Netanyahu And Obama On Talkfest To Nowhere

[Published 6 July 2010]


As Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu jets out to Washington for his much anticipated meeting with President Obama one thing is certain - no statement will be issued that will call for Arab concessions on the two critical issues that have been deal breakers for Israel and the Palestinian Authority for the last seven years.

In the absence of any such breakthrough all the photo ops, joint communiques, guards of honour, press conferences, gestures, winks and nods and lavish meals will be of little use in advancing an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The meeting will continue to demonstrate the proven failure of trying to resolve the hardest issues at the end of the negotiations rather than confronting them face on at the beginning of those negotiations.

The two critical - and apparently -insoluble issues relate to :

(i) the recognition by the Palestinian Authority (PA) of Israel as the Jewish National Home - a Jewish state with a Jewish majority open to Jews from all over the world in this and future generations.

(ii)The waiver of the right of millions of Arab refugees and their descendants to return and live in Israel.

Israel made its position on both these issues very clear when it accepted President Bush’s Roadmap in 2003 stating:

“In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement, declared references must be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel. “

President Bush accepted the strength of Israel’s arguments when President Bush advised Israel’s then Prime Minister of America’s position on these two issues on 14 April 2004:

“The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”

The PA has been unwilling to accept Israel - and America’s - position on these critical issues.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat made this clear just two weeks ago when addressing a meeting organized by the International Peace Institute in New York.

On recognizing Israel as the Jewish State - Mr Erekat declared:

“Look, we were asked to recognize the state of Israel. When I go to Washington, and I see the embassy, it says in front of the embassy of Israel, it says, “State of Israel.” In London, in Paris, in Cairo, in Amman, wherever you go. If Israel will go to the UN and register its name as the Biblical, 5,700 years Hebrew history of Biblical, united, and call themselves whatever they want, we recognize you as you register your name at the UN. But why do I need to define your character?”

Mr Erekat knows full well that to define Israel as the Jewish State is to give recognition and Arab legitimacy to the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo conference, the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate for Palestine which 90 years ago called for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Mr Erekat is aware that the PA’s political puppet master - the Palestine Liberation Organization - still contains the following provision in its Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

It is incredible that the existence of a Jewish state among 21 Arab States can still today evoke a response like Mr Erekat’s.

What is the point of continuing negotiations with this Arab mindset so defiant, unyielding and uncompromising.

On the issue of the return of refugees to Israel - Mr Erekat declared:

“.. international law doesn’t give governments the right to solve refugee problems. It’s the choice of the refugee. They have to choose whether they are going to go back to 1948 Palestine, stay where they are, third party. But then at the end of the day it is going to be agreed with you. We are not going to force an agreement with you, but you cannot cancel my rights on refugees and trade me with another issue.”

These remarks brought a swift response from Mr Erekat’s co-panellist - Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor:

“This is why I said that the refugees problem is the crux of the matter. This is why I was quite concerned, not to use a tougher term, when I hear from my friend Saeb, and I read from what he said, that he has no right to negotiate the right of refugees. So with whom should I negotiate it? Will it stay hanging over me after there is the agreement? Do we go back to an agreed two-state solution? And then the main problem that brought everything will stay alive? I thought the PLO has a right to say for the refugees what the solution is, and they will be bound by it. If not, we are in deep trouble here. So this is a major issue, and because the whole story began there, when they did not accept ‘48, not ‘67. The very existence of Israel was not acceptable. This is why the PLO was built. And if this is not over, then I find something that I didn’t know when I came to New York two days ago. I hope I didn’t read correctly.”

One would have to be a total fool to fail to realize that with statements being made such as these by the PA - any negotiations to conclude the Roadmap are dead and buried.

Mr Netanyahu should make it clear to President Obama that no further concessions such as extending the moratorium on residential building in the West Bank can be contemplated by Israel until:

(i) Mr Obama publicly affirms the contents of the letter dated 14 April 2004 given by President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon and

(ii) The PA at the very least acknowledges that Mr Erekat’s remarks were his own personal views and do not represent those of the PA.

It is time to stop playing diplomatic games and demand real movement in the negotiations or look to alternative options that can transform the lives of the Arab population living in the West Bank.

