PLO suicide note leaves Jordan to decide fate of West Bank…

[Published 30 July 2019]

President Trump has been given the clearest notice that his deal of the century will be stillborn if he designates any role for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in its implementation.

In a remarkable outburst that can best be described as his “suicide note” — PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared on 25 July:

“I reiterate that we will not surrender, we will not coexist with the occupation and we will not deal with the deal of deal of the century, or the slap of the century or the deal of shame - all names for one title. Palestine and Jerusalem are not for sale and bargain. They are not a real estate deal in a real estate company.”

Yet for the last 25 years the PLO — aided and abetted by Jordan — has refused to yield its claim to sovereignty over every square meter of West Bank real estate — when compromise could possibly have resolved the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Two days prior to Abbas’ suicide note - the US Congress in a rare show of bipartisanship had offered the PLO a lifeline to enable it to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s yet-to-be-released proposals — overwhelmingly passing House Resolution 246 by a vote of 398-17 with 5 voting ‘present’.

Resolution 246:

Urged: Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Reaffirmed: its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states — a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state — living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.

48 hours later Abbas’s suicide note had trashed Congress’s Resolution.

So where to from here?

First some indisputable facts:

1.Jews have the legal right to settle in the West Bank under Article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

2. Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the Mandate: Jordan being sovereign in 78% of the Mandate territory and Israel sovereign in 17%.

3. 4% of the Mandate’s remaining real estate — Judea and Samaria — was unified with Transjordan between 1950 and 1967 and renamed Jordan — whilst Judea and Samaria were renamed the West Bank….

4. The 1964 PLO Charter made no claim to territorial sovereignty “over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”...

5. The revised 1968 PLO Charter declared the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and everything based on them null and void....

6. West Bank Arabs were Jordanian citizens between 1950 and 1988.

7. Abbas and Arafat have acknowledged Jordanians and Palestinians are one people.

Reunifying parts of the West Bank with Jordan in direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel should now be Trump’s objective, recognising the following resolution passed at the 8th meeting of the Palestinian National Council in February-March 1971:

...“Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity. .. In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the West, nor did it believe the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan…”

Abbas has written his suicide note .... Trump shouldn’t demean himself begging Abbas to reconsider.

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

Israel jettisons PLO as negotiating partner on Trump peace plan

[Published 21 February 2019]


Israel’s decision to withhold US$138 million dollars in tax revenues collected for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) - equaling the estimated annual payments made to Palestinian Arabs (or their families) carrying out random and indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians — marks a watershed in Israel-PLO relations.

Israel’s action will see the PLO being finally jettisoned as a possible negotiating partner on President Trump’s long-delayed peace plan — deferred yet again until after the Israeli elections in April.

The release of the Trump plan could now be further postponed as the President continues his so far unsuccessful search to find other Arab negotiators willing to replace the PLO — which had already rejected having anything to do with Trump’s plan well before Israel’s latest decision.

The law authorizing the freezing of these PLO funds was passed by the Israeli parliament in July 2018 — three months after similar legislation - the Taylor Force Act - passed by the US Congress - was signed into law by President Trump.

Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked stressed the funds withheld would be used to pay“fat salaries to murderers who are in prison”. They would also be used to pay Palestinian Arabs imprisoned in Israeli jails for lesser crimes.

Israel’s action follows the discovery of the body of 19-year-old Ori Ansbacher in the Jerusalem Forest on February 7. Channel 12 news reported that investigators from the Shin Bet security service and Israel Police hoped to indict Arafat Irfaiya, a 29-year-old Hebron resident, for murder in the context of a terrorist act in addition to a charge of rape.

Israel is clearly not prepared to allow this continuing wave of terror to be condoned and rewarded financially by the PLO.

Al Jazeera reported the PLO took a very different view of Israel’s freeze:

“The Palestinians have accused the Israeli government of piracy, of coordinating this with the United States to add pressure ahead of the publication of the Trump peace plan.”

The PLO had, however, been unceremoniously consigned to the diplomatic scrap heap by Trump well before Israel’s tax-revenue freeze.

