Trump-Netanyahu legacy eclipses rancour over phone call to Biden

 

Former US President Trump’s unforgiving anger with former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over Netanyahu’s congratulatory call to President Biden following Biden’s election win in November 2020—must not be allowed to detract from or bury Trump’s self-styled Deal of The Century (“Vision”) released on 28 January 2020.

Trump stated at that time—with Netanyahu standing next to him in the White House:

“This vision for peace is fundamentally different from past proposals. In the past, even the most well-intentioned plans were light on factual details and heavy on conceptual frameworks. By contrast, our plan is 80 pages and is the most detailed proposal ever put forward by far. As I have seen throughout my long career as a deal-maker, complex problems require nuanced, fact-based remedies. That is why our proposal provides precise technical solutions to make Israelis, Palestinians, and the region safer and much more prosperous. My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security.”

Trump continued:

“Today Israel has taken a giant step toward peace. Yesterday Prime Minister Netanyahu informed me that he is willing to endorse the vision as the basis for direct negotiations…

... This is the first time Israel has authorized the release of a conceptual map illustrating the territorial compromises it’s willing to make for the cause of peace and they’ve gone a long way. This is an unprecedented and highly significant development. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for having the courage to take this bold step forward…

... Under this vision, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s undivided, very important, undivided capital”

Netanyahu’s concession was indeed historic.

The conceptual map (see below) shows the areas in which Israel was prepared to allow the creation of an additional Arab state in former Palestine—in addition to Jordan—for the first time ever in recorded history.

Netanyahu’s concession required him to put aside his own personal view held since at least 1978 which he expressed on December 11, 1984 to the United Nations General Assembly: 

“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.”

Trump’s Vision was—however—unequivocally rejected by the:

• Arab League

• Palestine Liberation Organisation President Mahmoud Abbas declaring the day it was released: 

 “After the nonsense that we heard today we say a thousand no’s to the Deal of The Century,” 

Biden — and the United Nations — need to endorse Trump’s Vision and persuade Abbas to discard his rejectionist stance by commencing negotiations with Israel on Trump’s conceptual map — the key to ending the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Trump and Netanyahu’s legacy in achieving agreement on Trump’s historic milestone will always eclipse any continuing rancour between Trump and Netanyahu over Netanyahu’s phone call to Biden. 

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.

Trump Mapping Committee needs to break its deafening silence

[Published 12 August 2020]

Peace between Jews and Arabs after 100 years of unresolved conflict - promised with President Trump’s release of his deal of the century on 28 January - has stalled - with the continuing failure to produce a map translating Trump’s conceptual plan into an attainable reality.

Trump’s plan (See map below) proposed:

• Israeli sovereignty in about 30% of Judea and Samaria (West Bank)
• The remaining 70% plus Gaza providing “a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security”

Incredibly Trump announced:

“My vision presents a “win-win” opportunity for both sides, Today, Israel is taking a giant step toward peace. Yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu informed me that he is willing to endorse the vision as the basis for direct negotiations—and, I will say, the General [Gantz] also endorsed, and very strongly—with the Palestinians. A historic breakthrough. 

This is the first time Israel has authorized the release of a conceptual map, illustrating the territorial compromises it’s willing to make for the cause of peace. And they’ve gone a long way. This is an unprecedented and highly significant development.”

Trump continued:

“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. We will also work to create a contiguous territory within the future Palestinian State for when the conditions for statehood are met, including the firm rejection of terrorism.” [Bolding by author]

This joint committee began its work just two weeks later in February - but since then little has been heard from the current Committee:

• Israeli representatives - Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin (Likud), National Security Adviser Meir Ben Shabbat, Prime Minister’s Office director Ronen Peretz, and Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer on the Israeli side; and
• US representatives - Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, his adviser Aryeh Lightstone, and the US National Security Council’s Israel and Palestinian affairs director Scott Leith.

Leith had been unable to join the Committee in Israel because of Covid 19 until he visited Israel in June with Avi Berkowitz, US Special Representative for International Negotiations.

Complications and differences could be holding up the plan’s finalisation such as those detailed in June by Lior Schillat – the director of the Jerusalem Institute of Policy Research:

“When we say mapping, it isn’t just opening up Google Maps. It means applying complex geographic information system layers that display land ownership and land use. It’s true that there aren’t any new mountains that have suddenly appeared in [the northern West Bank], but there are building plans in progress that need to be accounted for. The territory is extremely complex and dynamic. 

The decisions being made today are very politically charged, and therefore the people involved are from the political echelon. However, this may be why they’re having a hard time completing the task in the amount of time [by July, 1].”

Ambassador Friedman had optimistically predicted in February:

“We’re going to go through a mapping process to convert a map which is drawn of more than a million to one into something which really shows on the ground how the territory will be put together 

It’s not unduly difficult, but it’s also not simple, because there are a lot of judgment calls. We don’t want to do this piecemeal.

We want to do it once, holistically, in totality, and get it done right”

Failure to finalise a “detailed and calibrated map” after six months is disturbing.

The Committee needs to break its deafening silence to confirm that Trump’s vision is geographically achievable - not simply a shimmering mirage.

Another anti-Jewish textbook gets the publisher's thumbs down

[Published 21 January 2020]


The decision by Pearson Education Limited (Pearson) to withdraw Hilary Brash’s text book — The Middle East: Conflict, Crisis and Change, 1917- 2012 — comes after trenchant criticism by blogger David Collier.

Collier questioned — among many other criticisms — why two timelines did not mention the Holocaust and why references to massacres of Jewish communities had been branded as “clashes”.

Collier said:

“It is almost impossible for the untrained eye to pick apart fantasy from fiction.”

A spokesman for Pearson said:

“An independent review of the texts by an educational charity found no overall evidence of anti-Israel bias. It identified some areas where the balance of sources could be improved and we are updating the texts and offering existing customers the option of replacing them for free.

We always welcome feedback and are committed to creating engaging, accurate and objective content. We are the only awarding body that tackles this subject matter at both GCSE and international GCSE level. We do it as we think it is an important topic, even though it is likely to provoke emotive responses.”

Pearson is the UK’s largest organisation offering academic, vocational and work-based learning qualifications.

Brash’s book was a textbook for Pearson Edexcel General (GCSE) and International (iGCSE) Certificate of Secondary Education studies.

Last year, 2,341 students took the General unit on the conflict for GCSE and 1,509 for iGCSE.

Pearson’s decision follows McGraw Hill’s decision in 2016 to trash copies of its textbook Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World.

Catherine Mathis — a spokeswoman for McGraw-Hill — then explained the Company’s reasons for destroying the textbook — which contained four misleading and inaccurate maps of “Palestine”:

“As soon as we learned about the concerns with it, we placed sales of the book on hold and immediately initiated an academic review. The review determined that the map did not meet our academic standards. We have informed the authors and we are no longer selling the book. All existing inventory will be destroyed. We apologize and will refund payment to anyone who returns the book.”

McGraw-Hill’s action followed criticism received by “MSNBC Live” after earlier airing the same series of maps. Host Kate Snow and her then guest Middle East expert Martin Fletcher subsequently acknowledged that they realized after they went off the air that the maps were not factually accurate and regretted using them.

