NYT needs to end silence on Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine

 

The visit to Hebron this week by New York Times (NYT) columnist Thomas Friedman and Kathleen Kingsbury, The New York Times' Opinion Editor could see the NYT finally breaking its silence on the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine proposal published in the Saudi Arabian government-controlled Al Arabiya News on June 8, 2022. 

This new plan is certainly newsworthy: The merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into one territorial entity to be named The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine - to be governed by the Hashemite dynasty that has ruled Jordan for the last 100 years and will have its capital located in Amman – not Jerusalem (Saudi Plan).

The NYT is not on its own.  

The international media has almost universally ignored the Saudi Plan – which supersedes the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative – originally formulated by Thomas Friedman himself - as his NYT op-ed dated 17 February 2002 reveals:

"Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?"

Friedman was surprised when he dared mention his idea to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince and de facto ruler – Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud - at a dinner a few days later

"After I laid out this idea, the crown prince looked at me with mock astonishment and said, ''Have you broken into my desk?'' ''No,'' I said, wondering what he was talking about... ''... I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk.  

Friedman then proffered this advice to the Crown Prince:

"I suggested to the crown Prince that if he felt so strongly about this idea, even in draft form, why not put it on the record--only then would anyone take it seriously. He said he would think about it. The next day his office called, reviewed the crown prince's quotations and said, Go ahead, put them on the record. So here they are."

Thus was born the Friedman-inspired 2002 Arab Peace Initiative - which has gone nowhere in the last 20 years. 

The 2022 Saudi Plan - authored by Ali Shihabi - a close confidant of Saudi Arabia's current Crown Prince and de facto ruler  – Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) –shreds Friedman's 2002 idea – offering in its place a drastically different solution to end the 100 years-old Jewish-Arab conflict - if negotiations to implement it are successfully completed.

Yet Friedman has not written one word about Shihabi's proposal in the six months since its publication--despite my personal request to him to do so. Sour grapes perhaps?  

However why has the NYT not informed its readers of this Saudi Plan - that also offers Israel sole sovereignty in Jerusalem and in part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank)? If that's not front page news--what is? 

Could a well-resourced NYT investigative journalist with Saudi contacts find out whether a plan similar to Shihabi's is in MBS's desk or ask MBS directly whether he endorses Shihabi's plan? 

Thomas Friedman and Kathleen Kingsbury – some answers and an op-ed please. 

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.

Bennett set to shake-up global consensus on two-state solution

 

Israeli Prime Minister — Naftali Bennett — seems set to challenge the decades-long failure by the international community to achieve its called-for two-state solution: Creating a second Palestinian Arab state, in addition to Jordan, for the first time in recorded history.

Bennett made his intention very clear when introducing Israel’s next Government — presumably with his new coalition partners’ unanimous approval:

“We will ensure Israel’s national interests in Area C — and we will increase standards to that end after much neglect in this area.”

Bennett — anointed as “Prime Minister and Minister for Settlement Affairs” — is now uniquely placed to promote his “Israel Stability Initiative — February 2012” (Stability Plan)  —  summarised by him in 2017:

“The main idea of The Stability Plan is to provide full civilian self-governance to the Palestinians so they can elect themselves, pay their taxes, and control those areas that are theirs. We should apply sovereignty in Israeli-controlled areas—known as Area C—and Palestinians living there will become part and parcel of the State of Israel. And since within the State of Israel you cannot have two levels of people, those Palestinians living in Area C—approximately 80,000 people—will be offered full Israeli citizenship, including voting rights. I think most will opt for residency rather than citizenship (like in East Jerusalem) but it’s up to them. They can be Israeli citizens, Israeli residents or Palestinian citizens.

Those living in the Palestinian-controlled areas (Areas A and B) will govern themselves in all aspects barring two elements: overall security responsibility and not being able to allow the return of decedents [sic] of Palestinians refugees. We can’t have an inflow of millions of great grandchildren of 1948 refugees coming across the Jordan River because in one swoop that would distort the demography of the area, and within a few weeks of their arrival, the local Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would tell them to ‘go back to Jaffa’ which would subsequently create pressure on Israel that could lead to a third intifada inside ‘Smaller Israel’.

My option is that Palestinians have an ‘autonomy on steroids,’ and I’m open to ideas about how this materialises; it could be a confederation with Jordan, or local municipalities, or a central government. It would encompass full freedom of movement, massive infrastructure investment, the creation of a tourism zone so Christians can enter Haifa, Nazareth, Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem and Hebron without going through road blocks. We would have joint industrial centres, and we’d be able to create a land port governed by the Palestinians in Jenin that would be connected to Haifa.”

Bennett continued:

“I understand there is global consensus around the two-state solution, but what the world thinks is no proof for the correctness of a plan. The world gets it wrong a lot.

I’d say to those in the international community who are so entrenched in the idea of a Palestinian state that (a) the Palestinians have a state in Gaza and they blew it, and (b) after 50 years, at what time do we need to rethink? In the high tech world where I come from, if my employees tried the same solution and failed again and again I’d fire them as I’d expect them to have tried to tackle the challenge from a different angle by now! There is an industry around this topic—think-tanks, journals, professionals and academics who keep on chewing on the same old failed solution. We’re not in Europe, we live in a region with very few democracies, and when we tried this idea out it blew up in our faces and no one showed us any sympathy.”

