David Singer: United Nations, Egypt and Jordan Could Scuttle Trump’s Peace Plan

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

He writes:

President Trump’s long-awaited peace plan to end the Arab-Jewish conflict – slated for release by the end of January 2019 – could be indefinitely shelved.

This possibility has emerged following the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) failing to pass an American-sponsored resolution A/73/L.42 (“Resolution”) – condemning Hamas and other militant organisations in Gaza for indiscriminate attacks on Israel’s civilian population.

Protecting all civilian populations from the ravages of conflict and war was turned on its head when the Resolution failed to attract a two-thirds majority vote demanded by UN Arab-member states – rather than a simple majority argued for by America which was lost by a narrow margin of three votes.

The Resolution had sought to condemn Hamas – whose Covenant calls for the destruction of Israel – for the first time since Hamas was created in 1987.

The Resolution served as a barometer to measure whether 134 of the 193 UN members comprising the Group of 77 would be prepared to support one pro-Israel humanitarian resolution being passed to break the cycle of over 700 UNGA anti-Israel resolutions their voting bloc had always guaranteed.

Only 35 possessed the moral integrity to break ranks and support the Resolution, 32 abstained and 15 did not vote.

Trump was publicly humiliated – and Hamas considerably boosted – when the Resolution only mustered 87 votes “for”to 57 “against”– 9 votes less than the 96 required for its successful carriage.
41 of the 57 dissenting votes were cast by Islamic States of whom only 6 – Azerbaijan, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Senegal and Turkey – maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Solidarity with the Islamic bloc took precedence over humanitarian concerns to protect Israel’s civilian population under daily attack.

The other 16 dissenters were:
Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, China, Congo, Cuba, Lao, Mauritius, Namibia, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. America would have reasonably expected support for the Resolution from some of the remaining 13.

Egypt and Jordan were the two Arab states Trump would have probably been focusing on to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in negotiations with Israel – after the PLO had made it clear on many occasions that it would not negotiate with Israel on Trump’s proposals under any circumstances.

Egypt and Jordan’s credentials as replacement negotiators were unique – being the last two Arab states to respectively occupy Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between 1948 and 1967 – the specific territories that Trump’s plan will address and whose sovereignty still remains disputed between Arabs and Jews.

Egypt and Jordan’s dissenting votes are not what Trump would have anticipated from these two major recipients of America’s generous largesse.  Their readiness to risk losing substantial foreign aid and American protection rather than assist Trump in getting his Resolution adopted is bad news for Trump.  Without securing their prior agreement to negotiate with Israel – Trump’s plan seems destined to never see the light of day.

Other dissenting Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Oman also showed their preparedness to risk losing ongoing American support rather than white-ant the UN Islamic-voting bloc.
Trump’s United Nations ambassador – Nikki Haley – disclosed:

 “The president called and he said, ‘Nikki what happened?’ And I told him, and he goes, ‘Who do we need to get upset at? Who do you want me to yell at? Who do we take their money away?’” “I’m not gonna tell you what I told him,” she added.

Trump’s revenge on those 57 dissenting states will be but a small consolation prize if his “deal of the century” is prematurely trashed in the White House shredder.

(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: Trump, Israel, Jordan and PLO Need to Define Palestine’s Boundaries

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

He writes:

President Trump’s attempt to end the Jewish-Arab conflict could well hinge on Israel, Jordan, the PLO and Trump defining the boundaries of former Palestine under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate territory).

Defining the territory within which the competing claims of Jews and Arabs must be resolved is a first prerequisite to ending a conflict that has raged for the last 100 years.

False claims still continue to be made that Israel comprises more than 75 per cent of the Mandate territory whilst Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza comprise the remaining 25 per cent. The latest such misleading claim appeared in the following article: 

“On the 14 of May 1948, the state of Israel was declared. By the time Israel and the Arab States signed the Armistice agreement in 1948, Israel had gained control over 75 per cent of mandate Palestine.”

The article further asserts that the 1967 Six Day War was: 

“the beginning of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and annexation of East Jerusalem, territories which together made up the remaining 22 per cent of Mandate Palestine.”

The article fails to inform readers that:

1. In 1946, 78 per cent of the Mandate territory became a sovereign independent Arabs-only, Jew-free State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan – renamed Jordan in 1950

2. Israel is only 17 per cent of the Mandate territory

3. Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza comprise the remaining 5 per cent of the Mandate territory.

Israel, the PLO and Jordan have each separately acknowledged this geographically-accurate territorial subdivision of former Palestine- as the following statements make clear:

1. Abba Eban  – Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations – 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."

2. Yasser Arafat – the first PLO Chairman – told the New York Review of Books on 25 June 1987:

"Jordan and Palestine until 1945 were one State, actually. After the Second World War, Churchill himself said, “This is Transjordan, and this is Palestine. Before that Jordan was an emirate …completely part of Palestine”

3. Transjordan’s King Abdullah addressed the Arab League meeting in Cairo on 12 April 1948: 

“Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country”

Many more similar statements exist from Jewish, Arab and other sources.

If Trump concludes that a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – is required in the Mandate territory – then Jordan – not only Israel, Judea and Samaria (West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – should be included in determining that third State’s possible location.

However such a second Arab State – if governed by the PLO – the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs since 1974 – would pose an existential threat to the continued existence of both Jordan and Israel as sovereign independent States – since Article 2 of the PLO Charter expressly states: 

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

One Jewish State and two Arab States in the territory of the Mandate will exacerbate – not resolve – the conflict.

Jordan – 78 percent of the Mandate territory – must be part of any territorial resolution.

Territorial negotiations – like gridiron and basketball – can only be played out within clearly designated boundaries.

Defining Palestine’s boundaries is indeed the key to Trump succeeding where all others have failed.

David Singer: Trump, Israel, Jordan and Egypt Can Redress Obama-PLO Debacle

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

He writes:

President Trump continues to ponder the way forward to end the 100-years-old conflict between Arabs and Jews – as negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – stalled since April 2014 – show no sign of being resumed.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - were consigned to the graveyard of history after PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas unilaterally disbanded the Palestinian Authority on 3 January 2013.

White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner has been quoted in an off-the-record discussion saying: 

"there may be no solution".

There may however be a solution should Jordan and Egypt – Israel’s immediate neighbours – agree to negotiate with Israel to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Filling this potentially explosive negotiating void with Jordan and Egypt will require Trump to first articulate:

1. the parameters and

 2. The fact-based framework

within which such new negotiations should actually be undertaken

The parameters should be restricted to resolving the competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 5 per cent of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine – Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – where internationally-recognised sovereignty still remains undetermined (“the disputed territories”).

Conflicting narratives paralysing previous negotiations must be replaced by Trump with a different fact-based framework underpinning any new negotiations  – including:

1. Jordan and Egypt:

· signatories to peace treaties with Israel in 1994 and 1979 respectively and

 · the last Arab States to occupy the disputed territories between 1948 and 1967

are the best Arab interlocutors to determine with Israel the allocation of sovereignty in the disputed territories.

