PLO opens door to Jordan returning to Judea and Samaria

[Published 25 May 2020]

Advancing an end to the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict has become a miraculous possibility since the formation of an Israeli Government of National Unity just 7 days ago.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately gave the lie to mounting international opposition claiming that Israel’s intention to restore Jewish sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria amounted to “West Bank annexation”:

“It’s time to apply the Israeli law and write another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism. These territories are where the Jewish nation was born and grew. This will not distance us from peace, it will bring us closer.”

The Jewish People’s right to reconstitute its ancient Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria — the biblical heartland of the Jewish People - after 3000 years — had been recognized by the international community in:

1920: The San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sevres

1922 : The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

1945 : Article 80 United Nations Charter

Attempts by that international community to deny such vested legal rights in the Jewish People over the past 53 years had exacerbated the long-running conflict — contributing materially to it failing to be resolved. Netanyahu had no compunction in calling out and exposing the continuing travesty of justice that these current protestations represented.

However the roadblock jamming any progress in resolving the conflict was suddenly cleared when days later PLO President Mahmoud Abbas announced:

“The Israeli occupation authority, as of today, has to shoulder all responsibilities and obligations in front of the international community as an occupying power over the territory of the occupied state of Palestine, with all its consequences and repercussions based on international law and international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which holds the occupying power responsible for the protection of the civilian population under occupation and their property, criminalizes collective punishment, bans theft of resources, appropriation and annexation of land, bans forced transfer of the population of the occupied territory and bans transfer of the population of the occupying state (the colonialists) to the land it occupies, which all are grave violations and war crimes,”

Stripped of the lies and false and deceptive claims contained in this statement that have formed part and parcel of the PLO’s propaganda arsenal since its formation in 1964 — Abbas’s message was clear: Abbas was now turning over responsibility for Judea and Samaria to Israel.

The PLO had never claimed “regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” or “on the Gaza Strip” as article 24 of its founding 1964 Charter declared. Its activities were to be “on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields”

This PLO position only changed in 1968 after Jordan — having occupied Judea and Samaria between 1950 and 1967 driving out every Jew living there — lost that territory to Israel in the Six Day War. Gaining sovereignty in 100% of Judea and Samaria by the creation of another Arab State became the focus of the PLO from 1968.

President Trump’s peace plan offering the PLO possibly 70% of Judea and Samaria plus Gaza has been rejected by the PLO.

Abbas — in turning over responsibility for Judea and Samaria to Israel — has opened the door to Jordan replacing the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner.

Successful negotiations between Jordan and Israel could see Jordan annexing part of Judea and Samaria, Jordanian citizenship being restored for the Arab residents as existed between 1954 and 1988 and a possible end to the Jewish-Arab conflict.

King Abdullah — expect a call from President Trump.

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

Palestine: Correcting canards concerning Israel and vested Jewish legal rights

[Published 28 December 2016]


Australia’s former Foreign Minister and former head of Labor Friends of Israel — Bob Carr - has entered the debate concerning Security Council Resolution 2334 passed on 23 December with his article in the Sydney Morning Herald “The Genius of the UN’s Resolution on Israeli settlements” (December 27)

His contribution is riddled with the following errors that cannot be allowed to stand unanswered and uncorrected and need to be rectified.

I. He states that Levi Eshkol’s chief legal advisor Theodor Meron advised the Prime Minister in 1967 that the Geneva Convention says no nation may settle its own population on land it wins in war.

What Mr Carr omits to tell readers is that Mr Meron changed his opinion on the applicability of the Geneva Convention in 1968 when he co-signed the following advice to Israel’s then Ambassador to the United States — Yitzchak Rabin:

“to tell the Americans that there are unique aspects to the status of the territories and to our status in the territories. Before the Six-Day War, the Gaza Strip wasn’t Egyptian territory, and the West Bank, too, was territory that had been occupied and annexed by Jordan without international recognition. Given this ambiguous, indeterminate territorial situation, the question of the convention’s applicability is complex and unclear prior to a peace agreement that includes setting secure and recognized borders.”

