Lunchtime - and Crunchtime - in Amman

[Published May 2008]

Jordan’s King Abdullah and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert certainly had a lot to talk about when Mr Olmert made a surprise visit to Amman yesterday for a two hour working lunch with the King.

High on their agenda would have been the disastrous performance of PLO Chairman and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas this past week after he had left the White House “bitterly disappointed” and empty handed following his meeting with President George Bush.

Statements made after that visit by Abbas and his advisors have made it glaringly obvious that the idea of a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel is rapidly disappearing down the kitchen sink.

This was reflected in the following statement made by Abbas to Reuters on April 26:

“We have discussed all the final issues with the Americans in detail. I told them we do not want them to present their own ideas for a solution because it will be difficult for us to reject them—and it would be even more difficult to accept them,”

The Americans’ ideas for a solution are certainly not a secret. Any suggestion by Abbas that they are is ingenuous to say the least.

President Bush laid out those ideas on 14 April 2004 making it quite clear that the proposed new Arab state could not realistically be expected to be established in all of the West Bank and Gaza.

Yet on April 27 Reuters further reported “a senior aide” to Abbas remarking - as though this was something new and entirely unexpected:

“ …Israel wants to annex settlement blocs, and so in short, what we are being offered is much less than the 1967 borders”

In the same report Abbas himself was quoted as saying:

“I am concerned ...we could be offered less land. I asked Mr Bush during our talks to publicly reiterate his position for the creation of a state on lands occupied in 1967,”

Abbas needs to be jolted back to reality. Apart from the fact that this statement completely contradicts what he said just the day before, the idea that the new State should be established on 100% of the West Bank and Gaza has been Mr Abbas’ demand and that of his predecessor Yasser Arafat for the last 40 years - never President Bush’s position.

The President is savvy enough to realise that you can’t expect 450000 Jews to abandon their homes and livelihoods after living there for more than 40 years and that there has to be some division of the West Bank with Israel.

In persisting with his intransigent demand to the contrary Abbas is ensuring that this “all or nothing” approach on borders is a recipe for total failure of President Bush’s Road Map.

That Abbas intends to persist with this nonsensical position was confirmed just two days later when his top negotiator Ahmed Qureia angrily rejected a proposed map presented to him by Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni showing the areas of the West Bank that Israel proposed annexing.

In doing so Qureia said according to a report in Israelinsider:

“On principle, we know what our rights are and will fight for them using all means and ways. We reject any demand, any position, or any Israeli statement regarding territory outside the 1967 borders.”

Apart from the fact that there are no 1967 borders - only armistice lines - all of these statements fly in the face of the outcome that President Bush has laid down as being able to be achieved if his Road Map is to succeed - and which have been quite clear and unambiguous to Abbas since 2004.

Abbas is now clearly swimming against the tide - pressuring President Bush to change his position to save Abbas’s hide in an effort to suppress the rise of Hamas as it steadily erodes Abbas’s authority and threatens a takeover in the West Bank.

Abbas knows that to back down on the so- called “moderate” Palestinian position - a state in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza - could sound his death knell. Hamas would have great delight in branding him a traitor, ignore any such deal and call for his head as the price for selling the Palestinians out.

Loss of face is usually not tolerated or forgiven in the Arab world. Assassination is often the punishment meted out to those who do not toe the line.

Fortunately however there have been a handful of Arabs with the courage and wisdom of the late Anwar Sadat, the late King Hussein and now his son the present King Abdullah to recognise the reality of Israel and its right to exist, to stop arguing over postage sized pieces of land and to get on with life.

Abbas looks as though he does not fit into the mould of those brave leaders.

Judged by the above statements it is clear that Abbas has decided to tough it out knowing full well his demands will not be accepted - giving him the opportunity to then leave the negotiations with his head supposedly still held high saying he tried the peaceful route but Israel refused to play ball.

He hopes then to triumphantly return into the welcoming arms of Hamas and join with them in taking the violent route to pursue the common objective which both the PLO and Hamas have always shared - the destruction of Israel. He may find out that in doing so he has bitten off more than he can chew.

Having to digest Abbas’s unpalatable conduct this past week and its possible impact on the region would certainly have not whetted the appetites of the King and Mr Olmert for the lunch they were served. They must surely realise that crunch time is now rapidly approaching for both of them.

