Israeli Palestinians or Palestinian Jordanians?

[Published October 2009]

Former Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Ahmed Qureia first raised the possibility of Israeli residents living in the West Bank becoming Palestinian citizens in any new State created between Jordan and Israel as an answer to forced removal from their existing homes and transfer to Israel.

In an interview in Haaretz on 26 May 2009 the following exchange took place:

“Qureia: “Negotiating the annexation of Ariel to Israel is a waste of time. Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev must also be part of Palestine. Any agreement must guarantee our territorial contiguity; leave historical sites in our hands, especially Jerusalem, as well as natural resources, especially water.”

Question: Do you believe Israel would agree to evacuate Ma’aleh Adumim’s 35,000 residents?

Qureia: “[Former U.S. secretary of state] Condoleezza Rice told me she understood our position about Ariel but that Ma’aleh Adumim was a different matter. I told her, and Livni, that those residents of Ma’aleh Adumim or Ariel who would rather stay in their homes could live under Palestinian rule and law, just like the Israeli Arabs who live among you. They could hold Palestinian and Israeli nationalities. If they want it - welcome."

This theme was taken up by Palestinian Authority Acting Prime Minister Salam Fayyad at the Aspen Institute’s Ideas Festival in July when he was asked by R. James Woolsey - former director of Central Intelligence under President Clinton - whether the same rights would be available to Jewish citizens of a Palestinian state that were available to the over one million Arab citizens of Israel - such as freedom of religion and speech and the right to vote in elections.

Woolsey also wanted to know whether Jews would be able to sleep at night without worrying that someone might kick their doors down and kill them

Fayyad replied:

“I’m not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact, the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, coexistence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel.”

This is an argument that would hold little attraction to Israel or the Jewish residents of the West Bank.

The reasons are manifold and include the following:

1. Jews could never be assured that their security would be protected from terrorist attacks.

2. The history of the conflict indicates that wherever possible Jews and Arabs should be separated to avoid clashes between their respective populations. Israel’s successful integration of 1.5 million Arabs into its population as Israeli citizens could not possibly be repeated in the West Bank. The baggage of hatred between the two populations engendered by the PLO Covenant and the Hamas Covenant would prove insurmountable.

3. The Jewish community could be held to ransom by any assorted rag and tag groups to meet Arab demands for millions of Arabs to be allowed to emigrate to Israel, for Arab prisoners to be released from Israeli jails or for any other reason - even simple extortion of money.

4. The Palestinian Authority has been trumpeting the removal of all Jewish residents living in the West Bank for the last 40 years and has legislated for the death penalty for anyone selling land to Jews. It would hardly be seen as a convincing change of heart if these racist attitudes were suddenly abandoned.

However the parallel proposition that the Arab residents of the West Bank acquire Jordanian citizenship has become increasingly more attractive as the “two state solution” continues to founder after 16 years of failed diplomatic efforts to achieve a breakthrough.

The West Bank and Gazan Arabs are considered to be oppressed and victimised communities who have been deprived of the freedom of movement, ability to access goods and services, export their own products as well as exercise their rights as full citizens of a sovereign Arab state. This loss of dignity will continue as the two state solution evaporates and will need to be addressed in some way if there is to be peaceful co-existence between the Arab and Jewish communities in the West Bank.

These problems can be solved if the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is redrawn so that the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank become part of Jordan and the heavily populated Jewish areas of the West Bank become part of Israel.

The reasons for this occurring are compelling:

1. Jordan is 77% of Mandatory Palestine and will extend its borders to include about another 3% of former Palestine if this solution is adopted.

2. Jordan - as the last Arab State to occupy the West Bank between 1948-1967 - will resume its historical role as the Arab successor State to the Mandate in allocating sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between it and the other successor state to the Mandate - the Jewish State of Israel.

3. The Arab residents of the West Bank will resume their status as Jordanian citizens which they enjoyed until 1988 and will be granted Jordanian passports entitling them to the same political rights as the current Jordanian population.

