Israel, Jordan and Egypt must hop on Trump bandwagon to peace

[Published 21 November 2019]

President Trump has now delivered the missing piece in his plan to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict - providing the incentive necessary for Israel’s warring political parties to bury their hatchets and form a new Israeli Government within the next 21 days.

This unique opportunity for peace trumps the domestic differences that have prevented Israel’s political parties forming that new Government following the elections in April and September 2019.

Trump has been progressively signposting his roadmap for the last two years:

1. Moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

2. Declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

3. Closing down the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Offices in Washington

4. Withdrawing American funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)

5. Giving a substantial aid package to Jordan

6. Recognising Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights

7. Having Bahrain host the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop to discuss the economic part of Trump’s “deal of the century”

8. Flagging Israel’s right to retain at least some - but “unlikely all” - of the West Bank

Now Trump has made the end goal of his “deal of the century” very clear with the following statement issued by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo:

“Turning now to Israel, the Trump administration is reversing the Obama administration’s approach towards Israeli settlements.

US public statements on settlement activities in the West Bank have been inconsistent over decades. In 1978, the Carter administration categorically concluded that Israel’s establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law. However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated that he didn’t believe that the settlements were inherently illegal.

Subsequent administrations recognized that unrestrained settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace, but they wisely and prudently recognized that dwelling on legal positions didn’t advance peace. However, in December 2016, at the very end of the previous administration, Secretary Kerry changed decades of this careful, bipartisan approach by publicly reaffirming the supposed illegality of settlements.

After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan. The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.”

The right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) for the purposes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home there has been enshrined in international law under article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter.

The United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have denied the legitimacy of these Jewish claims — emboldening the Arabs to claim 100% of these territories. Pompeo’s statement has quashed the Arabs’ claims.

One roadblock still remaining requires Trump to identify the Arab interlocutors prepared to stand up and negotiate with Israel on Trump’s plan.

Pompeo has given the PLO one last opportunity to join the negotiations with Israel.

“The United States encourages the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank in any final status negotiations.”

The PLO had already unequivocally refused to negotiate on Trump’s plan and will continue to do so.

Trump should focus on Jordan and Egypt — the last two Arab States to have occupied Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza respectively between 1948 and 1967 — to fill the void.

Israel needs a new Government within the next 21 days or face another expensive and debilitating election in March 2020 — just as Trump is bidding for re-election — when he might consider it inopportune to release his plan.

Israel, Jordan and Egypt must hop on the Trump bandwagon now.

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

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

[Published 13 August 2019]

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

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

Abu Rudineh continued:

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

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

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

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

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

Friedman diplomatically continued:

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

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

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel jettisons PLO as negotiating partner on Trump peace plan

[Published 21 February 2019]


Israel’s decision to withhold US$138 million dollars in tax revenues collected for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) - equaling the estimated annual payments made to Palestinian Arabs (or their families) carrying out random and indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians — marks a watershed in Israel-PLO relations.

Israel’s action will see the PLO being finally jettisoned as a possible negotiating partner on President Trump’s long-delayed peace plan — deferred yet again until after the Israeli elections in April.

The release of the Trump plan could now be further postponed as the President continues his so far unsuccessful search to find other Arab negotiators willing to replace the PLO — which had already rejected having anything to do with Trump’s plan well before Israel’s latest decision.

The law authorizing the freezing of these PLO funds was passed by the Israeli parliament in July 2018 — three months after similar legislation - the Taylor Force Act - passed by the US Congress - was signed into law by President Trump.

Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked stressed the funds withheld would be used to pay“fat salaries to murderers who are in prison”. They would also be used to pay Palestinian Arabs imprisoned in Israeli jails for lesser crimes.

Israel’s action follows the discovery of the body of 19-year-old Ori Ansbacher in the Jerusalem Forest on February 7. Channel 12 news reported that investigators from the Shin Bet security service and Israel Police hoped to indict Arafat Irfaiya, a 29-year-old Hebron resident, for murder in the context of a terrorist act in addition to a charge of rape.

