Trump should not pour US$6.5 billion into Gaza and West Bank

[Published 24 June 2019]

President Trump should not allow the euphoria that swept the world following the 27 November 2007 Annapolis Conference to infect the Manama Conference being jointly hosted by himself and Bahrain on 25-26 June.

Yet his just released 40 page document “Peace to Prosperity” threatens to do just this — offering US$6.5 billion in Grant and Equity Funding and Concessional Funding to carry out a variety of programs in the West Bank and Gaza including:

1. Starting Equity-Matching and Lending Facilities

2. Border Crossing Points Upgrade

3. Power Plant Upgrades

4. Tourism Lending Facility and Site Rehabilitation

5. New Palestinian University

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s closing remarks at Annapolis were brimming with hope:

“The conference began with the joint announcement by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas that they will begin negotiations to establish a Palestinian state and to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace with the goal of concluding an agreement by the end of the year 2008”

Under their Joint Understanding Olmert and Abbas committed:

“to immediately implement their respective obligations under the Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 (hereinafter, “the Roadmap”) and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the Roadmap”

Conference attendees included:

1. Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

2. Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas

3. President Bush - and representatives from:

4. Quartet members — United Nations, European Union and Russia

5. Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

6. Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen

7. 30 other States including Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom.

A follow-up Donors’ Conference was held in Paris on 17 December 2007. Delegations from 87 countries and international organisations pledged a total of US$7.4 billion to support Palestinian institution-building and economic recovery for the next three years. Of this amount, US$3.4 Billion was pledged for 2008. This amount included
“humanitarian assistance, which was essential to help relieve the daily lives of the Palestinian population, especially in Gaza.”

The International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza was held in Sharm El-Sheikh on 2 March 2009. Participants pledged approximately US$4.48 billion covering the next two years and committed to:

“start disbursing these pledges as quickly as possible in order to rapidly impact the daily lives of the Palestinians.”

Pouring US$12 billion into Gaza and the West Bank did not relieve or impact the daily lives of Gaza’s and West Bank’s Arab populations.

The promised “Permanent Two-State solution” and Roadmap are dead and buried.

Trump’s proposed US$6.5 billion spend will not improve the daily lives of these captive populations still being governed by their 2007 rulers — Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organisation — who remain divided and confrontational.

Rather Trump should use his US$6.5 billion to:

1. Fund new residential and infrastructure programs in neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and

2. Encourage the legal migration of West Bank and Gazan Arabs to such countries by offering them financial incentives to help them achieve prosperity and a better life for themselves and their families.

Manama Conference invitees will reportedly not include Israel.

Mahmud Abbas has refused to attend. Hamas has rejected the conference being held. Both want nothing to do with America.

The Manama Conference should not continue pouring billions of dollars into these bottomless pits of misery and despair ruled by groups who will:

1. not allow free elections and

2. never recognise Israel as the national home of the Jewish people

Manama 2019 should not repeat the mistakes of Annapolis, Paris and Sharm El-Sheikh 2007-2009.

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 plan for Israel-Jordan-Egypt negotiations hits brick wall

[Published 16 January 2019]

President Trump’s self-styled deal of the century aimed at resolving the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict has now been postponed beyond February for a further unspecified period of months - signalling Jordan and Egypt are still refusing to step up and negotiate with Israel on Trump’s plan.

Jordan and Egypt — having respectively signed peace agreements with Israel in 1994 and 1979 - were the last two Arab states to occupy Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza (“the disputed territories”) between 1948 and 1967. Both are eminently qualified to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation which has flatly refused —sight unseen — to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s proposals to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the disputed territories.

Trump’s plan will be stillborn unless Arab interlocutors indicate in advance that they stand ready to take up the challenge presented by Trump’s ideas and agree to meet with Israel to try and reach a deal acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.

America’s ambassador to Israel — David Friedman — revealed that the upcoming Israeli elections in April were a factor - but not the only factor — that led to the latest postponement of Trump’s long-awaited peace plan.

Friedman said the White House wanted to release the plan in a way that gave it the best chance of getting a good reception. Friedman noted additional “wordsmithing and smoothing” was still required before it was publicized.

Friedman added:

“The challenge to a peace plan is making the case for a much more sober assessment of the realities in this region. The last time there was a meaningful agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians was 1993 [Ed—The Oslo Accords]. A lot has happened since 1993”

Friedman’s comments came during a joint media conference held in Jerusalem alongside US National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Bolton had seen General Jim Mattis resign as Secretary of Defence in December. Since 2013 Mattis had strongly supported the two-state solution — the creation of an additional Arab state between Israel and Jordan — contemplated by both the Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap, and unsuccessfully pushed for eight years by President Obama and his Secretaries for State — Hilary Clinton and John Kerry.

Bolton’s opposing opinion held since 2009 was reconfirmed to Eric Shawn on 21 January 2018:

“I hope at some point the Administration recognizes and perhaps it is already quietly — that the two-state solution isn’t going anywhere. If anything I would say to King Abdullah of Jordan — “Be prepared to reassert Jordanian sovereignty over part of the West Bank—negotiate with Israel”. I think that’s a far better outcome than the continued pursuit of a mythical — I believe — unattainable viable Palestinian state”

Twelve months down the track Bolton’s Jordan approach has seemingly prevailed - especially after Friedman’s assertion last September:

“Since 1994, the United States has thrown more than $10 billion in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Without minimizing the importance of medical treatment and quality education for children — and we don’t minimize that, not even for a minute — we found that these expenditures were bringing the region no closer to peace or stability, not even by a millimetre. To spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund stipends to terrorists and their families, to expend funds to perpetuate rather than to mitigate refugee status, and to finance hate-filled textbooks — I ask you, how does that provide value to the United States or the region?"

