Secret talks paving way for Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine

 

The bombshell revelation that senior aides of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been holding secret talks for almost two months further confirms the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) acceptance of the Saudi-based Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution (Saudi Solution) as the basis for negotiating an end to 100 years of conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Such talks indicate the PLO has seemingly returned to its 1964 founding-Charter’s roots by no longer claiming sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) - a position the PLO only reversed in 1968 after Jordan’s loss of that territory to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

The Saudi Solution is breathtaking in the outcomes it promises - if implemented:

• Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) will be merged into one territorial entity governed by the current Hashemite rulers of Jordan - with its capital being located in Amman -not Jerusalem
• The total shredding of the failed two-state solution adopted by the United Nations since the passage of Security Council Resolution 2334 on December 23, 2016
• The end of the 2002 Saudi Arabian proposal announced by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and subsequently adopted as the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative - calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since June 1967 and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital - in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel
• Recognition of Israeli sovereignty in part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) for the first time in 3000 years.

Since its publication on June 8, 2022 in the Saudi Government-controlled Al Arabiya News - the Saudi Solution - authored by Ali Shihabi - a confidant of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman - has not been rated newsworthy or significant enough to be mentioned by:

• the international media,
• only two other political analysts - one of them after my urging
• any international think tanks and
• the United Nations

Amazingly - Jordan’s King Abdullah, Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh, PLO Leader Mahmoud Abbas and Saudi Crown Prince - now Prime Minister - Mohammed Bin Salman - have not rejected the Saudi Solution in the last nine months - even though it clearly departs from the policies each of them has been espousing for decades.

These secret back-channel talks appear to have been deliberately leaked at this particular point of time for one reason: The threat posed to Netanyahu and Abbas concluding successful negotiations on implementing the Saudi Solution caused by Israel’s High Court of Justice demanding the Israeli Government produce a plan by April 2 for the demolition and evacuation of Khan al-Ahmar - an illegal Bedouin herding encampment in Area C of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) presently under Israel’s full security and administrative control.

Demolition of thousands of other illegally built Arab structures in Area C could follow - triggering violent PLO-Arab outrage causing a complete breakdown in negotiations to implement the Saudi Solution.

Netanyahu needs to persuade the Court to extend its April 2nd deadline to free himself from the negotiating straightjacket into which the Court has placed him.

The tenth adjournment of the Khan al-Ahmar case since 2018 will be easier for Netanyahu to obtain when the Court is informed that negotiations are being held with Abbas to prevent the demolition and evacuation of Khan al-Ahmar. 

PLO-Arab fears will also have been publicly assuaged.

Allocating sovereignty in part of Area C to the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine would spare most of those presently-illegal Arab buildings from demolition.

The Saudi Solution remains on track … the media and the UN remain dumbstruck

Please join my Facebook Page: “Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine supporters”

Author’s note: The cartoon--commissioned exclusively for this article--is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators--whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades

Jordan PLO & Hamas revise Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine Plan

 

The Saudi-based Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine plan (Saudi Plan) - initially published in Al Arabiya News on 8 June 2022 - has been revised in a later document containing amendments that appear to have been made at the request of and agreed to by Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas - the three parties most affected if the Saudi Plan is successfully implemented. 

The revised version has not been published in Al Arabiya News or on any other news site. It is written in Arabic - but an English translation - a copy of which is in the writer’s possession - is very informative in clarifying certain parts of the original version which were apparently vague or unacceptable to Jordan, the PLO and Hamas.

The Saudi Plan calls for Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to be merged into one territorial entity to be called the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine. This plan trashes the creation of an independent Palestinian Arab State between Israel and Jordan - the solution proposed by:

• The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, 
• The United Nations - after adopting Security Council Resolution 2334 in 2016, 
• The 2020 Trump Peace Plan - and 
• Jordan and the PLO since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords

The major changes to the published version of the Saudi Plan made in the revised version are:

• The area of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to be included in the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine - approximately 70% in the published version - has been reduced to about 30% in the revised version. 

This concession would purportedly weaken Israel’s claim to sovereignty in the Jordan Valley - 87% of which is situated in Area C - currently under Israel’s full administrative and security control.

The possibility that Israel could regain sovereignty in up to 90% of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) for the first time in 3000 years - with Jordan, PLO and Hamas consensus - is a potential game changer.

• The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine - will be under Hashemite rule. The original version did not designate who would be its ruler. 

• Important changes have been made in relation to Jerusalem:

The original version states: 

"The formal relinquishment of any claims to Jerusalem (with an appropriate arrangement for the holy places)" will be "a key bargaining chip in Palestinian hands".