4. The Arab residents on both sides of the Jordan River will be reunited into one political entity - a relationship which has been acknowledged and recognised by both Jordanian and Palestinian leaders such as the late King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan, the late Yasser Arafat and Abu Iyad.

Jordanian resistance to such an idea might be anticipated, since Jordan has been very wary of attempts to remove the ruling Hashemite regime and replace it with a revolutionary style Government.

However events in Gaza demonstrate the utter folly of repeating the same coup in Jordan.

Jordan needs to be given security and financial guarantees by the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - to enter into negotiations with Israel to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between them and possibly Egypt.

Given Israel already enjoys signed peace agreements with both Jordan and Egypt and all are already sovereign States - the negotiations could be successfully concluded in a very short space of time.

Such a solution would be preferable to any form of autonomy since it would free the West Bank and Gazan Arabs from Israeli domination and control and allow the West Bank and Gazan Arabs - and indeed all Palestinian Arabs - the right to self determination for which they have been agitating since 1967.

In the absence of such a resolution the future looks very bleak for both Arabs and Jews.

Abbas Gives Obama The Thumbs Down

[Published September 2009]

Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - delivered a stinging rebuff to President Obama during his address at the United Nations last Friday.

Obama had called on Israel and the Palestinian Authority from the same podium at the United Nations just a few days earlier to enter into final status negotiations - “without preconditions” - designed to lead to the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan - the so called “two state solution”.

Obama’s statement had greatly disappointed Abbas who had expected that after six months of intense diplomatic activity by the Americans - Israel would agree to the demand by Abbas - supported by Obama - that Israel freeze all construction and building activity on the West Bank as a condition of Abbas resuming negotiations with Israel after an eight months hiatus.

Israel’s response was to curtail - but not freeze - such activities. This position was ultimately accepted - albeit reluctantly - by the American administration, which had no basis at all for insisting on a freeze anyway since Israel had not agreed to its original inclusion in the Road Map first proposed by President Bush in 2003.

Abbas in his address to the UN made it clear to Obama that Abbas would not be returning to the negotiating table unless there was a complete freeze - and - it would seem - a whole lot of new conditions that Abbas lumped in at the same time.

Abbas told the assembled delegates:

“We call upon the international community to uphold international law and international legitimacy and to exert pressure on Israel to cease its settlement activities, to comply with the signed agreements, and desist from the policies of the occupation and colonial settlements, to release the 10000 - correction approximately 11000 prisoners and detainees, to lift - and to lift the unjust siege imposed on the Gaza Strip….”

Whilst not stating what international pressure should be exerted on Israel to achieve these objectives - Abbas no doubt had in mind the collective economic punishment of Israel’s population by imposing boycotts on the importation and purchase of Israeli products, the sharing of intellectual knowledge between universities and divestment by investors of their share portfolios in Israeli companies.

What is crystal clear is that this shopping list of conditions is unacceptable to Israel and will act as an effective bar to the resumption of negotiations - making President Obama’s call for the immediate resumption of those negotiations just a few days before superfluous and already outdated.

It would need an extraordinary loss of face for Abbas to announce his readiness to resume negotiations in the face of his defiant stance and response to President Obama at the United Nations. His arch enemy - Hamas - would pillory him for his submission to American and Zionist pressure.

President Obama can respond in two ways - either do nothing and let the current state of affairs meander along aimlessly - and dangerously - on the road to nowhere or announce his own plan to break the current impasse.

Before proposing his own plan President Obama would be well advised to put a series of questions to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority so as to gauge their respective attitudes to the following matters:

1. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home reconstituted pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

2. Does the Palestinian Authority intend to persist with its demand that every square centimeter of the West Bank be ceded to it by Israel or is it prepared to accept less in exchange for an equivalent land swap by Israel?

3. Is the Palestinian Authority still committed to millions of former Arab residents and their descendants of what is now Israel being given the right to return and live there and if so what would be the appropriate number that Israel should accept?

4. Is Israel prepared to allow the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan with full and unfettered access and control over its air space and maritime waters? If not is the Palestinian Authority prepared to accept something less such as demilitarization?

