David Singer: PLO Suicide Note Leaves Jordan to Decide Fate of West Bank

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

He writes:

President Trump has been given the clearest notice that his deal of the century will be stillborn if he designates any role for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in its implementation.

In a remarkable outburst that can best be described as his “suicide note”– PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared on 25 July:

“I reiterate that we will not surrender, we will not coexist with the occupation and we will not deal with the deal of deal of the century, or the slap of the century or the deal of shame - all names for one title. Palestine and Jerusalem are not for sale and bargain. They are not a real estate deal in a real estate company.”

Yet for the last 25 years the PLO – aided and abetted by Jordan – has refused to yield its claim to sovereignty over every square meter of West Bank real estate – when compromise could possibly have resolved the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Two days prior to Abbas’ suicide note , the US Congress in a rare show of bipartisanship had offered the PLO a lifeline to enable it to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s yet-to-be-released proposals – overwhelmingly passing House Resolution 246 by a vote of 398-17 with 5 voting ‘present’.
Resolution 246:

• Urged: Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• ...Reaffirmed: its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states – a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state – living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.

48 hours later Abbas’s suicide note had trashed Congress’s Resolution.

So where to from here?

First some indisputable facts:

• Jews have the legal right to settle in the West Bank under Article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
• Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the Mandate: Jordan being sovereign in 78% of the Mandate territory and Israel sovereign in 17%....
• 4% of the Mandate’s remaining real estate – Judea and Samaria – was unified with Transjordan between 1950 and 1967 and renamed Jordan – whilst Judea and Samaria were renamed the West Bank….
• The 1964 PLO Charter made no claim to territorial sovereignty “over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”...
• The revised 1968 PLO Charter declared the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and everything based on them null and void....
• West Bank Arabs were Jordanian citizens between 1950 and 1988.
• Abbas and Arafat have acknowledged Jordanians and Palestinians are one people.

Reunifying parts of the West Bank with Jordan in direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel should now be Trump’s objective, recognising the following resolution passed at the 8th meeting of the Palestinian National Council in February-March 1971:

...“Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity.... In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the West, nor did it believe the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan…”

Abbas has written his suicide note .... Trump shouldn’t demean himself begging Abbas to reconsider.

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: Hashemite Rule in Jordan on Collision Course with Trump and Israel

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

He writes:

King Abdullah seems increasingly hell-bent on ending 99 years of Hashemite-dynasty rule in Jordan.

This possibility is emerging as Abdullah is:

• Seemingly refusing to commit to negotiating with Israel on President Trump’s soon-to-be-released deal of the century to end the Jewish-Arab conflict and
• Taking active steps to place the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty in jeopardy.

Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1950) has always been the key to resolving competing territorial claims by both Arabs and Jews in former Palestine.

Transjordan comprised 78 per cent of the territory placed under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after being wrested from 400 years of Ottoman Empire sovereignty during World War One.

Mandatory Palestine was designated in April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference and in August 1920 by article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres as the location for reconstitution of the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

Transjordan’s first Hashemite ruler – Abdullah I – arrived there in November 1920.

Abdullah was en route by train from Hijaz to Syria with armed forces to assist his brother Feisal in his struggle with France to retain power in Syria. Winston Churchill – at France’s request – offered Abdullah an Emirate in Transjordan – which Abdullah gratefully accepted on 11 April 1921.

Feisal was removed from Syria by the French and installed as ruler of Iraq under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty dated 10 October 1922.  France became the Mandatory for the territory comprised in the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon.

These British-Franco machinations cost the Jewish people dearly, when the Mandate for Palestine – adopted unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 – denied the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of Transjordan (Eastern Palestine) and restricted that right to the remaining 22 percent (Western Palestine).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this decision. The Arabs didn’t.

In 1946 Transjordan was granted independence by Great Britain.

In 1948 – immediately after the Mandate ended and Jews declared the State of Israel – Transjordan invaded Western Palestine, conquering Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem (comprising 4 per cent of Mandatory Palestine) – and unified these areas with Transjordan to form a new territorial entity – Jordan – encompassing 82 per cent of Mandatory Palestine completely devoid of Jews.

The founding Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 specifically excluded any PLO claim to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

In the 1967 Six Day War Israel captured Judea and Samaria from Jordan. The PLO – claiming Jordan and Israel to be one indivisible territorial unit – removed its non-claim to sovereignty from the revised 1968 Charter.

