Gantz Trojan Horse threatens Israel as the Jewish National Home

[Published 30 March 2020]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has paid a high price for the National Unity Government being forged with Benny Gantz - by agreeing to Gantz becoming Israel’s Prime Minister in 18 months’ time without going to an election.

Netanyahu had run out of time to explore other options – having had that decision foisted on him by two extraordinary High Court of Justice cases ordering the Knesset Speaker – Yuli Edelstein – to convene the Knesset contrary to the Knesset’s own rules and procedures.

Compliance by Edelstein would have unleashed a train of events that would have caused havoc and instability at a time when unity was sorely needed. Edelstein resigned.

It is indeed a miracle that Netanyahu and Gantz rescued Israel from this rapidly escalating political and constitutional crisis at the same time as Israel is coping with the ravages of Covid-19.

Gantz’s courage in dumping his partners in Blue and White – Yair Lapid and Moshe Ya’alon - when any hope of averting the crisis seemed lost and just as the doors of the Knesset were shortly to open - was praised by the Right but condemned by Lapid and Ya’alon in bitter and derogatory terms.

Gantz’s new found ally – Yisrael Beiteinu’s Avigdor Liberman - was left high and dry – ruing his stupidity at having missed three opportunities in the last 12 months to be in Government with Netanyahu - making demands he absolutely refused to compromise on during negotiations with Netanyahu. Liberman was relegated to the Opposition benches with his six colleagues – a kingmaker no more.

Forgiven was the havoc caused when Gantz started to flirt with Joint List – the bloc comprising 15 members from the four Arab political parties - who endorsed Gantz to form the next Government - persuading Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to regrettably give Gantz first try to do so.

Joint List’s objectives include dismantling Israel as the Jewish National Home.

Joint List Chairman - Ahmad Tibi had openly articulated this goal to Rivlin in September 2019:

“Some people think we are the backyard of the State of Israel, we are not a backyard, we are not present absentees, we are not guests, we are the owners of this land. Not residents of this country, we did not immigrate here, we were born here, we are a native population, and this native population sent us to make a change.”

Gantz’s decision to embrace Joint List accorded with his first public statement after forming the Resilience Party in December 2018. Druze demonstrators protesting the 2016 Nation-State Law defining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and ending Arabic as an official language of Israel – were told by Gantz:

“We have a blood alliance, but just as importantly, we have a life alliance. We need to make sure that we build this partnership and this alliance together, as it should be. I will do all in my power to work to amend the legislation, so it will give expression to this bond, the deep bond that cannot be severed—not just in battle, but also in life; not just in difficulties, but also in good times. We’ll do this together.”

Gantz is perfectly entitled to propound the idea that Israel should become the state of all its citizens – no longer the Jewish National Home reconstituted by the League of Nations 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

But to do so as Prime Minister – without receiving any electoral mandate to pursue that highly-controversial policy – is another thing.

The Gantz Trojan Horse is knocking at the Prime Minister’s door – and Netanyahu has let him in.

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

Gantz promises chaos and confusion in Israel for next six weeks

[Published 18 March 2020]

Benny Gantz’s decision to do a deal with the Joint List to influence President Rivlin into giving Gantz first bite at forming Israel’s next Government is reprehensible, unconscionable and against Israel’s national interest.

Gantz’ decision allows the Joint List with just 15 of the 120 seats in the Knesset and 12.67% of the vote at the recent elections to sow discord and create confusion over the next six weeks as they plot with Gantz to overthrow Netanyahu — Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister.

Ahmad Tibi — leader of Ta’al — one of the four parties making up the Joint List — told Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin last September:

“Some people think we are the backyard of the State of Israel, we are not a backyard, we are not present absentees, we are not guests, we are the owners of this land. Not residents of this country, we did not immigrate here, we were born here, we are a native population, and this native population sent us to make a change.”

“Owners of this land”?

Gantz’s new partner was making it crystal clear to Israel’s President that Israel was not recognized by Tibi’s party as the Jewish National Home reconstituted after 3,000 years by and with the unanimous resolution of all 51 member states that comprised the League of Nations and endorsed the Mandate for Palestine.

