UN General Assembly Majority Greenlight Russia’s Rape of Ukraine

 

The UN General Assembly completely lost its moral compass when it voted on April 7th for Russia’s suspension from the Human Rights Council - with only 93 of its 193 member Nations voting to do so. The voting records (see images below) show that within the space of just 14 days:

• 47 Nations - voting on March 24th (the first resolution) to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - failed to vote to boot Russia from the Human Rights Council on 7 April (the second resolution) 

Those 47 Nations had embraced the first resolution’s principled position:

“Recognizing that the military offensive of the Russian Federation inside the sovereign territory of Ukraine and its humanitarian consequences are on a scale that the international community has not seen in Europe in decades, Reiterating the call of the Secretary-General to the Russian Federation to stop its military offensive, as well as his call to establish a ceasefire and to return to the path of dialogue and negotiations, Recalling its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders”

14 days later these 47 Nations were unable to follow through and administer even the mildest of rebukes on Russia for blatantly ignoring this clarion call.

• 5 Nations supporting Russia in opposing the first resolution had increased to 24 after voting on the second resolution.
• 38 fence-sitting Nations abstaining on the first resolution had seen their numbers jump to 58 after voting on the second resolution.
• 10 Nations who refused to vote at all on the first resolution saw their numbers increase to 18 after voting on the second resolution

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his bloated massive bureaucracy attempted to cover up this shameful day of infamy in the UN’s history. The UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases deceptively reported:

“The Assembly adopted the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 24 against, with 58 abstentions, signaling [sic] the international community’s strong censure of Moscow’s aggressive actions towards a neighbouring State.”

“Strong censure of Moscow’s aggressive actions?” : When only 93 of the 193 member states voted to do so? 

UN News published an even more misleading report:

“The resolution received a two-thirds majority of those voting, minus abstentions, in the 193-member Assembly, with 93 nations voting in favour and 24 against.   Fifty-eight abstained from the process.  Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, were among those who voted against.  Those abstaining, included India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.” 

Who in the UN Secretariat decided to:

• Name and shame just 7 nations that voted against Russia’s removal - but failed to name the other 17?
• Out 17 nations that abstained - but not the other 41 nations that joined them?
• Not name any of the 18 nations that failed to vote or abstain: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda, San-Tomé-Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Zambia?
• Not point out that 6 of the 15-member UN Human Rights Council -Bolivia, China, Cuba, Malawi, Russia, and Uzbekistan - voted against Russia’s suspension -whilst another 4 - Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan and Senegal- - abstained?

No amount of window dressing by Guterres and his Secretariat can alter the fact that 100 of the 193 members of the UN General Assembly have depressingly voted to greenlight Russia’s continuing invasion and rape of Ukraine. 

The General Assembly is disunited, fractured and irrelevant - having totally capitulated on trying to end the murder, suffering and dispersion of Ukraine’s civilian population. 

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.

Guterres dawdles as Russia-Ukraine war impacts other UN members

 

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ continuing failure to take any concrete action to help end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has now seen that conflict threatening to seriously impact many of the other 191 member States of the UN. 

Guterres himself has warned of the problems faced by those member States: 

“This war goes far beyond Ukraine. It is also an assault on the world’s most vulnerable people and countries. While war rains over Ukraine, a sword of Damocles hangs over the global economy – especially in the developing world. Even before the conflict, developing countries were struggling to recover from the pandemic – with record inflation, rising interest rates and looming debt burdens.  Their ability to respond has been erased by exponential increases in the cost of financing. Now their breadbasket is being bombed.  Russia and Ukraine represent more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and about 30 percent of the world’s wheat. Ukraine alone provides more than half of the World Food Programme’s wheat supply. Food, fuel and fertilizer prices are skyrocketing.  Supply chains are being disrupted.  And the costs and delays of transportation of imported goods – when available – are at record levels. All of this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe. Grain prices have already exceeded those at the start of the Arab Spring and the food riots of 2007-2008. The FAO’s [UN Food and Agriculture Organization] global food prices index is at its highest level ever. Forty-five African and least developed countries import at least one-third of their wheat from Ukraine [or] Russia – 18 of those countries import at least 50 percent. This includes countries like Burkina Faso, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. We must do everything possible to avert a hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system.”