If the cat looks dead and smells dead - it is dead. Trying to revive it is a waste of time

Goodbye Palestinian Authority - Welcome Jordan

[Published 30 June 2010]


The Palestinian Authority (PA) is likely to be wound up at the end of the year according to PA Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat - if no agreement is reached with Israel on the so called “two-state solution” - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Mr Erekat made the threat at a meeting in New York on 25 June hosted by the International Peace Institute (IPI) - which also featured Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister - Dan Meridor.

Mr Erekat warned that if by the end of this year there was no two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority then Israel will “sweat.”

He explained that the Palestinian Authority was founded to establish the institutions for a Palestinian state, not to keep Israel as a source of authority forever.

“If Israel insists on maintaining control the Palestinian Authority cannot stand - it’s irrelevant,”

Mr Erekat’s statement was a direct rebuff to Mr Meridor who had earlier stated:

“I hope that if we can’t get a full agreement on the outstanding issues regarding Jerusalem, refugees, final borders and security, we will not let negotiations collapse but alongside that build up from what we have now - a good economic growth - over 8% growth last year in the West Bank and I hope more this year - and an absence of terror - into more steps towards a Palestinian State."”

The New York meeting added a new dimension to the past direct negotiations and the current proximity negotiations that one might call “in your face public negotiations” - when two of the most senior politicians from either side of the conflict traded blows for two hours.

The gaps between them were wide and obviously unbridgeable by next December - especially given the fractured relations between Hamas and the PA and the division of the West Bank and Gaza into two separately governed areas.

Mr Meridor claimed that the PA had had 288 meetings with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert following the Annapolis Conference in November 2007 and that no response had been received to the offer made to the PA by Israel.

Brandishing two maps Mr Erekat angrily responded that Israel’s offer of a land swap of 6.5% of the West Bank in exchange for an equal area from Israel’s sovereign territory had been met by a counter offer by the PA of a land swap equal to 1.9% on 30 July 2008.

Absent was any mention of their hopelessly polarised views on Jerusalem, refugees and water or what was going to happen to 500000 Jews who had been living in the West Bank for the last four decades.

IPI President - Terje Rod Larsen - who chaired the meeting - is a veteran of past negotiations between Israel and the PA that have failed to achieve the two state solution more than 17 years after the fanfare which greeted its introduction and projected conclusion by May 1999 following the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.

Mr Larsen came to wide international prominence as a key figure in the negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords that created the PA. In 1993, he was appointed Ambassador and Special Adviser for the Middle East Peace process to the Norwegian Foreign Minister, and the following year, he became the United Nations Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories at the rank of Under-Secretary-General. He served as the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative of the Secretary-General to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority from 1999 to 2004.

His understanding of the hopelessness of ever reaching a two state solution was apparent in his remarks to both Mr Erekat and Mr Meridor - when he said that this New York meeting between them had come at a crucial time in the Middle East process and continued:

“Nearly two decades have passed and we are in dire need of new hope and new energy and creative solutions in order for negotiations to move forward.”

Mr Erekat’s lack of any creative solutions became apparent when he told the meeting:

“Israel has three options - a two-state solution, a single state including Jews and Palestinians, or a continuation of Israel’s racism and apartheid system in the West Bank where Arabs and Christians can’t use roads reserved only for Israelis.”

Notably missing was a fourth option - that Jordan and Israel negotiate to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States.

If the PA implodes the Jordanian option will become the only option that can have any possible chance of ending the current impasse.

Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994 that deals with settling all the contentious issues mentioned by Mr Meridor - but which the PA seems unable to contemplate or accept.

Reunification of the major Arab populated areas of the West Bank with Jordan - as existed between 1948-1967 - will transform the lives of the West Bank Arab population. They will use roads reserved only for Arabs and Christians - not Jews. They will have their dignity restored to that existing at 4 June 1967 - again becoming citizens of an exclusively Arab country - no longer under or subject to Israeli occupation.

Certainly any such negotiations between Jordan and Israel will not usher in any final end to the ongoing conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. But their successful conclusion will end the current plight of the West Bank Arabs who remain stateless and separated from their Arab brothers across the Jordan River.

Under such a solution no resident of the West Bank - be he Jew or Arab - would have to leave his home or business.

Hopefully the PA will indeed dissolve itself in December - which could open the way to Jordan becoming Israel’s negotiating partner on the future of the West Bank.

