Israel, Jordan, PLO pave way for Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine

 

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s meeting with King Abdullah on July 27th could see negotiations being announced shortly between Israel and Jordan to create a single territorial entity encompassing Jordan, Gaza and parts of the West Bank. 

This newly created entity - designated The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine – together with Israel – will constitute the elusive and previously unattainable two-state solution – pursued by:

• the Mandate for Palestine (1922)
• The Peel Commission (1937)
• UN Resolution 181 (III) (1947)
• Venice Declaration (1980)
• Oslo Accords (1993)
• Saudi Peace Plan (1982)
• Revised Saudi Peace Plan (2002)
• Bush Roadmap (2002)
• The UN (2016)
• Trump Peace Plan (2020)

- finally ending the conflict over the division of former Palestine between Arabs and Jews begun with the defeat of Turkey in World War I. 

The plan to create The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine was first announced in Al-Arabiya news –owned by the Saudi Royal family – on June 8, 2022 in an article written by Ali Shihabi – a close confidante of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman – Saudi Arabia’s heir apparent to the Saudi throne and the driving force behind Neom – a $500 billion megacity of the future to be built from the ground up in an area of northern Saudi Arabia equal to the size of Israel. 

A tweet issued by King Abdullah’s Palace (see below) confirms that the King and Lapid discussed the subject of a two-state solution and it seems inconceivable that they would have discussed any plan other than this Saudi solution.

It would appear that back channel negotiations have been going on since the release of the Saudi plan on 8 June to refine it to reflect - with more precision - the starting positions of Jordan, Israel and the PLO in any negotiations. 

Those agreed starting positions include:

1. The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine will be ruled by Jordan’s current Hashemite ruler King Abdullah – which Hashemite dynasty has ruled Jordan for the last 100 years.
2. The right of return to Israel by Palestinian Arab refugees will not be pursued. Instead The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine will integrate those refugees within its borders
3. The borders of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will include:

• Jordan with its current borders
• The Gaza Strip
• Areas of the West Bank inhabited by Palestinian Arabs and bordering Jordan that are contiguous and not divided into islandsThe retention by Israel of the Jordan Valley and other areas of the West Bank will be resolved in the negotiations

4. Neither the Arabs nor the Muslims will seek to expel Israel from Jerusalem. However it remains as a bargaining chip in the hands of the Palestinian Arabs in securing any agreement and giving the Holy Places in Jerusalem a special status. 

5. Any agreement will need to be ratified by a free popular referendum by all Jordanians and residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and those who are stateless such as the residents of the refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria. Palestinian Arabs who are settled in other countries and who enjoy full citizenship will have no vote.

6. The rationale for creating The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine is based on the fact that Jordanians and Palestinians are Sunni Arabs from the same region and integrating them will not cause any ethnic or sectarian fault lines in the long run. 

Jordan has received a flurry of visits from Mohammed Bin Salman, PLO Leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israel’s President Herzog, since the Saudi Plan was published. 

Lapid’s visit now when he is only caretaker Prime Minister is highly significant. It could indicate the commencement of negotiations is supported by the majority of Israel’s political parties. 

Let the negotiations begin.

Jordan moves to resolve West Bank sovereignty problem it created

[[Published 27 July 2020]

Jordan’s Prime Minister Omar Razzaz has made a welcome intervention to resolve the issue of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank).

Razzaz’s offer comes as Israel readies to restore Jewish sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria after an absence of 3000 years — as promulgated by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter — and detailed in President Trump’s deal of the century.

Razzaz has raised the possibility of a “one-state solution” to replace the “two-state solution”:

“We are against unilateral actions. We are against annexation. We are against any steps that are not within an overall scheme that leads to a two-state solution. Short of that, if we’re not going towards a two-state solution, let us know what we’re going towards, what kind of one-state solution we’re going towards.”

The “two-state solution” favoured by the international community for the last 40 years — creating an independent State of Palestine between Israel and Jordan — has long passed its anticipated birth date. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) refusal to sit down with Israel to negotiate creating such a State in Gaza and 70% of Judea and Samaria — as detailed in Trump’s Plan — is the final nail in the coffin for an unattainable solution first aired by the 1980 Venice Declaration.

Razzaz should consider going towards the “Jordan one-state solution” that existed between 1948 and 1967 — after Transjordan:

• invaded and conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948—ethnically cleansing all Jews then living there
• changed its name in 1949
• unified “the two banks of the Jordan, the Eastern and Western, and their amalgamation in one single state: The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan” in 1950
• granted Jordanian citizenship to the West Bank Arab residents between 1954 and 1988

Razzaz lays down three conditions for any “one-state solution”:

“Jordan will not absorb transfers of Palestinians. Jordan will not become ‘the’ Palestine, as the Israeli extreme right wishes. And Jordan will not give up its custodianship over [holy Muslim and Christian sites in] Jerusalem. These three are clear for us.”

Under the “Jordan one-state solution”:

1. No West Bank or Gazan Arab would have to move from his current home or business
2. West Bank Arab residents would regain their 1954-1988 Jordanian citizenship — once again electing their own representatives to the Jordanian Parliament
3. Unification of Gaza and possibly 70% of the West Bank with Jordan would accord with proposals contemplated by article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine 1922, the 1937 Peel Royal Commission and UN General Assembly “Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine” in 1947.
4. Jordan’s custodianship over the Muslim Holy Sites in Jerusalem is retained under the Jordan Israel Peace Treaty 1994
5. The status quo existing between 1964 and 1968 would be restored when the PLO under article 24 of its founding Charter did “not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” or "on the Gaza Strip”:
6. The territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine would have been finally allocated as to about 20% to the Jewish People and 80% to the Arab Nation.

The late King Hussein of Jordan — writing in Uneasy lies the Head (p.82) stated:

“Palestine and Jordan were both under the British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs they were hardly separate countries. Trans-Jordan being to the east of the river Jordan, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine”

Razzaz and Netanyahu need to start a dialogue to bring the “Jordan one-state solution” to fruition and end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

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

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.

Trump ends Arab preoccupation with occupation in Judea and Samaria

[Published 3 December 2019]

President Trump’s decision to recognise the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) ends a long-running Arab political campaign accompanied by murderous terrorist attacks to drive the Jews out under the Arab mantra - “End the Occupation”. This mantra had become the Arabs’ rallying cry over the last 53 years as they sought to assert sovereignty over every square meter of this hotly-disputed territory.

