Palestine - UNESCO Membership May Be Unconstitutional

[Published 16 November 2011]


Palestine’s membership of UNESCO could be under serious legal threat - as the vote approving such admission comes under increasing scrutiny.

The decision to admit Palestine has come at great financial cost to UNESCO and has threatened the abandonment or postponement of many of its worthy and worthwhile programs.

UNESCO notes in a Press Release on 10 November:

"The U.S has withheld its contributions following the admission of Palestine to UNESCO on 31 October. They were required to do so by U.S. laws dating from the 1990s. This leaves UNESCO with an immediate shortfall of US$65m to the end of 2011, and a further gap of 22 percent in its US$653m budget for 2012-2013. Israel has now followed suit and withheld its contribution of US$1.5m (0.3 percent of UNESCO’s budget) for 2012-2013.

UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova has now launched an Emergency Multi-Donor Fund to help find the very large shortfall resulting from dues withheld by the United States. It has left an enormous black hole to fill - given the financial crisis enveloping the European Union and its members."

One way of rescuing UNESCO from its current predicament would be to approach the International Court of Justice seeking an Advisory Opinion on the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

Two questions need to be answered - even more urgently now - following the UN Admissions Committee failing to agree on whether Palestine qualified for membership of the UN as a “peace-loving State” as specifically required by Article 4 (1) of the UN Charter.

I. Is Palestine a State enabling it to be admitted to UNESCO under Article II 2 of the UNESCO Constitution?

Article II 2 provides:

"Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference."

Palestine’s applications to both UNESCO and the UN required that in each case it be a State to qualify for membership.

The UN Admissions Committee appears to have been divided on whether it so qualified.

One could reasonably infer that this was also one of the issues that was uppermost in the minds of the UNESCO General Conference where only 51 out of the 137 non-Islamic states voted in favor of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

In customary international law as codified in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - it would appear that Palestine did not possess the four necessary legal requirements to call itself a State.

UNESCO is required to ensure its Constitution is faithfully observed at all times.

Since the UN interpretation appears to contradict the UNESCO interpretation - legal clarification by approaching the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion is justified and indeed necessary.

II. Was Palestine’s admission to UNESCO unconstitutional because the majority vote required for its admission under Article II 2 of the UNESCO Constitution was not reached?

The vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was 107 for, 16 against and 52 abstentions (which do not count as votes).

There are 194 members of the UN - so a two thirds majority vote required would be 129. As only 107 votes were in favour - Palestine’s admission to UNESCO did not satisfy the provisions of the Constitution and should be declared invalid.

This viewpoint is further strengthened by the provisions of Article II 3 :

"Territories or groups of territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members by the General Conference by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting, upon application made on behalf of such territory or group of territories by the Member or other authority having responsibility for their international relations. The nature and extent of the rights and obligations of Associate Members shall be determined by the General Conference."

Clearly the Constitution makes a significant distinction in the specific section of the Constitution dealing with Membership between the vote needed to admit Members and the vote needed to admit Associate Members

This clear difference is however clouded by the provisions of Clause IV B 8(a):

"Each Member State shall have one vote in the General Conference. Decisions shall be made by a simple majority except in cases in which a two-thirds majority is required by the provisions of this Constitution, or the Rules of Procedure of the General Conference. A majority shall be a majority of the Members present and voting."

The International Court of Justice needs to be urgently approached to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies and uncertainties posed by these contradictory provisions in UNESCO’s constitution.

I put some questions on these issues to UNESCO’s Director of Liaison Office in New York ten days ago - but have been met by a wall of silence despite sending him a reminder.

Approaching the International Court of Justice could prove to be the financial lifeline UNESCO so desperately needs - since a ruling that Palestine’s admission was unconstitutional would assuredly restore America’s financial commitment to UNESCO.

Will political or financial pressure win the day? Will the political fallout involving the possible removal of Palestine from UNESCO dissuade UNESCO from approaching the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion - thereby allowing its financial woes to continue and its projects to founder ?

Either way UNESCO cannot be seen to create the impression that any of its actions are not in strict accord with its Constitution and that it is prepared to act in possible contravention of its own Constitution.

