PLO dumps Trump easing way for Jordan-Israel negotiations

[Published 6 May 2018]

President Trump’s soon-to-released proposal on resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict will be more readily achievable following the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) confirming it will not participate in implementing Trump’s peace plans.

Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee Saeb Erekat led the charge:

“No one will deceive us and we will not fall into the illusion that the United States can have any balanced ideas that could lead to the achievement of a real and just peace. Washington has become part of the problem and not the solution”

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas backed-up Erekat a few days later — censuring Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and stating Palestinians believe the US can no longer be the sole mediator in the decades-long conflict with Israel due to America’s pro-Tel Aviv bias.

Abbas declared Trump’s plan would be:

“an end to the peace process in the Middle East.”

Erekat and Abbas’s acts of political hara-kiri coincided with Trump’s newly-appointed Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo - visiting Jordan

Jordanian Foreign Minister — Ayman Safadi — welcomed Pompeo with the decades-old Arab mantra:

”[The Palestinian -Israeli conflict] is, we believe, the main cause of instability in the region, and its resolution is the key to achieving the lasting and comprehensive peace that we want. The two-state solution remains the only path to that peace, as we believe in Jordan, and it is the solution that would allow for the emergence of an independent, sovereign Palestine state with East Jerusalem as its capital in the lines of June 4, 1967.

Yes, that the two-state solution is being challenged. Yes, there are many obstacles. But I think what is — what is the alternative? We cannot give up in our efforts to achieve peace, nor can we say that there is any viable alternative that we can sustain.”

Pompeo begged to disagree:

” We’re certainly open to a two-party solution. That’s a likely outcome.”

Another likely outcome will doubtless be revealed in Trump’s proposal.

Pompeo deferred answering whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the most serious threat to stability in the region. He would have been derided had he agreed —given the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Libya.

On Trump’s "ultimate deal" — Pompeo asserted:

“We understand that ultimately this deal will be agreed to between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but certainly it’s the case that as America continues to be involved in facilitating such an arrangement, we’re doing so in close alignment with Jordan and the Jordanian people so that we’re working together ...”

Any PLO refusal to agree to the deal will receive the Trump treatment meted out to Trump-defiers - reduced funding and diplomatic downgrading. Jordan - working in close alignment with Trump - will reap substantial dividends.

Pompeo referred to the five-year Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Jordan in February committing the US to provide over $6.3 billion in bilateral foreign assistance to Jordan over the next five years — a powerful incentive for Jordan to help Trump bring his proposals to fruition.

Pompeo — significantly — provided two additional substantial sweeteners:

“We’ll continue to work with Jordan to help the Kingdom defend its borders, always.”

Pompeo was signaling that any PLO attempt to overthrow 95 years of unbroken Hashemite rule in Jordan — unsuccessfully attempted by the PLO in September 1970 — would be rebuffed by American military force.

Protecting the Hashemite regime and Jordan’s borders — coupled with massive injections of American financial aid — could see Jordan replacing the PLO as Israel’s Arab partner in implementing Trump’s peace proposals.

Trump — the master deal-maker - may have just pulled another rabbit out of his magic hat.

Trump unscrambles UN-EU-PLO misinformation omelette

[Published 29 April 2018]

President Trump has started unscrambling the misinformation omelette first cooked up by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 and dished out by the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) since 1974.

Trump’s intention was revealed when the State Department released its annual “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017” (“Report”)- renaming its segment previously entitled “Israel and The Occupied Territories” with a new descriptor – “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza”.

Israel and the Golan Heights are dealt with together in one section of the Report – whilst the West Bank and Gaza are covered in another.

Commas count big time in Middle East diplomacy.

One comma strategically placed in the descriptor - “… West Bank, and Gaza” – identifies them as two separate territorial entities that could involve different solutions.

The Report’s new choice of language signals that resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict extends beyond the West Bank and Gaza to also include the Golan Heights and that any end to the conflict will only eventuate with the allocation of sovereignty in all three of these disputed areas.

