David Singer: Trump Writes off West Bank and Gaza as Separate Country

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and internarional affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The US State Department web site has removed the West Bank and Gaza (“disputed territories”) from its list of “Countries and Areas” – signalling that it no longer regards these disputed territories as potentially comprising a separate country – in addition to Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

This is the clearest indication yet that President Trump’s soon to be released deal of the century will abandon the “two-state solution” – the creation of another Arab State in the disputed territories for the first time ever in recorded history – propagated by President Obama and his former Secretary of State John Kerry.

The US State Department web site under Kerry had included the “Palestinian Territories” in the “List of Countries and Other Areas” between 2009 and 2017.

Kerry had declared as he prepared to vacate the State Department on 28 December 2016: 

“Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region.”

Kerry frankly admitted that America’s decision to abstain on United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016: 

“was about preserving the two-state solution. That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. That’s what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs.”

Kerry was consumed by his own ignorance and arrogance when proclaiming: 

“Today, there are a number – there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.”

It obviously did not dawn on Kerry that there was another alternative to his “one state or two states” mantra: the division of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt in direct face to face negotiations to complete the allocation of sovereignty in former Palestine between Arabs and Jews first contemplated by the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Obama and Kerry’s treacherous act of abstaining on Resolution 2334 was swiftly repudiated by the House passing H -Res 11 by 342 votes to 80 on 5 January 2017.

The PLO has committed political hara-kiri since – refusing to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s yet-to-be-released peace plan – vacating the field to other Arab states including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fill the negotiating void.

The State Department’s recently re-designed website sends a clear message to Arab states wanting to end the Jewish-Arab conflict to come to the negotiating table.

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

David Singer: Paris Conference Challenges UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Reuters image

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Seventy countries flocking to Paris on January 15 seem set to challenge Security Council Resolution 2334 before the ink has hardly dried.

America’s House of Representatives voting 342:80 has already declared that it:

“opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that –

(A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and

(B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.”

Now the Paris Conference seems set to blindside the Security Council’s vision expressed in the preamble to Resolution 2334:

“a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”

Four indicators point to this Security Council “two democratic states solution” being deliberately abandoned at the Paris Conference:

1. A statement by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on 28 December 2016 welcomed:

“.. John Kerry’s clear, courageous, and engaged speech in support of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security.

France shares the US Secretary of State’s conviction that it is necessary and urgent to implement the two-state solution.” 

Kerry’s speech mentioned “two states” 29 times without stipulating they must be “democratic”.

The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.

2. An updated draft of the Paris Conference’s summary statement obtained in advance by Haaretz – indicates that the conference decisions are already a done deal before one glass of champagne or a canape have been enjoyed by the delegates and their entourages.

This summary statement mentions the term “two-state solution” eight times without highlighting they be “democratic” once.

3. The summary statement (Paragraph III) says that looking ahead the conference participants:

“expect both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”

This statement is the very antithesis of democracy – seeking to shame duly elected politicians from freely expressing their ideas and thoughts.

Paul Waldman asks what is the point of the “disavowal ritual” and answers as follows:

“its real purpose is to define the boundaries of the acceptable, both within each party and in politics as a whole. When someone gets disavowed, we all know that to be associated with them will lead to shame and reproach. That person and what they represent, it has been made clear, is out of bounds.”

Disavowal might appeal to those seven UN Security Council member-States that are not democracies and repress free speech – China, Russia, Angola, Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

However the other eight democratic member-states on the Security Council – France, United Kingdom, America, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain and Uruguay should be appalled.

Demanding two democratic States envisioned by Security Council Resolution 2334 – and the disavowal of official voices on both sides that reject the Security Council’s solution – will not be embraced at this Conference.

4. Not one word in the summary statement says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”.

The “two-state solution” does not necessarily require:

a) Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the thirteenth year of his four-year presidential term,

b) Gazan and West Bank Arabs being given the vote for the first time since 2006 and

c) two non-elected governing authorities making way for one elected Government.

Paris promises the sudden death of Resolution 2334 with the burial of the Security Council’s “two democratic states solution”.

David Singer: Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American Policy on Israel

Here, hot on the heels of his previous must-read article (see previous post), is Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest incisive contribution.

He writes:

The US Congress has swiftly moved to rebuff the efforts by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reverse long-standing American policy in relation to Israel. By a vote of 342:80 Congress resolved on 5 January 2017:

“the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 undermined the long-standing position of the United States to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel, reversing decades of bipartisan agreement” 

Congress’s decision goes a long way to restoring America’s reputation and integrity.

