Paris Produces Palestine Funding Frenzy

[Published December 2007]


Ninety Nations meeting in Paris this week fell over themselves in the rush to pledge US$7.4 billion dollars over the next three years - US$1.8 billion more than anticipated - in a desperate attempt to salvage their greatest failure in international diplomacy - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

The international community has been propagating this idea for the last 70 years - in an area far larger than is now envisioned - only to see its proposals continuously rebuffed and rejected by Arab interlocutors.

It is an idea that could have worked when first proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and by the United Nations in 1947. Few Jews lived in the designated area at those times and the concept represented the best solution to resolving competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in Palestine.

It was still feasible and could have happened at any time between 1948-1967 when a simple declaration of independence made with the stroke of a pen would have guaranteed international political and financial support. - but the Arabs would not have a bar of it.

The idea was dealt a death blow when Jordan lost the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip in the Six Day War in 1967 and the Arab League and the PLO refused international urgings between 1967-1993 to recognise Israel and negotiate with it for the creation of such a State.

Since the Arabs finally agreed to do so in 1993 and the Oslo Peace Process was launched by President Clinton, the international community has put up tens of billions of dollars trying to make it happen. However the money - and the concept - have both gone down the drain in spectacular style.

The reasons are there for all to see - if they open their eyes. An idea that could have worked between 1937 -1967 has long been superseded by subsequent political events and facts established on the ground that make it impossible to meet the current and non-negotiable Arab demands that 450000 Jews leave their homes and that millions of Arabs be allowed to live in Israel.

The 90 Paris Pledgers appear to be in a state of complete denial in understanding that these fundamental deal breakers have guaranteed the consignment of their concept to the history books and that giving it more air - even for 12 months - is embarking on a very expensive journey to nowhere.

Their rush to put up this new money has been made despite the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza being hopelessly split and divided as a result of a violent and deadly power struggle between Hamas and the PLO. In their wisdom these donors have decided that Gazan Arabs will see very little from their latest outpouring of international largesse in Paris.

In humanitarian and political terms the selective granting of this massive injection of international aid to one segment of a divided community is only going to perpetuate - rather than end - the crisis in Gaza and the West Bank and make the attainment of statehood there an absolute impossibility.

The reason for this decision was foreshadowed and articulated by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

"It is the policies of Hamas that have led to its own isolation and by implication Gaza as well“
[Jerusalem Post - 16 December]

Hamas’ attitude to PLO Chairman Abbas and unelected prime Minister Fayyad pocketing the rich Paris pickings for the West Bank Arabs only, was made very clear by Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum:

"We completely reject politicised money tied to American and Western agendas, which is a direct interference in internal Palestinian affairs. (Abbas) is cosying up to the Zionist enemy and the American project (in the region) in exchange for millions of dollars to strengthen his security forces for his own personal interests." [AFP, 17 December ]

The international community will soon realise that their latest decision to financially support the PLO power clique at the expense of Hamas is the worst decision they could have possibly taken.

Rather than using those billions of dollars to build the foundations of a State, this money will soon disappear in an orgy of weapons procurement, corruption and influence peddling that will ensure the widening of the West Bank - Gaza divide in a way that will make the current situation look like a minor backyard scrap between two disgruntled neighbours

It is just another kiss of death to the international community’s pursuit of its outdated and now completely unworkable proposal.

Condoleezza Rice showed that the penny has not yet dropped when she solemnly declared in Paris:

"This is the most promising opportunity to seek peace that we have had in nearly seven years. And we need to seize it. The continued and unwavering support of the international community is absolutely vital. That is why we are here today, and not a moment too soon."
[IHT - 17 December]

The continued and unwavering support of the international community for the last 70 years has proved a total waste of time, effort and money - and has helped perpetuate a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Arabs and Jews and traumatised the lives of millions of others.

Creating two separate States for one Arab population living in the territorial boundaries of former Palestine always was an artificial invention that had no basis in history, geography or demography. It was a fiction contrived by the international community at a particular time to solve a particular problem.

There are two questions that remain unanswered - when will the international community stop pursuing this fiction and when will they turn off the money tap trying to make it happen?

Solutions - other than another Arab State - are possible and achievable. Pursuing those solutions - and throwing money at them in amounts similar to the Paris pledges - have a far better chance of success than the continued promotion of a 70 years old concept that has well passed its 1967 expiry date.