They need to draw up a plan for joint action to protect the national interests of both Jordan and Israel to ensure that the West Bank does not become a bloodbath that could spill over into either or both countries if Abbas does not show real intestinal fortitude and lower his demands.

Their message to Abbas should be clear and uncompromising - swallow your pride, eat a bit of humble pie and share some of it with Israel - or end up getting your just desserts.

The Abdullah-Abbas Circus Comes To Washington

[Published April 2008]

King Abdullah - the sovereign ruler of 77% of former Palestine (now called Jordan) - and Mahmoud Abbas - the touted President of another proposed Arab State in 6% of former Palestine (now called the West Bank and Gaza) - were both in Washington this week for talks with President Bush.

Their talks centred on the urgency of implementing Mr Bush’s Road Map calling for the creation of Abbas’s new State prior to the President’s departure from office in January 2009.

Their visit was in reality a complete waste of time.

The Road Map - conceived in 2002 - has already passed its 2005 “use by date” unimplemented in even the smallest detail. Events since then - especially Israel’s unilateral evacuation from Gaza, the war in Lebanon and the rise of Hamas to supreme power in Gaza - have rendered the Road Map totally obsolete and of no real consequence.

Yet the major players continue to cling to this lifeline as it rapidly frays into total disintegration.

Abdullah and Abbas held separate meetings - rather than a joint meeting - with President Bush. The reasons for this are unexplained. It certainly indicates the growing divergence of any common interests between Abdullah and Abbas as a result of the intransigent stance of Abbas on the Road map negotiations.

Both Abdullah and Abbas sought President Bush’s direct involvement in pressuring Israel to make a number of concessions. Yet the visitors were unable to let the President know what concessions they were prepared to support to end the current deadlock in relation to two crucial issues:

1. Renouncing the demand that millions of Arabs be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

2. Abandoning the claim that every square meter of the West Bank and Gaza be ceded by Israel in favour of the proposed Arab State.

President Bush has already made his position clear on both theses issues:

1. The Arabs must renounce their emigration demand.

2. The Arabs cannot realistically expect that Israel will cede all of the West Bank and Gaza to them.

Without any movement on these two issues by the Arabs, President Bush can say goodbye to his Road Map leading anywhere but to ignominy and humiliation.

Significantly neither Abdullah nor Abbas was able to advance any proposal to end the power struggle between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas that has wreaked havoc on Abbas’ hold on Gaza, threatens to undermine his authority in the West Bank and stymied President Bush’s objectives under the Road Map.

Abbas - the head of the PLO - is walking a tightrope from which he threatens to topple when the Road Map is finally declared dead and buried. Hamas will certainly not be holding a safety net under it to break his fall. Hamas will be more than prepared to then take centre stage in the West Bank and perform acts that will blow away both Jews and Arabs without compunction.

Facing these developments in Gaza and the West Bank, King Abdullah continues performing his own dangerous trapeze act - swinging from rung to rung in a desperate effort to maintain the 88 years old rule of the Hashemite family in Jordan against possible efforts to topple it from power - as the PLO attempted to do in 1970.

King Abdullah’s subjects are all Palestinian Arabs - born either in eastern (Transjordan) or western (Cisjordan) Palestine. They far outnumber the Palestinian Arabs residing in the immediately adjacent West Bank. Culturally, socially and religiously there are no discernable differences between them that would justify the need for two adjoining States - rather than just one combined State - in which they could enjoy the right to self determination.

Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel is unlikely to ever be emulated by either the PLO or Hamas whose joint goal is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State - only differing in the way it is to be achieved.

The Hashemites ( who originally came from what is now Saudi Arabia to Palestine in 1920) are entitled to be regarded as - and have earned the right to be - the legitimate source of authority for all the Arabs of former Palestine. They were responsible for securing all of former Palestine east of the Jordan River as an exclusively Arab State in 1946 to the total exclusion of the Jews to whom it had been promised initially by the League of Nations.

Abdullah knows that if Hamas seizes power in the West Bank it will spell serious trouble for the future role of the Hashemites in Jordan. “Liberating” the 77% of former Palestine that King Abdullah presently controls would certainly be high on Hamas’s agenda.