These three little words managed to turn Israel’s miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War in Judea and Samaria — that saw the Jewish People’s triumphal return to the heart of the biblical and ancestral land of its forefathers — as something to be reviled and reversed.

Those mouthing the mantra did not seek to have the “occupation” ended in favour of Jordan — the previous Arab occupier between 1948 and 1967.

Rather they were insisting it all be given to another group — the “Palestinians” — who did not exist:

1. In 1922 – when the League of Nations created the Mandate for Palestine

2. In 1937 - when the Peel Commission issued its Report

3. In 1947 - when the United Nations recommended the partition of western Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State.

4. Between 1948-1964 — when Judea and Samaria had been ethnically cleansed of every single Jew who had been living there prior to 1948

The “Palestinians” only first saw the light of day in 1964 when the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter was promulgated and Article 1 declared:
"Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation".

In 2019 the PLO’s legitimacy to rule the “Palestinians” is being challenged by Hamas. Reconciliation between these two competing power seekers is still not in prospect after 13 years of bitter internecine conflict — nor are elections anywhere in sight.

Jordan now sits on the sideline having abandoned any claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in 1988. Jordan shows no interest in attempting to try and restore — as far as is now possible — the status quo existing in these areas Jordan ruled on June 4, 1967.

President Trump is waiting patiently in the wings ready to release his “deal of the century” when Israel’s next Government is eventually formed.

It is surely time for a new mantra: “Right the Wrongs” to enter into the lexicon of international diplomacy in the Middle East — to replace the racist and apartheid “end the occupation”.

The wrongs are the failure of the United Nations to acknowledge that:

1. the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter reserve to the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria in accordance with the provisions laid down in article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

2. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 remain the only internationally accepted bases for resolving the conflict in former Palestine.

The United Nations failure to insist on these binding tenets of international law being universally acknowledged has proved to be a major stumbling block in resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Bowing to extreme pressure from the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the United Nations has succumbed to a myriad of General Assembly resolutions that have buried these pillars of international law. The sooner they again become the foundations for peace — the sooner some sanity will return to the Middle East.

Trump’s decisiveness has amazingly ended 53 wasted years of Arab preoccupation with occupation.

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

False narrative haunts PLO and UN as Trump courts Arab States.

[Published 28 June 2018]

Nabil Abu Rudeineh - spokesman for Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas — has angrily reacted to President Trump’s intensive diplomatic efforts seeking to enlist Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in advancing Trump’s long-awaited “deal of the century” to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Rudeineh fulminated:

“The American delegation should abandon the illusion that creating false facts and falsifying history are going to help it sell those illusions.”

Creating false facts and falsifying history has been the province of the PLO and the United Nations (UN) for decades.

The 1968 PLO Charter declared the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and everything subsequently based on them to be null and void.

The United Nations publication “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1988” (“Study”) - published by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People - falsely claimed:

“After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish…”

The UN proposal—Resolution 181(II) - actually referred to:

“Independent Arab and Jewish States”...

Resolution 181(II) clearly denied the existence of any distinctly identifiable Palestinian people in 1947 — yet the Study falsified this narrative.

The Study also omitted to mention that 78% of Palestine had already become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Creating a separate state for the “Palestinians” - never identified as a separate people by the international community in 1947 — is seen by that same international community in 2018 to be the only solution capable of ending the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Two peoples — the Jews and the Arabs — already have their own independent States in former Palestine - named Israel and Jordan.

Rudeineh continued:

“Despite the burden of regional issues, there are things that cannot be weighed with gold and humanitarian aid, or solutions that try to cut from a more than 100-year-old historical conflict.”

This is the first time the PLO has ever acknowledged that the Jewish-Arab conflict originated in the events following the Balfour Declaration in 1917 — not the events following the 1948 Arab-Israel War.

UN Secretary-General Guterres helped perpetuate this falsehood when recently referring to the “Israeli/Palestinian conflict”.

There were no “Israelis” or “Palestinians” 95 years ago when the preamble to the Mandate for Palestine declared:

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should 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; “

British reversal of this policy in 1922 saw Transjordan — today called Jordan — totally closed to Jewish settlement to prevent the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home there. The 1937 Peel Commission counted for nothing.

Forty crucial years in Palestine’s history until 1948 were shredded by the PLO and materially altered by the UN Study in propagating the “Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People”.

Rudeineh’s statements mark a welcome return to reality.

Getting other Arab interlocutors to replace the PLO in negotiations with Israel remains Trump’s crucial starting point to ending the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Prince William visit will advance Jordan-Israel two-state solution

[Published 4 March 2018]


Kensington Palace’s carefully-crafted tweet announcing that “The Duke of Cambridge will visit Israel, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Summer” - could spark a diplomatic war with far-reaching implications.

The Palace clarified that:

“The visit is at the request of Her Majesty's Government and has been welcomed by the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian authorities.”

This will be the first official Royal tour to the State of Israel since its establishment in 1948. Israel’s President Rivlin and Prime Minister Netanyahu have expressed their delight at this long-overdue announcement.

Jordan - visited officially by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip in 1984 – will enthusiastically welcome their grandson Prince William.

The British Government’s decision to also dispatch the Prince to visit the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” (“OPT”) - Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – the last remaining 5% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty remains unresolved between Jews and Arabs – is very intriguing.

The PLO and Hamas have been engaged in an internecine struggle for control in the OPT since 2007 – whilst the PLO has suspended negotiations with Israel over the allocation of sovereignty in the OPT since April 2014. Corruption and nepotism are rife and elections are long overdue. Murderers of Israelis are rewarded with financial payments for life.

PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas’s incendiary comments at the United Nations on 20 February claiming the British Government bears responsibility for the catastrophic consequences inflicted on the Palestinian people as a result of Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration - create a toxic environment for the Royal visit.

Indeed Abbas had earlier declared in the United Nations General Assembly in September 2016:

“We ask Great Britain, as we approach 100 years since this infamous declaration, to draw the necessary lessons and to bear its historic, legal, political, material and moral responsibility for the consequences of this declaration, including an apology to the Palestinian people for the catastrophes, misery and injustice this declaration created and to act to rectify these disasters and remedy its consequences, including by the recognition of the state of Palestine. This is the least Great Britain can do.”

