Palestine - Trump Triumph Requires Direct Negotiations Between Jordan And Israel

[Published 24 November 2016]


President-elect Donald Trump has used his greatest media critic - the New York Times - to reiterate his determination to broker a deal to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict - suggesting his son-in law Jared Kushner might be just the person to advance Trump’s declared mission.

Trump’s legendary deal-making prowess sets him apart from all preceding American presidents — from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama - Democrats and Republicans - liberals and conservatives alike — who have tried to end this intractable conflict and earn themselves an honoured place in the annals of history.

Instead - their legacy of failure remains a silent reminder that Presidential power and prestige is of little value in moving Jews and Arabs to achieve a historic reconciliation.

Kushner possesses the firepower to advance Trump’s agenda following this ground-breaking message from Trump’s advisor Jason Greenblatt - co-chairman of the Trump campaign’s Israel Advisory Committee:

“It is certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activities should be condemned and that it is an obstacle for peace, because it is not an obstacle for peace.”

Trump’s position runs counter to the view expressed by the international community that Jews have no legal right to live in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) - an area comprising some 4% of the former territory of Palestine - a claim that remains untested in any court of law.

Such conclusion ignores the rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria under article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

To call the international community’s position “a travesty of justice” is an understatement.

The harm such flawed viewpoint has caused in prolonging this long-running conflict is inestimable.

Kushner will also be fortified by the following commitment made by President Bush to Israel in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed at the time by the Congress by 502 votes to 12:

“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. 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.”

Israel’s current negotiating partner - the Palestine Liberation Organisation - has consistently refused to accept the inevitability of any territorial subdivision of Judea and Samaria since the Bush-Congress pronouncement. There appears to be no chance of any change of heart by the PLO to please a Trump administration.

Trump will therefore need to find another Arab interlocutor to replace the PLO to negotiate with Israel on the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Sovereignty there has remained unresolved since Brexit 1948 - the year Great Britain pulled out of Palestine and left the United Nations to deal with the consequences of the invasion of Western Palestine the very next day by the armies of six neighbouring Arab States.

Jordan was the last Arab State to occupy Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967.

Jordan and Israel - at peace since 1994 - both enjoy longstanding American financial and diplomatic support - which can be leveraged by a deal-driven Trump to induce Jordan joining Israel as its negotiating partner on the territorial carve up of Judea and Samaria.

Without this diplomatic breakthrough Trump’s dream of pulling off the deal of the century will remain just a dream.

Palestine - Brexit 1922 Key To Trump Resolving Arab-Jewish Conflict

[Published 16 November 2016]


President-elect Donald Trump has lost no time in stressing his desire to end the Arab-Jewish conflict which has seen many proposals in the last 100 years fall by the wayside as a result of unrelenting Arab rejection to any Jewish State in former Palestine.

The first such proposal came in 1922 when Great Britain went back on its promise made to the Jewish people in 1920 at both the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres - by restricting the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in only 22% of the territory of Palestine covered by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (“Brexit 1922”).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this proposal but the Arabs were not prepared to accept self-determination in only 78% of Palestine - today called Jordan. They wanted the remaining 22% - today called Israel, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) Jerusalem and Gaza - and have maintained this position until today.

Proposals to end the conflict recommended by:

1. the 1937 Peel Commission,

2. the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution,

3. the 1993 Oslo Accords,

4. the 2002 Bush Roadmap and

5. Israeli offers in 2000/1 and 2008

have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

For President-elect Trump - resolving this conflict becomes the ultimate deal maker’s challenge to accomplish.

Trump lost no time in making his intentions very clear - just three days after his stunning Presidential victory:

“As a deal maker, I’d like to do… the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

To understand how Trump might pull off this deal one need look no further than the views of John Bolton - a controversial front runner with Rudy Giuliani to be Trump’s Secretary of State.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Times on 16 April 2014 Bolton presciently wrote:

“Instead of pursuing the misguided notion of “two states,” U.S. policymakers should instead ask what other solutions are possible that would provide Palestinians with personal dignity and security, economic growth and the prospect of living under a responsible, responsive government.

Concededly, there is no perfect alternative, but the most attractive prospect is to attach the disparate Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to their neighboring contiguous Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, respectively. We might call this a “three-state solution.”

After the late 1940s collapse of the League of Nations’ Middle East mandates, Jordan successfully governed the West Bank until the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Today, Israel, Jordan and Palestinians should draw new West Bank boundaries embodying Security Council Resolution 242’s “land for peace” formula.

Jordan could, with relative ease, resume sovereignty over those portions of the West Bank not incorporated into Israel”

Jordan - part of the problem - must undoubtedly become part of the solution.

Bolton however conceded:

“Gaza is a harder problem, but incorporating it into Egypt is clearly a better solution than allowing it to remain the headquarters for Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

An easier solution could see Gaza connected to the West Bank by an overhead expressway or underground road containing adequate security safeguards.

Trump possesses the firepower to broker a successful deal by:

1. offering continued - and perhaps increased - funding to Egypt and Jordan and
2. providing guarantees to defend Egypt and Jordan’s territorial integrity against Islamic State and others who might seek to intimidate and undermine their sovereignty.

Trump can indeed drain the swamp of Arab hatred and rejectionism and succeed where so many others have failed.

Brexit 2016 was the precursor to Trump’s Presidential triumph.

Brexit 1922 can serve as the foundation for Trump to pull off the deal of the century.