Global consensus needs to positively respond to Bennett’s challenge.

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.

Trump seems set to see Netanyahu as Israel’s next Prime Minister

[Published 11 September 2019]

President Trump seems set to see Bibi Netanyahu re-elected as Israel’s next Prime Minister in the upcoming elections to be held on 17 September — the second this year following an indecisive vote in April that left no-one able to form Government.

Early voting by eligible Israeli diplomats and emissaries around the world has seen a drop in their turnout from 76% in April to 69% in September.

If general voters follow the diplomats’ lead next week:

1. The voter turnout of 67.97% in April 2019 will be further reduced.

2. Netanyahu’s Likud party will increase its proportion of the vote — 26.46% in April 2019 — up from 23.4% in 2015 — to an even higher figure.

Likud increased its numbers from 985408 in 2015 to 1140370 in April 2019 — whilst Yisrael Beiteinu’s numbers decreased from 214906 in 2015 to 173004 in April 2019. Blue and White contested the April elections for the first time.

Likud voters, buoyed by the post-April statements detailed in 1, 2 and 3 below, will most likely vote again, whilst Blue and White and Yisrael Beiteinu voters, unhappy with their leaders’ post-April statements detailed in 4 and 5 below, are more likely to stay home.

Any increase in general voter turnout this time beyond 67.97% would defy the diplomatic downturn, but should still see parties on the Right securing more of those new votes than parties on the Left.

Statements made since April by Trump’s Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, President Trump himself, Likud’s Netanyahu, Yisrael Beiteinu’s Lieberman and Blue and White’s Gantz support this conclusion.

1. Ambassador Friedman indicated that some degree of annexation of the West Bank would be legitimate.

“Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank,”

2. More new voters — conscious of their own families’ personal safety — would vote Right — than those opposing any annexation — who would vote Left.

3. Trump endorsed Netanyahu as a ”a great guy”

4. Netanyahu, speaking in Elkana, located in Samaria, pledged:

“With God’s help we will extend Jewish sovereignty to all the settlements as part of the (biblical) Land of Israel, as part of the State of Israel. “This is our land…“We will build another Elkana and another Elkana and another Elkana. We will not uproot anyone here,”

In a first-ever public address from Hebron by a sitting Israeli prime minister - Netanyahu vowed:

”To cite the late Menachem Begin and the late Yigal Allon: ‘Hebron will not be devoid of Jews.’ It will not be Judenrein [ed: Jew free]. And I say on the 90th anniversary of the disturbances [ed: when 67 Jews were murdered] — we are not foreigners in Hebron, we will stay here forever.”

These patriotic declarations should attract more Right-supportive than Left-opposing new voters.

5. Lieberman promised to amend the law to make ultra-orthodox youths do compulsory military training.

United Torah Judaism MK Yakov Asher has declared this the best possible get-out-the-vote campaign the ultra-Orthodox parties could wish for.

New ultra-orthodox voters turning out to spare children in their ultra-orthodox community undertaking this military obligation would likely exceed new secular voters who think this is a reform long overdue.

6. Trump’s judgment has been challenged by Gantz stating he would have admitted US Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib into Israel.

Gantz’s decision would not resonate with a majority of new voters — who would consider any disagreement with Trump could jeopardize Trump’s amazing support of Israel during his Presidency.

Trump and Netanyahu appear destined to continue their very special relationship after the votes have been counted.

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

US and Israel quit over UNESCO's love affair with "Palestine"

[Published 7 January 2019]

UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member state in 2011 in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance — with America and Israel both quitting their membership of UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

America’s designated funding of 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget will now have to be met by other member states or UNESCO’s programs severely curtailed.

In October 2017, State Department spokesperson (now UN Ambassador-elect) Heather Nauert, clarified that America’s decision had not been taken lightly - citing continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO and the need for fundamental reform in the organization.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

1. 2012 — 8 resolutions condemning Israel, 1 condemning Syria and 0 other countries.

2. 2013 - 6 condemning Israel and 0 other countries

3. January 2014 — Cancelling an exhibition at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the land of Israel

4. October 2016 - Disregarding any Jewish ties to the Temple Mount - only referring to it by its Muslim names — then several weeks later - passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name - though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.

5. July 2017 - Designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart — the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

UNESCO’s admission of “Palestine” to membership breached Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution which only allows States to be admitted to UNESCO. “Palestine” was not a state under the criteria laid down under international law by the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

107 states voted to admit “Palestine” whilst the remaining 86 voted “No”, “abstained” or “did not vote”.

UNESCO’s legally questionable decision was never referred by UNESCO to the International Court of Justice or an arbitral tribunal for confirmation under Article XIV (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution.

Given what has transpired — such failure was a monumental misjudgment.

