Palestine - Abbas Attempts The Turkey Trot

[Published January 2010]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas visited Turkey on 6 January and attempted to dance his own version of the Turkey Trot - 100 years after its first introduction to the ballroom floor.

The Turkey Trot was a dance made popular in the early 1900s. The basic step consisted of four hopping steps sideways with the feet well apart, first on one leg, then the other with a characteristic rise on the ball of the foot, followed by a drop upon the heel. The dance was embellished with scissor-like flicks of the feet and fast trotting actions with abrupt stops.

Abbas seems to have now adopted some similar fancy footwork in his approach to resuming negotiations with Israel

He reportedly told Turkey’s assembled diplomats that he was ready to resume talks with Israel if Israel recognized the legitimacy of the Annapolis peace process initiated in November 2007 - which he said was a road map that required Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian and Arab territory and from East Jerusalem.

His statement to the Turkish diplomats marks a remarkable sideways step by Abbas who had previously refused to resume negotiations with Israel unless Israel froze all building activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and also recognized the 1967 armistice lines as the border of a future Palestinian State.

Abbas however seems to have been dancing on one leg in front of the Turkish diplomats because the Annapolis process

•Does not bind the current Israeli Government
•Does not require Israeli withdrawal from “occupied Palestinian and Arab territory and from East Jerusalem”

- as Abbas led the Turkish ambassadors to believe for the following reasons:

1.The then Israeli Government in 2007 never ratified Annapolis - nor did the Knesset - Israel’s sovereign Parliament.
2.The one document that binds Israel is its ratification of the 2003 Road Map formulated by President Bush and adopted unanimously by the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations subject to 14 reservations made by Israel and communicated in writing to President Bush.
3.Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - made it quite clear to Abbas and the world leaders assembled at Annapolis on 27 November 2007 that the negotiations under Annapolis were to be “based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter from President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Letters from American Presidents to Israeli Prime Ministers are important documents and none was more important than the one President Bush wrote to Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to procure Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza.

That letter made it clear - amongst many other commitments - that the Arabs could not expect to regain 100% of the West Bank and Gaza in any negotiations with Israel.

The Arabs however refused to play ball and insisted on 100% - not the 93% offered by Israel plus an additional area from Israel’s sovereign territory to make up the remaining 7% that would be retained in the West Bank by Israel.

Instead of pressuring the Arabs to accept this proposal the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - sought to pressure Israel into more concessions that would have seen the West Bank ethnically cleansed of Jews who had returned to live in their biblical heartland since 1967 - after having been kicked out of there in 1948 by six invading Arab armies.

In going for Israel’s jugular the Quartet cut its own collective wrists and - with assured predictably - failed to get an agreed outcome by the Annapolis expiry date - 1 January 2009.

Abbas’s crocodile tears and slick foot movements are now the order of the day. Like the Annapolis Conference they are a total waste of time.

Perhaps Abbas should now reflect on the only game in town - the Roadmap - and Israel’s 14 reservations to it - and reflect why six years of negotiations have so far come to nought.

Abbas’s cursory dismissal of these 14 reservations by Israel has been one of the major obstacles to achieving any negotiated settlement of the claims by Jews and Arabs to sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza

The first of those reservations immediately indicates why the Roadmap cannot succeed whilst it remains unimplemented:

“In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure, collection of all illegal weapons and their transfer to a third party for the sake of being removed from the area and destroyed, cessation of weapons smuggling and weapons production inside the Palestinian Authority, activation of the full prevention apparatus and cessation of incitement. There will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror. The security plans to be implemented are the Tenet and Zinni plans.”

There is nothing unambiguous in Israel’s demands - dismantle Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other terrrorist groups, end weapons smuggling and weapons production.

If Abbas seriously wants to return to the Annapolis process then he needs to affirm the parameters on which any negotiations will be conducted and acknowledge the centrality of the letter from President Bush to then Prime Minister of Israel - Ariel Sharon - on 14 April 2004 and accept Israel’s reservations to the Road Map.

