Israel's next President?

[Published October 2006]


Elie Wiesel's decision to turn down the offer to become Israel's next President is to be deeply regretted.

Mr Wiesel, 77, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. The Norwegian Nobel Committee called him a

"messenger to mankind,"

noting that through his struggle to come to terms with

"his own personal experience of total humiliation and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler's death camps,"

as well as his

"practical work in the cause of peace,"

he had delivered a powerful message

"of peace, atonement and human dignity"

to humanity.

Mr. Wiesel lives in America where he teaches at Boston University. He became an American citizen in 1963. He has recently received an honorary knighthood from the Queen of England.

Hopefully it is not too late to have Mr Wiesel rethink his decision.

The position of President is ceremonial only and carries no political power. However it offers the holder the opportunity to come into contact with all sectors of Israeli society and Jews worldwide and to represent Israel on State visits to other countries.

The President is the public persona of Israel and the Jewish people.

It was an inspired decision that led Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, to offer the Presidency to a non-Israeli at this time.

It recognised that 9 million of the world's Jewish population of 14 million do not live in Israel yet could still aspire to be appointed to the most prestigious and honourable position in the country.

Such an appointment would acknowledge the close relationship and mutual dependency between Jews in Israel and outside Israel and emphasise that the fate of each is bound up with and affects the fate of the other.

Many Jews living outside Israel have children and grandchildren who have migrated to and settled, in Israel. Others have business interests that lead to them spending extensive periods of time in Israel. A large number make frequent visits particularly at times of high religious significance.

Programs for young people attract tens of thousands annually to spend many weeks, months and even years in Israel reinforcing their Jewish identity resulting, in many cases, in their migrating to Israel permanently. All Jewish educational programs outside Israel involve the teaching of the history and geography of Israel from biblical times to the present day.

The appointment of a non-Israeli Jew as President would give renewed meaning to the Mandate for Palestine created by the League of Nations in 1922.

The Mandate endorsed

"the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

thereby giving recognition

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

without prejudice to

"the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The international community confirmed this commitment in 1946 by inserting Article 80 into the United Nations Charter giving Jews living anywhere in the World at that time or future generations the entitlement in international law to take up residence there at any time of their own choosing.

Israel is going through one of the most difficult periods since its establishment in 1948 as it now faces

(i) internal political scandals involving its current President, Moshe Katsav, Prime Minister Olmert, other politicians and military leaders,

(ii) calls for its total destruction by Iranian President Ahmadinijad and the Hamas led Government in Gaza

(iii) demands from the European Union and the 22 Arab States making up the Arab League that Israel withdraw to insecure and indefensible boundaries notwithstanding the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

A non-Israeli President could well serve as the rallying point for Jews in Israel and elsewhere to overcome the malaise that appears to have settled upon the Jewish people. This is encouraging Arab enemies of the Jewish State to believe that the time is fast coming for another all out attack to eliminate this thriving democratic State from among the nations of the world.

Israel desperately needs to stir the World's conscience and memory of its decisions to allow the Jews to return to the tiny country from whence they were expelled more than 2000 years ago, to ensure they will never be driven out again, and to guarantee that Israel will have sufficient space to absorb future generations of Jews who may wish to migrate and settle there.

Appointing an eminent and distinguished non-Israeli as the next President of the State of Israel could indeed be the catalyst that will help achieve these objectives.

Jordan's Justified Jitters

[ Published October 2006]


King Abdullah of Jordan is nervous and for good reason.

He has publicly expressed his growing concern at the continuing power struggles, internal fighting and economic disaster occurring in Gaza and the implications this will have for the "two-state solution" sponsored almost four years ago by America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- the so called Quartet.

The Quartet's proposal called for the creation of a 23rd independent Arab State within Gaza and the West Bank - the remaining 6% of the former League of Nations Mandate for Palestine unallocated between Israel (17%) and Jordan (77%).