Abdullah therefore has no option but to support Abbas in the Road Map negotiating process even though it continues to go nowhere and even though he still remains suspicious of the PLO’s motives after its attempted 1970 coup.

When that process inevitably hits a brick wall Abdullah will need to turn to Israel to conserve his family’s rule in Jordan and keep Hamas out of his sphere of influence which still includes the West Bank - ruled by the self same Hashemites from 1948-1967 until it was lost to Israel in the Six Day War.

King Abdullah will have to maintain the struggle to free the Arab population of the West Bank from Israeli control. Arab unity will demand Abdullah do so. He will find Israel more than ready to accommodate him by the simple expedient of redrawing the international boundary between Jordan and Israel within the framework of the existing Israel-Jordan peace treaty.

More importantly for Abdullah it would see Hamas in control of no part of the West Bank.

In the meantime the current circus will continue on its merry way - playing to a large media entourage in a dazzling array of countries and exotic locations. Plenty of fairy floss will be sold for public consumption and many trial balloons floated over the next nine months.

One outcome is guaranteed - this is one circus that won’t be getting any rave reviews.

The Smarter Jimmy Carter Charter

[Published April 2008]

Ex-President Jimmy Carter has hogged the media spotlight this week over his intended - and subsequent - meetings with Hamas head honcho Khaled Meshaal and other Hamas leaders - thereby incurring the wrath of Israel, the United States, the European Union and the Palestinian Authority.

Meeting with terrorists whose charter demands the elimination of Israel and the Jewish people is a total waste of time and undermines genuine efforts to end the long running conflict between Jews and Arabs.

It appears Mr Carter has yet to discover this truth as the visit to the grave of his “dear friend” the late Yasser Arafat this past week has demonstrated.

Arafat refused to accept the offer made by Israel in 2000 to create a second sovereign Arab state in former Palestine (in addition to the already existing state of Jordan). Arafat was unable to abandon his own charter calling for Israel’s destruction and found the choice of peace with Israel too difficult to make when it was presented to him on a plate.

President Bush’s Road Map attempted to revive the idea of such a State in 2002 and was supported diplomatically by Russia, the United Nations and the European Union. Yet it has failed to make even the slightest dent on the diplomatic horizon to this very day and is doomed to failure.

These lost opportunities will not come back again as the current situation in the West Bank and Gaza continues to rapidly descend into ever increasing violence.

What therefore motivated Mr Carter to arrange his meeting with Mr Meshaal at this point of time and what he hoped to achieve by doing so remains a real mystery.

One thing is certain - Mr Carter’s meeting will prove to be a definite non-starter in progressing the diplomatic comings and goings that pass for well intended - but totally misguided - attempts to end the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Yet Mr Carter himself had hit on a definite starter to solve the Israel-Arab conflict more than 25 years ago. If pursued by him now, it could prove of immeasurable assistance in ending the 125 years old struggle between Jews and Arabs over the territory once called Palestine.

In Time Magazine dated 11 October 1982, Mr Carter spoke about” the inherent weakness of Jordan” and stated:

“As a nation, it is a contrivance, arbitrarily devised by a few strokes of the pen.”

Mr Carter would have been mindful of the statement made at that time by Hassan Bin Talal - the Crown Prince of Jordan - in the American magazine “Foreign Affairs” when His Royal Highness stated:

“Small as Jordan is, our country is politically, socially, economically, militarily and historically inseparable from the Palestinian issue.”

Mr Carter would have also been well aware of the following remarks reported as having been made by “the almost certain Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan” in the Jerusalem Post on 11 May 1980 :

“He (Mr Reagan) pointed out that the land of the former Palestine Mandate originally included both sides of the Jordan River before Transjordan was established in 1922 in 80% of historic Palestine. The remaining 20%, he said, is today in Israel’s control.”.

Mr Carter was correct in his assessment of Jordan - as was Mr Reagan and Crown Prince Hassan.

Jordan is indeed a contrivance - the artificial creation of Britain, which in 1922 laid the groundwork that was to result in Jordan becoming a sovereign independent Arab state in 80% of Palestine in 1946. No Jews would be permitted to settle there - and are still so excluded - although it had been originally designated in 1920 as part of the area within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted.

Jordan’s crucial role is bringing to a successful resolution the claims by Jews and Arabs to sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza - a mere 6% of the area of the former Palestine Mandate - is as relevant today as it was in 1982 when Mr Carter made his defining statement.