President Trump’s National Security Adviser - John Bolton - recently exposed the fiction that there is a legally-constituted entity called “Palestine”:

”[Palestine] is not a state… It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government…calling it the so-called ‘State of Palestine’ defines exactly what it has been —a position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988 when the ‘Palestinian’ Authority declared itself to be the state of ‘Palestine.’ We don’t recognize it as the state of ‘Palestine.’ We have consistently across Democratic and Republican administrations opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the United Nations as a state, because it’s not a state.”

Australia’s Head of Mission — Ms Gita Kamath — gave Australia’s reasons for its negative vote on admitting “Palestine” at the time of the 2011 UNESCO 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 Security Council course is still being run in 2019 with the finishing line nowhere in sight and UNESCO’s funding in tatters.

UNESCO’s credibility, integrity and self-created fantasy dream world has imploded.

UNESCO’s seven-year love affair with a non-existent “Palestine” has produced an international humanitarian crisis.

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

Trump rejects UN and UNESCO's fictitious Palestinian State

[11 October 2018]

President Trump’s National Security Adviser - John Bolton - has exposed the fiction that there is a legally-constituted “State of Palestine” — shredding United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations (UN) resolutions misleadingly recognising such a state when none - in fact— exists.

Bolton was unequivocal in his statement:

“Palestine” is not a state… It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it’s not a state.”

Article 1 of the 1934 Montevideo Convention completely substantiates Bolton’s claim.

Holding out the carrot after administering the stick — Bolton continued:

“It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others… We have consistently, across Democratic and Republican administrations, opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the UN as a state, because it’s not a state.”

Bolton’s tempting offer may have been made to try and get the PLO to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s soon to—be-released peace plan. It seems certain to fall on deaf ears as the PLO wants nothing to do with Trump’s plan.

The PLO will only be more infuriated at this latest Trump effort to engender some reality into the Arab-Jewish conflict — as happened when Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member in 2011 in clear breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance - with America and Israel quitting UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions made since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

1. January 2014 — cancelling an exhibition at its Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel

2. October 2016 - disregarding Jewish ties to the Temple Mount - only referring to it by its Muslim names — then several weeks later - passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name - though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.

3. July 2017 - designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart‚ - the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly granted Palestine “non-member observer state” status.

Pure fiction

The PLO hopped on the UN bandwagon - PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas decreeing on 3 January 2013:

“Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads of the Palestinian National Authority official and national institutions shall be amended by replacing the name ‘Palestinian National Authority’ whenever it appears by the name ‚'State of Palestine’ and by adopting the emblem of the State of Palestine.”

Pure fiction.

In November 2014 - Sweden became the 135th member of the UN to officially recognize Palestine as an independent state.

Pure fiction - 135 times over.

More truth-telling involving Jordan-Israel negotiations are on the Trump agenda — Bolton having signalled on 18 January:

“In fact, [Jordan’s] King Abdullah II should be preparing himself for a larger role in the West Bank. Before the 1967 war, Jordan had no hesitation asserting sovereignty over West Bank territory from Britain’s former Palestinian mandate, territory conquered by Jordan’s Arab Legion during the 1948 to 1949 war with Israel.

Once it becomes clear the two-state solution is finally dead, Jordan should again be asked to exercise control over suitably delineated portions of the West Bank and have the monarchy’s religious role for holy sites like the Temple Mount reaffirmed.”

Fact — not fiction — will resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.

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

America and Israel quit UNESCO over “Palestine” fiasco

[Published 16 October 2017]


UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member state in 2011 in apparent breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance – as America and Israel now give formal notice of their intention to quit UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert asserted America’s decision was not taken lightly and reflected U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.

American arrears owing for UNESCO dues now total US$550 million.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

1. January 2014 – the cancellation of an exhibition at its Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the land of Israel

2. October 2016 - disregarding any Jewish ties to the Temple Mount - only referring to it by its Muslim names – then several weeks later - passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name - though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.

3. May 2017 – UNESCO’s executive committee passing a resolution critical of Israeli conduct in Jerusalem and Gaza.

4. July 2017 - designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart — the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

UNESCO appears to have acted outside the terms of its own Constitution in admitting “Palestine” to membership.

That decision was open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO under Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution - and “Palestine” was not a state,

2. 129 votes from 193 members were required to admit “Palestine” – not the 107 votes received from those “present and voting”. 14 had voted against, 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote.

UNESCO’s questionable and highly controversial decision should have been referred to the International Court of Justice under Article XIV (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution to determine whether:

1. “Palestine” was a “State” entitled to membership of UNESCO.

2. 129 votes or 107 votes were required for “Palestine’s” admission to UNESCO

UNESCO did not seek this judicial interpretation - which would have cost it US$100000 – even though I presented it with detailed reasons why it should.

Had the International Court ruled “Palestine’s” admission to UNESCO was unlawful – then the American funding tap would have been turned on again five years ago.

Instead UNESCO lobbied the Americans to cough up what amounted to 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget. That lobbying was never going to succeed – since the chances of Congress backing away from America’s domestic law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepted the PLO as a full member – outside of negotiations with Israel – was doomed to failure

Australia’s Head of Mission – Ms Gita Kamath – gave Australia’s reasons for its negative vote at the time:

“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.”

