Trump Advisor Castigates Clinton Betrayal Of Israel

[Published 10 August 2016]


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

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

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

Friedman replied:

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

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

1. not returning to the 1949 armistice lines

2. demanding recognition as the Jewish state

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

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

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

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

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

2. Terrorist incursions into Israel and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Clinton avow:

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

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

Clinton needs to come clean before voting day.

Israel - Clinton and Trump Must Honour Bush-Congress Commitments

[Published 4 August 2016]


Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have yet to signal their readiness to honour the commitments made by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Bush’s letter — overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day — supported Israel’s proposed unilateral disengagement from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank.

Bush further reassured Israel that in final status negotiations with the Palestinian Authority America would support Israel:

1. not returning to the 1949 armistice lines

2. demanding recognition as the Jewish state

3. refusing Palestinian Arab refugees being resettled in Israel

Bush’s assurances were absolutely crucial to Israel resuming negotiations with the Palestinian Authority — Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert telling world leaders gathered with Bush at Annapolis on 27 November 2007:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Former Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz revealed in an editorial that he raised the letter during Bush’s meeting with a group of Israeli journalists at the White House in May 2008:

“Bush did not at first realize that I was referring to the 2004 letter. [National Security Adviser] Hadley, who was also in the Oval Office, had to prompt him. “Okay, the letters,” the president then said, remembering.”

Bush’s apparent memory lapse could not be claimed by his successor President Obama who set out to deliberately circumvent Bush’s commitment supporting Israel’s position on territorial withdrawal.

Obama’s attack dog was Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State - who claimed on 17 June 2009 that the letter:

“did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

Elliott Abrams — Middle East Affairs point-man at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009 — had no qualms dismissing Clinton’s contention — stating in July 2009:

“Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation—the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step”.

Clinton made Obama’s sinister intentions clearer on 25 November 2009:

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Bush’s letter had never mentioned “agreed swaps” — signalling abandonment of the Bush-Congress commitments if Obama himself confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later that confirmation eventuated - Obama declaring on 19 May 2011:

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

Michael Oren - Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 — has called for the Bush letter to be resuscitated. Clinton can do this by distancing herself from Obama’s attempt to trash it.

Trump’s assertion that:

“your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them”

is meaningless unless Trump pledges to unconditionally honour those Bush-Congress commitments.

Halting America’s rapidly declining trustworthiness and diplomatic integrity demands Clinton and Trump so act.

Palestine - Israel Takes Off The Gloves

[Published 19 July 2014]


Israel’s disastrous unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 faces possible reversal with the Israeli army’s re-entry into Gaza in July 2014.

Israel’s decision to take the gloves off came after 1381 rockets had been indiscriminately fired from Gaza into Israeli population centres over a period of ten days with Hamas then rejecting a ceasefire proposed by Egypt — but accepted by Israel.

An attempted Hamas raid from the sea - caught on video [https://youtu.be/-ff1Vb1ZqSE] during this criminal rocket bombardment - had reached Israel’s Zikim Beach - culminating in five Hamas terrorists being killed and one Israeli soldier wounded.

However Israel’s military spokesman described the final tipping point - again captured on video [https://youtu.be/SM6WUoel7xk] :

“Earlier today, the IDF identified around 13 Palestinians who had infiltrated Israel through a tunnel dug from Gaza. The tunnel began in the southern Gaza Strip and its exit was near Kibbutz Sufa in Israel. The terrorists were heavily armed with RPGs and assault rifles and were prepared to carry out a massacre. The IDF foiled their attack, saving countless Israeli lives.”

Until a cease fire is inevitably declared - Israel is now proceeding to destroy the network of tunnels running under Gaza — capturing or immobilizing the large number of rockets and armaments stored in Gaza - and killing any terrorists attacking them from the myriad number of terrorist groups operating in Gaza.

What will happen when the hostilities cease?

Israel cannot possibly return to the situation that has prevailed since Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza — that has seen 11000 rockets and missiles indiscriminately fired into Israeli civilian areas and triggered two Israeli incursions into Gaza in 2008 and 2012.

Amid the current turmoil enveloping Gaza - one pertinent question from the 2005 disengagement remains unanswered:

Were the 8000 Jews “expelled” or were they “evacuated” from Gaza and Northern Samaria as a result of Israel’s 2005 withdrawal?

