Trump-Netanyahu Mapping Committee needs to deliver the map

 [Published 13 November 2020]

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

Trump made this intention clear when releasing his Plan:

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

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman went further:

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

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

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

Little has been heard of its progress since.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However Trump can still materially advance his Plan by:

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

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

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

attempting to get the PLO to negotiate with Israel and

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

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

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

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

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


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

Green light on Judea and Samaria is key to Trump’s re-election

[Published 3 August 2020]

President Trump’s chances of winning another term in November could well turn on his publicly endorsing Israel to immediately implement his Peace Plan restoring Jewish sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) after an absence of 3000 years.

Judea and Samaria — the ancient and biblical heartland of the Jewish People — was expressly designated by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922 as part of the area within which the Jewish National Home could be reconstituted. That right still survives in 2020 under article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Republican-voting Jews and white, born-again/evangelical Christians are particularly interested in seeing Trump give Israel the go-ahead. It could be the tipping point in their decision to vote or not vote for Trump. Whether Israel positively responded would then be its decision solely.

Jessica Martinez and Gregory A Smith concluded in their article — “How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis”:

“Fully eight-in-ten self-identified white, born-again/evangelical Christians say they voted for Trump, while just 16% voted for Clinton. Trump’s 65-percentage-point margin of victory among voters in this group—which includes self-described Protestants, as well as Catholics, Mormons and others—matched or exceeded the victory margins of George W. Bush in 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012…
… Like Hispanic Catholics, religious “nones” and Jews were strong Clinton supporters. Indeed, nearly seven-in-ten religious “nones” voted for Clinton, as did 71% of Jews.”

Only 72% of white, born-again evangelical/ Christians currently approve Trump’s handling of his job, according to a Pew Research Centre survey conducted June 16 to 22 — a decline of 6 percentage points since April. Actioning his peace plan could see Trump’s Evangelical vote restored to its 2016 levels. Delaying its implementation could see Evangelical support decline below 72%.

Strong Jewish support for the Democratic Party has seemingly resulted from intermarriage — last measured at 58% in another 2013 Pew Research survey:

“Intermarriage rates seem to have risen substantially over the last five decades. Among Jewish respondents who have gotten married since 2000, nearly six-in-ten have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who got married in the 1980s, roughly four-in-ten have a non-Jewish spouse. And among Jews who got married before 1970, just 17% have a non-Jewish spouse.

American Jews merging their Jewish identity with their non-Jewish partner’s identity over the last 50 years has seen their families increasingly vote for the Democratic Party — safe in the knowledge that strong bipartisan support for Israel existed between Democrats and Republicans.

However this bipartisan support has been fractured following President Obama’s post-election sell-out of Israel at the United Nations on 23 December 2016 — followed now by stringent criticism of Trump’s Peace Plan by:

• Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, Chris Murphy and Independent Bernie Sanders.
• 191 Democrat Members of Congress
• The Democratic Party’s Draft 2020 platform—which proclaims:

“Democrats oppose any unilateral steps by either side—including annexation—that undermine prospects for two states”

The Democratic Party now opposes Israel unilaterally reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria — a legal entitlement vested in the Jewish People for the last 100 years but unattainable until now under Trump’s Peace Plan.

Many Jews who voted for the Democratic Party in 2016 would be alarmed at seeing their previous bilateral comfort zone collapsing. The choice they thought they would never have to make has now arrived.

Trump can help regain his high 2016 Evangelical Christian vote whilst increasing his very low 2016 Jewish vote by green-lighting Israel’s immediate application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria -considerably boosting his prospects for re-election.

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 Or Clinton Victory Could Depend On Non-Voters

[This article was submitted for publication to Canada Free Press on 4 November 2016 but was never published.

When I enquired as to reason why - I received the following response:

CFP-Copy
09/11/2016

Dear David,

Apologies.

I just site searched the article and found it in our spam folder. For some reason unknown to us, a few of our writers — in the last week— had their submissions arrive in spam.

Not sure why this happened, but sorry it did

Brian and Judi

Russian conspiracy theorists - here is something for you to go ballistic about.]



It would indeed be ironic if the next President of the United States was determined by the number of previous voters who this time did not exercise the most fundamental right bequeathed to them by their forefathers - the inalienable right to vote.

