Israel - A Boycott Without A Buoy

[Published 22 April 2011]


The recent attempt by the Marrickville Council in Sydney to impose a boycott on its purchase of Israeli goods and products spectacularly collapsed after the Council was advised by its Chief Officer that enforcing the boycott would cost its ratepayers four million dollars.

When people have to put their money where their mouth is - an idea that seems attractive in the first place suddenly becomes very much less desirable. So it proved to be with Marrickville Council.

What is of more concern however is that a boycott should never have been entertained by the Council in the first place - given the nature of the campaign as articulated by its originators.

In July 2005 “Palestinian civil society” called for a “global citizens response” under the following manifesto:

“The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

The following inaccuracies and misrepresentations are immediately apparent in this manifesto:

1. Those calling for the boycott have themselves been breaching their obligations under international law for the last 90 years by declaring in Article 20 of the PLO Covenant:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

2. “Everything that has been based on” the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine” includes:

(i) The Versailles Peace Conference 1919
(ii) The San Remo Conference 1920
(iii) The Treaty of Sevres 1920
(iv) The exclusion from 1923 of 77% of the Mandate area in which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted and its subsequent creation as the Arab State of Transjordan in 1946
(v) Article 80 of the United Nations Charter
(vi) The creation of the State of Israel in 1948
(vii) The Armistice Lines established by the UN in 1949
(viii)The joint decision of West Bank and Jordanian Arabs to unify the West Bank and Jordan in 1950
(ix) UN Security Council Resolution 242

Surely those being asked to boycott Israel should be first demanding Palestinian excision of Article 20 from their Charter and observance by Palestinians of the above body of international law as the price for supporting any boycott.

Supporting law-breakers who continue to willfully ignore the law should certainly not be countenanced.

3. With the exception of the Golan Heights - none of the land occupied by Israel in the 1967 War can be designated as “Arab lands” - since sovereignty in such lands remains undetermined.

Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950 was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan. Jordan relinquished whatever claims it had in 1988.

These lands are presently “no man’s land” over which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are making sovereign claims that can only be resolved in direct face to face negotiations - which have now stalled because the PA refuses to resume such negotiations with Israel.

Supporting the boycott encourages the continuation of this negotiating gridlock and is contrary to what the international community is demanding.

4. Calling for Jews to stop settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - (termed “colonization” under the manifesto) contravenes article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Seeking to exclude anyone but Palestinians from living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is racist, discriminatory and constitutes apartheid - and brands those who support a boycott on this ground as supporters of such an outrageous and offensive policy.

5. Israel has already made it clear that the Wall - where built on “no-man’s land” - will be dismantled when secure and recognized borders between Israel and a Palestinian State are established in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Boycotting Israel for not demolishing the wall whilst these legal requirements remain unresolved - yet again indicates support for those who have scant regard for international law.

6. Full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens in Israel already exists.

Those being asked to boycott Israel should seek clarification as to what fundamental rights are being denied to Arabs in Israel that are enjoyed by Arab residents in the West Bank and Gaza.

7. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has never been binding on Israel.

Professor Julius Stone states in his book “Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations"

“General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11,1948 … did not even purport to be in in mandatory terms, but was merely parts of the terms of reference of the Palestinian Conciliation Commission. A recital in Resolution 273 (III) of May 11, 1949, admitting Israel to the United Nations “recalled” that Resolution 194 (III) provided an option for refugees to return to their homes, and compensation if they opted not to return, but it immediately in the same recital “noted” the declarations and explanations made by Israel before the ad hoc committee in respect of the implementation of that resolution. Since Israel’s declarations and explanations did not unquailifiedly accept the resolution, this can in no way be regarded as creating a legal obligation.” (p.68)

Then of course there is the hypocrisy inherent in seeking to selectively decide what to boycott - such as cosmetics, foodstuffs, sweets, supermarket shelves and other soft targets - but not life-saving cures, medical breakthroughs, high-tech components used in IT systems, water technologies and electric cars.

The boycott was initiated in 2005 on the basis of a manifesto that was both false and misleading.

Those silly enough to be drawn into its net without fully understanding that law-breaking and racism permeate its manifesto - only have themselves to blame for being duped and labelled naïve and foolish.

Had Marrickville Council taken the time to properly understand what the Council was being exposed to - the fiasco that followed their initial decision would not have occurred. Others being similarly minded to embark on such a mindless and irrelevant journey hopefully won’t now fall into the same trap.

This is a boycott full of holes that is slowly sinking to the bottom of the sea of deception that created it.

