Trump stand shames UN rejection of Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Published 5 December 2018]

December 6 marks the first anniversary of President Trump’s historic and ground-breaking announcement to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.

President Trump’s decision flew in the face of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 reaffirming that:

“the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”

Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter conclusively substantiate Israel is not in violation of international law in reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (West Bank), and designating Jerusalem as its capital.

The United Nations General Assembly has yet again shown its total ignorance of this long-established international law with its latest resolution on Jerusalem on 30 November - misleadingly declaring Israel’s actions in Jerusalem “illegal and therefore null and void”.

The preamble to the Jerusalem Embassy Act overwhelmingly passed by the United States Senate (93-5) and the House (374-37) on 24 October 1995 sets out the following facts that underscore the total lack of legal and moral integrity of the United Nations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United Nations - in discarding these inconvenient truths - has done the cause of world peace a grave disservice whilst the groundwork for a humanitarian disaster affecting both Arabs and Jews is being plotted by the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
President Trump made it crystal clear that his decision was:

“not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved”.

Trump’s principled stand on Jerusalem is morally justified and accords with international law. Guatemala has already moved its Embassy to Jerusalem — Brazil is planning to follow.

The United Nations continues to ignore Trump’s message at its peril and to its eternal shame.

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 triumphs as Oman and Brazil step up and PLO bows out

[Published 6 November 2018]

Oman has broken ranks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) by endorsing President Trump’s efforts to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.

The PLO has made it crystal-clear on many occasions that it wanted nothing to do with Trump’s upcoming proposals. The PLO Central Council also threatened on 30 October to suspend its recognition of the State of Israel and halt security coordination with Israel.

Addressing the 14th Middle East Security Summit in Manama, Bahrein, Yousef Bin Alawi – Oman’s Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs declared:

“I would like to tell you very clearly that we call, we request and we affirm and confirm that the main role is mainly relying on the role of the US and what the US president will be doing regarding the deal of the century, because we want this effort to be very successful and to lead to getting rid of all the problems that we have faced recently or during the last 40/50 years.”

Oman had in the previous week hosted separate visits within days of each other by PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Alawi still continued to utter the following Arab mantra to the Summit – which would not have impressed Trump:

“We consider that the Palestinian issue is the core of all the problems that we have seen during the second half of the last century and the 18 years of the 21st Century. We have to see how we can solve this problem and find a future for a new generation of young persons in this area who can really live with the other generations of this world into the future.”

Conflicts in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Kuwait and the rampage by Islamic State – all having nothing to do with the Palestinian issue - strangely seem to have escaped Alawi’s purview.

The Palestinian issue had not even been referred to once in an earlier keynote address to the Summit by US Secretary for Defense – James Mattis.

Alawi returned to reality when answering a question posed to him:

“How can we involve Israel and prompt it to contribute to the affairs of the region? I am going to say something that I say for the first time. Israel is a state that is present in this region. We all understand this, we know this; the world is also aware of this fact. But despite that, Israel is not being treated by the other countries as it is treating the other countries. Maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same and it should also bear the same obligations as other countries. Why? Those are really facts. History says that the Torah saw the light in the Middle East, that the prophets of Israel were born in the Middle East, and that the Jews also used to live in this area of the world.”

Building on this reality is key to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Meanwhile Brazil’s President-Elect - Jair Bolsonaro - announced Brazil was moving its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – tweeting:

“Israel is a sovereign state and we shall duly respect that”

Balsonaro – echoing the Trump administration’s stance - also announced he will close the Palestinian embassy in Brasilia stating:

“Is Palestine a country? Palestine is not a country, so there should be no embassy here.”

The 22-member Arab League includes Oman, the “State of Palestine” and Brazil as an observer state - whilst the 134 members of the G77 include all three. Some soul-searching by fellow-members is urgently required.

Trump’s focus on reality – not fantasy – is bearing fruit.


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

Palestine - No Jews, Soon No Christians

[Published 11 January 2011]

“All these attacks prove that settlers are dangerous and that it’s impossible to live with them. If these settlers are allowed to stay, that would mean more friction and confrontation. Peace can be achieved only if Israel withdraws to the last centimeter of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967” - Ahmed Qurei, Head of Palestinian Authority Negotiating Team, Jerusalem Post December 13, 2008.

