Trump-Netanyahu Mapping Committee needs to deliver the map

 [Published 13 November 2020]

The threatened political demise of President Trump should provide the impetus for the joint Trump-Netanyahu Mapping Committee to publish its map delineating the areas of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to which Israeli sovereignty can be expanded under Trump’s Peace Plan released last January (Plan).

Trump made this intention clear when releasing his Plan:

“We will form a joint committee with Israel to convert the conceptual map into a more detailed and calibrated rendering so that recognition can be immediately achieved”

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman went further:

“The president got up and he made a speech. And he said there will be a committee and the committee will go through a process; the process will not last very long, but we want to go through a process.”

The Committee’s first meeting — held on February 24 — comprised:

• David Friedman, 
• Friedman's senior adviser Aryeh Lightstone, and 
• Scott Leith, director of Israeli and Palestinian affairs in the US National Security Council
• Israeli Tourism Minister Yariv Levin, 
• acting Prime Minister’s Office chief Ronen Peretz, and 
• National Security Adviser Meir Ben Shabbat.

Little has been heard of its progress since.

Trump would be following former Presidents who progressed their peace plans as fast and as far as they could before their four year terms of office ended:

• President Clinton brought together Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Camp David as late as December 2000 who failed to reach agreement on Clinton’s proposed two-state solution before he stood down as President on January 20, 2001

• President George Bush — whose 2002 Road Map and 2007 Annapolis process never came to fruition — attempted to solidify gains made under Annapolis with UNSC Resolution 1850 —approved on December 16, 2008 — before he left office on 20 January 2009.

• President Barack Obama discarded the Annapolis process for his own peace initiatives, which had come to nought in April 2014 when negotiations were broken off. With no hope of reversing this deadlock - Obama regrettably refused to veto UNSC Resolution 2334 on December 23, 2016 as he was preparing to leave the White House on January 20, 2017 — which proposed a two-state resolution based on the pre-1967 armistice lines

Trump still has until January 20, 2021 left in his present term to try and bring his Plan to fruition.

Trump — unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama — has been unable to get the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to negotiate with Israel on his Plan.

However Trump can still materially advance his Plan by:

releasing the Mapping Committee’s map showing the areas of Judea and Samaria where Israeli sovereignty can be applied and delineating the boundaries of a demilitarized Palestinian Arab State

procuring consent to that map by Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Bahrein and Sudan who have all normalized their relationships with Israel

getting other Arab states to normalize their relationships with Israel and agree to the Mapping Committee’s proposals

attempting to get the PLO to negotiate with Israel and

giving Israel the green light to apply sovereignty when it considers appropriate

Trump begun his presidency by visiting Saudi Arabia and pledging to bring peace to the Middle East. 

During his Presidency — Trump took significant steps to recognise Israel’s claim to 30% of Judea and Samaria by determining that:

• Israeli settlements located there were not inconsistent with international law
• the US would not distinguish between Israel and Judea and Samaria in its future dealings with Israel

Early release of the Mapping Committee’s map will ensure Trump’s momentum for peace continues full speed ahead until at least January 20, 2021 —  and beyond if re-elected for a second term.


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.

PLO and Hamas must hold elections or let their citizens emigrate

 [Published 22 September 2020]

The PLO’s continuing refusal to negotiate with Israel on President Trump’s Peace Plan — whilst also denouncing the peace treaties signed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain with Israel —sees West Bank and Gazan Arabs remaining captive to accepting these disastrous PLO decisions without any rights to vote or emigrate.

These disenfranchised, beleaguered and long-suffering populations have seen the PLO reject proposals for peace flowing from:

1. 1993 Oslo Accords,  

2. 2000 Camp David Summit,  

3. 2003 Bush Road Map,  

4. Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza 2005 

5. 2007 Annapolis Conference, 

6. 2014 Kerry negotiations and  

7. Trump’s 2020 deal of the century — reportedly endorsed by Qatar

Financial assistance to improve their miserable lives has been lost—including:

1. $750 million annually from direct American aid 

2. $360 million per annum in American aid to UNRWA  

3. America terminating its payment of 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget following UNESCO’s admission of the “State of Palestine” as a member contrary to American domestic law and in contravention of UNESCO’s own constitution 

4. $28.5 billion that would have flown from international donors at the Manama Conference held on June 25/26, 2019 if the Trump Peace Plan was implemented

The UAE voiced its support for the Manama Conference and what it hoped would be achieved:

“The UAE supports all international efforts aimed at supporting economic progress and increasing opportunities in the region, and alleviating the suffering of people in the region, particularly our brothers in Palestine… It (the Conference) aims to lift the Palestinian people out of misery and to enable them for a stable and prosperous future,”

Hamas and the PLO violently opposed and boycotted the Manama Conference.

