Bennett schmoozes, Biden snoozes, mainstream media disabuses

 

The mainstream media went to extraordinary lengths to convince their readers that President Biden pictured below) had not fallen asleep during his White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on 27 August.

Typical of their efforts was USA Today:

“Our rating: False

We rate the claim that Biden fell asleep during a meeting with Bennett FALSE, because it is not supported by our research. A widely-shared video is misleadingly clipped to make it appear as if Biden was sleeping as Bennett spoke. The full video shows Biden looked up and responded just seconds after the clip ends.”

Reuters Fact Checking team concluded:

“VERDICT

Misleading. A clip saying Joe Biden fell asleep while in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has been misleadingly cropped. Longer versions show Biden continues the conversation right after this moment.”

AP Fact-Checking also chimed in:

“AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. News coverage of the meeting shows that Biden was awake and engaged during the meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.”

Their claims that a video of the meeting was “misleadingly clipped” or “misleadingly cropped” are fanciful - as the following transcript of what actually happened indicates.

Bennett had already been addressing Biden for almost six minutes at this starting point – when Biden suddenly nodded off during Bennett’s remarks underlined (ed. my emphasis):

“And one last word, Mr. President — I’ll take this off [Bennett’s face mask – ed.] for this part, if I may: You’re a man of faith, as am I. In the synagogues across the world, we read a biblical portion, beyond the Parsha; it’s called the Haftarah.

And tomorrow, we’re going to be reading words of the prophet Isaiah — Yeshaʿyahu. In Hebrew, the words are: (Recites verse of Isaiah in Hebrew.)

What this means — I can saying anything now. Right? (Laughter.) What this means is: The sons and daughters of the Jewish people are going to come back to our land, are going to nurse our ancient land and rebuild it.

And this ancient Jewish prophecy is today’s Israel reality. And it’s a miracle that you’ve been so central and so part of it for so many years.

So, Mr. President, today, you and I — and you’ve been so generous with your time in these difficult days — you and I are going to write yet another chapter in the beautiful story of the friendship between our two nations: The United States of America and the Jewish and democratic State of Israel — both of us who seek to do good and need to be strong, both of us who are a lighthouse in a very, very stormy world.

Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to working with you now and for many years forward. Thank you.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, thank you. And you give me credit, much of which should go to Barack Obama, for making sure that we committed to a qualitative edge you would have relative to your friends [should Biden have said “enemies” ?– ed] in the region. So, he’s the one that deserves the credit.

PRIME MINISTER BENNETT: Thank him as well.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Thank you very much, folks.”

Important as Bennett thought it necessary to convey this amazing history of the Jewish people to Biden – using Jewish liturgical terms like “Parsha” and “Haftarah” and quoting a Biblical passage in Hebrew (text below) were understandably lost on Biden - who then dozed off for 30 seconds.

The mainstream media’s continuing honeymoon with Biden had clearly clouded its judgement.
In so doing - the mainstream media was exposed once again for its biased reporting on Biden – undermining its integrity and trumpeted independence.

Beware the mainstream media when reporting Biden news.

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.

Netanyahu reaffirms that Israel is the Jewish State

[Published 12 March 2019]


It is amazing that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still needs to reaffirm to Israelis that Israel is the Jewish State.

Yet Netanyahu was required to do just that after fashion model, actress and TV presenter Rotem Sela instagrammed:

“When in hell will anyone in this government tell the public that Israel is a state of all its citizens, and all human beings were born equal. And the Arabs, God forbid, are human beings. As are the Druze. And the homosexuals too, by the way, and the lesbians and also … what a shock … the leftists.”

Netanyahu’s response was swift:

“Dear Rotem, important correction: Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the Basic Law we have passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and only them.

As you wrote, there is no problem with the Arab citizens of Israel — they enjoy equal rights like all of us, and the Likud government invested more in the Arab sector than any other government.”

Netanyahu elaborated on his statement at last Sunday’s cabinet meeting:

“I would like to clarify a point that, apparently, is not clear to slightly confused people in the Israeli public. Israel is a Jewish, democratic state. This means that it is the national state of the Jewish people alone. Of course it respects the individual rights of all its citizens — Jews and non-Jews alike, but it is the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people.

Other peoples, other nationalities and other minorities — have national representation in other states. The national representation of the Jewish people is in the State of Israel. Israel is the national state of the Jewish people and of it alone.”

David Ben-Gurion and Yitzchak Rabin expressed much the same sentiments decades ago.

