Jew-hater joins Prince Harry & Meghan as Icons in TIME Top 100

 

TIME has made a laughing stock of itself - and its credibility - by including 23 year old rabid-Jew hating Palestinian Arab journalist Mohammed El-Kurd and his twin sister Mana El-Kurd among 16 persons listed as Icons in its 100 most influential people in 2021.

Other Icons include the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, tennis player Naomi Osaka and entertainers Britney Spears and Dolly Parton.

Edward Felsenthal Editor-in-Chief and CEO of TIME – said of the magazine’s choices:

“At TIME, we see the TIME100 as far more than a list. It is a community of leaders whose energy and commitment we hope inspires others to spring into action as well.”

El-Kurd’s Jew-hating credentials were exposed in a May 2021 interview when making the following false claims:

“My entire neighbourhood is being stolen by Israeli settler organisations working with the Israeli government to ethnically cleanse us from Jerusalem, as they have been doing for 73 years”

Just four Arab families residing in El- Kurd’s neighbourhood of East Jerusalem – Sheikh Jarrah - are facing the risk of eviction due to a legal challenge by Jews claiming ownership of these four properties.

These Arab families have refused an offer that they remain in their properties as “protected tenants”, recognise ownership of their homes by their Jewish claimants and pay a symbolic annual rent.

Jordan occupied Sheikh Jarrah and East Jerusalem in 1948 and expelled every Jew living there. Jews were unable to return there until after the Six Day War in 1967 and subsequently begin the long legal process to reclaim their properties given to these four families by Jordan in conjunction with UNRWA.

The 1967 Israeli census showed 29904 Palestinian Arabs were then living in East Jerusalem. Today that population numbers 428304 according to World Population Review. El-Kurd’s accusation of ethnic cleansing is offensive, inflammatory and one big lie.

"[Sheikh Jarrah] is a microcosm of Israeli settler-colonialism in Palestine at large…it showcases, you know, the way they [Israel] forcibly take people’s homes and have taken people’s homes. But it also showcases a manipulation, or exploitation, of the law, that is basically about colonial supremacy, to produce a judicial system that legalises ethnic cleansing."

The claim of "Israeli settler-colonialism" denies that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people reconstituted after 3000 years with the approval of the League of Nations and the United Nations, that Jews are not colonisers but have been granted international recognition to resettle in, rebuild and restore their ancient and biblical homeland.

El-Kurd’s attack on Israel’s judicial system in a throwaway unsubstantiated sentence is reckless, provocative and amounts to a call on Palestinian Arabs to disrespect the law and to engage in violence against Jews – as they did in Jerusalem in 1920, 1929 and 1936.

“The fact that there’s a dominant narrative that stretches so far from the truth is so concerning. And the fact that the rebuttal to that narrative is seen as radical or extremist or courageous, is going to put me in danger is really concerning”

The dominant narrative El-Kurd seeks to rebut includes the Palestinian Arabs refusal to accept:

• Partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and the United Nations in 1947,
• offers made by Israel in 2000 and 2008 and
• proposals made by President Bush in 2003 and President Trump in 2020

El-Kurd’s denial of these truths signals continuing confrontation – not negotiations - to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

TIME should be truly ashamed of its decision to recognise this Jew-hater and purveyor of false claims seeking to denigrate and incite violence against Jews.

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.

Britain backs Jordan and Israel to end the Arab-Jewish conflict

[Published 7 November 2017]


Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has acknowledged that Jordan and Israel represent the only viable “two state solution” that can end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October — ahead of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November — the Foreign Secretary stated:

“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 had been authorised by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936:

”... to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented;”

Significantly the Royal Warrant did not mention or identify the “Palestinians” as being a party to the dispute. There were only two parties— the “Arabs” and the “Jews” — not three.

The “two-state solution” - one Jewish, one Arab — first envisioned in article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) — had restricted Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in just 22% of the territory covered by the Mandate. The Jews had accepted that proposal but the Arabs had rejected it.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry confirmed that the “two-state solution” contemplated by the Mandate — one Jewish, one Arab —remained the only solution to end the grievances between Arabs and Jews — concluding 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 Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

Transjordan — renamed Jordan in 1950 - comprised the remaining 78% of the territory contained in the Mandate for Palestine closed to Jewish settlement under the Mandate. Britain still retained full responsibility for Transjordan as Mandatory Power until Transjordan was finally granted independence by Britain in 1946.

The Peel Commission’s “two-state solution” is shown on this map:

The Arabs rejected partition and the creation of any Jewish State. The Jews accepted the principle of partition - but not the borders designated on the map.

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that:

1. the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel

2. Jordan remains the Arab key to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - which a naive and gullible world continues to ignore.

Trying to create two Arab States and one Jewish State in an area where only one Arab state and one Jewish state is warranted by history, geography and demography has been a diplomatic disaster with horrendous consequences for Arabs and Jews.

Jordan and Israel - the two successor States to the Mandate - currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine - need to sit down and resolve Jewish and Arab claims to the remaining 5%.

Britain’s reaffirmation of Peel’s proposed “two-state solution” is long overdue.

The “two-state solution” posited in 1922 and 1937 — Jordan and Israel — still remains the only viable solution to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 2017.

Palestine - Beware The Snake Oil Salesman

[Published 26 May 2013]


Paul Larudee - one of the founders of the Free Gaza and Free Palestine Movements and an organizer in the International Solidarity Movement - has made some incredibly misleading statements in his latest article “The Palestine Liberation Movement is not about Anti- Semitism” - published in Dissident Voice on 23 May.

Having studied linguistics and earned a PhD - Larudee should be the first person to understand that the written language is one of the prime means of communication between humans and requires precision in its use to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding.

Larudee has in his choice of words created a false and misleading impression of the Palestinian cause that bears no relationship to the conflict between Jews and Arabs that has remained unresolved for the last 130 years in relation to the former territory called Palestine.

Larudee claims:

“The Palestinian cause has nothing to do with Jews…

Hamas exposes the falsity of Larudee’s claim - as the Hamas Covenant makes clear in article 15:

“The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”

The PLO also discredits Larudee’s statement - as article 20 of its Charter explicitly states:

“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”

Jew-hatred permeates the “Palestinian cause” - and Larudee’s attempt to whitewash this pernicious conduct is specious and false.