Surely the time is fast approaching for these donors to cut their losses and simply say “enough is enough”.

Liberating the Palestine Liberation Organization

[Published December 2007]


For better or for worse Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) are the parties that will - for the next 12 months - be negotiating the resolution of sovereignty in the West Bank with a view to ultimately creating a new independent Arab State between Israel and Jordan. These identical parties have been negotiating on the same issue for the last 14 years without the slightest sign of success.

One major reason has been the inability of the PLO to seriously change its mindset and specifically revoke or amend the offending provisions of the PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of Israel and that prevent the creation of this new State as envisioned by Oslo, former President Bill Clinton, President George Bush and his Quartet partners - Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

On 9 September 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat had made that written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin as the quid pro quo for the Oslo negotiating process to commence between Israel and the PLO and for the historic handshake between them on the White House lawns just four days later.

A long and tortuous process by Israel and America then followed to ensure Arafat’s total compliance with that commitment. On 14 December 1998 President Clinton stated:

“I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there.”

Yet despite this declaration not one article of the Covenant has been revised or revoked to this very day nor has that message touched the Palestinian Arabs or reached their hearts.

The Chairman of the Palestine National Council charged with making those changes - Salim Za’anoun - stated on 3 February 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida as translated by MEMRI]

A look at just three of the thirty three Articles in the PLO Covenant shows why it is essential that every Article be reviewed and altered if any meaningful negotiations can possibly be undertaken post Annapolis.

Article 1

"Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people: it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

This article ignores any Jewish rights in Palestine. Why not amend it to read as follows:

“ Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people and of the Jewish people,and the Arab Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

Article 2:

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

This article absolutely prohibits President Bush’s two state solution and could be changed as follows:

“Palestine comprises the land contained within the boundaries that existed during the British Mandate from 1920-1948 and has now ceased to comprise an indivisible territorial unit. For purposes of clarification Palestine includes the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which comprised part of the British Mandate until 1946.”

Article 15:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism being a divine religion is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own: they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

This article ignores the binding effect of international law and is racist, discriminatory and offensive in the extreme. It needs to be redrawn to perhaps read as follows:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed legal and binding. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are compatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism is both a divine religion and an independent nationality. Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they can like Palestinian Arabs be citizens of the states to which they otherwise belong”

How can successful negotiations be concluded whilst this current unclear and confusing mindset confronts the PLO and Israeli negotiators? How have these provisions been specifically rejected by the PLO ?

The PLO needs to immediately face these demons and excise them unequivocally and indisputably from its thinking if the ongoing negotiations are to have any prospect of success.

This is not a question of semantic pettiness or nit picking. It goes to the very bona fides of Israel’s negotiating partner and the sincerity and seriousness with which it intends to conduct these negotiations.

Perhaps the first indication of this troubling mindset - and the effect it can have on the negotiations - was the following remarkable statement recently made by the PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat :

"One of the more pressing problems is the Zionist regime's insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state... Israel could call itself whatever it wanted, but the PA would never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity." [ Jerusalem Post, 14 November 2007]

Sweeping this - and similar recent statements by leading Arab spokesmen - under the carpet will only guarantee the failure of future negotiations. They will be difficult and complex enough - without such institutionalised mind blocks to reconciliation and recognition that had supposedly been dead and buried with President Clinton‘s declaration on 14 December 1998.

The PLO needs to liberate itself first before it can hope to liberate any land. Failure to do so over the last 14 years has seen its continuing decline in influence. It is now time to get serious and stop playing games.

Beyond Annapolis - Political Paralysis

[Published December 2007]

President Bush will be bitterly disappointed if he is expecting a historic breakthrough in negotiations over the next twelve months between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The doublespeak and hype emanating from Annapolis about those ongoing negotiations needs to be understood in the context of the following key statement made by Israel’s Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - in his speech at Annapolis:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

The reference by Ehud Olmert to “the April 14, 2004 letter” has scarcely rated a mention in the hundreds of Annapolis post mortems - yet understanding its significance and the role it will play in Israel’s conduct of future negotiations with the PLO is crucial.

Prime Minister Sharon explained that significance to Israel’s Parliament on 22 April 2004:

"Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President's letter

In the letter, clear conditions are set out for the establishment of a Palestinian state. First and foremost, the Palestinian Authority carrying out its commitments as laid out in the Roadmap: cessation of violence, terror and incitement, dismantling terrorist organizations and implementing comprehensive reforms in the Palestinian Authority.