Balad — the second party included in the Joint List and now in partnership with Gantz — had a former MK Said Nafa among its ranks. Nafa was convicted of maintaining contact with a foreign intelligence operative and spent time in prison. Another former Balad Knesset member, Basel Ghattas, was convicted of smuggling cellphones to Palestinian prisoners in an Israeli jail, an offense for which he too was convicted and imprisoned.

Spokesperson for the Joint list is Ayman Odeh — the head of Hadash — the third party in Joint List.

Odeh stated on 5 March 2020:

“Right now, with Gantz’s attitude [in favor] of a Jewish majority and unilateral annexation, we have no one to recommend to the president. If there is a change after the elections in the direction of peace and equality, we will weigh our position again.”

Gantz has apparently capitulated to Odeh’s demands just 11 days later.

Vice President of the fourth party in the Joint List — Mansour Abbas — has declared:

“Of course, we are against the Zionist movement. However, from a pragmatic perspective, we are ready for a compromise between the Zionist movement and Palestinians”

A Netanyahu-Gantz-Liberman Government of National Unity comprising 105 Knesset members was indicated by the election results — Netanyahu’s Likud party having secured 238,882 extra votes and 4 extra seats whilst Gantz’s Blue and White Party only secured 69,167 extra votes and no extra seats.

Instead — Gantz and his Blue and White colleagues Moshe Ya’alon and Yair Lapid — together with Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Liberman — have jumped into bed with the Joint List to realize their common objective: all hate Netanyahu for a variety of personal reasons and want to see his political career ended.

Odeh had called for Gantz to form a minority Government with support of the Joint List in October 2019 — saying that even if it would quickly fall, such a “courageous” move would be worth it for the single purpose of ousting Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister.

Gantz has now taken the bait – to his eternal shame.

Israel now faces six weeks of political chaos and confusion as Gantz and his 45 Netanyahu-hating coalition partners cosy up to and embrace 15 Joint List Knesset members who revile them, Netanyahu and the Jewish State.


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

Vote recount could possibly end Israel’s electoral morass

[Published 19 October 2019]

Israel’s President Rivlin is due to make a decision on October 24 on whether to extend for another 14 days the mandate he granted to Benjamin Netanyahu to form Israel’s next Government.

Reports that Rivlin will not give Netanyahu that 14 days extension — even if requested by Netanyahu — seems counterproductive to doing everything possible to avoid a third election within 12 months.

The President should also take advantage of that 14-day period to order a recount of votes to answer a query that the September election results have thrown up — which is encapsulated in this email I sent to the Central Elections Committee on 29 September:

“I would be pleased if you could give me an explanation to my following comment relating to the final count in the September 2019 elections:

There was an increase of 27,536 in the number of eligible votes cast from 4,309,270 in April 2019 to 4,436,806 in September. Yet there was an increase of 133,103 alone just in the Joint List vote (470,211) over the Hadash-Tal and Ram-Balad vote (337,108) in April.

Thank you for helping me to understand how this could occur.”

The April election results were mired in confusion due to a bug in the Central Elections Committee website. The displayed data indicated for several hours that the New Right party was just above the threshold with 3.26%, but officials said that was a mistake.

The officials said the bug on the site meant that it was not showing accurate numbers for total votes counted, and was thus displaying inaccurate figures for all parties. This was rectified.

Could this same mistake have happened again in September and not have been rectified?

I have not yet received a reply to my request.

The distribution of Knesset seats is very complicated and the summary issued by the Central Committee needs to be amplified and explained.

Allowing Netanyahu another 14 days would therefore seem to be in the national interest from everyone’s standpoint — especially if Netanyahu requests it.

Calling on Blue and White leader Benny Gantz to try and form a Government can wait another 14 days — given that Netanyahu’s bloc has a clear electoral majority over the Ganz bloc — 1,973,246 votes to 1,556,491 votes .

President Trump — like bemused Israeli voters — is frustrated by an electoral system that has failed to produce a new Government following elections in April and September.

After April’s fiasco – Trump opined:

“Well, it’s too bad what happened in Israel. It looked like a total win for Netanyahu, who’s a great guy, he’s a great guy,” said the president. “And now they’re back… in the election stage. That is too bad. Because they don’t need this. I mean they’ve got enough turmoil over there, it’s a tough place.”

That turmoil continued in September and could be repeated following any third election.