Trump had been given the thumbs down by the PLO after Trump had:

1. Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

2. Stopped America’s annual payment of US$350 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency

3. Shut down the PLO offices in Washington.

4. Cancelled more than $200m in aid for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had already dismissed any further involvement with Trump on January 5, 2019:

“We are dealing with three issues that we can not accept: the situation with the US, the situation with Israel and the situation with Hamas. The doors are closed to the US. As long as it does not retract its decisions against the Palestinian people, no Palestinian should meet with the American leadership, no matter what their role is.”

Paying murderers and felons who kill and maim Jews has finally become the PLO’s political downfall.

Ori Ansbacher’s murder was the final tipping point for Israel to dump the PLO as a future negotiating partner after thousands of well documented random terror attacks on Israel’s civilian population over the last four years - perpetrated by individuals, many very young, inspired by vicious incitement in Palestinian social and traditional media and rewarded financially by the Palestinian leadership.

The days of “pay for slay” and fruitless negotiations with the PLO that have gone nowhere over the last 25 years are over.

Israel has well and truly closed the door on the PLO and it should remain locked and bolted.

Trump should reaffirm core Bush-Congress commitments to Israel

[Published 29 January 2019]

President Trump’s decision to reverse his partial US Government shutdown – the longest in history -could have important consequences for the release of his long-awaited plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict – postponed yet again until after Israel’s elections in April.

Trump’s shut down – aimed at forcing Congress to negotiate on Trump’s election promises to build a wall to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling through a porous border with Mexico – failed in the face of Congress’s unequivocal demand that Trump first reopen the Government.

Trump’s supporters are angry and confused at his cave-in to Congress’s demand whilst his detractors are jubilant - as three weeks of negotiations between Trump and Congress now try to resolve the Trump-Congress stand-off.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) will feel vindicated – after Congresses’ resolute stance - in having refused – sight unseen - to negotiate Trump’s peace plan with Israel after Trump had recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocated the US Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The PLO will be emboldened to continue rejecting Trump’s proposals until Trump reverses his decisions on Jerusalem.

The Wall Street Journal on 11 November 2016 exclusively revealed President-elect Trump’s intentions to make an “ultimate deal” for “humanity’s sake” on “the war that never ends”.

The further delay in releasing his deal comes as the PLO now assumes virtual control of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) proceedings for 2019 - as Chairman of the 134 member Group comprising the G77 and China - ensuring a barrage of UNGA resolutions condemning Trump’s deal when published.

Trump’s attempts to woo Jordan, Egypt and possibly other Arab states to replace the PLO in negotiations with Israel remains a work in progress. Trump’s chances of now succeeding - after his surrender to Congress - appear to have diminished greatly.

The upcoming Israeli elections will give Israelis the chance to vote on the future direction Israel’s new Government should take in resolving the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza (“disputed territories”) – the last remaining 5% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

The choices offered to Israeli voters should be explicitly spelled out by the political parties contesting the elections. The newly-elected Government’s stated policy should be implemented. This basic premise of democracy has been undermined in America as Trump’s election commitment to build his promised border wall remains unfulfilled because of Congress’ opposition.

Trump should not similarly attempt to thwart the mandate of Israel’s next Government.

Trump should shelve his long-overdue ultimate deal indefinitely - due to the changed circumstances that have demonstrably arisen since his well-intentioned thought bubble in November 2016.

Instead - Trump should:

1. Pledge his Government’s full support for Israel’s next duly elected Government

2. Reaffirm the core commitments made by President Bush to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Bush’s letter dated 14 April 2004 - endorsed overwhelmingly by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 ("Bush/Congress Commitments").

Those core American commitments - made to procure Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - included:

1. Opposing any peace plan other than the 2003 Bush Roadmap

2. Being strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

3. Not supporting any right of return by Palestinian refugees to Israel

4. Regarding as unrealistic a full and complete withdrawal from the disputed territories.

Congress could endorse this Trump initiative – reinforcing continuing bipartisan support for Israel.

Peace will remain elusive – but Trump will have saved himself from drowning in a cesspool that has swallowed previous American Presidents who believed they had the answer to ending this unresolved 100 years old conflict.

