Biden and Pelosi silent on Jew-hatred in Democratic Party

 

The failure of President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to rebuke the ten Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives who abstained or voted against America providing $1 billion in aid to help Israel replenish its Iron Dome missile defence system is very concerning.

Iron Dome had become depleted after successfully being used during:

• May: to destroy over 90 percent of more than 4,000 rockets launched indiscriminately by Hamas from Gaza into civilian-occupied areas of Israel and
• August: to bring down 10 rockets similarly fired by Hezbollah from Lebanon into Israel

Following overwhelming approval of the funding by 420 votes to 9 - with 2 abstentions - House Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro declared:

“This bill demonstrates that Congress’ commitment to our friend and ally Israel is bipartisan and ironclad. It fulfills our moral imperative to protect the lives of innocent civilians and helps build the foundations for peace.”

That moral imperative was however sadly lacking in 9 Members’ decisions to not approve the funding:

• 1 Republican – Rep. Massie and
• 8 Democrats - Reps. Tlaib, Omar, Pressley, Bush, Carson, Newman, Garcia and Grijalva

Two further Democrats - Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Johnson – abstained. Ocasio-Cortez clarified in a subsequent statement that she also opposed the funding.

Grijalva occupies a leadership position as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley – dubbed the “Squad” – are part of a growing group of Democrats in Congress critical of Israel and its policies. Bush and Newman both defeated more moderate Democrats in primaries last year.

Tlaib’s opposition to granting Israel the Iron Dome funding reeked of Jew-hatred:

"We cannot be talking only about Israelis’ need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system…”

The indiscriminate targeting of any civilian population – Israeli or otherwise - should be called out whenever or wherever it occurs. There simply is no justification whatsoever to condone or excuse such heinous conduct.

Pelosi had the opportunity to call out these 10 errant House Democrats during her Floor Speech after the funding was passed - but chose instead to gloss over this growing scandal within the Democratic Party:

“Passage of this bill reflects the great unity in Congress on a bipartisan and bicameral basis for Israel’s security.”

Strong admonition of these 10 Democrat House Members by Pelosi for voting as they did was certainly warranted.

Biden’s silence is breathtaking.

These 10 House Democrats had joined 15 more House Democrats in signing a letter in May calling on US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to condemn the possible legal evictions of Arabs from four homes in Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood – whose ownership was being claimed by Jews.

The other 15 Democrat signatories to that letter - Reps. Pocan, Jayapal, McCollum, Chu, Rush, Connolly, Huffman, Johnson, Welch, Lowenthal, Escobar, Speier, Eshoo, Pingree and Dingell – nevertheless voted to fund Israel’s Iron Dome system despite their concerns expressed to Blinken.

These 15 Democrats could distinguish between criticising Israel whilst voting to financially support Israel in defending its civilian population from being deliberately targeted by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Ocasio-Cortez declared:

“I hope we can take this moment and opportunity to more deeply engage in and grow a true, substantive movement of community support for human rights around the world - which includes cherishing and respecting the human rights of Palestinian people.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s first imperative in building this international movement should have seen her voting with her 15 colleagues to help protect Israel’s civilian population being threatened by rockets indiscriminately fired from Gaza and Lebanon.

Jew-hatred within the Democratic Party exposed by those 10 House Democrats’ votes needs to be rooted out before it becomes endemic.


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

Israel reels from rockets, riots and arm-wrestles

 

Rockets from Gaza indiscriminately targeting Israel’s civilian population and Arab riots targeting Israel’s Jewish population in the streets of Jerusalem seem to have not moved Israel’s politicians to stop engaging in arm-wrestles in pursuit of their own personal political power.

It is hard to know who is to blame for this current sorry state of affairs: the electors who have brought about — what appears on the face of it — four indecisive elections in two years — or the seemingly-intelligent politicians they have elected who have been unable to reach a compromise on setting up a Government with 61 of the Knesset’s 120 currently-elected representatives.

A vendetta continues to be pursued to remove Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu — despite the overwhelming vote of confidence he and his party received from Israeli voters on March 23, 2021 — 1,066,892 votes.

The following leaders and their respective parties are seeking to replace Netanyahu as Prime Minister or deny him the right to head a right of centre Government:

• Naftali Bennett — 273836 votes
• Avigdor Liberman — 248370 votes
• Gideon Sa’ar — 209161 votes

All three and their respective parties have similar policies and political ideologies as Netanyahu and his allies. Collectively — as Likud, Shas, Yemina, United Torah Judaism, Yisrael Beitenu, Religious Zionism and New Hope - they comprise 72 of the 120 Knesset members.

These three leaders need to fall in behind Netanyahu to end the political uncertainty steadily eroding Israel’s ability to deal with the challenges it is facing — not only from rockets and rioting — but from the continuing confrontation with Iran, Hezbollah, the International Criminal Court, a hostile United Nations and the Biden Administration.

That this appalling political stand-off could have also been avoided in the three previous elections is an indictment on the common obstructionist denominator in all four elections: Avigdor Liberman

Liberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party have managed to garner the following votes on each occasion:

• April 9, 2019: 173004 votes
• September 17, 2019: 310154 votes
• March 2, 2020: 263365 votes
• March 23, 2021: 248370 votes

Given that valid votes cast have increased over the period of these four elections from 4,309,270 votes in April 2019 to 4,410,052 votes in March 2021 — the electors have clearly indicated their loss of support for — and confidence in — Liberman and his cronies. Yet he continues to dictate and dominate the political stage in a manner that can only be considered to be inimical to Israel’s domestic and international interests — overwhelmingly rejected by Israelis voting with their feet.

Bennett has hardly fared much better. His party — Yamina — in the April 9, 2019 elections secured 138598 votes — followed successively by 260655 votes, 240689 votes and 273836 votes. He can hardly claim to be Israel’s next Prime Minister with this kind of electoral support.

Netanyahu trounced Sa’ar in the race for Likud leadership last December — winning some 72.5% of the party vote in a landslide win. Sa’ar formed his own breakaway party — New Hope — with disastrous results in the recent election.

That Netanyahu should continue to be frustrated in leading Israel’s next Government by these three political spoilers beggars belief.

Netanyahu certainly has his problems — spending an increasing amount of his time in defending three indictments brought against him by Israel’s Attorney General. However the presumption of innocence should be afforded him — as it is with any other person in Israel facing charges.

