Palestine - FIFA Relents But Rules Are Still Bent

[Published 3 June 2011]


FIFA has been in the media spotlight this week as its practices and procedures have come under increasing scrutiny and its conduct has become of great concern to many of its member countries.

Symptomatic of its questionable practices was a complaint I made to FIFA last year concerning the information posted on its official web site concerning one of FIFA’s members - “Palestine” - which then appeared as a country with

1. defined borders
2. a stated area comprising the West Bank , East Jerusalem and Gaza,
3. a population whose numbers excluded the 500000 Jews who lived there and
4. a currency that did not exist.

Following my complaint FIFA has since taken some welcome action to revamp its website.

FIFA has now amended its country information for every member state by deleting all information relating to:

1. Main cities
2. Population
3. Currency
4. Neighbouring countries

The general and geographic information for Palestine now reads as follows:

General Information

FIFA Trigramme: PLE
Country: Palestine
Country (official name): Palestine
Continent: Asia
Capital: None

Geographic Information

Surface area: 6,326 km2
Highest point: Tail Asur 1,016 m.
Neighbouring seas and oceans: Mediterranean Sea

The continued designation of Palestine as a country and the retention of the surface area of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza which defines its borders - is misleading and deceptive.

There is no state of Palestine that exists in international law today. It is a fictitious entity which has been created by FIFA to get around its own rules restricting admission of members to the world body.

The Palestinian Football Federation was admitted 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. Subject to par. 5 and par. 6 below, only one Association shall be recognised in each country.”

Paragraph 6 provides:

“An Association in a region which has not yet gained independence may, with the authorisation of the Association in the country on which it is dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA.”

Whether Israel agreed to the Palestinian Football Association being admitted as a FIFA member is unknown. Certainly it would never have done so in the expectation that FIFA would recognize Palestine as an independent State.

There is threatened action by the Palestinian Authority to approach the United Nations in September to seek international recognition of a Palestinian State incorporating the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

However this action is doomed to failure because the conditions essential for the declaration and creation of a State as laid down by the Montevideo Convention 1933 do not exist.

Article 1 sets out the four following criteria for statehood

(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Furthermore, the first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that:

“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.”

The West Bank and Gaza fall far short of meeting these requirements.

Countries joining the rush to the United Nations to play this fictitious game in September will do their credibility no good and will become active players in undermining international law.

FIFA has already allowed itself to be caught up in politics in its decision to admit Palestine as a FIFA member - taking the invention of political fiction to a new and dangerous level.

During a recent visit to the Palestinian Authority, FIFA President Sepp Blatter exclaimed:

“I feel at home in Palestine,”

Is Mr Blatter unaware that unsuccessful negotiations have been ongoing between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since 1993 to define where ”home” is? Should Mr Blatter separate sport from politics and not engage in trying to create facts on the ground where none exist?

Mr Blatter also issued this Presidential decree at the same time:

“We know that Palestine is an exceptional situation for FIFA. Therefore, we need to find exceptional solutions. We’ll do our best to help. Football has no borders,”

Sorry Mr Blatter - football has borders that end at the borders of the member states according to FIFA’s own constitution - unless Associations dependent on another country receive authorization to join FIFA - not as independent countries but as Associations.

Bending the rules by creating exceptional solutions seems to contravene the very essence of stringently playing by and enforcing the rules of Football which FIFA imposes on its members.

Corporate maladministration seems to be at the root of FIFA’s current problems. Its cavalier attitude to admitting Palestine as a FIFA member contrary to the clear wording of its Constitution indicates one example of such maladministration.

FIFA has clearly taken its eye off the ball in making such a decision and scored an own goal - earning scorn and derision as it lives in its own dream world of make believe and fantasy.

Palestine - Obama Continues To Fudge On America's Commitment To Israel

[Published 23 May 2011]


President Obama in an address to the AIPAC Policy Conference on 22 May has failed to redress the enormous damage done by him to America’s integrity and reputation during his speech three days earlier at the State Department.