5. Is Israel prepared to remove all the 500000 Jewish residents living in the West Bank. If not what number are they prepared to remove and from where?

6. Is Israel prepared to divide Jerusalem so that it becomes the capital of both Israel and the new Arab state?

America - unequivocally and unambiguously - needs to present its own answers to both parties on these same questions after first gauging and evaluating their responses and then lay down its own terms as the price for America’s continuing involvement in helping the parties achieve a final resolution of their conflict.

Failure by America to elicit satisfactory and positive responses to these questions from the Palestinian Authority and Israel will only ensure that one can continue to predict with absolute certainty that the two state solution is not going to be the solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Living the dream but experiencing the nightmare that has accompanied this fatally flawed and discredited vision for the last 72 years has proved to be catastrophic for both Arabs and Jews. How much longer will this failed proposal continue to be paraded as the only solution to the conflict? It is about time that the parties put up or shut up.

The thumbs down given to President Obama by Abbas this past week only underscores America’s need to get some answers from the parties to the above questions or vacate the scene - unless America completely revamps its thinking and starts to look at options other than the two state solution.

Obama has already hinted at going in another direction emphasising “dignity” and “security” as the diplomatic drivers in resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict if the two state solution is abandoned.

Such a policy and initiative should surely be welcomed to break the impasse and receive the thumbs up from the international community to enable it to be successfully implemented.

Is Obama Ready To Speak His Mind?

[Published September 2009]

President Obama’s address at the United Nations on 23 September gave some indication that he would soon be releasing his own plan for achieving the creation of a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan - the so called “two state solution - that has avoided the best efforts of previous American Presidents for the last sixteen years.

In his carefully crafted address he made the following statement:

“The time has come to re-launch negotiations - without preconditions - that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

The insistence that such negotiations be opened “without preconditions” was a slap in the face for Palestinian Authority president - Mahmoud Abbas - who has so far refused to enter into such negotiations with Israel until Israel totally freezes all construction activity in the West Bank.

No doubt Obama had hoped that his fruitless trilateral meeting with Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - the previous day would have enabled him to tell the United Nations that negotiations were soon to resume. That was not to be.

To compound Abbas’s irrational stance he has now insisted that he would not enter into any negotiations unless their end result would be the withdrawal by Israel from every inch of territory occupied by it since the Six Day War in 1967. [Wafa Palestine News Agency 22 September 2009].

Netanyahu - and previous Israeli Governments - have made it clear Israel would not be obliging Abbas in this demand.

President Obama appears to have supported Netanyahu on this issue by pointedly not calling for an Israeli return to the territorial position that existed at 4 June 1967 - but merely an end to the occupation that began in 1967.

Obama’s insistence that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state also is completely at odds with Abbas’ long standing refusal to accept such a proposal.

Given the above - it is extremely unlikely that Abbas is politically strong enough to get off his high horse, lose face and resume negotiations with Israel without preconditions. Hamas - and his own faction Fatah - will ensure this does not happen.

His preferred course will be to employ the tactics of the past and engage in rhetoric accusing the Israel lobby of controlling President Obama and the Congress and totally ignoring the victims of the conflict and their ongoing suffering.

He will prefer this course and the strong support he expects to receive in his stance from a majority of the morally bankrupt member states of the United Nations who control the affairs of the General Assembly and its Human Rights Council and can pass resolutions ad infinitum excoriating Israel and pursuing a program of delegitimizing Israel as the Jewish National Home.

President Obama has signalled he is not prepared to accept that tactic and allow the question of resuming negotiations and bringing an end to the conflict to meander aimlessly along the road to nowhere.

Slotted into his speech to the United Nations was this clear warning to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

“I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns - to break the cycle of insecurity and despair - all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private.”

The President was politely laying down an ultimatum - resume negotiations immediately “without preconditions” or he would publicly speak out and lay down his proposals for achieving the two state solution. If those proposals were not finally acceptable to both sides then America would not become further involved in pursuing the two state solution.

