European Union and Germany plot to see Jerusalem divided

The decision by the European Union (EU) and Germany to launch the East Jerusalem Tourism Development Programme is in reality a blatant attempt by them to see Jerusalem divided by creating political facts on the ground under the guise of helping promote tourism in East Jerusalem.

The German representative—Oliver Owcza – was quite happy to create this tourism smokescreen:

 “As Germans and Europeans we value tourism that is of quality and locally owned. We therefore are confident this project will connect the tourism community and support new concepts and services. As it will contribute to more and better job and career opportunities”

European Union Representative — Sven Kühn Von Burgsdorff – however — did not seek to hide the consortium’s real objective — firing these bullets:

“Palestinians in East Jerusalem are facing daily political, economic, and social challenges. Tourism has always been one of the main income-generating activities in the city and helped maintaining the Palestinian presence and identity of the city. 

Our joint work as Europeans reflects once again the clear and united position of the EU and its Member States with regard to East Jerusalem. For us, East Jerusalem is part of the occupied Palestinian territory and the status of Jerusalem as the future capital for the two states should always be respected and protected.”  

Words do have meaning.

“Palestinians in East Jerusalem”, “Palestinian territory” and “maintaining the Palestinian presence and identity of the city” excludes any rights Jews, non-Arab Christians and non-Arab Moslems might have in East Jerusalem — according to the definition of “Palestinians” in Clause 6 of the 1964 Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter:

“The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.”

This Arabs-only definition was repeated in article 5 of the new PLO Charter adopted in 1968. 

Jewish claims in East Jerusalem are expressly rejected by the PLO in the 1964 PLO Charter – repeated almost verbatim in article 20 of the 1968 Charter: 

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

The EU and Germany have trashed the uniquely shared Jewish, Moslem and Christian identity of East Jerusalem — evidenced by the centuries–long presence of Jews, Moslems and Christians there and the formative and normative role East Jerusalem has played in the development of these three monotheistic religions.

The EU and Germany’s support for a recently-minted Palestinian identity fabricated to erase this shared identity is disgustingly racist. 

The only time in history that Jerusalem has ever been a divided city occurred between 1950 and 1967 after East Jerusalem was conquered in 1948 and then unified with Transjordan to form a single territorial entity called Jordan.

During this period:

• The Jewish Quarter of the Old City in East Jerusalem was destroyed and its residents expelled. 
• Fifty-eight synagogues—some hundreds of years old—were destroyed, their contents looted and desecrated. 
• The 2500 years old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was ransacked; graves desecrated; thousands of tombstones smashed and used as building material, paving stones or for latrines in Arab Legion army camps. 

Jerusalem must never be divided 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.

Macron, Merkel and May should adopt Trump Policy on Jerusalem

[Published 13 May 2018]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French President Emmanuel Macron has adopted the following position:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. illegally occupied by Jordan

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

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

4.Jews were denied access to their remaining holy sites

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

Britain’s prime minister Theresa May has stated:

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

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

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

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

Trump and Putin must co-operate to defeat Islamic State

[Published 2 March 2017]


President Trump made his intention to destroy Islamic State crystal clear in his stirring address to the Congress on 28 February:

“As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

The Department of Defense plan had already been delivered to members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee - and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was due to brief the committee on 27 February.

Whether this plan recommends co-operation with Russia still remains under wraps.

Certainly President Obama’s decision in September 2014 to degrade and destroy Islamic State by forming a broad international coalition of 68 States without:

1. Including Russia and
2. first securing a Security Council resolution endorsing such action

has proved both catastrophic and very expensive.

The State Department trumpeted that the breadth and diversity of America’s coalition partners demonstrated the global and unified nature of Obama’s endeavour.

Yet Islamic State today remains undefeated in Syria and Iraq.

Support for — and pledges of allegiance to — Islamic State by over 30 radical Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are creating horrific humanitarian problems — some far removed from the Middle East.

Defeating Islamic State in Iraq and Syria will see these “lawless savages” joining such disparate groups in their drive to establish the restoration of the Caliphate and the implementation of Sharia law world-wide.

Members of the US-led Coalition have not been contributing their fair share towards dealing with Islamic State — leaving the burden to fall squarely on America.

Australian Prime Minister — Malcolm Turnbull — declared last week that Australia was in fact the second largest international contributor to the US led coalition after the United States — shaming NATO countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom and Middle East members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The remaining 125 UN member States have escaped sharing the cost and responsibility of confronting and defeating Islamic State.

Trump’s reprimand of NATO would indicate he considers the Obama-led coalition has been a very bad deal for America.

Trump can rectify this situation by jointly co-sponsoring with Putin a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Islamic State under Chapter V11 of the UN Charter.

Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November 2015:

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

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Mentioning any relationship with Russia is a very sensitive issue in American politics today.

However Trump may well have had Russia in mind when he told Congress:

“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.”

Defeating Islamic State is a shared interest of Trump and Putin.

Co-operation in the United Nations Security Council will materially advance that objective.

Israel - European Union In State Of Disunion

[Published 16 December 2015]


Hungary and Greece have broken ranks with the European Union in signalling they want nothing to do with the recently introduced EU labelling laws requiring Jewish products originating in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to have special labels and not be marked “made in Israel”.

These decisions follow hard on the heels of European Parliament delegation for relations with Israel chairman - Fulvio Martusciello - warning:

“The decision to label products was a mistake. Europe is loud about Israel, but quiet about 200 other conflicts around the world.”

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó announced Hungary’s decision:

“We do not support the decision to make a special mark on products coming from the West Bank or the Golan Heights. This step is inefficient and illogical. It would only hurt attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Greece’s decision was communicated by letter from its Foreign Minister to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after a visit by Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to Israel - when extensive bilateral cooperation in economic matters, technology, science, education, trade, energy, and agriculturewere concluded.

MeantimeGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel is backing a recent German Foreign Ministry statement that the new EU labeling initiative:

“does not deal with a stigmatized warning decal, as many have presented… What Brussels wants is, however, only a clear designation of the origin of the products.”

This Foreign Ministry thinking was no doubt influenced by the illegal invasion of many hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants into Germany and the huge economic and social problems faced by Germany in their resettlement.

Merkel has publicly opposed boycotts of Israel - which continues to receive preferential market access from Germany.

Will Germany’s Foreign Ministry now call for similar EU labelling of goods originating from other disputed regions around the world?

Surprisingly EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini - following talks with EU foreign ministers on 14 December — chose to refer to two points that were not part of the agenda but were debated among those present:

“One is related to the Middle East peace process, especially after the adoption of the technical guidelines on indication of origin. We had an exchange of views in this respect with the ministers, and we commonly decided that it was important also for me to pass this message publicly that the Council and the European Union stay united on these technical guidelines on indication of origin, which is in no way a boycott and should in no way be interpreted as one,”

Claiming to be united on these “technical guidelines” — despite their having been already rejected by Hungary and Greece—is surely deceptive and misleading.