It surely is time for these three amigos — Liberman, Bennett and Sa’ar — to put the voters ahead of their own personal ambitions, swallow their pride and end their political grandstanding.

Israel — and Israelis — deserve better.

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.

Israel's voting system needs urgent reform

 

A million or more Israelis did not vote in each of the four indecisive elections held in the last two years – costing Israel an estimated $4.24 billion - whilst causing political upheaval and electoral instability as a result.

The Central Elections Committee (CEC) sets out how Israel’s electoral system works:

“Israel has an electoral system based on nation-wide proportional representation. In other words, the number of seats that each list receives in the Knesset - the House of Representatives - is proportional to the number of votes it received…

... the only limitation placed on a list which participated in the elections that can keep it from being elected is that it must pass the qualifying threshold, which is currently 3.25%.”

The CEC explains the historical background for this unique voting system:

“The State of Israel inherited the rigid system of proportional representation from the political system of the yishuv (the organized Jewish community) in mandatory times. This system was based on the zeal with which the various political parties - in which ideology and personalities played a major role - fought to preserve their independence. The justification given for the large number of parties resulting from the system was, that in a period in which major, far-reaching and rapid changes were still taking place in the population make-up as a result of immigration, it was important to enable maximal representation for various groups and opinions.”

What was appropriate during the Mandate for Palestine (1920 – 1948) is clearly not working now.

The following Table highlights why Israel’s electoral system needs urgent reform:

Date of Election           04/09/2019     09/17/2019    03/02/2020    03/23/2021

Eligible Voters               6,339,729       6,394,030      6,453,255      6,578,084      

Valid Votes cast              4,309,270       4,436,806      4,553, 161       4,436,365

Qualifying 

threshold before 

any list can gain 

at least one seat 

(3.25% x Valid 

Votes Cast)                        140005          144197         147978          144182

Votes per seat 

(Valid Votes 

Cast/120 seats)                 32860             35917           37943           36969

1. The threshold of 3.25% has enabled 13 lists securing more than 144182 votes each to be allocated the 120 seats in this current election. 
2. If the threshold had been 5% - 221818 votes - 9 lists only would have passed the threshold and been allocated the 22 seats awarded to those 4 extra lists.
3. Non-voter turnout this election will be less than the difference of 2,141,719 shown between Eligible Voters and Valid Votes Cast - since Eligible Voters living abroad or temporarily overseas on business or vacation cannot vote.
4. Non-voters this election who also voted in March 2020 are considerably greater than the 116796 decrease in Valid Votes Cast in this election given:
• Eligible Voters increased by 124819
• The Arab Lists vote collapsed from 581507 votes in March 2020 to 379647 this election – a difference of 201860 votes

The large number of Israelis who failed to vote in the last four elections should sound alarm bells for Israel.

The threats to Israel’s very existence posed by Iran, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Hamas and Hezbollah – and overtly-hostile international organisations such as the United Nations, the United Nations Human Rights Council, UNESCO and the International Criminal Court – makes it essential that Israel has a politically-stable and unified Government not beholden to kingmakers from small parties who end up exercising inordinate power in deciding the format and composition of the next Government – including the allocation of ministerial portfolios.

Electoral reform could include:

• Allowing absentee voting outside Israel
• Raising the qualifying threshold from 3.25%
• Making voting compulsory
• Adopting school programs emphasising the importance of voting in Knesset elections

Israel’s election train needs to be righted before it completely runs off the rails.

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

 

Netanyahu and Liberman must stop Israel's third election this year

[Published 4 October 2019]

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Liberman have finally met — albeit for just one hour — to discuss the possibility of the 63 votes they control being converted into Israel’s next Government.

It is hard to believe that having made that long-awaited breakthrough, they would be so foolish and obstinate to refuse to compromise their differences to prevent the Israeli electorate going through a third election within nine months.

The direct cost to the Israeli government for new elections, including a budget for the central elections committee and state funding for parties running in the elections, is estimated at NIS 800 million ($220 million).

The greatest loss, however, arises due to the fact that election day is an official vacation day in Israel. The country’s daily GDP is approximately NIS 5 billion ($1.4 billion), and according to conservative estimates, election day represents a loss to the Israeli economy of some NIS 1.5 billion ($410 million).

Liberman has publicly laid out his demands for joining the Right-Wing bloc headed by Netanyahu:

1. Passage of the ultra-orthodox military service law, as drafted by Liberman ;

2. civil marriage; [permitting] conversions by local rabbis;

3. re-approving egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall;

4. requiring ultra-orthodox schools to teach secular subjects

5.public transportation and the opening of mini-markets on the Sabbath.These two issues would be left up to local authorities in every municipality, based on who lives in any given town.

Liberman warned:

“We won’t accept anything less than this, even if it means sitting in the opposition.”

Crunch time has arrived.

Liberman has to adopt a more flexible approach and accept less than the “all or nothing” stance he has adopted.

Netanyahu is now in a much stronger position politically to accept Liberman’s major deal-breaking demand last April for passage of Liberman’s ultra-orthodox military service draft law. More new votes were seemingly cast in September by Liberman voters for this proposal (136684) than against it by voters for the religious parties (91188).

Civil marriage and conversions by local rabbis is a curly problem that could be sent to a Committee to consider and come up with recommendations.

Re-approving the Western Wall arrangements should be a formality.

Requiring ultra-orthodox schools to teach secular subjects could begin with pilot projects in specified schools in particular areas where the ultra-orthodox community does not constitute the majority of the population residing there Ira- and perhaps after gaining approval by a majority of parents whose children attend such schools.

There is a pathway to agreement on these issues that can be achieved with goodwill and a readiness to compromise in recognition of a greater objective, sparing the Israeli electorate another election and the possibility another deadlock will result.

Israel is surrounded by enemies — especially Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria and Hamas in Gaza that could be tempted to exploit the fractured nature of Israel’s current political circumstances.

There are pressing political issues awaiting Israel’s next Government, most notably negotiations on President Trump’s deal of the century and Netanyahu’s election promise to annex large parts of the West Bank.

Ending this state of suspended uncertainty has now been thrust on the shoulders of Netanyahu and Liberman - following the failure of Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz to achieve a deal they could both live with.

Netanyahu and Liberman would do well to heed the sage advice contained in the Ethics of the Fathers:

“Do not seek greatness for yourself, and do not lust for honor”

Achieving greatness and honor together by compromising their political expectations will secure Netanyahu and Liberman a special place in the annals of Israel.