The Quartet has suffered acute embarrassment and loss of face as the plan still remains unimplemented in even one small detail, whilst Arab intransigence continues to deny any claim by Israel to even one square kilometre of this territory.

Even worse, the Quartet's diplomatic failure to get the process up and running has exposed it as a toothless tiger in the face of resurgent Arab nationalism and mounting Islamic terrorism worldwide.

Seeking to create yet another Arab State within all or part of the West Bank and Gaza - an area of just 6200 square kilometres -- rather than dividing this territory between the 90,000 square kilometres of Jordan and the 22,000 square kilometres of Israel has proved to be an error of disastrous proportions.

The Quartet endorsed the claim that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza were entitled to a separate State of their own even though they were no different in religion, language or culture to their brethren and families living less than one hour's drive away.

Additional Arab League demands for the transfer of 400,000 Jews back to Israel, as well as the return of millions of Arabs or their descendants to Israel displaced as a result of the War in 1948 effectively ended any possibility of the Quartet's plan ever succeeding.

Now King Abdullah has had enough and has firmly spoken out against these failed Arab policies.

In an interview published in the Khaleej Times on 11 October 2006, King Abdullah declared:

"I really think that by the first half of 2007 we might wake up to reality and realise that the two-state solution is no longer attainable, and then what?"

He gave further vent to his frustration by saying:

"I think we are really running out of time. Physically, on the ground and geographically, I think there is less and less of a West Bank and Jerusalem to talk about"

He warned:

"We want to go back to the 1967 borders. We are talking about that today. Are we going to talk about that tomorrow though? This is the danger."

King Abdullah recognises that compromise with Israel to achieve the Quartet's two-state solution will involve the return of something less than the entire West Bank and Gaza.

His view will not resonate well with the Arab League, which is in no mood to moderate its extreme and totally unrealistic demands.

If the two-state solution falls by the wayside as a result, King Abdullah is clearly fearful that another war might break out that could involve Jordan and even possibly lead to an attempt to overthrow his rule in Jordan as radical terrorist groups seek another springboard for their assault on Israel.

The rapidly deteriorating conditions in Gaza and the threat of civil war there spilling over into the West Bank could well see Jordan and possibly Egypt intervening with Israel's support to oust the Hamas Government in Gaza, restore law and order and regain international financial support to assist and rehabilitate the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza to live in peace among themselves and with their neighbours.

This could ultimately involve what should have been the Quartet's objective in the first place --the division of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and possibly Egypt.

This is and has always been the only possible solution for the West Bank and Gaza.

It is a pity that international and Arab diplomacy for the last 13 years has totally focused its efforts on imposing another Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

King Abdullah now fears this diplomacy will come to naught by the first half of 2007.

If this indeed happens, then the opportunity must be taken by Israel, Jordan and Egypt, with the assistance of the Quartet, to restore some sanity and reality by creatively resolving a conflict that has defied everyone's best efforts for the last 125 years.

Pouring aid down drains and tunnels

[Published September 2006]


Lebanon and Gaza's five million population continue to enjoy international largesse on a scale not offered to hundreds of millions racked by AIDS, hunger, starvation or conflict in many of the world's numerous trouble spots.

$30 billion in reconstruction and humanitarian aid has already been given to Lebanon and Gaza. This is in addition to the $20 billion shelled out to the Palestinians by UNWRA over the last 58 years.

A further $1.7 billion in international aid has now been promised to repair the latest damage and destruction there following two unprovoked attacks into Israel by terrorist elements operating freely, openly and without Government constraint in both Lebanon and Gaza.

The donors have sent a clear signal to Lebanon and Gaza that they will continue to be compensated for, rather than suffer the consequences of, aggression against Israel emanating from their territory.

One shudders to think what the 15,000 United Nations peacekeepers will also be costing during their sojourn in Lebanon and how that money could have been more wisely spent if the current conflict had not erupted.

The world's donations to Lebanon and Gaza have been an unmitigated disaster.

