Jewish People reclaiming sovereignty in biblical heartland after 3000 years

[Published 29 June 2020]

The United Nations is disgracefully trying to prevent a miracle happening 100 years after the world first gave its historic imprimatur to an impossible dream becoming a possible reality: 

The restoration of Jewish sovereignty in 1697km² of the Jewish People’s biblical heartland in Judea and Samaria (West Bank)

The defeat of the 400 years-old Ottoman Empire in World War I revived the Jewish People’s 3000 years-old dream of regaining nationhood in their ancient homeland—which had extended across both banks of the River Jordan where the twelve tribes of Israel had finally settled 40 years after their exodus from Egypt.

The San Remo Resolution signed by Great Britain, France, Japan and Italy on April 25, 1920 promised the Jews real hope.

The Treaty of Sevres involving the international community quickly followed on August 10, 1920.

The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan (“Principal Allied Powers”) were joined by Armenia, Belgium, Greece, the Hedjaz, Poland, Portugal, Romania, The Serb-Croat Slovene State and Czechoslovakia (“Allied Powers”) in this peace treaty signed with Turkey.

Signatories for the British Empire were representatives for:

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
The Dominion of Canada
The Commonwealth of Australia
The Dominion of New Zealand
The Union of South Africa
India

Article 95 provided that Palestine — within such boundaries as might be determined by the Principal Allied Powers — be administered by a Mandatory to be selected by them. The Mandatory was to be responsible for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration made on November 2, 1917 by the British Government — and adopted by the Allied Powers — in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people — it being clearly understood that nothing would be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine — or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The League of Nations 51 member states unanimously appointed Britain as Mandatory and approved the terms of the Mandate for Palestine on July 24, 1922.

Intervening political events in Syria between 1920 and 1922 involving France and Britain saw the Mandate’s provisions deny the Jewish People the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home on the East Bank of the Jordan River where two and a half of the twelve tribes had settled after reaching the Promised Land.

Judea and Samaria was reserved however for the Jews under the Mandate — that right being preserved under article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter notwithstanding the demise of the League of Nations in 1946.

After Britain handed its Mandate back to the United Nations in 1948 — every Jew living in Judea and Samaria was driven out by the invading army of Transjordan which itself comprised 77% of the Mandate territory and had achieved independence in 1946.

Judea and Samaria was unified with Transjordan to become “The West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” from 1950 to 1967 — recognized only by Great Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. Jordanian citizenship was extended to all its Arab citizens from 1954 to 1988.

Jordan’s loss of Judea and Samaria to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War saw some 450,000 Jews returning to reclaim their patrimony over the next 53 years — but the international community’s seal of approval soon changed to outright condemnation. President Trump’s 2020 Peace Plan has confirmed those vested legal rights acquired 1920-1922 by the Jewish People in Judea and Samaria.

An amazing miracle is about to occur on July 1st without any parallel in world history.

Trump exposes United Nations hypocrisy on PLO, Hamas and Israel

[Published 25 July 2018]

President Trump has challenged United Nations (UN) member States to put their money where their mouths are in a hard hitting speech delivered by US Permanent Representative to the UN - Ambassador Nikki Haley – at a UN Security Council Open Debate on the Middle East on 24 July.

Following Trump’s recent dressing down of NATO – Haley attacked UN member States who are full of words but short on money when it comes to supporting the Palestinian Arabs.

Haley did not mince her words:

"Here at the UN, thousands of miles away from Palestinians who do have real needs, there is no end to the speeches on their behalf. Country after country claims solidarity with the Palestinian people. If those words were useful in the schools, the hospitals, and the streets of their communities, the Palestinian people would not be facing the desperate conditions we are discussing here today. Talk is cheap.

No group of countries is more generous with their words than the Palestinians’ Arab neighbors, and other OIC [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – ed.] member states. But all of the words spoken here in New York do not feed, clothe, or educate a single Palestinian child. All they do is get the international community riled up."

Haley used members’ contributions to UNRWA to prove her case:

Last year, Iran’s contribution to UNRWA was zero. Algeria’s contribution to UNRWA was zero. Tunisia’s contribution to UNRWA was zero.