This call to remove every Jew living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - 500,000 men, women and children - was accepted in total silence by the United Nations. No urgent meeting of the General Assembly or any of its Human Rights Committees was called to condemn this racial vilification of Jews by a former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and its chief negotiator with Israel.

Qurei’s statement has now been endorsed by a number of Latin American countries including Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Ecuador.

Chile’s “recognition” of a non-existent sovereign and independent Palestine has been more circumspect and cannot be said to have embraced this racist viewpoint.

What is particularly puzzling, however, is the silence of Brazil, Argentina , Ecuador and Bolivia on the plight - and flight - of Christians living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Comprised themselves of overwhelmingly Christian populations - these Latin American countries remain apparently unconcerned as Christian Arabs are subjected to harassment and abuse that has seen a drastic diminution in their number living in that area of the West Bank exclusively occupied and controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA).

David Raab explains what has occurred:

“Historically, not only has Bethlehem been a Christian city governed primarily by Christians, but, with its sister towns of Beit Jala and Beit Sahur, it has been the largest enclave of Christians in the West Bank.

Since assuming control in 1995, however, the PA has been Islamizing Bethlehem. The city’s municipal boundaries were changed to incorporate 30,000 Muslims from three neighboring refugee camps, severely tipping the demography. The city also added a few thousand Bedouins of the Ta’amra tribe, located east of Bethlehem, and encouraged Muslim immigration from Hebron to Bethlehem. The net result is that the area’s 23,000 Christians were reduced from a 60 percent majority in 1990 to a minority by 2001.”


The deteriorating situation for Christian Arabs since then has been ongoing.

Khaled Abu Tomeh wrote on 12 May 2009:

“Christian families have long been complaining of intimidation and land theft by Muslims, especially those working for the Palestinian Authority.

Many Christians in Bethlehem and the nearby [Christian] towns of Bet Sahour and Bet Jalla have repeatedly complained that Muslims have been seizing their lands either by force or through forged documents.

In recent years, not only has the number of Christians continued to dwindle, but Bethlehem and its surroundings also became hotbeds for Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters and members.

Moreover, several Christian women living in these areas have complained about verbal and sexual assaults by Muslim men.

Over the past few years, a number of Christian businessmen told me that they were forced to shut down their businesses because they could no longer afford to pay “protection” money to local Muslim gangs.

While it is true that the Palestinian Authority does not have an official policy of persecution against Christians, it is also true that this authority has not done enough to provide the Christian population with a sense of security and stability.

In addition, Christians continue to complain about discrimination when it comes to employment in the public sector. Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority 15 years ago, for example, not a single Christian was ever appointed to a senior security post. Although Bethlehem has a Christian mayor, the governor, who is more senior than him, remains a Muslim.”

More recently - and in a very novel and pointed way that undermines Christian rights - T shirts are being manufactured in Jerusalem and Hebron reproducing the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem without depicting the Cross.

This latest development has brought forth the following response from Samir Qumseih a journalist and director of the Catholic Television station Al-Mahed Nativity TV in Bethlehem:

“I want to launch a campaign to urge people not to buy these products because the removal of the cross is an intimidation against Christians, it is like saying that Jesus was never crucified.

In the Holy Land the emigration of Christians is growing, even if the authorities refuse to give precise numbers. Every day there are people who flee to other countries. As Christians, we live in a constant feeling of fear and uncertainty, and if you live in constant tension and pessimism you can not plan anything.”

Certainly Christian Arabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would be feeling even more concerned as to their future following the recent outbreak of violence against Christians in Iraq and Egypt which saw:

1. 23 Coptic Christians die and 79 wounded on New Year’s Day when a car bomb was detonated outside a Church in Alexandria

2. 58 Christian Chaldeans killed and 76 wounded when Our Lady of Salvation Church was besieged in Baghdad last October

In an interview on Australia’s 7.30 Report on 21 December last Mr Qumseih expressed a further misgiving:

“I really fear that the Church of Nativity (in Bethlehem) and the holy sepulchre (in Jerusalem) will be called into museums, will be called into museums. And this is something that it worries me too much.“

During the same interview reporter Ben Knight said some 450 families had left Bethlehem in 2008 to live overseas.