In September 1970 the PLO unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Jordan’s Hashemite ruler King Hussein. Israel helped save Hussein.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty 1994 (Peace Treaty) – which has withstood many events that could have seen its termination.

That Treaty is again under threat – as Jordan has:

• indicated it is not prepared to renew an expired 25-year lease of Jordanian sovereign territory farmed by Israelis and
• given the PLO 40% representation on the body charged with administering the Moslem Holy Sites in Jerusalem – breaching the Washington Declaration and the Peace Treaty.

Jordan’s resistance to negotiating with Israel on Trump’s plan could see Trump shelving it and abruptly ending the 2018 five years $1.275 billion America–Jordan Memorandum of Understanding underpinning Jordan’s security and stability.

The PLO – as in 1970 – is waiting in the wings as current ongoing unrest in Jordan is destabilizing continuing Hashemite rule there.

Abdullah might find that spurning Trump and Israel could see him facing the PLO on his own.

David Singer: Jordan-Israel Negotiations on Trump Peace Plan Set to Bypass PLO

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

He writes:

Jordan-Israel negotiations based on President Trump’s long-awaited peace plan seem increasingly likely to happen – following retired Jordanian Ambassador and former editor of the Jordan Times– Walid Sadi – flagging Jordan’s legal and sovereignty claims in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem (“disputed territories”).

Sadi – in an op-ed article in the Jordan Times on 12 August – has forcefully argued that Jordan’s decision to cut off all legal and administrative relations with the disputed territories in July 1988 did not amount to Jordan ceding its claims to sovereignty for the following reasons:

“First of all, the unity of the West Bank with the East Bank was officially and constitutionally adopted on 24 of April 1950. No one disputes this fact. The Constitution of the country at the time was the 1952 Constitution, which stipulated in no uncertain terms that no part of the Kingdom shall be ceded, period. This provision makes the 1988 decision to cut off all legal and administrative relations between the two banks stopping short of ceding the West Bank to any side whatsoever. Any other interpretation of the 1988 political decision is absolutely untenable constitutionally.”

The Jordan Times is published by the Jordan Press Foundation – in which the government-owned Social Security Investment Fund has a majority stake. Wadi’s politically-charged and highly-significant article could only have been published with the knowledge and approval of Jordan’s King Abdullah.

Jordan’s claims are far superior to those of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – Jordan being the last Arab state to occupy and claim sovereignty (albeit illegally) in the disputed territories from 1948 until their loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Indeed the 1964 PLO Charter made no claim to sovereignty in the disputed territories –completely negating any claimed ancient and long-standing rights accruing to its Arab populations which would outweigh the claims by Jordan to these areas – where sovereignty still remains undetermined between Arabs and Jews.

Jordan’s pivotal role in bringing Trump’s peace proposals to a successful conclusion are grounded in the following salient facts:

• West Bank and East Jerusalem Arabs voted to unify these areas with Transjordan in 1950 and rename the unified entity – “Jordan”
• West Bank Arabs were citizens of Jordan possessing Jordanian passports between 1950 and 1988.
• Half the members of the Jordanian Parliament were elected from the West Bank Arab population between 1950 and 1967.
• Jordan’s population is overwhelmingly comprised of Arabs born east or west of the Jordan River.
• Jordan itself comprises 78% of the territory of former Palestine
• Jordan and Israel are the two successor states to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine already exercising between them mutually-agreed sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine
• Jordanian custodianship of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem is guaranteed under the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.

Reunifying into one territorial unit the East Bank with areas of the West Bank allocated to Jordan only requires Israel and Jordan to redraw their already existing internationally-recognised border.
Israeli and Jordanian negotiators – armed only with pencils, sharpeners and erasers – can achieve this new dividing line between their respective states within a relatively short time.

The PLO has made it clear that it wants no part in negotiating Trump’s proposals. It – and Hamas – will be left to cool their heels and contemplate the many squandered opportunities to create an additional state between Israel and Jordan since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993.

Jordan’s decision to resurrect its long-dormant claims after 30 years of studied silence and subservience to PLO posturing should be welcomed by all who want to see the Jewish-Arab conflict ended.

(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 and Putin Focus on Syria, Israel, Arab-Jewish Conflicts

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

He writes:

Defusing the Syria–Israel conflict and resurrecting the primacy of Security Council Resolution 242 in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict have emerged as positive outcomes from the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki this week.