Israel is clearly not prepared to allow this continuing wave of terror to be condoned and rewarded financially by the PLO.

Al Jazeera reported the PLO took a very different view of Israel’s freeze:

“The Palestinians have accused the Israeli government of piracy, of coordinating this with the United States to add pressure ahead of the publication of the Trump peace plan.”

The PLO had, however, been unceremoniously consigned to the diplomatic scrap heap by Trump well before Israel’s tax-revenue freeze.

Trump had been given the thumbs down by the PLO after Trump had:

1. Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

2. Stopped America’s annual payment of US$350 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency

3. Shut down the PLO offices in Washington.

4. Cancelled more than $200m in aid for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had already dismissed any further involvement with Trump on January 5, 2019:

“We are dealing with three issues that we can not accept: the situation with the US, the situation with Israel and the situation with Hamas. The doors are closed to the US. As long as it does not retract its decisions against the Palestinian people, no Palestinian should meet with the American leadership, no matter what their role is.”

Paying murderers and felons who kill and maim Jews has finally become the PLO’s political downfall.

Ori Ansbacher’s murder was the final tipping point for Israel to dump the PLO as a future negotiating partner after thousands of well documented random terror attacks on Israel’s civilian population over the last four years - perpetrated by individuals, many very young, inspired by vicious incitement in Palestinian social and traditional media and rewarded financially by the Palestinian leadership.

The days of “pay for slay” and fruitless negotiations with the PLO that have gone nowhere over the last 25 years are over.

Israel has well and truly closed the door on the PLO and it should remain locked and bolted.

Trump should reaffirm core Bush-Congress commitments to Israel

[Published 29 January 2019]

President Trump’s decision to reverse his partial US Government shutdown – the longest in history -could have important consequences for the release of his long-awaited plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict – postponed yet again until after Israel’s elections in April.

Trump’s shut down – aimed at forcing Congress to negotiate on Trump’s election promises to build a wall to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling through a porous border with Mexico – failed in the face of Congress’s unequivocal demand that Trump first reopen the Government.

Trump’s supporters are angry and confused at his cave-in to Congress’s demand whilst his detractors are jubilant - as three weeks of negotiations between Trump and Congress now try to resolve the Trump-Congress stand-off.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) will feel vindicated – after Congresses’ resolute stance - in having refused – sight unseen - to negotiate Trump’s peace plan with Israel after Trump had recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocated the US Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The PLO will be emboldened to continue rejecting Trump’s proposals until Trump reverses his decisions on Jerusalem.

The Wall Street Journal on 11 November 2016 exclusively revealed President-elect Trump’s intentions to make an “ultimate deal” for “humanity’s sake” on “the war that never ends”.

The further delay in releasing his deal comes as the PLO now assumes virtual control of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) proceedings for 2019 - as Chairman of the 134 member Group comprising the G77 and China - ensuring a barrage of UNGA resolutions condemning Trump’s deal when published.

Trump’s attempts to woo Jordan, Egypt and possibly other Arab states to replace the PLO in negotiations with Israel remains a work in progress. Trump’s chances of now succeeding - after his surrender to Congress - appear to have diminished greatly.

The upcoming Israeli elections will give Israelis the chance to vote on the future direction Israel’s new Government should take in resolving the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza (“disputed territories”) – the last remaining 5% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

The choices offered to Israeli voters should be explicitly spelled out by the political parties contesting the elections. The newly-elected Government’s stated policy should be implemented. This basic premise of democracy has been undermined in America as Trump’s election commitment to build his promised border wall remains unfulfilled because of Congress’ opposition.

Trump should not similarly attempt to thwart the mandate of Israel’s next Government.

Trump should shelve his long-overdue ultimate deal indefinitely - due to the changed circumstances that have demonstrably arisen since his well-intentioned thought bubble in November 2016.