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 exposes United Nations as world’s epicenter for Jew-hatred

[Published 3 April 2019]

President Trump’s Proclamation recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights — and the condemnation issued by the United Nations Security Council in response - has exposed the United Nations (UN) as the world’s epicenter for rabid Jew-hatred.

Jews do have ancient, historic and legal claims to sovereignty in the Golan Heights that cannot simply continue to be dismissed by a UN media release headed “Security Council Members Regret Decision by United States to Recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over Occupied Syrian Golan”.

The “Occupied Syrian Golan” is UN diplomatic doublespeak contrived after Israel:

1. Captured the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six Day War from Syria,

2. Passed an Act in 1981 declaring that the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel applied to the Golan Heights - which was immediately rejected by Security Council Resolution 497.

Circumstances have since changed as Israel now faces Syria and its “invitees” Russia, Iran and Hezbollah across this very strategic piece of territory — whilst the UN remains powerless to end the carnage and displacement of Syria’s citizens by its ruler Bashir Assad during the past eight years.

Thirty-eight years of unbroken UN refusal to recognise Jewish sovereignty in the 1150 square kilometers Golan Heights has finally been called out and trashed by Trump.

The UN’s continuing anti-Israel and pro-Syrian bias in 2019 is the product of a structured regional-representation system which has seen decisions of its 193 member states impacted for decades by:

1. 16 member States that have never recognized Israel

2. 11 member States that have had no diplomatic relations with Israel for decades

3. 30 member States (in addition to those in 1 and 2) that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — hardly a Jewish fan club

4. 77 member States that fraternize and associate with the above 57 Jew-hating States in a 134 member voting bloc at the UN called the G77 — guaranteeing an automatic majority for any resolution in the UN General Assembly — no matter how dismissive or contemptuous of Jewish rights and claims.

The Security Council’s current 10 non-permanent members include 3 OIC members — 2 of whom — Indonesia and Kuwait — have never recognized Israel.

The Commission on the Status of Women currently includes among its 45 members: 6 that have never recognised Israel — Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

The current 49 members of the Human Rights Council include: 9 States that do not recognise Israel — Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Tunisia — and another 19 who are both OIC and G77 members or only G77 members.

These States regularly denigrate and delegitimise the Jewish people under the guise of civilized debate and constructive discussion on solving the worlds’ problem — most of which are remarkably sheeted home to the actions of the Jewish State of Israel and its Jewish majority population.

This toxic hate-filled potpourri has created a climate of unbridled UN-sponsored Jew-hatred that has permeated through other UN agencies including UNESCO and UNRWA.

A UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People exists — but no similar UN Committee for the Jewish People.

UN Jew-hatred will be re-ignited when Trump inevitably focuses his attention on Judea and Samaria — the UN’s falsely-designated “Occupied Palestinian Territories” — where the UN still misleadingly claims that Jews have no vested legal rights to reconstitute their biblical and ancient national home there as recognised by:

1. Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and

2. Article 80 of the United Nations own Charter.

Endemic Jew-hatred throughout the UN must be eradicated if the UN is to regain any credibility or relevance.

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 must enjoin UN to condemn Hezbollah, UNIFIL and Hamas

[Published 24 December 2018]

President Trump should urgently enjoin the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to condemn Hezbollah (aka Hizballah) and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) following Israel’s discovery of four tunnels dug from Lebanon into Israel.

Trump signed the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act (“HR 3342”) into law on 21 December demanding sanctions against Hamas and Hizballah personnel — foreign terrorist organizations proscribed under 8 U.S.C. 1189.

Trump is probably still smarting from the humiliating defeat - by the narrow margin of 9 votes - of the American-sponsored UNGA Resolution condemning Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza for:

1. repeatedly firing rockets into Israel

2. using airborne incendiary devices

3. constructing military infrastructure, including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas

Resubmitting the Resolution to the UNGA would determine whether those countries that voted:

(i) against the Resolution (57),

(ii) abstained (33) or

(iii) did not vote (16)

will be prepared to change their morally-reprehensible decisions.

Hezbollah and UNIFIL must be made accountable for creating the current dangerous threat to peace and security on the Israel-Lebanese border in flagrant breach of international law and international humanitarian law.

HR 3342 was unanimously adopted on 11 December following Congress finding:

1. Human shields are civilians, prisoners of war, and other non-combatants whose presence is designed to protect combatants and military objects from attack, and the use of human shields violates international law.

2. Throughout the 2006 conflict with the State of Israel, Hizballah forces utilized human shields to protect themselves from counterattacks by Israeli forces, including storing weapons inside civilian homes and firing rockets from inside populated civilian areas.

3. Hizballah has rearmed to include an arsenal of over 150,000 missiles, and other destabilizing weapons provided by the Syrian and Iranian governments, which are concealed in Shiite villages in southern Lebanon, often beneath civilian infrastructure.

4. Hizballah is legally required to disarm under both United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) and the Taif Agreement (1989).

5. Hizballah maintains an armed military force within Lebanon’s sovereign territory in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), thus preventing Lebanon from exerting its lawful control over its internationally recognized borders.

UNIFIL has been clearly negligent — if not actually complicit - in allowing this simmering crisis to reach its boiling point.

UNIFIL has admitted:

“Based on UNIFIL’s independent assessment, UNIFIL has so far confirmed the existence of all the four tunnels close to the Blue Line in northern Israel.

After further technical investigations conducted independently in accordance with its mandate, UNIFIL at this stage can confirm that two of the tunnels cross the Blue Line. These constitute violations of UN Security Council resolution 1701.”

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 mandated UNIFIL to:

1. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.

2. Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related material.

Hizballah’s occupation of Lebanese sovereign territory and its build-up of 150000 weapons of mass destruction have incontrovertibly imperiled the civilian populations of both Israel and Lebanon.

UNIFIL’s failure to carry out its mandate calls for a special UN investigation.

Hamas must be expelled from Lebanon and those 150,000 missiles neutralized to prevent a Jewish-Arab humanitarian crisis of massive proportions.

United Nations member-States must stand up and be 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

Trump stand shames UN rejection of Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Published 5 December 2018]

December 6 marks the first anniversary of President Trump’s historic and ground-breaking announcement to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.

President Trump’s decision flew in the face of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 reaffirming that:

“the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”

Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter conclusively substantiate Israel is not in violation of international law in reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (West Bank), and designating Jerusalem as its capital.