President Putin expressed America and Russia’s joint resolve with this succinct statement

“The south of Syria should be brought to the full compliance with the treaty of 1974 about the separation of forces, about separation of forces of Israel and Syria. This will bring peace to Golan Heights. And bring more peaceful relationship between Syria and Israel and also to provide security of the state of Israel. Mr. President paid special attention to the issue during today’s negotiations. I would like to confirm that Russia is interested in this development and this will act accordingly. Thus far, we will make a step toward creating a lasting peace in compliance with the respective resolutions of security council, for instance the resolution 338.”

Article 1 of the 1974 Syria-Israel Separation of Forces Agreement provides:

“Israel and Syria will scrupulously observe the cease-fire on land, sea and air and will refrain from all military actions against each other, from the time of the signing of the document, in implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 338 dated October 22, 1973.”

Security Council Resolution 338 – adopted following the 1973 Yom Kippur War:

“Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

Article 1 of Security Council Resolution 242 – adopted following the 1967 Six Day War:

“Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

When Security Council Resolution 242 was passed on 22 November 1967

1.The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was not the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs – having only being so appointed at the 7th Arab League Summit held in Rabat in October 1974.

2.Arabs living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) (“Territories”) were Jordanian citizens and possessed Jordanian passports following these Territories being unified with Transjordan on 24 April 1950 and subsequently being renamed Jordan.

3.The PLO was expressly not claiming territorial sovereignty in the Territories or Gaza – Article 24 of the PLO Charter proclaiming: “This Organisation does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organisational, political and financial fields. 

4.No additional Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – was contemplated.

5.Hamas had not been founded.

Resolution 242 still contains the only internationally agreed formula for peacefully ending the 100-years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

A conference to resolve this long-running conflict in accordance with Resolution 242 – co-chaired by America and Russia – would see Israel and every Arab State in the area attending but would exclude non-States PLO and Hamas.  Such a conference now looms as a possible Trump-Putin initiative – putting Trump’s unannounced “ultimate deal” on the back-burner.

Going back to November 22, 1967 could indeed be the key to resolving the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

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: False Narrative haunts PLO and UN as Trump courts Arab States

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

He writes:

Nabil Abu Rudeineh – spokesman for Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas – has angrily reacted to President Trump’s intensive diplomatic efforts seeking to enlist Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in advancing Trump’s long-awaited “deal of the century” to end the Arab-Jewish conflict. Rudeineh fulminated: 

“The American delegation should abandon the illusion that creating false facts and falsifying history are going to help it sell those illusions.”

Creating false facts and falsifying history has been the province of the PLO and the United Nations (UN) for decades.

The 1968 PLO Charter declared the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and everything subsequently based on them to be null and void.

The United Nations publication “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1988” (“Study”) – published by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People – falsely claimed: 

"After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish…”  

The UN proposal – Resolution 181(II) – actually referred to: 

"Independent Arab and Jewish States”…

Resolution 181(II) clearly denied the existence of any distinctly identifiable Palestinian people in 1947 – yet the Study falsified this narrative.

The Study also omitted to mention that 78% of Palestine had already become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Creating a separate state for the “Palestinians” - never identified as a separate people by the international community in 1947 – is seen by that same international community in 2018 to be the only solution capable of ending the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Two peoples – the Jews and the Arabs – already have their own independent States in former Palestine – named Israel and Jordan. Rudeineh continued: 

"Despite the burden of regional issues, there are things that cannot be weighed with gold and humanitarian aid, or solutions that try to cut from a more than 100-year-old historical conflict."

This is the first time the PLO has ever acknowledged that the Jewish-Arab conflict originated in the events following the Balfour Declaration in 1917 – not the events following the 1948 Arab-Israel War. UN Secretary-General Guterres helped perpetuate this falsehood when recently referring to the “Israeli/Palestinian conflict”.

There were no “Israelis” or “Palestinians” 95 years ago when the preamble to the Mandate for Palestine declared: 

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine , or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country''

British reversal of this policy in 1922 saw Transjordan – today called Jordan – totally closed to Jewish settlement to prevent the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home there. The 1937 Peel Commission counted for nothing.

Forty crucial years in Palestine’s history until 1948 were shredded by the PLO and materially altered by the UN Study in propagating the “Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People”.

Rudeineh’s statements mark a welcome return to reality.

Getting other Arab interlocutors to replace the PLO in negotiations with Israel remains Trump’s crucial starting point to ending the Arab-Jewish conflict.

