Trump credits Senate bipartisanship for Jerusalem Declaration

[Published 4 February 2018]


President Trump’s State of the Union address was mainly met in stony silence by the Democrats as their Republican rivals continually jumped to their feet to loudly applaud the President’s many achievements at home and overseas during the past twelve months.

Sustained Republican applause greeted Trump’s statement:

“Last month, I also took an action endorsed unanimously by the U.S. Senate just months before. I recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

Yet the Democrats chose not to stand and applaud this special moment that was theirs as much as the Republicans - President Trump unreservedly acknowledging the Senate’s pivotal role in his historic Jerusalem Declaration.

Senate Resolution S.Res.176 - passed on 5 June 2017 by 90 votes to 0 — had declared:

“RESOLUTION

Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.

Whereas June 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War and the reunification of the city of Jerusalem;

Whereas there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for 3 millennia;

Whereas Jerusalem is a holy city and the home for people of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths;

Whereas, for 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been Judaism’s holiest city and the focal point of Jewish religious devotion;

Whereas, from 1948 to 1967, Jerusalem was a divided city, and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jews of all nationalities were denied access to holy sites in eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, in which the Western Wall is located;

Whereas, in 1967, Jerusalem was reunited by Israel during the conflict known as the Six Day War;

Whereas, since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city, and persons of all religious faiths have access to holy sites within the city;

Whereas this year marks the 50th year that Jerusalem has been administered as a united city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected;

Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45), which became law on November 8, 1995, states that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; and

Whereas it is the longstanding policy of the United States Government that a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved through direct, bilateral negotiations without preconditions for a sustainable two-state solution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

1. recognizes the 50th Anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and extends its friendship and hopes for peace to the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel;

2.reaffirms its support for Israel’s commitment to religious freedom and administration of holy sites in Jerusalem;

3. continues to support strengthening the mutually beneficial American-Israeli relationship;

4. commends Egypt and Jordan, former combatant states of the Six Day War, who in subsequent years embraced a vision of peace and coexistence with Israel and have continued to uphold their respective peace agreements;

5. reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States Government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution; and

6. reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) as United States law, and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions."

Republicans and Democrats had come together to draft and unanimously endorse this historic resolution, which had clearly inspired President Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration.

Such bipartisanship has now seemingly disappeared with the release of the Nunes Memo

Recapturing that bipartisanship remains the greatest challenge to Trump making America really great again.

Trump can broker Israel-Jordan deal but no Israel-PLO agreement

[Published 23 March 2017]


President Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations — Jason Greenblatt — has returned from his wide-ranging meetings in Jerusalem, Ramallah, Amman and Jericho with zero prospects of Trump brokering a deal between Israel and the PLO.

However Greenblatt’s belief in the pivotal role Jordan can play in resolving the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict was apparent in his tweet after meeting Jordan’s King Abdullah II:

“We agree on the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Jordan an important ally in this effort.”

According to the Jordan Times:

” During the meeting, held at Al Husseiniya Palace, His Majesty stressed the US role in ending the stalemate in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and reviving negotiations that should lead to a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict, based on the two-state formula.

He asserted that reaching a just deal of a comprehensive peace that includes establishing a Palestinian state will reflect on efforts to achieve peace, security and stability in the region.”

King Abdullah is whistling in the wind in believing another Arab state could still be established — in addition to Jordan — in the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine where Israel presently exercises sovereignty in 17% and Jordan 77% — whilst sovereignty remains undetermined in the last 6% - the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza.

Negotiations between Israel and the PLO to create that second Arab State have extended over the last 24 years and been dormant since April 2014.

Those negotiations have failed because Israel and the PLO have been unable to resolve core demands despite two offers having been made by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 to cede its claims in over 90% of the West Bank.

Israel’s unmet demands are that:

1. The PLO recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people
2. The major Jewish settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria be incorporated into the boundaries of Israel
3. Israel retains security control over the Jordan Valley
4. Jerusalem remains the eternal undivided capital of Israel
5. Any such State be demilitarized

The PLO’s unmet demands are that:

1. The Palestinian State be granted sovereignty over all of the territory of the West Bank with its capital being located in East Jerusalem.
2. All Jewish settlements located in the West Bank and East Jerusalem be dismantled and their inhabitants be removed.
3. Palestinian Arab refugees who fled the 1948 Arab invasion of Western Palestine be allowed to return and settle in Israel.

Trumps’s ability to cut a deal in the face of these irreconcilable differences is severely hampered by the written commitments made to Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon by President Bush on 14 April 2004 and overwhelmingly endorsed by the US House of Representatives by 407-9 and Senate 95-3.

Those commitments - given to Israel to secure Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza and four Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria — back Israel’s above demands in any negotiations with the PLO.

It seems inconceivable that Trump - the master deal-maker — would consider reneging on the Bush-Congress-Sharon deal. If he did — Israel would not resume negotiations with the PLO. If he doesn’t the PLO would not resume negotiations with Israel.

If Trump wants to do a deal — he needs Jordan to come to the party and enter into direct negotiations with Israel to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank between Jordan and Israel - virtually completing the original two-state formula envisaged in 1922 by article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate.

Greenblatt’s meeting with King Abdullah is a possible pointer to getting such negotiations underway. Trump’s undoubted brokering skills can ensure such negotiations happen.