Given freely and generously and with the best of intentions, donors have never sought to attach any strings or demand full and open accountability.

This has allowed a climate of corruption and nepotism to flourish and to create a cargo cult mentality that has done nothing to help the man in the street to make a better life for himself and his family. It has helped prolong conflict in the region rather than resolving it.

Mohammed Dahlan, the former Palestinian Authority Interior Minister aptly summed up the situation when he said that the funds given to the Palestinians "have gone down the drain and we don't know to where." [Guardian 2 August 2004]

It is a safe bet that this latest infusion of money will also end up being either unaccounted for or spent on reconstruction that will yet once more come crashing to the ground in a pile of rubble when the next clash inevitably occurs between Israel and its' two frontline enemies.

It is now time for the world to reflect on the futility of continuing such unprecedented generosity at the expense of others equally, if not far more, deserving.

Donors need to direct their aid funds to other parts of the world where the money may have a lasting and more beneficial effect assisting people crying out for help who are continuously ignored or receive a mere pittance in aid that often arrives too late.

International donors pouring billions of dollars into the Middle East to repair the consequences of conflict is a complete waste of money whilst the region remains in a state of ongoing belligerence.

This is guaranteed to continue as the Arab League presses its demands for

(i) the return of every square centimetre of land lost by Jordan and Egypt to Israel in 1967 and

(ii) the right of return to Israel - the 22% of former Palestine not now under exclusive Arab control - by former Arab residents of that area.

These non-negotiable demands make any international attempts to end the conflict not worth the effort as President Clinton painfully discovered at Camp David in 2000.

These demands have destroyed the Oslo Peace Process and the Quartet's Road Map. They have completely nullified United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 which recognised that Israel's boundaries would never again be those defined by the armistice lines existing prior to 1967.

The world's four most powerful men - Messrs Bush, Putin ,Chirac and Annan - have been exposed as diplomatic eunuchs in the face of the Arab League's uncompromising stance on these two issues.

Until this intransigent mind set is changed, the continued granting of financial aid will only end up being poured down the network of tunnels that have been so assiduously and painstakingly excavated in both Lebanon and Gaza for the purposes of making war not peace.

The Arab League must be told in no uncertain terms that no further international financial aid will be given to any of its members to repair the consequences of conflict until these demands are dropped and steps are taken to restore sovereignty over each members' territory to the Government of that territory.

Perhaps the withholding of international financial support will bring the breakthrough to peace that has remained so elusive for the past 125 years. If not, at least it will lead to the money being spent where it will be put to better use.

If the Arab League fails to respond then let it answer for and provide the aid to repair the damage and destruction that will inevitably continue to occur if these demands are not abandoned.

There is no light at the end of the tunnels in Lebanon and Gaza, only the promise of ongoing conflict and suffering.

Those who fail to recognize the folly of continuing financial aid for reconstruction in such a region are truly suffering from tunnel vision.

Lemmings or Lions?

[Published August 2006]


The ceasefire brokered by the United Nations in Lebanon offers possibly the last chance for political stability to be restored in Lebanon and for Lebanon to rid itself forever of forces over which it has no control.

Will the United Nations and the Lebanese Government seize this opportunity and finally act like lions or will they, like lemmings, continue to rush towards the edge of the abyss into which both have already started to slide and from which both may never get out?

Judging by what is happening, it appears that the lemmings will again prevail over the lions.

Woe betide Lebanon if this is allowed to happen.

The United Nations appears to be balking at giving its 15,000 strong force being sent into Lebanon clear rules of engagement to disarm and disband Hezbollah as Security Council Resolution 1559 demands.

Failure to do so will confirm that the United Nations is not prepared to translate its Security Council resolutions into concrete action.

It will send a clear message to terrorist groups world wide and their sponsoring States that Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they are written on and that terrorists can continue to operate with impunity from any member's sovereign territory free of international intervention to forcibly remove them.