This ground-breaking replacement of false statements with factual reality needs to be replicated by Trump in other areas of misinformation maliciously spread by the UN, EU and PLO – including:

1. Recognition that the term “West Bank” was first used in 1950 and that for 3000 years prior thereto that territory had been called “Judea and Samaria”

2. Acknowledgement that the “Palestinian Authority” created by the 1993 Oslo Accords was disbanded by written decree of PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013.

3. Affirmation of the right of the Jewish People to close settlement on land in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine under the rights vested in them by article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (the 1922 Mandate) – as preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

4. Ending the fiction that the territory of former Palestine stopped at the Jordan River and agreeing that it included the Hashemite Kingdom of TransJordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate - which was granted independence by Great Britain in 1946 and subsequently renamed Jordan in 1950.

5. Confirming that most of the Golan Heights was included within the 1922 Mandate until Britain ceded the area to France in the Franco-British Agreement of 7 March 1923

6. Rebranding the UN and EU designated “Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)” as “The Disputed Territories”

7. Agreement that Security Council Resolution 242 does not require Israel’s total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

Cracking heads by getting all interested parties to adopt an agreed narrative using terms with agreed meanings is crucial in any communications and negotiations between them - if Trump’s long-awaited “ultimate deal” is to not be still born.

Underestimating Trump’s ability to win the Presidential election race against Hillary Clinton in 2016 has seen those who confidently predicted his defeat subsequently engaged in a vitriolic war of attrition in the media trying to convince the electorate that they voted for the wrong candidate.

Yet Trump continues to confound his detractors with impressive gains in both the American economy and foreign affairs.

The State Department Report – in dumping the use of the nomenclature “The Occupied Territories” – has taken one giant step towards ending the decades-long dishonest semantic warfare waged by the PLO, UN and EU.

Trump has set himself a Herculean task confronting this sorry state of affairs.

Trump has once again dumbfounded his malevolent doomsday-pundits – whisking up an omelette that already promises to taste far better than any ever served up by the PLO, UN and EU.

Jordan considers replacing PLO as Israel's negotiating partner

[Published 8 April 2018]

Two recent events confirm that Jordan is seriously considering replacing the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as Israel’s negotiating partner to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between Israel and Jordan:

1.The ending of a 9 months diplomatic impasse between Jordan and Israel following Jordan’s acceptance of Amir Weissbrod as Israel’s new ambassador to Jordan.

Jordan’s approval came after the two countries agreed to end their standoff following the shooting deaths of two Jordanians in the Israeli Embassy compound by an Israeli security guard who Israel alleged opened fire in self-defence after one of the men tried to stab him.

Weissbrod will replace former Ambassador - Einat Schlein – who had hurriedly left Amman last July following this incident.

Restoration of full diplomatic ties will facilitate Israel and Jordan’s ability to amicably resolve the division of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between their two respective states within the framework of their existing 1994 Peace Treaty – ending a long-running border dispute dating back to 1922.

2. The publication by the Jordan Times on 31 March of an article by Jordanian journalist Nermeen Murad headlined “Should Jordan claim the West Bank on our behalf? An old yet new question”

The Jordan Times is published by the Jordan Press Foundation – in which the Government owned Social Security Investment Fund has a majority stake.

The provocative headline suggests the Government could be flying a trial balloon to gauge public opinion should Jordan decide to negotiate with Israel.

Murad opines:

“Did the Arab world and the Palestinian leadership make a strategic mistake when they kick started a political process that drove Jordan to the 1988 decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank? That step has long been seen to have, perhaps irreversibly, removed Jordan from the table of any serious negotiations for a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based in a “land for peace” formula.”

Murad argues:

“I believe that it can be credibly argued that it was a strategic mistake to focus Arab and Palestinian effort solely on creating an alternate and less legally legitimate claimant to the West Bank, regardless of how nationalistic and symbolic it was to have a Palestinian body representing Palestinian rights, instead of focusing on claiming the land itself as the most pressing priority — even if only for purely tactical considerations".