An increase in this class of non-voters has become more likely with the release of a Washington Post-ABC News poll - which found 46% of likely voters saying Trump is more honest and deserving of trust as against 38% for Clinton. That is seen as a wide lead for Trump since both he and Clinton were tied when the same question was asked by the Washington Post-ABC poll in September.

Clinton's decline comes amidst some extraordinary events:

1. the FBI reopening an investigation into Clinton’s private email server, having found more emails on the private computer of her senior aide Huma Abedin.

2.Interim Democratic National Committee Chairperson Donna Brazile being caught out - whilst a contributor at CNN - feeding two questions to the Clinton camp likely to be asked in a Democrat debate without the knowledge of her Presidential opponent Bernie Sanders.

3. An undercover video surfacing that tied Robert Creamer - a White House visitor on 340 occasions meeting with President Obama 45 times - to plans to incite brawls at Trump rallies and illegally bus voters to polling stations.

These latest developments could influence many previous voters - both democrats and disenchanted republicans intending to vote for Clinton - into not voting.

Bernie Sanders supporters are no doubt outraged by the treatment accorded to him by two Democratic National Committee Chairpersons.

Brazile's predecessor Senator Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been forced to resign that position after hacked emails revealed a plot to embarrass and undermine Sanders in the Democratic primaries as the Democratic Party nominee.

Brazile survives - defiant, unrepentant and unscathed.

Many other Democrats might not be prepared to vote for a candidate who could be embroiled in a lengthy FBI investigation extending well into her Presidency - that could both hamstring her administration and impact on her decision making capacity.

Republican voters - such as the Bush family - affronted and publicly distancing themselves from Trump's policies and his sometimes irrational and explosive behaviour not to mention his alleged sexual indiscretions - will now reflect on voting for Clinton in the face of these latest developments but decide they still cannot vote for Trump. They could opt to vote for neither.

The crowds flocking to Trump's rallies are far larger than Clinton's. One can reasonably conclude that the enthusiasm of Trumps's supporters far outweighs that of Clinton's - and that the likelihood of Trump voters turning out to vote will probably not diminish no matter what happens in the next few days.

Voter turnout dipped from 62.3% of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5% in 2012.

The low 2012 turnout could be explained by the fact that President Barack Obama was running for his second term whilst enjoying a high popularity rating.

It would therefore be more circumspect to accept the figure of 62.3% as setting the bar that both Trump and Clinton should be watching closely as the votes are being counted.

If the voter turnout is less than 62.3% - then Trump is more likely to win. If higher than 62.3% - then Clinton is more likely to win.

There is no doubt that this has been the most volatile Presidential election campaign ever and that the popularity of both Trump and Clinton is very low.

Hopefully dedicated past voters choosing to not vote in 2016 will never again be faced with this difficult choice of rejecting both the Republican and Democratic parties nominees.


[PS:I received the following reply from Fox News pollster Larry Sabato on 10 November 2016 after I sent him this article:

David,

It’s an excellent piece. I am going to share it with my entire team; I want every one of them to read it.

I appreciate your kind words. Most people wrote to suggest an early retirement — or a firing squad! So I salute your humanity.

Best wishes,

Larry

Dr. Larry J. Sabato
Director, Center for Politics
University Professor of Politics
University of Virginia
sabato@virginia.edu]

Trump plan for Israel-Jordan-Egypt negotiations hits brick wall

[Published 16 January 2019]

President Trump’s self-styled deal of the century aimed at resolving the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict has now been postponed beyond February for a further unspecified period of months - signalling Jordan and Egypt are still refusing to step up and negotiate with Israel on Trump’s plan.

Jordan and Egypt — having respectively signed peace agreements with Israel in 1994 and 1979 - were the last two Arab states to occupy Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza (“the disputed territories”) between 1948 and 1967. Both are eminently qualified to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation which has flatly refused —sight unseen — to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s proposals to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the disputed territories.

Trump’s plan will be stillborn unless Arab interlocutors indicate in advance that they stand ready to take up the challenge presented by Trump’s ideas and agree to meet with Israel to try and reach a deal acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.

America’s ambassador to Israel — David Friedman — revealed that the upcoming Israeli elections in April were a factor - but not the only factor — that led to the latest postponement of Trump’s long-awaited peace plan.

Friedman said the White House wanted to release the plan in a way that gave it the best chance of getting a good reception. Friedman noted additional “wordsmithing and smoothing” was still required before it was publicized.