The Six Day War in 1967 between Jordan and Israel originated the problems that have befallen the Arab population of the West Bank since then. It would indeed be real justice if those two former combatants - now at peace with each other - were to became part of the solution in 2011.

Organizations such as the IPI do have a role to play in seeing Israel and Jordan come together to solve the problems of the West Bank.

Bringing Mr Erekat and Mr Meridor to the public stage may have been the catalyst towards bringing this creative solution a little nearer to fruition.

Mr Larsen may well have - unwittingly - achieved the beginning of the real breakthrough in the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs that has managed to elude him for so many years.

FIFA : Palestine and Reality

[Published June 2010]

The World Cup presently being contested by 32 countries in South Africa has already achieved a certain amount of notoriety and controversy for the number of red cards and yellow cards handed out - or failed to be handed out - to offending players by referees whose interpretations of the rules continue to come under ever increasing scrutiny.

The referee’s decision is final - as Australia’s Harry Kewell found out - when sent off for a handball in the drawn game against Ghana.

Australia’s head of national teams John Boultbee explained:

“At the moment, there is no avenue for challenging a referee’s decision apart from in cases of mistaken identity,”

Perhaps FIFA needs to look at a real case of mistaken identity within its own ranks arising from its admission of the Palestinian Football Federation as a member of FIFA in 1988 in contravention of FIFA’s own governing articles.

Article 10.1 of FIFA’s constitution provides:

Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression “country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international Community.”

Despite the most intensive and concerted diplomatic efforts conducted since 1993 - no country named “Palestine” has yet been created or recognized as an independent state or territorial entity. The chances of this occurring are next to nothing.

Yet FIFA has created its own state of “Palestine” by denoting its:

(i) Area - as being 6326 square kilometers
(ii) Main cities - as being Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Gaza, Bethlehem and Ramallah
(iii) Population - as being 3.38 million
(iv) Currency - as the Palestinian Pound
(v) Neighbouring countries - as being Egypt, Jordan and Israel

No map is provided to let the soccer fraternity or anyone else for that matter into FIFA’s creative geographic ingenuity. It is nothing but a figment of FIFA’s vivid imagination.

Based on the statement by FIFA that “Palestine” is a country located between Egypt, Jordan and Israel - one might conclude that in FIFA’s view “Palestine” is the area today called the West Bank and Gaza. The area approximates in size to that designated by FIFA and the main cities identified by FIFA could appear to confirm that view.

The issue becomes clouded however when one considers FIFA’s claimed population of “Palestine”. The 500000 Jews living in the West Bank don’t seem to be included in FIFA’s population statistic. One must wonder why there has been this deliberate exclusion. Does FIFA believe the West Bank should be Judenrein and that Jews don’t count and are not to be counted in the population of “Palestine”?

FIFA really embarks on a voyage of pure fantasy when declaring Palestine’s currency to be the Palestinian pound.

There is no such currency. There once was - but it is defunct. You can see it in a museum-like Lucite case outside the Ramallah office of Jihad al-Wazir - described as “a central banker without a bank” - alongside coins from Alexander the Great.

What possessed FIFA to indulge in this political madness remains unexplained. Certainly an explanation is called for.

Perhaps FIFA would do well to heed the words of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Zuhair Mohsen who told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa,Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

The creation of Mohsen’s Palestinian state still remains unfulfilled to this day - except in the warped view of FIFA.

If FIFA is looking for any statement more contemporary on the subject - it might like to consider the statement by Palestinian Arab journalist Khalid Amayreh who recently stated:

“... the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are the two most homogeneous and closest Arab peoples, given their ethnic, cultural and religious commonality. We are actually one people, as Arab clans on both sides of the River Jordan have one common ancestry.

This indisputable fact should debunk all the myths about any proclaimed intrinsic distinctiveness, let alone contradictions, between Jordanians and Palestinians.”

Has FIFA unintentionally been duped into creating a State that does not exist despite the current efforts of the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - to bring it to fruition during the last seven years?

It is poor form for FIFA to not play by its own admission rules - yet expect World Cup players to abide by its playing rules.

Hopefully my appeal to FIFA will not be drowned out by the vuvuzeelas presently making their presence felt at the World Cup tournament. Failure to correct the current situation or amend its Constitution should result in FIFA getting a red card.

Playing football - not politics - should be FIFA’s only focus.