To do so - whilst the above two questions remain definitively unanswered by the International Court of Justice - could well persuade those 86 non-Islamic member states who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO to also cut or withhold their financial contributions to UNESCO until the Court’s ruling is obtained.

That would surely be the beginning of the end for UNESCO- which cannot be seen as a law unto itself and certainly cannot financially afford to do so.

Palestine - War Monger Not Peace Lover

[Published 8 November 2011]


Amid all the hogwash that passes for political commentary - it is apparent that the 15 members of the Security Council are facing a huge dilemma in deciding whether to recommend the admission of Palestine to the United Nations as its 194th member - after deliberating on the application now for more than six weeks.

The lengthy delay has nothing to do with the supposed closeness of the vote. Rather it has to deal with proper scrutiny of the application in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice delivered on 28 May 1948.

Palestine’s application to the UN under Article 4(1) of the UN Charter has been made by Mahmoud Abbas as President of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization - which is entirely different to that made to UNESCO under Article II (2) of the UNESCO constitution

Stringent conditions must be complied with when seeking to join the UN - as the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice clearly set out:

“The requisite conditions are five in number: to be admitted to membership in the United Nations, an applicant must
(i) be a State;
(ii) be peace-loving;
(iii) accept the obligations of the Charter;
(iv) be able to carry out these obligations; and
(v) be willing to do so. “

The Court further drew attention to Rule 60 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council which states:

“The Security Council shall decide whether in its judgment the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly whether to recommend the applicant State for membership.”

The Court declared that:

“It does not, however, follow from the exhaustive character of paragraph 1 of Article 4 that an appreciation is precluded of such circumstances of fact as would enable the existence of the requisite conditions to be verified.

Article 4 does not forbid the taking into account of any factor which it is possible reasonably and in good faith to connect with the conditions laid down in that Article. The taking into account of such factors is implied in the very wide and very elastic nature of the prescribed conditions; no relevant political factor-that is to say, none connected with the conditions of admission-is excluded.”

Clearly there are at least two critical issues that the Security Council must in its judgement determine - taking into account any political factor connected with the admission - that should sink this application:

1. Is Palestine a state?

By any standards of customary international law - as codified in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - Palestine is not a state since it fails to comply with article 1 which declares:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

The Security Council ignores international law at its peril should it decide to depart from these well understood and universally accepted legal principles required for statehood.

2. Is Palestine a warmonger or a peace lover?

On even the most cursory inquiry Palestine is a war monger - not in any way peace loving - for the following reasons:

(a) Since 1 January 2011 to date 379 rockets and 225 mortars have been indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centers from Palestine killing many Israeli citizens, injuring hundreds of others and causing vast property damage.

Responsibility for these attacks have been claimed by a number of organizations including

(i) Fatah
(ii) Hamas
(iii) Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine
(iv) Abu Al-Qumsa Brigades
(v) Tawhid and Jihad
(vi) Abdullah Azzam Brigades
(vii) Al Aqsa Brigades
(viii)Al Mujahadeen Brigades
(ix) Al Quds Brigade

all of which are allowed to operate freely from Palestinian territory with impunity and free of arrest or prosecution

(b) The PLO Charter still calls for the liberation of Israel and Jordan - two member states of the UN - and their reunification with the West Bank and Gaza into one indivisible territorial unit.

(c) Clause 9 of the PLO Charter declares:
“Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.”

(d) Clause 10 of the PLO Charter asserts:
“Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.”

(e) The Charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of the State of Israel by waging a holy war

The only wonder is why it has taken the Security Council so long to determine the fate of Palestine’s application.

The decision should have been arrived at much earlier. Apparently some of those 15 nations must have strange notions of what the terms “state” and “peace loving” mean.

Make love - not war. Get back to negotiating - not grandstanding. Stop engaging in fiction - face the reality

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 - Peace, Petulance, Posturing And Pollard

[Published 25 October 2011]


Two significant - yet seemingly unrelated - events have occurred during the past week within the ongoing Jewish-Arab conflict:

1. Israel’s release of 1027 terrorists for one of its soldiers - Gilad Shalit - with 80% of Israelis reportedly supporting the deal.
2. The PLO’s continuing refusal to resume negotiations with Israel until Israel ceases all building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - despite strenuous efforts by the Quartet to get PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating table.

