Palestine - Jordan Juggles And Jockeys

[Published 29 November 2011]


Jordan’s King Abdullah must now be very concerned at the prospect of the Hashemites possibly seeing an end to their 90 years uninterrupted rule in Jordan.

This can only be the rational explanation for the King’s sudden helicopter flight to Ramallah to meet PLO and Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas last week and his announcement that Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal will visit Jordan for discussions within the next two weeks.

With negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a dead end, reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas at a standstill, Mubarak toppled in Egypt, Gadaffi shot dead in Libya and Assad facing removal in Syria - King Abdullah is keen to make sure that neither the PLO or Hamas have any designs for taking over Jordan.

Meshaal owes his life to the swift action of Abdullah’s father - the late King Hussein - after a bungled attempt by Israel to assassinate Meshaal im 1996. Getting Israel to swiftly reveal the antidote for a deadly poison injected into Meshaal - in return for the release of the Israeli agents caught in the act - is certainly something for which Meshaal will be greatly indebted to the Hashemites. No doubt King Abdullah will be calling in the favour when they meet. Meshaal is more than likely to assure the King that he has enough on his plate in Gaza.

The Jordanian Islamists will foment a few demonstrations but Meshaal will make sure the King will not be dethroned and sent packing.

Abbas is a different kettle of fish.

He heads an organization that is dedicated to liberating and reuniting into one indivisible territorial unit what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan - a goal that has remained unchanged and unmodified since the promulgation of the PLO Charter in 1964.

Jordan’s relation with the PLO has always been uneasy - ever since Yasser Arafat tried to takeover Jordan in 1970 resulting in thousands of dead and wounded on both sides. The PLO remains absolutely committed to its Charter. If the PLO sticks to its guns and refuses to negotiate with Israel - then frustration might well see the PLO again turning its sights on Jordan.

Israel is also very concerned to ensure the continued stability of the Hashemite regime and has given King Abdullah the clearest signals of such intention.

Firstly - Israel’s Foreign Minister - Avigdor Lieberman - stated that:

“regional turbulence” is bringing Islamist parties to power “that all share an anti-Israel message.”

“Instability in the Middle East is not good for anyone,” he said, emphasizing that it is “a major danger for Jordan.”

“Those who say that Jordan is Palestine are mostly harming Israel,” Lieberman added. “That would create a continuous Palestinian state which would endanger us. It’s in our interest for this not to happen.

“Stability in Jordan is in Israel’s interest.”

Our shared border is the longest and quietest. Both sides enjoy the benefits of peace and economic cooperation.”

Lieberman’s warning to Abbas to not meddle in Jordan’s internal affairs was clear and uncompromising.

Although Jordan does comprise 78% of former Palestine - any thought that an attempt would be made by the PLO to reunite it at any time or in any way under PLO rule with any part of the remaining 22% would cross a red line that would be resisted by Israel.

Secondly - Lieberman’s statement of support was followed by a visit to King Abdullah by Israel’s President Shimon Peres on 28 November.

A news release issued by Media and Communications Directorate of the Royal Hashemite Court declared:

“The King emphasized that the end of the decades-long Palestinian-Israeli conflict can only be achieved through resolving all final-status issues, foremost of which are refugees, borders and Jerusalem, leading to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and security.”

Interestingly, eighteen years of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not got to first base in resolving these outstanding issues. Yet, agreed solutions to refugees and Jerusalem are set out in the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. A solution to redrawing the boundary between Israel and Jordan so as to return to Jordan the major part of the West Bank it lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War could be achieved with relative ease in direct negotiations with Israel.

Abbas needs to get back to negotiating with Israel without delay if he does not wish to see yet another opportunity slip through the fingers of the Palestinian Arabs because of stubborn and intransigent leaders.

Should Abbas fail to do so - King Abdullah will be waiting on the sidelines to step into his shoes and negotiate with Israel.

No doubt King Abdullah will strongly resist being pressured into re-occupying a large part of the West Bank. But if his failure to negotiate with Israel could mean the loss of Israel’s continuing support of the Hashemite regime - then a change of heart could be reasonably anticipated.