Ironically whilst the Christian population continues to diminish in the West Bank, it continues to increase and flourish in Israel.

As documented in the Central Bureau of Statistics’ Statistical Abstract of Israel 2008 (Chart 2.2), Israel’s Christian population grew from 120,600 in 1995 to 151,600 in 2007, representing a growth rate of 25 percent. The current 2010 Christian population of Israel is estimated at 154350.

The future looks decidedly bleak for the Christian communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

They are not helped by pronouncements from the Vatican last year seeking to attribute the blame to the failure to resolve the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews - which conclusion now seems very hollow following the atrocities that have since been perpetrated on Christian communities in Iraq and Egypt.

Nor are the demonstrations of diplomatic support by the Latin American countries for the Palestinian Authority or their continuing silence in the face of the “T - Shirt War” likely to reverse the continuing exodus of Christians from Palestinian Authority controlled territory.

Is a Palestinian State cleansed of Jews and Christians the desired outcome that so many nations are prepared to tolerate?

They should all hang their heads in shame.

Palestine - Tea For Two And 242

[Published 5 January 2011]


“I’m discontented with homes that I’ve rented
So I have invented my own.”

The above lines from the refrain of the well known song “Tea for Two” could well have been sung by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Brazil’s outgoing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as Abbas laid the cornerstone in Brasilia for his nation’s first embassy in the Western hemisphere.

Returning from rented premises in Tunis to live in rented digs in Ramallah has finally proved too much for Abbas to bear. He is now attempting to end his tenant status quo by unilaterally embarking on inventing his own nation of “Abbasstan” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - to the exclusion of Gaza and its Gazan Arab residents as well as the harassment of those Hamas supporters currently living in the West Bank.

Unable to bridge his irreconcilable differences with Hamas over control of Gaza and unwilling to resume direct negotiations with Israel - Abbas is travelling the world seeking nation states to recognize “Abbastan” - although he himself has yet to openly declare the creation of such a State for reasons only known to him.

The keystone comedy in Brasilia was conducted on President da Lula’s last day in office.

Perhaps Abbas and da Lula were fearful that da Lula’s successor might adopt a more cautious approach to the unseemly haste which followed da Lula’s surprise announcement just four weeks earlier recognizing a Palestinian State between Israel and Jordan within the area captured by Israel from Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967.

How da Lula could recognize a State within defined boundaries when such a state had not been declared by Abbas seems to have been of no concern to him.

Da Lula’s unilateral decision had been made without consulting Israel and Jordan whose 1994 Peace Treaty provides:

“The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a),is the permanent,secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.”

Da Lula was also apparently unconcerned as to the fate of 500000 Jews currently living in the area proposed for Abbas’s new State - giving credence to Abbas’s oft repeated statements that they would have to pack up and leave their homes after decades of legal residence pursuant to the rights granted to them by the League of Nations Mandate and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Da Lula had also thrown caution to the wind in renouncing Security Council resolution 242 recognizing Israel’s right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries which were intended to replace the temporary 1949 armistice lines still existing between Jordan and Israel at the outbreak of the 1967 hostilities.

Brazil had been a member of the Security Council when resolution 242 had been passed. Reneging now on that resolution which binds all member States of the United Nations - seems an extraordinary act of foolhardiness and indicates total disregard for the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

Da Lula had apparently thought Gaza was too hard to include in his serenading of Abbas - and with good reason. Abbas is persona non grata in Gaza and lacks any authority of any kind there.

Abbas is also the unelected and unconstitutional head of the Palestinian Authority. Like da Lula he is a feather duster. Unlike da Lula he stubbornly hangs on to power unwilling to hand over the reins by calling new elections.

Brazil could not possibly be happy with the assessment of Abbas contained in an editorial published in the Palestine Times on 3 January titled “Palestine being decapitated as PLO fiddles in Ramallah” - whilst the cement on the cornerstone in Brasilia was probably still drying.

Among the accusations the editor makes are:

1. The PLO-PA leadership is behaving very much like Nero who was fiddling while Rome was on fire.

2. The PLO leadership is busy discussing a government reshuffle in Ramallah, as if the Ramallah regime, which depends completely on foreign handouts, were enjoying any semblance of authority, or sovereignty or even dignity.