Describing the labelling of Jewish products — but not Arab products - as “technical guidelines” - is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

They constitute clear “stigmatized warning decals”.

Mogherini continued:

“The second thing on which the Council was completely united is our continued engagement in the Middle East peace process and in broader bilateral relations with Israel. There is full unity and solidarity among member states and among European institutions on that.”

Mogherini is seriously mistaken if she thinks Israel will allow a clearly conflicted EU to remain part of the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers which also includes the UN, United States and Russia.

No amount of doublespeak will enable the EU to escape the charges that these labelling requirements:

1. Are racist and discriminate against Jews

2. Trample on Jewish vested legal rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem

Double standards and political hypocrisy will eventually bring even the most powerful down to earth.

Iran Deal Presages UN Military Action Against Islamic State

[Published 24 July 2015]


China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, America and the European Union (E3/EU+3) — the Septet — have shown a rare degree of international cooperation in signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear horizons.

Such unanimity presages the possibility of a United Nations Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizing military action against Islamic State — already declared a threat to international peace and security in Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2199.

The Security Council’s inability to commence military action to free vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and its captive civilian populations from Islamic State rule — has been frustrated by the following conflicting national interests of Septet members and Iran:

1. Russia and Iran backing the Assad regime in Syria

2. America, France, Germany and the United Kingdom forming part of the London 11 supporting rebels attempting to overthrow the Assad regime

3. China and Russia vetoing Security Council resolutions aimed at resolving the Syrian conflict.

4. Shiite Iran — backed by Russia - focusing on preserving its interests in Iraq - the first Arab country to be ruled by a Shia government since Saladin overthrew the Fatimids in Egypt in 1171.

Preserving these competing interests could explain the deliberate and extraordinary decision by the Septet to not demand changes in Iraq’s current aggressive and hostile behaviour — as President Obama’s remarks at a news conference hailing the JPCOA make clear:

“And my hope is that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. But we’re not counting on it."

So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. It’s not contingent on Iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. It solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don’t have a bomb. And the point I’ve repeatedly made and I believe is hard to dispute is that it’ll be a lot easier for us to check Iran’s nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies’ interests if they don’t have the bomb.

And — and so will they change their behavior? Will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like Syria or what’s happening in Iraq, to stop encouraging Houthis in Yemen, we’ll continue to engage with them.

Although keep in mind that unlike the Cuba situation, we’re not normalizing diplomatic relations here. So the contacts will continue to be limited, but will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? Of course. But we’re not betting on it. And in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with Israel, work with the Gulf countries, work with our other partners, work with the Europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on Iran around those issues that remain of concern.”

Iran - diplomatically unscathed, emboldened and financially enriched once the current international sanctions omelette has been unscrambled — will not change its behaviour — nor will the Septet members have to abandon their perceived national interests.

Iran’s macabre dance with death will assuredly continue in the Middle East.

Obama could be betting this latest show of Septet-Iranian co-operation will finally procure Security Council approval to destroy their common enemy - Islamic State — which Obama’s American-led coalition of 62 States has spectacularly failed to accomplish.

Hopefully Obama’s giant gamble pays this huge dividend.

Europe Rapidly Becoming Fertile Recruiting Field For Islamic State

[Published 14 May 2015]


Islamic State now has the potential to break out of Syria and Iraq and into the heart of Europe without a shot being fired in anger by the Europeans to repel Islamic State’s stated aims of re-establishing the Caliphate and with it the supremacy of Islam world-wide.

This previously dismissed possibility has become an emerging reality with the record flow of hundreds of thousands of Moslems into Europe by boat in 2014 - seeking asylum as their homes and lives in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,Yemen and Lebanon have been reduced to rubble by ongoing and continuing conflict over the past four years.

Ironically - and alarmingly - the possibility of some of these asylum seekers already being Islamic State believers - whilst others become potential recruits in pursuing these Islamic State goals - comes at the same time as Europe is actively seeking to restrain its own already radicalised Moslem citizens from leaving its shores to join Islamic State forces in its ongoing campaign of territorial conquest throughout much of the Arab world.

What was thought to be fantasy just twelve months ago has been turned on its head with the recent publication of the following statistics by Eurostat - the statistical office of the European Union situated in Luxembourg - whose task is to provide the European Union with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions within the European Union (EU):

1. Asylum seekers from Syria seeking refuge in the 28 EU countries rose from 49980 in 2013 to 122115 in 2014 - which equated to 20 % of the total of asylum seekers from all non-member EU countries.

2. In the same period asylum seekers from Iraq jumped from 10740 to 21310 whilst Afghani asylum seekers rose sharply from 26125 to 41370.

3. Of the 68400 Syrians actually granted protection status in the EU - more than 60% were recorded in two Member States: Germany (25700) and Sweden (16800).

Many of these desperate asylum seekers become possible candidates for being persuaded that their lives have been turned upside down by Europe’s failed policies in Syria and Iraq and that their hopes for real salvation rest in actively supporting the objectives of Islamic State.

Europe’s failure to prevent more than 200000 deaths that have occurred in Syria and Iraq alone in the past four years with the destruction of many towns and villages into heaps of rubble and the consequent displacement of millions of Syrians and Iraqis - both internally and externally - is an easily told story that will gain much sympathy with many of these asylum seekers - even as they are being welcomed and absorbed into their European host countries.

France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom are part of a group called the London 11 - whose other members are Egypt, Jordan,Qatar,Saudi Arabia, Turkey,United Arab Emirates and America.

The London 11 has since 2012 expressed its support for the Syrian opposition in its attempt to rid Syria of President Assad. Supplying arms and financial support has clearly proved insufficient to halt the carnage.

On 10 November 2014 Senior Officials of the London 11 met with Syrian National Coalition Leader Hadi al- Bahra.

The best the London 11 could do was:

“demonstrate collective and united support for the moderate opposition led by the National Coalition, as they fight a two-front war resisting the brutality of the Assad regime and fighting extremists including Daesh (Islamic State)”

Many European countries form part of the American led coalition which has also failed to effectively halt the progress of Islamic State.

Europe remains a sitting duck whilst it passively sits on the sidelines uttering pious platitudes.

Netanyahu Puts Behaviour Change By Iran On Negotiating Agenda

[Published 9 March 2015]


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – addressing the American Congress - has made behaviour change by Iran an essential pre-requisite to the successful conclusion of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 – France, Germany, United Kingdom, China, Russia and the United States.

Those negotiations - designed to curb Iran procuring a nuclear bomb - have a deadline expiring on March 24.

The threat Iran’s behaviour poses to peace and security in the Middle East and the world’s oil supply was starkly laid out by Netanyahu:

"Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back[ed] by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back[ed] by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply."

Iran’s past attacks on Americans did not escape Netanyahu’s notice:

"Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan".