One wild card that could let Abdullah off the hook would be the return of Abbas to the negotiating table with Israel.

In this regard, President Obama holds one trump card - the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison after 26 years of imprisonment in return for Israel imposing a fixed period during which it will cease building houses in the West Bank. Talks between American Jewish leaders with Vice President Biden taking place now could possibly lead to such a proposal.

President Obama also needs a boost to his falling popularity. Releasing Pollard may be the bitter medicine he needs to take with the Presidential election season starting to hot up.

All in all - some interesting times ahead in the next three months.

Palestine Quartet - Out of Time And Out of Tune

[Published 23 August 2010]

The Quartet - America, Russia, The European Union and the United Nations - continues to miss the beat in attempting to revive its artificially orchestrated two-state solution - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel, Egypt and Jordan for the first time ever in recorded history.

The Quartet has shown it in its latest statement that it has learned nothing from its failed performances over the
past eight years in attempting to achieve that two-state solution by now asserting:

“The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year.”

The Quartet appears unphased that as the most powerful negotiating team ever assembled in international diplomacy - it has consistently been playing out of tune ever since its opening performance when the printed program notes then published on 15 October 2002 stated:

“The following are the elements of a performance-based and goal-driven roadmap, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields,under the auspices of the Quartet. The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush’s speech of 24 June [2002] … “

Reinforcing its complete misunderstanding of the playing time required to complete the performance of this very complex work called the Roadmap - the Quartet then declared:

“The plan establishes a realistic timeline for implementation. However, as a performance-based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below. Should the parties perform their obligations rapidly, progress within and through the phases may come sooner than indicated in the plan. Non-compliance with obligations will impede progress.”

Whatever good faith efforts the Quartet thought would be made by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in performing the Roadmap - its judgement has been shown to have been totally unrealistic and its expectations incapable of being achieved.

The Quartet has now seen its guest conductor - Special US envoy George Mitchell - publicly say:

“We believe that there is a basis for proceeding and achieving a successful result, and we’re going to pursue that. We do not take the position that if you don’t get everything you want the first time you ask for it, you pack up your bags and go home. If that had been the standard applied in South Africa, there would never have been peace there; in Northern Ireland, there would never have been peace there; in Bosnia, there would never have been peace there.

It takes patience, persistence, a willingness to go back again and again, to not take the first no as a final no, to not take the 50th no as the final no or the 100th no. We are patient, we are persevering, and we are determined, and we believe there is a basis for concluding a peace agreement in the region, and that’s what we’re going to pursue.”

Mr Mitchell is deluding himself in believing this conflict between one Jewish State and 21 Islamic Arab States that continue to refuse to recognize the existence of such a Jewish State in their midst can be resolved like the conflicts in South Africa, Bosnia or Northern Ireland. Indeed one can seriously question whether those conflicts have been finally resolved as many tensions continue to simmer beneath the surface.

Mr Mitchell does not specify what he believes is the basis for now proceeding and achieving a successful result in regard to the West Bank and Gaza. All indications point in precisely the opposite direction. It is a pity that Mr Mitchell thinks it unnecessary to share the reasons for his optimism this time round - having seen his judgment badly dented as a result of his past failures to bring even the smallest of breakthroughs between Jews and Arabs.

Bashing your head against a brick wall will inevitably cause terminal brain damage - especially in pursing a resolution to a conflict as long-running and complex as the 130-years-old Arab-Jewish dispute.

The Quartet needs to think again as to how progress can be made to end the current impasse. A new direction is urgently needed if any meaningful breakthrough is to be made.

Replacement of the Palestinian Authority with Jordan and Egypt as Israel’s new Arab negotiating partners has now become the imperative - especially as Egypt and Jordan are:

(i) the only two members of the 21 Arab League states to have signed peace treaties with Israel and
(ii) are the last Arab States to have respectively occupied Gaza and the West Bank between 1948-1967

Resolving Arab and Jewish claims in the West Bank and Gaza by allocating sovereignty of that territory between Jordan, Egypt, and Israel in direct negotiations is increasingly becoming the only proposal that has any chance of transforming the lives of the West Bank and Gazan Arabs.

