Palestine - The Lord High Executioner Comes To Jerusalem

[Published March 2010]

In the best traditions of Ko Ko - the Lord High Executioner in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado - United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon set Jerusalem alight as his entourage trumpeted the words -

“Behold the Secretary-General
A personage of noble rank and title-
A dignified and potent officer,
Whose functions are particularly vital!
Defer, defer,
To the Lord High Executioner!”

The Secretary General had flown in from Moscow - where the Quartet comprising the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations had called on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to resume negotiations - declaring:

“These negotiations should lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties within 24 months, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its neighbours,”

It is hard to believe the Secretary -General - and indeed the Quartet - could spout such nonsense bearing in mind that the strict time frames laid down to achieve precisely this outcome in the 1993 Oslo Agreement , the 2003 Road Map and at Annapolis in 2007 had all come and gone with the same goal - the inappropriately named “two -state solution“ - never having got off the ground.

The Secretary General continues to demean whatever authority and credibility the United Nations might think it has - and the Quartet also does likewise - by seeking to pursue a solution that has no possible chance of coming to fruition.

A dignified officer the Secretary-General Mr Ban may be - but a decidedly impotent one for sure.

Our modern version of the Lord High Executioner had an additional message to convey as he made the short trip from Jerusalem to Ramallah to meet Mahmoud Abbas - the modern counterpart of Pooh Bah in the Mikado .

Abbas - like Pooh Bah - claims to be self-important or high-ranking yet possesses limited authority while taking impressive titles.

Abbas clings to the title of the President of the Palestinian Authority although his use by date expired 15 months ago. His Parliament and Prime Minister are self appointed whilst the elected Parliament and elected Prime Minister languishes powerless in Gaza.

Abbas has been politically neutered by Hamas and cannot guarantee the Palestinian Authority to honour any agreement with Israel.

Abbas still calls himself the Chairman of the PLO and wears two hats - one that calls for Israel’s destruction and the other that supposedly is anxious to negotiate with Israel and recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

Yet this is the man whom the Secretary-General comes to visit - taking the opportunity to repeat the following canard that has been part of the United Nations flawed thinking for the last 43 years:

“Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.”

Let me be absolutely clear - and let the Secretary-General use the vast resources at his power to prove me wrong. There are no binding authorities in international law that support the Secretary-General’s statement.

There are legal opinions that support the Secretary-General’s view that are based on the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The most notable of these is the “top secret” legal opinion given in September 1967 by Theodor Meron - then legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry - only retrieved by a historian Gershom Gorenberg when researching material to include in his book - The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 - which was published in 2007.

As Gorenberg tells the story:

” As for that legal opinion: It was written by Foreign Ministry legal counsel Theodor Meron, a Holocaust survivor with a doctorate in international law from Harvard. Meron was the government’s top expert in the field. A decade later, he accepted an academic appointment in the United States and became a world-renowned authority on international law. Today he is a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

His status gives particular weight to the words he wrote 41 years ago: “My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Meron’s opinion - and others that support him - certainly must be considered but they are not the be all and end all of legal opinions on the right of the Jews to build settlements in the West Bank.

There are other legal opinions - by people of similar status to Meron - that take the contrary view who determine that the settlements are legal based on the provisions of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter - two crucial pieces of international law that were not even considered by Meron or as far as I am aware by any of those supporting Meron‘s opinion.

These opinions include:

•The International Court of Justice in an advisory legal opinion on the effect of article 80 on 21 June 1971.

•Professor Paul Riebenfeld - an international lawyer who spent his life researching the Mandate Archives in Geneva and was present at the debates that took place at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 that led to the inclusion of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

•Judge El Araby - a member of the International Court of Justice.

•Eugene Rostow former Dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration and Director of Disarmament and and Arms Control in the Reagan Administration.

The Secretary General would do well to heed the following words sung by Ko Ko:

“Wafted by a favouring gale
As one sometimes is in trances,
To a height that few can scale,
Save by long and weary dances”

Few can indeed ascend to the dizzying heights to which the Secretary-General of the United Nations can lay claim.

However that position carries with it the responsibility to be very careful about what he says. Being scrupulously honest and unbiased - especially when it comes to the provisions of the United Nations Charter that he is sworn to uphold - is essential.

