.

Bush gave his Commitments to Israel for the following stated reasons:

“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza,

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel,

3. thousands of rockets indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centres,

4. chaos in Sinai,

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties.

Clinton and Kerry should have resigned in protest at Obama abandoning the Bush Commitments.

Reaffirming those Commitments should be an immediate priority for Congress — which is clearly in no mood to allow Obama to do any further damage.

Congress has signalled it will not tolerate Obama or Kerry attempting to subvert American foreign policy on Israel at the forthcoming international conference in Paris on 15 January or in the Security Council in the last five days of Obama’s Presidency.

America can stand tall and proud. American commitments to Israel will be honoured once again.

Trump and Putin need Security Council Resolution to defeat Islamic State

[Published 8 December 2016]


The United States and Russia seem set to jointly confront their common enemy - Islamic State - once President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office on 20 January 2017.

This possibility emerged after a telephone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin following Trump’s stunning presidential victory on 8 November.

President Obama’s failure to co-operate with Putin for the last two years in seeking to degrade and destroy Islamic State has resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless civilian deaths and injuries and the internal and external displacement of millions of Syrians and Iraqis.

Islamic State has been confronted in Mosul - Iraq’s second largest city - for the last three months without Security Council authority by a US-led coalition airborne force supporting 100000 Iraqi and Kurdish infantry against an estimated 7000 Islamic State fighters. Some territorial gains have been made but little progress in ending the 30 month rampage by Islamic State and the spawning of many offshoots in at least 25 other countries.

Identified as a threat to world peace and security in a number of Security Council resolutions - the UN’s resolve to defeat the Islamic State has stopped short of authorising military action.

An eye witness account published on 7 December in the Wall Street Journal says it all:

“Yet ISIS hangs on. Is it because it concentrated its most seasoned personnel in Mosul proper? Is it because the remaining fighters have their backs to the wall and battle here with furious desperation? Or is it that the coalition — with the cold weather setting in, with the rain and low, cloudy skies interfering with airstrikes — is getting weary?

Whatever the explanation, I return home with a deep sense of unease. Between Al-Zohur and Al-Qadisiyyah, a handful of fanatics manages to hold off an Iraqi counterterrorism unit. A little to the west, in Mishraq, a single sniper holed up alone in a mosque stalls the coalition’s advance. One senses that the battle for Mosul, which began with a flourish, could bog down.

Is it possible that we might become resigned to the idea of a strange war in which 4,000 cornered fighters stop an ultra-powerful coalition? For the children of Mosul, held hostage and on the verge of famine, that possibility would be catastrophic. And, in the capitals of the West where populations already live in fear of the next terrorist attack, it would be an admission of weakness that could only embolden aspiring jihadists whose hearts beat to the rhythm of the supposedly great feats of their big brothers in the “caliphate” of Iraq and Syria.

The fire must be stamped out. And very soon. To bring this about, one looks to Barack Obama, who might prove willing to quicken the pace so as to end his second term with a victory for civilization over the pseudo-state that presently threatens every real state in the world.”

The chances of President Obama rising to the occasion seem very remote.

Regrettably the conflict is set to escalate unless Trump and Putin can agree on joint action to defeat the Islamic State.

Their first step should involve obtaining a Security Council Resolution under Articles 42 and 43 of the UN Charter authorising the use of military force and obliging all member States to contribute such forces and resources as are necessary to defeat the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

A Security Council Resolution is vital - if the mistakes of America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq are not to be repeated.

Whilst Russia and America continue to fiddle - Syria and Iraq bleed and burn.

It is time to start getting serious.

Obama, Clinton And Trump Must Affirm America's Crucial Commitments To Israel

[Published 19 October 2016]


President Obama is causing consternation and uncertainty in Israel because of his continuing refusal to make clear that America will veto any Security Council resolution attempting to impose a settlement of the Jewish-Arab conflict in former Palestine other than under the Roadmap of his predecessor George W. Bush.

The Roadmap - first envisioned on 24 June 2002 - was finally documented on 30 April 2003.

Bush made the following written commitment to Israel in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 — which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the American Congress by 502 votes to 12 in June 2004:

“First the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”

Bush’s reasons for giving this American commitment were stated in his letter:

“The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there.