The United Nations force must be given the right to search for and destroy all armaments not under the control of the Lebanese Government, to stop the delivery of armaments into Lebanon unless expressly approved by the Lebanese Government and to take all steps including armed intervention to disband the structure and organization of Hezbollah's military arm.

Anything less will be a waste of time and lead to Israel intervening once again with even more devastating force to defend its own sovereign territorial integrity.

Hezbollah has justified its continuing occupation of 2400 square kilometres of Lebanon -- one quarter of the country -- as necessary to drive Israel from, and gain Lebanese sovereignty over, 25 square kilometres of desolate land called the Shebaa Farms.

Lebanon condoned this situation by continuing to dispute a ruling by the United Nations in 2000 that this small piece of land belonged to Syria, from whom it was captured by Israel in 1967.

Trading sovereignty over 2400 square kilometres in order to gain sovereignty over 25 square kilometres must surely be the most bizarre decisions ever made by any Arab nation in their ongoing conflict with Israel.

This abdication of its national security and foreign policy has cost Lebanon dearly and has become the catalyst for the abject position in which Lebanon finds itself today.

15000 Lebanese homes have now been totally destroyed, a large section of Lebanon's roads, bridges and other vital infrastructure has been reduced to rubble, its economy set back for 20 years and its environment devastated by an oil spill that threatens the rich marine life in its territorial waters.

A thousand deaths, many more thousands injured and maimed, and countless others traumatised by constant and incessant bombing raids testifies to Hezbollah's foolhardy action in entering Israel to abduct two soldiers, kill three others and then fire a barrage of 3000 rockets into Israel.

It appears Lebanon has not learnt the lesson of the Sheba Farms folly and is still obsessed with gaining sovereignty of the area.

It was deemed so important an issue that it was included in the seven point plan prepared by Lebanon as it urgently sought the current ceasefire, calling on the United Nations to place the area under United Nations jurisdiction until the Lebanese claim to sovereignty was fully settled.

Instead of rejecting that call, the United Nations has stood its decision in 2000 on its head by agreeing to once more deal with Lebanon's claim to the Shebaa Farms within 30 days of the ceasefire resolution.

What will happen if the United Nations reverses its decision? What does this say about the competency of the organization? Will Syria accept such a reversal? Will Israel withdraw? Why did Lebanon have to wait six years and subject itself to such destruction and humiliation before asking the United Nations to review its earlier decision?

Lebanon needs to let go of this issue. It has and will continue to bring Lebanon to its knees if it persists. A loss of face is far preferable to further loss of life and limb.

Lebanon or Lezbollaland?

That is the question that both Lebanon and the United Nations need to answer without delay if Lebanon is to end the suffering and bloodshed inflicted on it for the last 30 years because of its loss of control over its sovereign territory to others with different agendas.

Israel's Illusion, the Arabs' Abyss

[Published July 2006]


Israel's belief that unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza would end Arab intransigence and bring about a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict has turned out to be an illusion.

Instead it has opened up an abyss, which threatens to swallow up Lebanon and Gaza in its wake and set back the development of their societies and economies by at least 20 years.

Syria is struggling to cope with hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Shiites seeking refuge as Israel continues its determined assault to end Hezbollah's reign of terror in Lebanon.

Emboldened by what was perceived as Israeli weakness and exhaustion, Hezbollah and Hamas quickly asserted their authority within the areas vacated by Israel, claiming this was the first step in the ultimate destruction of the Jewish State.

The Governments of Lebanon and Gaza chose to tolerate rather than confront and root out these terrorist entities.

Both Governments were strongly supported by their civilian populations.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah openly held court in Beirut. Its headquarters were well known to Lebanese authorities and the media had no trouble in locating their leaders for frequent interviews as they took every opportunity to applaud the targeted murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens and foreign nationals.

They lived openly within Lebanese society and were elected to Government and held cabinet portfolios. This could not have happened without popular support.

