Palestine - The Lieberman Factor

[Published February 2009]

It has not taken long for media commentators to jump on the bandwagon and label the biggest winner in the Israeli elections - Avigdor Lieberman - as an “anti-Arab politician” (Scotsman 12 February) and a person “who holds abhorrent views” (Telegraph 12 February).

This form of generalised character assassination should be rejected and the media should be required to justify the policies of Lieberman that lead to those kind of general comments and labelling to be made.

The Telegraph has totally misrepresented and distorted Mr Lieberman’s policy in relation to resolving competing Arab and Jewish claims to the last 6% of the land once called Palestine - the West Bank and Gaza - in which sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews more than 60 years after the other 94% was divided between Israel and Jordan.

Mr Lieberman’s policy on this issue was stated by the Telegraph in the following terms:

“Mr Lieberman thinks that what we call the “peace process” has been a mistake from the start. Put simply, Mr Lieberman rejects every facet of President Barack Obama’s thinking on the Middle East. When the nationalist leader has real power in Israel, the country could find itself on a collision course with America’s new administration.

The following official policy of Lieberman’s party - Yisrael Beytenu - however tells a different story:

“Trading Spaces Moving The Border Between Us, Not Among Us.

The responsibility for primarily Arab areas such as Um-Al-Fahm and “the triangle” [presently in Israel - ed. comment] will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. In parallel Israel will officially annex Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria [the West bank - ed. comment]. Israel is our home. Palestine is their home.”

This policy does not reject - indeed it confirms - President Obama’s thinking on the Middle East calling for a “two state solution” involving the creation of a new Arab State in the West Bank between Israel and Jordan.

Lieberman is not the rejectionist politician on “the peace process” that the Telegraph would ask its readers to believe .

Lieberman and Obama are clearly united in wanting a two state solution to the conflict resulting in the creation of a 22nd Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

Lieberman’s policy affirms that Yisrael Beytenu does not support Israel’s return to the 1967 armistice lines - incorrectly called “the 1967 borders” by the Telegraph. This particular use of incorrect terminology - embraced by Arab negotiators - serves as a stark reminder that you don’t always believe what you read.

Lieberman is not unique in embracing this policy.

His view is shared by:
1. every major political party in Israel,
2. President Bush and the former Israeli Government in the Roadmap negotiations and
3 is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

President Obama will not retreat from this position, ignore the Security Council Resolution and demand Israel cede 100% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. The facts on the ground will simply not allow this to happen. 500000 Jews cannot be kicked out of their homes in the West Bank.

Indeed the reality is that no two state solution can possibly happen until the Arabs accept the inevitability that there will be no return by Israel to the 1967 armistice lines.

President Obama will need to bring the Arabs to this realisation if he is to succeed where President Bush failed. Given the intransigent stance by the Arab League on this issue for the last 40 years it would indeed be a miracle if he could bring about a change in Arab thinking on this fundamental issue.

Lieberman’s policy to cede Israeli sovereign territory to the Palestinian Authority that presently contains solely Arab residents in exchange for Israeli sovereignty over West Bank land that presently contains solely Jewish residents has come in for a fair amount of unjustified criticism.

Yet this policy calling for the separation - as far as is practically possible - of the Jewish and Arab populations has been at the heart of every proposal for partitioning Palestine between the Arabs and Jews since the Mandate for Palestine was first formulated in 1920.

It was the same policy that led to the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947.

The Peel Commission in 1937 eloquently summed up the benefits of partition in the following terms:

“The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be summarized as follows:—

(i) They obtain their national independence and can co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress.

(ii) They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jews, and from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule.”

“The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be summarized as follows:—

(i) Partition secures the establishment of the Jewish National Home and relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected in the future to Arab rule.

(ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism—a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life.”

Lieberman’s policies tread well established precedents for resolving the Arab - Jewish conflict in former Palestine.

Perhaps media like the Telegraph should take the time and make the effort to read and understand Lieberman’s policy rather than engage in sensationalist journalism that only hinders rather than enhances the prospect of a resolution of this ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Palestine - Obama Quicksteps Into The Quicksand

[Published February 2009]

America’s Ambassador to Jordan - Robert Beecroft - lost no time in maintaining the illusion of momentum created by America’s Special Envoy to the Middle East - George Mitchell - following Mitchell’s departure from the region last week after first visit there as President Obama’s nominee.

Ambassador Beecroft gave a revealing interview to the Jordan Times on 5 February - coinciding with a report by Sandy Tolan in The Christian Science Monitor on 4 February - that the Roadmap negotiations to create a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan - the so called “two state solution” - were on “their death bed “.

