Paletine - Annapolis Aborted And Road Map Thwarted

[Published April 2009]


April Fools Day was an appropriate day for Israel’s newly elected Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to tell the world what every Government feared would happen when Benjamin Netanyahu formed Israel‘s new Government:

"There is one document that obligates us - and that’s not the Annapolis conference - it has no validity"

Showing a little more backbone than the spineless diplomats who had spent thousands of fruitless hours and involved their countries in pledging billions of dollars in progressing Annapolis , Mr Lieberman delivered a polite message to those who consider themselves the leading democracies in the world:

"The Israeli government never ratified Annapolis - nor did the Knesset,” Lieberman said.

“The one document that obligates Israel” - and he stressed that Israel is bound by its ratified commitment - “is the 2003 road map, officially called ‘A performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"

The shock and horror at Mr Lieberman’s pronouncements displayed by such world leaders as Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy was ill considered and very hasty.

Had they taken some real time out from saving the world’s headlong plunge into depression - instead of making statements on the run - they would have been able to focus on what Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the gathering of world leaders assembled in Annapolis on 27 November 2007

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

Letters from Presidents to Prime Ministers are important documents and none was more important than the one President Bush wrote to Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to procure Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza.

That letter made it clear - amongst many other commitments - that the Arabs could not expect to regain 100% of the West Bank and Gaza in the Annapolis negotiations. The Arabs however refused to play ball and insisted on 100% - not the 93% offered by Israel - plus an additional area from Israel’s sovereign territory to make up the remaining 7% that would be retained by Israel.

Instead of pressuring the Arabs to accept this proposal the Quartet - America, Russia, ,the European Union and the United Nations - sought to pressure Israel into more concessions that would have seen the West Bank ethnically cleansed of Jews who had returned to live in their biblical heartland since 1967 - after having been kicked out of there in 1948 by six invading Arab armies.

In going for Israel’s jugular the Quartet cut its own collective wrists and - with assured predictably - failed to get an agreed outcome by the Annapolis expiry date - 1 January 2009.

Crocodile tears are now the order of the day. Like the Annapolis Conference they are a total waste of time.

Remarkably the Quartet appears to have learnt nothing from the Annapolis journey to nowhere as it continues to persist with its call to make the West Bank a “No Jews “ zone - which is both racist and offensive in the extreme.

Perhaps these “world leaders” should now reflect on the only game in town - the Roadmap - and ponder why it has not got off the ground in the six years since it was first mooted and endorsed by the same intrepid Quartet - and why it will surely continue to languish and die on the vine.

Mr Lieberman failed to mention that the Roadmap had only been accepted by Israel with fourteen reservations expressed to President Bush on 25 May 2003.

The first of those reservations (quoted in part following) immediately indicates why the Roadmap will not succeed either:

"In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure, collection of all illegal weapons and their transfer to a third party for the sake of being removed from the area and destroyed, cessation of weapons smuggling and weapons production inside the Palestinian Authority, activation of the full prevention apparatus and cessation of incitement. There will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror. The security plans to be implemented are the Tenet and Zinni plans."

The Roadmap is indeed performance based and the Arabs - and the Quartet - have got to get on the stage and play their parts if the Roadmap is to have any chance of being fulfilled.

There is nothing unambiguous in these demands - dismantle Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other terrrorist groups, end weapons smuggling and weapons production.

The Quartet needs to get serious - and soon. The Quartet’s special envoy - Tony Blair - needs to stop pussyfooting around and tell the Arabs to put up or shut up. No doubt he will retreat yet again from taking this principled stance.

Mr Lieberman may not be Foreign Minister for very long as he faces corruption charges that somehow seem to plague every prominent politician in Israel. But the course he has charted is one that can be followed with complete propriety by anyone who might succeed him.

International diplomacy is based on making and scrupulously abiding by what has been signed and agreed upon between parties to a conflict.

Israel sought nothing more than to have the parameters of the Annapolis negotiations honoured and observed. Those who now seek to pillory it for maintaining such a standard only demonstrate their inability and ignorance to comprehend and understand those parameters. Israel’s reservations to the Roadmap need to be understood if the next ten years is not to be spent in futile negotiations.

Perhaps the Quartet might now turn its attention to some critical international agreements that are binding on the Quartet and the rest of the world - the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

It is these two documents that lay the foundations for ending the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours - the division of sovereignty in the West Bank between Israel and Jordan by redrawing the boundary between these two successor states in the territory once called Palestine.

The sooner the Quartet acts on these two forgotten documents, the sooner those crocodile tears might end.