Instead - Trump should:

1. Pledge his Government’s full support for Israel’s next duly elected Government

2. Reaffirm the core commitments made by President Bush to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Bush’s letter dated 14 April 2004 - endorsed overwhelmingly by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 ("Bush/Congress Commitments").

Those core American commitments - made to procure Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - included:

1. Opposing any peace plan other than the 2003 Bush Roadmap

2. Being strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

3. Not supporting any right of return by Palestinian refugees to Israel

4. Regarding as unrealistic a full and complete withdrawal from the disputed territories.

Congress could endorse this Trump initiative – reinforcing continuing bipartisan support for Israel.

Peace will remain elusive – but Trump will have saved himself from drowning in a cesspool that has swallowed previous American Presidents who believed they had the answer to ending this unresolved 100 years old conflict.

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

Israel, Trump and United Nations should boycott Abbas and PLO

[Published 11 March 2018]


Israel’s Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – has used his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – to savage the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) policy that rewards Palestinian murderers of Israelis and other innocent civilians with lifetime payments.

Netanyahu’s PLO-onslaught in front of 18000 people attending the annual AIPAC Conference in Washington was unequivocal and unrelenting:

“But to get peace, to get peace President Abbas has to embrace peace and to stop supporting terror. Raise your hands high if you agree with me that President Abbas should stop paying terrorists who murder Jews. You know how much he pays? He pays about $350 million dollars a year to terrorists and their families, each year. That’s about a little less than 10% of the total Palestinian budget. That’s an incredible number. He pays Hakim Awad. Hakim Awad is the terrorist who murdered this beautiful family of Ehud and Ruth Fogel and their three children, including a 3 month-old baby girl, Hadas. So he pays Hakim Awad, this murderer, and over the lifetime of this killer, he will be receiving two million dollars.”

Hakim Awad - aged 18 – and his 19 years old cousin and accomplice Amjad Awad - each received five consecutive life sentences for murdering the five sleeping Fogel family members in March 2011.

Netanyahu’s attack on Abbas comes at a particularly sensitive time politically as:

1. President Trump mulls over the final details of his “ultimate deal” to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict

2. PLO chief – Mahmoud Abbas – has already signaled he will not enter into negotiations with Israel mediated by Trump

3. Abbas has called on the United Nations to convene an international peace conference by mid-2018 to accept the non-existent “State of Palestine” as a full UN member

4. The US Senate is currently considering the Taylor Force Act – overwhelmingly passed by the House in December 2017 - suspending US financial assistance to the PLO, and any successor or affiliated organizations until these payments are terminated. Taylor Force – a US citizen – was murdered on 8 March 2016 by a Palestinian Arab during a stabbing spree in Tel Aviv that also injured ten other people.

5. Israel’s Knesset has passed the first reading of a bill requiring such blood-money presently being paid to 35000 Palestinian families to be deducted from the US$2.1 billion in taxes and tariffs Israel presently collects for the PLO.

6. Abbas - 83 and in poor health – faces challengers to his leadership

Palestinian prisoners serving 20-30 year sentences for these murderous attacks reportedly receive a monthly US$3400 stipend for life.Those receiving a three-to-five-year sentence get a monthly wage of US$570. Palestinian prisoners who are married, have children, live in Jerusalem, or hold Israeli citizenship receive additional payments.

Trump called on Abbas to abandon this immoral and heinous policy during a joint press conference in Bethlehem in May 2017:

“Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded and even rewarded”

Just one month later Jared Kushner - Trump’s son-in-law and chief Middle East adviser - and Trump’s international negotiator Jason Greenblatt – met with Abbas in Ramallah.

According to reports in Arabic media, the Americans then allegedly watered down Trump’s demands – only wanting these payments stopped to some 600 prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli prisons.

Abbas defiantly rejected that proposal.

Abbas seems to believe he can publicly humiliate Trump and escape the consequences.