Addressing the State Department Obama then stated:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.. “

This statement amounted to the repudiation of an American written commitment given by President George Bush (the Bush Letter) to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 which stated:

“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 is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

America’s commitment in the Bush Letter was clear and unambiguous.

1. America would support Israel’s refusal to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - as the Arabs had been demanding since 1967
2. The amount of such land to be retained by Israel would be determined by mutually agreed changes that reflected the realities existing at the time negotiations were completed

No mention was made that those mutually agreed changes would require Israel to make land swaps of Israeli sovereign territory in exchange for land retained by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

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 was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.

Obama’s apparent attempt to abrogate this American commitment in his statement on 19 May resulted in trenchant criticism from Israel and many members of the American Congress forcing him to clarify his position on 22 May.

In doing so President Obama did not climb out of the diplomatic hole he had dug for himself and America three days earlier - but only managed to slide further down it taking America’s integrity and reputation even lower with him.

President Obama told the AIPAC delegates and many Congressmen present and keen to hear his explanation:

“And it was my reference to the 1967 lines—with mutually agreed swaps—that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. By definition,it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed- upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people—each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace”

With the greatest respect the President is talking utter nonsense.

“Agreed upon swaps” surely means an agreed exchange of something for something else.

President Obama clearly was breaching the Bush Letter in stating that his Government’s belief:

”now was that Israeli sovereign territory would have to be swapped for territory retained by Israel in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

President Obama’s belief in 2011 is totally irrelevant. President Obama is committed in 2011 to supporting whatever decision Israel makes on how much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem it will ultimately withdraw from - nothing more nothing less.

To continue to support the concept of

“mutually agreed swaps”

only makes matters even worse so far as restoring America’s integrity and reputation is concerned.

It is clear President Obama does not like the terms of the Bush Letter. But he - and America - are bound by it if America’s integrity and reputation is to be maintained.

Obama’s explanation smacks of a pathetic attempt to try and retrospectively substitute the words:

“mutually agreed changes” in the Bush Letter with the words “mutually agreed exchanges”.

Surely Congress will react with even greater fury at President Obama’s latest remarks to try and massage the meaning of the Bush Letter to give it a meaning that was never intended.

Israel made a historic - and highly controversial - political decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as a condition of obtaining the Bush Letter. Israel paid dearly for that decision when tens of thousands of its civilian population were subsequently murdered, wounded or traumatized following that disengagement.

It is inconceivable that America should seek in any way to diminish or circumvent the commitments it made under the Bush Letter.

Words have meaning and in this case their meaning brooks only one interpretation.

Obama’s attempt to subvert their meaning must be resisted until he recants and states without qualification or ambiguity that he - as America’s President - and America still stands by what President Bush signed and its Congress ratified.

Palestine - Obama Sinks America's Integrity And Reputation

[Published 21 May 2011]


Remarks made by President Obama at the State Department in Washington on 19 May indicate he is prepared to honour some - but not all - commitments made to Israel by former American President George W Bush in his letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (the Bush Letter)

President Obama first stressed the following points:

"1. It is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them—not by the United States; not by anybody else.
2. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows—a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace."

President Obama was indeed confirming America’s written commitment to Israel in the Bush Letter

“The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.”

This commitment - made now by two American Presidents to Israel - has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, the PLO, Hamas and the Arab League. But it is a commitment that America has no intention of abandoning.

However, President Obama ignored another commitment in the Bush Letter when he then told his State Department audience:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.. “

This statement is contrary to the following statement appearing in the Bush Letter:

“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 is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Bush had clearly committed to back Israel’s position that sovereignty in 100% of the land occupied in the Six Day War by Israel would not be ceded in any ultimate peace settlement.

Obama was obviously trying to wheedle his way out of this Bush commitment by some semantic toe stepping. - suggesting that

1. any loss of such territory to Israel could be compensated by an equivalent swap of existing Israeli sovereign territory and
2. this swap could still lead to the creation of secure borders for Israel.

