Trump unscrambles UN-EU-PLO misinformation omelette

[Published 29 April 2018]

President Trump has started unscrambling the misinformation omelette first cooked up by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 and dished out by the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) since 1974.

Trump’s intention was revealed when the State Department released its annual “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017” (“Report”)- renaming its segment previously entitled “Israel and The Occupied Territories” with a new descriptor – “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza”.

Israel and the Golan Heights are dealt with together in one section of the Report – whilst the West Bank and Gaza are covered in another.

Commas count big time in Middle East diplomacy.

One comma strategically placed in the descriptor - “… West Bank, and Gaza” – identifies them as two separate territorial entities that could involve different solutions.

The Report’s new choice of language signals that resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict extends beyond the West Bank and Gaza to also include the Golan Heights and that any end to the conflict will only eventuate with the allocation of sovereignty in all three of these disputed areas.

This ground-breaking replacement of false statements with factual reality needs to be replicated by Trump in other areas of misinformation maliciously spread by the UN, EU and PLO – including:

1. Recognition that the term “West Bank” was first used in 1950 and that for 3000 years prior thereto that territory had been called “Judea and Samaria”

2. Acknowledgement that the “Palestinian Authority” created by the 1993 Oslo Accords was disbanded by written decree of PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013.

3. Affirmation of the right of the Jewish People to close settlement on land in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine under the rights vested in them by article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (the 1922 Mandate) – as preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

4. Ending the fiction that the territory of former Palestine stopped at the Jordan River and agreeing that it included the Hashemite Kingdom of TransJordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate - which was granted independence by Great Britain in 1946 and subsequently renamed Jordan in 1950.

5. Confirming that most of the Golan Heights was included within the 1922 Mandate until Britain ceded the area to France in the Franco-British Agreement of 7 March 1923

6. Rebranding the UN and EU designated “Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)” as “The Disputed Territories”

7. Agreement that Security Council Resolution 242 does not require Israel’s total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

Cracking heads by getting all interested parties to adopt an agreed narrative using terms with agreed meanings is crucial in any communications and negotiations between them - if Trump’s long-awaited “ultimate deal” is to not be still born.

Underestimating Trump’s ability to win the Presidential election race against Hillary Clinton in 2016 has seen those who confidently predicted his defeat subsequently engaged in a vitriolic war of attrition in the media trying to convince the electorate that they voted for the wrong candidate.

Yet Trump continues to confound his detractors with impressive gains in both the American economy and foreign affairs.

The State Department Report – in dumping the use of the nomenclature “The Occupied Territories” – has taken one giant step towards ending the decades-long dishonest semantic warfare waged by the PLO, UN and EU.

Trump has set himself a Herculean task confronting this sorry state of affairs.

Trump has once again dumbfounded his malevolent doomsday-pundits – whisking up an omelette that already promises to taste far better than any ever served up by the PLO, UN and EU.

Palestine - Australia Rejects Fiction To Recognize Reality

[Published 8 June 2014]


Australia will no longer be referring to East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as “occupied territories”.

Attorney-General George Brandis made this clear when he read a statement to the Senate foreign affairs committee this week indicating the language of “occupation” was:

“judgmental”, ”freighted with pejorative implications” and ”neither appropriate nor useful” for the peace process.

This injection of sanity into the contribution being made by the international community to help resolve the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict is long overdue and very welcome.

The use of the terms “occupied territories” by the European Union or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” by the United Nations has emboldened the Arab League, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to maintain their 47 year old demand that every square metre of land captured by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War be returned to Arab control.

The world’s nations need to awaken from their fiction-induced slumber

Their unyielding stance was never contemplated by Security Council Resolution 242 which acknowledged the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognised borders. It has been a major impediment to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - resulting in offers by Israel to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of those territories being rejected by the PA in 2000/1 and 2008.

Catherine Ashton - High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy European Union/Vice-President of the European Commission - was pandering to this decades old Arab demand when she told the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 30 December 2009:

“East Jerusalem is occupied territory, together with the rest of the West Bank.”

Israel’s then Deputy Foreign Minister - Danny Ayalon - penned an article in response in the Wall Street Journal on 30 December 2009 - pointing out:

” However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel’s rights to what are generally called the “occupied territories” but what really are “disputed territories.”

That’s because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered “occupied” in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel’s conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years.”

Ayalon criticised the perception that:

“... Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table.”

Ayalon was affirming that the West Bank was “no man’s land” - where sovereignty still remained undetermined.