Vice President-elect Pence has certainly signalled the incoming Trump Administration’s approval of such Congress action with the following tweet:

Congress now needs to rectify Obama’s abandonment of the written commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (“Commitments”).

Congress has a vested interest in seeing those Commitments restored - because it overwhelmingly approved Bush giving those Commitments to Israel by a massive vote of 502 to 12.

Among those voting to support those Commitments was Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator John Kerry – whilst not casting a vote in the Senate –  made his position very clear to moderator Tim Russert on Meet The Press on 18 April 2004:

Russert: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

Kerry: Yes.

Russert: Completely?

Kerry: Yes. 

Subsequent decisions by both Clinton and Kerry respectively as Secretary of State played an active role in aiding and abetting Obama’s abandonment of the Bush Commitments - marking a shameful period in American history.

Bush gave his Commitments to Israel for the following stated reasons: 

“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza;

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel;

3. thousands of rockets indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centres;

4. chaos in Sinai;

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties;

Clinton and Kerry should have resigned in protest at Obama abandoning the Bush Commitments.

Reaffirming those Commitments should be an immediate priority for Congress – which is clearly in no mood to allow Obama to do any further damage.

Congress has signalled it will not tolerate Obama or Kerry attempting to subvert American foreign policy on Israel at the forthcoming international conference in Paris on 15 January or in the Security Council in the last five days of Obama’s presidency.

America can stand tall and proud. American commitments to Israel will be honoured once again.

Israeli Envoys Danon & Dermer React to Kerry's Speech (videos)

At the end of the previous post, David Singer's expert demolition of Bob Carr's contentions in the aftermath of UN SecurityCouncil Resolution 233, is appended Bibi Netanyahu's superb riposte to Secretary of State John Kerry's speech.

In these two Fox News videos the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, and the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, also have robust home truths for Kerry.

Danny Danon:

Ron Dermer:

More here

David Singer: Palestine – France Embarks On Flight Of Fancy

Chag Pesach Sameach to all Jewish readers.

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The announcement by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault that France will host a meeting of ministers from 20 countries in Paris on May 30 to try and relaunch the Israel-Palestinian peace process seems to be yet another flight of fancy that is destined to end up where the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap presently find themselves after decades of fruitless negotiations.

Who those 20 countries are that will attend such a meeting will make fascinating reading.

The other 173 member States of the United Nations should be miffed at not being invited to enjoy the sights, sounds, food and wine of Paris as it seeks to put behind it:

1.    The devastating Islamic terrorist attack on 13 November last that claimed the lives of 130 people and wounded 352 others.

2.    The assault on a police station on 7 January last by a jihadist wearing a fake explosive belt attacking police officers with a meat cleaver while shouting "Allahu Akbar". He was shot dead and one policeman was injured. The ISIS flag and a clearly written claim in Arabic, were found on the attacker.

Ayrault said the conference aimed to prepare an international summit in the second half of 2016 which would include the Israeli and Palestinian leaders – acknowledging that:

“The two sides are further apart than ever”

He then proceeded to issue this mantra that has almost become commonplace in trying to end the Jewish-Arab conflict: 

“There is no other solution to the conflict than establishing two states, one Israeli and the other Palestinian, living side by side in peace and safety with Jerusalem as a shared capital.”

Really?

The French Foreign Minister needs to understand there are other solutions -– one involving the allocation of sovereignty of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) between Jordan and Israel – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – who have since 1946 and 1948 respectively enjoyed sovereignty in 95 per cent of the territory once called “Palestine”.

Ayrault has reportedly said the discussions would be based on the 2002 Saudi peace initiative — approved by the Arab League but not Israel.

That decision in itself will guarantee the failure of the French initiative.

There is no mood in Israel to commit national suicide – which the Arab peace initiative unashamedly seeks. 

Ayrault adopts an air of typical Gallic condescension as he intones:

“We have to explain to the Israelis that settlement activity is a dangerous process and that it puts their own security in danger.”

Maybe the newly-appointed Foreign Minister should look at the rapidly expanding Islamic settlement activity taking place in France and address that threat to France’s security before he seeks to interfere in Israel’s affairs.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who brokered a previous round of Israel-Palestinian peace talks that collapsed in April 2014 gave the French proposal a guarded welcome when he visited Paris in March:

“Not any one country or one person can resolve this. This is going to require the global community, it will require international support”

Kerry is right but at the same time he is wrong.

What Kerry and President Obama continue to fail to acknowledge are the firm written commitments made to Israel by former President George Bush on 14 April 2004 – overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress.