2. The PLO Charter calling for the destruction of both Israel and Jordan disqualifies the PLO from participating in such new negotiations.

3. Hamas – designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel and banned in Jordan – must be excluded from these new negotiations.

4. The new negotiations are being undertaken to resolve the “Jewish-Arab conflict” that began in 1915 – not “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” that began in 1948

5. Sovereignty in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine has already been granted to Israel (17 per cent), Jordan (78 per cent) – with sovereignty in Judea and Samaria [West Bank], East Jerusalem and Gaza (5 per cent) still undetermined.

6. The Jewish people is legally entitled to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the disputed territories by close settlement under Article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter  – subject to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there being safeguarded.

7. Misleading and deceptive language referring to the disputed territories as “occupied territory” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” fail to recognise that it was Jewish occupation in the disputed territories that was first abruptly ended in 1948 – after every single Jew then living there was forcibly driven out by six invading Arab armies and not allowed to return until after the Six Day War in 1967.

Trump has a hard row to hoe in formulating this critical framework  – but do it he must if there is to be any hope of advancing peace in the Middle East.

Such Trump-defined parameters and fact-based framework need to then be mutually agreed by Jordan, Egypt and Israel before formal negotiations can commence.

Any fanfare trumpeting yet another round of negotiations without such tripartite agreement will inevitably see those new negotiations being eventually buried alongside the graves housing the failed Oslo-Roadmap and stalled Israel-PLO negotiations.

Trump, Israel, Jordan and Egypt working together can certainly succeed where Obama and the PLO ignominiously failed.

David Singer: Abbas Concessions Kick-Start Trump Attempt to Resolve Israel-Arab Conflict

Getty Images

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

He writes:

Three concessions made by Mahmoud Abbas – following pressure placed on him by President Trump – open the way to possible negotiations between Israel, the Palestinian Arabs, Egypt and Jordan to resolve the 100-years-old Israel-Arab conflict.

Abbas has agreed to:

1. Withdraw his 2014 demand that Israel first agree to freeze building within Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) as a pre-condition to resuming negotiations with Israel.

2. Tone down his campaign to prosecute Israel for alleged war crimes and rallying condemnation of the Jewish state at the United Nations.

3. Cease paying salaries to 277 released Hamas prisoners including Director of Hamas’s Political Bureau in the Gaza Strip – Yahya Al-Sinwar.

Israel sentenced Al-Sinwar to four life terms in the late 1980s but released him after 23 years imprisonment in a swap of 1,047 Palestinian prisoners for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006.

Al-Sinwar headed Hamas’s first security unit responsible for tracking and killing Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel.

Abbas’s spectacular capitulation comes just two weeks after his reportedly fiery meeting with President Trump in Bethlehem on 23 May – when Trump had stressed:

“.. the importance of creating an environment consistent with the desire for peace” 

Trump had then warned Abbas at their subsequent media conference:

“Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded and even rewarded. We must be resolute in condemning such acts in a single, unified voice.”

These three Abbas concessions may sufficiently satisfy Trump to pressure Netanyahu to resume negotiations.

However such negotiations – if conducted only between Abbas and Netanyahu – will assuredly fail and end up in the garbage bin of history – joining other unsuccessful negotiations conducted between them over the last ten years – for the following reasons:

1. Whilst Hamas and Fatah continue their internecine struggle for political control of the Gazan and West Bank Arab populations and refuse to countenance the holding of elections for the first time since 2006 – no permanent peace agreement can emerge from such resumed negotiations.

2. Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organisation will not abandon their campaigns to wipe Israel off the face of the map – as clearly stated in their respective Charters.

3. Trump will need to unscramble the following seemingly intractable demands being made by Netanyahu and Abbas if he wants to succeed where so many before him have abjectly failed:

 · Israel being recognised as the national home of the Jewish people

· Israel retaining military and security control in and over Judea and Samaria (West Bank)

· any Palestinian State being demilitarised

· Jerusalem remaining united as the capital of Israel

· A second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – being created in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine and the capital of that State being located in Jerusalem

· Israel withdrawing totally from the territories lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War

· Palestinian Arabs retaining their claimed right of return to Israel.

Trump may well intend trying to resolve these demands by including other Arab States in any new round of negotiations – as this White House Press Office Readout of Trump’s 23rd May meeting with Abbas tantalisingly suggests:

“The two leaders discussed ways to advance negotiations and considered how Arab states might support those negotiations.”

Egypt and Jordan – enjoying signed peace treaties with Israel since 1979 and 1994 respectively  could be just those States.

Such four-party negotiations – conducted under Trump’s oversight and using his proven skills in successfully negotiating and concluding deals – could be the key to ending the logjam of failed negotiations since 1993.

Hope springs eternal.

David Singer: Trump Can Broker Israel-Jordan Deal but No Israel-PLO Agreement

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

He writes:

President Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations – Jason Greenblatt – has returned from his wide-ranging meetings in Jerusalem, Ramallah, Amman and Jericho with zero prospects of Trump brokering a deal between Israel and the PLO.

However Greenblatt’s belief in the pivotal role Jordan can play in resolving the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict was apparent in his tweet after meeting Jordan’s King Abdullah II:

“We agree on the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Jordan an important ally in this effort.”

According to the Jordan Times:

"During the meeting, held at Al Husseiniya Palace, His Majesty stressed the US role in ending the stalemate in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and reviving negotiations that should lead to a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict, based on the two-state formula.He asserted that reaching a just deal of a comprehensive peace that includes establishing a Palestinian state will reflect on efforts to achieve peace, security and stability in the region.” 

King Abdullah is whistling in the wind in believing another Arab state could still be established – in addition to Jordan – in the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine where Israel presently exercises sovereignty in 17 per cent and Jordan 77 per cent – whilst sovereignty remains undetermined in the last 6 per cent – the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza.

Negotiations between Israel and the PLO to create that second Arab State have extended over the last 24 years and been dormant since April 2014.

Those negotiations have failed because Israel and the PLO have been unable to resolve core demands despite two offers having been made by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 to cede its claims in over 90 per cent of the West Bank. Israel’s unmet demands are that:

1. The PLO recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people

2. The major Jewish settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria be incorporated into the boundaries of Israel

3. Israel retains security control over the Jordan Valley

4. Jerusalem remains the eternal undivided capital of Israel

5. Any such State be demilitarized

The PLO’s unmet demands are that:

1. The Palestinian State be granted sovereignty over all of the territory of the West Bank with its capital being located in East Jerusalem.

2. All Jewish settlements located in the West Bank and East Jerusalem be dismantled and their inhabitants be removed.

3. Palestinian Arab refugees who fled the 1948 Arab invasion of Western Palestine be allowed to return and settle in Israel.