One does not need to gaze into a crystal ball to know that no plan the President publicly reveals will ever be acceptable to the Palestinian Authority.

President Obama will not resile from the demand that Israel be recognized as the Jewish State. He will not stipulate that 500000 Jews living in the West Bank will all have to be kicked out of their homes and businesses. The President won’t insist that millions of former Arab residents and their descendants be given the right to live in Israel.

What President Obama has done at the United Nations has made it very transparent that America is not prepared to be dragged along ignominiously for any further length of time in pursuing an objective that is all but totally unattainable.

Crunch time is fast approaching and for America the two state solution is all but dead and buried.

Other solutions and options need to be explored and pursued to separate the warring parties and allow each to live with one another as President Obama so eloquently expressed in his address:

“And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why - even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days - I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace. “

America will not depart the scene but it certainly is ready to abandon the two state solution if the parties cannot get down to business very soon and enter into negotiations to try and agree on its parameters.

“Dignity” and “Security” will soon become the diplomatic catchwords that replace “the two state solution”. After sixteen years of trying to achieve the impossible - the new direction being charted by President Obama at least offers some realistic hope of succeeding.

Abbas Only Tells Half The Story

[Published September 2009]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has put paid to any prospects of the Palestinian Authority resuming negotiations with Israel after the proposed trilateral meetings to be held with President Obama, Abbas and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House today.

Abbas said at a press conference on 19 September after meeting with his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak that as there was no agreement on halting settlement so there could be no agreement on re-launching negotiations because there was no basis. He continued :

“The basis [ for resuming negotiations] we know is the one stated in the Road Map plan,’ ‘Americans are required to continue their commitment of the first article of the Road Map plan, which clearly states that there must be complete settlement freeze including the natural growth,’.

What Abbas failed to tell the assembled media was that Israel had not accepted that proposal in the Road Map.

When President Bush released his detailed Road Map on 30 April 2003, Israel had then sent a letter to President Bush on 23 May 2003 containing 14 reservations it had before it could accept the plan as a basis for negotiation.

Reservation 9 made by Israel to President Bush stated in part:

“There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts); “

Israel thus made it clear that whilst it was prepared to discuss a settlement freeze (no mention being made by Israel of restricting natural growth) it was not prepared to accept that there be a complete settlement freeze including natural growth per se.

On 23 May 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made the following statement from the White House:

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

On 25 May 2003, the Israeli Cabinet met and by a majority resolved:

“Based on the 23 May 2003 statement of the United States Government, in which the United States committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the Roadmap during the implementation phase, the Prime Minister announced on 23 May 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the Roadmap.

The Government of Israel affirms the Prime Minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the Administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the Roadmap.”

Nothing could be clearer or more unambiguous - President Bush had accepted Israel’s position that there would be no settlement freeze without it first being discussed and agreed by Israel.

Abbas told Haaretz on 28 May 2003 that the 14 reservations made by Israel had nothing to do with him. He said:

“They don’t interest me,”

Haaretz reported that as far as Abbas was concerned, the only document that mattered was the road map that was finalized in December 2002 and handed over to the parties at the end of April 2003 Nothing more, nothing less. He continued:

“We do not accept each side picking and choosing only those specific elements that are convenient for them in the road map.

The map was prepared last December and we accepted it, despite our own comments and reservations. We wanted to give this initiative a chance, but it’s impossible to continue inventing comments and reservations after it was submitted.”

This was a very aggressive and intransigent - indeed foolish and naive - attitude to adopt in the face of President Bush having specifically invited both sides to comment on the Road Map.

The response from the President to Israel’s reservations acknowledged that Israel’s concerns were real and they would be fully and seriously addressed during the implementation phase.

The past months’ discussions between George Mitchell, Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama in relation to a settlement freeze must be seen and be understood to have taken place within the framework of America’s previous acknowledgment that no such freeze could be imposed on Israel under the Roadmap unless Israel agreed to the terms of any such proposal.

