Palestine - Obama Utters The Magic Word - "Annapolis"

[Published 25 March 2013]


President Obama’s use of just one word - “Annapolis” - stands out among the thousands he uttered during his three day visit to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman.

His highly significant use of this keyword on 21 March at the Jerusalem International Convention Centre constituted a diplomatic milestone in America’s quest to end the long running Jewish-Arab conflict.

"I know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders – Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin – reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets."

What were the “credible proposals” made to the Palestinians at Annapolis?

Why was the mention of “Annapolis” thought far more important to include in President Obama’ speech - rather than “Camp David” and the attempts to broker a two-state solution between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat by President Clinton in 2000?

The answer is to be found in the following statement made by Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - at the international conference convened by President Bush on 27 November 2007 in Annapolis in the presence of some 40 world leaders including many from the Arab world:

"The (resumption of) negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.

On conclusion of the negotiations, I believe that we will be able to reach an agreement which will fulfill the vision of President Bush: two states for two peoples.

A peace-seeking, viable, strong, democratic and terror-free Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

A Jewish, democratic State of Israel, living in security and free from the threat of terror – the national home of the Jewish people."

President Obama’s Jerusalem speech is the closest he has come to publicly acknowledging that the following commitments laid out in President Bush’s letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 constitute “credible proposals” to end the Jewish-Arab conflict:

1. As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

2. The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.

3. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

4. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

5. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Yet President Obama has appeared to have given up one fundamental requirement of President Bush’s Road Map - that any Palestinian Arab state that emerges as part of the two-state solution must be “democratic”

In a carefully worded and crafted speech that spoke in glowing terms of Israel’s vibrant democracy - President Obama was noticeably silent in failing to endorse the same outcome as being necessary for the successful implementation and conclusion of President Bush’s two-state solution.

To this extent President Obama seems to have rejected as unnecessary the express Annapolis commitment made by Prime Minister Olmert to achieve one of President Bush’s most cherished objectives.

The PLO will no doubt see this concession by President Obama as a plus - since it appears to be the inevitable consequence of Hamas and the PLO being unable to end their six years long internecine struggle that has denied the Palestinian Arabs having any say in determining their own future.

America is apparently set on pressuring Israel to give up this demand as a condition of resolving the two-state solution.

Yet in another respect President Obama’s following statement has come down firmly in favour of the commitment made by President Bush in his letter to Prime Minister Sharon - endorsed in specific terms by Prime Minister Olmert at Annapolis - that the Arab world - and Jew-haters around the world - recognize that the Jewish people are entitled to a Jewish state in their ancient, historic and biblically recognized homeland.

"For the Jewish people, the journey to the promise of the State of Israel wound through countless generations. It involved centuries of suffering and exile, prejudice, pogroms and even genocide. Through it all, the Jewish people sustained their unique identity and traditions, as well as a longing to return home. And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts. of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea – to be a free people in your homeland.

That is why I believe that Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own. And over the last 65 years, when Israel has been at its best, Israelis have demonstrated that responsibility does not end when you reach the promised land, it only begins."

President Obama reinforced that message with an unequivocal one liner:

"Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state."

The steadfast refusal by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world at large to acknowledge this simple proposition has been the major impediment to peace ever since its possibility was first suggested in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and confirmed in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - then actually proposed in 1937 by the Peel Commission and endorsed by the United Nations in 1947.

Are the Palestinian Arabs now seriously ready to take up President Obama’s challenge to resolve their conflict with the Jews in accordance with the credible proposals made by Israel at Annapolis in 2007 - tempered with just one important concession by President Obama dispensing with the need for any agreement on the question of democracy?

That is the message President Obama has sent to President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad - persons whom President Obama personally identified as true partners for Israel in achieving the two-state solution during his Jerusalem speech.

I hope we will not have to wait too long for their answer.

Palestine - Pontification, Prediction and Poppycock

[Published 12 March 2011]


The world has been agog this week at the news that Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - is to announce a new peace plan in May - possibly in an address to the United States Congress - in an effort to end the conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine.

This conflict still remains unresolved more than 90 years after the signing of Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the unanimous decision of the League of Nations in 1922 - mandating
Great Britain to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine in recognition of the historical association of the Jewish people with Palestine - without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of “existing non- Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

These decisions relating to Palestine -(which included what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan) - had been made in the context of recognizing Arab self determination in 99.999% of the lands of the Ottoman Empire captured by Great Britain and France in World War 1 - whilst the remaining 0.001% of those lands was to be set aside for Jewish self determination.