Friedman added:

“The challenge to a peace plan is making the case for a much more sober assessment of the realities in this region. The last time there was a meaningful agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians was 1993 [Ed—The Oslo Accords]. A lot has happened since 1993”

Friedman’s comments came during a joint media conference held in Jerusalem alongside US National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Bolton had seen General Jim Mattis resign as Secretary of Defence in December. Since 2013 Mattis had strongly supported the two-state solution — the creation of an additional Arab state between Israel and Jordan — contemplated by both the Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap, and unsuccessfully pushed for eight years by President Obama and his Secretaries for State — Hilary Clinton and John Kerry.

Bolton’s opposing opinion held since 2009 was reconfirmed to Eric Shawn on 21 January 2018:

“I hope at some point the Administration recognizes and perhaps it is already quietly — that the two-state solution isn’t going anywhere. If anything I would say to King Abdullah of Jordan — “Be prepared to reassert Jordanian sovereignty over part of the West Bank—negotiate with Israel”. I think that’s a far better outcome than the continued pursuit of a mythical — I believe — unattainable viable Palestinian state”

Twelve months down the track Bolton’s Jordan approach has seemingly prevailed - especially after Friedman’s assertion last September:

“Since 1994, the United States has thrown more than $10 billion in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Without minimizing the importance of medical treatment and quality education for children — and we don’t minimize that, not even for a minute — we found that these expenditures were bringing the region no closer to peace or stability, not even by a millimetre. To spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund stipends to terrorists and their families, to expend funds to perpetuate rather than to mitigate refugee status, and to finance hate-filled textbooks — I ask you, how does that provide value to the United States or the region?"

Friedman’s “wordsmithing and smoothing” comment indicates that Jordan and Egypt could be holding out for further American financial and security guarantees before agreeing to negotiate with Israel.

Trump’s legendary negotiating skills — and patience - are being seriously tested.

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

Arab Summit helps Trump break Jordan-PLO-Israel impasse

[Published 22 April 2018]

The 29th Arab Summit - concluded in Dhahran on 15 April - has presented President Trump with a wonderful opportunity to circumvent the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) refusal to consider Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain and Sudan received scant attention - the Summit’s final communique declaring::

“We reaffirm that the Palestine Cause is the entire Arab nation’s main priority, stressing the Arab identity of occupied East Al-Quds as the capital of the State of Palestine.”

Using the term “Palestine Cause” rather than “Palestinian cause” indicates the Arab world now intends focusing on recovering territory lost in the 1967 Six Day War without necessarily creating another Palestinian Arab state – in addition to Jordan - in former Palestine.

The communique further reinforced this interpretation when adding:

“The conflict could be ended through a two-state solution that guarantees the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the borders of 4 July 1967 with East Al-Quds as its capital.”

Using the words “could be ended” rather than “can only be ended” is highly significant in the context of this long-running conflict where every word uttered is invariably scrutinised and analysed in great detail.

The Summit’s declared “two-state solution” - pressed for the last 25 years by the PLO and the Arab League and endorsed by the United Nations and the European Union as the only solution to end the Arab-Jewish conflict – is now being seen by the Arab world as just one possible solution.

The Dhahran Communique downgraded the PLO’s sole-spokesman status:

“We consider the Jordanian authorities as the only body in charge of the administration, maintenance and access to Al-Aqsa Mosque”.

This unequivocal Arab endorsement of Jordan challenges the PLO having any future control or influence in the most sensitive area of crucial concern to the Islamic world in Jerusalem - the Moslem holy sites.

Jordan has maintained its presence in Jerusalem as Islamic Holy Shrines Custodian for the last 24 years as a result of the 1994 Peace Agreement between Jordan and Israel – article 9 declaring:

"1.​ Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance"
2.​ In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.
3.​ The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.”

The Washington Declaration - signed by His Majesty King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House on July 25, 1994 in the presence of President Clinton - formally ended the 46-year state of war between Jordan and Israel.

The Washington Declaration is testament to America’s role as the only power possessing the prestige and clout to change Arab and Jewish perceptions on resolving their long-running conflict.

Jordan’s special role in Jerusalem recognised by the Summit closely follows PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s recent assertion that Jordanians and Palestinians are indeed one people.

Resolving the “Palestine Cause” remains more easily achievable in negotiations between Israel and Jordan within the framework of their existing peace treaty - rather than resuming fruitless negotiations pursued over the last 25 years between Israel and the PLO.