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

UN hit list can bypass Congress and fund Trump border wall

[Published 19 December 2018]

21 Nations that received almost $14 billion in US foreign aid in 2017 could become the key to unlocking the White House confrontation between President Trump and Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer over their refusal to commit the Democrats to authorizing Congress to commit $5 billion immediately towards the construction of Trump’s border wall to prevent illegal immigration into America.

Trump’s threatened Government shutdown by 21 December seems increasingly likely as he seeks alternative sources of funding.

The following UN hit list of countries receiving US aid in 2017 offers a ready solution:

Bangladesh $261 million
Congo $494 million
Egypt $ 1475 million
Indonesia $277 million
Iraq $ 3712 million
Jordan $ 1489 million
Lebanon $505 million
Mali $230 million
Morocco $490 million
Mozambique $580 million
Niger $173 million
Nigeria $852 million
Pakistan $837 million
Russia $168 million
Senegal $197 million
South Africa $511 million
Turkey $153 million
Vietnam $150 million
Yemen $595 million
Zambia $419 million
Zimbabwe $194 million
TOTAL $13762 Million

These 21 states were major players in humiliating Trump - when an American sponsored resolution in the United Nations General Assembly seeking to condemn Hamas and other militant groups for indiscriminately targeting Israel’s predominantly Jewish civilian population since 2007 failed to secure the required two-third’s majority earlier determined as necessary for its passage.

Trump has warned on many occasions that those who receive money from America — yet do not support America diplomatically — stand to lose financially as a result.

Trump has already well and truly practised what he preached:

1. Defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) of $360 million annually

2.Withdrawing from UNESCO leaving it to fund the 22% of its budget lost as a result

3.Calling on NATO countries to meet their agreed share of the NATO budget

4.Cutting more than $200 million in funding the Palestine Liberation Organisation

Trump has already ominously warned those countries that humiliated him on the Hamas Resolution that they could be in the firing line for reductions in their annual foreign aid as a result of not voting with America.

This threat becomes increasingly more likely as the Democrats dig in their heels and refuse to give the President the $5 billion he needs to build the border wall — one of the President’s cardinal promises made in the 2016 election campaign that has been frustrated by the Democrats from the day Trump became President.

Trump should be readily able to determine how $5 billion of this $14 billion funding to these recalcitrant states can be redirected to building the border wall.

Trump can also look at defunding:

1. Another 54 recipients of US aid that supported a two-thirds majority vote being required on the Hamas resolution over America’s claim that a simple majority only was necessary and

2. An additional 36 similarly US-funded countries that voted against condemning Hamas on the actual motion

Jordan and Egypt — in addition to not voting with America — apparently continue to resist Trump’s efforts to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation in negotiations with Israel on Trump’s peace proposals. Their aid could be substantially reduced by a clearly-piqued and very angered Trump.

The ball is now well and truly in the Democrats hands.

If the President does not secure the border wall funding from Congress — then those countries that humiliated Trump could well see their foreign aid in 2019 slashed from their 2017 levels.

Trump is determined to protect America against illegal immigration — and no one will be allowed to stand in his way of making America great again.

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 atDrybonesblog

UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump retaliation

[Published 24 December 2017]


Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” - spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised — but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress.

Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law — making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN—Nikki Hale — put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget — when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace — the American people lose their patience.”

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 — attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” - which will require another US$143 million - 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget - to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal”Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution — which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state — in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan — on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014..

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution — including Abbas and the PLO - from his ultimate deal — after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

“The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States,”

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000-2001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

OIC in legal fantasyland over Trump, Jerusalem and Israel

[Published 18 December 2017]


The 57 member States of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are living in a legal fantasyland of their own creation where non-existent principles of international law supposedly apply.

The final communique issued by the OIC following its Extraordinary Summit held in Turkey on 13 December 2017 makes their flight into legal unreality crystal-clear:

1. OIC members pledged to take joint action on the basis of international law against the statement of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Yet international law unreservedly recognises the sovereign right of each State to designate its capital and the sovereign right of other States to decide whether to recognise that State and to locate their Embassies in such capital.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 passed overwhelmingly by the United States Congress recognized and affirmed these long-established legal principles:

“Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital…

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

... 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.”