The confluence of these two events however now presents an opportunity for the Quartet to get Israel and the PLO talking to each other again.

The Quartet represents probably the strongest diplomatic negotiating team ever assembled in history. Yet it has been made to look impotent in its inability to get the conflicting parties to sit across a table to try and peacefully resolve their differences.

Comprised of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - the Quartet is obviously concerned at the fallout that can occur should Abbas continue to unilaterally forge ahead with his request for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map.

Yet the Quartet has within its grasp a powerful negotiating card - the ability to pressure America to release and repatriate to Israel the convicted civilian American Naval Intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard in return for:

1. Israel implementing a total building freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for an agreed specified time period and
2. The PLO immediately resuming direct negotiations with Israel

Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment almost 27 years ago for disclosing vital security information to Israel - which Israel was legally entitled to receive anyway according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.

The information withheld from Israel included Syrian,Iraqi,Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement fully so-operating with the prosecution, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.

Yet he received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled -in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government - which promised a far less severe sentence.

Pollard was indicted on only one charge - passing classified information to an ally without intent to harm the United States.

No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - only Pollard. The median sentence for this offence is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offences on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.

In November 1995, Israel granted Pollard Israeli citizenship.

On May 12, 1998, the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Pollard as an Israeli agent and indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.

It was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, in 1995, first began openly to negotiate for Pollard’s release as part of the peace process.

President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Pollard as part of a Middle East peace settlement, but the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.

The opportunity presented itself when Israel’s current Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - went to the Wye River Plantation talks in 1998 with Yasser Arafat - thinking that he would return to Israel with Jonathan Pollard in return for the concessions Israel made at those talks. President Clinton strenuously denied there was any such agreement.

Pollard is now in poor health. Surely he has paid a high enough price for his transgressions. The circumstances leading to his life sentence following the intervention of Secretary of Defence - Caspar Weinberger - remain unexplained.

If the Quartet wants to see Israel and the PLO resume direct negotiations then a decision to release Pollard as part of a deal to bring this about would undoubtedly be received in Israel with the same overwhelming support that greeted the news of Shalit’s release.

A similar proposal was floated by Israel twelve months ago but fell on deaf American ears. The political situation has deteriorated since then and the future appears bleak for both Arabs and Jews - indeed for world security - if negotiations are not resumed..

On the 20th February this year Gilad Shalit’s father made the following plea to President Obama on the occasion of Gilad’s 1,700th day in Hamas captivity in Gaza:

“[Pollard] has served his sentence, and the time has come to free him.”

One week previously a letter from 19 former Soviet Prisoners of Zion was sent to President Obama asking him to grant Pollard clemency - which stated:

“Your silence worries us We, former Prisoners of Zion in Soviet Russia, know the danger of silence. We know the terrible suffering that comes with each passing day in prison. Therefore, we appeal to you with a heartfelt cry - end this Jewish prisoner’s prolonged and terrible ordeal! You are the only one who can do so. Please, Mr. President, free Pollard now!”

Prominent Americans who have recently called for Pollard’s release include former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle, former CIA Director James Woolsey and former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz.

However any such decision will be difficult for President Obama to make following Vice President Joe Biden’s recently reported remarks:

“President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time. If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life.”

Well it is not up to Vice President Biden - it is a decision which only President Obama can make.

The decision to release Pollard in the interests of pursuing peace stands in stark distinction to Netanyahu’s extremely difficult decision to release 1027 terrorists - a decision which almost certainly will cause a further threat to peace - judging by the reported comments of some of those released.

Pursuing peace - not perpetuating petulance or political posturing - should be President Obama’s catch cry at this very critical point of time.

Palestine - Abbas Gets Lost In The Translation

[Published 18 October 2011]


PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has been often criticized for making statements in English that are contradicted by other statements made by him in Arabic. Abbas has continued this art of doublespeak first perfected by his predecessor Yasser Arafat - tailoring his views to the audience that he is addressing.