The answer has a vital bearing on determining who gets sovereignty of those areas.

The language used by Israel’s government in 2004/2005 spoke of “evacuation” and “disengagement” - whilst an outraged opposition spoke of
“expulsion”.

“Evacuation” and “disengagement” indicate a temporary uprooting with the intention of returning when the emergency giving rise to the evacuation has subsided.

“Expulsion” on the other hand indicates a situation of permanent and irreversible departure.

Prime Minister Sharon addressing the nation said on 15 August 2005:

“The day has arrived. We are beginning the most difficult and painful step of all — evacuating our communities from the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria.”

But he also said in the same breath:

“Gaza cannot be held onto forever. Over one million Palestinians live there, and they double their numbers with every generation. They live in incredibly cramped refugee camps, in poverty and squalor, in hotbeds of ever-increasing hatred, with no hope whatsoever on the horizon.

It is out of strength and not weakness that we are taking this step. We tried to reach agreements with the Palestinians which would move the two peoples towards the path of peace. These were crushed against a wall of hatred and fanaticism.

The unilateral Disengagement Plan, which I announced approximately two years ago, is the Israeli answer to this reality. This Plan is good for Israel in any future scenario. We are reducing the day-to-day friction and its victims on both sides. The IDF will redeploy on defensive lines behind the Security Fence. Those who continue to fight us will meet the full force of the IDF and the security forces.

Now the Palestinians bear the burden of proof. They must fight terror organizations, dismantle its infrastructure and show sincere intentions of peace in order to sit with us at the negotiating table.

The world awaits the Palestinian response — a hand offered in peace or continued terrorist fire. To a hand offered in peace, we will respond with an olive branch. But if they choose fire, we will respond with fire, more severe than ever.”

Sharon never expressly articulated whether Israel still maintained its claim to sovereignty in those areas from which it was withdrawing Jewish communities.

Based on the use of the words “evacuation” and “Disengagement Plan” - it would appear that Sharon was not ceding Israel’s claims to sovereignty in international law under the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

As I wrote in August 2005 [http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/5445#.U8jaBvmSwlI]:

“One can envisage an Israeli return to Gaza and northern Samaria, should the Palestinians carry out their threats to continue the armed struggle all the way to Jerusalem. Israel’s response could be disastrous for the Palestinians and wipe out whatever political or territorial gains they may make as a result of Israel’s initial withdrawal…

By continuing to use the word “evacuation” to describe its actions, Israel seems to be making it very clear that if the Palestinians don’t embark on the Road Map, and instead continue to use violence and incitement to achieve their goal of an independent state, the removal of the Jewish communities will be only temporary. Israel will return in force and claim sovereignty of such parts of the areas vacated as it deems in its national interest.”

Jews expelled from the West Bank in 1948 by six invading Arab armies returned there in 1967. Jews withdrawn from Gaza in 2005 may well seek to return there in 2014.

The current war of rockets and tunnels seems set to be replaced with an equally confrontational labyrinthine war of words.

Palestine - Jordan Preparing To Jettison PLO

[Published 15 November 2012]


Jordan appears ready to fill the negotiating void that will be left by the PLO - should its expected application to be admitted as a non-member observer state at the United Nations be successful on 29 November.

Such unilateral action by the PLO - in violation of the Oslo Accords and international law - will amount to an act of political suicide. It will invite similar unilateral action by Israel. This could include termination of all further negotiations with the PLO through its negotiating mouthpiece - the Palestinian Authority.

Statements made in recent weeks by Prince Hassan of Jordan and PLO power broker Farouk Kaddoumi have confirmed the desirability of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan after a lapse of 45 years.

Added impetus has now been given to these statements with the release of two textbooks issued by the Jordanian Education Ministry for use in grades 1 to 12 in Jordanian schools.

The textbooks purport to teach students about bad eating and the dangers of smoking - but a wall map featured on some of its pages reportedly relays a skewed lesson in geography by excluding the names of Jordan and Palestine - inviting the following comment from the West Bank Association:

“In effect, the exclusion of these names annexes Palestine to Jordan”

The Jordanian Association Against Zionism and Racism was also quick to join in expressing its anger.