Another Abbas demand in March 2017 that Britain apologise for the Balfour Declaration was swiftly rejected by the British Government.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson - writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October 2017 – went even further:

“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 Peel Commission recommended two sovereign independent States be established in Palestine:

1. An Arab State - consisting of Trans-Jordan (now called Jordan) – 77% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine – united with part of the remaining 23% of the Mandate territory within which the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home was proposed in 1922

2. A Jewish State consisting of the remainder of the 23% of Palestine

The Arabs rejected the Peel recommendations.

However Jordan’s subsequent independence in 1946 and Israel’s in 1948 laid the groundwork for the Peel two-state solution applying in 99% of former Palestine between 1950 and 1967 after Jordan and Egypt had illegally invaded and occupied the OPT in 1948.

Great Britain in 1950 and the PLO on its establishment in 1964 recognized this two-state reality – which remains the key to resolving the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Prince William’s visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories ensures that resurrecting the Jordan-Israel two-state solution once again takes center stage.

Israel-Jordan negotiations could follow PLO threat to boycott Trump

[Published 15 January 2018]


The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) threat to refuse to negotiate with Israel unless President Trump withdraws his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel could see Jordan replacing the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

This threat — unless unconditionally revoked — would give Trump the opportunity to consign the PLO to the political wilderness by inviting Jordan to step in and negotiate with Israel over Trump’s eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal‚”.

Jordan-Israel negotiations would offer Jordan the opportunity to recover a substantial part of Judea and Samaria (“West Bank‚”) annexed by Jordan in 1950 — albeit illegally — but subsequently lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War (“disputed territory‚”).

Should Jordan buck at entering into such negotiations — some 60% of the disputed territory - under Israel’s full administrative and security control since the 1995 Oslo Accords and containing just 5% of the West Bank’s entire Arab population (“Area C‚”) - could be annexed by Israel.

PLO-Israel negotiations over the last twenty-five years — with United Nations, UNESCO and European Union backing — aimed at creating a 22nd Arab state in the disputed territory for the first time ever in recorded history - have failed abysmally.

Such a State was an artificially-contrived creation that could never be justified on historic, geographic or demographic grounds. It had actually been rejected by successive Arab leaderships on many occasions since first being proposed by the 1937 Peel Commission.

Joint 1994 Nobel Peace Prize winners — Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat — all understood Jordan’s pivotal role in ending the Jewish-Arab conflict:

1. Jordan is the major part (78%) of the Palestinian Arabs’ homeland according to article 2 of the PLO Charter.

Farouk Kadoumi - Head of the Political Department of the PLO — reinforced this reality - telling Newsweek on 14 March 1977:

“Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.”

2. Peres declared on 31 August 1978:

“Jordan is also Palestine… I’m against two Arab countries and against another Palestinian country, against an Arafat state. Today 50 percent of the inhabitants of Jordan are Palestinians and that is the Palestinian state…

Peres backed this up - telling the Jewish Telegraph on April 19, 1991:

“It is not obstinacy to regard the populations of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as having greater similarities than differences. The Jordan River is not deep enough to turn into a knife blade serving to cut one piece of territory into three slices. Most of Jordan’s population are Palestinians: the residents of the West Bank are Jordanian citizens and Jordan has distributed tens of thousands of passports to residents in the Gaza Strip. Jordan is therefore an existing State. It has an army. There is therefore no need to set up another State, another army."

3. Yitzchak Rabin told The Australian newspaper on May 27, 1985:

“One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb.”

Rabin’s solution to end the conflict:

”... the Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the Jordan River there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees.”

Jordan-Israel negotiations on the political future of the disputed territory open up options to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict never before considered. If Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration helps bring such negotiations about - then Trump could well succeed where all other American Presidents before him have failed.

Taking on Trump could herald the PLO’s political demise after 54 years of failed leadership.

Palestine - France Farce And Folly

[Published 9 June 2016]


France embarked on a journey to nowhere when it hosted 28 delegations in Paris for a ministerial meeting on 3 June marking the first phase of its initiative aimed at promoting peace in the Middle East.

Amid the pomp and ceremony, photo opportunities and handshakes - the final communique revealed:

1. Support was reaffirmed for a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The conflict actually requiring resolution is the Jewish-Arab conflict going back to 1917—well before Israel’s creation in 1948 — which still sees 20 Arab States today denying the Jews the legal rights vested in them by the Mandate for Palestine to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in its ancient biblical and historical homeland.

Only Jordan and Egypt have recognised and signed peace treaties with Israel.

The “Palestinians” were regarded as part of the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” by the League of Nations in 1922 and not recognized as a people by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan.

The 1964 PLO Covenant is their birth certificate.

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s claim on 6 June that the “Palestinians” had a 5000 years old history is farcical.

Paris remained blinded.

2. A negotiated two-state solution was reaffirmed as the only way to achieve an enduring peace, with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

That “two-state solution” - first proposed in 1947 - was available at any time between 1948 and 1967, was again offered in 2000/1 and 2008 but was always rejected by the Arabs.

Flogging that dead horse is a waste of time.

The “two- state solution” envisioned by the League of Nations in 1922 and the Peel Commission in 1937 provides the best opportunity for peacefully resolving Jewish and Arab territorial claims in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza.

Guess the delegates were too busy quaffing champagne and tasting canapes to focus on other solutions than the artificially contrived, totally failed and utterly discredited 1947-2016 “two-state” solution.

3. Rebuilding trust and creating the conditions for fully ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and resolving all permanent status issues through direct negotiations based on resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), and also recalling relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and highlighting the importance of the implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative.

"Fully ending” the 1967 occupation means kicking 650000 Jews out of their homes. What were they thinking — and drinking?

Israel agreed to negotiate with the PLO under the 2003 Bush Roadmap only on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

Introducing new negotiating parameters now is incredibly fanciful.

4. Possible ways in which the international community could help advance the prospects for peace, including by providing meaningful incentives to the parties to make peace.

Direct negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt would fit these objectives.

5. The participants highlighted the key role of the Quartet.

The Quartet lost its key role in July 2015 when:
(i) The Quartet’s representative Tony Blairstood down with no replacement

(ii) Blair’s office — the Office of the Quartet Representative (OQR) - was renamed the Office of the Quartet (OQ) and its stated mandate was expressed:

“to support the Palestinian people on economic development, rule of law and improved movement and access for goods and people, as they build the institutions and economy of a viable and peaceful state in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

(iii) Jews became persona non grata overnight as the Quartet’s previously independent non- partisan role was superseded.

