Palestine - Statehood Supersedes Oslo Accords And Roadmap

[Published 26 April 2012]


The Middle East changed dramatically with the recognition and admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO on 31 October 2011 - resulting finally in the achievement of the two-state solution unsuccessfully sought for the last 19 years in negotiations conducted between Israel and the Palestinian Authority pursuant to the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

Yet these seminal developments do not appear to rate a mention in Mahmoud Abbas’s latest letter of demand sent to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The contents of that letter have not been officially revealed.

However, one published draft - if eventually authenticated - contains the following material errors or omissions that will certainly not be conducive to Israel furnishing any positive reply.

1. The letter is signed by Mahmoud Abbas as: “Chairman of the P.L.O Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian National Authority”

Yet Mr Abbas has another distinguished title - “President of the State of Palestine” - which he somehow forgot to add.

This additional nomenclature appeared in the letter sent by Mr Abbas to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when Palestine unsuccessfully applied for membership of the United Nations as a peace loving State in September 2011.

Why omit it now in this letter to Mr Netanyahu - especially as Palestine was admitted to UNESCO as its 195th member state one month later? Why omit to mention this development at UNESCO as well?

Mr Abbas‘s reluctance to sign the letter as “President of the State of Palestine” and to fail to mention the UNESCO decision is surely deliberate and not caused by mere oversight.

If Palestine has already been recognized as a State by UNESCO and Mr Abbas is its President - any negotiations for the creation of such a State - the “two-state vision“- as envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - are extant.

If Mr Abbas still believes he can get Mr Netanyahu to resume negotiations for a Palestinian State under the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap by not stating he is “The President of Palestine” or mentioning the UNESCO decision - he must believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Mr Abbas’s unilateral approach to UNESCO to successfully procure recognition of Palestinian statehood has rendered any further negotiations under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap to achieve that identical goal totally meaningless.

If Mr Abbas is now seeking to resume negotiations with Israel to claim further additional territory for the State of Palestine - there must be a new negotiating process to replace the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap - with specific parameters to be determined and first agreed on between Israel and Palestine.

2. The draft letter contains the following self-serving statement:

“At the same token, I expect your understanding that settlement building is eroding the Palestinian trust in your commitment to reconciliation and the idea of the two states solution. The logic is simple: If you support the establishment of a Palestinian state, why do you build on its territory?”

Two pertinent comments on this last statement are warranted.

Firstly -as stated above - the two-state solution has already been achieved. That debate has to all intents and purposes been ended - unless the UNESCO decision is reversed by the International Court of Justice as being unconstitutional. Any move by UNESCO to refer the decision to the Court for its advisory opinion appears extremely unlikely.

Secondly - the arrogant presumption that 100% of the West Bank and Gaza is the territory of the Palestinian State - and that Israel has no claim to any part of that territory - continues to plague any efforts to finally resolve sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza - just 5% of former Palestine still remaining unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

The Jewish claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank and Gaza has been specifically preserved in international law by the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - all of which have been declared null and void by Article 20 of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - now headed by Mr Abbas.

Until the PLO accepts the binding effect of this body of international law - the ongoing conflict in the West Bank and Gaza is set to continue.

Now that a Palestinian state has been recognized - any restraints on Israel changing the status of the West Bank under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap have been removed.

Mr Abbas needs to change his tune or see Israel follow his example by making unilateral changes in the status of at least those areas of the West Bank where Israel currently holds full security and administrative control.

3. Mr Abbas continues to make the following assertion - as if repeating it often enough will turn it into fact:

“We agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine-on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967".

Fact is that historical Palestine comprised what is today called Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza are 5% - not 22% of historical Palestine - whilst Israel comprises 17% and Jordan makes up the remaining 78%.

What Israel occupied in 1967 - the West Bank and Gaza - was not “Palestinian territory”.

The West Bank was “Jordanian territory” - occupied by Jordan between 1948-1967 and unified with Jordan by a vote of the Arab Parliaments of the West Bank and Transjordan in 1950 - and renamed “Jordan”.

Jordan ceded its claims to this territory to the PLO in 1988.

The PLO had no interest in it - or in Gaza then occupied by Egypt - before Israel occupied both areas in 1967.

Article 24 of the PLO Charter made this very clear:

“This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the Western Bank in the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area.”