2. The OIC condemned the illegal settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The “occupied Palestinian territories” are in fact “disputed territories” in international law where competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty remain to be resolved.

No binding legal ruling exists to substantiate the OIC’s mendacious claim.

There is however territory-specific legislation that negates this OIC claim — namely article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

3. The OIC declared President Trump’s statement to be “null and void”.

The OIC acting as judge, jury and Lord High Executioner has deigned to tell an American President he cannot act in accordance with international law.

Dismissing international law by claiming it to be “null and void” has also been adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization - whose Charter proclaimed that two cardinal planks in international law — the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine and all that had been based on them were:
(i) “considered fraud” in 1964 (article 18) and

(ii) “deemed null and void” in 1968 (article 20)

The fictitious “State of Palestine” is among the 22 Arab States that are OIC members.

The Jewish-Arab conflict remains unresolved because the Arabs have never accepted the binding validity in international law of the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by all 51 then-member States of the League of Nations in 1922:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Many of these countries have chosen in 2017 to disregard their own decisions in 1922 which established the framework for two States — one Jewish, one Arab - being eventually created in Palestine.

Today sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine resides in those two States - Israel (17%) and Jordan (78%).

Resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict will become realistically attainable when the OIC:

1. affirms that the Mandate for Palestine is legally binding in international law and

2. recognizes the State of Israel

Cherry-picking bits and pieces of International law or even worse — making it up and refusing to acknowledge its falsity — is a recipe for continuing chaos and disorder.

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.

Bush, Obama, Russia, EU and UN Buried Under Trump Landslide

[Published 16 February 2017]


President Trump has buried the Bush Roadmap and any lingering hope for the creation of a second Arab State (“the two-state solution”) — in addition to Jordan — in the territory designated under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.

This inevitability follows Trump’s failure at a White House joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on 15 February to reaffirm the written commitments made by President Bush to Israel in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (“Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments”).

President Bush had been urged to do so just the day before by veteran US peace negotiator - Dennis Ross — who stated it would have:

“significant implications, both because it was recognizing settlement blocs referred to in the letter as major population centers, but also because it said that no agreement can involve going back to the 1949 Armistice lines or the equivalent of June 4, 1967.”

Similar calls had also been made by:

1. Michael Oren - Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington and currently Deputy Minister in Netanyahu’s Prime Minister’s office
2. Tzipi Livni — former Israeli Foreign Minister who had led negotiations for Israel with the Palestinian Authority in the peace talks brokered by U.S. Secretary of StateJohn Kerry from July 2013 until April 2014.
3. Danny Ayalon - Former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister

Former Israeli United Nations ambassador and until recently the Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry - Dore Gold - had been concerned as far back as 9 June 2009 that President Obama was not going to reaffirm the Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments:

“For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the US Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.”

Obama’s clarification never came.

Even Netanyahu — just before boarding a plane to see Obama in the White House in May 2011 - had said he expected:

“to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

Netanyahu never received that affirmation then — nor did he from Trump now.

Their reasons however are very different.

Obama proceeded to trash those commitments made with one of America’s closest allies with disastrous consequences for America’s foreign policy, its reputation and integrity.

Trump however had difficulty in reaffirming all of Bush’s commitments because one of them stated:

“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”

Trump doesn’t like long negotiations without any deal — and Trump wants to cut a deal.

Trump has accordingly ditched the Bush two-state solution — endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It now joins the diplomatic graveyard housing other two-state solutions proposed by

1. the 1937 Peel Commission
2. the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan,
3. the 1993 Oslo Accords and
4. Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008.

The Arabs have missed yet another opportunity to end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Trump and Congress can make America great again

[Published 15 February 2017]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netanyahu needs Trump answer on Bush-Congress Commitments to Israel

[Published 1 February 2017]


Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will be meeting America’s President Trump on 15 February under very different circumstances to those when Netanyahu met President Obama on 20 May 2011.

President Obama had delivered a wide-ranging address on the Middle East just the day before when he dropped the following bombshell on his view of how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority should proceed:

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.‚”

Before boarding his plane for Washington Netanyahu said he:

“expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.‚”

Those 2004 commitments to Israel had been made by President Bush in a letter to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 (“the Bush Commitments‚”).

Obama never obliged Netanyahu by reaffirming those Bush Commitments.

Neither did Netanyahu press Obama to do so - though he had opportunities during

1.Remarks by Obama and Netanyahu After their Bilateral Meeting
2.An address by Netanyahu to AIPAC on 23 May 2011
3.An emotion-charged speech Netanyahu gave to a joint sitting of the Congress on 24 May 2011

Netanyahu’s failure to mention the Bush Commitments in his Congress speech was a grievous error of judgment — since those commitments to Israel had been endorsed in:

1. the House - 407 votes to 9 - and
2. the Senate - 95 votes to 3.

Such commitments had been given to support Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank - marking real progress in realizing Bush’s Roadmap — and included the following:

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population 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.

Bush’s “mutually agreed changes‚” differed markedly from Obama’s “mutually agreed swaps‚” — which required Israel to swap some of its sovereign territory to gain sovereignty over any territory in the West Bank.

Under the Bush Commitments no such land swaps were required.

Obama had repudiated his predecessor’s commitments to Israel with this sneaky turn of phrase - adding insult to injury by demeaning Congress for its enthusiastic and overwhelming endorsement of the Bush Commitments.

In his AIPAC address — Netanyahu made mention of Israel’s:

“terrific Ambassador to the United States, a man who knows a few things about the U.S.-Israel alliance, Michael Oren‚”

Michael Oren — now a Knesset member - made the following call on 5 January 2015:

“The time has come to revive Bush’s letter to Sharon and to act in accordance with it”

As Netanyahu readies for his ground-breaking meeting with Trump he needs to heed Oren’s call and get a definitive answer this time from both Trump and the Congress.

America’s reputation and integrity as a trustworthy ally that honours its commitments is at stake.

Lightning can indeed strike twice in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Trump and May must circumvent Security Council Resolution 2334

[Published 25 January 2017]


President Trump’s meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May this coming Friday affords them a perfect opportunity to discuss reaffirming their countries commitments to the Jewish People made by America in 2004 and Great Britain in 1922 — which were seriously undermined when neither country vetoed Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016.

America’s commitments were given in a letter from President George Bush to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 to:

1. encourage Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank and

2. give the Bush-Quartet Roadmap (“Roadmap”) every chance of ending a conflict that had raged unresolved for about 85 years.

Bush’s commitments included:

(i) Preventing any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Roadmap.

(ii) Acknowledging that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between Israel and the PLO in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

(iii) Agreeing in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, that it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes 12.

President Obama actively attempted to subvert these commitments during his eight years in office - culminating in Obama’s failure to veto Resolution 2334 in the dying days of his Presidency — which trashed the above commitments and made them meaningless.

Great Britain had pledged to the Jewish People in 1922 that the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine would take place within 23% of the territory designated in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine — today called Israel, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) — whilst the remaining 77% would become an Arab homeland — today called Jordan.

This 23/77 division was embodied in Article 25 of the Mandate - after violent Arab riots in 1920-1921 accompanied by strident and strenuous Palestinian Arab political opposition to any idea of a Jewish National Home in Palestine had led to the British White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Arab apprehensions were partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration.

The White Paper stated:

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view [of the Balfour Declaration - ed] is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine'.”

Resolution 2334 has now declared as illegal the rights vested by the Mandate in the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) - despite such rights having been preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Vetoing Resolution 2334 would have averted America and the UK betraying their commitments to the Jewish People.

Reaffirming those commitments will do more to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict than moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Commitments when made by States should never be shredded without mutual agreement.

Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American policy on Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KERRY: Yes.

RUSSERT: Completely?

KERRY: Yes.

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

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

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

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

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza,

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel,

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

4. chaos in Sinai,

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties.