Trumps’s ability to cut a deal in the face of these irreconcilable differences is severely hampered by the written commitments made to Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon by President Bush on 14 April 2004 and overwhelmingly endorsed by the US House of Representatives by 407:9 and Senate 95:3.

Those commitments – given to Israel to secure Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza and four Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria – back Israel’s above demands in any negotiations with the PLO.It seems inconceivable that Trump – the master deal-maker – would consider reneging on the Bush- Congress-Sharon deal.

If he did, Israel would not resume negotiations with the PLO.

If he doesn’t, the PLO would not resume negotiations with Israel.

If Trump wants to do a deal, he needs Jordan to come to the party and enter into direct negotiations with Israel to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank between Jordan and Israel – virtually completing the original two-state formula envisaged in 1922 by Article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate.

Greenblatt’s meeting with King Abdullah is a possible pointer to getting such negotiations underway.

Trump’s undoubted brokering skills can ensure such negotiations happen.

David Singer: Netanyahu Sends Clear Message to Trump, Putin, May and UN

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

He writes:

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has had a busy week meeting with UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson in Jerusalem, President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and then back to Jerusalem for a five hour meeting with President Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations – Jason Greenblatt.

The framework for these meetings was set by Netanyahu – who told Johnson:

“It’s evident that we agree on most things, but not on all things. And one of the things, I think the source of it when you analyze a problem, get to its roots and reason that we haven’t had peace for a hundred years is not the settlements, but the persistent refusal to recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people in any boundary. I think if you want to solve a problem, go to the core of the problem, and that is something I look forward to discussing with you further.”

Netanyahu’s claim is substantiated by the following facts:

1. Settlements were not the problem when the first two-state solution was proposed by article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922.

That solution – which envisaged allocating the Arabs 78 per cent of Mandatory Palestine [Transjordan] and the Jews the remaining 22 per cent – was rejected by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews.

Iran – one of the 51 States then unanimously endorsing the Jewish people’s legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine – now seeks to destroy the Jewish State in 2017.

2. Settlements were not the problem in 1937 when the Peel Commission recommended partition of the territory of the Mandate into one Jewish State and one Arab State – again rejected by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews.

3. Transjordan remained part of the Mandate for Palestine until Great Britain granted it independence on 22 March 1946. 78 per cent of the Mandate territory was thus irrevocably transformed into an exclusive Arabs-only State contrary to Article 5 of the Mandate.

4. The United Nations recommendation to partition the remaining 22 per cent of the Mandate territory into one Arab State and one Jewish State in November 1947 was again rejected by the Arabs and accepted by the Jews – culminating in Western Palestine being invaded in May 1948 by six Arab armies and the forcible eviction of all Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. 

5. Settlements were not the problem between 1948 and 1967 when another Arab State could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza whilst not one Jew lived there.

6. Offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 to another Arab State being created in Gaza and the West Bank were rejected by the Arabs.

7. In December 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334 declared that the Jewish Quarter and Kotel in East Jerusalem, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem were “occupied Palestinian territory”.

UK and Russia shamefully failed to veto this Resolution.

8. Gaza is ruled by Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization governs Areas A and B of the West Bank. Both have held onto power without holding elections since 2006. Both refuse to recognize a Jewish nation-state in any boundaries.

Johnson told Netanyahu:

“I first visited [Israel] when I was – as I never tire of telling you – when I was 18.”

Netanyahu should never tire of telling world leaders that the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict will not be resolved until the Arabs recognise the right of the Jewish People to their own independent State.

David Singer: Paris Buries Palestine and UN Security Council Resolution 2334

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

He writes:

72 States and Organizations meeting in Paris on 15 January have repudiated Security Council Resolution 2334 (“UNSCR 2334”)  just – three weeks after it was passed on 23 December 2016.

UNSCR 2334 had reiterated the Security Council’s

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

The final Paris communique dumped this “two democratic states solution” by reaffirming:

“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace”.

The word “democratic” was in fact omitted in the Paris communique in nine places – signalling that Paris did not accept the definitive terms of the “two-state solution” proposed by the Security Council.

The Paris communique deliberately sought to mislead and deceive what UNSCR 2334 had actually stated – declaring the participants:

“welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which … called on both sides to take steps to advance the two state solution on the ground;"

– blatantly failing to identify that it was the “two democratic states solution” that was envisioned in UNSCR 2334.

Paris went even further in attempting to gloss over the obligation for any Palestinian State to be democratic – the communique noting:

“the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation”.

No mention about addressing the absence of democracy in Gaza – where Hamas has denied the Arab population any elections for the last 10 years.

Paris omitted any reference to the only framework within which Israel and the PLO have been negotiating during the last 13 years – the 2003 Bush Roadmap – which clearly states:

“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”

The Paris communique:

“called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016”.

However one Quartet recommendation states:

“Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements.”

Kerry mentioned “two-state solution” 29 times but never once uttered the word “democratic”.

Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future.

Paris has managed to bury the “two democratic states solution” in just 24 hours.

The Roadmap and UNSCR 2334 have received the last rites.

Perhaps the Security Council and the Paris participants should now consider the “two-state solution” first envisaged in 1922:

One Jewish State – Israel – and one Arab State – Jordan – in the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.

This territorial subdivision has already happened in 95 per cent of the Mandate territory. It can happen very quickly in the remaining 5 per cent.

In fact it only involves redrawing the existing international boundary between Israel and Jordan – two states already living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.

Simple and achievable.

David Singer: Palestine – Changed Narratives Needed To Nurture New Negotiations

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

He writes:

France is not expected to present its anticipated draft proposal for the declaration of a Palestinian State to the U.N. Security Council in September – having reportedly been criticized both by Israel - which does not want any external solution imposed on it – and by the PLO – which fears the Security Council will not meet its demands.

The Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap are dead and buried – even if the headstone is yet to be ceremoniously unveiled marking the actual date when the collective records, transcripts and secret minutes detailing fruitless negotiations conducted during the last 20 years between Israel and the now-disbanded Palestinian Authority were finally consigned to the graveyard of history.

It is now also becoming increasingly apparent that creating a 22nd independent Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt can:

1. ever peacefully eventuate without Israel, Jordan and Egypt’s express consent

2. be unilaterally imposed on Israel as a result of any resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council contrary to the express terms of its own Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

Filling this potentially explosive void will require the groundwork to first be meticulously prepared before any new negotiations can actually be undertaken to try and resolve competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 6% of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine – Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – where sovereignty still remains undetermined (”the disputed territories”).