Trump’s deal of the century — years in the making and designed to end the 100 years Jewish-Arab conflict — will not be released until a new Israeli Government has been formed.

Liberman’s failure to sign up his 8 seats with the 55 seats aligned with Netanyahu continues to confound the democratic electoral process — when a party not securing a majority of seats in its own right can usually form a Government with a small party’s support — in return for granting that small party some of its political demands.

A full recount of the votes cast in the September 17 elections — if still legally available - could be just the miracle Israel needs to get out of its current predicament.

Clutching at straws maybe, but certainly well worth pursuing.

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

Rivlin must cook up a US$220 million Netanyahu-Liberman omelette

[Published 13 October 2019]


An opening to ending Israel’s election deadlock has come after Yisrael Beiteinu faction chairman Oded Forer sent a formal letter to the head of the Likud’s coalition negotiating team, Yariv Levin, on 11 October, asking for negotiations on the policy guidelines for the next government.

Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin should exploit this opening to try and save Israel going to a third election in twelve months — by summoning Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yisrael Beitienu head Avigdor Liberman to the President’s residence for negotiations on forming a Netanyahu-Liberman coalition Government.

President Rivlin would be shirking his responsibility as President if he allowed a third election to take place.

Rivlin’s attempt to get Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz to form a Government of National Unity failed quite spectacularly and in a very short time.

Rivlin’s failure was quickly followed by:

1. Netanyahu and Gantz failing to reach any agreement in further negotiations

2. Netanyahu and Liberman holding a meeting for only one hour that reportedly went nowhere

3. Netanyahu and Gantz both rejecting a proposal by Liberman very shortly after he proposed it.

A third election at an estimated cost of US$220 million — and the possibility it could also end in deadlock — constitutes political suicide.

President Rivlin would be shirking his responsibility as President if he allowed a third election to take place without having made this last ditch attempt to stop Israel’s descent into another bout of electoral madness.

The best prospects of forming a new Government involve a coalition between the Right Wing parties holding 55 votes and Yisrael Beiteinu holding 8 votes — enough to create the 61 votes needed to form Government for the next four years.

Avoiding a third election has increased exponentially following these recent international developments that have occurred since Israel’s second indecisive election on September 17:

1. Turkey’s invasion of northern Syria

2. The Kurds in Syria becoming exposed to being massacred by the invading Turkish forces

3. The Kurds in Turkey being caught up in any ensuing conflict

4. President Trump showing no inclination to intervene to prevent the Turkish invasion of northern Syria

5. The explosion of an Iranian state oil company tanker near the Saudi port city of Jeddah,

6. President Trump ordering 3,000 troops and weapons to Saudi Arabia in a message of deterrence to Iran

7. The further postponement of the release of President Trump’s deal of the century

8. The Democrats headlong rush to impeach President Trump

Any deterioration in these potentially disastrous situations could have serious implications for Israel’s safety and security. Israel must have a government in place ready to deal with their consequences.

Liberman’s conditions for joining a Netanyahu-led government containing ultra-orthodox religious parties have been publicly announced by Liberman.

Israeli voters have clearly expressed their preference for a right wing coalition Government led by Netanyahu — 1,973,246 votes — over a left wing coalition Government led by Gantz — 1,556,491 votes.

Rivlin — armed with Forer’s letter to Levin and Israeli voters clearly-expressed wishes — has been given sufficient justification to get Netanyahu and Liberman — for whom 310154 Israelis voted — to sit down and negotiate Liberman’s list of demands for forming a new Netanyahu-Liberman Government before Netanyahu’s mandate to do so expires on October 24.

Neither Netanyahu nor Liberman should have any expectation that they are going to emerge from the President’s residence with a complete victory for the positions they might initially take when they first sit down with the President.

Rivlin’s prestige and canny political skills could just get them to an agreed compromise.

Rivlin will have earned three stars from the Michelin Guide — and the gratitude of Israeli voters — if he succeeds in cooking-up a Netanyahu-Liberman omelette using a recipe whose ingredients are acceptable to both of them.

Netanyahu and Liberman could cut deal if Rivlin plan fails

[Published 24 September 2019]

President Rivlin's decision to bring Bibi Netanyahu and Benny Gantz together to see if a Government of National Unity can be formed makes sense in the extraordinary situation that has followed Israel’s elections on 17 September.