Israel was certainly not prepared to let Obama back peddle from the terms of the Bush Letter

The Israeli rebuttal was swift and came just one day later when Israel’s Prime Minster told President Obama during a meeting at the White House:

“I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines—because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”

Those concerned to ensure that American Presidential commitments made to third parties are honored and upheld by their successors should be as equally worried as Israel at Obama’s apparent attempt to breach such a fundamental Presidential commitment.

The price Israel paid to secure the Bush Letter was its decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza in 2005. This disengagement exposed Israel’s civilian population living in its southern region to the threat of continuing indiscriminate missile and terrorist attacks from Gaza without any Israeli military forces being retained in Gaza any more to prevent, defend and respond to any such attacks. 8000 Israeli citizens were forced to evacuate their homes and businesses established in Gaza over the preceding 38 years.

This is indeed what happened after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 - with disastrous consequences for both civilian populations in Israel and Gaza and for those 8000 Israelis who had evacuated Gaza.

Jeopardizing its security on the entire Gaza front required Israel to be absolutely assured of American commitment to Israel’s security on the West Bank front. That assessment saw the refusal to cede sovereignty in 100% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as being non-negotiable

America’s decision to stand by and support Israel on this fundamental territorial issue is critical.

Israel’s Government in 2008 had unsuccessfully explored the possibility of land swaps with the Palestinian Authority - but those negotiations ended inconclusively and are now in total lock down.

Exploring land swaps might again be considered by Israel in future negotiations. The current Israeli Government shows no intention to do so. But that will have to be Israel’s decision - not America’s.

America’s view - now or later - regarding land swaps is irrelevant under the Bush Letter.

President Obama’s statement will no doubt be seen by some to indicate a shift in America’s position - perhaps made in an attempt to induce the Palestinian Authority to resume the stalled negotiations with Israel.

Obama’s position will be viewed by Israel and its supporters as a shift that does no honor to America and badly damages its reputation and integrity.

The Bush commitment was made for an Israeli commitment that has resulted in the death, injury and traumatisation of tens of thousands of Israelis.

Obama’s attempt to minimize or modify that commitment in any way must be firmly and publicly resisted by Israel and its supporters in the American Congress - which had voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush signing the Bush Letter in the first place.

Doing so will certainly help restore America’s reputation for honesty and transparency in its dealings with third parties - and for standing by and remaining staunchly committed to the decisions of its Presidents.

Aren't these indeed cardinal democratic principles which Obama - as leader of the world’s leading democracy - is sworn to uphold?

Palestine - Bring Jordan Back Into The Equation

[Published 13 May 2011]


Any further negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are dead and buried.

This is the only conclusion to be drawn from the recent signing of a reconciliation agreement between rival Palestinian factions - Hamas and Fatah - intended to end their fratricidal conflict that has claimed the lives of hundreds of the West Bank and Gaza’s civilian Arab populations and wounded and traumatized thousands of others over the last four years.

Israel will refuse to accept any offer to negotiate or treat with any new Palestinian Government formed as a result of such reconciliation - at least whilst

1.Hamas continues to demand the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic State of Palestine and
2.Fatah espouses

(i) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
(ii) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.

Indeed violent confrontation between Hamas and Fatah can be anticipated as they each attempt to implement the terms of their very vague and open ended agreement for the purposes of advancing and entrenching their own power-seeking agendas at the expense of the other.

One would imagine that had reconciliation really been the goal:

1. the mutual release of political prisoners held by each faction would have already occurred together with
2. an easing of bans on political expression by members of each faction within the respective area the other faction currently controls.

That this has not already happened is perhaps the clearest indication that the will to reconcile is not sincerely held.