Ben-Gurion presciently defined the term “Jewish State” during his evidence before the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine on 7 July 1947:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State - where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name “Palestine” — I said if - then all would be Palestinian citizens If the State would be given, another name — I think it would be given another name — because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Jew, that there was no such a thing as “Palestine” at all: Palestine is not an Arab name.

Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew.”

Rabin stated in 1992:

“I don’t want to make Israel a bi-national state. I would like to keep Israel a Jewish democratic state. By that, I mean at least 80% of its population Jewish”.

Peace will only come when the PLO, Hamas and the UN General Assembly recognize that Israel is the Jewish State.

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

[Published 18 January 2017]


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

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

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

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

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

1. Resolution 2334 envisages a region where:

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

The Joint Declaration shredded this objective by affirming:

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

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

2. Resolution 2334 aims to achieve:

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

The Joint Declaration more specifically calls for the resolution of:

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

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

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

3. Resolution 2234 underscored:

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

The Joint Declaration underscored:

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

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

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

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

The United Kingdom refused to endorse the Joint Declaration.

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

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

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

The Security Council looks decidedly stupid and increasingly irrelevant.

Paris buries Palestine and UN Security Council Resolution 2334

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

UNSCR 2334 had reiterated the Security Council’s:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Paris communique:

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

However one Quartet recommendation states:

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

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

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

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

The Roadmap and UNSCR 2334 have received the last rites.

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

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

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

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

Simple and achievable.

Palestine: Paris conference challenges UN Security Council Resolution 2334

[Published 11 January 2017]


Seventy countries flocking to Paris on January 15 seem set to challenge Security Council Resolution 2334 before the ink has hardly dried.

America’s House of Representatives voting 342-80 has already declared that it:

“opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that —

(A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and

(B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.”

Now the Paris Conference seems set to blindside the Security Council’s vision expressed in the preamble to Resolution 2334:

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

Four indicators point to this Security Council “two democratic states solution” being deliberately abandoned at the Paris Conference:

1. A statement by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on 28 December 2016 welcomed:

”.. John Kerry’s clear, courageous, and engaged speech in support of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security.

France shares the US Secretary of State’s conviction that it is necessary and urgent to implement the two-state solution.”

Kerry’s speech mentioned “two states” 29 times without stipulating they must be “democratic.”

The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.

2. An updated draft of the Paris Conference’s summary statement obtained in advance by Haaretz - indicates that the conference decisions are already a done deal before one glass of champagne or a canape have been enjoyed by the delegates and their entourages.

This summary statement mentions the term “two-state solution” eight times without highlighting they be “democratic” once.

3. The summary statement (Paragraph III) says that looking ahead the conference participants:

“expect both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”

This statement is the very antithesis of democracy - seeking to shame duly elected politicians from freely expressing their ideas and thoughts.

Paul Waldman asks what is the point of the “disavowal ritual” and answers as follows:

“its real purpose is to define the boundaries of the acceptable, both within each party and in politics as a whole. When someone gets disavowed, we all know that to be associated with them will lead to shame and reproach. That person and what they represent, it has been made clear, is out of bounds.”

Disavowal might appeal to those seven UN Security Council member-States that are not democracies and repress free speech — China, Russia, Angola, Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

However the other eight democratic member-States on the Security Council — France, United Kingdom, America, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain and Uruguay should be appalled.

Demanding two democratic States envisioned by Security Council Resolution 2334 — and the disavowal of official voices on both sides that reject the Security Council’s solution - will not be embraced at this Conference.

4. Not one word in the summary statement says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”

The “two-state solution” does not necessarily require:

(i) Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the thirteenth year of his four year Presidential term,

(ii) Gazan and West Bank Arabs being given the vote for the first time since 2006 and

(iii) two non-elected governing authorities making way for one elected Government.

Paris promises the sudden death of Resolution 2334 with the burial of the Security Council’s “two democratic states solution”.

Palestine: France humiliated by Abbas but Israel remains focussed

[Published 16 December 2016]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine - France Signals Surrender To PLO And Muslim Pressure

[Published 13 February 2016]


France’s extraordinary decision to try and resurrect the dead two-state solution smacks of:

1. Abject surrender to PLO demands for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State outside the parameters defined by Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

2. A desperate attempt to appease France’s 4.7 million Muslims as they protest against the continuing state of emergency declared after the series of co-ordinated attacks by Islamic State in Paris last November that saw 130 people murdered and 368 wounded.