The letter includes: unequivocal American recognition of Israel's right to secure and protective borders, and as it appears: "defensible borders", American recognition of Israel's right to defend itself by itself anywhere and to preserve its strength of deterrence against any threat, and American recognition of Israel's right to defend itself against active terror and terrorist organizations anywhere, including in areas from which Israel will withdraw.

The United States also expressed its position on the most crucial topics for Israel,in discussions regarding a final status agreement:
(i) on the subject of the refugees, a clear and historic stand was expressed according to which there will be no return of refugees to Israel.
(ii) Likewise,there is American acknowledgement that in any final status agreement there will be no Israeli withdrawal to the '67 lines. This acknowledgement appears in two ways: understanding the facts determined by the large Israeli settlement blocs such as making it impossible to return to the '67 lines, and implementation of the concept of "defensible borders".

The United States believes that the large settlement blocs will remain under Israeli control in every arrangement. Negotiations regarding the final status agreement will take place between Israel and the Palestinians. However, if, during the negotiations disagreement on these subjects should arise, the United States will support Israel's stance and this will allow Israel to be in a better stand. This is an unprecedented accomplishment.”

This letter is obviously going to be a central pillar in Israel’s rejection of PLO demands that the PLO be given every square metre of the West Bank, that the 450000 Jews living there be uprooted and that millions of Arabs be allowed to go and live in Israel.

PLO Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, is too weak to abandon these demands - first made by Yasser Arafat in 1974 - which have been parroted and trotted out by the Arab League ever since.

Six opportunities to create an Arab State between Israel and Jordan have been rejected or missed:
(i) When recommended by the Peel Commission in 1937
(ii) When offered by the United Nations in 1947
(iii) Between 1948 -1967 when the Arabs could have created such a State by the stroke of a pen whilst in total occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza.
(iv) Between 1967 -1993 when the Arabs refused to negotiate with Israel after losing the West Bank and Gaza
(v) In 2000 when Israel’s offer was rejected and terrorism and violence was espoused by the PLO instead.
(vi) In 2005 when Israel unilaterally removed 8000 Jews living in Gaza and started a withdrawal from the West Bank.

Demographics and Realpolitik have now overtaken this mindless and senseless display of Arab intransigence.

There will be bi -weekly meetings between Olmert and Abbas - lots of “feel good” statements will be issued - and no doubt regular and intensive negotiations will be held between Israel, the PLO and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - but to what purpose?

Unless Abbas is prepared to concede the heavily populated Jewish areas of the West Bank to Israel and abandon the claimed Arab right of return to Israel, these negotiations will become bogged down in the quicksand that marked the frenetic negotiating sessions prior to Annapolis.

Circuit breakers such as a land swap by Israel and token admission of an undetermined number of Arabs to Israel have been floated as possible ways for the PLO to change direction without loss of face. Given the extremely weak and vulnerable position of the PLO at this point of time and the knowledge that any such concessions will not bring an end to the conflict, Israel would indeed be gambling with the safety and security of its citizens if it agreed to any such demands.

Certainly President Bush’s letter does not oblige Israel to make any such concessions.

Despite the posturing and grandstanding at Annapolis, there will be no change in the cycle of nothingness that has existed since President Bush’s euphoric announcement of his “ two state vision” in 2002.

Fruitless negotiations over the next twelve months will see the President’s vision consigned to the shelves of his Presidential Library as a testament to six years of wasted diplomacy.

Paralysis has set in and become institutionalised for the next 12 months as a result of Annapolis - and nothing the President does or says will be capable of producing any discernible movement.

Bush and Rice Revel With The Devil

[Published November 2007]


Annapolis has come and gone but what happened there guarantees that the next 12 months of negotiations to implement the Bush two-state solution will end up going nowhere - just like the fruitless negotiations conducted over the last four years.

Annapolis clearly confirmed that these on-going negotiations with Israel will be undertaken by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - whose Charter specifically rejects the two state solution proposed by the President.

President Bush cannot be unmindful of the PLO’s pivotal role as one of the negotiating parties. He himself read out at Annapolis a joint statement prepared for the meeting which stated in the very first sentence:

"The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respectively by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas, in his capacity as chairman of the PLO executive committee and president of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference …”

If President Bush needed any more confirmation of this fact, Mahmoud Abbas gave it to him in the first sentence of his speech:

“Allow me Mr. President to thank you in my capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and on behalf of the Palestinian people, for inviting us to this international conference.”