Once again neither the Left nor Right wing blocs have won the 61 seats required to form Government.

Rivlin’s proposal however could well founder on the aspirations of Netanyahu, Gantz and Yair Lapid to be the Prime Minister of any such Government and whether that position should be rotated and in what order.

During the April 2019 election campaign - Gantz and Lapid ran under a rotation agreement that would have seen Gantz serve as prime minister for the first two years and eight months whilst Lapid took over for the remainder of the term. Their agreement was key to the merger of Gantz’s Israel Resilience Party with Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party to form the Blue and White Party.

In June 2019, Gantz and Lapid pledged they would keep their deal to rotate the premiership if they formed the next government after the September elections.

Now — after those inconclusive elections — Lapid has made this call at a Blue and White faction meeting:

“One person is preventing the formation of a liberal unity government. One person. When faced with the choice between what’s important for the country and what’s important for one person, the country comes first.”

Lapid was obviously referring to Netanyahu.

Is Lapid prepared — in the same spirit — to give up his entitlement to be Prime Minister to enable Gantz and Netanyahu to thrash out an agreement?

After that major problem is settled — infighting for positions in that Government would follow that would be fraught with personal rivalries and ambitions.

Paradoxically the election results have eased the path for Netanyahu and Liberman to form a Government with Netanyahu as its Prime Minister. The same problems of allocating portfolios in their 63-member coalition would remain — but would be far easier than dealing with 99 members in a coalition of National Unity. Bridging the Netanyahu-Liberman antipathy divide wouldn’t be easy either.

Liberman’s party did not form Government with 60 other members of the Right last April after Netanyahu refused to accept a bill drafted by Liberman calling for ultra-orthodox Jews to do military service. Netanyahu was captive to the ultra-orthodox Jews comprised in his then bloc who threatened to bolt if he wavered.

Liberman’s continuing insistence that his military service bill be legislated was countered by United Torah Judaism MK Yakov Asher declaring this the best possible get-out-the-vote campaign the religious parties could wish for.

The religious parties failed big time.

Netanyahu is now in an easier political position to agree to Liberman’s demand than he was in April — the latest voting results showing:

1. Liberman’s vote increased from 173,004 to 309,688 — an increase of 136,684.

2. The combined votes of the religious parties — Shas and United Torah Judaism — increased from 507,324 to 598,522 — an increase of only 91,198.

3. Likud’s vote decreased from 1,140,370 to 1,111,535 — a drop of 28,835

The turnout of ultra-orthodox voters opposing Liberman’s bill did not match the turnout of new voters supporting Liberman’s bill and those Likud voters changing their votes for possibly the same reason.

The religious parties are now on far weaker ground to oppose Liberman’s reform as they are locked in to a single negotiating bloc containing 55 members - presumably acting by majority vote.

Cutting a deal between Netanyahu and Liberman remains an option to prevent Israel going through this electoral agony for a third time if Rivlin’s call fails.

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

Netanyahu will be Israel's next Prime Minister - with Trump's help

[Published 4 June 2019]

The abrupt termination of Israel’s 21st Parliament with new elections being called for 17 September has seen the New York Times claiming that Israel has been plunged into unprecedented political chaos.

A more sober assessment — based on comparing Israel’s 2015 election results with the April 2019 results — provides a different picture — in which Prime Minister Netanyahu will be returned once again as Israel’s next Prime Minister.

In an article written by me in March — I opined:

“The cards have certainly been stacked against Benjamin Netanyahu being Israel’s next Prime Minister after three recent major developments — but he is by no means down and out.”

Those developments were:

1. Israeli Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s decision to pursue Netanyahu for alleged criminal offences.

2. Three political parties coalescing into the Blue and White Party - promising that two of the three previous leaders — former Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid — would each be Prime Minister for half of the next Government’s term of office.

3. Netanyahu’s role in precipitating a marriage of convenience between Jewish Home, National Union and an extreme right wing party Otzma Yehudit with alleged links to the assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane’s banned political party Kach

I pointed out that:

“The 2015 election results provide a useful guide as to the likely impact these three developments might have on Netanyahu’s chances:

1. the Likud Party only received 23.4% of the vote — hardly a ringing endorsement for Netanyahu and
2. 72% of those eligible voted — very high when compared to America’s 58.1%.

