David Singer: Trump-Netanyahu Meeting Set to Expose Obama’s Collusion on Resolution 2334

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

He writes:

One of the intriguing aspects of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on 15 February will be the evidence he produces to President Trump to establish former President Obama’s collusion in promoting Security Council Resolution 2334.

America abstained from voting on Resolution 2334 – but the language used in that Resolution was inimical to the national interests of Israel and the Jewish people by declaring that:

* the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity and constituted a flagrant violation under international law

 * Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem

This language identifies as “Palestinian territory”:

* the centuries old Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem,

* the site of the First and Second Temples, 

* the Western Wall, 

* the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery, 

* Rachel’s Tomb, 

* the Machpelah, and 

* Judea and Samaria

–  and seeks to erase the legal rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National  Home in these areas under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Such language gives credence to the PLO claim that the Mandate – a critical building block in the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict – is null and void.

Resolution 2334 contravenes Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - exceeding the Security Council’s powers and condemning the hypocrisy of the Security Council which sanctimoniously professes to be concerned about “legal validity” and “international law”.

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm Al-Sabea was the first to allege American collusion in promoting Resolution 2334  – claiming to have a transcript of a meeting in December – prior to the passage of Resolution 2334  – between Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and US National Security Advisor Susan Rice in which Kerry said the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security Council.

White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price claimed no such tripartite meeting took place and that the "transcript" was a total fabrication – although he admitted Erekat had met with Kerry and Rice separately.

Netanyahu issued a Press Release on 28 December 2016 declaring:

“We have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the United States organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the United Nations Security Council. We'll share that information with the incoming administration. Some of it is sensitive, it's all true. You saw some of it in the protocol released in an Egyptian paper. There's plenty more; it's the tip of the iceberg.”

Netanyahu’s claim that some of the information is sensitive suggests that there has been an interception of emails or other classified American documents emanating from Obama or Kerry’s offices.

America’s cybersecurity record has been appalling – as the hacking of the Democrats web site and Hillary Clinton’s emails and private server has shown.

Netanyahu’s description of the transcript held by the Egyptian newspaper as “the tip of the iceberg” suggests Israel holds a Wiki-style treasure trove of incriminating documents.

Sensational claims of Israel-hacking will doubtless fuel the media.

There appears to be no evidence that this material has yet been given to the Trump Administration. If it had – some leak would surely have emerged by now.

Netanyahu’s visit to the White House presents the perfect opportunity to personally hand his evidence to President Trump - enabling him to decide whether to disclose such evidence publicly or not.

Netanyahu’s moment exposing Obama’s betrayal of Israel is fast approaching.

[Author’s Note: The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry was asked to confirm or deny some of the facts in this article but no response was received]

David Singer: Trump and May Must Circumvent Security Council Resolution 2334

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

He writes:

President Trump’s meeting with UK prime minister Theresa May this coming Friday affords them a perfect opportunity to discuss reaffirming their countries commitments to the Jewish People made by America in 2004 and Great Britain in 1922 – which were seriously undermined when neither country vetoed Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016.

America’s commitments were given in a letter from President George Bush to then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 to:

* encourage Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank and

* give the Bush-Quartet Roadmap (“Roadmap”) every chance of ending a conflict that had raged unresolved for about 85 years.

Bush’s commitments included:

1. Preventing any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Roadmap.

2. Acknowledging that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between Israel and the PLO in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

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

These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12.

President Obama actively attempted to subvert these commitments during his eight years in office  – culminating in Obama’s failure to veto Resolution 2334 in the dying days of his presidency – which trashed the above commitments and made them meaningless.

Great Britain had pledged to the Jewish People in 1922 that the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine would take place within 23 per cent of the territory designated in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – today called Israel, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – whilst the remaining 77 per cent would become an Arab homeland – today called Jordan.

This 23/77 division was embodied in Article 25 of the Mandate – after violent Arab riots in 1920-21 accompanied by strident and strenuous Palestinian Arab political opposition to any idea of a Jewish National Home in Palestine had led to the British White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Arab apprehensions were partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration.

The White Paper stated:

'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view [of the Balfour Declaration – ed] is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine'.”

Resolution 2334 has now declared as illegal the rights vested by the Mandate in the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank)  – despite such rights having been preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Vetoing Resolution 2334 would have averted America and the UK betraying their commitments to the Jewish People.

Reaffirming those commitments will do more to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict than moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Commitments when made by States should never be shredded without mutual agreement.

David Singer: UN Security Council Members Trash Quartet Roadmap and Two-State Solution

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

He writes:

Twelve of the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council have apparently had a major rethink on the terms of Resolution 2334 which they approved 14:0 on 23 December 2016 with only America abstaining.