Palestine Recognized - United Nations Delegitimized

[Published 14 April 2011]


Any decision by the United Nations General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian State next September could signal the beginning of the end for the United Nations as a credible organization pledged to uphold the rule of international law in dealings with - and between - member states.

Its current reputation for doing so is under real threat even now - as calls for it to withdraw further consideration of the flawed Goldstone Report are being made following Justice Goldstone’s recent admission that the Report wrongly alleged that Israel had deliberately targeted Gaza’s civilian population during its invasion of Gaza in December 2008.

Goldstone’s Report had been tainted and compromised from the outset because all four Commissioners appointed by the UN Human Rights Council were biased - and in accordance with well established legal principles should have recused themselves from taking part in the Inquiry.

Failing to initially reject any consideration of this biased Report has now landed the General Assembly in its present predicament. Continuing to consider the Goldstone Report will indicate the General Assembly is prepared to ignore the law where it conflicts with a particular political objective. This is a recipe for disaster and inevitably must lead to the total loss of any credibility.

Should the United Nations actively attempt to do another “Goldstone” - by acting in defiance of a well established body of international law - then it could well end up imploding like its predecessor - the League of Nations.

Israel’s President - Shimon Peres - warned this week that whilst Israel believes in a two-state solution - it must be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, not imposed by the international community.

Failure of the General Assembly to heed this message - by ignoring international law - can only lay the groundwork for another war

Vesting Arab sovereignty for the first time ever in recorded history in the whole or any part of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza - can realistically only happen in direct negotiations to which Israel is a party. Other alternatives to the creation of a new Arab State may have to be considered and negotiated if this currently preferred option cannot be realised.

The UN Documentation Search Guide sets out the following UN objective:

“International law is a primary concern of the United Nations. The mandate for the activities in this field emanates from the Charter of the United Nations which, in its Preamble, sets the goal “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.

International law specifically dealing with Palestine that must be respected and upheld by the United Nations includes:

1. The Versailles Peace Conference 1919
2. The San Remo Conference 1920
3. The Treaty of Sevres 1920
4. The Mandate for Palestine 1922
5. Article 80 of the UN Charter 1945
6. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)

This body of law conclusively establishes that:

1. the Jewish National Home is to be reconstituted in Palestine within secure and recognized boundaries - without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities
2. close settlement by Jews is to be encouraged on the land within such determined boundaries including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes

Any attempt to now deny the Jewish people these vested legal rights - without Israel’s agreement - will indeed be an exercise in futility.

Additionally the provisions of customary international law embodied in the Montevideo Convention 1933 sets out in Article 1 four criteria for statehood :

1. a permanent population;
2. defined territory;
3. government; and
4. capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Short of a miracle occurring before September - there will not be:

1. any single Arab Government in control of all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza - reputedly the territory designated to be the subject of the proposed General Assembly resolution
2. any permanent population in the designated territory over which any Arab declarant could claim to exercise control
3. any ability by any Arab government in those areas to enter into relations with other states and honour commitments made with those states.

As it did in 1947 - the General Assembly could examine the current situation and make its own recommendations to the parties. But these would be recommendations only - requiring the consent of both parties before they could be implemented.

Entertaining any other attempt to bring the matter to the General Assembly would undermine and could lead to the repudiation of:

1. the Oslo Accords - whose status even now is very questionable and
2. the Roadmap - to which the United Nations is committed to implementing as part of the four member Quartet comprising itself, the United States, the European Union and Russia
3. Changed circumstances on the ground since such a State was first proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and by the United Nations in 1947 make the possibility of the creation of such a State now only possible to achieve in direct negotiations with Israel.

The opportunity that existed between 1948-1967 to unilaterally create such a State with the stroke of an Arab League pen - when all Jews living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza had been expelled by seven invading Arab Armies - is no longer available.

The reputation and integrity of the United Nations is at stake if efforts continue to procure the passage of a resolution to recognize a Palestinian State by the General Assembly in September.

America has already issued a precautionary warning against such action.

White House Middle East advisor Dennis Ross said this week:

“We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN. Our position on that has been consistent in opposition.”

UN Secretary General Ban-Ki moon - and the General Assembly - would do well to heed this warning before embarking on this pointless journey to nowhere.

Goldstone Gazumped On Gaza

[Published 5 April 2011]


Richard Goldstone now faces bitter condemnation from Israel following his belated admission that his infamous Report was wrong in finding that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians during its invasion of Gaza in December 2008.

Goldstone has now attempted to lay the blame for this gross and defamatory libel at Israel’s feet for refusing to give evidence before his Inquiry - a kangaroo court and a UN sanctioned set-up in every sense. This claim is as outrageous as his earlier flawed findings.