The PLO Charter is as anti the two state solution as could possibly be articulated - stating without equivocation that :

1. Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit .

2. The Arab Palestinian people reject all solutions which are substituting (sic) for the total liberation of Palestine.

3. The Partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal

4. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them are deemed null and void.

5. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history

6. Jews do not constitute a single nation with an identity of its own.


How President Bush and Condoleezza Rice believe the PLO can negotiate in good faith for a two state solution in the face of these fundamental impediments to achieving such a result is one of the great mysteries that remains unanswered after the festivities, hand shakes and toasts have been concluded and everyone has gone home.

The time line for the successful completion of these negotiations is supposed to allow President Bush to leave office in January 2009 as the President who was able to bring peace to the Middle East - certainly an effort worth the Nobel Peace Prize, the eternal gratitude of the nations and the favourable judgement of history if he could pull it off.

But it is obvious this can never happen and that his departure from office will be ignominious and humiliating - unless the PLO first amends its Charter to excise these Articles immediately. President Bush and Ms. Rice should be insisting this be done now if these on-going negotiations are to have any prospect of success.

These amendments were promised 14 years ago but they still remain unchanged as testimony to an organisation that hates Jews, despises the notion of a two state solution and fails to recognise the binding effect of international law.

Mahmoud Abbas simply has no power or authority at the present time to negotiate for a two state solution because the PLO Charter expressly precludes him from doing so.

This is not some kind of technical hair splitting argument. It goes to the entire mindset under which negotiations are to be undertaken and the ability of the negotiating parties to achieve a solution.

Mr Abbas should be required to take steps to immediately repeal these provisions of the Covenant before any further negotiations take place. This is something he can implement - and very quickly. He may not be able to procure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers, he may not be able to stop terrorist attacks - but he can very easily convene a meeting of the National Council of the PLO to repeal these odious provisions of the Charter.

The capacity of the PLO to deliver peace - even if the above offending and offensive articles were removed today - is also highly questionable.

Respected veteran analyst Danny Rubinstein pointed this out very clearly in an article written by him in Ha’aretz on November 16 when he stated:

“The institutions of the PLO which presumed to represent the entire Palestinian nation have in recent years become obsolete and unimportant. They do not include any representation for a national religious movement like Hamas (which holds that religion takes precedence nationality (sic), although its supporters make up about one third of the Palestinian public...for quite some time now, the PLO has ceased to be a relevant body in Palestinian politics.”

President Bush and Ms Rice must wear rose coloured glasses or have very blinkered vision if they fail to recognise or acknowledge these basic failings in the ability and strength of the PLO to deliver any successful outcome for the President’s two state vision over the next twelve months.

It is incongruous that President Bush and Ms. Rice continue to dine and dialogue with this elderly bespectacled white- haired PLO Chairman in a Saville Row suit who purports to negotiate a two state solution for an organization which forbids it eventuating and which expressly states that its objective is to drive the Jews into the sea and out of a Palestine that belongs only to the Palestinian Arab people.

Allowing negotiations to continue on such a brittle base is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

The President’s two state vision has never got off the ground since 2003 precisely because Abbas has never been required to have the PLO Charter amended to allow meaningful negotiations to be undertaken. It appears that President Bush and Ms Rice have learned nothing from that unmitigated disaster.

President Bush and Ms Rice will only have themselves to blame at the end of the day when these current negotiations also inevitably collapse.

Annapolis Drop Ins And Mary Poppins

[Published November 2007]

The spotlight is now directly focused on Annapolis as preparations are finalised for the opening night of the proposed revival of the show “Road Map” - first conceived by President George Bush in 2002.

Tickets have been finally mailed out for this eagerly anticipated event to a large number of so far unidentified VIP’s who will drop into Annapolis to attend a gala dinner on 26 November to be followed by a full blown performance the following day. They are slotted to fly out after meeting the two principal actors - Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas - who will be desperately trying to get the show on the road once again after a series of abysmal failures over the last four years

The media are busily speculating who will turn up and who will get the best seats in the house. Hopes are high that prominent and highly influential Saudi Arabian and Syrian entrepreneurs will join the audience to show their confidence in and unqualified backing for “Road Map” rather than their own production “Arab Peace Initiative“ which has not been publicly performed since it was written in 2003.

