UN should use Israel-bashing model to oust Russia from Ukraine

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly needs to stop its pious bleating and move to immediately set up a network of Ukrainian-dedicated agencies to try and force Russia to end its invasion and occupation of Ukraine – adopting the same model it has established in trying to force Israel’s withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) over the last 50 years.

The General Assembly has failed in Israel’s case – because:

• Sovereignty remains unallocated and still in dispute between Jews and Arabs after 100 years
• Israel has the legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home there pursuant to articles 6 and 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter
• Any Israeli withdrawal can only occur after secure and recognised boundaries are fixed pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 242.

However Russia’s invasion of the sovereign territory of another UN member state challenges the UN’s continued existence – as UN Secretary-General Assembly Antonio Guterres has pointed out: 

“It is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable. But it is not irreversible”

Reversing Russia’s flagrant violation of the UN Charter justifies the General Assembly adopting its Israel-bashing model to establish the following Ukrainian-dedicated agencies to humiliate and bash Russia into withdrawing from Ukraine: 

• Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Ukrainian People (CEIRUP): To institute a programme that will enable the Ukrainian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty without external interference; to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. 

• Department for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs’ (DPPA) Division for Ukrainian Rights:To serve as the Secretariat of CEIRUP and provide the following core functions: 

1. Organising the meetings of CEIRUP and its Bureau at UN Headquarters;
2. Monitoring political and other relevant developments;
3. Organising programmes of international meetings, conferences and CEIRUP delegation visits;
4. Implementing a publications programme;
5. Developing and maintaining the United Nations Information System on the Question of Ukraine (UNISUKR) and managing CEIRUP’s outreach efforts including via social media;
6. Cooperating with civil society organizations active on the Russia-Ukraine issue;
7. Organising an annual observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Ukrainian People;

• United Nations Ukrainian Works and Relief Agency:  To carry out direct relief and works programmes solely for Ukrainian refugees. 

• Special Rapporteur: To assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories, report publicly about it, and work with governments, civil society and others to foster international cooperation.

• Special Committee: To investigate Russian practices affecting the human rights of the Ukrainian People and other residents of the Occupied Ukrainian Territories

• United Nations Special Coordinator for the Russia-Ukraine conflict: The Secretary-General’s Personal Representative and the focal point on the ground for UN support in all political and diplomatic efforts related to any peace process, responsible also for coordinating the activities of all UN Russia-Ukraine agencies, funds and programmes on humanitarian and development assistance to be set up to assist the Ukrainian People

These agencies will neutralise any Russian veto in the Security Council and reinforce sanctions and other decisions made by individual UN Member States to force Russia out of Ukraine.

Simultaneously the UN Human Rights Council should establish an ongoing independent, international commission of inquiry - appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council - to investigate in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law by Russia leading up to and since 22 February 2022.

The UN will cease to have any credibility or relevance if the General Assembly fails to implement these measures. 

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.

UN action on Trump Peace Plan can deter Iran-Israel conflict

 

The United Nations Security Council needs to urgently adopt former US President Donald Trump’s 2020 Peace Plan to end the Jewish-Arab conflict and call on Israel, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to commence negotiations under Trump’s Plan to deter conflict between Iran and Israel.

Trump’s Plan (see maps following) – already endorsed by Israel - provides for:

• The creation of a future demilitarised State of Palestine in about 60% of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), Gaza, and parts of Israel and  

• The extension of Israeli sovereignty in the remaining 40% of Judea and Samaria (West Bank)

The territory involved is small - comprising the remaining  5% of former Palestine in which sovereignty remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews – approximating America’s third-smallest State  – Delaware.

Israel (17%) and Jordan (78%) currently exercise sovereignty in the other 95%.

The PLO has rejected Trump’s very detailed and comprehensive proposals. 

The UN continues to pursue a nebulous two-democratic-states solution based on Security Council Resolution 2334  -  achieving no progress since its adoption in 2016.

Emboldened by the Security Council’s failure to successfully implement Resolution 2334 and the antagonistic attitude towards Israel and the Jewish People expressed in a growing number of General Assembly resolutions – 17 in 2020 compared to 7 for  the rest of the world - Iran continues to demonise and threaten the elimination of Israel as Iran expands its nuclear weapons program. 

Iranian Armed Forces spokesman - Brig.-Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi - recently told the Iranian Students News Agency:

“We will not back off from the annihilation of Israel, even one millimetre. We want to destroy Zionism in the world”

Rather than:

• condemning Iran’s threats to destroy another UN member state and 
•  defending Israel’s right to exist in secure and recognised boundaries as stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 242 

The General Assembly has been engaging in its own demonisation of the Jewish People – recycling a Security Council Press Statement dated September 17, 2015 (Press Statement ) which only referred to the Temple Mount by its Arabic name “Haram al-Sharif” and not its Hebrew name  “Har HaBayit”.

General Assembly Resolution A/76/L.16 (Resolution) - passed on December 1 – repeated this highly-offensive canard:

“Recalling the Security Council press statement on Jerusalem of September 17, 2015, in which the Council called, inter alia, for the exercise of restraint, refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric and upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif – in word and in practice, as well as for full respect for international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as may be applicable in Jerusalem”

The Press Statement and Resolution both failed to acknowledge the special role of Jordan – not Israel - as custodian of all the Muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem  - recognized in the 1994 Jordan-Israel  Washington Declaration and Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty.

If the Security Council and General Assembly can both brazenly ignore these two highly-significant binding international commitments whilst simultaneously denying the Jewish People’s connection with Judaism’s holiest religious site in Jerusalem – what message does this send to Israel, Jordan and Iran? 

Israel’s President Herzog has provided Israel’s response:

“Israel will welcome a comprehensive, diplomatic solution which permanently solves the Iranian nuclear threat.”

“In the case of a failure to achieve such a solution, Israel is keeping all options on the table and it must be said that if the international community does not take a vigorous stance on this issue — Israel will do so. Israel will protect itself”

 Overt UN bias against Israel and the Jewish People should not preclude the UN from embracing Trump’s Plan to end the 100 years-old Jewish-Arab conflict and avert conflict between Iran and Israel.

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

Israel now needs miracle to set secure and recognized boundaries

[Published 17 December 2019]

History will not kindly recall Israel’s power-hungry politicians who have forced a third election within twelve months on Israeli voters at a direct cost of another US$135 million.

The politicians’ inability to form a Government of National Unity is derelict — especially after Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin entreated them to do so.

The Jewish calendar is replete with both happy and sad times in the history of the Jewish people spanning thousands of years — faithfully remembered on each anniversary.

