Palestine Blunder Costs UNESCO $167 Million in 2012-2013

[Published 5 January 2012]


UNESCO’s deficit has skyrocketed from an estimated $120 million to $167 million for 2012-2013 as a result of its decision to admit Palestine as its 195th member in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution.

In addition UNESCO has lost another $65 million in American dues for 2011 - automatically withheld by the United States as required by domestic legislation existing on its statute books since the 1990’s.

UNESCO continues to refuse to review or to justify the legality of its decision to admit Palestine - which if reversed - could immediately restore this massive shortfall in its revenue and enable the resumption of essential programs suspended or curtailed as a result of this financial black hole.

Those 87 members of UNESCO who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO must be increasingly alarmed at this blow out in the deficit - and also at two highly embarrassing issues involving UNESCO and Palestine - one of which came to UNESCO’s notice in December and the other which is set to explode in February.

The December issue has led to UNESCO withdrawing funding from a Palestinian children’s magazine - Zayzafouna - published by an NGO under the same name and coming under the patronage of the Palestinian National Commission of UNESCO - a national body set up by the Palestinian Authority.

The February edition of Zayzafouna contained an article by a 10-year-old girl in which Hitler was quoted by her as stating that he:

“killed [the Jews] so you would all know that they are a nation who wreak havoc on Earth”

In finding this statement may be interpreted as an apology for the holocaust and contrary to UNESCO’s constitutional mandate and values - UNESCO declared :

“UNESCO supported the publication of three issues of the Zayzafouna Magazine six months after the February 2011 issue. The support was provided for these issues following agreement with the editors that they would focus on building greater appreciation amongst Palestinians for their heritage and culture. They were to open the way for positive dialogue aimed at overcoming the consequences of the Middle East conflict, and to fight against stereotypes that may be conducive to violence. It was UNESCO’s intention to foster a positive view of Palestinian heritage based on the values of tolerance and UNESCO’s mandate of building peace in the minds of men and women. This vision guides all of UNESCO’s activities, and we urge all partners to work in this direction.

UNESCO is shocked and dismayed by the content of the February issue, and has requested more detailed information and clarification from the editors of the magazine and the Palestinian Authority.

UNESCO strongly deplores and condemns the reproduction of such inflammatory statements in a magazine associated with UNESCO’s name and mission and will not provide any further support to the publication in question.

The Organization, which is deeply committed to the development and promotion of education about the Holocaust, disassociates itself from any statement that is counter to its founding principles and goal of building tolerance in the full respect for human rights and human dignity. “

UNESCO’s approach to this outrage was principled and undoubtedly correct.

However any concern for complying with UNESCO’s “constitutional mandate” seems to have gone out the window when the charge is made that Palestine has not been constitutionally elected to UNESCO.

UNESCO - in announcing Palestine’s admission to membership incorrectly stated:

“Admission to UNESCO for states that are not members of the United Nations requires a recommendation by the Organization’s Executive Board and a two thirds majority vote in favour by the General Conference of Member States present and voting (abstentions are not considered as votes). “

The words “present and voting” do not appear in Article II (2) - the article that expressly deals with applications for full membership.

However those words do appear in Article II (3) - the article which deals with applications for associate membership.

The majority vote required in each case is therefore very different - more stringent for full membership and less stringent for associate membership.

Whilst the majority vote - 107 - would have been sufficient to admit Palestine as an Associate Member - it was insufficient to admit Palestine to full membership for which the majority vote required was 129.

The 87 members who did not vote for Palestine’s admission should themselves be asking for an urgent review. - given the substantially increased loss in funding just announced and the use of UNESCO funds by Palestine for unauthorized and morally offensive purposes.

I am still seeking answers from UNESCO - but it appears they continue to be reluctant to review or justify the provisions of the Constitution that enabled Palestine to apparently slip through the cracks and join UNESCO’s ranks.

The issue set to erupt next month - as revealed by Giulio Meotti - involves Palestine applying for UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron - a site holy to both Jews and Moslems.

