David Singer: Israel jettisons PLO as Negotiating Partner on Trump Peace Plan

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

He writes:

Israel’s decision to withhold US$138 million dollars in tax revenues collected for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – equalling the estimated annual payments made to Palestinian Arabs (or their families) carrying out random and indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians – marks a watershed in Israel-PLO relations.

Israel’s action will see the PLO being finally jettisoned as a possible negotiating partner on President Trump’s long-delayed peace plan – deferred yet again until after the Israeli elections in April.

The release of the Trump plan could now be further postponed as the president continues his so far unsuccessful search to find other Arab negotiators willing to replace the PLO – which had already rejected having anything to do with Trump’s plan well before Israel’s latest decision.

The law authorising the freezing of these PLO funds was passed by the Israeli parliament in July 2018 – three months after similar legislation – the Taylor Force Act – passed by the US Congress – was signed into law by President Trump.

Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked stressed the funds withheld would be used to pay “fat salaries to murderers who are in prison”.

They would also be used to pay Palestinian Arabs imprisoned in Israeli jails for lesser crimes.
Israel’s action follows the discovery of the body of 19-year-old Ori Ansbacher in the Jerusalem Forest on 7 February.

Channel 12 news reported that investigators from the Shin Bet security service and Israel Police hoped to indict Arafat Irfaiya, a 29-year-old Hebron resident, for murder in the context of a terrorist act in addition to a charge of rape.

Israel is clearly not prepared to allow this continuing wave of terror to be condoned and rewarded financially by the PLO.

Al Jazeera reported that the PLO took a very different view of Israel’s freeze:

"The Palestinians have accused the Israeli government of piracy, of coordinating this with the United States to add pressure ahead of the publication of the Trump peace plan"

The PLO had,however, been unceremoniously consigned to the diplomatic scrap heap by Trump well before Israel’s tax-revenue freeze. Trump had been given the thumbs down by the PLO after Trump had:

• Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

 • Stopped America’s annual payment of US$350 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency

• Shut down the PLO offices in Washington

 • Cancelled more than $200m in aid for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank

Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had already dismissed any further involvement with Trump on 5 January 2019:

“We are dealing with three issues that we can not accept: the situation with the US, the situation with Israel and the situation with Hamas. The doors are closed to the US. As long as it does not retract its decisions against the Palestinian people, no Palestinian should meet with the American leadership, no matter what their role is.”

 Paying murderers and felons who kill and maim Jews has finally become the PLO’s political downfall.

Ori Ansbacher’s murder was the final tipping point for Israel to dump the PLO as a future negotiating partner after thousands of well documented random terror attacks on Israel’s civilian population over the last four years – perpetrated by individuals, many very young, inspired by vicious incitement in Palestinian social and traditional media and rewarded financially by the Palestinian leadership.

The days of “pay for slay”and fruitless negotiations with the PLO that have gone nowhere over the last 25 years are over.

Israel has well and truly closed the door on the PLO and it should remain locked and bolted.

David Singer: Trump Triumphs as Oman and Brazil Step Up and PLO Bows Out

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

He writes:

Oman has broken ranks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) by endorsing President Trump’s efforts to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict.

The PLO has made it crystal-clear on many occasions that it wanted nothing to do with Trump’s upcoming proposals.

The PLO Central Council also threatened on 30 October to suspend its recognition of the State of Israel and halt security coordination with Israel.

Addressing the 14^th Middle East Security Summit in Manama, Bahrein, Yousef Bin Alawi – Oman’s Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs  – declared:

“I would like to tell you very clearly that we call, we request and we affirm and confirm that the main role is mainly relying on the role of the US and what the US president will be doing regarding the deal of the century, because we want this effort to be very successful and to lead to getting rid of all the problems that we have faced recently or during the last 40/50 years.”