Israel and the PLO - the PA having been disbanded in January 2013 - still continue to be unable to agree on the final allocation of sovereignty after fruitless negotiations spanning the last 20 years.

The latest round of negotiations ended in total collapse on 29 April with the PLO still demanding sovereignty in 100% of the territories (or perhaps - as has been reported - some land swaps in compensation).

Ayalon’s prediction in 2009 has proved to be chillingly correct in 2014 - and will continue to prevail whilst the PLO refuses to acknowledge that Israel has any claims to sovereignty in these areas.

Such claims are based on legal rights vested in the Jewish people pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1920 and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The PLO considers such rights to be “null and void” under Article 20 of the PLO Covenant - seeking to snuff out Israel’s claims to what was the heart of the Jewish biblical and ancestral homeland 3000 years ago.

Ignoring this body of international law spells disaster for Israel and the PLO ever resolving their competing claims.

Australia’s decision to call a spade a spade will hopefully encourage other countries to follow suit - as well as implementing international action to make some further changes in the duplicitous diplomatic double speak involving the use of misleading and deceptive language which has hindered rather than facilitated any resolution of the conflict.

These changes include:

1. Replacing the term “occupied territories” with the term “disputed territories” to clarify that Jews also have legal rights in these territories in addition to those claimed by the Arabs.

2. Using the 3000 years old term “Judea and Samaria” to replace the term “West Bank” - first coined by Jordan in 1950 to erase any trace of Jews having lived there after having been driven out by the invading Jordanian army in 1948.

3. Substituting “Palestinian Arabs” for “Palestinians” and “Palestinian people” - terms first appearing in the 1964 PLO Charter that excluded former Jewish and other non-Arab residents and their descendants having any rights.

4. Referring to the conflict as the “Jewish-Arab conflict” - which commenced in about 1880 instead of the “Palestinian-Israeli ” conflict - which only commenced in 1948.

5. Omitting any reference to the term “State of Palestine” until the provisions of the Montevideo Convention 1934 are complied with.

The world has been duped into the use of language that reflects fiction - not fact. Used often enough it takes on a highly damaging life of its own.

Erasing such language from the international lexicon is long overdue.

The world’s nations need to awaken from their fiction-induced slumber.

Palestine - Rabbis For Human Rights Become Political Power Brokers

[Published 14 June 2012]


Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) - a leading non-government human rights organization (NGO) in Israel - has made an unprecedented attack on the integrity of Israel’s High Court - whilst simultaneously attempting to undermine what little is left of the stalled Peace Process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The Rabbis have opened themselves up to such criticism as a result of their involvement in a case before Israel’s High Court alleging illegal building activity in Susya – an Arab village located in Area C of the West Bank which is presently under Israel’s total administrative and security control.

RHR’s web site mandates the Organization

“advocating for the rights of marginalized members of society, in defending the rights of minorities in Israel and of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories”

RHR has, however, chosen to go beyond this human rights agenda by engaging in partisan political activity on behalf of the Palestinian Authority - using the Susya case as the catalyst and its residents as political footballs in the process.

RHR made this political objective very clear when warning:

“At first blush, it may seem that this is “only” about the threat to demolish the entire village of Susya, the homes of these simple cave dwellers of the South Hebron Hills. However, the truth is that the results will affect the fate of hundreds of Palestinian homes throughout the Occupied Territories, perhaps thousands. The outcome may well have an effect on our major appeal to return planning authority for Palestinian communities in Area C to Palestinian hands

Since more than 95% of the Palestinian Arabs already live in Areas A and B where – under the Oslo Accords - the Palestinian Authority – not Israel - has full administrative control over what is built and not built in those areas – this claim was both alarmist and unsustainable.

Stating that the Court decision could affect the fate of hundreds – if not perhaps thousands of houses - “throughout the Occupied Territories” - was worthy of the best propaganda efforts of Israel’s most vehement denigrators and detractors.

RHR’s understandable concern for the residents of Susya was being used as a battering ram to pursue a wider political agenda to force Israel to relinquish administrative control of Area C– wholly or partially – to the Palestinian Authority - where very few Palestinian Arabs presently live.

In pursuing this political objective RHR took deliberate aim at the High Court - urging it to adopt the position taken by RHR in the Susya case when arguing:

“We will do our best to insure that neither justice nor judges are mislead or subverted.”

RHR’s vote of no confidence in the ability of the High Court judges to avoid being mislead or subverted without the help of RHR to guide and protect them - was indeed a surprising display of hubris.