Hamas — which turned Gaza into a hell hole following Israel’s unilateral disengagement in 2005 — had the gall to warn the Manama Conference Arab attendees:

“We warn Arab states against the malicious activities aimed to pave the way for normalisation with the Israeli occupation and involvement in the deal of the century,”

The UAE and Bahrain wisely rejected this advice at the White House last week.

PLO spokesman Saeb Erekat—expressed his opposition to the Manama Conference claiming:

“there will be no economic prosperity in Palestine without the end of the occupation.”

Tens of millions of desperate people have fled their birthplaces for economic reasons in recent years seeking to enter other countries illegally.

Policies espoused by both Hamas and the PLO in relation to Israel have wrought disaster:

1. Materially affecting West Bank and Gazan Arabs’ personal lives and

2. Wrecking hopes for peace and a brighter future for themselves and their families.

Many West Bank and Gazan Arabs would want to emigrate after Erekat’s depressing prediction —especially to Arab countries prepared to accept them legally.

Employment, economic prosperity and better lives tantalisingly beckon West Bank and Gazan Arabs in:

1. Saudi Arabia’s NEOM project—a planned US$500 billion mega city. 

The project includes a bridge spanning the Red Sea, connecting the proposed city to Africa.

Some 25,900 square kilometers — the size of Israel — has been allocated for the project — which will be close to the borders of Jordan and Egypt.

2. The planned relocation of the Egyptian Government offices from Cairo to a new $58 billion administrative capital city 45 km east of Cairo covering an area of 741 square km.

West Bank and Gazan Arabs — caught up in three decades of disastrous decisions and continuing internecine in-fighting between their corrupt governments — should be allowed to vote with their feet and move — with international financial assistance — to other countries willing to accept them.

The PLO and Hamas should be spurned world-wide until they let their citizens emigrate.


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

Saudi Arabia impeding Trump effort to end Arab-Jewish conflict

[Published 31 August 2020]

Saudi Arabia’s refusal to accept President Trump’s 2020 peace plan to replace the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API) was the decisive factor in Secretary of State Pompeo’s unsuccessful attempts to convince Sudan, Bahrain and Oman to follow the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and sign peace treaties with Israel.

Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah was the architect of the API which requires Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).

Sudan, Bahrain and Oman closed ranks behind Saudi Arabia — refusing to jettison a plan drawn up 18 years ago that has since been overtaken by the following two major events:

• The April 14, 2004 letter from President Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon —overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day.

Bush’s letter—given to back Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza - made it clear that America did not consider it realistic for Israel to have to comply with the API’s territorial demands:
“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.”

• The 2007 Annapolis International Conference convened by President Bush and attended by Russia, China, the European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Sudan, Oman, the UAE, another 7 Arab States and about another 30 non-Arab states.

Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced Israel’s readiness to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority ” 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.”

No mention was made of the API forming part of those renewed negotiations — nor could it be - since its total territorial withdrawal demands were undercut by the Bush Congress-endorsed letter.

Those Arab nations and entities — indeed all parties present at the Conference - failed to object or demur to the new territorial reality of partial Israeli withdrawal which the Bush letter had engendered.

The release of President Trump’s peace plan in January 2020 has built on President Bush’s 2004 letter - allocating sovereignty in about 30% of the West Bank to Israel with sovereignty in the remaining 70% to be negotiated between Israel and the PLO to enable the creation of a democratic Palestinian Arab state between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history.

Saudi Arabia’s insistence on Israel’s total territorial withdrawal stipulated by the API as the price to be paid for Saudi Arabia signing a peace treaty with Israel has been seemingly backed by Sudan,Bahrain and Oman to prolong the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

The Trump vision for peace is a plan that can end that conflict. It needs to be embraced by all who attended the Annapolis Conference — especially by Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Bahrain and Oman now joining the UAE as real trailblazers for peace.

Trump did not present his meticulously detailed deal of the century to see it rejected by the Arabs before its implementation was even attempted.

Changing Saudi Arabia’s mind can be expected as top Trump aides fly to the region this week.

Failure to do so could see Trump administering his proven shockwave therapy to jolt Sudan,Bahrain and Oman from backing Saudi Arabia’s continuing rejection of Trump’s plan.


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

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.

Trump should not pour US$6.5 billion into Gaza and West Bank

[Published 24 June 2019]

President Trump should not allow the euphoria that swept the world following the 27 November 2007 Annapolis Conference to infect the Manama Conference being jointly hosted by himself and Bahrain on 25-26 June.