Friedman’s “wordsmithing and smoothing” comment indicates that Jordan and Egypt could be holding out for further American financial and security guarantees before agreeing to negotiate with Israel.

Trump’s legendary negotiating skills — and patience - are being seriously tested.

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

Australia's Jerusalem Embassy move sinks in sea of Islamic threats

[Published 21 November 2018]




Forget about Australia moving its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Indonesian threats to not sign a free trade agreement with Australia — coupled with veiled Malaysian suggestions of terrorist attacks on Australian targets if the Embassy is moved - will suffice to burst Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s thought-bubble.

Australia gave Indonesia $360 million in aid in 2016 and was the world’s 16th largest donor in giving $15 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

Indonesia gave UNRWA $5000 in 2016 — whilst Malaysia gave nothing.

Indonesia and Malaysia — two Islamic states — flex their muscles on Islamic claims to Jerusalem - yet pathetically fail to financially support their Islamic brethren.

Morrison first flagged the Embassy move on 16 October at a joint press conference with Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne:

“Now, in relation to our diplomatic presence in Israel. What I have simply said is this - we’re committed to a two-state solution. Australia’s position on this issue has to date assumed that it is not possible to consider the question of the recognition of Israel’s capital in Jerusalem and that be consistent with pursuing a two-state solution.

Now, Dave Sharma, who was the Ambassador to Israel, has proposed some months ago a way forward that challenges that thinking and it says that you can achieve both and indeed by pursuing both, you are actually aiding the cause for a two state solution. Now, when people say sensible things, I think it is important to listen to them”

Australia’s commitment to the two-state solution — the creation of a second Arab state — in addition to Jordan - in the territory that comprised the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - is based on:

1. The 1993 Oslo Accords and

2. The 2002 President Bush Roadmap

Intensive negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation spanning the last 25 years have failed to achieve this two-state solution — being unable to agree on whether the new State should:

(i) Be demilitarised

(ii) Include all the territory of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) with East Jerusalem as its capital

(iii) Exclude all Jews currently living there necessitating their resettlement in Israel.

Australia is not alone in clinging to this outdated two-state solution. Countless UN Resolutions calling for this two-state solution continue to consume reams of paper and dominate meetings of UN committees, the General Assembly and Security Council — rather than considering alternative solutions to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Morrison probably did not realise how close he was to committing Australia to a very different two-state solution when he told the press conference:

“The whole point of a two-state solution is two nations recognised living side by side. And so, opening up that discussion does provide us with the opportunity, I think, to do what Australians have always done and that is to apply a practical and common-sense and innovative role in trying to work with partners around the world to aid our broader objectives, in this case a two-state solution.”

That alternative two-state solution involves Jordan and Israel — the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine - currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate - negotiating the allocation of sovereignty in the last remaining 5% between their two respective States.

This solution was first suggested by the League of Nations in 1922: one Jewish State and one Arab state living side by side in former Palestine in peace with each other. Redrawing the international border between Jordan and Israel in direct negotiations would complete this two-state solution.

Moving Australia’s Embassy to Jerusalem would be a no-brainer under the 1922 two-state solution.

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 flags Israel-Jordan-Egypt subdivision of West Bank and Gaza

[Published 26 March 2018]

President Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as National Security Adviser flags the possibility that the centrepiece of Trump’s eagerly-awaited “ultimate deal” could involve the subdivision of Judea and Samaria (“the West Bank”) and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Such tripartite negotiations would replace the stale-mated Israeli-Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) negotiations - suspended in 2014 following a PLO walk-out when:

1. The PLO was demanding a new Palestinian Arab State with Jerusalem as its capital in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza (“disputed territories”) for the first time in recorded history – which was unacceptable to Israel.

2. Offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2007 to cede its claims to sovereignty in about 95% of the disputed territories had been rejected by the PLO.

3. The 1993 Oslo Accords had seen the West Bank divided into three Areas - “A”, “B’ and “C”:

"A" (18%) - under total PLO administrative and security control.
"B" (22%) - under total PLO administrative control and joint Israel-PLO security control
“C” (60%) - under total Israeli administrative and security control

4. Israel and the PLO had been negotiating the final status of the disputed territories under President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - endorsed by the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

5. President Bush had given Israel written commitments on 14 April 2004 – overwhelmingly endorsed by the US Congress - to support Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza – which Israel honoured in 2005. America committed it would not expect Israel to withdraw from 100% of the disputed territories.

Now Abbas and the PLO have:

1. Rejected considering any future Trump proposals following Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital last December.

2. Declared the Oslo Accords “dead” in January.

Enter Trump-appointee John Bolton into this Israel-PLO standoff – as President Trump ponders how to fill this negotiating void.

Bolton has an answer - provided with amazing prescience on 5 January 2009 in his Washington Post article headlined “The Three-State Solution”:

“Let’s start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a “three-state” approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today’s conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. “International observers” or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces.”

John Bolton still retains these views – telling Eric Shawn on 21 January 2018:

“I hope at some point the Administration recognizes and perhaps it is already quietly – that the two-state solution isn’t going anywhere. If anything I would say to King Abdullah of Jordan – “Be prepared to reassert Jordanian sovereignty over part of the West Bank – negotiate with Israel”. I think that’s a far better outcome than the continued pursuit of a mythical – I believe – unattainable viable Palestinian state”

Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza respectively between 1948 and 1967.