Israel has responded to America’s request by agreeing to curtail - but not totally freeze - settlement activity for some as yet unspecified period whilst negotiations are being held between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This apparently is not acceptable to Abbas. Unless he has a change of heart he intends to spit the dummy and walk away from any further negotiations.

Abbas needs to really take a cold shower and cool down and not tell half the story - especially the half that he does not like.

Gaza,Goldstone and Gallstones

[Published September 2009]

From a legal perspective Israel is not subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court nor do the provisions of the Geneva Convention apply to Gaza since it is not part of the territory of any state signatory - called a “High Contracting Party” - to the Convention.

Gaza still is “no mans’ land” under international law where sovereignty is yet to be decided.

It should be remembered that Israel officially only evacuated Gaza in 2005. It has not ceded any claim to Gaza or parts of Gaza under the rights conferred on the Jewish people pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of that territory.

Israel had the inherent right of self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter if an armed attack was made on it. That it absorbed 7000 rocket and mortar attacks after evacuating Gaza in 2005 before undertaking the invasion of Gaza last December would not have been endured for such a lengthy period by any other member of the United Nations had they been the recipient of such a barrage of rockets and mortars indiscriminately fired into civilian population centres.

There may well be some rotten eggs in Israel’s basket. War is a great dehumanizer and soldiers can act in inhuman ways under the stress of war - and can be very trigger happy especially when the enemy you are confronting does not wear uniforms and hides among the civilian population.

Israel has and is still continuing its ongoing investigations into the invasion of Gaza and will no doubt bring to justice those whose conduct is found to be unacceptable. The Goldstone Commission’s dismissal of these investigations as “pusillanimous” is made without a scintilla of evidence in support.

The Report will be extensively used and quoted to beat Israel over the head in a multitude of UN forums and in the General Assembly as part of the campaign by the 56 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to delegitimize Israel.

The Report will be used to support new calls for:

(i) economic and political boycotts of Israel
(ii) disinvestment in Israel and
(iii) for outlawing Israel as a pariah state in the international community

The Goldstone Commission came about as a result of a Mandate given to it by the UN Human Rights Council on 12 January 2009 by a vote of 33 to 1 with 13 abstensions. 15 of the 33 affirmative votes were from members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the remainder included countries with disgraceful human rights records like Angola, Cuba, China, Nigeria, the Russian Federation and Nicaragua.

The Commission was appointed on 3 April 2009 and its members comprised Richard Goldstone, Christine Chinkin, Hina Jalani and Desmond Travers.

Goldstone, Jalani and Travers had signed an open letter, published 16 March 2009, addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Security Council Ambassadors. It stated:

“...we believe there is an important case to be made for an international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict…A prompt, independent and impartial investigation would provide a public record of gross violations of international humanitarian law committed and provide recommendations on how those responsible for crimes should be held to account…We urge world leaders to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable…The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core…We must also establish the truth about crimes perpetuated against civilians on both sides."

Christine Chinkin had signed a letter dated January 11, 2009, which appeared in The Times, stating:

“Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence - it’s a war crime.”

In addition, the letter stated:

“The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence …Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence”.

All of the appointed Commissioners had therefore begun this inquiry with their minds made up. Israel was to be hung drawn and quartered. Any semblance of impartiality or lack of bias among the Commission members went out the window before the Commission had even started its proceedings. In failing to disqualify themselves they totally negated the validity of their findings.

Hamas violence against its own Gazan citizens during Israel’s invasion was apparently not deemed to be part of the Commission’s mandate.

A report prepared by Human Rights Watch dated 9 April 2009 alleged that during Israel‘s invasion:

“Hamas security forces or masked gunmen believed to be with Hamas extra-judicially executed 18 people, mainly those accused of collaborating with Israel. Masked gunmen also beat and maimed by shooting dozens of Hamas’s political opponents, especially members and supporters of its main political rival, Fatah.

The internal violence in Gaza has continued since Israel withdrew its forces. Palestinian human rights groups in Gaza have reported 14 more killings between January 18 and March 31, 2009.