3. Fully aware of the sheepish nature of his Fatah loyalists, Abbas is effectively abandoning Palestinian national constants one by one.

4. It is really lamentable that the Palestinian leadership, whose term in office has long expired, is behaving exactly like the other Arab dictatorships.

No doubt the Editor is a Hamas sympathiser. He would have been angered at the announcement by Hamas Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum on the same day as his editorial was published - stating that Abbas’s security forces had detained 3000 Hamas affiliates in the West Bank in 2010 of whom:

1,404 had served time in Israeli jails,

49 were prominent Hamas leaders,

49 were Imams of mosques,

405 were university students

24 were professors

36 were journalists,

12 were businessmen,

5 pharmacists,

7 women and

12 school children,

Abbas’s invention of a homeland that excludes Gaza and makes life difficult for West Bank Hamas supporters should concern Brazil’s new President and Government. Abbas is similarly embarking on persuading other nations to do likewise. It is a high risk game that has the capacity to unravel very quickly.

Perhaps Brazil is starting to realise this danger following da Silva’s departure - which also sees the appointment of a new Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota in addition to a new President Dilma Rousseff.

In his first speech made on 2 January Patriota declared that priority would be given to :

“dialogue and diplomacy as a means to resolve tensions and disputes, advocating respect for international law, non-intervention and multilateralism”

He stated:

“Our President, Rousseff, is intellectual honesty, public spirit, fearlessness in the face of challenges of any size, sensitivity and humanism”

He pledged:

“To match the confidence placed in me by the President Rousseff will depend on collective efforts, which will necessarily involve the valuable contribution and dedication of all colleagues,diplomats and administration, the Secretary of State and posts abroad.”

Da Lula’s hasty embrace of Abbas seems set to be reviewed and hopefully will lead to Brazil committing once again to uphold Security Council Resolution 242 as the real cornerstone for resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Resolution 242 still remains the only internationally accepted building block for Middle East Peace since it was passed in 1967.

All else has proved useless blather and fictitious game playing.

If international law is to play any part in ending this 130 years old conflict then Security Council Resolution 242 must be given the primacy it deserves along with the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 the United Nations Charter.

It’s either that or the law of the jungle. Make your choice.

Palestine - Hark The Herald Devil Sings

[Published 23 December 2010]

“The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is a daily broadsheet newspaper published by Fairfax Media in Sydney, Australia. Founded in 1831 as the Sydney Herald, the SMH is the oldest continuously published newspaper in Australia.”

Regrettably the Sydney Morning Herald seems to be going the way of a growing number of media outlets that publish factually inaccurate or misleading statements and analysis on the Jewish-Arab conflict - which still defies resolution after 130 years of trying.

In its recent editorial “Mid East Peace: a time to speak” the Herald has published inaccuracies, innuendo, amateur analysis and comment designed to mislead or misinform.

Take the following:

1. “The Obama administration’s effort to get the Israelis and Palestinians back into direct negotiations, helped with a bribe to Israel of new military gear in return for a 90-day freeze on settlements in the conquered territories, has foundered.”

The suggestion that a “bribe” was offered and accepted is scurrilous. There were negotiations between Secretary of State Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but President Obama nixed those negotiations by refusing to make any offers in writing when confirmation was demanded by Israel.

2. “International patience is fast running out. Brazil and Argentina have recognised a sovereign state of Palestine; the Europeans are threatening to follow.”

It might have helped readers if the Herald had added that Brazil and Argentina’s recognition involved a state of Palestine within the 1967 armistice lines - which means that 500000 Jews will have to leave their homes and businesses. Brazil and Argentina’s endorsement of this Nazi “Judenrein” policy was apparently thought not important enough to point out to its readers.

As for the Europeans - the following news item appeared one week before the Herald’s editorial:

“The EU will not recognise changes to pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than agreed by the parties. “This could include territorial swaps,” it says, without further comment in what a diplomat said was the first such reference by the EU.It also demands that a way be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem ” as the future capital of two states” and calls for a just solution to the refugee problem.'

What source did the Herald rely on for its claim?

3 ."..or Palestinians may give up on the idea of their own state, and insist on a two-nation, single state in the original Palestine mandate.”