It may not bring Arab League recognition of Israel nor solve every aspect of the Arab-Jewish conflict but it will become a positive circuit breaker in the quest for concluding a peace agreement in the region.

Perhaps the Quartet is slowly coming to this conclusion itself for the following reasons:

1. Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak have been invited to join Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Washington on 2 September when direct negotiations are expected to be resumed.

2. The Quartet’s latest statement pointedly makes no specific mention of the Roadmap as the basis on which these new negotiations are to be undertaken. Yet three previous statements emanating from the Quartet dated 26 June 2009, 24 September 2009 and 19 March 2010 - and expressly referred to in this latest statement - all specifically called for adherence to the Roadmap.

Certainly the diplomatic logjam caused by the continuing lack of progress in negotiations based on the Roadmap constitutes the greatest impediment to resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

The Quartet needs to quickly remove the ambiguity created by its latest statement and let those attending the forthcoming Washington conference know whether it is the Roadmap that is to continue to be the basis of negotiations or whether its latest statement is indicative of a newly emerging playing field with different rules of engagement between the conflicting parties.

Please don’t stop the music. Just make sure everyone is playing from the same score. Otherwise the outcome will again be decidedly discordant.

Israel - Negotiating With Naysayers Needs Nous

[Published 19 July 2010]


Egypt has been the latest venue for attempts to kick start direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and President Obama’s special envoy George Mitchell jetted into Cairo over the weekend for more talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and a clutch of other lesser dignitaries from the Arab League designed to revive what has become increasingly seen as irrelevant and a complete waste of time - creating a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

Abbas continues to reject the idea of such a state being created in 93.5% of the West Bank with an additional area equivalent to the remaining 6.5% being carved out of Israel’s sovereign territory.

Abbas has rejected that offer since it was made to him by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in December 2008. Given that Israel has changed its Prime Minister since then - the chances of this offer even being open now can only be tested if Abbas publicly indicates his willingness to accept such an offer. That is not going to happen.

The Arabs have always found it impossible to say “Yes” when it comes to any offers of compromise.

The Arabs have seen their personal hopes and aspirations in former Palestine in constant decline as a result of their refusal to accept:

(i) The division of 99.999% of the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs and 0.001% to the Jews as determined in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and by the Treaty of Sevres

(ii) The binding legal effect of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

(iii) The partition recommendations for Palestine made by the Peel Commission in 1937

(iv) The 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution

(v) Recognition of Israel as the sovereign independent state of the Jewish people following its establishment in 1948

(vi) The opportunity to create an independent Arab state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem following its occupation by Jordan between 1948-1967 and in Gaza following its occupation by Egypt during that same period

(vii) Any negotiations with Israel after the Six Day War in 1967 until 1993

(viii) The offers made by Israel at Camp David in 2000 and 2001 and in 2008 under the Annapolis negotiating process

Conversely however their stocks in terms of international political support continue to rise the more their intransigence in seeking a solution to the Arab-Jewish conflict continues to harden.

The only possible solution that now presents itself as remotely achievable in the face of such obstinacy is the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel in direct face to face negotiations.

That solution too has been rejected by Jordan whose decision has been accepted internationally without demur and without any attempt to have it reconsider its position.

Obviously such Arab naysaying brings its rewards as Israel is pressured to make even more concessions whilst the Arabs sit back and continue to hold out for more.

Naysaying has now even affected the thinking of former Israeli Minister of Defence and Ambassador to Washington Moshe Arens who recently wrote:

“The Jordanian option has on occasion been raised as a promising approach. After all, most of Jordan’s population is Palestinian. For 19 years, Judea and Samaria were part of Jordan, its population Jordanian citizens, and the geographic juxtaposition between Israel and Jordan should make delineating the border between the two countries in an agreement considerably easier than reaching a deal on a border between Israel and a Palestinian state that might be established in the area. There is only one problem - the Jordanians won’t hear of it. They don’t want to overload their security apparatus, which has been functioning quite effectively, by including another 1.5 million Palestinians within their borders.”