The revised version states:

"The formal renunciation of Jerusalem (while giving the Holy Places special status)" will be a major bargaining chip in the hands of the Palestinians."

Sole Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is now promised - if agreement on all other issues can be resolved. 

Under the radar contact already commenced between Israel and Saudi Arabia will certainly focus on implementing the revised version - not the published version. 

I reached out to the author of both the original and revised versions - Ali Shihabi - asking him to explain why his original published plan was substantially revised and not published. 

I offered to publish his reasons verbatim in an article which I would submit to him to approve before publication. Shihabi has not replied to my request. 

Shihabi might be more forthcoming if contacted by any of the following - who have not even acknowledged the existence of the Saudi Plan since its original publication:

• Joe Biden, 
• UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, 
• New York Times Op Ed writer Thomas Friedman 
• Any reporter with Shihabi’s cell phone number.
• Private think tanks, 
• Israeli Non-Government Organisations, 
• Investigative journalists 

The failure of Jordan, the PLO or Hamas to reject the Saudi Plan since its initial publication seven months ago is explained by their agreement to the changes made in the revised version.

Please join my Facebook Page: "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine supporters"

Author’s note: The cartoon--commissioned exclusively for this article--is by Yaakov Kirschen aka "Dry Bones"--one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators--whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

The 'State of Palestine' remains a United Nations mirage

 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber 1 decision that the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem has infuriated Israel — but should bring no joy to Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) or the United Nations which continues to support the PLO’s claim for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine — in addition to Jordan.

The ICC Prosecutor believes:

"there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups […] committed the war crimes of: intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects (articles 8(2)(b)(i)-(ii), or 8(2)(e)(i)); using protected persons as shields (article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)); wilfully depriving protected persons of the rights of fair and regular trial (articles 8(2)(a)(vi) or 8(2)(c)(iv)) and wilful killing (articles 8(2)(a)(i), or 8(2)(c)(i)); and torture or inhuman treatment (article 8(2)(a)(ii), or 8(2)(c)(i)) and/or outrages upon personal dignity (articles 8(2)(b)(xxi), or 8(2)(c)(ii))’ (para 94)

The Prosecutor further concluded in para 94 that these potential cases would be currently admissible for prosecution once jurisdiction was established.

The Court noted:

“The identification of potential cases by the Prosecutor and her evolving investigation, which is likely to be protracted and resource-intensive, entails that the question of jurisdiction under consideration has concrete ramifications for the further conduct of the proceedings. The initiation of an investigation by the Prosecutor also means that States Parties are under the obligation to cooperate with the Court pursuant to part 9 of the Statute. It is, therefore, all the more necessary to place the present proceedings on a sound jurisdictional footing as early as possible.”(para 86)

The PLO and Hamas will be kept very busy answering the ICC Prosecutor’s enquiries regarding those Palestinian war crimes identified in para 94.

The Court further emphasised that:

“the present decision is strictly limited to the question of jurisdiction set forth in the Prosecutor’s Request and does not entail any determination on the border disputes between Palestine and Israel. The present decision shall thus not be construed as determining, prejudicing, impacting on, or otherwise affecting any other legal matter arising from the events in the Situation in Palestine either under the Statute or any other field of international law.”(para 60)

Any expectation Israel will return to the negotiating table after the PLO’s flirtation with the ICC is hard to visualise.

The 163 page partly dissenting opinion of Judge Péter Kovács’ dwarfs the Court’s actual 60 page decision. It is complicated and breathtaking in its scope and incredible research.

In it Judge Kovács’ made the following observations: 

“To sum up, no conclusion can be drawn that the ‘Non-Member Observer State’ status in the United Nations should be construed in abstracto to mean that its holder is a sovereign State.” (para 219) 

“Palestine is a State Party 9 (under the ICC Statute—ed) despite its current and perhaps peculiar international legal situation. As a State in statu nascendi, Palestine may also perform its rights and obligations. However, this does not mean that its ‘statehood’ has been achieved, that the issue of its territory as ‘territory of the State’ has been settled, or that its ‘borders’ can be conceived as State boundaries.” (para 267)

“Although Mr. Mahmoud Abbas is the Head of State of a State Party, Palestine has not yet achieved a full-fledged and sovereign State status” (Para 303)

His Honour also listed the recent statements (below) of leading Palestinian personalities on the ‘State of Palestine’ as an ‘aim to achieve’ and not as an existing, sovereign and independent State.

