Jordan, Arab League and UN fuel Jew-hatred on Temple Mount

 

Jordan, the Arab League and the UN's failure to condemn the virulent Jew-hatred on public display during Ramadan at Islam's third holiest religious site – the Al-Aqsa Mosque – located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - is despicable. 

Thousands of rioters defiled what is venerated as a Muslim Holy Shrine - converting it into a rallying point for flag-waving slogan-shouting Palestinian Arabs armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails to vent their hatred against Jews pictured below:

Clauses 9.1 and 9.2 of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty state:

9.1. Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.  

9.2. In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.

The reaction in the Jordanian Parliament to the rioting - expressed by Jordan's Prime Minister - Bisher Al-Khasawneh - was incredulous:

"I salute every Palestinian, and all the employees of the Jordanian Islamic Waqf, who proudly stand like minarets, hurling their stones in a volley of clay at the Zionist sympathizers defiling the Al-Aqsa Mosque under the protection of the Israeli occupation government"

Instead of publicly condemning his Prime Minister's provocative and offensive remarks and pledging to uphold the terms of Jordan's Peace Treaty with Israel – Jordan's King Abdullah phoned Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi when they:

"stressed the need to cease all illegal and provocative Israeli measures in Al-Aqsa Mosque."

The Arab League called on Israel to end Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount - warning it was a flagrant affront to Muslim feelings that could trigger wider conflict. 

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al Safadi - standing alongside Arab League chief Ahmed Aboul Gheit after an emergency Arab League meeting in Amman stated:

"Our demands are clear that Al-Aqsa and Haram al Sharif in all its area is a sole place of worship for Muslims,"

 Aboul Gheit reportedly said Israel was violating a centuries-old policy according to which non-Muslims may visit the Al-Aqsa compound, Islam's third most sacred site after Mecca and Medina, but not pray there. The briefing to the UN Security Council by Tor Wennesland Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process was equally disturbing.

 "... on 21 April, Jordan convened a ministerial of the Arab League to discuss tensions at the Holy Sites. The Committee issued a statement following the meeting calling for "the respect of the legal and historic status quo."

The legal status quo grants freedom of access for Jews and Christians worldwide to the Temple Mount which the rioters were preventing. The historic status quo involves the continuation of Islam's centuries old practice - agreed to by Israel since 1967 in the hope of helping end the Arab-Israel conflict –that now requires Jews to not mutter one syllable in prayer silently whilst on the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site. 

Wennesland amazingly told the Security Council:

"I welcome statements by senior Israeli officials reiterating Israel's commitment to upholding the status quo and ensuring that only Muslims would be allowed to pray on the Holy Esplanade."

The UN's abject surrender in not specifically demanding that Jordan ensure freedom of access for all people to the Temple Mount under the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty is deplorable 

That the UN should welcome the continuation of an ancient Islamic supremacist practice excluding non-Muslims praying on the Temple Mount represents the endorsement of a policy that in today's world smacks of racism and apartheid deserving of condemnation. 

Jew-hatred is a corrosive human condition that remains incurable. 

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.

Rabin's policies can help break Gantz-Netanyahu deadlock

[Published 5 November 2019]

The prospect of a third election in Israel within twelve months looms large — should Blue and White leader Benny Gantz be unable to form a Government of National Unity within the next two weeks.

To break the current deadlock — Gantz needs at least nine members to defect from the voting bloc of 55 seats led by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Gantz’s cause could be considerably advanced were he to publicly endorse the policies pursued by the late Prime Minister — Yitzchak Rabin — who was assassinated on 4 November 1995.

Rabin made his intentions very clear in his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 when presenting the 300 page “Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” (Oslo Accords) for approval:

“Members of Knesset,

“We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.

“In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.

“At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel — Muslim, Christian, Druze and others — will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

“We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

“And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

1. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

2. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

3. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the “Green Line,” prior to the Six Day War.

4. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”

Rabin had stated in The Australian newspaper on May 27, 1985:

“The Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the Jordan River there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees. One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb.”

Supporting Rabin’s proposals would stand Gantz in good stead as he seeks to form a Government of National Unity and — failing that — in the upcoming election that would hopefully end Israel’s current precarious political situation.


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

Palestine - International Scandal Checkmates Israel

[Published 28 December 2013]


The 2013 World Youth Chess Championships just held in Abu Dhabi have been marred by the scandalous behaviour of the 120 national Chess Federations that agreed to compete against Israeli players as an unidentified group under the banner of FIDE - the World Chess Federation.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) like most Arab countries, does not recognize Israel. In 2009, the country denied Israeli tennis player Shahar Pe’er a visa to compete in the Dubai Tennis Championships, garnering widespread condemnation.

The invitation to compete was clear and unambiguous:

“The UAE Chess Federation and Al Ain Chess Club, under the auspices of FIDE, have the honor to invite all FIDE member federations to participate in the World Youth Chess Championships 2013 (Under 8, 10,12, 14, 16 and 18 years old – open and girls) scheduled 17 (arrival) – 29 (departure) December 2013 in Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.”

Somewhere thereafter the World Chess Federation became a willing player in excluding Israeli children aged 8-18 playing under their national flag and national identity.

Palestine - a member state of UNESCO whilst still claiming to be stateless - has been calling for inane and senseless academic and economic boycotts to be instituted against Israel in support of Palestinian statehood.

Yet Palestine is a member of the World Chess Federation and was represented by two players whose country was designated as “Palestine”.

The ultimate insult to individual Israeli competitors was the failure to list their country as “Israel” in the players’ biographies. Instead they were identified as citizens of “FIDE” - a place with no Capitol, area or population.

Palestinian competitors fared slightly better - players at least having their country identified as “Palestine” in their biographies - although that country too is listed without a Capitol, area or population.

One would be hard put to find a more blatant case of discrimination, racism and apartheid - played out against children to boot.

What mindless morons representing Chess Federations in competing countries like America, Australia, England, Norway, Sweden, Canada and France allowed this farce to be perpetrated?

What have their Governments had to say about this pernicious and underhanded behaviour?

Barack Obama and the European Union share a common silence in failing to raise their voices in protest against delegations from their respective member Federations acting in this manner.

Even worse Israel seems to have accepted its children being treated as non-entities. Why were they not withdrawn from the competition when this heinous conduct was revealed?

Moshe Slav, president of the Israeli Chess Federation told J-Wire:

“It’s true that we were asked to play as the FIDE and that our flag and country name be removed from the tournament web site…but the request was made by Israeli security in order to safeguard the participants.”