Jordan indeed was in the diplomatic spotlight until 1988 when Yasser Arafat then declared the independence of a non-existent entity called “Palestine” and Jordan ceded all claims to the West Bank in favour of Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization sworn - like Hamas - to the total destruction of Israel.

Israel also believed it could negotiate with Arafat and his terrorist organisation and signed the Oslo Accords in 1993 - a decision that failed to bring the peace that was so triumphantly postulated at the time.

Mr Carter hopped on the Arafat bandwagon and thereafter totally ignored the role Jordan had to play in any negotiated settlement. He has done the cause of peace no service in adopting this illusory approach.

Peacemaking attempts with those sworn to Israel’s elimination have thus proved an abysmal failure.

Mr Carter now needs to go back to his original thinking and use his prestige and influence in encouraging Jordan to join in talks with Israel on the division of the West Bank between them. This has been and remains the only possible way forward to end the fighting between Arabs and Jews.

Jordan already has a signed peace treaty with Israel - a treaty that has withstood many pressures that could have led to its termination since it was executed in 1994. It is a tribute to Israel and Jordan’s successive governments that they have maintained - and in many areas strengthened - their areas of co-operation and understanding whilst all other proposed arrangements with the Palestinian Authority have collapsed into a diplomatic shambles around them.

Talking realistically to Jordan’s leaders and encouraging and supporting Jordan’s pivotal role in ending the conflict can certainly bear dividends of real benefit for both Jews and Arabs.

Jimmy Carter raised expectations that he would pursue this charter in 1982. His abandonment of it since 1988 has proved to be a poor error of judgement.

Running with the bulls has many dangers - one of which is they can suddenly turn around and bite you where it really hurts. Terrorist leaders like Khaled Meshaal are no different as Mr Carter will find out.

Now is the time for Mr Carter to get smart, realise his error, revisit his 1982 thinking and pursue it to its inevitable conclusion.

Palestine After Bush - Vision or Mirage?

[Published April 2008]

14 April 2008 marks the fourth anniversary of the date when the signposts pointing the direction towards realizing President Bush’s vision for a Palestinian State were emblazoned on the diplomatic horizon.

Few however have grasped the significance of - or conveniently wish to forget - what occurred that day when President Bush and Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met in Washington.

A historic exchange of letters took place between them with Israel announcing it would unilaterally initiate a process of gradual disengagement starting with the intention “to relocate military installations and all Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip” as well as “other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria”.

In addition Israel planned to accelerate the construction of the Security Fence which it stated would be a security rather than a political barrier, temporary rather than permanent and therefore would not prejudice any final status issues including final borders.

This Disengagement Plan was to be undertaken with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians, to improve the economy of the Palestinian Authority and to enhance the welfare of its people. It was designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize its political and economic situation. It was clearly expressed to be an initiative not being undertaken under President Bush’s Road Map but was an independent Israeli plan whilst not being inconsistent with the Road Map.

President Bush in his letter to Mr Sharon acknowledged the Disengagement Plan to be “a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace” and a “courageous decision “.

The President’s letter stated the United States appreciated the risks such an undertaking represented and gave Mr Sharon the following written assurances:

1. The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Road Map.

2. The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including defensible borders and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself - by itself - against any threat or possible combination of threats .

3. Israel would retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organisations.

4. The United States was committed to Israel’s well being as a Jewish State,

5. The United States understood that after Israel withdrew from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters and land passages would continue pending agreement on other arrangements.

6. An agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for the solution of the Palestinian refugee issue would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian State, and the settling of the Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

7. In the light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

The Disengagement Plan proved an absolute disaster with none of its defined goals or objectives being attained. Indeed the seizure by Hamas of absolute power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007 and the complete failure of the Palestinian Authority to now have any influence over political decisions being made there represents a diplomatic denouement of massive proportions.

The Road Map remains but a twinkle in the eye of President Bush with not one single step put into operation despite six years of intense diplomacy. Any chances of it being fully implemented by the end of this year when the President leaves office is a hopeless exercise in wishful thinking.

The only people who keep talking up this possibility are President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Special Envoy Tony Blair.