Khaled Osaily - Hebron’s Mayor said recently:

“It’s a mosque!, You don’t have to be an architect to see it! Will you allow me to pray in a synagogue or a church?”.

Several days ago, the Palestinian Rehabilitation Committee raised the UNESCO flag next to the national ‘Palestinian’ flag in front of the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Osaily - just returned from Paris where he took part in a UNESCO conference at the Institut du Monde Arabe in support of adding Hebron’s holy sites to the World Heritage List stated:

“We started a campaign three years ago to add Hevron to the UNESCO list”, . Now the request is ready and we will present it to UNESCO in February”.

I have started an on-line petition to help gauge the strength of public reaction to getting UNESCO to review what appears to be a clear breach of its own Constitution - which already has had - and will have - serious and ongoing financial, operational and political consequences.

490 people have already signed the petition in the last 4 days. I invite you and your social network to do likewise and circulate it to others to follow suit.

Those who don’t live by the law are destined to get their just desserts at the hands of the law.

UNESCO needs to come clean and review or justify its questionable decision - or continue to wither on the vine.

Palestine - Bye Bye Oslo, Hello Jordan and Egypt

[Published 29 December 2011]


Veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk may have been a little premature when he stated on 20 September:

"It’s over: the “peace process”, the “road map”, the “Oslo agreement”; the whole fandango is history. Personally, I think “Palestine” is a fantasy state, impossible to create now that the Israelis have stolen so much of the Arabs’ land for their colonial projects."

Fisk - in attributing this simplistic reason for signing Oslo’s death certificate - totally ignored the two offers made by Israel in 2001 and 2008 to cede its claims under the Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter in more than 90% of the land won from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War.

The real reasons for Oslo’s demise are far deeper and more complex - revealing unbridgeable gaps between Israel and the PLO in reaching any agreement with regard to the following issues after failed on and off negotiations extending over the last 19 years:

1.Israel’s demands that
(i) Israel be recognized as the Jewish State
(ii) Any Palestinian State be demilitarized
(iii)The final borders determined between it and a Palestinian State be secure and recognized boundaries as stipulated by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

2.The PLO’s demands that
(i) Israel cede its claims in 100% of the territory won from Jordan in the 1967 War - with possibly equivalent land swaps to negate the removal of Jews from their homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
(ii) Israel agree to accept millions of Palestinian Arabs - and their descendants - who became refugees as a result of the 1948 War

Fisk’s prediction has however been given added weight with the news this week that Hamas has agreed to join the PLO.

If this was to actually occur Israel’s Prime Minister made his government’s position very clear when Israel Radio reportedly quoted him as saying that if Hamas joins the Palestinian government, he would refuse to conduct peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

Little comfort can be taken from the news that the Palestinian Authority might now be prepared to resume the long stalled peace negotiations with Israel if it released 100 prisoners. The parties can talk till the cows come in. But after 19 fruitless years - can sufficient pressure be put on both sides to come to an agreement on all their outstanding demands?

The Oslo Accords - and the Palestinian Authority - were born amid great enthusiasm in 1993.

The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee - Francis Sejersted - expressed the following hopes of the Committee when awarding the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin:

"In the committee’s view, the so-called Oslo Accords concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence."

The Nobel Committee’s optimism was misplaced.

Yasser Arafat had signed a side letter dated 9 September 1993 - nine days prior to signing the Declaration of Principles in which he assured Yitzchak Rabin:

"The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era… I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself…to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations…the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators…the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant."

In breach of those commitments:

1. The PLO Covenant still remains unchanged and unrevised in 2011.
2. The PLO has rejected the idea of Israel being entitled to secure and recognized borders as required under Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338
3. The PLO has unilaterally sought to gain statehood - not through negotiations - but by seeking recognition and admission to the United Nations and UNESCO.
4. The PLO is demanding pre-conditions for resuming the stalled negotiations with Israel.