France’s follow-up international conference being organised before the end of the year promises further farce and continuing folly.

United Nations web of deceit snares International Court of Justice

[Published 10 May 2017]


The United Nations publication “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1988” (“Study”) has falsely misrepresented that the Mandate for Palestine was a class A Mandate — deceiving the International Court of Justice and many other reputable sources.

The Study has been published by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

The Study falsely asserts without substantiation:

“All the mandates over Arab countries, including Palestine, were treated as class ‘A’ Mandates, applicable to territories whose independence had been provisionally recognized in the Covenant of the League of Nations”.

The Study then erroneously concludes:

“Only in the case of Palestine did the Mandate, with its inherent contradictions, lead not to the independence provisionally recognized in the Covenant, but towards conflict that was to continue six decades later.”

However the 1937 Peel Commission Report comprehensively debunks the Study’s concocted claims:

“The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”

The Study for reasons unknown completely ignores this detailed Peel Commission rebuttal.

The Study’s unchallenged statements - seemingly authentic bearing United Nations imprimatur — appear on many websites including:

1. The Rights Forum — which claims to strive for a rights-based policy of the Netherlands and the European Union with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On 10 December 2009, the International Day of Human Rights, The Rights Forum was launched by its Chairman former Dutch Prime Minister Andreas van Agt - assisted by an Advisory Council of former Ministers and Professors in International Law.

2. The Global Education Project — which states it adheres to rigorous standards and strives for an impartial and comprehensive presentation of the most relevant information necessary for both accurate and adequate education.

3. ProCon.org — which asserts it is America’s leading source for non-partisan information and civic education - serving more than 25 million people each year including teachers and students in more than 9000 schools in all 50 states and 90 foreign countries. It claims that 34 US state governments,17 US state Departments of Education, 23 foreign governments and 22 US federal agencies have cited ProCon.org materials.

4. A large number of anti-Israel sites and books have also embraced these Study’s false claims.

However the biggest fish snared in the Study’s web of deceit is the United Nations own primary judicial branch — the International Court of Justice — which In paragraph 70 of its Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004 stated:

“Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class ‘A’ Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant. ...”

The Study’s fabricated narrative has certainly reaped — and continues to reap - huge dishonest dividends.

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

[Published 16 March 2017]


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

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

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

Netanyahu’s claim is substantiated by the following facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK and Russia shamefully failed to veto this Resolution.

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

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

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

Israel - Media Imbalance Incites Jew-hatred

[Published 5 September 2014]


The incessant media focus on Israel - compounded by misleading and factually incorrect reporting - has materially contributed to inciting the growth of Jew-hatred world-wide.

Organisations such as HonestReporting and CAMERA expose inaccurate reports appearing daily in the most widely read and supposedly reputable international newspapers, television stations, radio networks and on-line publications.

Corrections eventually made usually come too late to remedy the initial sensationalist reporting.

Matti Friedman sums up this phenomenon:

“Is there anything left to say about Israel and Gaza? Newspapers this summer have been full of little else. Television viewers see heaps of rubble and plumes of smoke in their sleep. A representative article from a recent issue of The New Yorker described the summer’s events by dedicating one sentence each to the horrors in Nigeria and Ukraine, four sentences to the crazed genocidaires of ISIS, and the rest of the article — 30 sentences—to Israel and Gaza.”

This pre-occupation with Israel at the expense of covering far more serious conflicts in the region prompted one concerned person to ask Professor Richard Falk - the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” — the following questions:

“Nowhere on the face of the earth will you find a country that has been unremittingly attacked in the language used to attack Israel, or at all — not truly genocidal nations like Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria, Serbia, Cambodia, Guatemala, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Turkey; not the world’s worst violators of human rights like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Somalia, Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba; not seizers and occupiers of land like Russia, Armenia, Turkey (Northern Cyprus), Morocco and Azerbaizhan. Where are the BDS movements, Prof. Falk? Where are the blogs? Where are the armies of blog crawlers? Where are the videos? Where are the links? What do you think it is that draws all these “critics” to Israel and nowhere else?”

Falk’s reply - designating Israel as a “special case” - is very disturbing.

“Israel is a special case for at least three reasons:
— its legitimacy was established by UN and League initiatives without any effort to take into account the views of the population physically present in the country;

— the US as the world’s self-appointed global leader has singled out Israel for the most massive financial assistance over a period of many years, and has lent controversial support to Israel to shield it from censure by the UN;

— Israel itself claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East and otherwise posits itself as a shining example even extending to the boast that the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

These three reasons explain and justify the attention given to Israel’s alleged wrongdoing. Beyond this, the fact that worse offenders are not scrutinized to the same extent as Israel is more an argument for according more attention to such offenders. It is not excuse for Israel’s behavior. Whether we like it or not the Israel-Palestine conflict has become the litmus test of international morality ever since the collapse of apartheid in South Africa.”

Falk’s reasons for assigning only Israel and none of the other nominated states “special case” status are outrageous and can be dismissed on the following grounds:

1. The “League initiatives” to which Falk refers is the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. Syria, Lebanon and Iraq - products of the same Mandates system - are currently humanitarian and politically dysfunctional disaster areas. Yet Falk does not regard them as “special cases”.

2. The views of “the population physically present” were taken into account - being both politically and violently expressed from the moment Britain assumed its role as Mandatory. Arab riots in 1920, 1929 and between 1936-1939 expressed opposition to the Jewish National Home. The 1922 decision on Transjordan, the 1937 Peel Commission, the 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the 1947 United Nations Special Committee on Palestine all recommended changes to the Mandate’s stated policy to the detriment of the Jewish people.

3. Israel’s legitimacy was not established by the United Nations — but by the League of Nations, seven decades of State building and defeating six invading Arab armies in 1948.

4. Since when did financial aid received from another country qualify the recipient to be classed as a “special case” because other countries received lesser aid or no aid from the same donor country?