The Presidential aspirants - John McCain, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton - remain remarkably tight-lipped as to the policies they intend to pursue if President Bush’s “June 24, 2002 vision” remains unrealised when one of them is elected the next President of the United States.

Each candidate needs to answer the following questions before polling day:

1. Will you remain committed to President Bush’s vision and to its implementation as described in the Road Map?

2. Will you confirm that you intend to honour the assurances given by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004?

There is no room for equivocation by the candidates. A simple “yes” or “no” to each question is required.

Israel cannot be expected to accept - nor should it have to confront - any attempt by the next President to walk away from - or seek to alter - the assurances made by President Bush.

If the next President fails to honour the 14 April 2004 assurances, he (or she) will be held entirely responsible for seeing the window of opportunity for creating an independent State of Palestine for the first time ever in history slammed unceremoniously in his (or her) face.

“Palestine” after Bush will then no longer be a vision but only a mere mirage that will finally disappear when the international community opens its eyes, erases the thought completely from its mind and finally focuses on the division of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Palestine After Bush - Vision or Mirage?

[Published April 2008]

14 April 2008 marks the fourth anniversary of the date when the signposts pointing the direction towards realizing President Bush’s vision for a Palestinian State were emblazoned on the diplomatic horizon.

Few however have grasped the significance of - or conveniently wish to forget - what occurred that day when President Bush and Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met in Washington.

A historic exchange of letters took place between them with Israel announcing it would unilaterally initiate a process of gradual disengagement starting with the intention “to relocate military installations and all Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip” as well as “other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria”.

In addition Israel planned to accelerate the construction of the Security Fence which it stated would be a security rather than a political barrier, temporary rather than permanent and therefore would not prejudice any final status issues including final borders.

This Disengagement Plan was to be undertaken with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians, to improve the economy of the Palestinian Authority and to enhance the welfare of its people. It was designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize its political and economic situation. It was clearly expressed to be an initiative not being undertaken under President Bush’s Road Map but was an independent Israeli plan whilst not being inconsistent with the Road Map.

President Bush in his letter to Mr Sharon acknowledged the Disengagement Plan to be

“a bold and historic initiative that can make an important contribution to peace” and a “courageous decision “.

The President’s letter stated the United States appreciated the risks such an undertaking represented and gave Mr Sharon the following written assurances:

1. The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Road Map.

2. The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including defensible borders and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself - by itself - against any threat or possible combination of threats .

3. Israel would retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organisations.

4. The United States was committed to Israel’s well being as a Jewish State,

5. The United States understood that after Israel withdrew from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters and land passages would continue pending agreement on other arrangements.

6. An agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for the solution of the Palestinian refugee issue would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian State, and the settling of the Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

7. In the light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

The Disengagement Plan proved an absolute disaster with none of its defined goals or objectives being attained. Indeed the seizure by Hamas of absolute power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007 and the complete failure of the Palestinian Authority to now have any influence over political decisions being made there represents a diplomatic denouement of massive proportions.

The Road Map remains but a twinkle in the eye of President Bush with not one single step put into operation despite six years of intense diplomacy. Any chances of it being fully implemented by the end of this year when the President leaves office is a hopeless exercise in wishful thinking.

The only people who keep talking up this possibility are President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Special Envoy Tony Blair.

The Presidential aspirants - John McCain, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton - remain remarkably tight-lipped as to the policies they intend to pursue if President Bush’s “June 24, 2002 vision” remains unrealised when one of them is elected the next President of the United States.

Each candidate needs to answer the following questions before polling day:

1. Will you remain committed to President Bush’s vision and to its implementation as described in the Road Map?

2. Will you confirm that you intend to honour the assurances given by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004?

There is no room for equivocation by the candidates. A simple “yes” or “no” to each question is required.

Israel cannot be expected to accept - nor should it have to confront - any attempt by the next President to walk away from - or seek to alter - the assurances made by President Bush.

If the next President fails to honour the 14 April 2004 assurances, he (or she) will be held entirely responsible for seeing the window of opportunity for creating an independent State of Palestine for the first time ever in history slammed unceremoniously in his (or her) face.

