Britain shamefully betrays the Jewish People again

[Published 13 July 2020]

Britain — the architect of the San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that led to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922 — has yet again shamefully betrayed the Jewish People by warning Israel not to extend its sovereignty into Judea and Samaria.

Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that any such action would be in violation of international law - which Netanyahu disputes — despite the Mandate vesting in the Jewish People the right to “close settlement” in Judea and Samaria for the purposes of reconstituting the biblical Jewish National Home in what had been the heartland of the Jewish People 3,000 years ago.

Britain had betrayed the Jewish People in 1950 after all the Jews living in Judea and Samaria had been ethnically cleansed by the invading Arab army of Transjordan in 1948. Britain — supported only by Pakistan and Iraq — recognized Transjordan’s illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria, the renaming of the newly merged entity as “Jordan” whilst “Judea and Samaria” was renamed “West Bank”.

Johnson told Netanyahu:

"I am immensely proud of the UK’s contribution to the birth of Israel with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. But it will remain unfinished business until there is a solution which provides justice and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The only way it can be achieved is for both sides to return to the negotiating table. That must be our goal. Annexation would only take us further away from it."

Peace for both “Israelis” and “Palestinians”? Neither existed until 1948 and 1964. There were only “Arabs” and “Jews” in 1917. The Arab residents of Palestine then comprised part of “the existing non-Jewish communities”.

Johnson seems apparently unaware that the “Palestinians” :

• were defined for the first time in recorded history by article 6 of the 1964 PLO Charter
• did not claim “regional sovereignty in the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”or “on the Gaza Strip” under article 24
• were Jordanian citizens between 1954 and 1988.

Johnson’s warning to Israel is the complete antithesis of what he wrote on October 29, 2017 as Foreign Minister — ahead of the Balfour Declaration centenary on November 2nd:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.”

The Royal Commission was authorised by Royal Warrant dated August 7, 1936 which did not mention the “Palestinians” - only naming two parties — the “Arabs” and the “Jews” — not three - as disputants.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry concluded that:

“two sovereign independent States would be established - the one an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in [the map] below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

The Arabs rejected this decision. The Jews disputed the boundaries.

Trans-Jordan in 1937 then comprised the remaining 78% of the Mandate territory closed by Britain to Jewish settlement under Article 25.

Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria however was to be facilitated and encouraged under article 6.

The PLO’s outright refusal to negotiate with Israel on President Trump’s Peace Plan strengthens Netanyahu’s decision to restore Jewish sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria after 3000 years.

Johnson’s hypocritical posturing should reinforce - not weaken — Netanyahu’s resolve.

Palestine - Obama Confronts Embarrassing About-Face

[Published 7 November 2014]


The Republican Party’s stunning victory in the American mid-term elections offers real hope that President Obama will now be held to honouring the written commitments made to Israel by President George W Bush in his exchange of letters with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 12 April 2004 — as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day.

Those commitments were made in support of Israel’s decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza — which Israel duly honoured in 2005—when the Israeli Army and 8000 Israeli civilians left Gaza — many after living there for almost forty years.

That withdrawal brought Hamas to power in Gaza’s one and only election - which has since seen three wars, thousands of deaths and casualties, property destruction running into billions of dollars and 11000 rockets being indiscriminately fired into Israeli civilian population centres.

Bush’s Congress-endorsed commitments assured Israel that the United States:

1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.

2. Reiterated America’s steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders,

3. Was strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.

4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion

Commitments jointly made by an American President and endorsed by an American Congress cannot be unilaterally revoked

President Obama and his administration sought to circumvent these clearly stated American pledges — thereby encouraging continuing Arab rejectionism of Israeli peace overtures whilst souring the American—Israeli longstanding relationship.

Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly took the first steps to repudiate these commitments on 6 June 2009:

“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.

They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon."

Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and:

“did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

Clinton — doubling as Obama’s attack dog — made Obama’s intentions clear — when she stated on 25 November 2009

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

This blatant disregard for Bush’s written commitments - which had never mentioned land swaps -signalled trouble for Israel - if Obama ever confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when President Obama declared on 19 May 2011:

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

Israel’s curt response came the same day:

Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he:

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

Prior to Obama’s statement U.S. presidents generally had steered clear of saying any negotiations should start on the 1967 lines.

1. “It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.” — President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968

2. “In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. the bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.” — President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982

3. “Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.” — Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988

These Presidential statements were reiterating the personally expressed policy positions of those then Presidents.

Bush’s commitments — so overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress — are in an entirely different league.

With the Republicans now firmly back in control of both Houses — the President and Congress need to assure Israel — and indeed every other nation — that commitments jointly made by an American President and endorsed by an American Congress cannot be unilaterally revoked.

America’s honour and credibility — and any hope of ending the Jewish-Arab conflict — demand this happens very soon.