Speculation has been rife as to what Netanyahu’s May proposal will encompass.

One can state with reasonable confidence that any new Netanyahu initiative will receive short shrift from both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and be totally unacceptable to them.

Ninety years of Arab rejectionism following the promulgation of the Mandate is not suddenly going to evaporate in May - unless Netanyahu’s proposal:

1. Accepts the right of return into Israel for those Arabs who became refugees in 1948 - and their descendants - who now supposedly number at least 7 million.
2. Agrees to hand over control of towns like Ariel, Maale Adumim and Har Homa to the Palestinian Authority and to evacuate the 70000 Jews who currently live there along with at least another 70000 Jews who live in a number of other towns and villages in the West Bank
3. Forgoes his demand that Israel be recognized as the Jewish National Home
4. Abandons the requirement for Israel to maintain a military presence along the Jordan River
5. Acknowledges that any Palestinian State can have its own armed forces and unfettered control of its air space and maritime coastline

These Arab demands have been - and continue to be - major stumbling blocks to achieving the “two-state solution” for the last 18 years.

Even worse - offering some of these concessions will never suffice. The above concessions are really an all or nothing scenario - and even then would still possibly be rejected by Hamas as it re-arms itself for another violent confrontation with Israel.

Zalman Shoval - the foreign policy chief of Netanyahu’s Likud party - is reported in the Los Angeles Times as having said this week:

“Is he [Netanyahu] running scared? I don’t think so.. But there is pressure. And it certainly makes it necessary for a lot of heart-searching and perhaps reappraisals.”

Any heart searching and reappraisals will be a total waste of time and effort unless all the above concessions are offered. That is not going to happen. Netanyahu is not yet ready to commit national suicide.

Israeli Defence Minister - Ehud Barak - wants to see Netanyahu release his proposals before May - telling Israel Radio:

“Such a decision must be taken in the coming weeks, not the coming months. A declaration before the Congress in May would be far too late,”

One could equally postulate that a decision in May would be far too early - indeed that no such decision should be made until:

1. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority bury their political differences
2. A single unitary governing body exists in the West Bank and Gaza that is capable of making,honouring and enforcing any agreements that might be signed with Israel
3. The political situation has been stabilized in Egypt and Jordan and the continued operation of the peace treaties signed by Israel with these countries is assured.
4. The newly elected governing body in the West Bank and Gaza resumes direct negotiations with Israel

Barak further stated:

“The world will not accept that we continue to rule over another people after 43 years,”

Barak is talking poppycock.

Under the Oslo Accords - negotiated in 1993:

1. 96% of the West Bank Arab population is ruled over by the Palestinian Authority - not Israel - so far as their civil rights and administrative control are concerned .
2. 55% of the West Bank Arab population is ruled over by the Palestinian Authority - not Israel - so far as their security protection is concerned.
3. 100% of the Gazan Arab population is already subject to the full administrative and civil control and security protection of Hamas following Israel’s unilateral evacuation from Gaza in 2005.

Perhaps Barak would serve Israel’s national interest better by asking why the world accepted Egypt and Jordan ruling over another people between 1948-1967 when a Palestinian State could have then been created in the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

That solution - which the world now belatedly - and mistakenly - still thinks is possible more than 43 years later - has been proved to have been an illusion in 2011 - after the last 18 years of on and off negotiations have failed to bring it to fruition.

The world has egg on its face - as does its powerful negotiating team comprising the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. They still have to learn that nothing will appease or be acceptable to the majority of those 21 Arab States other than the elimination of the Jewish National Home the world unanimously endorsed in 1922 in promulgating the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - which was subsequently confirmed and preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter in 1945.

Perhaps Barak would do well to leave all the talking to his Prime Minister - not that anything Netanyahu says now or in May will have the remotest possibility of resonating with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

“All or nothing at all” has been - and continues to be - the motto of the Palestinian Arab leaders. Their people meantime will continue to suffer as the current leadership continues to take them down the road to nowhere.

Condoleezza's Contortions Can't Create Palestine

[Published April 2008]


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed her amazement at the scope of the concessions Israel has agreed to make to the Palestinian Authority in a 35 page booklet given to her by Israel’s Defence Minister - Ehud Barak - during her latest visit to Israel this week.