Netanyahu spelled out Iran’s ever-increasing quest for domination and influence outside its own national borders:

"In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow"

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

Netanyahu warned against the P5+1 agreeing to any 10 year moratorium on Iran gaining a nuclear bomb - without imposing strict conditions requiring an end to such behaviour by Iran:

"Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children.
We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs."

Netanyahu’s solution to preventing this catastrophe occurring requires Iran meeting three conditions in any concluded negotiations – each enthusiastically endorsed by a standing ovation from the Congress as Netanyahu declared:

"First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. 


Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.


And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."

Behaviour change by Iran has thus been firmly put on the negotiating agenda – and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress – with Netanyahu warning:

"If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted.

If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.



If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country"

Significantly Netanyahu stressed that these three conditions would represent:

"A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally".

The P5+1 must ensure that Iran abandons its belligerent behaviour – or terminate the negotiations.

Remembering Australia's First Jihadist Attack - 1 January 2015

[Published 30 December 2014]


The Department of Veteran’s Affairs announced last March that the centenary of the Battle of Broken Hill on 1 January 2015 would not be formally commemorated by the Australian Government.

That decision will now be seen in hindsight by many as a wise one indeed — following the fallout resulting from the horrific Martin Place siege perpetrated by self-styled Islamic cleric Man Haron Monis just two weeks ago - that claimed his life and those of two innocent civilians.

However Nicholas Shakespeare has written a novella — ”Oddfellows” - based on this little known event — to be published by Random House in January - ensuring this centenary will not pass unnoticed.

Shakespeare has written a poignant article - “Outback Jihad” - in which he graphically describes what the locals call “The New Year’s Day Tragedy”:

“The tragedy was a desperate response, in the least likely spot, to a jihad announced on the other side of the world. On 11 November 1914 — 100 years ago this month — the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed V, and caliph of all Muslims, who had earlier signed a treaty with Germany, declared a holy war against Great Britain and her allies, “the mortal enemies of Islam”. The Turkish sultan’s call overlooked the Christianity of his own allies in Germany and Austria-Hungary, and was virtually ignored by Muslims, save for some small-scale mutinies in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and in Broken Hill where two disaffected “Turks” decided to launch a suicide mission under a homemade Turkish flag. Their target: a train of 40 open ore wagons carrying more than 1200 holiday-makers…

At 10 am on 1 January 1915, the long and crowded train pulled away from the Broken Hill platform. It had been a town ritual since 1901: on New Year’s Day, the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, a friendly society founded to embrace education and social advancement, held a picnic 25 kilometres away at a shady creek in Silverton…
Less than ten minutes after leaving the station, the train slowed down, the driver having been warned that sand had drifted across the line. The engine stoker was standing out on the footplate when he noticed a red cloth fluttering above a white cart. His first thought: someone’s exploding defective ammunition. But he dismissed it. No one would be venturing out with a powder magazine on New Year’s Day…

... They chugged past. The driver noticed what looked like an insignia on the red cloth. What this was, he couldn’t make out. Then a breeze sprang up, the cloth unfolded, and the driver saw a yellow crescent, like a banana, and a star.

At that moment, a pair of white turbans bobbed up from the trench—dark faces, the tips of rifles—and the driver heard two gunshots. One bullet hit the sand, spitting dust against the engine. The second bullet struck the brake van, embedding itself in the woodwork…”

In the ensuing melee and mayhem that followed for the next three hours—six people (including the attackers) were killed and seven injured.

Shakespeare records:

“The two soldiers of Allah were not Turks, but British passport-holders from India’s north-west frontier, a region now divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

One was Badsha Mahomed Gül:

“Born in the mountainous Tirah region, Gül had come to Australia as a cameleer. When the camel business declined, he had worked in a silver mine until the outbreak of war, and was laid off after all contracts with the German smelters were cancelled…

Three days after the tragedy, a confession was discovered, tucked under a rock and written in a mixture of Urdu and Dari, in which, astoundingly, Gül claimed to have visited Turkey four times — and even to have enlisted in the sultan’s army…"

Gül’s accomplice was Mullah Abdullah:

”.. a disgruntled old cameleer with a limp. Aged 60, he had lived in Broken Hill for 15 years. Different skin colour, strange clothes, not Anglo-Saxon —boys laughed when he hobbled by and chased him down the street, throwing stones. He never retaliated, but several times complained to the police, who failed to act.”

Eerily reminiscent of Man Haron Monis and his numerous brushes with the legal system:

“He (Abdullah) was not trained as a priest, but he had priests in his family. In the absence of a religious leader, he had begun to take on that role in “Ghantown”, as the North Broken Hill camel camp was known.

As well as acting as imam, he served as the butcher of his community, slaughtering animals in the manner stipulated by Islamic law. The fact that he was not a member of the butchers’ union in the most unionist town in the country brought him into conflict with those who needed little excuse to treat a Pathan from north-west India as an enemy alien. The most aggressive of his persecutors was the local sanitary inspector, a short, mournful-looking Irishman called Cornelius Brosnan.”

Broken Hill’s current mayor — Winston Cuy — acknowledges there are sensitive issues in the incident such as religion and civilian deaths.

“Broken Hill will be recognising it. What are the words you use and how do you commemorate it?”

Christine Adams — Curator of the Broken Hill Sulphide St Railway and Historical Museum — provides a sensible pointer:

“We think that it needs to be treated with a certain amount of tact. It was two people, what they did was a terrible terrible thing, it wasn’t a nation”.

Palestine - A Stone's Throw Away From Syria

[Published 14 March 2014]


It boggles the imagination that Australia’s national broadcaster the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) could have been involved in a joint investigation between its premier Public Affairs show - “Four Corners” - and one of Australia’s leading newspapers – The Australian – in producing a 45 minute television documentary – “Stone Cold Justice” - examining the treatment of Palestinian children in Israel’s military court system.

ABC News announced that:

“Children are being intimidated and forced into false confessions by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, according to allegations to be broadcast tonight on the ABC’s Four Corners program.

A joint investigation between Four Corners and The Australian newspaper has examined the treatment of Palestinian children in Israel’s military court system. Four Corners looks at claims the Israeli army is arresting hundreds of Palestinian children during night raids for alleged crimes, such as throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and settlers.

Israel’s security services have also been accused by lawyers and youth workers of using Palestinian children to gather intelligence.”

The news item went on to reveal that:

“700 Palestinian children [are] detained each year by the Israeli army…”

Any allegations concerning the mistreatment or abuse of children should be vigorously questioned and exposed - but the allocation of substantial resources by the Australian taxpayer funded ABC to investigate allegations that relate to 700 children a year in the West Bank must be seriously questioned.

There are certainly far more serious abuses being suffered by children – most notably in Syria for the last three years – that deserve detailed investigation by national broadcasters like the ABC.

The impotency of the United Nations and its “humanitarian” agencies in allowing inhumane outcomes for children resulting from member states either backing the Assad regime or those seeking to overthrow it – has been starkly revealed in a report - “Under Siege -The devastating impact on children of three years of conflict in Syria” - issued by UNICEF this week.