Large shipments of missiles and weaponry were routinely unloaded at Lebanese ports in full view of customs, military and police authorities and transhipped through Lebanon to launching sites and military depots in South Lebanon for ultimate use against Israel.

In Gaza frequent demonstrations by tens of thousands of men, women and children marching behind hooded and well armed terrorists burning Israeli and American flags and effigies of Sharon and Bush, clearly indicated Hamas was held in awe, not disgust, by the civilian population among whom was hidden the military stockpile of rockets and explosives.

Hamas was elected to power in Gaza by the overwhelming majority of Gazans whilst Hezbollah established an autonomous State within a State in Lebanon, both clearly expressing their continuing refusal to recognise the sovereign existence of Israel.

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh believed the time was now ripe to flex their muscles to procure the release of hundreds of convicted terrorists held in Israeli prisons in exchange for a few Israeli soldiers. This had worked very well before with thousands of prisoners being released by Israel in return for the remains of a few dead soldiers and the release of one businessman of dubious reputation.

What better way for Hezbollah and Hamas to retain the support and hopes of their civilian populations than securing the release of husbands and children who could then be enlisted once again to repeat the missions that had led to their imprisonment in the first place.

However kidnapping three Israeli soldiers by incursions into sovereign Israeli territory proved the downfall for these terrorist groups. Such brazenness was the breaking point -- the red line -- that these terrorist groups had not expected their actions would provoke.

Rather than getting expected negotiations by intermediaries to procure the exchange of prisoners, Hezbollah and Hamas unleashed Israel's military might as it entered Lebanon and Gaza in hot pursuit to free its soldiers with the full authority of international law firmly behind it.

Again completely misreading Israel's intentions, both Hezbollah and Hamas started firing rockets into Israel leading to Israel's re-entry into Gaza in force and massive retaliation on Lebanon's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, airports and ports -- which had served as the supply lines for Hezbollah from Syria and Iran

This time international criticism of Israel's right to defend itself has been muted and even Arab countries have been critical of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Israel now carries the world on its shoulders as it alone seeks to implement Resolution 1559 of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. This will result in the loss of Israeli lives and many casualties as an impotent United Nations does nothing to assert and enforce its own resolutions.

The civilian populations of Lebanon and Gaza have now paid and will continue to pay a huge price for the trust and belief they placed in their would be Saladdins to remove the Jewish State once and for all.

Some have suggested these civilians are innocent victims who did not have the strength to overthrow their oppressors. If true, one would imagine Israel's actions would have brought forward at least some expressions of support from within Lebanon and Gaza. Not a single word has been heard.

The Arab League has now finally pronounced the Road Map proposed by Bush, Putin, Chirac and Annan as "dead". The League is three years behind the times but at least it now recognises the futility of a plan that never had the slightest chance of getting off the drawing board.

So where does the Middle East go from here?

There is but one avenue now -- the removal of Hezbollah and Hamas followed by trilateral negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt on the future sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps the Arab League will at long last realise the folly of trying to wipe Israel off the map and take these positive steps to end the ongoing 120 year conflict that is now bringing suffering on a scale to their constituency that even they could never have contemplated.

Olmert's Unilateralism Undermines Unity

[Published April 2006]


"Convergence" is the buzzword used by Ehud Olmert and his slick Public Relations team to gift-wrap his policy on Israel's intended unilateral withdrawal from large areas of the West Bank to a defensive line behind the security barrier being presently constructed by Israel.

365,000 Jews today live in the West Bank -- roughly the size of Delaware -- among 2.3 million Arabs.

"Convergence" has already become entrenched in the international lexicon of the Middle East and in the media although no one had heard of the word just two months ago.

Yet the use of this word masks a multi faceted approach to singling out and victimising Jews on a scale not seen since the 1930's and 1940's.

