Goodbye Palestinian Authority - Welcome Jordan

[Published 30 June 2010]


The Palestinian Authority (PA) is likely to be wound up at the end of the year according to PA Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat - if no agreement is reached with Israel on the so called “two-state solution” - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Mr Erekat made the threat at a meeting in New York on 25 June hosted by the International Peace Institute (IPI) - which also featured Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister - Dan Meridor.

Mr Erekat warned that if by the end of this year there was no two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority then Israel will “sweat.”

He explained that the Palestinian Authority was founded to establish the institutions for a Palestinian state, not to keep Israel as a source of authority forever.

“If Israel insists on maintaining control the Palestinian Authority cannot stand - it’s irrelevant,”

Mr Erekat’s statement was a direct rebuff to Mr Meridor who had earlier stated:

“I hope that if we can’t get a full agreement on the outstanding issues regarding Jerusalem, refugees, final borders and security, we will not let negotiations collapse but alongside that build up from what we have now - a good economic growth - over 8% growth last year in the West Bank and I hope more this year - and an absence of terror - into more steps towards a Palestinian State."”

The New York meeting added a new dimension to the past direct negotiations and the current proximity negotiations that one might call “in your face public negotiations” - when two of the most senior politicians from either side of the conflict traded blows for two hours.

The gaps between them were wide and obviously unbridgeable by next December - especially given the fractured relations between Hamas and the PA and the division of the West Bank and Gaza into two separately governed areas.

Mr Meridor claimed that the PA had had 288 meetings with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert following the Annapolis Conference in November 2007 and that no response had been received to the offer made to the PA by Israel.

Brandishing two maps Mr Erekat angrily responded that Israel’s offer of a land swap of 6.5% of the West Bank in exchange for an equal area from Israel’s sovereign territory had been met by a counter offer by the PA of a land swap equal to 1.9% on 30 July 2008.

Absent was any mention of their hopelessly polarised views on Jerusalem, refugees and water or what was going to happen to 500000 Jews who had been living in the West Bank for the last four decades.

IPI President - Terje Rod Larsen - who chaired the meeting - is a veteran of past negotiations between Israel and the PA that have failed to achieve the two state solution more than 17 years after the fanfare which greeted its introduction and projected conclusion by May 1999 following the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Mr Larsen came to wide international prominence as a key figure in the negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords that created the PA. In 1993, he was appointed Ambassador and Special Adviser for the Middle East Peace process to the Norwegian Foreign Minister, and the following year, he became the United Nations Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories at the rank of Under-Secretary-General. He served as the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority from 1999 to 2004.

His understanding of the hopelessness of ever reaching a two state solution was apparent in his remarks to both Mr Erekat and Mr Meridor - when he said that this New York meeting between them had come at a crucial time in the Middle East process and continued:

“Nearly two decades have passed and we are in dire need of new hope and new energy and creative solutions in order for negotiations to move forward.”

Mr Erekat’s lack of any creative solutions became apparent when he told the meeting:

“Israel has three options - a two-state solution, a single state including Jews and Palestinians, or a continuation of Israel’s racism and apartheid system in the West Bank where Arabs and Christians can’t use roads reserved only for Israelis.”

Notably missing was a fourth option - that Jordan and Israel negotiate to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States.

If the PA implodes the Jordanian option will become the only option that can have any possible chance of ending the current impasse.

Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994 that deals with settling all the contentious issues mentioned by Mr Meridor - but which the PA seems unable to contemplate or accept.

Reunification of the major Arab populated areas of the West Bank with Jordan - as existed between 1948-1967 - will transform the lives of the West Bank Arab population. They will use roads reserved only for Arabs and Christians - not Jews. They will have their dignity restored to that existing at 4 June 1967 - again becoming citizens of an exclusively Arab country - no longer under or subject to Israeli occupation.

Certainly any such negotiations between Jordan and Israel will not usher in any final end to the ongoing conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. But their successful conclusion will end the current plight of the West Bank Arabs who remain stateless and separated from their Arab brothers across the Jordan River.

Under such a solution no resident of the West Bank - be he Jew or Arab - would have to leave his home or business.

Hopefully the PA will indeed dissolve itself in December - which could open the way to Jordan becoming Israel’s negotiating partner on the future of the West Bank.

The Six Day War in 1967 between Jordan and Israel originated the problems that have befallen the Arab population of the West Bank since then. It would indeed be real justice if those two former combatants - now at peace with each other - were to became part of the solution in 2011.