So far, this violence has gone mostly unpunished. Despite promises to investigate unlawful killings and other abuses, Hamas authorities, to Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, have only investigated one alleged killing by members of their security forces or armed wing…

Hamas security forces have also used violence against known Fatah members, especially those who had worked in the Fatah-run security services of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Of particular concern is the widespread practice of maiming people by shooting them in the legs, which Hamas first used in June 2007, when it seized control inside Gaza from Fatah. According to the Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR), the human rights ombudsman organization of the Palestinian Authority, unidentified gunmen in masks deliberately inflicted bullet wounds to the legs of at least 49 people between December 28, 2008 and January 31, 2009. [http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0409web.pdf]

The Goldstone Report will not have anything like the political affect that the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution had in the aftermath of its passing by the UN General Assembly on 10 November 1975 until it was subsequently revoked on 16 December 1991.

Israel’s then Ambassador to the United Nations - Chaim Herzog described that resolution in the following terms:

“For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such.”

Israel should adopt the same view in relation to the Goldstone Report.

Israel’s response should be to proceed apace to build up the state by the ingathering of Jews from around the world and to continue with its brilliant technological , medical and scientific successes, whilst holding its head high among the nations of the world as a true democracy among a sea of repressive and oppressive regimes. It should make sure that the security of its 7.5 million citizens (including 1.5 million Arabs) is guaranteed from anyone who would seek to attack it and ensure it maintains defensible borders to enable this to happen.

This is the best route for Israel to take to avoid any attack of gallstones caused by Goldstone and his kangaroo court.

Obama Reaches Boiling Point On Settlements Freeze

[Published September 2009]

The announcement by Israel’s Defence Minister - Ehud Barak - on September 7 that Israel will proceed to complete 2500 housing units in the West Bank - and commence building another 455 units there - is Israel’s response to the demand by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israel freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank including “natural growth”.

It is also an answer to the Palestinian Authority whose chief negotiator - Saeb Erekat - said on 31 August:

"There can be no middle ground ... He [Netanyahu] needs to stop settlement activities including ‘natural growth’,”

Israel has thus made it abundantly clear that :

1. there will be no “freeze”,

2. that building activity will continue at a rapid pace and

3. that there is no restriction on planning and development approvals being put in place to ensure that building activity is immediately resumed if negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority fail to reach any concluded agreement within a time frame - possibly six months - expected to be announced by President Obama later this month.

Continuing Palestinian Authority intransigence in refusing to concede one square meter of land in the West Bank to Israel - let alone agree to moderate or concede other claims infinitely far more difficult to resolve - ensure that the resumption of negotiations will yet once again lead to a dead end.

This intransigence has been exacerbated as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas find themselves locked in a bitter power struggle for the hearts and minds of the West Bank and Gazan Arabs.

Indeed the urgent need to patch up their presently irreconcilable differences was endorsed at a meeting of the Quartet - America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - held at Trieste on 26 June 2009.

The communique issued by the Quartet on that occasion contained the following plea:

“Noting the detrimental effect of Palestinian divisions and underscoring its desire for these divisions to be overcome, the Quartet called on all Palestinians to commit themselves to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations. Restoring Palestinian unity based on Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) commitments would be an important factor in this process. while facilitating reconstruction of Gaza and the organization of elections. The Quartet expressed support on this basis, for the ongoing mediation efforts of Egypt and the Arab League for Palestinian reconciliation behind President Abbas and appealed to all States in the region to play a constructive role in supporting the reconciliation process”
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/quartet-26jun2009.htm

Clearly the Quartet itself had come to the conclusion that the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas was a toothless tiger incapable of negotiating and concluding any form of binding peace treaty with Israel whilst Fatah and Hamas remained engaged in their deadly and divisive end game struggle.

That struggle has continued unabated since June despite the most intensive efforts of Egypt and the Arab League to effect a reconciliation.

President Obama was therefore seriously in error in ever suggesting that Israel should freeze settlement activity in these circumstances whilst complete Palestinian chaos and disunity prevailed.