Who is Larudee trying to fool and for what purpose?

Larudee further states:

“It (the Palestinian cause) has everything to do with the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and with denial of their right to sovereignty, to self-determination and above all their Right to Return. It does not matter who expelled them. It is their land and they have the right to return. It does not matter who denies their existence. They have a right to return.”

Larudee’s claim that “Palestine” belonged to the “Palestinians”, that it is their land, that they were denied the right to sovereignty and self determination and have the right to return there is not borne out by the historical record.

Palestine had belonged to the Ottoman Empire for 400 years - forming a very small part of the territories lost by Turkey to the Allied Powers in World War 1.

The Arabs were offered self determination and sovereignty in 99.99% of such conquered territories by the Allied Powers - whilst the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted in the biblical and ancient homeland of the Jewish people within the remaining 0.01% - then called Palestine.

The civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine were not to be prejudiced - but the Arab residents of Palestine rejected this decision of the Allied Powers and subsequently the League of Nations

Indeed the territory set aside for the Jewish National Home in 1920 was to be further restricted to just one-quarter of Palestine in 1922 - whilst the remaining three-quarters was to become an exclusively Arab state that is today called Jordan.

This minuscule area left for Jewish self-determination was earmarked to be further emasculated when the United Nations recommended its partition into Jewish and Arab states in 1947 - which the Arabs also rejected.

Larudee’s use of the term “Palestinians” is not inadvertent or unintentional but serves to mask his support for the Arab claim to sovereignty in the entirety of former Palestine to the exclusion of all its other non-Arab residents

The term “Palestininans” was only defined for the first time in 1964 when the PLO Charter proclaimed:

“The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.”

The operative words are “Arab citizens” - disqualifying any non- Arab citizens from being classified as “Palestinians”

Larudee’s claim that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians underscores his support for this racist and exclusivist claim by the PLO - negating the decisions supporting Jewish claims that had been recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, the Peel Commision in 1937 and the United Nations in 1947.

The PLO claim to sovereignty in all of Palestine continues to be the major obstacle to ending the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Larudee has every right to support this spurious claim - but it continues to plague the “Palestinian cause” and prolong the resolution of the long running conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Larudee pleads to remove anti- Semitism from the discussion of Palestinian rights.

He should be encouraging Hamas and the PLO to remove their overt declarations of unabashed Jew-hatred from their respective Charters as an essential first step.

Hopefully the removal of these vile provisions could lead to the end of a conflict that could and should have been resolved in 1947 or in the following 20 years when sovereignty for Palestinian Arabs in Palestine was denied by their Arab brethren.

The last thing the “Palestinian cause” needs is snake oil salesmen peddling false claims - a sure prescription for continuing disaster.

Palestine - Two New Arab Myths

[Published 14 April 2013]


Two new Arab myths have surfaced in the past week to complicate attempts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to procure the resumption of the long stalled negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

The first myth can be directly attributed to Mustafa Barghouti - a Presidential candidate for the now defunct Palestinian National Authority - who was roundly defeated by Mahmoud Abbas when elections were last held in January 2005.

Interviewed by Arab American News (AAN) - Mr Barghouti was asked the following question:

AAN: What about the United Nations situation with Palestine being granted Non-Member Observer State status this past fall, any new developments?

Mr Barghouti gave this remarkable answer:

“Not new, but this achievement was very important from a symbolic standpoint, it also eliminated any Israeli claim that the West Bank and Jerusalem are disputed territory. Now they are part of an occupied Palestinian state ... “

This is arrant nonsense.

According to Mr Barghouti there is apparently no need for further negotiations to determine the sovereignty of these areas - only a timetable for Israel to hand them over to the State of Palestine and to arrange for the uprooting of all 500000 Jews presently living there.

If you believe this myth - then you accept that

1. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are no longer of any relevance.

2. The 1948 armistice line is wiped off the map and negotiations to establish secure and recognised boundaries for the State of Israel can be shredded.

3. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter has become a footnote in history.

4. The Jewish claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine - including the West Bank and Jerusalem - as conferred by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - is an anachronism. The claimed right of return for millions of Arabs into the State of Israel remains unresolved.

5. The United Nations decision has unreservedly endorsed the PLO’s stated policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in denying Jews any rights of residency or citizenship in the State of Palestine.

6.General Assembly Resolutions of the United Nations create binding obligations in international law.

Kerry’s planned fortnightly shuttle from America to Jerusalem and Ramallah appears to be a waste of time unless this latest myth is quickly nipped in the bud.

President Abbas needs to immediately repudiate Mr Barghouti’s statement.

If Abbas refuses - Kerry should start to shuttle between world capitols seeking declarations unequivocally disavowing any support for the Barghouti myth.

Simultaneously with the Baghouti myth comes the news that the cornerstone for yet another myth - a new museum of “Palestinian culture, history and society” - has been laid in Bir Zeit near Ramallah.

This will be no ordinary museum - as project manager Omar al-Qattan reportedly explained:

“It will be more than a traditional building with archaeological relics. We are looking at an institution that will transcend all boundaries—geographical and political”

Palestinian culture minister Siham Barghuti told AFP that the initiative was:

“A great achievement for the Palestinian people…The link between memory and everything related to it, to Palestinian history, and to having digital contact with Palestinians everywhere constitutes an important step”

The “museum” seems set to become the new repository for perpetuating the fiction of the existence of an indigenous “Palestinian people” or the “Palestinians” going back at least 3000 years to the Canaanites.

Featured exhibits in the museum will certainly not include:

1. The Mandate for Palestine 1922 - that made no mention of the “Palestinians” or the “Palestinian people” - but pointedly only included the then Arab population of Palestine among the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and called for “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion”

2. The report of the Peel Commission 1937 - which again omitted any mention of a Palestinian people - but contained this statement which was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs:

“The problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question which of them in the end will govern Palestine must be Neither. No fair-minded statesman can think it right either that 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been facilitated by he British Government and approved by the League of Nations, should be handed over to Arab rule, or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But while neither race can fairly rule all Palestine, each race might justly rule part of it.”

3. Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly dated 29 November 1947 which was also silent in acknowledging the existence of a Palestinian people - but proposed the following recommendation that was again rejected by the Arab population of Palestine:

“Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.”