Wafted by a gale of Jew hatred that seeks the elimination of the Jewish State promised by the Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter - has blinded the Secretary General to his obligations. If he wants to play the role of the Lord High Executioner and have people defer to and respect his pronouncements - the Secretary General needs to be sure of his facts before chopping the head off his intended victim.

Hillary Huffs,Arab League Puffs,Abbas Blows The House Down

[Published March 2010]

It may seem discourteous to Jews and Arabs to refer to their current spat in the same breath as the tale of the three little pigs.

There is rare unanimity between Jews and Arabs when it comes to pigs - both religions forbid the eating of pig or any product derived from pig.

However this common bond has been trashed into pig swill when it comes to Jews and Arabs living within cooee of each other on a postage sized piece of land comprising 5% of historic Palestine with an area approximating the size of Delaware.

The squeals and snorts emanating from the Arab side at the thought of Israel building 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem to accommodate the burgeoning population growth among religious Jewish families averaging 5-6 children continues with ever piercing ferocity. It is almost certain to erupt in a frenzy of demonstrations and stone throwing.

You would think the Arabs were being led to the slaughter and were being pushed out of their existing residences to make way for the Jews. Certainly there have been Court ordered evictions of Arab squatters on Jewish owned properties in East Jerusalem but the 1600 planned units were not slated to be built on the site of those disputed properties.

Israel certainly did commit a huge PR gaffe in announcing its intention to build those 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem for a group of religious Jews who do not even support the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.

To make that announcement was extremely naïve and provocative at precisely the time that the Vice President of the United States - Joseph Biden - was visiting Jerusalem - with an entourage that had booked out 200 hotel rooms - to launch the beginning of proximity negotiations to supposedly advance the resolution of competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Arab League - believing it could now renege on giving its blessing to those negotiations commencing - - then promptly committed its own PR gaffe in withdrawing its consent to those proximity talks being held - - just two days after agreeing those talks should go ahead .

The American Vice President however appeared to accept Israel’s apology unreservedly.

There the matter should have ended and the proximity talks begun but for the intervention of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who roundly condemned Israel for spoiling what would have been seen as a triumph of American diplomacy in bringing a recalcitrant Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating pen.

Clinton’s verbal onslaught on Israel encouraged Abbas to believe he could now get America to demand Israel halt all building activity in East Jerusalem before the proximity talks were begun.

America - albeit reluctantly - had accepted Israel’s position almost four months ago that there would be no such halt as a condition to the resumption of any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas now mistakenly sniffed a new opportunity to wheedle out of the proximity negotiations with an enraged Hillary Clinton’s backing.

The Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator - Saeb Erekat - certainly conveyed that impression when making the following statement:

“The PA “welcomes the statements from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Quartet condemning the Israeli government decision to build settlements in the eastern sector of Jerusalem…

We want these positions to become binding and for Israel to scrap its settlement decisions, especially its plan to build 1600 homes in Jerusalem…

We want a total halt… we want to stop this Israeli policy that is useless and destructive for the peace process, especially for the US administration’s honest efforts to relaunch real and serious negotiations.”

Hillary Clinton’s huff however had more to do with something ingrained in Arab culture - the loss of face and the need to regain face as soon as possible.

Abbas already had found himself suffering a distinct loss of face when he agreed to commence proximity negotiations - and only after the Arab League provided him with the face saving cover to do so.

His political opponents - Hamas - and other radical Palestinian Arab groups had ridiculed his decision and denigrated his authority when commenting on Abbas’s decision:

“This decision will have serious repercussions for the Palestinians and their cause,” said Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip. “This decision will help Israel in ending the state of isolation it has been in because of its war crimes against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

Another Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, condemned the decision to resume the negotiations as a “crime” against the Palestinians.

“We consider these negotiations, which will take place in the wake of Israeli escalation against our people and holy sites, a national crime,” he said. “Anyone who negotiates with the occupation is a criminal against our people.”

Abbas was feeling decidedly threatened by his own brethren until Israel’s intemperate announcement provided the Arab League and himself with what he thought was an opportunity for another opportunity to miss an opportunity and regain the loss of face he had sustained by bending to American pressure to agree to proximity negotiations in the first place.

Vice President Biden’s immediate acceptance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s apology however left the Arab League and Abbas high and dry yet again and subject to even further loss of face if Abbas limply crawled back to the negotiating table in the face of Israel’s provocative announcement to build those 1600 units in East Jerusalem. Hamas would have had a real field day in denouncing Abbas.