Meantime Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - is shortly to embark on a visit to meet President Obama - when Netanyahu is expected to lay out his thoughts on the future direction to be taken to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

These three areas comprise the remaining 5% of Palestine still unallocated between Jews and Arabs after 17 years of ineffective and ineffectual negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas - or a reconciled Fatah-Hamas Government - could acquire sovereignty in Gaza tomorrow and constitute it as a 22rd independent Arab State by a simple declaration of independence - but any expectation of that happening is a forlorn hope. Neither entity would be prepared to pay the political price that the establishment of such an independent second Arab State in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - might mean for

1. their jointly shared objective to eradicate the State of Israel and
2. their demand that Israel vacate all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem won from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War.

Any hope of returning Jordan to the status quo it enjoyed in 1967 as occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem or allocating it sovereignty in any part of those areas having regard to the demographic changes over the last 43 years - remain the only two possible negotiating avenues that can now be possibly explored.

Either would involve the introduction of Jordan to replace the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s negotiating partner to determine whether either outcome can be peacefully achieved.

Jordan will not readily acquiesce to being placed in this negotiating spotlight.

However the following circumstances now exist that might help bring these negotiations about - if sufficient American and European Union pressure is brought to bear on Jordan to do so:

1. The Hashemite regime in Jordan faces serious challenges to continuing its 90 year rule in Jordan - such as Mubarak in Egypt, Gadaffi in Libya and Assad in Syria have had to face.
2. Jordan’s economy continues to struggle to cope with the demands of its increasingly restless population. Jordan’s woes have been compounded by repeated interruptions in the pipeline delivering Egyptian natural gas, which has forced it to ration electricity and increase its import bill.

It is in the interest of America and the European Union to ensure the survival of a stable Hashemite regime in Jordan and the maintenance of the 1994 peace treaty signed between Israel and Jordan.

Providing guarantees to protect the monarchy and financial support to overcome Jordan’s economic woes could well prove to be the catalysts necessary to attract Jordan to take up where the Palestinian Authority has clearly failed.

It is ironic that the following statement made by Netanyahu at the United Nations in 1984 still resonates and is of particular relevance in 2011:

"Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949."

The attempt to create that second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine has clearly failed and is not going to occur through direct negotiations between Israel and any Arab interlocutor. However expanding the boundaries of Jordan in direct negotiations with Israel has reasonable prospects of success

Netanyahu would do well to draw Obama’s attention to his 1984 prophetic statement when they meet next week. Certainly had the UN acted on this statement - the sorry saga of death, injury and trauma suffered by both Jews and Arabs over the last 27 years could have been avoided.

The only hope of avoiding further conflict and bloodshed is to bring Jordan to the negotiating table. The sooner this dawns on President Obama the sooner the prospect of resolving sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is likely to be achieved.

Palestine - Hamas And Fatah Seal Unreal Deal

[Published 6 May 2011]


The announcement this week in Cairo of the long awaited reconciliation between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah has turned out to be to nothing more than an agreement to continue negotiating on a range of so far unresolved - and apparently irreconcilable - issues.

Two years of intense and fruitless mediation by Egypt to end the internecine conflict between the two warring factions over the last four years seems set to continue.

The lack of confidence in hoping to achieve a satisfactory outcome may have well motivated both Fatah Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - and Hamas Chief - Khaled Meshaal - to appoint deputies to sign the agreement on their behalf whilst they merely looked on.

Certainly the claim by Abbas that they had turned forever the “black page of divisions” appeared to be very premature. Meshaal seeking to strike a historically resonant note, declared that Hamas’s bitter rift with Fatah was “behind us”.

In fact however the signed document comprises no more than heads of agreement calling for the parties to form an interim government by consensus, iron out a number of fundamental issues between them and set up the mechanism for the calling of elections to be held on 3 May 2012.

The fulfilment of the document’s stated objectives promises to be impossible to achieve - given the intense and long running hatred and acrimony between Hamas and Fatah - which has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the civilian Arab populations in Gaza and the West Bank caught up in this long running struggle for power and control over both suffering populations.

The first hurdle can be found in Article 3A of the signed agreement which states:

“Both Fatah and Hamas agree to form a Palestinian government and to appoint the Prime Minister and Ministers in consensus between them.”/i>

How this consensus is expected to be achieved is left unanswered. Given the peremptory dismissal of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya as democratically elected Prime Minister by Abbas in June 2007- one would imagine there is no way Haniya would agree to Abbas’s current unelected replacement - Salman Fayyad - still continuing to fill that role in the run up to the new elections.