5. America has not always vetoed resolutions against Israel in the Security Council. America has also vetoed resolutions affecting countries including Panama, Nicaragua, Namibia and South Africa — but never have they been regarded as “special cases”

6. Israel is indeed the only democracy in the Middle East and its army is certainly one of the most moral armies in the world — yet Falk has long advocated support for the PLO and Hamas whose stated objectives are to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Falk’s discredited assertion that Israel is a “special case” setting it apart from the world community for special treatment encourages

1. the media to keep focusing disproportionately on Israel

2. Arab and Islamic countries justifying their continuing non-recognition of Israel

3. Jew-haters and self-hating Jews world-wide maintaining their campaigns denigrating and delegitimising Israel.

“Jews are always good for news” needs an urgent media rethink and policy overhaul — if increasing Jew-hatred world-wide is to be effectively silenced.

Palestine Mandate Legally Triumphs Over Discredited PLO Charter

[Published 2 May 2014]


The 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - and international law - have finally emerged as triumphant victors over the 1964 PLO Charter following the collapse of 50 years of failed attempts by the PLO to arbitrarily void the vote of the 51 members of the League of Nations unanimously endorsing the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in 23% of former Palestine.

This significant PLO defeat and loss of face follows the ignominious end - on 29 April 2014 - of the nine months negotiating deadline period imposed on Israel and the PLO by US Secretary of State - John Kerry - designed to achieve the “two- state solution” - the creation of a second Jew-free Arab State - in addition to Jordan - in former Palestine for the first time ever in recorded history.

The American and PLO failure to achieve the “two-state solution” after 20 years of fruitless negotiations represents a lost opportunity not likely to return for a long time - leaving the political prestige influence and credibility of those much vaunted negotiators in total disarray in the rapidly growing silent and abandoned diplomatic graveyard.

The PLO - since its formation in 1964 - had arrogantly strode the world stage claiming Palestine as the sole property of the Arab nation whilst simultaneously denying the Jewish people any right to live in their 3000 years old Jewish ancient, legally sanctioned and biblical homeland.

Article 18 of the 1964 PLO Charter had brazenly declared:

” The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.”

Four years later article 18 had been replaced with a more strident, equally dismissive article 20:

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

This outright rejection of international law by the PLO has never been questioned by the League of Nations compliant successor - the United Nations - which - acting in clear breach of Article 80 of the UN Charter knowingly collaborated to prolong the Arab-Jewish conflict in violation of international law when welcoming the PLO purveyor of Jew-hatred -Yasser Arafat - into its midst with adulation and enthusiastic applause on 13 November 1974.

The acceptance of this terrorist organisation into the realm of civilised political discourse by the United Nations whilst the PLO simultaneously continued to assert that the League of Nations had no power to make any legally binding decisions - must surely rank among the most shameful episodes and low points in United Nations history.

Lecturing to Israel on international law whilst allowing the PLO to reject international law was breathtaking hypocrisy on the United Nations part.

The principle of respect for the law was cast aside by United Nations members as they trashed the original and noble principles enunciated in the Mandate on the altar of expediency and national self- interest

Adopting countless condemnatory General Assembly resolutions of non - binding validity - those spineless members lined up with the the automatic majority represented by Arab Islamic and third world member States to sell out their souls to appease an organisation of terrorists, law-deniers and Jew-haters.

Former UN Secretaries General stood by in silence as anti-Israel resolutions denigrating and delegitimising Israel were ramped up with ever increasing hatred.

The legal commitments enshrined in the Mandate had previously stood resolutely firm against this Arab assault on the Jewish National Home since 1922 - as partition proposals by the Peel Commission in 1937 and a newly created United Nations in 1947 were contemptuously shredded into the garbage bin of history by an Arab leadership that would not brook any compromise or reconciliation with the Jewish people.

The advent of major wars including the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought staggering losses and suffering for both Arabs and Jews as the Arab League armies still vainly attempted to eliminate the Jewish State and the consequences of the Mandate.

Whilst the PLO fails to recognise Israel as the Jewish State - no peace between Jews and Arabs is realistically likely to occur.

The Arab League and Kerry have the power to create a breakthrough - pressuring Jordan and Israel to redraw the internationally recognised boundary between their respective countries as successor States to the Mandate for Palestine

In view of their loss of political clout do these neutered politicians and the United Nations really possess the diplomatic ability to make peace finally happen?

Using the wisdom and political sagacity of their League of Nations ancestors - the miracle created by the Mandate for Palestine 92 years ago is hopefully set to resurface as attempts to rescue the peace process are started once again,

Palestine - Obama Lacks Understanding And Vision

[Published 9 March 2014]


President Obama’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on 2 March exposed the President as a leader lacking in understanding and vision - bound to a 20 years old negotiating process that has proved an abject failure and will continue to do so until Obama finally declares it dead and buried.

The President still clings to the vain hope that the framework agreement for peace being drafted by Secretary of State Kerry will be accepted by Israel and the PLO – allowing the long drawn out negotiating processes established under the Oslo Accords, Bush Roadmap and Annapolis to continue until a peace agreement is executed between Israel and the PLO - matching those signed by Israel with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994

The interview exposed Obama’s flawed knowledge concerning the following crucial issues that are critical to properly understanding the conflict and positing its possible resolution:

1. The President claimed that the conflict had gone on “for decades” – rather than for the last 130 years –indicating the President is ignoring earlier international decisions made on Palestine including the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, the League of Nations in 1922, the Treaty of Lausanne 1923, the Peel Commission in 1937, the British White Paper 1939, the United Nations in 1945 and 1947, and the unification of Judea and Samaria with Transjordan in 1950 following the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies in 1948.

2. The President spoke of the “Palestinian territories” – rather than the “disputed territories” - where internationally recognized sovereignty has remain undetermined since 1948.

3. The President referred to an existing “Palestinian Authority” - which had ceased to exist on 3 January 2013.

The President agreed with this claim by Goldberg:

“It’s been the official position of the United States for decades that settlements are illegitimate”

Elliott Abrams – Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations -dismisses this urban myth:

“The U.S. position has fluctuated over time. In the Reagan years, the United States said the settlements were “not illegal.” The Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations avoided the legal arguments but criticized the settlements frequently. President George W. Bush called the larger settlement blocs ”new realities on the ground” that would have to be reflected in peace negotiations.

More recently, the official U.S. attitude has been more critical. In 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling the settlements “illegal” but former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice then denounced “the folly and illegitimacy” of continued Israeli settlement activity. “The United States of America views all of the settlements as illegitimate,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in August 2013.”

Who is feeding the President with misleading and false information to justify these comments to Goldberg?

The President’s lack of vision became obviously apparent with his following comment:

“I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario.”