Hillary’s attempt to play piggy in the middle by rapping Israel severely over the knuckles thereby restoring Abbas’s loss of face among his own power base, saving his bacon and enabling him to once again agree to conducting proximity negotiations - had backfired.

Abbas misinterpreted Hillary’s huff as a signal that America would now pressure Israel to cease all building activity in East Jerusalem before he was required to commence any proximity negotiations.

If Abbas believes that America will insist Israel do that - then pigs might really fly.

Reuters Reprehensible Report Requires Retraction

[Published March 2010]

Reuters - considered the world’s top news source - has allowed its credibility to be seriously damaged with the publication of its “Timeline: Path to new Israel-Palestinian talks” on 7 March 2010.

Its cursory - almost totally dismissive - omission of Jewish claims to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine - are made blatantly clear at the beginning of its Timeline which states:

“Here are key dates on the path to this point:
1897 - European Jews in Zionist movement declare goal of creating a Jewish state in Ottoman Turkish-ruled Palestine.

1917 - British forces take Palestine from collapsing Ottoman empire in World War One. British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declares support for Jewish “national home” there.

1945 - Revelation of Nazi Holocaust and new Jewish migration to Palestine bolster Western support for creating Jewish state.

1948 - Britain quits and great powers recognize Israel as U.N. partition plan dissolves in war that leaves Jewish state on 78 percent of land and half of Palestine’s Arabs as refugees.”

1967 - In what it calls pre-emptive strikes on Arab states, Israeli forces seize rest of British-mandate Palestine, taking West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and Gaza Strip from Egypt. Israel captures Golan Heights from Syria.

1988 - After a year of Intifada (uprising), exiled PLO leader Yasser Arafat, widely acknowledged as speaking for Palestinians, renounces “terrorism” and accepts Israel’s right to exist.

Omitted from this hastily concocted version are the following crucial - and critical - dates:

1920: Treaty of Sevres entrusts the administration of Palestine to a Mandatory for putting into effect the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

1922: Britain appointed Mandatory for Palestine by unanimous vote of the League of Nations. 78% of Mandate Palestine excluded from inclusion in the future Jewish National Home in area known as Transjordan which is exclusively reserved for Arab homeland.

1937: Peel Commission recommends division of Palestine into two States - one Jewish, one Arab . Arabs reject recommendation.

1939: Britain severely limits Jewish emigration to Palestine in breach of Mandate for duration of World War Two.

1945: League of Nations wound up and United Nations created. Article 80 inserted in United Nations Charter preserves Jewish rights to establish Jewish National Home in Palestine.

1946: Britain grants Transjordan independence in 78% of Mandate Palestine.

1947: United Nations votes to divide remaining 22% of Mandate Palestine into two states - one Jewish, one Arab. Arabs reject recommendation. Fighting breaks out between Jews and Arabs.

1948: Reuters omits to mention that

•six Arab armies invaded Palestine
•Egypt occupied Gaza and Transordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem
•The Palestinian National Conference decides to place the West Bank under the sovereignty of Transjordan and
•Erroneously states that Israel ended up with 78% - not 17% - of the land

1949: Transjordan changes its name to Jordan

1950: The West Bank and Jordan are unified into one country by the Jordanian Parliament comprising equal number of West Bank and Jordanian representatives

1967: Reuters omits to mention Security Council Resolution 242 requiring Israel to only withdraw to secure and recognized boundaries.

1988: Jordan cedes any claims to the West Bank

This perversion of the history of Palestine is either induced by ignorance or a deliberate suppression of critical information that goes to the heart of the debate currently raging at the moment.

Inclusion of the above dates in Reuters Timeline would substantiate Jewish claims to be entitled to sovereignty in all or part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to build settlements there based on the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - rights grounded in international law.

Their absence from the Timeline needs to be explained or justified by Reuters if it is to regain any credibility in its reporting in the Middle East.

This Timeline has now been distributed throughout Reuters extensive network and can be viewed on its American, British and Indian websites and has been published and reproduced by other web sites and news services.

It has also been distributed on Reuters AlertNet site which proudly claims:

“AlertNet attracts upwards of ten million users a year, has a network of 400 contributing humanitarian organizations and its weekly email digest is received by more than 26,000 readers

It was started in 1997 by Reuters Foundation - an educational and humanitarian trust - to place Reuters’ core skills of speed, accuracy and freedom from bias at the service of the humanitarian community.”