The idea that Hamas would agree to a Fatah appointed Prime Minister being in control at the time of the proposed elections is fanciful thinking. The idea that Fatah would abandon Fayyad to the wind is equally unrealistic.

Fayyad and Abbas’s difference of opinion with Haniya regarding their perceptions of America and Islamic terrorism will no doubt create further problems in reaching any workable consensus.

Haniya was strident in his anger at the announcement that al Quaeda head Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed in Pakistan and his body consigned to the bottom of the ocean by an elite American strike force:

“We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs. .. If the news is true, then we consider it a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and bloodshed against Arabs and Muslims,”

At the other end of the spectrum, Salam Fayyad - was saying exactly the opposite:

“The man killed in the operation engaged in terror and destruction his entire life. I hope his death is the beginning of the end for this dark era.”

Fayyad was backed up by Abbas’s spokesman - Ghassan Khatib - who commented:

“Getting rid of bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide but what counts is to overcome the discourse and the methods—the violent methods—that were created and encouraged by bin Laden and others in the world,”

How any Government - no matter how temporary - can marry these views and hope to gain American and European Union support - remains a real mystery

Some of the other issues requiring to be resolved under the signed document include:

1. supervising and addressing the prevalent issues regarding the internal Palestinian reconciliation resulting from the state of division.
2. resolving the civil and administrative problems that resulted from the division
3. unification of the Palestinian National Authority institutions in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem.

It is sobering to realize that the resolution of these long running and festering core issues have not even got to first base. Believing these apparently irreconcilable differences can be resolved in the next few months is the stuff dreams are made of.

Throw into the mix that Hamas

1. has been declared a terrorist organization by both America and the European Union
2. will have won no friends in the American administration following Haniya’s denigration of Obama and America
3. will be keen to even scores with Abbas and cause him as the leader of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its largest faction Fatah maximum loss of face, authority and power before the next elections

- then you have a recipe for ongoing disagreement and further conflict.

Hamas has always set itself apart from the PLO by seeking to create an Islamic state and not a secular state - and this surely will prove to be a major impediment to establishing even a temporary unity government between them.

Article 27 of the Hamas Charter explicitly declares:

“...the PLO has adopted the idea of a Secular State, and so we think of it. Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought. Thought is the basis for positions, for modes of conduct and for resolutions. Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose.”

Given the violent Jihadist philosophy of Hamas and its call for the destruction of Israel - one can predict that the PLO and Fatah will be the losers in this latest attempt at reconciliation - as will be the hope of ever creating a Palestinian Arab State by peaceful negotiations.

Palestine - Abbas Negates Further Negotiations With Israel

[Published 30 April 2011]


The Palestinian Authority (PA) announcement abdicating to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the conduct of any future political negotiations with Israel - effectively sinks any further hope of direct negotiations being resumed with Israel over the future sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

The PA has consigned itself - and 17 years of on and off negotiations - to the scrapheap of history to join previously failed negotiators and negotiations attempting to achieve a peaceful resolution of the 130 years conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine.

This latest demise was made abundantly clear by PA President Mahmoud Abbas - who told the Palestinian News and Information Agency (WAFA) that political negotiations will become the responsibility of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and not of any unity government that Fatah and Hamas might form as a result of their decision to effect a reconciliation after three years of bitter internecine conflict.

Abbas has sought to limit the tasks of any such newly formed government to concentrate on rebuilding Gaza and preparing for national elections in 2012 - although it is most unlikely that Hamas will ever agree with Abbas on these limited objectives.

Abbas has reportedly confirmed to Australia’s visiting Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd that the PLO is the party responsible for the political issues and therefore negotiations will be conducted by the PLO and not the Palestinian government.