Guterres’ pathetic response involves:

1. Establishing a Global Crisis Response Group on Food, Energy and Finance in the UN Secretariat – more bureaucracy – and 
2. Allocating $40 million from the Central Emergency Response Fund to ramp up vital assistance to reach the most vulnerable as the UN waits for these nations to come begging. 

The UNGA has the power to end the conflict under UNGA Resolution 377 (V) A (1) dated 3 November 1950 – the “Uniting for Peace Resolution” - which provides: 

“That if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security...” 

Use of armed force would be a last resort.  

Calling for a ceasefire or diplomatic negotiations is totally inadequate. 

Resolution 377 (V) also established a Peace Observation Commission of 14 member States - that could have been replicated  - to personally observe and report on the situation in Ukraine and pressure Russia to withdraw. 

Why hasn’t Guterres already activated such a Commission? Alleviating distress and hardship in the aftermath of conflict – rather than acting to prevent or end conflict occurring – is an abdication of the UNGA’s primary responsibility under the UN Charter.

 Guterres’ continuing inaction to try and end the Russia-Ukraine conflict is surely sowing the seeds of the UN’s and his own demise. 

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.

UNGA & Guterres fiddle while Ukraine & the UN Charter burn

 

It is incomprehensible that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has held its Fifth Consultation on Our Common Agenda (Fifth Consultation) on March 10 at the same time as 2.597 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee their country which is being reduced to rubble following Russia's invasion on 24 February.  Our Common Agenda is an 85 page Report prepared by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in 2021 following the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations when:

"Member States agreed that our challenges are interconnected, across borders and all other divides. These challenges can only be addressed by an equally interconnected response, through reinvigorated multilateralism and the United Nations at the centre of our efforts. Member States asked me to report back with recommendations to advance our common agenda. This report is my response."

This utopian talkfest discussing Guterres' personal ego trip into fantasyland should have been postponed – using the precious time gained to formulate and recommend concrete action that can be taken by the UNGA against Russia's invasion of Ukraine - which mandates the UNGA:

"to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace"

The UNGA and its Secretary-General are living in a dream world - whilst the real world is drifting dangerously towards World War III as US President Joe Biden warned on 12 March. In the midst of this worst turmoil in Europe since World War II – Guterres had the temerity to tell the Fifth Consultation:

"A multi-faceted war is raging in the heart of Europe, in violation of the United Nations Charter.  We need a serious effort to improve global governance, manage risks and safeguard the global commons and global public goods.   This is not only about the United Nations, or any other institution.   

Our Common Agenda

It is about working together to solve our biggest problems, through existing structures if they are fit for purpose, and new or reinvigorated frameworks where needed.   Failure to do so increases the likelihood that our children, or their children, are forced to rebuild the international order in the aftermath of catastrophe.   I have therefore asked my High-Level Advisory Board on Global Public Goods to provide us with concrete recommendations for improved global governance."

In Our Common Agenda – the Secretary-General had issued a call to identify and review the governance of global public goods (GPGs) and the global commons (GCs). Guterres announced the formation of a High-Level Advisory Board (HLAB) to develop an independent report in support of this objective. The report would reflect substantive research into GPGs and GC's ahead of the 2023 Summit of the Future.  GPGs are goods whose benefits cross borders and are global in scope. For example, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that will slow global warming.  GCs describe international, supranational, and global resource domains in which common-pool resources are found - the earth's shared natural resources, such as the high oceans, the atmosphere and outer space and the Antarctic. 

The UNGA and Secretary-General Guterres have their heads and feet in the clouds pursuing Nirvana – whilst Ukraine goes up in smoke before their very eyes and they continue to do absolutely nothing to isolate Russia as an international pariah and hold Russia accountable for flagrantly violating the UN Charter. In his closing remarks to the Fifth Consultation Guterres arrogantly asserted:

"We cannot afford to be distracted or deterred from our essential work by the current crisis."

Guterres and the UNGA will receive no plaudits for this insensitive and highly offensive statement from 44 million Ukrainian citizens whose lives have become a living hell. 

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.

UNGA action must now replace divisive Russia-Ukraine talkfest

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has given credence to the oft-used statement that “Truth is always the first casualty of war”.