Jesus the Jew will no doubt be prominently featured as Jesus the Palestinian. Archeological relics will be conspicuously absent.

Until fact replaces Arab fiction and self-delusion - the conflict between Jews and Arabs will assuredly continue.

Palestine - Obama Utters The Magic Word - "Annapolis"

[Published 25 March 2013]


President Obama’s use of just one word - “Annapolis” - stands out among the thousands he uttered during his three day visit to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman.

His highly significant use of this keyword on 21 March at the Jerusalem International Convention Centre constituted a diplomatic milestone in America’s quest to end the long running Jewish-Arab conflict.

"I know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders – Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin – reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets."

What were the “credible proposals” made to the Palestinians at Annapolis?

Why was the mention of “Annapolis” thought far more important to include in President Obama’ speech - rather than “Camp David” and the attempts to broker a two-state solution between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat by President Clinton in 2000?

The answer is to be found in the following statement made by Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - at the international conference convened by President Bush on 27 November 2007 in Annapolis in the presence of some 40 world leaders including many from the Arab world:

"The (resumption of) negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.

On conclusion of the negotiations, I believe that we will be able to reach an agreement which will fulfill the vision of President Bush: two states for two peoples.

A peace-seeking, viable, strong, democratic and terror-free Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

A Jewish, democratic State of Israel, living in security and free from the threat of terror – the national home of the Jewish people."

President Obama’s Jerusalem speech is the closest he has come to publicly acknowledging that the following commitments laid out in President Bush’s letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 constitute “credible proposals” to end the Jewish-Arab conflict:

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

2. The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.

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

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

5. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Yet President Obama has appeared to have given up one fundamental requirement of President Bush’s Road Map - that any Palestinian Arab state that emerges as part of the two-state solution must be “democratic”

In a carefully worded and crafted speech that spoke in glowing terms of Israel’s vibrant democracy - President Obama was noticeably silent in failing to endorse the same outcome as being necessary for the successful implementation and conclusion of President Bush’s two-state solution.

To this extent President Obama seems to have rejected as unnecessary the express Annapolis commitment made by Prime Minister Olmert to achieve one of President Bush’s most cherished objectives.

The PLO will no doubt see this concession by President Obama as a plus - since it appears to be the inevitable consequence of Hamas and the PLO being unable to end their six years long internecine struggle that has denied the Palestinian Arabs having any say in determining their own future.

America is apparently set on pressuring Israel to give up this demand as a condition of resolving the two-state solution.

Yet in another respect President Obama’s following statement has come down firmly in favour of the commitment made by President Bush in his letter to Prime Minister Sharon - endorsed in specific terms by Prime Minister Olmert at Annapolis - that the Arab world - and Jew-haters around the world - recognize that the Jewish people are entitled to a Jewish state in their ancient, historic and biblically recognized homeland.

"For the Jewish people, the journey to the promise of the State of Israel wound through countless generations. It involved centuries of suffering and exile, prejudice, pogroms and even genocide. Through it all, the Jewish people sustained their unique identity and traditions, as well as a longing to return home. And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts. of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea – to be a free people in your homeland.

That is why I believe that Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own. And over the last 65 years, when Israel has been at its best, Israelis have demonstrated that responsibility does not end when you reach the promised land, it only begins."

President Obama reinforced that message with an unequivocal one liner:

"Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state."

The steadfast refusal by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world at large to acknowledge this simple proposition has been the major impediment to peace ever since its possibility was first suggested in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and confirmed in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - then actually proposed in 1937 by the Peel Commission and endorsed by the United Nations in 1947.

Are the Palestinian Arabs now seriously ready to take up President Obama’s challenge to resolve their conflict with the Jews in accordance with the credible proposals made by Israel at Annapolis in 2007 - tempered with just one important concession by President Obama dispensing with the need for any agreement on the question of democracy?

That is the message President Obama has sent to President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad - persons whom President Obama personally identified as true partners for Israel in achieving the two-state solution during his Jerusalem speech.

I hope we will not have to wait too long for their answer.

Palestine - Testing The World's Patience

[Published 2 July 2011]


The Palestinian Authority headed by an unelected President - Mahmoud Abbas - and an unelected Prime Minister - Salam Fayyad - continue to live in a fantasy dream world.

Talks to replace the Fayyad Government with yet another unelected Government comprising the two arch rival Palestinian factions - Hamas and Fatah - continue to founder despite the pomp and fanfare that accompanied the signing of a heads of agreement between them in Cairo on 4 May.

On 29 June, Fatah and Hamas were reported to have agreed to delay the formation of the unity government until after the expected United Nations vote on Palestinian Arab statehood in September. The official Saudi Press Agency said PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas relayed the proposal to Hamas through Turkey, which has reportedly sought to resolve obstacles to reconciliation.

This delay comes as no surprise. Turkey is wasting its time trying to remove the insurmountable obstacles to the formation of such a unity government.

Any idea that Hamas would join a government of national unity with Fatah to seek recognition in the United Nations of a second Arab state in just 5% of former Palestine is an illusion.

For Hamas it is 100% of former Palestine or nothing.

Hamas - The Islamic Resistance Movement - makes its sworn objective of creating an Islamic State in all of former Palestine very clear in Article 11 of its Charter:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection."

Fatah on the other hand seeks to create a secular state in all of former Palestine as is made clear in articles 12 and 13 of its Constitution :

"Article 12: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Article 13: Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens’ legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination."

The Palestinian Authority (PA) - the love child conceived by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993 - remains captive to the objectives of the PLO - which believes the liberation of former Palestine can be achieved in stages by first regaining a territorial foothold in the West Bank and Gaza as the prelude to a final all out assault on Israel and Jordan.

This is made clear in articles 1 and 9 of the PLO Charter:

Article 1: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it."

British Mandate Palestine comprised what is today known as Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - and the PLO claims all of it.

The PA is nothing more than a negotiating front for the PLO. The PA lacks any real independent authority, political credibility or the ability to conclude a peace treaty with Israel that would be permanently binding on the Palestinian Arabs.

The PA is captive to the aims and ambitions of Hamas and the PLO - which itself is dominated by Fatah and does not include Hamas among its members.

The PA President - Mahmoud Abbas - is totally conflicted as head of both the PLO and Fatah as well..