Likud’s low supporter-base seems unlikely to desert Netanyahu.

Voter turnout would have to increase dramatically or huge swings away from other right-wing parties would be needed to give Blue and White the nod needed to be invited by President Rivlin to form a coalition Government ahead of Netanyahu.

The unknown elephants in the room are the number of terrorist attacks and international political developments affecting Israel in the next five weeks that will concentrate voters’ minds — when actually casting their votes — on who can best safeguard their personal safety and Israel’s security"

Netanyahu won that race - the April 2019 election results revealing:

1. Voter turnout went down from 72% to 68%

2. Netanyahu’s Likud party vote went up from 23.4% to 26.46%

3.The party forcing the fresh September elections by refusing to join a Likud-led coalition — Yisrael Beiteinu headed by Avigdor Lieberman — saw its vote reduced from 214,906 to 173,004

These results should become more pronounced after voters evaluate the outcome of the Conference to be co-hosted by President Trump and Bahrain in Manama on 25/26 June to be attended by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar — with Egypt, Jordan and Israel (represented by Netanyahu’s caretaker Government) and other regional Arab states expected to also attend.

The US State Department has confirmed the Conference will go ahead notwithstanding Israel’s snap elections in September.

Add to this the likely possibility that before the September elections:

1. Trump could recognise Israel’s political claims to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) as he did in the Golan Heights prior to the April elections;

2. There could be further terror attacks against Israel from Gaza and the West Bank followed by swift Netanyahu-directed responses.

Trump has already pronounced his feelings on Israel’s September elections:

“Bibi got elected. Now, all of a sudden, they’re going to have to go through the process again until September? That’s ridiculous.”

Netanyahu — based on the April 2019 election results and Trump’s anticipated pro-Israel decisions — is the odds-on favourite to be Israel’s next Prime Minister.

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

Netanyahu could still be Israel's next Prime Minister

[Published 6 March 2019]


The cards have certainly been stacked against Benjamin Netanyahu being Israel’s next Prime Minister after three recent major developments — but he is by no means down and out.

Those developments are:

1. Israeli Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s decision to pursue Netanyahu for alleged criminal offences — explained by Elena Chachko as follows:

“Mandelblit only announced that he is considering indicting Netanyahu. In other words, the announcement does not mean that Netanyahu would necessarily be indicted. This is not specific to Netanyahu’s case, but rather a feature of the Israeli justice system: Netanyahu, like most criminal defendants in Israel who face serious charges, will get a hearing before a final decision is made. Based on news reports and past precedents, the hearing will take place several months from now, after the April elections. This process is governed by the guidelines of the state attorney — the official subordinate to the attorney general who directs prosecutions — for notification and hearing in criminal proceedings.”

2. Three political parties coalescing into the Blue and White Party - promising that two of the three previous leaders — former Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid — will each be Prime Minister for half of the next Government’s term of office.

3. Netanyahu’s role in precipitating a marriage of convenience between Jewish Home, National Union and an extreme right wing party Otzma Yehudit with alleged links to the assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane’s banned political party Kach — which has caused consternation and anger in Israel, America and Australia.

It remains to be seen whether these three developments translate into Netanyahu not being Israel’s next Prime Minister.

Bret Stephens - one of Netanyahu’s most trenchant critics - penned an op-ed article in the New York Times “Netanyahu must go” in which even he grudgingly admits:

“As I noted last year, in matters of policy and execution, Netanyahu has been a remarkably effective prime minister. On his watch, Israel’s economy has thrived, its diplomatic horizons have widened, its borders have been defended and its enemies humiliated. Thanks to Donald Trump, whom he cultivated astutely and assiduously, he got his way on the Iran deal, brought the American Embassy to Jerusalem and pursued openings with the Arab world without making irreversible concessions to the Palestinians.

Israel’s critics may like none of this, but from an Israeli standpoint they are considerable successes.”

Noted jurists Alan Dershowitz and Avi Bell - Professor of Law at Bar Ilan University and the University of San Diego - have criticized Mandelblit’s decision.