Addressing the media after the UN General Assembly (UNGA) had resolved by 141 votes to 5 to demand that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally” withdraw its military forces from Ukraine - Guterres stated:

“The General Assembly has spoken.  

As Secretary-General, it is my duty to stand by this resolution and be guided by its call.

The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear:

End hostilities in Ukraine — now.

Silence the guns — now.

Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy — now.

The territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine must be respected in line with the UN Charter.

We don’t have a moment to lose.  

The brutal effects of the conflict are plain to see.

But as bad as the situation is for the people in Ukraine right now, it threatens to get much, much worse.

The ticking clock is a time bomb ... 

... Today’s resolution reflects a central truth.  

The world wants an end to the tremendous human suffering in Ukraine.  

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson supported Guterres with this equally-misleading fatuous statement:

“Rarely has the contrast between right and wrong been so stark, 141 countries voted to condemn Putin.”

The General Assembly’s message was not that loud and clear - or as stark – as a closer analysis of the recorded votes reveals (See diagram): 

Notably:

• The world’s two most populated countries – China and India – representing 36.1% of the world’s population - abstained from voting. 
• 12 countries failed to vote.
• 35 countries abstained from voting.
• Those 47 countries abstaining or not voting represent 54.72% of the world’s population and 24.35% of the 193 member states in the United Nations.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. - Linda Thomas-Greenfield - said before the vote:

“We believe this is a simple vote, Vote yes if you believe U.N. member states, including your own, have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. Vote yes if you believe Russia should be held to account for his [Putin’s] actions. Vote yes if you believe in upholding the U.N. Charter and everything this institution stands for.”

Thomas-Greenfield’s message obviously failed to resonate with those 47 abstaining or non-voting countries. 

Despite this embarrassingly-divisive vote – the UNGA can still act to protect and uphold the principles of the UN Charter by utilising that 141-5 majority to humiliate and isolate Russia whilst simultaneously supporting Ukraine in its struggle to regain its territorial sovereignty and independence.

That majority vote – if repeated – could see a range of UNGA bodies immediately established and funded by all 193 member States - including:

• A Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Ukrainian People:

To institute a programme that will enable the Ukrainian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty without external interference; to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced.

• A United Nations Ukrainian Works and Relief Agency: To carry out direct relief and works programmes solely for Ukrainian refugees.
• A Special Rapporteur to assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories, report publicly and work with governments and civil society to foster international cooperation.
• A Special Committee to investigate Russian practices affecting the human rights of the Ukrainian People and other residents of the Occupied Ukrainian Territories
• A United Nations Special Coordinator for the Russia-Ukraine conflict to report quarterly to the Secretary General, the General Assembly and the Security Council

The UN General Assembly and its Secretary-General now need to stop talking and start acting – or see their relevance and credibility sink from sight.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump consigning Russia-PLO collusion to dustbin of history

[Published 1 May 2019]

President Trump’s inexorable march towards releasing his “deal of the century” has seen his decisions on Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the PLO undermining 55 years of Russia-PLO collusion aimed at eliminating the State of Israel and establishing Russian supremacy in the Middle East.

Russia-PLO collusion has caused the deaths of millions of Jews and Arabs, leaving millions more with permanent and debilitating injuries deeply impacting their lives and the lives of their families.

Front-line states seeking Israel’s elimination - Lebanon, Egypt, Syria Jordan, Libya and Iraq - have seen their societies and public assets adversely affected by war and civil insurrection.

Claire Berlinski has detailed how Russia-PLO collusion began:

“Following the defeat of the Egyptians in the Six Day War, the Soviets came to a second realization: A conventional military confrontation with Israel, and by extension the West, carried too great a risk of escalating into nuclear war. A change of tactics was required. Gen. Alexander Sakharovsky, then head of the KGB’s intelligence arm, explained this to his East European colleagues: “[T]errorism should become our main weapon.” Sakharovsky boasted that airplane hijackings were his own invention; he decorated his office with a world map, covered in flags, each marking a successful hijacking. Though the PLO managed to unite various terrorist organizations, “the supreme headquarters of the whole network was, of course, the Kremlin,” Stroilov writes, and “the evidence accumulated at this point leaves no doubt that the whole system was invented by Moscow as a weapon against the West, and the PLO was a jewel in their crown.”