What is equally as sinister - and indeed should perhaps be regarded with even more alarm - is the apparent attempt by some sections of the media to put Abbas in a favorable light by deliberately mis-translating into English what he says in Arabic.

This is illustrated by considering two differing versions of remarks made by Abbas - when greeting some of the convicted terrorists released in exchange for the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

The Guardian reported Mr Abbas as saying:

“Your efforts have not been in vain,” he told a crowd of thousands, which included 133 of the freed prisoners. “You have sacrificed, fought and paid the price.”

This identical quote was also carried by such media outlets as UTV News and NewsRack

Sky News, however, reported Mr Abbas’s speech in different terms:

“Your sacrifices and your efforts and your work has not been in vain. You have sacrificed and fought,”

This version was also carried by Lebanon News and The Australian Newspaper.

The discrepancy between both reports is glaring.

The omission of “your work” in the Guardian story cannot be described as “nitpicking” or “inconsequential.” Such omission could not have been purely accidental or due to the Guardian’s translator having less of a grasp of Arabic than the Sky News translator.

If Abbas was to be seen in Western eyes as openly and publicly condoning and praising the “work” of these released terrorists - it could well have an adverse affect on Abbas’s image as a peace-seeking diplomat presently touring world capitals to enlist support for the PLO‘s application for recognition of the State of Palestine and its admission as a member of the United Nations.

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to why he chose to use these clearly inflammatory words - or to deny he ever used them - member States of the United Nations would be entitled to take a strong view against acceding to his request to join them in the United Nations as head of a fellow peace-loving state.

Mr Abbas has signed and made the following Declaration to the United Nations as President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation organization:

“In connection with the application of the State of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations, I have the honour, in my capacity as the President of the State of Palestine and as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to solemnly declare that the State of Palestine is a peace-loving nation and that it accepts the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations and solemnly undertakes to fulfill them.”

Can Mr Abbas’s peace loving declaration have any meaning when one considers his praise of the “work” these returning terrorists had done and that he told them had not been in vain - and which remarks the Guardian seems to have been so concerned to conceal from its readers?

The“work” performed by these terrorists included:.

1. Amna Muna - a young woman - who had lured a lovestruck Israeli teenage boy by the name of Ophir Nahum to a Palestinian city over the Internet, only to have him killed by waiting terrorists.

2. Ahlam Tamimi another woman now aged 31 - who was sentenced to 16 consecutive life terms in jail for her involvement in the terrorist attack on the Sbarro pizza restaurant in Jerusalem in August 2001 that claimed the lives of 16 innocent victims, amongst them many Jewish children. Tamimi has never expressed remorse and told reporters in 2006:

“I’m not sorry for what I did. I will get out of prison and I refuse to recognize Israel’s existence. Discussions will only take place after Israel recognizes that this is Islamic land.”

Accepting her statement at face value - it appears clear that Tamimi intends continuing to resume her “work” in the future

3. Abdel Hadi Ghneim - the surviving perpetrator of the Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack that killed 16 civilians after he drove the bus down a ravine.

4. Abd al-Aziz Yussuf Mustafa Salehi - photographed in 2000 displaying his blood-soaked hands to a jubilant Palestinian mob after lynching an Israeli soldier and beating him to death

Praising this kind of “work” can be expected from Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh - not from Abbas.

Abbas’s statement is the very antithesis of seeking peace and reconciliation and makes his declaration to the United Nations a mockery.

Article 9 of the PLO Charter still remains Mr Abbas’s real intention - as his praise of the work done by these terrorists makes clear:

"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it."

Murdering innocent civilians and lynching a captured Israeli soldier are still seen by Abbas as not only justifiable - but worthy of praise and commendation.

His peace-loving declaration to the United Nations is not worth the paper it is written on.

Neither is the Guardian’s inaccurate report of what he supposedly said.