The Quartet was talking pie in the sky if it believed Hamas would reconcile behind President Abbas. Hamas regards itself as the legitimately elected Government of the Palestinians. Hamas will not abandon that position in favour of anyone - especially President Abbas.

In this politically charged and uncertain environment there is simply no credible negotiating partner to sit down with Israel to implement the obligations under the Road Map or any other proposal President Obama may be contemplating. President Obama’s belief that any negotiations in this current atmosphere can have any possible chance of success is pure folly.

Indeed this view is supported and highlighted by the Quartet’s own statement that:

“these negotiations must result in the end of all claims.”

Neither Hamas nor Fatah will ever be able to abandon their claim for millions of Arabs and their descendants to emigrate to Israel. It is written into their respective constitutions and forms the very essence of their continued functioning and existence . To concede that right in negotiations would be political suicide and impossible to abandon by either Fatah or Hamas.

The Quartet persisted with the simplistic notion affirmed in its statement that :

“the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that ends the occupation began in 1967 and fulfils the aspirations of both parties for independent homelands through two states for two peoples, Israel and an independent, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security”

This solution was first proposed in 1937, again in 1947 and could have been achieved at any time between 1948-1967 after Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza were driven out by the invading Arab armies of Jordan and Egypt.

Tried again in 1993, 2000 and now under the Road Map since 2003 - the Quartet have backed themselves into a corner in persisting with the claim that this is

“the only viable solution.”.

There are other alternative solutions to “ending the occupation” of West Bank and Gazan Arabs that remain unexplored and unaddressed which do not have to involve the creation of a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

The Quartet’s stubborn insistence on its solution being the only viable solution indicates the bankruptcy of its own thinking. It exposes the Quartet’s inability to adjust to the current political void in the Palestinian leadership that has totally destroyed any prospects of the Quartet’s solution even remotely occurring whilst the reconciliation process urged by the Quartet remains unfulfilled.

To expect any other outcome in negotiations whilst the West Bank and Gaza remain split into separate Fatah and Hamas fiefdoms is naive in the extreme.

In these circumstances President Obama’s demand to freeze Israeli settlements was misdirected and totally mistimed.

Freezing building in existing Jewish settlements in an attempt to induce the political eunuch that the Palestinian Authority presently represents to enter into meaningless and ineffectual negotiations would have been a grave error of judgment on Israel’s part.

Israel’s agreement to resumption of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority at this point of time will therefore only be a sop to President Obama. Nothing will come from such negotiations.

The Palestinian Authority now need to decide whether they will take part in such negotiations.

Saeb Erekat has toned down his rhetoric of just one week ago telling Haaretz on 7 September

“Israel’s decision to approve the construction of over 450 new settlement units nullifies any effect that a settlement freeze, when and if announced will have”

Given that there will not be any announcement of a freeze - the ball is now firmly in the Palestinian Authority’s court.

To decide whether to negotiate in the absence of any freeze is rapidly coming to the boil - both for President Obama and the Palestinian Authority.

Both are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Will Sharon's Legacy Be Obama's Downfall?

[Published September 2009]

Israel’s former Prime Minister - Ariel Sharon - has been in a coma since 4 January 2006 but his legacy hangs like a heavy cloud over the plans of President Obama to oversee the creation of a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly have a lot on their minds as they grapple with a multitude of the world’s current conflicts which - no doubt - have caused massive overloading of their respective memory banks.

Yet this would be a lame excuse for them forgetting about - or seeking to minimize the existence and crucial importance of the letters exchanged on 14 April 2004 between President Bush and Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ariel Sharon.
[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Exchange+of+letters+Sharon-Bush+14-Apr-2004.htm]

This correspondence enabled courageous and highly dangerous decisions being taken by Israel to kick start President Bush’s stalled 2003 Road Map - which had been enthusiastically endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations as the key to resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict by 2005.

The President’s letter provided the catalyst - and the political justification - for Israel unilaterally evacuating the entire Jewish population of 8000 from Gaza and withdrawing Israel’s army totally from there without any preconditions or undertakings being given or sought from the Palestinian Authority.