Other countries did provide some funding. Pakistan gave $20,000. Egypt gave $20,000. Oman gave $668,000.

Haley did not spare non-Arab and non-Islamic countries from similar naming and shaming:

Other countries talk a big game about the Palestinian cause. In 2017, China provided 350,000 to UNRWA. Russia provided two million dollars to UNWRA.

Haley contrasted America’s generosity:

Last year … the United States gave 364 million dollars… And that’s on top of what the American people give annually to the Palestinians in bilateral assistance. That is another 300 million dollars just last year, and it averages to more than a quarter of a billion dollars every year since 1993.

Haley delivered this stern warning:

“But we are not fools. If we extend a hand in friendship and generosity, we do not expect our hand to be bitten. And as we extend our hand, we also expect others to extend their hands as well.”

Haley emphasised that Arab countries’ giving more money was not the only issue confronting them:

Too often, the Arab countries give just enough money and mouth just enough uncompromising words to stay out of the crosshairs of Palestinian representatives. But if they really cared about the Palestinian people, they would not do that. Instead, they would condemn extremism and they would put forth serious ideas for compromises that could end this struggle and lead to a better life for the Palestinian people. They would tell the Palestinian leadership how foolish they look for condemning a peace proposal [Trumps’ “ultimate deal” – ed.] they haven’t even seen yet.

Haley called out both the PLO and Hamas:

The Palestinian leadership has been allowed to live a false reality for too long because Arab leaders are afraid to tell them the truth… It is time for the regional states in particular to step up and really help the Palestinian people, instead of just making speeches thousands of miles away.

Those regional States - Egypt, Jordan Syria and Lebanon – can help by sitting down with Israel and negotiating an end to the 100-years old Arab-Jewish conflict as prescribed 51 years ago by UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Delivering this message to the UN has been long overdue.

Islamic State Morphing Into Global Gehenna

[Published 13 April 2015]


Growing support for - and pledges of allegiance to - Islamic State by diverse Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are now creating horrific humanitarian problems for Christian communities in many countries—some far removed from the Middle East.

30 such groups have so far been identified:

al-I’tisam of the Quran and Sunnah [Sudan]—Aug. 1, 2014 — Support
Abu Sayyaf Group [Philippines]—June 25, 2014 — Support
Ansar al-Khilafah [Philippines]—Aug. 4, 2014 — Allegiance
Ansar al-Tawhid in India [India]—Oct. 4, 2014 — Allegiance
Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) [Phillipines] — Aug. 13, 2014 — Support
Bangsmoro Justice Movement (BJM) [Phillipines] — Sept. 11, 2014 — Support
al-Huda Battalion in Maghreb of Islam [Algeria] — June 30, 2014 — Allegiance
Heroes of Islam Brigade in Khorasan [Afghanistan] — Sept. 30, 2014 — Allegiance
The Soldiers of the Caliphate in Algeria [Algeria] — 30 Sep. 2014 — Allegiance
Jundullah [Pakistan]—Nov. 17, 2014 — Support
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) [Pakistan] Statement —Sept. 24, dated Sept. 12, 2014 — Support
Islamic Youth Shura Council [Libya] — June 22, 2014 — Support
Jaish al-Sahabah in the Levant [Syria] — July 1, 2014 — Allegiance
Faction of Katibat al-Imam Bukhari [Syria] — Oct. 29, 2014 - Allegiance
Jamaat Ansar Bait al-Maqdis [Egypt] — June 30, 2014 — Allegiance
Jund al-Khilafah in Egypt [Egypt] — Sept. 23, 2014 — Allegiance
Liwa Ahrar al-Sunna in Baalbek [Lebanon] — June 30, 2014 — Allegiance
Islamic State Libya (Darnah) [Libya] — Nov. 9, 2014 — Allegiance
Shura Council of Shabab al-Islam Darnah [Libya] —Oct. 6, 2014 — Allegiance
Mujahedeen Indonesia Timor (MIT) [Indonesia] — July 1, 2014 — Allegiance
Mujahedeen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem (MSCJ) [Egypt] — Oct. 1, 2014 — Support
Tehreek-e-Khilafat [Pakistan] — July 9, 2014 — Allegiance
Okba Ibn Nafaa Battalion [Tunisia] — Sept. 20 2014 — Support
Mujahedeen of Yemen [Yemen] — Nov. 10, 2014 — Allegiance
Supporters for the Islamic State in Yemen [Yemen] — Sept. 4, 2014 — Allegiance
al-Tawheed Brigade in Khorasan [Afghanistan] — Sept. 23, 2014 — Allegiance
Supporters of the Islamic State in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques [Saudi Arabia] —Dec. 2, 2014 — Support
Ansar al-Islam [Iraq] — Jan. 8, 2015 — Allegiance
Leaders of the Mujahed in Khorasan (10 former TTP commanders) [Pakistan] — Jan. 10, 2015 — Allegiance
Boko Haram [Nigeria]— March 7, 2015 — Allegiance