Optimistic expectations for the successful revival of “Road Map” have been dramatically toned down as disagreements have emerged over the past few months in relation to the precise wording of the program. Constant bickering and feuding between Olmert and Abbas have led to friction between them as each has tried to act out and justify his star role by influencing the content of the program to be presented.

Doubts that the show would be staged have been finally laid to rest as the President and his influential backers - Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - have decided that the show must go on - no matter what - in the best traditions of the theatre of the absurd in which this farce is being played out.

No doubt the producer - President Bush - and the director - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - are hoping that the Annapolis revival will have a happy ending just like the very successful musical “Mary Poppins” currently running in London’s West End and on Broadway.

The storyline in “Mary Poppins” is summarised as follows:

“Jane and Michael Banks are in need of a nanny, every governess has quit and with their mother fighting for women's rights and their father at the bank all hours of the day it is imperative they find a suitable candidate. When their father rips up the advert they wrote, they are resigned to the fact that their next nanny will have none of the attributes they are looking for - then Mary Poppins arrives and their lives change for ever.”
http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/LONDON-SHOWS/mary-poppins.html

This is remarkably similar to the story that will be unveiled at the revival of “Road Map” in Annapolis:

“Jews and Arabs are in need of a mediator, every previous applicant has quit and with the Palestinian Authority fighting for Arab rights and Israel in occupation of the West Bank all hours of the day it is imperative they find a suitable candidate. As the Road Map is in danger of being ripped up they are resigned to the fact that their next mediator will have none of the attributes they are looking for - then Condoleezza Rice arrives and their lives change for ever”

No doubt Condoleezza would consider herself to be the equal of Mary who modestly spoke of her unique qualifications in the following manner:

"I'm practically perfect in every way, Practically perfect that's my forte. Uncanny nannies are hard to find, Unique yet meek unspeakably kind, I'm practically perfect not slightly soiled, Running like an engine that's just been freshly oiled"

Condoleezza will indeed have the opportunity to strut her wares at Annapolis and attempt to emulate Mary. She indeed has the capacity to change lives forever but current indications are that they will be worsened rather than bettered.

Her mediating effort in removing Israel from control of the Philadelphi crossing on the border between Egypt and Gaza has run more like a rusty engine than a well oiled machine allowing weapons and explosives to be smuggled into Gaza at will - thence to be subsequently directed at Israeli civilian population centres on a daily basis.

Her frequent flying trips to the Middle East using six star executive jets have failed to bring about any change of heart in the demands made by Mahmoud Abbas - unlike the loveable Mary who soared out of the skies and into the hearts of everyone she encountered using just her umbrella to do so.

Condoleezza will confront Mahmoud Abbas who has shown no inclination to play his leading role with any real conviction or authority as he stubbornly clings to his star billing whilst all indicators show he is not really up to the role in which he has been cast.

His co-star Ehud Olmert could soon find himself indisposed for future appearances in “Road Map” due to other commitments of a political and business nature that could keep him centre stage in other places thereby necessitating an understudy to replace him if the Annapolis revival is to be successfully continued.

A new buzz word could emerge to describe the performance at Annapolis rivalling “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” - the title of the smash hit in “Mary Poppins.”

That word could be "Annapolisticclaptrapisovertlysurreptitious”.

Broadly translated it means:

“the talk at Annapolis will be contrived, foolish, insincere and pretentious and will be characterized by misrepresentation of the truth.”

“Road Map” will probably be artificially resuscitated at Annapolis and briefly enjoy a right of return to the world stage, but it can never be the box office success its proponents envisage.

Circumstances have materially changed since the President’s original script was written but the uncompromising position of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority hasn’t. Their continuing failure to act out their roles as described in President Bush’s explanatory program notes guarantees that “Road Map” will continue to languish and finally collapse in a heap like so many other similar stage shows such as “Oslo“ “Madrid” and “Camp David 2000“.

The President needs to go back to the drawing board, thoroughly rewrite the script and completely change the cast and characters. Just a spoonful of sugar can certainly help the medicine go down in the most delightful way.

Maybe then there will be something wonderful to sing and dance about.

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.

Clinton, Carter, Condoleezza and Candour

[Published October 2007]

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack revealed this week that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been talking to ex-Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton about their experiences in trying to negotiate peace between Israel and its Arab enemies.

