Bush, Obama, Russia, EU and UN Buried Under Trump Landslide

[Published 16 February 2017]


President Trump has buried the Bush Roadmap and any lingering hope for the creation of a second Arab State (“the two-state solution”) — in addition to Jordan — in the territory designated under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.

This inevitability follows Trump’s failure at a White House joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on 15 February to reaffirm the written commitments made by President Bush to Israel in his letter dated 14 April 2004 - overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12 (“Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments”).

President Bush had been urged to do so just the day before by veteran US peace negotiator - Dennis Ross — who stated it would have:

“significant implications, both because it was recognizing settlement blocs referred to in the letter as major population centers, but also because it said that no agreement can involve going back to the 1949 Armistice lines or the equivalent of June 4, 1967.”

Similar calls had also been made by:

1. Michael Oren - Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington and currently Deputy Minister in Netanyahu’s Prime Minister’s office
2. Tzipi Livni — former Israeli Foreign Minister who had led negotiations for Israel with the Palestinian Authority in the peace talks brokered by U.S. Secretary of StateJohn Kerry from July 2013 until April 2014.
3. Danny Ayalon - Former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister

Former Israeli United Nations ambassador and until recently the Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry - Dore Gold - had been concerned as far back as 9 June 2009 that President Obama was not going to reaffirm the Bush Congress-Endorsed Commitments:

“For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the US Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.”

Obama’s clarification never came.

Even Netanyahu — just before boarding a plane to see Obama in the White House in May 2011 - had said he expected:

“to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

Netanyahu never received that affirmation then — nor did he from Trump now.

Their reasons however are very different.

Obama proceeded to trash those commitments made with one of America’s closest allies with disastrous consequences for America’s foreign policy, its reputation and integrity.

Trump however had difficulty in reaffirming all of Bush’s commitments because one of them stated:

“the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”

Trump doesn’t like long negotiations without any deal — and Trump wants to cut a deal.

Trump has accordingly ditched the Bush two-state solution — endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It now joins the diplomatic graveyard housing other two-state solutions proposed by

1. the 1937 Peel Commission
2. the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan,
3. the 1993 Oslo Accords and
4. Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008.

The Arabs have missed yet another opportunity to end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Israel Teeters On Cusp Of Security Suicide

[Published 15 March 2015]


Economic issues have been identified as the top issue in the forthcoming Israeli elections to be held on 17 March - with security issues trailing far behind.

The polls are confidently predicting a four seat difference in favour of the Zionist Camp over the current Likud-led Government and the possibility of a new Zionist Camp Government being formed.

Zvi Zhariyha pointed out on 15 January:

“In Israel’s proportional representation system, in which parties are awarded seats in parliament based on the proportion of the vote that they receive, the ranking of the candidates on the slate becomes all-important as seats are filled from the top of the list. Top spots on the Labor list went to MKs with a social-justice and economic agenda, including former journalist Shelly Yacimovich, and Stav Shaffir and Itzik Shmuli, who were both prominent in the 2011 social justice protest movement.

Yacimovich finished first in the party vote, which will place her in the third spot on the slate, behind Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, the leader of Hatnuah, which is running on a joint ticket with Labor. Shaffir finished just behind Yacimovich, granting her the fourth slot .."

"
Two of these top four Zionist Camp candidates have expressed viewpoints that are distinctly anti-Zionist.

Prime Minister—in-waiting - Isaac Herzog — according to respected analyst Sarah Honig — has voiced opposition to the term “Jewish State”:

“The Jewish state expression is entirely mistaken,” he says recurrently (and we have a recording to prove it: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9nHlX19roA) “because it creates the impression of a nationality that enjoys excessive privileges.”

Were US Secretary of State John Kerry somehow able to get Israel and the PLO to the negotiating table again — then this long standing Israeli demand — supported by President Obama - and the Congress since 2004 — would ostensibly fall by the wayside under a Government led by Herzog.

Sarah Honig further points out:

"Stav Shaffir, for example, refused to share a podium with the Likud’s Yoav Kish because he is a reserve fighter pilot. She also thinks that “Hatikva is a racist national anthem.”

It’s not our say-so. Journalist Asher Schechter wrote a book on the 2011 demonstrations in which Shaffir was a key mover (Rothschild — the Chronicle of Protest, published by Kibbutz Hameuhad/Sifriat Hapoalim). On page 96 Schechter describes Shaffir’s vehement opposition to singing Hatikva. She was so emotional about it that “she burst into tears and yelled out that Hatikva is racist.”