The Report reveals that:

1. Since March 2013, the number of children affected by the crisis in Syria has more than doubled from 2.3 million to more than 5.5 million.

2. The number of children displaced inside Syria has more than tripled from 920,000 to almost 3 million.

3. The number of child refugees has more than quadrupled from 260,000 to more than 1.2 million. Of these children, 425,000 are under the age of five

4. One in 10 children – over 1.2 million – have fled the country to become refugees in neighbouring countries. And these numbers are rising every day. By the end of January 2014, 37,498 Syrian children had been born as refugees.

5.As of January 2014, more than 10,000 children have lost their lives to Syria’s violence reflecting a blatant disregard for civilian lives by all sides to the conflict. Most have reportedly died in the last 24 months - and there is evidence that children are being directly targeted.

6. Boys as young as 12 have been recruited to support the fighting, some in actual combat, others to work as informers, guards, or arms smugglers

7.According to a recent UN report, children as young as 11 are being detained with adults. In some cases, they are being subjected to torture and sexual abuse to humiliate them, force confessions, or pressure relatives to surrender

8. According to UN field estimates- one in ten refugee children is thought to be working – whether as cheap labour on farms, in cafes and car repair shops or as beggars on city streets.

9.Malnutrition and dangerous vitamin and mineral deficiencies – so-called “hidden hunger” - have been slowly undermining children’s ability to develop and thrive over the last three years.

10. Since the confirmation of a polio outbreak in the governorate of Deir Ezzour in October 2013, 25 cases of the disease have been confirmed in the north and east of the country. Despite a massive immunization programme since - polio remains a threat, especially to an estimated 323,000 children under the age of five in areas under siege or that are hard-to-reach

Australia currently occupies a seat on the United Nations Security Council –positioning it to take a lead role in demanding that an armed UN force be sent to Syria to implement an imposed cease fire to end this mayhem and slaughter – if the warring parties do not agree on a cease fire within a specified time frame.

If Australia’s national broadcaster has been moved to investigate the abuse of 700 children in the West Bank – surely it should be similarly motivated to produce a series of 45 minute documentaries interviewing UNICEF officials and those on the front line in Syria named in UNICEF’s report detailing the abuses being visited on 5.5 million children.

Indeed all national broadcasters – especially in those democratic countries forming part of the “The Friends of Syria Core Group of countries – the ‘London 11’” - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey – should be actively demanding a cease fire to end the suffering of these innocent children.

The other members of the London 11 - Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates must be prepared to join such an international force to end this genocidal assault on Arab children.

Russia, Iran and Hezbollah need to accept such a cease fire immediately.

The world must intervene without further delay.

Syria is only a stone’s throw away from the West Bank – not on another planet.

Palestine - Billions In International Donors Funds Go Missing

[Published 20 October 2013]


Billions of euros in European aid to the PLO and Hamas between 2008 and 2012 may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption - according to an unpublished report by the European Court of Auditors - a Luxembourg-based watchdog - disclosed in an article appearing in The Sunday Times on 14 October.

Brussels reportedly transferred more than US$2.64 billion to the West Bank and Gaza in that four year period - but had little control over how it was spent - the auditors said in the damning report seen by The Sunday Times.

EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank noted “significant shortcomings” in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the West Bank.

These disturbing revelations followed closely on the heels of a report in Ma’an News on 10 October claiming that the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) anti-corruption commission - established in 2010 - was working to retrieve PLO-owned land registered to individual PLO leaders - according to commission chief Rafiq al-Natsheh.

The commission had recovered around 400 dunums of PLO-owned land in 2012 - al-Natsheh told Ma’an.

Natsheh’s remarks were made after comments by him in in the Jordanian newspaper al-Dustour the previous week that PA officials were moving deposits from Jordanian banks to foreign accounts.

“If suspects accused of stealing public money (are moving funds abroad), that falls within our jurisdiction, We will ask these countries to help us restore the stolen public money, Transferring money anywhere (abroad) will not prevent us from calling suspects to account and restoring that money,”

In rare comments on the location of assets belonging to the PLO - al-Natsheh admitted that bank deposits and real estate collected by the PLO dating back to its inception in 1964 had been entrusted to “trustworthy individuals” and had yet to be recovered.

According to al-Natsheh, some of the money and property - which was supposed to be have been deposited into public accounts when the PA government was established in 1994 - still remains in private hands.

Any possibility of an embedded culture of corruption on a grand scale within the PLO and Hamas - as alleged in these news reports - could well be influencing any reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas who themselves have been locked in an internecine power struggle since 2007 creating two separate fiefdoms where corruption easily flourishes - ensuring that the continuing plunder of large injections of international donor funds will always trump any efforts at reconciliation.

Systemic corruption in the PLO could also be a powerful driver in influencing the continuation of the current status quo with Israel - enabling unjust enrichment of PLO officials to continue at the expense of the West Bank Arabs for whose welfare and advancement such funds received from international donors were to be ostensibly applied.

According to Mona Chalabi on Guardian Datablog:

“The Palestinian economy is dependent on international aid and around 4 in 5 Gazans rely on donations for their survival…

... In 2011, the single biggest donor to Palestine was the United States followed by the EU who gave $281m and $206m respectively.”

Other large donors in 2011 (in US dollars) included the UK (82.8 million), Sweden (76.4 million), Germany (57.5 million), France (43 million), Norway (39.6 million), Spain (34.9 million) Canada (34.3 million) and Italy (31.9 million).

In 2012 the Palestinian Authority only received 80% of the promised US$1 billion - well down from the $1.8 billion in 2008.

Continued mismanagement of dwindling international funds spells increasing economic hardship for West Bank and Gazan Arabs.

These donor countries must certainly be concerned at the allegations aired in The Sunday Times.

If the European Court of Auditors Report is confirmed - these countries will have no option but to call for an independent and transparent investigation into the possible misappropriation of foreign donor funds by the PLO and Hamas.

Transparency International - a Berlin-based watchdog monitoring corporate and political corruption - confirms that the state of paralysis afflicting the Palestinian parliament since 2007 as a result of the split between the PLO and Hamas has “given the executive unlimited management over public funds.”

A Palestinian opinion poll conducted in July 2012 found that 71 percent of respondents believed that corruption existed in PA institutions under the control of President Mahmoud Abbas. Some 57% of respondents said the same of Hamas-controlled institutions in the Gaza Strip.

Similarly, a hearing held at the US House of Representative’s Committee on Foreign Affairs in July 2012 heard evidence accusing the Palestinian political establishment of “chronic kleptocracy”

Transparency International seems to have pinpointed the crux of these monetary and financial woes affecting Palestinian Arab politics and policies with these few well chosen words:

“Presidential, legislative, and local elections are needed to restore the legitimacy of government institutions. This will also reinforce citizens’ interests, political accountability and the rule of law.”