Indeed one would be unable to find any improvement in the relationship between Israel and the PLO in 2011 to that which existed in 1994 when Mr Serjested declared:

"The situation is still full of tension, marked by violence, killings, and insecurity, and stability is still far to seek"

The PLO has been given its opportunity for the last 19 years to create a second Arab state in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - but quite frankly has missed the boat.

Martin Sherman has summed up the current situation in these terms:

"For almost two decades after the Oslo Accords—despite massive financial aid and political support—they have produced nothing but a deeply divided entity, crippled by corruption and cronyism.

The result is a dysfunctional polity unable to conduct even the semblance of timely elections, and a puny economy, comprising a minuscule private sector and a bloated public one, totally unsustainable without massive infusions of foreign funds."

Sherman’s prescription to abandon Oslo and the two-state solution predicated by the Bush Roadmap is described by him as follows :

"Since the geography is immutable, the focus must be on the demography.

It is thus no more than “elementary” that the long-term preservation of the Jewish state must involve the relocation of the non-Israeli Arabs between the river and the sea. Any other option is self-deluded wishful thinking—or at least the burden of proof to show otherwise is on the proponents of such an option, especially in view of the post-Oslo/post-disengagement experiences."

I beg to differ.

Restoring the status quo at 4 June 1967 - as far as can now be done in direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan (and possibly Egypt) and within the framework of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and their existing peace treaties - will involve no-one - Arab or Jew - having to leave his current home unless he voluntarily wishes to do so.

This is not self-deluded wishful thinking - but It will need some pressure by the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - to be placed on Jordan and Egypt to sit down and negotiate with Israel if they refuse to do so voluntarily.

The alternative - continued tension, violence, insecurity, killings and instability - cannot be allowed to deteriorate into an inevitable slide into open warfare.

To hope for anything else as we usher in 2012 is pure folly.

Palestine - Flag Flies, UNESCO Cries, Legality Dies

[Published 22 December 2011]


UNESCO has paid a high price for hoisting the flag of “Palestine” among the 194 other flags flying at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters this week.

So far the price tag has been about $65 million in annual contributions outstanding by the United States and Israel to the end of December following UNESCO admitting “Palestine” as a member State on 31 October.

Worse is yet to come for UNESCO with the loss of at least $120 million in 2012-2013 - about 22% of its annual budget - and ongoing repetition of at least the same shortfall in subsequent years.

The United States ceased its annual contribution to UNESCO in compliance with American domestic law. The suspension was automatic—a 1990’s law blacklists funding to any UN agency that admits Palestine.

Israel withheld the balance of this year’s contribution to show its displeasure at the PLO’s action in taking unilateral action to recognize any Palestinian State outside the face to face negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map.

Are any other UNESCO member states liable to follow suit or help to make up the shortfall?

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - John Baird - has made it crystal clear that Canada - one of UNESCO’s larger donors to the tune of $10 million per annum - will not be helping to make up the shortfall - stating.

"Under no circumstances will Canada cover the budgeting shortfall as a result of this decision and Canada’s decided to freeze all further voluntary contributions to UNESCO. The bottom line is there’s going to be a large hole in UNESCO’s budget because of the American law which withdraws funding, and people at UNESCO should not look to Canada to fill that budget hole. They’ll have to go to the countries who supported this resolution, that caused this budget loophole. And if they want to appeal to Canada to make even more contributions to voluntary UNESCO initiatives, we will not be looking at entertaining new ones.”

UNESCO only has itself to blame for finding itself in this predicament - since the decision to admit Palestine as a member of UNESCO on the affirmative votes of 107 of its members could be in clear breach of its Constitution which appears to require a majority of 129 votes for any such resolution to have been passed.

A strange silence has descended over UNESCO since I first raised this question with the Director UNESCO Liason Office in New York on 1 November. Three more emails were required before I received any response - when I was eventually advised on 28 November that my inquiry was being referred to the press and media senior officer for UNESCO in New York.

I thought this a strange referral. The nature of my inquiry surely should have been better dealt with by UNESCO’s legal advisors.