71 Chadian soldiers have reportedly been killed and 416 wounded in less than three months of fighting to crush Boko Haram. Chad has sent about 5,000 troops to fight alongside soldiers from Nigeria, Niger and Cameroon against Boko Haram whose Nigeria-based insurgency has increasingly spilled-over into neighbouring nations.

Some 13,000 Nigerians have been killed and 1.5 million have fled their homes since 2009.

Other Islamic terrorist groups can be expected to join their ranks.

President Obama’s pledge to degrade and destroy Islamic State heading an international coalition of 62 like-minded nations - is looking increasingly ineffectual as Islamic State rapidly morphs into a global Gehenna.

President Obama declared on 23 September 2013:

“The United States will continue to work with the entire continent of Africa and around the world to make sure that we are dismantling these networks of destruction.”

A Chapter VII Security Council Resolution is urgently required authorising the use of a UN military force to eradicate these “networks of destruction” that are now uniting into a ruthless killing machine dedicated to restoring the Islamic Caliphate.

Only an internationally-sanctioned force replacing Obama’s coalition can stem the tide.

President Obama needs to get that Security Council Resolution rolling.

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.

Remembering Australia's First Jihadist Attack - 1 January 2015

[Published 30 December 2014]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shakespeare records:

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

One was Badsha Mahomed Gül:

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

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

Gül’s accomplice was Mullah Abdullah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine - Merging Banks Can Reap Huge Dividends

[Published 19 October 2012]


Prince Hassan Bin Talal - Jordan’s former Crown Prince and the uncle of Jordan’s current ruler - King Abdullah - has floated a possible new diplomatic initiative by reminding the world that the West Bank was once part of Jordan.

Prince Hassan pointed out this very important historic and geographic fact whilst addressing a meeting of the Ebal charity organization in Nablus on 9 October.

That meeting had been organised by Jordanian Senate President Taher Al-Masri - indicating that the King in all likelihood would have been given advance notice and approved what Prince Hassan intended saying.

The Jordanian website Almustaqbal-a.com reported that Prince Hassan told the meeting:

”the West Bank is part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which included both banks of the [Jordan] River”

The report added:

“The attendees understood that Prince [Hassan] is working to reunite both banks of the [Jordan] River, and commended him for it.”

The West Bank and Transjordan had existed as one territorial entity between 1950-1967 following Transjordan’s occupation of the West Bank in 1948 after the newly declared State of Israel had been attacked by six invading Arab armies.

Transjordan - as a result - changed its name to “Jordan” and named the territory west of the Jordan River as the “West Bank”. Until then - the West Bank had been known for thousands of years as “Judea and Samaria” - the biblical and ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.

These decisions were not taken in isolation by a victorious occupier against the wishes of a defeated and dispirited population - but at the request and urging of the exclusively Arab population living in Judea and Samaria. All the Jews who had been living there prior to the 1948 war had been dispossessed and forcefully driven from the area conquered by Transjordan.

A conference was held in Jericho on 1 December 1948 - attended by several thousand people including the mayors of the towns of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General and military governors from districts in Judea and Samaria, and other notables.