Bolton’s appointment is shaping up as yet another Trump-inspired circuit breaker.

Trump’s decision to accept Bolton’s advice would spell curtains for Abbas and the PLO and give Trump the momentum he needs to get meaningful Israel-Arab negotiations started.

Trump readies to dump PLO for Jordan-Israel negotiations

[Published 28 January 2018]


President Trump and America’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley - virtually within hours of each other - have laid the groundwork for Jordan to replace the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner under President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap — endorsed by the United Nations, European Union, and Russia - and Bush’s 2004 Congress-endorsed commitments to Israel.

Haley told the UN Security Council:

1. Real peace requires leaders who are willing to step forward, acknowledge hard truths, and make compromises. It requires leaders who look to the future, rather than dwell on past resentments. Above all, such leaders require courage.

2. Abbas’s two-hour speech to the PLO Central Council on 14 January

(i) Declared the landmark Oslo Peace Accords dead.

(ii) Rejected any American role in peace talks.

(iii) Insulted President Trump

(iv) Called for suspending recognition of Israel.

(v) Invoked an ugly and fictional past, reaching back to the 17th century to paint Israel as a colonialist project engineered by European powers.

Such a speech indulging in outrageous and discredited conspiracy theories is not the speech of a person with the courage and the will to seek peace.

3. King Hussein of Jordan was a leader with courage. In 1994, he ended 46 years of war and entered into a peace agreement with Israel that holds to this day. When King Hussein signed the peace treaty, he said:

“These are the moments in which we live, the past and the future. When we come to live next to each other, as never before, we will be doing so, Israelis and Jordanians, together, without the need for any to observe our actions or supervise our endeavors. This is peace with dignity; this is peace with commitment.”

Abbas’s recent actions demonstrate Abbas is the total opposite of King Hussein.

Haley certainly pulled no punches.

Trump — attending the World Economic Forum in Davos — had some additional dismissive remarks to make about the PLO:

(i) The PLO disrespected America by not allowing America’s great Vice- President Mike Pence to see them.

(ii) Money was never on the table. America gives the Palestinian Arabs tremendous amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That money is on the table. Because why should America do that as a country if they’re doing nothing for America?

(iii) Trump doesn’t know whether Israel-PLO negotiations will ever take place.

Trump and Haley have clearly indicated that the ground is rapidly shifting under a corrupt PLO edifice that:

1. unashamedly continues to fund murderers of Israelis and non-Israelis

2. is not yet tired and disgusted of such killing

Replacing Abbas will not solve the PLO’s dilemma. Abbas’s speech to the PLO Central Council was frequently interrupted by loud applause from the entire PLO leadership gathered in Ramallah.

Trump ominously remarked that Israel would have to pay for Jerusalem being taken off the table as the toughest issue requiring resolution in any negotiations.

Israeli concessions can be more easily negotiated if Jordan — not the PLO - is Israel’s negotiating partner — because:

(i) Amman is Jordan’s long-established capital

(ii) Jordan also enjoys negotiating rights on Jerusalem’s future under article 9 (2) of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty:

“In this regard [freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance] in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.”

Israel-Jordan negotiations indeed represent the best opportunity to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

The PLO has seemingly done its dash — and hundreds of millions in cash — in defiantly taking on Trump.

UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump retaliation

[Published 24 December 2017]


Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” - spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised — but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress.

Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law — making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN—Nikki Hale — put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget — when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace — the American people lose their patience.”

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 — attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” - which will require another US$143 million - 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget - to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal”Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution — which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state — in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan — on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014..

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution — including Abbas and the PLO - from his ultimate deal — after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

“The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States,”

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000-2001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

Trump should adopt Bush strategy to encourage Israel to negotiate

[Published 4 December 2017]


President Bush’s strategy to secure Israel’s agreement to negotiate under the Bush Roadmap should be given serious consideration by President Trump as he puts together his eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal”to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Bush’s strategy involved him firstly stating his “vision” before actually announcing the Bush Roadmap to turn that vision into reality.

Israel was required to make concrete territorial withdrawals from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) — possibly compromising Israel’s security in the process. Publicly confronting Israel with the Bush Roadmap first up could have seen its outright rejection by Israel before the ink was even dry.

President Reagan had succeeded in doing just that when announcing his peace plan on 1 September 1982. Reagan’s plan was unanimously rejected out of hand by Israel’s cabinet the very next day — whilst America pleaded with Jordan to accept it over the next twelve months as a means of putting pressure on Israel to cave in and negotiate. King Hussein of Jordan did not take the bait. The Reagan plan was dead in the water.

Bush was savvy enough to not repeat Reagan’s mistake.

Bush first enunciated his “vision” in a speech on 24 June 2002:

1. Two states, living side by side in peace and security.

2. The Palestinian people electing new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror, building a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

A draft version of the Bush Roadmap dated 15 October 2002 was “provided” to the New York Times and published on 14 November 2002.

After talks on 31 March 2003 at the White House with President Bush, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that Israel was:

“adopting the vision of President Bush, and anything that will be a genuine, accurate reflection of this vision will be something that we will be able to work with.”

Bush’s Roadmap in final form was made public on 30 April 2003.