Organizations such as the IPI do have a role to play in seeing Israel and Jordan come together to solve the problems of the West Bank.

Bringing Mr Erekat and Mr Meridor to the public stage may have been the catalyst towards bringing this creative solution a little nearer to fruition.

Mr Larsen may well have - unwittingly - achieved the beginning of the real breakthrough in the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs that has managed to elude him for so many years.

Abbas Gives Obama The Thumbs Down

[Published September 2009]

Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - delivered a stinging rebuff to President Obama during his address at the United Nations last Friday.

Obama had called on Israel and the Palestinian Authority from the same podium at the United Nations just a few days earlier to enter into final status negotiations - “without preconditions” - designed to lead to the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan - the so called “two state solution”.

Obama’s statement had greatly disappointed Abbas who had expected that after six months of intense diplomatic activity by the Americans - Israel would agree to the demand by Abbas - supported by Obama - that Israel freeze all construction and building activity on the West Bank as a condition of Abbas resuming negotiations with Israel after an eight months hiatus.

Israel’s response was to curtail - but not freeze - such activities. This position was ultimately accepted - albeit reluctantly - by the American administration, which had no basis at all for insisting on a freeze anyway since Israel had not agreed to its original inclusion in the Road Map first proposed by President Bush in 2003.

Abbas in his address to the UN made it clear to Obama that Abbas would not be returning to the negotiating table unless there was a complete freeze - and - it would seem - a whole lot of new conditions that Abbas lumped in at the same time.

Abbas told the assembled delegates:

“We call upon the international community to uphold international law and international legitimacy and to exert pressure on Israel to cease its settlement activities, to comply with the signed agreements, and desist from the policies of the occupation and colonial settlements, to release the 10000 - correction approximately 11000 prisoners and detainees, to lift - and to lift the unjust siege imposed on the Gaza Strip….”

Whilst not stating what international pressure should be exerted on Israel to achieve these objectives - Abbas no doubt had in mind the collective economic punishment of Israel’s population by imposing boycotts on the importation and purchase of Israeli products, the sharing of intellectual knowledge between universities and divestment by investors of their share portfolios in Israeli companies.

What is crystal clear is that this shopping list of conditions is unacceptable to Israel and will act as an effective bar to the resumption of negotiations - making President Obama’s call for the immediate resumption of those negotiations just a few days before superfluous and already outdated.

It would need an extraordinary loss of face for Abbas to announce his readiness to resume negotiations in the face of his defiant stance and response to President Obama at the United Nations. His arch enemy - Hamas - would pillory him for his submission to American and Zionist pressure.

President Obama can respond in two ways - either do nothing and let the current state of affairs meander along aimlessly - and dangerously - on the road to nowhere or announce his own plan to break the current impasse.

Before proposing his own plan President Obama would be well advised to put a series of questions to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority so as to gauge their respective attitudes to the following matters:

1. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home reconstituted pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

2. Does the Palestinian Authority intend to persist with its demand that every square centimeter of the West Bank be ceded to it by Israel or is it prepared to accept less in exchange for an equivalent land swap by Israel?

3. Is the Palestinian Authority still committed to millions of former Arab residents and their descendants of what is now Israel being given the right to return and live there and if so what would be the appropriate number that Israel should accept?

4. Is Israel prepared to allow the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan with full and unfettered access and control over its air space and maritime waters? If not is the Palestinian Authority prepared to accept something less such as demilitarization?

5. Is Israel prepared to remove all the 500000 Jewish residents living in the West Bank. If not what number are they prepared to remove and from where?

6. Is Israel prepared to divide Jerusalem so that it becomes the capital of both Israel and the new Arab state?

America - unequivocally and unambiguously - needs to present its own answers to both parties on these same questions after first gauging and evaluating their responses and then lay down its own terms as the price for America’s continuing involvement in helping the parties achieve a final resolution of their conflict.

Failure by America to elicit satisfactory and positive responses to these questions from the Palestinian Authority and Israel will only ensure that one can continue to predict with absolute certainty that the two state solution is not going to be the solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Living the dream but experiencing the nightmare that has accompanied this fatally flawed and discredited vision for the last 72 years has proved to be catastrophic for both Arabs and Jews. How much longer will this failed proposal continue to be paraded as the only solution to the conflict? It is about time that the parties put up or shut up.

The thumbs down given to President Obama by Abbas this past week only underscores America’s need to get some answers from the parties to the above questions or vacate the scene - unless America completely revamps its thinking and starts to look at options other than the two state solution.

