Palestine - Obama Continues To Fudge On America's Commitment To Israel

[Published 23 May 2011]


President Obama in an address to the AIPAC Policy Conference on 22 May has failed to redress the enormous damage done by him to America’s integrity and reputation during his speech three days earlier at the State Department.

Addressing the State Department Obama then stated:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.. “

This statement amounted to the repudiation of an American written commitment given by President George Bush (the Bush Letter) to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 which stated:

“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. 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.”

America’s commitment in the Bush Letter was clear and unambiguous.

1. America would support Israel’s refusal to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - as the Arabs had been demanding since 1967
2. The amount of such land to be retained by Israel would be determined by mutually agreed changes that reflected the realities existing at the time negotiations were completed

No mention was made that those mutually agreed changes would require Israel to make land swaps of Israeli sovereign territory in exchange for land retained by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:

“The political support we received during my visit to the United States is an unprecedented accomplishment for Israel. Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President’s letter.”

President Bush’s letter was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.

Obama’s apparent attempt to abrogate this American commitment in his statement on 19 May resulted in trenchant criticism from Israel and many members of the American Congress forcing him to clarify his position on 22 May.

In doing so President Obama did not climb out of the diplomatic hole he had dug for himself and America three days earlier - but only managed to slide further down it taking America’s integrity and reputation even lower with him.

President Obama told the AIPAC delegates and many Congressmen present and keen to hear his explanation:

“And it was my reference to the 1967 lines—with mutually agreed swaps—that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. By definition,it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed- upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people—each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace”

With the greatest respect the President is talking utter nonsense.

“Agreed upon swaps” surely means an agreed exchange of something for something else.

President Obama clearly was breaching the Bush Letter in stating that his Government’s belief:

”now was that Israeli sovereign territory would have to be swapped for territory retained by Israel in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

President Obama’s belief in 2011 is totally irrelevant. President Obama is committed in 2011 to supporting whatever decision Israel makes on how much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem it will ultimately withdraw from - nothing more nothing less.

To continue to support the concept of

“mutually agreed swaps”

only makes matters even worse so far as restoring America’s integrity and reputation is concerned.

It is clear President Obama does not like the terms of the Bush Letter. But he - and America - are bound by it if America’s integrity and reputation is to be maintained.

Obama’s explanation smacks of a pathetic attempt to try and retrospectively substitute the words:

“mutually agreed changes” in the Bush Letter with the words “mutually agreed exchanges”.

Surely Congress will react with even greater fury at President Obama’s latest remarks to try and massage the meaning of the Bush Letter to give it a meaning that was never intended.

Israel made a historic - and highly controversial - political decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as a condition of obtaining the Bush Letter. Israel paid dearly for that decision when tens of thousands of its civilian population were subsequently murdered, wounded or traumatized following that disengagement.

It is inconceivable that America should seek in any way to diminish or circumvent the commitments it made under the Bush Letter.

Words have meaning and in this case their meaning brooks only one interpretation.

Obama’s attempt to subvert their meaning must be resisted until he recants and states without qualification or ambiguity that he - as America’s President - and America still stands by what President Bush signed and its Congress ratified.

Palestine - Serious Negotiations Or Spurious Nonsense?

[Published 30 September 2010]

The threat by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to walk away from direct negotiations with Israel following Israel’s refusal to extend its ten month moratorium on some residential building construction in the West Bank - has brought forth an almost universal plea for Israel to reconsider its position.

However, PA negotiator Nabil Shaath has now indicated that even if Israel were to renew the limited moratorium - it would not be acceptable to the PA - telling Arab News:

“There is no alternative to one formula ending this crisis: the full stopping of the settlement building, even for a specific time.”

One has learned to take such PA pronouncements with a grain of salt. Hyperbole and rhetoric are part and parcel of PA negotiating tactics. When push comes to shove they usually give in to pressure.

President Abbas dithered for more than nine months of the initial ten month moratorium period before deigning to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. He demanded then what Shaath is now recycling - a total building freeze. It proved - and will continue to prove - to be a disastrous error of judgment by the PA. Abbas can only blame himself for the dilemma he currently faces as to whether to resume negotiations or not in view of the expiry of the moratorium period on 26 September.

Assuming however that some compromise is eventually agreed on for a further moratorium - questions must be asked and answers given as to the basis on which such negotiations are to be resumed.

Israel’s position is clear but the PA‘s position is steeped in uncertainty.

The parameters under which Israel has been negotiating are:

1. The Bush Roadmap - subject to Israel‘s 14 expressed written Reservations to it

2. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and

3. The letter from President George Bush to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004

Roadmap references to the Saudi Peace Plan - adopted subsequently as the Arab Initiative - were expressly rejected by Israel as playing any part in the negotiating process - the Reservations stating:

“The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the road map will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement. “

Israel was also adamant in its Reservations that :

“… declared references must be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.”

Abbas’s reaction to Israel’s Reservations was starkly revealed in an article by Akiva Eldar on 28 May 2003 when he wrote in Ha’aretz newspaper:

“When Abu Mazen talks about the road map it’s important for him to emphasize that the 14 Israeli reservations have nothing to do with him. “They don’t interest me,” he says. As far as he’s concerned, the only document that matters is the road map that was finalized in December 2002 and handed over to the parties at the end of April this year. Nothing more, nothing less.