Even the Israeli Chess Federation’s web site is carrying an announcement stating that the official web site for the Abu Dhabi tournament:

“which lists all the players and nationalities took down the Israeli flag and has even gone so far as to rename them from the country “FIDE” attributing them the FIDE flag as well. It is a very unfortunate precedent for the World Youth and unheard of until now.”

They add that the Israeli flag was featured when the web site went public but had since been removed

Moshe Slav added:

“Our hosts were very good and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin and the Limor Livnat the Minister for Sport for the wonderful help they provided. Sending the delegation was very costly and I would like to publicly thank through J-Wire those who helped fund the delegation’s costs.”

Did those contributing funds understand that the Israeli delegation would be treated in this shabby manner and that apparently the Israeli Chess Federation would roll over and allow the children to be compelled to play under the cover of anonymity?

At a time when Israel is being accused of alleged discrimination against its Arab and Beduin populations by a bevy of non-Government organisations (NGO) funded by wealthy overseas funds including substantial funding from the European Union - the double standards revealed in the course of this highly discriminatory competition beggars disbelief.

Yet it appears no protest has been raised by any of these NGO’s. Obviously discrimination against the Jewish population of Israel is acceptable. Indeed one would not be surprised if these NGO’s took the view that Jewish competitors - be they adults or children - deserve to be discriminated against in international forums and events such as these championships.

The views of funding organisations such as the Soros Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the New Israel Fund need to be sought out and clarified.

Will this practice now become acceptable at all future international meetings where Israelis attend?

It is about time Israel sat up, took notice and condemned such decisions in the strongest terms and demanded the same rights as are conferred on competitors from other countries - instead of being constantly denigrated and delegitimised in an increasing number of cases of overt Jew-hatred justified as being necessary in the pursuit of the human rights of others.

The World Chess Federation and the member Federations that engineered this blatant discrimination against Jewish children should hang their collective heads in shame.

I have requested the International Chess Federation to respond to this article prior to its publication - but no response has so far been received.

Clinton's $500000 Speech Leaves One Speechless

[Published 21 June 2013]


The thought that anyone was prepared to contribute to paying former American President Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a 45 minute speech at the Peres Academic Centre during the festivities marking Israeli President Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday is truly staggering - especially after hearing what he had to say.

He regurgitated the now dead mantra that the only solution to end the conflict between Jews and Arabs was the “two state solution” - claiming:

“I just don’t think that in all these years a credible alternative has been presented that would preserve the essential character of the state of Israel — a Jewish but democratic state.”

That solution had first been formulated in 1922 by the Mandate for Palestine - then proposed in 1937 by the Peel Commission and in 1947 by the United Nations - only to be rejected by the Arabs on all three occasions.

That same solution was available between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the West Bank or Gaza - and again that golden opportunity was not taken up by the Arabs.

Now in 2013 - Clinton was urging Israel to continue pursuing the same solution under the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap - although such a successful outcome had not been achieved in the last 20 years notwithstanding unprecedented diplomatic pressure being applied by the Quartet - the UN, Russia, America and the European Union.

In a speech singularly lacking in vision - Clinton praised Peres - stating:

“He is one of the great men of vision in the world ... Peres lives in the future, and is always thinking about tomorrow… If you don’t have a vision of where you want to wind up, bad things are going to happen sooner or later… You have a better chance if you are driven by a vision of peace and reconciliation.”

Guest of honor Peres - together with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting next to him - would surely have been miffed to think that visionary proposals suggested by each of them more than two decades ago - were not now considered credible alternatives by Clinton to fill the void left by the doomed two state solution.

On 11 December 1984 Netanyahu told the United Nations:

“Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949.”

Peres had expressed similar views to Netanyahu - telling the Jewish Telegraph on 19 April 1991:

”It is not obstinacy to regard the populations of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as having greater similarities than differences. The Jordan River is not deep enough to turn into a knife blade serving to cut one piece of territory into three slices. Most of Jordan’s population are Palestinians: the residents of the West Bank are Jordanian citizens and Jordan has distributed tens of thousands of passports to residents in the Gaza Strip. Jordan is therefore an existing State. It has an army. There is therefore no need to set up another State, another army.”

Clinton also spoke movingly of his relationship with assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin:

“the saddest day of my presidency was the day prime minister Rabin lost his life ... never a week goes by, even now, that I don’t think of him ...”

Clinton had apparently not thought about Rabin’s vision of peace and reconciliation expressed in the Knesset on 5 October 1995 - just a few weeks before his untimely death.

In presenting the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip for ratification - Rabin declared:

“We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.

In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.

At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel—Muslim, Christian, Druze and others—will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Alas - the visions of Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu were overtaken by the illusions of Oslo and the Roadmap - turning a backroom deal between Israel and the PLO - engineered by Peres - into a diplomatic nightmare and a political disaster.

Clinton still clings to the wreckage of an outdated and rejected proposal Peres helped revive - the creation of a second Arab state in Palestine for the first time ever in recorded history.

Clinton needs to articulate the earlier credible alternatives expressed by his dear friends and visionary heroes - Peres and Rabin - supported by their political opponent - Netayahu.

Jordan needs to become directly involved in turning their long standing visions into reality - if the Jewish-Arab conflict is to be peacefully resolved.

Indeed many Arab leaders including Yasser Arafat, King Abdullah 1, King Hussein and Crown Prince Hassan have expressed similar sentiments to Peres, Rabin and Netanyahu.

All the money in the world would not be enough to pay Clinton if he could turn their combined visions into a permanent agreement.

Palestine - Hands Up Those Who Hate Jews

[Published 5 December 2012]


The Jew-hating genie has been spectacularly unleashed onto the world stage once again following the decision by 138 of the 193 member states of the United Nations General Assembly to accord non-member observer State status to the non-existent state of Palestine.

That vote also ominously endorsed another paragraph contained in the Resolution reaffirming

” the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;”

Such majority consensus supporting the view that all of this territory - not just some part of it - should comprise the State of Palestine - is destined to cause untold suffering among Jews, Arabs and other States caught up in the ensuing turmoil and conflict that is set to follow the passing of this insidious resolution - unless it is quickly reversed.

There are several reasons to justify this gloomy prediction.

Firstly - these 138 States were effectively signing the eviction notices for 600000 Jews who have been legally living in these areas for up to 40 years pursuant to the rights conferred on the Jewish People under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Jews had been living in these same areas for many decades and in some cases centuries until they were driven out by six invading Arab armies in 1948.

Jews had returned there to settle after the Six Day War in 1967 - ending 19 years of uninterrupted occupation by Jordan and Egypt.