The period between 18 November 2019 and 11 December 2019 — which I call The Time of Missed Opportunity — could qualify for inclusion in that calendar.

November 18 marks the day US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the US did not regard Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) as being inconsistent with international law.

December 11 marks the last day a Government of National Unity could have been formed to finally set Israel’s secure and recognized boundaries under Security Council Resolution 242 — within which the Jewish people would reconstitute the Jewish National Home 100 years after the San Remo Convention laid the groundwork on April 25, 1920.

Israel and the Jewish World have been divided as to where those boundaries should be — particularly since Judea and Samaria (the disputed territories) were conquered by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War enabling Jews to return and live there after having been expelled and driven out in 1948 by six invading Arab armies.

Israelis espouse views ranging from extending Israeli sovereignty to all the disputed territories to sovereignty over none. Compromise somewhere in between could have possibly been found with a Government of National Unity making consensus decisions acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Israel’s population.

Two deadlocked Israeli elections in April and September 2019 have exposed a very disturbing political rift among Israeli voters as Israel confronts its Arab neighbours who seek to destroy it — and its international enemies at the United Nations who seek to deny that Jews have any legal right to live in the disputed territories guaranteed by article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

This Jewish divisiveness has a bitter parallel in Jewish history — the Bible recounting that on the succession of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, around 930 BCE, the land of Israel split into two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel (including the cities of Nablus and Samaria) in the north and the Kingdom of Judah (containing Jerusalem) in the south. These kingdoms remained separate states for over two hundred years.

Yuval Diskin, Israel’s former internal security chief, warned in 2015 that this could happen again:

“The two-state solution is becoming true for the Jews: The State of Judea is being built de facto side by side with the State of Israel. These are two nations whose differences are eclipsing their commonalities, a condition that is growing irreversible.

The State of Judea has different standards, different approaches to democracy, and it has two justice systems, one for Jews (Israeli law) and the other for Palestinians (martial law). Whether we want it or not, these two justice systems have divergent measures to adjudicate identical offenses”.

Israel’s politicians — in rejecting a Government of National Unity and opting for a third election — have not acted in the national interest. They have chosen to continue political division and pursue personal ambition to achieve political power — rather than seeking national unity.

A third deadlocked election is the miracle and opportunity Israel needs to enable a Government of National Unity to set Israel’s boundaries.

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

Trump reaffirms Bush’s recognition of Jewish claims in West Bank

[Published 13 August 2019]

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is frothing at the mouth at media reports indicating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking a public declaration from US President Donald Trump recognizing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the occupied West Bank prior to the Israeli elections on 17 September.

PLO spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh stressed that any procedure or decision affecting Palestinian national rights and the resolutions of international legitimacy shall be considered illegitimate. Abu Rudeineh warned such a move would have “serious implications.”

Abu Rudineh continued:

“This step, if taken, would constitute ongoing playing with fire,” he added, and stressed that stability and security are indivisible and that “peace would not be made at any price”.

“Neither this step would establish any right ]to Israel], nor it will create a viable false reality,” he added.”

Such a Trump declaration would undoubtedly help Netanyahu’s re-election chance — as have Trump’s declarations on Jerusalem being Israel’s capital, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and recognising Jewish claims in the Golan Heights.

However Trump’s US Ambassador to Israel — David Friedman — has already made such a declaration, telling the New York Times on 8 June 2019:

“Under certain circumstances I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”

Friedman diplomatically continued:

“We really don’t have a view until we understand how much, on what terms, why does it make sense, why is it good for Israel, why is it good for the region, why does it not create more problems than it solves. These are all things that we’d want to understand, and I don’t want to prejudge. Certainly Israel’s entitled to retain some portion of it.”

Friedman confirmed what has been declared American policy since 2004 — when President Bush made the following written commitment in his letter to Israel’s then Prime Minister - the late Ariel Sharon - on 14 April 2004:

“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. 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. 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.”

This commitment was overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day.

Bush’s letter welcomed the disengagement plan Sharon had prepared:

“under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace”

Israel honoured its commitment — at great personal loss of life, injury and property damage to both its civilian population and military forces. Israel continues to pay a heavy price for that disengagement as Hamas remains in control of Gaza with the avowed aim of wiping Israel off the face of the map.

Trump has already recognized — and will continue to recognize — Jewish rights in the West Bank as sacrosanct.

The PLO is shouting loads of codswallop from its Ramallah-Headquarters rooftop — as the ceiling slowly collapses under its feet.

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

Trump and Putin focus on Syria-Israel, Arab-Jewish conflicts

[Published 19 July 2018]

Defusing the Syria–Israel conflict and resurrecting the primacy of Security Council Resolution 242 in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict have emerged as positive outcomes from the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki this week.

President Putin expressed America and Russia’s joint resolve with this succinct statement:

“The south of Syria should be brought to the full compliance with the treaty of 1974 about the separation of forces, about separation of forces of Israel and Syria. This will bring peace to Golan Heights. And bring more peaceful relationship between Syria and Israel and also to provide security of the state of Israel. Mr. President paid special attention to the issue during today’s negotiations. I would like to confirm that Russia is interested in this development and this will act accordingly. Thus far, we will make a step toward creating a lasting peace in compliance with the respective resolutions of security council, for instance the resolution 338.”

Article 1 of the 1974 Syria-Israel Separation of Forces Agreement provides:

“Israel and Syria will scrupulously observe the cease-fire on land, sea and air and will refrain from all military actions against each other, from the time of the signing of the document, in implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 338 dated October 22, 1973.”

Security Council Resolution 338 - adopted following the 1973 Yom Kippur War:

“Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts";

Article 1 of Security Council Resolution 242 - adopted following the 1967 Six Day War:

“Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

When Security Council Resolution 242 was passed on 22 November 1967:

1. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was not the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs - having only being so appointed at the 7th Arab League Summit held in Rabat in October 1974.

2. Arabs living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) (“Territories”) were Jordanian citizens and possessed Jordanian passports following these Territories being unified with Transjordan on 24 April 1950 and subsequently being renamed Jordan.

3. The PLO was expressly not claiming territorial sovereignty in the Territories or Gaza - article 24 of the PLO Charter proclaiming:

“This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

4. No additional Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – was contemplated.

5. Hamas had not been founded.

Resolution 242 still contains the only internationally agreed formula for peacefully ending the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

A conference to resolve this long-running conflict in accordance with Resolution 242 - co-chaired by America and Russia – would see Israel and every Arab State in the area attending but would exclude non-States PLO and Hamas. Such a conference now looms as a possible Trump-Putin initiative - putting Trump’s unannounced “ultimate deal” on the backburner.