Were Obama and Kerry prepared to rally the global community to get behind the Bush-Congress commitments and take Abbas dragging and screaming to the negotiating table – maybe some movement towards a resolution of the conflict could eventuate.

Pushing the 2002 Arab Initiative whilst ignoring the 2004 Bush-Congress Initiative is destined to become an exercise in futility and certain failure.

Obama and Kerry Must Stop Playing Games Affecting Israel’s Future, warns David Singer

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Attempting to secure the Congressional vote required to confirm President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has necessitated Secretary for State John Kerry pledging Obama’s “rock solid” diplomatic support and increased military assistance for Israel – the bitterest opponent of Obama’s Iranian proposal. Speaking at the National Constitution Center on 2 September, Kerry said:

"And diplomatically, our support for Israel also remains rock solid as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, or to pass biased resolutions against it in international bodies."

Kerry continued: 

"I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the security of Israel, a commitment I demonstrated through my 28-plus years in the Senate. And as Secretary of State, I am fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice Israel must make…"

If Kerry is to be seriously believed then he must reassure Congress – irrespective of its vote on Iran – that the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 supporting Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will be scrupulously adhered to by the current Obama administration.

Kerry unequivocally supported those Presidential commitments when interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 18 April 2004:

RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

KERRY: Yes.

RUSSERT: Completely?

KERRY: Yes.

Those commitments included:

1. Preventing any attempt to impose any plan other than President Bush’s Roadmap envisioned by him on 24 June 2002.

2. Being strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.

3. Understanding that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

4. Accepting as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

5. Acknowledging that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

Bush’s commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407:9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95:3 the next day (“the Bush/Congress Commitments”).

Obama attempted to water down these commitments in 2011 by suggesting possible Israeli land swaps be made for any territory Israel acquired in the West Bank.

Kerry piggybacked Obama in 2013, inducing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel with this letter:

 "Dear Mr. President

In response to your question regarding our position on the issue of borders, this letter is to confirm that the position set forth by President Obama in his May 2011 speeches, that Palestine’s borders with Israel should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, still represents our position. As negotiations begin, I reiterate our commitment to this position. As you confirmed, this letter is and will remain private and confidential between you and me.”

Playing such furtive games with Abbas contrary to the Bush/Congress Commitments is now surely over, following Kerry’s statement. Those commitments are set in concrete – binding all American administrations including Obama’s.

David Singer: Obama Admits Defeat On Renewed Negotiations For Two-State Solution

Here is the latest article by Australian lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is entitled "Palestine – Obama Admits Defeat On Renewed Negotiations For Two-State Solution".

Writes David Singer:

President Obama has finally admitted the death of any renewed negotiations for a two-state solution between Israel and the PLO for the next several years, telling the media on 24 March:

“there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a Palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time -- which was always the presumption.”

President Obama has apparently accepted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s contention that such negotiations are not possible whilst conflicts involving radical Islam rage in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

President Obama had until now placed his faith in such negotiations:

“Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties.” 

The rise of Islamic State in June 2014 has created a new ballgame and new dynamic.

Islamic State’s possible spill-over into Gaza and the West Bank cannot be ignored by Obama when Israel is being requested by Obama to withdraw from part of the West Bank and cede part of its own sovereign territory to the PLO in accordance with President Obama’s vision enunciated in May 2011: 

“... the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps - so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” 

Abandoning territory – as Israel did in Gaza in 2005 – will require ironclad security guarantees.
President Obama’s pledge to degrade and destroy Islamic State is a work in progress that could take up to three years – as Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted last September at a NATO Summit attended by President Obama and himself.

Six months later Kerry’s assessment has been thrown into serious doubt by Syria’s President Assad – who in a rare interview with 60 Minutes on 30 March declared: 

"Actually ISIS [Islamic State] has expanded since the beginning of strikes – not like some Americans want to sugar coat the situation - to say that it is getting better, ISIS [Islamic State] is being defeated and so-on. Actually No – they have more recruits. Suggested estimates say they have 1000 recruits every month in Syria and Iraq. They are expanding in Libya and many Al-Qaeda affiliated organisations have announced their allegiance to ISIS.” 

Israel cannot possibly be expected in these circumstances to negotiate with the PLO on establishing secure and recognized borders as stipulated by President Obama and Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 – until Islamic State is finally degraded and destroyed.

President Obama has announced he is going back to the drawing board.