8000 Jews moved or were forcibly removed from Gaza in 2005 in a fruitless effort to advance the peace process.

Now all Jews in these territories will once again have to voluntarily pack up and get out or be forcibly removed by the Government of Palestine.

Palestinian President and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has made this “Judenrein” (Jew-free) objective and its successful implementation very clear - telling reporters in Ramallah on 25 December 2010:

“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,”

Supporting the current Resolution without seeking a specific retraction has effectively given Abbas the green light to pursue his racist policy.

Secondly - there is no mention in the Resolution of the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self- determination and independence in their own State - and for good reason - since President Abbas is not prepared to countenance a Jewish State alongside the State of Palestine.

He has made this position manifestly clear on many occasions.

On 1 December 2007 he declared:

“Historically there are two states, Israel and Palestine. Israel is inhabited by Jews and others. We are willing to recognize that and nothing else.”

His view was supported by his Prime Minister - Salam Fayad - who said in an interview at the time with Al-Arabiya TV, that:

“Israel can call itself whatever it wants, but the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state.”

On 28 August 2011 during a speech to Islamic clerics in Ramallah Abbas defiantly stated:

“The international community cannot force us to recognize the nature of the Israeli state. Do not force us to recognize a Jewish state. We will not accept it.”

His statement provoked Israel’s Foreign Minister Liebermann to declare:

“Countries around the world must make it clear to Abbas that the only way the Palestinians will be able to have a state is by stopping their attempt to destroy the only Jewish state in the world,”

Those countries around the world had their opportunity force Abbas to recognise the Jewish State before casting their votes - yet failed to do so.

Thirdly - this infamous Resolution negates the decision of the very same General Assembly in 1947 recommending the creation of one Arab State and one Jewish State in Palestine.

Indeed the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish State has been one of the principal stumbling blocks to the successful conclusion of negotiations under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The majority vote has - deliberately or unwittingly - given oxygen to those who continue to deny the right of the Jews to have their own State - 65 years after the United Nations had first recommended it.

Fourthly - this Resolution makes a mockery of the United Nations Charter which aims:

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”

How any member State can believe these objectives can be advanced by supporting a resolution that will result in:

1. Jews being denied any right to live in the State of Palestine as equal citizens in that State and

2.The Jewish People being denied the right to independence and self-determination in their own State alongside the State of Palestine

- is totally beyond comprehension.

The passing of this Resolution is bound to set in train acts of aggression and breaches of the peace as the State of Palestine and its supporters - armed with the text of this Resolution - flex their collective muscles to undo decisions and actions undertaken pursuant to:

1. the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920,

2. the Mandate for Palestine in 1922,

3. The granting of independence to Transjordan by Great Britain in 1946

4. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter

5. The United Nations decision to partition Palestine in 1947

6. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

7. The Oslo Accords1993

8. The Bush Road Map 2004

Abbas says he now wants to resume negotiations with Israel after his unilateral and ill-advised foray into the United Nations.

What is there to negotiate about but the terms on which those 600000 Jews must leave the State of Palestine and their possible relocation to a State where the Jewish people has no right to independence and self determination.

That is the political and diplomatic nightmare that 138 countries have foisted on the world.

Hopefully those 55 nations that failed to swallow this poisoned pill will take steps to have the General Assembly negate this Resolution - as happened when a Resolution equating Zionism with Racism was rescinded.

The sooner this latest Resolution endorsing policies of hatred against Jews is reversed - the better.

Palestine - Racist And Apartheid Policies Plague Peace Proposals

[Published 31 May 2012]


Mahmoud Abbas - President of Palestine and the Palestinian Authority - Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Movement (PLO) and Fatah - the PLO’s largest faction - has doomed to the garbage bin any possible peace proposals that might be offered by Israel’s new National Unity Government - following his latest outburst in the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahhar:

“We won’t agree to recognize something called the Jewish state. Why wasn’t this issue raised when Israel negotiated with Jordan and Egypt?”

Abbas’s highly inflammatory remark is just one of many similar statements that have been made in the past.

Abbas has clearly indicated that he has no intention of mitigating his view that there is no place for a Jewish State in its biblical and historical homeland - nor in the Palestinian Arab state that he now heads that was internationally recognized on 31 October 2011 with Palestine’s admission to UNESCO as its 195th member state.

His comment only shows that nothing has really changed in the racist policies adopted by the Palestinian Arabs since their rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan proposing the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in what was then left of Mandatory Palestine following the creation in 1946 of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan - now called Jordan - on 78% of the territory initially slated for reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

What is even worse and very worrying is the deafening silence from the international community to Abbas continuing along this racist and apartheid path.

Abbas apparently seems perplexed that the issue of a Jewish state was never raised in negotiations when peace treaties were negotiated between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan.

The answer is very simple.

Neither Egypt nor Jordan had enshrined in their constitutions or their policies any provision remotely approaching clause 20 of the PLO Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

Neither did Egypt or Jordan expressly embrace the policy of Hamas - the Islamic Resistance Movement - as espoused in Article 11 of its Charter:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day.”

Yet Hamas is a movement that Abbas is desperately seeking to bring into a future unity Government under his control.

Until the PLO and Hamas unequivocally revoke and abandon these racist policies Israel has no other course but to insist that recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people is a non-negotiable demand that is not to be compromised under any circumstances in any future negotiations with Abbas.

The campaign of Boycott Divestement and Sanctions (BDS) - promoted and actively supported by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority has been properly described as:

“a negative and one-sided campaign aimed at demonising Israeli Jews irrespective of their political views on the Palestinian question.”

Penalizing individual Jews financially and economically by boycotting the purchase of their goods and the provision of their services is racist and discriminatory. Yet many in the international community continue to warm to such policies - rather than expressing a total loathing and revulsion at such attempts to deny the right of Jews to be treated equally with their Moslem and Christian counterparts in the lawful pursuit of their right to freedom of trade and commerce.

Last played on the Palestinian Authority’s air waves on 12 May - and at least 24 times before then - is a song which contains the following lyrics:

“We commit and promise to stand behind you, oh Mahmoud Abbas, until Judgment Day.
I am returning to you, the purest land, oh land of the free. No matter how long the nights of exile,
I am returning to you, oh land. From Rafah to Rosh Hanikra (northern Israel) our coast, and Beit Shean (Israeli city).
Above your soil, oh my land, is a picture of Garden of Eden. From Rafah to Rosh Hanikra our coast, and Beit Shean.
Above your soil, oh my land, is a picture of Garden of Eden. From Rafah to Rosh Hanikra, north and south, are the picture’s borders.
From Haifa (Israeli city) and Tantura to the [Jordan] valley (i.e., all of Israel). I am returning to you, the purest land, oh land of the free.”