France made its intentions clear in the following statement released on 30 January by Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius:

“France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the two-state solution”

Mr Fabius issued this veiled threat on France 24:

“If this attempt to achieve a negotiated solution reaches a dead end, we will take responsibility and recognize the Palestinian state,”

Respected commentator Aaron David Miller has already delivered his verdict on the proposed International conference in a scathing twitter:

“Another bone headed French play.Convene a peace conference doomed to fail; then recognize a faux Palestinian state”

In its Spring 2015 Global Attitudes Survey the Pew Research Centre found that 76% of France’s population had favourable views of France’s Muslim population whilst 24% had unfavourable views.

France no doubt hopes that calling this pro-Arab international conference will stem any growth in the anti-Muslim view in the next Pew Survey. Given the violent ongoing Muslim demonstrations such hope is doomed.

France’s Muslim population far exceeds that of the 475000 Jewish population whose number has been dramatically declining following 851 anti-Semitic incidents recorded in 2014 and 806 attacks in 2015.

Jews leaving France for Israel have also doubled and then doubled again since 2010 - reaching 8,000 last year - up from 1,900 in 2011. Such is the Jewish exodus that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was recently forced to acknowledge that French Jewry is in crisis and that France must work with:

“all its might to protect Jews”

France’s planned international conference and threatened recognition of a Palestinian State will have the opposite effect - ensuring an ever increasing number of French Jews will be fleeing to safer havens.

Any unilateral French declaration recognising Palestinian Statehood will only exacerbate the continuation of the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict - not contribute to its resolution.

Such a declaration could represent a complete turnaround in France’s stated foreign policy:

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

Given the current authoritarian and undemocratic division of rule between two organisations pledged to wipe Israel off the map - the PLO in Areas “A” and “B” in Judea and Samaria and Hamas in Gaza - France needs to ensure that any State of Palestine it recognises is indisputably democratic.

France is being politically naive to believe the failed negotiations conducted over 23 years between Israel and the PLO can be revived.

An international conference aimed at jumpstarting negotiations to resolve sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan - not Israel and the PLO - would have made far more sense.

However the only winners from France’s proposed conference will be the airlines, the 5 star hotels, 3 hat Michelin restaurants, vignerons and limousine car companies catering to the needs of the delegations flying in for a talkfest that will go nowhere.

Hopefully the Islamic State will not spoil the politicians’ party.

Palestine - Security Council And Quartet Silence Dooms Two-State Solution

[Published 6 February 2016]


The UN Security Council and the Quartet — Russia, America, the United Nations and the European Union — have ended any expectations they had of successfully negotiating a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation - after failing to categorically reject UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s highly offensive remarks before the Security Council and in the New York Times.

Ban told the Security Council on January 26:

“Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.

Some have taken me to task for pointing out this indisputable truth.

Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Reacting to “occupation” can never justify the murder of Israeli civilians in their own homes, shopping in supermarkets, meeting in bars, or waiting at bus stops.

Such acts of murder are despicable and inhumane — and the Security Council and the Quartet should have said so clearly and unequivocally.

Following Israel’s trenchant criticism of these statements a clearly piqued Ban ran off to the New York Times on 31 January claiming he had been misrepresented:

“Some sought to shoot the messenger — twisting my words into a misguided justification for violence. The stabbings, vehicle rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible. So, too, are the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers.”

Ban had dug himself an even deeper hole.

Failing again to call such stabbings, vehicle rammings and other targeted attacks on Israeli civilians as “murder” - was reprehensible.

The Security Council and the Quartet should have made it absolutely clear that until such murderous acts ceased - the Quartet’s further participation in assisting and facilitating the implementation of the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap would be indefinitely suspended.

That role had been specifically assigned to the Quartet in 2003 when the Bush Roadmap was released:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established…

The Quartet will assist and facilitate implementation of the plan ... including direct discussions between the parties as required.”

In July 2015 the Quartet’s role was deliberately changed when:

1. The Quartet’s representative Tony Blair stood down with no replacement whilst his office — the Office of the Quartet Representative (OQR) - was renamed the Office of the Quartet (OQ).

2. The OQ’s stated mandate was:
“to support the Palestinian people on economic development, rule of law and improved movement and access for goods and people, as they build the institutions and economy of a viable and peaceful state in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

An independent non-partisan Quartet had overnight been transformed into a biased and hostile Quartet - ignoring Israel’s territorial claims and security needs whilst solely supporting the “Palestinian people”.