Oman had in the previous week hosted separate visits within days of each other by PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Alawi still continued to utter the following Arab mantra to the Summit – which would not have impressed Trump:

“We consider that the Palestinian issue is the core of all the problems that we have seen during the second half of the last century and the 18 years of the 21st Century. We have to see how we can solve this problem and find a future for a new generation of young persons in this area who can really live with the other generations of this world into the future.”

Conflicts in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Kuwait and the rampage by Islamic State – all having nothing to do with the Palestinian issue – strangely seem to have escaped Alawi’s purview.

The Palestinian issue had not even been referred to once in an earlier keynote address to the Summit by US Secretary for Defense, James Mattis.

Alawi returned to reality when answering a question posed to him:

“How can we involve Israel and prompt it to contribute to the affairs of the region? I am going to say something that I say for the first time. Israel is a state that is present in this region. We all understand this, we know this; the world is also aware of this fact. But despite that, Israel is not being treated by the other countries as it is treating the other countries. Maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same and it should also bear the same obligations as other countries. Why? Those are really facts. History says that the Torah saw the light in the Middle East, that the prophets of Israel were born in the Middle East, and that the Jews also used to live in this area of the world.”

Building on this reality is key to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Meanwhile, Brazil’s President-Elect – Jair Bolsonaro – announced that Brazil was moving its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, tweeting:

“Israel is a sovereign state and we shall duly respect that.”

Balsonaro – echoing the Trump administration’s stance – also announced he will close the Palestinian embassy in Brasilia stating:

“Is Palestine a country? Palestine is not a country, so there should be no embassy here”

The 22 member Arab League includes Oman, the “State of Palestine” and Brazil as an observer state – whilst the 134 members of the G77 include all three.  Some soul-searching by fellow-members is urgently required.

Trump’s focus on reality – not fantasy – is bearing fruit.

(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: Jordan Jumps on Trump Bandwagon Leaving PLO Way Behind

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

He writes:

Any lingering thought that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) would have any role to play in President Trump’s soon-to-be-released peace plan has vanished – after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that $165 million had been deducted from funding to the PLO because of its continuing “pay for slay” policy in breach of the Taylor Force Act.

Jordan has now signalled its preparedness to replace the PLO by publically supporting Trump in an article written in the Jordan Times by Walid Sadi – a retired Jordanian diplomat with over 35 years’ experience and himself a former editor of the Jordan Times. 

Sadi’s CV is impressive – having headed the Jordanian Delegation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Conference in Rome and been the Chairperson of the ICC’s Working Group on Crimes against Humanity. He also represented the Jordanian government in Washington, Moscow, Ankara and London. 

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

Sadi makes no bones in airing his reasons for Trump’s success on the world stage:

“World leaders fear him because they know he is capable of anything and his finger is so close to nuclear weapons capable of blowing hostile capitals to smithereens with no qualms or hesitations. And above all, he seems to get away with anything as if he is immune to any mischief from within or outside his country.”

Sadi frankly acknowledges: 

“No matter what Trump’s opponents or enemies throw at him, populist support for him remains solid and unwavering. It was the populist wave that brought Trump to power and this wave remains as strong as ever. It is almost a love or hate narrative when it comes to Trump and he is riding high on the love tsunami that won him the election in the first place.”

Given these fundamentals in the Trump persona – Jordan would be foolhardy indeed to reject Trump’s invitation to enter into direct negotiations with Israel to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank – which the Trump-hating PLO has unequivocally rejected with devastating consequences.

Jordan currently exercises:  

• Sovereignty in 78 per cent of the territory comprised in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 
• Custodianship over the Muslim Holy Shrines in Jerusalem under the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.

Jordan also:

-  Renamed “Judea and Samaria” the “West Bank” – after Transjordan and Judea and Samaria had been unified into one territorial entity in 1950 and named “Jordan”  

- Granted Jordanian citizenship to the West Bank Arab population from 1950 until it ceded legal and administrative control to the PLO in 1988.