Carter successfully brokered a peace treaty at Camp David in 1978 between Egypt and Israel, which has endured for 29 years surviving many strains that could have permanently ended the relationship during this period.

Clinton walked away empty handed in 2000 at Camp David after two weeks of intense one on one diplomacy with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat.

Ms Rice certainly needs all the advice and help she can get as she struggles to get her planned international meeting in Annapolis off the ground. Even if she succeeds it could end in so much bitterness and enmity that it could signal the end of President Bush’s vision to create a new democratic Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

Why then did Carter succeed and Clinton fail and what lessons are there to be learnt by Ms Rice?

Three critical differences marked the negotiations that were undertaken by each President:

1. Two sovereign States - Israel and Egypt - were the parties in the Carter negotiations.

One sovereign State - Israel - and one non sovereign entity - the Palestinian Authority - were the parties in the Clinton negotiations.

2. Egyptian sovereign territory - the Sinai - was the territorial issue at the Carter negotiations.

Territory belonging to no sovereign State - the West Bank and Gaza - was the territorial issue at the Clinton negotiations.

3. Up to 7000 Jews faced removal from the Sinai to successfully conclude the Carter negotiations, whilst up to 200000 Jews faced removal from the West Bank and Gaza if the Clinton negotiations were to succeed.

Additionally, highly emotive issues concerning refugees and Jerusalem were the sting in the tail for Clinton’s negotiations once the territorial issue had been resolved.

Israel had no historic territorial claims on Sinai. Israel returned every square metre of the Sinai and removed all 7000 Jews living there to secure peace with Egypt.

In the process Israel also handed over the Alma Oil Field it had discovered valued at over $100 billion - which would have secured energy independence for Israel if it had been retained - as well as military bases and airfields.

100% of Egyptian sovereign territory captured by Israel in the Six Day War was thus returned to Egypt by Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin - for solemn promises of peace contained on a piece of paper.

Arafat similarly demanded the return of every square metre of the West Bank and Gaza in the Clinton negotiations which would have necessitated all 200000 Jews living there being uprooted. If it had worked for Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat - Arafat probably reasoned -why would it not work for him?

There was one great difference.

The land Arafat sought exclusively for himself was “no man’s land “- territory in which sovereignty remained unallocated between Jews and Arabs and whose last sovereign ruler was Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine from 1920-1948.

Following Britain’s withdrawal in May 1948, Jordan had seized and occupied the West Bank - dispossessing those Jews then living there - until losing it to Israel in the Six Day War in 1967.

Jews - who had been entitled to settle in the West Bank from 1922 under Article 6 of the Mandate as later confirmed by article 80 of the United Nations Charter - started returning to live there after 1967.

Arafat was offered 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, refused to take it and ended up with nothing. 450000 Jews currently living in the West Bank complicate any such offer being renewed again.

Condolezza Rice has hopefully learnt the following four lessons from these two Presidential negotiations :

1. Israel has valid territorial claims in the West Bank - the biblical heartland of the Jewish people - created by the League of Nations and the United Nations, that will not be ceded in their entirety.

2. Removing 450000 Jews to satisfy the territorial demands of a non-sovereign claimant with an inferior claim in international law to Israel is a certain recipe for negotiations to fail.

3. Negotiations between Sovereign States are easier to successfully conclude - especially where territorial disputes are involved that have a linkage to those States historically, geographically and demographically as is the case with Israel, Jordan and the West Bank.

4. Negotiations that have failed are not likely to succeed in the future if the same demands continue to be made without any real change by the party who caused the original negotiations to fail.

Sean McCormack said Ms. Rice:

“is a student of history and has a keen appreciation for how we can apply the lessons of history, what we can learn from those who have gone before us”

Her discussions with Presidents Carter and Clinton should have convinced her that further negotiations on President Bush’s two state vision have the hallmark of Clinton failure stamped all over them.

Ms Rice needs to have the candour to tell the President just that and to formulate a policy which can lead to negotiations between Israel and Jordan on the future of the West Bank which can have successful outcomes like those achieved between Israel and Egypt in the Carter negotiations.

President Bush can still leave the Oval Office a winner and avoid being buried in the diplomatic graveyard among those who tried - and failed - to resolve any aspect of the Arab-Israel conflict.

To do so he needs to quickly jettison his two state vision which has gone nowhere in five years. His decision - either way - will become history too.