We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace….

... The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Israel honoured its disengagement plan and withdrew from Gaza and part of the West Bank in August 2005.

The risks in doing so have been translated into reality with the indiscriminate firing of tens of thousands of rockets from Gaza into civilian population centres in Israel and ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza since 2005.

That Obama would seek to resile from this Bush Congress-endorsed American commitment to Israel is unthinkable and should be disavowed by him immediately.

Amazingly two Presidential debates have been held so far between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton where the word “Israel” has not been mentioned once.

Both Trump and Clinton have remained silent up till now on stating whether they would uphold this American commitment to Israel.

Clinton was among those Senators overwhelmingly endorsing America’s commitment by 95 votes to 3.

Clinton needs to publicly state that she will honour this commitment to Israel if elected President

Trump has so far failed to say whether he will do likewise — although his rival Marco Rubio pledged at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum:

“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”

Trump needs to follow suit.

The third Presidential debate also gives Trump the perfect opportunity to state his position if he is elected President.

Hopefully the moderator Chris Wallace will ask them both this crucial question — or they volunteer an answer themselves.

America’s reputation and trustworthiness for keeping its promises are on the line.

United Nations Must Militarily Confront Islamic State And al-Nusra

[Published 5 October 2016]


Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s assumption of the Presidency of the United Nations Security Council for October could have a lightning rod effect on the Security Council finally authorising military action against Islamic State and Al Nusra under article 42 of the UN Charter.

Both terrorist organisations have been the subject of many unanimous Security Council resolutions declaring them to be a threat to world peace and security — but all such resolutions have stopped short of authorising military action.

American-Russian relations are in a precarious and highly volatile situation today due to:

1.The collapse of the ceasefire in Syria negotiated between America and Russia,

2. America’s decision to call off further negotiations with Russia on reinstating the ceasefire

3. President Putin signing a decree suspending a Russia-US deal on plutonium disposal - blaming hostile US actions

4. America and Russia engaging in a vitriolic diplomatic war shaming each other for the humanitarian disaster in Aleppo as Russian-backed Government forces and American-backed rebel forces battle for supremacy at horrendous cost to the civilian population caught in the crossfire.

Churkin has been afforded a world stage to justify Russia’s actions in Syria during regular media conferences that will be held by him as President of the Security Council.

Churkin was quick to grab that opportunity on 4 October — as this official UN record reveals:

“He (Churkin) was not aware of plans for further discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Federation Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, and did not know the result of discussions between the two countries during the last few hours. The nature of their differences was overdramatized. He hoped cooperation on Syria could be resumed.

He could not accept unilateral steps such as grounding of airplanes.

Al-Nusrah had moved to Aleppo and was keeping the civilian population hostage. He wanted as close cooperation with the United States as possible in fighting Al-Nusrah. Had it not been for Russian involvement, [Islamic State] black flags could now be flying over Damascus. There were 3,500 fighters in eastern Aleppo, of which 2,000 were Al-Nusrah, based on Russian intelligence. The rest were scattered in different groups. ISIL was not there.”

White House spokesman — Josh Earnest - reportedly said US policy would continue to give priority to the fight against jihadi groups in Syria.

“With regard to US options, we obviously have been very focused on countering ISIL [Isis] and other extremist groups that are using the chaos in Syria as a safe haven to plot and carry out attacks,”

Both Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council in defeating Islamic State and al-Nusra.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November last:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Given the commonality of the positions of both America and Russia as reflected above — the possibility looms large that during Russia’s October presidency of the Security Council - Russia and America could co-sponsor a draft resolution to the Security Council authorising military action against Islamic State and al-Nusra.

October could indeed be make or break month for Syria.

Syrian Slaughterhouse Shames America - Undermines United Nations

[Published 29 September 2016]


The collapse of the Syrian ceasefire negotiated by Russia and America has led to bitter recriminations in the UN Security Council as each blames the other for the breakdown.

Civilians in Aleppo are paying the price.