Ending the 100 years old “Palestine Curse” which has so terribly afflicted both Jews and Arabs could well be within Trump’s grasp thanks to the Dhahran Summit.

Trump Thrashes Clinton On Ending Sexual Violence In Syria And Iraq

[Published 16 October 2016}


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. See Islamic State defeated

2. End the ongoing sexual violence in Syria and Iraq

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

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

Clinton Will Continue Obama Policy Confronting Russia In Syria And UN

[Published 10 October 2016]


Hillary Clinton has made it very clear in the second Presidential Debate that if elected next President of the United States she will continue President Obama’s confrontation with Russia both in Syria and at the United Nations.

Clinton told 66.5 million viewers:

“Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.
Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me.”

Clinton’s no-fly zone over Libya proved disastrous and has already been rejected by Russia over Syria.

She left unexplained what leverage she could put on Putin to get him to the negotiating table.

Her assessment that Russia wanted Trump elected as President of the United States was probably correct for the following reasons enunciated by Trump during the debate.

“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS..

... I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she [Clinton] made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.”

The choice for America’s voters could not be clearer:

1. co-operation with Russia to first get rid of ISIS and - unmentioned during the debate - al-Nusra threats to world peace and security already declared by the UN Security Council or

2. continuing confrontation with Russia seeking to resolve the Syrian civil conflict which has raged since 2011.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov extended the following olive branch to America on 18 November 2015:

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

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position.

Trump seems ready to take up Russia’s offer of defeating ISIS first.

American voters have been presented with a stark choice between Clinton and Trump on America’s future involvement in Syria.

Deceiving Trump and Tillerson has consequences for Abbas

[Published 19 June 2017]

President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson are quickly learning that tough talk is needed to rein in Mahmoud Abbas — who has deceived Trump and Tillerson twice in the last month.

Abbas sweet-talked Trump at the White House on 3 May claiming:

“we are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly responded on 4 May:

“I heard President Abbas yesterday say that Palestinians teach their children peace. That’s unfortunately not true. They name their schools after mass murders of Israelis and they pay terrorists,”

Trump blasted Abbas in Bethlehem on 23 May:

“You tricked me in D.C.! You talked there about your commitment to peace, but the Israelis showed me your involvement in incitement”

Tillerson too was made to look stupid after he had told a Senate hearing on 13 June that he had been informed that Abbas intended ceasing the policy of payments to terrorists.

Tillerson’s claim was immediately repudiated by Issa Qaraqe, the head of the PA prisoners affairs department:

“This is not true and this statement is an aggression against the Palestinian people,”

Such duplicity does not augur well for creating an environment hoping to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Straight talking from Trump is needed to:

1. Bury the negotiating process between Abbas and Netanyahu that torpedoed the attempts by President Obama and Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry to end the conflict between 2009 and 2016.

2. Terminate the artificially contrived framework misnamed “the two-state solution” within which previous negotiations have been conducted between Abbas and Netanyahu with total disregard for the origins of the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

That conflict began with the creation by the League of Nations of the Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922 following decisions taken by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

The League of Nations by unanimous resolution of all member States — including Iran — laid down a formula that would see the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home being restricted to an area comprising no more than 23% of the territory covered by the Mandate

In 1946 an Arab State was created in the remaining 77% of Mandatory Palestine and was renamed “the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”.

In 1948 Israel was created in 17% of the territory of the Mandate whilst the remaining 6% - Judea and Samaria, Gaza — was conquered and occupied by Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1950) and Egypt respectively until their loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Arab propaganda has repeatedly and misleadingly claimed that the conflict only began in 1948.

Abbas is but the latest in a long line of failed leaders of the Palestinian Arabs who have rejected all attempts to resolve the conflict based on what was internationally agreed 95 years ago.

Jordan has been exculpated from playing any role in resolving this conflict it was part of from the very inception of the Mandate and which it substantially aggravated between 1948 and 1967.

Trump and Tillerson belong to the old school that uses language whose meaning cannot be misinterpreted.

Trifling with the truth in conversations with Trump and Tillerson must have political consequences for Abbas.

Hopefully the days of diplomatic doublespeak and ambiguous language are nearing their end.

Bringing Jordan into any new negotiations to finally determine the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) — an area smaller than Delaware — is the key to Trump pulling off the deal of the century.