Amazingly - with the State Department evidently unable to present Obama with any credible scenarios in the event of the collapse of the “two-state solution” - President Obama then challenged Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu to come up with a plausible alternative:

“If he [Netanyahu] does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Netanyahu had articulated an alternative approach at the United Nations on 11 December 1984 – one which apparently has gone missing from the State Department’s extensive archival records:

“Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949.”

Netanyahu’s recounting of history, geography and demography present at least two credible – and plausible – scenarios for President Obama to consider:

1. Reunifying the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank (Areas “A” and “B” designated under the Oslo Accords) with Jordan – as existed between 1950-1967
2. Direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine - to redraw the existing international boundary between their respective States.

Jordan’s King Abdullah needs to step up to the plate – and Obama must not let him refuse to do so.

President Obama – presently sinking in murky political quicksand – can still be saved by grabbing Netanyahu's 1984 lifeline with both hands.

Palestine - The Bi-National State That Can Work

[Published 1 July 2013]


It is a pity that US Secretary for State John Kerry still believes that a two-state solution is possible after 20 years of failed negotiations between Israel and the PLO to achieve such a result under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

While in Kuwait on 26 June - Kerry called on Israel and PLO to renew talks to advance such an outcome before it was too late:

“The time is getting near where we need to make some judgments. Last time I was here, I said it’s time for leaders to make some hard decisions. That stands. It is time. Why is it urgent? It’s urgent because time is the enemy of a peace process.”

This fatuous statement sounds very hollow when considering virtually the same pronouncement made in 2007 by Jordan’s King Abdullah:

“We have a finite amount of time. Physically, there may not be a chance for a future Palestinian state. This is why the urgency is now. Is the situation ideal? Far from it. But we have our backs against the wall and I believe that time is running out. Arabs and Muslims realised that this is our last chance. I think it is beginning to dawn on Israelis and Palestinians. They need to reach out to their brothers and sisters and say, ‘We need to take one step back because if this continues we may lose our final opportunity.’”

Rather than repeating these pointless prognostications of imminent doom - surely it would be better to examine alternatives to the failed two-state solution - which cannot possibly happen because of the entrenched positions of the protagonists to the 130 years old long running Jewish-Arab conflict.

One alternative proposed by the Arabs is the “bi-national State” - one in which the West Bank and Israel are merged into one territorial unit where all its citizens - Jews and Arabs - enjoy equal rights within the one State and rights of each national group are respected and protected.

Such a proposal was rejected this week by Israel’s President - Shimon Peres:

“Peace is a moral foundation of Judaism; it is an existential need of the Jewish state. A binational state contradicts the vision of Herzl; it endangers the Jewish and democratic state of Israel.”

President Peres’s rejection is understandable - given that it would signal the inevitable end of the Jewish National Home prescribed in 1922 by the Mandate for Palestine and preserved in 1945 by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Indeed it would mean a return to the pre-1948 days of violent confrontation between Arabs and Jews that had led to the Peel Commission in 1937 and the United Nations in 1947 recommending partition of Palestine into one Jewish State and one Arab state - proposals rejected on both occasions by the Arabs.

Anyone believing this proposal to restore the territorial status quo existing before 1948 can happen again in 2013 must have rocks in his head.

There is however a different bi-national state that could work - one in which the West Bank and Jordan are merged into one territorial unit where all its citizens - Jordanians and Palestinians - enjoy equal rights within one State and the national rights of each other are respected and protected.

Such arrangement actually existed successfully between 1948-1967 when the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Transjordan were unified into one territorial unit and renamed Jordan in 1950. During this period not one Jew lived there - all having been driven out by the invading Transjordanian army in 1948.

Now 500,000 Jews live in about 5% of this territory - and therefore a complete return to the status quo existing at 1967 is not possible. Negotiations will need to be undertaken to redraw the international border between Israel and the newly created bi-national state of Jordan.

Will these negotiations succeed?

Certainly the prospects of success are far greater than could ever have been expected for the two- state solution for the following reasons:

1. This territorial structure has already successfully operated between 1948-1967.

2. Both national groups - identifying themselves now as Jordanians and Palestinians - are Arab and overwhelmingly Moslem - sharing a common history and a common heritage.

3. This bi-national Arab state would comprise about 80% of the territorial area of the Mandate for Palestine - whilst its neighbour - Israel - would comprise about 20% of the Mandate.

4. Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994 containing within it agreed negotiating parameters to resolve outstanding contentious issues such as refugees, water and Jerusalem.

5. Evidence has already emerged of very close co-operation between the PLO and Jordan culminating in the signing of an agreement on 31 March 2013 recognizing Jordan’s custodianship over Jerusalem’s Holy Places.

6. Not one Jew or Arab would have to leave his current home or existing business.

7. 99% of the entire territory of the Mandate would have been allocated between Arabs and Jews with sovereignty in the remaining 1% - the Gaza district - to be finally determined.

Instead of trying to flog a dead horse to the winning post before the outbreak of another war - wouldn’t it be more prudent for US Secretary of State Kerry, King Abdullah of Jordan, Mahmoud Abbas of the PLO and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu making judgements and hard decisions that could result in their backing a potential winner that could lead to an end to the Jewish-Arab conflict and their possibly sharing the Nobel Peace Prize?

Clinton's $500000 Speech Leaves One Speechless

[Published 21 June 2013]


The thought that anyone was prepared to contribute to paying former American President Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a 45 minute speech at the Peres Academic Centre during the festivities marking Israeli President Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday is truly staggering - especially after hearing what he had to say.

He regurgitated the now dead mantra that the only solution to end the conflict between Jews and Arabs was the “two state solution” - claiming:

“I just don’t think that in all these years a credible alternative has been presented that would preserve the essential character of the state of Israel — a Jewish but democratic state.”

That solution had first been formulated in 1922 by the Mandate for Palestine - then proposed in 1937 by the Peel Commission and in 1947 by the United Nations - only to be rejected by the Arabs on all three occasions.

That same solution was available between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the West Bank or Gaza - and again that golden opportunity was not taken up by the Arabs.

Now in 2013 - Clinton was urging Israel to continue pursuing the same solution under the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap - although such a successful outcome had not been achieved in the last 20 years notwithstanding unprecedented diplomatic pressure being applied by the Quartet - the UN, Russia, America and the European Union.