The worst source of false information on the Jewish-Arab conflict is the United Nations Study titled “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988” (“Study”) which has disseminated false information on the Arab-Jewish conflict since its first publication in 1978. The Study is published by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

Educational institutions and books regurgitating the Study’s false information include:

1. “politics.ie” – claiming to be one of Ireland’s leading politics and current affairs discussion websites

2. “Academia.edu” – a platform for academics to share research papers and claiming it attracts over 36 million unique visitors a month.

3. “iasexamportal.com” – which describes itself as “India’s Largest Online Community for IAS, UPSC, Civil Services Exam Aspirants.”

4. “UK essays” – which claims to use over 4,000 thoroughly vetted experts with the qualifications and experience to write you the best possible essay.

5. Handbook of Ethnic Conflict: International Perspectives - Dan Landis and Rosita D Albert

6. Youth Citizenship and the Politics of Belonging - Madeleine Arnot and Sharlene Swartz

7. Bridges Over Troubled Waters - Dahlia Moore and Salem Aweiss

False narratives constitute a real obstacle to achieving peace between Jews and Arabs.

European Union bites off more than it can chew in Judea and Samaria

[Published 19 November 2019]

France has set in train a diplomatic and politically-motivated semantic assault on Israel that could ultimately see the European Union biting off more than it can chew.

A press release noted that the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg on 12 November had found in favour of France’s determined effort to protect unwitting French consumers being possibly misled when they buy cheese, wine or other produce sold by Jews originating in Judea and Samaria:

“… the Grand Chamber of the Court ruled that foodstuffs originating in territories occupied by the State of Israel must bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from a locality or a group of localities constituting an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance.”

This decision lays down stringent labelling requirements for Jewish producers in Judea and Samaria to ensure their products were kosher enough to be sold into the European Union.

The sham that this would prevent consumers from believing such products were “Made in Israel” took on a far more sinister political resonance as the press release continued:

“as regards the issue whether the indication ‘Israeli settlement’ is mandatory, the Court first of all underlined that the settlements established in some of the territories occupied by the State of Israel are characterised by the fact that they give concrete expression to a policy of population transfer conducted by that State outside its territory, in violation of the rules of general international humanitarian law. The Court then held that the omission of that indication, with the result that only the territory of origin is indicated, might mislead consumers. Consumers have no way of knowing, in the absence of any information capable of enlightening them in that respect, that a foodstuff comes from a locality or a set of localities constituting a settlement established in one of those territories in breach of the rules of international humanitarian law. The Court noted that, under Regulation No 1169/2011, the provision of information to consumers must enable them to make informed choices, with regard not only to health, economic, environmental and social considerations, but also to ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law. The Court underlined in that respect that such considerations could influence consumers’ purchasing decisions”.

All this pompous gobbledygook being required for labelling the source of products made in territory disputed between Jews and Arabs for the last 100 years is deeply disturbing.

There is no appeal from this decision.

The European Union could be in a real political bind as a result.

The labelling requirements introduced by the European Union in 2011 and interpreted in 2015 has led it down this disastrous path promising only ridicule and contempt.

To be consistent and not be subjected to charges that it is deliberately targeting Jews and inciting Jew-hatred – the European Union needs to insist on similar stringent labelling requirements being immediately applied on goods originating from more than 150 disputed territories around the world.

Alternatively - the European Union could get itself out of this embarrassing labelling war and PR disaster by simply requiring goods originating from Israeli settlements to state “Product of Judea” or “Product of Samaria”

Judea and Samaria - the historic and geographic terms used for the disputed territories for the last 3000 years - were re-labelled the “The West Bank” by Jordan in 1950 - and enthusiastically embraced by the European Union.

The chickens from Judea and Samaria have come home to roost.

Truth in labelling by the feckless European Union is long overdue.

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

Release of Trump deal could break Israel elections deadlock

[Published 13 November 2019]

The release of President Trump’s long-awaited and eagerly-anticipated deal of the century could be just the catalyst required to persuade Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beitenu bloc of 8 members to join Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s bloc of 55 members to form Israel’s next Government.

Trump has previously announced that he would not present his plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict until a new Israeli government was formed – but Trump’s position could be dramatically altered as the current political uncertainty in Israel seems to be leading to a third election being called within the space of 12 months.

New Right chairwoman Ayelet Shaked has been trying in the past week - unsuccessfully so far - to create a situation that would bring Liberman’s bloc and Netanyahu’s bloc together to enable a new government to be sworn in.

Shaked has reportedly met with Liberman. Afterwards - she also met with United Torah Judaism chairman Yaakov Litzman and Degel Hatorah chairman Moshe Gafni. These meetings focused on a compromise on issues of religion and state - and especially the Draft Law requiring ultra-orthodox youth to do military service - which would allow the parties to sit together in government - as was the case throughout much of the term of the last-elected Government.

Both sides reportedly were willing to listen but found it too difficult to compromise. Liberman’s side is interested in recording an achievement on the Draft Law - while the ultra-orthodox seek to prevent the law from becoming too sharply-worded.

President Trump must be champing at the bit at the continuing failure of the major political parties in Israel – Likud and Blue and White – to form a Government of National Unity – that would have heralded the release of Trump’s peace proposals in September.

Trump would be equally confused by the fact that the Netanyahu and Liberman blocs have been unable to coalesce into Israel’s next Government - despite the fact that they garnered 2,238,400 votes against the centrist and left parties who could only manage to get 1,556,491 votes.

There are five compelling reasons for Trump to release his peace proposals within the next month – rather than wait for another Israeli election to be held in March or April 2020:

1. Trump could be involved in fighting impeachment proceedings in the Senate next year as the House Intelligence Committee controlled by the Democrats continues its campaign against him.

2. Trump will be in full election mode in March/April as he seeks re-election as President in November 2020

3. Trump needs as much time as he can possibly get to promote, fully explain and expand on his ideas aimed at convincing Jews and Arabs that it is time to bury the hatchet after 100 years of unending conflict. This could involve countless hours in meetings and negotiations with Arab and Israeli leaders.

4.A third Israeli election could result in another deadlocked result and indefinitely delay the release of Trump’s plans until after the 2020 US Presidential elections

5. Trump’s plan would focus on the need for Israel to get its act together and form a properly constituted Government to deal with and negotiate on Trump’s proposals.

The priority of trying to reach an historic agreement with their Arab neighbours would surely supersede the domestic political wheeling and dealing that has so far marked Israel’s inability to fashion a Government.

Any attack on Israel by its enemies could be another shock to jolt Israel out of its current electoral complacency.

The Israeli Government that would emerge could be either a National Unity Government or a Netanyahu–Liberman Government.

Either would be preferable to the current standoff and political uncertainty.

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

Burying the PLO and resurrecting Jordan in the West Bank

[Published 16 July 2019]

President Trump’s “deal of the century” — aimed at ending 100 years of conflict between Jews and Arabs over the territory once called “Palestine” — continues to flounder in the face of:

1. The PLO’s outright rejection of Trump’s deal—even before its details have been published

2.Jordan’s continuing refusal to agree to negotiate with Israel when the deal is released

Jordan comprises 78% of former Palestine and is the only sovereign Arab state to have ever occupied (albeit illegally) the West Bank — 4% of former Palestine — between 1948 and 1967.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed his own deal in 1992.