Murad then concludes:

“.. it appears that the decision to squeeze Jordan out and undermine the legal opportunity that Jordan had to reclaim the West Bank back in the 1970s, is a relevant and important starting point in our review of our past strategies and a critical ingredient in our discussions of a way forward towards a solution.”

Jordan’s long-abandoned West Bank claims could be resurrected following the PLO committing political suicide by refusing to have anything further to do with President Trump’s soon-to-be-released “ultimate deal”.

Trump’s deal will be still-born if no Arab negotiating partner is prepared to sit down with Israel.

In 1988 the PLO could justifiably claim to be the sole spokesman for the Gazan and West Bank Arab populations. Hamas – founded only in 1987 – never represented any challenge to the PLO then. However in 2018 the PLO sole-spokesman claim has been completely undermined by Hamas - which itself has governed Gaza with disastrous results since 2007.

Both organisations continue to fail to reconcile their differences, engage in on-going internecine conflict and refuse to give their long-suffering populations any say in their own future.

Jordan appears to be readying itself to jump on the Trump bandwagon - leaving the PLO and Hamas behind battering themselves into political irrelevance.

Trump gets Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman talking

[Published 18 March 2018]


President Trump has amazingly managed to cut through 100 years of Arab-Jewish antagonism by hosting a conference at the White House on 13 March with representatives from 20 countries - including Israel and seven Arab states (“Conference”).

Ostensibly called to discuss solutions to the worsening humanitarian and economic conditions in Gaza – this Conference also has very significant ramifications for Trump’s soon-to-be-released proposals to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Convened by White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and members of the National Security Council (NSC) staff and the Department of State – the Conference was attended by representatives from the United Nations, the European Union, the Office of the Quartet, and the following countries: Bahrain, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

Shamefully the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) - claiming to be the sole spokesperson for the Gazan Arabs since 1974 - could not set aside its enmity for Trump to attend this truly-international Conference designed to relieve the hell-hole that Gaza has become since Israel’s unilateral Disengagement in 2005.

PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas could well rue his decision to boycott this Conference following his virulent reaction to Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there in May on the occasion of Israel’s 70th anniversary.

The White House Readout makes no bones about where Trump wanted this Conference to go:

“The Administration of President Donald J. Trump believes that deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza require immediate attention. The situation in Gaza must be solved for humanitarian reasons and for ensuring the security of Egypt and Israel. It is also a necessary step toward reaching a comprehensive peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, including Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank.”

The PLO no-show at the White House could see Abbas being excluded from any new negotiations with Israel under Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals. Trump does not take kindly to such PLO grandstanding. After unsuccessful negotiations between Israel and the PLO spanning the last 25 years – Abbas’s latest Presidential rebuff is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

Trump’s “ultimate deal” could see Israel negotiating with an Arab delegation to replace the PLO - comprising White House attendees Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrein, UAE, and Oman – Arab States that have no diplomatic relations with Israel - but who had the courage to publicly meet with – and talk to - Israel at the Conference.

They would join the other two Arab States that attended the Conference – Egypt and Jordan – who have enjoyed diplomatic relations with Israel since respectively signing peace treaties in 1979 and 1994.

For far too long the PLO has sought to define the 100 years old unresolved Arab-Jewish conflict as one involving only “Palestinians” and “Israelis” - when no “Israelis” existed until 1948 and no “Palestinians” existed until 1964.

This false PLO narrative has been swallowed hook line and sinker by the United Nations and the European Union. Their on-going support has enabled the PLO to remain sole Arab negotiator with Israel over the last 25 years – with Arab League backing - seeking to create a second Palestinian Arab State - in addition to Jordan – in former Mandatory Palestine.

Trump’s Conference has junked such thinking, shown there are seven other Arab interlocutors ready to negotiate with Israel under American auspices and seen the PLO commit political suicide.