This grim news had come in the wake of articles written by

(i) John Bolton - former US ambassador to the United Nations - in the Washington Post on 5 January,
(ii) Daniel Pipes - American International Analyst - in the Jerusalem Post on 6 January and
(iii) Professor Efraim Inbar - Director of the Begin-Sadat Center For Strategic Studies in Israel - in Ha’aretz on 26 January

proposing that Jordan and Egypt resume their 1948-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza respectively to fill the void created by the failure of the Roadmap negotiations to bring about the two state solution by its highly publicized 31 December 2008 birth date.

Ambassador Beecroft’s response to such a proposal was short and sweet:

“Bolton is not part of the Government. He does not speak for the Government. The position of the US is very clear … the policy of the US is a two state solution - Israeli and Palestinian states [that live] side by side.

That is the end of the isssue …it has appeared in the press … but there is no official support for anything other than the two-state solution”

One would imagine that these were not “off the cuff” remarks made by a diplomat without the approval of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Ambassador Beecroft is not your ordinary run of the mill diplomat. Prior to taking up his position in Jordan on July 17, 2008 he had served as Executive Assistant to Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and as Special Assistant to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. He had previously been stationed at the U.S. embassies in Riyadh and Damascus.

Clearly his views echoed those of President Obama just one week earlier on Al Arabiya television::

QUESTION: Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state—and you know the contours of it—within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state—I’m not going to put a time frame on it—that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life…

Amazingly not one mention of the Roadmap or the intention to press on with the two state solution had been specifically made by Ms Clinton in the 63 pages of the transcript of the proceedings to confirm Ms Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State on 13 January 2009.

In his own confirmation hearings before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 1 May 2008 Mr Beecroft had been most effusive in his praise of Jordan stating:

“We [America] have no closer friend or ally in the Arab world than Jordan….Jordan is committed to the Roadmap and is tangibly supporting the process..”

Jordan is clearly uncomfortable at such reports suggesting that it return to the West Bank.

Xinhua News Agency on 1 February reported Jordan’s King Abdullah telling George Mitchell :

“We need to act quickly - without wasting time - on negotiations based on two states and not be diverted by new proposals”

Whilst President Obama and Ambassador Beecroft have obliged Abdullah by endorsing America’s commitment to the two state solution, it is significant that neither mentioned the Roadmap as the route to follow to achieve that end result.

Only one other plan on the table seeks to attain that goal - the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative. This just happens to be King Abdullah’s preferred option.

However this Initiative has been rejected by Israel for the same reasons that have seen the downfall of the Roadmap negotiations - the Arab demands that Israel return to the 1967 armistice lines and that millions of Arabs (and their descendants) who fled to escape the 1948 War between Israel and six invading Arab armies be allowed to return and live in Israel.

Whilst current Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert has expressed an interest in negotiating with the Arab League on its proposal, the Arab League has indicated that it is not interested in any discussions and the proposal is offered on a “take it or leave it” basis.

Mr. Olmert bows out of politics next week and predictions appear to favour the election of a new right wing Government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu that would - like the current Government - not be prepared to agree to either of these Arab demands.

President Obama will quickly find himself sinking in the quicksand that claimed former American Presidents - Carter, Clinton and Bush - if he embarks on trying to achieve any two state solution in the current political climate prevailing in the West Bank and Gaza.

Before he takes the plunge President Obama would do well to contemplate the following advice of respected author and journalist Tom Segev who has accurately summed up the current situation in an article written by him in this month’s Le Monde Diplomatique:

“All possible solutions for ultimate peace are already on the table - and none can be realised. Even Obama himself can do nothing to create final peace. Making life more liveable for this and the next generation seems the improvement that is most possible and the most urgent.”

Ambassador Beecroft’s peremptory rejection of Jordan returning to the West Bank to make life easier for the Arab residents living there - and thereby freeing them from Israeli occupation by restoring the status quo existing between 1948-1967 - may well turn out to have been too hasty and ill advised.

America may have to pressure its closest ally in the Arab world to do just that.

In the Middle East it is always preferable to dance to the slow waltz than the quickstep.

Palestine - George Mitchell Munches On Middle East Lunches

[Published January 2009]

President Obama’s newly appointed Middle East Envoy - George Mitchell - has been traipsing through the Middle East on a look and listen tour to learn the views of players in Cairo, Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman on the present state of play in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict that has raged unresolved for the last 130 years.