The Herald infers the location of the their own State is agreed upon between the Palestinian Arabs - which is inaccurate. The Gazan Arabs want their own state to include Israel, whilst the West Bank Arabs want their own state to exclude Israel and also those 500000 Jews who currently live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The original Palestine mandate contained what is today called Jordan - which comprised 78% of the territory of “Palestine”. Is the Herald privy to information that the Palestinians have designs on Jordan as part of the location for its two-nation single state?

4. “The key blockage, for Israel’s Western friends, is its own politics. Hamas can be tackled further downstream”

What source does the Herald rely on to assert that Israel’s own politics - not the Palestinian Arabs split politics - is the key blockage for Israel‘s western friends?

The Palestinian Arabs do not have a unified Government that can negotiate a final agreement with Israel. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are unable to decide who should govern the Palestinian Arabs after 3 years of internecine struggle. Abbas remains the unelected and unconstitutional President of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Fayyad government of the PA is unelected. Hamas is a declared terrorist organization and has been duly elected to govern in Gaza.

Israel - on the other hand - has a democratically elected Government that can enter into and make binding commitments but has no corresponding entity on the other side that can do the same.

Why should Israel tackle Hamas downstream? Hamas has to be confronted and dealt with in the context of any final settlement or such purported settlement will not be an end to the conflict.

Doing nothing about Hamas now will lead to precisely the outcome the Herald referred to in this very editorial :

“a messy one and two half-states, Israel plus a rump Palestine on the West Bank and a Hamas-ruled Gaza propped up by Iran.”

Is the Herald serious that Israel commit this act of national suicide by dealing with the PA now and put Hamas off for another day?

5. “The debate in Washington is now about how tough to be with Israel, to try to force the mainstream into a consensus decision. A bit of tough support from a key ally might have helped the Americans. Instead, Rudd’s [Australia’s Foreign Minister] public appearances were a feel-good profession of Australian support for Israel.”

A sweeping statement on Washington with not one bit of evidence or analysis to support it.

On the other hand there is clear evidence that the PA and Hamas are unable to settle their differences and steadfastly refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home.

How can Washington - in being tough with Israel - bring any breakthroughs in these Palestinian Arab logjams?

If America is to get tough with anyone surely it would be with the Palestinian Arab side - to get their act together and acknowledge that the Jewish state is a reality and is here to stay.

Good on Rudd. If the Herald’s editorial writer is right on Washington’s current stance - then Australia would be foolish to be part of it.

6. “Rudd made a distasteful joke about Menachem Begin carrying out ‘‘some interior redesign’’ of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel - referring to a terrorist bombing in 1946 that killed 91 people." Has Rudd really has got [sic] it as a diplomat? Perhaps WikiLeaks will one day reveal that he made a more appropriate pitch in private.”

(i) The King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Army - a legitimate target for attack.
(ii) Warnings were given to clear the hotel but were ignored by the British.
(iii) The attack was not a “terrorist bombing” since the civilian population was not deliberately targeted.

I would suggest the Herald not worry about Rudd and Wikileaks.

The Herald needs to worry about its journalists who write such nonsense as this skewed and inaccurate editorial.

Maybe in the spirit of openness and transparency being lately espoused by the Herald in its ongoing exclusive releases from Wikileaks - the Herald might tell us

(i) who wrote the editorial

(ii) the qualifications of the person writing the editorial

(iii) who checked the editorial for its accuracy before publication

At this festive time of goodwill and cheer the Herald has clearly displayed that this editorial is lacking in both.

Palestine, Brazil And Argentina - Outing The Jew Haters

[Published 13 December 2010]


Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas openly espouses Jew-hating qualities under the three hats he currently wears.

1. As President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) - Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home.

2. As Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - Abbas is sworn to enforce the provisions of its Charter which prescribes:

“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

3. As Chairman of Fatah - the largest faction in the PLO - Abbas presided over a meeting of its Revolutionary Council on 27 November which resolved:

“The Council stresses the revolutionary rejection of the so-called ‘Jewish state’ and any formula [that] can be considered in future contribution to achieving this end, and renew this rejection of any attempt by a racist state based on religion, in accordance with international law and human rights charters…”

Abbas has gone even further and persuaded Brazil to out itself as a Jew-hating State by calling for the recognition of a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan, Egypt and Israel “on 1967 borders”.