Any claim to Reuters possessing these core skills is exposed as a sham and continues the gross media bias that continues to bury Jewish claims in international law to the West Bank and Gaza and to settle there to reconstitute the Jewish National Home.

Reuters continues the practice of the United Nations which similarly omitted any mention of many of these critical dates when seeking an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2004 on the legality of the construction of the security barrier on and over the 1967 armistice lines.

Judge Elaraby - gave this warning to his fellow 14 judges sitting on that case:

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

Judge Elaraby identified the need for such a review saying:

“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.”

Judge Elaraby continued:

“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”

The bias of the United Nations against Israel in omitting to refer to the Mandate when approaching the International Court is par for the course.

Reuters omission to similarly inform its millions of readers now places it on a similar pedestal following the publication of its grossly inaccurate and misleading Timeline.

The best thing Reuters can do is immediately withdraw its Timeline. I would hope it has the integrity and honesty to do so with an appropriate - and prominent - apology for its publication in the first place.

Palestine - Israeli Bombshell Bounces Off Mediterranean Parliamentarians

[Published March 2010]

A bombshell was lobbed into an International Meeting in support of Israeli- Palestinian Peace organized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean Union [PAM] and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People [CEIRPP] of the United Nations in Malta on 12 and 13 February 2010.

Yet the explosion passed over the heads of those present without scarcely a ripple.

The meeting was attended by a number of Member delegations of PAM, parliamentarians from other national and regional assemblies, government officials, experts including Israeli and Palestinians, UN Member States and observers, intergovernmental and civil society organisations.

In all there were 35 countries, 13 Inter-Governmental Organizations, 14 Civil Society Organizations and Academic Institutions, totaling around 200 participants.

Israel Parliamentarians were not officially represented at the Conference. The two members of the Israeli Knesset were reported by the Malta Times to have pulled out of the conference after they objected to comments by Palestinian officials about the situation in Gaza and the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The bombshell nevertheless was delivered by one of the two Israelis present at the conference - Mr Alon Liel.

Described in the official transcript of the proceedings as “Lecturer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem” Mr Liel told the Conference (as recorded in the transcript):

“he was not representing the Israeli Government, adding that, unfortunately, there was no member of the Israeli Government at the present Meeting. He said that many in Israel felt that the peace process had crashed to the extent that the two-State solution looked impossible at the moment, adding, “You need an unbelievable earthquake, 8 on the Richter scale, on the political map of Israel, to bridge the gap between Israel and the Palestinians”. The talks between Palestinians and Mr. Olmert were over. Even if the Americans managed to arrange proximity talks and enter a hotel and sit in one room, with the existing political map in Israel, “the gap is unbridgeable”. He acknowledged that with a broken heart, but did not see the possibility of a Palestinian State being created in the foreseeable future. And he was not even speaking of Jerusalem or refugees, but about borders only, he said.“

Mr Liel’s modest qualifications as recorded in the transcript belied his extensive diplomatic experience and public service which includes:

•Nov 2000 - April 2001 Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

•1997-1999 Foreign Affairs advisor to Ehud Barak, Chairman of the Labor Party

•1992-94 Israeli Ambassador to South Africa (Non-resident Ambassador to Mozambique and Zimbabwe)

•1990-1992 Consul General of Israel to the Southeastern United States (based in Atlanta, Georgia)

•1988-1989 Foreign Ministry Spokesman; Member of Israeli delegation to the United Nations General Assembly; Member of the Israeli negotiating team at the Taba talks with Egypt

•President of the Israel-Syria Peace Society

Only two people present at the Conference seemed to have absorbed the import of Mr Liel’s statement.

One - a representative from Tunis said he had been optimistic at the start of the Meeting, but he was very pessimistic now after having listened to Mr. Liel.

The other was the Palestine Authority’s chief negotiator - Saeb Erekat who was reported as saying:

“what Mr. Liel had done was “transparent and honest”. He had reflected the facts as they were. The Coalition Government in Israel today was not up to the two-State solution with the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership had reached the same conclusion. But that did not mean the Palestinians should give up.“

Mr Erekat’s last comment seemed rather hollow considering the Palestinian Authority’s steadfast refusal to resume negotiations with Israel for the last three months following Israel‘s ten months freeze on residential construction in the West Bank announced last November.