Trump must honour Bush-Congress deal with Israel

[Published 18 May 2017]

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

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

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

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel.”

Trump’s claim was certainly justified.

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

Trump promised:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrity always trumps betrayal.

Trump-Netanyahu Meeting Set To Expose Obama’s Collusion On Resolution 2334

[Published 10 February 2017]


One of the intriguing aspects of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on 15 February will be the evidence he produces to President Trump to establish former President Obama’s collusion in promoting Security Council Resolution 2334.

America abstained from voting on Resolution 2334 – but the language used in that Resolution was inimical to the national interests of Israel and the Jewish people by declaring that:

1. the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity and constituted a flagrant violation under international law

2. Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem

This language identifies as “Palestinian territory”:

(i) the centuries old Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem,
(ii) the site of the First and Second Temples,
(iii) the Western Wall,
(iv) the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery,
(v) Rachel’s Tomb,
(vi) the Machpelah, and
(vii) Judea and Samaria

Resolution 2334 seeks to erase the legal rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in these areas under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Such language gives credence to the PLO claim that the Mandate — a critical building block in the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict — is null and void.

Resolution 2334 contravenes article 80 of the United Nations Charter - exceeding the Security Council’s powers and condemning the hypocrisy of the Security Council which sanctimoniously professes to be concerned about “legal validity” and “international law”

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm Al-Sabea was the first to allege American collusion in promoting Resolution 2334 - claiming to have a transcript of a meeting in December — prior to the passage of Resolution 2334 - between Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and US National Security Advisor Susan Rice in which Kerry said the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security Council.

White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price claimed no such tripartite meeting took place and that the ‘transcript’ was a total fabrication — although he admitted Erekat had met with Kerry and Rice separately.

Netanyahu issued a Press Release on 28 December 2016 declaring:

“We have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the United States organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the United Nations Security Council. We’ll share that information with the incoming administration. Some of it is sensitive, it’s all true. You saw some of it in the protocol released in an Egyptian paper. There’s plenty more; it’s the tip of the iceberg.”

Netanyahu’s claim that some of the information is sensitive suggests that there has been an interception of emails or other classified American documents emanating from Obama or Kerry’s offices.

America’s cybersecurity record has been appalling - as the hacking of the Democrats web site and Hillary Clinton’s emails and private server has shown.

Netanyahu’s description of the transcript held by the Egyptian newspaper as “the tip of the iceberg” suggests Israel holds a Wiki-style treasure trove of incriminating documents.

Sensational claims of Israel-hacking will doubtless fuel the media.

There appears to be no evidence that this material has yet been given to the Trump Administration. If it had — some leak would surely have emerged by now.

Netanyahu’s visit to the White House presents the perfect opportunity to personally hand his evidence to President Trump - enabling him to decide whether to disclose such evidence publicly or not.

Netanyahu’s moment exposing Obama’s betrayal of Israel is fast approaching.

[Author’s Note: The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry was asked to confirm or deny some of the facts in this article but no response was received]

Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American policy on Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator John Kerry — whilst not casting a vote in the Senate - made his position very clear to Moderator Tim Russert on Meet The Press on 18 April 2004:

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

KERRY: Yes.

RUSSERT: Completely?

KERRY: Yes.

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

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

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

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

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza,

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel,

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

4. chaos in Sinai,

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties.

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

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

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

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

Obama's Islamic State Policy Uncorks Shiite Genie In Iraq

[Published 31 October 2016]


President Obama’s decision 14 days ago to approve Iraqi and Peshmerga forces undertaking the liberation of Mosul has well and truly blown up in his face with the news that the Iran funded Shiite Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have now joined in the attack.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter certainly did not anticipate this development when announcing Obama’s decision:

“The United States and the rest of the international coalition stand ready to support Iraqi Security Forces, Peshmerga fighters and the people of Iraq in the difficult fight ahead.”

Neither did Operation Inherent Resolve Commander Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend who stated:

“But to be clear, the thousands of ground combat forces who will liberate Mosul are all Iraqis,”

The involvement of 15,000 Shiite PMU militiamen — designated by the Iraqi Government as “an independent military formation” - could aggravate already existing sectarian divisions in Iraq.

This could eventually lead to a Shiite land grab of territory liberated by the PMU.

The retention of land conquered by the Peshmerga forces is also a realistic possibility.