Egypt and Jordan - Lifelines to Gaza and West Bank

[Published January 2009]


The growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza is slowly leading to the realization that removal of Hamas and its 20000 terrorist army from there has become a fundamental priority in permanently ending the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population.

This understanding has been complemented by the acknowledgment that the Palestinian Authority has been reduced to the status of a political eunuch following

1. its failure to achieve any breakthrough in 15 years of fruitless negotiations with Israel and
2. the embarrassing loss of its political and administrative control over Gaza to Hamas in the bitter confrontation played out between them in 2006 and 2007.

These views are reflected in articles appearing in the Washington Post on 5 January 2009 –“The Three State Option” – written by John Bolton former US ambassador to the United Nations and in the Jerusalem Post on 6 January 2009 – “The Solution to the ‘Palestinian Problem’” – written by respected international analyst Daniel Pipes.

Messrs Bolton and Pipes have both advocated a Jordanian – Egyptian rescue package as the solution to end the chaos and mayhem in Gaza and avoid the threatened crisis that will inevitably occur in the West Bank as President Bush’s Roadmap is finally determined to have run out of roads to traverse.

Both Bolton and Pipes recommend that Jordan return to control the West Bank and Egypt do likewise in Gaza -replicating the position that had existed from 1948 until 1967 when both territories were lost to Israel in the Six Days War in June 1967.

Despite continuing rosy and optimistic assessments claiming an imminent breakthrough in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the parties still remain poles apart in their negotiating positions.

The Palestinian Authority continues to insist on the following two demands being accepted by Israel

1. The removal of all 500000 Jews now living in the West Bank and
2. The return to Israel of millions of Arabs (and their descendants) made homeless by the 1948 Arab-Israel War.

Israel has clearly indicated its outright rejection of these two demands and the last twelve months of intensive and exhaustive negotiations have failed to make any real dent in the negotiating positions of either side.

The Arab Peace initiative 2002 has now been touted as the saviour of these negotiations but it fails to offer any answers to resolving these two deal-breaking demands. Indeed it virtually imposes their acceptance as essential to the success of the Initiative. It is presented by the Arab League on a “take it all or leave it basis” and accordingly will be left at the starting gate by Israel.

In essence then the so called solution to the “Palestinian problem” – the creation of a new Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza – has become insoluble because the Arab conditions for its creation are unattainable in any negotiating process.

The international community has posited many solutions for the last 90 years to end the conflict between Jews and Arabs to the territory once called “Palestine” - all of which have been refused by the Arabs resulting in continued and ongoing death, injury, trauma, suffering and misery for both Jews and Arabs.

This situation has not been helped by the failure of the 21 Arab League member states – with the notable exception of Jordan - to resettle and offer permanent citizenship to those Arabs who fled the fighting in 1948 between the fledgling state of Israel and six invading Arab armies. It has also not been helped by the refusal of these member states - other than Egypt and Jordan - to recognise Israel, to enter into peace treaties with Israel and to grant each other full diplomatic representation.

Therefore the re-entry of Jordan and Egypt into the West Bank and Gaza respectively remains the most realistic option available to manage and contain - if not finally resolve - the current conflict.

Successful conclusion of negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt (possibly under United Nations Chairmanship) could

1. Offer the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza - presently stateless - Jordanian or Egyptian citizenship
2. End the current humanitarian crisis in both Gaza and the West Bank
3. Allow every Arab or Jewish resident of the West Bank to continue living in his current home
4. End any actual – or perceived - Israeli control or restrictions over Gazan and West Bank Arabs
5. Finally resolve sovereignty in the 6% of Palestine that still remains unallocated between Jews and Arabs since the Mandate for Palestine was promulgated by the League of Nations in 1922.
6. Set up an International Tribunal to compensate Arabs affected by the 1948 War and Jews who were forced to leave Arab countries in the wake of its aftermath

Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have been given enough time to achieve some positive advance towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. They have both proved themselves unequal to the task.

The call by Bolton and Pipes for their replacement by Jordan and Egypt as Israel’s negotiating partners needs to be urgently embraced – and demanded - by the international community.

Refusal by Israel, Egypt and Jordan to sit down and attempt to negotiate the future of the West Bank and Gaza - with the backing of promised financial aid, military and diplomatic assistance from the international community - will herald an end to any peaceful efforts to settle the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

The international community cannot let this happen due to the objection of one or more of these parties.

It should make clear that to do so will result in all further military and financial assistance to the refusing parties being withheld. It should also make clear that it will turn its attention away from resolving “the Palestinian problem” to resolving other conflicts around the world where its prestige, financial clout and influence will be more appreciated and likely to yield positive results.

President elect Obama will be searching for a way out of the current impasse caused by the failure of the Roadmap negotiations and the current invasion of Gaza by Israel. No doubt he will be made fully aware of the views of John Bolton and Daniel Pipes. Hopefully he sees the merits of their proposals and adopts them.

This way forward could also be President Obama’s lifeline – not only that of the Gazan and West Bank Arabs.

Annapolis - Wedding Or Disaster Of The Year?

[Published November 2007]


Best Man - President George Bush - and Matron of Honour - Condoleezza Rice - are becoming increasingly frustrated as the reluctant bride - Israel - and a very impatient groom - the Palestinian Authority - continue haggling over the substantial dowry the groom is demanding from the bride’s family before the wedding of the year can go ahead in Annapolis this month - or maybe next month.


Dr Rice says the bride and groom are going through “knotty discussions” which appear to be heading anywhere but tying the knot. Bridesmaid Tzipi Livni has publicly admitted there are “problems”.

This is certainly not a match made in heaven - rather a catch hatched in hell. The body language and forced smiles say it all. At the moment alarm bells - not wedding bells - are ringing.

President Bush and Condoleezza Rice are both suffering from work overload as potentially catastrophic events in Turkey and Pakistan rapidly unfold to put President Bush and Dr Rice under great stress. Annapolis is probably the last place they want to be thinking about at this moment.

These latest crises are an unwelcome intrusion into Dr Rice’s crowded appointment book as she ponders whether - and when - to send out the wedding invitations. Five years of fruitless diplomacy have stymied efforts by President Bush to get the bride and groom together to conceive the President’s godson - a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

The bride is not yet quite convinced and wants the fourteen years old engagement to continue. The groom wants the wedding now and has downgraded his expectations of having the baby within six months from then to a date no later than January 2009. Conception and birth within that ambitious time frame would be miraculous - even by the Holyland’s standards - given the groom’s sterile performance up till now.

Who to invite and what to talk about at the wedding has presented President Bush and Dr Rice with real headaches. How to get people to even come is an even greater challenge.

Bickering guests are the last thing one wants at Annapolis. Who will sit next to who might be tricky - but a creative events organiser like the State Department will probably come up with suitable table placements to make sure no one feels too uncomfortable.

The pecking order will be important too. Who sits - or stands - to the left and right of the President and Dr Rice- for even a cameo appearance - must be dominating lots of time behind State Department doors.

The timed arrivals of guests and the proceedings will also be watched closely by the myriad press corps assembled behind strategically located barriers. Media placement must also be of great concern to avoid any diplomatic crisis. Will al-Jazira get a better barrier position than CNN, ABC, the BBC or the XYZ?

Should there be a head table or not? Maybe protocol will best be served by having a round table which would symbolically reflect the ever increasing circles the President and Dr Rice have been running around in trying to get this wedding off the ground.

Last minute cancellations are bound to occur causing more grey hairs at the State Department. This is not a wedding to be organised by the faint hearted.

Most weddings suffer from too many speeches usually leaving the guests thoroughly bored. At Annapolis we are told the guests will listen to a joint speech written by the bride and groom which will be either very detailed on the core issues of their future relationship or downright boring and devoid of any material content - depending on which unidentified reliable source you are prepared to believe.

Whilst the bride and groom grapple with what they are going to say, the matchmaker - President Bush - should have no such problems. Indeed he wrote his speech years ago. Hopefully he will dig it up, dust it off and remind those who come to Annapolis of the following three pledges he made to the bride’s father Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to persuade him that this union could even be a remote possibility:

1. The groom’s family have to give up the idea of living in Israel.

"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."

2. 450000 members of the bride’s family will not be booted out of their homes in the West Bank.

"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."

3. The groom will not get every square metre of the West Bank as part of the dowry.

"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."

Come to think of it, Dr Rice should consider limiting her guests to those who are prepared to drink a toast in honour of these three pledges. Guests can tick three appropriately worded boxes placed next to the one requesting their dietary requirements on the return prepaid acceptance card - to ensure they don‘t get to the wedding under false pretences.

Otherwise the probability is that the bride will be left at the altar and no one will get to catch the bouquet.

Sadder still - diplomatic and security reasons will prevent the wedding customs of the bride and groom being celebrated at Annapolis. Jews break a glass at weddings to solemnly remind them - in their moment of extreme happiness - of the destruction of their two Temples in their capitol Jerusalem over 2000 years ago. Arabs choose to fire bullets indiscriminately in the air, sometimes wounding - and even killing - innocent wedding guests and bystanders.

Allowing the possibility of either to occur could turn this wedding into the disaster of the year - if it isn’t already before it has even been held.