2. Carr claims Meron is alive today, an eminent international jurist. He says he was right then and is right now.

No evidence is supplied by Carr to substantiate that claim — which is obviously rebutted by Meron’s revised 1968 opinion to Rabin. Why did Carr fail to mention Meron’s 1968 epiphany?

3. Carr claims all settlements in the West Bank are illegal.

Wrong — all those settlements are legal under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter—territory-specific legislation dating back to 1922 that is still valid today.

4. Carr claims that Israel has been spreading settlements as fast as possible to render it impossible to achieve a two-state solution.

Wrong — the settlements cover only 5% of the West Bank territory. Israel made offers to cede its claims to 90% of the West Bank in 2000/1 and 95% in 2008.

There has been no settlement because the Arabs want 100%.

5. Carr claims Israeli Governments have gifted settlers the best land.

Wrong — the land given to settlers for which they pay has been land that has mainly remained unsettled and undeveloped for the last 3000 years. It comprises State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes as prescribed under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.

6. Carr claims that if the Palestinian Arabs throw up a granny flat without approval in Area C it is promptly demolished by army bulldozers.

Wrong — the granny flats are being thrown up by the European Union without approval to create facts on the ground. Yes — they are being demolished as happens to any illegal structures built anywhere in the World.

The European Union has no legal right to charge in without authorisation.

7. Carr asks - If Israel is really open to giving the land back in a peace deal why allow settlements in the first place?

Because the Arabs refused to negotiate with Israel between 1967 and 1993 and Israel was legally entitled to settle there.

Israel did the same in Gaza and unilaterally disengaged from every square inch of land there as well as a part of the West Bank in 2005 to advance the two-state solution.

8. Carr relies on Obama’s envoy and former Ambassador Martin Indyk to confirm settlements destroyed the deal.

Yet between 1948 and 1967 there were no settlements - after all the Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza had been driven out by the invading Transjordanian and Egyptian armies. The Arabs could have had their state at any time during those 20 years with the stroke of an Arab League pen in precisely the same area they now claim for themselves.

They could have had an even greater area had they not rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan

Carr finally twigs when he states that historically the aged and corrupt Palestinian leadership has to bear some responsibility and that they’ve let their people down.

Too many offers have gone begging and will not return again given the horrendous events being played out in the Middle East right now.

9. Carr claims the Palestinians are offering a demilitarised state — a Palestine without an army and Western peacekeepers within their borders. It is hard to imagine more explicit security guarantees.

Mr Carr provides no source for this very important information — which is new to me.

10. Carr claims the 83% Arab population of the West Bank is being ruled by a racial and religious minority of 17%.

Wrong — 95% of the Arab population live in Areas A and B and their daily lives are completely ruled by the PLO. Only 5% of the Arabs live in Area C under Israeli rule.

Bob Carr — like the United Nations Security Council - relying on these and similar incorrect and unsubstantiated facts — are in a state of complete denial about Jewish rights to settle in the West Bank and the legality of Jewish settlements.

Both should take the time to better acquaint themselves with fact — not fiction - if they ever want to be believed.

Syria - Security Council International Conference Pure Pipe-Dream

[Published 6 October 2013]


It seems incredible that after 17 months of wrangling the best the Security Council could agree on is calling another International Conference that has no possible chance of convening - let alone helping peacefully resolve an end to the 30 months old conflict in Syria.

Suspended in an apparent time warp - Resolution 2118 - passed on 27 September - calls for:

“the convening, as soon as possible, of an international conference on Syria to implement the Geneva Communiqué, and calls upon all Syrian parties to engage seriously and constructively at the Geneva Conference on Syria, and underscores that they should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation;"

The Security Council seems to have not noticed that since the Geneva Communique was issued on 30 June 2012 - the then civil war being waged by Syrians against an autocratic Assad regime has now escalated into a far wider conflict involving foreign jihadist forces seeking to exercise power and influence in this latest episode of the Arab Spring.

Indeed on 25 September - just two days prior to the passing of Resolution 2118 - the Washington Post had reported:”

“Nearly a dozen of Syria’s powerful rebel factions, including one linked to al-Qaida, formally broke with the main opposition group in exile Wednesday and called for Islamic law in the country, dealing a severe blow to the Western-backed coalition.