No longer were the “democratic Palestinian state” or “practising democracy” mentioned in the Roadmap considered non-negotiable end objectives.

Changing the name had certainly changed the game — with the murder of Israeli civilians and the glorification of their killers beginning soon thereafter.

Whilst the Security Council and Quartet take no decisive action to effectively end these ongoing murders - the two-state solution — and the Quartet’s role - will be doomed to political oblivion.

Palestine: Collective Amnesia Spells Collective Disaster

[Published 3 February 2014]


US Secretary of State John Kerry has missed his own deadline of 31 January by not releasing his eagerly anticipated framework agreement designed to help end the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict. It will now be released by 21 February according to US Envoy Martin Indyk.

Whilst speculation is rife as to its contents - it appears certain that there will be one crucial omission—that any Palestinian State created must be democratic — which could doom any further negotiations.

A democratic Palestinian state finds its genesis in the 2003 Bush Roadmap—the foundation which underpins the current negotiations. The Roadmap stated:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved ... through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established,

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

The full text of the Roadmap was presented to Palestinian and Israeli leaders by the Quartet mediators - the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia—indicating strong international support for a democratic Palestinian State as the end game to success.

By 27 November 2007—when negotiations under the Bush Road Map were non-existent—President Bush assembled the following star-studded list in Annapolis representing their designated countries and organisations to announce that negotiations were set to commence in December:

PARTIES
1. Israel: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
2. Palestinian Authority: President Mahmud Abbas

QUARTET
3. United States: President George W. Bush
4. EU Commission Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy: Benita Ferrero-Waldner
5. EU High Rep High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary General of the Council of the European: Union Javier Solana
6. EU President (Portugal) Minister of State and of Foreign Affairs: Luis Amado
7. Russia: Minister for Foreign Affairs Sergey V. Lavrov
8. UNSYG: Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
9. Quartet Representative Middle East Envoy: Tony Blair

ARAB LEAGUE FOLLOW UP COMMITTEE
10. Algeria Minister of State for Foreign Affairs: Mourad Medelci
11. Bahrain: Minister of Foreign Affairs Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa
12. Egypt: Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Aboul Gheit
13 .Jordan: Minister of Foreign Affairs Salaheddin Al-Bashir
14. Lebanon: Minister of Culture Tarek Mitri
15. Morocco: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Taieb Fassi Fihri
16. Qatar: Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Ahmed bin Abdulla Al-Mahmoud
17. Saudi Arabia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Saud Al-Faisal
18. Sudan: Ambassador John Ukec
19. Syria: Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Fayssal Mekdad
20. Tunisia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdelwahab Abdallah
21. Yemen: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Expatriate Affairs Abu Bakr al-Qirbi
22. Arab League SYG: Secretary General Amre Moussa

G-8, P-5:
23. Canada Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier
24. China: Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi
25. France: Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner
26. Germany: Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier
27. Italy: Vice President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs Massimo D’Alema
28. Japan: Special Envoy for the Middle East Tatsuo Arima
29. United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs David Miliband

OTHERS
30. Austria: Minister of Foreign Affairs Ursula Plassnik
31. Brazil: Minister of State for External Relations Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim
32. Denmark: Minister for Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller
33. Greece: Minister of Foreign Affairs Dora Bakoyannis
34. India: Minister of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences Shri Kapil Sibal
35. Indonesia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Noer Hassan Wirajuda
36. Malaysia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar
37. Mauritania: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Mohamed Saleck Ould Mohamed Lemine
38. Mexico: Under Secretary Lourdes Aranda
39. Netherlands: Minister for European Affairs Frans Timmermans
40. Norway: Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Store
41: OIC Secretary General Ekemelddin Ihsanoglu
42. Oman: Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdulla
43. Pakistan: Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan
44. Poland: Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski
45. Senegal: Senior Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Cheikh Tidiane Gadio
46. Slovenia: Minister of Foreign Affairs Dimitrij Rupel
47. South Africa: Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma
48. Spain: Minister of Foreign Affairs Miguel Angel Moratinos
49. Sweden: Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt
50. Turkey: Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chief EU Negotiator Ali Babacan
51. United Arab Emirates: Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdulla bin Zayed Al Nahayan
52: Vatican (Holy See): Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Special Envoy Pietro Parolin

OBSERVERS
53. IMF: Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn
54: World Bank: President Robert Zoellick

They all heard President Bush state the following:

“We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation—a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security…

... Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is key to realizing their own aspirations—and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state…

No democratic State — no solution.