Yet his just released 40 page document “Peace to Prosperity” threatens to do just this — offering US$6.5 billion in Grant and Equity Funding and Concessional Funding to carry out a variety of programs in the West Bank and Gaza including:

1. Starting Equity-Matching and Lending Facilities

2. Border Crossing Points Upgrade

3. Power Plant Upgrades

4. Tourism Lending Facility and Site Rehabilitation

5. New Palestinian University

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s closing remarks at Annapolis were brimming with hope:

“The conference began with the joint announcement by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas that they will begin negotiations to establish a Palestinian state and to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace with the goal of concluding an agreement by the end of the year 2008”

Under their Joint Understanding Olmert and Abbas committed:

“to immediately implement their respective obligations under the Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 (hereinafter, “the Roadmap”) and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the Roadmap”

Conference attendees included:

1. Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

2. Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas

3. President Bush - and representatives from:

4. Quartet members — United Nations, European Union and Russia

5. Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

6. Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen

7. 30 other States including Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom.

A follow-up Donors’ Conference was held in Paris on 17 December 2007. Delegations from 87 countries and international organisations pledged a total of US$7.4 billion to support Palestinian institution-building and economic recovery for the next three years. Of this amount, US$3.4 Billion was pledged for 2008. This amount included
“humanitarian assistance, which was essential to help relieve the daily lives of the Palestinian population, especially in Gaza.”

The International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza was held in Sharm El-Sheikh on 2 March 2009. Participants pledged approximately US$4.48 billion covering the next two years and committed to:

“start disbursing these pledges as quickly as possible in order to rapidly impact the daily lives of the Palestinians.”

Pouring US$12 billion into Gaza and the West Bank did not relieve or impact the daily lives of Gaza’s and West Bank’s Arab populations.

The promised “Permanent Two-State solution” and Roadmap are dead and buried.

Trump’s proposed US$6.5 billion spend will not improve the daily lives of these captive populations still being governed by their 2007 rulers — Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organisation — who remain divided and confrontational.

Rather Trump should use his US$6.5 billion to:

1. Fund new residential and infrastructure programs in neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and

2. Encourage the legal migration of West Bank and Gazan Arabs to such countries by offering them financial incentives to help them achieve prosperity and a better life for themselves and their families.

Manama Conference invitees will reportedly not include Israel.

Mahmud Abbas has refused to attend. Hamas has rejected the conference being held. Both want nothing to do with America.

The Manama Conference should not continue pouring billions of dollars into these bottomless pits of misery and despair ruled by groups who will:

1. not allow free elections and

2. never recognise Israel as the national home of the Jewish people

Manama 2019 should not repeat the mistakes of Annapolis, Paris and Sharm El-Sheikh 2007-2009.

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 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”.

Trump Must Confirm Bush-Congress Endorsed Commitments To Israel

[Published 10 November 2016]


Donald Trump’s stunning Presidential victory - coupled with the Republican Party retaining control of the Congress - presents Trump with the opportunity to restore America’s tarnished reputation and integrity by affirming he will honour the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed by the then Congress by 502 votes to 12.

Those Bush-Congress commitments were seriously undermined by President Obama and his two Secretaries of State - Hillary Clinton and John Kerry - just one of many American disastrous policy failures in the Middle East during Obama’s term of office.

The Bush-Congress Commitments were crucial to:

1. Israel’s unilateral, unconditional and complete disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and

2.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.”

Israel has expressed concern that President Obama and current Secretary of State John Kerry might be planning to further undercut the following Bush Commitment at the United Nations or in the international arena during the period leading up to Trump and the new Congress being installed into power on 20 January 2017.

“... 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”

Obama and Kerry have not leapt to defend Israel’s refusal to take part in an international conference currently being planned by France in December - designed to depart from the clear negotiating guidelines laid down in the Bush Roadmap and Bush’s 2004 letter - as subsequently clarified at the Annapolis Conference.

Obama has remained mum on using America’s power of veto at the the UN Security Council to resist any efforts to depart from the terms of the Bush Roadmap or substitute some different negotiating process outside the Roadmap and the Bush-Congress endorsed commitments.

President-elect Trump made his views clearly known on America upholding commitments to its allies during the election campaign:

”... 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.”

Senator Marco Rubio - who unsuccessfully challenged Trump for Republican Party Presidential nominee but who has now been reelected to the Senate for a further term by a large majority - pledged during that campaign:

“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.

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.”

Moral clarity demands that Trump immediately inform Obama that no action should be undertaken by Obama between now and January that would in any way depart from or undermine the commitments made by former President George Bush and the Congress to Israel in 2004.

Trump also needs to unequivocally state that his Administration intends to fully uphold those Bush-Congress commitments.

Draining the swamp and making America great again will be given a huge impetus if Trump makes these policy declarations without obfuscation or delay.

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 - 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 - 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 - Historical Amnesia Causes Kerry's Downfall

[Published 13 April 2014]


John Kerry was well on the way to becoming another impotent and failed Secretary of State in November last year - as predicted in my article “Palestine - Kerry Destined For Political Scrapheap”:

“Historical amnesia - Kerry-style - has been - and apparently still is - a potent factor in failed American attempts to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Such ignorance has clouded the thinking of many former well - intentioned Secretaries of State - who became ticking time bombs destined to end up on the political scrap heap because they tried to undo what was internationally guaranteed in former Palestine ninety years ago.”

