Jordan/West Bank reunification key to peace in Jerusalem

 

Separating Jews and Arabs in former Palestine – first decreed by the League of Nations 100 years ago under article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations in its 1947 Partition Plan - has become even more urgent following:

• the outpouring of rabid Jew-hatred emanating from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during Ramadan 
• three Jewish fathers being murdered - leaving 16 Jewish children fatherless - and seven more Jews being wounded - in an axe and knife wielding bloodbath perpetrated by two Arabs

Violent Arab riots against Jews first occurred in 1920 and 1921. Secretary of State for the Colonies -Winston Churchill - in his White Paper dated June 3, 1922 - had sought to allay Arab fears of a Jewish takeover of all of Palestine 

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view 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 [Balfour -ed]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.'"

As a result - Article 25 was inserted in the Mandate adopted by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922: 

• Restricting the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home after 3000 years in just 22% of Palestine located west of the Jordan River - today called Israel, Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza 
• Granting Arab self-determination in the remaining 78% of Palestine located east of the Jordan River--today called Jordan. 

The Jews accepted - albeit reluctantly - article 25’s inclusion in the Mandate.  The Arabs never did -demanding 100% of Palestine - not the 78% they were allocated under article 25 

100 years later:

• Israel exercises sovereignty in 17% of former Palestine 
• Jordan exercises sovereignty in 78% of former Palestine
• Sovereignty in 5% of former Palestine west of the Jordan River - Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza - remains unallocated.

According to a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research:

• 32% of Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza support one state west of the Jordan River with equal rights for Jews and Arabs 
• 44% think that armed struggle is the most effective means of ending the "Israeli occupation" 

This proposed one-state solution - bringing Arabs and Jews together - is only agreed to by 10% of Israelis. However an alternative one-state solution that separates Jews and Arabs - reducing conflict- is feasible and involves: Direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel - the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine - to redraw their current international border - which would result in:

• Gaza plus the heavily-populated Arab areas of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) as existed between 1950 and 1967 - becoming part of Jordan 
• the heavily-populated Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) becoming part of Israel
• no Arab or Jew having to leave his current home
• Jordan being affirmed as Custodian of the Islamic Holy Shrines in Jerusalem
• Freedom of worship in Jerusalem for Jews, Christians and Moslems

The League of Nations and United Nations mutually-agreed destination - one Jewish State and one Arab state in former Palestine - will have finally been reached. 

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka "Dry Bones"- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

Jordan reaches 100 as its ruling Hashemite dynasty implodes

 

Jordan continues to be the stumbling block to ending the 100 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs as it celebrates its founding 100 years ago on April 11, 1921 - whilst simultaneously 100 years of unbroken rule by the Hashemite dynasty has been publicly imploding.

Initially called the Emirate of Transjordan - the Hashemites - hailing from the Hejaz - now called Saudi Arabia – were anointed as Transjordan’s future rulers by Britain at the 1921 Cairo Conference as part of the machinations between Britain and France in the carve up of the territory of the defeated Ottoman Empire in World War I.

99.99% of Ottoman-liberated territory was designated for Arab self-determination under the French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the British Mandate for Mesopotamia - whilst the remaining 0.01% was to be set aside for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in the area today called Israel, Jordan, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the British Mandate for Palestine.

Two and a half of the twelve tribes of Israel had settled in Transjordan: Gad, Reuben and half the tribe of Manasseh:

Transjordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the Mandate - was however completely excluded as the site for any part of the future Jewish National Home - when Article 25 was inserted in the Mandate document unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

Transjordan’s exclusion from future Jewish settlement came after the exchange of the following telegrams between Britain’s State Secretary for the Colonies Winston Churchill and British Colonial Administrator John Schuckburgh in March 1921:

The coup de grâce was duly delivered by the Council of the League of Nations on September 16, 1922:

With impeccable Anglo-French doublespeak – the Jews were thus denied any right to reconstitute their National Home in any part of the Mandate territory east of the Jordan River. However – Jewish settlement anywhere west of the Jordan River – including Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – has been preserved until today under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Former American President Jimmy Carter summed up Jordan’s founding in Time Magazine on October 11, 1982:

“[Jordan’s King] Hussein is personally courageous but an extremely timid man in political matters. That timidity derives almost inevitably from the inherent weakness of Jordan. As a nation it is a contrivance, arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen”

Transjordan remained part of the Mandate for Palestine until Britain granted it independence on 25 May 1946 when it was renamed “The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”. A further name change to Jordan only came in 1950 after Transjordan had conquered Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem in 1948 – expelling all the Jews living there and uniting those areas with Transjordan to form a single territorial unit until their loss to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994 which remains in force today despite many events that could have derailed it.

The two-state solution first contemplated in 1922 for Palestine:

• one for the Jews within 22% of the Mandate territory
• one for the Arabs exclusively in the remaining 78%

still remains the only realistic and politically-achievable basis for any two-state solution in 2021.

Subdividing Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza – 5% of the Mandate territory where sovereignty still remains unallocated – between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine exercising sovereignty in the other 95% – remains the key to ending the Arab-Jewish conflict.

After 100 years - Jordan’s ruling Hashemite dynasty finally needs to end its timidity.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

Hashemite rule in Jordan on collision course with Trump and Israel

[Published 7 April 2019]

King Abdullah seems increasingly hell bent on ending 99 years of Hashemite-dynasty rule in Jordan.

This possibility is emerging as Abdullah is:

1. Seemingly refusing to commit to negotiating with Israel on President Trump’s soon-to-be-released deal of the century to end the Jewish-Arab conflict and

2. Taking active steps to place the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty in jeopardy.

Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1950) has always been the key to resolving competing territorial claims by both Arabs and Jews in former Palestine.

Transjordan comprised 78% of the territory placed under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after being wrested from 400 years of Ottoman Empire sovereignty during World War 1. Mandatory Palestine was designated in April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference and in August 1920 by article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres as the location for reconstitution of the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

Transjordan’s first Hashemite ruler — Abdullah I — arrived there in November 1920

Abdullah was en route by train from Hijaz to Syria with armed forces to assist his brother Feisal in his struggle with France to retain power in Syria. Winston Churchill
— at France’s request - offered Abdullah an Emirate in Transjordan — which Abdullah gratefully accepted on 11 April 1921.

Feisal was removed from Syria by the French and installed as ruler of Iraq under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty dated 10 October 1922. France became the Mandatory for the territory comprised in the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon.

These British-Franco machinations cost the Jewish people dearly — when the Mandate for Palestine - adopted unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 - denied the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of Transjordan (Eastern Palestine) and restricted that right to the remaining 22% (Western Palestine).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this decision. The Arabs didn’t.

In 1946 Transjordan was granted independence by Great Britain.

In 1948 — immediately after the Mandate ended and Jews declared the State of Israel — Transjordan invaded Western Palestine conquering Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem (comprising 4% of Mandatory Palestine) — and unified these areas with Transjordan to form a new territorial entity — Jordan — encompassing 82% of Mandatory Palestine completely devoid of Jews.

The founding Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 specifically excluded any PLO claim to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

In the 1967 Six Day War Israel captured Judea and Samaria from Jordan. The PLO - claiming Jordan and Israel to be one indivisible territorial unit - removed its non-claim to sovereignty from the revised 1968 Charter.

In September 1970 the PLO unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Jordan’s Hashemite ruler King Hussein. Israel helped save Hussein.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994 (Peace Treaty) — which has withstood many events that could have seen its termination.

That Treaty is again under threat — as Jordan has:

1. indicated it is not prepared to renew an expired 25 year lease of Jordanian sovereign territory farmed by Israelis and

2. given the PLO 40% representation on the body charged with administering the Moslem Holy Sites in Jerusalem — breaching the Washington Declaration and the Peace Treaty.

Jordan’s resistance to negotiating with Israel on Trump’s plan could see Trump shelving it and abruptly ending the 2018 five year $1.275 billion America-Jordan Memorandum of Understanding underpinning Jordan’s security and stability.