“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.”

He says:

“We understood from the Americans that there are no changes in the road map. This is an historic opportunity to return to a track of normalcy. We are saying to the Israelis, `follow the map and don’t waste time haggling over details.’ We must get into the implementation phase. It is vital the two peoples feel something is changing on the ground. In any case nobody will pay attention to this or that reservation.”

Abbas was wrong.

America did indeed pay serious attention to Israel’s Reservations - as was indicated in the letter President Bush gave to Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 which stated:

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

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. 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 PA has consistently refused to accept these parameters as defining the goals of the negotiating process.

On 27 November 2007 Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert once again clarified these parameters at Annapolis before the leaders of the international community assembled there when he said:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel."

The PA clearly is not negotiating on the same wavelength as Israel as it continues to:

1. Demand the right for millions of Arabs to emigrate to Israel

2. Refuses to accept the right of any Jews to live in the West Bank

3. Attempts to introduce the Saudi Peace Plan into the negotiations

4. Refuses to recognise Israel as the national state of the Jewish people

5. Refuses to accept Israel’s Reservations to the Road Map as having any relevance

Israel and the PA have each been playing the negotiating game under different sets of rules. Until they start to play the game under the same rules - any further talks will - like the talks held since 2003 - prove to be a complete waste of time.

Palestine - Jew Haters - Like Koran Burners - Cannot Be Tolerated

[Published 11 September 2010]

It did not take very long for the Palestinian Authority to make its unequivocal rejection of a Jewish State crystal clear following the pomp and circumstance of resumed negotiations between it and Israel in Washington last week.

Dr Nabeel Shaath - a member of the Palestinian Negotiating Team, the Fatah Central Committee and the Palestinian Legislative Council - told a press conference in Ramallah on 7 September:

“The Palestinian National Authority will never recognise that Israel is the national state for Jewish people, as such recognition will directly threaten the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in Israel, and will prevent the Palestinian refugees who left their homes and towns decades ago, from the right to return,”

Dr Shaath’s forthrightness and honesty is refreshing but clearly indicates that any further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority are a total waste of time.

The Palestinian Authority is apparently hell bent on challenging and confronting President Obama whose National Security Strategy released by the White House in May 2010 declared that the United States would seek two states that will live in peace and security:

“a Jewish state of Israel, with true security, acceptance, and rights for all Israelis and a viable, independent Palestine with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

President Obama had also previously made it clear that sentiments such as those expressed by Dr Shaath are completely unacceptable.

Speaking as a then Senator at a Foreign Policy Forum in Des Moines Iowa on 18 December 2007 the future President stated:

“I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like. It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It might involve compensation and other concessions from the Israelis but ultimately Israel is not going to give up its state.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an address on 29 April 2010 had also made it perfectly clear that:

“Since our first day in office, the Obama Administration has made the pursuit of peace and secure and recognized borders for Israel a priority because that is, we believe, the best way to safeguard Israel’s long-term future as a democratic Jewish state.”

Dr Shaath’s statement also constitutes a rebuff to former President George W Bush who assured Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a letter dated 14 April 2004:

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

Dr Shaath has effectively reiterated the long held position of the Palestinian Authority’s surrogate parent - the Palestine Liberation Organization - whose Charter declares:

“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

Dr Shaath’s remarks also operate as a clear rejection of a statement made by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel’s Parliament in July 2010:

“The first thing [in negotiations] is Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. When we are talking about a solution of two states for two peoples, one of these peoples is the Jewish people. It is not some Israeli people, it is the Jewish people.”

With negotiations set to resume between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on 14 September in Sharm El Sheikh - Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to then make it absolutely clear that the Palestinian Authority’s stance - as represented by Dr Shaath’s statement - is completely unacceptable to Israel and that Israel will immediately suspend any further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority until it unreservedly disassociates itself from Dr Shaath’s remarks.

Prime Minister Netanyahu was effusive in lauding the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas as his “partner in peace” in Washington just one week ago.

How this façade can be maintained in the face of a clear statement refusing to acknowledge Israel’s continuing existence as a Jewish State is totally incomprehensible.

It is to be hoped that President Obama will be similarly outspoken and condemn Dr Shaath’s remarks perhaps by repeating the words of concern spoken by him in response to the planned burning of the Koran by Pastor Terry Jones:

“It is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of American people to hang on to that thing that is best in us - that is our belief in religious tolerance …”

The Palestinian Authority’s position represents a serious threat to the fragile stability in the region. It makes the continuation of any further negotiations meaningless.

Was Dr Shaath’s statement endorsed by the Arab League? If not - then a strong statement from the Arab League distancing itself from those remarks should also be forthcoming.

The inability of the Arabs to accept a Jewish State in the midst of 21 Islamic Arab states has always been at the heart of resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Dr Shaath’s remarks show that nothing has changed in the Arab psyche that would lead one to hope that Jew-hatred will be replaced by an appreciation that the Jewish state is here to stay.

Suspension of direct negotiations is realistically the only option available to Israel until the Palestinian Authority disavows itself of Dr Shaath’s racist and totally unacceptable remarks.

The Palestinian Authority will have signed its own death warrant if it refuses to do so.