The PLO – born in 1964 – expressly disavowed any separate claims to sovereignty in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and Gaza. In 1968 the PLO reversed its position – claiming statehood in these very same areas that had been unified with TransJordan in 1950 and renamed Jordan - remaining part of Jordan until their loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Jordan and Israel were identified by the PLO in 1964 as one indivisible territorial unit to be liberated by the PLO. The PLO unsuccessfully tried to takeover Jordan in September 1970.

Terrorist attacks by the PLO against Israel included:

1. November 1969 - armed attack on the El Al office in Athens, leaving 1 dead and 14 wounded;

2. May 1972 - Ben Gurion Airport attack, leaving 22 dead and 76 wounded;

3. December 1974 - Tel Aviv movie theatre bomb, leaving 2 dead and 66 wounded;

4. March 1975 - Tel Aviv hotel attack leaving 25 dead and 6 wounded;

5. May 1975 - Jerusalem bomb, leaving 1 dead and 3 wounded;

6. July 1975 - bomb in Zion Square, Jerusalem, leaving 15 dead and 62 wounded;

Berlinski explains:

“The code-name for this operation against Israel, according to Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector from the Soviet Bloc, was “SIG” — Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, or “Zionist Governments.” In a National Review article, Pacepa recalls a conversation he had with KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, who envisioned fomenting “a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world. … We had only to keep repeating our themes — that the United States and Israel were ‘fascist, imperial-Zionist countries’ bankrolled by rich Jews.”

The Jew-hating PLO has forced itself undemocratically on the Palestinian Arabs for five decades except for one vote in 2006 – which the PLO refused to accept.

International support and recognition afforded the PLO by the United Nations and UNESCO has exacerbated the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict – not help resolve it.

President Trump will be doing the cause of world peace a great service if his peace proposals finally consign this demonic Russia-PLO cabal to the dustbin of history.

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 exposes United Nations as world’s epicenter for Jew-hatred

[Published 3 April 2019]

President Trump’s Proclamation recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights — and the condemnation issued by the United Nations Security Council in response - has exposed the United Nations (UN) as the world’s epicenter for rabid Jew-hatred.

Jews do have ancient, historic and legal claims to sovereignty in the Golan Heights that cannot simply continue to be dismissed by a UN media release headed “Security Council Members Regret Decision by United States to Recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over Occupied Syrian Golan”.

The “Occupied Syrian Golan” is UN diplomatic doublespeak contrived after Israel:

1. Captured the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six Day War from Syria,

2. Passed an Act in 1981 declaring that the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel applied to the Golan Heights - which was immediately rejected by Security Council Resolution 497.

Circumstances have since changed as Israel now faces Syria and its “invitees” Russia, Iran and Hezbollah across this very strategic piece of territory — whilst the UN remains powerless to end the carnage and displacement of Syria’s citizens by its ruler Bashir Assad during the past eight years.

Thirty-eight years of unbroken UN refusal to recognise Jewish sovereignty in the 1150 square kilometers Golan Heights has finally been called out and trashed by Trump.

The UN’s continuing anti-Israel and pro-Syrian bias in 2019 is the product of a structured regional-representation system which has seen decisions of its 193 member states impacted for decades by:

1. 16 member States that have never recognized Israel

2. 11 member States that have had no diplomatic relations with Israel for decades

3. 30 member States (in addition to those in 1 and 2) that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — hardly a Jewish fan club

4. 77 member States that fraternize and associate with the above 57 Jew-hating States in a 134 member voting bloc at the UN called the G77 — guaranteeing an automatic majority for any resolution in the UN General Assembly — no matter how dismissive or contemptuous of Jewish rights and claims.

The Security Council’s current 10 non-permanent members include 3 OIC members — 2 of whom — Indonesia and Kuwait — have never recognized Israel.

The Commission on the Status of Women currently includes among its 45 members: 6 that have never recognised Israel — Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

The current 49 members of the Human Rights Council include: 9 States that do not recognise Israel — Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Tunisia — and another 19 who are both OIC and G77 members or only G77 members.

These States regularly denigrate and delegitimise the Jewish people under the guise of civilized debate and constructive discussion on solving the worlds’ problem — most of which are remarkably sheeted home to the actions of the Jewish State of Israel and its Jewish majority population.