Goldstone has belatedly confessed that the initial mandate given to him by the UN Human Rights Commission was “skewed” and was changed at his insistence. He goes even further in now stating:

“ I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”

But Goldstone still remains silent on his own bias and that of the other three members of his Tribunal - Hila Jalani, Desmond Travers and Christine Chinkin

The Hon. Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE in evidence given to the Australian Senate on 10 August 2007 best sums up the role judges must assume and be seen to assume:

“There are qualities of character and disposition to be desired in all judges. The supreme judicial virtue is impartiality. Both partiality and the appearance of partiality are incompatible with the proper exercise of judicial authority. The one poisons the stream of justice at its source; the other dries it up”

Before their appointment as Commissioners by the President of the UN Human Rights Council on 3 April 2009 - Richard Goldstone, Hila Jalani and Desmond Travers were among 16 signatories who had signed an open letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and the Security Council Ambassadors on 16 March 2009 in which they stated:

“As individuals with direct experience of international justice and reconciliation of conflict, 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.

Without setting the record straight in a credible and impartial manner, it will be difficult for those communities that have borne the heavy cost of violence to move beyond the terrible aftermath of conflict and help build a better peace.

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.”

The words “credible”, “impartial“, and “independent” feature prominently in this part of the statement.

Not content however with stressing the nature of the investigation they desired - the signatories went on to declare:

“We urge world leaders to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable by any party on any count. We call on them to support the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the Gaza conflict. The commission should have the greatest possible expertise and authority and: a mandate to carry out a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation of all allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict”

Again the signatories stressed the commission of inquiry was to be “impartial” - yet they had already concluded there had been targeting of civilians.

The letter continued :

“The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core.”

Surely given the public display of their feelings - and the conclusions they had already publicly drawn - the appointment of these three signatories to the Commission should never have been made.

But there is more that can be gleaned when one looks at their qualifications as set out in that letter.

Desmond Travers disclosed he was currently a Director at the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI). Hila Jalani failed to mention she was also a director at the same Institute. Richard Goldstone did not mention that he was on the Council of Advisors of the same Institute.

Perhaps this failure of disclosure of association could be explained as an oversight by one or other of them in failing to reveal their close professional and working relationship, their ability to influence each other or even have a common mindset devoid of any of them exercising their own independent judgement.

However when one looks at the United Nations Press Release dated 3 April 2009, more detailed curricula vitae of these three Commissioners are given - but again their common identification with the IICI is not disclosed.

Additionally Richard Goldstone is disclosed as having been a Governor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Surely he should have disqualified himself on that fact alone. But he didn’t. He said he was ‘‘shocked, as a Jew,’’ to be invited to head the mission.

‘‘It adds an additional dimension .I’ve taken a deep interest in what happens in Israel. I’m associated with organizations that have worked in Israel. And I believe I can approach the daunting task that I have accepted in an even handed and impartial manner.’‘

Goldstone apparently believed he could be even handed and impartial, But that is not the test. Any semblance of partiality should have resulted in his disqualification.

Chinkin had similarly placed herself in a position of conflict by signing a letter which appeared in The Times on 11 January 2009 stating:

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

In addition, the letter continued:

“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 four Commissioners should have recused themselves from sitting. They all share responsibility for the enormous harm suffered by Israel as a result of their refusal to do so.

The decent and fair thing for them all to do now would be to formally advise the Human Rights Council to tear up their Report and for all UN proceedings discussing the Report to be expunged from the UN records.

Gaza And Libya - UN Speaks With Forked Tongue

[Published 23 March 2011]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are both occupied - or both are not.

Will the Secretary General please indicate which is correct?

Obama - Confronting The Killing Culture In Palestine

[Published 17 March 2011]


The brutal murder of five members of the Fogel family including three children aged 11, 4 and 3 months - whilst asleep in their house - could only elicit the following pathetic response from President Obama:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the murder of five Israelis in a terrorist attack in the northern West Bank, and we offer our condolences to their loved ones and to the Israeli people. There is no possible justification for the killing of parents and children in their home. We call on the Palestinian Authority to unequivocally condemn this terrorist attack and for the perpetrators of this heinous crime to be held accountable.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - in answer to Obama‘s statement - countered by stating:

“They [Israel] are now investigating and there’s no news about who perpetrated this crime. I don’t know why they are insisting on accusing the Palestinian people.”

Not a word of condemnation was uttered by Abbas against Palestinians who celebrated the Fogel family slaughter by handing out candies and sweets to a joyful crowd in Rafah after the news of the massacre became public. They are his people and Abbas should have been appalled at such behavior.