This WAFA report - if accurate - is a stunning turnabout and abdication by the PA of its negotiating role with Israel in favour of the PLO. Israel would be reckless in pursuing its national interest if it were to countenance any such change of direction.

The difficulty inherent in dealing with the PLO was foreseen 17 years ago and led to the birth of a new entity - the PA - under the terms of the Oslo Accords.

The PLO was rejected as the appropriate party to negotiate with Israel - because of its virulent and hate-filled Charter. It was at that time but one of many organizations claiming to represent the Palestinian Arabs. Its main constituent member was Fatah - but its rival Hamas had never been a member of the PLO.

The appointment of a new independent democratically elected body by the West Bank and Gazan Arabs - whilst right in theory - went horribly wrong in practice following Hamas‘s surprise win in the 2006 elections over Fatah. The West Bank and Gaza split into two separately administered Hamas and PA fiefdoms - each vying for the allegiance of those not under the political control of the other - but with disastrous results for both populations over the last four years.

Now as a result of the promised reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas - Abbas finds himself terribly conflicted in four pivotal roles as:

1. President of the PA
2. Chairman of the PLO
3. Chairman of Fatah
4. Putative head of a Fatah-Hamas government of reconciliation.

As President of the PA - Abbas is committed to concluding the “two state solution” accepted both by himself and his predecessor the late Yasser Arafat. Such a a solution - in accordance with the American backed initiative proposed by former US President George Bush in his 2003 Roadmap - still remains unimplemented in any of its details - save for Israel‘s unilateral evacuation from Gaza in 2005.

As Chairman of the PLO - Abbas is obligated to observing the provisions of Article 20 of the PLO Covenant which states:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism being a divine religion is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own: they are citizens of the states to which they belong”

As Chairman of Fatah - Abbas is sworn to uphold Article 22 of Fatah’s own separate Charter:

“Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine”

Abbas therefore still continues to head two organizations - the PLO and Fatah - that are hell bent on consigning the six and a quarter million Jews now living in Israel into national oblivion while heading another organisation - the PA - that supposedly seeks to live side by side with the Jews in their own independent state.

Abbas is now talking of heading a Hamas-Fatah government of reconciliation and assigning the conduct of any political negotiations to the PLO - the very antithesis of what was agreed with Israel under the Oslo Accords.

Abbas - while he wears these four hats - is powerless to distance or disassociate himself from various Palestinian Arab factions’ plans designed to eliminate Israel as the designated Jewish National Home for all present - and future - generations of Jews no matter where they might happen to be born or now be residing.

Abbas is certainly frank as to where his loyalties reside.

On April 27, 2009 he told a preliminary conference of the Palestinian Youth Conference at Ramallah:

“A Jewish State, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don’t accept it and I say so publicly. All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter less. Anything else I don’t accept”

Abbas - after this outburst - had no compunction or embarrassment in accepting a large framed map of “Palestine” covering the entire area of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This picture later appeared on the front page of both daily publications of the Palestinian Authority.

Continuing to deal with Abbas while he wore three hats proved to be more than sufficient a recipe - as anyone could reasonably predict - for utter political disaster.

As he now threatens to don yet a fourth hat - any hopes of achieving the peaceful creation of a new Arab state between Israel, Jordan and Egypt for the first time ever in recorded history has become a pure figment of the imagination for those who still think it can ever occur.

The sooner this reality is faced and alternative solutions are explored - such as negotiations between Israel and Jordan - the more chance there is of averting another conflict of massive proportions between Arabs and Jews.

Israel - A Boycott Without A Buoy

[Published 22 April 2011]


The recent attempt by the Marrickville Council in Sydney to impose a boycott on its purchase of Israeli goods and products spectacularly collapsed after the Council was advised by its Chief Officer that enforcing the boycott would cost its ratepayers four million dollars.

When people have to put their money where their mouth is - an idea that seems attractive in the first place suddenly becomes very much less desirable. So it proved to be with Marrickville Council.

What is of more concern however is that a boycott should never have been entertained by the Council in the first place - given the nature of the campaign as articulated by its originators.