The meeting resolved:

“Palestine Arabs desire unity between Transjordan and Arab Palestine and therefore make known their wish that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Transjordan. They also recognize Abdullah as their King and request him proclaim himself King of the new territory.”

Wells Stabler - America’s charge d’affaires in Transjordan - reported to the Acting Secretary for State in a confidential cable dated 4 December 1948 that following the meeting - a large delegation proceeded to the King’s winter quarters at Shuneh to present the resolution to the King and request his acceptance. The King had replied that the matter must be referred to his government and that he must also ascertain the views of other Arab states. Although usual jealousies and frictions had been apparent during the meeting, the King believed it to be of significance and might be regarded by him as his mandate from Palestine Arabs.

On 6 December 1948 Stabler sent a secret cable to the Acting Secretary for State in which he reported that UN Acting Mediator Ralph Bunche had met with the King - when the following matters had been discussed:

1. The King believed that annexation of Arab Palestine to Transjordan would be an “actual help” in reaching a final settlement.

2. Arab Palestine was then in a vacuum which needed to be filled and Transjordan was in best position to do it.

3. Basically any Palestine settlement rested with Egypt, Transjordan and Israel. Egypt and Transjordan could overcome any opposition from other Arab states.

4. Emir Abdel Majid Haidar, Transjordan observer at the United Nations General Assembly had held talks with Egyptians in Paris but without result.

5. Bunche had hinted to His Majesty that the annexation of Arab Palestine by Transjordan would probably be accepted as fait accompli in view of Transjordan’s present position in Arab Palestine.

The subsequent annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan two years later was only recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan. The failure of other members of the United Nations to recognise such annexation has prolonged a conflict that with a little bit of give and take could have been resolved more than 60 years ago by negotiations between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War and renounced any claims to the West Bank in 1988.

After 19 years of fruitless negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization since 1993 - the settlement of competing claims by Jews and Arabs to sovereignty in the West Bank still remains undetermined.

Prince Hassan’s statement on 9 October clearly attempts to resuscitate Jordan’s territorial claim to the West Bank.

Writing in the 1982 Spring issue of the quarterly publication “Foreign Affairs” - Prince Hassan had asserted:

“We Jordanians must add that practically speaking a settlement must also take into account our perceptions. Small as Jordan is, our country is politically, socially, economically, militarily and historically inseparable from the Palestinian issue”

Indeed the fate of Jordan and the West Bank has been tied together ever since both these areas of the former Ottoman Empire were included in the territory covered by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted.

The attempt over the last 19 years to divide Jordan and the West Bank into two independent Arab states for the first time ever in recorded history has proved an abject failure - leading Prince Hassan to observe that whilst he did not personally oppose the two state solution - that solution was irrelevant at this stage since:

“both sides, Arab and Israeli, no longer speak of a political solution to the Palestinian problem.”

The vacuum existing in 1948 has returned - and once again Jordan is the party that can fill it by opening negotiations with Israel to end the the Jewish-Arab conflict by reunifying the two banks of the Jordan River - taking into account the vastly changed circumstances to those existing 64 years ago.

The dividends could be immense including:

1. The return to Jordan of a very substantial part of the West Bank lost by Jordan in the Six Day War

2. No residents of the West Bank - either Jew or Arab - having to move from his present home

3. The restoration of Jordanian citizenship to the West Bank Arab population

4. The resolution of the competing claims by both Jews and Arabs to sovereignty in the West Bank

5. Placing a political solution to the Palestinian problem in the hands of the Arabs

Seizing this rare opportunity should not be missed.

Israel - A Boycott Without A Buoy

[Published 22 April 2011]


The recent attempt by the Marrickville Council in Sydney to impose a boycott on its purchase of Israeli goods and products spectacularly collapsed after the Council was advised by its Chief Officer that enforcing the boycott would cost its ratepayers four million dollars.

When people have to put their money where their mouth is - an idea that seems attractive in the first place suddenly becomes very much less desirable. So it proved to be with Marrickville Council.