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

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

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

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

Trump Must Confirm Bush-Congress Endorsed Commitments To Israel

[Published 10 November 2016]


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

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

The Bush-Congress Commitments were crucial to:

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

2.Israel’s agreement to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as publicly declared by Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the international conference called by President Bush in Annapolis in 2007.

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

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

“... the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Palestine - France Embarks On Flight Of Fancy

[Published 22 April 2016]


The announcement by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault that France will host a meeting of ministers from 20 countries in Paris on May 30 to try and relaunch the Israel-Palestinian peace process seems to be yet another flight of fancy that is destined to end up where the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap presently find themselves after decades of fruitless negotiations.

Who those 20 countries are that will attend such a meeting will make fascinating reading.

The other 173 member States of the United Nations should be miffed at not being invited to enjoy the sights, sounds, food and wine of Paris as it seeks to put behind it:

1. The devastating Islamic terrorist attack on 13 November last that claimed the lives of 130 people and wounded 352 others.

2. The assault on a police station on 7 January last by a jihadist wearing a fake explosive belt attacking police officers with a meat cleaver while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. He was shot dead and one policeman was injured. The ISIS flag and a clearly written claim in Arabic, were found on the attacker.

Ayrault said the conference aimed to prepare an international summit in the second half of 2016 which would include the Israeli and Palestinian leaders — acknowledging that:

“The two sides are further apart than ever,”

He then proceeded to issue this mantra that has almost become commonplace in trying to end the Jewish-Arab conflict:

“There is no other solution to the conflict than establishing two states, one Israeli and the other Palestinian, living side by side in peace and safety with Jerusalem as a shared capital.”

Really?

The French Foreign Minister needs to understand there are other solutions - one involving the allocation of sovereignty of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) between Jordan and Israel — the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine — who have since 1946 and 1948 respectively enjoyed sovereignty in 95% of the territory once called “Palestine”.

Ayrault has reportedly said the discussions would be based on the 2002 Saudi peace initiative — approved by the Arab League but not Israel.

That decision in itself will guarantee the failure of the French initiative.

There is no mood in Israel to commit national suicide — which the Arab peace initiative unashamedly seeks.

Ayrault adopts an air of typical Gallic condescension as he intones:

“We have to explain to the Israelis that settlement activity is a dangerous process and that it puts their own security in danger.”

Maybe the newly-appointed Foreign Minister should look at the rapidly expanding Islamic settlement activity taking place in France and address that threat to France’s security before he seeks to interfere in Israel’s affairs.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who brokered a previous round of Israel-Palestinian peace talks that collapsed in April 2014 gave the French proposal a guarded welcome when he visited Paris in March:

“Not any one country or one person can resolve this. This is going to require the global community,it will require international support,”

Kerry is right but at the same time he is wrong.

What Kerry and President Obama continue to fail to acknowledge are the firm written commitments made to Israel by former President George Bush on 14 April 2004 —overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress.

Were Obama and Kerry prepared to rally the global community to get behind the Bush-Congress commitments and take Abbas dragging and screaming to the negotiating table —maybe some movement towards a resolution of the conflict could eventuate.

Pushing the 2002 Arab Initiative whilst ignoring the 2004 Bush-Congress Initiative is destined to become an exercise in futility and certain failure.

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 - Trump Must Blow His Own Trumpet With Greater Clarity

[Published 12 March 2016]


One of the world’s greatest negotiators - Donald Trump - has walked straight into a political minefield when telling the GOP presidential debate in Miami last Thursday how he would resolve the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict:

“I will tell you, I think if we’re ever going to negotiate a peace settlement … I think it would be more helpful as a negotiator, if I go in and say I’m pro-Israel, but at least have the other side know I’m somewhat neutral to them so that we can maybe get a deal done,”

How can Trump be “somewhat neutral” to the “other side”?

Who indeed does Trump consider to be “the other side”?