The PLO — as in 1970 — is waiting in the wings as current ongoing unrest in Jordan is destabilizing continuing Hashemite rule there.

Abdullah might find that spurning Trump and Israel could see him facing the PLO on his own.

UN Secretary-General Guterres ignores Jordan-Palestine nexus

[Published 11 February 2018]


United Nations Secretary-General — Antonio Guterres — displayed how little he knows of the history, geography and demography of Palestine when addressing the opening of the 2018 Session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (“CEIRPP”).

Established by the General Assembly in 1975 - CEIRPP was responsible for the publication in 1978 of a false narrative of the Arab-Israel conflict - “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1947” (“UN Study”) - which has undoubtedly influenced United Nations thinking and decision-making.

Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:

1. Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181 spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:

“After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”

The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:

“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….”

2. Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

3. Falsely alleging:

“The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”

The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations own archives.

That evidence comprises:

(i) Meetings of the Palestine Arab Delegation (Delegation) with the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies - Winston Churchill - on 12, 22 and 23 August 1921

(ii)Letters from 21 February 1922 to 23 June 1922 between the Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies during the Delegation's stay in the Hotel Cecil in London.

CEIRPP concealed this crucial archival evidence - falsely inferring the Palestinian Arabs wishes had not been taken into account when in fact they had been fully considered.

Secretary-General Guterres told the CEIRPP opening session:

“I remain steadfast in the United Nations and my commitment to supporting the parties in their efforts to make the two-State solution a reality.

There is no Plan B.

A two-State solution is the only way to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and secure a sustainable solution to the conflict.”

Secretary-General Gutteres is apparently unaware that:

1. The term “Palestinian people” was invented in the 1964 Palestine Liberation Organization Charter which also specifically excluded any claim to exercise regional sovereignty “over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and “on the Gaza Strip”

2. The Palestinian Arabs were never mentioned in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - being grouped in with “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”

3. The “two-State solution” - Israel and Jordan — first envisaged in 1922 and actually proposed in 1937 - was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs on both occasions. It was 95% achieved in 1994 when the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty was signed.

4. The “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” went walkabout between 1948 and 1967 when an additional Arab State between Jordan and Israel could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen after all Jews living there had been forcefully expelled.

5. There are many Plan B’s involving Jordan — the major part of former Palestine — which remains the key to resolving this conflict.

Secretary-General Gutteres — with the greatest respect — needs a crash-course in the actual— not fictitious-history of the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict. Relying on this false UN Study to gain his knowledge and understanding of the conflict is not recommended.

Palestine - Rhiannon Propaganda Pamphlet Threatens Greens Political Integrity

[Published 26 May 2016]


Australian Greens Leader Senator Richard Di Natale needs to immediately shred a misleading and deceptive pro-Palestinian pamphlet authorised and printed by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon.

The pamphlet contains two statements purportedly made by Israel’s Moshe Dayan in 1969 and Ariel Sharon in 1973.

Dayan is quoted as saying:

“We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs and we set up a Jewish State… Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages”

Dayan actually said:

“We came to a region that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In many places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.”

Dayan’s statement refutes the canard repeated in Palestinian text books and media that

“the Zionist gangs stole Palestine”

Why Rhiannon deleted Dayan’s highly significant remarks remains unexplained.

The authenticity of Sharon’s supposed statement is shrouded in uncertainty.

Michael Shaik writing in the Greens Left Weekly claimed the statement was made by a British journalist boasting at Israel’s National Press Club.

Max Blumenthal writes it was made in a private chat with Winston Churchill’s grandson in 1973.

On 18 July 2002 George Hishmeh - an Arab-American journalist based in Washington elucidated:

"Winston S. Churchill III, grandson of the famed British prime minister, recalled last October [11 October 2001—Ed] at the National Press Club here a telling encounter he had had in 1973 with the hawkish Ariel Sharon, now the Israeli prime minister, about Zionist objectives. “What is to become of the Palestinians?” Churchill asked. “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them,” Sharon said. Churchill responded, “What?” “Yes, we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”

Hishmeh identified as his source — Geoffrey Aronson:

“who is recognized in the US as the preeminent American expert on the Israeli settlement movement, loves to relate this significant exchange as he did in an interview with The [Lebanon—Ed] Daily Star on two different occasions.”