Abbas has also made it abundantly clear that he will tolerate any Jews living in any Palestinian Arab State.

The dissemination of such sentiments may be justified as part of the individual’s right to freedom of expression.

However, when such views are promoted and actively supported by the President of a State - the bona fides of the President and that State to sue for peace must be seriously questioned.

Given these recent expressions of open racism and official Government support of on-going efforts to isolate and denigrate Jews - one can confidently predict that nothing Israel offers will ever be acceptable to the Palestinian Arabs.

Palestine presently has a tenuous hold on Gaza and about 40% of the West Bank.

Statements and policies like those identified above ensure that these present areas of Palestinian statehood are not likely to be expanded any further.

Abbas needs to shape up - or ship out.

Palestine - Time To Tell The Truth

[Published 15 December 2011]


Republican front runner for next President of the United States - Newt Gingrich - has done himself and his campaign great credit in branding the Palestinians as an invented nation.

Gingrich stirred up a real hornets’ nest when he said in an interview with the Jewish Television Network:

"Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman empire. I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it’s tragic"

Gingrich has subsequently refused to back down and has now gone even further in stating:

"The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story. Somebody oughta have the courage to go all the way back to the 1921 League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland, point out the context in which Israel came into existence, and “Palestinian” did not become a common term until after 1977. This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage. And we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies. And you’re not gonna win the long run if you’re afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth."

This propaganda war has been successfully waged by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since its creation by the KGB in 1964.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service in an interview with Front Page Magazine on 1 March 2004 spilt the beans on the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime when he said:

"The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow."

The language used in the 1964 version of the PLO Charter was slick - designed to establish that “Palestine belongs to the Palestinians”. Who could possibly disagree with that motherhood statement - especially if it was repeated ad nauseum?

The problem was that the Charter’s definition of “Palestinians” included only the Arab residents of former Palestine and a limited number of Jews.

"Article 6. The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.

Article 7. Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine."

It didn’t take long for this gratuitous acceptance of some Jews to virtually vanish when the 1968 edition of the Charter declared:

"The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians."

Non-Arab Christians and non-believer residents of former Palestine were totally rejected as being Palestinians. Their descendants as well as the descendants of any of the Jews who had lived in Palestine since the beginning of the Zionist invasion were persona non grata in their homeland of their birth.

If that seems like racism,smells like racism and is still contained in the PLO Charter today - then it is racism.

Article 24 in the 1964 version of the Charter also excluded any claim by the Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza - and by inference to Jordan - which together had comprised about 80% of former Palestine

"This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area."

This article was subsequently deleted from the Charter following Jordan’s loss of the West Bank and Egypt’s loss of Gaza in the Six Day War in 1967.

The significance of that deletion - and indeed the invention of the Palestinians in 1964 - was underscored when the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Zuhair Mohsen told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

Total rejection of international law by the Palestinians was also part and parcel of this invented nation - since the League of Nations in 1922 and the United Nations in 1946 had already recognized the legitimate right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine whilst the United Nations had admitted Israel as a member on 11 May 1949.

Article 17 of the 1964 Charter expressed this view in the following manner:

"The Partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination."

By 1968 Article 17 had been excised and replaced by Article 20 which declared:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Gingrich’s statements are indeed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The PLO has seen its propaganda campaign succeed to a stage where “Palestine” has been admitted as a member “state” of UNESCO in apparent contravention of the UNESCO Constitution, the Montevideo Convention and customary international law..

The PLO’s stated intention of liberating and replacing both Israel and Jordan in the United Nations as its 192nd member still remains unrevoked in the PLO Charter.

Seventeen years of fruitless PLO negotiations with Israel have now been virtually abandoned - with the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and advocated by President Bush in his Roadmap now in its death throes.

Gingrich’s message to the PLO is clear - return to the negotiating table and hammer out a deal with Israel or face the consequences if this has not happened and Gingrich becomes America’s next President.

The PLO cannot say it was not warned.

Palestine - UNESCO Rebuffs, PLO Huffs And Puffs

[Published 2 November 2011]


The PLO application seeking admission of Palestine to the UN has been dealt a serious blow - after 86 of its 193 members failed to support a mirror application for Palestine to join UNESCO.

The poor UNESCO majority vote recorded in favor is even more remarkable when one excludes the 56 Islamic member States - whose vote to recognize Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was always assured. Only 51 of UNESCO’s remaining 137 members were prepared to publicly out themselves in support of the PLO application.

Any of the four following reasons could be possible explanations for this rebuff to the PLO and could signal a similar disastrous outcome when the UN deals with the Palestine issue later this month:

1. Member States were concerned that any favorable UNESCO decision would be in breach of Article II (2) of UNESCO’s constitution- which only provides for States to be admitted to full membership.
2. Palestine does not possess the attributes for statehood required in customary international law and codified in article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933.
3. Palestine could have chosen an easier and less controversial option by applying for associate membership of UNESCO as a territory which was not responsible for the conduct of its international affairs under Article II (3). Such an application - however - would have been an admission that Palestine was not a state - dooming the UN application to almost certain defeat.
4. The UNESCO vote came just days after PLO Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - sought to appease the UN by admitting that the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan was a “mistake“.

Non-supporters of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO would have had serious reservations after hearing Abbas’s untruthful and misleading remarks to Israel’s Channel 2 on 28 October:

“At the time, 1947, there was [General Assembly] Resolution 181, the partition plan for Palestine and Israel. Israel existed. Palestine diminished.”

Arafat was clearly misrepresenting the situation in 1947 since:

(i) The partition plan was not for Palestine and Israel. It was for partition into a Jewish State and an Arab State
(ii) Israel did not exist in 1947.

Abbas however had every reason for stressing that Palestine had been diminished by 1947 - since 78% of Palestine had been granted independence by Britain in 1946 when it was permanently placed under Hashemite control and re-named the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Britain’s action was in flagrant violation of article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine - which required Britain to see that no Palestine territory should be ceded or leased to or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

The PLO has never accepted Britain’s decision.

Article 2 of the PLO Charter still insists that Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan is one separate and indivisible territorial unit that must be liberated.

Not content with reminding those listening that the PLO still coveted all of this area - Abbas then attempted to ameliorate its intransigent stance in rejecting the 1947 partition plan by stating:

“It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole. But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?”

This statement must have sent shudders through the UNESCO waverers.