Obama’s call for the Palestinian Authority to unequivocally condemn the murders also received short shrift from Abbas - who reportedly told the Jerusalem Post that the international community must know that settlers are targeting villages, mosques, houses and olive trees every day - and was then quoted as saying:

“The international community and Israeli society need to know about these crimes because this is a crime and that is a crime too,”

There you have it - the slit throats of innocent men, women and children equated to vandalism of olive trees.

For Abbas there is no difference between murder and vandalism as he seeks international support for a Palestinian State within the 1949 armistice lines - without Israel‘s agreement. World leaders clamor in their droves to support him in this proposal that is contrary to international law as embodied in the Montevideo Convention.

There is a widespread culture calling for death to the Jews - and official support for that culture - rampant in Palestinian society as evidenced by the following:

1. Abbas - in January - allowed a presentation of $2000 to be awarded to the relatives of a Palestinian terrorist - reported as follows in Al-Hayat Al Jadida on 25 January:

“The governor of the Jenin district, Kadura Musa, has awarded a presidential grant to the family of the Shahid (Martyr), Khaldoun Najib Samoudy, during a visit that took place yesterday in the village of Al-Yamoun. The governor noted that the grant is financial aid in the amount of $2000 that the President [Mahmoud Abbas] is awarding to the relatives of the Shahid, who was recently killed as a Martyr at the Hamra checkpoint by the Israeli occupation forces”

2. Abbas was the President who did nothing to prevent the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets, shells and mortars into Israeli civilian population centres from Gaza and the smuggling of weapons into Gaza prior to being deposed there by Hamas in 2007. Hamas continues to maintain its threat to rid the Middle East of Israel - ostensibly as the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people.

3. Both Abbas and Hamas leader - Ismail Haniyeh - head organizations whose Charters call for the elimination of the Jewish State and the denial of any right of statehood for Jews under the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

4. A Palestinian Authority TV tribute to “Martyrs” just three weeks ago included the terrorist who killed three Israelis in a 2002 terror attack in the same West Bank town of Itamar where the Fogel family was murdered.

The video was in honor of the anniversary of the founding of the DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and was broadcast on PA TV several times daily for four days. It featured a collage with photographs labeled “Martyrs (Shahids) of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Nablus.” It included the picture of terrorist Habash Hanani, who in May 2002 entered Itamar and murdered three students in the local high school.

5. Abbas sanctioned the inauguration of a square in el-Bireh in March 2010 named after Dalal Maghreb - the Fatah woman who led the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in which 37 Israeli civilians and an American photographer were killed, and 71 were wounded,

Three days later the Palestinian Authority launched a four day seminar named after Maghreb - called the “Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Camp,” in Jericho under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority’s Military Science Academy. Its main goal was to discuss the legislative and local elections in the PA territories.

Obama must surely express his abhorrence of such official incitement and extolling of the murder of innocent Jewish civilians and condemn such conduct as being reprehensible, immoral and absolute anathema in any society.

Abbas’s attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians - or to excuse those murders because of the failure to resolve the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs - must be categorically rejected by President Obama.

The President must make it clear that this grossly immoral and heinous conduct and the culture that espouses and encourages it be ended - by publicly demanding that:

1. Abbas return to the negotiating table with Israel within fourteen days or understand that his failure to do so will result in America taking no further part in seeking to implement the Roadmap

2.Any attempt by the Palestinian Authority to circumvent such negotiations will be met with an American veto in the Security Council

3.Any further murders of Jewish civilians in the West Bank by Palestinians will result in America withholding or possibly withdrawing all financial aid and other support to the Palestinian Authority

Hopefully other leaders would be principled enough to follow President Obama’s lead in doing something constructive to try to end the culture that resulted in the murder of the Fogels and countless thousands of Jews before them - other than issuing bland condolences that serve no real purpose.

Such demands might just wipe the smirk off the Palestinian Authority officials laughing all the way to the bank to collect the hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid that continues to come their way.

Palestine - Pontification, Prediction and Poppycock

[Published 12 March 2011]


The world has been agog this week at the news that Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - is to announce a new peace plan in May - possibly in an address to the United States Congress - in an effort to end the conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine.

This conflict still remains unresolved more than 90 years after the signing of Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the unanimous decision of the League of Nations in 1922 - mandating
Great Britain to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine in recognition of the historical association of the Jewish people with Palestine - without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of “existing non- Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

These decisions relating to Palestine -(which included what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan) - had been made in the context of recognizing Arab self determination in 99.999% of the lands of the Ottoman Empire captured by Great Britain and France in World War 1 - whilst the remaining 0.001% of those lands was to be set aside for Jewish self determination.