The sooner Abbas acknowledges and accepts these two crucial documents as integral to any negotiations, the sooner he might find a partner to do the Turkey Trot with him.

Both partners will still however have to really engage in some scissor like flicks of the feet - if any progress is ever going to be made in achieving the creation of a brand new sovereign Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Fatah and Hamas - Reconciliation Or Divorce Of The Year?

[Published January 2010]

The world waits with bated breath as the marriage counsellor - Egypt - frantically tries to bring Fatah and Hamas to the mosque to renew their vows once again after a particularly bruising and public slanging match that has seen the West Bank and Gaza split into separate Hamas and Fatah fiefdoms whilst supporters of both factions have been murdered, imprisoned, tortured, discriminated against and had their legs broken over the past two years.

The situation in the past year alone is best summarized by the Cairo Institute For Human Rights Studies in its December 2009 Report titled “Bastion of Immunity, Mirage of Reform” :

“Under the cover of the war in Gaza, Hamas embarked on several repressive measures targeting Fatah members, figures who oppose Hamas’ rule, and suspected collaborators with Israel, and it is suspected that dozens of people were killed, either shot to death or as a result of torture. Hamas personnel also broke the legs and arms of dozens of other people to compel them to stay in their homes. Also, some government employees in Gaza were replaced with Hamas loyalists.

In the West Bank, under the authority of Fatah, hundreds of Hamas sympathizers remain in detention; it is thought that at least two of the detainees have died as a result of torture. The West Bank authorities fired civil servants and teachers suspected of Hamas sympathies, while the salaries of thousands of employees of the Palestinian authority inside the Gaza Strip were suspended. Licensing for associations and companies in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip is now preceded by a security check,and those organizations that have affiliations with the “wrong” party are refused Licenses.”

News reports are very confusing concerning the progress reached by these two antagonists in becoming reconciled once again with each other.

Sri Lanka’s Daily News reports that Hamas head Khaled Meshall visited Saudi Arabia on 2nd January and told Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Affairs Minister:

“We made great steps forward reconciliation,”

though he made clear that Hamas still has some points to settle regarding the Egyptian reconciliation proposal which was made last October and unconditionally signed by Fatah in Cairo but not by Hamas since then.

On the other hand Xinhua News Agency reported that Mohamed Dahlan a member of the Fatah Central Committee ruled out any forthcoming reconciliation stating:

"Hamas movement is the only party that obstructs reaching an inter-Palestinian reconciliation deal… it is also because that Hamas stance is controlled by regional powers."

He was no doubt referring to Hamas’s financial backers, arms suppliers and exporters of terrorism - Syria and Iran.

Yet any delay in reconciling was denied by Hamas spokesman - Ahmed Yousef - who said that reports that Hamas does not want to sign the Egyptian reconciliation protocol are:

“… untrue and rootless. Hamas leaders are ready to go to Cairo once they are invited to sign the pact. Hamas movement doesn’t want to make any change in the text of the Egyptian drafted pact of reconciliation. However, there are some notes that need to be clarified and amended through a session of dialogue, then Hamas will sign the reconciliation agreement"

No doubt any such side understandings will be not be made public making any publicly revealed document not worth the paper it is written on.

However Egypt may not be issuing an invite to Hamas to visit Cairo very soon following protests over an international aid convoy to Gaza, led by George Galloway, which turned violent on 6 January at the border between Egypt and Gaza killing one Egyptian soldier and leaving dozens injured.

Egypt has also come under fire recently from Hamas for stepping up efforts along the Egyptian border to stop tunnel smugglers from moving supplies into Gaza. Egypt’s construction of an underground barrier to cut off the tunnels has drawn criticism from a number of neighbouring Arab states, who call the barrier a “wall of death.”

Egypt maintains that it is protecting its borders, and that aid to Gaza should be sent via internationally recognized channels.

Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is certain to have further exacerbated relations with Hamas by telling Kuwait Times on 6 January:

"They (Egypt) have a right to protect their borders," he said, hinting the tunnels were being "misused".