Iraq as a distinct and separate territorial unit could be in real danger of being carved up.

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular Presidential policy failure.

Obama must be reeling after further reading on that:

“Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the Iraq-sanctioned paramilitary known as Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), said on Saturday that they will fight alongside Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces in Syria after finishing their battle against ISIS in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, Al Arabiya News Channel reported…"

Obama’s inability to remove Assad from power in Syria during the last five years has been a spectacular Presidential policy failure.

His justified hatred of Assad — propped up by Russia and Iran - has seen him refuse to accept Russia’s invitation to jointly seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution to first take military action against Islamic State in Syria and then try to resolve Syria’s future after Islamic State has been defeated there.

Obama could not fail to be also very worried about Al-Arabiya’s further report:

”... Jaafar al-Husseini, a spokesman for the Hezbollah Brigades, said they launched an offensive Saturday along with other large militias toward the town of Tal Afar, which had a Shiite majority before it fell to ISIS [Islamic State] in 2014. Iranian forces are advising the fighters and Iraqi aircraft are providing airstrikes”

Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan said on 30 October that Ankara - which already has a military presence in Iraq — would act if forces from the PMU abuse civilians in their fight for the town of Tal Afar.

“Tal Afar is a very sensitive issue for us. We definitely do not regard it [Shia militia involvement] positively in Tal Afar and Sinjar,”

Tal Afar is a totally Turkmen city, with half Shia and half Sunni Muslims. We do not judge people by their religious affiliation, we regard them all as Muslims.

“But if Hashid Shaabi [PMU] terrorises the region, our response would be different.”

In other parts of Iraq retaken from Islamic State - such as Fallujah and Ramadi - there have been allegations of Shia fighters mistreating Sunni civilians.

Iraq is fast becoming a tinderbox containing different elements and interests that could set Iraq ablaze — should Islamic State eventually be defeated in Mosul.

Obama’s decision to commence the attack on Mosul appears to have been made without any real thought to the possible involvement of the PMU and Turkey.

Why Obama thought it that urgent to commence the battle for Mosul at this late stage of his Presidency is a question that will be increasingly asked over the coming week
— especially by Clinton and Trump.

Obama's Islamic State Policy Threatens Clinton Election Victory

[Published 27 October 2016]


President Obama’s decision to agree to Iraqi and Peshmerga forces attacking Mosul to degrade and destroy the Islamic State just three weeks before the US elections sounds alarm bells for the prospects of Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump on 8 November.

Secretary of Defence Ash Carter confirmed Obama’s decision on 17 October.

The timing of the attack is very concerning.

Obama’s decision accords with his policy enunciated as far back as 10 September 2014:

“But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.”

Obama had then further elaborated:

”...we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground…

... As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.”

The same day as Carter issued his statement - General Stephen Townsend, Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve - reportedly acknowledged the presence of
“forward air controllers” amongst the US “advisory” contributions to the battle.

Those American “advisory” contributions now appear to have included an explosive ordnance disposal technician - Jason Finan - working with a Navy SEAL team near Mosul who was killed by an Islamic State bomb on October 20.

Both Carter and Townsend were meeting together in Irbil on 23 October when Townsend stated:

“Our investigation is still underway, but as I understand the event right now, they had moved to a position on the battlefield behind the Iraqi front lines with a headquarters element….

...These guys said you know what, we probably need to move back a terrain and gain a little bit more stand-off. And they were in the process of that when they struck an IED.”

Such direct involvement of American troops on the ground - leading to the death of an American soldier - seems a distinct departure from Obama’s 2014 policy.

Entrusting Iraqi and Peshmerga troops to defeat the Islamic State - declared a threat to world peace and security by the United Nations Security Council - was always a high risk Obama policy.

Now that attack has started - Hillary Clinton has been effectively lumbered with Obama’s policy if she becomes America’s next President.

Any suggestion of abandoning Obama’s policy now would send a bad signal to American voters.

Clinton’s situation has been further complicated by Carter indicating at the same press conference:

”... we want to see isolation operations begin, oriented at Raqqa as soon as possible. We’re working with our partners there to do that. And so there will be some simultaneity to these two operations. We’ve long anticipated that.”

This contradicts what Clinton said in the third Presidential debate:

“The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”

The IBD/TIPP poll finds widespread dissatisfaction with America’s direction - 62% of the public saying it’s headed in the wrong direction.