Any future negotiations on the future status of the West Bank and Gaza - not currently included in the State of Palestine - must take these facts into account as well as the fact that there are now two exclusive “Arabs only” States and one Jewish State in historical Palestine.

Mr Abbas needs to take a reality check.

Whilst he persists with his revisionist views and tries to ignore the consequences of his unilateral approaches to both the United Nations and UNESCO in breach of the obligations imposed on him by the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap - any hope of further negotiations between Israel and Palestine is a pipe dream.

Quartet And UNESCO In Head-on Collision

[Published 19 April 2012]


UNESCO’S recognition that Palestine is a State has now been totally refuted by the Quartet - America, the Russian Federation, the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).

The Quartet - in its latest statement - has now endorsed the view of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (OTP) just a few days earlier - that Palestine is not a State.

“The Quartet reaffirmed its commitment, as expressed in its 23 September 2011 statement, to examine possible mechanisms it can actively support going forward, individually and together, to advance peace efforts and strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s ability to meet the full range of civil and security needs of the Palestinian people both now and in a future state.”

The Quartet’s use of the words - “both now and in a future state” - was clear and unambiguous .

If the Quartet and the OTP are correct - then Palestine’s admission to UNESCO as a State is indeed unlawful - since only States can be members of UNESCO under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’S Constitution.

Yet the Russian Federation and many other member states of the UN and the EU - 107 to be precise - voted to recognize Palestine’s claim to be a State - thereby qualifying it to be granted admission to UNESCO.

How then can their representatives in the Quartet be now saying Palestine is not a State?

The remaining 87 UNESCO member states - including America and Israel - did not vote for Palestine’s admission. Yet none of these States has done anything in the last six months to protest the illegality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO - although several courses of action were open to them.

Firstly - they could have attempted to have the decision reviewed by lobbying UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the constitutional propriety of its decision to recognize Palestine as a State - under Article XIV Paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution which states:

“Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation of this Constitution shall be referred for determination to the International Court of Justice or to an arbitral tribunal, as the General Conference may determine under its Rules of Procedure.’

Secondly - they could have suspended their membership or the payment of their membership dues or refused to attend meetings when Palestine was represented by its accredited spokespersons.

America and Israel suspended their dues - not to protest UNESCO’S recognition of Palestine as a State - but to protest that this recognition was achieved unilaterally outside the negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

So having by their conduct over the last six months done nothing to voice their opposition to UNESCO recognizing that Palestine is a State - how can their Quartet representatives now be claiming to do just that by claiming there is no existing State of Palestine?

The Quartet’s statement sounds an even more discordant tone when it asserts:

“The Quartet encouraged the parties, in this context, to cooperate to facilitate the social and economic development of Area C, which is of critical importance for the viability of a future Palestinian state as well as for its Palestinian inhabitants to be enabled to lead a normal life. The Quartet asked Quartet Representative Blair to continue his intensive work with the parties toward this end."

Again the words - "a future Palestinian State” - are carefully chosen - a clear negation of the UNESCO vote recognizing Palestine is a State.

But even stranger - "Area "C" is a specific creation of the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap negotiating processes - instituted in 1993 and 2002 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization through its then newly constituted negotiating entity - the Palestinian Authority.

“Area C ” comprises 61% in area of the West Bank and is home to only 4% of the Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank. It also happens to be the location where pre-existing Jewish settlements were destroyed in the 1948 Arab-Israel War - and were subsequently re-established after the 1967 War.

“Area C ” also contains most of the new Jewish settlements built since 1967 - where close settlement by Jews was to be encouraged under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Israel currently holds full security and administrative control in “Area C”. Sovereignty has remained unallocated between Jews and Arabs since Great Britain handed back its Mandate to the United Nations in 1948.

In going behind Oslo and the Roadmap to unilaterally achieve statehood at UNESCO - Palestine has cut itself completely adrift from Oslo and the Roadmap.

It surely is wishful thinking for the Quartet to have any expectations that further negotiations on the future of “Area C” can be conducted within the framework of Oslo and the Roadmap - once the two-state solution contemplated by Oslo and the Road Map had been achieved at UNESCO.

If there are to be any negotiations over Area C - where Palestine does not have and never has had effective control - a new Roadmap - agreed to by Israel and the Palestinian Authority - will first be needed to replace both Oslo and the Bush Roadmap.