Abbas was being totally untruthful in failing to acknowledge that the Arabs had from 1948 to 1967 to correct their 1947 mistake - after six Arab armies had invaded a “diminished Palestine” and Jordan had ended up occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem whilst Egypt had occupied Gaza and all the Jews then living in those areas had been driven out.

Blaming Israel for 19 years of Arab failure to do anything to create Palestinian statehood could explain why many states did not support the push to recognize a fictitious Palestine now.

Abbas had already blotted his copybook when he told Dream 2 TV on 23 October:

“First of all, let me make something clear about the story of the ‘Jewish state.’ They started talking to me about the ‘Jewish state’ only two years ago, discussing it with me at every opportunity, every forum I went to – Jewish or non-Jewish – asking: ‘What do you think about the “Jewish state”?’ I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.’

This clear repudiation of the 1947 UN Partition Plan calling for a Jewish state indicated a resolute refusal to ever live in peace with its Jewish neighbour - making the possibility of the two state solution an impossible dream to accomplish.

Such a display of unadulterated racism and hatred could have also weighed heavily on the minds of many UN member states as they failed to support Palestine‘s admission to UNESCO.

The preamble to the UNESCO Constitution requires the Governments of the State Parties to declare on behalf of their people:

“That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed;
That ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war; “

Believing Palestine could ever respect and honor these lofty principles after Abbas’s remarkable statements during the few days prior to the UNESCO vote could have been the final nail in the coffin for so many states voicing their displeasure and failing to support Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

The fact that the PLO still was refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel to peacefully resolve the creation of a Palestinian State- preferring instead to take unilateral action at UNESCO and the UN - could be another explanation for the poor vote recorded in UNESCO.

Whatever happens from here on in at the UN - the UNESCO vote shows that the UN vote will not be the cakewalk predicted by the PLO.

The PLO can huff and puff - but a large number of the UN members have made it clear they are not prepared to be blown down in the process.

Palestine - Unleashing The Self-Determination Genie

[Published 17 June 2011]


It is hard to believe that the possibility of the Palestinians successfully approaching the UN in September and obtaining “a license to statehood“ is even being seriously contemplated.

The Palestinians have never comprised a separate and unique group in recorded history.

Their defining Constitution - the PLO Charter - which only came into operation in 1964 makes this quite clear in Article 1 which states:

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

Palestinians are Arabs - part of the Arab nation currently comprising 21 independent States. The vast majority of Arabs only came to live in Palestine in the 20th century at the same time as the country was being opened up and developed by the return of the Jews.

Article 5 again confirms the Arab identity of the Palestinians by declaring:

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

Jews and non-Arab Christians residing in Palestine in or after 1947 are excluded. This smacks of apartheid and racism at its worst - which the international community accepts without a whimper.

Any approach to the UN in September will seek to have the UN recognize a Palestinian State in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza - which runs counter to the provisions of Article 2 of the PLO Charter which affirms:

“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

British Mandatory Palestine comprised:

1. Jordan - almost 77% of Palestine
2. Israel - about 17% of Palestine and
3. Gaza and the West Bank - the remaining 6% of Palestine

Would the Palestinian Authority be prepared to forgo its claim to Jordan and Israel as a quid pro quo for UN recognition? I doubt it.

The fiction that constitutes the Palestinian identity is revealed in Article 4 of the PLO Charter:

“The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children.”

Certainly at the time the Mandate for Palestine was created in 1922 by the 51 nations comprising the League of Nations - no Palestinian identity rated a mention. The Preamble to the Mandate document spoke of :

“ … the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine .."

The censuses undertaken by the Turkish and English authorities in Palestine had always been based on counting the numbers of Jews, Moslems and Christians. The idea of a separate Palestinian identity never arose.

In 1946 Transjordan (now Jordan) was granted its independence by Great Britain. No attempt was made to define its Arab residents as Palestinians. They were called Trans-Jordanians and later Jordanians - even though that territory comprised almost four fifths of Palestine and the entire population comprised Arab nationals residing in Palestine at the time.

In 1947 the UN Partition Plan proposed for Palestine spoke of dividing the remaining 23% of the territory of the Mandate into a Jewish State and an Arab State - not a Palestinian State.

After the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza had been occupied by the invading armies of Jordan and Egypt from 1948-1967 - the Palestinian Arabs chose to unify the West Bank and East Jerusalem with Jordan in 1950. West Bank and East Jerusalem Arabs became Jordanian citizens. Any claim to a separate Palestinian identity was still well and truly hidden from sight. The State they now demand could have been created at any time during those 19 years when not one Jew lived there after all had been driven out during the 1948 War.

1964 really marked the starting point for a claimed Palestinian identity as defined in the PLO Charter. A very successful campaign undertaken during the last 47 years has seen this identity internationally deserving of recognition as a distinct separate and national group.

But what does this say for long standing authentic national and secessionist movements such as the Kurds, the Tibetans, the Chechens, and the Basques?

If the road to self-determination can be successfully pursued through the UN by the Palestinian Arabs on what is at best a contrived and artificial identity - then how can the UN possibly refuse to grant similar recognition to these other far more credentialed and long standing peoples with their own history, culture and language going back centuries and even into antiquity?

If the Palestinian Arabs can have a state recognized by the UN - what arguments can possibly justify the UN refusing to accord the same status and recognition to these other groups ?

In the case of Palestine the legal conditions required for the declaration of a Palestinian State - as laid down in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - are not capable of being met unless first agreed in direct face to face negotiations with Israel.

A similar obstacle impedes the many other nationalist and secessionist movements around the world and makes their independence or breakaway conditional on agreements being successfully negotiated with their host states.

The large number of these movements looking on with keen interest from the sidelines can be gauged from the following survey [http://www.jinsa.org/jinsa-reports/palestinian-un-vote-fraught-global-implications:

“There are 37 recognized and recognizable secessionist movements in Africa. There are 65 in Asia, including 13 in Burma, five in China (Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians among them). Russia straddles continents and faces five secessionist movements in Asian Russia and 13 more in European Russia, including Chechens. The rest of Europe has more than 50, including 18 in Italy and nine in Spain. France has four irredentist movements, four secessionist movements, five autonomist movements and several movements to change the borders of Departments. There is one each in Poland, the Netherlands, Romania and Switzerland. Parties in Greenland want to secede from Denmark and in Puerto Rico they want to secede from the United States - which also has American Indian, Southern and Texan movements to secede, as well as one in Manhattan and one in New York State. The Miskito Indians want to secede from Nicaragua and Chiapas from Mexico. French and British colonies in the Caribbean and Oceania have separatist movements.”