Israel’s response was markedly different to its response to Reagan’s proposal:

“The Government of Israel, today (Sunday), 25.5.03, considered the Prime Minister’s statement on the Roadmap, as well as Israel’s comments on its implementation. Following its deliberations, the Government, by a majority vote, resolved:

Based on the 23 may 2003 statement of the united states government, in which the united states committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the roadmap during the implementation phase, the prime minister announced on 23 may 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the roadmap.

The government of Israel affirms the prime minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the roadmap.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had given the following assurances to Israel from the lawns of the White House on 23 May 2003:

"The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace. The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap. The United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the roadmap to fulfil the President’s vision of June 24, 2002."

This astute and finely-crafted process paid off handsomely — with Israel being sufficiently encouraged by Bush’s assurances to agree to enter into negotiations based on Bush’s Roadmap.

The success of Trump’s ultimate deal could depend on Trump rejecting the Reagan approach and adopting the Bush strategy.

United Nations and Trump should heed 1989 Balfour Declaration

[Published 4 September 2017]


A lot of bloodshed, pain and suffering sustained by both Jews and Arabs over the last 28 years could have been avoided had the United Nations heeded the 1989 Balfour Declaration presented by the 4th Lord Balfour at the 4th international conference of the Jordan is Palestine Committee held in Jerusalem in November 1989.

The 1989 Declaration stated:

“The world should be fully aware of what was British Palestine; the misleading propaganda issued from oil-wealthy Arab states must be countered; Palestine has already been divided into two countries – Jewish Israel and Arab Jordan; the present governments of Israel and Jordan should be fully supported and upheld; and a third state as suggested by the PLO would upset the political and economic situation in the whole area”

The demand by the PLO to establish that third state – in addition to Jordan and Israel – in the territory comprised in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – remains unrealised in 2017.

President Trump at this point of time still seems wedded to this proposed three state solution - eventually formulated by President Bush in his 2003 Roadmap - and endorsed by the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

The Bush Roadmap was also accepted unconditionally by the PLO and with 14 reservations by Israel.

Bush - overwhelmingly supported by the Congress – made the following written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to secure Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank:

“… 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. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”

The PLO has failed over the last 13 years to comply with these obligations.

Yet Trump still apparently appears willing to allow PLO Chief Mahmoud Abbas to stride on the world stage as he simultaneously refuses to unconditionally return to negotiations with Israel on the Bush Roadmap – stalled since April 2014.

However Amnesty International’s latest report presents an appalling overview of life under the PLO which could herald a rapid Trump-about face:

“The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Hamas de facto administration in the Gaza Strip both continued to restrict freedom of expression, including by arresting and detaining critics and political opponents. They also restricted the right to peaceful assembly and used excessive force to disperse some protests. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife in both Gaza and the West Bank. Unfair trials of civilians before military courts continued in Gaza; detainees were held without charge or trial in the West Bank. Women and girls faced discrimination and violence. Courts in Gaza continued to hand down death sentences and Hamas carried out executions; no death sentences were imposed or executions carried out in the West Bank.”

Elections – the first since 2007 – are urgently needed to test whether the PLO should continue to dominate the lives of the West Bank Arab population and to prevent all hell breaking loose as the negotiating void continues.

The 1989 Balfour Declaration beckons if the above measures do not break the current stalemate.

Trump, Israel, Jordan and Egypt can redress Obama - PLO debacle

[Published 7 August 2017]


President Trump continues to ponder the way forward to end the 100 years conflict between Arabs and Jews - as negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) — stalled since April 2014 — show no sign of being resumed.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - were consigned to the graveyard of history after PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas unilaterally disbanded the Palestinian Authority on 3 January 2013.

White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner has been quoted in an off-the-record discussion saying:

“there may be no solution”.

There may however be a solution should Jordan and Egypt — Israel’s immediate neighbours - agree to negotiate with Israel to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Filling this potentially explosive negotiating void with Jordan and Egypt will require Trump to first articulate:

1. the parameters and

2. The fact-based framework

within which such new negotiations should actually be undertaken

The parameters should be restricted to resolving the competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 5% of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine — Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza — where internationally-recognized sovereignty still remains undetermined (“the disputed territories”).

Conflicting narratives paralysing previous negotiations must be replaced by Trump with a different fact-based framework underpinning any new negotiations - including:

1. Jordan and Egypt:
(i) signatories to peace treaties with Israel in 1994 and 1979 respectively and
(ii) the last Arab States to occupy the disputed territories between 1948 and 1967
are the best Arab interlocutors to determine with Israel the allocation of sovereignty in the disputed territories.

2. The PLO Charter calling for the destruction of both Israel and Jordan disqualifies the PLO from participating in such new negotiations.

3. Hamas — designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel and banned in Jordan — must be excluded from these new negotiations.

4. The new negotiations are being undertaken to resolve the “Jewish-Arab conflict” that began in 1915 — not “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” that began in 1948

5. Sovereignty in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine has already been granted to Israel (17%), Jordan (78%) - with sovereignty in Judea and Samaria [West Bank], East Jerusalem and Gaza (5%) still undetermined.

6. The Jewish people is legally entitled to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the disputed territories by close settlement under Article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - subject to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there being safeguarded.

7. Misleading and deceptive language referring to the disputed territories as “occupied territory” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” fail to recognize that it was Jewish occupation in the disputed territories that was first abruptly ended in 1948 — after every single Jew then living there was forcibly driven out by six invading Arab armies and not allowed to return until after the Six Day War in 1967.

Trump has a hard row to hoe in formulating this critical framework - but do it he must if there is to be any hope of advancing peace in the Middle East.