The international community is certainly anxious to see the reconciliation take place as soon as possible. European Union Foreign Affairs supremo Catherine Ashton told the Strasbourg Parliament on 15 December 2009:

“Today, however, the Palestinians are divided both politically and physically. Credible negotiations require a strong and united Palestinian partner. Israel stands to gain, not lose from a strong Palestinian partner.”

I doubt that Israel will see it this way. Any idea of negotiating on the future status of the West Bank with a team containing any Hamas members would be a certain “no-no”. Israel regards Hamas as a terrorist organization and would be extremely reluctant to engage in negotiations with a joint Fatah-Hamas team.

Israel’s national interest must surely be best served by keeping Hamas from gaining any position of power, control or influence in the West Bank.

Hamas has also made it clear that it will never negotiate with Israel. On 21 June 2008 Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan slammed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and told Xinhua News Agency :

"We are not thinking of trying the ridiculous negotiations that the others have tried but failed to remove a single checkpoint in West Bank….

adding that

"the Zionist enemy must depart and recognize the Palestinian people’s rights."

Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant 1988 also makes this refusal to negotiate with Israel abundantly clear in stating:

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours."

All in all the prospects of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah look very bleak indeed - especially when one looks at the provisions of Article 27 of the Hamas Covenant which make it clear that Hamas is opposed to a secular State of Palestine as proposed by Fatah - the major organization that controls the Palestine Liberation Organization:

"Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies. That is why, with all our appreciation for the Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser. The day the Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.”

Therein lies the basic problem forever preventing any lasting reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah - unless Fatah abandons the secular State and adopts the formation of an Islamic State as its goal.

For Hamas to also give up - and surrender - its present territorial power over Gaza to Fatah seems a most improbable scenario.

If however Hamas and Fatah were - for whatever reason - to eventually reach a reconciliation of convenience they would certainly not be sleeping in the same bedroom. Neither could possibly trust the other after what has occurred between them over the past two years.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join in this discussion

Professor John Quigley - Professor of Law at Ohio State University - has urged America to recognize a Palestinian State. His article can be viewed at:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/23/3277847/us-can-hot-wire-mideast-peace.html

I have posted a reply and urge others to do likewise. I will respond to all comments to my post.

Brainwashed Or Brain Dead?

Editor: When you read Marty Morrison's article you will see how Goebbels was right: in claiming that if you repeat a lie often enough, it is believed. I did what we all have to do when this happens and responded to her anti-Israel article with "just the facts", just the provable facts, point by point.

Hats off to the Independent Australian as well for publishing both the article and my response.

[Published 27 November 2010]

Marty Morrison's article ‘Marty In Palestine’ (9.11.2010) contains factually false and/or misleading statements, contends David Singer.

1. “The sympathy that the world community had for Jews following the horrors of World War II blinded people to the dispossession of the Palestinians.”

In fact world sympathy for the Jews had been established after World War 1 with the creation of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1920 calling for the “reconstitution of the Jewish National Home” in Palestine after thousands of years of exile, anti-Semitism and pogroms.

The Arabs have never recognized this unanimous and binding legal declaration by the League and this has been the source of their misfortune ever since.

2.” historians say the Palestinians have inhabited the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea for more than 13 centuries.”

There was no designated group called “Palestinians” until 1964. During the 400 years rule of the Ottoman Empire (1519-1919) the population was divided into “Jews”, “Moslems” and “Christians”. This practice continued during the Mandate (1920 -1948). The Mandate document itself only referred to “the existing non-Jewish communities”. The UN partiton Plan (1947) only spoke of a "Jewish" state and an "Arab" state.

3. “In 1917 at the time of the Balfour Declaration Palestinians comprised 70 per cent of the population and owned more than 90 per cent of the land.”

The Arabs only owned 8% of the land and the Jews 6%. The rest was state land vested in Turkey and forming part of the Ottoman Empire.