This toxic hate-filled potpourri has created a climate of unbridled UN-sponsored Jew-hatred that has permeated through other UN agencies including UNESCO and UNRWA.

A UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People exists — but no similar UN Committee for the Jewish People.

UN Jew-hatred will be re-ignited when Trump inevitably focuses his attention on Judea and Samaria — the UN’s falsely-designated “Occupied Palestinian Territories” — where the UN still misleadingly claims that Jews have no vested legal rights to reconstitute their biblical and ancient national home there as recognised by:

1. Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and

2. Article 80 of the United Nations own Charter.

Endemic Jew-hatred throughout the UN must be eradicated if the UN is to regain any credibility or relevance.

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 exposes United Nations hypocrisy on PLO, Hamas and Israel

[Published 25 July 2018]

President Trump has challenged United Nations (UN) member States to put their money where their mouths are in a hard hitting speech delivered by US Permanent Representative to the UN - Ambassador Nikki Haley – at a UN Security Council Open Debate on the Middle East on 24 July.

Following Trump’s recent dressing down of NATO – Haley attacked UN member States who are full of words but short on money when it comes to supporting the Palestinian Arabs.

Haley did not mince her words:

"Here at the UN, thousands of miles away from Palestinians who do have real needs, there is no end to the speeches on their behalf. Country after country claims solidarity with the Palestinian people. If those words were useful in the schools, the hospitals, and the streets of their communities, the Palestinian people would not be facing the desperate conditions we are discussing here today. Talk is cheap.

No group of countries is more generous with their words than the Palestinians’ Arab neighbors, and other OIC [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – ed.] member states. But all of the words spoken here in New York do not feed, clothe, or educate a single Palestinian child. All they do is get the international community riled up."

Haley used members’ contributions to UNRWA to prove her case:

Last year, Iran’s contribution to UNRWA was zero. Algeria’s contribution to UNRWA was zero. Tunisia’s contribution to UNRWA was zero.

Other countries did provide some funding. Pakistan gave $20,000. Egypt gave $20,000. Oman gave $668,000.

Haley did not spare non-Arab and non-Islamic countries from similar naming and shaming:

Other countries talk a big game about the Palestinian cause. In 2017, China provided 350,000 to UNRWA. Russia provided two million dollars to UNWRA.

Haley contrasted America’s generosity:

Last year … the United States gave 364 million dollars… And that’s on top of what the American people give annually to the Palestinians in bilateral assistance. That is another 300 million dollars just last year, and it averages to more than a quarter of a billion dollars every year since 1993.

Haley delivered this stern warning:

“But we are not fools. If we extend a hand in friendship and generosity, we do not expect our hand to be bitten. And as we extend our hand, we also expect others to extend their hands as well.”

Haley emphasised that Arab countries’ giving more money was not the only issue confronting them:

Too often, the Arab countries give just enough money and mouth just enough uncompromising words to stay out of the crosshairs of Palestinian representatives. But if they really cared about the Palestinian people, they would not do that. Instead, they would condemn extremism and they would put forth serious ideas for compromises that could end this struggle and lead to a better life for the Palestinian people. They would tell the Palestinian leadership how foolish they look for condemning a peace proposal [Trumps’ “ultimate deal” – ed.] they haven’t even seen yet.

Haley called out both the PLO and Hamas:

The Palestinian leadership has been allowed to live a false reality for too long because Arab leaders are afraid to tell them the truth… It is time for the regional states in particular to step up and really help the Palestinian people, instead of just making speeches thousands of miles away.

Those regional States - Egypt, Jordan Syria and Lebanon – can help by sitting down with Israel and negotiating an end to the 100-years old Arab-Jewish conflict as prescribed 51 years ago by UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Delivering this message to the UN has been long overdue.

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

[Published 19 July 2018]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Hamas had not been founded.

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

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

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

PLO and Hamas perpetuate apartheid in West Bank and Gaza

[Published 6 July 2018]

The British Foreign Office showed appalling judgment when scheduling a visit by Prince William to a refugee camp in the West Bank which should have been closed down long ago.

The Prince - obviously moved by what he saw - remarked:

“I saw at Jalazon (refugee camp) the tremendous hardships faced by the refugees, and I can only imagine the difficulties of life lived under these conditions, the ed (sic) resources and the lack of opportunity,”

Regrettably Prince William failed to question why:

1. Jalazon had not been dismantled during the past 25 years after it came under Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) control.