What else can now be possibly done to achieve the “two-state option” - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel , Jordan and Egypt - after 16 years of failed diplomacy and negotiations in attempting to make even the slightest breakthrough?

Mr Liel had previously warned in an interview in Asharq Alawsat on 18 March 2008:

“…we think that peace with the Palestinians today is unrealistic. There is a split between Hamas and Fatah, and there is a coup in Gaza, which has exacerbated the situation. There are burning issues the present government cannot resolve now, such as the issues of Jerusalem, the refugees, and the borders. These are very difficult issues.”

What was true in 2008 is even more valid in 2010. Nothing has changed in those two years.

Further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority will assuredly prove to be a complete waste of time and effort.

The Palestinian Authority’s use by date and credentials to negotiate the future sovereignty of the West Bank have well and truly expired.

Yet those present at the Malta Conference continued to repeat the need for the Jewish-Arab conflict to be resolved by the creation of yet another Arab State in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand - they failed to listen to what Mr Liel and Mr Erekat were telling them.

Perhaps those present at the conference should heed what Mr Liel had to say almost ten years ago on 1 November 2000 when taking up the position of Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry in the aftermath of the failed Camp David negotiations brokered by President Clinton:

“The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians has suffered a terrible blow, just as Israel and the Palestinians were on the very brink of realizing their dreams of peace and reconciliation. At the last kilometer of the marathon, as we were nearing the finishing line, Arafat turned around and ran back in the opposite direction. This retrogressive and illogical action goes against the tide of history, it is contrary to the wishes of the international community, and it is surely detrimental to the interests of his own people. Arafat started running in the opposite direction, and he has not stopped for a moment. In doing so, he has harmed the peace process, while undermining his own standing and personal reputation. Arafat has chosen to renounce his status as a statesman, preferring instead to revert to his old role as the leader of a campaign of incitement, violence and terrorism. Arafat has a golden opportunity to lead his people to a new and promising future. Instead, he has taken a dangerous step backwards towards the abyss.”

Mr Liel’s words could be just as appropriately applied today to Mahmoud Abbas’s rejection of the peace offer made by Israel’s former Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - in 2008.

Whilst the international community continues talking - and not listening to those with intimate knowledge and understanding of the hopelessness inherent in bringing the two-state option to fruition - both Jews and Arabs are set to endure a lot more suffering and trauma before the reality sinks in and a new course is charted to try and bring some closure to the conflict.

Palestine - Mediterranean Union Misses Making Its Mark

[Published February 2010]

An International Meeting in support of Israeli- Palestinian Peace was organized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean Union and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People [CEIRPP] of the United Nations in Malta on 12 and 13 February 2010.

The Union now includes all 27 member states of the European Union, along with 16 partners across the Southern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

The meeting turned out to be the usual talkfest in flogging a dead horse - the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Jordan, Israel and Egypt - also known as “the two-state solution“. This solution has been unsuccessfully pursued for the last 16 years and there is no possible chance that such a resolution will be achieved at any time in the future.

The two-state solution could have been availed of in 1937,1947, between 1948-1967, in 2000/2001 and 2008 but was rejected on each occasion by the Arabs. It will continue to be rejected by the Arabs who are not prepared to tolerate Israel gaining sovereignty in any part of the West Bank.

Despite the hopelessness of ever reaching the two-state solution - those present in Malta still concluded in their final communique :

“The Organizers appreciated that the participants had stated their firm commitment to ending Israeli occupation which started on 4 June 1967 in order to achieve a permanent two-State solution in which Israel and Palestine would live side by side in peace and security within mutually recognized borders. …

The Organizers support the firm stance by the international community not to recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to occupied Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.”

These statements go to the heart of explaining why the two-state solution can never be achieved for the following reasons:

•Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a consequence of the Six Day War in 1967 is conveniently forgotten

•The use of the term “borders” is clearly wrong. There were in 1967 - and still are in 2010 - only armistice lines - a legacy of the Arab League‘s refusal to recognize Israel and settle the final boundaries between Israel, Jordan and Egypt following the conclusion of hostilities in 1948.

•No recognition is given to Security Council resolution 242 which does not require Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank but only to withdraw to secure and recognized boundaries

•The statement ignores the Palestinan Authority’s continuing refusal to surrender its claim to even one square metre of the West Bank to Israel.