Obama’s decision could not have come at a worse time for Clinton.

Joseph Chamberlain said in 1886:

“‘In politics, there is no use in looking beyond the next fortnight.'”

Pollsters beware.

Pictures of body bags returning dead American soldiers, never-ending TV reports of murdered and injured civilians and people fleeing Mosul could certainly cause a huge voter backlash.

Clinton And Trump Clash On Defeating Islamic State In Syria

[Published 23 October 2016]


The Presidential debates have signalled fundamental policy differences between Clinton and Trump on defeating Islamic State in Syria [ISIS]

Clinton will be pursuing policies that prolong Islamic State’s existence in Syria - until Mosul has been conquered in Iraq. Trump wants to defeat Islamic State in Syria as an immediate priority.

Clinton laid out her policies during the third debate:

“The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.”

Conquering Mosul is going to take months to achieve – not to mention what Turkey might do if Mosul looks like falling in the current fighting.

Pressing into Syria to conquer Raqqa after Mosul’s fall would have to be undertaken without Syrian or United Nations Security Council approval - political insanity of the highest order that would certainly embroil the invading forces in conflict with Russia and Syria.

“So I have said, look, we need to keep our eye on ISIS. That’s why I want to have an intelligence surge that protects us here at home, why we have to go after them from the air, on the ground, online, why we have to make sure here at home we don’t let terrorists buy weapons. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun."

Great policies - if implemented in co-operation with Russia – but could result in a dangerous escalation in Syria with both Russia and Iran if undertaken unilaterally.

“And I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians so that perhaps we can have the kind of serious negotiation necessary to bring the conflict to an end and go forward on a political track.”

Clinton is whistling in the wind if she believes these policies can place any leverage on Syria and the Russians whilst she is unilaterally trying to conquer Raqqa.

She herself acknowledged in the third debate that the establishment of a no fly-zone:

… “would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

Presumably Syria would continue to burn whilst President Clinton negotiated with President Putin.

Trump has taken an entirely different tack:

1. He recognised the current problem:

“… our country is so outplayed by Putin and Assad, and by the way — and by Iran. Nobody can believe how stupid our leadership is.”

2. He identified America’s present precarious position as a result:

“he [Assad] has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don’t want ISIS, but they have other things, because we’re backing — we’re backing rebels. We don’t know who the rebels are. We’re giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don’t know who the rebels are”

3. He enunciated his policy in the second Presidential debate:

“ I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved.“

4. He had previously made clear the way forward:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?”

Voters have a stark choice come election day.

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

[Published 19 October 2016]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump needs to follow suit.

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

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

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

Trump Advisor Castigates Clinton Betrayal Of Israel

[Published 10 August 2016]


Donald Trump’s trusted co-advisor on Israel — David Friedman — has castigated Hillary Clinton for her role as Secretary of State in perpetrating one of President Obama’s worst foreign policy failures - trashing the letter from President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 - its terms having been overwhelmingly endorsed by Congress 502 votes to 12.

Friedman - rumoured to be Trump’s Ambassador to Israel if Trump becomes America’s next President — was recently asked this question in a wide ranging interview:

Hillary Clinton has just about everyone suggesting she is the most qualified person ever to be president. Where did she go wrong with the Middle East — if she did?

Friedman replied:

I don’t think she has made a right decision. I think she said some helpful things when she was the senator from New York when she had a Jewish constituency. As soon as she became secretary of state, the first thing she did was to embrace a unilateral settlement freeze. I think it completely poisoned the environment. I’m not aware of anything she did that is particularly good. I can name off the top of my head things that were nasty, like ripping up the letter from George Bush to Ariel Sharon, which I think was the only thing Israel got from evacuating Gaza.

The Bush letter had acknowledged the risks Israel was taking in unilaterally disengaging from Gaza and part of the West Bank. In return Bush gave Israel written assurances that in final status negotiations with the Palestinian Authority America would support Israel:

1. not returning to the 1949 armistice lines

2. demanding recognition as the Jewish state

3. refusing Palestinian Arab “refugees” being resettled in Israel

In ripping up these assurances Obama had undermined Israel’s security concerns and negotiating positions as agreed with Obama’s immediate predecessor.

Israel’s unilateral disengagement was duly completed in 2005 - with 8000 Israeli civilians leaving their homes and businesses established during the previous 35 years - whilst Israel’s military also completely withdrew.