"Convergence" is defined in the Chambers 20th century dictionary to mean, "coming nearer together, tending towards or meeting in one point or value"

"Convergence" as espoused by Mr Olmert will actually result in Jews being alienated from each other -- precisely the opposite of what he is suggesting -- since his policy will have the following consequences:

1. The forced removal of up to 70,000 Jews from their homes and businesses in the West Bank in breach of international humanitarian law embodied in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to both of which treaties Israel is a signatory.

2. The abrogation of the right of present and future generations of Jews anywhere in the world to return and settle in the West Bank for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish National Home in that area as was specifically conferred on them by the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres 1920, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922 and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

How such outcomes can possibly be described as bringing people nearer together remains unexplained by Mr Olmert.

"Convergence" is in fact a repackaged version of Ariel Sharon's policy of "Disengagement" or "Evacuation" carried out last year in the Gaza Strip where 8000 Jews and the international Jewish community saw their legal and humanitarian rights trampled on in exactly the same manner.

Far from bringing Jews nearer together such "Disengagement" has created areas of resentment and frustration as well as breakdowns in family and societal relationships that are ongoing and serious.

The failure of the Israeli Government to meet its obligations to those it forcibly removed and whose livelihoods it destroyed could well lead to continuing tragedies on an unprecedented scale.

Ariel Sharon promised the Israeli public and the international Jewish community that no further "painful concessions" of this kind would be undertaken at least until a peace agreement was reached with Israel's neighbours in accordance with the Road Map compiled by the Quartet -- the US, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

His Deputy Ehud Olmert has repudiated this assurance and now claims to have received a mandate to introduce more of the same medicine under the supposed guise of bringing Jews closer together within more defensible lines.

In fact, such policy will serve to further exacerbate the frictions and divisions in Israeli society caused by the Gaza withdrawal at a time when unity is needed more than ever to face the enemies that surround Israel.

Mr. Olmert's "Convergence" policy will have a harder time getting off the ground in the West Bank than Mr.Sharon 's "Disengagement" policy from Gaza for the following reasons:

1. 70,000 people will be affected this time, not 8000, and they will be fully aware of the manner in which those 8000 people in Gaza were left to fend for themselves.

2. Another 295,000 people living within a 30 minutes drive of those being tossed out of their homes and businesses will see this as the thin edge of the wedge. Failure by them to protest and prevent such "convergence" could well see them next in the firing line to be removed. Gaza was not in their backyard, but the areas to be vacated in the West Bank certainly are. They should not rely on their living inside the security barrier to guarantee they will not also be forcibly removed at some later date.

3. Those Jews allowed to remain in the West Bank will be subjected to ever increasing terror attacks as the recently elected Hamas Government and other Arab terrorist militias quickly move in to take control of and operate from the areas vacated by Jews.

4. Any Government promises of no such further unilateral withdrawals being undertaken will not be believed and with good reason.

Mr Olmert needs to stop and think long and hard before embarking on an expedition that threatens to destroy what little unity still exists in Israel.

He needs to ponder on the effect his policy will have on the strong and supportive relationship Israel enjoys with Jewish communities throughout the world who will have no say in his unilateral abandonment of their rights and those of future generations to live in the vacated areas of the West Bank -- the biblical heartland of the Jewish people

Mr Olmert can still unilaterally separate from the Arab residents living in the West Bank by withdrawing to defensible lines that will incorporate the overwhelming majority of those 70000 Jews without the necessity of moving them. This will allow Israel to retain those areas until a final peace treaty is achieved.

Sugarcoating a policy that can have catastrophic effects for the Jewish people with the imprimatur of "convergence" is doublespeak of the worst possible kind.

What Sharon Should Have Told The United Nations

[Published September 2005]


Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon missed a golden opportunity to address the future of the West Bank before the 170 world leaders who had gathered at the United Nations last week to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the founding of that organization.

Instead the words he uttered were sweet music to the ears of most of those leaders justifying the vitriolic War of Words waged by their countries against the Jewish State in complete betrayal of the promises given to the Jewish people by the United Nations and its predecessor the League of Nations.