Churchill recounting a 1973 private discussion in such precise detail at the Washington National Press Club twenty eight years later — is highly suspect.

Churchill never made any mention of this conversation with Sharon in his published speech at the Press Club — although he could have recalled the conversation as an aside or in some discussion with Aronson or others afterwards.

Churchill’s bombshell revelation seems to have gone unnoticed as this contemporaneous report indicates. No other reports have been found.

I have been unable to listen to or download a copy of a tape that apparently exists and could possibly shed some light on what Churchill said.

Please help me retrieve it if you can.

Whether that tape surfaces or not — a question mark must hang over the accuracy of Sharon’s previously unpublished 1973 private remarks — only disclosed by Churchill in 2001

Sharon and Churchill are not alive to confirm or deny what was said — yet the terms of this private conversation are quoted with unerring accuracy and entrenched as gospel in Rhiannon’s pamphlet.

Rhiannon’s continuing use of Sharon’s “statement” — compounded by her excluding part of Dayan’s statement - raises questions as to the propriety of the Greens using this pamphlet to garner votes in the upcoming July Federal elections.

Shredding these pamphlets has become an urgent priority.

The Greens political integrity requires its support for the Palestinian Arabs be based on solid grounds — not shaky foundations.

United Nations must trash false information on Arab-Jewish conflict

[Published 27 April 2017]


The United Nations Study titled “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988” (“Study”) has coughed up yet another piece of false information following that exposed in my last article - which indicates increasingly that the United Nations has been complicit in disseminating false information on the Arab-Jewish conflict for almost the last forty years.

The Study was published in June 1978 by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat (DPRUNS) for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIARPP)

I had only reached the third paragraph of the 275 page Study when the following statement caught my attention:

“The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”

I could scarcely believe this dishonest statement had actually originated in a United Nations official publication – especially as the evidence contradicting this falsehood was sitting in the United Nations own archives.

That evidence comprises:

1. Meetings of the Palestine Arab Delegation (Delegation) with the recently appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies - Winston Churchill - on 12, 22 and 23 August 1921

2. Letters from 21 February 1922 to 23 June 1922 between the Delegation and the Secretary of State for the Colonies during which the Delegation was housed in the Hotel Cecil in London.

The letters disclose that:

1. The Delegation failed to persuade Britain to abandon the Mandate for Palestine providing for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

2. The British Government had adopted a fresh definition of policy to finally allay the Delegation’s apprehensions as to the scope and purport of British policy.

The Study’s failure to disclose this evidence is breathtaking.

DPRUNS and CEIARPP clearly sought to hide this evidence to create the false impression that the Palestinian Arabs had been unfairly treated and never been consulted in contrast to the Zionists who had.

This false statement has been repeated verbatim as gospel on many web sites including:

1. “politics.ie” - which claims to be one of Ireland’s leading politics and current affairs discussion websites with more than 600,000 visitors a month attracting one of the most engaged, respected and influential politics and current affairs communities.

2. “Academia.edu” - which claims to be a platform for academics to share research papers and to accelerate the world’s research with 50,841,190 academics having signed up adding 18,234,570 papers and 2,051,915 research interests – attracting over 36 million unique visitors a month.

3.“iasexamportal.com” – which describes itself as “India’s Largest Online Community for IAS, UPSC, Civil Services Exam Aspirants.”

4.“UK essays” - which claims to use over 4,000 thoroughly vetted experts with the qualifications and experience to write you the best possible essay.

5. Many virulent Jew-hating and anti-Israel websites that I will not dignify by naming.

False statements such as this take on a life of their own and can influence people in forming their views of the Arab-Jewish conflict. That this disgraceful example should have emanated from the United Nations is outrageous.

DPRUNS and CEIARPP were clearly engaged in creating a false Arab narrative from the Study’s very inception - based on fiction – not fact.