The new alliance is a potential turning point, entrenching the schism within the rebellion and giving President Bashar Assad fuel for his long-stated contention that his regime is battling Islamic extremists in the civil war

The Turkey-based Syrian National Coalition — the political arm of the Free Syrian Army rebel group — has long been accused by those fighting inside Syria of being a puppet promoted by the West and Gulf Arab states supporting the Syrian rebellion.

Wednesday’s public rejection of the coalition’s authority will likely be extremely damaging for its future in Syria, particularly at a time when the U.S. and Russia are pushing for peace talks.”

It should be blindingly obvious that this development signals that some of the forces within the so-called Free Syrian Army are breaking up with the Syrian National Coalition supported by eleven West and Arab states - known as the London Eleven - to join forces with more hard-line foreign anti-Western Islamists.

Now just a few days later - Yahoo News has ominously reported on 2 October:

“The al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took control of the northern border town of Azaz last month, kicking out rival rebels and prompting Turkey to shut the crossing about 5 km (3 miles) away.

ISIL, which wants to merge Syria into a larger state ruled by Islamic law, has maintained control of the town since then and clashes have periodically erupted between it and fighters of the Northern Storm brigade that they had expelled to its outskirts.

Activists said the latest fighting broke out on Tuesday night after a deadline ISIL had set for Northern Storm fighters to surrender their weapons came to an end…

... The Syrian rebels have been undermined by infighting, partially over conflicting ideology, but more often over territory, spoils of war and control of resources and smuggling.”

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon showed how out of touch he is with what is happening in Syria.

In the full proces-verbal of the Security Council’s discussion after the adoption of resolution 2118 - the Secretary General:

“pressed the Council to capitalize on its new-found unity by focusing on two other equally crucial dimensions of the conflict: the dire humanitarian situation and the political crisis. For their parts, the Syrian sides must engage constructively towards the creation of a democratic State, while regional actors must challenge those who sought to undermine that process.”

Any hope for a democratic state ever arising from the current chaos, carnage and confusion in Syria is beyond comprehension.

The idea that “regional actors” can challenge those against creating a democratic Syria - short of war - is breathtaking.

Sergey Lavrov - Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation - said:

"The resolution set up a framework for the political settlement of the conflict by backing the convening of an international conference, which he believed could take place as early as mid-November. He also expected the Syrian opposition to state its readiness.”

As Assad’s prime backer - Russia has obviously relished further embarrassing the London Eleven as they slowly sink in the political quicksand of their own making.

Laurent Fabius - Minister for Foreign Affairs of France - said France:

“felt it was necessary to prepare the Geneva II conference within the framework of the Geneva Communiqué. He had chaired a meeting on Thursday with the President of the Syrian National Coalition, who confirmed a readiness to send a delegation as soon as possible. The Syrian regime’s supporters must make a similar commitment. He urged the Secretary-General and his Special Envoy to move quickly in that direction.”

Strangely the new alliance of Syrian and foreign jihadists did not rate a mention by either Lavrov or Fabius.

They surely know this alliance would spurn any invitation to an international conference - let alone agree to the creation of a democratic State in Syria.

The Security Council is surely living in a fool’s paradise of self delusion and unreality.

Palestine - United Nations Perfidy Exposed

[Published 20 July 2012]



The canard - supported by countless United Nations General Assembly Resolutions - that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal in international law - has been dealt a crushing blow with the the recent release of the Levy Committee Report in Israel rebutting that claim.

The Committee comprised a retired Supreme Court Judge - Edmund Levy - a Tel Aviv District Court Judge - Tchia Shapira - and a former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker. They were appointed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in January 2012 to consider among other matters the legality of Jewish settlements established in the West Bank.

The San Remo Conference held in Italy in April 1920 was the Committee’s starting point.

That Conference had laid the grounds for the eventual creation of the Mandate for Palestine as part of a Mandate system involving the disposition of vast tracts of territory held by the Ottoman Empire for 400 years - but lost by it following its defeat in World War I.

Whilst Arab self-determination was to occur in 99.99% of the captured territory - the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home was limited to the remaining 0.01%. of that territory.