Going back to 1967 could indeed be the key to resolving the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Trump unscrambles UN-EU-PLO misinformation omelette

[Published 29 April 2018]

President Trump has started unscrambling the misinformation omelette first cooked up by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 and dished out by the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) since 1974.

Trump’s intention was revealed when the State Department released its annual “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017” (“Report”)- renaming its segment previously entitled “Israel and The Occupied Territories” with a new descriptor – “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza”.

Israel and the Golan Heights are dealt with together in one section of the Report – whilst the West Bank and Gaza are covered in another.

Commas count big time in Middle East diplomacy.

One comma strategically placed in the descriptor - “… West Bank, and Gaza” – identifies them as two separate territorial entities that could involve different solutions.

The Report’s new choice of language signals that resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict extends beyond the West Bank and Gaza to also include the Golan Heights and that any end to the conflict will only eventuate with the allocation of sovereignty in all three of these disputed areas.

This ground-breaking replacement of false statements with factual reality needs to be replicated by Trump in other areas of misinformation maliciously spread by the UN, EU and PLO – including:

1. Recognition that the term “West Bank” was first used in 1950 and that for 3000 years prior thereto that territory had been called “Judea and Samaria”

2. Acknowledgement that the “Palestinian Authority” created by the 1993 Oslo Accords was disbanded by written decree of PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013.

3. Affirmation of the right of the Jewish People to close settlement on land in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine under the rights vested in them by article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (the 1922 Mandate) – as preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

4. Ending the fiction that the territory of former Palestine stopped at the Jordan River and agreeing that it included the Hashemite Kingdom of TransJordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate - which was granted independence by Great Britain in 1946 and subsequently renamed Jordan in 1950.

5. Confirming that most of the Golan Heights was included within the 1922 Mandate until Britain ceded the area to France in the Franco-British Agreement of 7 March 1923

6. Rebranding the UN and EU designated “Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)” as “The Disputed Territories”

7. Agreement that Security Council Resolution 242 does not require Israel’s total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

Cracking heads by getting all interested parties to adopt an agreed narrative using terms with agreed meanings is crucial in any communications and negotiations between them - if Trump’s long-awaited “ultimate deal” is to not be still born.

Underestimating Trump’s ability to win the Presidential election race against Hillary Clinton in 2016 has seen those who confidently predicted his defeat subsequently engaged in a vitriolic war of attrition in the media trying to convince the electorate that they voted for the wrong candidate.

Yet Trump continues to confound his detractors with impressive gains in both the American economy and foreign affairs.

The State Department Report – in dumping the use of the nomenclature “The Occupied Territories” – has taken one giant step towards ending the decades-long dishonest semantic warfare waged by the PLO, UN and EU.

Trump has set himself a Herculean task confronting this sorry state of affairs.

Trump has once again dumbfounded his malevolent doomsday-pundits – whisking up an omelette that already promises to taste far better than any ever served up by the PLO, UN and EU.

Trump and May must circumvent Security Council Resolution 2334

[Published 25 January 2017]


President Trump’s meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May this coming Friday affords them a perfect opportunity to discuss reaffirming their countries commitments to the Jewish People made by America in 2004 and Great Britain in 1922 — which were seriously undermined when neither country vetoed Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016.

America’s commitments were given in a letter from President George Bush to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 to:

1. encourage Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank and

2. give the Bush-Quartet Roadmap (“Roadmap”) every chance of ending a conflict that had raged unresolved for about 85 years.

Bush’s commitments included:

(i) Preventing any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Roadmap.

(ii) Acknowledging that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between Israel and the PLO in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

(iii) Agreeing in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, that it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes 12.

President Obama actively attempted to subvert these commitments during his eight years in office - culminating in Obama’s failure to veto Resolution 2334 in the dying days of his Presidency — which trashed the above commitments and made them meaningless.

Great Britain had pledged to the Jewish People in 1922 that the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine would take place within 23% of the territory designated in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine — today called Israel, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) — whilst the remaining 77% would become an Arab homeland — today called Jordan.

This 23/77 division was embodied in Article 25 of the Mandate - after violent Arab riots in 1920-1921 accompanied by strident and strenuous Palestinian Arab political opposition to any idea of a Jewish National Home in Palestine had led to the British White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Arab apprehensions were partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration.

The White Paper stated:

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view [of the Balfour Declaration - ed] is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine'.”

Resolution 2334 has now declared as illegal the rights vested by the Mandate in the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) - despite such rights having been preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Vetoing Resolution 2334 would have averted America and the UK betraying their commitments to the Jewish People.

Reaffirming those commitments will do more to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict than moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Commitments when made by States should never be shredded without mutual agreement.

Palestine - Brexit 1922 Key To Trump Resolving Arab-Jewish Conflict

[Published 16 November 2016]


President-elect Donald Trump has lost no time in stressing his desire to end the Arab-Jewish conflict which has seen many proposals in the last 100 years fall by the wayside as a result of unrelenting Arab rejection to any Jewish State in former Palestine.

The first such proposal came in 1922 when Great Britain went back on its promise made to the Jewish people in 1920 at both the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres - by restricting the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in only 22% of the territory of Palestine covered by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (“Brexit 1922”).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this proposal but the Arabs were not prepared to accept self-determination in only 78% of Palestine - today called Jordan. They wanted the remaining 22% - today called Israel, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) Jerusalem and Gaza - and have maintained this position until today.

Proposals to end the conflict recommended by:

1. the 1937 Peel Commission,

2. the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution,

3. the 1993 Oslo Accords,

4. the 2002 Bush Roadmap and

5. Israeli offers in 2000/1 and 2008

have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

For President-elect Trump - resolving this conflict becomes the ultimate deal maker’s challenge to accomplish.

Trump lost no time in making his intentions very clear - just three days after his stunning Presidential victory:

“As a deal maker, I’d like to do… the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

To understand how Trump might pull off this deal one need look no further than the views of John Bolton - a controversial front runner with Rudy Giuliani to be Trump’s Secretary of State.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Times on 16 April 2014 Bolton presciently wrote:

“Instead of pursuing the misguided notion of “two states,” U.S. policymakers should instead ask what other solutions are possible that would provide Palestinians with personal dignity and security, economic growth and the prospect of living under a responsible, responsive government.

Concededly, there is no perfect alternative, but the most attractive prospect is to attach the disparate Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to their neighboring contiguous Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, respectively. We might call this a “three-state solution.”