Such Trump-defined parameters and fact-based framework need to then be mutually agreed by Jordan, Egypt and Israel before formal negotiations can commence.

Any fanfare trumpeting yet another round of negotiations without such tripartite agreement will inevitably see those new negotiations being eventually buried alongside the graves housing the failed Oslo-Roadmap and stalled Israel-PLO negotiations.

Trump, Israel, Jordan and Egypt working together can certainly succeed where Obama and the PLO ignominiously failed.

Israel Ensures European Union Swallows Poison Pill

[Published 30 November 2015]


The European Union’s (EU) discriminatory and racist labelling requirements for Jewish goods and products originating from Judea and Samaria has now seen Israel effectively label the EU as “persona non grata” in the diplomatic process between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The EU finds itself in this sorry position following Israel’s decision to reassess the involvement of EU bodies in that diplomatic process and to suspend contacts with the EU and its representatives until that reassessment is completed.

The labelling requirements reflect the EU’s political position that settlement by Jews in Judea and Samaria is illegal in international law. This claim has never been the subject of any binding authoritative legal decision.

The International Court of Justice decision on 9 July 2004 was only an advisory opinion sought by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and not a legally binding precedent.

That opinion was itself deficient since the Court was never asked by the Secretary-General to consider the legal effect of two territory-specific pieces of international law applicable to Judea and Samaria. Those provisions - article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - vested and preserved the legal right to “close settlement by Jews” in Judea and Samaria for the purposes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home.

At best the EU’s longstanding position - that influenced its labelling laws - is only an opinion — and nothing more.

The EU should think very carefully before imposing any retaliatory trade action against Israel for freezing the EU out of the peace process — since Israel still has some more bitter medicine for the EU to swallow:

1. Forbidding the transfer of EU funds to non-government organisations in Israel engaged in activities designed to advance the interests of the Israeli Arab population and to interfere in the internal affairs of a member State of the United Nations.

2. Ending all co-operation with the EU in Area C in Judea and Samaria by terminating existing development and infrastructure programs for the benefit of the Arab population and forbidding any such EU activities there in the future.

The EU’s labelling laws contravene the joint statement issued by the Quartet — America, Russia, The European Union and the United Nations - on 10 April 2002:

“We reiterate that there is no military solution to the conflict and call on the parties to move towards a political resolution of their disputes based on UNSCR 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace‚ which formed the basis for the Madrid Conference of 1991. We reaffirm our support for the objective expressed by President Bush and spelled out in UNSCR 1397, of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.”

Attempting to influence any political resolution regarding secure and recognized boundaries - using its labelling requirements to pressure Israeli territorial concessions - could spell the death knell for President Bush’s Roadmap and its “two-state solution"

The EU is free to pursue any policy it wants — but also must take full responsibility for the consequences of its reprehensible labelling laws and Israel’s rapid response.

Should the EU now gracefully bow out of the Quartet due to its clearly revealed conflict of interest and one-sided bias — or does it have to be told to go packing by the other members of the Quartet if their impartiality in the peace process is to be maintained?

The EU cannot remain a member of the Quartet whilst implementing labelling requirements that favour Arab claims over Jewish claims.

The EU now faces swallowing a poison pill of its own making.

Bush, Obama, Russia, EU and UN Buried Under Trump Landslide

[Published 16 February 2017]


President Trump has buried the Bush Roadmap and any lingering hope for the creation of a second Arab State (“the two-state solution”) — in addition to Jordan — in the territory designated under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.

This inevitability follows Trump’s failure at a White House joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on 15 February to reaffirm the written commitments made by President Bush to Israel in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (“Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments”).

President Bush had been urged to do so just the day before by veteran US peace negotiator - Dennis Ross — who stated it would have:

“significant implications, both because it was recognizing settlement blocs referred to in the letter as major population centers, but also because it said that no agreement can involve going back to the 1949 Armistice lines or the equivalent of June 4, 1967.”

Similar calls had also been made by:

1. Michael Oren - Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington and currently Deputy Minister in Netanyahu’s Prime Minister’s office
2. Tzipi Livni — former Israeli Foreign Minister who had led negotiations for Israel with the Palestinian Authority in the peace talks brokered by U.S. Secretary of StateJohn Kerry from July 2013 until April 2014.
3. Danny Ayalon - Former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister

Former Israeli United Nations ambassador and until recently the Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry - Dore Gold - had been concerned as far back as 9 June 2009 that President Obama was not going to reaffirm the Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments:

“For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the US Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.”

Obama’s clarification never came.

Even Netanyahu — just before boarding a plane to see Obama in the White House in May 2011 - had said he expected:

“to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

Netanyahu never received that affirmation then — nor did he from Trump now.

Their reasons however are very different.

Obama proceeded to trash those commitments made with one of America’s closest allies with disastrous consequences for America’s foreign policy, its reputation and integrity.

Trump however had difficulty in reaffirming all of Bush’s commitments because one of them stated:

“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”

Trump doesn’t like long negotiations without any deal — and Trump wants to cut a deal.

Trump has accordingly ditched the Bush two-state solution — endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It now joins the diplomatic graveyard housing other two-state solutions proposed by

1. the 1937 Peel Commission
2. the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan,
3. the 1993 Oslo Accords and
4. Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008.

The Arabs have missed yet another opportunity to end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Trump and Congress can make America great again

[Published 15 February 2017]


President Trump and Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders this week have the last opportunity to resuscitate the two-state solution laid out in President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap adopted by the Quartet — America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations (“Bush-Quartet Roadmap”).