The chairman of the Jordanian agronomists’ association, Mahmoud Abu Ghanima and the chairman of the teachers’s association Mustafa Rawashdeh reportedly said those who helped distribute the textbooks should be indicted.

Their criticisms should fall on deaf ears.

Transjordan was the last Arab state to occupy the area known as “Judea and Samaria” between 1948 - 1967. In 1950 Transjordan adopted the name “West Bank” for these areas after they had been unified with Transjordan to create a newly named territorial entity called “Jordan”.

Transjordan’s 1947 Constitution was repealed and replaced with a new Jordanian Constitution in 1952 - in which Article 1 declared:

“The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy.”

This provision still remains intact and unamended in 2012.

In 1988 Jordan severed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank.

King Hussein’s meticulously crafted address to the Jordanian people at that time made it quite clear that Jordan was ready to resume its previous role in the West Bank should circumstances arise.

“Arab unity between any two or more countries is an option of any Arab people. This is what we believe. Accordingly, we responded to the wish of the Palestinian people’s representatives for unity with Jordan in 1950. From this premise, we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us as an independent Palestinian state. We say that while we fully understand the situation, nevertheless, Jordan will remain the proud bearer of the message of the Great Arab Revolt, adhering to its principles, believing in one Arab destiny, and committed to joint Arab action.

Regarding the political consideration, since the June 1967 aggression we have believed that our actions and efforts should be directed at liberating the land and the sanctities from Israeli occupation. Therefore, we have concentrated all our efforts over the past twenty-one years of occupation on that goal. We did not imagine that maintaining the legal and administrative relationship between the two banks could constitute an obstacle to liberating the occupied Palestinian land. Hence, in the past and before we took measures, we did not find anything requiring such measures, especially since our support for the Palestinian peoples right to self-determination was clear.

Lately, it has transpired that there is a general Palestinian and Arab orientation which believes in the need to highlight the Palestinian identity in full in all efforts and activities that are related to the Palestine question and its developments. It has also become clear that there is a general conviction that maintaining the legal and administrative links with the West Bank, and the ensuing Jordanian interaction with our Palestinian brothers under occupation through Jordanian institutions in the occupied territories, contradicts this orientation.”

Described as a “disengagement” on King Hussein’s official web page (the same term used to describe Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005) - the reasons given were as follows:

“Prior to 1989, Jordan’s last parliamentary elections were held in April of 1967, two months prior to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Since their union in 1950, the East and West Bank had been allocated equal representation within Parliament: each had thirty representatives in the House of Deputies. The 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and the 1974 Arab Summit resolution at Rabat, which designated the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative” of the Palestinian people, posed constitutional and practical obstacles to the holding of general elections.

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.

Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

The decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. During the same period, mounting economic difficulties led to a spate of rioting in certain parts of the Kingdom. Circumstances had therefore coalesced to produce a situation favoring the resumption of the democratic process King Hussein had initiated early in his reign. In November 1989, general parliamentary elections were held in Jordan for the first time since 1966, ushering in a new era for the institutionalization of Jordan’s democratic experience.”

Jordan’s disengagement from the West Bank in favour of the PLO has proved an abject failure.

Reinstating Jordan's severed legal and administrative ties with the West Bank in direct negotiations with Israel is now rapidly shaping up as the most viable option to resolve sovereignty in the West Bank as the PLO slowly sinks into the political sunset.

Palestine - Obama Continues To Fudge On America's Commitment To Israel

[Published 23 May 2011]


President Obama in an address to the AIPAC Policy Conference on 22 May has failed to redress the enormous damage done by him to America’s integrity and reputation during his speech three days earlier at the State Department.

Addressing the State Department Obama then stated:

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

This statement amounted to the repudiation of an American written commitment given by President George Bush (the Bush Letter) to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 which stated:

“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.”

America’s commitment in the Bush Letter was clear and unambiguous.

1. America would support Israel’s refusal to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - as the Arabs had been demanding since 1967
2. The amount of such land to be retained by Israel would be determined by mutually agreed changes that reflected the realities existing at the time negotiations were completed

No mention was made that those mutually agreed changes would require Israel to make land swaps of Israeli sovereign territory in exchange for land retained by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:

“The political support we received during my visit to the United States is an unprecedented accomplishment for Israel. Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President’s letter.”