UNESCO would not be in the parlous financial straits and ignominious position it finds itself today had its member States heeded Australia’s sage advice.

UNESCO’s foray into the Arab-Jewish conflict has been an unmitigated disaster.

Palestine: Netanyahu sends clear message to Trump, Putin, May and UN

[Published 16 March 2017]


Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has had a busy week meeting with UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson in Jerusalem, President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and then back to Jerusalem for a five hour meeting with President Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations — Jason Greenblatt.

The framework for these meetings was set by Netanyahu — who told Johnson:

“It’s evident that we agree on most things, but not on all things. And one of the things, I think the source of it when you analyze a problem, get to its roots and reason that we haven’t had peace for a hundred years is not the settlements, but the persistent refusal to recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people in any boundary. I think if you want to solve a problem, go to the core of the problem, and that is something I look forward to discussing with you further.”

Netanyahu’s claim is substantiated by the following facts:

1.Settlements were not the problem when the first two-state solution was proposed by article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922.

That solution - which envisaged allocating the Arabs 78% of Mandatory Palestine [Transjordan] and the Jews the remaining 22% - was rejected by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews.

Iran - one of the 51 States then unanimously endorsing the Jewish people’s legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine — now seeks to destroy the Jewish State in 2017.

2. Settlements were not the problem in 1937 when the Peel Commission recommended partition of the territory of the Mandate into one Jewish State and one Arab State —again rejected by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews.

3. Transjordan remained part of the Mandate for Palestine until Great Britain granted it independence on 22 March 1946. 78% of the Mandate territory was thus irrevocably transformed into an exclusive Arabs-only State contrary to article 5 of the Mandate.

4. The United Nations recommendation to partition the remaining 22 % of the Mandate territory into one Arab State and one Jewish State in November 1947 was again rejected by the Arabs and accepted by the Jews — culminating in Western Palestine being invaded in May 1948 by six Arab armies and the forcible eviction of all Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

5. Settlements were not the problem between 1948 and 1967 when another Arab State could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza whilst not one Jew lived there.

6. Offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 to another Arab State being created in Gaza and the West Bank were rejected by the Arabs.

7. In December 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334 declared that the Jewish Quarter and Kotel in East Jerusalem, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem were “occupied Palestinian territory”.

UK and Russia shamefully failed to veto this Resolution.

8. Gaza is ruled by Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization governs Areas A and B of the West Bank. Both have held onto power without holding elections since 2006. Both refuse to recognize a Jewish nation-state in any boundaries.

Johnson told Netanyahu:
“I first visited [Israel] when I was — as I never tire of telling you — when I was 18.”

Netanyahu should never tire of telling world leaders that the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict will not be resolved until the Arabs recognise the right of the Jewish people to their own independent State.

Palestine: Netanyahu needs to expose PLO hoax

[Published 21 February 2017]


The first visit to Australia by a sitting Israeli Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – has been preceded by a statement signed by 65 prominent Australians on the initiative of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network.

That statement declares:

“The Australian Government needs to rethink its one-sided support for the Israeli Government. We are appalled that our Government opposes the recent UN Security Council resolution supporting the application of international law to Israel and Palestine, when most nations, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France and New Zealand, support it. Even the USA did not oppose it. It is time for the suffering of the Palestinian people to stop and for Australia to take a more balanced role in supporting the application of international law and not supporting Mr Netanyahu and his policies.”

Signatories to this statement include:

1. senior legal professionals – including former Solicitor General Gavan Griffith QC, and former Federal Court judge Murray Rutledge Wilcox
2. former parliamentarians –and diplomats including Jon Stanhope, former ACT Chief Minister, former ALP Minister The Hon Alan Griffin, and Ambassador Bruce Haigh
3. senior clergy – including Bishop George Browning, Bishop Pat Power and former Uniting Church President Rev Gregor Henderson AM
4. Artists – including actor Miriam Margolyes, writer and commentator Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, artist Luke Roberts, and filmmaker Christina Wilcox
5. Academics – including Dr Susan Carland, Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees AM and Associate Professor Peter Slezak, and many others

Their signatures are a sad testament to their embrace of Security Council Resolution 2334 and to its claim that the Jewish Quarter, the Kotel and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem and the Machpelah in Hebron are “Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

If they did not understand that is what they were endorsing then they should withdraw their signatures immediately.

Interestingly they also signed up to “supporting the application of international law to Israel and Palestine”

International law indisputably establishes:

1. The right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem, Hebron and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the provisions of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
2. The preservation of such vested legal rights under article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – Israel’s “partner for peace” has:

1. declared this established international law to be “deemed null and void” under its Charter
2. claimed in its 1964 Charter:

“Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”

This article remained unamended when UN Security Council Resolution 242 was passed after the Six Day War. Article 24 was removed from the Charter in 1968 but no claim to sovereignty replaced it.

The PLO claim in 2017 to a separate State where sovereignty still remains unclaimed under its own Charter has been one of the greatest scams perpetrated on and swallowed by the international community during the 100 years conflict.

That persons of the quality and calibre of these 65 prominent Australians should have signed this declaration is testament to the stunning inroads that false Arab propaganda has been used to influence public opinion over the last fifty years.