The United Nations General Assembly has yet again shown its total ignorance of this long-established international law with its latest resolution on Jerusalem on 30 November - misleadingly declaring Israel’s actions in Jerusalem “illegal and therefore null and void”.

The preamble to the Jerusalem Embassy Act overwhelmingly passed by the United States Senate (93-5) and the House (374-37) on 24 October 1995 sets out the following facts that underscore the total lack of legal and moral integrity of the United Nations:

1. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

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

3. The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

4. The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

5. From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

6. In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

7. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

8. The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

9. In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David’s entry.

The United Nations - in discarding these inconvenient truths - has done the cause of world peace a grave disservice whilst the groundwork for a humanitarian disaster affecting both Arabs and Jews is being plotted by the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
President Trump made it crystal clear that his decision was:

“not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved”.

Trump’s principled stand on Jerusalem is morally justified and accords with international law. Guatemala has already moved its Embassy to Jerusalem — Brazil is planning to follow.

The United Nations continues to ignore Trump’s message at its peril and to its eternal shame.

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

Abbas set to defy Trump and Netanyahu at United Nations

[Published 28 August 2017]


PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas seems set to once again embark on another futile journey to the United Nations (UN) seeking recognition of a second Arab state — in addition to Jordan — within the territory comprised in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

A senior unidentified Palestinian source threatened such action on 21 August:

”If we don’t hear within a month and a half that the American team has stopped talking and started doing, Abbas intends to mobilize anyone and everyone he can for the UN General Assembly session on the establishment of a Palestinian state, regardless of the Israeli and American reactions,”

President Trump was quick to respond - State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert telling a press briefing on 23 August in answer to a question as to why America was loath to commit — or recommit - to the two-state solution:

“We are not going to state what the outcome has to be. It has to be workable to both sides. And I think, really, that’s the best view as to not really bias one side over the other, to make sure that they can work through it. It’s been many, many decades, as you well know, that the parties have not been able to come to any kind of good agreement and sustainable solution to this. So we leave it up to them to be able to work that through.”

Negotiations — suspended since April 2014 — extending over the past 24 years between Israel and the PLO have not produced any workable and sustainable solution. Abbas is clearly in no mood to resume those negotiations without preconditions.

A replay of Abbas’s appearance at the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2011 therefore seems inevitable.

Israel’s Prime Minister — Benjamin Netanyahu — was quick to point out at that time how automatic majorities at the UN had been used to incite institutionalised hatred against Israel:

“After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the UN institution. It’s the — the theatre of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organisation presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the UN, automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.”

This theatre of the absurd seems set to be repeated once again at the forthcoming 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly.

Israel-bashing can never resolve the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

Syria Hysteria Dooms Obama's Plan To Destroy ISIL

[Published 21 September 2014]


President Obama’s failed policies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt and the West Bank do not bode well for the success of the President’s current plans to end the threat to world peace posed by the meteoric rise of both the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF).

That threat was articulated by UN Security Council Resolution 2701 - passed on 15 August - which expressed:

” its gravest concern that territory in parts of Iraq and Syria is under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front (ANF) “

Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter—the Security Council strongly condemned:

“the indiscriminate killing and deliberate targeting of civilians, numerous atrocities, mass executions and extrajudicial killings, including of soldiers, persecution of individuals and entire communities on the basis of their religion or belief, kidnapping of civilians, forced displacement of members of minority groups, killing and maiming of children, recruitment and use of children, rape and other forms of sexual violence, arbitrary detention, attacks on schools and hospitals, destruction of cultural and religious sites and obstructing the exercise of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to education, especially in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Deir ez-Zor, Aleppo and Idlib, in northern Iraq, especially in Tamim, Salaheddine and Niniveh Provinces;”

America has subsequently acted as though Resolution 2701 had never been passed.

In his speech to the American nation on 11 September Obama declared:

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state… It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.”

The President is wrong on both counts.

Firstly — ISIL is Islamic — as its formal Declaration of Statehood on 29 June 2014 proclaims - and this following analysis asserts:

“The Islamic State is not only a terrorist group. It is an extremist, Islamist, political and military organization that holds a radical interpretation of Islam as a political philosophy and seeks to impose that worldview by force on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Expelled from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the Islamic State claims to be the legitimate ruler of all Sunni Muslims worldwide. They have established what they regard as a state which includes large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq, governed from Raqqa in Syria.

It advances a number of theological opinions to support its claims. Its adherents hold that they are merely practicing Islam fully, pronouncing those who disagree with them takfir (heretics).

This designation is used as religious justification for killing the Islamic State’s opponents”

Secondly - ISIL is a State - meeting the legal requirements of Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Thirdly - Obama’s claim that ISIL is recognized by no other government is irrelevant — as article 3 of the Montevideo Convention makes indisputably clear:

“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Obama’s false assumptions are a recipe for policy failure — as the goals enunciated by Obama in the same address clearly demonstrated:

“Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”

Destroying the UN condemned Al Nusrah Front did not rate a mention. A lukewarm response from 57 Islamic States to help defeat ISIL’s declared world threat to peace was not factored into Obama’s thinking.

Four days later an international conference held in Paris made it clear that Syria was not even part of the battleground where ISIL was to be confronted, degraded and destroyed.

Mouram Daoud—a member of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change in Syria — an internal opposition coalition — opined that ISIL cannot be defeated militarily without Syria and Turkey’s backing:

“The US administration should first pressure the Turkish partner to stop the flow of jihadists through its airports and stop buying oil from IS. According to [United Nations] Resolution 2170, the US will not be able to strike IS sites in Syria without the approval of the Syrian government, which is eagerly awaiting this type of cooperation to restore its international legitimacy. But the US will not include the Syrian government in this war, and will not recognize the government either. This means that the US will stick to its decision to only provide weapons to the Syrian [rebel] factions.”

Obama’s mantra - first delivered in August 2011 - remains unchanged:

“The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

Not even 200000 deaths and the creation of millions of Syrian civilian refugees since 2011 have produced any momentum for rapprochement between Obama and Assad that would enable Assad to extend - and Obama to accept - any invitation to confront ISIL in occupied Syria.

Any expectation that Assad and his backers — Russia, Iran and Hezbollah — will help Obama by destroying ISIL in Syria - is a pipe dream.