RHR was even more strident in the warning it sent to the Court and other state instrumentalities :

“It is extremely important that the High Court judges, the representatives of the army and the government internalize that we are not talking about a small matter that nobody cares about, and can therefore live and devour its prey in the darkness.”

To suggest the High Court judges or those others also mentioned could even be contemplating acting in such a manner could arguably justify a finding of contempt by the Court.

The use of such wild, emotive and unsubstantiated language by Rabbis is surely not to be expected or be part of any civilized discourse between them and a Court charged with hearing a case in which the Rabbis have a deep concern.

The Rabbis – of course - are perfectly entitled to engage in any activity they choose and say what they like – but must be prepared to face any criticism that is subsequently leveled at their conduct.

When such conduct also involves the possible use of funds donated to RHR to pursue human rights objectives – not political objectives – the actions of RHR are thrown more sharply under the public spotlight.

RHR is well-funded and received substantial donations in excess of $5000 each during 2011 from many external donors world wide including:

Caritas Belgium
Church of Scotland
Church of Sweden
European Commission
Evangelical Church– Starkenburg West
Ford Foundation
New Israel Fund
Norwegian Church
Swedish Church

Using those funds to undermine the impartiality of the legal system in Israel and the political processes laid down as a result of the Oslo Accords - seriously damages the credibility of RHR and compromises the humanitarian work it undertakes.

To be fair – RHR is not the only NGO in Israel undertaking a mix of political and humanitarian activities under the description of being a human rights organization.

If the Rabbis – or those other organizations - want to also be power brokers - then they should add this new job description to those listed on their websites – so that donors will be left in no doubt as to where their money is being spent.

Gaza And Libya - UN Speaks With Forked Tongue

[Published 23 March 2011]


The double standards employed by the United Nations when it comes to dealing with Israel were thrown into sharp focus with the Security Council’s passing of Resolution 1973 on 19 March 2011.

The resolution legalized the creation of a “no-fly zone” over Libya and was supplemented by a host of other provisions including an arms embargo authorizing the inspection on the high seas of vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya.

The Resolution was designed to stop both the murder and inadvertent killing of Libya’s civilian population caught up in the conflict between their own Government and a defiant - and sometimes armed - civilian rebellion attempting to end the 42 year rule of Muammar Gadaffi.

The wording of resolution 1973 was particularly enlightening - especially these provisions:

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

“6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;”

The Resolution’s attempt to deny Libya is being occupied pursuant to any action taken under Resolution 1973 indicates that the UN view on Gaza - as being occupied by Israel - must now be revised.

The justification for such claim in relation to Gaza can be found in the following explanation afforded by Amnesty International :

“Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. In 2005, as part of what it termed “disengagement” from Gaza, Israel removed its settlements and settlers. Yet despite the redeployment of its troops in 2005, the Israeli army has retained effective control over the Gaza Strip. Israel maintains sole control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and does not allow any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea. Israel also continues to exercise a degree of control over Gaza’s border with Egypt and Israeli officials have repeatedly made it clear that this border can only be reopened within the framework of a joint agreement with the Palestinian Authority and Egypt.”

So according to the United Nations and its agencies - control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters by Israel amounts to “occupation” - whilst control of Libya’s airspace and territorial waters by America, France, Great Britain and the Arab League does not amount to a “foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”

The United Nations makes itself a laughing stock when it attempts to define Gaza as being occupied and Libya as not.

They are both occupied - or both are not.

Will the Secretary General please indicate which is correct?

Palestine - Intellectual Ignorance Insults Israel

[Published 5 March 2011]


Novelist Ian McEwan displayed crass ignorance of the Arab-Jewish conflict when recently accepting the US$10000 Jerusalem Prize - awarded to a writer whose work best expresses and promotes the idea of the ‘‘freedom of the individual in society.’‘

The Prize was awarded to McEwan by Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat at a ceremony attended by Israel’s President Shimon Peres and Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat.

Mc Ewan was self-deprecating as he told the audience that he had resisted calls to boycott the ceremony understanding that in doing so he couldn’t escape the politics of his decision.

Those present may have felt heartened when he stated:

“Some of the previous recipients of this prize have spoken their thoughts in a gathering like this and have upset people. But everybody knows this simple fact: once you’ve instituted a prize for philosophers and creative writers, you have embraced freedom of thought and open discourse, and I take the continued existence of the Jerusalem prize as a tribute to the precious tradition of a democracy of ideas in Israel.”