2. Jalazon’s inhabitants should still be classified as “refugees” when they are living in part of former Palestine now under PLO occupation.

Prince William’s visit was closely followed by a meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and United Nations (UN) Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process - Nickolay Mladenov. During their meeting - Abbas stressed the UN’s important role in providing protection for the “Palestinian people” and the necessity of continuing to provide services to the “Palestinian refugees” through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Undiscussed between them was why the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza have failed to close down the 27 refugee camps still remaining within their respective fiefdoms.

The West Bank currently has 775,000 registered “refugees” - around a quarter of who live in 19 refugee camps. Most of the others live in West Bank towns and villages. Some camps are located next to major towns and others are in rural areas. UNRWA provides services in these 19 Palestine refugee camps - but does not administer or police the camps - as this is the responsibility of the PLO — intriguingly identified as the “host authority” by UNRWA

Gaza has 1.3 million registered “refugees” - of who 500000 currently live in 8 refugee camps. As in the West Bank - UNRWA does not administer or police these camps -this being the responsibility of the “host authority” - Hamas.

The West Bank refugee camps are all located within Areas “A” and “B” — some 40% of the territory of the West Bank - being under full PLO administrative control as designated by the Oslo Accords. 95% of the West Bank Arab population - including all those living in the refugee camps — live in Areas “A” and “B”

Many of these camps and their inhabitants date back to 1949. Severe overcrowding problems, high rates of unemployment, personal safety and poor infrastructure are common to them all.

Gaza’s entire population has been under Hamas occupation since 2007.

The PLO and Hamas have maintained their discriminatory two-tiered refugee segregation systems in Gaza and the West Bank for at least the last ten years under which:

1. 800000 “refugees” live in refugee camps

2. 1,570,000 “refugees” live among the general population

Closing these refugee camps and integrating their long-suffering populations among the general population are long overdue. The failure of the PLO and Hamas to do so allows them to maintain and exploit a hard core of hate-filled and desperate Palestinian Arabs who can be readily incited and used as pawns and martyrs to undertake acts of terrorism against Israel.

UN and UNRWA complicity in refusing to pressure the PLO and Hamas to close these squalid camps and end an ever-worsening humanitarian crisis is reprehensible, immoral and completely inexcusable.

Perpetuating apartheid by segregation and discrimination whilst denying equal rights to all members of the Arab populations in the West Bank and Gaza spells disaster for both the PLO and Hamas.

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 Thrashes Clinton On Ending Sexual Violence In Syria And Iraq

[Published 16 October 2016}


Mainstream American media’s obsession with groping allegations against Donald Trump going back twenty years or more has papered over public discussion of major policy differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton on defeating Islamic State and ending the horrific sexual violence perpetrated on women and children in Syria and Iraq for the last two years.

In a stark report to the UN Security Council on 30 September — UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon warned:

“ISIL [Islamic State] continues to systematically use sexual violence against Yazidi women and girls in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as against other minorities caught up in the conflict. Even though some women have managed to escape their captors, around 3,800 abducted Yazidis were still missing at the time of writing. This is a matter of grave concern. Those who have escaped have described the appalling conditions under which they were bought, sold, traded and abused. Both girls and boys are advertised online and traded for weapons, suicide vests, cars and a range of other commodities. Thus far, no formal mechanisms have been established to secure the release of those held captive by ISIL. Those who have managed to escape have done so with the help of their families and smugglers or by taking advantage of other opportunities. Some have resorted to suicide as their only escape. The children of women who commit suicide, or who attempt to escape, are beaten or killed as punishment”

You have to search high and low to find any American media discussion of these highly disturbing revelations.

America and Russia have become embroiled in these conflicts raging in Syria and Iraq and both bear a major role in ending this ongoing dehumanisation of women and children. Yet American media has not critically examined Trump or Clinton’s views on what each would do under their Presidency to defeat Islamic State and end such reprehensible sexual violence.

Co-operation with Russia to achieve these objectives — as espoused by Trump — has been rejected by Clinton - who promises to follow President Obama’s resolute refusal to co-operate with Russia in defeating Islamic State in Syria since November 2015.

Clinton made her policy crystal clear in the second Presidential debate:

“It’s also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations.”