UN Security Council Must Get Serious On Destroying Islamic State

[Published 25 November 2015]


Brussels in lock-down, mayhem in Mali and the shooting down of a Russian war plane by Turkey have swiftly followed the unanimous passage on 20 November 2015 of an ineffectual French-sponsored Security Council Resolution 2249 (2015) in the record breaking time of just 34 minutes.

Resolution 2249 once again showed up the Security Council’s continuing reluctance to seriously deal with destroying Islamic State — even though the resolution itself determined that:

”the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,”

Such an “unprecedented threat” only produced this limp-listed response calling:

“upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;”

The result:

1. Russia with Iran and Hezbollah

2. the 62 nation coalition led by America

3. France reeling from Islamic State atrocities committed in Paris

are now all conducting their own independent mini-wars on different terrorist groups and targets in Syria and Iraq — instead of focusing on their one common agreed enemy — Islamic State.

That a Russian fighter plane could be shot down by Turkey — both members of the ISSG — highlights the continuing folly of failing to have one military force under one military commander with the full support of all 193 United Nation member States.

Even more amazingly - Resolution 2249 was passed despite this warning from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on 18 November:

“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”.

Russia must now be ruing its decision to support the passage of Resolution 2249 — rather than insisting on the Security Council passing a Resolution under article 42 of the UN Charter directed specifically at Islamic State to:

“take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

Article 43 of the Charter would then have obligated:

1. All Members of the United Nations to undertake to make available to the Security Council armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage

2. Agreements being made governing the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided—such agreements to be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council.

How many more atrocities and military misadventures must occur before the Security Council gets really serious on destroying Islamic State with its own UN-authorized global military force?

Russia Demands American Capitulation To Help Eradicate Islamic State

[Published 4 June 2015]


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called on America to end its attempt to remove Syria’s President Assad from power in return for Russia’s co-operation to militarily confront Islamic State.

Lavrov reportedly told Bloomberg on 2 June 2015 :

“The U.S.’s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America is part of the Friends of Syria core group known as the London Eleven that has been assisting rebel forces in Syria attempting to overthrow Assad.

Assad – backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah – has rebuffed such attempts during four years of horrendous conflict that has so far seen over 220000 Syrians die, four million citizens made refugees and another 7.6 million internally displaced.

A report published by the UN in March 2015 estimated the total economic loss since the start of the conflict was $202bn and that four in every five Syrians were now living in poverty - 30% of them in abject poverty. Syria’s education, health and social welfare systems are also in a state of collapse.

America apparently intends to ignore Lavrov’s sage advice and continue to pursue its Syrian policy to oust Assad.

Marie Harf - a U.S. State Department spokeswoman told reporters in Washington that:

"we’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens.”

“That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Lavrov’s comments come at a time when Islamic State - already controlling a large part of Syria and Iraq covering an area greater than the United Kingdom - continues to make further advances – recently seizing the city of Ramadi 110 kilometers west of the Iraqi capital – Baghdad - and capturing the strategic northern Syrian city of Palmyra – a World Heritage listed site containing the monumental ruins of one of the most important cultural centres of the ancient world.

Islamic State reportedly controls up to 80 per cent of oil fields in Syria and has destroyed and also sold looted antiquities in Hatra, Nimrod and Mosul to acquire a major source of its funding - sometimes for seven figure sums.

The American led coalition of some 62 States – meeting in Paris this week - has proved totally unable to stem the advance of Islamic State in its stated objective of restoring the Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law wherever it seizes territory.

Graeme Wood – a contributing editor at The Atlantic – sums up Islamic State’s vulnerability:

"If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.”

Only a UN sanctioned military force can hope to achieve this objective.

Obama and Putin need to urgently do a deal that sees:

1. A UN led process on the political future of Syria being undertaken without first removing Assad

2. UN Security Council Chapter VII Resolution passed under Article 42 of the UN Charter authorising military action against Islamic State.

Senseless head-butting needs to give way to sensible brain-storming.

Charlie Hebdomania Plunges World Into Whirlpool Of Islamic Violence

[Published 19 January 2015]


The sale of seven million copies of the magazine Charlie Hebdo featuring a front page cartoon depicting an image purporting to be that of Muhammad has brought forth its first bloody response from the Islamic world — Niger — where reportedly three people have been killed and six churches attacked and looted.

Riots and protests in Algeria, Somalia, Pakistan and Jordan have added fuel to the rapidly growing feeling of resentment and hostility that Charlie Hebdo has inflamed.

Niger’s President - Mahamadou Issoufou - was one of six African heads of state who attended the unity march in Paris last Sunday in the aftermath of the horrific massacres in the offices of Charlie Hebdo and a Kosher supermarket - that saw 17 people murdered in cold blood by terrorists identifying themselves with Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

Niger, Algeria, Somalia, Pakistan and Jordan are all members of the 57 States comprising the Organisation of Islamic Co-Operation.

President Issoufou — reacting to the outbreak of the violence in Niger - angrily declared:

“Those who loot these places of worship, who desecrate them and kill their Christian compatriots… have understood nothing of Islam,”

“Understanding nothing of Islam” could however be equally applied to those seven million readers (with possibly still more to come) who eagerly snapped up the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo—a publication that normally sells 60000 copies — supposedly in support of the right of “freedom of expression” — as proclaimed by French President Francois Hollande:

”...France has principles and values, in particular freedom of expression.”

Hollande had apparently abandoned the moral high ground he initially took on January 7 - following the attack on Charlie Hebdo — when he gave this response:

“France is in shock—the shock of an attack, because it’s a terrorist attack, there’s no doubt about that—against a newspaper that had already been threatened on several occasions and had consequently been under protection. At such times, we must stand together as one, show that we are a united country and that we can react properly, with firmness, but always with concern for national unity.“

Shooting civilians in cold blood in their offices and in a supermarket needed to be condemned and swiftly ended. No State can possibly permit such conduct within its borders nor can any such conduct be justified on any grounds whatsoever — no matter who or what is the target.

But was cocking your nose an appropriate response to the sensitivities and feelings of 1.4 billion Moslems around the world - 4.7 million of whom were estimated in 2010 by the Pew Report to live in France and comprise 7.5% of France’s population - by publishing another depiction of Muhammad contrary to what many Moslems believe to be the precepts of Islam?

Hollande seems to be whistling even further into the wind when he proclaims:

“There are tensions abroad where people don’t understand our attachment to the freedom of speech. We’ve seen the protests, and I would say that in France all beliefs are respected.”