President Bush’s letter was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.

Obama’s apparent attempt to abrogate this American commitment in his statement on 19 May resulted in trenchant criticism from Israel and many members of the American Congress forcing him to clarify his position on 22 May.

In doing so President Obama did not climb out of the diplomatic hole he had dug for himself and America three days earlier - but only managed to slide further down it taking America’s integrity and reputation even lower with him.

President Obama told the AIPAC delegates and many Congressmen present and keen to hear his explanation:

“And it was my reference to the 1967 lines—with mutually agreed swaps—that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. By definition,it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed- upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people—each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace”

With the greatest respect the President is talking utter nonsense.

“Agreed upon swaps” surely means an agreed exchange of something for something else.

President Obama clearly was breaching the Bush Letter in stating that his Government’s belief:

”now was that Israeli sovereign territory would have to be swapped for territory retained by Israel in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

President Obama’s belief in 2011 is totally irrelevant. President Obama is committed in 2011 to supporting whatever decision Israel makes on how much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem it will ultimately withdraw from - nothing more nothing less.

To continue to support the concept of

“mutually agreed swaps”

only makes matters even worse so far as restoring America’s integrity and reputation is concerned.

It is clear President Obama does not like the terms of the Bush Letter. But he - and America - are bound by it if America’s integrity and reputation is to be maintained.

Obama’s explanation smacks of a pathetic attempt to try and retrospectively substitute the words:

“mutually agreed changes” in the Bush Letter with the words “mutually agreed exchanges”.

Surely Congress will react with even greater fury at President Obama’s latest remarks to try and massage the meaning of the Bush Letter to give it a meaning that was never intended.

Israel made a historic - and highly controversial - political decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as a condition of obtaining the Bush Letter. Israel paid dearly for that decision when tens of thousands of its civilian population were subsequently murdered, wounded or traumatized following that disengagement.

It is inconceivable that America should seek in any way to diminish or circumvent the commitments it made under the Bush Letter.

Words have meaning and in this case their meaning brooks only one interpretation.

Obama’s attempt to subvert their meaning must be resisted until he recants and states without qualification or ambiguity that he - as America’s President - and America still stands by what President Bush signed and its Congress ratified.

Palestine - Remembering The Past To Protect The Future

A telephone poll of a representative sample of 506 Israeli Jews age 15-18 carried out between 16-18 January 2011 by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute (headed by Professor Yitzchak Katz) for the Committee of Gush Katif Residents - revealed an appalling lack of knowledge by these teenagers concerning Israel’s evacuation and disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

Hopefully this ignorance can be countered with a visit to the Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem.

It was my pleasure during a recent visit to Israel to have the privilege of visiting this little known but very important new museum established in 2008 and centrally located at 5 Shaarei Tzedek St Jerusalem just three minutes walk from the Machane Yehuda Market.

The unpretentious and modest exterior of the old building belies the love and dedication of the small band of volunteers who have taken up the challenge to make sure that the ignorance of those 15-18 year olds is addressed.

The Museum explains the rationale for its creation as follows:

“The Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem is the only museum in the world that unfolds the story of Jewish settlement in the Gaza strip, from the days of the Hasmoneans till the uprooting of Jews during the “disengagement plan” 2005, along with four other Jewish communities in North Shomron.

The years when Jews built settlements in Gaza strip were beautiful. The museum holds a collection of movies and books that deal with this wonderful era, saluting these communities . In the museum the visitor will also find the famous Menorah of Netsarim, which was carried by the settlers to the Kotel (Western Wall) and that became a symbol of the struggle.

The story of this struggle against the disengagement plan is outlined by authentic artifacts, paintings, sculptures, photographs and videos.”

The Museum contains:

1. A reference library - housing books about Jewish settlement in Gush Katif and the Disengagement Plan
2. An entry hall - presenting the day to day life of Gush Katif and a historical timeline tracing the Jewish presence in the Gaza region for over 3000 years including Kfar Darom between 1948 -1967
3. A screening room - depicting films recording the struggle against evacuation
4. The Orange Wall - recalling a year and a half of civil struggle to prevent the evacuation
5. A memorial room - remembering the fallen residents killed in terrorist attacks and military battles.
6. The Black Room - displaying the confrontation between the residents and the Israel Defence Forces and Israeli police officers.