Surely after almost 40 years of this intellectual fraud - the UN Secretariat needs to clean up its act, thoroughly review the Study and correct such errors.

The damage has been done, minds and opinions have been poisoned but the United Nations cannot continue to lend its name to this Study in its current form.

United Nations Secretary General - António Guterres - over to you.

Palestine - Gaza Conflict Sure To Resume

[Published 22 November 2012]


One would have to be a supreme optimist to believe the Agreement of Understanding For A Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip (Understanding) will result in anything but a brief lull in what has been a very difficult eight days for the civilian populations in both Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Ma’an News Agency , the Jerusalem Post and many other media outlets have introduced and published the text of what is termed a “ceasefire agreement” in the following identical terms:

“CAIRO (Reuters)—Following is the verbatim English text of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza that was reached Wednesday with Egyptian mediation.

The text was distributed by the Egyptian presidency.

Agreement of Understanding For a Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip

1: (no title given for this section)

A. Israel should stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals.

B. All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.

C. Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

D. Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.

2: Implementation mechanisms:

A. Setting up the zero hour for the ceasefire understanding to enter into effect.

B. Egypt shall receive assurances from each party that the party commits to what was agreed upon.

C. Each party shall commit itself not to perform any acts that would breach this understanding. In case of any observations Egypt as the sponsor of this understanding shall be informed to follow up.”

There will inevitably be serious differences of opinion as to what the document really means - as the following comments - whilst not exhaustive - indicate:

1. The document is not an Agreement but merely an Understanding.

2. The parties to the Understanding are not specifically identified nor has the document been signed by any parties that are supposed to be bound by the Understanding. How does Egypt ensure that it has obtained the assurances from each Palestinian faction that each of them “has agreed to the terms of the document"?

3. What constitutes a “Palestinian faction”?

4. Israel “should stop” all hostilities - but all Palestinian factions “shall stop” all hostilities.

Israel is clearly not to be restrained in the same way as the Palestinian factions.

A draft of the document leaked to the BBC indicated the word “shall” was originally inserted in relation to Israel - but has been changed in the above text to “should”.

As a result the need to first identify those firing rockets from Gaza as being “Palestinian factions” acting in breach of the Understanding will not be necessary to stop Israel retaliating without itself being in breach of the Understanding.

5. Whilst Israel is to stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air - the Palestinian factions are not so limited from engaging in hostilities from the sea, the Sinai peninsular, the West Bank or even from terrorist cells located in Israel. If any such hostilities occur - Israel would be precluded from retaliating in Gaza under the terms of the Understanding.

6. Persons or groups located in the Gaza Strip such as Al Qaeda, Iranian or other non- Palestinian factions are not bound by the Understanding.

7. Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents free movements provide fertile ground for disagreement.

Will Israelis be welcomed in Gaza and Gazans allowed to visit Israel?

Ominously the issue has already raised its head before the parties have even started negotiating.

In Cairo, Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said all the border crossings between Gaza and Israel had to be opened - not just the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt
“The [ceasefire] document stipulates the opening of the crossings, all the crossings, and not just Rafah,” Mr Meshaal told a news conference in Cairo.

The Understanding certainly does not contain the word “all”. The lawyers will have a field day arguing the meaning of this clause in the Understanding.

Mr Meshall is no doubt well aware of the furore over the meaning of the words ” in Palestine ” used in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Winston Churchill’s explanation that those words did not mean "all of Palestine” when considering the recognition conferred on the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home “in Palestine”

He may also recall the different interpretations of the meaning of the word “territory” used in Security Council Resolution 242.

The semantic war is still alive and kicking as a result of this shoddily drafted document.

1. Hamas is not clearly identified as a party although it constitutes the current Government in Gaza. It has no role to ensure other Palestinian factions comply with the Understanding. Abdication of its role in restraining the firing of rockets from Gaza by all and sundry has been a major contributor to the breakdown of law and order in Gaza.

2. There is no time laid down for reaching agreement on the outstanding issues.

With the ceasefire now in place - the execution of the Understanding will shortly commence.