In the face of this overwhelming commonality of interest between Hamas, Fatah and the PLO to get rid of both the Jews in Israel and the Hashemites in Jordan - one must ask why the United Nations could possibly believe that any approach by the politically neutered PA to recognize a Palestinian Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza could advance the cause of peace and end a conflict that has lasted 130 years.

The Palestinian Arabs have passed up countless opportunities to achieve their own state in the West Bank and Gaza during the last 74 years - and on some occasions in even more territory than that - in:

1937 - when recommended by the Peel Commission

1947 - when recommended by the United Nations

1948-1967 - when such a state could have been created by the stoke of an Arab League pen after all the Jews living there had been driven out

1950 - when the West Bank Arabs instead chose to unify with Jordan

2001 and 2008 - when offers by Israel to cede sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank were rejected by the PA

2005 - when Israel disengaged and evacuated all its citizens and military forces from Gaza

Any United Nations decision to recognize such a state in 2011 would fly in the face of international law - particularly the Montevideo Convention 1933 - and open up the United Nations to demands to recognize similar claims for independence and secession by scores of other groups agitating for self-determination within many of the member states of the United Nations.

The United Nations should make it clear that until the Palestinian Arabs speak as one and declare their intention is not to eliminate Israel and Jordan - any thoughts of revisiting a proposal made by this very organization and rejected 63 years ago will not be entertained again.

The world has bent the knee for far too long trying to do appease the Palestinian Arabs. It is time for the Palestinian Arabs to clean out the stables and get a single unified government which is prepared to sign an unconditional peace treaty declaring its readiness to recognize the sovereignty and independence of Israel and Jordan.

Until this happens the United Nations would be well advised to turn down any PA approach in September.

Israel - Negotiating With Naysayers Needs Nous

[Published 19 July 2010]


Egypt has been the latest venue for attempts to kick start direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and President Obama’s special envoy George Mitchell jetted into Cairo over the weekend for more talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and a clutch of other lesser dignitaries from the Arab League designed to revive what has become increasingly seen as irrelevant and a complete waste of time - creating a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

Abbas continues to reject the idea of such a state being created in 93.5% of the West Bank with an additional area equivalent to the remaining 6.5% being carved out of Israel’s sovereign territory.

Abbas has rejected that offer since it was made to him by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in December 2008. Given that Israel has changed its Prime Minister since then - the chances of this offer even being open now can only be tested if Abbas publicly indicates his willingness to accept such an offer. That is not going to happen.

The Arabs have always found it impossible to say “Yes” when it comes to any offers of compromise.

The Arabs have seen their personal hopes and aspirations in former Palestine in constant decline as a result of their refusal to accept:

(i) The division of 99.999% of the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs and 0.001% to the Jews as determined in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and by the Treaty of Sevres

(ii) The binding legal effect of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

(iii) The partition recommendations for Palestine made by the Peel Commission in 1937

(iv) The 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution

(v) Recognition of Israel as the sovereign independent state of the Jewish people following its establishment in 1948

(vi) The opportunity to create an independent Arab state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem following its occupation by Jordan between 1948-1967 and in Gaza following its occupation by Egypt during that same period

(vii) Any negotiations with Israel after the Six Day War in 1967 until 1993

(viii) The offers made by Israel at Camp David in 2000 and 2001 and in 2008 under the Annapolis negotiating process

Conversely however their stocks in terms of international political support continue to rise the more their intransigence in seeking a solution to the Arab-Jewish conflict continues to harden.

The only possible solution that now presents itself as remotely achievable in the face of such obstinacy is the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel in direct face to face negotiations.

That solution too has been rejected by Jordan whose decision has been accepted internationally without demur and without any attempt to have it reconsider its position.

Obviously such Arab naysaying brings its rewards as Israel is pressured to make even more concessions whilst the Arabs sit back and continue to hold out for more.

Naysaying has now even affected the thinking of former Israeli Minister of Defence and Ambassador to Washington Moshe Arens who recently wrote:

“The Jordanian option has on occasion been raised as a promising approach. After all, most of Jordan’s population is Palestinian. For 19 years, Judea and Samaria were part of Jordan, its population Jordanian citizens, and the geographic juxtaposition between Israel and Jordan should make delineating the border between the two countries in an agreement considerably easier than reaching a deal on a border between Israel and a Palestinian state that might be established in the area. There is only one problem - the Jordanians won’t hear of it. They don’t want to overload their security apparatus, which has been functioning quite effectively, by including another 1.5 million Palestinians within their borders.”

Strangely no such complaints of overloading Jordan’s security apparatus were made when those same Palestinians were Jordanian citizens between 1948-1967. But Jordan’s continuing refusal to become involved in the West Bank based on this specious argument is sufficient reason enough for Arens to give up on the Jordanian option he has long advocated and seek other unrealistic alternatives.

It seems all right for Israel to be pressured to take “risks for peace” - but not Jordan.

Israel now needs to start some naysaying itself by declaring that it will not enter into further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority unless direct negotiations without conditions are resumed within 30 days.

Israel should make it clear that at the expiration of those 30 days it will call on King Abdullah to come and sit at the negotiating table with Israel to enable the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine to complete some long outstanding and unfinished business - establishing for the first time ever an unconditional internationally recognized boundary between their respective states which has remained undetermined since the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement signed in 1949.

The Armistice Agreement clearly states:

“It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” [Article II (2)]

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.[Article VI (9)]”

The demarcation of the internationally recognized boundary that eventually took place between Jordan and Israel under the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty 1994 contains the following proviso:

“The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967” [Article 3(2)]

Determining the status of those territories has been impossible to achieve with the Palestinian Authority for the last 17 years. It has been an exercise fraught with frustration caused by the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority. The time has come to determine the status of those territories with Jordan if the Palestinian Authority does not return to the negotiating table within the next thirty days.

Israel should say “no” to anything else - and continue saying “no“ until its demands are met - either by the Palestinian Authority or Jordan.

Naysaying is a tactic that has rewarded the Arabs. It is time for Israel to take a leaf out of their book and end the current farcical situation.

Reuters Reprehensible Report Requires Retraction

[Published March 2010]

Reuters - considered the world’s top news source - has allowed its credibility to be seriously damaged with the publication of its “Timeline: Path to new Israel-Palestinian talks” on 7 March 2010.