Whilst the PLO and Hamas continue to deny West Bank and Gazan Arabs the right to vote on who should govern them - any prospects of investigating claims of misappropriation of international donor funds remains a distant dream.

The soon to be released report of the European Council of Auditors could prove to be the catalyst for ending the six year election drought in the West Bank and Gaza - resulting in the appointment of freely elected leaders implementing fully transparent and independent financial structures.

Such imperatives have become all the more urgent following these latest allegations.

Syria - London Eleven Need Help From Heaven

[Published 22 September 2013]


Only divine intervention now seems likely to justify continuing support for the anti- Assad forces in Syria by the group known as the London 11 - United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

An unnamed Pentagon official has made this very clear in a Sunday Times article on 15 September headlined “Who’s calling the shots”:

“What everyone’s missing here is that the US has effectively chosen to back Assad,” a Pentagon official said. “There won’t be airstrikes in the foreseeable future and the administration has made clear that any help for the moderate opposition will be, to use Secretary Kerry’s words, unbelievably small. The facts on the ground are that Assad — who is still being armed by Russia — is winning.”

The Syrian opposition is clearly teetering on the ropes - indicating the failure of the London 11 strategy announced on 22 June:

“Doha, Qatar (CNN)—Foreign ministers from 11 countries meeting here cited the presence of foreign fighters in the country and the alleged use of chemical weapons by Damascus in agreeing Saturday to increase arms shipments to the rebels.

In a statement, the ministers representing the “London 11,” an offshoot of the “Friends of Syria,” said they would “provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground, each country in its own way in order to enable them to counter brutal attacks by the regime and its allies and protect the Syrian people.”

The weapons are to be funneled through the opposition Free Syrian Army’s Supreme Military Council (SMC).

The alleged use of chemical weapons, which President Bashar al-Assad has denied, and the involvement of Hezbollah and Iran left the participants no choice:

“but to provide greater assistance of one kind or another, each nation making its own decision as to what it is comfortable doing, but all of them committing to do more to help the Syrian opposition,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters.”

Exacerbating Syria’s agony is the growing number of foreigners fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army - undoubtedly causing great concern among the London 11 as disclosed in this disturbing report in The Telegraph on 15 September:

“Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane’s, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda.

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups…

...Fears that the rebellion against the Assad regime is being increasingly dominated by extremists has fuelled concerns in the West over supplying weaponry that will fall into hostile hands. These fears contributed to unease in the US and elsewhere over military intervention in Syria”

Certainly the western nations among the London 11 would have been appalled at the following remarks appearing in the Sunday Times article by a resident in the largely Christian town of Maaloula - following the entry of anti- Assad forces:

“These people are not after Bashar [al-Assad]. Their main aim and goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate. We have been living for 40 years as Christians under Assad. Now they place a gun to our head and say we have to convert to Islam.”

Another distraught resident declared:

“They broke into homes, stole things. They broke crosses and destroyed holy books. They fired at homes, ransacked, looted and destroyed anything with Christian symbols”

Moral imperatives might certainly have motivated the London 11 to initially take sides in the Syrian civil war.

However with this war claiming over 100000 deaths and seven million displaced Syrian civilians during the past 30 months - the time for the London 11 to call it a day must surely be approaching.

As the USA, Britain and France haggle with Russia in a vain attempt to procure face-saving terms for a United Nations Security Council Resolution to destroy all chemical weapons in Syria - the prospect of a ceasefire enabling their collection continues to evaporate given the disparate forces now fighting against Assad.

Intervention in Syria by the London 11 has been disastrous - as the increasing human casualties make so starkly clear.

The Pentagon official’s assessment declaring Assad the emerging winner is being increasingly confirmed with each passing day.

This conclusion may be unpalatable to the London 11 - and the group must shoulder some responsibility for the catastrophic humanitarian outcome.

A ceasefire between Assad and the SMC accompanied by an offer of safe passage and political asylum for SMC fighters and their families to the London 11 countries - would isolate the foreign jihadists - forcing them to exit Syria or die fighting Assad’s forces.

Assad would see off his armed opponents - Russia would see its pro-Assad stance justified - and the London 11 would have acted honourably to save those it supported.

These attainable goals - backed by Russia and America - represent a heaven-sent opportunity to end Syria’s hell and destroy its chemical weapons.

Palestine - UN Special Rapporteur Bans Free Speech

[Published 31 March 2013]


United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” - Professor Richard Falk - has taken the extraordinary action to ban posts on his blog page “Citizen Pilgrimage”.

This has happened to myself and at least one other person when we attempted to post comments in response to an article written by Professor Falk titled ” What was wrong with Obama’s speech in Jerusalem”

My detailed comment sought to point out what was right with President Obama’s speech in Jerusalem. It had been published as an article on many Internet pages around the world and reproduced on the web sites of scores of others without editorial amendment.

I presented a considered and reasoned analysis of what President Obama had said. It was not couched in inflammatory or defamatory terms. It considered aspects of President Obama’s speech not referred to in Professor Falk’s article and came to an entirely different conclusion to the views expressed by Professor Falk.

To my amazement Professor Falk’s response to my post was:

“My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemics on the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are many other more important venues to carry on these discussions.”

My reply to Professor Falk - pointing out his decision amounted to the banning of free speech and requesting he reconsider his decision - went unanswered.

I subsequently sought to post an entirely different response to another contributor’s comment - but it was also not published.

One person who sought to post a comment to Professor Falk’s article received the following response:

“Mr. Skolnik: My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemical responses that insult either me or others who submit comments. There are many other venues for this sort of debate.”

Stangely Professor Falk had no similar qualms in publishing the following comment from one of his readers:

“I have been following events in Israel and Cyprus closely, and stand by my assertions. I find it both fascinating and terrifying that Germany is the force behind the Cypriot haircut, in which unscrupulous jewish industrialists, all of whom hold Israeli passports, are having their bank accounts seized and money transferred to Germany. Who would have predicted this turn of events, but really, once you spot the pattern, it becomes impossible to deny this jaw-dropping turn of events, and its ominous implications.”

It is clear that there are many readers of Professor Falk’s blog who would be grossly offended by this Jew-hating language - yet it was published.

I do not seek to silence these Jew-haters airing their views on Professor Falk’s blog. Better the world should be aware such views exist and are exposed to critical comment.

My articles sometimes attract such vile and repulsive comments. Never would I seek to have them expunged. I prefer to respond to such comments or let my readers do so.

But why should a UN Rapporteur concerned with human rights seek to ban the views of others like myself and Mr Skolnik - if he allows such a vile post as this to appear as a comment on the same blog page?

Intrigued by the Professor’s totally unexpected and unexplained reaction to my post - I contacted other sites where his article had been published.

One was a virulently Jew-hating web site called “Shoah - The Palestinian Holocaust” It had no problem posting the identical response that I attempted to post on Professor Falk’s web page

Another was “Ramy Abdeljabbar’s Palestine and World News” - not what one would call a pro-Israel site. It published my response to Professor Falk’s article without indulging in the histrionics and petulance displayed by Professor Falk.