After the late 1940s collapse of the League of Nations’ Middle East mandates, Jordan successfully governed the West Bank until the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Today, Israel, Jordan and Palestinians should draw new West Bank boundaries embodying Security Council Resolution 242’s “land for peace” formula.

Jordan could, with relative ease, resume sovereignty over those portions of the West Bank not incorporated into Israel”

Jordan - part of the problem - must undoubtedly become part of the solution.

Bolton however conceded:

“Gaza is a harder problem, but incorporating it into Egypt is clearly a better solution than allowing it to remain the headquarters for Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

An easier solution could see Gaza connected to the West Bank by an overhead expressway or underground road containing adequate security safeguards.

Trump possesses the firepower to broker a successful deal by:

1. offering continued - and perhaps increased - funding to Egypt and Jordan and
2. providing guarantees to defend Egypt and Jordan’s territorial integrity against Islamic State and others who might seek to intimidate and undermine their sovereignty.

Trump can indeed drain the swamp of Arab hatred and rejectionism and succeed where so many others have failed.

Brexit 2016 was the precursor to Trump’s Presidential triumph.

Brexit 1922 can serve as the foundation for Trump to pull off the deal of the century.

Trump Must Confirm Bush-Congress Endorsed Commitments To Israel

[Published 10 November 2016]


Donald Trump’s stunning Presidential victory - coupled with the Republican Party retaining control of the Congress - presents Trump with the opportunity to restore America’s tarnished reputation and integrity by affirming he will honour the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed by the then Congress by 502 votes to 12.

Those Bush-Congress commitments were seriously undermined by President Obama and his two Secretaries of State - Hillary Clinton and John Kerry - just one of many American disastrous policy failures in the Middle East during Obama’s term of office.

The Bush-Congress Commitments were crucial to:

1. Israel’s unilateral, unconditional and complete disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and

2.Israel’s agreement to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as publicly declared by Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the international conference called by President Bush in Annapolis in 2007.

“In the course of the negotiations, we will use previous agreements as a point of departure. U.N.Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map, and the letter of President Bush to the prime minister of Israel dated April 14, 2004.”

Israel has expressed concern that President Obama and current Secretary of State John Kerry might be planning to further undercut the following Bush Commitment at the United Nations or in the international arena during the period leading up to Trump and the new Congress being installed into power on 20 January 2017.

“... the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”

Obama and Kerry have not leapt to defend Israel’s refusal to take part in an international conference currently being planned by France in December - designed to depart from the clear negotiating guidelines laid down in the Bush Roadmap and Bush’s 2004 letter - as subsequently clarified at the Annapolis Conference.

Obama has remained mum on using America’s power of veto at the the UN Security Council to resist any efforts to depart from the terms of the Bush Roadmap or substitute some different negotiating process outside the Roadmap and the Bush-Congress endorsed commitments.

President-elect Trump made his views clearly known on America upholding commitments to its allies during the election campaign:

”... your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place.”

Senator Marco Rubio - who unsuccessfully challenged Trump for Republican Party Presidential nominee but who has now been reelected to the Senate for a further term by a large majority - pledged during that campaign:

“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders.

Israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the Middle East has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity.”

Moral clarity demands that Trump immediately inform Obama that no action should be undertaken by Obama between now and January that would in any way depart from or undermine the commitments made by former President George Bush and the Congress to Israel in 2004.

Trump also needs to unequivocally state that his Administration intends to fully uphold those Bush-Congress commitments.

Draining the swamp and making America great again will be given a huge impetus if Trump makes these policy declarations without obfuscation or delay.

Palestine - European Union Drowns In Sea Of Inconsistencies

[Published 5 January 2016]

The European Union (EU) has concluded an unhappy 2015 with the introduction of racist and discriminatory labelling laws for Jewish goods and products originating from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem.

EU members Hungary, Greece and the Czech Republic have rejected these laws which have also been condemned in a bipartisan resolution presented to the US Congress.

The EU’s Ambassador to Israel - Lars Faaborg-Andersen - has attempted to justify these labelling laws as being simply an expression of the EU’s longstanding view that such designated territories are not part of Israel.

He omitted to state that EU policy will never support any part of these disputed territories becoming part of the State of Israel because the EU claims that Jewish settlement there since 1967 is illegal in international law.

However there is no binding legal decision in any Court that substantiates this EU claim.

Indeed there is territory-specific legislation to the contrary - article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter - that confirms the legal right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem.

Jews lived in these areas for millennia prior to being driven out in 1948 by six invading Arab armies - facts which somehow appear to have escaped the EU’s notice.

Such EU policy also flies in the face of Security Council Resolution 242 calling for secure and recognised borders to be established in negotiations between Israel and her neighbours.

The EU’s anti-Israel stance no doubt encouraged the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to reject offers by Israel in 2000/01 and 2008 to cede its claims in more than 90% of Judea and Samaria as part of any peace treaty to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

Why accept 90% when the EU is supporting the PLO’s demand for 100%?

The EU - in so acting - has repudiated the decisions adopted in 1922 by 23 of its current 28 members unanimously endorsing the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - whose terms provided for:

1. Jewish self-determination in 22% of the territory of the Mandate including East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria

2. Arab self-determination in the remaining 78% of the territory of the Mandate - today called Jordan.

Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Ireland and Malta are the only current members of the EU that were not members of the League of Nations when these fateful decisions were taken.

The Jews had been short-changed by the League of Nations - which reduced the area within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted to just 22% of that previously contemplated by the High Contracting Powers - Great Britain, France, Italy (all current EU members) and Japan - at the April 1920 San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres signed in August of that year.

The Jews nevertheless reluctantly accepted these restrictions. The Arabs rejected them. The PLO deemed them “null and void” in 1968.

Fast forward to 2016 and the European Union continues to backtrack on these internationally binding commitments to the Jewish people made by the overwhelming majority of EU members 94 years ago.

Conditions for entry into the EU require that each applicant:

1. Be democratic

2. Have a free market Government together with corresponding freedoms and institutions and

3. Respect for the rule of law.

The EU does not require the PLO to meet these criteria - yet opposes any claim to the historic and biblical heartland of the Jewish people by Israel - which shares these EU fundamental values.

The EU should hang its collective head in shame as it drowns in this sea of inconsistencies entirely of its own making.

Palestine - Islamic And Arab Countries Fiddle While Syria Burns

[Published 23 June 2014]


Australia’s decision on 5 June to no longer refer to East Jerusalem and the West Bank as “occupied territory” but rather “disputed territory” has provoked outrage among Islamic and Arab countries accredited in Australia.