In a speech singularly lacking in vision - Clinton praised Peres - stating:

“He is one of the great men of vision in the world ... Peres lives in the future, and is always thinking about tomorrow… If you don’t have a vision of where you want to wind up, bad things are going to happen sooner or later… You have a better chance if you are driven by a vision of peace and reconciliation.”

Guest of honor Peres - together with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting next to him - would surely have been miffed to think that visionary proposals suggested by each of them more than two decades ago - were not now considered credible alternatives by Clinton to fill the void left by the doomed two state solution.

On 11 December 1984 Netanyahu told the United Nations:

“Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949.”

Peres had expressed similar views to Netanyahu - telling the Jewish Telegraph on 19 April 1991:

”It is not obstinacy to regard the populations of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as having greater similarities than differences. The Jordan River is not deep enough to turn into a knife blade serving to cut one piece of territory into three slices. Most of Jordan’s population are Palestinians: the residents of the West Bank are Jordanian citizens and Jordan has distributed tens of thousands of passports to residents in the Gaza Strip. Jordan is therefore an existing State. It has an army. There is therefore no need to set up another State, another army.”

Clinton also spoke movingly of his relationship with assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin:

“the saddest day of my presidency was the day prime minister Rabin lost his life ... never a week goes by, even now, that I don’t think of him ...”

Clinton had apparently not thought about Rabin’s vision of peace and reconciliation expressed in the Knesset on 5 October 1995 - just a few weeks before his untimely death.

In presenting the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip for ratification - Rabin declared:

“We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.

In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.

At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel—Muslim, Christian, Druze and others—will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Alas - the visions of Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu were overtaken by the illusions of Oslo and the Roadmap - turning a backroom deal between Israel and the PLO - engineered by Peres - into a diplomatic nightmare and a political disaster.

Clinton still clings to the wreckage of an outdated and rejected proposal Peres helped revive - the creation of a second Arab state in Palestine for the first time ever in recorded history.

Clinton needs to articulate the earlier credible alternatives expressed by his dear friends and visionary heroes - Peres and Rabin - supported by their political opponent - Netayahu.

Jordan needs to become directly involved in turning their long standing visions into reality - if the Jewish-Arab conflict is to be peacefully resolved.

Indeed many Arab leaders including Yasser Arafat, King Abdullah 1, King Hussein and Crown Prince Hassan have expressed similar sentiments to Peres, Rabin and Netanyahu.

All the money in the world would not be enough to pay Clinton if he could turn their combined visions into a permanent agreement.

Palestine - Great Expectations That Founder On Fiction

[Published 11 October 2012]


Israeli novelist David Grossman is working with Algerian writer Boualem Sansal to launch a writers’ drive for world peace at the World Forum For Democracy in Strasbourg this week.

Their initiative is reportedly supported by some of the most respected names in literature including Claudio Magris, Antonio Lobo Antunes and Liao Yiwu.

The Forum brings together reformers and global leaders to identify democratic responses to the economic, social and political challenges which affect societies today.

The writers - in their quest to end conflict and bring peace to the world - have naturally included the resolution of the “Israel - Palestine conflict” within their purview.

However the views they express are indeed surprising - parroting Arab propaganda rather than relying on careful research - the indispensable tool normally used by writers of such distinction and undoubted repute.

They begin by stating :

"Israel maintains the Palestinians under occupation for more than 45 years, and this inhuman and immoral situation must stop."

All the Palestinian Arabs residing in Gaza are under the total administrative and security control of a Hamas dominated Government following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Our well intended authors are also apparently unaware that pursuant to arrangements mutually negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the 1993 Oslo Accords - 55% of the Palestinian Arabs residing in the West Bank are under the total administative and security control of the PA Government - whilst another 41% are under the total administrative control of the PA Government and joint security control of the PA and Israel.

Elections in the West Bank and Gaza were last held in 2006. Since then Hamas and the PA have been at each other’s jugulars. President Abbas’s use by date as PA president expired in 2009. Democracy is nowhere to be seen.

Suggesting Israel’s occupation is “inhuman and immoral” in the light of these facts is pure fiction

The statement continues:

Both sides are putting unrealistic conditions to resume negotiations ...

Are they serious? Israel has been offering to return to negotiations with the PA without any preconditions. It is the PA that is refusing to negotiate unless Israel stops building in the West Bank.

Grossman and Sansal continue:

"It is urgent that the international community intervenes firmly to bring the Iranian nuclear programme under control and steadily commits to the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, pushing the parties to immediately establish a true direct dialogue, leading as soon as possible to the creation of a Palestinian state next to the State of Israel, both with secure borders, on the basis of painful compromises for both parts though necessary for peace, as the abandonment of settlements or their exchange against land, the renouncement to the right of return of the 1948 refugees, the sharing of Jerusalem. This is still – but maybe not for long - a possible solution and there are men and women on both sides capable of achieving it. Let us help them do so."

Our well-meaning authors seem to be ignorant of the fact that Israel in 2001 and 2008 offered to cede its claims to more than 90% of the West Bank and agreed to a part of Jerusalem becoming the capitol of a Palestinian Arab State - but such offers were rejected. Even land swaps were broached in the latter offer.

They seem oblivious to the fact that no one in the PA or Hamas has the power to renounce any right of return of the 1948 refugees and expect to be alive the next day.

They also seem to overlook that what the Palestinian Arabs demand today could have been theirs - plus more - at any time between 1948-1967 with the single stroke of an Arab League pen - after all the Jews living there had been driven out.

Why the need for a state now when one was not demanded during those 19 years - and indeed rejected in 1937 when recommended by the Peel Commission or in 1947 when proposed by the United Nations?

Who are the men and women on both sides that are capable of doing what has not been able to be achieved for the last 19 years in trying to create a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history? Naming them would have been great - even if it embarrassed those highly experienced negotiators from Israel the PA, and the Quartet - the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and America - who have tired endlessly for the last eight years to resolve the conflict but have got absolutely nowhere

Grossman and Sansal conclude:

"Writers have their part in this fight and we hereby express our determination to take it firmly and objectively. We urge all writers in the world to join us. Together, we can influence decision makers and public opinion and thereby also the course of events, ensuring that the values of peace are strengthened throughout the world. Our methods in this fight are literature, debate and vigilance. Maybe it is not much, but it is our way of maintaining our dignity in a world of violence and cynism."

They have been less than objective and their ability to influence decision makers and public opinion with their planned initiative is fanciful.