Netanyahu needs Trump answer on Bush-Congress Commitments to Israel

[Published 1 February 2017]


Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will be meeting America’s President Trump on 15 February under very different circumstances to those when Netanyahu met President Obama on 20 May 2011.

President Obama had delivered a wide-ranging address on the Middle East just the day before when he dropped the following bombshell on his view of how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority should proceed:

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.‚”

Before boarding his plane for Washington Netanyahu said he:

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

Those 2004 commitments to Israel had been made by President Bush in a letter to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 (“the Bush Commitments‚”).

Obama never obliged Netanyahu by reaffirming those Bush Commitments.

Neither did Netanyahu press Obama to do so - though he had opportunities during

1.Remarks by Obama and Netanyahu After their Bilateral Meeting
2.An address by Netanyahu to AIPAC on 23 May 2011
3.An emotion-charged speech Netanyahu gave to a joint sitting of the Congress on 24 May 2011

Netanyahu’s failure to mention the Bush Commitments in his Congress speech was a grievous error of judgment — since those commitments to Israel had been endorsed in:

1. the House - 407 votes to 9 - and
2. the Senate - 95 votes to 3.

Such commitments had been given to support Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank - marking real progress in realizing Bush’s Roadmap — and included the following:

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Bush’s “mutually agreed changes‚” differed markedly from Obama’s “mutually agreed swaps‚” — which required Israel to swap some of its sovereign territory to gain sovereignty over any territory in the West Bank.

Under the Bush Commitments no such land swaps were required.

Obama had repudiated his predecessor’s commitments to Israel with this sneaky turn of phrase - adding insult to injury by demeaning Congress for its enthusiastic and overwhelming endorsement of the Bush Commitments.

In his AIPAC address — Netanyahu made mention of Israel’s:

“terrific Ambassador to the United States, a man who knows a few things about the U.S.-Israel alliance, Michael Oren‚”

Michael Oren — now a Knesset member - made the following call on 5 January 2015:

“The time has come to revive Bush’s letter to Sharon and to act in accordance with it”

As Netanyahu readies for his ground-breaking meeting with Trump he needs to heed Oren’s call and get a definitive answer this time from both Trump and the Congress.

America’s reputation and integrity as a trustworthy ally that honours its commitments is at stake.

Lightning can indeed strike twice in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Trump Advisor Castigates Clinton Betrayal Of Israel

[Published 10 August 2016]


Donald Trump’s trusted co-advisor on Israel — David Friedman — has castigated Hillary Clinton for her role as Secretary of State in perpetrating one of President Obama’s worst foreign policy failures - trashing the letter from President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 - its terms having been overwhelmingly endorsed by Congress 502 votes to 12.

Friedman - rumoured to be Trump’s Ambassador to Israel if Trump becomes America’s next President — was recently asked this question in a wide ranging interview:

Hillary Clinton has just about everyone suggesting she is the most qualified person ever to be president. Where did she go wrong with the Middle East — if she did?

Friedman replied:

I don’t think she has made a right decision. I think she said some helpful things when she was the senator from New York when she had a Jewish constituency. As soon as she became secretary of state, the first thing she did was to embrace a unilateral settlement freeze. I think it completely poisoned the environment. I’m not aware of anything she did that is particularly good. I can name off the top of my head things that were nasty, like ripping up the letter from George Bush to Ariel Sharon, which I think was the only thing Israel got from evacuating Gaza.

The Bush letter had acknowledged the risks Israel was taking in unilaterally disengaging from Gaza and part of the West Bank. In return Bush gave Israel written assurances that in final status negotiations with the Palestinian Authority America would support Israel:

1. not returning to the 1949 armistice lines

2. demanding recognition as the Jewish state

3. refusing Palestinian Arab “refugees” being resettled in Israel

In ripping up these assurances Obama had undermined Israel’s security concerns and negotiating positions as agreed with Obama’s immediate predecessor.

Israel’s unilateral disengagement was duly completed in 2005 - with 8000 Israeli civilians leaving their homes and businesses established during the previous 35 years - whilst Israel’s military also completely withdrew.

By any analysis that disengagement has been disastrous - bringing Israel and Gaza no peace - only ongoing and continuing conflict resulting from:

1. Thousands of rockets and projectiles being fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza

2. Terrorist incursions into Israel and

3. The construction of tunnels from Gaza into Israel’s sovereign territory to serve as entry points for future terrorist assaults on Israel by Gaza’s myriad array of terrorist groups

.
To be fair to Clinton - her role in framing Obama’s policy repudiating the Bush Congress-endorsed assurances remains unclarified and unexplained.

Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State by the full Senate voting 94-2 on 21 January 2009 — having been a Senator since 3 January 2001.

On 24 June 2004 she was part of the Senate majority that voted 95 -3 to endorse the Bush letter.

The fact that Clinton was Secretary of State when the Bush letter was torn up does not necessarily implicate her as the architect of - or personally having agreed to - that appalling decision.

Statements made by Clinton on 17 June 2009 and 25 November 2009 point to her as the lead Obama official charged with implementing Obama’s policy - finally declared by Obama on 19 May 2011. Clinton remained Secretary of State until 1 February 2013.

Critically for Clinton — she now needs to fully explain her role in Obama’s gross act of betrayal of one of America’s staunchest long-standing allies.

Does Clinton avow:

1. Obama’s policy of ripping up the Bush letter in 2011? or

2. Her vote in the Senate endorsing the Bush letter in 2004?

Clinton needs to come clean before voting day.