Its cursory - almost totally dismissive - omission of Jewish claims to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine - are made blatantly clear at the beginning of its Timeline which states:

“Here are key dates on the path to this point:
1897 - European Jews in Zionist movement declare goal of creating a Jewish state in Ottoman Turkish-ruled Palestine.

1917 - British forces take Palestine from collapsing Ottoman empire in World War One. British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declares support for Jewish “national home” there.

1945 - Revelation of Nazi Holocaust and new Jewish migration to Palestine bolster Western support for creating Jewish state.

1948 - Britain quits and great powers recognize Israel as U.N. partition plan dissolves in war that leaves Jewish state on 78 percent of land and half of Palestine’s Arabs as refugees.”

1967 - In what it calls pre-emptive strikes on Arab states, Israeli forces seize rest of British-mandate Palestine, taking West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and Gaza Strip from Egypt. Israel captures Golan Heights from Syria.

1988 - After a year of Intifada (uprising), exiled PLO leader Yasser Arafat, widely acknowledged as speaking for Palestinians, renounces “terrorism” and accepts Israel’s right to exist.

Omitted from this hastily concocted version are the following crucial - and critical - dates:

1920: Treaty of Sevres entrusts the administration of Palestine to a Mandatory for putting into effect the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

1922: Britain appointed Mandatory for Palestine by unanimous vote of the League of Nations. 78% of Mandate Palestine excluded from inclusion in the future Jewish National Home in area known as Transjordan which is exclusively reserved for Arab homeland.

1937: Peel Commission recommends division of Palestine into two States - one Jewish, one Arab . Arabs reject recommendation.

1939: Britain severely limits Jewish emigration to Palestine in breach of Mandate for duration of World War Two.

1945: League of Nations wound up and United Nations created. Article 80 inserted in United Nations Charter preserves Jewish rights to establish Jewish National Home in Palestine.

1946: Britain grants Transjordan independence in 78% of Mandate Palestine.

1947: United Nations votes to divide remaining 22% of Mandate Palestine into two states - one Jewish, one Arab. Arabs reject recommendation. Fighting breaks out between Jews and Arabs.

1948: Reuters omits to mention that

•six Arab armies invaded Palestine
•Egypt occupied Gaza and Transordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem
•The Palestinian National Conference decides to place the West Bank under the sovereignty of Transjordan and
•Erroneously states that Israel ended up with 78% - not 17% - of the land

1949: Transjordan changes its name to Jordan

1950: The West Bank and Jordan are unified into one country by the Jordanian Parliament comprising equal number of West Bank and Jordanian representatives

1967: Reuters omits to mention Security Council Resolution 242 requiring Israel to only withdraw to secure and recognized boundaries.

1988: Jordan cedes any claims to the West Bank

This perversion of the history of Palestine is either induced by ignorance or a deliberate suppression of critical information that goes to the heart of the debate currently raging at the moment.

Inclusion of the above dates in Reuters Timeline would substantiate Jewish claims to be entitled to sovereignty in all or part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to build settlements there based on the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - rights grounded in international law.

Their absence from the Timeline needs to be explained or justified by Reuters if it is to regain any credibility in its reporting in the Middle East.

This Timeline has now been distributed throughout Reuters extensive network and can be viewed on its American, British and Indian websites and has been published and reproduced by other web sites and news services.

It has also been distributed on Reuters AlertNet site which proudly claims:

“AlertNet attracts upwards of ten million users a year, has a network of 400 contributing humanitarian organizations and its weekly email digest is received by more than 26,000 readers

It was started in 1997 by Reuters Foundation - an educational and humanitarian trust - to place Reuters’ core skills of speed, accuracy and freedom from bias at the service of the humanitarian community.”

Any claim to Reuters possessing these core skills is exposed as a sham and continues the gross media bias that continues to bury Jewish claims in international law to the West Bank and Gaza and to settle there to reconstitute the Jewish National Home.

Reuters continues the practice of the United Nations which similarly omitted any mention of many of these critical dates when seeking an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2004 on the legality of the construction of the security barrier on and over the 1967 armistice lines.

Judge Elaraby - gave this warning to his fellow 14 judges sitting on that case:

“,,, the international legal status of the Palestinian Territory merits more comprehensive treatment”.

Judge Elaraby identified the need for such a review saying:

“A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on one or more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently sidestepped.”

Judge Elaraby continued:

“The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain”

The bias of the United Nations against Israel in omitting to refer to the Mandate when approaching the International Court is par for the course.

Reuters omission to similarly inform its millions of readers now places it on a similar pedestal following the publication of its grossly inaccurate and misleading Timeline.

The best thing Reuters can do is immediately withdraw its Timeline. I would hope it has the integrity and honesty to do so with an appropriate - and prominent - apology for its publication in the first place.

Palestine - The Lieberman Factor

[Published February 2009]

It has not taken long for media commentators to jump on the bandwagon and label the biggest winner in the Israeli elections - Avigdor Lieberman - as an “anti-Arab politician” (Scotsman 12 February) and a person “who holds abhorrent views” (Telegraph 12 February).

This form of generalised character assassination should be rejected and the media should be required to justify the policies of Lieberman that lead to those kind of general comments and labelling to be made.

The Telegraph has totally misrepresented and distorted Mr Lieberman’s policy in relation to resolving competing Arab and Jewish claims to the last 6% of the land once called Palestine - the West Bank and Gaza - in which sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews more than 60 years after the other 94% was divided between Israel and Jordan.

Mr Lieberman’s policy on this issue was stated by the Telegraph in the following terms:

“Mr Lieberman thinks that what we call the “peace process” has been a mistake from the start. Put simply, Mr Lieberman rejects every facet of President Barack Obama’s thinking on the Middle East. When the nationalist leader has real power in Israel, the country could find itself on a collision course with America’s new administration.

The following official policy of Lieberman’s party - Yisrael Beytenu - however tells a different story:

“Trading Spaces Moving The Border Between Us, Not Among Us.

The responsibility for primarily Arab areas such as Um-Al-Fahm and “the triangle” [presently in Israel - ed. comment] will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. In parallel Israel will officially annex Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria [the West bank - ed. comment]. Israel is our home. Palestine is their home.”