Monetary retaliation is a totally inadequate response to the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians.

Israel, Trump and the United Nations should boycott Abbas and the PLO by terminating all diplomatic contact until their vile and repulsive “murder for money” policy is ended.

Trump should move Pollard to Jerusalem

[Published 5 June 2017]


President Trump’s delay in moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem presents the President with a wonderful opportunity to commute Jonathan Pollard’s sentence - freeing Pollard to move from New York to Jerusalem.

Trump made his unequivocal Embassy pledge on 22 March 2016:

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

A White House statement on 1 June put this brave face on Trump ‘s decision delaying the Embassy move:

“While President Donald J. Trump signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance. President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs have so far extended over a period of 23 years without any real success - so one can only wonder when the Embassy move is likely to occur.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response was quite philosophical:

“Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future,”

Trump’s friendship would be confirmed were he to commute Pollard’s life sentence and harsh parole conditions to enable Pollard’s move to Jerusalem,

Pollard - an intelligence analyst with the US Government - received his life sentence for passing classified information to an American ally - Israel. No other American has received such a crushing sentence.

Pollard - released in 2015 after serving 30 years penal servitude - was placed on harsh parole conditions requiring him to wear an electronic tracking device, obey a curfew and allow his computers to be monitored. He must remain in the United States until November 2020.

Pollard’s appeal to relax his parole conditions was recently rejected.

Pollard’s treatment can be contrasted to that meted out to Bradley (now known as Chelsea) Manning - who leaked more than 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 whilst serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence in January - three days before vacating the White House - from 35 years to just over 7 years, the majority of which Manning had already served. Trump said Manning should never have been released from prison.

Manning was freed from federal custody on May 17th.

Israeli Prime Ministers from Yitzchak Rabin to Netanyahu had unsuccessfully lobbied successive Republican and Democratic Presidents for Pollard’s release and permission to resettle in Israel.

Pollard is recently reported to have remarked:

“As much as Trump needs to be held to his promise to move the embassy, it is just as important that the prime minister keep his promise to bring an agent home”

President Obama’s precedent in freeing Manning whilst resisting similar overtures for Pollard’s release was reprehensible.

Commuting Pollard’s sentence at this particular moment in Trump’s presidency will help cement the blossoming post-Obama relationship between the United States and one of its staunchest allies - Israel.

Pollard’s move to Jerusalem as it celebrates the 50th anniversary of its liberation from 19 years of illegal occupation by Jordan would alleviate the disappointment of the Embassy not moving there.

That is what Trump-style dealmaking is all about.

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

[Published 5 February 2017]


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

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

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

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

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

Dara Lind sums up this “agreement” as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s what friends are for.

Gaza - Australian Politicians Duped By Dud Declaration

[Published 22 August 2014]


The Canberra Declaration on Gaza signed by 76 current and former Federal and State parliamentarians in Australia displays their total factual ignorance and political naieveté concerning the war raging between Hamas and Israel for the last six weeks.

The Declaration has been “Published courtesy of Kohram”

Kohram is a 24/7 online Hindi and English News and Views website based in Delhi, India. It offers real information relating News Analysis, World Wide News, Politics, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Industry and Feature Articles on Education.

Australian politicians acknowledging assistance from an Indian media website seems a strange circumstance indeed.

The Declaration was created by Maiy Azize -a Canberra based health and social policy analyst. She is a parliamentary advisor in health and community services and campaigner for @GreensMPs. 21 of the Declaration’s signatories are parliamentarians representing the Greens Party.

The header image is attributed to Nakshab Khan and was featured in an article written by him for Kohram on 13 July headlined “Will Israeli Offensive Achieve Anything In Gaza?”

Khan wrote:

“Israel always justifies its aggression on the Gaza strip by blaming Hamas militants for firing crude rockets on the Jewish nation’s southern territories.”