What is of more concern however is that a boycott should never have been entertained by the Council in the first place - given the nature of the campaign as articulated by its originators.

In July 2005 “Palestinian civil society” called for a “global citizens response” under the following manifesto:

“The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

The following inaccuracies and misrepresentations are immediately apparent in this manifesto:

1. Those calling for the boycott have themselves been breaching their obligations under international law for the last 90 years by declaring in Article 20 of the PLO Covenant:

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

2. “Everything that has been based on” the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine” includes:

(i) The Versailles Peace Conference 1919
(ii) The San Remo Conference 1920
(iii) The Treaty of Sevres 1920
(iv) The exclusion from 1923 of 77% of the Mandate area in which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted and its subsequent creation as the Arab State of Transjordan in 1946
(v) Article 80 of the United Nations Charter
(vi) The creation of the State of Israel in 1948
(vii) The Armistice Lines established by the UN in 1949
(viii)The joint decision of West Bank and Jordanian Arabs to unify the West Bank and Jordan in 1950
(ix) UN Security Council Resolution 242

Surely those being asked to boycott Israel should be first demanding Palestinian excision of Article 20 from their Charter and observance by Palestinians of the above body of international law as the price for supporting any boycott.

Supporting law-breakers who continue to willfully ignore the law should certainly not be countenanced.

3. With the exception of the Golan Heights - none of the land occupied by Israel in the 1967 War can be designated as “Arab lands” - since sovereignty in such lands remains undetermined.

Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950 was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan. Jordan relinquished whatever claims it had in 1988.

These lands are presently “no man’s land” over which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are making sovereign claims that can only be resolved in direct face to face negotiations - which have now stalled because the PA refuses to resume such negotiations with Israel.

Supporting the boycott encourages the continuation of this negotiating gridlock and is contrary to what the international community is demanding.

4. Calling for Jews to stop settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - (termed “colonization” under the manifesto) contravenes article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Seeking to exclude anyone but Palestinians from living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is racist, discriminatory and constitutes apartheid - and brands those who support a boycott on this ground as supporters of such an outrageous and offensive policy.

5. Israel has already made it clear that the Wall - where built on “no-man’s land” - will be dismantled when secure and recognized borders between Israel and a Palestinian State are established in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Boycotting Israel for not demolishing the wall whilst these legal requirements remain unresolved - yet again indicates support for those who have scant regard for international law.

6. Full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens in Israel already exists.

Those being asked to boycott Israel should seek clarification as to what fundamental rights are being denied to Arabs in Israel that are enjoyed by Arab residents in the West Bank and Gaza.

7. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has never been binding on Israel.

Professor Julius Stone states in his book “Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations"

“General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11,1948 … did not even purport to be in in mandatory terms, but was merely parts of the terms of reference of the Palestinian Conciliation Commission. A recital in Resolution 273 (III) of May 11, 1949, admitting Israel to the United Nations “recalled” that Resolution 194 (III) provided an option for refugees to return to their homes, and compensation if they opted not to return, but it immediately in the same recital “noted” the declarations and explanations made by Israel before the ad hoc committee in respect of the implementation of that resolution. Since Israel’s declarations and explanations did not unquailifiedly accept the resolution, this can in no way be regarded as creating a legal obligation.” (p.68)

Then of course there is the hypocrisy inherent in seeking to selectively decide what to boycott - such as cosmetics, foodstuffs, sweets, supermarket shelves and other soft targets - but not life-saving cures, medical breakthroughs, high-tech components used in IT systems, water technologies and electric cars.

The boycott was initiated in 2005 on the basis of a manifesto that was both false and misleading.

Those silly enough to be drawn into its net without fully understanding that law-breaking and racism permeate its manifesto - only have themselves to blame for being duped and labelled naïve and foolish.

Had Marrickville Council taken the time to properly understand what the Council was being exposed to - the fiasco that followed their initial decision would not have occurred. Others being similarly minded to embark on such a mindless and irrelevant journey hopefully won’t now fall into the same trap.

This is a boycott full of holes that is slowly sinking to the bottom of the sea of deception that created it.