(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: Israel Condemns PLO Lies as Trump Contemplates PLO Demise

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

He writes:

The historic opening of the American Embassy in Jerusalem has provided opportunities for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to totally discredit the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and President Trump to review the PLO as a suitable Arab interlocutor to negotiate  with Israel on ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Addressing the large gathering of American dignitaries and Israeli public figures, Netanyahu declared:

“The truth and peace are interconnected. A peace that is built on lies will crash on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. You can only build peace on truth, and the truth is that Jerusalem has been and will always be the capital of the Jewish people, the  capital of the Jewish state” 

 PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas didn’t take very long to reply with an outburst against America that seriously questions the fitness of the PLO to resume negotiations with Israel since the PLO walk-out in April 2014:

“What we saw in Jerusalem today was not the opening of an embassy, but the opening of an American settlement outpost. Before we had settlement outposts with American help, but today we have an American settlement outpost in East Jerusalem.”

The rift between Trump and Abbas just continues to widen.

Not content with this salvo – Abbas claimed that the United States:

“has removed itself from the political work in the Middle East as a mediator. It’s no longer an arbiter”  

President Trump would not take kindly to this latest rejection by the PLO of America’s decades-old role as sole mediator in any negotiations aimed at resolving a dispute that has gone on for 100 years.

For Israel – it was just the latest shot in a litany of lies that had its genesis in the 1964 Charter of the PLO – subsequently revised in 1968 – which still remain unamended despite false claims to the contrary.

The 1964 Charter had stated in Article 24:

“This Organisation does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organisational, political and financial fields.”

Yet the 1968 Charter deleted this clause after Jordan and Egypt’s 19 years-occupation of these territories was ended in 1967.

The PLO had suddenly discovered an inalienable right to regional sovereignty in every square meter of these areas. Amazingly this claim has been swallowed hook line and sinker by the United Nations.
Such a recent claim is certainly novel and now must be weighed against Israel’s claim – whose roots in these territories were established 3000 years ago and can be visibly verified in 2018.

The biggest PLO lies are contained in Article 20 of the 1968 Charter: 

“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.” 

These lies have driven the PLO campaign to wipe Israel off the face of the map rather than negotiate a division of former Palestine where sovereignty in 78% is already vested in Jordan and 17% in Israel –  the last  5% still remaining unallocated between Arabs and Jews

These PLO lies should have been shredded decades ago. They have proved to be the greatest obstacle to peace between Israel and the PLO.

(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 here)

David Singer: Trump Signals Abbas Must End Indiscriminate Slaughter of Jews

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

He writes:

The horrific carnage perpetrated in Manchester on 22 May presented an emotion-charged backdrop to two meetings the next day between President Trump and President Abbas in Bethlehem and President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem.
Trump pointedly told Abbas:

“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. Peace is a choice we must make each day – and the United States is here to help make that dream possible for young Jewish, Christian and Muslim children all across the region.” 

Netanyahu did not mince his words, telling Trump:

“Terrorism, the deliberate slaughter of innocents, must be equally condemned and equally fought, whether it strikes in Europe, in America or in Israel – or for that matter, anywhere else. And as you said this morning, Mr. President, funding and rewarding terrorism must end.

Standing next to you, President Abbas condemned the horrific attack in Manchester. Well, I hope this heralds a real change, because if the attacker had been Palestinian and the victims had been Israeli children, the suicide bomber’s family would have received a stipend from the Palestinian Authority. That’s Palestinian law. That law must be changed.” 

Abbas presides over the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) whose Charter openly promotes a culture of violence and incitement urging Palestinian Arabs to kill Jews.

Article 7 of the Charter provides: 

“It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner … He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.” 

Article 9 prescribes: 

“Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it”

Article 10 declares: 

“Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.” 

Every time a Jew is stabbed, run over, murdered in his bed or whilst praying in a Synagogue, blown up dining in a restaurant or attending a nightclub, killed by stones thrown at his car or targeted in drive by shootings, Palestinian Arabs – radicalised and encouraged by the PLO Charter to perpetrate such heinous crimes – are treated as heroes, many having schools named after them. Their families are rewarded by Abbas paying them monthly pensions which totalled $300 million in 2016.

Abbas declared on 16 September 2015: 

"We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every Martyr (Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah."  

Trump told the Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Riyadh on 21 May: 

“A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out. DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship. DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities. DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.” 