How can Hollande claim that France respects all beliefs when his own Prime Minister is photographed holding a copy of the front page of the latest Charlie Hebdo magazine leaving the weekly cabinet meeting at the Elysses Palace in Paris?

There surely is a big difference in supporting the freedom of expression whilst at the same time disagreeing strenuously with the views those people are expressing.

Would the better response have been to leave those seven million copies on the newsstand shelves unsold and its contents condemned for fuelling racial hatred?

Jewish citizens of France certainly don’t believe Hollande and have been voting with their feet in increasing numbers - following more than 20 anti-Semitic incidents — some fatal — committed against French Jews in the last twelve months. 7000 Jews left France and emigrated to Israel during that period.

Those Jews still remaining will view the following words of French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve on 21 November 2014 last year with utter cynicism and disbelief after last week’s horror at the Kosher supermarket:

“Every time you feel the violence exercised against you, when you are afraid for your children, when you are worried about this rising violence, remind yourselves that the republic protects you and [you have] an interior minister who loves you and who is your friend,”

Hollande’s unity march - led by more than 40 international leaders locking arms in solidarity — should have concentrated solely on calling for the eradication of those responsible for the terrorist attacks — Islamic State and Al-Qaeda — rather than marching ahead of a sea of “Je suis Charlie” banners hoisted defiantly aloft behind them.

Collective international military action is undoubtedly needed to degrade and destroy these enemies of humankind engaging in unimaginable acts of violence all around the world and threatening its peace and security — including groups such Boko Haram, Jabhat Al-Nusra, Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah.

The message should be clear and unyielding — no State will tolerate under any circumstances the deliberate targeting of its civilians for any reasons whatsoever.

Hollande’s march should have been just the first stage of a world unity march by all world leaders to the United Nations in New York - demanding the passing of a Resolution by the UN Security Council to take military action against Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

Until 193 world States identify and eradicate their common enemies - Charlie Hebdomania will remain an incurable illness with frightening consequences.

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 Farce Promises Theatre Of The Absurd

[Published 26 September 2011]


The appearance of Mahmoud Abbas at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly on 23 September was reportedly met with “rapturous applause” by those present to witness this latest farce in the ongoing efforts to create a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time ever in recorded history.

UN Secretary General Ban KI - moon was presented with a letter signed by Mr Abbas as “President of the State of Palestine, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization“.

Mr Abbas’s letter stated that he had:

“the profound honor, on behalf of the Palestinian people to submit this application of the State of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations.”

He continued:

“This application for membership is being submitted on the Palestinian people’s natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.

“In this connection, the state of Palestine affirms its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security, as endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and the international community as a whole and based on international law and all relevant United Nations resolutions.”

Those joining in the rapturous applause should now digest what Mr Abbas is asking for - and reflect on his standing to do so.

When they do - the application should be rejected by both the Security Council and the General Assembly for the following reasons:

1. Mr Abbas falsely continues to use the title “President of Palestine” although his term of office expired on 1 January 2010 pursuant to Article 36 of the Basic Law 2003 (as amended).
2. The application does not identify the territorial boundaries of Palestine and thus would preclude any action by the UN against such a member - should the provisions of the UN Charter be breached by it in the future.
3. No State can be admitted as a member of the UN that fails to comply with the preconditions necessary for the declaration of Statehood pursuant to the Montevideo Convention 1933. The Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine on 15 November 1988 is similarly deficient.
4. Basing the application on UN General Assembly Resolution 181(11) of 29 November 1947 is meaningless since this Resolution was rejected in 1947 and has become extant. General Assembly resolutions in any event are not binding in international law.
5. As Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - Mr Abbas is committed to maintaining the territorial indivisibility of Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan under Article 2 of the PLO Charter. The current application contains no mention of his intention to revoke this provision in the Charter or to forgo any claims to any other parts of this territory from either Israel or Jordan.
6. Claiming that the application is based on international law and all relevant UN resolutions is contradicted by the fact that the PLO considers all such law null and void under article 20 of the PLO Charter which states:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.“

No commitment has been made by Chairman Abbas to revoke this provision of the PLO Charter as a condition of the UN approving his application for membership.
7. The PLO is no longer the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs and Mr Abbas is deceiving the UN in claiming to be speaking:

“on behalf of the Palestinian people”

An unconstitutional President claiming to be the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs when he clearly is not - as his unresolved power struggle with Hamas shows - applying for membership of the United Nations for a country within undefined boundaries that is not controlled by the PLO whilst claiming to respect and observe international law when the opposite is demonstrably evident - is indeed the theater of the absurd into which the UN finds itself being propelled once again..

Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - followed Mr Abbas to the podium and was quick to point out how automatic majorities at the UN had been used to incite institutionalized hatred against Israel.

“After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland—it was then that this was braided—branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel—the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the UN institution. It’s the—the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now—right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the UN, automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide—they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.”

The theater of the absurd is definitely set to swing into action once again at the UN over the next few weeks. As it does so - the authority and standing of the UN is set to sink into further disrepute.

Unscrambling Olmert's Omelet

[Published August 2008]

“No clever arrangement of bad eggs ever made a good omelet”

(CS Lewis).

This adage best sums up one possible outcome for Israel following the announcement of Ehud Olmert’s intended resignation as Israel’s Prime Minister at some unspecified date after his successor as head of the political party - Kadima - is named on September 17.

Mr Olmert’s uncertain resignation date could well be resolved with greater clarity if the raft of inquiries currently investigating his past conduct result in his indictment and forced stand down much earlier than he expects.

What appears to be planned following his replacement as Kadima’s leader is merely a change in the arrangement of the same faces that make up the present Government.

Israelis will thus be denied an early election that the current parlous situation demands be held in Israel’s national interest to determine who should next make the crucial decisions needed to meet the rapidly developing - and deteriorating - circumstances that threaten their very lives.

Kadima only has 29 seats in a Parliament of 120 members. It has managed to hold on to power by clobbering together a coalition of various other parties. This has allowed Kadima to conduct Israel’s foreign policy with disastrous results - leaving its coalition partners to claim a piece of the domestic action to advance their own narrow based and vested interests whilst threatening to quit the coalition if their demands are not met.

Fresh elections should have been called in the wake of the Olmert Government’s failure to successfully prosecute the war against Hezbollah in 2006 and to prevent the evacuation of an estimated one million Israelis from the north of Israel to the south to escape the thousands of shells and rockets indiscriminately rained down on their homes and businesses from Lebanon during that war.