Palestine - Sarkozy Makes Monumental Mistake

[Published 10 October 2011]


France’s President - Nicolas Sarkozy - has made a mistake of historic proportions - possibly dashing any hope of the two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs coming to fruition - after he told the French magazine Le Canard Enchaîne:

“It is silly to talk about a Jewish state,”

President Sarkozy made this comment while referring to the Israeli demand that the Palestinian Arabs recognize Israel as the Jewish state in any peace agreement.

He compounded this act of gross political ineptness by continuing:

“It would be like saying that this table is Catholic. There are two million Arabs in Israel.”

On the figures alone - President Sarkozy is demonstrably wrong.

Latest statistics show the Arab population of Israel is 1,610,000 (20.5%). The President also fails to mention that the Jewish population numbers 5,874,300 (75.3%) and there are 323000 not identified as Jews or Arabs (4.2%).

Tables cannot be offended - but people certainly can.

President Sarkozy’s statement is extremely offensive to the overwhelming majority of Jews wherever they live - but no doubt will be met with resounding applause by Jew-haters world wide.

His statement will offend those tens of millions of Christians who support the right of the Jewish people to establish their own independent state in their ancient ancestral and legally recognized homeland.

President Sarkozy in this one brief comment has abandoned French foreign policy pursued over the last 90 years - whilst also rejecting international law principles formulated during that period - which France was instrumental in establishing.

In so doing, President Sarkozy has caused great damage to France’s reputation and honor,

It was France - together with Britain, - that laid down the legal framework for the Jewish people’s right of return to Palestine pursuant to the Treaty of Sevres signed on 10 August 1920 - which allocated 99.999% of the captured Ottoman Empire to the Arabs and provided for the remaining 0.001% be set aside as a national home for the Jewish people.

Article 95 of the Treaty specifically provided:

“The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice 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.”

France endorsed this decision together with all other 50 other countries in the League of Nations by unanimously approving the creation of the Mandate for Palestine in 1922 - which recognized:

“the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”

France signed the UN Charter on 26 June 1945 and subsequently ratified its coming into operation on 24 October 1945.

The Charter contains article 80 - which preserved the rights vested in the Jewish people under the Mandate - to ensure they did not disappear with the pending demise of the League of Nations - which finally occurred on 12 April 1946..

France was among the 33 countries that voted in favor of the UN Partition Plan on 29 November 1947 calling for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State.

President Sarkozy is apparently unsympathetic to Israel’s demand to be recognized as the Jewish State - despite the fact that Article 20 of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization denies the Jews any such right in the following dismissive and highly offensive terms:

“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.”

The Chairman of the PLO - Mahmoud Abbas - is a frequent visitor to Paris and is received with full honors by President Sarkozy who can now only be seen to be openly endorsing this despicable and racist viewpoint - which Chairman Abbas resolutely refuses to change.

Hamas is as equally strident in wanting to destroy the Jewish State.

How can a peace agreement between Jews and Arabs be successfully concluded whilst such attitudes are maintained by the PLO and Hamas? What effect will President Sarkozy’s viewpoint have in encouraging the PLO and Hamas to maintain their rejectionist stances? Should President Sarkozy not be urging the Palestinian Arabs to accede to Israel’s request if they ever hope to attain their own independent State?

President Sarkozy needs to read and digest what David Ben-Gurion told the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine on 7 July 1947:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name “Palestine,” - I said if, - then all would be Palestinian citizens. If the State would be given, another name - I think it would be given another name, because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as “Palestine” at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew.”

Until President Sarkozy unequivocally retracts his comment and embraces Ben-Gurion’s statement - he will surely be tarred with uttering one of the most damaging comments ever made by a head of state on the Jewish-Arab conflict - effectively prolonging the dispute rather than helping to resolve it.

Palestine - Fixing the Figures, Fudging The Facts

[Published 3 October 2011]


As the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly continue to consider the PLO application for the State of Palestine to be admitted as the 194th member of the UN - there is concern in Jordan that approval of such application could:

1. represent a distinct threat to continued Hashemite rule in Jordan and
2. challenge Jordan’s right to exist as a viable and independent State within secure and recognized boundaries.

Jordan’s King Abdullah had indicated his concern at these possibilities prior to the PLO presenting its application for membership to the UN on 23 September.