The UN needs to tread carefully to avoid unleashing the genie of self-determination by ignoring the well established principles of international law. This genie will have the capacity to wreak havoc in the conduct of the affairs of a large number of UN member states who will have their flanks exposed to similar demands.

As you sow - so shall you reap.

Palestine, Brazil And Argentina - Outing The Jew Haters

[Published 13 December 2010]


Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas openly espouses Jew-hating qualities under the three hats he currently wears.

1. As President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) - Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home.

2. As Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - Abbas is sworn to enforce the provisions of its Charter which prescribes:

“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

3. As Chairman of Fatah - the largest faction in the PLO - Abbas presided over a meeting of its Revolutionary Council on 27 November which resolved:

“The Council stresses the revolutionary rejection of the so-called ‘Jewish state’ and any formula [that] can be considered in future contribution to achieving this end, and renew this rejection of any attempt by a racist state based on religion, in accordance with international law and human rights charters…”

Abbas has gone even further and persuaded Brazil to out itself as a Jew-hating State by calling for the recognition of a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan, Egypt and Israel “on 1967 borders”.

There were no “1967 borders“ - as Brazil must surely know - only 1949 demarcation lines that had been established between

1. Israel and Egypt on 24 January 1949 and

2. Israel and Transjordan (now called Jordan) on 3 April 1949

- to designate the armistice lines where hostilities had ceased between the nascent State of Israel and the six Arab armies that had invaded it in May 1948.

Brazil’s recognition signifies that 500000 Jews presently living on the Arab side of those demarcation lines in the areas called the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem - will either have to voluntarily leave or be forcibly removed from their homes and businesses.

Brazil’s decision - which smacks of the infamous Nazi “Judenrein” policy that called for the mass deportation of Jews from their homes and businesses before and during World War 11 - is in breach of existing international law specifically:

1. Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine - which recognized the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in precisely the area that Brazil now wants to see cleared of Jews - which Brazil itself agreed to when the Mandate was unanimously approved by the League of Nations in 1922

2. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - which reserved the rights of Jewish settlement granted by the Mandate - which had also been endorsed by Brazil when the UN Charter came into being.

Argentina has been quick to follow Brazil’s headlong rush into identifying itself as a fellow Jew-hating state. Expectations are that they will be soon joined by Uruguay and some other South American countries.

Both Argentina and Uruguay were also - like Brazil - consenting signatories to the Mandate and Article 80.

One cannot stop people or States being Jew-haters but on the other hand they need to be identified and exposed.

Racism and vilification of this kind have no place in humankind.

In the case of those States which choose to follow Brazil and Argentina - one would hope to see their citizens protesting loudly at such a decision. Standing by and doing nothing will only stigmatize the citizens of those States as Jew-haters.

Neither Brazil nor Argentina have made any call on the PA to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home in return for the recognition they have now extended to the PA.

Brazil and Uruguay supported the creation of a Jewish State proposed by the UN in 1947. Argentina abstained.

All three countries became places of refuge for fleeing Nazis at the conclusion of World War 11. Their shadowy past seems to be coming back to haunt them.

Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay never recognized the attempted annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Transjordan in 1950.

Israel’s position on the status of these areas was explained by Israel’s then Foreign Affairs Minister - Moshe Sharett - in Israel‘s Parliament on 3 May 1950 as follows:

“The Government Spokesman issued the following statement, in the Government’s name: “The decision to annex the Arab areas west of the River Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a unilateral step to which Israel is not a party in any way. We are connected with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan through the Armistice Agreement, which we will uphold rigorously. This agreement does not include any final political settlement, however, and no such settlement is possible without negotiations and a peace treaty between the sides. It must be evident, therefore, that the question of the status of the Arab areas west of the River Jordan remains open as far as we are concerned.”

This position holds true today - with the exception that the areas cannot be described as “Arab areas” since they are now inhabited by 500000 Jews as well. Many of the Jews returning to live there after 1967 had been forced to leave their homes and businesses following Jordan’s conquest of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948.

Announcements by countries such as Brazil and Argentina signifying their assent to the wholesale deportation of this Jewish population once again sends a dangerous message of support to the 21 Jew-hating States comprised in the Arab League - which have unanimously endorsed the Saudi Peace Plan in 2002 calling for precisely such an outcome.

This call should be contrasted with the view expressed by President Bush to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004:

“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.”

Brazil and Argentina - and any other States that are attracted to follow them - have some serious explaining to do to justify their decision in endorsing an outcome in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that requires both areas to be completely cleared of Jews.

Palestine - Obama Can't End The Racist Rant

[Published 12 August 2010]

US Middle East Special Envoy - George Mitchell - has again been rebuffed by Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - in refusing to resume direct negotiations with Israel.

Following a three hour meeting between Abbas and Mitchell on 10 August the Palestinian Authority Chief negotiator - Saeb Erekat - said:

“The meeting was fruitful and profound, but there was no agreement on going to direct talks,”

No doubt pressure will continue to be mounted by President Obama to have Abbas return to direct talks with Israel.

The real question to be asked however is - what agreement can any such talks hope to deliver?

The basic fundamental to reaching any agreement from Israel’s point of view is the recognition of Israel as the Jewish State by the Palestinian Authority.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made this very clear on 14 June 2009 when he said:

“The key condition is that the Palestinians recognize in a clear and public manner that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, The heart of the conflict has always been the Arabs’ refusal to accept the existence of the Jewish state”

Perhaps some encouragement could be taken by Israel from the recent remark made by President Abbas on 9 June 2010 when he reportedly stated:

“I would never deny [the] Jewish right to the land of Israel,”

This is a welcome and long overdue statement from Abbas - one which has not since been retracted by him.

It could be taken to be a repudiation of the following statement made by Abbas in November 2007:

“Historically, there are two states - Israel and Palestinian. Israel has Jews and other people, and this we are ready to recognize, but nothing else,”

His latest statement however comes at a time of extreme political weakness on his part and appears to have very little backing from anyone else on the Palestinian side.

Hamas rules in Gaza and continues to show no signs of entering into any agreement to reconcile its political differences with the Palestinian Authority. The Hamas Charter unabashedly calls for the eradication of the Jewish State.

Abbas’s belated support for a Jewish State has already been swiftly undermined by the appearance of an open letter on 29 July signed and endorsed by a large number of prominent Palestinian luminaries described as:

“scholars, intellectuals, artists, activists, trade unionists, human rights advocates and civil society leaders, inside historic Palestine and in exile “

in which they criticise Abbas’ statement declaring:

“We regard this announcement, which adopts a central tenet of Zionism, as a grave betrayal of the collective rights of the Palestinian people.”