Trashing the hate-filled PLO Charter and ending incitement to indiscriminately slaughter Jews are necessary steps in this process.

Abbas will end up in the diplomatic wilderness if he ignores the messages delivered by both Trump and Netanyahu. 

David Singer: The Key to Peace Lies in the Past

Entitled "Palestine – Unearthing Past Remains Key To Resolving Future", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The cease fire agreement ending hostilities in the Fifty Day War between Israel and Hamas marks yet another milestone attesting to the failure of Jews and Arabs peacefully to resolve their claims to sovereignty and self-determination in the territory once called “Palestine”.

Amazingly, the continuing inability of the parties  – and the international community – to reach consensus on identifying when this long running conflict actually commenced, ensures it will continue to remain unresolved.

Emeritus Professor Richard Falk – formerly United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights in the West Bank – still claims in his latest article that the conflict started in 1947.

“Israel was born in 1948. Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly [dated 29 November 1947 – Ed] is widely regarded as the most convincing legal basis for founding the State of Israel.”

Falk gave the following reasons for his viewpoint on 1 August 2012:

“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.”

Falk’s opinion mirrors Article 20 of the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration [1917], the Mandate for Palestine [1922], and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

Falk’s opinion is not shared by Matti Friedman – who in his latest article identifies the starting date as being much earlier than 1947:

“The Israel story is framed in the same terms that have been in use since the early 1990s—the quest for a “two-state solution.” It is accepted that the conflict is “Israeli-Palestinian,” meaning that it is a conflict taking place on land that Israel controls—0.2 percent of the Arab world—in which Jews are a majority and Arabs a minority. The conflict is more accurately described as “Israel-Arab,” or “Jewish-Arab”—that is, a conflict between the 6 million Jews of Israel and 300 million Arabs in surrounding countries. (Perhaps “Israel-Muslim” would be more accurate, to take into account the enmity of non-Arab states like Iran and Turkey, and, more broadly, 1 billion Muslims worldwide.) This is the conflict that has been playing out in different forms for a century, before Israel existed, before Israel captured the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and before the term “Palestinian” was in use.

The “Israeli-Palestinian” framing allows the Jews, a tiny minority in the Middle East, to be depicted as the stronger party. It also includes the implicit assumption that if the Palestinian problem is somehow solved the conflict will be over, though no informed person today believes this to be true. This definition also allows the Israeli settlement project, which I believe is a serious moral and strategic error on Israel’s part, to be described not as what it is—one more destructive symptom of the conflict—but rather as its cause.”

Adopting Friedman’s viewpoint over Falk’s, one can confidently nominate the 1920 San Remo Conference as the legal basis for founding the State of Israel – when England, France, Italy, and Japan agreed to divide the areas of the 400 years old Ottoman Empire conquered by them in World War 1 into three mandates: Mesopotamia (now Iraq), Syria/Lebanon and Palestine.

This carve-up was intended to see Arab self-determination eventually achieved in 99.99 per cent of the conquered Ottoman territory and Jewish self-determination in the remaining 0.01 per cent.

These proposals were unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

But they proved to be temporary only in relation to Palestine – because three months later the provisions of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine enabled Great Britain to restrict the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home to within 23 per cent of the tiny area of land originally set aside to achieve that objective at San Remo – with the remaining 77 per cent of Mandatory Palestine eventually becoming an independent Palestinian Arab state in 1946 – that is today called Jordan.

The period 1920-1947 without doubt covers a host of critically important legal and historical signposts that cannot be forgotten or buried.

Whilst the two-state solution ultimately created between 1946-1948 as a result of the San Remo Conference is ignored  – attempts to resolve sovereignty in today’s highly volatile West Bank and Gaza – are destined to certain failure and renewed conflict.

The two-state solution posited by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap creating a 22nd independent sovereign Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history has failed to materialize – despite twenty years of intensive political and diplomatic efforts by the international community.

The PLO (founded in 1964) and Hamas (founded in 1987) both seek to unravel the decisions made at San Remo in 1920.

They need to be replaced as Israel’s Arab negotiating partners by the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – Jordan and Israel – and possibly Egypt – to determine and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States.

Unearthing the past still remains the key to peacefully resolving the future.

"The Soil Of Palestine Includes The Soil Of Israel And The Soil Of Jordan": The PLO's Fraudulent Intent

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest article is entitled "Palestine: Trojan Horse Exposes Duplicitous Doublecross".