Israel will want to see a quick resolution of the conditions of the Understanding resulting in an end once and for all to any rockets being fired indiscriminately into civilian population centres in Israel.

The Palestinian factions will not be in such a rush - as they take the opportunity allowed by the ceasefire to regroup and restock their depleted store of rockets whilst making continuing demands on Israel that it will find impossible to meet.

I am afraid that it is only a matter of time - a very short space of time perhaps one month at the most - before the ceasefire is set to disappear in a raft of recriminations as to who was responsible for the demise of the Understanding.

That in my humble opinion is certainly not rocket science.

History shines light on the true borders of Palestine

[Published 2 April 2014]

The Nation

Lorenzo Kamel

[This article contains many untrue and misleading statements which I have forcefully rebutted in my article "Palestine - Kerry Can't keep Kidding Himself.]

“Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan.” 

These words were included in the “peace initiative” presented in May 1989 by Israel’s Labour-Likud national unity government. Twenty-five years later, the “Jordan option” is back and being increasingly mentioned in the media.

These claims are problematic.

The Mandate for Palestine had direct, complete and explicit jurisdiction over the area that, in 1922, became the Emirate of Transjordan for eight months: from July 1920, when King Faisal was thrown out of Damascus, to March 12, 1921, the day of the Conference of Cairo which, in Winston Churchill’s words, sanctioned “the policy to be adopted with regard to Trans Jordania”.

Whenever there is a concrete effort to push forward the peace process, talk about “a substitute homeland” for the Palestinians re-emerges. 

Most of those supporting this scheme claim that well before the partition suggested by the UN General Assembly in 1947, the Zionist movement suffered a mutilation of territory following the unilateral British decision in 1922 to separate Transjordan from the rest of the land subject to the Mandate for Palestine. They argued that the Palestinians already had a sovereign state – Jordan – and that, therefore, Israel, even by incorporating today’s West Bank and Gaza Strip, would comprise only 22 per cent of the whole “historic Palestine”.

It was a “partially legal” time lapse even from the juridical perspective imposed by European powers, given that the Mandate for Palestine was formally assigned to London by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, becoming operative in September 1923. 

Transjordan was thus part of the Mandate for Palestine with the proviso that Britain might administer it separately and for a period which at best may be considered scarcely relevant.

Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/history-shines-light-on-the-true-borders-of-palestine#ixzz2y5bV9A6k 

Palestine - Abdullah's Plea Is Obama's Poisoned Tea

[Published April 2009]

“Mr Churchill, if you were my husband I’d poison your tea“. - Lady Nancy Astor
“And if you were my wife I would drink it” Winston Churchill

Jordan’s King Abdullah has offered American President Obama the proverbial cup of poisoned tea in His Majesty’s address to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on 24 April.

His Majesty sought to induce President Obama to take the first sip of the poisoned chalice when claiming:

“Every country in the Middle East, and perhaps even the world, sees the United States as being the key to achieving peace ….Now is the time for the United States to lead, to ensure no more time is wasted. Failing to act means that we will all lose. The status quo is simply untenable. The dangers are too many and too big to ignore.”

There needed to be in His Majesty’s view:

“An effective peace plan for 2009 and beyond - a plan of negotiations that can achieve concrete results quickly and stop the drift towards confrontation. I say plan, not process, for a reason. The very term “peace process“ is an “artifact of history“. When it was coined in the 1970’s, the idea was to break the decades of deadlock by taking an incremental approach. ..the old idea has seen its day. We have reached the time for the end -game, in which all sides can win"

In King Abdullah’s further view;

“ … the groundwork is there. The two-state settlement has been agreed by the parties and the entire international community… The path for peace can go only through the two-state solution. No other solution can offer the justice that people demand and respect. And no other solution can give people a reason to take risks peace requires.”

King Abdullah’s address is both deficient in its analysis yet encouraging in its prescription.

He has failed to recognize that Israel and Jordan - not the United States - hold the key to achieving peace for the following salient and compelling reasons:

1. Jordan comprises 77% of former Palestine

2. Jordan’s population overwhelmingly comprises Arabs born in Eastern or Western Palestine

3. Jordan and Israel are the two successor states in former Palestine exercising sovereignty over 94% of that territory. It is only in the West Bank and Gaza (6% of former Palestine) that sovereignty remains unallocated between Jews or Arabs.