That no doubt is what the Quartet wants to avoid - and provides a good reason for the Quartet to continually claim that there is no state of Palestine existing at the present time.

Perhaps the Quartet is preparing us to get ready to listen to a new composition - the Obama Roadmap,

For that to happen however - the Quartet must encourage UNESCO to high tail it to the International Court - to clarify whether its decision to recognize Palestine as a State is lawful or not.

The current disharmony caused by UNESCO and the Quartet playing from different scores needs to be resolved without delay.

Is Palestine now a state - or it is not?

The UNESCO decision has not only created a growing global humanitarian crisis caused by the loss of 22% of its budget in suspended American dues.

That decision has now also become crucial in determining whether:

1. Oslo and the Bush Roadmap have any further relevance at all and

2. The Quartet disappears ignominiously off the international stage into permanent retirement as the most powerful diplomatic negotiating team ever assembled in history that failed to achieve anything after eight years of trying.

Until the International Court gives its advisory opinion - the Quartet is going to look decidedly foolish claiming there is no such State yet in existence - when UNESCO says there is.

This head-on collision is certain to claim a lot of casualties.

Palestine In UNESCO - Ending The State Of Confusion

[Published 12 April 2012]


Palestine’s continuing membership of UNESCO has become far more tenuous and now faces increased scrutiny following a decision by the Office Of The Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that Palestine is not a State.

Only States can be admitted as members of UNESCO under Clause II Paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution.

The OTP decision now casts grave doubt on Palestine legally continuing to remain a member of UNESCO.

Alarm bells should be ringing at UNESCO calling for it to urgently approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine:

(i) whether Palestine is a State and if so

(ii) whether the number of votes required to admit it as a member under UNESCO’s Constitution is 129 - not the 107 actually obtained

The OTP decision was announced on 3 April - more than three years after Palestine had first sought to become a State party to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Sixteen legal opinions were submitted to the OTP - arguing both for and against the claim that Palestine was a State.

I am pleased the OPT has now confirmed my opinion that Palestine is not a State. However I am fully cognisant of the fact that the ICJ needs to confirm the correctness of that opinion for it to have any binding effect. Still it is comforting to be on the same wavelength as the OTP and many others who expressed the same opinion in their submissions to the OTP.

Hopefully UNESCO might at least now take the issues I have raised concerning Palestine’s admission to UNESCO more seriously - and not sit pat and smugly refuse to address my concerns.

I have sought in vain for the last five months to have UNESCO produce any documents which its Executive Board may have considered before concluding that Palestine was a State - qualifying to be admitted to UNESCO.

My requests to produce copies of such documents have been ignored. UNESCO has made it clear the matter is closed and is not to be the subject of any further discussion with me.

In contrast to UNESCO’s lack of transparency - the sixteen legal opinions lodged with the OTP can be viewed on the ICC website. The legal opinions or other documents UNESCO relied on (if any) are being withheld from public scrutiny.

Has UNESCO something to hide? I don’t really know at this stage - but its arrogant and high handed conduct needs to be exposed and justified.

Significantly some UNESCO documents have now come to light - from a source other than UNESCO - that make the decision of the 58 members of the Executive Board of UNESCO to recommend the admission of Palestine very intriguing.

Palestine’s request for admission to UNESCO was first made in 1989 and has been reiterated at every General Conference since then.

At the time of Palestine’s initial application in 1989 - Israel had submitted an opinion arguing that Palestine was not a State. Given that the 1993 Oslo Accords were then only a twinkle in someone’s eye - Israel’s viewpoint could not be seriously challenged - notwithstanding Yassar Arafat’s vacuous Palestinian Declaration of Independence made on 15 November 1988.

After 1993 and more particularly after the Bush Roadmap saw the light of day in 2002 - Palestine’s request for membership in UNESCO continued to be reiterated at every General Conference meeting without success.

The question that UNESCO now needs to answer is - what facts or circumstances changed in 2011 to enable the Executive Board of UNESCO to conclude that Palestine was a State and qualified to become a member of UNESCO?

There appears to be one document that may provide some assistance - the summary record of the sixth plenary meeting of the session of the Executive Board.

Perhaps a copy of this document will now fall off the back of a truck and end up in my hands.

Whether Palestine is a State must surely now be decided by the ICJ.

The legal uncertainty introduced by the OTP decision and the divergent opinions expressed in the submissions made to the OTP cannot possibly be ignored by UNESCO.