“Palestine” after Bush will then no longer be a vision but only a mere mirage that will finally disappear when the international community opens its eyes, erases the thought completely from its mind and finally focuses on the division of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Condoleezza's Contortions Can't Create Palestine

[Published April 2008]


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed her amazement at the scope of the concessions Israel has agreed to make to the Palestinian Authority in a 35 page booklet given to her by Israel’s Defence Minister - Ehud Barak - during her latest visit to Israel this week.

Her back flip in praising Israel for once certainly did not go unnoticed.

Twisting and turning in another direction she also took the opportunity to stress the importance of a final agreement in helping end the debate over “what belongs in Israel and what belongs in Palestine.”

She still fails to comprehend however that no amount of concessions Israel makes will be acceptable to the Palestinian Authority which requires that every square meter of the West Bank and Gaza belong in “Palestine”.

This is not going to occur as Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made crystal clear to Ms Rice when he told her this week that he would continue to allow construction in West Bank settlement blocs and east Jerusalem.

To underline the importance of his message , Mr Olmert told his political party Kadima the same thing as his following remarks were reported by the Jerusalem Post:

“It is not true that we are building in violation of our obligations,” Olmert said at a meeting of the Kadima faction in the Knesset. “We are not building new settlements, everyone must understand this,” said Olmert, who underscored that Betar Illit “is not a new settlement.” Olmert emphasized that building had not been frozen in Jerusalem neighborhoods that are located across the Green Line, and that building in Jerusalem would continue. Any reports to the contrary were false, he said.

“We don’t hide our views on Jerusalem and major settlement blocs, we are being honest about everything throughout the negotiations,” said Olmert.

To term Betar Illit a “settlement” is an understatement. It is Israel’s fastest growing city boasting a population of 35000 religious Jews - estimated to increase to 100000 by the year 2010.

Any thought that the population of this city - located just 5 kilometres from Jerusalem - and many others like it such as Maale Adumim, Efrat, Ramot and Ariel will be included in “Palestine” is pure fantasy and make believe. Any idea that their populations can be forcibly transferred is as racist as suggesting that Israeli Arabs be transferred to “Palestine”.

President Bush has recognised this reality and has already made it clear in written commitments to Israel that these Israeli cities and other Israeli settled areas in the West Bank will belong to Israel in any final agreement.

Condoleezza Rice appears to be studiously ignoring her President’s stated position as she once more took the opportunity on this latest visit to utter her well rehearsed and oft repeated mantra:

“Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop,”

Such statements may earn her brownie points with the Palestinian Authority but they are an obstacle and a hindrance to any final status agreement ever being reached. They only serve to create false expectations in the Palestinian Authority to continue demanding that every square meter of the West Bank be ceded by Israel.

If Ms Rice’s goal is the creation of a 23rd Arab State between Israel and Jordan by December 2008, then the first hurdle she must jump is to get the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge that “Palestine” will not include a sizeable portion of the West Bank - that Jews - who had lived there for thousands of years before being finally driven out in 1948 but who had returned once again in 1967 - will remain a permanent population in some part of the West Bank that will belong to Israel.

The second hurdle she has to straddle is getting the Palestinian Authority to recognise that it has no legal right to exclusively claim the whole or any part of the West Bank as its sovereign territory. There is another claimant - Israel - that has a far better claim under the League of Nations Mandate and the United Nations Charter.

The West Bank is the Wild West of the Middle East - “no man’s land” in the truest sense of that phrase -until sovereignty has been finally allocated between those who seek to make a claim to it.

If there is to be any final status agreement she needs to spend her time telling the Palestinian Authority that the West Bank will have to be divided between it and Israel. She needs to assert that if this position is not accepted by the Palestinian Authority, then Jordan may well be called upon to step in to effect that partition with Israel as the only means of ending a deadlock that would inevitably see President Bush’s Road Map crashing into oblivion when he leaves the office of President of the United States.

Easing restrictions on the daily lives of the Arab residents of the West Bank will not bring the Palestinian Authority to moderate its demand for the whole of the West Bank. Only the President of the United States or his Secretary of State can ram home the utterly hopeless nature of continuing with that claim. Until they do the Road Map is destined to end up in the shredder - like so many other plans that preceded it over the last 70 years.

No amount of ducking and weaving by Ms Rice can put off her confronting these hurdles any longer. There are many more to be negotiated by Ms Rice before she even gets close to the finishing line.

However if she can’t make it over these first two she should not even be trying to run the race.