They were among those who issued the Joint Declaration following the Paris Conference held on 15 January – attended by delegations from 70 countries, the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Thirteen of the fifteen Security Council member States were in Paris including its five Permanent Members – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

Absent were New Zealand and Malaysia – two of the four sponsors of Resolution 2334.

The Joint Declaration differs substantially from Resolution 2334 in three fundamental respects:

1. Resolution 2334 envisages a region where:

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

The Joint Declaration shredded this objective by affirming:

“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 “two democratic states solution” in Resolution 2334 was replaced by a vague and nebulous “two state solution” in the Joint Declaration. Gone were secure and recognised boundaries.

2. Resolution 2334 aims to achieve:

“without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”

The Joint Declaration more specifically calls for the resolution of:

“all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)”

The Quartet Roadmap – so painstakingly put together in 2003 by President Bush calling for negotiations to create a democratic Palestinian State – and under which negotiations had been conducted since then – was unceremoniously dumped in Paris.

This leaves no agreed negotiating framework under which to conduct any resumed negotiations.

3. Resolution 2234 underscored:

“the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative”

The Joint Declaration underscored:

“the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.”

Israel had agreed to negotiate under the Quartet Roadmap but listed 14 reservations – one of which required:

“The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the road map will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement.”

Replacing the Quartet Roadmap with the Arab Peace Initiative guarantees no hope for the stalled negotiations to be resumed.

The United Kingdom refused to endorse the Joint Declaration.

It is incredible that the other twelve Security Council member States present – especially the five permanent members – could approve the terms of the Joint Declaration that so materially changes what they voted for or abstained on just three weeks earlier.

They obviously engaged in cherry picking bits and pieces of Resolution 2334 that they had rushed through with unseemly haste and now have second thoughts on.

A new agreed negotiating framework for any two-State solution now needs to be constructed to replace the trashed Quartet Roadmap.

The Security Council looks decidedly stupid and increasingly irrelevant.

David Singer: Paris Conference Challenges UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Reuters image

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

He writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerry: Yes.

Russert: Completely?

Kerry: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza;

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel;

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

4. chaos in Sinai;

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties;

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

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

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

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

"I Apologise to the People of Israel": A Kiwi Condemns "The New Judenrein" (video)

A non-Jewish Kiwi articulately condemns UN Security Council Resolution 2334 for which his country voted:

Thank you, sir!

And thanks also to this Maori lady, for her superb support of Israel (speech dating to 2014 but absolutely pertinent):

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

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

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

Danny Danon:

Ron Dermer:

More here

David Singer: Correcting Carr's Canards Concerning Israel and Vested Jewish Legal Rights

The Spectator image; see here

In his latest article, below, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer ably refutes recent assertions made by former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr.

Writes David Singer:

Australia’s former Foreign Minister and former head of Labor Friends of Israel – Bob Carr – has entered the debate concerning Security Council Resolution 2334 passed on 23 December with his article in the Sydney Morning Herald “The Genius of the UN’s Resolution on Israeli settlements” (December 27)

His contribution is riddled with the following errors that cannot be allowed to stand unanswered and uncorrected and need to be rectified.

1. He states that Levi Eshkol’s chief legal advisor Theodor Meron advised the Prime Minister in 1967 that the Geneva Convention says no nation may settle its own population on land it wins in war.

What Mr Carr omits to tell readers is that Mr Meron changed his opinion on the applicability of the Geneva Convention in 1968 when he co-signed the following advice to Israel’s then Ambassador to the United States – Yitzchak Rabin:

“to tell the Americans that there are unique aspects to the status of the territories and to our status in the territories. Before the Six-Day War, the Gaza Strip wasn’t Egyptian territory, and the West Bank, too, was territory that had been occupied and annexed by Jordan without international recognition. Given this ambiguous, indeterminate territorial situation, the question of the convention’s applicability is complex and unclear prior to a peace agreement that includes setting secure and recognized borders.”

2. Carr claims Meron is alive today, an eminent international jurist. He says he was right then and is right now.

No evidence is supplied by Carr to substantiate that claim – which is obviously rebutted by Meron’s revised 1968 opinion to Rabin. Why did Carr fail to mention Meron’s 1968 epiphany?

3. Carr claims all settlements in the West Bank are illegal.

Wrong – all those settlements are legal under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter – territory-specific legislation dating back to 1922 that is still valid today.

4. Carr claims that Israel has been spreading settlements as fast as possible to render it impossible to achieve a two-state solution.

Wrong – the settlements cover only 5 per cent of the West Bank territory. Israel made offers to cede its claims to 90 per cent of the West Bank in 2000/1 and 95 per cent in 2008.
There has been no settlement because the Arabs want 100 per cent

5. Carr claims Israeli Governments have gifted settlers the best land.

Wrong – the land given to settlers for which they pay has been land that has mainly remained unsettled and undeveloped for the last 3000 years. It comprises State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes as prescribed under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.