This policy does not reject - indeed it confirms - President Obama’s thinking on the Middle East calling for a “two state solution” involving the creation of a new Arab State in the West Bank between Israel and Jordan.

Lieberman is not the rejectionist politician on “the peace process” that the Telegraph would ask its readers to believe .

Lieberman and Obama are clearly united in wanting a two state solution to the conflict resulting in the creation of a 22nd Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

Lieberman’s policy affirms that Yisrael Beytenu does not support Israel’s return to the 1967 armistice lines - incorrectly called “the 1967 borders” by the Telegraph. This particular use of incorrect terminology - embraced by Arab negotiators - serves as a stark reminder that you don’t always believe what you read.

Lieberman is not unique in embracing this policy.

His view is shared by:
1. every major political party in Israel,
2. President Bush and the former Israeli Government in the Roadmap negotiations and
3 is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

President Obama will not retreat from this position, ignore the Security Council Resolution and demand Israel cede 100% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. The facts on the ground will simply not allow this to happen. 500000 Jews cannot be kicked out of their homes in the West Bank.

Indeed the reality is that no two state solution can possibly happen until the Arabs accept the inevitability that there will be no return by Israel to the 1967 armistice lines.

President Obama will need to bring the Arabs to this realisation if he is to succeed where President Bush failed. Given the intransigent stance by the Arab League on this issue for the last 40 years it would indeed be a miracle if he could bring about a change in Arab thinking on this fundamental issue.

Lieberman’s policy to cede Israeli sovereign territory to the Palestinian Authority that presently contains solely Arab residents in exchange for Israeli sovereignty over West Bank land that presently contains solely Jewish residents has come in for a fair amount of unjustified criticism.

Yet this policy calling for the separation - as far as is practically possible - of the Jewish and Arab populations has been at the heart of every proposal for partitioning Palestine between the Arabs and Jews since the Mandate for Palestine was first formulated in 1920.

It was the same policy that led to the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947.

The Peel Commission in 1937 eloquently summed up the benefits of partition in the following terms:

“The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be summarized as follows:—

(i) They obtain their national independence and can co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress.

(ii) They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jews, and from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule.”

“The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be summarized as follows:—

(i) Partition secures the establishment of the Jewish National Home and relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected in the future to Arab rule.

(ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism—a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life.”

Lieberman’s policies tread well established precedents for resolving the Arab - Jewish conflict in former Palestine.

Perhaps media like the Telegraph should take the time and make the effort to read and understand Lieberman’s policy rather than engage in sensationalist journalism that only hinders rather than enhances the prospect of a resolution of this ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Abbas Loses The Plot

[Published May 2008]

PLO Chairman and President of the Palestinian Authority - Mahmoud Abbas - was clearly not happy with the remarks made by President Bush on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of Israel’s reconstitution as an independent Jewish state within its biblical homeland 2000 years after it had last flourished there.

In what the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram’s Publisher Mursi Attallah described as “a Torah (Old Testament) inspired speech”, President Bush told the Knesset:

“We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

President Bush’s words affirming such ancient and historical Jewish rights certainly did not break any new ground that would justify Abbas’s outrage as he told a news conference in Sharm El Sheikh:

“What President Bush said at the Knesset made us angry and did not satisfy us. We told him what we need is a balanced position,”

Regrettably a more balanced position is what Abbas needs at this time when it comes to the Jewish people - something he has lacked and continues to lack.

Similar moving and eloquent words to those spoken by President Bush had been used by the Peel Commission in 1937 when attempting to resolve the then escalating conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Commission’s words were equally as compelling as President Bush’s:

“ While the Jews had thus been dispersed over the world, they had never forgotten Palestine. If Christians have become familiar through the Bible with the physiognomy of the country and its place names and events that happened more than two thousand years ago , the link which binds Jews to Palestine and its past history is to them far closer and more intimate. Judaism and its rituals are rooted in those memories. Among countless illustrations it is enough to cite the fact that Jews, wherever they may be, still pray for rain at the season it is needed in Palestine. And the same devotion to the Land of Israel, Eretz Israel, the same sense of exile from it, permeates Jewish secular thought. Some of the finest Hebrew poetry written in the Diaspora has been inspired, like the Psalms of Captivity , by the longing to return to Zion.” (pp 8-9).

Arab leaders then refused to accept the truth inherent in those words - just as Abbas today refuses to accept the words spoken by President Bush in the Knesset.

President Bush’s Road Map is but the latest in a long line of well intended and serious attempts by the international community to resolve the conflict in Palestine between Jews and Arabs since the League of Nations in 1922 affirmed

“the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”.

This recognition affording the Jewish people the right of self determination in Palestine did not take place in isolation but as part of a series of international obligations that granted the Arabs the right to self determination in what today is called Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan - an area 99.99% larger than the size of former Palestine.

President Bush had made it clear to Abbas four years ago that the successful outcome to his Roadmap involved Abbas accepting Israel as the Jewish State existing alongside a 23rd Arab state that would be created for the Arab residents of former Palestine under the President’s plan.

Yet the idea of a Jewish State has long been anathema for Abbas since his days in exile in Tunis with Yasser Arafat more than 25 years ago. He has been unable to get this monkey off his back as he continues to lead the Palestine Liberation Organisation whose Charter rejects the very words uttered by President Bush in the Knesset last week and by the Peel Commission six decades ago.

The most Abbas has been able to bring himself to grudgingly acknowledge was contained in the following statement made by him last December:

“From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else,”

That is not the historical perspective President Bush expressed in the Knesset last week. Whilst Abbas refuses to recognise the President’s perspective - and his vision - then Abbas’s ability and competence to negotiate any form of settlement with Israel will be rendered totally impotent.

There were Arab leaders such as Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan who were prepared to make the quantum leap and recognise Israel as the Jewish State - a jump that Abbas is still obviously not prepared to take judging by his reaction to President Bush’s speech in the Knesset.

Abbas’s outburst at President Bush’s remarks indicates that he is just one more Arab leader in a long line of failed leaders who refused to accept the idea of Jews having their own state and as a result ensured continued suffering and humiliation for those whose national interest he was supposed to advance.

He - like those failed leaders who preceded him - has surely lost the plot and needs to get off centre stage.

