Beyond the Cusp

December 20, 2018

The Mistaken View the World Wishes to Impose


Eight European Union member states, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany and Italy, on Tuesday warned that US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century” would fail unless it is based on the internationally agreed parameters, whatever that means. We will be including the statement made by United States Ambassador to the United Nations to the Security Council on the obsession of the United Nations, and she may as well have added the European Union and the majority of the world. US Special Envoy to the Middle East Jason Greenblatt tweeted in response to Haley’s speech: “Thank you Nikki Halley for your friendship, leadership, support and vision. Wishing you all the best in your promising future!” The below may have been her parting shot though we would not even begin to rule out at least one or two more broadsides against that body which she has witnessed in close contact for the last number of years. The eight European Union members released statement read, “We, the European Union members of the Council, would like to reiterate once more and emphasize the EU’s strong continued commitment to the internationally agreed parameters for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on international law, relevant UN resolutions and previous agreements.” This is the usual copout which provides cover for the Arab world, and the Palestinian Authority leadership, to reject any peace agreement which permits the existence of the Jews ruling their own nation. This is Euroweenie speak for we support the obliteration of the Jewish state but are too mealy-mouthed to actually say what we mean.


United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley


But they had more to say as they added just for further emphasis, “The EU is truly convinced that the achievement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of both States, that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation and resolves all final status issues, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2334 and previous agreements, is the only viable and realistic way to end the conflict and to achieve just and lasting peace.” First, International Law does not demand any return to the pre-Six Day War border, the armistice line from the failed 1948 Arab attempt to wipe out the Jews immediately after their independence and then the Arab nations of Jordan in the Shomron and Egypt in Gaza occupying land legally belonging to the Jewish State. Their cowardly reference to President Obama’s parting shot in an attempt to circumvent International Law with UNSC Res. 2334 as they are as aware as anyone knowledgeable on the actual history that that resolution was contrary to UN Charter Article 80 under which the United Nations is to support and enforce the Mandates which gave the eastern border of Israel as the Jordan River. The attempts to destroy Israel started with the chopping off of 78% of the British Mandate in order to form an Arab state presumably for establishing the two state solution as well as fulfilling the British promise to the Hashemites. Any making of yet another two state solution is, in reality, the making of a three state solution, Jordan and whatever the second Arab state will be called with Israel being chopped up further. Then there will be a call for a third Arab state in Gaza and whatever part of the Negev which the world feels is appropriate to allow Hamas and Islamic Jihad their state. Then the question will be what the next concept that the world led by the Europeans can invent to chop up Israel even further with such continuing until the Jews all live in one tower in central Tel Aviv, and then they will start demanding that the Jews surrender floors of that building.


There have been some conservative radio talk show hosts, rumored to include Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, who have predicted what may eventually become reality predicting that the Arab-Israeli conflict will only end after one side wins such a decisive victory over the other with ramifications which leave the other side feeling decimated. They stated that either the world will witness a second Holocaust with the Jews of Israel being slaughtered down to the last man, women and child or the Arabs forces being so totally defeated that the Arab world would be incapable of mounting sufficient force to counter even the slightest uprising of their own people. One can hope that this is not what will become reality. Israel has proven repeatedly their desire for peace with the only proviso that their borders be defensible and that the Jordan River valley remain under IDF control to make the eastern border defensible and that the Judean hills overlooking Tel Aviv and the central region of Israel, making them vulnerable, remain under Israeli control. The Oslo Accords were designed such that Israel was to retain control of Area C while Area B was to be negotiated to establish the border and Area A was to remain as part of the Palestinian state and Israel has stated they would surrender some areas such that the Palestinian regions would have a smoothed border and all would be connected directly. Both sides were to make agreements on mutual use of certain main roads to allow for easy movement for both peoples. The reason for the Jordan River valley and the overlooking highlands becomes obvious when one looks at a cutaway of the region as it defends an insurmountable barrier to any attack from the east (shown below). This minimal set of demands is what is required for Israeli borders to be defensible, presumably another promise which is turning out to be just as meaningless as every other promise the world has given the Jews.