The Presidential letter set out in detail the framework that President Bush would support as Israel attempted to progress his Road Map towards the creation of this new Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time ever in recorded history.

President Bush’s letter clearly - and unambiguously - assured Israel that;

1. The borders of this new Arab State would not encompass the entire West Bank despite successive Arab leaders having demanded this outcome for the previous 37 years,

2. Jewish towns and villages in the West Bank would be incorporated into the borders of Israel

3. The Arabs would have to forego their demand to be given the right to allow millions of Arabs to emigrate to Israel and

4. Israel’s existence as a Jewish State would be non-negotiable

Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz joined a group of Israeli journalists who met with President Bush in the Oval Office prior to the President’s visit to Israel to take part in its 60th Anniversary celebrations in May 2008.

In his editorial - published on 14 May 2008 - Mr Horovitz revealed the extent of the American loss of memory - even at that time - concerning the President’s 2004 letter in the following terms:

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, has been known to minimize the significance of this four-year-old letter. Just last week, for instance, she told reporters that the 2004 letter “talked about realities at that time. And there are realities for both sides….

Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has also given briefings to the effect that Israel had tried to overstate the importance of a rather vague letter, which was issued at a time when Sharon was seeking to bolster support for the pullout from Gaza.

And in answering my question, Bush did not at first even realize that I was referring to the 2004 letter. Hadley, who was also in the Oval Office, had to prompt him. “Okay, the letters,” the president then said, remembering.”

This was not simply memory loss but something far worse and more sinister. An attempt was being made - even in 2008 - to downplay America’s clear and unequivocal commitments given to Israel as the price for Israel’s total evacuation of Gaza;

Israel has paid a high price in relying on President Bush’s letter.

Gaza has become a de facto terrorist Palestinian State with Hamas now firmly entrenched as the governing authority.

Israel has - since its evacuation of Gaza in 2005 - sustained a never ending barrage of rockets and mortars fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza by a bewildering variety of terrorist groups and sub-groups who would have had no chance of operating so freely from Gaza if the Israeli Army had remained there.

Gaza eventually paid the price for these gross acts of terrorism with Israel’s invasion of Gaza between December 2008-January 2009. However Gaza still remains defiant and unbowed.

Israel now needs to make it perfectly clear to President Obama and his Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton - that any attempt to resile from President Bush’s letter to Ariel Sharon will torpedo the prospects for any further negotiations - that President Obama then will have no one but himself to blame for bringing his own plans to a premature and ignominious end.

Israel’s former Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - neither forgot - nor overlooked - the critical significance of President Bush’s letter to permitting the resumption of any ongoing negotiations.

President Bush and Ms Rice were quick to claim credit for bringing Israel and the Palestinian Authority together at the international conference held in Annapolis in November 2007 to announce the breakthrough in the resumption of those negotiations.

Maybe President Bush and his former Madam Secretary were so flushed by their apparent success that they failed to hear - or perhaps hoped everyone might overlook - what Prime Minister Olmert told the gathered world leaders at Annapolis about the course of those future negotiations:

“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 subsequent failure of the negotiations at Annapolis can be directly attributed to Israel’s insistence that America remain committed to the terms of President Bush’s letter to Ariel Sharon - terms that the Palestinian Authority was not prepared to countenance and which led to the breakdown of those negotiations.

As President Obama gets ready to lay out his own proposals for achieving the two state solution, he needs to be reminded of the commitment made by his predecessor to Ariel Sharon. Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - must insist on President Obama remaining committed to supporting the outline of any proposed resolution to the conflict as clearly laid out in President Bush’s letter.

Jews have accumulated many memories - both pleasant and unpleasant - since losing their State, being expelled from there 2000 years ago and being dispersed to all corners of the globe. The Jews steeled themselves to ensure they never forgot who they were, where they came from and to where they would one day return.

Strength comes from remembering - not forgetting.

President Obama and his Secretary of State would do well to remember - and heed - this lesson as they strive to develop their own plan for ending the conflict.