President Trump and Vladimir Putin’s relationships with Netanyahu are not enjoyed by any other candidates.

A spirited defence distinguishing Otzma Yehudit’s policies from those of the Kach Party has been made by Otzma candidate — Itamar Ben Gvir.

The 2015 election results provide a useful guide as to the likely impact these three developments might have on Netanyahu’s chances:

1. the Likud Party only received 23.4% of the vote — hardly a ringing endorsement for Netanyahu and

2. 72% of those eligible voted — very high when compared to America’s 58.1%.

Likud’s low supporter-base seems unlikely to desert Netanyahu.

Voter turnout would have to increase dramatically or huge swings away from other right-wing parties would be needed to give Blue and White the nod needed to be invited by President Rivlin to form a coalition Government ahead of Netanyahu.

The unknown elephants in the room are the number of terrorist attacks and international political developments affecting Israel in the next five weeks that will concentrate voters’ minds — when actually casting their votes - on who can best safeguard their personal safety and Israel’s security.

Netanyahu is certainly not out of the race.

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

[Published 4 March 2018]


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

The Palace clarified that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arabs rejected the Peel recommendations.

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

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

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

Palestine - European Union Should Heed Israel's Sobering Message

[Published 23 June 2016]


The European Union needs to heed the sobering message delivered by Israel’s President — Reuven Rivlin - to the European Parliament on 22 June:

“Currently the practical conditions, the political and regional circumstances, which would enable us to reach a permanent agreement between us — the Israelis and the Palestinians — are failing to materialize.”

Rivlin ascribed this situation to two reasons:

1. The Palestinian leadership was divided in at least two.

2. In order to achieve a stable and viable agreement, a reasonable regional and economic infrastructure was required whereas the reality was a chaos-stricken Middle East in which uncertainty is the only certainty.

Rivlin criticised the French Initiative to kickstart the negotiations stalled for the last two years as the chronicle of a predictable failure, which would only push the two peoples deeper into despair.

He warned those present:

“Distinguished audience, if the international community really wishes and truly aspires to be a constructive player, it must divert its efforts away from the renewal of negotiations for negotiations’ sake, and toward building trust between the parties, and to creating the necessary terms for the success of negotiations in the future.”

Rivlin laid out four areas where building trust could occur:

“First, harnessing the moderate powers in the region. The cooperation with Jordan and Egypt is a supreme common interest of Israel and the international community as well, in the aim of preventing military bolstering from beyond our borders, and in order to eradicate extremism and preserve the stability of the region…

Second, developing Palestinian economy and infrastructures for quality of life. One cannot speak about a future agreement when people live with a basic existential feeling of having no future, no opportunities, no hope, and no horizon. With the backdrop of economic difficulties in Judea and Samaria, and the situation in Gaza, a broad economic course of action is called for…

Third, investing in joint ventures aimed at creating joint interests…

Fourth and ultimately — education. Increasing stability, developing infrastructures and strategic terms are essential conditions, but are not enough. Creating the conditions for any future agreement requires conditioning hearts on both sides for the possibility of living with mutual respect…”

Rivlin’s message was timely — but could have been more pointed had he stressed that trust building and conditioning of hearts on both sides couldn’t realistically occur whilst:

1. The PLO remains the governing authority in Areas “A” and “B” in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)

2. Hamas remains the governing authority in Gaza

3. Free elections are denied to their Arab constituencies by Hamas and the PLO.

Both the PLO and Hamas maintain the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel as their primary goal.

The Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza have been denied any vote since their decision to elect Hamas in 2006 was rejected by the PLO — leading to bitter internecine power struggles that still remain unresolved today.

Certainly if elections were held whilst Hamas and the PLO retained political strangleholds over their respective electorally-starved populations — they might out of genuine fear for their personal safety well opt to continue swallowing the same unpleasant medicine — leaving the peace process in the negotiating void that exists to-day.

Rivlin’s call to harness the moderate powers in the region sends the European Union a message that facilitating direct negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt on the future of Judea, Samaria and Gaza could be meaningful negotiations - not negotiations for negotiations sake — towards ending the 100 years old conflict.

Hopefully the European Union takes note and uses its power, prestige and influence to make such trilateral negotiations become a reality.