Paris Produces Palestine Funding Frenzy

[Published December 2007]


Ninety Nations meeting in Paris this week fell over themselves in the rush to pledge US$7.4 billion dollars over the next three years - US$1.8 billion more than anticipated - in a desperate attempt to salvage their greatest failure in international diplomacy - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

The international community has been propagating this idea for the last 70 years - in an area far larger than is now envisioned - only to see its proposals continuously rebuffed and rejected by Arab interlocutors.

It is an idea that could have worked when first proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and by the United Nations in 1947. Few Jews lived in the designated area at those times and the concept represented the best solution to resolving competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in Palestine.

It was still feasible and could have happened at any time between 1948-1967 when a simple declaration of independence made with the stroke of a pen would have guaranteed international political and financial support. - but the Arabs would not have a bar of it.

The idea was dealt a death blow when Jordan lost the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip in the Six Day War in 1967 and the Arab League and the PLO refused international urgings between 1967-1993 to recognise Israel and negotiate with it for the creation of such a State.

Since the Arabs finally agreed to do so in 1993 and the Oslo Peace Process was launched by President Clinton, the international community has put up tens of billions of dollars trying to make it happen. However the money - and the concept - have both gone down the drain in spectacular style.

The reasons are there for all to see - if they open their eyes. An idea that could have worked between 1937 -1967 has long been superseded by subsequent political events and facts established on the ground that make it impossible to meet the current and non-negotiable Arab demands that 450000 Jews leave their homes and that millions of Arabs be allowed to live in Israel.

The 90 Paris Pledgers appear to be in a state of complete denial in understanding that these fundamental deal breakers have guaranteed the consignment of their concept to the history books and that giving it more air - even for 12 months - is embarking on a very expensive journey to nowhere.

Their rush to put up this new money has been made despite the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza being hopelessly split and divided as a result of a violent and deadly power struggle between Hamas and the PLO. In their wisdom these donors have decided that Gazan Arabs will see very little from their latest outpouring of international largesse in Paris.

In humanitarian and political terms the selective granting of this massive injection of international aid to one segment of a divided community is only going to perpetuate - rather than end - the crisis in Gaza and the West Bank and make the attainment of statehood there an absolute impossibility.

The reason for this decision was foreshadowed and articulated by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

"It is the policies of Hamas that have led to its own isolation and by implication Gaza as well“
[Jerusalem Post - 16 December]

Hamas’ attitude to PLO Chairman Abbas and unelected prime Minister Fayyad pocketing the rich Paris pickings for the West Bank Arabs only, was made very clear by Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum:

"We completely reject politicised money tied to American and Western agendas, which is a direct interference in internal Palestinian affairs. (Abbas) is cosying up to the Zionist enemy and the American project (in the region) in exchange for millions of dollars to strengthen his security forces for his own personal interests." [AFP, 17 December ]

The international community will soon realise that their latest decision to financially support the PLO power clique at the expense of Hamas is the worst decision they could have possibly taken.

Rather than using those billions of dollars to build the foundations of a State, this money will soon disappear in an orgy of weapons procurement, corruption and influence peddling that will ensure the widening of the West Bank - Gaza divide in a way that will make the current situation look like a minor backyard scrap between two disgruntled neighbours

It is just another kiss of death to the international community’s pursuit of its outdated and now completely unworkable proposal.

Condoleezza Rice showed that the penny has not yet dropped when she solemnly declared in Paris:

"This is the most promising opportunity to seek peace that we have had in nearly seven years. And we need to seize it. The continued and unwavering support of the international community is absolutely vital. That is why we are here today, and not a moment too soon."
[IHT - 17 December]

The continued and unwavering support of the international community for the last 70 years has proved a total waste of time, effort and money - and has helped perpetuate a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Arabs and Jews and traumatised the lives of millions of others.

Creating two separate States for one Arab population living in the territorial boundaries of former Palestine always was an artificial invention that had no basis in history, geography or demography. It was a fiction contrived by the international community at a particular time to solve a particular problem.

There are two questions that remain unanswered - when will the international community stop pursuing this fiction and when will they turn off the money tap trying to make it happen?

Solutions - other than another Arab State - are possible and achievable. Pursuing those solutions - and throwing money at them in amounts similar to the Paris pledges - have a far better chance of success than the continued promotion of a 70 years old concept that has well passed its 1967 expiry date.

Surely the time is fast approaching for these donors to cut their losses and simply say “enough is enough”.

Palestine, Partition and Propaganda

[Published June 2007]


President Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stubbornly and foolishly continue to push for the creation of an independent Palestinian State between Israel and Jordan, as Hamas and Fatah turn the proposed site for such a state - Gaza and the West Bank - into battlegrounds of blood, misery and privation for the Arab populations caught in their deadly crossfire.

The 70th Anniversary of the Peel Commission Report released on 7 July 1937 presents a unique and impartial insight into understanding what the so called "Palestinian problem" was - and still is today - really about.

The Peel Commission recognised there was an insoluble conflict in Palestine between the Arabs and Jews necessitating the partition of Palestine into two independent sovereign states.

There was no mention of a third interested party - the "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people" - who also deserved a separate state. This "people" was the subsequent creation of skilful Arab propaganda in the 50's and 60's in response to Israel's creation in 1948.

The Peel Commission Report succinctly summed up the nature of the conflict in the following words:

"An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State."

In 1937 there was no independent State called Jordan. It was then called Trans-Jordan, it comprised 77% of the territory administered by Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - the operation of which was specifically the subject of inquiry and consideration by the Peel Commission .

The right of Jews to settle in Trans-jordan pursuant to the Mandate had been "postponed or withheld" by Britain with the consent of the League of Nations from 16 September 1922 thus restricting the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national homeland in only the remaining 23% of Palestine.

The Peel Report records that:

"The articles of the Mandate concerning the [Jewish] National Home do not apply to Trans-Jordan and the possibility of enlarging the National Home by Jewish immigration into Trans-Jordan rests on the assumption of concord between Arabs and Jews."

That concord never eventuated and Trans-Jordan remained an exclusively Arab reserved territory in 77% of Palestine - free of any Jewish settlement - until independence was granted by Great Britain in 1946 with the approval of the League of Nations at its last sitting before dissolution. No Jew resides there today.

The Peel Commission proposed partition into two independent Arab and Jewish sovereign States.