4. “One way to do this is to stand with the Palestinians and Israeli activists when homes are being destroyed, when more Jewish settlements are being constructed on Palestinian land”

Homes have been destroyed pursuant to court decisions ruling their construction illegal or as a result of the application of Jordanian laws still applicable in the West Bank. The land is not “Palestinian land”. It is at this point of time "no man's land". Its legal status is that it forms part of the remaining 5% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine still unallocated in accordance with the terms of the Mandate. Jews are legally entitled to settle anywhere in the West Bank under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter.

5. “One can understand the Palestinians’ frustration and apprehension for the future when one considers that when the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states in 1947 the Jewish state received 55 per cent of the land and the Arab Palestinians and Christian Palestinians got 45 per cent of the land”

More than 70% of the 55% offered to the Jews comprised the arid and sparsely populated Negev desert. The 45% offered to the Arabs was mostly the fertile and contained the majority of the Arab populated areas. The Arabs rejected the UN offer as they had previously done in 1937 when rejecting the Peel Report recommendations.

The Arabs could have had what they now demand in 2010 - at any time between 1948-1967. Had they been prepared to negotiate and recognize Israel in the five years following the 1967 War the political landscape today would have been entirely different. Their refusal to accept less than 100% of the West Bank and Gaza over the last 17 years and their expressed desire to destroy Israel has seen their position further deteriorate.That is their prerogative but it is a bit late to cry over spilt milk. Their leaders have led them – and apparently well intended persons such as Marty – up the proverbial garden path.

6. “In the ensuing war the Israelis captured even more land, so that at the cease-fire the Jews were in control of three-quarters - leaving just 22 per cent of land for the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza)."

The Jews only controlled 17%. Jordan controlled 83%, which it unified into one country with the consent of the West Bank Arabs in 1950. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized that reunification. The Arabs could have created a separate state out of that 83% at any time between 1948-1967 but did not do so and did not request one. They were the architects of their own missed opportunities.

7. “The boundary at this time came to be known as the Green Line.”

There was no boundary – only an armistice line that had been in existence following the end of hostilities in 1949.

8. “After the war in 1967 the Israeli army conquered all of Mandated Palestine”

Incorrect. 78% of Mandated Palestine had been granted independence in 1946 and was not conquered by Israel in 1967. The West Bank (Judea and Samaria are the Biblical names for this area) and Gaza – conquered by Israel in 1967 – was only 5% of Mandated Palestine.

9.” I hate to write this but I firmly believe that Israel, by and large, wants the Palestinians to disappear and are therefore deliberately colonising the West Bank”

Israel is clearly failing in this “objective” if Marty only took the time to look at the increasing West Bank Arab population and improvements in their standard of living. Since 95% of the West Bank Arab population is now under total Palestinian Authority administration after the Oslo Agreements in 1993. Marty's “firm belief” is a load of nonsense and amounts to racial vilification,

10. “Jews are invited to come to live in the West Bank from every country on earth.”

Why does this worry Marty? Jews have this right legally granted to them under the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. They had done this prior to 1948 before they were driven out of the West Bank by six invading Arab armies.

11. “Settlers live freely without any of the curtailments of the Palestinians”

The Jews live behind barbed wire and stringent security restrictions with their schools and public places all under security guard protection and for good reason.

12. “I realise that the burden of my account is at odds with the information supplied by the skilled Israeli public relations officers and government ministers.”

Marty's account sure is. She appears to have relied on a whole lot of dishonest material given to her by her Arab hosts. It is a pity she didn’t check the veracity of this material before rushing into print. Had she done so she might have had a better perspective on the conflict between Jews and Arabs that has gone on for the last 130 years.

West Bank - Jews Worldwide Have Legal Rights

[Published January 2010]

Catherine Ashton - High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission - was merely parroting European Union policy 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.”

It was justification enough however for Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to pen an article in the Wall Street Journal on 30 December 2009 pointing out that Israel considers these territories to be “disputed territories” rather than “occupied territories” - the nomenclature adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.