Gaza - Red Cross Plays Politics And Ignores Evacuation

[Published June 2010]

The Red Cross - like the United Nations - has unfortunately chosen to play the political card in calling for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza - rather than using its prestige and influence to call for the Gazans to be given the opportunity to be evacuated from Gaza until the political situation is resolved.

The political standoff in Gaza is complicated, has been ongoing since 2007 and is unlikely to be resolved for a considerable period of time.

The disputants and disputes are many and varied - but all involve Hamas as the current governing authority in Gaza in dispute with:

1. Israel - as it seeks to end Hamas political control in Gaza, stop the firing of rockets from Gaza into civilian population centers in Israel, foil the ongoing attempts at terrorist incursions into Israel from Gaza, and procure the release of its captured soldier Gilad Shalit who has been denied visits from the Red Cross for the last four years

2. The Palestinian Authority - as it seeks to regain political control of Gaza since its loss to Hamas in a bloody coup in 2007 and to confirm its authority to control the direction and enforcement of any decisions to be made in the ongoing negotiations with Israel for the “two state solution”

3. Egypt - as it resists efforts to lift its blockade of Gaza which it has been enforcing jointly with Israel in its own national interest since 2007

4. America and the European Union - as they continue to grapple with how to deal with Hamas - declared to be a terrorist organization by them.

The ending of the blockade will not make these disputes disappear overnight. It will only strengthen Hamas and serve to make these disputes even more difficult to resolve. It will afford Hamas the opportunity to build up its military power and allow the free entry of terrorists into and out of Gaza.

Neither Israel nor Egypt will end their blockade although they have already taken steps to ease their effect. Any such steps will not greatly help reduce the shambles that Gaza has become.

Stuck in the middle are Gaza’s residents. They cannot be considered entirely blameless for the precarious position in which they find themselves.

On not one but two occasions Gazans have elected Hamas to power over its rival Fatah - the party chaired by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

In municipal elections held in the 10 districts comprising Gaza in January 2005, Hamas won 75 seats out of the 118 seats contested.

This result was then replicated in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006 when Hamas won 15 out of the 24 seats in Gaza with Fatah winning only 6. Hamas captured 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 seats out of the 132 seats contested in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas can certainly claim it has a mandate to rule as Gaza’s government. However no opportunity has been given to Gazans to say whether they wish Hamas to continue in power - and there is no indication Hamas will give them that opportunity in the near future.

The release of a report this week by an Israeli human rights organization - B’Tselem - shows the price Gazans are paying at this very moment and underscores why evacuation must be offered to them as an immediate option.

The report states that :

1. 98 percent of Gaza residents suffer from planned blackouts lasting up to eight or ten hours a day. The other two percent of the population do not receive any electricity at all

2. At the end of 2009, 93 percent of the wells were found to be polluted with high quantities of chloride and nitrates, far in excess of the World Health Organization’s recommended levels. The water supply is defective, and thousands of residents are not even connected to the water grid. Waste treatment has also been affected: every day, some 100,000 cubic meters of untreated, or partially untreated, wastewater flow into the sea.

3. Since January 2009 fishermen are not allowed to go more than three nautical miles from the coast. The waters within this range yield a meager supply of fish, and fishermen find it difficult to make a living and to meet the demand for fish.

4. 95 percent of the factories and workshops are closed. Tens of thousands of persons have lost their livelihood, and unemployment now exceeds 40 percent. As a result, more than 70 percent of the population depends on aid from international organizations to obtain food.

5. Exports of manufactured goods and agricultural produce other than strawberries and flowers is prohibited.

Hamas is now holding Gazans to ransom in its bid to maintain and increase its political power in Gaza as it refuses to accept from Israel any permitted humanitarian aid such as foodstuffs and medicine intercepted by Israel on the Gaza flotilla and the Rachel Corrie last week.

Hamas’ refusal to allow the delivery of such aid should be reason enough for the Red Cross to call for the evacuation of Gaza’s civilian population. Hamas is now blatantly attempting - for political reasons - to bite the humanitarian aid hand that feeds its citizens.

Knowing the straits Gazans are in - the Red Cross can only be seen as complicit in any further suffering of Gaza’s civilian population if it fails to call for such an evacuation.