They sought and received an urgent meeting with Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on 19 June — following a letter sent to Ms Bishop on 12 June by Moroccan Ambassador HE Mohamed Mael-Ainin on behalf of the Heads of Mission of this powerful Islamic lobby.

The Ambassador’s letter has not been released by the Foreign Affairs Department as it:

“does not publicly release correspondence to the Foreign Minister from representatives of foreign countries.”

Yet - in a media release issued after the meeting - Ms Bishop attached her written response to the Moroccan Ambassador — in which she stated:

“I emphasise that there has been no change in the Australian Government’s position on the legal status of the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. Our position is consistent with relevant UN resolutions on the issue, adopted over many years, starting with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Senator Brandis’ statement was about nomenclature, and was not a comment on the legal status of the Palestinian Territories.

Australia continues to be a strong supporter of a just and lasting two-state solution, with Israel and a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. To this end, we are urging both sides to resume direct negotiations. We do not consider it helpful to engage in debates over legal issues, nor to prejudge any final status issues that are the subject of these negotiations.”

Creating a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine — in addition to Jordan - for the first time ever in recorded history - remains an illusion after fruitless negotiations spanning the last 20 years.

Legal issues will determine final status issues — one essential legal prerequisite being secure and recognized borders for Israel demanded by Resolutions 242 and 338

The Palestine Liberation Organisation’s acceptance of the League of Nations and United Nations decisions recognising the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Mandatory Palestine remains another legal lynch pin to achieving Australia’s desired two-state solution.

Refusal to recognise the State of Israel by all 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has materially contributed to the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict remaining unresolved.

Jordan’s Ambassador Rima Ahmad Alaadeen after meeting Ms Bishop reportedly made the OIC’s potential hostility towards Australia very clear:

“Alaadeen said she could not say whether there would be trade sanctions against Australia. The controversy was on the agenda of the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation summit of foreign ministers in Jeddah this week.

“There is a clause or a paragraph… on the recent events in Australian policy regarding East Jerusalem, so we have to wait and see what transpires,” she said.

Iraq’s Ambassador to Australia, Mouayed Saleh, who also attended the meeting, similarly said he could not rule out trade sanctions.”

In pursuing this diplomatic dressing down of Australia including threats of sanctions for having the temerity to pursue its own independent foreign policy - these Islamic and Arab States missed a golden opportunity to raise with Ms Bishop a shocking Report released on 16 June by the Human Rights Council received from its “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” - a fellow Arab and Islamic State.

The Report—detailing developments in the ongoing conflict between 15 March and 15 June - states:

“In three years of conflict, millions of Syrians have suffered the loss of relatives to attacks, to violence in detention facilities, to disappearances and to starvation. Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives. The failure to protect civilians, both from the conduct of the Syrian Government forces and non-State armed groups unaligned with the Government (NSAGs), has led to unspeakable suffering. An estimated 9.3 million Syrians are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, with 4.25 million IDPs and 2.8 million refugees in neighbouring countries. The vast majority are women and children.

In the course of the conflict, the infrastructure that constitutes civilian life has been targeted and misused. Schools have been reduced to rubble or occupied by armed forces, hospitals have come under attack, and entire residential neighbourhoods have been destroyed.”

Horrors being currently perpetrated include:

1. Extra-judicial killings, sexual assaults, beatings, enforced disappearances and arbitrary arrests

2. Reports of deaths in custody, particularly in detention centres in Damascus city, rising dramatically. Former detainees described being held in cells with corpses of cellmates who had been tortured or died as a result of untreated medical conditions.

3. Persistent reports of the use of torture—including beating, electrocution and hanging from walls.

4. Increasing attacks by Government forces and the armed opposition targeting civilians.

Australia is presently a member of the UN Security Council.

The Report states that through UN inaction:

“a space has been created for the worst of humanity to express itself.”

Those Islamic and Arab diplomats meeting Ms Bishop should have been urging Australia to sponsor a Security Council resolution demanding that an armed UN force be sent to Syria to implement an imposed cease fire to end this mayhem and slaughter.

Regrettably - imposing bully boy tactics on Australia was obviously considered far more important than trying to end the interminable suffering of millions of their Syrian Arab brethren and sisters.

Palestine - Negotiating Semantic Minefield Becomes Pressing Necessity

[Published 14 June 2014]


Two former Australian Foreign Ministers—Bob Carr (2012-2013) and Gareth Evans (1988-1996)—have published an article this past week engaging in a semantic tug of war with Australia’s current Foreign Minister—Julie Bishop - over Australia’s recently declared policy of refusing to describe East Jerusalem as “occupied territory”.

East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria were conquered in 1948 by Transjordan and illegally annexed in 1950 - when Transjordan then changed its name to “Jordan” and the 3000 years old geographic designation of “Judea and Samaria” to the “West Bank”.

East Jerusalem and the West Bank were lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed a Basic Law declaring reunified Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel, while providing for freedom of access to each religion’s holy sites—a decision not sanctioned by the United Nations.

“Occupied territory” carries the clear connotation that such territory indisputably belongs to someone else. Yet East Jerusalem and the West Bank have not been under any internationally recognised sovereignty or control since Great Britain handed back its administration of the Mandate for Palestine to the United Nations in 1948.

Israel refers to the West Bank as “disputed territory”:

“The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.”

Australia’s Prime Minister - Tony Abbott - agrees:

“It is important, as far as you can, not to use loaded terms, not to use pejorative terms, not to use terms which suggest that matters have been prejudged and that is a freighted term.

The truth is they’re disputed territories.”

Carr and Evans conveniently overlook mentioning or rebutting Israel’s position—indicating a level of intellectual dishonesty which is disappointing coming from persons with such distinguished backgrounds.

Instead - Carr and Evans ring the alarm bells - attempting to incite a state of international hysteria when claiming:

“If East Jerusalem is not to be referred to as “occupied”, why not Nablus or Bethlehem? If the Australian government can say “occupied East Jerusalem” is fraught with “pejorative implications” what is to stop Ms Bishop applying this to the occupied West Bank as a whole? It is a short step away for the Coalition government to declare that all the West Bank, with its population of more than 2 million Arabs, is no more than a “disputed” territory."

Are they really unaware that 40% of the West Bank—including Nablus and Bethlehem - contains 96% of the West Bank Arab population—and has been under the total administrative control of the Palestine Liberation Organisation since 1995?

Have they forgotten that Israel offered to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/2001 and 2008—and that both offers were rejected.

Carr and Evans aren’t averse in misleading their readership when they assert:

“The International Court of Justice in 2004 declared not only that the West Bank was occupied but that this was illegal.”