In July 2005 “Palestinian civil society” called for a “global citizens response” under the following manifesto:

“The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

The following inaccuracies and misrepresentations are immediately apparent in this manifesto:

1. Those calling for the boycott have themselves been breaching their obligations under international law for the last 90 years by declaring in Article 20 of the PLO Covenant:

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

2. “Everything that has been based on” the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine” includes:

(i) The Versailles Peace Conference 1919
(ii) The San Remo Conference 1920
(iii) The Treaty of Sevres 1920
(iv) The exclusion from 1923 of 77% of the Mandate area in which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted and its subsequent creation as the Arab State of Transjordan in 1946
(v) Article 80 of the United Nations Charter
(vi) The creation of the State of Israel in 1948
(vii) The Armistice Lines established by the UN in 1949
(viii)The joint decision of West Bank and Jordanian Arabs to unify the West Bank and Jordan in 1950
(ix) UN Security Council Resolution 242

Surely those being asked to boycott Israel should be first demanding Palestinian excision of Article 20 from their Charter and observance by Palestinians of the above body of international law as the price for supporting any boycott.

Supporting law-breakers who continue to willfully ignore the law should certainly not be countenanced.

3. With the exception of the Golan Heights - none of the land occupied by Israel in the 1967 War can be designated as “Arab lands” - since sovereignty in such lands remains undetermined.

Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950 was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan. Jordan relinquished whatever claims it had in 1988.

These lands are presently “no man’s land” over which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are making sovereign claims that can only be resolved in direct face to face negotiations - which have now stalled because the PA refuses to resume such negotiations with Israel.

Supporting the boycott encourages the continuation of this negotiating gridlock and is contrary to what the international community is demanding.

4. Calling for Jews to stop settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - (termed “colonization” under the manifesto) contravenes article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Seeking to exclude anyone but Palestinians from living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is racist, discriminatory and constitutes apartheid - and brands those who support a boycott on this ground as supporters of such an outrageous and offensive policy.

5. Israel has already made it clear that the Wall - where built on “no-man’s land” - will be dismantled when secure and recognized borders between Israel and a Palestinian State are established in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Boycotting Israel for not demolishing the wall whilst these legal requirements remain unresolved - yet again indicates support for those who have scant regard for international law.

6. Full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens in Israel already exists.

Those being asked to boycott Israel should seek clarification as to what fundamental rights are being denied to Arabs in Israel that are enjoyed by Arab residents in the West Bank and Gaza.

7. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has never been binding on Israel.

Professor Julius Stone states in his book “Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations"

“General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11,1948 … did not even purport to be in in mandatory terms, but was merely parts of the terms of reference of the Palestinian Conciliation Commission. A recital in Resolution 273 (III) of May 11, 1949, admitting Israel to the United Nations “recalled” that Resolution 194 (III) provided an option for refugees to return to their homes, and compensation if they opted not to return, but it immediately in the same recital “noted” the declarations and explanations made by Israel before the ad hoc committee in respect of the implementation of that resolution. Since Israel’s declarations and explanations did not unquailifiedly accept the resolution, this can in no way be regarded as creating a legal obligation.” (p.68)

Then of course there is the hypocrisy inherent in seeking to selectively decide what to boycott - such as cosmetics, foodstuffs, sweets, supermarket shelves and other soft targets - but not life-saving cures, medical breakthroughs, high-tech components used in IT systems, water technologies and electric cars.

The boycott was initiated in 2005 on the basis of a manifesto that was both false and misleading.

Those silly enough to be drawn into its net without fully understanding that law-breaking and racism permeate its manifesto - only have themselves to blame for being duped and labelled naïve and foolish.

Had Marrickville Council taken the time to properly understand what the Council was being exposed to - the fiasco that followed their initial decision would not have occurred. Others being similarly minded to embark on such a mindless and irrelevant journey hopefully won’t now fall into the same trap.

This is a boycott full of holes that is slowly sinking to the bottom of the sea of deception that created it.