Playing the blame game and attempting to place the responsibility for the current problems in Gaza on Israel alone - when other nations are just as involved in bringing Hamas to its heels - is not going to solve the Gazans’ suffering.

Taking action now to evacuate the Gazans will relieve that suffering until the political issues have been resolved. Perhaps Hamas will attempt to stop Gazans being evacuated. Perhaps many will not want to leave.

Until the Red Cross canvasses these options no one will really know.

What is critically important however is that the Red Cross gets on its moral high horse and calls for evacuation - and soon. That does not mean ceasing to call for both Israel and Egypt to ease - or end - the blockade. But no easing - or even an end to the blockade - can terminate the massive humanitarian problems publicly revealed in B’Tselem’s report in the short term.

Evacuation is an option that must be pursued - and the Red Cross should be in the vanguard demanding it be implemented.

Failure to do so will define the Red Cross as completely lacking in impartiality. It will endanger the proud record the Red Cross has established as a humanitarian organization assisting and relieving human suffering - irrespective of the politics that create those humanitarian problems.

Trying to play the political card will only ensure that the Red Cross will become another victim in the ongoing conflict between Hamas and its political adversaries

United Nations Must Liberate Gazans - Not Gaza

[Published June 2010]

The statements issuing from senior United Nations officials following the two failed attempts by the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza during the past week were strident and uncompromising - but entirely misdirected and unhelpful in seeking an end to the misery and suffering being endured by Gaza’s civilian population.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon headed the protests condemning Israel’s failure to allow the blockade to be breached stating:

“The long-running closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is counter-productive, unsustainable and wrong. It punishes innocent civilians. It must be lifted by the Israeli authorities immediately.”

The Secretary General was supported by Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco who told the UN Security Council that :

“today’s bloodshed would have been avoided if repeated calls on Israel to end the counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza had been heeded…the blockade is unacceptable and counterproductive and must end.”

Not wishing to be left out on a limb - Richard Falk - the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory - characterized the blockade of Gaza as a

“massive form of collective punishment… Unless prompt and decisive action is taken to challenge the Israeli approach to Gaza all of us will be complicit in criminal policies that are challenging the survival of an entire beleaguered community,”

Strangely missing from all three statements was any mention or criticism of:

(i) Egypt - which had also been maintaining the blockade of Gaza for as long as Israel.

(ii)Hamas - which had assumed control of Gaza in 2007 after a bloody internecine struggle with the Palestinian Authority - leading to the joint blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt in an attempt to restrict the flow of arms, war materials and terrorists into Gaza.

(iii)The FGM - whose motives in organizing the attempted breaches of the blockade went far beyond those of a humanitarian organisation purely seeking to end the suffering of the Gazans.

The FGM’s end game is identical to that of Hamas - the destruction of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. This is not a secret agenda but is made very clear in its mission statement which declares:

“6. We recognize the right of all Palestinian refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; to recover their properties, and to receive compensation for damage, dispossession and unlawful use of such property. This is an individual and not a collective right, and cannot be negotiated except by the individual”

The FGM is perfectly entitled to espouse such views. However the insistence on this right of return has been one of the main stumbling blocks in arriving at the “two-state solution” over the last 17 years.

Israel will not accept this demand - whether it is sought to be enforced by individuals or by either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Compensating both Palestinian Arab refugees as well as Jews who fled Arab countries following the 1948 War through the establishment of an international claims tribunal offers a possible way forward.

However if return - rather than compensation - is to be pressed then it can only ever come about as a result of conflict - which will make the current humanitarian problem in Gaza pale into insignificance by comparison with the humanitarian crisis that would be created if force was employed to achieve this objective.

Breaking the blockade will greatly strengthen Hamas in pursuing the right of return that the FGM also openly calls for - by allowing Hamas the freedom to bring into Gaza whatever weapons and terrorists it wants.

The FGM does not seem to be too concerned that in seeking to end the suffering of the Gazans this might become the prelude to inflicting suffering on the Israelis as Hamas pursues its stated aim of liberating Palestine.

The Gazans therefore remain stuck between Israel and Hamas as human shields to deter any military efforts by Israel to defeat this Hamas end game. Their plight has become increasingly evident since Israel’s unsuccessful attempt to rid Gaza of Hamas control in January 2009.

The UN are being taken for fools and need to rethink their attitude to Gaza.