King Abdullah’s view that the two state solution - the creation of a new sovereign Arab state between Israel and Jordan - is the only path to peace must be seriously questioned.

This proposed solution has been attempted and has failed - despite the most intensive efforts ever seen in international diplomacy over the last sixteen years. Led initially by the United States between 1993-2003 and thereafter by the Quartet - the United States ,the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations - this proposal has failed to achieve any breakthrough of even minimal proportions during the last sixteen years.

It also failed when rejected by the Arabs in 1937 and 1947. It could have happened at any time between 1948-1967 but was never even contemplated or pursued by the Arab League.

This dead horse has well and truly become an artefact of history along with the “peace process“ - and no amount of wishful thinking can bring it back to life. Events on the ground have made such a proposal impossible to achieve without massive human displacement and humanitarian suffering.

Three states - one Jewish and two Arab - in former Palestine - is not going to happen. To countenance that proposal would certainly invite possible claims to establish a second Jewish State in the West Bank or a third Arab State in Gaza. One can imagine the level of international support such proposals would receive.

The West Bank at the present time is no man's land - the Wild West of the Middle East - where no one exercises internationally recognized sovereignty.

However a plan of negotiations that can resolve sovereignty and achieve concrete results within the framework of a two state solution - one Jewish, one Arab ,- in former Palestine - without necessitating one person leaving his current home - should be encouraged and promoted as a welcome step in the right direction.

Jordan and Israel’s Peace Treaty signed in 1994 and their status as the Jewish and Arab successor States in Palestine provide the vehicle - and legal justification - for establishing such a plan of negotiations that can achieve results to end the “untenable status quo” in the West Bank by the simple expedient of redrawing the existing international boundary between Jordan and Israel.

In accordance with King Abdullah’s ideas, such a plan of negotiations can achieve concrete results quickly - involving as they would face to face negotiations between these two key players and immediately adjoining neighbours in the region for the last 60 years.

Viewed as a border dispute between two peaceful neighbours, the resolution of the current conflict takes on an entirely different perspective.

Perhaps creative American leadership - involving offers of diplomatic, military and financial assistance - can encourage such negotiations being undertaken between Jordan and Israel.

But America would do well to leave the conduct of any such negotiations to the chairmanship of someone else like the Secretary General of the United Nations.

America needs some time out from the tortuous peace processes that have engaged successive American Presidents with very little to show - except egg on their faces.

Winston Churchill - the principal architect for Jordan and Israel’s existence today because of his pivotal role in the creation of the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922 - might well be fearful that both Israel and Jordan would be eager to poison his tea today for creating the hostile environment in which they both currently find themselves. He might just drink it down to escape their protestations at what has subsequently occurred over the last 90 years.

President Obama is not yet in that position. He should quietly decline the proffered cup of tea from King Abdullah.

Instead he should suggest King Abdullah invite Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over to the Royal Palace for a quiet chat over a cup of tea to see if they can agree on this idea to give real meaning to King Abdullah’s remark to his Washington audience:

“It is time for a partnership, courage and action”

Netanyahu’s taster should still take a slurp first. You never know who you can trust these days.

Palestine - The New Myth About Jordan

[Published May 2007]

Jordan’s Prime Minister, Marouf al- Bakhit, has now added one new myth to the countless many concerning Palestine that have been invented by Arab propagandists.

Speaking at a recent seminar marking the 61st anniversary of Jordan’s independence, the Prime Minister asserted that everyone should realise that:

"this small country [Jordan] was not accidentally born nor was the outcome of deals,conferences or conspiracies.”

Jordan’s history is well documented and totally contradicts the Prime Minister‘s amazing assertion.

It was accidentally born in 1921 - as the emirate of Transjordan. It then comprised 77% of the area designated by Britain and France as “Palestine” after the First World War - the land in which the Jewish National Home was intended to be reconstituted almost 2000 years after the Jews had lost their biblical and ancestral homeland to foreign invaders and occupiers.