Many other events since then have justified the need for the Government to seek the nation’s vote of confidence - the failure to halt thousands of rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza without any effective Israeli response, the failure to halt Hamas from rearming and smuggling weapons into Gaza through Egypt and the intrusion of Iran and Syria into the political equation and the policies needed to deal with each of these existential challenges.

The failure of the Olmert Government to achieve any breakthrough in negotiations on President Bush’s Road Map - despite optimistic and glowing reports of progress by Mr Olmert - requires the Israeli electorate to be given the opportunity to choose which future direction Israel should now take in attempting to resolve the competing territorial claims it has with its Arab neighbours.

Mr Olmert’s turn about on the progress of the Road Map from unbridled optimism in Paris just two weeks ago to subdued reality in Jerusalem this week illustrates the urgent need for there to be more than a changing of the deck chairs on the sinking ship.

In seeking to explain away the last two years of failed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, Mr Olmert gave the electorate the following explanation when announcing his resignation:

“As prime minister, I bear ultimate responsibility for every decision. There are many excellent people in the country, and together with them I have championed far-reaching, daring and complex processes… Most of them are unknown to the majority of the public, but they are well- known to those who were part of the decision-making and operational process.”

The Prime Minister has no clothes - his far reaching, daring and complex processes have gone nowhere.

Keeping the public completely in the dark as to what they were and why they failed is not the way to gain public confidence nor to expect the voters to let this pathetic situation continue until possibly 2010 when the next election would normally be held.

The portents for fresh elections are however not good at the present time.

Already the two main candidates vying for leadership of Kadima - Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz - have both called for a national unity Government to be formed.

Ms Livni is reported by the Jerusalem Post on 31 July as saying :

“We must leave the small considerations aside and create unity, both inwardly and outwardly,” adding that the main goal of the coalition members would be to “restore the public’s faith in Israeli politics.”

Her recipe for restoring that faith by forming a Government of national unity and not submitting herself and her colleagues for re-election is only a cynical exercise in promoting her own party’s political hold on power and will certainly result in a further erosion of the public’s faith in its politicians.

She attempted to justify her call for a national unity Government by asserting:

“I believe that the internal divisions we have become accustomed to and the idea that different parties have such extremely different ideologies and agendas is a thing of the past and is no longer the case. There is a common agenda that every party can put forward on political issues and also on dealing with the threats we face.”

This makes strange reading considering she and her Kadima colleagues quit the Likud party to form Kadima because the policies adopted by Likud were not - and still are not - to their liking.

Ms Livni’s call has already been rejected by Likud leader Mr. Netanyahu who has declared:

“Kadima is a party of failures,… We must let the public choose. Particularly at such a critical juncture we need to let the people decide who will lead them.”

A third contender for Mr Olmert’s position - Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit - has also called for early elections but his bid for leadership of Kadima presently has little support.

There is still time for Kadima to rethink its position, put the people of Israel before its own interests, accept the urgent necessity of dissolving Parliament and hold early elections.

Mr Olmert’s resignation offers the opportunity for fresh elections - and should be endorsed by all political parties as soon as possible.

Opportunities - like eggs - come one at a time. Missing this one will surely leave egg on the politicians’ faces and create a very dangerous strategic and negotiating void for Israel when it is least needed.

Swap Land for War or Land for Peace?

[Published October 2007]


Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are reportedly looking at swapping land in the West Bank for land in Israel as a means of overcoming the PA's long standing demand that all 6205 square kms of the West Bank be handed over to the PA by Israel as a necessary precondition for peace.

In the best traditions of a Middle East bazaar it seems a great idea for Israel to horse trade 500 sq kms of vacant Israeli land for 500 sq kms of land heavily populated by Jews in the West Bank.

Land swaps are not unknown in the Middle East. In 1965 Jordan exchanged 7000 sq kms of inland desert for 6000 sq kms of Saudi Arabian land fronting the sea shore.

The announcement of a planned land swap to be negotiated within a time frame of six months would certainly go down well at President Bush's international meeting next month and probably be hailed as a major breakthrough in resolving the 130 years conflict between the Jews and the Arabs over the former territory once called Palestine.

It might also just act as the fig leaf necessary to persuade Saudi Arabia to attend the meeting even if the more contentious issues - Jerusalem, water and permitting millions of Arabs to emigrate to Israel - are put on the diplomatic backburner.

President Bush desperately needs a lifeline to prevent his two state vision disappearing forever into the quicksand stirred up by totally inflexible and intransigent Arab negotiating positions.

Certainly the resolution of the territorial dispute over the proposed land to comprise the future Palestinian State would be a notable achievement.

It would herald an important change in the present racist stance of the PA and the Arab League that demands the West Bank be ethnically cleansed of all its Jewish residents - that Jews be tossed out of their homes in breach of international humanitarian law as encompassed in a number of United Nations Conventions.

It would signify the first crack in the negotiating stance of the Arabs that has remained unchanged for the last 40 years - showing a willingness to now be prepared to give something and not demand everything.

Unfortunately the announcement and eventual resolution of such a proposed land swap will not resolve the conflict unless all the other outstanding core issues - Jerusalem, refugees, water, - are also resolved.

Even if such issues were miraculously settled, what guarantee could then be given to Israel by the PA that the border between Israel and the newly created State would become a no go zone for Hamas, Hezbollah and the myriad other terrorist groups hell bent on Israel's destruction - having already unanimously indicated their violent opposition to any proposed settlement with Israel other than its total dismantling?

What guarantee would there be for Israel that those parts of the West Bank accepted by Israel in the land swap deal would not come under mortar fire and rocket attacks from within the borders of the new Arab State as emanated from Gaza virtually without respite when the PA ruled there?

The reality is that until any PA agreement with Israel is endorsed by Hamas, Hezbollah , Islamic Jihad and the Arab League, that agreement runs the risk of being abrogated overnight by the actions of well armed and trained terrorist groups whom PA President Abbas has been too weak to oppose or control in the past.

The risks of continued dealing with the PA alone are therefore so great that any responsible Government in Israel would be putting the lives and security of its citizens at grave risk unless these other belligerent parties were signatories to any peace agreement.

The position would be entirely different if the West Bank was divided between Jordan and Israel - two sovereign countries already possessing a peace agreement that has proved its resilience for the last 12 years.

Land swaps would only be necessary as a last resort if dividing some relatively small areas of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel could not be amicably resolved. A lease to Israel of some Jordanian land as part of their peace agreement shows what can be achieved.