The Levy Report elaborates:

“In August 1922 the League of Nations approved the Mandate which was given to Britain, and thus the Jewish people’s right to settle in the Land of Israel, their historic homeland, and to establish their state there, was recognized in international law.

To complete the picture, we’ll add that with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, the principle of recognizing the validity of existing rights of states acquired under various mandates, including of course the rights of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel by virtue of the above documents, was determined in article 80 of its charter”

The International Court of Justice had failed to consider the Mandate and article 80 when it delivered its non-binding advisory opinion on 9 July 2004 that Israel had no legal right to erect part of Israel’s security barrier in the West Bank.

That decision has since been used by the United Nations and detractors of Israel to repeatedly discredit and delegitimise Israel’s right to maintain its claim to sovereignty in any part of the West Bank and for Jews to live there.

Surprisingly it was Egyptian appointee to the International Court - Judge El-Araby - who in fact had cautioned the other 14 Justices against ignoring an examination of the legal effect of the Mandate:

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

Regrettably Judge El-Araby’s sage advice was ignored - as the Levy Report now makes very clear.

In one respect the International Court could be excused for failing to consider the Mandate and Article 80 - since the then Secretary General of the United Nations - Kofi Annan - had failed to include these vital documents in the dossier of 88 documents he was required to submit to the Court that were “likely to throw light upon the question” - as he was legally required to do under Article 65 of the Court‘s statute.

The International Court’s decision was fatally flawed as a result.

If you only submit half the relevant documents - you are sure to get only half an answer.

Those persons who prepared the dossier of documents and Mr Annan himself now need explain how documents - deemed so relevant by the Levy Committee - were omitted from the dossier submitted to the International Court.

The Levy Committee - after having considered the Mandate and Article 80 - concluded:

“.. we have no doubt that from the perspective of international law, the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is legal”

The Levy Committee dismissed the opinion of the International Court that the legal status of this tiny sliver of land between Jordan and Israel - the size of Delaware - was solely governed by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949 - when stating:.

“We do not believe that one can draw an analogy between this legal provision and those who sought to settle in Judea and Samaria not as a result of them being “deported” or “transferred” but because of their world view - to settle the Land of Israel.

We did not ignore the view of those who think that one should interpret the Fourth Geneva Convention as also prohibiting the occupying state to encourage or support the transfer of parts of its population to the occupied territory, even if it did not initiate it

But even if this interpretation is correct, we would not change our conclusion that no analogy should be drawn between Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, in light of the status of the territory under international law”

It would surely be the height of folly for the United Nations and Israel’s denigrators to continue to categorically spruik that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is illegal following the release of the Levy Report.

The United Nations needs to come clean and investigate why highly relevant documents to support the legal claim of Jews to settle in the West Bank were withheld from the International Court.

Will the egg splattered all over the United Nations following the release of the reasoned and considered Levy Report deter it from conducting such an investigation?

The continuing use of the International Court decision and the Fourth Geneva Convention to assert that Israel has no legal right to remain in even one square meter of the West Bank must now be seriously questioned.

Ironically Judge El-Araby is now the Secretary General of the Arab League and meets with Mr Annan frequently in Mr Annan’s new job with the United Nations trying to stop the slaughter in Syria.

Maybe Mr Annan can explain the cover up to Judge El-Araby over a cup of Turkish coffee.

Don’t hold your breath waiting

Palestine - Jerusalem Challenges The United Nations

[Published 19 August 2011]


Jerusalem’s continued existence as an undivided city will remain unaffected by any United Nations (UN) decision recognizing a Palestinian Arab State based on the June 1967 armistice lines.

This has been made very clear in a statement issued on 16 August by the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations itself - which declares:

“Jerusalem in particular is one of the core issues that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties, which underscores the urgent need for the parties to resume serious and substantive talks.”

Should the UN member States disregard the Quartet’s warning, the likelihood of Israel agreeing to any subsequent negotiations over Jerusalem - or indeed any future Palestinian Arab state - would almost certainly evaporate.

The Quartet also affirmed:

“that unilateral action by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community.”