The Arab State was to be in all of Trans-Jordan - where no Jews and an estimated 300000 Arabs lived - united with a further part of Palestine in which only about 1250Jews lived among about 750000 Arabs. This would have given the Arabs a sovereign State in about 90% of the territory of the Mandate.

The remaining 10% was to become the sovereign Jewish State where about 400000 Jews and 225000 Arabs then lived, whilst a new Mandate was to be enacted "for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, to remove all anxiety lest the Holy Places should ever come under Jewish control."

Transfer of the minority population in each State was also proposed to follow the precedent set by the exchange between the Greek and Turkish populations following the Greco-Turkish War of 1922.

The Peel Report noted:

"There was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to concede little Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia were free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now. In less than three years' time all the wide Arab area outside Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean will be independent, and, if Partition is adopted, the greater part of Palestine will be independent too. "

The Report stated the advantages to the Arabs and the Jews of Partition in the following terms:

"The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be summarized as follows:--

(i) They obtain their national independence and can co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress.

(ii) They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jews, and from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule."

"The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be summarized as follows:--

(i) Partition secures the establishment of the Jewish National Home and relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected in the future to Arab rule.

(ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism--a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life."

The Arabs rejected the proposal and therein sowed the seeds for the continuation of the conflict that still remains unresolved in 2007 in just the West Bank and Gaza - only 6% of Palestine - where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews .

President Bush and Mr Olmert need to recognise that the proposal to create a State between Israel and Jordan - the product of the totally discredited 1993 Oslo Process - has turned out to be a dismal failure and that it flies in the face of the conflict and its history, geography and demography.

Looking back 70 years can be the catalyst and inspiration for a new direction in 2007which consigns the idea of a third State in former Palestine to the garbage bin and substitutes for it the partition of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel to finally complete what the Peel Commission had recommended.

Failure to change course will have only two assured outcomes - continued death and suffering for both Jews and Arabs and a continuing threat to world peace.

Palestine, Paralysis and Plato

[Published June 2007]

The Arab League and the Quartet – America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - have become totally paralysed as Hamas and Fatah lay into each other in Gaza with a ferocity that makes the never ending procession of pious resolutions passed at the United Nations condemning Israeli "brutality and breaches of international humanitarian law " what they always have been – totally hypocritical and quite farcical.

Throwing people off high rise buildings, murdering patients in hospital wards and shooting off peoples' heads now join Gaza's bizarre list of inhumane and barbaric practices.

Gaza's culture of violence has exploded to new limits of horror and revulsion yet the Arab League and the Quartet are not lifting a finger to actively end it.

The chickens are now coming home to roost with a vengeance for the Arab League and the Quartet.

The Arab League's Peace Plan (2002) and the Quartet's Road Map (2003) sponsoring an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza - just 6% of historic Palestine - were catastrophic decisions that set back any hope for peace in the region during the last five years.

Expectations in the Palestinian Authority that it now had worldwide public and political support firmly behind it for the creation of an independent State in the West Bank and Gaza, emboldened it to continue to make three impossible demands that Israel could not ever possibly accept:

1. The withdrawal from every square inch of Gaza and the West Bank

2. The right to return and live in Israel for millions of former Arab residents and their descendants who wished to do so

3. The removal of 450000 Jews from Gaza and the West Bank where they had lived for up to 40 years and their forced repatriation to Israel if they did not wish to leave willingly.

Israel's precipitate action in unilaterally evacuating all 7000 Jewish residents from Gaza in 2005 contributed to a fuelling of these expectations and even more – the belief that this was the first step in the ultimate destruction of Israel.

Instead of dancing and singing in the streets and engaging in nation building, Gaza reverberated to the sounds of hundreds of Kassam rockets fired at Israel, more suicide missions were undertaken into Israel, a total breakdown of law and order occurred and increased smuggling of weapons from Egypt was carried out - at the same time as an increasingly hostile and belligerent population were voting Hamas into power.

Whatever you think of Hamas – they mean what they say and don't mince the words they use. The goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel - nothing more, nothing less.

The Arab League and the Quartet however weren't listening and continued to pursue their misguided and flawed policy by supporting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in his supposed quest to achieve a state in Gaza and the West Bank - even as Hamas began to consolidate its position as the Government in Gaza.

Attempts by the Arab League to broker a unity Hamas/Fatah Government failed dismally.

Abbas had become a powder puff President with no real power or authority. Now Abbas' demise in Gaza is very close at hand as his forces wilt under the Hamas onslaught.

The current carnage has ensured once and for all the demise of any plan for the creation of an independent State in the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps the Arab League and the Quartet now need to ponder on the phrase used by Plato in his Republic written in 369BC:

"Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a State and yet the true creator is necessity,who is the mother of our invention"

The idea of creating a State in Gaza and the West Bank may have seemed a good idea and been undertaken with the best of intentions by both the Arab League and the Quartet.

Yet by refusing to accept anything less than they demanded, the Arab populations living in those areas put their hatred of the Jews above their claimed necessity for such a State.

Rejection of Statehood had been similarly refused by the Arabs when proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and the United Nations in 1947.

It had also been rejected between 1948-1967 during the occupation of the West Bank by Jordan and of Gaza by Egypt.

It was rejected again after the Six Day War in 1967 when the Arab League refused to negotiate with or recognise Israel.

In every case, hatred of the Jews was thought more important than the Arabs having a second Arab state in Palestine in addition to Jordan .

Five attempts to create a new Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt over the last 70 years have failed miserably and have brought nothing but continuing death and suffering to both Jews and Arabs. It is time to close the book on this proposal as the means of achieving an end to the 130 year old conflict in former Palestine.

The current parlous position in Gaza and the potentially looming confrontation in the West Bank between Hamas and Fatah have created a new, very urgent and different necessity that needs to be addressed by an inventive solution that is not based on the creation of a state in these areas.

This solution can only be found through the re-entry of Jordan into the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank - to assume control there and incorporate the area into Jordan - with the unconditional diplomatic and financial support of the Arab League and the Quartet and with the express consent of Israel.

Gaza has now become a place no one wants to enter. It has become Israel's neighbour from hell. Israel will no doubt have to deal with the mess there. It will not be a pretty sight.

The Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank have managed to turn their call for self determination into a dangerous game of self extermination. They only have themselves to blame.
A