At the same time President Obama in his first televised interview - with Arab television station Al-Arabiya - has made his own views known to all those players which they should carefully listen to and heed.

Firstly on the issue of a new Arab state being created between Israel and Jordan President Obama stated his commitment to that eventuating but issued this note of warning:

” QUESTION: Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state—and you know the contours of it—within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state—I’m not going to put a time frame on it—that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life…

…But it is not going to be easy, and that’s why we’ve got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that’s what’s going to be necessary.”

The notion that any such new state should be democratic - as President Bush’s Roadmap stipulated - - has now apparently disappeared from the new President’s vocabulary.

The idea that such a State was just around the corner - as the previous administration had been trumpeting for the last twelve months - was now not even being able to be predicted with confidence by President Obama to occur within the next four years.

Secondly President Obama declared that any such new state would have to be part of an overall resolution of other problems in the Middle East and neighbouring regions:

“I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.These things are interrelated.”

Thirdly President Obama negated the idea that the Saudi Peace Plan proposed in 2002-and offered to Israel on a “take it or leave it ” basis - would be the sought for regional solution that would be supported in its entirety by President Obama:

“QUESTION : Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you’ve indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that.

I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”

How President Obama gets the Saudis - and the Arab League which has adopted the proposal - to ameliorate their plan to meet President Obama’s apparent objections to it in its present form will prove to be one of the most fascinating diplomatic manoeuvres to observe in the coming months and years.

Given that the Saudi proposal contains the same intransigent demands that have characterised the Arabs negotiating stance for the last 42 years, the likelihood of any substantive changes to that proposal to meet President Obama’s declared reservation seems most unlikely to occur.

President Obama did not spell out what other ideas there are across the region in his compelling interview.

Clearly trilateral negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States is one such idea that needs to be vigorously pursued by Mr Mitchell. It alone seems to offer the best chance of improving the lives of the West Bank’s Arab residents by offering them citizenship in an Arab State without requiring them to move from their present homes whilst allowing them once more to return to the Arab fold finally freed from Israel’s occupation or control - the position they last enjoyed between 1948-1967.

The PLO had already signalled its intentions to abandon the Roadmap - and focus on the Saudi Peace Plan as the only game in town - just a few days before President Obama’s appearance on Al-Arabiya.

Reuters had reported on 22 January:

“The Palestinian leadership are not ready to return to political negotiations with Israel unless there is a new basis for talks,” the PLO said, without elaborating. It said it wanted to conduct talks on the basis of the Arab peace initiative of 2002 which offers Israel peace and normal relations with all Arab countries in return for withdrawal from all territory captured in the 1967 war.”

This position had first been unveiled two months ago when the Palestinian Authority had taken out full page ads in the Israeli press calling on Israelis to endorse the Saudi plan. The money spent on those ads appears to have had no effect on Israel - or President Obama.

The current Palestinian leadership - itself the issue of much conjecture following the schism between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - will not get to first base with President Obama if it insists on maintaining this stance.

There are three predictions that one can confidently make in this current uncertain climate whilst George Mitchell’s patience and skill is brought into play:

1. The existing Jewish residents of the West Bank - and the current Arab residents - will continue to copulate and populate. Any call for a “freeze” on natural increases in their respective populations - and the provision of housing and infrastructure to cope with such natural increases - is meaningless.

2. The creation of a 22nd Arab State between Egypt, Israel and Jordan will never eventuate unless the current Arab negotiating position is drastically revised by dropping their demands for sovereignty in all of the West Bank and Gaza and for millions of Arabs to be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

3. George Mitchell will be having lots of appointments, ongoing disappointments and very many more lunches in the region.

Let’s hope he doesn’t suffer from indigestion as he swallows what he is forced to hear.

The One State Solution Is Unworkable

My letter published in the Indypendent - 10 March 2010

One state will never work.

Firstly it denies Jews the national homeland in Palestine promised to them by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Secondly Jews and Arabs lived together in Palestine for 70 years until 1948 - years that were marked by bitterness, confrontation, constant assaults and killing of the Jews on many occasions such as 1920,1929 and 1936 as they then were the minority population with little to defend themselves. They might now be the majority but the level of civil disobedience shown by the current Arab population in Israel does not inspire any confidence that the two peoples can co-exist on a friendly and peaceful basis.

The only solution is the separation of the Jewish and Arab populations in the West Bank. This can best be achieved by Jordan and Israel dividing sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States. The West Bank Arabs will become Jordanian citizens again as they were between 1950-1988, the Jews will remain as Israeli citizens and no one need leave his current home.