Mr Ayalon stated the reasons for Israel‘s position as follows:

“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.”

Mr 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.”

Mr Ayalon was affirming that the West Bank was at present “no man’s land” in which no recognized State - including Israel - had yet attained sovereignty.

The current claimants - Israel on behalf of the Jewish people and the Palestinian Authority (PA) on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs - are yet to finally negotiate on and conclude the allocation of sovereignty between them based on their competing claims.

It was therefore particularly pleasing that Ms Ashton stated:

“ Negotiations should be based on international law and respect previous agreements.”

This should be seen as a welcome statement from the European Union since the international law dealing with the legal status of the West Bank and Jewish rights to claim sovereignty there has been consistently and studiously - perhaps even deliberately - overlooked since Israel‘s capture of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a prime example of such oversight.

In its 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the security barrier constructed by Israel - the ICJ omitted to even mention - let alone consider - the international law applicable to the entitlement of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank by close settlement on West Bank land - including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

These rights were vested in the Jewish people pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1920 and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The failure of the ICJ to consider these Jewish rights is exacerbated by the fact that one of the Judges who heard the security barrier case - Judge Elaraby - gave this warning to his fellow 14 judges sitting on that case:
"... the international legal status of the Palestinian Territory merits more comprehensive treatment" .

Judge Elaraby identified the need for such a review saying:

"A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on one or more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently sidestepped."

The failure of the ICJ to consider the legal status of the West Bank was therefore inexplicable.

Judge Elaraby continued:

"The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date,is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain"

True the Arab League has never accepted the Mandate in which inalienable Jewish rights to closely settle the West Bank were created. But they were created by the unanimous vote of the then members of the League of Nations, still do exist for the benefit of the Jewish people today and are entitled to be taken into consideration in negotiations on the future sovereignty of the West Bank.

The Jerusalem Post reported on 25 September 2008 that there were 13.3 million people around the world who define themselves as Jewish and who do not belong to any other faith according to a survey conducted by Prof.Sergio Della Pergola from the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute and the Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University.

5.55 million Jews live in Israel and 7.75 million live outside Israel, meaning 58.7 percent of World Jewry now resides outside the Jewish state.

The reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in the West Bank is as much a concern for a large number of those Jews living outside Israel as those who live within Israel - if not for themselves going to live there then for their children and future generations who might want to do so.

Ms Ashton is therefore to be commended on drawing attention to the need to base any resumed negotiations on international law.

Ms Ashton further stated:

“The EU will continue to support and work closely with the US via the Quartet [America, Russia, EU and the United Nations - author]. The Quartet needs reinvigoration. The current stalemate in the peace process demands it. The Quartet can provide the careful yet dynamic mediation that is required.”

The first steps in that invigoration should involve the Quartet gaining a full understanding of:

1. The current legal status of the West Bank and
2. Jewish rights to claim sovereignty in the West Bank under international law.

Ms Ashton said she will be travelling to the region shortly adding:

“ My main objective will be to meet the main actors and see first hand how the EU can be a force for change. I think we all share the overall and overriding priority of a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Not negotiations for negotiations sake but negotiations to achieve a peace deal and turn the page. We cannot, and nor, I doubt can the region tolerate another round of fruitless negotiations. Negotiations have taken place on and off for several years starting with the Oslo Declaration of Principles signed in September 1993.”

Negotiations to achieve that peace deal can only realistically take place within the context of the European Union recognizing Jewish rights to sovereignty in the West Bank and comprehending the current legal status of the West Bank.

Otherwise her visit to the region will end up in total failure like the hundreds - if not thousands - of earlier attempts at peace making by well intended but totally misinformed envoys.

Headhunt Hamas or Heil Haniyeh

[Published January 2010]

What is Israel - and the World - to conclude when Gaza’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh addresses 100000 cheering Gazan Arabs on 14 December 2009 to mark 22 years since the formation of Hamas and tells them:

“We will never give up on Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.