This is a clear warning to the Palestinian Authority that its unilateral quest to seek UN recognition of a State would be in breach of - and could well end any further negotiations under - the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap endorsed and fully supported by the Quartet for the last eight years.

International law is a primary concern of the UN.

The mandate for its activities in this field emanates from the Charter of the United Nations which, in its Preamble, sets the goal :

“to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.

There are three competing claims relating to Jerusalem that can only be resolved by direct negotiations - not unilaterally determined by the UN - if justice and respect for international law is to have any real meaning.

The three potential claimants are:

1. The Palestinian Arabs - who have never in recorded history exercised sovereign control in or over any parts of Jerusalem. They had a window of opportunity to do so between 1948-1967 - but did not make any claim during those 19 years.
2. Jordan - the last Arab occupier in Jerusalem between 1948-1967 - which relinquished all claims in 1988 - but whose 1994 peace treaty with Israel allows for a continuing Jordanian role in the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem.
3. The Jewish people - who are legally entitled to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem pursuant to article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

On 30 July 1980 Israel’s Parliament passed a law declaring ” Complete and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.”

Israel’s declaration was subsequently declared “null and void” by the UN.

Jerusalem also opens up an additional legal minefield for the UN - since Jerusalem was never included in Security Council Resolution 242.

This was confirmed in a letter published in the New York Times on 12 March 1980 - written by the former US Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg at the time Resolution 242 was passed - in which he stated:

“Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank”

Goldberg also clarified in his letter that President Johnson’s policy at that time did not regard Jerusalem as occupied territory. That position was adopted at a later date under President Nixon at a time when there had been a change of Ambassadors at the United Nations.

“The facts are that I never described Jerusalem as occupied territory. Ambassador Yost did in his speech on July 1, 1969 under instructions from President Nixon, and his statement represented a departure from policy I, President Johnson and the Department of State pursued with respect to Jerusalem during the period of my tenure…”

Security Council Resolution 242 - calls for:

“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

Even if the UN wants to dispute Goldberg’s claim and insist that Jerusalem was indeed included in Resolution 242 - then negotiations are still required to determine such secure and recognized boundaries - not unilateral declarations or resolutions by the United Nations.

Whilst America’s policy on Jerusalem and that of the Palestinian Arabs may change from time to time - Israel’s position remains unchanged.

Israel maintains that Jerusalem is - and will remain - the eternal and undivided capitol of Israel with free access to it - and all three monotheistic religions will enjoy complete freedom of worship.

President Carter’s decision to issue Sadat with a letter stating that America’s position was that East Jerusalem was occupied territory and thus the Fourth Geneva Convention would apply - almost wrecked the 1978 Camp David Accords - causing Moshe Dayan to tell President Carter:

“How could the Americans and the Egyptians argue that the Western Wall, the Hebrew University, the Hadassah Hospital, the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus belonged to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? Why was the Jewish Quarter of the Old City regarded as “conquered territory” held by us in contravention of international law? Simply because the Jordanian Arab Legion conquered it in 1948, destroyed its synagogues, killed or took captive the Jewish civilians who lived there? What was holy about the military conquest by the Jordanian army in 1948, and profane about our victory in the 1967 war - a war which was also started with Jordan’s attack on Israel? ( Professor Shlomo Slonim - “The Camp David Accords - A Collection of Articles and Lectures”)

Carter recanted and never issued his letter to Sadat. Instead three letters were appended to the Accords stating the respective positions of America, Israel and Egypt.

Dayan’s stirring words to President Carter and Goldberg’s revelations could become very relevant during the September sittings of the United Nations - should any attempt be made -without Israel’s agreement - to unilaterally unravel the unity of Jerusalem which has remained united and undivided since 1967.

The Quartet’s statement is therefore very timely and is to be applauded.

There is no alternative to negotiations over Jerusalem’s future - no matter how long, difficult and protracted they might be.

Risking the end of any such further negotiations by embarking on a unilateral journey to nowhere may prove once again that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Will the UN rise to the challenge and defend the unity of Jerusalem against the latest attempt to divide it again? That is the pressing decision each of the member States of the UN will be forced to publicly declare should the matter come before the UN in September.