Samir El-youssef - a Palestinian writer - has succinctly summed up the Grossman/Sansal proposal:

"Rather than maintaining hope for peace, I see here nothing but a further attempt to renew the old failed approach to deal with the Arabic and Islamic world."

The old failed approach has certainly been an unmitigated disaster.

It is indeed time for a new approach in dealing with the Arabic and Islamic world in trying to resolve the 130 years old Arab - Jewish conflict.

Might I suggest negotiations between Israel, Egypt and Jordan to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem - to be held under the chairmanship of the Secretary General of the United Nations with the approval of the Quartet, the Arab League and the Organization for Islamic Co- Operation.

Writers of the world - are you prepared to sign up to such an initiative?

With your active support this proposal could become a best seller in a very short space of time. It is not fiction. It is based on history, geography, demography and international law - unlike the fairy tales that form the basis for the “two-state” solution.

Maintaining your dignity in a world of violence and cynicism will certainly be heightened by supporting this proposal.

If you hesitate to get involved - exercise your undoubted writing skills to tell me why.

But please this time round - facts not fiction

Palestine - Jews Will Not Be Played For Suckers Anymore

[Published 1 February 2013]


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

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

His introductory remarks to Cohen are indeed promising:

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

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

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

Oz maintains that there is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oz then turns his attention to:

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

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

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

Oz’s political credo is very outdated:

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

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

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

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

And what of Hamas?

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

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

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

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

And the Palestinian right of return?

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

This plea will continue to fall on deaf ears.

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

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

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

Stick to writing fiction, Amos.

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

Palestine - Two Opportunities Better Missed

[Published 3 May 2012]


Israel’s former Foreign Minister - the late Abba Eban - is remembered for his many wise and pithy comments - of which the following is probably the most memorable:

“The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”

The Arabs have been unyielding in their refusal to recognize a Jewish state in its biblical and ancestral homeland throughout the history of the 130 years conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine.

The idea that such a Jewish state should be allowed to exist on just 0.01% of the former Ottoman Empire captured by Britain and France in the First World War - has been an ongoing anathema for the 22 Arab states who received the remaining 99.99% for Arab self-determination.

Opportunities to create another Arab state - and so end the conflict - were afforded by the Peel Commission in 1937, the United Nations in 1947, between 1948-1967 and in 2001 and 2008.

All such opportunities were missed by the Arabs.

Now the opportunity to conclude a peace treaty with Israel under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap has also gone begging - following the rush by the Palestinian Arabs to unilaterally seek to achieve statehood by joining the United Nations and when that failed - UNESCO.

Ironically - these are two opportunities that should have been avoided like the plague.

The attempt to join the United Nations was a failure - after the 15 members of the Committee on the Admission of New Members could not agree on whether Palestine’s application to join the UN complied with the two following fundamental requirements in Article 4 of the UN Charter:1.

1. Was Palestine a state?

2. If so, was it peace loving?

The Committee took their work seriously - as the following two paragraphs in their Report indicates:

“It was stated that the criteria set out in Article 4 of the Charter were the only factors that could be taken into consideration in the Committee’s deliberations. In support of this position, reference was made to the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on the Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter).

It was also asserted that the Committee’s work, whatever its outcome, should be mindful of the broader political context. The view was expressed that a negotiated solution remained the only option for a long-term sustainable peace and that final status issues had to be resolved through negotiations. Support was expressed for a two-State solution based on pre-1967 borders, resulting from political negotiations, leading to an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. It was stressed that the granting of Palestine’s right to self-determination and recognition must not be seen as contrary to Israel’s inalienable right to exist.”

The legal issues inherent in deciding whether Palestine was a “State” were also canvassed by the committee as the following paragraphs in their Report indicates:

“On the criterion of statehood, reference was made to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which declares that a State as a person of international law should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States.

With regard to the requirements of a permanent population and a defined territory, the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled these criteria. It was stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood.

Questions were raised, however, regarding Palestine’s control over its territory, in light of the fact that Hamas was the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip. It was affirmed that the Israeli occupation was a factor preventing the Palestinian government from exercising full control over its territory. However, the view was expressed that occupation by a foreign power did not imply that the sovereignty of an occupied territory was to be transferred to the occupying power.”

Given the diversity and range of views expressed - it is no wonder that the Committee was unable to attest to Palestine’s current status qualifying it to meet the Charter’s requirements for membership.

Undeterred at the outcome - Palestine ran off to UNESCO hoping to get a better result there in its quest for statehood.

The application to join UNESCO was treated very differently to the UN application.

There was no vetting Committee to look at and first decide whether Palestine was a state - again a necessary prerequisite to entitle it to apply for membership under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution.

Whilst there was no requirement in the UNESCO Constitution that Palestine be “peace - loving” - there was a provision that stipulated a two-thirds majority vote of the members was required. There appears to have been no consideration whether that meant members “present and voting” or whether it required two thirds of the 194 members to vote in favour.

The 58 members of the Executive Board simply voted to recommend to the Members that Palestine be admitted as a member of UNESCO - without apparently considering any of the issues that had so perplexed the Security Council’s Committee. This recommendation then went to a meeting of the 194 members - when 107 of those present and attending voted in favour. 129 were required - if a two-thirds majority of the 194 members was necessary.

This foray into UNESCO has turned out disastrously for Palestine, UNESCO and the scores of millions of people worldwide reliant on UNESCO - as events since that decision on 31 October 2011 have shown.

The idea that the two-state solution should be achieved by a negotiated solution has gone out the door. 194 countries have now recognized that Palestine is a state and that the Palestinian Arabs are no longer homeless. No more negotiations are required to create a state for the Palestinian Arabs.

If the state of Palestine now wants to make demands on Israel - a new negotiating process will first have to be agreed on between Israel and Palestine.

The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap have become extant - and Israel is now free to make decisions without regard to their provisions.

Palestine can only blame itself for the position it now finds itself in. The 194 nations that made the decision to admit Palestine as a member state of UNESCO - where the UN Security Council for good legal reasons feared to tread - are equally culpable .

All of these countries have forfeited the right to talk of international law as the final determinant in this long running conflict or any other conflicts - following their willingness to breach international law when it suits them.

The law of the jungle has taken over from the rule of law.

If these 194 countries ever come to their senses - the following further words of wisdom from Abba Eban will prove to be prescient:

“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.”

Such wise behaviour will only emerge when international law - not political opportunism - is applied to settle the Arab - Jewish conflict.