They continue:

“No Palestinian institution or leader has ever accepted an exclusive Jewish claim to Palestine,which is irreconcilable with the internationally recognized rights of the Palestinian people. Our rights inhere in us as a people; they are not yours to do with as you please.”

Of course these signatories purposely choose to ignore the facts that:

(i) Israel comprises only 17% of Palestine
(ii) Jordan comprises 77% of Palestine and
(iii) Gaza and the West Bank make up the remaining 6% of Palestine.

Their message is clear however - there is no room for a Jewish State in any part of former Palestine.

This open letter perpetuates the refusal of the Palestine Liberation Organization - headed by Abbas - to accept or acknowledge that Jews have been given the legal right in international law to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

In further support of these rejectionist views Al-Jazzerah has now published on 8 August a declaration by the Movement For One Democratic State in Palestine stating:

“The conflict in Israel-Palestine cannot be resolved until its fundamental source is addressed. That source is the premise of partition. We reject the Zionist claim that Jewish people have rights to a separate state in Palestine.”

President Obama has yet to comprehend that these anti-Jewish sentiments remain an irreconcilable bar to achieving any resolution of the conflict. They run counter to the view of President Obama expressed by his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on 15 June 2009:

“The president is committed to two states, a Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples,”

Any talks - direct or indirect - in the absence of a complete change of heart by both the Palestinian leadership and the majority of its constituents effectively prevents Israel from making any compromises - territorial or otherwise - in the West Bank.

Israel is not going to trade away its internationally acquired status as the national homeland of the Jewish people for anything less than unconditional recognition as the Jewish State - not only by the Palestinian Authority but also by the 21 Islamic member states of the Arab League.

Until the Arabs come to their senses and reject their 63 years of continued and unrelenting opposition to the notion of a Jewish State existing in their Islamic midst - all attempts at reconciliation remain a complete and utter waste of time.

It is abundantly clear that no Palestinian Arab consensus on a Jewish State has yet emerged that would indicate any optimism that Israel and the Palestinian Authority could achieve an agreed resolution to their conflict by now entering into direct negotiations.

Abbas remains a lame duck President - illegally clinging to power despite the expiry of his term of office and unable to carry his constituency with him on recognizing Israel as the Jewish state.

The only remaining way forward to address the current impasse is for direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to divide the sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective states. Such negotiations will not end demands for a a second Arab State in historic Palestine or the destruction of Israel. They will however complete the division of sovereignty of Palestine between the Arab and Jewish successor states to the Mandate for Palestine.

The political dividends that remain to be reaped from pursuing such a policy and the transformation this will bring to the lives of the West Bank Arab population are becoming rapidly more evident with the passing of each day.

The racist rant will continue and Israel will have to deal with - and defuse - any military threat to its existence as it has been forced to do on so many occasions since its founding in 1948.

That is the reality and nothing Obama does will change that reality.ublished

Obama Silent On Palestinian Authority Incitement And Racism

[Published 7 July 2010]


President Obama missed a wonderful opportunity to reprimand Palestinian Authority (PA) Chief Negotiator - Saeb Erekat - for his hate-filled and racist remarks made at a meeting held by the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York just ten days ago in the presence of Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor.

That opportunity was afforded President Obama at a joint press conference he held with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the conclusion of their meeting in the White House on 5 July.

President Obama’s failure to do so was even more apparent as he told the gathered press corps:

“I think it’s very important that the Palestinians not look for excuses for incitement, that they are not engaging in provocative language; that at the international level, they are maintaining a constructive tone, as opposed to looking for opportunities to embarrass Israel.”

Mr Erekat’s remarks were racist, highly provocative and amounted to incitement on a level never heard from so senior a member of the PA before. Maybe this is what triggered President Obama’s warning. However without any direct - and public - Presidential rebuke or reprimand - the President’s call amounted to nothing more than hot air devoid of any context which led to it being made.

Addressing the IPI meeting Mr Erekat had this to say:

“There are roads today in the West Bank that we cannot use as Palestinians — only Israelis can use. And look — such diseases as racism and bigotry, once it inflicts underneath our skin, we have tended to justify it, sometimes [indiscernible], sometimes economically, sometimes psychologically, and sometimes even sexually. Today Israel is justifying this apartheid regime in the West Bank by security terms – that’s racism"

.“

Absent was any comment or acknowledgment by Mr Erekat that there are other roads in the West Bank that are closed to Jews.

Describing Israel’s concerns as “security pretexts” and translating those genuinely held concerns into policies promoting apartheid and racism indicates that Mr Erekat’s position as Senior Negotiator for the PA has been seriously compromised.

In answering questions Mr Erekat affirmed his earlier inflammatory comments - stating

“And I’m sorry that term, racist policies, angered some here. I don’t know what to call it. I don’t know what’s the definition for it. I said that in Tel Aviv University. I said it’s shameless.It is shameless. It is shameless, in 2010, there are roads in the West Bank Christians and Muslims cannot use under security pretexts. Never in the darkest hours of South Africa’s apartheid were blacks prevented to use roads. You’re angry? Do something about it! Ignoring facts don’t mean they don’t exist. 42 years after a corrupt occupation, yes, it’s developing. It’s developing towards an apartheid system,”

These comments brought the following response from Mr Meridor:

“It’s quite strange to hear of apartheid from people who says everybody has a right to build in the West Bank provided he’s not Jewish. This is okay. Everybody can build in Jerusalem if it’s not Jewish. This is okay. To say that people cannot live in a certain place because they are Jews is fine. So to speak of apartheid is really, it’s very popular in some circles, but it’s somewhat strange.”

No doubt Mr Erekat is experiencing a deep sense of frustration as the last seven years of negotiations with which he has been intimately associated have gone nowhere. Frustration leads to resentment but any diplomat worth his political salt must learn to curb his tongue and refrain from public statements that undermine the very essence of continued negotiations.

Mr Erekat’s remarks clearly fell within the parameters of President Obama’s warning.

In failing to directly and openly reprimand Mr Erekat for his statements, President Obama has indicated by his silence that Mr Erekat has carte blanche - so far as America is concerned - to engage in the use of similar language in the course of the future conduct of any negotiations between Israel and the PA.

President Obama’s deafening silence was matched by IPI Chairman Terje Rod-Larsen who compounded and condoned Mr Erekat’s inflammatory language when summing up:

“Yet we’ve had here at the International Peace Institute two of the people who are leaders at the very front line of this conflict arguing their case passionately, persuasively, honestly, and I’d say courageously, and I was also just about to say, and with restraint and very well mannered.”