Humanitarian partners in Eastern Aleppo have told Save the Children International:

“One hospital said that 43 per cent of the injured they treated yesterday were children, and the ambulance crew with Shafak, a Syrian NGO, said more than 50 per cent of the casualties they have picked up in the last 48 hours are children.

Doctors are working round the clock to try to save them, but children are dying on the floors of hospitals due to critical shortages of basic medicines and equipment, including ventilators, anaesthetics and antibiotics. Severe cases need to be transferred out of Eastern Aleppo for treatment, but all roads are blocked.”

Sonia Khush, Save the Children’s Syria Director, pleaded:

“The UN Security Council has a chance to right the wrong and prevent more suffering when it meets today in New York. They cannot leave the room until they agree an immediate ceasefire, with roads opened to allow us to bring desperately needed food, clean water and medical supplies in.

“The information they have provided paints a picture of unimaginable violence and suffering for children and their families”

The Security Council predictably could agree on nothing.

America had failed to positively respond to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s warning on 2 June 2015:

“The U.S.‘s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

“People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick”

US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf had quickly dismissed Lavrov’s message — telling reporters that:

”... we’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens.

“That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Syria’s civilian population meanwhile continued being murdered, injured and traumatised either by the Syrian Army, the American-backed rebel groups fighting to remove Assad or by Islamic State occupying huge chunks of Syria.

America again failed to respond to a further plea by Lavrov on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”

The eventual execution of a ceasefire agreement between Russia and America on 9 September 2016 only promised joint American-Russian co-operation to attack Islamic State and al-Nusrah without any United Nations imprimatur. This agreement is now dead in the water with the collapse of the ceasefire.

America’s recalcitrance has been shameful.

Obama must now put the resolution of the Syrian civil war on the backburner.

America and Russia need to stop trading barbs on the ceasefire fiasco and focus on resolving the common problem confronting the world in Syria — the defeat of Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

Co-sponsoring a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the United Nations Charter authorising United Nations military action against Islamic State will lock in all 193 member States.

Syria’s citizens can start to hope that Syria will ultimately become reunified once again

America’s reputation will be considerably enhanced — as will Russia’s which has been badly damaged in the last few years.

The United Nations will no longer be seen as a moral disgrace — but a moral place.

Islamic State and al-Nusrah Survive Whilst America and Russia Crash Dive

[Published 22 September 2016]


Botched airstrikes by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria have accidentally killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100 - leading Russia to making the accusation that the “White House is defending Islamic State”.

The boot was however on the other foot when America blamed Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

A very angry American Secretary of State – John Kerry – addressed the UN Security Council on 21 September:

“For weeks over the summer, experts from my government worked with our counterparts from Russia in good efforts to develop a plan that would take into account the lessons learned from the original cessation, and the key elements of that plan launched in Geneva two weeks ago include the renewal of a cessation of hostilities, excluding only Daesh [Islamic State – ed] and al-Nusrah.

Importantly, it included arrangements for the unfettered delivery – unfettered delivery – of humanitarian aid to people in Aleppo and elsewhere in the country, and it envisioned the possibility – providing humanitarian assistance was unimpeded and sustained, and provided there were at least seven days of consecutive adherence to the cessation – that the United States and Russia would begin to coordinate their efforts against Daesh [Islamic State] and al-Nusrah.

And I want to make it clear, under President Obama’s orders, all preparations were being made in order to achieve that cooperation in terms of our military and intelligence community and the work we would do. So we’re committed to that."

America and Russia had again put the cart before the horse – and these two tragic events have happened as a result.

Russia, America and their respective cohorts now need to get on with the job of first destroying their commonly agreed enemies - Islamic State and al- Nusrah – but only after first obtaining a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently of the UN by pursuing some joint co-ordinated action of their own.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

Obama and Putin should urgently co-sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces to defeat and remove Islamic State and al-Nusrah as a threat to international peace and security.

All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

America seems unable to understand that resolving this world threat to international peace and security in Syria must first happen before it becomes possible to start resolving the 5 year old civil war in Syria.

Meantime Islamic State and al-Nusrah survive – and the inhumane suffering in Syria continues.

Russia and America must use the United Nations Security Council for the purpose it was created – not as a debating forum to play the blame game.