If the UN truly wishes to end the privation and suffering of the Gazans then there is only one way out of the current predicament - the evacuation of the Gazans from Gaza.

The Gazans are in a situation fraught with danger as they live between two combatants - Israel and Hamas . Gazans need to be offered the opportunity to evacuate Gaza to safer havens until it is safe for them to return to Gaza.

Evacuation through Egypt to those countries willing to accept the evacuees should not be beyond the capacity of the 191 countries that make up the UN. Certainly the 57 states that comprise the Organization of the Islamic Conference must play a leading role in accepting the evacuees.

Israel was able to absorb one million refugees from Russia. It should not be beyond a concerned world to accommodate a similar number of Gazan evacuees on a temporary basis until circumstances permit their return to Gaza.

Certainly many Gazans will not want to be evacuated - but all should at least be given the opportunity to do so by the UN.

Israel will not be ending its blockade though it may well ease it. However useless calls such as those emanating from the Secretary General and his minions calling for an end to the blockade will continue to be rejected - with good reason - by Israel.

Israel is entitled in its national interest to do everything in its power to blunt Hamas and secure the safety and security of all Israelis - both Jews and Arabs.

Instead of futilely continuing to challenge Israel’s approach to Gaza - the UN should try to do something positive to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Failure to implement a policy of evacuation of Gaza’s civilian population will indeed make the UN complicit in failing Gaza’s beleagured community when it had the opportunity to end their current suffering - but did nothing constructively to do so.

The UN at the very least must follow the practice of its own High Commissioner for Human Rights — Navi Pillai - who at the height of the Sri Lanka conflict in 2009 called for the evacuation of the entire civilian population by land or sea.

Failure to similarly do so now in the case of Gaza will condemn the UN as a totally impotent, biased and irrelevant body.

Gaza Gazing And Hamas Blockading

[Published June 2010]


Any sense of perspective or calm consideration of the tragic events that took the lives of nine people and wounded scores of others has flown out the window following Israel’s interception of a flotilla of vessels attempting to break through a naval blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza.

The concept of the presumption of innocence apparently has no application where Israel is concerned - as the rapidly growing number of demonstrations now taking place around the world have already declared Israel guilty of crimes against humanity, piracy, banditry and state sponsored terrorism - aided and abetted by unsubstantiated and unverified statements issuing from many of the delegations at the Security Council.

It must be remembered that this naval blockade was part of a land and sea blockade that was implemented by Israel and Egypt in 2007 following the bloody overthrow of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza by Hamas - an organisation pledged to carry out the destruction of Israel and now in charge of an area of territory from which it was free to carry out its stated objective.

The Palestinian Authority had refused to surrender power to Hamas despite being rejected by the voters in January 2006 - a rift that still remains unhealed today.

The governments of the European Union, Israel, Japan, Canada, and the United States classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. The United Kingdom and Australia classify only Hamas’ military wing as a terrorist organization.

Israel’s reasons for justifying and imposing the blockade were to prevent Hamas from obtaining weapons, armaments and war materials that could be used by it in attempting to carry out its threats to end Israel’s existence as a Jewish State.

Israel has - nonetheless - continued to allow the supply of food and humanitarian aid on a needs basis to the civilian population caught in the middle of this conflict. Restricting such supplies has been the subject of many complaints - especially in preventing the entry of cement and building materials which Israel considers might be used for military rather than civilian purposes.

No food shortage in Gaza

Well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel over the last 18 months equalling nearly a ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza. Millions of dollars worth of international food aid continually flows through the Israeli humanitarian apparatus, ensuring that there is no food shortage in Gaza.

Egypt’s reasons for imposing and continuing the blockade were entirely different as Egypt’s Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit explained in January 2009 in the following report:

“(Egypt) cannot open Rafah [crossing from Egypt to Gaza - ed] unless Abbas’ Palestinian Authority - which runs the West Bank - controls the crossing and international monitors are present.

He said Hamas wants Rafah opened because it would represent implicit Egyptian recognition of the militant group’s control of Gaza. Of course this is something we cannot do, Aboul Gheit said, because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank.

Aboul Gheit said Egypt had proposed that Arab foreign ministers who gathered in Cairo a day earlier request Hamas allow Palestinian Authority control of Rafah. But Syria rejected the proposal, he said”

Israel has justified its interception of the flotilla and the subsequent events that occurred as being legal in international law.

Israeli spokesman Mark Regev explained the legal basis for Israel’s claim to ABC Lateline interviewer Leigh Sales:

LEIGH SALES: Does Israel agree that this incident occurred in international waters?

MARK REGEV: Do you know, according to international law that question is irrelevant, because if you know your international humanitarian law, the San Remo memorandum states, specifically 67A, that if you have a boat that is charging a blockaded area you are allowed to intercept even prior to it reaching the blockaded area if you’ve warned them in advance, and that we did a number of times and they had a stated goal which they openly expressed, of breaking the blockade. That blockade is in place to protect our people.

LEIGH SALES: So Israel believes that it has fully complied with international law in this circumstance?

MARK REGEV: 100 per cent correct. If you look at international law, if someone is breaking your blockade, intends to do so, has been warned, you are allowed to intercept, and that’s exactly what we were doing.

The following night Ms Sales interviewed Diana Buttu a Canadian-Palestinian lawyer and former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization when the following exchange took place:

DIANA BUTTU: Most people are feeling both anger, outrage and also very vulnerable because this is not the first time that Israel has violated international law. The difference this time is that Israel seems to be going to extreme lengths to not only violate international law, but maintain a blockade that the world has deemed to be a crime against humanity. So, people are feeling that unless the world steps for now and actually stops Israel, that many more of these crimes can and will continue to happen.

LEIGH SALES: On this point about international law, on the program last night Mr Regev said that Israel had acted legally under international law because he said that you are allowed to intercept somebody who’s breaching your blockade or intends to do so if you have warned them. What do you say to that?

DIANA BUTTU: That’s actually incorrect; legally incorrect and factually incorrect. On the legal side of things, as Israel should perhaps know, any blockade that is imposed on a country is considered to be an act of war. So the fact that Israel has declared a blockade on the Gaza Strip is itself an act of war, and Israel should know this because in 1956 when the Egyptians declared that they were going to impose a naval blockade on Israel, the Israeli Army declared war against Egypt, backed by several nations.

But more importantly, and I think that this is the key part of this, is that Israel seems to forget that it is in occupation of Gaza. So you can’t declare war on a territory that you are already occupying. It’s actually to the contrary: Israel as an occupier is supposed to be providing the very things that they are not providing. They’re supposed to provide medical aid, they’re supposed to provide food, assistance.

Israel totally withdrew its civilian population and armed forces from Gaza in 2005. If ongoing occupation in 2010 is the only basis of questioning Israel’s legal right to impose its blockade then those crying for Israel’s blood really need to think again.

There obviously first needs to be some consensus on what the international law is and then to determine whether it has been breached by either the flotilla or Israel. Given the nature of the conflict and the conflicting parties these two simple ways forward will probably be immersed in a welter of claim and counterclaim with no positive outcome.

Such is the nature of the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs - and so will it unfortunately continue until some peaceful solution is found.

Jordan Jump Starts Political Power Play For West Bank

[Published May 2010]


One would imagine that any statement by one of Jordan’s political elite recalling - or calling once again for - the reunification of Jordan with the West Bank - would generate a great deal of media comment and international political interest.

This is especially so given the parlous state of the proximity negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the future sovereignty of the West Bank.

The news that Jordan might be once again eliciting an interest in returning to the West Bank was - surprisingly - first reported by the London based Arabic newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi. It did not even rate a mention in the Jordan Times or any of the many international news services based in Jordan that must have surely been covering an occasion of great national significance where the comments were made on 25 May - Jordan’s Independence Day.

The al-Quds al-Arabi article was - however - subsequently picked up the Israeli press including the Jerusalem Post, Y Net and Arutz Sheva.

Arutz Sheva’s report stated:

“Jordan’s head of senate Taher al-Masri addressed an audience of approximately 1,000 attendees celebrating Jordanian independence, including King Abdullah II and his family, envisioning “the two united banks, with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan emerging on both banks of the holy river.”

The Jerusalem Post had a different take:

“Taher al-Masri, head of the Jordanian Senate, spoke at a ceremony commemorating the country’s independence day and reportedly referred to the emergence of a “union” on both banks of the “holy Jordan river” - though apparently not a political one.”

The fact that such a high ranking Jordanian parliamentarian had even mentioned what was previously a taboo subject in Jordan made the Jerusalem Post further comment:

“Abdullah’s father Hussein renounced Jordan’s claim to the territory [West Bank] in 1998 [in fact it was 1988 - editor], and al-Masri’s comments mark the first reference by a high-ranking Jordanian official to the issue since then”

Y Net was even more upbeat as it reported:

“In a ceremony commemorating Jordan’s independence day, Taher al-Masri, head of the country’s senate, spoke of the “state of two united banks,” London-based al-Qudsal-Arabi reported on Wednesday.

This is a rare and surprising statement, which may be interpreted as granting legitimization to the viewpoint that the Palestinian residents of the West Bank are part of the Hashemite Kingdom.”

Y Net further commented:

“There are also those that may interpret al-Masri’s comments as more than a claim to responsibility over the Palestinians, but also as territorial ambitions in the West Bank. Jordan’s official stance rejects any such claims in light of its peace agreement with Israel.”

The Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty - however - does not prevent Jordan making any territorial claims to the West Bank.

Tucked away in Annex 1(a) to the Peace Treaty is clause 2 [A] 7:

“The orthophoto maps and image maps showing the line separating Jordan from the territory that came under Israeli Military government control in 1967 shall have that line indicated in a different presentation and the legend shall carry on it the following disclaimer:

“This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory.”

With this clause in place - sovereignty in all or part of the West Bank could be reclaimed by Jordan at any time with Israel‘s concurrence - notwithstanding that Jordan withdrew any such claim in 1988. Such a demand would not result in a breach of the terms of the peace treaty with Israel.

Taher Al- Masri has subsequently tried to clear up his reported comments - telling Ammon News that his statement

"The rise of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with its two arms on both banks of the Holy Jordan River,“- came in the context of a historical recount that began by speaking of the Great Arab Revolt, the creation of the Kingdom, noting the catastrophes that struck the region, and ending with describing Jordan as a “miracle.”

In playing down the Israeli press’s treatment of his comments Ammon News continued:

"It is noted that although all three Israeli media outlets cited al-Quds al-Arabi for their report on Senate President’s statements, they all failed to note that, in his reference to the united banks, Masri was ‘recalling’ how the Hashemite Kingdom on both sides of the Holy Jordan River was able to rise above the recurrent catastrophes and crises that have struck the area since Israeli’s inception, and that Jordan has ‘won the bet of unity, where everyone contributed to building the nation and reinforcing its achievements,”

The Jordan Times simply omitted any mention of al-Masri’s explosive remarks blandly reporting:

“Senate President Taher Masri also delivered a speech highlighting the importance of the Independence Day and achievements realised in Jordan over the past 64 years.

In his speech, Masri remarked that when Jordan achieved its independence more than six decades ago, the leadership and the people of the country undertook their responsibilities to start the ongoing development process.

The wars and the catastrophes that took place in the region over the years made many people across the world think that the fate of Jordan was at stake, but Jordan won the bet and unity between Jordanians has become stronger, he stated, adding that Jordanians will continue to protect the Kingdom’s independence and maximise Jordan’s achievements because they believe in their national unity as the first guarantee for building a stronger Jordan."

In the midst of all this bizarre spin and confusion there are two incontrovertible facts:

(i)A subject never discussed in Jordan since 1988 was raised by the Jordanian Senate President at a function hosted by Jordanian Prime Minister Samir Rifai on Jordan’s Independence Day - one of the most important dates in Jordan’s diplomatic calendar.
(ii) Jordan’s King and Queen were present when it was delivered - as were Arab and foreign ambassadors, religious leaders, military and security officers.

Whether al-Masri was recalling the good old days between 1950-1967 when the West Bank was unified with the East Bank as one territorial unit - called Jordan - or whether he was suggesting Jordan once again reunify with the West Bank Arab population is beside the point.

What is significant is that after so many failed attempts to resolve the conflict between Arabs and Jews over the last 130 years - Senator al-Masri has now publicly put forward Jordan’s historical record in the West Bank to justify replacing the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s negotiating partner - when the fruitless negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are inevitably declared dead and buried.

King Abdullah’s silence and tacit approval of al-Masri’s speech is sufficient to indicate that a sea change is taking place - and it needs to happen soon if the current impasse in the West Bank is to be ended peacefully.