Sharon warned against granting autonomy to West Bank Arab‚ something that occurred in 1993 after Oslo Accord I was signed and 95% of the West Bank Arabs came under PLO administrative control:

“We must face a simple fact. Autonomy will inevitably lead to Palestinian statehood. The self-governing Authority will enjoy international recognition and command universal attention. Every self-respecting state will open a mission there.

Journalists will coo over keffiyeh-wrapped PLO murderers glowing with a romantic halo. The chairman of the Authority will sit in his office adorned with a wall to wall picture of another chairman, arch-murderer Yasser Arafat. And there will be a PLO flag in the front of the building.”

27 years later autonomy has not translated into statehood — due to the PLO’s racist policy of refusing to accept the right of Jews to live in the West Bank — the ancient biblical, historic and legally-designated heartland of the Jewish people.

Sharon posited instead:

”... The true solution is to recognize that Jordan is the Palestinian state. Only with Jordan should we discuss the future of the Arab inhabitants of Judea and Samaria, all of whom are Jordanian citizens. And it is with Jordan that we should discuss granting this kind of citizenship to Gaza residents.

We must also talk about how they will vote for and get elected to the Palestinian parliament in Amman, how they will pay taxes, and how they will be able to use Haifa and Ashkelon harbors and reciprocally, how we can use Akaba.

And we should talk of a common market in the Middle East, and about water projects and the mutual development of the Dead Sea resources and of a common front against Arab terrorism. Whether King Hussein or anyone else heads the Palestinian State, Jordan, is their decision."

Sharon continued:

“What I suggested in the past and I suggest again, is that there be autonomic regions without territorial contiguity. Their local police will act strictly within these regions. Non-Jews, after all, have no problem traveling on roads under Jewish control: the problem exists only for Jews under non-Jewish control.

Israeli sovereignty will then begin in all the zones in which Jews are settled. This will affect contiguity of Jewish areas from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River in Judea and Samaria, and from the Sea to the Western Negev in the Gaza district.

Thus all Jewish communities will be under Israeli sovereignty, while most of the Arab population will live in autonomous districts.”

Trump’s US$28 billion economic plan for the West Bank and Gaza has been rejected by the PLO and received with little enthusiasm by Jordan.

Jewish ethics provides sage advice to Trump to present his political plan without further delay — irrespective of how the PLO and Jordan might receive it:

“It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but you are not free to desist from it either.”

Will Trump’s proposals — like Sharon’s — also bury the PLO and resurrect Jordan in the West Bank?

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

Will President Trump say “West Bank” or “Judea and Samaria”?

[14 November 2018]

President Trump - having rejected a barrage of criticism since describing himself as a “nationalist” - faces a further torrent of invective should he choose to say “Judea and Samaria” rather than “West Bank” in his soon to-be-released peace proposals.

Arab propaganda has used “West Bank” since 1949 to obliterate any Jewish connection to one of the two remaining pieces of land under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty still remains undetermined between Jews and Arabs.

Even worse — the United Nations and US State Department have continued using this deceptive and misleading terminology since 1967.

The media and political commentators have sought to relegate the historical-geographical term “Judea and Samaria” to some ancient biblical anachronism that fell into disuse centuries ago — yet that term appears in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and the UN 1947 Partition Plan resolution.

Incontrovertible Jewish claims to this hotly-disputed territory – about the size of Delaware – were eloquently summarised in the Forward on 12 July 1991:

“As for “Judea” and “Samaria”, they are indeed ancient names, but the notion that they had become “archaic” prior to 1967 is totally false for both English and Hebrew. Indeed, unlike their Moslem counterparts, not only Jewish, but Christian geographers too, from Roman times onward, always considered the mountainous regions north and south of Jerusalem to be discrete entities, since this is how the Old and New Testaments speak of them because of the separate Judean and Israelite kingdoms that existed there. As late as many 18th-, 19th- and early 20th-century atlases, it is possible to find accurate maps of Palestine with the major Arab towns and villages appearing beside the words “Judea” and “Samaria” in large print.

The Hebrew terms, yehuda and shomron have had a slightly more complex history — rather, shomron has had, since yehuda, “Judah” which was originally the name of the tribe that occupied the southern hill country of the Land of Israel, has been in uninterrupted use as a geographical term since the Book of Deuteronomy. We find it and it alone in the Mishnah and the Talmud; in the account of the famous 12th-century Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela; in Kaftor u-Ferach, a 16th-century halakhic geography of Palestine composed by the Italian Rabbi Ishtori Haparhi; in all the 19t- and 20th-century literature of Zionist settlement in Palestine; and in thousands of other Hebrew sources from every period of Jewish history as well.

The case of “shomron”, “Samaria”, is somewhat different. The oldest Hebrew name for the mountains north of Jerusalem is not shomron but efrayim, after the tribe whose territory it was. Shomron was originally a site in Efrayim that, in the reign of King Omri, became the capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel, which eventually began to bear its name. Thus, in the Hebrew Bible we find shomron, efrayim, and yisra’el used interchangeably, while in rabbinic literature they are joined by a fourth term: eretz ha-kutim, “the Land of the Cuthites”—a reference to the Samaritans, a population originally transferred from the Babylonian region of Kutu to take the place of the “ten lost” tribes of Israel deported by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.E.

Subsequently, all four of these terms were used by Jewish sources, although the last two dropped out in the Middle Ages; it was not however, until the conquest of the area in 1967 that “Shomron” was finally recognized instead of “Efrayim”.

President Trump should use “Judea and Samaria” to end 70 years of fraudulent Arab propaganda — aided and abetted by the United Nations, the US State Department and the President’s oft designated“fake media".

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

Macron, Merkel and May should adopt Trump Policy on Jerusalem

[Published 13 May 2018]

The opening of the American Embassy on 14 May in Israel’s capital — Jerusalem — should be replicated by fellow-democracies France, Germany and The United Kingdom (“the Democratic Trio”) without delay.

President Trump’s policy on Jerusalem was set out by him on 6 December 2017 (“the Trump Declaration”):

“STATUS OF JERUSALEM: President Trump recognizes that specific boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem is highly sensitive and subject to final status negotiations.

President Trump recognizes that the status of Jerusalem is a highly-sensitive issue, but he does not think the peace process is aided by ignoring the simple truth that Jerusalem is home to Israel’s legislature, supreme court, President, and Prime Minister.

President Trump recognizes that the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties.

President Trump reaffirms United States support for the status quo at the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al Sharif.”

This policy should be perfectly acceptable to the Democratic Trio — yet they have so far baulked at following Trump’s principled stance.

French President Emmanuel Macron has adopted the following position:

“The status of Jerusalem is a question of international security that concerns the entire international community. The status of Jerusalem must be determined by Israelis and Palestinians in the framework of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations,”

Waiting for these stars to align is like hoping to win the lottery.The Trump Declaration provides sufficient guarantees to ensure that should Macron’s wish-list ever eventuate - the United Nations will be sufficiently seized of the situation to ensure the status of Jerusalem is finally determined between Arabs and Jews.