Cutaway View of Tactical Advantage and Necessity of the Jordan Valley and Judean Hills for Defending Coastal Plains and Israel Alongside the Mediterranean Sea

Cutaway View of Tactical Advantage and Necessity
of the Jordan Valley and Judean Hills for Defending
Coastal Plains and Israel Alongside the Mediterranean Sea


The reality is that should the world actually honor their promises made during the San Remo Conference, the Mandate System, Article 80 of the UN Charter, the Treaty of Sèvres, The Anglo American Treaty and numerous other agreements, then the Jordan River would be the eastern border for Israel and the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority would be granted legal alien resident status by which they would rule themselves while the lands would still be under Israel national control. This would in no way take away their land as they would continue to own their lands and elect their own government or have whatever governance they chose, but the region would legally be part of Israel. The best solution of this would be to return Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs which they had when Jordan occupied this part of Israel and forcefully transferred many of these Arab into the region. We are not holding out breath waiting for the world to honor promises which the world had given to the Jewish People represented by the Zionist Congress. That includes the British promise that they would defend the border for Israel being the Jordan River which was part of the agreement when Jordan was gifted 78% of the British Mandate. Living up to promises given the Jewish People has been a problem for the world with one exception, Cyrus the Great when he allowed the Jews to return and rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem back in or about 600 BCE.


Beyond the Cusp


Outgoing US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley addressed the UN Security Council recently stating as follows in a transcript as reported here.


“The problems of the Middle East are numerous, and yet we spend a vastly disproportionate amount of time on just one of them. The UN has shown itself to be hopelessly biased, as we witnessed again just two weeks ago when the General Assembly failed to even condemn Hamas’s terrorism against Israel.

“Most of the region’s problems have nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict…. The UN [should] move away from its obsession with Israel. This UN obsession has been entirely unproductive. It’s actually worse than that. The UN’s obsession with this issue has been counterproductive. It has sent a loud and false message to the Palestinians that they might be able to achieve their goals by relying on the UN, rather than through direct negotiations. And it has sent a loud and accurate message to the Israelis that they can never trust the UN.

“Israel is a thriving, strong, prosperous country. It has always wanted peace with its neighbors. It has clearly demonstrated its willingness to make big sacrifices for peace, including giving up large areas of land. No UN resolutions, anti-Semitic boycotts, or terrorist threats will change that. Throughout its existence, and even today, Israel has been surrounded by threats to its security. It would be foolish for it to make a deal that weakened its security. And yet, even in the face of constant threats, Israel has become one of the leading nations of the world. It wants a peace agreement, but it does not need one.

“And then there are the Palestinian people. Like the Israelis, they are a deservedly proud people. They too do not need to accept a peace agreement at any price. Terrorists rule much of the territory, undermining the safety of all civilians. The Palestinian people are suffering terribly, while their leadership clings to fifty-year old demands that have only become less and less realistic. What awaits the Palestinian people with a peace agreement are the prospects of a massive improvement in the quality of their lives and far greater control over their political future.
“It is time we faced a hard truth: both sides would benefit greatly from a peace agreement, but the Palestinians would benefit more, and the Israelis would risk more. Unlike previous attempts at addressing this conflict, this plan is not just a few pages, containing unspecific and unimaginative guidelines. It is much longer. It contains much more thoughtful detail. It recognizes that realities on the ground in the Middle East have changed in powerful and important ways. This plan will be different from all previous ones. The critical question is whether the response to it will be any different. There are things in the plan that every party will like, and there are things that every party will not like. That is certainly true for the Israelis and the Palestinians; but it is also true for every country in the world that has taken an interest in this subject.

“Every country or party will therefore have an important choice to make. They can focus on the parts of the plan they dislike. For irresponsible parties, that would be the easiest thing to do. Just reject the plan because it does not satisfy all of your demands. Then we would return to the failed status quo of the last fifty years with no prospects for change. The other choice is to focus on the parts of the plan that you do like and to encourage negotiations to move forward. And I assure you there is a lot for both sides to like. Ultimately, as always, the final decisions can only be made by the parties themselves. Israelis and Palestinians will decide their own futures. They will decide what sacrifices they are willing to make. And they will need leaders with real vision to do it.

“But my friends at the United Nations — in particular my Arab and European friends – will also play an important part. You will face the same choice. The choice between a hopeful future that sheds the tired, old, and unrealistic demands of the past, or a darker future that sticks with the proven failed talking points of the past.
“The world will be watching.

“More importantly, the Palestinians and Israelis will be watching. Their response can be affected by your response. I have heard privately from many Arab Ambassadors that they know a solution is urgently needed. But your governments have not been willing to talk to your constituencies about what is realistic, or to the Palestinian leadership about the harm they are doing to their own people. By taking the easy way, you are really saying the Palestinian people are not a priority for you. Because if they were, you would all be in a room helping bring both sides to the table.

“As for the American people, we have demonstrated time and again our commitment to peace in the Middle East. We will continue to offer our hand in friendship to the Palestinian people, whom we have financially supported by far more than any other country has done. The Palestinians have everything to gain by engaging in peace negotiations. But whatever it is that others decide, the world must know that America will remain steadfast in our support for Israel, its people, and its security. That is an unshakable bond between our two peoples. And it is that bond – more than anything else — that makes peace possible.”


Beyond the Cusp


Blog at

%d bloggers like this: