The following article appeared on Y Net on 23 April 2011.
Jordan's involvement in resolving the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues to be more likely as the two-state solution continues to go nowhere.
***********************************************************************************
Revisiting the Jordan option
Op-ed: With hopes fading for two-state solution, ‘Jordan is Palestine’ option may be best alternative
Asaf Romirowsky
Published: 04.23.11, 14:21 / Israel Opinion
Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.
Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.
In February, Human Rights Watch, the world’s self-proclaimed defender of minority rights, produced a 60-page report entitled, “Stateless Again: Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality.” The paper details how Jordan deprives its Palestinian citizens of West Bank origins their basic rights, such education and healthcare. The report received scant attention back then. But the problem of Jordanian Palestinians, amidst growing unrest in the Hashemite Kingdom, has put the issue back on the front burner.
Israeli analysts worry that if the Jordanian government is to become more representative, it is possible that the country’s 72% Palestinian population could effectively take control. Jordan, in effect, could become “Palestine.”
The notion of a Palestinian controlled polity in Jordan is not new. From the war of Israeli independence in 1948 through the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli politicians on the Left and Right advanced a policy of “Jordan is Palestine.” While defending Israel from Arab aggression, they proposed that Jordan become the Palestinian homeland. Israeli officials proposed various scenarios for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation that fused the East Bank and West Bank of the Jordan River under one administration.
However, it is not as simple as that. Dan Schueftan, author of A Jordanian Option, correctly noted in 1986 that such an arrangement would be dependent on Israeli-Jordanian relations and how the two parties view potential threats from the Palestinian populations in their midst.
Inseparable security needs
To be sure, in the years after the Six-Day War, the Jordanian monarchy was wary of the Palestinians. Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat challenged the sovereignty of the country in 1970. After that, the kingdom had blocked the flow of Palestinians from the West Bank into the East Bank in order to preserve the kingdom’s Hashemite political structure. To a certain extent, the Jordanians renounced all claims to the West Bank in 1988, backed the creation of the Palestinian Authority in the early 1990s, and then made peace with Israel in 1994 in an attempt to prevent further flooding of Palestinians into their country.
To a certain extent Jerusalem has long looked to the Hashemite monarchy to maintain stability and security on both sides of the river. Both Amman and Jerusalem, in fact, recognize that their security needs are inseparable. Jordan has benefited from the periods of relative quiet and prosperity in Israel. Accordingly, Jordanian security forces have been increasingly involved in the West Bank, where they conduct joint training sessions with Palestinian forces. It has been a win-win-win situation for Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem now is that Jordan’s traditional power centers are unhappy with the rise of Palestinian influence in the country. Tribal leaders resent Jordan’s Queen Rania, born in Kuwait to a family with roots in the West Bank, for her vocal advocacy of the Palestinian cause. In fact, 36 tribal leaders recently published their objections to Rania’s position, fearing that it will accelerate a slow Palestinian takeover of the kingdom.
With hopes fading for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this seemingly far-flung notion may become the last, best option. The problem is that it could embolden Palestinian radical groups, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, which derive much of their power from disillusioned Palestinians in the West and East Banks. With the rise of such groups in Jordan, the peace agreement between Amman and Jerusalem would be in peril.
Nevertheless, as uncomfortable as it might be for Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians to admit, the Jordanian option might be the best one they have.
Asaf Romirowsky is an adjunct scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former liaison officer from the Israeli Defense Forces to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Mandate for Palestine - July 24, 1922
Jordan is 77% of former Palestine - Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza comprise 23%.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Obama Won't Become Israel's Embalmer
[Published April 2010]
Speculation is rife that a far-reaching shift is taking place in how the United States views the Jewish-Arab conflict - and how aggressively America might push for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Whilst nothing concrete has yet emerged to confirm such speculation - there is plenty of evidence available to suggest that President Obama will not be attempting to publicly impose any settlement on Israel that would not have first been approved of by Israel before its release.
America’s special relationship with and commitment to the future of the Jewish people extends over 90 years and was first made by United States President Woodrow Wilson on 3 March 1919 when he declared:
The reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine subsequently became accepted at the San Remo Conference on 25 April 1920, was confirmed by Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres on 10 August 1920 and adopted by the unanimous approval of the League of Nations in the Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922.
America was not a member of the League of Nations but on 30 June 1922 a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the Mandate.
On September 21, 1922 President Harding signed the joint declaration of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Two days later a Memorandum was presented to the League of Nations by the British Government denying the Jews the right to establish their national home in 77% of Mandatory Palestine - today called Jordan.
This left the remaining 23% of Palestine west of the Jordan River - today called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - as the only remaining location available for fulfilling the Mandate’s Jewish National Home objective
The Mandate was clear in stating that:
The demise of the League of Nations in 1945 did not mean an end to these rights vested in the Jewish people. They were preserved by the introduction of Article 80 - known as “the Palestine Clause” - in the United Nations Charter. America took a leading role in the drafting and inclusion of Article 80.
At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. 11 minutes later the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31, 1949).
On 15 May 1948 six Arab armies invaded Palestine.
At the conclusion of hostilities Egypt had occupied Gaza and Jordan had occupied the West Bank. Both continued to do so until Israel assumed control of both areas on 10 June 1967 following the conclusion of the Six Day War.
America led the drafting of Security Council Resolution 242 - passed on 22 November 1967 - which did not require Israel to return to the armistice lines existing since 1949 - but only to secure and recognized boundaries.
The conditional acceptance by Israel of President Bush’s Roadmap issued on 30 April 2003 led to Israel proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - but only after it had received the following written assurances from President Bush on 14 April 2004:
The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:
President Bush’s letter of commitment to Israel was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.
On 11 April 2005 President Bush again confirmed these American commitments to Prime Minister Sharon in Crawford - Texas.
At the Annapolis Conference convened on 27 November 2007, Israel made its future negotiating stance clear when Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - said in the presence of President Bush:
For President Obama to unilaterally seek to impose a settlement contrary to these American commitments extending over 90 years would be a complete abnegation of America’s credibility in the international arena. America would be exposed as a nation whose commitments are not worth the paper they are written on. America’s proud record of standing by and honoring the commitments it makes would be shattered forever.
Israel’s enemies are unceasing in their determination to end the Jewish State’s existence. President Obama is not going to oblige them and become Israel’s embalmer by breaching any of America’s solemn commitments made to the Jewish people.
Speculation is rife that a far-reaching shift is taking place in how the United States views the Jewish-Arab conflict - and how aggressively America might push for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Whilst nothing concrete has yet emerged to confirm such speculation - there is plenty of evidence available to suggest that President Obama will not be attempting to publicly impose any settlement on Israel that would not have first been approved of by Israel before its release.
America’s special relationship with and commitment to the future of the Jewish people extends over 90 years and was first made by United States President Woodrow Wilson on 3 March 1919 when he declared:
“I am persuaded that the Allied Nations, with the fullest consent of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth”
The reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine subsequently became accepted at the San Remo Conference on 25 April 1920, was confirmed by Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres on 10 August 1920 and adopted by the unanimous approval of the League of Nations in the Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922.
America was not a member of the League of Nations but on 30 June 1922 a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the Mandate.
On September 21, 1922 President Harding signed the joint declaration of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Two days later a Memorandum was presented to the League of Nations by the British Government denying the Jews the right to establish their national home in 77% of Mandatory Palestine - today called Jordan.
This left the remaining 23% of Palestine west of the Jordan River - today called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - as the only remaining location available for fulfilling the Mandate’s Jewish National Home objective
The Mandate was clear in stating that:
1.The Jewish National Home was to be established in Palestine whilst safeguarding the civil and religious - (but not any political) - rights of “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” irrespective of race and religion.
2.Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes was to be encouraged.
The demise of the League of Nations in 1945 did not mean an end to these rights vested in the Jewish people. They were preserved by the introduction of Article 80 - known as “the Palestine Clause” - in the United Nations Charter. America took a leading role in the drafting and inclusion of Article 80.
At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. 11 minutes later the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31, 1949).
On 15 May 1948 six Arab armies invaded Palestine.
At the conclusion of hostilities Egypt had occupied Gaza and Jordan had occupied the West Bank. Both continued to do so until Israel assumed control of both areas on 10 June 1967 following the conclusion of the Six Day War.
America led the drafting of Security Council Resolution 242 - passed on 22 November 1967 - which did not require Israel to return to the armistice lines existing since 1949 - but only to secure and recognized boundaries.
The conditional acceptance by Israel of President Bush’s Roadmap issued on 30 April 2003 led to Israel proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - but only after it had received the following written assurances from President Bush on 14 April 2004:
•The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.
•The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.
•The United States understood that after Israel withdrew from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza would continue.
•The United States was strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.
•It seemed clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
•As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion. It was realistic to expect that any final status agreement would only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:
“The political support we received during my visit to the United States is an unprecedented accomplishment for Israel. Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President’s letter.”
President Bush’s letter of commitment to Israel was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.
On 11 April 2005 President Bush again confirmed these American commitments to Prime Minister Sharon in Crawford - Texas.
At the Annapolis Conference convened on 27 November 2007, Israel made its future negotiating stance clear when Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - said in the presence of President Bush:
” The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”
For President Obama to unilaterally seek to impose a settlement contrary to these American commitments extending over 90 years would be a complete abnegation of America’s credibility in the international arena. America would be exposed as a nation whose commitments are not worth the paper they are written on. America’s proud record of standing by and honoring the commitments it makes would be shattered forever.
Israel’s enemies are unceasing in their determination to end the Jewish State’s existence. President Obama is not going to oblige them and become Israel’s embalmer by breaching any of America’s solemn commitments made to the Jewish people.
Palestine and Paranoia - Jordan, Jerusalem and Jitters
[Published April 2010]
King Abdullah’s recent interview in the Wall Street Journal indicates the extent of His Majesty’s concern at the continuing failure to achieve the slightest breakthrough in creating a new Arab state between Jordan, Israel and Egypt following 17 years of failed international diplomacy to bring such a new state into existence.
The King is clearly worried that other solutions will need to be looked at if:
King Abdullah understands that any such solutions must involve Jordan and that Jordan cannot sit on the sidelines any longer. He is not at all happy with facing the challenges that will throw the spotlight on Jordan and the role it will have to play if the current status quo is to be changed
Jordan has allowed Israel to shoulder the sole responsibility for changing the status quo of the West Bank since ceding any claims to the West Bank in 1988 - and has happily sat back and let Israel bear the international odium for failing to do so - although :
King Abdullah’s concerns are particularly frank and very revealing as indicated by his following comments during the above interview:
The way to achieve this is for Jordan to negotiate and divide the future sovereignty of the West Bank with Israel thereby freeing the majority of the existing Arab population from continuing Israeli control whilst making them citizens of Jordan once again .
As such custodians Jordan has an obligation to negotiate with Israel on Jordan’s role in the future of those holy places - and can do so under the framework of the signed existing 1993 peace treaty concluded between Israel and Jordan which acknowledges Jordan’s role in this regard.
King Abdullah however seeks to instill a climate of fear into the West Bank’s existing Arab population and to totally mislead and misrepresent what Jordan’s return to the West Bank will entail for the refugees in Syria and Lebanon when he states:
Negotiations between Jordan and Israel on the future status of the West Bank need not involve one Arab having to pack up and leave his current residence or business in the West Bank, He will stay where he currently is with Jordanian citizenship in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Where the West Bank Arab population falls within the expanded borders of Greater Israel - those Arabs affected can be offered Israeli citizenship or compensation to move to the other side of the new international boundary between Israel and Jordan if that is their wish. A similar option will be afforded to those West Bank Jews finding themselves within the boundaries of Greater Jordan.
Those refugees living in Syria and Lebanon can be offered the alternatives of absorption and citizenship in Syria or Lebanon or offered financial compensation to move and settle within the expanded borders of Greater Jordan and being granted Jordanian citizenship. Their miserable existence as stateless refugees will be ended after 62 years of interminable hardship and suffering.
These arrangements may not end the Arab-Jewish conflict but will certainly bring about a major change in the existing status quo and hopefully avert the consequences of war and suffering predicted by King Abdullah.
The King can continue to sit on the sidelines and criticize and deprecate. He will be committing a gross error of judgment if he does so.
It could ultimately see an attempt to overthrow his ruling Hashemite regime in Jordan - as was attempted in 1970 by the PLO but ultimately failed. The King is already jittery at the thought of such a possibility.
International financial aid and international military assistance should be offered as inducements to Jordan to assist its re-entry into the West Bank once again - coupled with a mutual defense pact between Israel and Jordan to prevent any attempted takeover of Jordan by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Brotherhood or Islamic Jihad.
Jordan must be ruing the day in 1967 when it decided to join in the Six Day War in defiance of Israel’s request not to do so - and lost the then Jew-free West Bank and East Jerusalem as a result.
Now is the time for Jordan to make amends for that decision. The sooner it does so - the sooner the world might be able to focus and concentrate its efforts on resolving far more serious issues involving human and political rights in places such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Thailand, Sri Lanka and North Korea.
King Abdullah’s recent interview in the Wall Street Journal indicates the extent of His Majesty’s concern at the continuing failure to achieve the slightest breakthrough in creating a new Arab state between Jordan, Israel and Egypt following 17 years of failed international diplomacy to bring such a new state into existence.
The King is clearly worried that other solutions will need to be looked at if:
•the lives of the West Bank Arab population are to be transformed,
•there is to be any resolution on the future status of Jerusalem and
•the refugee status of those former Arab residents of Palestine now living in Syria and Lebanon is ended.