Who these Muslim nations are and how Clinton intends to defeat Islamic State in Syria without Russian co-operation remains unexplained. It is a pipedream the American media should be grilling her on every day until they get an answer.

Trump however indicated in the same Presidential debate that he would welcome co-operation rather than confrontation with Russia:

“I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example.”

Trump and Putin acting in concert or going hand in hand to the Security Council jointly sponsoring a commonly agreed plan of action to eradicate Islamic State represent two possible ways forward.

Meanwhile new allegations of decades-old sexual transgressions by Trump surface in the American media accompanied by sanctimonious expressions of indignation to justify his unfitness to be America’s next President.

Makes for salacious reading — but keeps voters in the dark on whether Trump or Clinton is the best candidate to:

1. See Islamic State defeated

2. End the ongoing sexual violence in Syria and Iraq

3. Extricate America from Obama’s disastrous forays in the Middle East that continue to cause American military casualties and bankrupt America both morally and financially.

Trump may not be perfect but America’s media should hang its head in shame.

Clinton Will Continue Obama Policy Confronting Russia In Syria And UN

[Published 10 October 2016]


Hillary Clinton has made it very clear in the second Presidential Debate that if elected next President of the United States she will continue President Obama’s confrontation with Russia both in Syria and at the United Nations.

Clinton told 66.5 million viewers:

“Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.
Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me.”

Clinton’s no-fly zone over Libya proved disastrous and has already been rejected by Russia over Syria.

She left unexplained what leverage she could put on Putin to get him to the negotiating table.

Her assessment that Russia wanted Trump elected as President of the United States was probably correct for the following reasons enunciated by Trump during the debate.

“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS..

... I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she [Clinton] made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.”

The choice for America’s voters could not be clearer:

1. co-operation with Russia to first get rid of ISIS and - unmentioned during the debate - al-Nusra threats to world peace and security already declared by the UN Security Council or

2. continuing confrontation with Russia seeking to resolve the Syrian civil conflict which has raged since 2011.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov extended the following olive branch to America on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position.

Trump seems ready to take up Russia’s offer of defeating ISIS first.

American voters have been presented with a stark choice between Clinton and Trump on America’s future involvement in Syria.

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.

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.

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.

Trump and Putin must co-operate to defeat Islamic State

[Published 2 March 2017]


President Trump made his intention to destroy Islamic State crystal clear in his stirring address to the Congress on 28 February:

“As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

The Department of Defense plan had already been delivered to members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee - and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was due to brief the committee on 27 February.

Whether this plan recommends co-operation with Russia still remains under wraps.

Certainly President Obama’s decision in September 2014 to degrade and destroy Islamic State by forming a broad international coalition of 68 States without:

1. Including Russia and
2. first securing a Security Council resolution endorsing such action

has proved both catastrophic and very expensive.

The State Department trumpeted that the breadth and diversity of America’s coalition partners demonstrated the global and unified nature of Obama’s endeavour.

Yet Islamic State today remains undefeated in Syria and Iraq.

Support for — and pledges of allegiance to — Islamic State by over 30 radical Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are creating horrific humanitarian problems — some far removed from the Middle East.

Defeating Islamic State in Iraq and Syria will see these “lawless savages” joining such disparate groups in their drive to establish the restoration of the Caliphate and the implementation of Sharia law world-wide.

Members of the US-led Coalition have not been contributing their fair share towards dealing with Islamic State — leaving the burden to fall squarely on America.

Australian Prime Minister — Malcolm Turnbull — declared last week that Australia was in fact the second largest international contributor to the US led coalition after the United States — shaming NATO countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom and Middle East members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The remaining 125 UN member States have escaped sharing the cost and responsibility of confronting and defeating Islamic State.

Trump’s reprimand of NATO would indicate he considers the Obama-led coalition has been a very bad deal for America.

Trump can rectify this situation by jointly co-sponsoring with Putin a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Islamic State under Chapter V11 of the UN Charter.

Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all.”

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Mentioning any relationship with Russia is a very sensitive issue in American politics today.

However Trump may well have had Russia in mind when he told Congress:

“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.”

Defeating Islamic State is a shared interest of Trump and Putin.

Co-operation in the United Nations Security Council will materially advance that objective.

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”.