Such groundwork will require the following factual narratives to have been commonly agreed on and adopted by the negotiating parties prior to commencing negotiations to resolve the conflict:

1. Two of Israel’s immediately adjoining neighbours – Jordan and Egypt – have recognised the existence of Israel as a sovereign State in peace treaties signed by them with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively. These peace treaties have been honoured and respected during difficult periods when they might have been abrogated. They stand as a tribute to the determination of all three sovereign States to maintain a state of peace and avoid a position of confrontation as differences were resolved. Jordan and Egypt are accordingly indispensable parties to any new negotiations with Israel – if Arab sovereignty is to be established in any parts of the disputed territories.

2. Two of Israel’s other immediately adjoining neighbours – the PLO and Hamas – have since 1964 and 1988 respectively maintained in their respective Charters that the Jews have no claims to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine vested in the Jews by the unanimous vote of all 51 members of the League of Nations in 1922. Including either the PLO or Hamas in any new negotiations is pointless and meaningless whilst those Charters remain unrevoked.

3. The on-going conflict needs to be re-branded “the Jewish-Arab conflict” replacing “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. The current conflict had its origins in the events that took place during World War One – well before the State of Israel was declared in 1948. Marginalising the ongoing conflict by avoiding any consideration of the events that occurred between 1915 and 1948 has operated to paper over any proper discussion of the many opportunities presented to and rejected by the Arabs in relation to gaining territorial sovereignty in the disputed territories during that time - and indeed after 1948. This could impact on the current Arab claims to sovereignty over any of the disputed territories which may have been jeopardised or prejudiced as a result.

4. Recognition that the territory of the Mandate for Palestine is currently under Jewish sovereignty in 17% (Israel), Arab sovereignty in 78% (Jordan) with the remaining 6% comprising the disputed territories.

5. Claims that the building of Jewish settlements in the disputed territory are illegal in international law – based on the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention - need to be reconsidered having regard to the following prior territory-specific piece of legislation – Article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – legalising such Jewish settlement: 

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

Pursuant to this provision – preserved in 1945 by Article 80 of the UN Charter – Jews have legally settled in the disputed territories between 1922 and 1947 – and since 1967.

6. The continued use of language referring to the disputed territories as being “occupied territory” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” and the need for Israel to “end the occupation” fails to recognise that it was the Jews whose occupation in the disputed territories was first abruptly ended in 1948 – after every single Jew then living there was forcibly driven out by six invading Arab armies and not allowed to return until after the Six Day War in 1967.

Unless these narratives are changed, nurtured and mutually accepted by the parties before formal negotiations actually begin - one can confidently predict that any fanfare trumpeting yet another round of negotiations will be destined to see those negotiations inevitably end up in their own designated graveyard plot alongside the tomb housing the Oslo-Roadmap failed negotiations.

Negotiations based on shaky foundations without real substance can only guarantee their eventual death throes.

"The Palestinians [Are] One of Many Many Created Bogus Names": Arab Politician

"Needless to say it's very sad what is happening right now in Israel and ... in Gaza.  I bet most Israelis and the Israeli establishment and government did not desire the war on Gaza and did not desire to be bombing Hamas.  But unfortunately Hamas, a terrorist group, has brought misery for my people the Palestinians and for the Israelis....

Unfortunately the media antisemitism ... has reported very badly on Israel at the moment.

As a Palestinian leader it is in my best interests that Israel does well because whenever Israel does well we do very well and we thrive. Whenever Israel is in trouble because of Hamas and the antisemites in the West we suffer.

In fact, Hamas has only survived because of the tolerance and the media support of the West and elsewhere .....

.... All this is happening because the Palestinians need a state. It's true we do deserve a state....That state today is Jordan....

.... There is no question about the right and the entitlement [of the Jews] to The Land ....

It's about time the Israel-lovers in the United States, and there are millions of them, should consider the Jordanian option....

Most so-called Palestinians, my people, live in Jordan ..."

 That's the message of  the brave and personable Mudar Zahran, the Jordanian opposition leader who we have had the pleasure of meeting several times before on this blog.

He makes the point quoted in the header at 19:20, during a theme that begins at 18:48.

Among his other observations is that Israel is fighting the West's war against Islamism and that if Israel falls, other western countries will follow.

He is speaking at length to Brett and Jon Rappaport of Rappaport Media.Com, in a long discussion on paths to peace that also includes Sarah Stern, founder and president of the Endowment for Middle EastTruth


In this superb must-hear discussion she aptly describes Mr Zahran as a"profile in courage".

Always A Peace Process, Never A Peace

'Palestinians say that for Muslims, Palestinian land reaches "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea" – that is, over all of what is now Israel. In their view, Tel Aviv is illegally occupied territory just as much as any of the settlements in the West Bank. This view is based on the Muslim doctrine, deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, called "waqf" (religious endowment). Any territory once under the control of Muslims, must forever be controlled by Muslims.  According to Islamic law, "If a person makes something waqf, it ceases to be his property and neither he nor anybody else can gift or sell it to any other person', write Harold Rhode and Joseph Raskas this week in a footnoted article:

'.... Today, any Palestinian Muslim leader who would sign a final peace agreement recognizing as Jewish any part of what had once been part of the Muslim World would be violating a core tenet of Islam... And any Palestinian leader who agreed to surrender land held in trust by the Muslim waqf would not only be humiliated, but very likely assassinated.

Abbas's predecessor, Yasser Arafat, faced this dilemma at Camp David in 2000, when Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered Arafat all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with the exception of what was under the Temple Mount. Arafat, knowing that he could never accept such an agreement, rejected Barak's offer. He then asserted that, "There never was a Jewish Temple there," and is reputed to have said, "Do you want see me up there having tea with Sadat?" – a reference to the assassination by Islamists of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat, who had signed a peace treaty with Israel.

[John] Kerry, [Martin] Indyk and their staff, even with the best intentions, seem unaware that Muslims cannot ever, under any conditions, cede territory regarded as rightfully belonging to Muslims – or, more aptly, to Allah – to non-Muslims. 

So even with Kerry's and Indyk's – or anyone's – best efforts, any attempt to coax Abbas into signing a permanent agreement that would undermine this Muslim requirement is futile....

Given that Islam cannot accept a Jewish state, the Palestinians win peace talks by "not losing." While Israeli leaders seek peace, Palestinian leaders seek an endless peace process. Abbas simply needs to find a way to draw out the negotiations as long as possible, without ever coming to a final agreement....

[A]ny Muslim leader who would permanently hand over Muslim territory to non-Muslims – especially to Jews – would be subject to public humiliation and almost certain assassination. Far better to let Abbas suffer the consequences rather than they, and meanwhile absolve themselves from any shame or blame in the process.

Abbas's other out seems to have been embracing his mortal Palestinian enemy, Hamas. Abbas was doubtlessly aware that Hamas would also never consent to the conditions previously imposed on it by the Middle East Quartet: rejecting violence, recognizing Israel and accepting previous accords. Hamas could be counted on never to accept any treaty with Israel, as evidenced by the Hamas charter, which repeatedly calls not only for the destruction of Israel, but also of the Jews.