The idea of two Arab states in the area covered by the Mandate for Palestine has been offered to – and rejected by - the Arabs on many occasions since 1922.

Prime Minister Netanyahu should take the opportunity to say a few words on this PLO hoax during his visit to Australia.

Palestine - Imminent Breakthrough Or Lost Opportunity?

[26 May 2014]


The publication of “A Palestinian State - Not A Priority” in the Palestine Telegraph on May 23 offers the tantalising prospect of a possible breakthrough in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Three reasons support such optimism:
Firstly - the Palestine Telegraph is published in Gaza - its web site declaring:

“The PT is a non-profit project that depends totally on donations from people of good will committed to freedom of speech for all people. Our success will come from the commitment of our volunteer reporters and the interest of people of good will seeking true change in our world; one where all people are respected and indeed have equal human rights…

...The Palestine Telegraph/PT is the first Electronic Newspaper based in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, staffed by Palestinians and international volunteers; professional journalists and members of the New Fourth Estate—citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media.”

Secondly - the article’s editor - Yoram Ettinger - is a distinguished Israeli whose CV includes:

“(Since 1993) Consultant to Israel’s Cabinet Members, to Israeli legislators and to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on US-Israel bilateral projects, US policy and Mideast politics.

Executive Director of “Second Thought—A U.S. Israel Initiative,” dedicated to generate out-of-the-box thinking on US-Israel relations, Middle East politics, the Palestinian issue, Jewish-Arab demographics, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.”

Thirdly - Ettinger’s article contains the following powerful message for Gaza’s readers to digest - indeed for all who seek to end this conflict that has raged unresolved for the last 130 years.

“The Palestinian issue has benefited from the Arab/Muslim talk, but—due to the Palestinian record of intra-Arab subversion—has never been supported by the Arab/Muslim walk. Arab/Muslim policy makers have never considered the Palestinian issue a strategic interest, but rather a tactical instrument to advance intra-Arab or Muslim interests and to annihilate the Jewish state.

Irrespective of this, Palestine has been a geographic, not a national, concept, as evidenced by the lack of distinct, cohesive national character of its Arab inhabitants. This lack of cohesion has been intensified by the violent internal fragmentation along various lines: cultural (such as Bedouin vs. rural vs. urban sectors), geographic (e.g. mountain vs. coastal Arabs, southern vs. northern, Hebron vs. Bethlehem, Nablus vs. Ramallah, Nablus vs. Hebron), ethnic, ideological, political (pro- or anti-Jordan), historical and tribal identity. Such turbulent fragmentation was fueled by the multitude of Arab or Muslim migration waves from Bosnia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Lebanon.

The establishment of a Palestinian state was not on the agenda of the non-Arab Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1517 through 1917. The Ottomans linked the area, defined by most Arabs as a region within Southern Syria or the Levant, to the Damascus and Beirut provinces.

The British Empire, which dominated the Middle East from 1917 until the end of World War II, did not contemplate a Palestinian Arab state, while establishing a series of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. Moreover, the 1917 Balfour Declaration dedicated Palestine, including Jordan, to the Jewish homeland. The 1920 San Remo Resolution, formulated by the principal Allied Powers, formalized the Balfour Declaration-based British Mandate for Palestine, which was ratified on Aug. 12, 1922, by the League of Nations, eventually transferring 77 percent of Palestine (Jordan) to the Arabs. The U.S. House and Senate approved it unanimously on June 30, 1922. In 1945, the Mandate for Palestine was integrated into the U.N. Charter via Article 80, which precludes alterations, and is still legally binding.

Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1949 through 1967, but did not ponder the establishment of a Palestinian state; nor did the Arab League.

According to Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna of Ariel University, who headed the Palestinian Desk at the Mossad Research Division, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated in September 1947 that the core problem was not a Palestinian state or Jewish expansionism. The only priority was the duty to uproot the Jewish presence from Palestine, which was defined by Muslims as “Waqf”—an area divinely endowed to Islam and not to the “infidel.”

Such an article appearing in a Gaza Electronic Newspaper written by so eminent an Israeli with such close links to the Israeli Government would have been unthinkable just one month ago.

Did the publication of this article somehow accidentally slip through the Hamas Government censor’s scrutiny or does it signify the willingness of Hamas to engage in negotiations whose agenda for the first time would be based on the facts presented so succinctly by Ettinger?

Until now the PLO has dismissed the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and everything that has happened since then as being null and void.

However three weeks ago Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh told MIddle East Monitor:

“Both nations, Jordan and Palestine, share the same history and present,”

Jordan and Palestine’s joint modern history commenced with the Balfour Declaration and Mandate for Palestine - and subsequently unfolded as accurately recounted in Ettinger’s article.

As negotiations to effect a reconciliation between Hamas and the PLO reportedly gain momentum - the beginnings of a commonly-agreed Jewish and Arab narrative based on fact - not fiction - could hopefully become the basis for resuming future negotiations,

Imminent breakthrough or yet another lost opportunity?