There were no “1967 borders“ - as Brazil must surely know - only 1949 demarcation lines that had been established between

1. Israel and Egypt on 24 January 1949 and

2. Israel and Transjordan (now called Jordan) on 3 April 1949

- to designate the armistice lines where hostilities had ceased between the nascent State of Israel and the six Arab armies that had invaded it in May 1948.

Brazil’s recognition signifies that 500000 Jews presently living on the Arab side of those demarcation lines in the areas called the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem - will either have to voluntarily leave or be forcibly removed from their homes and businesses.

Brazil’s decision - which smacks of the infamous Nazi “Judenrein” policy that called for the mass deportation of Jews from their homes and businesses before and during World War 11 - is in breach of existing international law specifically:

1. Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine - which recognized the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in precisely the area that Brazil now wants to see cleared of Jews - which Brazil itself agreed to when the Mandate was unanimously approved by the League of Nations in 1922

2. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - which reserved the rights of Jewish settlement granted by the Mandate - which had also been endorsed by Brazil when the UN Charter came into being.

Argentina has been quick to follow Brazil’s headlong rush into identifying itself as a fellow Jew-hating state. Expectations are that they will be soon joined by Uruguay and some other South American countries.

Both Argentina and Uruguay were also - like Brazil - consenting signatories to the Mandate and Article 80.

One cannot stop people or States being Jew-haters but on the other hand they need to be identified and exposed.

Racism and vilification of this kind have no place in humankind.

In the case of those States which choose to follow Brazil and Argentina - one would hope to see their citizens protesting loudly at such a decision. Standing by and doing nothing will only stigmatize the citizens of those States as Jew-haters.

Neither Brazil nor Argentina have made any call on the PA to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home in return for the recognition they have now extended to the PA.

Brazil and Uruguay supported the creation of a Jewish State proposed by the UN in 1947. Argentina abstained.

All three countries became places of refuge for fleeing Nazis at the conclusion of World War 11. Their shadowy past seems to be coming back to haunt them.

Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay never recognized the attempted annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Transjordan in 1950.

Israel’s position on the status of these areas was explained by Israel’s then Foreign Affairs Minister - Moshe Sharett - in Israel‘s Parliament on 3 May 1950 as follows:

“The Government Spokesman issued the following statement, in the Government’s name: “The decision to annex the Arab areas west of the River Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a unilateral step to which Israel is not a party in any way. We are connected with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan through the Armistice Agreement, which we will uphold rigorously. This agreement does not include any final political settlement, however, and no such settlement is possible without negotiations and a peace treaty between the sides. It must be evident, therefore, that the question of the status of the Arab areas west of the River Jordan remains open as far as we are concerned.”

This position holds true today - with the exception that the areas cannot be described as “Arab areas” since they are now inhabited by 500000 Jews as well. Many of the Jews returning to live there after 1967 had been forced to leave their homes and businesses following Jordan’s conquest of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948.

Announcements by countries such as Brazil and Argentina signifying their assent to the wholesale deportation of this Jewish population once again sends a dangerous message of support to the 21 Jew-hating States comprised in the Arab League - which have unanimously endorsed the Saudi Peace Plan in 2002 calling for precisely such an outcome.

This call should be contrasted with the view expressed by President Bush to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004:

“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.”

Brazil and Argentina - and any other States that are attracted to follow them - have some serious explaining to do to justify their decision in endorsing an outcome in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that requires both areas to be completely cleared of Jews.

Palestine - Double-crossing Obama Signals Problems For Abbas

[Published 7 December 2010]


President Obama has been double-crossed by the extraordinary behaviour of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in seeking Brazil’s recognition of a Palestinian State “within the 1967 borders”.

A succeeding announcement by Argentina also recognizes a Palestinian state “within the 1967 borders” . Uruguay could be set to shortly follow suit.

In initially approaching Brazil for such recognition without advising Obama - Abbas could well have scuttled Obama’s further involvement in getting Israel and the PA to resume their stalled negotiations.

Abbas’s intemperate action could see the parties left to go their own ways after 17 years of failed American diplomacy to get even the most basic of understandings between Israel and the PA.

Argentina’s subsequent recognition is set to further exacerbate the growing crisis between America and the PA as a result of Abbas apparently deciding to abandon the American brokered negotiations..