This rapprochement with Hamas, however, not only enables Abbas to continue receiving funds from the U.S. and Europe, but later to be able to blame Hamas for any subsequent failure of the talks. Abbas now does not have to choose between either possible death or certain dishonor in the eyes of his fellow Palestinians. Hamas therefore provides the perfect cover Abbas needs not to sign any permanent peace agreement that Kerry & Co. still seem so determined to deliver....'

Read the entire article here and see also here

Meanwhile, talking of financial aid, NGO Monitor has a detailed report here (hat tip: M.W.) titled "Australian Funding in the West Bank and Gaza" that reveals, to quote part of its own summary,

"Some Australian aid funding goes to political advocacy NGOs that are involved in BDS and for activities that are contrary to the peace process"

and which observes:

'Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said in 2014: “Under the Abbott Government aid spending will be tied to measurable outcomes. Rigorous benchmarks will be introduced to ensure integrity in the Australian aid program and to give Australian taxpayers greater confidence in its effectiveness.”

 In light of this statement, NGO Monitor recommends that the Australian government set more rigorous benchmarks in its indirect funding of NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza.

 Australia must more closely investigate operations and partnerships of intermediary organizations to ensure that taxpayer funds are used to further Australian national interests.

 .... NGO Monitor encourages Australia to end funding to organizations that demonize Israel and encourage BDS.'

Australia's tough new federal Budget, announced today by Treasurer Joe Hockey, entails cuts to foreign aid, as glimpsed in this synopsis:

'Foreign aid frozen at current levels for two years, helping save $7.6 billion over five year; International commitment to spend 0.5 per cent of gross national income on foreign aid abandoned; $400 million saved over four years by folding the former AusAID into the Foreign Affairs  Department'

 Let's hope that the activities identified by NGO Monitor are the first to feel the pinch.

A Former Muslim On Intolerance Of Israel: "The Problem With Arab Culture Is It Is The Most Ethnocentric Culture On Earth ... " (video)

The following studio discussion involving a Jew and a Muslim-turned-Christian concentrates on Jew-hatred in Egypt past and present but broadens into a discussion of Islamic and Arab intolerance of Israel.

It's  interesting in the light of the fact that, during the current strife in Cairo, both sides have been calling the other puppets of Israel and Zionists (see this video report) and that, as a certain legendary blogger declares in the excerpt below, "arguably in recent years anti-Zionism and antisemitism" there has worsened.

En passant, in this StandWithUs video, the former Muslim also talks of the Sharia-mandated death penalty facing apostates from Islam such as she, as well as the misogynistic violence that bedevils the Islamic world.

"Peace will not bring friendship. Anyone who believes that only has to look at how Egypt and Jordan regard their peace treaties with Israel. They have been respecting the treaties but they have not stopped their incitement; arguably in recent years anti-Zionism and antisemitism in those two countries has gotten worse.

Unless you are wedded to the idea of an impossible peace where Israel and the PLO are allied, you should realize that today, we have real peace.

After any agreement is signed, we will see more deaths on both sides, guaranteed.

Efforts should not be put into a fantasy peace plan. Instead, we need a dose of realism. The factors that can destabilize the current peace are the ones that need to be neutralized.

This means doing real work to integrate Palestinian Arabs into Arab countries as full citizens. This means working towards a Syria that is neither Assad nor Al Qaeda, but one that gives its people hope and weakens both Hizballah and Iran. This means a policy that truly supports liberal, democratic forces in Egypt and Tunisia and elsewhere. It means working towards a Middle East that resembles more closely the de facto peace currently enjoyed by Israel and Palestinian Arabs, where the cost of war is much higher than the status quo."

That's the conclusion of a thought-provoking essay here by that maestro of all pro-Israel bloggers, that legend in his own lifetime, Elder of Ziyon (hat tip: reader Ian)

Palestine – Singing From The Same Hymn Book, By David Singer

(As I explained in the preceding post, this blog is taking a holiday of about a week.
I'm glad, though, to be able to post the following article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer before I shut my laptop and begin the long trek from my rural hermitage in the UK to Australia.
Any comments on this and other posts will appear tardily, so please accept my apologies.)

Writes David Singer:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has now claimed that a "country" exists in that area of the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority's complete administrative and security control prior to the Authority's demise in January 2013.

Speaking at the re-opening of the Palestinian embassy in Kuwait, Abbas was reportedly quoted in Gulf news.com as stating it was: 

“a historic moment in the deep-rooted relations between the two countries.”

Granted Abbas spoke in Arabic and his words may have been misunderstood or mistranslated –  international acceptance of this region as a country called "Palestine" could be a significant step forward in progressing an end to the long running Jewish-Arab conflict.

Abbas's claim was further strengthened with a report in Turkish Press.com that Turkey has become the first country to appoint an ambassador to "Palestine" after its envoy in Ramallah –  Sakir Ozkan Torunlar –  presented his Letter of Credence to President Mahmoud Abbas - being officially titled as the first ambassador to "Palestine"

Yet –  according to Yahoo 7 News – the Palestinian Authority is still slowly progressing to statehood despite the admission of "Palestine" as a member state of UNESCO and an observer at the United Nations.

"Prime minister Salam Fayyad's resignation is likely to raise questions over donor support for the Palestinian Authority and may slow its steps towards statehood, experts warn."

However – confirming the demise of the Palestinian Authority –  Shir Hever, an economic researcher in the Alternative Information Centre (an Israeli-Palestinian Organization) told Real News:

"The State of Palestine, formerly known as the Palestinian Authority, has placed a single condition to resume talks that Israel will freeze the construction in the illegal colonies."

John V Whitbeck –  an international lawyer who served as an advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel –  declared the Palestinian Authority dead and buried four months ago.

In an article in the Cyprus Mail on 13 January headlined "Finally the State of Palestine exists" Whitbeck revealed that the Palestinian Authority “had been absorbed and replaced by the State of Palestine” in a decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January and signed by him acting in his capacities as president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)

Making sure his message was fully understood by those willing to listen, Whitbeck stated unequivocally:

'The Trojan horse called the “Palestinian Authority” in accordance with the Oslo interim agreements and the “Palestinian National Authority” by Palestinians, having served its purpose by introducing the institutions of the State of Palestine on the soil of Palestine, has now ceased to exist.'

Abbas's Kuwait declaration as existing head of this "country" is a welcome development - but must not to be confused with the two-state solution that was to have resulted from negotiations between Israel and the PLO under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The United Nations seems to have underscored this differentiation with a statement to Wafa Press this past week by United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process –  Robert Serry: 

“the United Nations remains committed to working with its Palestinian partners, under the leadership of President Abbas, towards development, state-building and to achieve the long-overdue negotiated two-state solution.”