Palestine - Peres Trashes Rabin's Oslo Accords Vision

[Published 28 October 2015]


Former Israeli President Shimon Peres has pre-empted the memorial rally this Saturday evening to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the assassination on 4 November 1995 of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin - by writing – quite misleadingly - of Rabin’s vision in the Jerusalem Post this week.

Former US president Bill Clinton, Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin and Yitzchak Rabin’s daughter - former deputy defence minister Dalia Rabin - are scheduled to participate in the rally – and hopefully will set the record straight.

Peres claimed that Rabin’s Government – in which Peres was Foreign Minister

“sought peace at the price of a historic compromise: two states for two peoples. For, if there shall not be two countries, there shall be one continues [sic] tragedy for both peoples.”

Rabin never offered any such two-state compromise.

Peres repeated this disingenuous message again in the same article:

“We laid down the foundations for a two-state solution and began building our peace with Jordan.”

Rabin made his vision very clear in his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 when presenting the 300 page “Israeli - Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” (Oslo Accords) for approval:

“Members of Knesset,

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

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

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

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

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

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the “Green Line,” prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”

The two-state solution was never entertained by Rabin.

Two separate countries - favoured by Peres - is irretrievably dead and buried. Rabin’s legacy should not be coupled with that failed diplomatic initiative.

Rabin’s vision should be faithfully preserved – not trashed.

Return of the Jordanian Option

Asaf Romirowsky's article "Revisiting the Jordanian Option" elicited the following response "Return of the Jordanian Option" on 23 April 2011.

The international community needs to get serious on the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank,East Jerusalem and Gaza.

If the Palestinian Authority is not prepared to get its act together with Hamas and accept sovereignty in the 95% offered to be ceded by Israel (with a land swap of Israeli sovereign territory for that remaining 5%) - then Jordan should be invited to negotiate with Israel on restoring as far as is now possible the status quo that existed at 5 June 1967 within the framework of their 1994 Peace Treaty.

It seems the sensible way to go in an attempt to avoid escalating conflict.

The only thing preventing it happening is the acute embarrassment and loss of face that would be suffered by the United Nations and its member states after pursuing the two-state solution for the last 17 years. Surely by now it must be obvious to them all that such a solution will never be capable of coming to fruition.

If I had to choose between saving Jewish and Arab lives OR eating humble pie - I know which one I would choose.

*************************************************************************************
Return of the Jordanian Option

Because the Palestinian Arabs have perpetually refused to end hostilities with the Jews through accepting a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, some Israeli Knesset officials are revisiting the Jordanian option.

Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.

Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.

Although anti-Zionist radicals of the sort that frequent Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian look upon the Jordanian option with extreme distaste because it means the resolution of the conflict, that is not Israel's problem.

Nor is it mine, of course.

The fact is that Jordan comprises about 77 percent of British mandated Palestine and the Palestinians represent something like 75 percent of the population of that country. This means that Jordan is, essentially, "Palestine."

As a long-time supporter of the two-state solution it is more than a little disappointing that oppressed and occupied Palestinians absolutely refuse to end their oppression and occupation by accepting a state for themselves in peace next to Israel.

It's just very unusual. In the long history of human oppression, I have never heard of any oppressed people who refuse to give up their oppression until their conditions are met.

It's remarkable, in fact.

From early in the twentieth century until today the Palestinians, and before them the Arabs of the British mandate, have never accepted the partition plan and have never accepted a Jewish state on any part of formerly Muslim controlled land. For reasons having to do with extreme, Koranically-sanctioned, hatred toward Jews, as well as the requirements of the Sharia, the Arabs have consistently refused acceptance of Israel as the Jewish state.

As anyone who reads this blog knows my stance is to respect the Palestinians by respecting their decision. Their decision is "no." For almost a hundred years their position has consistently been "no."

No negotiations. No recognition. No peace.

These are the three famous "nos" of Khartoum, issued by the Arab League immediately following the "humiliating" Arab defeat in the 6 Day War, and there is very little, if anything, to indicate that they are not still in effect.

That being the case we need to accept the fact that "no means no." And since "no means no," since the Palestinians have consistently refused to end the conflict via a negotiated settlement, Israel needs to resolve the conflict in a manner that does not depend on a negotiated settlement. One way to do that, the way that I have generally supported, is for Israel to declare its final borders on the western side of the Jordan river and then move the IDF behind those borders.