“the evaluation that’s taking place is specific to what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians going forward. We’ll continue to engage the Israeli government as well as the Palestinians, and ask them where they are interested in going and how do they see this issue being resolved. But what we can’t do is pretend that there’s a possibility of something that’s not there. And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years.” 

President Obama should – in such evaluation process – seriously explore the possibility of first demanding that President Mahmoud Abbas call presidential and parliamentary elections in Gaza and the West Bank – last held in 2005 and 2006 respectively.

Let democracy replace these repressive dictatorships. 

The Daphne Anson blog wishes all Jewish readers Chag Pesach Sameach, and all Christian readers a Happy Easter.

"Their Main Goal Is To Eliminate Israel & Establish An Islamic State": Jordanian opposition figure on Palestinian aims (video)

Just posted by Mudar Zahran re Jordan

Here's Mudar Zahran, the Jordanian opposition figure of Palestinian background who's very sympathetic to Israel, interviewed on Brett and Jon Rappaport's current affairs series The Final Say about the current situation in the Middle East. 

"They are ... in their own world when it comes to radicalism and hatred of Israel ...Their main goal is to eliminate Israel and establish an Islamic state."

In that quotation, is Mr Zahran talking about Hamas?

No.  He's talking about the attitude of Palestinians in the West Bank, where he spent this past summer.

The entire interview, not overly long, is worth listening to, but the relevant section starts at about 13:15, when Mr Zahran's interviewer asks him whether there are any genuine partners for peace on the Palestinian side.

Regarding the people of Gaza, he says

 "[T]hey have had enough of Hamas.  They would love to see Hamas go."

 He is scornful of the Kerry Plan and the current vogue for recognising Palestinian statehood..

  "The Palestinian Authority is corrupt and affiliated with terrorism."

"Basically the West is pushing Israel as if [statehood] is going to solve all the problems .... It's a bad idea."

His solution?

 "[T]he only logical option is a Palestinian state east of the river ...."

 Another brave Arab gentleman, speaking earlier this year:

And see this from the son of a Hamas leader, in the current Telegraph

David Singer: How The Arab League & Kerry Could Create A Breakthrough to Peace

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is entitled "Palestine Mandate Legally Triumphs Over Discredited PLO Charter".

Writes David Singer:

The 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – and international law – have finally emerged as triumphant victors over the 1964 PLO Charter following the collapse of 50 years of failed attempts by the PLO to arbitrarily void the vote of the 51 members of the League of Nations unanimously endorsing the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in 23 per cent of former Palestine.

This significant PLO defeat and loss of face follows the ignominious end – on 29 April 2014 – of the nine months negotiating deadline period imposed on Israel and the PLO by US Secretary of State  John Kerry designed to achieve the "two- state solution" – the creation of a second Jew-free Arab State - in addition to Jordan - in former Palestine for the first time ever in recorded history.

The American and PLO failure to achieve the "two-state solution" after 20 years of fruitless negotiations represents a lost opportunity not likely to return for a long time - leaving the political prestige influence and credibility of those much vaunted negotiators in total disarray in the rapidly growing silent and abandoned diplomatic graveyard.

The PLO – since its formation in 1964 – had arrogantly strode the world stage claiming Palestine as the sole property of the Arab nation whilst simultaneously denying the Jewish people any right to live in their 3000 years old Jewish ancient, legally sanctioned and biblical homeland.

Article 18 of the 1964 PLO Charter had brazenly declared:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states."

Four years later Article 18 had been replaced with a more strident, equally dismissive article 20:

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

This outright rejection of international law by the PLO has never been questioned by the League of Nations compliant successor, the United Nations, which – acting in clear breach of Article 80 of the UN Charter – knowingly collaborated to prolong the Arab-Jewish conflict in violation of international law when welcoming the PLO purveyor of Jew-hatred –Yasser Arafat – into its midst with adulation and enthusiastic applause on 13 November 1974.

The acceptance of this terrorist organisation into the realm of civilised political discourse by the United Nations whilst the PLO simultaneously continued to assert that the League of Nations had no power to make any legally binding decisions – must surely rank among the most shameful episodes and low points in United Nations history.

Lecturing to Israel on international law whilst allowing the PLO to reject international law was breathtaking hypocrisy on the United Nations part.

The principle of respect for the law was cast aside by United Nations members as they trashed the original and noble principles enunciated in the Mandate on the altar of expediency and national self- interest

Adopting countless condemnatory General Assembly resolutions of non-binding validity those spineless members lined up with the the automatic majority represented by Arab Islamic and third world member States to sell out their souls to appease an organisation of terrorists, law-deniers and Jew-haters.