The problem for the UN is that the framework for that long overdue negotiated two-state solution has been abandoned by the PLO unilaterally approaching UNESCO and the United Nations whilst engaging in its own brand of state-building to the point where Abbas can now proclaim to be head of a "country" without any need for such further negotiations.

The UN - a principal supporter and sponsor of Oslo and the Roadmap - has seen these negotiating processes subverted by large numbers of its own member states actively endorsing and encouraging the above unilateral actions by Abbas when he headed the now defunct Palestinian Authority.

Whitbeck's following assessment made in January now makes more sense after this week's interesting developments: 

“Perhaps due, at least in part, to the low-key manner in which this change has been effected (the end of the Palestinian Authority - Ed), it has attracted remarkably little attention from the international media or reaction from other governments, even the Israeli and American governments. This is not necessarily disappointing, since passive acceptance is clearly preferable to furious rejection.

The relatively few and brief media reports of the change have tended to characterise it as “symbolic”. It could - and should - be much more than that. If the Palestinian leadership plays its cards wisely, it could – and should –  represent a turning point toward a better future.”

Playing their cards wisely now involves Abbas and the Palestinian leadership

* putting an end to continuing claims of statelessness, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and occupation

* urging the winding up of UNRWA, the dismantling of its refugee camps and using UNRWA's budget to repatriate and re-settle the hitherto stateless refugees in their new country

* calling on Palestinian Arabs world wide to return to their fledgling country to join in the challenge of nation building

* Encouraging other countries to follow the examples of Turkey and Kuwait by appointing ambassadors and establishing full diplomatic relations

* seeking a new negotiating framework with Israel to resolve what has now become a border dispute between two existing countries.

There is still a long way to go before everyone is singing from the same hymn book - but actions such as these will certainly help.

David Singer On The Mischievous Impact Of Palestinian Myth-Making

"Palestine – Two New Arab Myths," is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

Writes David Singer:

'Two new Arab myths have surfaced in the past week to complicate attempts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to procure the resumption of the long stalled negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

The first myth can be directly attributed to Mustafa Barghouti –  a presidential candidate for the now defunct Palestinian National Authority –  who was roundly defeated by Mahmoud Abbas when elections were last held in January 2005.

Interviewed by Arab American News (AAN), Mr Barghouti was asked the following question:

AAN: "What about the United Nations situation with Palestine being granted Non-Member Observer State status this past fall, any new developments?"

Mr Barghouti gave this remarkable answer:

"Not new, but this achievement was very important from a symbolic standpoint, it also eliminated any Israeli claim that the West Bank and Jerusalem are disputed territory. Now they are part of an occupied Palestinian state ... "

 This is arrant nonsense.

According to Mr Barghouti there is apparently no need for further negotiations to determine the sovereignty of these areas –  only a timetable for Israel to hand them over to the State of Palestine and to arrange for the uprooting of all 500000 Jews presently living there.

If you believe this myth, then you accept that

1. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are no longer of any relevance.

2. The 1948 armistice line is wiped off the map and negotiations to establish secure and recognised boundaries for the State of Israel can be shredded.

3. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter has become a footnote in history.

4. The Jewish claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine – including the West Bank and Jerusalem - as conferred by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine –  is an anachronism.

5. The claimed right of return for millions of Arabs into the State of Israel remains unresolved.

6. The United Nations decision has unreservedly endorsed the PLO's stated policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in denying Jews any rights of residency or citizenship in the State of Palestine.

7. General Assembly Resolutions of the United Nations create binding obligations in international law. 

Kerry's planned fortnightly shuttle from America to Jerusalem and Ramallah appears to be a waste of time unless this latest myth is quickly nipped in the bud.

President Abbas needs to immediately repudiate Mr Barghouti's statement.

If Abbas refuses, Kerry should start to shuttle between world capitals seeking declarations unequivocally disavowing any support for the Barghouti myth.

Simultaneously with the Barghouti myth comes the news that the cornerstone for yet another myth – a new museum of “Palestinian culture, history and society” –  has been laid in Bir Zeit near Ramallah.

This will be no ordinary museum – as project manager Omar al-Qattan reportedly explained:

"It will be more than a traditional building with archaeological relics. We are looking at an institution that will transcend all boundaries – geographical and political"

Palestinian culture minister Siham Barghouti told AFP that the initiative was:

“A great achievement for the Palestinian people...The link between memory and everything related to it, to Palestinian history, and to having digital contact with Palestinians everywhere constitutes an important step"

The "museum" seems set to become the new repository for perpetuating the fiction of the existence of an indigenous "Palestinian people" or the "Palestinians" going back at least 3000 years to the Canaanites.

Featured exhibits in the museum will certainly not include:

* The Mandate for Palestine 1922 –  that made no mention of the "Palestinians" or the "Palestinian people" –  but pointedly only included the then Arab population of Palestine among the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and called for "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion"

* The report of the Peel Commission 1937 –  which again omitted any mention of a Palestinian people – but contained this statement which was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs:

 "The problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question which of them in the end will govern Palestine must be Neither. No fair-minded statesman can think it right either that 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been facilitated by he British Government and approved by the League of Nations, should be handed over to Arab rule, or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But while neither race can fairly rule all Palestine, each race might justly rule part of it."

* Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly dated 29 November 1947 which was also silent in acknowledging the existence of a Palestinian people – but proposed the following recommendation that was again rejected by the Arab population of Palestine:

"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below."

Jesus the Jew will no doubt be prominently featured as Jesus the Palestinian. Archeological relics will be conspicuously absent.

Until fact replaces Arab fiction and self-delusion – the conflict between Jews and Arabs will assuredly continue.'

(And talking of myths and lies, see these articles regarding Deir Yassin; this [hat tip: reader Shirlee] and this)

David Singer Reiterates That Palestinian Democracy Is Essential For Peace

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest article is entitled "Palestine – Backtracking Begins As Democracy Dies".  In it, he takes issue with the views recently expressed in Peter Beinart's Daily Beast by Dr James J. Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute and author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us, and Why it Matters (2010).

He writes:

'Arab attempts to undermine and trash the Bush Roadmap and end any hopes of a negotiated peace between Israel and the PLO were flagged with some remarkable comments made by James Zogby in his article published this week headlined “Putting the Blame on “Palestine’s Democratic Deficit”.

James Zogby’s opinions need to be taken seriously – because what he says has clout,  given the powerful position he holds.

Dr. Zogby is founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, DC-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab-American community

In his article Dr Zogby makes this amazing claim:

'The rather bizarre notion that the Palestinians must first build a “practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty” before they can have a state was first articulated by George W. Bush in June of 2002. Back then, with Israeli-Palestinian tensions at a high point, the world waited for two months while Bush was framing his approach to restoring peace-making efforts. A speech had been written by State Department Middle East experts, but at the last minute the White House inserted its “democracy first” demand which, instead of restarting the peace process, proved to be the “nail in its coffin.”'