Khan was apparently unaware that in the five weeks preceding 8 July - 234 rockets had been launched from Gaza into Israel reaching as far as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Hadera - sending hundreds of thousands of civilians scurrying into air raid shelters and disrupting normal life in Israel as well as threatening its tourist industry in the peak summer season.

Long range rockets such as the M-302 were employed‚ the same missiles confiscated from the KLOS-C weapons seizure.

Israel’s inherent entitlement to self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations Charter to prevent the indiscriminate firing of these rockets into Israeli population centres — each rocket an internationally acknowledged war crime — was not worth a mention in Khan’s article.

Australian politicians need to be very careful about their names being identified with a document whose origins are so murky — a Declaration that itself is deceptive and misleading in the following respects:

1. It claims to bear the signatures of members of Australian federal and state Parliaments — yet 5 of the 76 signatories are former members of those parliaments.

2. Although titled “Canberra Declaration on Gaza” and updated to 4 August it supports:

“an immediate cessation of hostilities and a ceasefire deal which includes an end to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and to the blockade of Gaza”

The Declaration ignores any reference to Hamas having rejected a cease fire deal proposed by Egypt on 16 July and accepted by Israel - and to a number of ceasefire agreements broken by Hamas since then.

The Declaration ignored the findings of the 2011 United Nations Palmer Report which found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza complied with the requirements of international law and recommended that Israel should continue with its efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza in accordance with Security Council resolution 1860 - all aspects of which should be implemented.

The Declaration omitted to include the following underlined words:

“We call on all Australian politicians to also support the United Nations Human Rights Council’s decision to launch an independent inquiry into purported violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014”

The Declaration alleged that the rockets fired into Israel were:

“imprecise” and “cannot be compared with the broad-scale bombing of Gaza by Israel”

A grossly misleading allegation indeed — echoing Nakshab Khan’s spurious claim—considering Hamas rockets were landing all over Israel — whilst Israel’s response was limited to specific targeted areas within Gaza.

The Declaration asserted that:

“Collective punishment is not permitted under the Geneva conventions and is a war crime”.

Whilst not specifically accusing Israel of perpetrating this crime — it is clear that the entire civilian population of Israel was being targeted by the broad-scale Hamas barrage of rockets — whilst large parts of Gaza’s civilian population were not being affected by Israel’s actions.

The Declaration claimed that hospitals and places of worship were among the Israeli military’s targets—but ignored mentioning that such places were used to conceal underground tunnels and weapons and their use as command centres by Hamas.

The Declaration concluded:

“The international community including Australia has a vital responsibility to put pressure on Israel to end its current military attack on Gaza and broker a solution of justice and peace.”

Why no pressure on Hamas — especially as Israel had agreed to end its military attack on Gaza three weeks previously and subsequently on a number of other occasions — only to see them broken by Hamas.

The Declaration — like Khan’s article - makes no mention of Israel’s inherent right of self defence.

Those parliamentarians who signed this Declaration have some explaining to do to their constituents.

I wrote to Senator Lee Rhiannon - one of two named parliamentarians to contact about signing this Declaration — requesting she comment on my criticisms of the Declaration.

Regrettably at the time of writing this article — no response has been received.

71 out of a possible 598 Federal and State politicians have signed — which attests to the savvy political acumen of those 527 who have refused to be duped by this dud Declaration.

Gaza - Hamas Humiliates And Manipulates World Media

[Published 15 August 2014]


A family of 11 previously reported dead in an Israeli air strike in Gaza has turned out to be false — further fuelling the unprecedented furor caused by the Tel Aviv based Foreign Press Association (FPA) issuing the following statement on 11 August slamming Hamas for its treatment of journalists during the current conflict:

“The FPA protests in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month.

The international media are not advocacy organisations and cannot be prevented from reporting by means of threats or pressure, thereby denying their readers and viewers an objective picture from the ground.

In several cases, foreign reporters working in Gaza have been harassed, threatened or questioned over stories or information they have reported through their news media or by means of social media.