Palestine - George Mitchell Munches On Middle East Lunches

[Published January 2009]

President Obama’s newly appointed Middle East Envoy - George Mitchell - has been traipsing through the Middle East on a look and listen tour to learn the views of players in Cairo, Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman on the present state of play in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict that has raged unresolved for the last 130 years.

At the same time President Obama in his first televised interview - with Arab television station Al-Arabiya - has made his own views known to all those players which they should carefully listen to and heed.

Firstly on the issue of a new Arab state being created between Israel and Jordan President Obama stated his commitment to that eventuating but issued this note of warning:

” QUESTION: Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state—and you know the contours of it—within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state—I’m not going to put a time frame on it—that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life…

…But it is not going to be easy, and that’s why we’ve got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that’s what’s going to be necessary.”

The notion that any such new state should be democratic - as President Bush’s Roadmap stipulated - - has now apparently disappeared from the new President’s vocabulary.

The idea that such a State was just around the corner - as the previous administration had been trumpeting for the last twelve months - was now not even being able to be predicted with confidence by President Obama to occur within the next four years.

Secondly President Obama declared that any such new state would have to be part of an overall resolution of other problems in the Middle East and neighbouring regions:

“I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.These things are interrelated.”

Thirdly President Obama negated the idea that the Saudi Peace Plan proposed in 2002-and offered to Israel on a “take it or leave it ” basis - would be the sought for regional solution that would be supported in its entirety by President Obama:

“QUESTION : Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you’ve indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that.

I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”

How President Obama gets the Saudis - and the Arab League which has adopted the proposal - to ameliorate their plan to meet President Obama’s apparent objections to it in its present form will prove to be one of the most fascinating diplomatic manoeuvres to observe in the coming months and years.

Given that the Saudi proposal contains the same intransigent demands that have characterised the Arabs negotiating stance for the last 42 years, the likelihood of any substantive changes to that proposal to meet President Obama’s declared reservation seems most unlikely to occur.

President Obama did not spell out what other ideas there are across the region in his compelling interview.

Clearly trilateral negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States is one such idea that needs to be vigorously pursued by Mr Mitchell. It alone seems to offer the best chance of improving the lives of the West Bank’s Arab residents by offering them citizenship in an Arab State without requiring them to move from their present homes whilst allowing them once more to return to the Arab fold finally freed from Israel’s occupation or control - the position they last enjoyed between 1948-1967.

The PLO had already signalled its intentions to abandon the Roadmap - and focus on the Saudi Peace Plan as the only game in town - just a few days before President Obama’s appearance on Al-Arabiya.

Reuters had reported on 22 January:

“The Palestinian leadership are not ready to return to political negotiations with Israel unless there is a new basis for talks,” the PLO said, without elaborating. It said it wanted to conduct talks on the basis of the Arab peace initiative of 2002 which offers Israel peace and normal relations with all Arab countries in return for withdrawal from all territory captured in the 1967 war.”

This position had first been unveiled two months ago when the Palestinian Authority had taken out full page ads in the Israeli press calling on Israelis to endorse the Saudi plan. The money spent on those ads appears to have had no effect on Israel - or President Obama.

The current Palestinian leadership - itself the issue of much conjecture following the schism between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - will not get to first base with President Obama if it insists on maintaining this stance.

There are three predictions that one can confidently make in this current uncertain climate whilst George Mitchell’s patience and skill is brought into play:

1. The existing Jewish residents of the West Bank - and the current Arab residents - will continue to copulate and populate. Any call for a “freeze” on natural increases in their respective populations - and the provision of housing and infrastructure to cope with such natural increases - is meaningless.

2. The creation of a 22nd Arab State between Egypt, Israel and Jordan will never eventuate unless the current Arab negotiating position is drastically revised by dropping their demands for sovereignty in all of the West Bank and Gaza and for millions of Arabs to be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

3. George Mitchell will be having lots of appointments, ongoing disappointments and very many more lunches in the region.

Let’s hope he doesn’t suffer from indigestion as he swallows what he is forced to hear.