Dr Zogby then discloses who managed to get the “democratic demand” slipped into the President’s speech at the last moment – effectively guaranteeing that the peace process would eventually be scuttled – as has now become so apparent in 2013.

'State Department officials who had worked on the initial drafts of the speech were floored by the Bush insertions, which we later learned had come directly from the President after he had read a treatise on democracy by Anatoly (i.e. Natan) Sharansky. Sharansky, the famed Soviet refusenik, had left the Soviet Union for Israel in 1986.'

A Jewish Zionist – Natan Sharansky – had been able to influence an American president to take a decision that had floored the experts at the State Department.

How accurate are Dr Zogby’s revelations and the inferences he wants readers to draw?

First, Sharansky had not merely “left the Soviet Union for Israel in 1986″

Wikipedia tells his story in more detail:

"Sharansky was denied an exit visa to Israel in 1973. The reason given for denial of the visa was that he had been given access, at some point in his career, to information vital to Soviet national security and could not now be allowed to leave. After that Sharansky became a human rights activist and spokesperson for the Moscow Helsinki Group. Sharansky was one of the founders of the Refusenik movement in Moscow.

In 1977 Sharansky was arrested on charges of spying for the United States and treason and sentenced to 13 years of forced labor in Perm 35, a Siberian labor camp (Gulag)."

How did Sharansky leave the Soviet Union for Israel in 1986? 

"As a result of an international campaign led by his wife, Avital Sharansky (including assistance from East German lawyer Wolfgang Vogel, New York Congressman Benjamin Gilman and Rabbi Ronald Greenwald) Sharansky and three low-level Western spies (Czech citizen Jaroslav Javorský and West German citizens Wolf-Georg Frohn and Dietrich Nistroy) were exchanged for Czech spies Karl Koecher and Hana Koecher held in the USA, Soviet spy Yevgeni Zemlyakov, Polish spy Jerzy Kaczmarek and East German spy Detlef Scharfenorth (the latter three held in West Germany) in 1986 on Glienicke Bridge. Sharansky was released in February 1986 ...."

Sharansky was indeed well qualified to write a treatise on the virtues of democracy as opposed to totalitarian regimes.

But President Bush as head of the world’s leading democracy needed no treatise on democracy to make his democracy demand an essential plank of his peace plan.

Do Dr Zogby’s claims have any relevance apart from telling us the State Department spat the proverbial dummy and had a hissy fit of somewhat monumental proportions because the President did not like what they had drafted?

Consider what President Bush actually said on 24 June 2002:

“I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.”

The President’s statement was the basis for the actual text of the Roadmap presented nine months later on 30 April 2003 to Palestinian and Israeli mediators by Quartet mediators – the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia.

The other members of the Quartet were well aware that the text they all approved contained this statement:

“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours.”

Clearly an international consensus had emerged on what was essential to end the long running Arab-Jewish conflict.

Whilst Israel had expressed 14 reservations in accepting the Roadmap, the PLO accepted it without amendment, as the PLO leader made clear on 30 April 2003:

 “Israel is attempting to alter the road map as we know it by entering into complicated negotiations and imposing its own interpretation.We will not negotiate the road map. The road map must be implemented.”

Dr Zogby seeks to blame Israel’s settlement policies for the lack of democratic reforms in the areas of the West Bank under full Arab administrative control.

It is time to end the blame game whilst perennially claiming victimhood status.

It is time to face up to the reality that only the fundamentals of  a democratic state – free and fair elections, freedom of expression and the media – can lead to a negotiated end to this long running conflict.

The sooner elections are held to end the seven -year drought since the last election was held, the sooner the hope of peace will become a flickering light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

Dr Zogby has done the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza a grave disservice by dashing the hope of democracy ever coming to change their lives – as it changed the lives of Sharansky and the million Soviet Jews who eventually made it to Israel.

Jew-haters and Israel bashers must be salivating at Dr Zogby’s “disclosures”.

Such is the manner by which the Arab narrative has been created out of nothing – to [be] a story that soon assumes a momentum of its own.'

David Singer On Richard Falk's Faux-Pas & Fallacies

In his latest article (which is entitled "Palestine: Falk's Failed Philosophy Guarantees Continuing Conflict"), Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer offers a searing criticism of Professor Falk's  attitude, and maintains that it is time for the professor to forsake his UN post.

Writes David Singer:

'Professor Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, has returned to world headlines with another controversial annual Report.

Falk this time round has encouraged a boycott of United States industry giants Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett Packard and Motorola, Israeli cosmetics firm Ahava, Cemex of Mexico, Veolia Environment of France, G4S of the United Kingdom and Volvo Group of Sweden, among others, and for civil society to join that effort.

His call amounts to a denial of the rights of people to choose who they deal with, where they establish their businesses and who they employ. The successful implementation of Falk's call will lead to the loss of employment, loss of dignity and inability to provide food and shelter for those put out of work as a result –  excerbating rather than helping to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Professor Falk said the focus on the business community was partly an expression of frustration over the failure to persuade Israel to comply with its fundamental legal obligations.

 Professor Falk's notion of what Israel's "fundamental legal obligations" are can best be gleaned from the following comments made by him during an exchange with me on his personal blog site on 1 August 2012:

"I really do respect your concern with the historical background of the conflict, and how it bears on the merits of various lines of interpretation from the perspective of relative rights and international law. I hold two views, however, that make it seem to me not useful, in fact, the opposite to dwell on these concerns at this stage: first, a long political process ever since the UN was established that has settled the international law questions in favor of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination, and even refugees, and I find that these outcomes accord with my sense of justice in determining the relations between the two peoples; I believe that Israel has itself generally, although indirectly, acknowledged this conclusion by using its leverage to avoid the intrusion of international law issues in ‘the peace process’ and by defying international law when it cannot avoid its relevance (wall advisory opinion of ICJ; Goldstone Report)

Secondly, I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law."

Professor Falk's peremptory dismissal of settled international law between 1919 and 1947 in relation to the former territory of Palestine –  part of the former Ottoman Empire for 400 years until its capture by Great Britain in World War One – is puzzling.

The Treaty of Versailles, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of Lausanne, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter are all dismissed as "classic colonial moves" in what can only be displayed as a breathtaking display of arrogance by Professor Falk.

 Indeed his rejectionist views are identical to the views espoused by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Article 20 of the PLO Covenant:

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

 Professor Falk –  like the PLO –  prefers to abandon these internationally sponsored legal building blocks in favour of  "a long political process ever since the United Nations was established that has settled the international law questions in favour of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination and even refugees".

With the greatest respect to Professor Falk – international law is not settled by pronouncements of the United Nations but by judgements and advisory opinions delivered by the International Court of Justice operating within the jurisdictional parameters conferred on it by the United Nations Charter.