Former UN Secretaries General stood by in silence as anti-Israel resolutions denigrating and delegitimising Israel were ramped up with ever increasing hatred.

The legal commitments enshrined in the Mandate had previously stood resolutely firm against this Arab assault on the Jewish National Home since 1922 – as partition proposals by the Peel Commission in 1937 and a newly created United Nations in 1947 were contemptuously shredded into the garbage bin of history by an Arab leadership that would not brook any compromise or reconciliation with the Jewish people.

The advent of major wars including the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought staggering losses and suffering for both Arabs and Jews as the Arab League armies still vainly attempted to eliminate the Jewish State and the consequences of the Mandate.

Whilst the PLO fails to recognise Israel as the Jewish State no peace between Jews and Arabs is realistically likely to occur.

The Arab League and Kerry have the power to create a breakthrough – pressuring Jordan and Israel to redraw the internationally recognised boundary between their respective countries as successor States to the Mandate for Palestine

In view of their loss of political clout do these neutered politicians and the United Nations really possess the diplomatic ability to make peace finally happen?

Using the wisdom and political sagacity of their League of Nations ancestors – the miracle created by the Mandate for Palestine 92 years ago is hopefully set to resurface.as attempts to rescue the peace process are started once again.

"The Most Risible & Incompetent Secretary of State in Living Memory": Kerry & the A word

See Congressman Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) here in an articulate denunciation of John Kerry's use of the "Apartheid" word in relation to what, according to Kerry, Israel risks becoming; why Kerry's use that word is intolerable; why he should offer his resignation as Secretary of State; and why Obama should accept it.

On the same theme, Canadian broadcaster Michael Coren, more forthright in tone than Cruz (Coren calls Kerry "The most risible and incompetent Secretary of State in living memory") is completely on form here, in excoriating John Kerry's use of the "apartheid"word and pointing out that Kerry "owes Israel and the thinking world an apology"for using an entirely inappropriate word that plays right into the hands of Israel's leftist and Islamic enemies "for their own sordid ends".

Coren's is a must-see video that, unfortunately won't load on my blog.  I dare not attempt to embed it because, as experience has shown me, that manoevre can lead to my blog's format going awry!

The Coren video includes an interview with Professor Aurel Braun, who cogently explains at length why Kerry's remarks were unconscionable.

Amid the widespread condemnation of Kerry's remarks, the State Department has gone into damage control.

He says:

"I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don’t believe.

 First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one.  Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt.

 Second, I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution."

David Singer On Why Kerry Must Heed America's Five Crucial Commitments To Israel

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is entitled
"Palestine – Historical Amnesia Causes Kerry's Downfall".

Writes David Singer:

John Kerry was well on the way to becoming another impotent and failed Secretary of State in November last year – as predicted in my article "Palestine – Kerry Destined For Political Scrapheap":

"Historical amnesia – Kerry-style – has been – and apparently still is - a potent factor in failed American attempts to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.Such ignorance has clouded the thinking of many former well-intentioned Secretaries of State – who became ticking time bombs destined to end up on the political scrap heap because they tried to undo what was internationally guaranteed in former Palestine ninety years ago." 

Kerry – like previous Secretaries of State before him – made the same fatal error of ignoring the PLO's refusal to accept decisions taken in the international arena between 1920 and 1922 and since then – believing the PLO could be appeased into changing its mind.

Since its inception in 1964 the PLO has never been prepared to recognise the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country as laid down in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The current Kerry negotiations were being conducted pursuant to the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap – as amplified at Annapolis in 2007.

However the Roadmap itself was fatally flawed in its objective of seeking to create a second Arab state in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – for two basic reasons:

1. Such a State had already been rejected in 1937, 1947 and 2000/2001 by the Arabs - and Kerry's hope there might be a change of heart in 2014 was clearly dispelled by the terms of the PLO Charter.

2. A 19-year window of opportunity had been available to create such a state with the simple stroke of an Arab League pen in the entire West Bank and Gaza at any time between 1948 and 1967 – yet no attempt had been made to do so.

Kerry was no doubt sincere in his desire to end the 130-years-old conflict – but so were those other Secretaries of State who preceded him and got nowhere because they pandered to the PLO, which has continued to maintain that every international decision since 1920 to the present is null and void.

Kerry's mission impossible not unsurprisingly turned out to be an ignominious diplomatic failure.

Kerry's political redemption will now depend on the release of his long awaited draft framework agreement for peace - promised by Kerry but postponed on at least three occasions due to Kerry's inability to procure agreement to its terms from Israel and the PLO.