A reply was received on 30 November from UNESCO’s media officer. It still failed to satisfactorily answer what was a very simple query which should have elicited an immediate and definitive response from UNESCO - did Palestine’s admission to UNESCO require 107 or 129 affirmative votes?

I put that question again to the Media Officer on 1 December. On 11 December I received a formal response that she would be consulting her colleagues. She added a strange rider to her email - wanting to know for which media I was reporting. Why this would have any relevance to my request was very puzzling.

Nevertheless I readily provided her with an answer on 12 December and requested an early response to my 1 December email. I am still waiting to hear from UNESCO.

The longer UNESCO dithers - the more convinced I am that UNESCO has made a monumental mistake in admitting Palestine in apparent breach of the provisions of its own Constitution.

Should UNESCO be entitled to act in breach of its own Constitution and choose to studiously ignore investigating any alleged breach when drawn to its attention?

Does the speed of UNESCO’s response to media enquiries depend on the source of the particular media outlet making the enquiry? Does UNESCO believe the legality of its decision will be swept under the carpet if not too many people read an article on a particular web site which does not have the circulation of the New York Times or the Guardian?

87 of the 194 members of UNESCO did not vote for the admission of Palestine to UNESCO. Like Canada - UNESCO will probably find little sympathy to any request for them to donate any money to make up this massive shortfall.

UNESCO programs will undoubtedly be affected or cut. It has warned that 20 of its 60 field offices may have to close.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova has gone on record stating:

"UNESCO is facing a difficult situation. It’s a test for our organization."

That is understating what surely is a monumental and ongoing problem.

A review of the legality of the decision to admit Palestine may be the answer to UNESCO’s cries for member states to make up the shortfall.

I have waited patiently for seven weeks for a definitive response from UNESCO indicating this would occur. None has been forthcoming.

There are at least a hundred and twenty million reasons - accumulating annually - for reviewing that decision.

The financial turmoil which now surrounds UNESCO surely justifies an urgent approach to the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion on whether Palestine’s admission as a member of UNESCO has been legally made in accordance with the UNESCO Constitution.

Constitutional certainty or the begging bowl?

That is what UNESCO should be seriously considering without further posturing or delay.

Palestine - Time To Tell The Truth

[Published 15 December 2011]


Republican front runner for next President of the United States - Newt Gingrich - has done himself and his campaign great credit in branding the Palestinians as an invented nation.

Gingrich stirred up a real hornets’ nest when he said in an interview with the Jewish Television Network:

"Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman empire. I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it’s tragic"

Gingrich has subsequently refused to back down and has now gone even further in stating:

"The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story. Somebody oughta have the courage to go all the way back to the 1921 League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland, point out the context in which Israel came into existence, and “Palestinian” did not become a common term until after 1977. This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage. And we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies. And you’re not gonna win the long run if you’re afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth."

This propaganda war has been successfully waged by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since its creation by the KGB in 1964.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service in an interview with Front Page Magazine on 1 March 2004 spilt the beans on the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime when he said:

"The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow."

The language used in the 1964 version of the PLO Charter was slick - designed to establish that “Palestine belongs to the Palestinians”. Who could possibly disagree with that motherhood statement - especially if it was repeated ad nauseum?

The problem was that the Charter’s definition of “Palestinians” included only the Arab residents of former Palestine and a limited number of Jews.

"Article 6. The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.

Article 7. Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine."

It didn’t take long for this gratuitous acceptance of some Jews to virtually vanish when the 1968 edition of the Charter declared:

"The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians."

Non-Arab Christians and non-believer residents of former Palestine were totally rejected as being Palestinians. Their descendants as well as the descendants of any of the Jews who had lived in Palestine since the beginning of the Zionist invasion were persona non grata in their homeland of their birth.

If that seems like racism,smells like racism and is still contained in the PLO Charter today - then it is racism.

Article 24 in the 1964 version of the Charter also excluded any claim by the Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza - and by inference to Jordan - which together had comprised about 80% of former Palestine

"This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area."