There have been no binding resolutions by the United Nations in relation to settlements, Jerusalem, self determination or refugees that can be used as a basis for approaching the International Court of Justice to seek their enforcement against Israel.

 If there were, Israel's enemies would most certainly have been queuing up at the International Court seeking orders long ago.

 Professor Falk sees as extant the League of Nations unanimous decision to recognise the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there.

 The preservation of that right as enshrined in Article 80 of the 1945 UN Charter is also irrelevant in Professor Falk's blinkered view.

 By some queer quirk of logic Professor Falk wants to take as his starting point in the Jewish-Arab conflict either the "1948 partition proposal" or the "1967 boundaries".

 Neither of Professor Falk's starting points even exist.

 There was a 1947 –  not 1948 –  partition proposal by the United Nations.

The Arabs regrettably rejected that proposal. The opportunity then afforded by the United Nations to end the Jewish-Arab conflict cannot possibly be replicated 64 years later.

 There were no 1967 boundaries –  but there were 1967 armistice lines. The difference between the two is critical and cannot be transposed as Professor Falk seeks to do.

 Professor Falk's claim that Israel is defying international law in relation to the  wall advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is equally without substance since that decision is non-binding according to the Court's own constitution.

 One would expect a professor of law to be precise and accurate in his choice of language and attention to factual detail. Professor Falk fails on both counts.

 Professor Falk is certainly entitled to espouse the views he does.

 However his entitlement to continue in his role as a Special Rapporteur must surely be questioned when he seeks to ignore a whole body of settled international law created before 1948 –  whilst continuing to act in this highly sensitive position.

 A new appointment to replace Professor Falk should be a priority. His use by date has surely been reached.'. 

Facts, Not Fiction, In The Quest For Peace: David Singer Sets Writers Right

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. Critiquing the misconceptions of two writers regarding a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict, it's entitled "Palestine: Great Expectations That Founder On Fiction". 

Writes David Singer:

'Israeli novelist David Grossman is working with Algerian writer Boualem Sansal to launch a writers' drive for world peace at the World Forum For Democracy in Strasbourg this week.

Their initiative is reportedly supported by some of the most respected names in literature, including Claudio Magris, Antonio Lobo Antunes and Liao Yiwu.

The Forum brings together reformers and global leaders to identify democratic responses to the economic, social and political challenges which affect societies today.

The writers – in their quest to end conflict and bring peace to the world  – have naturally included the resolution of the "Israel-Palestine conflict" within their purview.

However, the views they express are indeed surprising, parroting Arab propaganda rather than relying on careful research – the indispensable tool normally used by writers of such distinction and undoubted repute.

They begin by stating : 

"Israel maintains the Palestinians under occupation for more than 45 years, and this inhuman and immoral situation must stop."

All the Palestinian Arabs residing in Gaza are under the total administrative and security control of a Hamas dominated Government following Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Our well intended authors are also apparently unaware that pursuant to arrangements mutually negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the 1993 Oslo Accords – 55 per cent  of the Palestinian Arabs residing in the West Bank are under the total administative and security control of the PA Government – whilst another 41 per cent are under the total administrative control of the PA Government and joint security control of the PA and Israel.

Elections in the West Bank and Gaza were last held in 2006.  Since then Hamas and the PA have been at each other's jugulars. President Abbas's use by date as PA president expired in 2009. Democracy is nowhere to be seen.

Suggesting Israel's occupation is "inhuman and immoral" in the light of these facts is pure fiction

The statement continues:

"Both sides are putting unrealistic conditions to resume negotiations ..."

Are they serious? Israel has been offering to return to negotiations with the PA without any preconditions. It is the PA that is refusing to negotiate unless Israel stops building in the West Bank.

Grossman and Sansal continue:

"It is urgent that the international community intervenes firmly to bring the Iranian nuclear programme under control and steadily commits to the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, pushing the parties to immediately establish a true direct dialogue, leading as soon as possible to the creation of a Palestinian state next to the State of Israel, both with secure borders, on the basis of painful compromises for both parts though necessary for peace, as the abandonment of settlements or their exchange against land, the renouncement to the right of return of the 1948 refugees, the sharing of Jerusalem. This is still – but maybe not for long – a possible solution and there are men and women on both sides capable of achieving it. Let us help them do so."

Our well-meaning authors seem to be ignorant of the fact that Israel in 2001 and 2008 offered to cede its claims to more than 90 per cent of the West Bank and agreed to a part of Jerusalem becoming the capitol of a Palestinian Arab State – but such offers were rejected. Even land swaps were broached in the latter offer.

They seem oblivious to the fact that no one in the PA or Hamas has the power to renounce any right of return of the 1948 refugees and expect to be alive the next day.

They also seem to overlook that what the Palestinian Arabs demand today could have been theirs – plus more – at any time between 1948-67 with the single stroke of an Arab League pen – after all the Jews living there had been driven out.

Why the need for a state now when one was not demanded during those 19 years – and indeed rejected in 1937 when recommended by the Peel Commission or in 1947 when proposed by the United Nations?

Who are the men and women on both sides that are capable of doing what has not been able to be achieved for the last 19 years in trying to create a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history? Naming them would have been great – even if it embarrassed those highly experienced negotiators from Israel the PA, and the Quartet – the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and America - who have tired endlessly for the last eight years to resolve the conflict but have got absolutely nowhere

Grossman and Sansal conclude: 

"Writers have their part in this fight and we hereby express our determination to take it firmly and objectively. We urge all writers in the world to join us. Together, we can influence decision makers and public opinion and thereby also the course of events, ensuring that the values of peace are strengthened throughout the world. Our methods in this fight are literature, debate and vigilance. Maybe it is not much, but it is our way of maintaining our dignity in a world of violence and cynism."

They have been less than objective and their ability to influence decision makers and public opinion with their planned initiative is fanciful.

Samir El-youssef – a Palestinian writer – has succinctly summed up the Grossman/Sansal proposal:

"Rather than maintaining hope for peace, I see here nothing but a further attempt to renew the old failed approach to deal with the Arabic and Islamic world."

The old failed approach has certainly been an unmitigated disaster.

It is indeed time for a new approach in dealing with the Arabic and Islamic world in trying to resolve the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Might I suggest negotiations between Israel, Egypt and Jordan to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem – to be held under the chairmanship of the Secretary General of the United Nations with the approval of the Quartet, the Arab League and the Organization for Islamic Co-Operation.

Writers of the world, are you prepared to sign up to such an initiative?

With your active support this proposal could become a best seller in a very short space of time. It is not fiction. It is based on history, geography, demography and international law – unlike the fairy tales that form the basis for the "two-state" solution.

Maintaining your dignity in a world of violence and cynicism will certainly be heightened by supporting this proposal.

If  you hesitate to get involved – exercise your undoubted writing skills to tell me why.

But please, this time round, facts not fiction.'