We are also aware that Hamas is trying to put in place a “vetting” procedure that would, in effect, allow for the blacklisting of specific journalists. Such a procedure is vehemently opposed by the FPA."

The FPA has also been mildly critical of Israel as this release on 23 July indicated:

“The FPA strongly condemns deliberate official and unofficial incitement against journalists working to cover the current warfare under very difficult circumstances as well as forcible attempts to prevent journalists and TV crews from carrying out their news assignments. While we do not condone the use of invective by any side, outright attacks on journalists are absolutely unacceptable.

On Tuesday, IDF forces aimed live fire at the Al Jazeera offices in Gaza City. The offices are on the 11th floor of a known commercial centre. The IDF apologised claiming it was in error and said they would investigate the incident.

Also Tuesday, FPA member Firas Khatib of BBC Arabic was physically attacked and abused in the midst of a live feed on the Israeli side of the border.”

The FPA numbers some 480 members representing TV, radio, photojournalists and print media from 32 countries including Australia, Qatar, Brazil, Norway, China , USA. Austria, Dubai, Russia, Japan, Finland, South Africa, Denmark and Germany, Turkey, the UAE and the United Kingdom.

It represents amongst others Le Monde, The New York Times, Reuters, the Guangming Daily, CBS Television, the Associated Press, Der Spiegel, the BBC, Danish Broadcasting Corp. and Bloomberg News. On its website, the FPA lists Australian journalists Matt Brown (ABC) and John Lyons (The Australian) as members.

Paul T. Jørgensen of Norway’s TV2 states that:

“several foreign journalists have been kicked out of Gaza because Hamas does not like what they wrote or said. We have received strict orders that if we record that Hamas fires rockets or that they shoot, we will face serious problems and be expelled from Gaza,”

Alan Johnson reported in the Telegraph:

The Wall Street Journal’s Nick Casey posted a photo of a Hamas spokesman being interviewed from a room in the hospital along with this tweet: “You have to wonder (with) the shelling how patients at Shifa hospital feel as Hamas uses it as a safe place to see media.” After “a flood of online threats”, the tweet was deleted.

John Reed of The Financial Times was reportedly threatened after he tweeted about rockets being fired from the same hospital.”

Yet Jodi Rudoren, Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times — who was not in Gaza - tweeted:

“Every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense,”

It was a strange remark to make considering the above claims — and having regard to the following comment reportedly made by New York Times vice president for corporate communications Eileen Murphy that the newspaper’s team in Gaza did not photograph any rocket launches, sent only:

“two very distant, poor quality images that were captioned Hamas fighters” and “hasn’t even seen anyone carrying a gun.”

Even more intriguing - Rudoren’s deputy at the NYT - Isabel Kershner - was one of the FPA board members who approved the condemnatory statement. How could two colleagues from the same newspaper observing the same sequence of events come to such different conclusions?

British freelancer Harry Fear said he was asked to leave Gaza by three plainclothes Hamas officials at Al-Shifa Hospital - apparently for referring to rocket launches near his hotel. He reportedly said he did not feel any intimidation or interference.

Some reporters however reportedly received death threats. Sometimes, cameras were smashed. Reporters were prevented from filming anti-Hamas demonstrations where more than 20 Palestinians were shot dead by Hamas gunmen.

Evidence of Hamas controlling the flow of news is obvious in its failure to allow the media to:

1. independently determine, separate and verify the number of civilian and Hamas deaths

2. photograph any Hamas forces launching rockets from residential areas or civilians being used as human shields.

A BBC investigation has uncovered photos of dead children from earlier conflicts being passed off as casualties in the current conflict — being fed to gullible reporters to send around the World to even more gullible target audiences.

Why would reporters keep going back into Gaza to be so humiliated by Hamas?

They are certainly not reporting what is actually happening.

Maybe they should stay out of Gaza and let Hamas do its own media releases.