That represents one potential resolution, but the Jordanian option represents another possibility. Given that its population is three-quarters Palestinian, it makes sense to declare Jordan the Palestinian state, with an annexation of much of the western bank of the river.

At the moment only a relatively small proportion of Israelis see the Jordanian option as viable, but given the circumstances of perpetual Palestinian intransigence and refusal to accept a state for themselves, it's an option that Israel should explore. What's needed is for Israel to come up with the incentives necessary to bring the Jordanian government into agreement.

This will certainly not be easy, but what's there to lose?

Besides, as PLO executive Zuheir Mohsen acknowledged:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Heck, they'd barely even need to modify their flags.

Revisiting the Jordan Option

The following article appeared on Y Net on 23 April 2011.

Jordan's involvement in resolving the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues to be more likely as the two-state solution continues to go nowhere.

***********************************************************************************

Revisiting the Jordan option

Op-ed: With hopes fading for two-state solution, ‘Jordan is Palestine’ option may be best alternative

Asaf Romirowsky
Published: 04.23.11, 14:21 / Israel Opinion

Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.

Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.

In February, Human Rights Watch, the world’s self-proclaimed defender of minority rights, produced a 60-page report entitled, “Stateless Again: Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality.” The paper details how Jordan deprives its Palestinian citizens of West Bank origins their basic rights, such education and healthcare. The report received scant attention back then. But the problem of Jordanian Palestinians, amidst growing unrest in the Hashemite Kingdom, has put the issue back on the front burner.

Israeli analysts worry that if the Jordanian government is to become more representative, it is possible that the country’s 72% Palestinian population could effectively take control. Jordan, in effect, could become “Palestine.”

The notion of a Palestinian controlled polity in Jordan is not new. From the war of Israeli independence in 1948 through the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli politicians on the Left and Right advanced a policy of “Jordan is Palestine.” While defending Israel from Arab aggression, they proposed that Jordan become the Palestinian homeland. Israeli officials proposed various scenarios for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation that fused the East Bank and West Bank of the Jordan River under one administration.

However, it is not as simple as that. Dan Schueftan, author of A Jordanian Option, correctly noted in 1986 that such an arrangement would be dependent on Israeli-Jordanian relations and how the two parties view potential threats from the Palestinian populations in their midst.

Inseparable security needs

To be sure, in the years after the Six-Day War, the Jordanian monarchy was wary of the Palestinians. Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat challenged the sovereignty of the country in 1970. After that, the kingdom had blocked the flow of Palestinians from the West Bank into the East Bank in order to preserve the kingdom’s Hashemite political structure. To a certain extent, the Jordanians renounced all claims to the West Bank in 1988, backed the creation of the Palestinian Authority in the early 1990s, and then made peace with Israel in 1994 in an attempt to prevent further flooding of Palestinians into their country.


To a certain extent Jerusalem has long looked to the Hashemite monarchy to maintain stability and security on both sides of the river. Both Amman and Jerusalem, in fact, recognize that their security needs are inseparable. Jordan has benefited from the periods of relative quiet and prosperity in Israel. Accordingly, Jordanian security forces have been increasingly involved in the West Bank, where they conduct joint training sessions with Palestinian forces. It has been a win-win-win situation for Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians.

The problem now is that Jordan’s traditional power centers are unhappy with the rise of Palestinian influence in the country. Tribal leaders resent Jordan’s Queen Rania, born in Kuwait to a family with roots in the West Bank, for her vocal advocacy of the Palestinian cause. In fact, 36 tribal leaders recently published their objections to Rania’s position, fearing that it will accelerate a slow Palestinian takeover of the kingdom.

With hopes fading for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this seemingly far-flung notion may become the last, best option. The problem is that it could embolden Palestinian radical groups, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, which derive much of their power from disillusioned Palestinians in the West and East Banks. With the rise of such groups in Jordan, the peace agreement between Amman and Jerusalem would be in peril.

Nevertheless, as uncomfortable as it might be for Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians to admit, the Jordanian option might be the best one they have.

Asaf Romirowsky is an adjunct scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former liaison officer from the Israeli Defense Forces to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan