Palestine - Where To From Here?

[Published 24 August 2012]


Israel’s Foreign Minister - Avigdor Liberman - has written to Her Excellency Baroness Ashton - High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security:

“to demonstrate Israel’s goodwill, desire to build trust and sincere desire to create a positive atmosphere vis a vis the Palestinian Authority (PA), with the goal of bringing our neighbors back to the table of direct negotiations.“

The PA has refused to resume direct negotiations until Israel agrees to impose a construction freeze in the West Bank for the duration of such resumed negotiations - which Israel refuses to do.

Mr Liberman has listed the following “significant gestures” made by Israel to attract the PA to drop its demand for a freeze and return to the negotiating table - which he claims are “not properly represented or reflected in the policy of the European Union or the Quartet on this subject.”

1. Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Shteinitz and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad concluded (July 31) arrangements with respect to the transfer of goods between Israel and the PA and related tax procedures as recommended by the International Monetary Fund.
2. In light of the PA‘s budget crisis, Israel transferred at the beginning of the month of Ramadan (July 27) an advance of NIS 180 million (approximately USD 45 million) of August tax remittances. The money was intended to help the PA pay salaries in time to celebrate the holiday.
3. An agreement was concluded (July 14) to employ an additional 5,000 Palestinian construction workers in Israel;
4. The number of roadblocks was reduced to 10, most of which are normally open;
5. The remains of Palestinian terrorists were returned (May 31).
6. Israel agreed to develop the gas field off the Gaza shoreline.
7. Israel is promoting infrastructure projects in Area C, including completion of a master plan. In 2011, 119 infrastructure projects were approved, 58 of them with international financing. Fifteen projects relating to the construction and renovation of infrastructures for schools and clinics have received “fast-track” approval.

Mr Liberman complains that there has been no willingness or positive attitude on the part of the PA to reciprocate these moves - and has pointed to the following actions undertaken in the diplomatic and legal arenas against Israel:

1. Attempts to accelerate illegal construction in Area C of the West Bank where sole responsibility is vested in Israel (including dragging the EU into this problematic activity)
2. Encouraging an economic boycott on the Israeli economy in the West Bank
3. Generating repeated negative statements against Israel.
4. Blaming Israel for the murder of Yassir Arafat
5. Ongoing institutionalized incitement in the Palestinian media, attacking Israel and the legitimacy of the State’s existence.

Mr Liberman has also made a stinging attack on PA President Mahmoud Abbas claiming:

1. Mr. Abbas is apparently uninterested or unable—due to his standing in the domestic Palestinian scene vis a vis Hamas, and in light of the regional geopolitical situation—to reach an agreement which would bring an end to the conflict, including addressing all the core issues.
2. Mr Abbas is creating a culture of blaming Israel for delaying the process, while attempting to achieve advantages without negotiation via blackmailing and ongoing attempts to internationalize the conflict - which he says can be confirmed by the Jordanians.
3. In a calculated manner, Mr. Abbas is focusing his dialogue with the international community on the subject of settlements.

Unfortunately - Mr Liberman further claims - the international community tends to accept this discourse lock, stock and barrel, without criticism or a nuanced approach. This is a damaging attitude, which according to Mr Liberman does not reflect the reality on the ground.

Mr Liberman is at pains to further point out that:

1. The entire area of the settlements constitutes approximately one percent of the area of the West Bank.
2. The last settlement which Israel constructed was in 1991.
3. In the framework of the peace accord with Egypt (1979), Israel evacuated all the settlements and military bases in Sinai.
4. In 2005 - Israel evacuated all of its settlements from the Gaza Strip, as well as four settlements in the northern West Bank - and since such withdrawal 14,000 rockets and missiles have been indiscriminately shot at towns and villages in southern Israel from Gaza.

Mr Liberman makes the following further points in relation to the vexed issue of settlements:

1. Facts and history, as opposed to the simplistic stereotypes and political bias, contradict the idea that somehow the settlement enterprise is the main obstacle to renewing the negotiations. This premise simply does not stand up to the test of reality or the historic precedent of the peace process between Israel and its neighbors. Both peace accords, with Egypt and Jordan, were signed when settlements existed;
2. The claim that settlements are the obstacle to peace is unfounded

Mr Liberman’s prescription for restarting the stalled negotiations calls for fresh general elections for the PA to enable a new, legitimate, hopefully realistic Palestinian leadership to be elected. Such elections were due to be held in 2010 and have since been postponed several times. No new date has been set for such elections.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak have since made it very clear that such a proposal does not represent Israel‘s official position. Clearly the European Union could not in such circumstances be expected to endorse Mr Liberman’s proposal as a possible circuit breaker to get negotiations started again.

However - the European Union cannot keep walking the diplomatic tightrope and simply ignore Mr Liberman‘s letter.

Surely the way forward now requires the European Union to indicate whether it considers that the PA should resume negotiations without preconditions in the light of the “significant gestures“ made by Israel.

If the answer is in the affirmative - then the European Union should indicate whether the PA’s refusal to do so would result in the PA being isolated from total or partial diplomatic and financial support from the European Union until the PA resumes such negotiations.

If the answer is in the negative - then the European Union should spell out what it considers needs to be further done by Israel to get the parties around the negotiating table - and whether Israel’s refusal to do so would result in Israel being isolated from total or partial diplomatic and financial support from the European Union until Israel meets the European Union’s requirements

A one line throwaway response from the European Union will not suffice. Baroness Ashton needs to pen a detailed reply to Mr Liberman without delay.

Mr Liberman has put Israel’s cards on the table. Now it is time for the European Union to do likewise.

Palestine - Quartet Misses The Beat

[Published 15 July 2011]


The utter futility inherent in pursuing the two- state solution - the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan - was brought home this week when the most powerful negotiating team ever assembled in history - the Quartet - was unable to come up with a jointly acceptable statement to persuade Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to resume direct negotiations.

The Quartet comprises America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

The two day meeting of the Quartet in Washington was attended by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Quartet special envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair.

The player out of tune was apparently Sergev Lavrov,

He reportedly prevented the Quartet from issuing a demand that the PA acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State as the basis for negotiations in exchange for Israel’s acceptance of the 1949 Armistice lines. He also reportedly refused to refrain from raising the proposed PA statehood bid at the UN in September.

It is this kind of pussyfooting around that encourages the PA to maintain its rejectionist stance.

Israel is the Jewish State referred to in the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan which provided:

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

The Soviet Union voted in favor of this resolution. Russia has already seen more than one million Russian Jews of Jewish origin emigrate from Russia to Israel in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Why Mr Lavrov should be reluctant to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State in these circumstances seems very curious indeed.

Certainly the PA has railed against making any such concession. This has been one of the major stumbling blocks to resolving the conflict that firstly the Oslo Accords and then the Quartet-sponsored Reagan Roadmap were designed to end.

PA resistance to acknowledge the existence of a Jewish State is writ large in the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization which contains the following racist and Jew-hating provisions:

“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. “ (Article 20)

“Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.” (Article 22)

It really is time the Quartet took a stance and told the unelected and unconstitutional PA President - Mahmoud Abbas - who also is Chairman of the PLO and head of its largest faction - Fatah - that maintaining these provisions in the PLO Charter pose insurmountable obstacles to peace.

The Quartet had the opportunity to do this in Washington this week and was simply not up to the task.

Tony Blair had explained what the Quartet hoped to achieve when he stated on 26 June:

“I actually think this is a moment where we need to be quite bold, take the initiative and try and set out a framework for revitalising the negotiation. And if you did that and it succeeded, by the way, you completely transform the situation.”

Blair continued:

“What we’re working is to see whether it’s possible to get a framework of principles that could guide a negotiation. Because the problem at the moment is that the Palestinians particularly don’t want to go back into a negotiation with an Israeli government they frankly don’t really trust, unless they are assured that the negotiation is going to be steered in a way that produces something. So, the question is, and this is the relevance of President’s Obama’s speech and the various Quartet statements, the question is can we, as a – as a quartet, as an international community get an agreed situation as to – as to what’s the framework within which you then have a negotiation.”

Any such boldness and initiative disappeared down the drain this week.

Israel has already made it perfectly clear it was ready to sit down and negotiate with the PA without preconditions. The PA refuses to do so. That is its perfect right - but it must be made aware there is a price to pay.

The quickest way to get both parties to negotiate is to let the PA know in no uncertain terms that the failure to negotiate unconditionally and immediately will result in the Quartet walking away and leaving the parties to their own devices.

Seven years of failed diplomacy by the Quartet has to come to an end at some time.