Palestine - Jews Will Not Be Played For Suckers Anymore

[Published 1 February 2013]


Amos Oz represents the perfect example of a writer of stories and tales who should stick to writing and not trade on his unrivalled excellence and international recognition in that field to try and influence the course of Israeli politics.

This becomes embarrassingly evident when considering his political opinions disclosed in an article written for the New York Times by Roger Cohen on 28 January.

His introductory remarks to Cohen are indeed promising:

“Most Israelis would wave goodbye to the West Bank but they don’t want to be suckers, they don’t want the Gaza scenario to repeat itself”

Israelis were really taken for suckers after unilaterally evacuating Gaza in 2005 - receiving in return the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian population centres as thank you presents since then.

Israelis will not be suckered into suffering a repeat performance of such war crimes emanating from any areas of the West Bank ceded by them to the Arabs.

Oz maintains that there is:

“a silent consensus that the occupied territories do not matter that much. Israelis are no longer interested. They vote with their feet. They don’t go there, except for the settlers and right-wing extremists. This means that if Israelis can be reassured that by renouncing the West Bank they are not going to get a lousy deal - they are quietly ready to do it.”

Israel offered to renounce its claims to more than 90% of the West Bank in 2000/2001 and 2008 - but the Palestinian Authority insisted that millions of Arabs be given the right to emigrate to Israel and that any newly created state not be demilitarised.

This was the kind of lousy deal that Oz must have had in mind when talking to Cohen.

Oz insisted that at the end of the day some 70 percent on both sides — kicking and screaming and crying injustice — were ready for two states.

“If I may use a metaphor - I would say that the patient, Israeli and Palestinian, is unhappily ready for surgery, while the doctors are cowards.”

The Palestinian patient seems strangely disinterested in submitting to such surgery - still insisting after 20 years of negotiations that such surgery requires cutting up the Israeli patient for spare parts.

Oz is quite prepared to brand Israel’s recently elected Prime Minister a coward.

“Yes I think Netanyahu is a coward,” he declared. But the victory of the center in the election could alter the equation. “It means,” Oz said, “that there will be more pressure on Netanyahu from the dovish side in Israel and from the outside world, so that his cowardice may work the other way.”

Since the dovish side in Israel managed to gain only 21 out of 120 seats in Israel’s next Parliament - Oz’s hopes seem more like fiction than fact.

Oz makes no mention of the Palestinian cowards who have refused to hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza since 2007.

Oz then turns his attention to:

“a political novice, the telegenic Yair Lapid, a mystery wrapped in good looks at the head of a party with a reassuring-disquieting name: There Is A Future”

”I don’t know if Lapid has ideas and I’m not sure he knows. What Lapid will do is a mystery not just to me — it is probably a mystery to him!”

Obviously - according to the wizardry of Oz - it must also be a mystery to 549000 Israelis who voted for Lapid as well. This political slap in the face to their supposed lack of intelligence is insulting.

Oz’s political credo is very outdated:

“There cannot be one state because Israelis and Palestinians cannot become one happy family (“they are not one and they are not happy.”) So “the only solution is turning the house into two smaller apartments.” Two states, absolutely, are the only answer.”

The Peel Report had the same credo in 1937 - as did the United Nations in 1947. This credo was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs on both occasions.

That credo was spurned by the Palestinian Arabs between 1948-1967 when not a Jew lived in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem after six invading Arab armies had driven them from their homes - choosing instead to unify the West Bank with Jordan and not take the opportunity afforded to them in those 19 years to create the independent state they now so fervently call for.

Israelis will not now be suckered into doing what the Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren have so clearly rejected during the past 75 years. Twenty years of being played for suckers since 1993 has taken its toll on Israelis.

And what of Hamas?

“At least what we can do is solve the conflict with the Palestine Liberation Organization and reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an Israel-Gaza conflict. This will be a big step forward. Then we will see. Hamas may change as the P.L.O. did. The Palestinian Authority is ready for a state in the West Bank, unhappy about it, sure, but ready. They will go on dreaming of Haifa and Jaffa just as we will dream of Hebron and Nablus. There is no censorship on dreams.”

Trouble is there is no longer any Palestinian Authority. It was decreed out of existence by “President” Mahmoud Abbas and buried on 3 January 2013 alongside the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

Will Israelis be suckered into believing that Hamas may change - that Hamas will never end up taking over the West Bank as happened in Gaza in 2007?

Conquering Haifa and Jaffa by getting rid of the Jews living there is a very different dream to occupying Hebron and Nablus by living alongside the Arabs - as currently occurs in Haifa and Jaffa.

And the Palestinian right of return?

"The right of return is a euphemism for the liquidation of Israel. Even for a dove like myself this is out of the question. Refugees must be resettled in the future state of Palestine, not Israel.”

This plea will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Cohen was obviously impressed by what he heard from Oz - concluding

“Sit down with Oz. That is my advice to the next Israeli government — and to all the deluded absolutists, Arab and Jew, of this unnecessary conflict whose unhappy but peaceful ending is not beyond the scope of open-ended human imagination.”

Cohen must have had the title of one of Oz’s books in mind - The Hill of Evil Counsel - when penning this gem of gratuitous advice.