It is unseemly that they forget to mention that this decision was an Advisory Opinion only and has no binding legal effect.

What is completely inexcusable is that Carr and Evans relied only on this International Court of Justice decision—whilst apparently failing to consider the following established international law with specific application to the West Bank—namely:

1. The Mandate for Palestine 1922 - especially article 6 - and article 80 of the United Nations Charter and

2. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

These provisions provide the legal basis for Israel using the term “disputed territory” and Australia rejecting the pejorative term “occupied territory” used in countless UN Resolutions - misleadingly suggesting an Arab entitlement to 100% exclusive sovereignty.

The Arab-Jewish conflict has been an ongoing battle of words as much as a series of real live battles fought by the Jews against its Palestinian Arab neighbours, the armies of six Arab States and a myriad number of terrorist groups over the last 130 years.

Notable semantic battles that have influenced the political debate include:

1. Do the words “in Palestine” as used in the Mandate for Palestine mean “all of Palestine”?

2. Do the words “Withdraw from territories” used in Security Council Resolution 242 mean “all the territories”?

3. Are there “1967 borders” or only “1967 armistice lines”?

4. Did the words “Reconstitute the Jewish National Home” as used in the Mandate for Palestine preclude the creation of a Jewish State?

5. Does “Palestine” include what is today called “Jordan”?

Whilst one side talks “occupied territory” and the other “disputed territory”—negotiations will continue to go nowhere.

A pathway through this semantic minefield needs to be found which leads to the parties using commonly agreed and understood language.

If not—this minefield could blow up with disastrous consequences for everyone—not just the disputants.

Another Syria or Iraq is the last thing the world needs now.

Palestine - Australia Rejects Fiction To Recognize Reality

[Published 8 June 2014]


Australia will no longer be referring to East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as “occupied territories”.

Attorney-General George Brandis made this clear when he read a statement to the Senate foreign affairs committee this week indicating the language of “occupation” was:

“judgmental”, ”freighted with pejorative implications” and ”neither appropriate nor useful” for the peace process.

This injection of sanity into the contribution being made by the international community to help resolve the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict is long overdue and very welcome.

The use of the terms “occupied territories” by the European Union or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” by the United Nations has emboldened the Arab League, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to maintain their 47 year old demand that every square metre of land captured by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War be returned to Arab control.

The world’s nations need to awaken from their fiction-induced slumber

Their unyielding stance was never contemplated by Security Council Resolution 242 which acknowledged the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised borders. It has been a major impediment to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - resulting in offers by Israel to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of those territories being rejected by the PA in 2000/1 and 2008.

Catherine Ashton - High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy European Union/Vice-President of the European Commission - was pandering to this decades old Arab demand when she told the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 30 December 2009:

“East Jerusalem is occupied territory, together with the rest of the West Bank.”

Israel’s then Deputy Foreign Minister - Danny Ayalon - penned an article in response in the Wall Street Journal on 30 December 2009 - pointing out:

” However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel’s rights to what are generally called the “occupied territories” but what really are “disputed territories.”

That’s because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered “occupied” in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel’s conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years.”

Ayalon criticised the perception that:

“... Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table.”

Ayalon was affirming that the West Bank was “no man’s land” - where sovereignty still remained undetermined.

Israel and the PLO - the PA having been disbanded in January 2013 - still continue to be unable to agree on the final allocation of sovereignty after fruitless negotiations spanning the last 20 years.

The latest round of negotiations ended in total collapse on 29 April with the PLO still demanding sovereignty in 100% of the territories (or perhaps - as has been reported - some land swaps in compensation).

Ayalon’s prediction in 2009 has proved to be chillingly correct in 2014 - and will continue to prevail whilst the PLO refuses to acknowledge that Israel has any claims to sovereignty in these areas.

Such claims are based on legal rights vested in the Jewish people pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1920 and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The PLO considers such rights to be “null and void” under Article 20 of the PLO Covenant - seeking to snuff out Israel’s claims to what was the heart of the Jewish biblical and ancestral homeland 3000 years ago.

Ignoring this body of international law spells disaster for Israel and the PLO ever resolving their competing claims.

Australia’s decision to call a spade a spade will hopefully encourage other countries to follow suit - as well as implementing international action to make some further changes in the duplicitous diplomatic double speak involving the use of misleading and deceptive language which has hindered rather than facilitated any resolution of the conflict.

These changes include:

1. Replacing the term “occupied territories” with the term “disputed territories” to clarify that Jews also have legal rights in these territories in addition to those claimed by the Arabs.

2. Using the 3000 years old term “Judea and Samaria” to replace the term “West Bank” - first coined by Jordan in 1950 to erase any trace of Jews having lived there after having been driven out by the invading Jordanian army in 1948.

3. Substituting “Palestinian Arabs” for “Palestinians” and “Palestinian people” - terms first appearing in the 1964 PLO Charter that excluded former Jewish and other non-Arab residents and their descendants having any rights.

4. Referring to the conflict as the “Jewish-Arab conflict” - which commenced in about 1880 instead of the “Palestinian-Israeli ” conflict - which only commenced in 1948.

5. Omitting any reference to the term “State of Palestine” until the provisions of the Montevideo Convention 1934 are complied with.

The world has been duped into the use of language that reflects fiction - not fact. Used often enough it takes on a highly damaging life of its own.

Erasing such language from the international lexicon is long overdue.

The world’s nations need to awaken from their fiction-induced slumber.

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 - Abbas, Attitude and Annexation

[Published 10 January 2013]


Annexation of large areas of the West Bank by Israel has now become a distinct possibility with the unilateral decision this week to scrap any trace of the existence of the Palestinian Authority by its President Mahmoud Abbas.

In a “Presidential decree” Abbas has called for all official documents - including passports, drivers’ licenses, postage stamps and car number plates - to now bear the name ‘State of Palestine’, instead of the generally used ‘Palestinian National Authority’.

Abbas has also ordered foreign ministries and embassies around the world to start using the title.

Abbas’s decree comes just a few days after he had reportedly told an Israeli politician that if there was no progress in the peace talks:

“I will take the phone and call Netanyahu and tell him: ‘Sit in the chair instead of me; take the keys and you will be responsible for the Palestinian Authority.”

His remark prompted this angry response from senior Hamas official Abu Marzouk, in a posting on Facebook:

“Why does Abbas want to hand the keys over to Netanyahu? Why not hand it over to Hamas?”

Abu Marzouk - who turned 62 on January 9 and is slated to replace Khaled Mashaal as head of Hamas - said it would have been:

“better and more effective had Abbas threatened to hand the West Bank to Hamas.”