The media barons would certainly save a lot of money.

Palestine - Abbas Facing Prosecution For Aiding And Abetting War Crimes

[Published 13 July 2014]


Mahmoud Abbas — Head of the Government of National Consensus in Gaza since 2 June — faces prosecution in the international criminal justice system for aiding and abetting war crimes involving the indiscriminate firing of 384 rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israeli population centres reaching as far away as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem over the past four days.

This latest barrage — which sees no signs of ending—comes after more than 10000 similar rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza - then governed by Hamas - following Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

Abbas and his Government now however bear primary responsibility for preventing war crimes emanating from Gazan soil.

In a prerecorded message aired on Palestine TV - Abbas said the new government was transitional. This lame excuse cannot enable Abbas to abdicate his responsibility to prevent war crimes being committed in Gaza.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch stated in December 2012:

“There is simply no legal justification for launching rockets at populated areas.”

Human Rights Watch makes it clear that under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes.

Locating rocket launchers within or near densely populated civilian areas is also a war crime.

There is abundant evidence that this is occurring in Gaza right now.

Belligerents are also prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. “Shielding” refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.

This too is occurring in Gaza under the watchful gaze of Abbas’s Government.

Abbas as head of the ruling Government in Gaza, is obligated to uphold the laws of war and should appropriately punish those responsible for these serious violations.

Abbas is making no effort to restrain or end the commission of these war crimes.

There appears to have been no effort by Abbas or the security or police forces that he now controls in Gaza to take action to prevent the further commission of these war crimes.

Abbas has not attempted to travel to Gaza to take control of the rapidly deteriorating position Gaza finds itself in as rockets continue to be fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres with what appears to be ever increasing intensity — inviting retaliation by Israel to defend its civilian population under article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Abbas was clearly aware of the danger of provoking such an Israeli response to rockets being launched into Israel - as this report on 6 July made clear:

“Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas spoke to the chairman of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Meshaal, on Sunday, and asked him to calm the situation in Gaza. Abbas asked Meshaal to avoid escalation of the situation, which would give Israel an excuse to launch an operation in Gaza.

Meshaal reportedly told Abbas that he would not act to stop the rocket fire unless the PA met its financial obligations to Hamas, including paying the overdue salaries of several Hamas officials.

The PA is currently embroiled in a conflict over wages with Hamas; some 40,000 Hamas employees are not being paid backlogged wages by the newly established unity government, even while the PA’s 70,000 employees in Gaza continue to be paid.”

Abbas’s plea was made after Hamas ignored Israel’s ultimatum - made on 3 July - which called for the rocket fire to stop within 48 hours or face war.

At least fifteen rockets were fired on Israel in a 12-hour period on 5 July including two at Be’er Sheva.

Abbas clearly exercises control over the public servants in Gaza. He must immediately assert control over those presently in Gaza committing these heinous war crimes.

Abbas’s inaction in using his security and police forces to forcibly intervene to:

1. Remove rocket launchers from populated civilian areas

2. Destroy supplies of rockets

3. Prevent the manufacture of rockets

4. Prevent the importation of rockets

5. Confront, arrest and try those found launching rockets into Israel

6. End the use of “human shields”

- could result in Abbas and his Government colleagues having to face charges before the International Criminal Courts including:

1. Committing war crimes by omission

2. Aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes

3. Substantial contribution to the commission of war crimes

4. Tacit approval and encouragement of war crimes

5. Aiding and abetting war crimes by omission

6. Ending the use of “human shields”

Abbas could well follow in the footsteps of former Liberian President Charles Taylor who was found guilty on 26 April 2012 on 11 counts including aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Taylor’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of The Hague on 26 September 2013.

Taylor’s case was the first concluded by an international court against a head of state since the Nazi trials at Nuremberg in 1946 convicted Admiral Karl Doenitz - who became President of Germany briefly after Adolf Hitler’s suicide.