Speculation has been rife as to what Netanyahu’s May proposal will encompass.

One can state with reasonable confidence that any new Netanyahu initiative will receive short shrift from both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and be totally unacceptable to them.

Ninety years of Arab rejectionism following the promulgation of the Mandate is not suddenly going to evaporate in May - unless Netanyahu’s proposal:

1. Accepts the right of return into Israel for those Arabs who became refugees in 1948 - and their descendants - who now supposedly number at least 7 million.
2. Agrees to hand over control of towns like Ariel, Maale Adumim and Har Homa to the Palestinian Authority and to evacuate the 70000 Jews who currently live there along with at least another 70000 Jews who live in a number of other towns and villages in the West Bank
3. Forgoes his demand that Israel be recognized as the Jewish National Home
4. Abandons the requirement for Israel to maintain a military presence along the Jordan River
5. Acknowledges that any Palestinian State can have its own armed forces and unfettered control of its air space and maritime coastline

These Arab demands have been - and continue to be - major stumbling blocks to achieving the “two-state solution” for the last 18 years.

Even worse - offering some of these concessions will never suffice. The above concessions are really an all or nothing scenario - and even then would still possibly be rejected by Hamas as it re-arms itself for another violent confrontation with Israel.

Zalman Shoval - the foreign policy chief of Netanyahu’s Likud party - is reported in the Los Angeles Times as having said this week:

“Is he [Netanyahu] running scared? I don’t think so.. But there is pressure. And it certainly makes it necessary for a lot of heart-searching and perhaps reappraisals.”

Any heart searching and reappraisals will be a total waste of time and effort unless all the above concessions are offered. That is not going to happen. Netanyahu is not yet ready to commit national suicide.

Israeli Defence Minister - Ehud Barak - wants to see Netanyahu release his proposals before May - telling Israel Radio:

“Such a decision must be taken in the coming weeks, not the coming months. A declaration before the Congress in May would be far too late,”

One could equally postulate that a decision in May would be far too early - indeed that no such decision should be made until:

1. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority bury their political differences
2. A single unitary governing body exists in the West Bank and Gaza that is capable of making,honouring and enforcing any agreements that might be signed with Israel
3. The political situation has been stabilized in Egypt and Jordan and the continued operation of the peace treaties signed by Israel with these countries is assured.
4. The newly elected governing body in the West Bank and Gaza resumes direct negotiations with Israel

Barak further stated:

“The world will not accept that we continue to rule over another people after 43 years,”

Barak is talking poppycock.

Under the Oslo Accords - negotiated in 1993:

1. 96% of the West Bank Arab population is ruled over by the Palestinian Authority - not Israel - so far as their civil rights and administrative control are concerned .
2. 55% of the West Bank Arab population is ruled over by the Palestinian Authority - not Israel - so far as their security protection is concerned.
3. 100% of the Gazan Arab population is already subject to the full administrative and civil control and security protection of Hamas following Israel’s unilateral evacuation from Gaza in 2005.

Perhaps Barak would serve Israel’s national interest better by asking why the world accepted Egypt and Jordan ruling over another people between 1948-1967 when a Palestinian State could have then been created in the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

That solution - which the world now belatedly - and mistakenly - still thinks is possible more than 43 years later - has been proved to have been an illusion in 2011 - after the last 18 years of on and off negotiations have failed to bring it to fruition.

The world has egg on its face - as does its powerful negotiating team comprising the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. They still have to learn that nothing will appease or be acceptable to the majority of those 21 Arab States other than the elimination of the Jewish National Home the world unanimously endorsed in 1922 in promulgating the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - which was subsequently confirmed and preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter in 1945.

Perhaps Barak would do well to leave all the talking to his Prime Minister - not that anything Netanyahu says now or in May will have the remotest possibility of resonating with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

“All or nothing at all” has been - and continues to be - the motto of the Palestinian Arab leaders. Their people meantime will continue to suffer as the current leadership continues to take them down the road to nowhere.

Palestine - Intellectual Ignorance Insults Israel

[Published 5 March 2011]


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

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

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

Those present may have felt heartened when he stated:

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

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

Ian McEwan - Factual Inaccuracies Distort Opinion

Consider the following:

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

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

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

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

2. McEwan spoke of a

“tsunami of concrete across the occupied territories.”

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

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

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

3. McEwan decried

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

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

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

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

4. McEwan mused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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