Clearly worried by the possible outcome of the current UN hearings - the King had been at pains to stress Jordan’s independence stating on September 12:

“Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine. We haven’t changed politically and we will not change. The ‘alternative Palestinian homeland’ will never be part of the discussion; it is not an option and is not in the Jordanian lexicon”

Jordan’s foreign minister - Nasser Judeh - reportedly said two days later that whilst his country supported the Palestinian campaign - the best way to attain statehood was by direct negotiations.

Whilst this might well be Jordan’s position - it is certainly not the PLO‘s.

Jordan’s fears appear to be have been well founded after PLO Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - told the General Assembly on 23 September :

“ Yet, because we believe in peace and because of our conviction in international legitimacy, and because we had the courage to make difficult decisions for our people, and in the absence of absolute justice, we decided to adopt the path of relative justice - justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people. Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine - on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.

Mr Abbas’s statement followed closely on the heels of a similar one made just four days earlier by Palestinian Ambassador to Australia - Izzat Abdulhadi - who said:

"Palestine would become a State on the Occupied Palestinian Territories or 22% of historic Palestine, while Israel retained 78% of historic Palestine" (Australian September 19).

The publication of these virtually identical - but misleading and deceptive - statements within days of each other must surely have confirmed King Abdullah‘s worst fears.

They were the latest in a long line of similar statements made by Abbas and other PLO spokesman over recent years designed to deceive, mislead and conceal what the PLO Charter itself declares - and what the PLO ultimately seeks to achieve - the destruction of the State of Israel and the overthrow of the Hashemite regime in Jordan and its replacement by the PLO.

Article 2 of the PLO Charter makes these twin objectives crystal clear by declaring:

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

The territory of the British Mandate covered Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. Israel comprised 17%, the West Bank and Gaza comprised 5%, whilst Jordan comprised the remaining 78% of historic Palestine.

The Committee for Accurate Reporting of the Middle East in America (CAMERA) succinctly summarizes this reality as follows:

“In fact, the original land of Palestine, as determined by the League of Nations, included what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the entire state of Jordan. The British transferred nearly 78% of historic Palestine to the Arabs to create a new entity called the Emirate of Transjordan. Jews were forbidden to live, buy land or become citizens there. The UN partition plan proposed a division of the remaining 22% of the land between Jews and Arabs, and the armistice lines (1949-1967) left Israel with approximately 16.5% of the original Mandate area.”

Abbas’s misrepresentation of the boundaries of historic Palestine at the UN was designed to:

1. enlist international sympathy by misleadingly claiming that Israel is the greatest territorial beneficiary of the Mandate - when in fact it was Jordan that has secured the lion’s share of the Mandate territory and
2. conceal the fact that the PLO has any designs on removing the Hashemite rulers in Jordan

The PLO intention to take over Jordan has never been revoked or withdrawn since Yasser Arafat tried to do so in September 1970 and failed.

At the 8th meeting of the Palestine National Council in March 1971 the following Resolution was passed:

” Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity. It would be a continuation of the fragmentation by which colonialism shattered the unity of our Arab nation and the unity of our Arab homeland after the First World War.

…In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the West, nor did it believe the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan”

Professor Harkarbi in his book “The Palestine Covenant And Its Meaning” states:

“One major conclusion may be drawn from the above that the Palestinians will not admit: If Jordan and Palestine are one land and the Jordanians and Palestinians are one people, then the Palestinians are not a people bereaved of a homeland, their struggle against Israel is not to liberate a homeland they do not possess, but to expand a homeland they do have. Moreover, the very participation of Palestinians in the political life of Jordan is an expression of their self determination, and thus their argument that they have no possibility of self determination unless they regain the whole area of Palestine (or any part - author) is spurious.” (page 37)

Whilst Article 2 of the PLO Charter remains unrevoked - the possibility of having the UN recognize a PLO controlled State as Jordan’s next door neighbor - must be causing His Majesty many sleepless nights.

UN member states would do well to heed Jordan’s apprehension that by recognizing Palestine at the UN - rather than calling for direct negotiations to be resumed - the UN might well be gaining a new member but signing the death warrant of another.