Her back flip in praising Israel for once certainly did not go unnoticed.

Twisting and turning in another direction she also took the opportunity to stress the importance of a final agreement in helping end the debate over “what belongs in Israel and what belongs in Palestine.”

She still fails to comprehend however that no amount of concessions Israel makes will be acceptable to the Palestinian Authority which requires that every square meter of the West Bank and Gaza belong in “Palestine”.

This is not going to occur as Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made crystal clear to Ms Rice when he told her this week that he would continue to allow construction in West Bank settlement blocs and east Jerusalem.

To underline the importance of his message , Mr Olmert told his political party Kadima the same thing as his following remarks were reported by the Jerusalem Post:

“It is not true that we are building in violation of our obligations,” Olmert said at a meeting of the Kadima faction in the Knesset. “We are not building new settlements, everyone must understand this,” said Olmert, who underscored that Betar Illit “is not a new settlement.” Olmert emphasized that building had not been frozen in Jerusalem neighborhoods that are located across the Green Line, and that building in Jerusalem would continue. Any reports to the contrary were false, he said.

“We don’t hide our views on Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, we are being honest about everything throughout the negotiations,” said Olmert.

To term Betar Illit a “settlement” is an understatement. It is Israel’s fastest growing city boasting a population of 35000 religious Jews - estimated to increase to 100000 by the year 2010.

Any thought that the population of this city - located just 5 kilometres from Jerusalem - and many others like it such as Maale Adumim, Efrat, Ramot and Ariel will be included in “Palestine” is pure fantasy and make believe. Any idea that their populations can be forcibly transferred is as racist as suggesting that Israeli Arabs be transferred to “Palestine”.

President Bush has recognised this reality and has already made it clear in written commitments to Israel that these Israeli cities and other Israeli settled areas in the West Bank will belong to Israel in any final agreement.

Condoleezza Rice appears to be studiously ignoring her President’s stated position as she once more took the opportunity on this latest visit to utter her well rehearsed and oft repeated mantra:

“Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop,”

Such statements may earn her brownie points with the Palestinian Authority but they are an obstacle and a hindrance to any final status agreement ever being reached. They only serve to create false expectations in the Palestinian Authority to continue demanding that every square meter of the West Bank be ceded by Israel.

If Ms Rice’s goal is the creation of a 23rd Arab State between Israel and Jordan by December 2008, then the first hurdle she must jump is to get the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge that “Palestine” will not include a sizeable portion of the West Bank - that Jews - who had lived there for thousands of years before being finally driven out in 1948 but who had returned once again in 1967 - will remain a permanent population in some part of the West Bank that will belong to Israel.

The second hurdle she has to straddle is getting the Palestinian Authority to recognise that it has no legal right to exclusively claim the whole or any part of the West Bank as its sovereign territory. There is another claimant - Israel - that has a far better claim under the League of Nations Mandate and the United Nations Charter.

The West Bank is the Wild West of the Middle East - “no man’s land” in the truest sense of that phrase -until sovereignty has been finally allocated between those who seek to make a claim to it.

If there is to be any final status agreement she needs to spend her time telling the Palestinian Authority that the West Bank will have to be divided between it and Israel. She needs to assert that if this position is not accepted by the Palestinian Authority, then Jordan may well be called upon to step in to effect that partition with Israel as the only means of ending a deadlock that would inevitably see President Bush’s Road Map crashing into oblivion when he leaves the office of President of the United States.

Easing restrictions on the daily lives of the Arab residents of the West Bank will not bring the Palestinian Authority to moderate its demand for the whole of the West Bank. Only the President of the United States or his Secretary of State can ram home the utterly hopeless nature of continuing with that claim. Until they do the Road Map is destined to end up in the shredder - like so many other plans that preceded it over the last 70 years.

No amount of ducking and weaving by Ms Rice can put off her confronting these hurdles any longer. There are many more to be negotiated by Ms Rice before she even gets close to the finishing line.

However if she can’t make it over these first two she should not even be trying to run the race.

Jordan and Israel - Singing the same song?

[Published 4 May 2007]

Jordan and Israel have reportedly embarked on secret negotiations to end the impasse in the West Bank and Gaza according to Matthew Guttman of ABC News (3 May 2007).

