Israel - Negotiating With Naysayers Needs Nous

[Published 19 July 2010]


Egypt has been the latest venue for attempts to kick start direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and President Obama’s special envoy George Mitchell jetted into Cairo over the weekend for more talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and a clutch of other lesser dignitaries from the Arab League designed to revive what has become increasingly seen as irrelevant and a complete waste of time - creating a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan.

Abbas continues to reject the idea of such a state being created in 93.5% of the West Bank with an additional area equivalent to the remaining 6.5% being carved out of Israel’s sovereign territory.

Abbas has rejected that offer since it was made to him by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in December 2008. Given that Israel has changed its Prime Minister since then - the chances of this offer even being open now can only be tested if Abbas publicly indicates his willingness to accept such an offer. That is not going to happen.

The Arabs have always found it impossible to say “Yes” when it comes to any offers of compromise.

The Arabs have seen their personal hopes and aspirations in former Palestine in constant decline as a result of their refusal to accept:

(i) The division of 99.999% of the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs and 0.001% to the Jews as determined in 1920 at the San Remo Conference and by the Treaty of Sevres

(ii) The binding legal effect of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine

(iii) The partition recommendations for Palestine made by the Peel Commission in 1937

(iv) The 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution

(v) Recognition of Israel as the sovereign independent state of the Jewish people following its establishment in 1948

(vi) The opportunity to create an independent Arab state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem following its occupation by Jordan between 1948-1967 and in Gaza following its occupation by Egypt during that same period

(vii) Any negotiations with Israel after the Six Day War in 1967 until 1993

(viii) The offers made by Israel at Camp David in 2000 and 2001 and in 2008 under the Annapolis negotiating process

Conversely however their stocks in terms of international political support continue to rise the more their intransigence in seeking a solution to the Arab-Jewish conflict continues to harden.

The only possible solution that now presents itself as remotely achievable in the face of such obstinacy is the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel in direct face to face negotiations.

That solution too has been rejected by Jordan whose decision has been accepted internationally without demur and without any attempt to have it reconsider its position.

Obviously such Arab naysaying brings its rewards as Israel is pressured to make even more concessions whilst the Arabs sit back and continue to hold out for more.

Naysaying has now even affected the thinking of former Israeli Minister of Defence and Ambassador to Washington Moshe Arens who recently wrote:

“The Jordanian option has on occasion been raised as a promising approach. After all, most of Jordan’s population is Palestinian. For 19 years, Judea and Samaria were part of Jordan, its population Jordanian citizens, and the geographic juxtaposition between Israel and Jordan should make delineating the border between the two countries in an agreement considerably easier than reaching a deal on a border between Israel and a Palestinian state that might be established in the area. There is only one problem - the Jordanians won’t hear of it. They don’t want to overload their security apparatus, which has been functioning quite effectively, by including another 1.5 million Palestinians within their borders.”

Strangely no such complaints of overloading Jordan’s security apparatus were made when those same Palestinians were Jordanian citizens between 1948-1967. But Jordan’s continuing refusal to become involved in the West Bank based on this specious argument is sufficient reason enough for Arens to give up on the Jordanian option he has long advocated and seek other unrealistic alternatives.

It seems all right for Israel to be pressured to take “risks for peace” - but not Jordan.

Israel now needs to start some naysaying itself by declaring that it will not enter into further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority unless direct negotiations without conditions are resumed within 30 days.

Israel should make it clear that at the expiration of those 30 days it will call on King Abdullah to come and sit at the negotiating table with Israel to enable the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine to complete some long outstanding and unfinished business - establishing for the first time ever an unconditional internationally recognized boundary between their respective states which has remained undetermined since the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement signed in 1949.

The Armistice Agreement clearly states:

“It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.” [Article II (2)]

“The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.[Article VI (9)]”

The demarcation of the internationally recognized boundary that eventually took place between Jordan and Israel under the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty 1994 contains the following proviso:

“The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967” [Article 3(2)]

Determining the status of those territories has been impossible to achieve with the Palestinian Authority for the last 17 years. It has been an exercise fraught with frustration caused by the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority. The time has come to determine the status of those territories with Jordan if the Palestinian Authority does not return to the negotiating table within the next thirty days.

Israel should say “no” to anything else - and continue saying “no“ until its demands are met - either by the Palestinian Authority or Jordan.

Naysaying is a tactic that has rewarded the Arabs. It is time for Israel to take a leaf out of their book and end the current farcical situation.

Obama Silent On Palestinian Authority Incitement And Racism

[Published 7 July 2010]


President Obama missed a wonderful opportunity to reprimand Palestinian Authority (PA) Chief Negotiator - Saeb Erekat - for his hate-filled and racist remarks made at a meeting held by the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York just ten days ago in the presence of Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor.