Stick to writing fiction, Amos.

This latest effort could be the basis for another best seller.

Palestine Blunder Costs UNESCO $167 Million in 2012-2013

[Published 5 January 2012]


UNESCO’s deficit has skyrocketed from an estimated $120 million to $167 million for 2012-2013 as a result of its decision to admit Palestine as its 195th member in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution.

In addition UNESCO has lost another $65 million in American dues for 2011 - automatically withheld by the United States as required by domestic legislation existing on its statute books since the 1990’s.

UNESCO continues to refuse to review or to justify the legality of its decision to admit Palestine - which if reversed - could immediately restore this massive shortfall in its revenue and enable the resumption of essential programs suspended or curtailed as a result of this financial black hole.

Those 87 members of UNESCO who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO must be increasingly alarmed at this blow out in the deficit - and also at two highly embarrassing issues involving UNESCO and Palestine - one of which came to UNESCO’s notice in December and the other which is set to explode in February.

The December issue has led to UNESCO withdrawing funding from a Palestinian children’s magazine - Zayzafouna - published by an NGO under the same name and coming under the patronage of the Palestinian National Commission of UNESCO - a national body set up by the Palestinian Authority.

The February edition of Zayzafouna contained an article by a 10-year-old girl in which Hitler was quoted by her as stating that he:

“killed [the Jews] so you would all know that they are a nation who wreak havoc on Earth”

In finding this statement may be interpreted as an apology for the holocaust and contrary to UNESCO’s constitutional mandate and values - UNESCO declared :

“UNESCO supported the publication of three issues of the Zayzafouna Magazine six months after the February 2011 issue. The support was provided for these issues following agreement with the editors that they would focus on building greater appreciation amongst Palestinians for their heritage and culture. They were to open the way for positive dialogue aimed at overcoming the consequences of the Middle East conflict, and to fight against stereotypes that may be conducive to violence. It was UNESCO’s intention to foster a positive view of Palestinian heritage based on the values of tolerance and UNESCO’s mandate of building peace in the minds of men and women. This vision guides all of UNESCO’s activities, and we urge all partners to work in this direction.

UNESCO is shocked and dismayed by the content of the February issue, and has requested more detailed information and clarification from the editors of the magazine and the Palestinian Authority.

UNESCO strongly deplores and condemns the reproduction of such inflammatory statements in a magazine associated with UNESCO’s name and mission and will not provide any further support to the publication in question.

The Organization, which is deeply committed to the development and promotion of education about the Holocaust, disassociates itself from any statement that is counter to its founding principles and goal of building tolerance in the full respect for human rights and human dignity. “

UNESCO’s approach to this outrage was principled and undoubtedly correct.

However any concern for complying with UNESCO’s “constitutional mandate” seems to have gone out the window when the charge is made that Palestine has not been constitutionally elected to UNESCO.

UNESCO - in announcing Palestine’s admission to membership incorrectly stated:

“Admission to UNESCO for states that are not members of the United Nations requires a recommendation by the Organization’s Executive Board and a two thirds majority vote in favour by the General Conference of Member States present and voting (abstentions are not considered as votes). “

The words “present and voting” do not appear in Article II (2) - the article that expressly deals with applications for full membership.

However those words do appear in Article II (3) - the article which deals with applications for associate membership.

The majority vote required in each case is therefore very different - more stringent for full membership and less stringent for associate membership.

Whilst the majority vote - 107 - would have been sufficient to admit Palestine as an Associate Member - it was insufficient to admit Palestine to full membership for which the majority vote required was 129.

The 87 members who did not vote for Palestine’s admission should themselves be asking for an urgent review. - given the substantially increased loss in funding just announced and the use of UNESCO funds by Palestine for unauthorized and morally offensive purposes.

I am still seeking answers from UNESCO - but it appears they continue to be reluctant to review or justify the provisions of the Constitution that enabled Palestine to apparently slip through the cracks and join UNESCO’s ranks.

The issue set to erupt next month - as revealed by Giulio Meotti - involves Palestine applying for UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron - a site holy to both Jews and Moslems.

Khaled Osaily - Hebron’s Mayor said recently:

“It’s a mosque!, You don’t have to be an architect to see it! Will you allow me to pray in a synagogue or a church?”.

Several days ago, the Palestinian Rehabilitation Committee raised the UNESCO flag next to the national ‘Palestinian’ flag in front of the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Osaily - just returned from Paris where he took part in a UNESCO conference at the Institut du Monde Arabe in support of adding Hebron’s holy sites to the World Heritage List stated:

“We started a campaign three years ago to add Hevron to the UNESCO list”, . Now the request is ready and we will present it to UNESCO in February”.

I have started an on-line petition to help gauge the strength of public reaction to getting UNESCO to review what appears to be a clear breach of its own Constitution - which already has had - and will have - serious and ongoing financial, operational and political consequences.

490 people have already signed the petition in the last 4 days. I invite you and your social network to do likewise and circulate it to others to follow suit.

Those who don’t live by the law are destined to get their just desserts at the hands of the law.

UNESCO needs to come clean and review or justify its questionable decision - or continue to wither on the vine.