Did Kerry's draft framework agreement encompass the following conditions enunciated by President Bush in his letter to Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 – as overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress:

1. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

2. The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

3. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

4. As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

5. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Kerry's imposed code of silence on anyone but Kerry making announcements on the progress of the negotiations can only lead one to speculate on whether these five crucial commitments were included in Kerry's framework agreement

Reports that Netanyahu was prepared to reluctantly sign the framework agreement indicate that some – but not all – of the above conditions were incorporated in Kerry's framework agreement, as would Abbas's reported refusal to sign the last draft under any circumstances.


Trying to tip toe around these American commitments to Israel would certainly have complicated the negotiations – and Israel's probable insistence that they all be included would surely have created insurmountable problems for Kerry in persuading the PLO to sign.


Kerry needs to come clean and put all the drafts of his framework agreement and the objections raised by Israel and the PLO into the public arena.


Failure to do so will leave Kerry under a diplomatic cloud and open to the claim that he failed to honour written commitments made by President Bush and Congress to Israel in exchange for Israel agreeing to unilaterally disengage from Gaza.

If Kerry has indeed not followed the terms of the Bush 2004 letter in pursuing these current negotiations – then irreparable damage to his diplomatic reputation will become a lasting legacy from which he will find it difficult to recover.


Another repeat of historical amnesia will surely consign Kerry to diplomatic oblivion.

Deluded Kerry Urgently Needs To Realise What The Only Answer Is, Warns David Singer

In this, his latest article ("Palestine – Kerry Can’t Keep Kidding Himself"), Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer continues to scrutinise and criticise the American Secretary of State's delusions.

Writes David Singer:

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s unshakeable belief that he could succeed in facilitating what had eluded former American Secretaries of State for the last 20 years – the creation of a 22nd Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza for the first time ever in recorded history - has been shattered following Israel cancelling the release of 26 prisoners convicted of terrorist attacks prior to the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Israel’s action followed the PLO lodging applications to join 15 UN international agencies in breach of its commitments not to do so whilst negotiations between Israel and the PLO were being conducted.

Kerry now needs to immediately focus his attention on Jordan – the last Arab State to have occupied the West Bank between 1948-1967 – and which together with Israel comprise the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine 1920-1948.

Redrawing Jordan’s international boundary with Israel to restore the status quo existing before the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War – as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground – provides a realistically achievable alternative to the doomed Israel-PLO negotiations.

Lorenzo Kamel, an historian at Bologna University and a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, has published an error-riddled article attempting to distance Jordan from becoming involved in any such negotiations – which Kerry should unequivocally reject.

Kamel’s following misleading claims have been corrected by my bold-font responses:

1. “Whenever there is a concrete effort to push forward the peace process, talk about “a substitute homeland” for the Palestinians re-emerges. Most of those supporting this scheme claim that well before the partition suggested by the UN General Assembly in 1947, the Zionist movement suffered a mutilation of territory following the unilateral British decision in 1922 to separate Transjordan from the rest of the land subject to the Mandate for Palestine…

...” Transjordan was thus part of the Mandate for Palestine with the proviso that Britain might administer it separately and for a period which at best may be considered scarcely relevant.”

Transjordan remained subject to the Mandate for Palestine from 1920 until 1946.

It was only the provisions of the Mandate relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine that were “postponed or withheld” in Transjordan under Article 25 of the Mandate – as this Note presented by the Secretary General to the League of Nations clearly stated:

"In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.

His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."

The seeds for an independent Jew-free Arab State in 78 per cent of Palestine had thus been planted by Great Britain in 1922.

Transjordan achieved its eventual independence on May 25, 1946 – whilst the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine continued to be subject to the Mandate until 1948.

2. “Transjordan, unlike Palestine, was never occupied by British troops and during the mandatory period there was no “overlapping”, either at a legal or practical level, between the two areas.”

The Arab Legion was formed in Transjordan in 1923 and financed by Britain and commanded by British officers under Captain Frederick Peake.

Transjordan was always included in the annual Report for the Mandate for Palestine presented to the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission.

3. “A citizen of Transjordan was required to ask for official permission before being admitted to Palestine.”

Immigration from Transjordan was not illegal, and was not recorded as immigration at all until 1938.

4. “The awareness that Palestine was distinct from Syria and Lebanon is said to have always been present in the Arab and Muslim consciousness.”

An early nineteenth-century Egyptian historian, 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Jabarti, referred to the inhabitants of El Arish in the Sinai Peninsula as Syrians. Palestine was called Southern Syria first in French, then in other languages, including Arabic. …

…Indeed, from the moment Prince Faysal set up a government in Damascus in October 1918, he stressed that Palestine was a part of Syria. At the Paris Peace Conference, where the British, French and Americans sorted out their interests after the war, Faysal called Palestine his "right hand" and promised to work for it as he would for Syria and Iraq. "I assure you, according to the wishes of its people, Palestine will be a part of Syria." Three months later, Faysal wrote General Edmund Allenby that Palestine "is an inseperable [sic] part of Syria."

5. “Zionism certainly accelerated the general development of the region and the process of self-identification of the local majority, but never did the land beyond the Jordan have a religious, social or cultural value comparable to the land between the river and the Mediterranean Sea.

Kamel’s claim is refuted by article 2 of the PLO Charter which states that “Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel have now become the only answer to avoiding renewed conflict and violence between Jews and Arabs.

Kerry is kidding himself if he thinks otherwise.

Kerry’s Credibility Crashes As Abbas’s Intransigence Increases, Argues David Singer.

"Palestine – Kerry’s Credibility Crashes As Abbas’s Intransigence Increases" is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

US Secretary of State John Kerry has seen his reputation and prestige shredded to tatters over the past few weeks. On 13 March Kerry told members of the House Foreign Relations committee that:

1. international law has already declared Israel a Jewish state, and

2. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence on a public declaration of Israel’s Jewish character from the PLO was “a mistake” in the diplomatic process.

 Kerry also told a Senate panel:

“‘Jewish state’ was resolved in 1947 in Resolution 181 where there are more than 40-30 mentions of ‘Jewish state’. In addition, chairman Arafat in 1988 and again in 2004 confirmed that he agreed it would be a Jewish state. And there are any other number of mentions.”

PLO Chairman and President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas was unimpressed with Kerry’s knowledge of international law. On 16 March the New York Times reported:

'... Mr. Abbas, speaking before a meeting in the Oval Office, made clear that he was no closer to uttering the words that are a litmus test for the Israelis: that he recognizes Israel as a Jewish state.

“Since 1988, we have recognized international legitimacy resolutions” on Israel, Mr. Abbas said as Mr. Obama looked on, a hand on his chin. “And in 1993, we recognized the State of Israel.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that the Palestinians go further and recognize Israel as a nation-state for the Jewish people in order to get a peace deal. Mr. Abbas has flatly refused, and his comments on Monday suggested he had gone as far as he would.'

On 19 March Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at The City University of New York Peter Beinart [J Street's founder] provided this advice to Abbas:

“I have a suggestion for Mahmoud Abbas. The next time Benjamin Netanyahu demands that you recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” tell him that you’ll agree on one condition. The Israeli cabinet must first agree on what “Jewish state” means. That should get you off the hook for a good long while.

Israel has never been able to define the term “Jewish state.”

The good professor was obviously unaware that the term “Jewish State” had been defined for the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in evidence given by David Ben-Gurion 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.”

Abbas rejected Beinart’s unsolicited advice for one simple reason – any state that contained the word “Jewish” or any suggestion of being Jewish would never be acceptable to Abbas. As Pinhas Inbari reported:

“On March 22, 2014, Abbas spoke before the Central Committee of the Fatah Movement. According to Nabil Abu Rodena, spokesman for the Palestinian Authority presidency, the Fatah body supported Abbas’ position of “non-recognition of Israel being a Jewish state.” The Palestinians did not release a complete text of Abbas’ Fatah speech.

At the Arab League summit in Kuwait on March 25, Abbas took this a step further. The official Arabic transcript of his speech before reveals how he has moved toward a more uncompromising diplomatic posture, opposing Israel’s stand that it be recognized as the nation-state of the Jewish people, just as it recognizes the Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people:

“Israel has invented new conditions that it did not raise before, like recognizing it as a Jewish state. This we oppose as well as even holding a discussion on this matter.”

The Arab League was more than happy to oblige Abbas and rebuff Kerry  – its final communiqué at the summit’s close stating:

“We express our absolute and decisive rejection to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.”

Kerry  – left high and dry by this united show of Arab opposition to accepting what Kerry had trumpeted just 12 days earlier  – was suddenly forced to fly to Amman on 26 March to meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah in the afternoon and Abbas in the evening.

As Kerry’s credibility crashes, Abbas’s intransigence in refusing to recognize Israel as the Jewish State increases – a certain recipe for diplomatic disaster.

Kerry Risks Sacrificing Holy Land For Holy Dollar, Warns David Singer

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer; it is titled "Palestine – Kerry Risks Sacrificing Holy Land For Holy Dollar".

Writes David Singer:

“But now the holy dollar rules everybody's lives - Gotta make a million doesn't matter who dies” [Queensrÿche – Revolution Calling]

US Secretary of State John Kerry has increased the possibility of renewed conflict in the Holy Land with some very confusing remarks this week refuting his earlier demand that the PLO recognize Israel as the Jewish State. On 3 March – Kerry told the AIPAC Conference: 

“Any peace agreement must also guarantee Israel’s identity as a Jewish homeland.”

 Yet 10 days later Kerry told members of the House Foreign Relations committee that:

1. international law has already declared Israel a Jewish state, and

2. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence on a public declaration of Israel's Jewish character from the PLO was "a mistake" in the diplomatic process. Kerry also told a Senate panel:

"'Jewish state' was resolved in 1947 in Resolution 181 where there are more than 40-- 30 mentions of 'Jewish state’. In addition, chairman Arafat in 1988 and again in 2004 confirmed that he agreed it would be a Jewish state. And there are any other number of mentions."

Accepting Kerry’s latest claims as being factually accurate – which they are not – Kerry needs to answer this question:

How can any agreement ever be reached between Israel and the PLO if the PLO is not required to guarantee Israel’s identity as a Jewish homeland?

Netanyahu has made it clear on many occasions that without the PLO making such a declaration – no negotiated “two-state solution” can ever be achieved.

Kerry’s contradictory statements appear to have cut the ground from under Netanyahu’s feet.

The PLO can now confidently expect that its rejection of this express Israeli demand would be supported by America as being:

1. reasonable and

2. allow the PLO to walk away from the negotiations because Israel unreasonably persisted with that demand.

Kerry’s comments fly in the face of President Bush’s written assurance to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a letter dated 14 April 2004 – overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress on 23 June 2004: 

“The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.”

What reasons could Kerry possibly have for abruptly abandoning Bush and the Congress’s specific commitments – supported by Kerry himself at AIPAC? Kerry’s following remarks to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on 13 March provide the possible answer:

“I also think we have to remember that foreign policy in 2014 is not all foreign. The fact is that we are, in the State Department, increasingly focused on economics, focused on building our strength here at home, on advancing American businesses, on creating job opportunities. Every time I speak to the Department of State, I talk about foreign policy as economic policy. And every Foreign Service officer today and every Civil Service officer now must also become an economic officer, and we have changed the training at the Foreign Service Institute in order to take all of our initial recruits and begin to structure ourselves differently than in the past.

Some people say there – some people express a skepticism about this. Well, let me just tell you: Our Embassy in Zambia recently helped create jobs in New Jersey. The patient advocacy of our diplomats helped an American construction company land an $85 million contract. They’re building 144 bridges, and they have the potential to do far more. There may be a follow-on, multi-hundred-million-dollar contract. Our consular staff in Kolkata – they helped bring Caterpillar together with a company in India to develop a $500 million power plant. When 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside of our market, and when foreign governments are out there extremely aggressively chasing RFPs, requests for proposals, contracts, jobs, opportunities, and they’re backing their companies in a very significant way, we need to understand we’re living in a different world than we were in the Cold War when America was the single powerhouse economy of the world and everybody else was recovering from the war, World War II. Now, then you could make mistakes and still win; now, you can’t. It’s a different economic competitive – it’s a different marketplace.”

Maintaining commitments to long standing allies apparently now plays second fiddle to American business enterprises earning international dollars.

Lucrative contracts possibly falling into America’s lap to repair the damage and havoc wrought in Moslem countries such as Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq – much of it American induced – seems more important than incurring the wrath of the Council of the League of Arab States which had stated on 9 March that it absolutely rejected recognizing Israel as the Jewish State.

America brought to its knees economically by the global financial crisis and its disastrous forays into Iraq and Afghanistan is apparently – as a declared goal of American foreign policy – prepared to soften its support for Israel if this opens up new business opportunities for America in Islamic countries.

Kerry’s policy risks the Holy Land being turned again into an arena of violent conflict – as those who rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan are emboldened by Kerry’s remarks to contemplate again attempting what six Arab armies unsuccessfully tried to do in 1948 – eliminate the Jewish State.

Abandoning the Holy Land for the holy dollar is a recipe for another potential humanitarian disaster and an American foreign policy failure of massive proportions.

Will President Obama and the Congress allow this to happen?