-   Conferred citizenship on 70 per cent of Jordan’s population hailing from the remaining 22 per cent of former Palestine

 Sadi argued for Jordan’s inclusion in Trump’s plan in an earlier Jordan Times article dated 12 August: 

“… 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 Trump bandwagon is swinging into top gear – with Jordan in the box seat and the PLO left flailing way behind.

(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: Jordan’s Re-entry into West Bank Looms Large as Trump Dumps PLO

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

He writes:

Two major developments this past week could see a large part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) being reunified with Jordan – as existed between 1950 and 1967 – or becoming a Jordanian enclave – under President Trumps’ yet-to-be- announced “ultimate deal” intended to resolve the100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Those developments were:

1. Trump immediately stopped all further American financial aid to UNRWA:

The PLO refusedto have anything to do with Trump’s slowly-gestating peace proposals after Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017.

This PLO anti-Trump stance has continued unabated despite US Ambassador to the United Nations – Nikki Haley – publicly warning the PLO last January when asked about future US funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian Arab refugees:

“The President has basically said he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table. We still very much want to have a peace process. Nothing changes with that. The Palestinians now have to show they want to. As of now, they’re not coming to the table, but they ask for aid. We’re not giving the aid. We’re going to make sure that they come to the table.”

This week Trump gave up waiting – ending all future donations to UNRWA including $300 million pledged for this year.

More than 2 million UNRWA registered Palestinian Arab refugees live in Jordan – most of whom have full citizenship. Nearly 370,000 – or 18 per cent – live in 10 refugee camps.

The West Bank has nearly 775,000 UNRWA registered Palestinian Arab refugees – a quarter of who live in 19 camps.

Trump’s proven propensity for financially helping those States that help him achieve his goals could well see a large part of this retired UNRWA funding being redirected to Jordan – if Jordan replaces the PLO and enters into direct negotiations with Israel on finally resolving sovereignty in the West Bank.

2. The PLO announced it had refused Trump’s proposal to create a Jordan-West Bank confederation:

Israel and the PLO have been unable to agree on the creation of an additional Arab State between Israel and Jordan after fruitless negotiations conducted over the last 25 years.

Rejecting a Jordan-West Bank confederation now sees the PLO hoisted by its own petard– leaving Jordan to fill the yawning diplomatic void by stepping in and negotiating with Israel to engineer Jordan’s return to a large part of the West Bank – occupied by Jordan from 1948 until its loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Restoring Jordanian citizenship to the West Bank Arab population – as existed between 1950 and 1988 – would once again see parity of rights re-established between the Arab populations spanning both sides of the Jordan River.

The 29 refugee camps in Jordan and the West Bank could be closed and their inhabitants integrated into the general population. “Palestinian refugees” would be relics of the past.
No Arab or Jew living in the West Bank would be forced to move.

Palestinian Arabs residing in other Arab countries could emigrate to this newly-merged Jordan-West Bank entity – which might even choose to rename itself “Palestine” – comprising as it would about 80% of the territory contained in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Israel would end up exercising sovereignty in about 19 per cent – leaving sovereignty in the remaining 1 per cent – Gaza – to be determined by Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

As with any good settlement – no-one would be 100 per cent happy – but 100 years of conflict would be ended and Trump would have pulled off yet another stunning success.

(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: UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump Retaliation

For this and related antisemitic cartoons click here

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

He writes:

Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” – spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised – but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress. Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law – making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and 

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap – as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN – Nikki Haley – put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.” 

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 – attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” – which will require another US$143 million – 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget – to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal” Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution – which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state – in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan – on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014.

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution – including Abbas and the PLO – from his ultimate deal – after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

"The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States"

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000/20001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

"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

Festive Propaganda From The PLO (video)

Keep looking until the end, folks. Don't miss the map which betrays their intentions.

Hat tip: Challah

Time To End "End The Occupation" & Substitute "Right The Wrongs": Analyst David Singer

David Singer, the Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst, has written a characteristically crackerjack article entitled 'Palestine - “End The Occupation” and “Right the Wrongs”' that seems to have first appeared here (Hat tip: reader Shirlee).