The State of Palestine remains a United Nations mirage based on fiction—not fact.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Palestine - Semantic Skullduggery Sinks Solutions

[Published 21 June 2012]


The Palestinian Authority (PA) Ministry of Information has now issued a book instructing Palestinian Arabs on the words they should use to replace ”the Israeli and American dissemination of poisoned terms”.

Palestinian Arabs are encouraged to use terms that indicate that Israel is the result of “a racist, colonialist endeavor,” and the book instructs Palestinians never to use the name “Israel” alone but instead to use the term “Israeli colonialism” To use “Israel” by itself is damaging, according to the PA, because to do so “describes Israel as a natural state.”

Whilst most of the misleading and deceptive terms to be employed are not new - the book highlights official PA approval and acceptance of the use of such terms in the semantic war that has been ongoing for the last 130 years - alongside the actual conflict that has been played out between Jews and Arabs during that period.

For example - the use of the term “West Bank” was introduced by Jordan in 1950 to replace the biblical names “Judea and Samaria” - names that had been used throughout the centuries and were still being used by the British Mandate authorities in 1948. This change of name has been an effective propaganda tool in trying to erase any Jewish connection with and entitlement to these areas after they were occupied by Jordan in the 1948 War of Independence and subsequently lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Similarly the use of the term “freedom fighter” instead of the term “terrorist” has had an impact on the way the Jewish-Arab conflict has been perceived.

Describing the conflict as the “Arab-Israeli conflict” or the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” also suggests that the conflict only begun in 1948 and completely ignores the important legal and historical milestones that had taken place in the previous 30 years.

Encouraging the use of the words “racist and apartheid” in the same breath as the word “Israel” or the words “land theft” where “State lands or waste lands” are involved - conjure up poor and negative images of Israel that every day confounds the world with its scientific, agricultural, medical and intellectual discoveries.

These carefully chosen and continuously used terms have had remarkable success in aligning countries around the world to lend their support to the creation of a new exclusively Arab state between Israel and Jordan for the first time ever in recorded history. That is no mean feat.

Yet this kind of semantic war has been one of the major obstacles to resolving the conflict.

Whilst both sides are using different terms in talking about the conflict - any attempt to come to meaningful decisions in resolving the conflict is bound to fail - until both sides start talking about the conflict using the same language.

It is fair to say that in this kind of semantic tug of war - the People of the Book have been linguistically outsmarted by the successors to the authors of the One Thousand and One Nights.

But this brand of semantic war pales into insignificance when one considers the semantic war being waged when the parties are using the same terms - but applying different meanings to those terms.

Both sides have been engaging for the last 19 years in a dialogue under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap that has not been based on terms that have first been defined and agreed upon between them

The deliberate ambiguities and vague generalisations in the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap have led to innumerable differences and disagreements.

Any lawyer worth his salt will insist on terms being fully defined in agreements so that the parties will be in no doubt as to what the use of that term in the agreement means.

The simplest and most basic of these misunderstandings relates to the meaning of the term “Palestine“.

Does Palestine only include Israel, the West Bank and Gaza? Or does it also include Jordan - 78% of the territory called Palestine covered by the Mandate for Palestine conferred on Great Britain by the League of Nations in 1922 following the San Remo Conference and the signing of the Treaty of Sevres in 1920?

According to Article 2 of the the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter - Jordan is included:

“Palestine,with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

So why is the PLO only demanding territorial concessions including land swaps by Israel - and not Jordan - in its push for statehood and independence?

Why should Jordan - the Arab country that invaded and occupied the West Bank for 19 years between 1948-1967 when an independent Palestinian Arab State could have been created in a Jew-free West Bank - be quarantined from being part of the solution - now that 350,000 Jews live there?

When the Hashemite rulers in Jordan proclaim that “Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine” - what do they mean? When these same rulers pronounce that “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan” - what are they trying to convey?

Any territorial grant of land by Jordan to a putative Palestinan Arab state equal to the amount of territory retained by Israel in the West Bank would have no effect on Jordan’s security or territorial integrity. Yet it could have a real impact in bringing about a resolution to the long running conflict.

Jordan helped create the current problems in the West Bank. Why shouldn’t Jordan be part of the solution to ending those problems arising from its former occupation of the West Bank and the fact that it sits on 78% of “Palestine”?

All of these questions must now take on a new meaning following the declaration by PLO chairman - and Palestinian president - Mahmoud Abbas - that the negotiations between Israel and the PLO under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap are “clinically dead”

Here again is another new term introduced into the political lexicon - which now needs to be defined so that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are in agreement as to its meaning as it inevitably becomes part of the international dialogue.

Anyone care to speculate that Israel and the Palestinian Authority will ever agree on what the terms “Palestine” and “clinically dead” mean?