If the “other side” is the PLO - Trump would have to renege on the following non-neutral positions adopted by his predecessor President Obama that any new Palestinian Arab State:

1. Be non-militarised

2. Recognise Israel as the Jewish State

Trump is certainly not bound by Obama’s position on these contentious issues and abandoning them would certainly be open to him. Israel however will not forego these demands which it has consistently stipulated during the last eight years are essential prerequisites for advancing any possible settlement of the conflict.

The only result of Trump’s neutrality on Obama’s position will see any peace settlement between Israel and the PLO becoming impossible to achieve.

Trump would also need to shred commitments binding America made by the last Republican President - George W Bush - to Israel on 14 April 2004. These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress 407-9. They were given to support Israel’s unilateral disengagement and total evacuation from Gaza - and included:

1. Like Obama - committing to Israel’s well being as a Jewish State

2. Settling Palestinian Arab refugees in any new Palestinian Arab State rather than in Israel.

3. Israel having secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

4. Recognition it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

Obama tried to downplay his obligation to uphold these American commitments but still was unable to broker an Israel-PLO agreement. Any attempt by Trump to follow in Obama’s footsteps would similarly fail.

More seriously however it would signal a gross betrayal by a Republican President of a former Republican President’s Congress-endorsed commitments to a loyal friend and ally that would send America’s reputation and integrity for honouring commitments made by it to other nations quickly sinking to rock bottom.

Rubio has already agreed to honour these Bush commitments. Trump’s stated neutrality position seems to indicate he might not.

Trump’s neutrality could be construed quite differently, however, if the “other side” is not the PLO.

Direct negotiations between Jordan, Egypt and Israel to replace the moribund Israel-PLO negotiations could allow Trump to adopt a “somewhat neutral” stance because Israel has had signed peace agreements with Egypt since 1979 and Jordan since 1994.

Peace is far easier to accomplish with States already at peace with each other than with a hostile non-State group pledged to destroy the other party to the negotiations.

CNN and Fox’s blanket coverage of the primaries over the coming weeks gives those interviewing Trump ample opportunities to get him to explain how he hopes to become “somewhat neutral” and with whom.

The interviewers may need to be “somewhat confrontational” in their questioning.

Trump needs to blow his own trumpet with greater clarity by providing more detail on how he hopes to succeed where previous Presidents have embarrassingly failed

Obama And Kerry Must Stop Playing Games With Israel's Future

[Published 9 September 2015]


Attempting to secure the Congressional vote required to confirm President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has necessitated Secretary for State John Kerry pledging Obama’s “rock solid” diplomatic support and increased military assistance for Israel — the bitterest opponent of Obama’s Iranian proposal.

Speaking at the National Constitution Center on 2 September—Kerry said:

"And diplomatically, our support for Israel also remains rock solid as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, or to pass biased resolutions against it in international bodies."

Kerry continued:

"I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the security of Israel, a commitment I demonstrated through my 28-plus years in the Senate. And as Secretary of State, I am fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice Israel must make…"

If Kerry is to be seriously believed then he must reassure Congress — irrespective of its vote on Iran - that the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 supporting Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will be scrupulously adhered to by the current Obama administration.

Kerry unequivocally supported those Presidential commitments when interviewed by 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.

Those commitments included:

1. Preventing any attempt to impose any plan other than President Bush’s Roadmap envisioned by him on 24 June 2002.
2. Being strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.
3. Understanding 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.
4. Accepting 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.
5. Acknowledging 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,

Bush’s commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day (“the Bush/Congress Commitments”).

Obama attempted to water down these commitments in 2011 by suggesting possible Israeli land swaps be made for any territory Israel acquired in the West Bank.

Kerry piggybacked Obama in 2013 - inducing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel with this letter:

Dear Mr. President

In response to your question regarding our position on the issue of borders, this letter is to confirm that the position set forth by President Obama in his May 2011 speeches, that Palestine’s borders with Israel should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, still represents our position. As negotiations begin, I reiterate our commitment to this position. As you confirmed, this letter is and will remain private and confidential between you and me.”

Playing such furtive games with Abbas contrary to the Bush/Congress Commitments is now surely over following Kerry’s statement. Those commitments are set in concrete - binding all American administrations including Obama’s.