Another Zionist Camp likely member of the Knesset—Merav Micaheli - told Galei Zahal

“women should not at all send their kids to the army when there is a continuous occupation for over 40 years. The regime in Israel doesn’t make the effort to solve this in other ways, so it’s necessary to stop being prepared to send children to the army.”

Sarah Honig has identified two other candidates likely to pop up as Zionist Camp representatives in any Zionist Camp Government:

Zoher Bahalul (who declares: “our Palestinian identity is stronger than the Israeli”) or the ultra-leftist Prof. Yossi Yonah (who confessed: “Zionism doesn’t express what I am”).

Veteran Ha’aretz journalist — Gideon Levy — has also delivered a withering attack on the Zionist Camp:

“This camp knows only how to trick and mislead, in the best of its tradition.”

Economic issues also topped security issues by a country mile in the 2013 Israeli election — yet Netanyahu still emerged as Prime Minister.

With 14% of the voters still undecided - they could re-elect Netanyahu again - figuring out that improvements in economic and social justice conditions aren’t worth a shekel if you are not alive to enjoy their undeniable benefits.

Palestine - Bandar Candour Can Help End Arab-Jewish Conflict

[Published 27 October 2013]


Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief - Prince Bandar bin Sultan - made a secret visit to Jordan this week - according to a report in Ammon News dated 25 October - reportedly meeting with Jordanian officials to discuss recent developments in the region - especially the Syrian file.

It would be inconceivable that they did not also discuss the Palestinian file - where any prospect of achieving a “two-state solution” for the first time ever in recorded history involving the creation of a second Arab state in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - seems destined to certain failure after twenty years of fruitless negotiations trying to procure such an outcome.

Bandar’s visit to Jordan came hard on the heels of a conference held in Israel - where Israel’s lead negotiator in current secret two-state negotiations with the PLO - Tzipi Livni - is reported by the Jerusalem Post to have made the following remarks:

“Livni said she supported an ideological debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But what really bothers her, she said, is that the opponents of a two-state solution have failed to put forward a legitimate alternative that is consistent with Jewish values and that would allow Israel to continue its relations with the international community.

She warned that failure to finalize an agreement with the Palestinians puts Israel at risk of having an unfavorable solution imposed upon it.

There are only two options facing Israel, she said, a one -state solution or a two-state solution, and only a two-state solution ensures a Jewish and democratic state. She noted that the goal of the nine months negotiating process begun almost three months ago is a final-status agreement to end all claims by both sides.”

Livni is wrong - and Bandar would be the first to castigate her for her unpardonable error.

There are three possible one-state solutions that would ensure a Jewish and democratic state - which involve merging the West Bank and Gaza:

1. Entirely with Jordan or
2. Dividing between Israel and Jordan or
3. Dividing between Israel, Jordan and Egypt

Twenty-three years ago in an Open Letter published in the Washington Times on 30 September 1990 - Bandar - then Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador in America - had publicly criticised Jordan’s King Hussein for his failure to create a Palestinian Arab State in the West Bank between 1948-1967.

Bandar made the following three very pertinent comments:

“Your Majesty, you claimed to defend the Palestinian people`s right to self-determination and a state of their own. And I support you in that. But you were responsible for the Palestinian homeland on the West Bank from 1948 to 1967. Why in all that period did you not give them their rights and statehood?

You are a very intelligent man, Your Majesty. And you have a fine memory. You say the Kuwait-Iraqi border is disputed and based on a historical record created by the colonial British. Your Majesty, you should be the last one to say that. Not only all your borders, but your whole country was created by the same colonial British.

Tell us, Your Majesty, what you have done to safeguard the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre that you lost to the Israelis in 1967, almost a quarter of a century ago?"

Bandar was right in sheeting home the blame on Jordan - but he also failed to acknowledge that the Arab League shared a major part of the responsibility for failing to have achieved that “two-state solution” during 1948-1967 - when not one Jew lived in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem after they had all been permanently driven from their homes by six invading Arab-League members’ armies in 1948,

Bandar correctly identified that the conflict did not begin in 1948 - but started with the “colonial British” - who in 1922 planted the seeds enabling the ultimate creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 - thus denying the Jews the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in 76.9% of the territory originally intended for that purpose by the San Remo Conference as confirmed in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.

Former US President Jimmy Carter neatly summed up this British decision in Time on 11 October 1982:

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

With the two-state solution now in tatters - Jordan must resolutely face up to the responsibility incumbent on it to end the Arab-Jewish conflict by negotiating with Israel to achieve the most realistic one-state solution presently attainable - dividing the West Bank between Israel and Jordan.

Jordan’s opportunity to belatedly rectify the errors committed by it between 1948-1967 would have almost certainly been aired in the secret discussions this week in Jordan with Bandar.