A third site was “Transcend Media Service” - which describes itself in the following terms:

“TRANSCEND International is an experiment in promoting peace by peaceful means throughout the world. Traditionally, institutes have been centered around a building where the people who work together meet on a regular basis. Since many people who share common interests in helping transform conflicts nonviolently and creatively are geographically scattered and cannot usually be physically together, our solution is to create an electronic network of members. This, in addition, diminishes our carbon footprints and contributes to attenuate the global warming crisis.”

Professor Falk is a member of the Transcend Network.

Transcend saw nothing objectionable in posting my response to Professor Falk’s article

Professor Falk needs to understand that attempts by him to ban freedom of expression and free speech on his web site demean himself and his position as a UN Special Rapporteur.

Those in authority at the UN who repeatedly express their support for the protection of human rights must be prepared to act against one of their own by denouncing Professor Falk’s actions in the strongest terms with a view to ending his crass attempt to deny the inalienable right of every human being to speak out and be heard.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and members of the UN Human Rights Council - are you listening or do you endorse Professor Falk’s outrageous conduct?

Palestine - Abbas, Attitude and Annexation

[Published 10 January 2013]


Annexation of large areas of the West Bank by Israel has now become a distinct possibility with the unilateral decision this week to scrap any trace of the existence of the Palestinian Authority by its President Mahmoud Abbas.

In a “Presidential decree” Abbas has called for all official documents - including passports, drivers’ licenses, postage stamps and car number plates - to now bear the name ‘State of Palestine’, instead of the generally used ‘Palestinian National Authority’.

Abbas has also ordered foreign ministries and embassies around the world to start using the title.

Abbas’s decree comes just a few days after he had reportedly told an Israeli politician that if there was no progress in the peace talks:

“I will take the phone and call Netanyahu and tell him: ‘Sit in the chair instead of me; take the keys and you will be responsible for the Palestinian Authority.”

His remark prompted this angry response from senior Hamas official Abu Marzouk, in a posting on Facebook:

“Why does Abbas want to hand the keys over to Netanyahu? Why not hand it over to Hamas?”

Abu Marzouk - who turned 62 on January 9 and is slated to replace Khaled Mashaal as head of Hamas - said it would have been:

“better and more effective had Abbas threatened to hand the West Bank to Hamas.”

In a fearless riposte - Jamal Muheisen, a member of the Fatah Central Council, said the Palestinians should first hold presidential and legislative elections to choose their leaders:

“Whoever wins in the elections will be handed the keys of the entire Palestinian Authority, be it Hamas or Fatah or any other Palestinian faction,”

Now it seems the keys to control of the entire Palestinian Authority have been thrown down the drain by its own President just days later - as have any hopes of negotiating a two-state solution as prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

This solution has simply vanished into thin air after being flavour of the month for the last twenty years - with one of the two principal negotiating parties having gone missing in action.

We are now being subjected to the following delusional garbage being spouted on Al - Jazzera on 8 January by the now defunct chief negotiator of the now defunct Palestinian Authority - Saeb Erekat:

“Palestine is a country under occupation. What was Norway, Finland, Holland, France, Korea, Philippines between 1939 and 1945 - nation states under occupation. Today, the state of Palestine is officially a state under occupation. It has 192 member countries that recognise this and a nation state, Israel, which is the occupying power; these are the new realities.”

The comparison is totally fictitious and Erekat’s arrogance is unbounded.

Comparing States that had existed for centuries to a State that has never existed in recorded history whilst claiming statehood in an area it has never controlled is mind blowing.

Demonstrably all 192 “member countries” in the United Nations do not recognise Erekat’s outrageous statement.

Purporting to draw many of those countries into what is increasingly appearing to be a continuation of the Fatah-Hamas rivalry for control of the hearts and minds of the long suffering Palestinian Arabs is political madness.

Certainly 50 of those countries did nothing of the sort - 9 rejecting and 41 abstaining from supporting the General Assembly resolution on 29 November last granting Palestine the status of a non-member observer State at its meetings.

Abbas and Erekat should have heeded the explanations given by Singapore and Germany for abstaining - before embarking on their new flight into unreality

A summary of these two countries views was issued in a release from the United Nations Department of Public Information News and Media Division

Germany’s vote against the Resolution was summarised as follows:

“The delegate of Germany said his nation firmed believed in “two States for two peoples” and shared the goal of a Palestinian State. However, such status must be achieved only through direct negotiations. There was doubt that today’s action would be helpful for the peace process at this point in time. “It might lead to further hardening of positions instead of improving chances of a two-State solution through direct negotiations,” he said. He explicitly welcomed that today’s resolution called for a two-State solution and, hence, recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace. However, Israel’s legitimate security concern had to be addressed in a credible manner.”

To say Germany was spot on in its predictions would be an understatement.

Singapore was even more circumspect in its sober assessment made against the baying cries from those 138 states who could not see the wood for the trees.

“The representative of Singapore said that his delegation supported the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and had, in the past, supported relevant Assembly resolutions. However, his country had abstained from today’s vote because only a negotiated settlement, consistent with Security Council resolution 242 (1967), could provide the basis for a viable, long-term solution. Both sides had legitimate rights and shared responsibilities and must be prepared to make compromises to achieve the larger good of a lasting peace. Because of those interlinked rights and responsibilities, no unilateral move could result in a just and durable outcome.”

The preparadness of especially the democratic states to vote for the General Assembly Resolution on 29 November and abandon Security Council Resolution 242 - the only internationally accepted United Nations resolution binding both Jews and Arabs to ending their conflict - was shameful.

Those democracies must now rue the day that their votes could be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the state of utter confusion that now exists following Abbas’s Presidential decree and Erekat’s involvement of them in his latest statement.

Israel will hold elections on 22 January.

A new political party - Bayit Hayehudi - the Jewish homeland party - could possibly end up exercising a controlling vote in the next Parliament.

It’s leader Naftali Bennett has already made clear that he will be calling for Israel to annex at least 60% of the West Bank - adding in an interview in Haaretz on 28 December:

“And in the end, Jordan will be Palestine. There is no chance that, between the river and the sea, a Palestinian state will arise. The two-state solution is dead. There is no need to bury the two-state solution because it is already buried.”

Abbas has helped advance this possible outcome because of his inane Presidential decree consigning the Palestinian Authority to the dustbin of history.

Ave atque vale - Palestinian Authority.

Others less charitable might say - “good riddance”.

Palestine - Democracies In Diplomatic Disarray

[Published 13 December 2012]


It has only taken 10 days for 22 of the top 25 leading democratic nations listed in the Democracy Index 2011 to fall into abject diplomatic disarray.

Their acute discomfort follows the rush by 17 of them to vote to admit Palestine as a non-observer state at the UN General Assembly on November 29 - whilst the other 5 abstained.

Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Malta, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Mauritius and Spain - should have all joined the remaining three - Canada, United States and the Czech Republic - who cast a ” NO” vote.

Instead they swallowed the following assuring statement by PLO Chairman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas prior to the vote:

“We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a State established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the State that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine.”

It mattered not to their democratic sensitivities that President Abbas was a lapsed President whose term of office had expired in January 2009 - a situation that would never be tolerated in their countries.

It mattered even less that Abbas was purporting to speak on behalf of a territorial entity he did not control - even as a tyrannical despot.

It was of no consequence that Abbas claimed to represent a population that was hopelessly split in its allegiances between the PLO and its arch rival Hamas.

It was irrelevant that no elections had been held for the last six years to give the people any say on which one of these protagonists - or anyone else who might want to throw his hat into the ring - should represent them.

Foolishly they gave Abbas their vote supporting:

“the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”

Their votes were cast in the full knowledge that they were adding their voices to those who saw nothing dishonourable in jettisoning the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap to the political scrap heap by endorsing the PLO’s unilateral approach to the United Nations in breach of those internationally negotiated agreements.

These democracies were happy to undermine any need for further negotiations to determine the future sovereignty of the territory in dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - effectively limiting any negotiations to when and on what terms 600000 Jews would leave their homes in which they had lived for the last 40 years.

Indignation and shock horror greeted the news that Israel should have the temerity - just three days after their vote - to announce its intention to revive its stalled plans to build 3000 housing units in part of the disputed territory bearing the amorphous title E1 - which these democracies had just determined should be vested in the Palestinian Authority.

This was the catalyst for all diplomatic hell to burst forth.

These democracies did what all good democracies do to show their displeasure at those who treat their decisions with contempt.

Britain, Spain, Sweden and Denmark called in Israel’s Ambassadors and gave them a diplomatic dressing down.

The British Foreign Office issued a statement that the E1 project was a serious violation that threatened the two-state solution.

Speaking from Papua New Guinea, Australia’s Foreign Minister Senator Carr said the Australian Government had made clear its call to all sides not to exploit or overreact to the vote and called in Israel’s Ambassador to deliver the message.

Senator Carr had reportedly railroaded the wishes of Australia’s Prime Minister who had wanted to cast a “No” vote - forcing its replacement with an abstention after threatening the Cabinet might demand a “Yes” vote if his recommendation was not accepted.

“I am extremely disappointed with these reported Israeli decisions.

Australia has long opposed all settlement activity. Such activity threatens the viability of a two-state solution without which there will never be security in Israel. Israel’s reported decision to unfreeze planning of the area known as E1 is especially counter-productive. Australia has also conveyed these concerns to the Israeli authorities in Jerusalem. The Australian Government urges both sides to return urgently to the negotiation table in good faith,”

Good faith? Surely the prospect of any such negotiations had already gone out the window when most of the world’s 104 democracies had voted as they did.

Three days later these democracies received their come uppance when Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal made a triumphant first visit to Gaza.

Addressing a crowd estimated at hundreds of thousands who braved the rain to hear him - Meshaal declared:

“We will never recognize Israel’s occupation of legitimate Palestinian lands, and we will not recognize Israel… Palestine is our land from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan, and we will never give away an inch of it… As long as Palestine is ours and Palestine is the land of Arabism and Islam, we can never recognise the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation of it ..There is no legitimacy for occupation. Hence, there is no legitimacy for Israel, however long time lasts.”

The centrepiece of the rally was a huge replica of a type of rocket terrorists from Gaza fired indiscriminately into Israel’s civilian population reaching as far as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv just a few weeks before the General Assembly vote.

The crowd responded enthusiastically:

“We swear by the name of almighty God and his great Prophet to renew our pledge of allegiance and loyalty to Hamas.”

Have any Palestinian diplomats been called into any foreign capitals and given a dressing down? There are plenty of them working in democratic states representing this Mickey Mouse United Nations “state”.

Has there been any revulsion expressed at the statements made during this rally or any indication that the the flow of billions of dollars into Gaza to assist its baying-for -blood population will cease?

Has Mahmoud Abbas been asked to express his disgust at the rejection by Meshall of the two-state solution laid out by Abbas at the General Assembly just 8 days earlier?

These 22 democracies and the other democracies who joined them in voting as they did have done untold harm to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict. Their subsequent inability to take concerted action following Meshaal’s visit to Gaza is appalling.

And that is just 10 days into the life of this infamous Resolution.

Foreign Minister Carr and the other 21 Foreign Ministers - where are you hiding, when will you wake up and wipe the egg off your collective faces?

Palestine - UNWRA And UNESCO Promote A State Of Confusion

[Published 23 May 2012]


A crisis of diplomatic confusion seems to have arisen between two affiliate organizations of the United Nations following the announcement by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) of its intention to upgrade the dilapidated conditions in some of the refugee camps under its control - rather than taking progressive steps to close them down following recognition of the State of Palestine by UNESCO on 31 October 2011.

The upgrades will take place with the help of German Government funding in improving health clinics, sanitation and advanced education in coordination with local committees in five camps in the West Bank and two in Jordan.

Certainly any improvements to the daily lives of refugees and the abject conditions under which they have lived for the last six decades should be regarded as a welcome initiative.

However, the recognition of the State of Palestine by UNESCO - and with it an end to Palestinian homelessness - should have also signalled the beginning of the dismantlement of the refugee camps and a structured program to achieve this humanitarian goal.

The vast resources available to UNWRA should surely now be better employed to assist the permanent resettlement of Palestinian refugees in their newly recognized state. Yet UNWRA has remained silent on implementing any such plans.

One of the camps slated for an upgrade is the Dheishe refugee camp - at present home to 13000 refugees. This camp is situated on the outskirts of Bethlehem in Area A of the West Bank - an area completely under the administrative and military control of the Palestinian Authority.

If there are any areas that can be readily identified as forming part of the newly-recognized state of Palestine - it is those areas that comprise Area A under the Oslo Accords - which currently cover 18% of the West Bank and include 55% of the total Arab population of the West Bank. Not one Jew lives in Area A.

On December 21, 1995, Israeli troops withdrew from Bethlehem and three days later the city came under the complete administration and military control of the Palestinian National Authority in conformance with the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1995.

One could indeed ask why Dheishe refugee camp has not been shut down at any time during the last 17 years of its existence - given that responsibility for the lives of its inhabitants was always under the complete authority and control of the Palestinian Authority.

The reasons proffered till now have been the lack of a Palestinian state to end Palestinian homelessness and a belief that one day the residents would be entitled to return to live in what is now Israel. This latter reason has never been - and will never be - an option that can ever be realised unless the State of Israel itself is dismantled.

The UNESCO decision to recognize the existence of an independent State of Palestine has brought with it an end to claims of Palestinian homelessness. .