This noble plan was suddenly “postponed or withheld” in relation to Transjordan, when Britain changed tack and proceeded to transform Transjordan into an “Arab province or adjunct of Palestine”, as Winston Churchill described it at the time. However it still remained part of Palestine until independence was granted by Britain in 1946 but the Jews were prohibited from settling there.

What was postponed or withheld became permanent after 1946.

The Jews were then left to reconstitute their homeland in just 23% of the area originally allotted to them - a miniscule 28000 square kilometres. The Arabs had ended up with the other 92000 square kilometres of Palestine as an exclusively Arab State but this did not and never has satisfied the Arabs. Some wanted and still demand a greater share and others want the lot.

Jordan was indeed the outcome of deals, conferences and conspiracies - a pay off by the British, following the Cairo Conference, to Emir Abdullah, second son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca - to stop Abdullah and his armed band of followers transiting through Transjordan on their way to Damascus to help his brother Feisal in a struggle against the French who had taken control of Syria in the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

Former US President Jimmy Carter best summed up Jordan’s history in Time on 11 October 1982 when he said:

“As a nation, it is a contrivance, arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen.”

One could equally apply Carter’s statement to Syria (independent only since 1946), Iraq (1932), Saudi Arabia (1932) and Lebanon (1943) - all nations created from the vast tracts of the Ottoman Empire allocated to the Arabs by the British and the French simultaneously with the allocation of Palestine to the Jews at the end of World War 1.

Deals, conferences and conspiracies certainly abounded at the time of Jordan’s birth and still exist today when it comes to Jordan and the role it has to play in resolving the Arab -Israel conflict.

The Jordanian Prime Minister ’s statement appears to be trying to distance Jordan from the current woes of the West Bank and Gaza - just 5% of former Palestine and 15 times smaller than the large chunk of former Palestine that Jordan now occupies.

Denying Jordan’s Palestinian parentage and lineage draws a line in the sand. It sends a message to both Hamas and Fatah to not be tempted to try attacking and wresting control of Jordan from its current rulers, as the idea of a separate State in the West Bank and Gaza now slowly fades into the sunset of history.

King Abdullah of Jordan is well aware of this nightmare scenario.

Yasser Arafat tried to do it in 1970 to Abdullah’s father King Hussein from inside Jordan and failed dismally leaving thousands dead in the process.

Now Jordan could face such a threat externally if the chaos, lawlessness, murder and mayhem occurring in Gaza spreads to the West Bank as Messrs Haniyeh and Abbas find themselves engaging in an undeclared war with Israel that they cannot possibly win.

Firing Kassam rockets into Jordan from the West Bank and making terrorist incursions into Jordan could well mirror what is happening in Israel if steps are not taken to prevent jihadist groups taking root in the West Bank.

Preserving the territorial integrity of Jordan and the safety and welfare of its citizens, all of whom are Arabs of Palestinian descent from either eastern or western Palestine, has been King Abdullah’s and his family’s sacred duty since that day back in 1921 when his great-grandfather was induced to remain in Transjordan under British patronage and protection.

Because of their efforts Jordan has been preserved as an exclusively Arab state in 77% of historic Palestine.

61 years of Arab rejectionism since Jordan’s independence in 1946 wasted in attempting to conquer all or part of the remaining 23% have brought the Arab population nothing but misery and suffering.

King Abdullah understands that both Israel and Jordan now have common enemies that are seeking their downfall.

He told Acting Israeli President Dalia Itzik just that only recently.

King Abdullah now appears to be setting the stage for a return to the Arab occupied areas of the West Bank, which Jordan last occupied from 1948 to 1967, as a necessary counter to stop any threat to his country and the relative peace and tranquillity it has enjoyed since it signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994.

Jordan’s Prime Minister does not have to re-write history to justify the continuing rule of Jordan under its current leadership and the role it must play - as the successor state in 77% of historic Palestine - in resolving who will ultimately be allocated sovereignty in the West Bank.