Refusing to move the French Embassy to Israel’s designated capital now - whilst negotiations to determine Jerusalem’s future have been suspended by the Palestine Liberation Organization since April 2014 - is bowing to the dictates and diplomatic blackmail of an illegal and undemocratic entity.

France — a bastion of democracy — is being incredibly naïve in not following in the footsteps of the Trump Declaration.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has issued a public statement assuring Germany will not relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:

“We have to work for the two-state solution, and according to that, the status of Jerusalem should be clarified.”

The “two-state solution” has been the subject of unsuccessful negotiations for the last 25 years.

East Jerusalem was never suggested or declared as the capital of Jordan or another independent Arab state during the years between 1948 and 1967 when East Jerusalem was:

1. illegally occupied by Jordan

2. all Jews living there were forcibly expelled from their homes

3. centuries-old Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated and destroyed

4.Jews were denied access to their remaining holy sites

Merkel needs to reject this dark period in Jerusalem’s history by adopting the reality expressed in the Trump Declaration.

Britain’s prime minister Theresa May has stated:

“We disagree with the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv, and we have no plans to move”

Moving the United Kingdom’s Embassy to West Jerusalem on the identical basis enunciated by Trump will not prejudice future negotiations between Jews and Arabs to resolve East Jerusalem’s final status.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom need to get on the Trump bandwagon and move their Embassies to Israel’s declared capital — Jerusalem — following their own worldwide well-established diplomatic practices and precedents.

Disagreements between democracies play into the hands of unelected and unaccountable regimes.Bowing to these regimes’ unjust and unreasonable demands is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

Britain backs Jordan and Israel to end the Arab-Jewish conflict

[Published 7 November 2017]


Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has acknowledged that Jordan and Israel represent the only viable “two state solution” that can end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October — ahead of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November — the Foreign Secretary stated:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.”

The Royal Commission had been authorised by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936:

”... to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented;”

Significantly the Royal Warrant did not mention or identify the “Palestinians” as being a party to the dispute. There were only two parties— the “Arabs” and the “Jews” — not three.

The “two-state solution” - one Jewish, one Arab — first envisioned in article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) — had restricted Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in just 22% of the territory covered by the Mandate. The Jews had accepted that proposal but the Arabs had rejected it.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry confirmed that the “two-state solution” contemplated by the Mandate — one Jewish, one Arab —remained the only solution to end the grievances between Arabs and Jews — concluding that:

“two sovereign independent States would be established - the one an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

Transjordan — renamed Jordan in 1950 - comprised the remaining 78% of the territory contained in the Mandate for Palestine closed to Jewish settlement under the Mandate. Britain still retained full responsibility for Transjordan as Mandatory Power until Transjordan was finally granted independence by Britain in 1946.

The Peel Commission’s “two-state solution” is shown on this map:

The Arabs rejected partition and the creation of any Jewish State. The Jews accepted the principle of partition - but not the borders designated on the map.

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that:

1. the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel

2. Jordan remains the Arab key to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - which a naive and gullible world continues to ignore.

Trying to create two Arab States and one Jewish State in an area where only one Arab state and one Jewish state is warranted by history, geography and demography has been a diplomatic disaster with horrendous consequences for Arabs and Jews.

Jordan and Israel - the two successor States to the Mandate - currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine - need to sit down and resolve Jewish and Arab claims to the remaining 5%.

Britain’s reaffirmation of Peel’s proposed “two-state solution” is long overdue.

The “two-state solution” posited in 1922 and 1937 — Jordan and Israel — still remains the only viable solution to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 2017.

United Nations and Trump should heed 1989 Balfour Declaration

[Published 4 September 2017]


A lot of bloodshed, pain and suffering sustained by both Jews and Arabs over the last 28 years could have been avoided had the United Nations heeded the 1989 Balfour Declaration presented by the 4th Lord Balfour at the 4th international conference of the Jordan is Palestine Committee held in Jerusalem in November 1989.

The 1989 Declaration stated:

“The world should be fully aware of what was British Palestine; the misleading propaganda issued from oil-wealthy Arab states must be countered; Palestine has already been divided into two countries – Jewish Israel and Arab Jordan; the present governments of Israel and Jordan should be fully supported and upheld; and a third state as suggested by the PLO would upset the political and economic situation in the whole area”

The demand by the PLO to establish that third state – in addition to Jordan and Israel – in the territory comprised in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – remains unrealised in 2017.

President Trump at this point of time still seems wedded to this proposed three state solution - eventually formulated by President Bush in his 2003 Roadmap - and endorsed by the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

The Bush Roadmap was also accepted unconditionally by the PLO and with 14 reservations by Israel.

Bush - overwhelmingly supported by the Congress – made the following written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to secure Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank:

“… 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.”

The PLO has failed over the last 13 years to comply with these obligations.

Yet Trump still apparently appears willing to allow PLO Chief Mahmoud Abbas to stride on the world stage as he simultaneously refuses to unconditionally return to negotiations with Israel on the Bush Roadmap – stalled since April 2014.

However Amnesty International’s latest report presents an appalling overview of life under the PLO which could herald a rapid Trump-about face:

“The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Hamas de facto administration in the Gaza Strip both continued to restrict freedom of expression, including by arresting and detaining critics and political opponents. They also restricted the right to peaceful assembly and used excessive force to disperse some protests. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife in both Gaza and the West Bank. Unfair trials of civilians before military courts continued in Gaza; detainees were held without charge or trial in the West Bank. Women and girls faced discrimination and violence. Courts in Gaza continued to hand down death sentences and Hamas carried out executions; no death sentences were imposed or executions carried out in the West Bank.”

Elections – the first since 2007 – are urgently needed to test whether the PLO should continue to dominate the lives of the West Bank Arab population and to prevent all hell breaking loose as the negotiating void continues.

The 1989 Balfour Declaration beckons if the above measures do not break the current stalemate.

Trump, Israel, Jordan and PLO need to define Palestine’s boundaries

[Published 14 August 2017]


President Trump’s attempt to end the Jewish-Arab conflict could well hinge on Israel, Jordan, the PLO and Trump defining the boundaries of former Palestine under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate territory).

Defining the territory within which the competing claims of Jews and Arabs must be resolved is a first prerequisite to ending a conflict that has raged for the last 100 years.

False claims still continue to be made that Israel comprises more than 75% of the Mandate territory whilst Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza comprise the remaining 25%.

The latest such misleading claim appeared in the following article :

“On the 14 of May 1948, the state of Israel was declared. By the time Israel and the Arab States signed the Armistice agreement in 1948, Israel had gained control over 75% of mandate Palestine.”

The article further asserts that the 1967 Six Day War was:

“the beginning of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and annexation of East Jerusalem, territories which together made up the remaining 22% of Mandate Palestine.”

The article fails to inform readers that:

1. in 1946 - 78% of the Mandate territory became a sovereign independent Arabs-only, Jew-free State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan — renamed Jordan in 1950

Israel is only 17% of the Mandate territory

2. Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza comprise the remaining 5% of the Mandate territory.