It would not be in Jordan's national interest that any terrorist groups be allowed to flourish in Jordan's newly acquired West Bank territory since they could represent a threat to the Hashemite regime ruling in Jordan. These groups might be tempted to try and overthrow Jordan's King Abdullah if allowed to develop a formidable military infrastructure in the West Bank.

The attempt by the PLO to do just that in 1970 is deeply ingrained in the Jordanian psyche. Jordan has a well trained and disciplined Army and police force - unlike the PA's forces - to meet any such new threat.

Jordan is not faced with the political problems arising out of the falling out between Abbas and former Prime Minister Haniyeh that has split the PA and Hamas into two bitterly opposed factions - destroying any semblance of unity between the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan's close ties with West Bank Arabs would be a unifying factor of enormous significance in countering terrorist activities.

The path to resolution of issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and water are already sign posted in the existing peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

The return of Jordan to rule the Arab sections of the West Bank would recognise the status quo that existed in the Arab occupied areas between 1948-1967. It would bring the hope of stability to the region rather than the chaos and uncertainty that the PA currently represents as one of the principal players responsible for the slide into despair that has befallen Jordan's Arab brothers in Gaza.

Any belief that an agreed land swap involving the PA will be a step on the road to peace is yet just another mirage like so many others that have marked politics in the Middle East since the euphoric endorsement of the Oslo Accords 14 years ago by most of those countries assembling at President Bush's meeting next month.

How wrong they were then and how wrong they will be next month if they rapturously endorse the announcement of this "historic breakthrough".

Land swaps with the PA is a recipe for war. Land swaps with Jordan is a recipe for peace.

Which one Israel chooses will make a huge difference to millions of Jewish and Arab lives.

Israel's 60th Wedding Anniversary - A Military Coup?

[Published September 2007]

Israel's enemies have become emboldened into believing that the moment is fast approaching when they can once again try to achieve their long held aim to eradicate Israel.

They have taken this view following Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and what they perceive to be a victory over Israel in the 2006 Lebanon War.

Iran - Hezbollah's puppet master and chief arms supplier - has openly threatened to unleash its nuclear weapons on Israel's 7 million citizens - 20% of whom are Arabs.

Its leader Ahmadinejad freely enters America to speak at Columbia University and be interviewed by American media outlets and to address the United Nations which takes no steps to suspend Iran's membership and allows him to spew his racist and anti-semitic epithets without demur. The world moves slowly and with great reluctance to isolate this megalomaniac and his regime.

Hamas continues to fire rockets and mortars into Israeli civilian populations on a daily basis from Gaza with no apparent end in sight as Israel ponders on what steps to take to end this inhuman onslaught.

Attempted terror attacks emanating from Gaza and the West Bank by Hamas and Fatah cohorts are being continually foiled only by alert and resolute military action.

Israelis need to be confident that it has the best leaders - both political and military - to confront the existential and terrorist threats being made by Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah, and to make decisions concerning the West Bank and Gaza that are in Israel's best national interest.

The following extract from an interim report issued on 30 April 2007 by the Winograd Commission charged with inquiring into Israel's conduct of the 2006 War, seriously questions the judgement of Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to do just that:

"a. The Prime Minister bears supreme and comprehensive responsibility for the decisions of 'his' government and the operations of the army. His responsibility for the failures in the initial decisions concerning the war stem from both his position and from his behavior, as he initiated and led the decisions which were taken.

b. The Prime Minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one. Also, his decision was made without close study of the complex features of the Lebanon front or of the military, political and diplomatic options available to Israel. He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs. In addition, he did not adequately consider political and professional reservations presented to him before the fateful decisions of July 12th.

c. The Prime Minister is responsible for the fact that the goals of the campaign were not set out clearly and carefully, and that there was no serious discussion of the relationship between these goals and the authorized modes of military action. He made a personal contribution to the fact that the declared goals were over-ambitious and not feasible.

d. The Prime Minister did not adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing.

e. All of these add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence."

The Commission's interim Report was equally critical of the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff both of whom took the honourable course and handed over their duties and functions to others hopefully ensuring that the military will again be the power that it has previously been in guaranteeing Israel's safety and security and ability to withstand the threats to end its existence. .

Mr Olmert however refused to resign or call fresh elections to seek the public's confirmation that he was still the best man to lead them - arrogantly ignoring massive public demonstrations calling on him to do just that.

Mr. Olmert currently enjoys only 3% public support and is being investigated for alleged criminal conduct. He is reportedly engaging in secret discussions with Palestinian Authority and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on the creation of an Arab State between Israel and Jordan that could necessitate the removal of up to 450000 Jews from their homes in the West Bank.

It was Mr Olmert who claimed credit for a similar policy that saw the removal of 8000Jews from their homes in Gaza in August 2005. Thousands still remain in temporary residences and uncompensated to this day - their lives shattered. Gaza has now been declared an "enemy entity" by Israel - surely an admission of failure of this policy aimed at creating a peaceful - not warring - neighbour.

The military played a significant part in carrying out that Government decision. The television images of soldiers crying with those they were forced to remove remain indelibly imprinted on the Israeli military psyche particularly on many in military command positions.

Will the military again allow itself to be used in the forced removal of tens of thousands of Jews from their homes against their will? Many in the Army have already refused to remove Jews from recently settled areas where Government permission to live had not been granted. How many more would join them in refusing to obey orders to remove Jews from legally authorised areas where they had lived for up to 40 years? Would they be prepared to again trust Mr Olmert's judgement after the Gaza debacle?

In no more than eight weeks time Mr Olmert's agreement with Mr Abbas will be exposed to the glare of critical analysis. Hopefully the final Winograd Report , originally expected in July, will be also available. Its condemnation of Mr Olmert will be no less scathing than the interim Report. The growing threat posed by Iran will have also escalated. Hamas and Hezbollah will be champing at the bit.

This confluence of events could test the resolve of Israel's armed forces, especially if Mr Olmert continues to refuse to call fresh elections or ignores the military's recommendations on any of these issues.

If that were to happen some in Israel's armed forces might be provoked into attempting what has previously been unthinkable - a coup that dismisses the Government and puts in place a process that calls for fresh elections within six months.

Hopefully Mr Olmert will resign and let the people - not the Army or the current Government - have their say on whether he should continue to be their Prime Minister or who should replace him.

A coup is the last gift Israel needs in its 60th birthday year