McEwan then took the opportunity to express his thoughts and upset people - basing them on a series of factual inaccuracies that have become mainstream thinking among many intellectuals. His public embrace of these inaccuracies rendered his thoughts of no real credibility or value.

Ian McEwan - Factual Inaccuracies Distort Opinion

Consider the following:

1. McEwan equated the murderous policies of Hamas with the tragic - but accidental - death of four young girls in Gaza when stating:

“I’d like to say something about nihilism. Hamas, whose founding charter incorporates the toxic fakery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, has embraced the nihilism of the suicide bomber, of rockets fired blindly into towns, and embraced the nihilism of an extinctionist policy towards Israel. But (to take just one example) it was also nihilism that fired a rocket at the undefended Gazan home of the Palestinian doctor, Izzeldin Abuelaish, in 2008, killing his three daughters and his niece.”

Was McEwan unaware of the following facts and would he have had a different opinion if he had known that:

(i) The Gaza incident took place in 2009 during Operation Cast Lead - not 2008 - when a rocket fired by Israel during that operation accidentally hit the doctor’s home located in a refugee camp from which rockets were being fired into Israel
(ii) Operation Cast Lead occurred only after a cease fire between Israel and Hamas had been breached between November 2008 - December 19, 2008 when 170 mortars, 255 Qassams, and 5 Grads had been indiscriminately fired upon Israel’s civilian population centres from Gaza.(http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/)

2. McEwan spoke of a

“tsunami of concrete across the occupied territories.”

If he was speaking of Jewish settlements was he cognizant of the fact that they are located on less than 5% of the West Bank?

Why did he choose to use the term “occupied territories” rather than the term “disputed territories”.

As a master of words McEwan would know the inference to be drawn from using such a term is to deny Israel has any legal or historical claim to any part of the West Bank.

3. McEwan decried

“the continued evictions and demolitions, and relentless purchases of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, the process of right of return granted to Jews but not Arabs.”

It was obviously irrelevant to McEwan that such evictions and demolitions followed court orders legally obtained by the owners of these properties against occupants who were found to be illegally trespassing or squatters.

Obviously he resents the purchase of Arab owned land by Jews in transactions freely agreed upon between willing vendors and purchasers. He was silent on expressing any view about the many murders perpetrated on Arab vendors found to have sold land to Jews.

In advocating an Arab right of return he was serving to inflame - and continuing to encourage - an Arab demand that has been rejected by every Israeli government of different political persuasions since 1948. This demand has been one of the principal obstacles to creating a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.

4. McEwan mused:

“Palestinians are split, their democratic institutions are weak or non existent, violent jihadism has proved self-defeating. They have been unlucky in their leaders. And yet many Palestinians are ready for a solution, the spirit is there.”

Fine and encouraging words indeed. But who are these Palestinians? Can he point to the writings of any such Palestinians to support his grand statement?

5. McEwan called for “an end to the settlements” - empty words - unless accompanied by what he thought should happen to the 500,000 Jews who would have to suffer the consequences of that decision. The freedom of these individuals to not be thrown out of their homes obviously was of no consequence to McEwan.

6. He claimed without specifying in any detail that the Palestine Papers had revealed that

“Israel casually brushed aside remarkable concessions from the Palestinian Authority?”

Surely the use of the words “casually brushed aside remarkable concessions” required some amplification. The inference that Israel has no say in accepting or rejecting Palestinian Authority concessions was clear.

Israel’s offer to cede its claims to more than 95% of the West Bank was obviously not remarkable enough for him to point out or highlight as having been refused by the Palestinian Authority.

McEwan’s acceptance speech was a farce and indicated that he had a closed mind on the conflict - rather disappointing, considering he had this to say:"

"the novel as a literary form was born out of curiosity about and respect for the individual. Its traditions impel it towards pluralism, openness, a sympathetic desire to inhabit the minds of others.”

Any attempt by him as a novelist to display these attributes was clearly missing in the biased and controversial viewpoints he expressed.

Mc Ewan is certainly entitled to express his opinion. Those listening to him are equally entitled to consider his reliance on factual inaccuracies in the formation of such opinion as sufficient reason to dismiss that opinion as irrelevant and of little value.

Mc Ewan is undoubtedly a novelist of great distinction. He should stick to fiction - which was clearly evident in his inaccurate representation of the realities of the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Come to think of it - given his inaccurate remarks - McEwan would probably have been better staying at home and receiving the award of the Jerusalem Prize in absentia.