That kind of dismissive and contemptuous conduct might work against the expressed opinion of any individual like myself.

But it cannot and should not be tolerated when UNESCO is now faced with a formidable body of legal opinions that Palestine is not a State.

Whilst Palestine remains a member state of UNESCO - the following flow on effects are guaranteed:

1.The loss of 22% of UNESCO’s funding to the end of 2013 - totalling $260 million in suspended American dues - that is unlikely to be fully replaced

2.The abandonment or curtailment of many UNESCO global humanitarian programs in areas such as literacy, water purification, gender equality, AIDS and HIV education and prevention - affecting the lives of scores of millions of people world wide

3.The end of meaningful negotiations for the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - with manifold implications for resolving the long running conflict between Arabs and Jews.

UNESCO can of course continue to stick its head in the sand and ignore all calls for it to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

87 of the 194 countries in UNESCO did not vote to admit Palestine into UNESCO. They have remained silent for the last five months and by their conduct have accepted the legal right of Palestine to sit alongside them as an equal and member State. They can hardly claim that Palestine is not a State whilst they accept that Palestine remains a member of UNESCO.

The OTP decision should make all 194 member states think again.

The fact that Palestine might not legally be a State should surely see some of those 87 naysayer states proposing that UNESCO submits a brief to the ICJ seeking its advisory opinion on whether Palestine’s admission to UNESCO does comply with UNESCO’s Constitution - or does not.

Failure to do so can only result in foreseeable and possibly unforeseeable consequences - not only for the hopes and aspirations of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East - but for UNESCO’s global community.

The OTP decision serves as a clarion call for UNESCO to open its records and approach the ICJ without further delay.

Palestine - UNESCO Membership May Be Unconstitutional

[Published 16 November 2011]


Palestine’s membership of UNESCO could be under serious legal threat - as the vote approving such admission comes under increasing scrutiny.

The decision to admit Palestine has come at great financial cost to UNESCO and has threatened the abandonment or postponement of many of its worthy and worthwhile programs.

UNESCO notes in a Press Release on 10 November:

"The U.S has withheld its contributions following the admission of Palestine to UNESCO on 31 October. They were required to do so by U.S. laws dating from the 1990s. This leaves UNESCO with an immediate shortfall of US$65m to the end of 2011, and a further gap of 22 percent in its US$653m budget for 2012-2013. Israel has now followed suit and withheld its contribution of US$1.5m (0.3 percent of UNESCO’s budget) for 2012-2013.

UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova has now launched an Emergency Multi-Donor Fund to help find the very large shortfall resulting from dues withheld by the United States. It has left an enormous black hole to fill - given the financial crisis enveloping the European Union and its members."

One way of rescuing UNESCO from its current predicament would be to approach the International Court of Justice seeking an Advisory Opinion on the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

Two questions need to be answered - even more urgently now - following the UN Admissions Committee failing to agree on whether Palestine qualified for membership of the UN as a “peace-loving State” as specifically required by Article 4 (1) of the UN Charter.

I. Is Palestine a State enabling it to be admitted to UNESCO under Article II 2 of the UNESCO Constitution?

Article II 2 provides:

"Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference."

Palestine’s applications to both UNESCO and the UN required that in each case it be a State to qualify for membership.

The UN Admissions Committee appears to have been divided on whether it so qualified.

One could reasonably infer that this was also one of the issues that was uppermost in the minds of the UNESCO General Conference where only 51 out of the 137 non-Islamic states voted in favor of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

In customary international law as codified in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - it would appear that Palestine did not possess the four necessary legal requirements to call itself a State.

UNESCO is required to ensure its Constitution is faithfully observed at all times.

Since the UN interpretation appears to contradict the UNESCO interpretation - legal clarification by approaching the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion is justified and indeed necessary.

II. Was Palestine’s admission to UNESCO unconstitutional because the majority vote required for its admission under Article II 2 of the UNESCO Constitution was not reached?

The vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was 107 for, 16 against and 52 abstentions (which do not count as votes).

There are 194 members of the UN - so a two thirds majority vote required would be 129. As only 107 votes were in favour - Palestine’s admission to UNESCO did not satisfy the provisions of the Constitution and should be declared invalid.

This viewpoint is further strengthened by the provisions of Article II 3 :

"Territories or groups of territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members by the General Conference by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting, upon application made on behalf of such territory or group of territories by the Member or other authority having responsibility for their international relations. The nature and extent of the rights and obligations of Associate Members shall be determined by the General Conference."

Clearly the Constitution makes a significant distinction in the specific section of the Constitution dealing with Membership between the vote needed to admit Members and the vote needed to admit Associate Members

This clear difference is however clouded by the provisions of Clause IV B 8(a):

"Each Member State shall have one vote in the General Conference. Decisions shall be made by a simple majority except in cases in which a two-thirds majority is required by the provisions of this Constitution, or the Rules of Procedure of the General Conference. A majority shall be a majority of the Members present and voting."

The International Court of Justice needs to be urgently approached to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies and uncertainties posed by these contradictory provisions in UNESCO’s constitution.

I put some questions on these issues to UNESCO’s Director of Liaison Office in New York ten days ago - but have been met by a wall of silence despite sending him a reminder.

Approaching the International Court of Justice could prove to be the financial lifeline UNESCO so desperately needs - since a ruling that Palestine’s admission was unconstitutional would assuredly restore America’s financial commitment to UNESCO.

Will political or financial pressure win the day? Will the political fallout involving the possible removal of Palestine from UNESCO dissuade UNESCO from approaching the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion - thereby allowing its financial woes to continue and its projects to founder ?

Either way UNESCO cannot be seen to create the impression that any of its actions are not in strict accord with its Constitution and that it is prepared to act in possible contravention of its own Constitution.

To do so - whilst the above two questions remain definitively unanswered by the International Court of Justice - could well persuade those 86 non-Islamic member states who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO to also cut or withhold their financial contributions to UNESCO until the Court’s ruling is obtained.

That would surely be the beginning of the end for UNESCO- which cannot be seen as a law unto itself and certainly cannot financially afford to do so.

Palestine - War Monger Not Peace Lover

[Published 8 November 2011]


Amid all the hogwash that passes for political commentary - it is apparent that the 15 members of the Security Council are facing a huge dilemma in deciding whether to recommend the admission of Palestine to the United Nations as its 194th member - after deliberating on the application now for more than six weeks.

The lengthy delay has nothing to do with the supposed closeness of the vote. Rather it has to deal with proper scrutiny of the application in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice delivered on 28 May 1948.

Palestine’s application to the UN under Article 4(1) of the UN Charter has been made by Mahmoud Abbas as President of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization - which is entirely different to that made to UNESCO under Article II (2) of the UNESCO constitution

Stringent conditions must be complied with when seeking to join the UN - as the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice clearly set out:

“The requisite conditions are five in number: to be admitted to membership in the United Nations, an applicant must
(i) be a State;
(ii) be peace-loving;
(iii) accept the obligations of the Charter;
(iv) be able to carry out these obligations; and
(v) be willing to do so. “

The Court further drew attention to Rule 60 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council which states:

“The Security Council shall decide whether in its judgment the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly whether to recommend the applicant State for membership.”

The Court declared that:

“It does not, however, follow from the exhaustive character of paragraph 1 of Article 4 that an appreciation is precluded of such circumstances of fact as would enable the existence of the requisite conditions to be verified.

Article 4 does not forbid the taking into account of any factor which it is possible reasonably and in good faith to connect with the conditions laid down in that Article. The taking into account of such factors is implied in the very wide and very elastic nature of the prescribed conditions; no relevant political factor-that is to say, none connected with the conditions of admission-is excluded.”

Clearly there are at least two critical issues that the Security Council must in its judgement determine - taking into account any political factor connected with the admission - that should sink this application:

1. Is Palestine a state?

By any standards of customary international law - as codified in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - Palestine is not a state since it fails to comply with article 1 which declares:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

The Security Council ignores international law at its peril should it decide to depart from these well understood and universally accepted legal principles required for statehood.

2. Is Palestine a warmonger or a peace lover?

On even the most cursory inquiry Palestine is a war monger - not in any way peace loving - for the following reasons:

(a) Since 1 January 2011 to date 379 rockets and 225 mortars have been indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centers from Palestine killing many Israeli citizens, injuring hundreds of others and causing vast property damage.