Paris,Palestine And Pledges

[Published March 2008]


Tony Blair has found that it doesn’t take too much to wipe the smile off one’s face when trying to resolve the competing Arab and Jewish claims to the territory once called Palestine - known today as Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza.

The razzle dazzle of the International Donors’ Conference for the Palestinian State held in Paris in December last year under Mr Blair’s Co-Chairmanship saw US$7.4 billion pledged over three years by the international community to meet a hastily put together plan prepared by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

By the time the Chair and two co-chairs of the Paris Conference convened again in Paris in January to review current progress, another $300 million had been added to the pledges.

However Arab Donor countries - whom one would expect to be among the most concerned to see the creation of the Palestinian State - had only contributed 20% of the pledged funds. They were clearly indicating with their cheque books that they were not too confident that the Palestinian State proposed by President George Bush was likely to eventuate - after 5 years of intense diplomatic pressure had failed to bring it to even the first stage of implementation.

On the other hand Europe had pledged 53% of the funds - indicating the huge stake they were prepared to invest in seeing the creation of yet another Arab State - the 23rd - to be located between Israel and Jordan by the end of this year. Their optimism in December is hard to fathom.

The months following since then have seen a sober realism that this money cannot solve the problem whilst the political issues remain unresolved. Indeed these donors appear destined to see their money follow the billions of dollars that have disappeared over the last 15 years with no appreciable improvement in the living conditions of the people for whom this largesse is now specifically intended.

The warning bells were sounded at the United Nations Seminar on Assistance to the Palestinian People held in Amman on 18-19 February when the following remarks were recorded:

“The Donor Coordination Adviser, Office of the Special Envoy of the Quartet (Tony Blair) in Jerusalem, Tor Wennesland, said he had hoped that he could have been able to flag some major success stories at the Seminar. His office was moving seriously forward on some major sectors and hoped those efforts would become specific and concrete and visible soon, but Mr. Blair was trying to achieve economic revitalization in a situation where the capacity of the Palestinian Authority was seriously constrained. In short, ‘the work we have been doing has been a major walk up a very steep hill”

Mr Wennesland warned:

“There would not be any sustainable growth in the Palestinian areas before there was a negotiated political solution to the final status issues. That meant that what was being done now would be of a temporary nature. There were limits as to what could be achieved on the economic and development side, given the current constraints. That was the challenge and the reality.”

He confessed:

“A major part of the ‘Blair vision’ had been to revitalize the private sector in the Palestinian Territory, but ‘we are not there yet’ [www.reliefweb.int].

Those donors who started honouring their pledges in the first days of January must now be concerned at their decision to part with their money so quickly. They should be worried about their money ending up in the bottomless pit of corruption that has enveloped the Palestinian Authority and appears likely to occur once again following this latest bonanza to emerge from Paris.

Tony Blair however is undeterred and is now seeking still further funds to add to the Paris pledges despite the warnings sounded by his Donor Co-Ordination Adviser just three weeks ago.

He has now urged private sector investors to attend a conference in Bethlehem in May saying “Palestine is open for business”

“The world is invited to the party we are throwing” added Prime Minister Fayyad. “From the depths of all this misery, we Palestinians are determined to authorise and to build that state despite all obstacles.”

Mr Blair sees the Bethlehem conference as the private sector partner to the Paris Donors Conference. However private investors will no doubt heed the lead taken by the Arab countries and listen very carefully to what Mr Wennesland had to say before being induced into investing their money with the Palestinian Authority.

Mr Blair will be launching the Tony Blair Faith Foundation later this year. The foundation will promote understanding between the major faiths and increase understanding of the role of faith in the modern world.

Mr Blair has certainly taken a quantum leap of faith in dealing with the Palestinian Authority and one can only wish him the “best of British”

The odds however are that he will end up with egg on his face - like so many people of goodwill who preceded him and found that when push came to shove the Palestinian Authority was unprepared to abandon its demand for return of all of the West Bank and Gaza and for millions of Arabs to be given the right to live in Israel.

Until these issues are resolved donor countries and private investors would be well advised to retain their funds firmly under their control. Perhaps this kind of monetary boycott might induce some change in the intransigent attitude of the Palestinian Authority and create the breakthrough that has so far eluded everyone who has tried.

With only nine months to go any such prospect of success looks bleak indeed