I think that, like all of his articles, it deserves as wide an audience as possible.

Writes David Singer:

'I don’t think there has ever been any Arab propaganda slogan as powerful and successful as “End The Occupation”.

These three little words have managed to turn Israel’s miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War and its triumphal return to parts of the biblical and ancestral land of its forefathers - as something to be reviled and reversed. Those mouthing the slogan have not sought to have the “occupation” ended in favour of Jordan - the previous Arab occupant during the period 1948-1967. Rather they are insisting it all be given - albeit with mutually agreed land swaps - to another group - the “Palestinians” - who did not exist

• in 1937 - when the Peel Commission issued its Report

• in 1947 - when the United Nations recommended the partition of western Palestine into an Arab State anda Jewish State.

  •Between 1948-1964 - when no claim was made by any such group to territory that any Arab claimant could have gained by the stroke of an Arab League pen - after such territory had been ethnically cleansed of every single Jew who had been living there prior to 1948

The “Palestinians” only first saw the light of day in 1964 when the PLO Charter was promulgated and Article 1 declared:

'Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.'

Article 5 went on to declare:

'The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.'

No recognition was given to the fact that groups other than Arabs had lived in Palestine from time immemorial - long before the Arabs had ever conquered and occupied the area.

Ten years later - on 13 November 1974 the leader of this newly created entity - Yasser Arafat - told the United Nations General Assembly:

'The PLO has earned its legitimacy because of the sacrifice inherent in its pioneering role, and also because of its dedicated leadership of the struggle. It has also been granted this legitimacy by the Palestinian masses, which in harmony with it have chosen it to lead the struggle according to its directives. The PLO has also gained its legitimacy by representing every faction, union or group as well as every Palestinian talent, either in the National Council or in people’s institutions. This legitimacy was further strengthened by the support of the entire Arab nation, and it was consecrated during the last Arab Summit Conference, which reiterated the right of the PLO, in its capacity as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, to establish an independent national State on all liberated Palestinian territory.'

In 2011 the legitimacy of the PLO leadership role is in tatters. A new boy on the block - Hamas - has emerged to challenge the PLO’s claim and reconciliation between these two competing power bases is still not in prospect after six years of bitter internecine conflict.

The effort to reach a resolution of the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict has been stymied by the refusal of the PLO to sit down in direct face to face negotiations with Israel - but even if this were to occur tomorrow the prospects of any successful outcome would be extremely unlikely to eventuate.

Jordan sits on the sideline having abandoned any claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem in 1988. Jordan shows no interest in attempting to try and restore - as far as is now possible - the status quo existing in these areas at 4 June 1967.

Israel’s attempts to “end the occupation” of these areas in 2000/2001 and 2008 were rebuffed by the PLO.

Perhaps it is time for a new slogan - “Right the Wrongs” - to enter into the lexicon of international diplomacy in the Middle East.

The wrongs involve the failure of the United Nations to acknowledge the following incontrovertible facts:

•  that the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter reserve to the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in accordance with the provisions laid down in article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine

 • that Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 remain the only internationally accepted basis for resolving the conflict in former Palestine

The failure of the United Nations to insist on these basic tenets of international law being implemented, respected and observed has proved to be the main stumbling block to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Yasser Arafat himself declared before the United Nations on 13 December 1988:

'Our people do not want any right to which they are not entitled and which is not compatible with international legality and laws. They are not seeking any freedom that encroaches upon the freedom of others or any destiny that negates the destiny of another people.'

Bowing to extreme pressure from the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference - the United Nations has succumbed to a myriad of General Assembly resolutions since then that have virtually buried such “international legality and laws”.

It is time for international law to be resurrected, debated and enforced as the only basis for ending the conflict in former Palestine.

The sooner this process is begun - the sooner some sanity will return to the Middle East.'

Update: Some interesting comments beneath this same article in J-Wire here