Obama has already hinted at going in another direction emphasising “dignity” and “security” as the diplomatic drivers in resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict if the two state solution is abandoned.

Such a policy and initiative should surely be welcomed to break the impasse and receive the thumbs up from the international community to enable it to be successfully implemented.

Has President Bush's Vision Succumbed to Reality?

[Published October 2007]



President Bush appears to have abandoned any hope of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

His closest confidante - the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - suggested as much when she made this blunt observation after her visit to the Middle East this past week:

“I spent a lot of time on security issues, not on-the-ground today security issues, but how would you envision the security of two states living side by side, because they're going to have to come up with a security concept between them. It's one of the problems that we're dealing with, frankly, in the Israeli population. And I heard it not just from the Israeli officials but from a broad range of Israelis. They had the withdrawal from Lebanon and it brought instability in Lebanon. They had the withdrawal from the Gaza, and look what happened in Gaza.

If, in fact, they're going to be asked to withdraw from the West Bank at some point, what does that mean for the security of Israel? That's a fair question. It really is. And so one of the things that I take back is that we are going to need to spend a lot of time thinking about how this state, if we are fortunate enough to be able to bring it into being, how it is going to relate to the security of its neighbor and vice versa.”

This marks the first time that the Secretary of State has so forcefully come to grips with the security guarantees that Israel needs to receive before the President’s two state vision can ever get off the ground.

It would be inconceivable that she would make these momentous comments without first having discussed them with the President.

Ms. Rice would be well aware that when President Bush first spoke of his two state vision on 24 June 2002, he laid down two preconditions necessary for its achievement:

1.The Palestinian people must elect new leaders not compromised by terror
2.These new leaders must build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

These conditions remain substantially unfulfilled more than 5 years later - and present indications are they are going to be a long time coming - if ever at all.

It was his recognition of this reality that inspired President Bush to call his planned international meeting in Annapolis next month - which he designed essentially to try and advance the fulfilment of these fundamental preconditions. His concern was well founded.

Both persons currently claiming to lead the Palestinian Arabs - Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas - are compromised by terror.

Haniyeh heads Hamas - a movement that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas - one of Yasser Arafat’s closest advisors - is now the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation which is no less vehement than Hamas in its desire to wipe Israel off the map. They only differ in the strategy they wish to employ to achieve their common aim.

A practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty are mere mirages on an invisible horizon.

The Arabs have totally rejected President Bush’s agenda insisting that their attendance at Annapolis be conditioned on substantive agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority being reached before the meeting even begins concerning the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders

Significantly Ms Rice has rebuffed the Arabs attempted hijack of the President’s agenda stating:

“So I know we get very focused on, you know, what will be said about borders, what will be said about Jerusalem, what will be said about the refugees. In fact, a lot has been said over a long period of time about those issues and more will have to be said. But I'm also quite convinced that one of the really crucial pieces that has to be filled in are these concepts of how the states will relate to each other in practical terms concerning security and in practical terms concerning economic issues”

Perhaps the penny is slowly dropping and the realisation is dawning that the Arabs are totally disinterested in Israel’s security concerns and in meeting the very conditions laid down by President Bush as essential if his two state vision is going to be achieved.

The abandonment of the President’s vision does not necessarily mean that the conflict in the West Bank need continue unabated until a democratic nirvana is achieved there under a leader not compromised by terror.

The Arabs have already publicly signalled they would be prepared to consider Israel swapping some of its vacant land in return for keeping those parts of the West Bank populated by 450000 Jews.

Satisfying Israel’s security needs in the context of a territorial resolution that does not involve all of the West Bank remaining under Arab control can be achieved very quickly if Israel and Jordan divide the West Bank between them.

Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel already contains the following guarantees concerning Israel’s security that have stood the test of time for the last 12 years and remained rock solid through several crises:

“1. They recognise and will respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

2. They recognise and will respect each other's right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries;

3. They will develop good neighbourly relations of co-operation between them to ensure lasting security, will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means;”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel within the framework of this existing peace treaty offer the hope of a better life and prosperity for the Arab residents of the West Bank, will free them from Israeli occupation and achieve a measure of peace stability and security in the region not enjoyed for 60 years.

Such negotiations will not resolve the issue of refugees. No plan can ever hope to do so whilst the Arabs insist on millions of refugees and their descendants becoming citizens of Israel.

Stay with the vision or accept the reality? President Bush at last appears to be succumbing to the reality.