If true, such negotiations might successfully conclude 17 years of failed diplomacy that has included;

(i) the Oslo fiasco conceived by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin and reluctantly adopted by Yitzchak Rabin,
(ii) Ehud Barak’s unprecedented concessions, supported by US President Bill Clinton but rejected by Yasser Arafat ,
(iii) Ariel Sharon’s evacuation of 8000 Jews from Gaza and parts of the West Bank,
(iv) Ehud Olmert’s stillborn plan to remove another 70000 Jews out of the West Bank at a cost of US$10 billion,
(v) the Saudi Peace Plan designed to remove all 400000 Jews from the West Bank and allow millions of Arabs to live in Israel,
(vi) The Geneva Peace Initiative and
(vii) US President George Bush’s Road Map promoting the creation of a second Arab State within the boundaries of former Palestine - backed by the United Nations, the European Union and Russia dubbed the Quartet

All of these initiatives have not brought peace and now have no value other than learning tools to instruct future negotiators on how not to commence or handle negotiations in the Middle East.

Jordan was the common denominator excluded from all of these failed processes. It was left out at its own insistence but the Quartet and Israeli negotiators must share the blame for allowing this to occur - virtually by default - and for the pathetic results that inevitably followed.

Any negotiations without Jordan were doomed to failure from the outset.

Jordan, after all, is the Arab State created, built on and occupying 77% of Palestine whose exclusively Arab population is no different in ethnicity, religion, language or cultural beliefs to the Arabs living in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel.

Hundreds of thousands are related by familial and clan ties stretching across the Jordan River which runs between Jordan and the West Bank. All live within an easy one to two hours drive of each other.

Jordan is the country that occupied the West Bank from 1948-1967. It only ceded its claims to sovereignty in the West Bank in 1988 after being pressured by the Arab League and the Palestine Liberation Organisation to do so.

Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 which was recognised by Britain and Pakistan at that time.

Jordan’s rulers, not the PLO, have successfully preserved almost four fifths of Palestine as an exclusively Arab State. Not one Jew lives there today and the death penalty awaits any one found selling land to Jews. This is no mean feat given that Jordan was originally designated by the League of Nations in 1922 to be part of the territory in which the national home for the Jews was to be reconstituted under the Mandate for Palestine granted to Great Britain.

Contrast this to the remaining 23% of Palestine where 17% - today called Israel - has a population that is 80% Jewish and 20% Arab whilst the remaining 6% - today called the West Bank - has a population that is 80% Arab and 20% Jewish .

Yet the fiction has been created that the Arabs of Palestine lack a State and have been stripped of any rights to self determination in Palestine.

The fact is that Jordan and Israel are the successor sovereign States in former Palestine together exercising sovereignty in 94% of Palestine whilst sovereignty in the remaining 6% still remains unresolved and unallocated after 59 years.

Commonsense rejects the idea of creating a second Arab or, for that matter, a second Jewish State in this remaining 6% of Palestine - an area about the size of Delaware or just two thirds of Cyprus.

The obvious solution is to redraw the boundary between Jordan and Israel so that the heavily populated Jewish areas of the West Bank become part of Israel and the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank (together possibly with Gaza) become part of Jordan.

This is certainly attainable as Jordan and Israel are parties to a peace treaty signed in 1994, which they both have observed in good faith, with mutual dignity and respect despite some strains in their relationship over the years.

Jordan and Israel could be confidently expected to realign the border to ensure that very few Jews or Arabs would be faced with deciding whether to move from their existing residences or stay put as part of a minority population. Compensation would be paid if they decided to move and become part of the majority population on the other side of the new border.

Guidelines to deal with controversial issues such as water, refugees and Jerusalem are already set out in the Jordan - Israel Peace Treaty.

Unceasing and unsuccessful efforts to sign a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have led nowhere in the last 17 years and threaten to continue to do so ad infinitum whilst the fiction writers continue to believe that a new State between Jordan and Israel is the answer to the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

How many more Jews and Arabs need to be killed and maimed in the pursuit of a solution that has not got even the slightest chance of success?

Perhaps the following words from American composer Cole Porter’s song - “I’ve got you under my skin” - should resonate in the ears of Jordanian and Israeli negotiators as their secret talks proceed :

“Don’t you know you fool, you never can win
Use your mentality, wake up to reality”

That reality is that two peoples, the Jews and the Arabs, need two States, not three States, in Palestine.

At last Jordan and Israel may finally be singing the same song. Everyone interested in ending the 130 years conflict between the Jews and Arabs - including the Quartet -should join in.