This article was subsequently deleted from the Charter following Jordan’s loss of the West Bank and Egypt’s loss of Gaza in the Six Day War in 1967.

The significance of that deletion - and indeed the invention of the Palestinians in 1964 - was underscored when the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Zuhair Mohsen 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.”

Total rejection of international law by the Palestinians was also part and parcel of this invented nation - since the League of Nations in 1922 and the United Nations in 1946 had already recognized the legitimate right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine whilst the United Nations had admitted Israel as a member on 11 May 1949.

Article 17 of the 1964 Charter expressed this view in the following manner:

"The Partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination."

By 1968 Article 17 had been excised and replaced by Article 20 which declared:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon 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 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."

Gingrich’s statements are indeed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The PLO has seen its propaganda campaign succeed to a stage where “Palestine” has been admitted as a member “state” of UNESCO in apparent contravention of the UNESCO Constitution, the Montevideo Convention and customary international law..

The PLO’s stated intention of liberating and replacing both Israel and Jordan in the United Nations as its 192nd member still remains unrevoked in the PLO Charter.

Seventeen years of fruitless PLO negotiations with Israel have now been virtually abandoned - with the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and advocated by President Bush in his Roadmap now in its death throes.

Gingrich’s message to the PLO is clear - return to the negotiating table and hammer out a deal with Israel or face the consequences if this has not happened and Gingrich becomes America’s next President.

The PLO cannot say it was not warned.

Palestine - "End The Occupation" And "Right The Wrongs"

[Published 8 December 2011]


I don’t think there has ever been any Arab propaganda slogan as powerful and successful as “End The Occupation”.

These three little words have managed to turn Israel’s miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War and its triumphal return to parts of the biblical and ancestral land of its forefathers - as something to be reviled and reversed.

Those mouthing the slogan have not sought to have the “occupation” ended in favour of Jordan - the previous Arab occupant during the period 1948-1967.

Rather they are insisting it all be given - albeit with mutually agreed land swaps - to another group - the “Palestinians” - who did not exist

(i) in 1937 - when the Peel Commission issued its Report
(ii) in 1947 - when the United Nations recommended the partition of western Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State.
(iii) Between 1948-1964 - when no claim was made by any such group to territory that any Arab claimant could have gained by the stroke of an Arab League pen - after such territory had been ethnically cleansed of every single Jew who had been living there prior to 1948

The “Palestinians” only first saw the light of day in 1964 when the PLO Charter was promulgated and Article 1 declared:

"Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation"

Article 5 went on to elaborate:

"The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian."

No recognition was given to the fact that groups other than Arabs had lived in Palestine from time immemorial - long before the Arabs had ever conquered and occupied the area.

Ten years later - on 13 November 1974 - the leader of this newly created entity - Yasser Arafat - told the United Nations General Assembly:

"The PLO has earned its legitimacy because of the sacrifice inherent in its pioneering role, and also because of its dedicated leadership of the struggle. It has also been granted this legitimacy by the Palestinian masses, which in harmony with it have chosen it to lead the struggle according to its directives. The PLO has also gained its legitimacy by representing every faction, union or group as well as every Palestinian talent, either in the National Council or in people’s institutions. This legitimacy was further strengthened by the support of the entire Arab nation, and it was consecrated during the last Arab Summit Conference, which reiterated the right of the PLO, in its capacity as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, to establish an independent national State on all liberated Palestinian territory."

In 2011 the legitimacy of the PLO leadership role is in tatters. A new boy on the block- Hamas - has emerged to challenge the PLO’s claim and reconciliation between these two competing power bases is still not in prospect after six years of bitter internecine conflict.

The effort to reach a resolution of the 130 years old Arab-Jewish conflict has been stymied by the refusal of the PLO to sit down in direct face to face negotiations with Israel - but even if this were to occur tomorrow the prospects of any successful outcome would be extremely unlikely to eventuate.

Jordan sits on the sideline having abandoned any claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem in 1988. Jordan shows no interest in attempting to try and restore - as far as is now possible - the status quo existing in these areas at 4 June 1967.

Israel’s attempts to “end the occupation” of these areas in 2000/2001 and 2008 were rebuffed by the PLO.

Perhaps it is time for a new slogan - “Right the Wrongs” - to enter into the lexicon of international diplomacy in the Middle East.

The wrongs involve the failure of the United Nations to acknowledge the following incontrovertible facts:

(i) that the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter reserve to the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in accordance with the provisions laid down in article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine
(ii) that Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 remain the only internationally accepted basis for resolving the conflict in former Palestine

The failure of the United Nations to insist on these basic tenets of international law being implemented, respected and observed has proved to be the main stumbling block to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Yasser Arafat himself declared before the United Nations on 13 December 1988:

"Our people do not want any right to which they are not entitled and which is not compatible with international legality and laws. They are not seeking any freedom that encroaches upon the freedom of others or any destiny that negates the destiny of another people"

Bowing to extreme pressure from the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference - the United Nations has succumbed to a myriad of General Assembly resolutions since then that have virtually buried such “international legality and laws”.

It is time for international law to be resurrected, debated and enforced as the only basis for ending the conflict in former Palestine.

The sooner this process is begun - the sooner some sanity will return to the Middle East.

Palestine - Jordan Juggles And Jockeys

[Published 29 November 2011]


Jordan’s King Abdullah must now be very concerned at the prospect of the Hashemites possibly seeing an end to their 90 years uninterrupted rule in Jordan.

This can only be the rational explanation for the King’s sudden helicopter flight to Ramallah to meet PLO and Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas last week and his announcement that Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal will visit Jordan for discussions within the next two weeks.

With negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a dead end, reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas at a standstill, Mubarak toppled in Egypt, Gadaffi shot dead in Libya and Assad facing removal in Syria - King Abdullah is keen to make sure that neither the PLO or Hamas have any designs for taking over Jordan.

Meshaal owes his life to the swift action of Abdullah’s father - the late King Hussein - after a bungled attempt by Israel to assassinate Meshaal im 1996. Getting Israel to swiftly reveal the antidote for a deadly poison injected into Meshaal - in return for the release of the Israeli agents caught in the act - is certainly something for which Meshaal will be greatly indebted to the Hashemites. No doubt King Abdullah will be calling in the favour when they meet. Meshaal is more than likely to assure the King that he has enough on his plate in Gaza.

The Jordanian Islamists will foment a few demonstrations but Meshaal will make sure the King will not be dethroned and sent packing.

Abbas is a different kettle of fish.

He heads an organization that is dedicated to liberating and reuniting into one indivisible territorial unit what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan - a goal that has remained unchanged and unmodified since the promulgation of the PLO Charter in 1964.

Jordan’s relation with the PLO has always been uneasy - ever since Yasser Arafat tried to takeover Jordan in 1970 resulting in thousands of dead and wounded on both sides. The PLO remains absolutely committed to its Charter. If the PLO sticks to its guns and refuses to negotiate with Israel - then frustration might well see the PLO again turning its sights on Jordan.

Israel is also very concerned to ensure the continued stability of the Hashemite regime and has given King Abdullah the clearest signals of such intention.

Firstly - Israel’s Foreign Minister - Avigdor Lieberman - stated that:

“regional turbulence” is bringing Islamist parties to power “that all share an anti-Israel message.”

“Instability in the Middle East is not good for anyone,” he said, emphasizing that it is “a major danger for Jordan.”

“Those who say that Jordan is Palestine are mostly harming Israel,” Lieberman added. “That would create a continuous Palestinian state which would endanger us. It’s in our interest for this not to happen.

“Stability in Jordan is in Israel’s interest.”

Our shared border is the longest and quietest. Both sides enjoy the benefits of peace and economic cooperation.”

Lieberman’s warning to Abbas to not meddle in Jordan’s internal affairs was clear and uncompromising.

Although Jordan does comprise 78% of former Palestine - any thought that an attempt would be made by the PLO to reunite it at any time or in any way under PLO rule with any part of the remaining 22% would cross a red line that would be resisted by Israel.