Will the international community end its love affair with Abbas by calling for his prosecution for aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes being perpetrated in Gaza at this very moment?

The silence presently coming from the United Nations condemning Abbas is deafening.

Justice will hopefully prevail.

Palestine - Balfour Declaration Raises Arab Hackles

[Published 28 April 2013]


The Palestinian Arabs are up in arms at the news that the original 1917 Balfour Declaration will be released by the British Library for display in Israel alongside Israel’s Declaration of Independence at the opening of a new museum in Tel Aviv in 2015 on the site where Israel declared its independence in 1948.

An angry Palestinian Legislative Councillor Abdallah Abdallah is reported by Ben Lynfeld in the Scotsman this week as stating:

“Britain should not be proud of this declaration. It is a declaration which deprived Palestinians of their national home and led to the expulsion of two-thirds of the Palestinians. Britain should be apologising to the Palestinian people for the Balfour Declaration rather than sending it to Israel.”

Lynfeld inflates Abdallah’s claim when he writes:

“The document (Balfour Declaration) promised British support for the establishment of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, whose inhabitants at the time were almost entirely Arab.”

Abdallah and Lynfeld’s claims repeat unsubstantiated allegations that need to be challenged whenever they appear.

They are nothing but propaganda made with the intention of ultimately becoming accepted as incontrovertible statements of fact in the long running and unresolved conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Looking at the historical documentary records - both Abdallah and Lynfeld’s claims are groundless.

The “Palestinians” or the “Palestinian people” are defined in Article 5 of the 1968 PLO Covenant as follows:

“The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian”

All other residents of Palestine and their descendants - non-Arab Moslems and Jews - are not regarded as “Palestinians” according to the racist provisions of this Charter.

This “Arabs only” view is supported by Article 1 of the PLO Charter:

“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

“Arab ” is clearly the key word that identifies those claiming to be “Palestinians” or claiming to be part of the “Palestinian People” in 2013.

Yet at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 - there were very few Arabs living in Palestine - as the Interim Report on the civil administration of Palestine between 1st July 1920 and 30th June 1921 makes very clear:

“There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith “Historical Geography of the Holy Land”, Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems.

A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.”

The myth that there was an overwhelming majority of Arabs living in Palestine in 1917 is clearly exposed as false in this Interim Report.

This conclusion is supported by the following further facts:

1. Censuses conducted in Palestine at the time divided the residents into “Moslems”, Jews”, “Christians” and “Others”. The term “Arabs” never rated a mention.

2. The Balfour Declaration itself only spoke of “the existing non- Jewish communities in Palestine”.

3. Circassian immigration into Palestine in the 1870’s after their expulsion from their homeland in the northern Caucasus.

Arabs certainly lived in Palestine in 1917 - but they comprised no more than 10% of the population according to the Interim Report.

Lynfeld further reports that the Arab League, in a statement condemning the British library’s decision, said Palestinians were in control of 98 per cent of the territory at the time of the Balfour Declaration.

Again, such a claim is unsustainable.

Who controlled the remaining 2% of Palestine is not stated by the Arab League. The Palestinian Arabs certainly did not control the other 98%.

Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration formed part of the Ottoman Empire which was under the total control of Turkey for virtually the whole of the previous 400 years - until it was lost in World War 1.

The Allied Powers who met in San Remo in 1920 and subsequently signed the Treaty of Sevres with a vanquished Turkey in the same year allocated 99.99% of the captured Ottoman Empire for Arab self-determination and just 0.01% for Jewish self determination.

The Arab League is indulging in pure fantasy and delusion in claiming otherwise.

The unanimous vote of the League of Nations in 1922 endorsing the Balfour Declaration recognising the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine rebuts any claim that there was at the time of the Balfour Declaration any group of residents calling themselves the “Palestinians” or the “Palestinian people”.

The existence of such a people before this claim first appeared in the original PLO Charter in 1964 is false and misleading.

But isn’t that what propaganda is precisely about?