6. Carr claims that if the Palestinian Arabs throw up a granny flat without approval in Area C it is promptly demolished by army bulldozers.

Wrong – the granny flats are being thrown up by the European Union without approval to create facts on the ground.

Yes – they are being demolished as happens to any illegal structures built anywhere in the World.

The European Union has no legal right to charge in without authorisation.

7. Carr asks – If Israel is really open to giving the land back in a peace deal why allow settlements in the first place?

Because the Arabs refused to negotiate with Israel between 1967 and 1993 and Israel was legally entitled to settle there.

Israel did the same in Gaza and unilaterally disengaged from every square inch of land there as well as a part of the West Bank in 2005 to advance the two-state solution.

8. Carr relies on Obama’s envoy and former Ambassador Martin Indyk to confirm settlements destroyed the deal.

Yet between 1948 and 1967 there were no settlements – after all the Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza had been driven out by the invading Transjordanian and Egyptian armies.

The Arabs could have had their state at any time during those 20 years with the stroke of an Arab League pen in precisely the same area they now claim for themselves.

They could have had an even greater area had they not rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan

Carr finally twigs when he states that historically the aged and corrupt Palestinian leadership has to bear some responsibility and that they've let their people down.

Too many offers have gone begging and will not return again given the horrendous events being played out in the Middle East right now.

9. Carr claims the Palestinians are offering a demilitarised state – a Palestine without an army –and Western peacekeepers within their borders. 

It is hard to imagine more explicit security guarantees.Mr Carr provides no source for this very important information – which is new to me.

10. Carr claims the 83 per cent Arab population of the West Bank is being ruled by a racial and religious minority of 17 per cent.

Wrong – 95 per cent of the Arab population live in Areas A and B and their daily lives are completely ruled by the PLO. Only 5 per cent of the Arabs live in Area C under Israeli rule.

Bob Carr – like the United Nations Security Council – relying on these and similar incorrect and unsubstantiated facts – are in a state of complete denial about Jewish rights to settle in the West Bank and the legality of Jewish settlements.

Both should take the time to better acquaint themselves with fact – not fiction – if they ever want to be believed.

Added by Daphne, Bibi's brilliant speech:

David Singer: UN Security Council and Obama revive Palestine Mandate Solution

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

He writes:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 passed on 23 December 2016 has buried any lingering hopes for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine in addition to Jordan (”the two-state solution”).

America’s decision to not veto Resolution 2334 – taken in the dying days of President Obama’s eight years term of office – revives the solution first envisaged in 1922 by the League of Nations.

Pursuant to Article 25A of the Mandate for Palestine - the territory covered by the Mandate was to be divided between the Jewish people and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine – restricting the Jews to reconstituting the Jewish National home in just 22 per cent of the territory whilst the remaining 78 per cent was reserved for the Palestinian Arabs.

The Jews reluctantly accepted that solution even though it contradicted promises made to them in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and in the Treaty of Sevres.

The Arabs however rejected the Mandate solution.

Notwithstanding such rejection – the two successor States to the Mandate – Israel and Jordan – have achieved the Mandate solution in 95 per cent of the territory covered by the Mandate.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) over the last 23 years to allocate sovereignty in the remaining 5 per cent have been stalled since 2014. Resolution 2334 guarantees the failure of any such negotiations – if indeed they are ever resumed.

Resolution 2334 will lead to increasing conflict and violence – as the Palestinian Arabs buoyed by this unexpected change in their diplomatic fortunes seek to continue their declared objective of eliminating the Jewish State of Israel and replacing it with a 23rd Arab State.

Resolution 2334 contains the following language that signals the end of the two-state solution - rather than facilitating and advancing such an outcome:

1. The Security Council still envisions:

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

The Palestinian Arabs have had no elections for the last 10 years and no say in their own future – whilst Hamas and the PLO continue their internecine struggle for power against each other.

2. The Security Council continues to misleadingly claim that:

“the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”

There is no binding legal judgement supporting this claim. It is an opinion – not a statement of fact.

To the contrary the right of Jews to “close settlement” on land in East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes is specifically “encouraged” by article 6 of the Mandate and preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The Security Council’s continuing flagrant violation of the Mandate and the UN Charter finally doomed the two-state solution to extinction.

3. The Security Council is concerned that “the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines” is being imperilled.

 Favouring this end-game only encourages the PLO to be intransigent in negotiations.

 This exact outcome could have been achieved between 1948 and 1967 following the forced eviction of all the Jews living in Jordanian-occupied Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and Egyptian-administered Gaza.

An even better result was on offer had the Arabs accepted General Assembly Resolution 191 (II) on 29 November 1947.

Such lost opportunities do not re-occur.

The Security Council has apparently learnt nothing in its unseemly haste to pass Resolution 2334.

 Drawing new international borders between Israel and Jordan in direct negotiations between their respective States remains the best option to replace the buried two-state solution.