Abbas’s letter to Brazil’s President Lula da Silva was written on 24 November - at precisely the time Obama was mulling over the incentives he was prepared to offer Israel to induce it to announce a three month building freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - thus enabling the PA to return to the negotiating table following its withdrawal from negotiations with Israel on 26 September.

Abbas made it clear in his letter to da Silva that the PA was not going to give Obama any further leeway the get the stalled negotiations resumed when he stated:

“The current situation in the Palestinian Territories shows a major escalation of Israeli actions. The Government of Israel refuses to stop its activities in the settlements. …Israel still defies the world and insists its colonization activities. This position hinders any possibility of reaching an agreement through negotiations and also creates a new reality on the ground, which prevents the two-state solution“

This statement amounted to a clear repudiation of any intention by the PA to give President Obama any more time to defuse the very issue that Abbas claimed was preventing his return to the negotiating table.

Abbas’s request to da Silva in such circumstances was clear and unambiguous:

“ .. we hope, our dear friend, that you will decide to take the initiative recognize the state of Palestine within the 1967 borders.”

Da Silva apparently was prepared to go even further and advised Abbas on 3 December:

“Brazil, through this letter, recognizes a Palestinian state on 1967 borders.“

There certainly is a great difference between the words “on” and “within”. But irrespective of which term was used by da Silva - Abbas’s request was a blatant attempt to undermine and influence the outcome of any eventual resumption of the stalled negotiations between the PA and Israel.

The border to be drawn between Israel and the new Arab state was critical to the successful conclusion of any such negotiations, Abbas in his letter to da Silva had indicated he was not prepared to move one meter from the position that had been maintained by the Palestine Liberation Organization for the last 43 years.

Abbas was perfectly entitled to jettison Obama and seek diplomatic support elsewhere. But it appears that in doing so he has shot himself in the foot. Any trust between Abbas and Obama must be severely undermined as a result of Abbas’s action in unilaterally seeking Brazilian and Argentinean recognition.

The PA. Brazil and Argentina are engaging on a flight of fantasy because there are no “1967 borders”. There currently exists what Israeli Cabinet Minister Benny Begin describes as

“the totally artificial line of aggression which is expressed in the 1949 armistice demarcation line. It’s nothing more than that. It signified at the time the line of battle fatigue. That’s all.”

To define such armistice line as a “border” continues the fiction that has been regularly repeated by Abbas and by United Nations General Assembly resolutions. That does not make it a border. It never has been - and in the view of the United States - can never become a border for obvious reasons - 500000 Jews now live beyond those armistice lines where none lived in 1967 after all the Jews then living there had been driven out by six invading Arab armies in 1948.

Even more bizarre is the recognition which Brazil - and now Argentina - has afforded to

1. A PA President whose term of office has long expired

2. A PA Government which is un-elected after having ousted a Government that was elected

3. An area of territory that is neither under the administrative or security control of the PA but is currently controlled by Israel or Hamas

4.Two different territorial areas that are not contiguous and are ruled by two different Arab Governments each claiming to represent the people seeking independence.

Both Brazil and Argentina have by their perverse decisions given new meaning to the terms “Brazil Nuts” and "Argentinean Ants”.

Those countries which may be persuaded to follow these unprecedented acts of “recognition” - which run completely contrary to the requirements of international law - should think carefully before jumping into the diplomatic quicksand that such decisions will inevitably create as precedents for others claiming “recognition” such as the Kurds, the Basques.the Tibetans and the Corsicans.

What Abbas hoped to achieve by slapping Obama in the face in this manner is difficult to grasp. Certainly such acts of recognition will get headlines - but effectively such “recognition” in practice and in law means nothing.

Thumbing your nose at an American President and causing him considerable loss of face as Abbas has chosen to do - is not bound to go unnoticed or unpunished by Obama.

It would be no surprise if Obama now decided to disengage from any further effort to bring Israel and the PA back to the negotiating table.

The distinct impression has already been created that Obama could never come up with a letter that would induce Israel to freeze building activity in the West bank and East Jerusalem. Two weeks of trying to draft it has apparently eluded the State Department and its host of diplomats. Abbas has ensured that the letter will now be a much longer time in coming - if ever at all.

Abbas will only have himself to blame. Like so many of his predecessors he has once again proved the adage eloquently expressed by former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.