The Museum is open Sunday - Thursday 10.00 - 18.00 and Fridays 9.00 - 13.00 and relies on visitors to supplement its meager finances. The phone number for inquiries is 02- 625 5456. Admission is free but donations and purchase of souvenirs is welcomed

The Museum should be an obligatory visit for

1. those 15-18 year old Israeli youth - indeed all school children at least once during their schooling bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah tours
2. All Israel study missions

As the disastrous effect of such evacuation become increasingly clearer with each passing day, I hope the Museum will extend its treasure trove of information with an additional section covering

1. The havoc and destruction subsequently wrought on the 8000 men women and children who were forced to leave
2. The political chaos that has descended on Gaza since 2005
3. The lessons that must be learned before any further unilateral withdrawals are contemplated by Israel

The Israeli Government was at pains to describe the events of 2005 as

1. an “evacuation” not “expulsion”
2. a “disengagement” not the ceding of Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Gush Katif conferred on the Jews by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and preserved in article 80 of the United Nations Charter

“Evacuate” is defined in the Collins English Dictionary as:

“to withdraw or cause to withdraw from (a place of danger) to a place of greater safety”

The corollary is that when the danger is removed there can be a return to the place where the removal occurred.

The same dictionary defines “disengage” as:

“To withdraw (forces) from close action”

The corollary is that when the dangers resulting from such close action no longer exist then the disengagement can be reversed.

Jews have had a presence in Gaza at many times over the last 3000 years. It is safe to say they will enjoy a similar privilege sometime in the future. Meanwhile the Gush Katif Museum will keep the memory and the hopes alive.

Make it a “must see” on your next visit to Israel.

Israel's Illusion, the Arabs' Abyss

[Published July 2006]


Israel's belief that unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza would end Arab intransigence and bring about a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict has turned out to be an illusion.

Instead it has opened up an abyss, which threatens to swallow up Lebanon and Gaza in its wake and set back the development of their societies and economies by at least 20 years.

Syria is struggling to cope with hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Shiites seeking refuge as Israel continues its determined assault to end Hezbollah's reign of terror in Lebanon.

Emboldened by what was perceived as Israeli weakness and exhaustion, Hezbollah and Hamas quickly asserted their authority within the areas vacated by Israel, claiming this was the first step in the ultimate destruction of the Jewish State.

The Governments of Lebanon and Gaza chose to tolerate rather than confront and root out these terrorist entities.

Both Governments were strongly supported by their civilian populations.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah openly held court in Beirut. Its headquarters were well known to Lebanese authorities and the media had no trouble in locating their leaders for frequent interviews as they took every opportunity to applaud the targeted murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens and foreign nationals.

They lived openly within Lebanese society and were elected to Government and held cabinet portfolios. This could not have happened without popular support.

Large shipments of missiles and weaponry were routinely unloaded at Lebanese ports in full view of customs, military and police authorities and transhipped through Lebanon to launching sites and military depots in South Lebanon for ultimate use against Israel.

In Gaza frequent demonstrations by tens of thousands of men, women and children marching behind hooded and well armed terrorists burning Israeli and American flags and effigies of Sharon and Bush, clearly indicated Hamas was held in awe, not disgust, by the civilian population among whom was hidden the military stockpile of rockets and explosives.

Hamas was elected to power in Gaza by the overwhelming majority of Gazans whilst Hezbollah established an autonomous State within a State in Lebanon, both clearly expressing their continuing refusal to recognise the sovereign existence of Israel.

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh believed the time was now ripe to flex their muscles to procure the release of hundreds of convicted terrorists held in Israeli prisons in exchange for a few Israeli soldiers. This had worked very well before with thousands of prisoners being released by Israel in return for the remains of a few dead soldiers and the release of one businessman of dubious reputation.

What better way for Hezbollah and Hamas to retain the support and hopes of their civilian populations than securing the release of husbands and children who could then be enlisted once again to repeat the missions that had led to their imprisonment in the first place.

However kidnapping three Israeli soldiers by incursions into sovereign Israeli territory proved the downfall for these terrorist groups. Such brazenness was the breaking point -- the red line -- that these terrorist groups had not expected their actions would provoke.