In a fearless riposte - Jamal Muheisen, a member of the Fatah Central Council, said the Palestinians should first hold presidential and legislative elections to choose their leaders:

“Whoever wins in the elections will be handed the keys of the entire Palestinian Authority, be it Hamas or Fatah or any other Palestinian faction,”

Now it seems the keys to control of the entire Palestinian Authority have been thrown down the drain by its own President just days later - as have any hopes of negotiating a two-state solution as prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

This solution has simply vanished into thin air after being flavour of the month for the last twenty years - with one of the two principal negotiating parties having gone missing in action.

We are now being subjected to the following delusional garbage being spouted on Al - Jazzera on 8 January by the now defunct chief negotiator of the now defunct Palestinian Authority - Saeb Erekat:

“Palestine is a country under occupation. What was Norway, Finland, Holland, France, Korea, Philippines between 1939 and 1945 - nation states under occupation. Today, the state of Palestine is officially a state under occupation. It has 192 member countries that recognise this and a nation state, Israel, which is the occupying power; these are the new realities.”

The comparison is totally fictitious and Erekat’s arrogance is unbounded.

Comparing States that had existed for centuries to a State that has never existed in recorded history whilst claiming statehood in an area it has never controlled is mind blowing.

Demonstrably all 192 “member countries” in the United Nations do not recognise Erekat’s outrageous statement.

Purporting to draw many of those countries into what is increasingly appearing to be a continuation of the Fatah-Hamas rivalry for control of the hearts and minds of the long suffering Palestinian Arabs is political madness.

Certainly 50 of those countries did nothing of the sort - 9 rejecting and 41 abstaining from supporting the General Assembly resolution on 29 November last granting Palestine the status of a non-member observer State at its meetings.

Abbas and Erekat should have heeded the explanations given by Singapore and Germany for abstaining - before embarking on their new flight into unreality

A summary of these two countries views was issued in a release from the United Nations Department of Public Information News and Media Division

Germany’s vote against the Resolution was summarised as follows:

“The delegate of Germany said his nation firmed believed in “two States for two peoples” and shared the goal of a Palestinian State. However, such status must be achieved only through direct negotiations. There was doubt that today’s action would be helpful for the peace process at this point in time. “It might lead to further hardening of positions instead of improving chances of a two-State solution through direct negotiations,” he said. He explicitly welcomed that today’s resolution called for a two-State solution and, hence, recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace. However, Israel’s legitimate security concern had to be addressed in a credible manner.”

To say Germany was spot on in its predictions would be an understatement.

Singapore was even more circumspect in its sober assessment made against the baying cries from those 138 states who could not see the wood for the trees.

“The representative of Singapore said that his delegation supported the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and had, in the past, supported relevant Assembly resolutions. However, his country had abstained from today’s vote because only a negotiated settlement, consistent with Security Council resolution 242 (1967), could provide the basis for a viable, long-term solution. Both sides had legitimate rights and shared responsibilities and must be prepared to make compromises to achieve the larger good of a lasting peace. Because of those interlinked rights and responsibilities, no unilateral move could result in a just and durable outcome.”

The preparadness of especially the democratic states to vote for the General Assembly Resolution on 29 November and abandon Security Council Resolution 242 - the only internationally accepted United Nations resolution binding both Jews and Arabs to ending their conflict - was shameful.

Those democracies must now rue the day that their votes could be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the state of utter confusion that now exists following Abbas’s Presidential decree and Erekat’s involvement of them in his latest statement.

Israel will hold elections on 22 January.

A new political party - Bayit Hayehudi - the Jewish homeland party - could possibly end up exercising a controlling vote in the next Parliament.

It’s leader Naftali Bennett has already made clear that he will be calling for Israel to annex at least 60% of the West Bank - adding in an interview in Haaretz on 28 December:

“And in the end, Jordan will be Palestine. There is no chance that, between the river and the sea, a Palestinian state will arise. The two-state solution is dead. There is no need to bury the two-state solution because it is already buried.”

Abbas has helped advance this possible outcome because of his inane Presidential decree consigning the Palestinian Authority to the dustbin of history.

Ave atque vale - Palestinian Authority.

Others less charitable might say - “good riddance”.

Palestine - Violating Vatican Vows

[Published 27 December 2012]


Diplomatic relations between Israel and the Vatican are set to considerably cool following the Pope granting a private audience to Mahmoud Abbas on 17 December.

Their meeting came at a time of growing political crisis engendered by the passage of the UN General Assembly resolution on 29 November that reaffirmed

“the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;"

The Pope seemingly overlooked any discussion of the implications of this integral part of the resolution that also recognised the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state in the General Assembly - a view confirmed by the following communique issued by the Vatican

“The cordial discussions made reference to the recent Resolution approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations by which Palestine was recognised as a Non-member Observer State of the aforementioned Organisation. It is hoped that this initiative will encourage the commitment of the international community to finding a fair and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which may be reached only by resuming the negotiations between the Parties, in good faith and according due respect to the rights of both.”

The Pope was apparently unaware that the only matter left to be negotiated between the parties as a result of “this initiative ” was the timing of the eviction of 600000 Jews currently living in this ” State of Palestine” as defined by the General Assembly.

Abbas had made this racist view very clear on 28 July 2010 when Wafa - the official Palestinian news agency - reported the following remark by Abbas in Cairo:

“I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as Nato forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the Nato forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.”

Could the Pope have failed to understand that the Resolution also left no room for negotiating the boundaries of this “State of Palestine” - that the General Assembly had preemptively determined that it should comprise 100% of the territory won from Jordan by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?

Would cordial discussions have occurred had the Pope taken the opportunity to urge Abbas to recognise Israel as the Jewish National Home and offer Palestinian citizenship to those Jews who did not want to leave their current homes?

Resumption of negotiations by “the Parties in good faith and according due respect to the rights of both” in such circumstances is a pure pipe dream.

The Abbas audience was a papal faux pas for several reasons.

Firstly - the Pope should not have blessed the audience with overt political significance by accepting from Abbas the gift of a mosaic of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem bearing the inscription that it was presented to him by “the President of the State of Palestine” - a farcical nomenclature that had only been sanctioned that very day by the Chief of Protocol at the UN - Yeocheol Yoon.

Secondly - the Pope was clearly violating clause 11(2) of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement Between The Holy See And The State Of Israel which provides:

“The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders.”

Remaining a stranger to this temporal conflict would have allowed the Pope to escape any criticism as a result of this inappropriate audience.