3. Israel, the PLO and Jordan have each separately acknowledged this geographically-accurate territorial subdivision of former Palestine- as the following statements make clear:

(i) Abba Eban - Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations - said in Newsweek on 2 December 1974:

“Palestine comes into modern history as a region extending on both sides of the Jordan, comprising the present sovereign territories of Israel and Jordan and the administered areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Of this original Palestine, 80 per cent became an exclusively Arab domain through the separation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine.”

(ii) Yasser Arafat — the first PLO Chairman told the New York Review of Books on 25 June 1987:

” Jordan and Palestine until 1945 were one State, actually. After the Second World War, Churchill himself said, “This is Transjordan, and this is Palestine. Before that Jordan was an emirate ...completely part of Palestine”

(iii) Transjordan’s King Abdullah addressed the Arab League meeting in Cairo on 12 April 1948:

“Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country”

Many more similar statements exist from Jewish, Arab and other sources.

If Trump concludes that a second Arab State — in addition to Jordan — is required in the Mandate territory - then Jordan - not only Israel, Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza — should be included in determining that third State’s possible location.

However such a second Arab State — if governed by the PLO - the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs since 1974 - would pose an existential threat to the continued existence of both Jordan and Israel as sovereign independent States - since article 2 of the PLO Charter expressly states:

“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

One Jewish State and two Arab States in the territory of the Mandate will exacerbate — not resolve — the conflict.

Jordan — 78% of the Mandate territory — must be part of any territorial resolution.

Territorial negotiations — like gridiron and basketball — can only be played out within clearly designated boundaries.

Defining Palestine’s boundaries is indeed the key to Trump succeeding where all others have failed.

Trump should dump PLO and jump-start Israel-Jordan negotiations

[Published 21 July 2017]


President Trump has completed six months in office without managing to get Israel and the PLO to resume their negotiations - stalled since April 2014.

Trump’s failure has not been for lack of trying.

The President has turned on his political charm offensive — inviting both Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to the White House - whilst making personal visits to Jerusalem and Bethlehem — all apparently to no avail.

Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner, Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and United States Ambassador to Israel David Friedman have been actively engaged on the ground in both Jerusalem and Ramallah in talks with Israel and the PLO — yet nothing of significance has emerged to indicate the PLO is ready to meet Israel without preconditions face to face across the negotiating table.

Even if these two adversaries resumed negotiations - there appears little chance of the PLO modifying demands that:

1. it be granted sovereignty over every square metre of Judea and Samaria (“the disputed territories”) and

2. Jerusalem be divided.

Offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 to cede its claims in more than 90% of the disputed territories have already been rejected by the PLO.

Trump needs to identify a new Arab partner to replace the PLO and join Israel in allocating sovereignty of the disputed territories between Jews and Arabs.

That partner should be Jordan - for four compelling reasons:

1. Jordan and Israel have enjoyed a signed peace treaty since 1994 which already contains provisions for resolving contentious issues in the disputed territories such as water, and refugees — and Jerusalem.

2. The PLO Charter does not recognise Jordan or Israel’s right to exist as separate territorial units:
“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Palestine during the British Mandate (1922-1948) encompassed Israel, the disputed territories and Jordan.

3. Jordan’s:
(i) invasion and annexation of the disputed territories contrary to international law between 1948 and 1967

(ii) continuing role in the disputed territories by extending Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs resident there until 1988

stamp it as eminently suited to resolve a problem it helped to create.

4. History, geography and demography qualify Jordan and Israel — the two successor States to 95% of the territory of the British Mandate - to resolve sovereignty over the disputed territories - just 4% of the Mandate.

Netanyahu eloquently articulated this position at the United Nations on 11 December 1984:

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

This fetid swamp urgently needs draining - Israel and Jordan are the parties that can make it happen.

President Trump — over to you to weave your proven negotiating skills.

Obama and Kerry open door for Palestine Mandate solution

[Published 30 December 2016]


US Secretary of State John Kerry – perhaps unwittingly – has now opened the door to reviving the solution contained in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – one homeland for the Jews and one homeland for the Arabs (“Palestine Mandate Solution”)

This solution has already been realised in 95% of the territory of the Mandate with the creation of the Arab State of Jordan in 1946 and the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.

Kerry completely ignored mentioning the Palestine Mandate Solution in his speech whilst reiterating on many occasions that there was no viable alternative to the creation of a second Arab State - in addition to Jordan (“the two state solution”) - in the 5% of the Mandate territory still remaining unallocated – Judea and Samaria (West Bank) Gaza and East Jerusalem (“unallocated Mandate territory”)

The longer Kerry spoke on what was needed to be done to achieve the two-state solution after fruitless negotiations extending over 23 years – the more it became obvious that such a result was totally unrealistic and unachievable.

His prediction that failure would result in the creation of one State between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – is alarmist and simply fanciful.

Why did Kerry avoid any mention of the Palestine Mandate Solution being a viable alternative to the two state solution – especially as Jordan and Egypt occupied the unallocated Mandate territory between 1948 and 1967 – and both have long-standing peace treaties with Israel?

The only reason seems his apparent ignorance of the history of the conflict as evidenced by his two following remarks:

1. Kerry referred to the first Zionist Congress in 1897 called to realise the Jewish dream - but failed to mention the San Remo Conference and Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the Palestine Mandate in 1922 which set out the framework unanimously agreed to by the international community for the:

“reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine”

The Mandate is legally binding in international law and it cannot be flippantly ignored by Kerry. The benefits conferred by the Mandate on the Jewish people to settle in the unallocated Mandate territory have been preserved by article 80 of the UN Charter – another piece of international law that did not rate a mention by Kerry.

Kerry and Obama have ignored these binding international law provisions to their dying shame.

2. Kerry refers to an intimate, one-on-one dinner with Israel’s Shimon Peres just a few months before he died and quotes Peres as having told him:

“The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48 percent; now it’s down to 22 percent. I think 78 percent is enough for us.”

Peres got it wrong - and so has Kerry in quoting him.

Israel presently constitutes 17% - not 78% - of the original mandate

Peres was talking about the area allocated for a second Arab State in 22% of the original Mandate territory by the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. The remaining 78% had become an independent Arab State in 1946.

The additional 48% was not enough for the Arabs. They wanted 100% - rejected the UN Plan and saw it whittled down to 22% after the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six Day War.

The Arabs – with Security Council Resolution 2334 and now Obama and Kerry’s backing - demand another Arab State in an area equivalent to the remaining 22% - having rejected offers of 90% in 2000/1 and 95% in 2008.

It won’t happen.

The UN Security Council buried the two-state solution on 23 December 2016. John Kerry delivered the eulogy on 28 December 2016.

The Palestine Mandate Solution beckons….

Palestine - Trump Triumph Requires Direct Negotiations Between Jordan And Israel

[Published 24 November 2016]


President-elect Donald Trump has used his greatest media critic - the New York Times - to reiterate his determination to broker a deal to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict - suggesting his son-in law Jared Kushner might be just the person to advance Trump’s declared mission.

Trump’s legendary deal-making prowess sets him apart from all preceding American presidents — from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama - Democrats and Republicans - liberals and conservatives alike — who have tried to end this intractable conflict and earn themselves an honoured place in the annals of history.

Instead - their legacy of failure remains a silent reminder that Presidential power and prestige is of little value in moving Jews and Arabs to achieve a historic reconciliation.