That opportunity was afforded President Obama at a joint press conference he held with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the conclusion of their meeting in the White House on 5 July.

President Obama’s failure to do so was even more apparent as he told the gathered press corps:

“I think it’s very important that the Palestinians not look for excuses for incitement, that they are not engaging in provocative language; that at the international level, they are maintaining a constructive tone, as opposed to looking for opportunities to embarrass Israel.”

Mr Erekat’s remarks were racist, highly provocative and amounted to incitement on a level never heard from so senior a member of the PA before. Maybe this is what triggered President Obama’s warning. However without any direct - and public - Presidential rebuke or reprimand - the President’s call amounted to nothing more than hot air devoid of any context which led to it being made.

Addressing the IPI meeting Mr Erekat had this to say:

“There are roads today in the West Bank that we cannot use as Palestinians — only Israelis can use. And look — such diseases as racism and bigotry, once it inflicts underneath our skin, we have tended to justify it, sometimes [indiscernible], sometimes economically, sometimes psychologically, and sometimes even sexually. Today Israel is justifying this apartheid regime in the West Bank by security terms – that’s racism"

.“

Absent was any comment or acknowledgment by Mr Erekat that there are other roads in the West Bank that are closed to Jews.

Describing Israel’s concerns as “security pretexts” and translating those genuinely held concerns into policies promoting apartheid and racism indicates that Mr Erekat’s position as Senior Negotiator for the PA has been seriously compromised.

In answering questions Mr Erekat affirmed his earlier inflammatory comments - stating

“And I’m sorry that term, racist policies, angered some here. I don’t know what to call it. I don’t know what’s the definition for it. I said that in Tel Aviv University. I said it’s shameless.It is shameless. It is shameless, in 2010, there are roads in the West Bank Christians and Muslims cannot use under security pretexts. Never in the darkest hours of South Africa’s apartheid were blacks prevented to use roads. You’re angry? Do something about it! Ignoring facts don’t mean they don’t exist. 42 years after a corrupt occupation, yes, it’s developing. It’s developing towards an apartheid system,”

These comments brought the following response from Mr Meridor:

“It’s quite strange to hear of apartheid from people who says everybody has a right to build in the West Bank provided he’s not Jewish. This is okay. Everybody can build in Jerusalem if it’s not Jewish. This is okay. To say that people cannot live in a certain place because they are Jews is fine. So to speak of apartheid is really, it’s very popular in some circles, but it’s somewhat strange.”

No doubt Mr Erekat is experiencing a deep sense of frustration as the last seven years of negotiations with which he has been intimately associated have gone nowhere. Frustration leads to resentment but any diplomat worth his political salt must learn to curb his tongue and refrain from public statements that undermine the very essence of continued negotiations.

Mr Erekat’s remarks clearly fell within the parameters of President Obama’s warning.

In failing to directly and openly reprimand Mr Erekat for his statements, President Obama has indicated by his silence that Mr Erekat has carte blanche - so far as America is concerned - to engage in the use of similar language in the course of the future conduct of any negotiations between Israel and the PA.

President Obama’s deafening silence was matched by IPI Chairman Terje Rod-Larsen who compounded and condoned Mr Erekat’s inflammatory language when summing up:

“Yet we’ve had here at the International Peace Institute two of the people who are leaders at the very front line of this conflict arguing their case passionately, persuasively, honestly, and I’d say courageously, and I was also just about to say, and with restraint and very well mannered.”

Any balanced assessment of Mr Erekat’s outrageous behaviour would conclude otherwise.

Israel will scarcely be able to complain about the future use of such language by any PA officials unless it takes a stand now and calls for the removal of Mr Erekat as chief negotiator.

Charges of racism and apartheid against Israel by PA officials need to be stamped out once and for all.

Mr Netanyahu told President Obama:

“I think there are solutions that we can adopt. But in order to proceed to the solutions, we need to begin negotiations in order to end them. We’ve begun proximity talks. I think it’s high time to begin direct talks. I think with the help of President Obama, President Abbas and myself should engage in direct talks to reach a political settlement of peace,coupled with security and prosperity.”

Given the expressed views of Mr Erekat - he should not be included in any such direct talks.

As a negotiator Mr Erekat has been a total failure in his ability to come to a concluded agreement with Israel. That the PA continue to use his services is obviously a matter for the PA alone to decide.

However in view of Mr Erekat’s intemperate statements - it is time for Israel to insist on Mr Erekat’s exclusion from the resumption of any direct talks as a condition of Israel’s future participation.

Israel’s sense of national pride and its national interest demands it takes such a stance. Accusations of racism and apartheid by top PA officials should not be condoned by Israel under any circumstances.

Mr Erekat has dug his own grave. In doing so - he may just have managed to secure peace for himself enabling him to live out his remaining years in his home town - Jericho - rather than the international arena.

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.