King Abdullah understands that any such solutions must involve Jordan and that Jordan cannot sit on the sidelines any longer. He is not at all happy with facing the challenges that will throw the spotlight on Jordan and the role it will have to play if the current status quo is to be changed
Jordan has allowed Israel to shoulder the sole responsibility for changing the status quo of the West Bank since ceding any claims to the West Bank in 1988 - and has happily sat back and let Israel bear the international odium for failing to do so - although :
1.Jordan comprises 77% of the former territory of Palestine and together with Israel constitute the two successor States to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
2.Jordan unified and incorporated the West Bank into the state boundaries of Jordan between 1948-1967 with the acquiescence and consent of the West Bank Arab population and granted Jordanian citizenship to its residents
3.Jordan refused to negotiate with Israel to return to the status quo existing at 6 June 1967 after the conclusion of the Six Day War when not one Jew lived in the West Bank.
4.The overwhelming majority of Jordan’s residents were born in - or are descendants of - Arabs originating from that part of former Palestine west of the Jordan River that is today called Israel and the West Bank.
King Abdullah’s concerns are particularly frank and very revealing as indicated by his following comments during the above interview:
“the status quo is not acceptable; what will happen is that we will continue to go around in circles until the conflict erupts, and there will be suffering by peoples because there will be a war.”Jordan surely now has a responsibility to prevent any such war or suffering occurring and must embark on a diplomatic path to avoid these outcomes .
The way to achieve this is for Jordan to negotiate and divide the future sovereignty of the West Bank with Israel thereby freeing the majority of the existing Arab population from continuing Israeli control whilst making them citizens of Jordan once again .
“Jerusalem specifically engages Jordan because we are the custodians of the Muslim and Christian holy places and this is a flash point that goes beyond Jordanian-Israeli relations.”
As such custodians Jordan has an obligation to negotiate with Israel on Jordan’s role in the future of those holy places - and can do so under the framework of the signed existing 1993 peace treaty concluded between Israel and Jordan which acknowledges Jordan’s role in this regard.
King Abdullah however seeks to instill a climate of fear into the West Bank’s existing Arab population and to totally mislead and misrepresent what Jordan’s return to the West Bank will entail for the refugees in Syria and Lebanon when he states:
“In America specifically, you hear, well, why doesn’t Jordan take the Palestinians into our country? … That would create tremendous instability. So if the Israelis want to push the Palestinians into Jordan, I don’t see how that makes sense and how the international community will accept that because that would be an exodus of 1.8 million Palestinians from their homes into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.”
Negotiations between Jordan and Israel on the future status of the West Bank need not involve one Arab having to pack up and leave his current residence or business in the West Bank, He will stay where he currently is with Jordanian citizenship in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Where the West Bank Arab population falls within the expanded borders of Greater Israel - those Arabs affected can be offered Israeli citizenship or compensation to move to the other side of the new international boundary between Israel and Jordan if that is their wish. A similar option will be afforded to those West Bank Jews finding themselves within the boundaries of Greater Jordan.
Those refugees living in Syria and Lebanon can be offered the alternatives of absorption and citizenship in Syria or Lebanon or offered financial compensation to move and settle within the expanded borders of Greater Jordan and being granted Jordanian citizenship. Their miserable existence as stateless refugees will be ended after 62 years of interminable hardship and suffering.
These arrangements may not end the Arab-Jewish conflict but will certainly bring about a major change in the existing status quo and hopefully avert the consequences of war and suffering predicted by King Abdullah.
The King can continue to sit on the sidelines and criticize and deprecate. He will be committing a gross error of judgment if he does so.
It could ultimately see an attempt to overthrow his ruling Hashemite regime in Jordan - as was attempted in 1970 by the PLO but ultimately failed. The King is already jittery at the thought of such a possibility.
International financial aid and international military assistance should be offered as inducements to Jordan to assist its re-entry into the West Bank once again - coupled with a mutual defense pact between Israel and Jordan to prevent any attempted takeover of Jordan by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Brotherhood or Islamic Jihad.
Jordan must be ruing the day in 1967 when it decided to join in the Six Day War in defiance of Israel’s request not to do so - and lost the then Jew-free West Bank and East Jerusalem as a result.
Now is the time for Jordan to make amends for that decision. The sooner it does so - the sooner the world might be able to focus and concentrate its efforts on resolving far more serious issues involving human and political rights in places such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, Thailand, Sri Lanka and North Korea.
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 -
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:
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:
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:
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 Secretary General would do well to heed the following words sung by Ko Ko:
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.
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:
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:
Another Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, condemned the decision to resume the negotiations as a “crime” against the Palestinians.
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.
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:
Omitted from this hastily concocted version are the following crucial - and critical - dates:
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:
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:
Judge Elaraby identified the need for such a review saying:
Judge Elaraby continued:
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.
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):
Mr Liel’s modest qualifications as recorded in the transcript belied his extensive diplomatic experience and public service which includes:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)