Strangely no such complaints of overloading Jordan’s security apparatus were made when those same Palestinians were Jordanian citizens between 1948-1967. But Jordan’s continuing refusal to become involved in the West Bank based on this specious argument is sufficient reason enough for Arens to give up on the Jordanian option he has long advocated and seek other unrealistic alternatives.

It seems all right for Israel to be pressured to take “risks for peace” - but not Jordan.

Israel now needs to start some naysaying itself by declaring that it will not enter into further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority unless direct negotiations without conditions are resumed within 30 days.

Israel should make it clear that at the expiration of those 30 days it will call on King Abdullah to come and sit at the negotiating table with Israel to enable the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine to complete some long outstanding and unfinished business - establishing for the first time ever an unconditional internationally recognized boundary between their respective states which has remained undetermined since the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement signed in 1949.

The Armistice Agreement clearly states:

“It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” [Article II (2)]

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.[Article VI (9)]”

The demarcation of the internationally recognized boundary that eventually took place between Jordan and Israel under the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty 1994 contains the following proviso:

“The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967” [Article 3(2)]

Determining the status of those territories has been impossible to achieve with the Palestinian Authority for the last 17 years. It has been an exercise fraught with frustration caused by the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority. The time has come to determine the status of those territories with Jordan if the Palestinian Authority does not return to the negotiating table within the next thirty days.

Israel should say “no” to anything else - and continue saying “no“ until its demands are met - either by the Palestinian Authority or Jordan.

Naysaying is a tactic that has rewarded the Arabs. It is time for Israel to take a leaf out of their book and end the current farcical situation.

Abbas Only Tells Half The Story

[Published September 2009]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has put paid to any prospects of the Palestinian Authority resuming negotiations with Israel after the proposed trilateral meetings to be held with President Obama, Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House today.

Abbas said at a press conference on 19 September after meeting with his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak that as there was no agreement on halting settlement so there could be no agreement on re-launching negotiations because there was no basis. He continued :

“The basis [ for resuming negotiations] we know is the one stated in the Road Map plan,’ ‘Americans are required to continue their commitment of the first article of the Road Map plan, which clearly states that there must be complete settlement freeze including the natural growth,’.

What Abbas failed to tell the assembled media was that Israel had not accepted that proposal in the Road Map.

When President Bush released his detailed Road Map on 30 April 2003, Israel had then sent a letter to President Bush on 23 May 2003 containing 14 reservations it had before it could accept the plan as a basis for negotiation.

Reservation 9 made by Israel to President Bush stated in part:

“There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts); “

Israel thus made it clear that whilst it was prepared to discuss a settlement freeze (no mention being made by Israel of restricting natural growth) it was not prepared to accept that there be a complete settlement freeze including natural growth per se.

On 23 May 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made the following statement from the White House:

“The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace. The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap. The United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns,and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the roadmap to fulfil the President’s vision of June 24, 2002.”

On 25 May 2003, the Israeli Cabinet met and by a majority resolved:

“Based on the 23 May 2003 statement of the United States Government, in which the United States committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the Roadmap during the implementation phase, the Prime Minister announced on 23 May 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the Roadmap.

The Government of Israel affirms the Prime Minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the Administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the Roadmap.”

Nothing could be clearer or more unambiguous - President Bush had accepted Israel’s position that there would be no settlement freeze without it first being discussed and agreed by Israel.

Abbas told Haaretz on 28 May 2003 that the 14 reservations made by Israel had nothing to do with him. He said:

“They don’t interest me,”

Haaretz reported that as far as Abbas was concerned, the only document that mattered was the road map that was finalized in December 2002 and handed over to the parties at the end of April 2003 Nothing more, nothing less. He continued:

“We do not accept each side picking and choosing only those specific elements that are convenient for them in the road map.

The map was prepared last December and we accepted it, despite our own comments and reservations. We wanted to give this initiative a chance, but it’s impossible to continue inventing comments and reservations after it was submitted.”