Thirdly - Article 2.2 of the Fundamental Agreement further avers:

“The Holy See takes this occasion to reiterate its condemnation of hatred, persecution and all other manifestations of antisemitism directed against the Jewish people and individual Jews anywhere, at any time and by anyone”

Failing to condemn the “President of the State of Palestine” during the audience for his known manifestations of anti-semitism makes a mockery of the Fundamental Agreement.

Fourthly - The Pope’s political foray no doubt inspired his own appointed nominee as the top Roman Catholic cleric in the Holy Land - the Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal - to also make a political statement in his annual pre-Christmas homily.

Archbishop Twal told his followers at his headquarters in Jerusalem’s Old City that this year’s festivities were doubly joyful, celebrating:

“the birth of Christ our Lord and the birth of the state of Palestine. The path (to statehood) remains long, and will require a united effort,”

Archbishop Twal - who was born in Jordan - had told Vatican Radio on 21 June 2008:

“The majority of our priests, nuns, schools families are in Jordan. We need a link to Jordan…,”

That link will certainly not come from the State of Palestine designated by the UN General Assembly - since its realisation is simply not going to eventuate.

Archbishop Twal also told www.custodia.org in an interview on 22 June 2008:

“If you want to touch Jews, Muslims, Christians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Cypriots, Europeans all together ..then you have to consider every comma”

The Archbishop would have done well to have remembered this sage advice before uttering his Christmas Eve message - understanding that what he said would not touch at least 600000 Jews - but cause them immeasurable hurt.

Indeed those who are playing charades with the newly crowned President of the State of Palestine are engaging in a world of make believe - where the words and commas in the Mandate for Palestine, the Montevideo Convention, Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, Security Council Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - are apparently no longer worth the paper they are written on.

One can now add the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel to these discarded international agreements.

This does not bode well for any possible peaceful resolution of the long running conflict between Jews and Arabs.

The last Pope to bear Pope Benedict’s name - Benedict XV - enthusiastically endorsed the Jews’ right to reconstitute their national home in what was then Palestine when he told Zionist leader Nahum Sokolov at an audience in 1917 :

“Nineteen hundred years ago Rome destroyed your homeland and when you seek to rebuild it, you seek a path which leads via Rome…Yes this is the will of Divine Providence, this is what the Almighty desires.”

Violating Vatican vows this time round is certainly not going to entice Israel to beat a path to Rome as it continues to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in its ancient, biblical and internationally sanctioned homeland.

Palestine - Gaza Conflict Sure To Resume

[Published 22 November 2012]


One would have to be a supreme optimist to believe the Agreement of Understanding For A Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip (Understanding) will result in anything but a brief lull in what has been a very difficult eight days for the civilian populations in both Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Ma’an News Agency , the Jerusalem Post and many other media outlets have introduced and published the text of what is termed a “ceasefire agreement” in the following identical terms:

“CAIRO (Reuters)—Following is the verbatim English text of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza that was reached Wednesday with Egyptian mediation.

The text was distributed by the Egyptian presidency.

Agreement of Understanding For a Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip

1: (no title given for this section)

A. Israel should stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals.

B. All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.

C. Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

D. Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.

2: Implementation mechanisms:

A. Setting up the zero hour for the ceasefire understanding to enter into effect.

B. Egypt shall receive assurances from each party that the party commits to what was agreed upon.

C. Each party shall commit itself not to perform any acts that would breach this understanding. In case of any observations Egypt as the sponsor of this understanding shall be informed to follow up.”

There will inevitably be serious differences of opinion as to what the document really means - as the following comments - whilst not exhaustive - indicate:

1. The document is not an Agreement but merely an Understanding.

2. The parties to the Understanding are not specifically identified nor has the document been signed by any parties that are supposed to be bound by the Understanding. How does Egypt ensure that it has obtained the assurances from each Palestinian faction that each of them “has agreed to the terms of the document"?

3. What constitutes a “Palestinian faction”?

4. Israel “should stop” all hostilities - but all Palestinian factions “shall stop” all hostilities.

Israel is clearly not to be restrained in the same way as the Palestinian factions.

A draft of the document leaked to the BBC indicated the word “shall” was originally inserted in relation to Israel - but has been changed in the above text to “should”.

As a result the need to first identify those firing rockets from Gaza as being “Palestinian factions” acting in breach of the Understanding will not be necessary to stop Israel retaliating without itself being in breach of the Understanding.

5. Whilst Israel is to stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air - the Palestinian factions are not so limited from engaging in hostilities from the sea, the Sinai peninsular, the West Bank or even from terrorist cells located in Israel. If any such hostilities occur - Israel would be precluded from retaliating in Gaza under the terms of the Understanding.

6. Persons or groups located in the Gaza Strip such as Al Qaeda, Iranian or other non- Palestinian factions are not bound by the Understanding.

7. Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents free movements provide fertile ground for disagreement.

Will Israelis be welcomed in Gaza and Gazans allowed to visit Israel?

Ominously the issue has already raised its head before the parties have even started negotiating.

In Cairo, Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said all the border crossings between Gaza and Israel had to be opened - not just the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt
“The [ceasefire] document stipulates the opening of the crossings, all the crossings, and not just Rafah,” Mr Meshaal told a news conference in Cairo.

The Understanding certainly does not contain the word “all”. The lawyers will have a field day arguing the meaning of this clause in the Understanding.

Mr Meshall is no doubt well aware of the furore over the meaning of the words ” in Palestine ” used in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Winston Churchill’s explanation that those words did not mean "all of Palestine” when considering the recognition conferred on the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home “in Palestine”

He may also recall the different interpretations of the meaning of the word “territory” used in Security Council Resolution 242.

The semantic war is still alive and kicking as a result of this shoddily drafted document.

1. Hamas is not clearly identified as a party although it constitutes the current Government in Gaza. It has no role to ensure other Palestinian factions comply with the Understanding. Abdication of its role in restraining the firing of rockets from Gaza by all and sundry has been a major contributor to the breakdown of law and order in Gaza.

2. There is no time laid down for reaching agreement on the outstanding issues.

With the ceasefire now in place - the execution of the Understanding will shortly commence.

Israel will want to see a quick resolution of the conditions of the Understanding resulting in an end once and for all to any rockets being fired indiscriminately into civilian population centres in Israel.

The Palestinian factions will not be in such a rush - as they take the opportunity allowed by the ceasefire to regroup and restock their depleted store of rockets whilst making continuing demands on Israel that it will find impossible to meet.

I am afraid that it is only a matter of time - a very short space of time perhaps one month at the most - before the ceasefire is set to disappear in a raft of recriminations as to who was responsible for the demise of the Understanding.

That in my humble opinion is certainly not rocket science.