Jordan’s King Abdullah would be well aware of the words of his father - the late King Hussein - who stated in his Autobiography - Uneasy Lies The Head:

“Palestine and Transjordan were both under British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs, they were hardly separate countries. Trans-Jordan being to the east of the river Jordan, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine”

The idea that Saudi Arabia could actually be encouraging Jordan to help end - if not finally terminate - the Arab-Jewish conflict within the context of secret discussions - is fascinating to contemplate.

The PLO has undeniably botched its chances.

Palestine - Kerry's Confidentiality Curtain Comes Crashing Down

[Published 4 August 2013]


US Secretary of State John Kerry’s assurance of total confidentiality in the conduct of negotiations between Israel and the PLO has come crashing down on his head within 48 hours of making his claim.

With the two chief negotiators flanking him - Kerry solemnly proclaimed:

“The parties also agreed that the two sides will keep the content of the negotiations confidential. The only announcement you will hear about meetings is the one that I just made. And I will be the only one by agreement authorised to comment publicly on the talks in consultation obviously with the parties. That means that no-one should consider any reports, articles or other or even rumours reliable unless they come directly from me and I guarantee you they won’t.”

What Kerry did not promise was their joint agreement to bar unauthorised private comments by any of them on the conduct and progress of the talks.

It certainly was going to prove very difficult to ban any such private discussions at all - let alone swear to silence those persons to whom unauthorised statements might be made by any of the players during the projected nine months of negotiations.

It didn’t take too long for Kerry to become the first victim of this accidental or deliberate oversight - as Y Net news was to report the next day:

“WASHINGTON - Secretary of State John Kerry estimated in conversations with Congressmen that Israel will retain 85% of the settlement blocs in a future peace deal, Yedioth Ahronoth reported.

According to the report, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators who recently met in Washington to discuss timetables for negotiations, also discussed the fate of West Bank settlements and the possibility of land swaps.

Immediately after Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat left Washington, Kerry phoned some of his friends at the House of Representatives to report about the talks.

In separate phone calls Kerry assured the congressmen, most of whom were pro-Israel, that Israel’s interests are being safeguarded.

According to one congressman, Kerry said he believed 85% of Israel’s biggest settlement blocs will remain under Israeli sovereignty. He added that the US administration had safeguarded Israel’s interests.

The congressman, who described himself a true friend of Israel, asked Kerry whether the Palestinians will ever recognize Israel as a Jewish state, to which the secretary of state reportedly replied “that’s one of my goals. A homeland for the Jewish people.”

The congressman got the impression that all core issues had been raised during the Washington meetings, including the question when to discuss the status of Jerusalem. According to him, Kerry was optimistic and said “We had a good start.”

No denial of the accuracy of this report or the conversations alleged to have been held by Kerry with the unnamed Congressmen has been issued by Kerry to my knowledge.

The report - if accurate - is particularly significant since it heralds for the first time America’s agreement to honour two of three fundamental commitments made by President George Bush in his letter to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004.

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

“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.”

The Bush letter was the crucial understanding that underwrote Israel’s decision to unilaterally disengage entirely from Gaza and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank.

Bush’s letter made absolutely clear America’s appreciation of what Israel’s disengagement proposal involved:

“The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

The risks envisaged in 2004 could not have foreseen the disastrous consequences for Israel and for the Palestinian Arabs in 2007 - when Gaza and the West Bank were divided into two separate and warring fiefdoms - still controlled in 2013 by two unelected and inimical foes heading two organisations - the PLO and Hamas - that both have the same objective - the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

What is particularly intriguing is whether Secretary of State Kerry’s reported remarks to the Congressmen amount to cherry picking of parts of the Bush letter or whether America intends to honour a third commitment to Israel contained in that letter:

“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.”

These three conditions have been vigorously rejected by the PLO in previous negotiations.

In the tug of war that the current ongoing negotiations will involve - America’s position on these three commitments made to Israel will become crucial.

If America stands by its above commitments - then the PLO will have to make some very painful concessions if the negotiations are to be successfully concluded.

I guess the leaking of another private conversation will let us know whether the the PLO has caved in this time around.

Stay tuned.

Palestine - Lame Ducks, Dead Ducks, And Revived Ducks

[Published November 2008]

President George Bush became a lame duck on 20 November 2008 - giving up his unfettered executive authority to begin working closely with President-elect Barack Obama on important policy matters of significant national importance until his retirement from office at noon on 20 January 2009.

President Bush’s Roadmap became a dead duck on the very same day - after the Palestinian Authority placed full page advertisements in a number of Israeli and Palestinian newspapers urging Israelis to embrace the Arab League Initiative first proposed in 2002.