By 19 May 2011 Bush’s successor - President Obama - had started to vacillate:

“The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

If Obama and the Annapolis participants have conveniently forgotten that creating a “democratic Palestinian State” is fundamental to the conflict being ended — Ithen they only have themselves to blame for the chaos and violence that will surely follow should Israel refuse to negotiate within a Kerry framework agreement that omits any reference to a democratic Palestinian State.

International treachery and duplicity would surely have triumphed over international diplomacy.

Palestine - Bring On The Elections

[Published 7 February 2013]


Democracy continues to be seen nowhere in “the State of Palestine” - whilst Israel’s choice for next Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - is engaged in the usual machinations involved in putting a coalition together to govern Israel for the next four years.

Such political comings and goings are being eagerly followed by a free press commenting with gay abandon on every twist and turn in the daily developments - as their avid readership devours the opinions of dozens of different commentators in newspapers and on radio, television and the internet with very different political viewpoints.

The 2003 Bush Roadmap For Peace - supposedly still the basis on which the long -stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (defunct since 3 January 2013) were being conducted - was uncompromising in its final destination:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below.”

Any attempt by the “Palestinian people” to have any say in electing a leadership that will act decisively against terror and ending violence and terrorism has been silenced since 25 January 2006 - when their votes elected Hamas as winner of the elections with 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 - providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government of its own.

The people chose the wrong horse if they expected violence and terrorism would end - but then they have to live with their choice until they get another chance to change their minds.

That is surely the essence of democracy - that there is an “out” - the ability of the people to regularly express their confidence or otherwise in the people they have elected.

However the people have not been given this opportunity since 2006.

The elected Prime Minister - Ismail Haniya - was unceremoniously dumped by Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - on 15 June 2007 on the basis of “national emergency”.

This has resulted in bitter internecine strife between Hamas and Fatah ever since - that has seen the human rights of hundreds of thousands of the electorate abused in an orgy of violence, killing and detention without trial.

Frequent attempts to effect a reconciliation have failed - and will continue to fail - as both pursue very different political goals and objectives.

The people need to be the circuit breakers in this long running dispute - but indications are they will not be allowed to have their say.

Meantime - President Mahmoud Abbas continues to hold the reins of power as an unelected and unconstitutional President - whose term expired on 9 January 2009.

Due to the conflict he had created by dismissing Haniya in 2007 - Abbas unilaterally extended his term for another year and still continues in office in 2013 even after that second deadline expired.

As a result - Hamas announced that it would not recognise the extension or view Abbas as rightful president.

Yet Abbas is still given the full Presidential treatment internationally wherever he travels.

Following Abbas’s election as President on 9 January 2005 - David Carroll, acting director of the Democracy Program and an active member of the Carter Center -NDI observer delegation to that election - discussed the election process, its outcome and the wider implications for Middle East Peace.

He was asked the following question and gave the following response

"What does this election mean to democracy in the region?"

Carroll: "Many people see the Jan. 9 presidential election as an opportunity for a new leader to recommit to the peace process and make real progress in negotiations with Israel. In addition, however, the election sets an important example for the Arab world; it shows Arab peoples and leaders that citizens’ yearnings for democracy can and should be met, and that democratic renewal strengthens political legitimacy. Further, like the recent elections in Indonesia, the Palestinian election is a reminder that Islam and democracy are not incompatible"

Carroll may indeed be proved right if events of the past few years in Yemen, Libya, Egypt and Syria are indicators.

The real test of democracy however is not the first election - it is the second election.

Sadly - any such moves to allow citizen yearnings for democracy continue to be denied in the one Islamic area where it is essential they be allowed - the West Bank and Gaza.

Whilst this sorry state of affairs continues the following words of the Bush Road Map remain meaningless:

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

Those non-democratic states supporting a fictitious “State of Palestine” - headed by an unconstitutional President, an unelected Government with an unelected Prime Minister and a far from free press - will certainly be unable to grasp the importance of elections to allow the people to have their say after seven years of enforced silence.

The world’s democracies should know better.

“Bring on the elections” should be their unified and rallying demand.

Perhaps President Obama should whisper such words in Abbas’s ear when he meets with him next month.

Whilst the democracies remain silent - Jews and Arabs will continue to bear the scars of war and conflict.