Those who continue to pillory Trump and underestimate his unique skills as an incredible circuit breaker are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

PLO ditches Trump, undermines future UN and EU support

[Published 21 January 2018]


PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s extraordinary two-hour-long anti-American and Jew-hating diatribe delivered on January 14 must inevitably see:

1. Israel refusing to resume negotiations with the PLO

2. Another Arab partner replacing the PLO to negotiate with Israel in implementing President Trump’s eagerly-awaited ultimate deal.

The viciousness and vindictiveness of Abbas’s attack on the internationally-recognised legal right of the Jewish people to its own independent State — as endorsed by:

(i) the United Nations (“UN”) 1947 Partition Plan

(ii) the European Union (“EU”) 1980 Venice Declaration

(iii) UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

(iv) The 1993 Oslo Accords

(v) President Bush’s 2003 Road Map - supported by both the UN and the EU

requires the UN and EU to unequivocally reject Abbas’s racist, false and misleading claims.

Abbas’s speech was delivered at what has been described as “a Palestinian Central Council meeting in Ramallah”.

In fact it was a very well stage-managed event involving the attendance of some 80 of the 132 Councillors and about 500 other persons. One vacant seat was reserved for the “Republic of Lithuania”. Diplomats from other countries were undoubtedly present

The backdrop included two huge screens each containing five maps of Palestine from 1947 onwards — conveniently excluding 78% of Palestine — today called Jordan - granted independence by Great Britain in 1946.

President Trump has already reacted to Abbas’s following inflammatory remarks by withholding US$65 million to UNRWA:

1. “Let them [the US] not do us a favor by paying us money… We do not want anyone to pay us.”

2. “We will not accept the deals the US wants to impose on us. We will not accept its mediation after the crime it committed against Jerusalem.”

3. “There are two names that I don’t want to mention, but my conscience is bothering me, so I have to mention them. American Ambassador David Friedman… He says: “There is no occupation, who said there’s an occupation? Israel is building on its lands.” ... The second name, their Ambassador to the UN Ms. Haley… who said: ‘I wear high heels not for fashion, only to hit whoever attacks Israel.’ I say to her — and may she hear me — [our] response is going to be worse, but not by way of high heels.”

4. “The Americans are always telling us that we must stop paying salaries to the families of the martyrs and the prisoners. We categorically reject this demand.”

Further retaliatory action by Trump seems certain.

Interestingly Abbas also claimed:

“We made a decision at the [Arab] Summit in Amman in 1980 that every state that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, or that transfers its embassy to it — we must cut our relations with it.”

The Minutes of that Summit actually record:

“The Conference also emphasized that the liberation of Arab Jerusalem was a national duty and a national obligation, proclaimed the rejection of all measures taken by Israel, requested all nations of the world to adopt clear and defined positions in opposition to the Israeli measures and resolved to break off all relations with any country recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or transferring its embassy there.”

Attendees at the 1980 Summit were:

Bahrain
Djibouti
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

How many of these countries will now break off diplomatic relations with America following its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will serve as a useful indicator of the support the PLO can continue to receive in the Arab world.

Abbas’s Ramallah rant has provided irrefutable evidence that the PLO has no further role to play in peacefully resolving the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Israel-Jordan negotiations could follow PLO threat to boycott Trump

[Published 15 January 2018]


The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) threat to refuse to negotiate with Israel unless President Trump withdraws his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel could see Jordan replacing the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

This threat — unless unconditionally revoked — would give Trump the opportunity to consign the PLO to the political wilderness by inviting Jordan to step in and negotiate with Israel over Trump’s eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal‚”.

Jordan-Israel negotiations would offer Jordan the opportunity to recover a substantial part of Judea and Samaria (“West Bank‚”) annexed by Jordan in 1950 — albeit illegally — but subsequently lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War (“disputed territory‚”).

Should Jordan buck at entering into such negotiations — some 60% of the disputed territory - under Israel’s full administrative and security control since the 1995 Oslo Accords and containing just 5% of the West Bank’s entire Arab population (“Area C‚”) - could be annexed by Israel.

PLO-Israel negotiations over the last twenty-five years — with United Nations, UNESCO and European Union backing — aimed at creating a 22nd Arab state in the disputed territory for the first time ever in recorded history - have failed abysmally.