This can only happen if President Trump and the Congress re-affirm the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 — as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House 407-9 and the Senate 95-3 (“Bush-Congress Commitments”).

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly sees this outcome flowing from his White House visit on 15 February:

“Trump believes in a deal and in running peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” the prime minister was quoted as saying. “We should be careful and not do things that will cause everything to break down. We mustn’t get into a confrontation with him.”

The last six years have seen those negotiations teeter on the brink of total collapse because the framework for such negotiations - the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress commitments — has been successively trashed by President Obama, the European Union and the United Nations.

President Obama’s failure to honour the Bush-Congress commitments first emerged on 19 May 2011 - when he stated:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Obama’s statement put him on a collision course with America’s position as laid out in the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had declared before an international meeting of world leaders called by President Bush in Annapolis on 27 November 2007 — including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would resume on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Land swaps from Israel’s sovereign territory for any territory Israel retained in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was never mentioned or contemplated in the Bush-Congress Commitments or indeed the Bush-Quartet Roadmap.

Certainly Israel might decide to make land swaps if deemed to be in Israel’s national interest — but that was for Israel to decide — not for Obama or Bush to influence or impose.

Obama appeared to flip flop during his speech on 21 March 2013 at the Jerusalem International Convention Centre:

“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.”

However those “credible proposals at Annapolis” had never suggested that the “1967 lines” and “land swaps” be the starting point for negotiations.

Yet Obama, the European Union and the United Nations persisted with these demands until the dying days of Obama’s Presidency — when America abstained — rather than veto - Security Council Resolution 2334 which expressed:

“grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,”

The Bush-Quartet Roadmap and the Bush-Congress Commitments comprise the only mutually agreed two-state negotiating process.

President Trump and the Congress can ensure the survival of that process — though not necessarily a successful outcome of any negotiations to be conducted under that process - by reaffirming the Bush-Congress Commitments.

Trump and the Congress in so doing would be meeting Netanyahu’s expectations.

America’s restored reputation for keeping agreements made with its closest allies would resonate with Trump’s campaign promise to “Make America Great Again”.

Australia and Israel: Concerning Trump and Obama Honouring Predecessors’ Commitments

[Published 5 February 2017]


A virtual media storm has erupted at the suggestion that President Trump might renege on President Obama’s agreement to take up to 2000 refugees off Australia’s hands presently languishing on Manus Island and Nauru (“Obama-Australia Commitment”)

The Obama-Australia Commitment was made in the dying days of Obama’s eight years reign as President in November 2016.

Yet the same media remained silent for the last eight years as President Obama reneged on President Bush’s agreement supporting Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank, as well as advancing President Bush’s Roadmap designed to end the 80 years long unresolved Jewish- Arab conflict (“Bush-Israel Commitment”).

The differences between the Obama-Australia Commitment and the Bush-Israel Commitment could not be starker for the following reasons:

1. Search as you might - you cannot find what the Obama-Australia Commitment specifically states.

Dara Lind sums up this “agreement” as follows:

“The details of the agreement were a little fuzzy. It wasn’t clear how many refugees the US would end up taking, and there was some confusion about what role the UN High Commissioner for Refugees would play in the process. While Australia’s top immigration official, Michael Pezzullo, called the deal “an agreement entered into through diplomatic means,” it’s not clear whether a text was ever actually signed.”

On the other hand the Bush-Israel Commitment comprises a letter from President Bush to Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004.

2. There is a strong suggestion that the Obama-Australia Commitment was concluded in some sleazy backroom deal between the Australian Embassy in Washington and the US State Department that would see refugees from Central America presently housed in camps in Costa Rica being resettled in Australia.

On the other hand the Bush-Israel Commitment was openly discussed in the US Congress and endorsed in the House — 407 votes to 9 — and in the Senate — 95 votes to 3.

Obama had no qualms in sticking it to his own Democratic Congressional colleagues — including Hillary Clinton — voting in favour then as a Senator — by ignoring their almost unanimous support for the Bush-Israel Commitment.

Instead Obama led America down the garden path for five years to one of the worst diplomatic and policy failures of his presidency - antagonising Israel in the process.

Israel paid a huge price for its Gaza disengagement in 2005 in reliance of the Bush-Israel Commitment — including:

1. the expulsion of 8000 Jews who had lived in Gaza for periods of up to forty years,
2. the indiscriminate firing of tens of thousands of rockets into Israeli population centers reaching as far as Tel Aviv
3. three military incursions into Gaza to try and end the violence emanating from the Hamas-controlled enclave.

Yet the media never attacked Obama for disgracefully betraying his predecessor’s commitment to a close ally.

Now an infuriated President Trump has the supposed gall to tweet:

“Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”

An outraged media see this as a perfect opportunity to thump Trump - as do many politicians.

In doing so they betray their own appalling double standards and biases that sees so many readers abandoning their publications - and voters their political parties - in ever increasing numbers.

Outrage at Trump possibly not confirming the Obama-Australia Commitment stands awkwardly alongside the deafening silence following Obama’s repudiation of the Bush-Israel Commitment. Both are worthy of endorsement by President Trump on his terms - assisting two tried and trusted allies in their time of need.

That’s what friends are for.

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.

UN Security Council members trash Quartet Roadmap and Two-State Solution

[Published 18 January 2017]


Twelve of the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council have apparently had a major rethink on the terms of Resolution 2334 which they approved 14-0 on 23 December 2016 with only America abstaining.