It is not enough for Hamas to liberate Gaza, nor to establish an emirate in Gaza, nor a state, nor an independent entity… Hamas strives to liberate all of Palestine.”

Is this the rant of a madman or a leader on a deadly - but seemingly hopeless - mission to get rid of 6.5 million Jews who live in what was formerly 22% of the British Mandate for Palestine - today called Israel and the West Bank?

When Haniyeh talks of liberating “all of Palestine“ does he also include the remaining 78% that is today called Jordan?

Is his territorial conquest only related to “all of Palestine” or does it extend far beyond Palestine’s former boundaries?

One can draw an analogy in Haniyeh’s message with a disbelieving world which blithely ignored Hitler’s warnings in his book “Mein Kampf” - written in 1923 - calling for territorial conquest and a war on the Jews. 16 years later and because of such complacency World War 2 resulted.

Hitler was in 1923 the failed leader of a coup, possibly a future potential leader but without power, land or an army and languishing in prison. His writings in 1923 could have been regarded as no more than expressed fantasies incapable of fulfillment.

Hamas- formed in 1987 - had its own constitution which clearly set out its quest for the identical goals as Hitler wrote about in 1923 - territorial conquest and a war on the Jews - but in addition contained provisions calling for the subjugation of Christianity and Judaism to Islam, the defeat of secularism and the overthrow of secular Arab regimes making peace with Israel.

The major difference from 1923 was that the Jews now had their own country - Israel - and an army to defend them. Israel represented the major obstacle to Hamas achieving all its stated goals.

This made the Hamas fantasy far more difficult to believe as its sights were directed towards the improbable destruction of Israel as the first step in achieving its international ambitions.

Hamas in 1987 - like Hitler in 1923 - was a dream without any foundation of power, land or an army.

Yet today Hamas exercises power and rules over territory which contains 1.5 million citizens. Gaza is home to a large number of terrorist groups many of whom swear allegiance to Hamas and others who are allowed to operate from Gaza with impunity.

Hamas has an army of well trained and disciplined fighters and is steadily building up a huge supply of rockets and armaments in pursuit of its goal to liberate all of Palestine.

The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Hamas cannot be discounted.

Haniyeh’s coup in ousting the Palestinian Authority from political control of Gaza in 2007 did not fail as Hitler did in 1923 - but was achieved in a matter of days with spectacular success.

Whilst the governments of Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, Australia, and the United States classify Hamas as a terrorist organization - Haniyeh basks in the international limelight with such persons as Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Assad, Britain’s George Galloway and former American President Jimmy Carter beating a path to his door.

Haniyeh hides behind the findings of the Goldstone Report believing Israel’s hands are tied in the actions it can take in future to uproot Hamas from Gaza following its unsuccessful attempt to do so one year ago.

Haniyeh basks in the international opprobrium following Israel’s invasion that sees well meaning but ill informed organizations and members of the public focusing their anger on Israel for seeking to protect its citizens from threats like that being uttered by Haniyeh - instead calling for boycotts of - and divestment from - anything that has to do with Israel.

These sympathisers ignore the provisions of the Hamas Covenant which provide that:

1. Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction of the principles of Hamas… These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitrators.
2. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.
3. Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be. It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.
4. Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and Lions Clubs, are nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs… These organizations operate in the absence of Islam …. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.
5. Jews were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate,making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration,formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
6. Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators. Egypt has already been cast out of the conflict, to a very great extent through the treacherous Camp David Accords, and she has been trying to drag other countries into similar agreements in order to push them out of the circle of conflict. [Jordan has since signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 - author]
7. Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.
8. Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam,Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.
9. Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought.

These are no longer expressed fantasies being dreamt up by someone powerless to execute them - nor are they limited to hatred of Jews only. Christians, secularists,and Arab States making peace with Israel are also targets.

From the Hamas perspective the time for achieving these goals is rapidly approaching - particularly as consistent efforts are made by many in the international community to delegitimize the State of Israel.