Responsibility for these attacks have been claimed by a number of organizations including

(i) Fatah
(ii) Hamas
(iii) Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine
(iv) Abu Al-Qumsa Brigades
(v) Tawhid and Jihad
(vi) Abdullah Azzam Brigades
(vii) Al Aqsa Brigades
(viii)Al Mujahadeen Brigades
(ix) Al Quds Brigade

all of which are allowed to operate freely from Palestinian territory with impunity and free of arrest or prosecution

(b) The PLO Charter still calls for the liberation of Israel and Jordan - two member states of the UN - and their reunification with the West Bank and Gaza into one indivisible territorial unit.

(c) Clause 9 of the PLO Charter declares:
“Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.”

(d) Clause 10 of the PLO Charter asserts:
“Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.”

(e) The Charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of the State of Israel by waging a holy war

The only wonder is why it has taken the Security Council so long to determine the fate of Palestine’s application.

The decision should have been arrived at much earlier. Apparently some of those 15 nations must have strange notions of what the terms “state” and “peace loving” mean.

Make love - not war. Get back to negotiating - not grandstanding. Stop engaging in fiction - face the reality

Is Jordan Palestine?

By Douglas Bloomfield

[Published 20 February 2014]


Jordanians are becoming a minority in their own country, outnumbered by refugees from the conflicts around them.

The latest are 600,000+ Syrians who have fled the war in their country that has become a humanitarian disaster, and 200,000 Iraqis who have seen renewed fighting erupt in their country as bombings are a daily occurrence in Baghdad and other cities.

An estimated half to two thirds of Jordan's population are Palestinians. Unlike other countries, Jordan has given them citizenship, although not full equality. The greatest threat to the Hashemite regime may come from them and their brethren across the Jordan River, not the Syrian or Iraqi borders.

West Bank Palestinians look to the day of confederation with the East Bank, preferably after they attain statehood on their own. An irredentist Palestinian state, especially if Hamas succeeds in its goal of supplanting Fatah, could pose a mortal threat to Jordan's future. Being landlocked and having minimal natural resources, Palestine may feel a need to expand, and to pursue that course along the path of least resistance, eastward. Confederation could be only a beginning.

Most Jordanians would rather see Palestinians leave their country to live in the new state of Palestine. Unlike many Palestinians and Greater Israel nationalists they reject any suggestion that Jordan is Palestine.

Read more about it in my Washington Watch column this week.

Palestine - Kerry confronts ghosts in state of confusion

[Published 16 February 2014 - Jerusalem Post]


The semantic circus that first created a people known as the Palestinians in 1964 - who now claim an entitlement to their own independent state in " the occupied Palestinian Territories" - reached absurd heights with the following bizarre news item this week:

"The Israeli authorities have blocked 70 patients from Gaza from entering Israel to receive medical treatment because their transfer documents were marked “State of Palestine,” officials told AFP on Wednesday.

Until recently, official stationery has used the term “Palestinian territories.”

But the logo was changed in mid-December, a year after the Palestinians won recognition as a UN observer state, despite fierce Israeli opposition."

This "War of the Letterheads" adds a new dimension to the conflict between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The "State of Palestine" was admitted as a member State of UNESCO on 31 October 2011 by a vote of 107/14 and as a non-observer State at the United Nations (UN) on 29 November 2012 by a vote of 138/9.

Those States voting in favor ignored the legal requirements of article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933 which declares:

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states"

Those states dissenting or abstaining took the view that any State of Palestine to be created for the first time ever in recorded history could only arise as a result of negotiations conducted under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2003 Bush Roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis conference between the designated parties - Israel and the Palestinian Authority - ("the agreed negotiating framework").

John V Whitbeck - an international lawyer and adviser to the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel - had flagged the likelihood of this latest War of the Letterheads in an article written in the Cyprus Mail on January 13, 2013.

Whitbeck revealed that the Palestinian Authority “had been absorbed and replaced by the "State of Palestine” in a decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas on January 3, 2013 and signed by him acting in his capacities as president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO.

Whitbeck’s confirmation of the demise of the "Palestinian Authority" with the newly declared "State of Palestine" should surely have signalled the end of further negotiations under the agreed negotiating framework - specifically designed to achieve the birth of that very state.

For the full article read:

http://www.jpost.com/Experts/Palestine-Kerry-confronts-ghosts-in-state-of-confusion-341548?prmusr=Vo0puH%2bGQrNgpvj0hOn9OF5voApLGPfhXKAJibhCAuxInellBLluxo2r9tGo358l