Rather than getting expected negotiations by intermediaries to procure the exchange of prisoners, Hezbollah and Hamas unleashed Israel's military might as it entered Lebanon and Gaza in hot pursuit to free its soldiers with the full authority of international law firmly behind it.

Again completely misreading Israel's intentions, both Hezbollah and Hamas started firing rockets into Israel leading to Israel's re-entry into Gaza in force and massive retaliation on Lebanon's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, airports and ports -- which had served as the supply lines for Hezbollah from Syria and Iran

This time international criticism of Israel's right to defend itself has been muted and even Arab countries have been critical of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Israel now carries the world on its shoulders as it alone seeks to implement Resolution 1559 of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. This will result in the loss of Israeli lives and many casualties as an impotent United Nations does nothing to assert and enforce its own resolutions.

The civilian populations of Lebanon and Gaza have now paid and will continue to pay a huge price for the trust and belief they placed in their would be Saladdins to remove the Jewish State once and for all.

Some have suggested these civilians are innocent victims who did not have the strength to overthrow their oppressors. If true, one would imagine Israel's actions would have brought forward at least some expressions of support from within Lebanon and Gaza. Not a single word has been heard.

The Arab League has now finally pronounced the Road Map proposed by Bush, Putin, Chirac and Annan as "dead". The League is three years behind the times but at least it now recognises the futility of a plan that never had the slightest chance of getting off the drawing board.

So where does the Middle East go from here?

There is but one avenue now -- the removal of Hezbollah and Hamas followed by trilateral negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt on the future sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps the Arab League will at long last realise the folly of trying to wipe Israel off the map and take these positive steps to end the ongoing 120 year conflict that is now bringing suffering on a scale to their constituency that even they could never have contemplated.

Evacuation or Expulsion?

[Published August 2005]


Amidst the turmoil enveloping Israel as the proposed disengagement date approaches, one question remains unanswered: are the Jewish communities living in Gaza and Northern Samaria being expelled or evacuated?

This is not a semantic question only, but has a vital bearing on the future of the sovereignty of those areas from which Israel proposes to disengage.

"Evacuation" indicates a temporary uprooting with the intention of returning when the emergency giving rise to the evacuation has subsided.

Thus large population centres were evacuated during the terrible tsunami earlier this year or Londoners were evacuated during the wartime blitz by the Germans in World War 2.

No one ever suggested they would not be allowed to return to their homes after the crisis had ended.

"Expulsion" on the other hand indicates something far more permanent. A child expelled from a school has no chance of returning to that school. A diplomat expelled from a country will never be accepted back in that country.

Strangely, the language used by Israel's Government speaks of "evacuation", while the language used by the Opposition to disengagement speaks of "expulsion".

Ariel Sharon needs to urgently explain whether Israel still maintains its claim to sovereignty in those areas from which it is currently removing Jewish communities or whether its disengagement amounts to a ceding of all claims of sovereignty to those areas which it is leaving.

Based on the use of the word "evacuation", it would appear that Israel is not ceding its claims, which are well grounded in international law arising from the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Israel can certainly cede those claims, but to my knowledge Ariel Sharon has not mentioned this "c" word.

One can envisage an Israeli return to Gaza and Northern Samaria, should the Palestinians carry out their threats to continue the armed struggle all the way to Jerusalem. Israel's response could be disastrous for the Palestinians and wipe out whatever political or territorial gains they may make as a result of Israel's initial withdrawal.

If these circumstances arose would Sharon then be able to claim sovereignty or was the initial disengagement a ceding of all claims to any parts of the areas from which withdrawal took place?

Sharon could do well to clarify what this forthcoming disengagement means, because it could have an important bearing on the Road Map so earnestly espoused by the USA, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

By continuing to use the word "evacuation" to describe its actions, Israel seems to be making it very clear that if the Palestinians don't embark on the Road Map and instead continue to use violence and incitement to achieve their goal of an independent State, the removal of the Jewish communities will be only temporary, Israel will return in force and claim sovereignty of such parts of the areas vacated as it deems in its national interest.

Sharon continues to play his cards close to the chest.

Israelis, and indeed the whole world, should be taken into Sharon's confidence on this very vital issue.