There is no longer any room for complacency - as might have existed in 1987. Appeasement is not an option.

The defeat of Hamas and its hatred filled agenda, its removal from Gaza and the freeing of Gaza’s citizens fed up with the devastation wreaked by Hamas control must be confronted and dealt with before Hamas sucks the world into another unwanted war.

Palestine - Two-State Option Stymied

[ Published December 2009]

Any hope of creating a new Arab state between Israel, Egypt and Jordan has been stymied after the following statement was made by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on December 28:

“Today, 8 months after our government was formed, we have formulated a broad national consensus on the principles to approach the negotiations with the Palestinians in order to achieve peace and security. The two principles are clear, there are others - the recognition of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, and of course, security measures that guarantee effective demilitarization and other principles that I have already expressed.”

These two principles -

1.recognizing Israel as a Jewish State and
2.demilitarization of a future Palestinian State

- were first stipulated by Israel as two of fourteen reservations made by Israel at the time of its acceptance of the Road Map issued by President Bush in April 2003.

They have been consistently maintained by all Israeli Governments since then.

Reservation 5 made by Israel to President Bush stated :

“The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.”

Reservation 6 stated:

“ In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.”

On 23 May 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made the following statement from the White House:

"The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace. The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap.

The United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns, and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the roadmap to fulfil the President’s vision of June 24, 2002.”

On 25 May 2003, the Israeli Cabinet met and by a majority resolved:

“Based on the 23 May 2003 statement of the United States Government, in which the United States committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the Roadmap during the implementation phase, the Prime Minister announced on 23 May 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the Roadmap.

The Government of Israel affirms the Prime Minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the Administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the Roadmap.”

Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - told Haaretz on 28 May 2003 that the 14 reservations made by Israel had nothing to do with him. He said:

“They don’t interest me,”

Haaretz reported that as far as Abbas was concerned, the only document that mattered was the road map that was finalized in December 2002 and handed over to the parties at the end of April 2003. Nothing more, nothing less. Abbas continued:

“We do not accept each side picking and choosing only those specific elements that are convenient for them in the road map.

The map was prepared last December and we accepted it, despite our own comments and reservations. We wanted to give this initiative a chance, but it’s impossible to continue inventing comments and reservations after it was submitted.”

This was a very intransigent - indeed foolish and naïve - attitude to adopt in the face of President Bush having specifically invited both sides to comment on the Road Map.

The response from President Bush to Israel’s reservations acknowledged that Israel’s concerns were real and they would be fully and seriously addressed during the implementation phase.

It is inconceivable that President Obama would repudiate the Bush assurances given to Israel.

Both principles have been rejected by the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions in the past and no doubt will be met by further adverse comment after Mr Netanyahu’s announcement this week.

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat commented on 16 June 2009 in Haaretz on the issue of demilitarization:

“He (Netanyahu) will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him with this feeble state.”

President Abbas told Reuters on 27 April 2009 on recognizing Israel as the Jewish State:

“I do not accept it. It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic—it is none of my business.”

Israel’s reservation went far beyond an issue of terminology - and Abbas knew it. It was resisted by Abbas because it was seen as denying millions of Arabs the right to emigrate to Israel thereby changing the demographics of Israel to seriously dilute or even overtake the Jewish majority.

Rejection by the Palestinian Authority of demilitarization and the recognition of Israel as the Jewish State coupled with rejection by Israel of the Palestinian Authority’s demands that Israel cede sovereignty over every square metre of the West Bank and remove 500000 Jews presently living there amount to a joint public declaration by both sides that any further negotiations between them - if ever resumed - are going to be a complete waste of time and will achieve no result.

The Palestinian Authority has shown no interest in resuming negotiations with Israel since it announced a ten months moratorium on housing construction in the West Bank on 25 November.

The announcement now made by Mr Netanyahu will only act as a further excuse for the Palestinian Authority to continue to refuse to negotiate.

The Palestinian Authority’s use by date as a negotiating partner with Israel to determine the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza has surely now been reached.