That Initiative was rejected by Israel on 25 May 2003 as having any role in the Roadmap negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to create a new Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

The placement of these advertisements amounted to a total - and highly public - repudiation of the Roadmap by the Palestinian Authority after almost six years of totally fruitless negotiations.

Such repudiation should be immediately accepted by Israel so that there is no possible misunderstanding that the Bush Roadmap and the negotiating farce it represented is effectively ended once and for all.

The timing of the advertisements was exquisite - even if perhaps a little irreverent - in burying President Bush’s vision on the very same day he surrendered his absolute power to make any decisions on the future progress of the Roadmap proposals he personally instigated.

Dead ducks or mortally wounded ducks need to be buried or the stench soon becomes unbearable. They indeed abound aplenty and many people, countries and organizations will feature in the obituary notices.

The Quartet - America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - has been mortally wounded. It has now seen its collective prestige in jointly endorsing and promoting the Roadmap finally come crashing to the ground without achieving one iota of movement in achieving the Roadmap’s objectives.

Yet the end of the Quartet’s negotiating role must be seen as a merciful release in finally terminating its public humiliation and embarrassing impotency at failing to have had the slightest effect whatsoever on influencing the course or outcome of the Roadmap negotiations.

Those countries who have paid up on their pledges totalling US$7.7 billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority just 11 months ago must be gagging on their duck pancakes - as must those other countries who have contributed billions of more dollars in the last 15 years to a totally implacable and unyielding Palestinian Authority.

Rejecting 90% of what you want and holding out for 100% - and being supported in that rejection by a host of fawning nations eager to throw money at you - has been brought to an end by a few full page ads.

The Roadmap - like the Oslo negotiations conducted between 1993 - 2000 - are now curiosity pieces to be picked over by future historians and conflict resolution centres as they ponder how 15 years of negotiations could have foundered in resolving sovereignty over a piece of land the size of Delaware.

Resurrection is not an unknown phenomenon in the Middle East and so the re-emergence of the Arab League Initiative from the dustbin will no doubt be trumpeted and discussed for quite a while.

There are even reports that President-elect Barack Obama will announce his support for the Initiative heralding a new and important foreign policy move by the new US administration. Mr Obama would be well advised to duck the issue and move very cautiously before taking to the air on such a flight of fancy.

Israel’s rejection of the Arab League Initiative in 2003 was unequivocal and for very good reason.

The Initiative called for the removal of about 300,000 Jews then living in the West Bank and Gaza, complete withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and Lebanon and the emigration of millions of Arabs into Israel to turn the Jews into a minority population in their own State.

Some things have changed since Israel’s outright rejection of these proposals. Israel has evacuated all 8,000 Jews from Gaza. It has withdrawn its military forces and ended its occupation in Gaza and part of the West Bank. 500,000 Jews now live in the West Bank.

What hasn’t changed is the Arab League’s refusal to agree to any amendments to its six years old Initiative - which itself mirrors the Arab League’s unchanged position for the last 41 years.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdelelah al Khatib confirmed this position telling Reuters on 27 March 2007

“The Arabs have agreed to reactivate the Arab initiative without changes. We reiterated that all Arab nations will adhere to the initiative as it is,”

Notwithstanding this “take it or leave it” approach both Israel’s President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have recently expressed interest in the Arab League Initiative. Both are lame ducks without any political power to translate their views into political action.

One duck still in full flight and prepared to throw her hat into the ring to seek election as Israel’s next Prime Minister is current Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who told the Jerusalem Post on 20 November:

“Israel has interests that are incompatible with the Arab peace initiative, including the issues of borders, east Jerusalem and refugees. These [issues] are presented in the plan in a way that I find unacceptable.”

Any Israeli political party espousing acceptance of the unexpurgated version of the Arab League Initiative would face annihilation at the upcoming elections next February. Ms. Livni - the leader of the Kadimah Party - presently Israel’s largest Parliamentary party - clearly does not intend to be such a sitting duck

She now understands that embarking on protracted negotiations over proposals that do not have the remotest chance of succeeding is a recipe for disaster.

The Israeli media are winners from this novel Arab foray into the Israeli press. They would certainly welcome the boost to their flagging advertising revenues at this time of global economic downturn. They no doubt hope that this process will continue and that shuttle diplomacy and furtive backroom meetings will be replaced by full page ads on a weekly basis to inform the public about matters that impact on their very lives and on which they have not had any input.

The reality is that in the absence of substantial amendments to the Arab League Initiative there will be many more dead ducks and lame ducks on the hit list as the Initiative sinks to its inevitable denouement.