Kushner possesses the firepower to advance Trump’s agenda following this ground-breaking message from Trump’s advisor Jason Greenblatt - co-chairman of the Trump campaign’s Israel Advisory Committee:

“It is certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activities should be condemned and that it is an obstacle for peace, because it is not an obstacle for peace.”

Trump’s position runs counter to the view expressed by the international community that Jews have no legal right to live in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) - an area comprising some 4% of the former territory of Palestine - a claim that remains untested in any court of law.

Such conclusion ignores the rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria under article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

To call the international community’s position “a travesty of justice” is an understatement.

The harm such flawed viewpoint has caused in prolonging this long-running conflict is inestimable.

Kushner will also be fortified by the following commitment made by President Bush to Israel in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed at the time by the Congress by 502 votes to 12:

“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 current negotiating partner - the Palestine Liberation Organisation - has consistently refused to accept the inevitability of any territorial subdivision of Judea and Samaria since the Bush-Congress pronouncement. There appears to be no chance of any change of heart by the PLO to please a Trump administration.

Trump will therefore need to find another Arab interlocutor to replace the PLO to negotiate with Israel on the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Sovereignty there has remained unresolved since Brexit 1948 - the year Great Britain pulled out of Palestine and left the United Nations to deal with the consequences of the invasion of Western Palestine the very next day by the armies of six neighbouring Arab States.

Jordan was the last Arab State to occupy Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967.

Jordan and Israel - at peace since 1994 - both enjoy longstanding American financial and diplomatic support - which can be leveraged by a deal-driven Trump to induce Jordan joining Israel as its negotiating partner on the territorial carve up of Judea and Samaria.

Without this diplomatic breakthrough Trump’s dream of pulling off the deal of the century will remain just a dream.

Palestine - Politicians Peddling Propaganda Forfeit Credibility

[Published 19 May 2016]


Senator Lee Rhiannon - a member of the Greens Party holding a pivotal position in Australian politics - authorised and printed a deceptive and misleading pamphlet which was distributed at a protest rally addressed by her last Sunday in Sydney “against Israeli Apartheid and commemorating Al Nakba 68 years on.”

The pamphlet purported to quote a statement by Israel’s then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan in 1969:

“We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs and we set up a Jewish State… Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages“

What Dayan actually said — which Senator Rhiannon was apparently not prepared to disclose — was:

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

God forbid that those present should learn that Jews had actually purchased land from its Arab owners. Better to maintain the canard repeated in Palestinian text books and media that:

“the Zionist gangs stole Palestine”

Moshe Aumann in his seminal work “Land ownership in Palestine 1880-1948” states that in 1948:

“8.6 per cent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.3 per cent by Israeli Arabs, while 16.9 per cent had been abandoned by Arab owners who imprudently heeded the call from neighbouring countries to “get out of the way” while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of Israel. The rest of the land — over 70 per cent — had been vested in the Mandatory Power, and accordingly reverted to the State of Israel as its legal heir. (Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257.) The greater part of this 70 per cent consisted of the Negev, some 3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 per cent of the 6,580,000 acres in all of Mandatory Palestine. Known as Crown or State Lands, this was mostly uninhabited arid or semi-arid territory, inherited originally by the Mandatory Government from Turkey. In 1948 it passed to the Government of Israel. These lands had not been owned by Arab farmers — neither under the British Mandate nor under the preceding regime.”

Senator Rhiannon has a Parliamentary staff to assist her in ensuring everything that issues in her name as a Senator is totally and completely accurate.

She has let her emotions cloud her judgement in what can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to paper over the fact that Jews bought land in Palestine they settled on.

Another pamphlet containing four maps was handed out at the rally — supposedly documenting Palestinian loss of land between 1946 and 2000.

McGraw Hill Publishing only recently withdrew from sale and trashed unsold copies of one of its textbooks - Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World - containing those maps.

Spokesperson - Catherine Mathis - stated:

“As soon as we learned about the concerns with it, we placed sales of the book on hold and immediately initiated an academic review. The review determined that the map did not meet our academic standards. We have informed the authors and we are no longer selling the book. All existing inventory will be destroyed. We apologize and will refund payment to anyone who returns the book.”

Senator Rhiannon is perfectly entitled to express her support for the Palestinian Arabs.

It would be encouraging to know however that her support is based on fact — not fiction and partisan propaganda designed to deceive and mislead and possibly incite to violence and Jew-hatred.

Senator Rhiannon has badly blotted her copybook — and credibility.

Palestine - Internet Intifada On Free Speech Intensifies

[Published 14 April 2016]


An increasing number of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel websites are banning comments made by me in response to articles or readers’ comments published on their sites.

These websites have:

1. Simply not posted my comments or

2. Deleted all published comments – including mine - when factual errors pointed out by me cannot be successfully challenged or denied - thereby exposing the unquestionable venom and hate being spewed out on these websites

The latest novel attempt to blatantly silence me recently reared its ugly head when I attempted to respond to this reader’s offensive and unsubstantiated comment:

"Wow — “smug” is the perfect word for this effing Zionist.

Great post — thank you!

Go BDS! Go every other effort to expose and dispose of the criminally psychotic ideology Zionism and its every adherent! Viva Palestine!"

My response was not published.

Mysteriously however another even more offensive comment was posted by the same reader responding to my unpublished comment:

"David Singer, I found your:

RIP Palestine. All this nonsense could have been avoided had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan or created a second Arab state in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – between 1948 and 1967 after all the Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza had been driven out by six invading Arab armies.


The Arabs need to step up to the plate and accept the consequences of those decisions which have caused so much grief to Jews and Arabs since."

at my incoming e-mail site. Now, why should the already dispossessed, scattered Palestinian polity — you know the stats: at least 750,000 cleansed from their land, up to 500 villages razed by Zioterrorists by 1949 — have accepted an illegal move engineered by Zionist schemers (who bragged of “having it all” even then) and foisted on the fledgling UN (the GA at that) in November 1947? The Palestinians wanted justice and their own independent state then and they’ve steadfastly sought justice and fulfillment of their legitimate aspirations ever since. “nonsense,” bullxxxt!

Enough, already, of your “singing,” Singer."

Well might you ask - how did my unpublished comment make its way into this crude reader’s email box without it being published on-line first?

The saga does not end there.

I then endeavoured to post the following response:

"You state:

“The Palestinians wanted justice and their own independent state then and they’ve steadfastly sought justice and fulfillment of their legitimate aspirations ever since”

The Palestinian Arabs could have had their own independent State in 1947 in a much larger share of former Palestine than is available to them now under any negotiated settlement in 2016 - if they had not rejected the UN Partition Plan.

Do you agree?

You are also silent on the fact that they could have also had their own independent State in all the West Bank and Gaza and even East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 when not one Jew lived there and Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers. That could have happened with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

Do you agree?

Those golden opportunities will not return.

The Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren in the Arab League have blown it well and truly.

They will have to settle for a lot less than 100% of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem if they want to make peace with Israel.

Do you agree?"

These comments have not been published.

Suppressing free speech on these insidious websites must be continually exposed and roundly condemned.