Such a State was an artificially-contrived creation that could never be justified on historic, geographic or demographic grounds. It had actually been rejected by successive Arab leaderships on many occasions since first being proposed by the 1937 Peel Commission.

Joint 1994 Nobel Peace Prize winners — Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat — all understood Jordan’s pivotal role in ending the Jewish-Arab conflict:

1. Jordan is the major part (78%) of the Palestinian Arabs’ homeland according to article 2 of the PLO Charter.

Farouk Kadoumi - Head of the Political Department of the PLO — reinforced this reality - telling Newsweek on 14 March 1977:

“Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.”

2. Peres declared on 31 August 1978:

“Jordan is also Palestine… I’m against two Arab countries and against another Palestinian country, against an Arafat state. Today 50 percent of the inhabitants of Jordan are Palestinians and that is the Palestinian state…

Peres backed this up - telling the Jewish Telegraph on April 19, 1991:

“It is not obstinacy to regard the populations of Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as having greater similarities than differences. The Jordan River is not deep enough to turn into a knife blade serving to cut one piece of territory into three slices. Most of Jordan’s population are Palestinians: the residents of the West Bank are Jordanian citizens and Jordan has distributed tens of thousands of passports to residents in the Gaza Strip. Jordan is therefore an existing State. It has an army. There is therefore no need to set up another State, another army."

3. Yitzchak Rabin told The Australian newspaper on May 27, 1985:

“One tiny State between Israel and Jordan will solve nothing. It will be a time bomb.”

Rabin’s solution to end the conflict:

”... the Palestinians should have a sovereign State which includes most of the Palestinians. It should be Jordan with a considerable part of the West Bank and Gaza. East of the Jordan River there is enough room to settle the Palestinian refugees.”

Jordan-Israel negotiations on the political future of the disputed territory open up options to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict never before considered. If Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration helps bring such negotiations about - then Trump could well succeed where all other American Presidents before him have failed.

Taking on Trump could herald the PLO’s political demise after 54 years of failed leadership.

Trump odds-on to defund UNRWA if PLO won’t negotiate with Israel

[Published 6 January 2018]


President Trump appears determined to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) should the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) refuse to resume negotiations with Israel.

Such negotiations — suspended since April 2014 — won’t re-commence until Trump’s eagerly-awaited peace plan — his “ultimate deal” - sees the light of day. Until then current UNRWA funding will probably continue.

Trump will have been singularly unimpressed with PLO Executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi describing America’s threat to defund UNRWA as “blackmail”.

US Ambassador to the United Nations - Nikki Haley - explained America’s future intentions regarding UNRWA:

“The President has basically said he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table. We still very much want to have a peace process. Nothing changes with that. The Palestinians now have to show they want to come to the table.

As of now, they’re not coming to the table, but they ask for aid. We’re not giving the aid. We’re going to make sure that they come to the table.”

America has long borne the lion’s share in funding UNRWA’s refugee program.

Contributions to UNWRA are purely voluntary.

US$1243 million was donated to UNWRA in 2016 by:

1. America - US$368 million

2. The European Union - US$160 million

3. Saudi Arabia - US$148 million

4. The rest of the world - US$567 million

5. China donated US$300000, Indonesia US$5000 - whilst only 9 of the 22 members of the Arab League donated to UNWRA and their contributions (apart from Saudi Arabia) totalled US$31 million.

UNRWA is doing nothing to relieve itself of its ongoing financial liability and responsibility for an ever increasing number of refugees-who comprise:

1. those persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period from 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israel War. (“Qualifying Refugees”)

2. the descendants of male Qualifying Refugees, as well as their legally adopted children.

Palestine refugees constitute the only group of refugees in the world whose descendants can claim refugee status long after the death of their refugee ancestors. Their numbers have increased from 750000 in 1950 to 5 million in 2017.

UNRWA could reduce this ever-burgeoning number of refugees by closing many refugee camps in the West Bank like Dheisheh — which UNRWA states:

“was established in 1949 and is located along the main street in Bethlehem. The camp was built to serve 3,000 refugees. Today, the number of residents in Dheisheh has reached roughly 15,000.”