Any balanced assessment of Mr Erekat’s outrageous behaviour would conclude otherwise.

Israel will scarcely be able to complain about the future use of such language by any PA officials unless it takes a stand now and calls for the removal of Mr Erekat as chief negotiator.

Charges of racism and apartheid against Israel by PA officials need to be stamped out once and for all.

Mr Netanyahu told President Obama:

“I think there are solutions that we can adopt. But in order to proceed to the solutions, we need to begin negotiations in order to end them. We’ve begun proximity talks. I think it’s high time to begin direct talks. I think with the help of President Obama, President Abbas and myself should engage in direct talks to reach a political settlement of peace,coupled with security and prosperity.”

Given the expressed views of Mr Erekat - he should not be included in any such direct talks.

As a negotiator Mr Erekat has been a total failure in his ability to come to a concluded agreement with Israel. That the PA continue to use his services is obviously a matter for the PA alone to decide.

However in view of Mr Erekat’s intemperate statements - it is time for Israel to insist on Mr Erekat’s exclusion from the resumption of any direct talks as a condition of Israel’s future participation.

Israel’s sense of national pride and its national interest demands it takes such a stance. Accusations of racism and apartheid by top PA officials should not be condoned by Israel under any circumstances.

Mr Erekat has dug his own grave. In doing so - he may just have managed to secure peace for himself enabling him to live out his remaining years in his home town - Jericho - rather than the international arena.

Gaza,Goldstone and Gallstones

[Published September 2009]

From a legal perspective Israel is not subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court nor do the provisions of the Geneva Convention apply to Gaza since it is not part of the territory of any state signatory - called a “High Contracting Party” - to the Convention.

Gaza still is “no mans’ land” under international law where sovereignty is yet to be decided.

It should be remembered that Israel officially only evacuated Gaza in 2005. It has not ceded any claim to Gaza or parts of Gaza under the rights conferred on the Jewish people pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of that territory.

Israel had the inherent right of self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter if an armed attack was made on it. That it absorbed 7000 rocket and mortar attacks after evacuating Gaza in 2005 before undertaking the invasion of Gaza last December would not have been endured for such a lengthy period by any other member of the United Nations had they been the recipient of such a barrage of rockets and mortars indiscriminately fired into civilian population centres.

There may well be some rotten eggs in Israel’s basket. War is a great dehumanizer and soldiers can act in inhuman ways under the stress of war - and can be very trigger happy especially when the enemy you are confronting does not wear uniforms and hides among the civilian population.

Israel has and is still continuing its ongoing investigations into the invasion of Gaza and will no doubt bring to justice those whose conduct is found to be unacceptable. The Goldstone Commission’s dismissal of these investigations as “pusillanimous” is made without a scintilla of evidence in support.

The Report will be extensively used and quoted to beat Israel over the head in a multitude of UN forums and in the General Assembly as part of the campaign by the 56 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to delegitimize Israel.

The Report will be used to support new calls for:

(i) economic and political boycotts of Israel
(ii) disinvestment in Israel and
(iii) for outlawing Israel as a pariah state in the international community

The Goldstone Commission came about as a result of a Mandate given to it by the UN Human Rights Council on 12 January 2009 by a vote of 33 to 1 with 13 abstensions. 15 of the 33 affirmative votes were from members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the remainder included countries with disgraceful human rights records like Angola, Cuba, China, Nigeria, the Russian Federation and Nicaragua.

The Commission was appointed on 3 April 2009 and its members comprised Richard Goldstone, Christine Chinkin, Hina Jalani and Desmond Travers.

Goldstone, Jalani and Travers had signed an open letter, published 16 March 2009, addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Security Council Ambassadors. It stated:

“...we believe there is an important case to be made for an international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict…A prompt, independent and impartial investigation would provide a public record of gross violations of international humanitarian law committed and provide recommendations on how those responsible for crimes should be held to account…We urge world leaders to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable…The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core…We must also establish the truth about crimes perpetuated against civilians on both sides."

Christine Chinkin had signed a letter dated January 11, 2009, which appeared in The Times, stating:

“Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence - it’s a war crime.”

In addition, the letter stated:

“The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence …Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence”.

All of the appointed Commissioners had therefore begun this inquiry with their minds made up. Israel was to be hung drawn and quartered. Any semblance of impartiality or lack of bias among the Commission members went out the window before the Commission had even started its proceedings. In failing to disqualify themselves they totally negated the validity of their findings.

Hamas violence against its own Gazan citizens during Israel’s invasion was apparently not deemed to be part of the Commission’s mandate.

A report prepared by Human Rights Watch dated 9 April 2009 alleged that during Israel‘s invasion:

“Hamas security forces or masked gunmen believed to be with Hamas extra-judicially executed 18 people, mainly those accused of collaborating with Israel. Masked gunmen also beat and maimed by shooting dozens of Hamas’s political opponents, especially members and supporters of its main political rival, Fatah.

The internal violence in Gaza has continued since Israel withdrew its forces. Palestinian human rights groups in Gaza have reported 14 more killings between January 18 and March 31, 2009.

So far, this violence has gone mostly unpunished. Despite promises to investigate unlawful killings and other abuses, Hamas authorities, to Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, have only investigated one alleged killing by members of their security forces or armed wing…

Hamas security forces have also used violence against known Fatah members, especially those who had worked in the Fatah-run security services of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Of particular concern is the widespread practice of maiming people by shooting them in the legs, which Hamas first used in June 2007, when it seized control inside Gaza from Fatah. According to the Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR), the human rights ombudsman organization of the Palestinian Authority, unidentified gunmen in masks deliberately inflicted bullet wounds to the legs of at least 49 people between December 28, 2008 and January 31, 2009. [http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0409web.pdf]

The Goldstone Report will not have anything like the political affect that the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution had in the aftermath of its passing by the UN General Assembly on 10 November 1975 until it was subsequently revoked on 16 December 1991.

Israel’s then Ambassador to the United Nations - Chaim Herzog described that resolution in the following terms:

“For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such.”

Israel should adopt the same view in relation to the Goldstone Report.

Israel’s response should be to proceed apace to build up the state by the ingathering of Jews from around the world and to continue with its brilliant technological , medical and scientific successes, whilst holding its head high among the nations of the world as a true democracy among a sea of repressive and oppressive regimes. It should make sure that the security of its 7.5 million citizens (including 1.5 million Arabs) is guaranteed from anyone who would seek to attack it and ensure it maintains defensible borders to enable this to happen.

This is the best route for Israel to take to avoid any attack of gallstones caused by Goldstone and his kangaroo court.