Deliberately manipulating these hate-filled websites perpetuates an unchallenged aura of lies and distortions that are misleadingly and deceptively influencing readers’ opinions on the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Palestine - Elections Key To Ending Senseless Acts Of Self-Destruction

[Published 28 December 2015]


Elections in the West Bank and Gaza – last held in 2006 - increasingly appear to be the key to ending the past three months of random Arab stabbing and car ramming attacks on Israel’s Jewish civilian population, armed forces, border police and security guards.

97 stabbings were recorded – including at least 14 committed by Arab children aged between 11 and 16 and another 16 between ages 17 and 21. 19 cars were deliberately driven off the roads into crowds of people waiting at bus stops or assembly points.

These attacks occurred both in Israel and the West Bank.

Most of the perpetrators were killed or apprehended committing such acts – whilst a few remain at large.

Israel explains these latest tactics as forming part of the strategy of “popular resistance” adopted at the Sixth Fatah Conference in August 2009 by the Palestinian Authority (defunct since 2013) and Fatah – the dominant party in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)

Such call to action resulted from continuing frustration that negotiations between Israel and the PLO under the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap had failed to create a Jew-free Palestinian Arab State throughout the entire West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

The reality is that such a negotiated solution has always been an impossible pipedream that could never happen.

500000 Jews will not voluntarily vacate their homes nor abandon their livelihoods in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to satisfy these racist and totally unacceptable PLO territorial demands – a major stumbling block to successfully concluding any negotiated agreement.

At present:

1. The PLO exercises exclusive administrative control over 95% of the existing West Bank Arab population who live within about 40% of the West Bank (Areas “A” and “B”)

2. The PLO exercises exclusive security control in Area “A” and shares security control with Israel in Area “B”

3. Israel exercises exclusive administrative and security control over Area “C” – 60% of the West Bank - where 350000 Jews and 50000 Arabs currently reside

4. Hamas exercises complete administrative and security control in all of Gaza

5. East Jerusalem has been unilaterally declared to be part of Israel’s capital

6. The PLO and Hamas are still engaged in an internecine struggle extending over the last eight years to achieve complete political dominance over the other in the West Bank and Gaza whilst denying their long-suffering populations any say on who they want to govern them.

Given these unresolved political stalemates – between Israel/PLO and PLO/Hamas - one must legitimately question why those Arabs presently sacrificing their lives murdering Jews do not choose to vent their wrath against the PLO and Hamas by demanding long overdue elections.

The PLO and Hamas – like all previous Palestinian Arab leaders over the last 100 years - have refused any compromises with the Jewish people – inciting their own people to murder Jews and kill themselves in the process to advance their documented political objective of wiping Israel off the map.

Palestinian Arabs denied a vote for the last 10 years need the opportunity to express their continuing support or rejection of these policies.

Elections enabling fresh political parties to emerge with alternative leaderships offering new ideas on making peace with Israel appear as far away as ever.

The sorry story begun with the PLO in 1964 and Hamas in 1987 drags on with no hope for change.

“Popular resistance” in the West Bank and Gaza demanding long-overdue elections can achieve far better results than the spate of utterly futile and senseless acts of self-destruction directed against Jews during the last three months.

Casting a live vote always beats a dead end.

Carter Causes Consternation With Election Call For Palestinian Arabs

[Published 7 May 2015]


Former US president Jimmy Carter has created a stir with his call for Palestinian Arabs to hold elections to end the internecine struggle between Hamas and the PLO in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza.

Speaking at a joint news conference with PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah - after cancelling his stop in Gaza where he was supposed to meet Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh – Carter – now a member of the independent Elders Group of global leaders - declared:.

“We hope that sometime we’ll see elections all over the Palestinian area and east Jerusalem and Gaza and also in the West Bank,”

No Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) elections have been held in over a decade - even though Abbas’s term in office as President expired in January 2009 – a position he continues to fill without any constitutional authority to do so.

In 2006 - a year after Abbas was elected as President - Hamas overwhelmingly won the one and only election ever held in Judea and Samaria. The PLO refused to accept its electoral defeat and a year afterwards Hamas violently ousted Abbas’s Fatah faction from Gaza and seized control there.

Carter’s call can be seen as timely – given the current stalemate in the negotiations between Israel and the PLO and the distinct likelihood they will not be resumed.

Indeed one could see Carter’s election call as the most constructive contribution he has made to peace in the Middle East since his following statement in Time Magazine on 11 October 1982 concerning Jordan and Jordan’s late monarch - King Hussein:

“Hussein is personally courageous but an extremely timid man in political matters. That timidity derives almost inevitably from the inherent weakness of Jordan. As a nation it is a contrivance, arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen”

This viewpoint would be just as applicable in 2015 to Jordan’s current monarch - King Abdullah – who is trying to distance himself from any involvement in the future of Judea and Samaria even though Jordan was the last Arab country to occupy those territories between 1948-1967..

Elections would enable the long-suffering Arab populations in Gaza, Judea and Samaria to have a say in their future after having been under the tyrannical dictatorships of Hamas and the PLO for almost ten years.

Ironically there are those who argue against holding such elections because they are worried that Hamas will again be triumphant – resulting in greater upheaval and unrest than currently exists.

Respected commentator Khaled Abu Toameh puts it thus:

“Free and democratic elections are the last thing the Palestinians need now. Such elections would only pave the way for a Hamas takeover of the Palestinian Authority and plunge the region into chaos and violence. As long as Abbas’s Fatah faction is not seen as a better alternative to Hamas, it would be too risky to ask Palestinians to head to the ballot boxes.”

Toameh presumes that only Hamas and the PLO will contest any such new elections.

Given their woeful performances over the last ten years - any such new elections would hopefully spawn the emergence of political parties other than Hamas and the PLO with markedly differing viewpoints and policies – perhaps even parties calling for Jordan to enter into negotiations with Israel to allocate sovereignty of Judea and Samaria and even Gaza between their respective States.

Keeping people in a perpetual state of silence by denying them any say in their future is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

When people vote – they bear the consequences of the Government they elect.

Carter the Elder has spoken. What says Obama the Younger?

Palestine - Kerry Oblivious To Demise Of Palestinian Authority

[Published 23 February 2014]


US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US State Department continue to cling to the illusion that the Palestinian Authority still exists—despite PLO insistence that it does not following this Decree on 3 January 2013:

Decree No. 1 for the year 2013
On the use of the name of the State of Palestine and its emblem on letterheads, seals and related official documents
President of the State of Palestine
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Based on the Statute of the Palestine Liberation Organization
And after reviewing the Fundamental Law of 2003, as amended
Based on the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations No. GA 11317, deciding to upgrade the status of Palestine to the status of observer state in the United Nations Organization.
Based on the recommendations of the Palestinian Committee in charge of the steps to be taken in this regard, and based on the powers vested in us, and in conformity with the public interest,
We decided the following:

Article (1)

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. The relevant authorities shall be in charge of monitoring the implementation of this Decree, taking into account the requirements of use.

Article (2)

Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads in the embassies of the State of Palestine and its missions abroad shall be amended by keeping the name ‘State of Palestine’ and emblem only and the name of ‘mission’ afterwards. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall be in charge of implementing these amendments. Dealing with States who do not recognize the State of Palestine shall also be taken into consideration.