He writes:

'Any doubt that the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map are dead and buried has been put to final rest by John V Whitbeck – an international lawyer who has served as an advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.

Writing in the Cyprus Mail on 13 January Whitbeck reveals that the Palestinian Authority "has 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).

Whitbeck's confirmation of the demise of the Palestinian Authority signals the definite end to any further negotiations under the Oslo Accords and the Road Map being conducted between Israel and the Palestinian Authority – the designated parties to both agreements.

To make sure the message was fully understood, Whitbeck states 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."

The sordid truth and fraudulent intentions of the PLO in this long running duplicitous doublecross over the last 20 years have now been well and truly exposed by Whitbeck for all to see.

The Palestinian Authority never intended to negotiate in good faith to bring about the two-state solution prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road map. It was a Trojan horse fronting for the PLO whose objective was to procure recognition of a Palestinian State without giving up or compromising any of the PLO's claims and demands.

This latest loss of the opportunity offered by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map to realise the two-state solution matches the two opportunities thrown away by the PLO in 2000/1 and 2008

Three strikes –  and the PLO has been definitely outed.

The reaction of the international community will be followed with interest.

Whitbeck continues:

"In his correspondence, Yasser Arafat used to list all three of his titles under his signature – president of the State of Palestine, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and president of the Palestinian National Authority (in that order of precedence). It is both legally and politically noteworthy that, in signing this decree, Mahmoud Abbas has listed only the first two titles... There is no further need for a Palestinian leader to be three-headed or three-hatted."

But two hatted and two-faced Abbas must remain – because as Whitbeck explains:

"While the Palestine Liberation Organisation will continue to represent all Palestinians everywhere, those Palestinians who live in the State of Palestine (whose territory is defined by the November 29 General Assembly Resolution as “the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967”) or who, living elsewhere, will be the proud holders of new State of Palestine passports will now also be represented by the State of Palestine."

The fact that Hamas is not a member of the PLO and that its constituency running into millions is engaged in an internecine struggle with the PLO seems to have escaped Whitbeck's notice.

Whitbeck must have been reading the wrong wire services to draw the following conclusions:

"Perhaps due, at least in part, to the low-key manner in which this change has been effected, 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."

He obviously has missed the many articles critical of Abbas being forced to tip toe through the minefield that his unilateral actions have created.

More repercussions are yet to come as a disappointed international community comes to appreciate how this Trojan horse has pulled the wool over their collective eyes.

Certainly passive acceptance – instead of furious rejection – of Israel's demands that any Palestinian Arab State be demilitarised and that Israel be recognised as the Jewish State – would have helped the two-state solution possibly come to fruition.

The reasons for such furious rejection by the Trojan horse have now been revealed.

The Trojan horse fooled everyone. The negotiations were only a cover to grab what the PLO could get on the way to claiming their ultimate prize - the elimination of the state of Israel.

Whitbeck repeats the mantra of self delusion expressed by the PLO leadership:

"The State of Palestine now exists on the soil of Palestine - albeit still, in varying degrees and circumstances, under belligerent occupation by the State of Israel."

The soil of Palestine includes the soil of Israel and the soil of Jordan.

Whitbeck was circumspect in not bringing up that darker side of the PLO Covenant which regards Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as one indivisible territorial unit.

The Trojan horse is clearly biding its time to take over Jordan.

In what must amount to one of the greatest tongue in cheek pronouncements ever issued over the course of the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews, Whitbeck concludes:

"The members of the international community must now show their determination not simply in words but also in deeds and actions. In a world which professes to take human rights and international law, including the UN Charter, seriously, the perpetual belligerent occupation of one state by another state is inconceivable. The fact that the Israeli occupation of Palestine has been permitted to endure, expand and entrench itself for more than 45 years represents an appalling black mark against mankind. This occupation must now end."

The democratic world does not like wiping egg off its collective face – and neither does Israel.

With the Palestinian Authority now defunct, the only two possibilities for negotiations now remaining are those between:

1. Israel, Jordan and Egypt –  to allocate sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between them in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter or

2. Israel and all the Arab states – to negotiate an end to the Arab-Jewish conflict in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242.

You can lead a Trojan horse to water but you can't make it drink – or think.'

David Singer On Talking About Palestine With Falked Tongue

The focus of the latest article, via the antipodean J-Wire service, by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, who entitles the article "Palestine – Burying The Past – Faking The Future," is the attitude of the controversial (some would say notorious) Richard Falk.