UNRWA acknowledges that Dheisheh has been “under full Palestinian control (Area A)”since the 1995 Oslo Accords.

How can Dheisheh’s residents then continue to be classified as “refugees” when they are being governed by the PLO — the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” — along with 200000 other Palestinian Arabs living side by side with them as their next door neighbours?

Shouldn’t Dheisheh’s four schools, one health centre, Shams Health Centre for Non-Communicable Diseases and the Environmental health office be open to all Bethlehem residents - and the 15000 Dheisheh residents taken off the UNRWA register and absorbed into the Palestinian Arab population of Bethlehem?

UNRWA keeps Dheisheh open in apartheid-style segregation from Bethlehem - causing ongoing stress, suffering and dependency on its hapless residents.

Political — rather than humanitarian — concerns dominate UNRWA’s agenda preventing the closure of Dheisheh and other similar humanitarian eye-sores in the West Bank.

No wonder most countries contribute precious little to UNRWA. America seems set to emulate their example — especially if Israel/PLO negotiations aren’t resumed.

UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump retaliation

[Published 24 December 2017]


Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” - spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised — but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress.

Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law — making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN—Nikki Hale — put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget — when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace — the American people lose their patience.”

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 — attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” - which will require another US$143 million - 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget - to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal”Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution — which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state — in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan — on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine - remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014..

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution — including Abbas and the PLO - from his ultimate deal — after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

“The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States,”

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000-2001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

Trump should adopt Bush strategy to encourage Israel to negotiate

[Published 4 December 2017]


President Bush’s strategy to secure Israel’s agreement to negotiate under the Bush Roadmap should be given serious consideration by President Trump as he puts together his eagerly-anticipated “ultimate deal”to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Bush’s strategy involved him firstly stating his “vision” before actually announcing the Bush Roadmap to turn that vision into reality.

Israel was required to make concrete territorial withdrawals from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) — possibly compromising Israel’s security in the process. Publicly confronting Israel with the Bush Roadmap first up could have seen its outright rejection by Israel before the ink was even dry.

President Reagan had succeeded in doing just that when announcing his peace plan on 1 September 1982. Reagan’s plan was unanimously rejected out of hand by Israel’s cabinet the very next day — whilst America pleaded with Jordan to accept it over the next twelve months as a means of putting pressure on Israel to cave in and negotiate. King Hussein of Jordan did not take the bait. The Reagan plan was dead in the water.

Bush was savvy enough to not repeat Reagan’s mistake.

Bush first enunciated his “vision” in a speech on 24 June 2002:

1. Two states, living side by side in peace and security.

2. The Palestinian people electing new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror, building a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

A draft version of the Bush Roadmap dated 15 October 2002 was “provided” to the New York Times and published on 14 November 2002.

After talks on 31 March 2003 at the White House with President Bush, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that Israel was:

“adopting the vision of President Bush, and anything that will be a genuine, accurate reflection of this vision will be something that we will be able to work with.”

Bush’s Roadmap in final form was made public on 30 April 2003.

Israel’s response was markedly different to its response to Reagan’s proposal:

“The Government of Israel, today (Sunday), 25.5.03, considered the Prime Minister’s statement on the Roadmap, as well as Israel’s comments on its implementation. Following its deliberations, the Government, by a majority vote, resolved:

Based on the 23 may 2003 statement of the united states government, in which the united states committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the roadmap during the implementation phase, the prime minister announced on 23 may 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the roadmap.

The government of Israel affirms the prime minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the roadmap.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had given the following assurances to Israel from the lawns of the White House on 23 May 2003:

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

This astute and finely-crafted process paid off handsomely — with Israel being sufficiently encouraged by Bush’s assurances to agree to enter into negotiations based on Bush’s Roadmap.

The success of Trump’s ultimate deal could depend on Trump rejecting the Reagan approach and adopting the Bush strategy.