Is Israel 78% - or only 17% - of historic and mandate Palestine?

[My letter published in The Indypendent - 9 March 2010]

Peaceful debate and conflict resolution can only succeed if those involved first agree on the problem that needs to be resolved.

The problem is the resolution of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jewish and Arab claimants.

The Jewish claimant is Israel and the Arab claimant is the Palestinian Authority. In determining a resolution to this problem there first needs to be agreement on the following facts:

1. Israel comprises 17% of the Mandate for Palestine
2. Jordan comprises 78% of the Mandate for Palestine
3. The West Bank comprises 4% of the Mandate for Palestine
4. Gaza comprises 1% of the Mandate for Palestine
5 Under Article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter the Jewish people have acquired a vested right in international law to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in all or part of the West Bank and Gaza

Once these facts are agreed then possible solutions can be discussed.

No discussion can possibly begin to reach any agreement whilst Alex posits the following statement:

“Palestinians will not meet directly with Israel as long as Israel continues building illegal Jewish-only settlements on occupied Palestinian land, which is in direct violation of numerous United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Conventions ”

This statement rules out any hope of a settlement which would lead to the division of the West Bank between Arabs and Jews by denying the Jews any rights to claim sovereignty of at least part of the West Bank under their legal entitlement pursuant to the Mandate.

This is why any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have failed and will continue to fail.

The Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter

[My letter published in The Daily Cougar - 13 March 2010]

You want some legal opinions on Article 80 then here they are:

1. The International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on the effect of article 80 in the Namibia case on 21 June 1971:

“When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations.”

Strange that the International Court never took the time to look at this decision in 2004 until you understand the UN never raised the Mandate or article 80 of its own Charter when seeking the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s security barrier. Cover up or ignorance? Either way it stinks.

2. Professor Paul Riebenfeld:

"The League of Nations was officially liquidated in April 1946 and with it the Mandate system. The continued validity,however, of rights derived from a Mandate after the expiry of the League and the Mandate system, was spelled out in the Charter of the United Nations in its Article 80, which in the literature is often referred to as “the Palestine clause”. The reason is that this provision which is part of Chapter XII, dealing with International Trusteeship, was drafted as a result of Zionist representations at the San Francisco Conference in order to protect, in addition to the existing rights of any states, also those of “any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.” It mentions “peoples”. The rights referred to were in particular those of the Jewish people as the beneficiary of the Palestine Mandate, in an international system based on the membership of States”

3. Judge El Araby of the International Court of Justice in regard to the legal status of the West Bank in the Israeli security barrier advisory opinion:

“,,, the international legal status of the Palestinian Territory merits more comprehensive treatment”…

“A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on one or more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently sidestepped….”

“The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain”

John

Now I have given you some sources dealing with the Mandate and article 80 – you need to give me your sources refuting the relevance of those two pieces of international law.

The article in the Independent that you cited [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-big-question-what-are-israeli-settlements-and-why-are-they-coming-under-pressure-1692515.html] does not deal with the Mandate and article 80. I will bet the reporter never heard of either. I doubt if the Israeli lawyer quoted had ever heard of or been aware of the Mandate and article 80.

When you can pinpoint some legal authority who has considered the Mandate and article 80 and come to a contrary view to the legal authorities I have cited above, then maybe there can be a further dialogue between us.

But until you do, please be open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is an argument in international law that those Jewish settlements in the West Bank may be indeed legal.

Expert Calls For Fresh Ideas In Palestine Talks

[My letter published in Arab News - 6 March 2010]

A fresh idea that needs to be considered is the replacement of the Palestinian Authority by Jordan as Israel's negotiating partner.

Jordan and Israel are the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine and are uniquely placed to determine the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between their two respective States.

In addition the 1994 signed peace treaty between Jordan and Israel already sets out the manner in which the issues of water,refugees and Jerusalem is to be resolved.

No solution will completely suit either Jews or Arabs but the redrawing of the international boundary between Jordan and Israel in direct face to face to face negotiations will ensure that:

1. The West Bank Arabs will regain Jordanian citizenship they enjoyed between 1950 - 1988 and will be freed from Israeli occupation.
2. No Jew or Arab will be forced to move from his current home in the West Bank

16 years of ineffectual negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have failed - and will continue to fail - to yield results.

The prospects of reunifying the Arab populated areas of the West Bank with Jordan as existed between 1948-1967 offers the only possible realistic solution to end the conflict between Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in the West Bank.