The Roadmap is negotiations based. By failing to get Israel and the PA to resume those negotiations - the two-state solution, Oslo, the Roadmap and the Quartet will continue to founder to their inevitable denouement should the PA unilaterally approach the UN in September.

Only firm and decisive action by the Quartet can have any chance of stopping this happening.

Given its poor performance this week the Quartet has not done its prestige or influence any good. It has only confirmed itself as being out of tune and out of time.

Palestine - European Union Hustles In Brussels

[Published 24 November 2010]


The Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union is just one of many organizations and political institutions that have been caught up in the rhetoric of their own statements leading them to repeat ad infinitum the false claim that Israeli settlements established in the West Bank during the last 43 years are illegal in international law and an obstacle to peace.

Catherine Ashton - the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy recalled for the benefit of some 30 Foreign Ministers or Foreign Ministry officials over lunch on 22 November that the:

“the settlements are illegal under international law, are an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.”

The minutes of that luncheon indicate not one of those enjoying the gastronomic treats provided for them took the slightest exception to Ms Ashton’s statement. It appears that her remarks were consumed with relish along with the wine and other goodies savoured on this occasion.

Her spurious claims need to be rejected in the most clear and unambiguous terms for the following reasons:

1. Jewish settlements in the West Bank are legal under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter subject to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there not being prejudiced.

2. 96% of the non-Jewish communities living in the West Bank have their civil and legal rights administered and regulated by the Palestinian Authority - not Israel.

3. The absence of any Jewish settlements in the West Bank between 1948-1967 - after Jews previously living there had been driven out of their homes in 1947 by the Jordanian army - did not lead to peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

4. Offers to cede Jewish claims to more than 90% of the West Bank made by Israel in 2001 and 2008 in order to achieve the European Union’s desired two-state solution - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan - were rebuffed by the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League.

5. The European Union two-state solution could have been achieved at any time between 1948 - 1967 by the stroke of an Arab League pen. Seeking 40 years later what was rejected during that 19 year period - amounts in effect to a legal estoppel - which Israel cannot be held responsible to rectify in 2010.

6. A different kind of two-state solution to that being pushed by the European Union is and can be achieved very easily by Israel and Jordan simply redrawing the international boundary that currently separates them so as to restore as far as is now possible the status quo that existed at 5 June 1967.

Ms Ashton also jogged the munching participants’ memories of the “Council’s December 2009 conclusions” - which contained the following similar statement:

“The Council reiterates that settlements, the separation barrier where built on occupied land, demolition of homes and evictions are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible“

Again the Council seemed to have then conveniently overlooked the following further facts:

1. The West Bank is not “occupied land”. It is “no man’s land” in international law. Sovereignty still remains to be allocated there in accordance with the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter which preserves the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank and to close settlement by Jews on State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

2. Whilst construction of the settlement barrier within the West Bank has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion - such opinion is binding on no-one. That decision was also made without the Court even considering the legal import of Article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. Indeed the United Nations when seeking that advisory opinion failed to include any mention of the Mandate or the provisions of its own Charter in the documents it submitted to the Court to rule on. The European Union needs to take careful note of the following view expressed by Justice El-Araby in that case:

“The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain"

Proceeding to make policy decisions not based on this starting point has led the European Union into a whirlpool of distortion and self-deception.

3. Demolition of homes - where they have occurred - has been due to illegal unauthorised construction or in consequence of proven connection with terrorist attacks in accordance with the existing Mandate laws still operative in the West Bank at the time of its loss by Jordan to Israel in 1967.

4. Evictions - where they have occurred - have been taken after Court declarations finding such occupation to have been illegal.

The Foreign Affairs Council appears to be totally lacking in any basic understanding of the above facts that have resulted in the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs still remaining unresolved .

The Council has gone off on a tangent of its own sowing the seeds of confusion and giving oxygen to enable the conflict to be maintained by the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority in an increasingly intransigent and confrontational manner.

One can only hope that a more reasoned and fairer stance will be adopted by the European Union to enable it to become an impartial and influential player in seeking an end to the conflict.

Until that occurs one can only conclude that the European Union will continue to give a new meaning to the term “Brussels sprout” as being “the continued spreading of false and misleading information regarding the facts surrounding the conflict in the Middle East and the means by which it can be resolved.”