•America has recognized that a change to the 1967 armistice lines is necessary given the changed circumstances on the ground where 500000 Jews now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The notion that these Jews can be forcibly evicted from their homes is racist and offensive.

•No account has been taken of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which provides that the West Bank and East Jerusalem were to form part of the area within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted and that such right has been preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

No doubt the tone and language of the final communique was inevitable given the involvement of the CEIRPP, whose participation ensured that no attention would be paid to Arab intransigence and lost opportunities over 62 years - which has been largely responsible for any progress in finalizing the two-state solution.

What was particularly interesting was the frequent reference to the importance, observance and respect for the rule of international law in resolving the conflict to achieve the two-state solution. Such a reference appears on six separate occasions in the communique.

Yet the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter didn’t rate a mention in Malta.

Strangely enough these critical documents were also omitted from inclusion by the United Nations Secretary General in the brief submitted to the World Court when seeking the advisory opinion of the Court on the legality of the construction of Israel’s security barrier in the West Bank.

One wonders whether any of these august bodies will eventually take the time to read the Mandate and article 80 and fully understand what was determined by the League of Nations in 1922 following the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.

This is not ancient history but has been kept alive and is relevant today by virtue of Article 80.

Whilst the United Nations and its member States flagrantly breach the terms of the UN Charter pursuing a course of conduct that is completely devoid of compliance with and acknowledgment of international law, any hope of a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Jews and Arabs relating to the territory once called “Palestine” will be impossible.

The reference by the Malta Meeting to the West Bank as “occupied Palestinian land” rather than “territory disputed between Jew and Arabs” further indicates an Arab bias that needs to be eradicated if the Mediterranean Union wishes to play any future role in resolving the conflict.

A hint of things to come was apparent in the following terms of the final communique:

“They [the participants] expressed their hope that the ten-month freeze of settlement expansion declared by the Israeli Government would be comprehensive, extended to East Jerusalem and retained indefinitely. “

Israel will no doubt be subjected to intense pressure to comply with this demand - irrespective of whether the Palestinian Authority resumes negotiations within the ten months time frame or not.

Rather than exploring new ideas to end the conflict, the Malta Meeting trotted out the old and familiar phrases that have formed the vocabulary of Middle East diplomacy for decades.

In doing do the Mediterranean Union has shown itself unable to break free from the failures of the past and embrace new and innovative ideas - such as the return of Jordan to the West Bank - which might offer some hope to resolving what President Obama has described as “an intractable problem”.

Abdullah Bristles As Palestine Fizzles

Jordan’s King Abdullah is clearly feeling the pressure as the spotlight increasingly focuses on the role Jordan will have to play in resolving the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jews and Arabs.

This became very clear in the interview given by the King to Fareed Zakaria, in Davos Switzerland during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting on 29 January.

The two-state solution - designed to create a new Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt in the West Bank and Gaza - has comprehensively failed despite the most intensive diplomatic efforts to achieve such an outcome during the last 17 years

The root cause of failure has been the Arab League’s refusal to budge from its 43 years old negotiating position that demands:

1.the ceding by Israel of sovereignty in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza

2.Israel accepting millions of Arabs into the Jewish State

Offers by Israel to cede sovereignty in excess of 90% of the West Bank - which houses 95% of the Arab population living there - were rejected by the Arabs in 2001 and 2008.

Israel is not prepared to cede any further territory in the West Bank for security reasons. This area also houses the majority of the 500000 Jewish population who currently live in the West Bank.

Israel’s evacuation of Gaza in 2005 has proved disastrous with Hamas seizing control from the Palestinian Authority in 2007 - effectively dividing the proposed new State into two separately controlled fiefdoms.

The failure of President Obama to get Israel and the Palestinian Authority to resume negotiations for the last twelve months - which assuredly won’t go anywhere even if they were to be resumed - has sent power brokers scurrying to find alternatives to the two-state solution.

King Abdullah in his above interview expressed his own fears when stating:

“Actually, this is probably the first time where I am somewhat pessimistic”

His gloomy mood was further emphasised when he said:

“…sooner or later there is an invisible line in the sand that we will cross that will be clear to everybody, whether or not the viability of a two-state solution is there. And I hope we haven’t crossed that yet but when –or God forbid –we do cross that line, then I think we doom the Middle East and the region to many decades of instability.”

With the deepest respect to His Majesty - that invisible line was crossed when the Palestinian Authority rejected the offer made by Israel in the negotiations conducted in 2008.

Israel’s chief negotiator in 2008 - Udi Dekel - spelt out the reasons for that failure when he told Ha’Aretz on 25 January in a revealing interview:

"The Palestinian approach was in principle the demand of 100 percent of their rights from 1967. The practical aspect interested them less. They are not willing to discuss any further compromise," he said. "We tried to build scenarios, some of them were imaginary, about specific compromises, but we found the Palestinians taking an approach of ‘all or nothing’."

Israel’s former National Security Advisor - Giora Eiland - has recently called for Jordan to replace the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s negotiating partner.

This has clearly upset King Abdullah who said in the above interview:

“There are pushes by certain elements of the Israeli government to say Jordan takes a role in the West Bank. That is never going to work and we have to be very clear that Jordan absolutely does not want to have anything to do with the West Bank.

All we will be doing is replacing Israeli military with Jordanian military. The Palestinians do not want that. They want to have their own statehood.

And again, what type of West Bank are we talking about? We are talking about a viable entity. What I think these people are offering to try and pull Jordan in is really nothing that would create enough statehood or make the Palestinians feel that they have something that’s called their home. So Jordan – I’m on the record; we’ve said this so many times –we will not have any role in the West Bank.”

King Abdullah is in a state of denial and needs to reverse his negative stance for the following reasons:

1.Jordan was the last Arab occupier of the West Bank between 1948-1967 when it could have - but failed - to give the Palestinians their own statehood in 100% of that territory after the Jews living there had been driven out following Jordan’s conquest of the West Bank in the 1948 War of Independence. Jordan’s return to the West Bank would substantially restore the status quo existing in 1967.

2.Jordan extended its sovereignty, and consequently all applicable domestic law, to the West Bank and East Jerusalem in April 1950. Reinstatement - where necessary - could be easily achieved.

3.West Bank Arabs were Jordanian nationals between 1950 - 1988 - until their nationality was withdrawn by Jordan. Jordanian nationality could now be as easily reinstated by Jordanian legislative decree.

4.Jordan ceded its claims to sovereignty in the West Bank in 1988 in favour of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - which itself had previously ceded any claims to “exercise regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” under Article 24 of the 1964 Charter of the PLO. These semantic name games can again be easily reversed.

5.Jordan - together with Israel - comprise the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine possessing sovereignty between them in 94% of former Palestine. Only 6% of Palestine - the West Bank and Gaza - remains unallocated between them.

6.Jordan’s return to the West Bank can immediately free its Arab residents from Israeli occupation and control, give them Jordanian nationality, a home and a State -Jordan.

7.Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel provides mechanisms for peacefully settling outstanding issues such as water, refugees and Jerusalem.

King Abdullah needs to heed the following advice given by him in his interview with Fareed Zakaria:

“Don’t take no for an answer. There are members of my society that, when I say ‘Let’s do something’, there’s a – I wish I could translate it into English–but it’s ‘Tsk’. The Arabs will know what I mean when I say ‘Let’s move this sector of society’ –‘Tsk, that’s never going to happen. We can’t find the money’. And I think that has been the major challenge that I’ve had over the past 10 years. It is not to be intimidated by the ‘Tsk’ that I get from society."

King Abdullah must show real leadership at this time of crisis and ready himself for negotiations with Israel - for nothing else has a chance of succeeding. This will avert the doom and instability predicted by the King following the collapse of the two-state solution.

Now is certainly not the time for King Abdullah to say “Tsk”. Please think again Your Majesty.

Palestine - Jordan And Egypt In State Of Denial

[Published January 2010]

Jordan and Egypt need to replace the Palestinian Authority as the Arab partner to negotiate with Israel on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem according to a paper entitled “Regional Alternatives To The Two State Solution” written by Israel’s former National Security Advisor - Giora Eiland

Eiland’s paper contains two suggested alternatives to the “two-state solution”. He states that there are other creative alternatives that will present themselves once Jordan and Egypt replace the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s negotiating partner.

Eiland presented his paper to a special Ambassadors’ Forum briefing for members of the diplomatic community representing around 30 countries in Israel and at a conference hosted by the University’s Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies last week.

In an introduction to Eiland’s paper BESA’s Director - Professor Efraim Inbar - commented:

“It is clearly a study that challenges conventional wisdom. The great difficulty of changing thought patterns that have become entrenched within dominant paradigms, such as the widespread notion of the need to establish a Palestinian state, is well known.”

The time to change those entrenched thought patterns has now emerged for the following reasons:

1.Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have gone nowhere in the last 16 years

2.The Palestinian Authority now refuses to further negotiate with Israel until Israel ceases all building activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - which Israel is not prepared to do

3.The Palestinian Authority shows no preparedness to change the negotiating position which its alter ego - the PLO - has adopted for the last 42 years - namely a sovereign and fully independent state in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza with its capital situated in Jerusalem and no recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

4.The Palestinian Authority has lost its status as sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs since 2007 and is now locked in a bitter power struggle with Fatah for total control of the Palestinian Arabs and the government of any future state

5.Gaza and the West Bank have been split into separate fiefdoms governed respectively by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and no unification of the two areas under one government appears likely to occur.

Eiland asserts that Israel made a grave mistake in trying to resolve the Palestinian problem on its own without the involvement of Egypt and Jordan. The position has now been reached in his opinion where no allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem will ever occur without the direct involvement of these two nation states.

There are very strong and supportive views for this position:

•Egypt was the last Arab State to occupy Gaza between 1948-1967 and Jordan the last Arab State to occupy east Jerusalem and the West Bank during the same period of 19 years.

•During those 19 years no Jew resided in these areas and the “two state solution” could have been implemented at any time by Jordan and Egypt in that period if the Arabs had wanted to do so.

•The loss of those areas to Israel in 1967 and the fact that 500000 Jews now live there makes it impossible to return to the 1967 armistice lines that then separated the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem from Israel.

•Since 1967 both Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel - Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 - that have been maintained and respected by all signatories.

•Jordan - with Israel - are the two successor States to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and currently exercise sovereignty in 94% of Mandatory Palestine. They are obviously the best negotiating partners - with Egypt - to resolve Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 6% - the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The Egyptian response to Eiland’s proposal has been less than lukewarm.

A representative of the Egyptian embassy in Israel said that the Palestinian problem should not be turned into an Egyptian problem.

This view is hard to accept since Egypt partially created the problem by doing nothing between 1948-1967 in Gaza when it had the opportunity to do so.

Jordan severed its ties with - and any claims to sovereignty of - the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1988 to the PLO. The failure of the PLO and its successor - the Palestinian Authority - to achieve Arab sovereignty in the last 22 years only highlights the need for Jordan to resume negotiations with Israel to try and achieve a better outcome.

This is especially so since the signing of Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel in 1994 already deals with such contentious issues as refugees, water and Jerusalem. The only issue still to be resolved is the new border to be drawn between these two sovereign states.

Whilst there has been no official response from Jordan to Eiland’s suggestion, it is interesting to note that a Jordanian prosecutor agreed on 21 January to hear a lawsuit against two Israeli lawmakers - Speaker Reuven Rivlin and Arye Eldad - after they called for turning Jordan into a Palestinian state.

Arye Eldad - made the following response to such news:

“Apparently in Jordan, telling the truth is against the law. This is a ridiculous attempt to impose Jordanian law on Israel - which allows freedom of speech. No lawsuit can change the fact that Jordan is Palestinian and that the Hashemites are ruling over the Palestinian majority in a dictatorship.”

Eldad said he would continue his efforts to persuade American congressmen and leaders all over the world that Jordan must be the Palestinian state.

“There need to be two states for two peoples,” Eldad said. “The Palestinians have a state, Jordan, and I will continue my campaign to make sure the world realizes this. The next time the world sees a stalemate in the diplomatic process, they must know that this is as a realistic option.”

Eiland’s proposal for negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt indeed remains the only possible way to finally resolve sovereignty in the West Bank ,Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Perhaps Eiland should replicate the advice given by US Embassy spokesman in Israel - Keith Hoyer - when commenting on American Special Envoy George Mitchell’s shuttle diplomacy:

“He’s just trying to persuade, and sometimes you persuade by restating your position, again and again and again, until you get an agreement”

As time goes by and the “two state solution” sinks slowly to the bottom of the harbour - Eiland’s message - if repeated often and loud enough - will be eventually heard by the international community and the Arab League looking for a lifeline to avoid them all going down with the ship.