Standing at the podium, Mr. Sharon meekly repeated the mantra continually preached by these countries:

"The Palestinians are also entitled to freedom, and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own."

This was a far cry from the defiant words uttered by Mr Sharon in Time on 17 April 1989:

"Jordan is Palestine! The capital of Palestine is Amman. If Palestinian Arabs want to find their political expression, they will have to do it in Amman."

No attempt was made in Mr Sharon's speech to retrace the history of Palestine, a territory created with defined boundaries for the first time ever by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the League of Nations in 1922 after the defeat of Turkey and Germany in World War I.

He could well have quoted Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations, the late Abba Eban, who had eloquently summarised that history when he said in Newsweek on 2 December 1974:

"Palestine comes into modern history as a region extending on both sides of the Jordan, comprising the present sovereign territories of Israel and Jordan and the administered areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Of this original Palestine, 80 per cent became an exclusively Arab domain through the separation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine."

A modicum of research could have enabled Mr Sharon to also remind the gathered world leaders, particularly King Abdullah of Jordan, of the statement made to the United Nations by Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Blum on 3 December, 1979:

"Let me remind the Jordanian representatives of the record. Between 1922 and 1946, Trans-Jordan remained an integral part of Mandated Palestine. In 1946 it became the independent Palestinian Arab State in that area. When King Abdullah came to the Jericho Conference in December 1948, which was attended by Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan River, he was crowned "King of Palestine". Abdullah, in fact, wanted to rename his country "The Kingdom of Palestine". King Hussein, in his memoirs, indicates clearly that Trans-Jordan was arbitrarily siphoned off from the rest of Mandated Palestine. Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, in the Jordanian National Assembly on 2 February 1970, stated unambiguously:
'Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine. The nation is one and the land is one'"

Given the current leadership tensions between Mr. Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu, Mr Sharon would probably have found it difficult to quote what Mr. Netanyahu told the United Nations on 11 December 1984, although the national interest certainly dictated that Mr. Sharon should do so:

"Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two States in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some 3 million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5th of the territory originally allocated by this body's predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over 4 million of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5th of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate?. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949 "

Having reminded the world leaders present of these past statements, Mr Sharon should then have told them:

"The League of Nations and the United Nations promised the Jews that they would be entitled to resettle and reconstitute the Jewish National Home on land from which they had been dispossessed 2000 years earlier by Roman invaders, provided nothing was done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". No political rights were conferred or intended to be conferred on those communities then or in the future.

This promise to the Jews extended to the West Bank, which you now obscenely call "occupied Palestinian territory" and from where you wish to see all Jews removed to create a State solely for the Arab residents contrary to the terms of the Mandate and article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which the United Nations has consistently ignored but which it must now confront and acknowledge.

The Road Map calling for the creation of a sovereign Arab State between Jordan and Israel in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, now supported by the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union, is the very opposite of what the United Nations has pledged to fulfill in accordance with its own Charter.

Israel now enjoys peace treaties with its neighbors Jordan and Egypt.

The path to peace in the West Bank and Gaza must involve the division of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between these three nations in trilateral negotiations chaired by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

Israel stands ready to enter into such negotiations to cede sovereignty of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank to Jordan. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza indicates its willingness to cede sovereignty in Gaza to Egypt or Jordan and not rule over its neighbors.

I urge you all to abandon the idea that Jews have no legal right to settle in the West Bank and reconstitute their national home in that area. If international law is to have any meaning in regulating the conduct of the international community, then you must give legal effect to the Mandate and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Seize the day, because the time is short."

If the 170 dignitaries present were not prepared to listen, at least the 15 million Jews all over the World would be applauding Israel's Prime Minister for his principled stand instead of recoiling at his abject acceptance of Jewish rights being trampled on in their own homeland by a United Nations acting in breach of its own Charter.