Writes David Singer:

'Richard Falk – United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967" – provides compelling proof of how successful the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been in its attempt to bury historical fact and international law regarding the former territory of Palestine.

Mr Falk is not on his own among the United Nations coterie of organizations and officials who seem ready to try and wrest the title deeds granted to the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter – following the decisions of the San Remo Conference and the signing of the Treaty of Sevres.

Former Secretary General Kofi Annan amazingly failed to include any mention of the Mandate and Article 80 in his brief delivered to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2003 seeking its advisory opinion on the legality of part of Israel’s security fence being erected in the West Bank.

The ICJ’s subsequent failure to consider the effect of the Mandate and Article 80 still needs to be explained – especially as one of the Presiding Judges warned that such an examination was necessary.

UNESCO maintains that Palestine is a state – when it clearly fails to comply with the requirements of the Montevideo Convention 1933.

Now Mr Falk – writing recently on his blog page – adds further fuel to the fire:

“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.”

Mr Falk was parroting what had first appeared in Article 18 of the PLO Charter in 1964:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based on them are considered fraud.”

But even the PLO was forced to change that viewpoint just four years later – when it recognized that if the Mandate system was a fraud, then the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia – which had delivered self determination to the Arabs in 99.999 per cent of the captured Ottoman territory – could also be subject to challenge.

With some crafty draughtsmanship – Article 18 was replaced in 1968 with the following Article 20 in the redrafted Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them is null and void”

In response to Mr Falk’s remarks, I asked him:

“The mandatory system delivered self determination to the Arabs as well as the Jews. When did the League of Nations mandate lose its legitimacy as settled international law?

Are both Jordan and Israel illegitimate?

Is article 80 of the UN Charter not settled international law?

The partition proposal was in 1947 – not 1948. It spoke of a Jewish state and an Arab state – not a Palestinian state. There were no 1967 boundaries. Do you agree? “

Mr Falk’s reply was very troubling:

'Churchill was a notorious advocate of colonialism and possessed a colonial mentality, persisting after World War II. I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood.

A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities. To keep moving the goal posts, "fact on the ground" after 1967, is equally doomed if a sustainable peace is our shared goal.'

Suddenly everything was to now be forgotten in Mr Falk’s opinion before “the 1967 realities”.  The penny suddenly dropped as I commented:

 'I now am beginning to understand why you don’t want to have anything to do with the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter or what happened between 1920-1948.. The inconvenient truth of the Jewish people’s struggle to assert its legal claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine during those 28 years totally undercuts and dismisses those who would deny the Jews any legal or moral rights in their ancient and biblical homeland.

Now you even go further in wanting to forget 1948-1967 as well – when you state:

“I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood. A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities.”

Israel’s case is not only historical – it is legal – sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations. Why do you continually seek to deny the existence of these vested Jewish legal rights?'

Mr Falk then proceeded to change tack yet again in stating:

“Your reliance on the Balfour Declaration, UN partition proposals, etc., is one, but only one, construction of international law. There are competing constructions that do not regard as any longer valid all acts based on colonialist authority. My own view because of these contradictory lines of historical authority is to start from the present reality to sort out the respective claims of both peoples according to the logic of self-determination, an approach that will never satisfy extremists on either side, but has the best chance of achieving a sustainable peace.”

Suddenly the “ realities of 1967” mentioned as a starting point just a few days earlier had disappeared into the blue yonder to be replaced by “the present reality” as the new starting point.

Both puzzled and bemused, I was motivated to ask Mr Falk:

'Which of the “contradictory lines of historical authority” do you  personally accept?

1. the PLO position that regards the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and everything that resulted from it to be null and void.

OR

2. The Zionist position that accepts the Mandate to have been a proper exercise of the League of Nations sovereign power to confer on Great Britain

With respect this is the third time you have changed your starting date:

1. You originally said 1948 or 1967

2. You then said 1967

3. You now state – “the present reality”

Won’t any of these starting points still involve sorting out the respective claims of both parties to self determination based on what happened between at least 1917-2012 and what happened to the territory once called Palestine during that period?'

I am still waiting for an answer from Mr Falk.

Turning historical facts and established international law on its head in favour of a fake and forged PLO narrative can only exacerbate – not help resolve – the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews.'

Cross-posted from here