They were among those who issued the Joint Declaration following the Paris Conference held on 15 January — attended by delegations from 70 countries, the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Thirteen of the fifteen Security Council member States were in Paris including its five Permanent Members — China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

Absent were New Zealand and Malaysia — two of the four sponsors of Resolution 2334.

The Joint Declaration differs substantially from Resolution 2334 in three fundamental respects:

1. Resolution 2334 envisages a region where:

“two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”

The Joint Declaration shredded this objective by affirming:

“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”

The “two democratic states solution” in Resolution 2334 was replaced by a vague and nebulous “two state solution” in the Joint Declaration. Gone were "secure and recognised boundaries".

2. Resolution 2334 aims to achieve:

“without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”

The Joint Declaration more specifically calls for the resolution of:

“all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973),”

The Quartet Roadmap - so painstakingly put together in 2003 by President Bush calling for negotiations to create a democratic Palestinian State — and under which negotiations had been conducted since then - was unceremoniously dumped in Paris.

This leaves no agreed negotiating framework under which to conduct any resumed negotiations.

3. Resolution 2234 underscored:

“the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative,”

The Joint Declaration underscored:

“the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.”

Israel had agreed to negotiate under the Quartet Roadmap but listed 14 reservations — one of which required:

“The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the road map will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement.”

Replacing the Quartet Roadmap with the Arab Peace Initiative guarantees no hope for the stalled negotiations to be resumed.

The United Kingdom refused to endorse the Joint Declaration.

It is incredible that the other twelve Security Council member States present — especially the five permanent members - could approve the terms of the Joint Declaration that so materially changes what they voted for or abstained on just three weeks earlier.

They obviously engaged in cherry picking bits and pieces of Resolution 2334 that they had rushed through with unseemly haste and now had second thoughts on.

A new agreed negotiating framework for any two-State solution now needs to be constructed to replace the trashed Quartet Roadmap.

The Security Council looks decidedly stupid and increasingly irrelevant.

Paris buries Palestine and UN Security Council Resolution 2334

72 States and Organizations meeting in Paris on 15 January have repudiated Security Council Resolution 2334 (“UNSCR 2334”) - just three weeks after it was passed on 23 December 2016.

UNSCR 2334 had reiterated the Security Council’s:

“vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”

The final Paris communique dumped this “two democratic states solution” by reaffirming:

“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”

The word “democratic” was in fact omitted in the Paris communique in nine places – signalling that Paris did not accept the definitive terms of the “two-state solution” proposed by the Security Council.

The Paris communique deliberately sought to mislead and deceive what UNSCR 2334 had actually stated – declaring the Participants:

“welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which … called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground;"

- blatantly failing to identify that it was the “two democratic states solution” that was envisioned in UNSCR 2334.

Paris went even further in attempting to gloss over the obligation for any Palestinian State to be democratic - the communique noting:

“the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation.”

No mention about addressing the absence of democracy in Gaza - where Hamas has denied the Arab population any elections for the last 10 years.

Paris omitted any reference to the only framework within which Israel and the PLO have been negotiating during the last 13 years – the 2003 Bush Roadmap – which clearly states:

“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”

The Paris communique:

“called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016.”

However one Quartet recommendation states:

“Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements.”

Kerry mentioned “two-state solution” 29 times but never once uttered the word “democratic”.

Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future.

Paris has managed to bury the “two democratic states solution” in just 24 hours.

The Roadmap and UNSCR 2334 have received the last rites.

Perhaps the Security Council and the Paris participants should now consider the “two-state solution” first envisaged in 1922:

One Jewish State – Israel – and one Arab State – Jordan – in the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.

This territorial subdivision has already happened in 95% of the Mandate territory. It can happen very quickly in the remaining 5%.

In fact it only involves redrawing the existing international boundary between Israel and Jordan – two states already living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.

Simple and achievable.

Palestine: France humiliated by Abbas but Israel remains focussed

[Published 16 December 2016]


French foreign policy on resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict has been exposed to ridicule following France’s reported decision to postpone an international conference planned for December 21.

Originally proposed on 3 June — France’s blatant attempt to replace the conduct of direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO - as provided for in the internationally approved Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - has embarrassingly fallen flat on its face.

In a document issued in September explaining France’s position — the French Foreign Office asserted:

“France has launched a two-phase initiative. A ministerial meeting, first, took place in Paris on June 3rd 2016, without the Israelis and Palestinians, in order to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to the two-State solution. At that meeting, the main international actors expressed their willingness to create a framework and incentives so that credible negotiations can resume. An international conference, to which all parties will be invited, will be organized in the second half of 2016 for this purpose.”

Surely it would have been much easier — and certainly much cheaper and more effective - for France to pick up the phone and invite both Israel and the PLO to Paris to sit down and resume their negotiations — stalled since 2014 - without pre-conditions and outside foreign interference.

Israel’s Prime Minister — Benjamin Netanyahu - had publicly expressed his readiness to do so on many occasions — but PLO Chairman — Mahmoud Abbas — refused to indicate his willingness to do likewise.

The international community may well be concerned to see the two-State solution — the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine in addition to Jordan — slowly sinking into oblivion.

However the way to resuscitate it was not by calling an international conference - but by threatening both parties with retaliatory action if they failed to meet somewhere at some nominated time and place.

Netanyahu made it very clear to France on 7 December that he would be willing to attend such a one-on-one meeting with Abbas if the conference planned for December 21 was cancelled.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke, by telephone, with French President Francois Hollande a short while ago today and told him that if there is no international conference in Paris, he would come to meet with Abu Mazen for direct talks without preconditions.