By any analysis that disengagement has been disastrous - bringing Israel and Gaza no peace - only ongoing and continuing conflict resulting from:

1. Thousands of rockets and projectiles being fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza

2. Terrorist incursions into Israel and

3. The construction of tunnels from Gaza into Israel’s sovereign territory to serve as entry points for future terrorist assaults on Israel by Gaza’s myriad array of terrorist groups

.
To be fair to Clinton - her role in framing Obama’s policy repudiating the Bush Congress-endorsed assurances remains unclarified and unexplained.

Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State by the full Senate voting 94-2 on 21 January 2009 — having been a Senator since 3 January 2001.

On 24 June 2004 she was part of the Senate majority that voted 95 -3 to endorse the Bush letter.

The fact that Clinton was Secretary of State when the Bush letter was torn up does not necessarily implicate her as the architect of - or personally having agreed to - that appalling decision.

Statements made by Clinton on 17 June 2009 and 25 November 2009 point to her as the lead Obama official charged with implementing Obama’s policy - finally declared by Obama on 19 May 2011. Clinton remained Secretary of State until 1 February 2013.

Critically for Clinton — she now needs to fully explain her role in Obama’s gross act of betrayal of one of America’s staunchest long-standing allies.

Does Clinton avow:

1. Obama’s policy of ripping up the Bush letter in 2011? or

2. Her vote in the Senate endorsing the Bush letter in 2004?

Clinton needs to come clean before voting day.

Israel - Clinton and Trump Must Honour Bush-Congress Commitments

[Published 4 August 2016]


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

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

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

1. not returning to the 1949 armistice lines

2. demanding recognition as the Jewish state

3. refusing Palestinian Arab refugees being resettled in Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s assertion that:

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

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

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

Trump Targets Obama And Clinton Betrayal Of Israel

[Published 30 April 2016]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Others are making similar demands.

Trump is responding with his clearly articulated message.

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

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

Clinton Silent On Honouring Bush-Congress Commitments To Israel

[Published 20 March 2016]


Marco Rubio’s withdrawal from the Presidential race this week will not relieve Hillary Clinton from affirming or disavowing the following pledge made by Rubio during his failed campaign:

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

The terms of Bush’s letter - dated 14 April 2004 - were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 on 24 June 2004.

The letter backed Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and promised to support Israel’s following positions in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over the previous 11 years:

1. Israel would not cede its claims to all of the territory captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War

2. Millions of Palestinian Arabs would not be resettled in Israel and

3. Israel must be recognised as the state of the Jewish people.

Israel’s insistence on these conditions had been major stumbling blocks in the PLO rejecting Israel’s offer to withdraw from more than 90% of the West Bank during negotiations brokered by President Bill Clinton in 2000/2001.

The Bush Congress-endorsed letter had put America squarely in Israel’s corner.

Elliott Abrams — Middle East Affairs point-man at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009 — had no qualms about the significance of the Bush letter — when stating in July 2009:

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

President Obama however sought to change the goal posts laid down in the Bush letter with this statement on 19 May 2011:

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

Glenn Kessler pointed out at the time:

“Indeed, Israelis and Palestinians have held several intensive negotiations that involved swapping lands along the Arab-Israeli dividing line that existed before the 1967 war - technically known as the Green Line, or the boundaries established by the 1949 Armistice agreements. (Click here for a visual description of the swaps discussed between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.)

So, in many ways, it is not news that the eventual borders of a Palestinian state would be based on land swaps from the 1967 dividing line. But it makes a difference when the president of the United States says it, particularly in a carefully staged speech at the State Department. This then is not an off-the-cuff remark, but a carefully considered statement of U.S. policy.”

Given the chaos in Syria since Obama’s statement, the birth of Islamic State in 2014 and the continuing unstable political and security situations in Gaza and the West Bank— mutually agreed land swaps as a concept have become just another missed opportunity whose time has expired.

Michael Oren—Israel’s Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 was moved to make the following call in January 2015:

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

Will Clinton so act — if elected America’s 17th Democratic President — to honour a former Republican President’s commitments to one of America’s longstanding allies that go far beyond personal partisan politics?

Her answer is eagerly awaited.

Palestine - Rubio Challenges Clinton Support For Israel

[Published 6 March 2016]


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

Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum Rubio said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rubio has to his credit so reacted.

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

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