Yet Habis al-Aisa - a Dheishe resident - still believes nothing has changed as he laments:

“We’re refugees, and the U.N. should be totally responsible for our needs and our situation, because our status is an international political issue.”

Another resident - Othman Abu Omar comments:

“We hope one day to be done with dependence. Everybody should depend on himself,”

Sandi Hilal - the director of UNRWA’s “camp improvement program” in the West Bank - also seems to be under the same misapprehension as to the change in status of those under his charge when adding:

“Improving the daily life of refugees doesn’t jeopardize their right to return back home”.

Can the Dheishe occupants still claim the status of “refugees” - now that they have their own State - a goal that has been pursued with international support and diplomacy for the last 19 years?

Does UNWRA’s stated position on the “right to return home” mean “to the UNESCO recognized State of Palestine” - or does it mean “to Israel”?

It would appear that UNWRA is having problems comprehending the enormity of the UNESCO decision and the changes that have occurred to the status of those whom it has looked after for 64 years.

The United Nations has recognized as Palestinian refugees those Palestinian Arabs - and their descendants - who registered with UNRWA after fleeing their homes from what is now Israel. They are covered by the U.N. resolutions and eligible to receive the agency’s services even if not resident in the camps, but not if they attain citizenship or asylum in another country.

The Palestinian refugees have enjoyed a special status not accorded to any other refugee groups world wide during the past 64 years. That status is - and has always been - privileged and discriminatory and needs to be ended without delay - especially now that a Palestinian state has been internationally recognized and accepted by the 194 member states of UNESCO.

UNWRA now needs to rise to the challenges and the opportunities the UNESCO decision has presented - and implement a program for the closing of the refugee camps.

UNWRA and UNESCO should be meeting to jointly plan such a humanitarian program to bring the long running and festering issue of the Palestinian refugees to an end.

Whilst UNESCO recognizes the existence of a a Palestinian State and UNWRA apparently does not - one can only conclude that the State of Palestine is rapidly acquiring a reputation for being known as“the State of Confusion”.

The sooner the refugee camps start being dismantled - the better the prospects for a resolution of the long running Jewish-Arab conflict in former Palestine.

Australia Can Rescue UNESCO From Palestine Decision

[Published 30 March 2012]


Australia’s new Foreign Minister - Bob Carr - needs to urgently review the decision adopted by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO (ANCUNESCO) - that the admission of Palestine as UNESCO’s 195th member State was consistent with UNESCO‘s Constitution and its Rules of Procedure.

Only 107 of UNESCO’s 194 member states voted in favour of the resolution to admit Palestine on 31 October 2011. Australia was one of 14 countries that voted against - whilst 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote including some who were ineligible to vote due to unpaid membership fees.

The consequences of that vote have been catastrophic for UNESCO - and for scores of millions of people around the world dependent on UNESCO’s planned programs during 2012-2013.

22% of UNESCO’s budget has been lost as a result of America immediately suspending payment of membership dues totalling $260 million to the end of 2013 - because of a 20 years old American domestic law mandating such action.

Staff retrenchments are growing and global programs over the next two years - such as literacy, gender equality, water purification, AIDS and HIV prevention - will have to be abandoned or curtailed - unless America resumes its payments or alternative sources of funding are found,

An Emergency Donor Fund set up by UNESCO has not been very successful - with only about $42 million being raised or pledged in the last four months - much of it to be used to alleviate suffering among the populations in the donor or adjacent countries - rather than universally.

In its latest move to get the American funding back - UNESCO will soon be opening an office in Washington to lobby Congress to amend the law so as to enable the American tap to be turned on again.

Such lobbying is extremely unlikely to succeed - since the chances of Congress backing away from the law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepts the PLO as a full member - outside of negotiations with Israel - is doomed to failure.

Those 107 states who voted to admit Palestine were warned by UNESCO Director-General Irina Bukova of the risk of losing the American funding before they cast their votes. Defiantly ignoring her unambiguous message was both irresponsible and reckless and has caused UNESCO to create its own self induced financial and humanitarian crisis.

Australia’s Head of Mission - Ms Gita Kamath - gave the assembled delegates the following reasons for Australia‘s negative vote:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora.

Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

The decision to admit Palestine is open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO and Palestine is not a state,

2. The number of votes required to admit Palestine is 129 - not the 107 received

After initially receiving an irrelevant response from UNESCO and no answer to a detailed submission made by me on the voting requirements of the Constitution - I then wrote to Ms Kamath on 15 January - urging her to press UNESCO to review the adequacy of the vote to admit Palestine to UNESCO - and to approach other member States to do likewise.

Ms Kamath’s initial response was identical to UNESCO’s first response to me..

Undeterred - I then sent Ms Kamath the detailed submission I had given UNESCO. Like UNESCO - neither she nor ANCUNESCO has been prepared to discuss the merits of that submission.

Australia’s former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister - Kevin Rudd - had been actively seeking support for Australia to gain a seat on the UN Security Council. Perhaps he believed that taking a lead role to get UNESCO out of its current woes by promoting Court action that could see Palestine being possibly removed from UNESCO - could have seriously dealt a fatal blow to Australia’s chances of securing that Security Council seat.

There seems to be no other explanation for ANCUNESCO refusing to even consider my submission.

Hopefully Bob Carr will place the looming global humanitarian crisis above the quest for a seat on the UN Security Council. He should take a lead role in getting UNESCO to approach the International Court - as the quickest and best means of restoring the lost American funding.

Australia is perfectly positioned to lobby UNESCO member states to grab this legal lifebelt.

Australia’s support for the creation of a Palestinian State has been long standing - as Ms Kamath pointed out at the time of the Palestine vote:

“Australia strongly supports the aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state and believes a negotiated peace process between the parties is the way to achieve this….

Australia has been a consistent supporter of the peace process. We have provided extensive support and committed to over $300 million in humanitarian and development assistance in the next five years building up the institutions of a future Palestinian state.”

Had the delegates from the 107 pro-Palestine voting states followed Australia’s lead - UNESCO would not be in the sorry position it is today.

If Australia continues to sit pat on its heels - it will be just as responsible for UNESCO’s ongoing problems as those whose votes have put UNESCO in this bind,

Those 87 countries that declined to vote for Palestine’s admission - for whatever reason - should be readily amenable to an approach by Australia to join in urging UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

Whilst these countries can rightly claim to not be blamed for the black hole UNESCO has fallen into because of the intemperate action of 107 of their fellow member states - they cannot also afford to sit back and do nothing to rectify a decision which could be in breach of UNESCO’s Constitution - especially given the global humanitarian problems it has created.

Bob Carr - the former Premier of New South Wales - was parachuted into the role of Australia’s Foreign Minister from political retirement in the space of a few days.

He seems the perfect choice to lobby member States to get UNESCO to beat a path to the International Court.

If Australia is too timid to act - other naysayer countries like Canada, America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway or Germany should take up the lead role to save UNESCO from itself.

Someone needs to act quickly as the global humanitarian crisis adds more victims every day.