Palestine - No Jews, Soon No Christians

[Published 11 January 2011]

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Raab explains what has occurred:

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

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


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

Khaled Abu Tomeh wrote on 12 May 2009:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They should all hang their heads in shame.

The Six Day War, Gaza, the West Bank - and Fairy Tales

[First published June 2007]

The failure by editors of supposedly impartial and respected newspapers to correct inaccuracies in media articles regarding the West Bank and Gaza prior to their publication, gives continuing credence to total Arab denial of any Jewish rights in those areas - and also seriously misleads and misinforms their trusting readers as to the nature of the conflict that is taking place.

Letters written to the editors requesting corrections are usually consigned to the waste paper basket and even if printed, are too late to undo the damage - allowing gross distortion of facts to be perpetuated and in many cases repeated by the same and other journalists.

A classic case in point is the article - “War over, but the fight goes on” - written by Ed O’Loughlin, which appeared in two of Australia’s most respected newspapers - the Sydney Morning Herald and the Brisbane Times - on 2 June 2007 to mark the 40th Anniversary of the Six Day War in 1967. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/war-over-but-fight-goes-on/2007/06/01/1180205513190.html

Consider these five gems (and there are many more) in Mr O’Loughlin’s article:

1. “ A native of New Jersey, he is one of several hundred Jews who live under heavy military protection in the first and most extreme of all Jewish settlements on the West Bank, carved out of the historic heart of the Palestinian city of Hebron.”

The author fails to mention that “the historic heart of the Palestinian city of Hebron” happens to include the ancient Jewish Quarter of Hebron built on land purchased by Jews in 1540.

Jews lived there until 24 August 1929 when 67 Jewish men women and children were slaughtered by a crowd of rampaging Arabs . The remaining Jewish population of 750 were forced to flee. Some returned in 1931 but were forced to leave when the Arabs rioted again in 1936. Jews returned to the Jewish Quarter after the Six Day War to a very hostile welcome from the Arab residents.

Hebron contains the traditional burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rebecca - one of Jewry’s holiest sites - which the Bible records was purchased by Abraham in 1753BC.

Hebron is therefore more than just a Palestinian city. It has a far longer Jewish history - one of great religious significance for Jews.

Any editor worth his salt should have taken steps to have the author correct this statement.

2. “Of all the territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day war, only the Sinai Peninsula has been returned to its former owner, Egypt, thanks to the 1978 Camp David Accords of the then US president Jimmy Carter.”

The inference is that the Sinai Peninsula is only a small part of all the territories captured by Israel.

In fact the Sinai Peninsula comprised 90% of all the territories captured by Israel. It was returned to Egypt as part of the historic Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt along with the Alma oil field discovered and developed there by Israel and reportedly worth $100 billion as well as strategic military airfields and early warning installations built by Israel. 7000 Jews were also expelled from Sinai as part of the agreement.

Why this misleading statement was allowed to go to print beggars belief.

3. “In the West Bank and East Jerusalem tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers and paramilitary police are needed to control 2.5 million indigenous Palestinians and to protect the 450000 Jewish settlers planted in their midst since the war”

Describing the Palestinians as “indigenous” is very disingenuous.

Weren’t the Jews given the right by the League of Nations under the Mandate for Palestine to “reconstitute” their former national home in these very areas after 2000years of dispersal throughout the world. Has this right not been preserved to this very day by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

Who are the indigenous people then - the descendants of Jews who were driven from their country 2000 years ago or the descendants of Arabs who occupied it by conquest seven centuries later?

Mr O’Loughlin’s use of the word “indigenous” is inflammatory, judgemental, totally irrelevant in relation to the context and should have been simply edited out.

4. “Gaza’s air space, sea access and border crossings are all under tight Israeli military control …”

The Rafah border crossing is under Egypt’s control - not Israel’s.

Why was this incorrect statement let through?

5. ”The Six-Day War might have appeared to be a decisive victory for Israel but its outcome was never transformed into a workable political peace settlement”

Aren’t Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) workable political peace settlements ?

If Mr O’Loughlin intended this statement to only refer to the West Bank and Gaza, then he should have made that clear in his article. However that would have created a little problem for him.

Both Gaza and the West Bank had been continuously occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively from 1948 until 1967. Not one Jew lived there during all that time - although many had been driven out by six invading Arab armies in the 1948 War.

The Arab League could have created another Arab State in those areas at the drop of a hat at any time during those 19 years. What they demand now in the Arab League Peace Initiative was theirs for the creating until 1967.

Israel is now being pressured to make this happen 40 years later and remove 450000 Jews who have, since 1967, gone to live in the West Bank - an area that is part of their ancestral homeland and has been internationally designated and sanctioned for the Jewish National Home.

Perhaps Mr O’Loughlin should use his privileged access to these prestigious newspapers to canvas why another Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza is now thought necessary, why all the Jews must move out and how this will end the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

It might just give the editors the chance to rectify the damage caused to the reputation of their papers by allowing the publication of this article in its present form.

Fairy tales are no substitute for truth and accuracy - especially when it relates to the Arab-Jewish conflict.