This was a very aggressive and intransigent - indeed foolish and naive - attitude to adopt in the face of President Bush having specifically invited both sides to comment on the Road Map.

The response from the President to Israel’s reservations acknowledged that Israel’s concerns were real and they would be fully and seriously addressed during the implementation phase.

The past months’ discussions between George Mitchell, Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama in relation to a settlement freeze must be seen and be understood to have taken place within the framework of America’s previous acknowledgment that no such freeze could be imposed on Israel under the Roadmap unless Israel agreed to the terms of any such proposal.

Israel has responded to America’s request by agreeing to curtail - but not totally freeze - settlement activity for some as yet unspecified period whilst negotiations are being held between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This apparently is not acceptable to Abbas. Unless he has a change of heart he intends to spit the dummy and walk away from any further negotiations.

Abbas needs to really take a cold shower and cool down and not tell half the story - especially the half that he does not like.

Palestine - Negate The Debate On The Jewish State

[Published July 2009]

Any prospect of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan took another nosedive this past week with an extraordinary outburst by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak saying he could not accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 10 July President Mubarak said Israel’s request for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state is unacceptable.

“Don’t you have Arab citizens in Israel?” Mubarak asks. “You want to turn Israel into a Jewish state only? That is very bad. I’m telling you. It’s a serious mistake which will harm you. A Jewish state will become the target of all terrorists. An open state, on the other hand, is a different matter. Look at us in Egypt: We have Muslims, Christians, Copts and Jews,”

President Mubarak was being blatantly misleading in suggesting that the term “Jewish State” meant a state where only Jews and no one else can reside. 20% of Israel’s 7 million population is Muslim Arab and there are over 100000 Christian Arabs living in Israel. Any suggestion that either group will lose its citizenship is nonsensical.

What the President conveniently forgot to mention was that 90% of Egypt’s 80 million population is Muslim Arab, that only 9% is Coptic Christian which group is massively discriminated against and that there are no more than 500 Jews living in Egypt.

Like so many issues in the Middle East words - and the meaning to be ascribed to them - are very important. None is more important at the present time than Israel itself defining what the words “Jewish State” means.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made it clear on 14 June that any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority would fail unless the Authority was prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish State when he stated unequivocally:

“As we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.” I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

US President Barack Obama had welcomed Mr Netanyahu’s speech, calling it an important step forward. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs affirmed the following day that :

“The president is committed to two states, a Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples,”

On 12 July Prime Minister Netanyahu again reiterated his position at a ceremony in Jerusalem commemorating 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl:

“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians.”

The term “Jewish State” should be defined by Israel so that there is no doubt as to its meaning by anyone choosing to use those words.

No better definition exists than that given by David Ben Gurion to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine at Lake Success New York on the 7 July 1947:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name “Palestine,” - I said if - then all would be Palestinian citizens If the State would be given, another name - I think it would be given another name - because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as “Palestine” at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew.”

Whilst Ben Gurion’s utopian ideal has not yet been fully realised in relation to the “slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew” his vision is steadily being advanced in the face of the constant draining of Israel’s financial resources spent on armaments to fight innumerable wars and to ensure it remains in a state of preparedness to defend all its citizens - both Jews and Arabs- in the face of refusal by all 21 members of the Arab League to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

Many members of the Arab League have abbreviated their official State names. Egypt is officially designated as “The Arab Republic of Egypt”, Syria as “The Syrian Arab Republic”, Jordan as “The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and Libya as “The Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”

Israel’s Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948 merely proclaimed :

“the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL”

Perhaps it is time for Israel to formally adopt Ben Gurion’s definition, to officially designate itself as “The Jewish State of Israel” and to get the two Arab countries with whom it has signed peace treaties - Egypt and Jordan - to acknowledge that fact.

As we commemorate Neil Armstrong’s setting foot on the moon on 20 July 1969 we might well use his first words on that momentous occasion to describe what the official adoption of such a name change by Israel might possibly herald:

“That’s one small step for man: one giant leap for mankind”