Sweet and sour duck might then be a good idea to serve on the menu as we all flock to hear ex-politicians on the speaker circuit telling us why Oslo, the Roadmap and the Arab League Initiative became fatally flawed exercises in peace making efforts between Arabs and Jews.

Annapolis - Wedding Or Disaster Of The Year?

[Published November 2007]


Best Man - President George Bush - and Matron of Honour - Condoleezza Rice - are becoming increasingly frustrated as the reluctant bride - Israel - and a very impatient groom - the Palestinian Authority - continue haggling over the substantial dowry the groom is demanding from the bride’s family before the wedding of the year can go ahead in Annapolis this month - or maybe next month.


Dr Rice says the bride and groom are going through “knotty discussions” which appear to be heading anywhere but tying the knot. Bridesmaid Tzipi Livni has publicly admitted there are “problems”.

This is certainly not a match made in heaven - rather a catch hatched in hell. The body language and forced smiles say it all. At the moment alarm bells - not wedding bells - are ringing.

President Bush and Condoleezza Rice are both suffering from work overload as potentially catastrophic events in Turkey and Pakistan rapidly unfold to put President Bush and Dr Rice under great stress. Annapolis is probably the last place they want to be thinking about at this moment.

These latest crises are an unwelcome intrusion into Dr Rice’s crowded appointment book as she ponders whether - and when - to send out the wedding invitations. Five years of fruitless diplomacy have stymied efforts by President Bush to get the bride and groom together to conceive the President’s godson - a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

The bride is not yet quite convinced and wants the fourteen years old engagement to continue. The groom wants the wedding now and has downgraded his expectations of having the baby within six months from then to a date no later than January 2009. Conception and birth within that ambitious time frame would be miraculous - even by the Holyland’s standards - given the groom’s sterile performance up till now.

Who to invite and what to talk about at the wedding has presented President Bush and Dr Rice with real headaches. How to get people to even come is an even greater challenge.

Bickering guests are the last thing one wants at Annapolis. Who will sit next to who might be tricky - but a creative events organiser like the State Department will probably come up with suitable table placements to make sure no one feels too uncomfortable.

The pecking order will be important too. Who sits - or stands - to the left and right of the President and Dr Rice- for even a cameo appearance - must be dominating lots of time behind State Department doors.

The timed arrivals of guests and the proceedings will also be watched closely by the myriad press corps assembled behind strategically located barriers. Media placement must also be of great concern to avoid any diplomatic crisis. Will al-Jazira get a better barrier position than CNN, ABC, the BBC or the XYZ?

Should there be a head table or not? Maybe protocol will best be served by having a round table which would symbolically reflect the ever increasing circles the President and Dr Rice have been running around in trying to get this wedding off the ground.

Last minute cancellations are bound to occur causing more grey hairs at the State Department. This is not a wedding to be organised by the faint hearted.

Most weddings suffer from too many speeches usually leaving the guests thoroughly bored. At Annapolis we are told the guests will listen to a joint speech written by the bride and groom which will be either very detailed on the core issues of their future relationship or downright boring and devoid of any material content - depending on which unidentified reliable source you are prepared to believe.

Whilst the bride and groom grapple with what they are going to say, the matchmaker - President Bush - should have no such problems. Indeed he wrote his speech years ago. Hopefully he will dig it up, dust it off and remind those who come to Annapolis of the following three pledges he made to the bride’s father Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to persuade him that this union could even be a remote possibility:

1. The groom’s family have to give up the idea of living in Israel.

"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."

2. 450000 members of the bride’s family will not be booted out of their homes in the West Bank.

"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."

3. The groom will not get every square metre of the West Bank as part of the dowry.

"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."

Come to think of it, Dr Rice should consider limiting her guests to those who are prepared to drink a toast in honour of these three pledges. Guests can tick three appropriately worded boxes placed next to the one requesting their dietary requirements on the return prepaid acceptance card - to ensure they don‘t get to the wedding under false pretences.

Otherwise the probability is that the bride will be left at the altar and no one will get to catch the bouquet.

Sadder still - diplomatic and security reasons will prevent the wedding customs of the bride and groom being celebrated at Annapolis. Jews break a glass at weddings to solemnly remind them - in their moment of extreme happiness - of the destruction of their two Temples in their capitol Jerusalem over 2000 years ago. Arabs choose to fire bullets indiscriminately in the air, sometimes wounding - and even killing - innocent wedding guests and bystanders.

Allowing the possibility of either to occur could turn this wedding into the disaster of the year - if it isn’t already before it has even been held.