Israel will not attend an international conference, which will not contribute to achieving peace.”

France has the undoubted diplomatic and economic clout to influence Abbas - as the French Foreign Office acknowledges:

“France is an active contributor to Palestine’s economic development and the consolidation of the institutions of the future Palestinian State. It devotes considerable sums (close to €400 million for the period 2008-2014, and ‚Ǩ40 million in 2015) to aid for Palestine, about a third of which is destined for Gaza. Palestine remains the leading beneficiary of French budgetary assistance.”

Why France’s President Hollande allows Abbas to humiliate France by refusing to take up Netanyahu’s offer is a mystery.

France’s foreign policy itself is a pure flight of fancy - declaring:

“France considers that the conflict will only be resolved through the creation of a viable and democratic independent Palestinian State, living in peace and security alongside Israel.”

The idea that any Palestinian State will ever be democratic is as fanciful as France’s belief that its planned international conference could ever succeed.

There are solutions — other than the two-State solution - to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

Perhaps it is time France turned its attention to investigating alternative solutions - rather than pushing for a solution whose use by date has surely expired since first being proposed in 1993.

Palestine - Carter Threatens Chaos For Obama, Trump and US Foreign Policy

[Published 30 November 2016]


Former US President Jimmy Carter has urged current President Barack Obama to:

1. betray another former President - George Bush,

2. destroy America’s reputation for integrity and trustworthiness and

3. thwart President-elect Donald Trump in attempting to resolve the 100 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times Carter has proffered the following advice to Obama as his eight year term of office is ending:

“The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership.”

The following calamitous consequences for American foreign policy would ensue should Obama accept Carter’s irresponsible advice:

1. President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap and 13 years of American diplomacy would be trashed.

Endorsed by the United Nations, European Union and Russia and accepted by Israel (with 14 reservations) and the then Palestinian Authority (since disbanded on 3 January 2013) - the Roadmap provides for:

“A settlement, negotiated between the parties,” that “will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors”

2. Obama would break Bush’s following written commitment made to Israel on 14 April 2004:

“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.”

Any such State would not be “democratic” - its current “President” now being in the 11th year of a four year term - whilst two separate claimants - the PLO and Hamas - engage in a bitter internecine struggle to become the recognised Government of the Palestinian Arabs despite elections not having been held to legitimise the authority of either since 2007.

3. Carter’s following call in May 2015 will remain unimplemented and a distant pipe dream:

“We hope that sometime we’ll see elections all over the Palestinian area and east Jerusalem and Gaza and also in the West Bank,”

4. Obama will break his pledge to Israel to require any such State to first recognise Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

5. Obama would be recognising a State which has no legal basis for existence in international law since it fails to comply with the provisions of customary international law as expressed in the Montevideo Convention 1934.

6. Full United Nations membership under Article 4 of the UN Charter is only open to peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter.

7. No such State is “peace loving” nor would it ever accept the obligations contained in article 80 of the Charter preserving the rights vested in the Jewish people under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine

Ironically Carter hit upon the clue to finally resolving the conflict when addressing Jordan and Jordan’s late monarch King Hussein in another op-ed in Time Magazine on 11 October 1982:

“Hussein is personally courageous but an extremely timid man in political matters. That timidity derives almost inevitably from the inherent weakness of Jordan. As a nation it is a contrivance, arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen”

Jordan - 78% of former Palestine - originally designated as part of the location for the Jewish National Home - still remains the key to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Obama should reject Carter’s latest disastrous advice and leave Trump to try and end the long-running conflict which has eluded all American Presidents.

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.

Obama, Clinton And Trump Must Affirm America's Crucial Commitments To Israel

[Published 19 October 2016]


President Obama is causing consternation and uncertainty in Israel because of his continuing refusal to make clear that America will veto any Security Council resolution attempting to impose a settlement of the Jewish-Arab conflict in former Palestine other than under the Roadmap of his predecessor George W. Bush.

The Roadmap - first envisioned on 24 June 2002 - was finally documented on 30 April 2003.

Bush made the following written commitment to Israel in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 — which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the American Congress by 502 votes to 12 in June 2004:

“First 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. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”

Bush’s reasons for giving this American commitment were stated in his letter:

“The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there.

We welcome the disengagement plan you have 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….

... The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Israel honoured its disengagement plan and withdrew from Gaza and part of the West Bank in August 2005.

The risks in doing so have been translated into reality with the indiscriminate firing of tens of thousands of rockets from Gaza into civilian population centres in Israel and ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza since 2005.

That Obama would seek to resile from this Bush Congress-endorsed American commitment to Israel is unthinkable and should be disavowed by him immediately.

Amazingly two Presidential debates have been held so far between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton where the word “Israel” has not been mentioned once.

Both Trump and Clinton have remained silent up till now on stating whether they would uphold this American commitment to Israel.

Clinton was among those Senators overwhelmingly endorsing America’s commitment by 95 votes to 3.

Clinton needs to publicly state that she will honour this commitment to Israel if elected President

Trump has so far failed to say whether he will do likewise — although his rival Marco Rubio pledged at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum:

“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”

Trump needs to follow suit.

The third Presidential debate also gives Trump the perfect opportunity to state his position if he is elected President.

Hopefully the moderator Chris Wallace will ask them both this crucial question — or they volunteer an answer themselves.

America’s reputation and trustworthiness for keeping its promises are on the line.