Kerry—like previous Secretaries of State before him - made the same fatal error of ignoring the PLO’s refusal to accept decisions taken in the international arena between 1920 - 1922 and since then - believing the PLO could be appeased into changing its mind.

Since its inception in 1964 the PLO has never been prepared to recognise the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country as laid down in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The current Kerry negotiations were being conducted pursuant to the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap - as amplified at Annapolis in 2007

However the Roadmap itself was fatally flawed in its objective of seeking to create a second Arab state in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - for two basic reasons:

1. Such a State had already been rejected in 1937, 1947 and 2000/2001 by the Arabs - and Kerry’s hope there might be a change of heart in 2014 was clearly dispelled by the terms of the PLO Charter.

2. A 19 year window of opportunity had been available to create such a state with the simple stroke of an Arab League pen in the entire West Bank and Gaza at any time between 1948-1967 - yet no attempt had been made to do so.

Kerry was no doubt sincere in his desire to end the 130 years old conflict - but so were those other Secretaries of State who preceded him and got nowhere because they pandered to the PLO - which has continued to maintain that every international decision since 1920 to the present is null and void.

Kerry’s mission impossible not unsurprisingly turned out to be an ignominious diplomatic failure.

Kerry’s political redemption will now depend on the release of his long awaited draft framework agreement for peace - promised by Kerry but postponed on at least three occasions due to Kerry’s inability to procure agreement to its terms from Israel and the PLO.

Did Kerry’s draft framework agreement encompass the following conditions enunciated by President Bush in his letter to Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 - as overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress:

1. The United States reiterates 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.

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

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

Kerry’s imposed code of silence on anyone but Kerry making announcements on the progress of the negotiations can only lead one to speculate on whether these five crucial commitments were included in Kerry’s framework agreement

Reports that Netanyahu was prepared to reluctantly sign the framework agreement indicate that some - but not all - of the above conditions were incorporated in Kerry’s framework agreement - as would Abbas’s reported refusal to sign the last draft under any circumstances.

Trying to tip toe around these American commitments to Israel would certainly have complicated the negotiations - and Israel’s probable insistence that they all be included would surely have created insurmountable problems for Kerry in persuading the PLO to sign.

Kerry needs to come clean and put all the drafts of his framework agreement and the objections raised by Israel and the PLO into the public arena.

Failure to do so will leave Kerry under a diplomatic cloud and open to the claim that he failed to honour written commitments made by President Bush and Congress to Israel in exchange for Israel agreeing to unilaterally disengage from Gaza.

If Kerry has indeed not followed the terms of the Bush 2004 letter in pursuing these current negotiations - then irreparable damage to his diplomatic reputation will become a lasting legacy from which he will find it difficult to recover.

Another repeat of historical amnesia will surely consign Kerry to diplomatic oblivion.

Palestine - Obama Lacks Understanding And Vision

[Published 9 March 2014]


President Obama’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on 2 March exposed the President as a leader lacking in understanding and vision - bound to a 20 years old negotiating process that has proved an abject failure and will continue to do so until Obama finally declares it dead and buried.

The President still clings to the vain hope that the framework agreement for peace being drafted by Secretary of State Kerry will be accepted by Israel and the PLO – allowing the long drawn out negotiating processes established under the Oslo Accords, Bush Roadmap and Annapolis to continue until a peace agreement is executed between Israel and the PLO - matching those signed by Israel with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994

The interview exposed Obama’s flawed knowledge concerning the following crucial issues that are critical to properly understanding the conflict and positing its possible resolution:

1. The President claimed that the conflict had gone on “for decades” – rather than for the last 130 years –indicating the President is ignoring earlier international decisions made on Palestine including the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, the League of Nations in 1922, the Treaty of Lausanne 1923, the Peel Commission in 1937, the British White Paper 1939, the United Nations in 1945 and 1947, and the unification of Judea and Samaria with Transjordan in 1950 following the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies in 1948.

2. The President spoke of the “Palestinian territories” – rather than the “disputed territories” - where internationally recognized sovereignty has remain undetermined since 1948.

3. The President referred to an existing “Palestinian Authority” - which had ceased to exist on 3 January 2013.

The President agreed with this claim by Goldberg:

“It’s been the official position of the United States for decades that settlements are illegitimate”

Elliott Abrams – Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations -dismisses this urban myth:

“The U.S. position has fluctuated over time. In the Reagan years, the United States said the settlements were “not illegal.” The Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations avoided the legal arguments but criticized the settlements frequently. President George W. Bush called the larger settlement blocs ”new realities on the ground” that would have to be reflected in peace negotiations.

More recently, the official U.S. attitude has been more critical. In 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling the settlements “illegal” but former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice then denounced “the folly and illegitimacy” of continued Israeli settlement activity. “The United States of America views all of the settlements as illegitimate,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in August 2013.”

Who is feeding the President with misleading and false information to justify these comments to Goldberg?

The President’s lack of vision became obviously apparent with his following comment:

“I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario.”

Amazingly - with the State Department evidently unable to present Obama with any credible scenarios in the event of the collapse of the “two-state solution” - President Obama then challenged Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu to come up with a plausible alternative:

“If he [Netanyahu] does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Netanyahu had articulated an alternative approach at the United Nations on 11 December 1984 – one which apparently has gone missing from the State Department’s extensive archival records:

“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.”

Netanyahu’s recounting of history, geography and demography present at least two credible – and plausible – scenarios for President Obama to consider:

1. Reunifying the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank (Areas “A” and “B” designated under the Oslo Accords) with Jordan – as existed between 1950-1967
2. Direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine - to redraw the existing international boundary between their respective States.

Jordan’s King Abdullah needs to step up to the plate – and Obama must not let him refuse to do so.

President Obama – presently sinking in murky political quicksand – can still be saved by grabbing Netanyahu's 1984 lifeline with both hands.

Palestine - Kerry Confronts Ghosts In State Of Confusion

[Published 17 February 2014]

The semantic circus that first created a people known as the “Palestinians” in 1964 - who now claim an entitlement to their own independent State in ” the occupied Palestinian Territories” - reached absurd heights with the following bizarre news item this week:

“The Israeli authorities have blocked 70 patients from Gaza from entering Israel to receive medical treatment because their transfer documents were marked “State of Palestine,” officials told AFP on Wednesday

Until recently, official stationery has used the term “Palestinian territories.”

But the logo was changed in mid-December, a year after the Palestinians won recognition as a UN observer state, despite fierce Israeli opposition.”

This “War of the Letterheads” adds a new dimension to the conflict between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The “State of Palestine” was admitted as a member State of UNESCO on 31 October 2011 by a vote of 107/14 and as a non-observer State at the United Nations (UN) on 29 November 2012 by a vote of 138/9.

Those States voting in favour ignored the legal requirements of article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933 which declares:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states”

Those States dissenting or abstaining took the view that any State of Palestine to be created for the first time ever in recorded history could only arise as a result of negotiations conducted under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2003 Bush Roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis conference between the designated parties - Israel and the Palestinian Authority - (“the agreed negotiating framework”)

John V Whitbeck - an international lawyer and advisor to the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel - had flagged the likelihood of this latest War of the Letterheads in an article written in the Cyprus Mail on 13 January 2013.

Whitbeck revealed that the Palestinian Authority “had been absorbed and replaced by the “State of Palestine” in a decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013 and signed by him acting in his capacities as president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO.

Whitbeck’s confirmation of the demise of the “Palestinian Authority” with the newly declared “State of Palestine” should surely have signalled the end of further negotiations under the agreed negotiating framework - specifically designed to achieve the birth of that very State.

How could further negotiations on creating the State of Palestine be necessary once that State had been declared by the party demanding its creation?

To make sure the message was fully understood - Whitbeck stated unequivocally:

“The Trojan horse called the “Palestinian Authority” in accordance with the Oslo interim agreements and the “Palestinian National Authority” by Palestinians, having served its purpose by introducing the institutions of the State of Palestine on the soil of Palestine, has now ceased to exist.”

Whitbeck left no room for doubt:

“In his correspondence, Yasser Arafat used to list all three of his titles under his signature - president of the State of Palestine, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and president of the Palestinian National Authority (in that order of precedence). It is both legally and politically noteworthy that, in signing this decree, Mahmoud Abbas has listed only the first two titles… There is no further need for a Palestinian leader to be three-headed or three-hatted.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US State Department apparently missed - or deliberately ignored - the demise of the Palestinian Authority.

A meeting held by Kerry on 4 January 2014 is headlined on the State Department web site:

“Remarks with lead negotiator for the Palestinian Authority Saeb Erekat after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas”

Kerry obviously believes he has been involved in negotiations under the agreed negotiating framework with a Palestinian Authority President, a Palestinian Authority negotiator and a Palestinian Authority - that clearly no longer exist.

The War of the Letterheads should serve as a clear signal to Kerry that he is negotiating with ghosts - not a legally constituted and accountable entity under the agreed negotiating framework.

Kerry - in preparing his own eagerly awaited framework agreement - needs to take notice of this fundamental change wrought by Abbas - who no longer wears a hat or name tag designated “Palestinian Authority”.

If Abbas is to be believed - there are now three existing states in former Palestine - Israel, Jordan and Palestine - who need to define their final borders and resolve any other contentious issues they might want to raise.

Erekat himself added another semantic whopper recently with this classic statement:

“I am the son of Jericho. I am 10,000 years old … I am the proud son of the Netufians and the Canaanites. I’ve been there for 5,500 years before Joshua Bin Nun came and burned my hometown Jericho. I’m not going to change my narrative,”

Yet under the PLO charter:

“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

Shock horror - Erekat and all other descendants of the non-Arab Netufians and Canaanites aren’t “Palestinians”.

Kerry needs to sort out this confusing claptrap if he wants to make any headway in resolving a conflict that keeps being continually punctuated by Arab fiction on Arab fiction.

Palestine: Collective Amnesia Spells Collective Disaster

[Published 3 February 2014]


US Secretary of State John Kerry has missed his own deadline of 31 January by not releasing his eagerly anticipated framework agreement designed to help end the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict. It will now be released by 21 February according to US Envoy Martin Indyk.

Whilst speculation is rife as to its contents - it appears certain that there will be one crucial omission—that any Palestinian State created must be democratic — which could doom any further negotiations.

A democratic Palestinian state finds its genesis in the 2003 Bush Roadmap—the foundation which underpins the current negotiations. The Roadmap stated:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved ... through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established,

“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours.”

The full text of the Roadmap was presented to Palestinian and Israeli leaders by the Quartet mediators - the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia—indicating strong international support for a democratic Palestinian State as the end game to success.

By 27 November 2007—when negotiations under the Bush Road Map were non-existent—President Bush assembled the following star-studded list in Annapolis representing their designated countries and organisations to announce that negotiations were set to commence in December:

PARTIES
1. Israel: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
2. Palestinian Authority: President Mahmud Abbas

QUARTET
3. United States: President George W. Bush
4. EU Commission Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy: Benita Ferrero-Waldner
5. EU High Rep High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary General of the Council of the European: Union Javier Solana
6. EU President (Portugal) Minister of State and of Foreign Affairs: Luis Amado
7. Russia: Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey V. Lavrov
8. UNSYG: Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
9. Quartet Representative Middle East Envoy: Tony Blair

ARAB LEAGUE FOLLOW UP COMMITTEE
10. Algeria Minister of State for Foreign Affairs: Mourad Medelci
11. Bahrain: Minister of Foreign Affairs Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa
12. Egypt: Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Aboul Gheit
13 .Jordan: Minister of Foreign Affairs Salaheddin Al-Bashir
14. Lebanon: Minister of Culture Tarek Mitri
15. Morocco: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Taieb Fassi Fihri
16. Qatar: Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Ahmed bin Abdulla Al-Mahmoud
17. Saudi Arabia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Saud Al-Faisal
18. Sudan: Ambassador John Ukec
19. Syria: Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Fayssal Mekdad
20. Tunisia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdelwahab Abdallah
21. Yemen: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Expatriate Affairs Abu Bakr al-Qirbi
22. Arab League SYG: Secretary General Amre Moussa

G-8, P-5:
23. Canada Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier
24. China: Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi
25. France: Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner
26. Germany: Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier
27. Italy: Vice President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs Massimo D’Alema
28. Japan: Special Envoy for the Middle East Tatsuo Arima
29. United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs David Miliband

OTHERS
30. Austria: Minister of Foreign Affairs Ursula Plassnik
31. Brazil: Minister of State for External Relations Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim
32. Denmark: Minister for Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller
33. Greece: Minister of Foreign Affairs Dora Bakoyannis
34. India: Minister of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences Shri Kapil Sibal
35. Indonesia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Noer Hassan Wirajuda
36. Malaysia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar
37. Mauritania: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Mohamed Saleck Ould Mohamed Lemine
38. Mexico: Under Secretary Lourdes Aranda
39. Netherlands: Minister for European Affairs Frans Timmermans
40. Norway: Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Store
41: OIC Secretary General Ekemelddin Ihsanoglu
42. Oman: Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdulla
43. Pakistan: Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan
44. Poland: Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski
45. Senegal: Senior Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Cheikh Tidiane Gadio
46. Slovenia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Dimitrij Rupel
47. South Africa: Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma
48. Spain: Minister of Foreign Affairs Miguel Angel Moratinos
49. Sweden: Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt
50. Turkey: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chief EU Negotiator Ali Babacan
51. United Arab Emirates: Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdulla bin Zayed Al Nahayan
52: Vatican (Holy See): Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Special Envoy Pietro Parolin

OBSERVERS
53. IMF: Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn
54: World Bank: President Robert Zoellick

They all heard President Bush state the following:

“We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation—a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security…

... Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is key to realizing their own aspirations—and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state…

No democratic State — no solution.

By 19 May 2011 Bush’s successor - President Obama - had started to vacillate:

“The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

If Obama and the Annapolis participants have conveniently forgotten that creating a “democratic Palestinian State” is fundamental to the conflict being ended — Ithen they only have themselves to blame for the chaos and violence that will surely follow should Israel refuse to negotiate within a Kerry framework agreement that omits any reference to a democratic Palestinian State.

International treachery and duplicity would surely have triumphed over international diplomacy.

Palestine - Sharon's Legacy Haunts Obama And Kerry

[Published 27 January 2013]


President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have a lot on their minds as they grapple with conflicts and political issues involving countries like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan - which no doubt must be causing massive overloading of their respective memory banks.

Yet this would be a lame excuse for them forgetting about - or seeking to minimize - the existence and crucial importance of the letters exchanged on 14 April 2004 between President Bush and Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ariel Sharon - who died recently after languishing in a coma for seven years

These letters enabled courageous and highly dangerous decisions being taken by Sharon to kick start President Bush’s stalled 2003 Road Map - whose goal had been to end the Jewish-Arab conflict by 2005.

President Bush’s letter provided the catalyst - and the political justification - for Israel unilaterally evacuating the entire Jewish population of 8000 from Gaza and withdrawing Israel’s army totally from there - without any preconditions or undertakings being sought from the Palestinian Authority.

The Presidential letter set out the framework that Bush would support in negotiations between Israel and the PLO - conditions that Obama cannot possibly now discard as Kerry finalizes his own framework agreement.

President Bush’s letter clearly - and unambiguously - assured Sharon that;

1. The borders of any Palestinian Arab State would not encompass the entire West Bank despite successive Arab leaders having demanded this outcome for the previous 37 years,

2. Jewish towns and villages in the West Bank would be incorporated into the borders of Israel

3. The Arabs would have to forego their demand to be given the right to allow millions of Arabs to emigrate to Israel and

4. Israel’s existence as a Jewish State would be non-negotiable

Bush’s commitments to Sharon were approved - almost unanimously - by both the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

It didn’t take too long however for these Congress-endorsed commitments to be downplayed by Bush and his advisors.

In an editorial - published on 14 May 2008 - former Jerusalem Post editor - David Horovitz - revealed the extent of the American resistance to remaining bound by President Bush’s 2004 letter following a meeting with Bush in the White House with a group of Israeli journalists:

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, has been known to minimise 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, which was issued at a time when Sharon was seeking to bolster support for the pullout from Gaza.

And in answering my question, Bush did not at first even realise 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.”

This was far worse and more sinister than mere memory loss. An attempt was being made - as early as 2008 - to renege on America’s clear and unequivocal commitments given to Israel as the price for Israel’s total evacuation of Gaza.

Israel had already paid a high price relying on Bush’s Congress-endorsed letter.

Gaza had become a de facto terrorist State - with Hamas firmly entrenched as the governing authority.

Israel had - since its evacuation of Gaza in 2005 - been subjected to a sustained barrage 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.

Israel’s Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - who succeeded Sharon - had neither forgotten nor overlooked the critical significance of President Bush’s letter when agreeing to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in 2007.

At the international conference held in Annapolis in November 2007 to announce a breakthrough in the resumption of those negotiations - Olmert told Bush and the world leaders gathered there that:

“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.”

The subsequent failure of those negotiations can be directly attributed to the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to countenance the Bush commitments made to Sharon.

As Obama gets ready to approve Kerry’s framework agreement - he and Kerry need to have their memory banks updated to remind them of the importance of honouring Bush’s commitments.

Any attempt by Obama and Kerry to resile from or circumvent Bush’s Congress-endorsed commitments to Sharon will torpedo any prospects for success in the current negotiations - leaving Obama and Kerry with no one but themselves to blame for bringing the current negotiations to an ignominious end.

The idea that any American President would not consider himself bound by the written commitments of a former President - as endorsed by Congress - would undermine America’s very democratic foundations.

Disavowing the Bush commitments would prejudice the integrity of American diplomacy world wide - ensuring any political decisions by the current administration would not be worth the paper they are written on.

Sharon has left behind a bitter pill - which Obama and Kerry must reluctantly swallow.

Congress will be there to make sure they do.

Palestine - Obama Utters The Magic Word - "Annapolis"

[Published 25 March 2013]


President Obama’s use of just one word - “Annapolis” - stands out among the thousands he uttered during his three day visit to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman.

His highly significant use of this keyword on 21 March at the Jerusalem International Convention Centre constituted a diplomatic milestone in America’s quest to end the long running Jewish-Arab conflict.

"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."

What were the “credible proposals” made to the Palestinians at Annapolis?

Why was the mention of “Annapolis” thought far more important to include in President Obama’ speech - rather than “Camp David” and the attempts to broker a two-state solution between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat by President Clinton in 2000?

The answer is to be found in the following statement made by Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - at the international conference convened by President Bush on 27 November 2007 in Annapolis in the presence of some 40 world leaders including many from the Arab world:

"The (resumption of) 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.

On conclusion of the negotiations, I believe that we will be able to reach an agreement which will fulfill the vision of President Bush: two states for two peoples.

A peace-seeking, viable, strong, democratic and terror-free Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

A Jewish, democratic State of Israel, living in security and free from the threat of terror – the national home of the Jewish people."

President Obama’s Jerusalem speech is the closest he has come to publicly acknowledging that the following commitments laid out in President Bush’s letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 constitute “credible proposals” to end the Jewish-Arab conflict:

1. 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.

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

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

Yet President Obama has appeared to have given up one fundamental requirement of President Bush’s Road Map - that any Palestinian Arab state that emerges as part of the two-state solution must be “democratic”

In a carefully worded and crafted speech that spoke in glowing terms of Israel’s vibrant democracy - President Obama was noticeably silent in failing to endorse the same outcome as being necessary for the successful implementation and conclusion of President Bush’s two-state solution.

To this extent President Obama seems to have rejected as unnecessary the express Annapolis commitment made by Prime Minister Olmert to achieve one of President Bush’s most cherished objectives.

The PLO will no doubt see this concession by President Obama as a plus - since it appears to be the inevitable consequence of Hamas and the PLO being unable to end their six years long internecine struggle that has denied the Palestinian Arabs having any say in determining their own future.

America is apparently set on pressuring Israel to give up this demand as a condition of resolving the two-state solution.

Yet in another respect President Obama’s following statement has come down firmly in favour of the commitment made by President Bush in his letter to Prime Minister Sharon - endorsed in specific terms by Prime Minister Olmert at Annapolis - that the Arab world - and Jew-haters around the world - recognize that the Jewish people are entitled to a Jewish state in their ancient, historic and biblically recognized homeland.

"For the Jewish people, the journey to the promise of the State of Israel wound through countless generations. It involved centuries of suffering and exile, prejudice, pogroms and even genocide. Through it all, the Jewish people sustained their unique identity and traditions, as well as a longing to return home. And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts. of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea – to be a free people in your homeland.

That is why I believe that Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own. And over the last 65 years, when Israel has been at its best, Israelis have demonstrated that responsibility does not end when you reach the promised land, it only begins."

President Obama reinforced that message with an unequivocal one liner:

"Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state."

The steadfast refusal by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world at large to acknowledge this simple proposition has been the major impediment to peace ever since its possibility was first suggested in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and confirmed in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - then actually proposed in 1937 by the Peel Commission and endorsed by the United Nations in 1947.

Are the Palestinian Arabs now seriously ready to take up President Obama’s challenge to resolve their conflict with the Jews in accordance with the credible proposals made by Israel at Annapolis in 2007 - tempered with just one important concession by President Obama dispensing with the need for any agreement on the question of democracy?

That is the message President Obama has sent to President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad - persons whom President Obama personally identified as true partners for Israel in achieving the two-state solution during his Jerusalem speech.

I hope we will not have to wait too long for their answer.

Palestine - Kerry confronts ghosts in state of confusion

[Published 16 February 2014 - Jerusalem Post]


The semantic circus that first created a people known as the Palestinians in 1964 - who now claim an entitlement to their own independent state in " the occupied Palestinian Territories" - reached absurd heights with the following bizarre news item this week:

"The Israeli authorities have blocked 70 patients from Gaza from entering Israel to receive medical treatment because their transfer documents were marked “State of Palestine,” officials told AFP on Wednesday.

Until recently, official stationery has used the term “Palestinian territories.”

But the logo was changed in mid-December, a year after the Palestinians won recognition as a UN observer state, despite fierce Israeli opposition."

This "War of the Letterheads" adds a new dimension to the conflict between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The "State of Palestine" was admitted as a member State of UNESCO on 31 October 2011 by a vote of 107/14 and as a non-observer State at the United Nations (UN) on 29 November 2012 by a vote of 138/9.

Those States voting in favor ignored the legal requirements of article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933 which declares:

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states"

Those states dissenting or abstaining took the view that any State of Palestine to be created for the first time ever in recorded history could only arise as a result of negotiations conducted under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2003 Bush Roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis conference between the designated parties - Israel and the Palestinian Authority - ("the agreed negotiating framework").

John V Whitbeck - an international lawyer and adviser to the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel - had flagged the likelihood of this latest War of the Letterheads in an article written in the Cyprus Mail on January 13, 2013.

Whitbeck revealed that the Palestinian Authority “had been absorbed and replaced by the "State of Palestine” in a decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas on January 3, 2013 and signed by him acting in his capacities as president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO.

Whitbeck’s confirmation of the demise of the "Palestinian Authority" with the newly declared "State of Palestine" should surely have signalled the end of further negotiations under the agreed negotiating framework - specifically designed to achieve the birth of that very state.

For the full article read:

http://www.jpost.com/Experts/Palestine-Kerry-confronts-ghosts-in-state-of-confusion-341548?prmusr=Vo0puH%2bGQrNgpvj0hOn9OF5voApLGPfhXKAJibhCAuxInellBLluxo2r9tGo358l