Article (3)

No amendment shall be made to the name and emblem in official documents, seals, letterheads and signs of the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Article (4)

All competent authorities, each in their respective area, shall implement the provisions of this Decree starting from its date. This Decree shall be notified to those it may concern and shall be published in the Official Gazette.

Mahmoud Abbas
President of the State of Palestine
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization
—Translated from Maan News.

Kerry and the State Department’s inability to appreciate this major change in PLO policy became very apparent following Kerry’s visit to Paris last week to meet “President of the State of Palestine” and “Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO” - Mahmoud Abbas.

The State Department web site described Kerry’s visit in these terms:

“In Paris, Secretary Kerry will meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas to discuss the ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.”

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in Abu Dhabi - where Kerry was meeting United Arab Emirate officials:

“Secretary Kerry will meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas in Paris, France on Wednesday to discuss the ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis,”

Lebanon’s Daily Star—obviously embarrassed to report such Kerry and State Department nonsense - went so far as to deliberately hide Psaki’s reference to the Palestinian Authority:

“State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed the meeting, saying they would “discuss the ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis”

Wily long time PLO negotiator - Saeb Erekat - was however prepared to let Kerry wander along his path of blissful ignorance with these amazing remarks reported in Xinhua:

“A Palestinian official warned on Monday that the failure of the current Palestinian-Israeli peace talks will lead to the collapse of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

“The failure of negotiations means that things will go back to zero point,” chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erikat told the official Voice of Palestine radio.

“This may lead Israel to reoccupy the Palestinian territories and thus the PNA will collapse,” he said, adding that the PNA will approach the international organizations including the International Criminal Court (ICC) to sue the state of Israel if the talks do not succeed.

It is the first time a Palestinian official warns of a possible collapse of the PNA if the US-backed negotiations fail.”

Marie Harf—Deputy State Department Spokesman—in her daily press briefing on 19 February—still thought Kerry was meeting with the Palestinian Authority Chairman—the party to negotiations with Israel under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap:

“Today, Secretary Kerry is in Paris, where he has had meetings with French Foreign Minister Fabius and Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. Later tonight, he’s scheduled to meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas.”

Kerry’s Public Schedule maintained the fiction for 20 February:

“2:00 p.m. LOCAL Secretary Kerry meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in Paris, France.”

Photographs on the State Department website - recording photo-ops with “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas”—clearly indicate that Kerry is unaware that:

1. The Palestinian Authority no longer exists

2. The State of Palestine exists on the soil of Palestine

3. The Palestinian Arabs are no longer stateless or homeless

4. Negotiations under Oslo and the Roadmap have become meaningless

Kerry and the State Department will have a lot of explaining to do if his framework agreement fails to take these crucial PLO changes into account.

“Kerry cops caning” would make an excellent headline.

Palestine - History And Geography Can Unblock Deadlock

[Published 20 January 2014]


It is a pity the US State Department chose to focus this week on the private remarks of Israel’s Minister of Defence labelling US Secretary of State John Kerry as being delusional and messianic - rather than concentrating on PLO Chairman Abbas’s very public remarks in the Jerusalem Post that go to the heart of the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict:

“Israel’s problem is that the Palestinians know more than the Israelis about history and geography. We talk about what we know”

Is Abbas correct in his contention or has he become a victim of his own propaganda?

The answer depends on how one views Abbas’s following statement to the United Nations on 26 September 2013:

“However, as representatives of the Palestinian people, we have long been aware of our responsibilities towards our people and had the necessary courage to accept a two-State solution: Palestine and Israel on the borders of 4 June 1967, establishing a Palestinian State on 22% of the land of historic Palestine.”

Are the West Bank and Gaza in fact 22% of historic Palestine or do they comprise only 5% of historic Palestine?

The answer to that question first involves an answer to this question:

“Is Jordan 78% of historic Palestine - as the PLO Charter claims - or is Israel 78% of historic Palestine - as Abbas suggested at the United Nations?

Resolution of the conflict will stand a far greater chance of success - and be more enduring - if Jews and Arabs can first reach a consensus in answering this fundamental question.

That is a challenge that should excite Kerry as he seeks to find a way through the complexities of a conflict whose solution has eluded so many eminent people, organisations and Committees before him - including those appointed by both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Agreement that Jordan comprises 78% of historic Palestine would greatly enlarge the territorial field within which the Jewish-Arab conflict can be resolved - making the conflict much easier to settle.

Jordan’s inclusion could materially advance the prospects for the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan - the subject of the current negotiations - or open up other alternative solutions to end the conflict if they fail - which seems destined to happen.

Kerry needs to urgently determine if there is any consensus between Israel, the PLO and the Arab League on the history and geography of “Palestine”.

History books and atlases can be used to resolve any disagreements - supported by eminent historians and geographers well qualified to express their opinions.

To achieve this end result Kerry could instruct his State Department to prepare a questionnaire for Israel, the PLO and the Arab League to complete by a specified date.

To ensure the process is fair and transparent - Kerry could recommend a panel be constituted comprising Kerry as Chairman and six history and geography experts - three appointed by Israel and three by the PLO and the Arab League - with Kerry holding a casting vote should the experts be equally divided.

The questionnaire could possibly include these questions:

1. When was “Palestine” first so named and by whom?
2. Was the name of “Palestine” prior to its change “Eretz Yisrael”?
3. When was “Eretz Yisrael” so named and by whom?
4. Is Israel 78% of “Palestine” or only 17% of “Palestine”?
5. Is Jordan 78% of “Palestine” or does it form no part of “Palestine”?
6. Is the “West Bank” 22% of “Palestine” or 4% of “Palestine”?
7. When was the “West Bank” first so named and by whom?
8. Was the name of the “West Bank” prior to its change “Judea and Samaria”?
9. When was “Judea and Samaria” so named and by whom?
10. When was “Jordan” first so named and by whom?
11. When were “Palestine’s borders” first defined and where were they located?
12. Did the Mandate for Palestine include what is today called Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza?
13. Were the West Bank and Transjordan unified into a single territorial unit between 1950-1967?
14. Where was the border between Israel and Jordan immediately prior to the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War?
15. What date did the Arab residents of the West Bank become Jordanian citizens and on what date was their Jordanian citizenship terminated?
16. What settlements were established by Jews in the West Bank prior to 1948?
17. Who was the last sovereign power to legally occupy the West Bank and for what period did such oction last?
18. On what date and in what part of Palestine were the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish national Home in Palestine postponed or withheld?

The questionnaire would seek to flesh out the extent to which Jewish and Arab historic and geographic narratives coincide - with the objective of eventually reaching a joint consensus in answering the questions posed.

The questionnaire should be answered by Israel, the PLO and the Arab League before Kerry presents Israel and the PLO with his proposed framework agreement for peace.

If the parties cannot first agree on the territory within which the Jewish-Arab conflict is to be resolved - how can meaningful and serious discussions on Kerry’s framework agreement even be contemplated or commenced?

Kerry needs to focus on this issue - rather than concerning himself with negative comments affecting him personally.

Abbas’s claimed knowledge of history and geography needs to be tested.

The result could be Kerry’s key to ending the current deadlock and resolving the conflict.