Secondly - Lieberman’s statement of support was followed by a visit to King Abdullah by Israel’s President Shimon Peres on 28 November.

A news release issued by Media and Communications Directorate of the Royal Hashemite Court declared:

“The King emphasized that the end of the decades-long Palestinian-Israeli conflict can only be achieved through resolving all final-status issues, foremost of which are refugees, borders and Jerusalem, leading to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and security.”

Interestingly, eighteen years of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not got to first base in resolving these outstanding issues. Yet, agreed solutions to refugees and Jerusalem are set out in the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. A solution to redrawing the boundary between Israel and Jordan so as to return to Jordan the major part of the West Bank it lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War could be achieved with relative ease in direct negotiations with Israel.

Abbas needs to get back to negotiating with Israel without delay if he does not wish to see yet another opportunity slip through the fingers of the Palestinian Arabs because of stubborn and intransigent leaders.

Should Abbas fail to do so - King Abdullah will be waiting on the sidelines to step into his shoes and negotiate with Israel.

No doubt King Abdullah will strongly resist being pressured into re-occupying a large part of the West Bank. But if his failure to negotiate with Israel could mean the loss of Israel’s continuing support of the Hashemite regime - then a change of heart could be reasonably anticipated.

One wild card that could let Abdullah off the hook would be the return of Abbas to the negotiating table with Israel.

In this regard, President Obama holds one trump card - the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison after 26 years of imprisonment in return for Israel imposing a fixed period during which it will cease building houses in the West Bank. Talks between American Jewish leaders with Vice President Biden taking place now could possibly lead to such a proposal.

President Obama also needs a boost to his falling popularity. Releasing Pollard may be the bitter medicine he needs to take with the Presidential election season starting to hot up.

All in all - some interesting times ahead in the next three months.

Palestine - Abbas Flirts With Political Suicide

[Published 21 November 2011]


Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - is inviting political suicide and an end to the two-state solution - should his planned meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Cairo this coming Friday lead to the creation of a new unity government to end the division of power between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza.

Luckily for him the chances of that happening are virtually non-existent.

False hopes of such a reconciliation occurring have been prompted by the current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stating he would resign his position should Hamas and the Fatah faction of the PLO - both of which Abbas also leads - reconcile their six long years of internecine struggle.

Fayyad’s position has been jealously guarded by Abbas up to now - and Palestinian gazers see his intention to resign as removing the greatest obstacle to reconciliation.

They are mistaken.

Far more serious divisions exist between Fatah and Hamas as can be gleaned from a report prepared by the Cairo Institute For Human Rights Studies in December 2009 titled:
"Bastion of Immunity, Mirage of Reform” :

“Under the cover of the war in Gaza, Hamas embarked on several repressive measures targeting Fatah members, figures who oppose Hamas’ rule, and suspected collaborators with Israel, and it is suspected that dozens of people were killed, either shot to death or as a result of torture. Hamas personnel also broke the legs and arms of dozens of other people to compel them to stay in their homes. Also, some government employees in Gaza were replaced with Hamas loyalists.

In the West Bank, under the authority of Fatah, hundreds of Hamas sympathizers remain in detention; it is thought that at least two of the detainees have died as a result of torture. The West Bank authorities fired civil servants and teachers suspected of Hamas sympathies, while the salaries of thousands of employees of the Palestinian authority inside the Gaza Strip were suspended. Licensing for associations and companies in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip is now preceded by a security check,and those organizations that have affiliations with the “wrong” party are refused Licenses.”

Rectifying this reprehensible conduct on both sides is virtually only mentioned in passing in Article 4B5 of the 4 May reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas in these bland and impersonal terms:

“To resolve the civil and administrative problems that resulted from the division.”

An unknown number of political prisoners held by both sides continue to languish in prisons as a result of Hamas and Fatah being obviously unable to agree on their release.

Matters such as compensating families for the loss of their family members murdered and tortured or who lost their jobs will also need to be resolved if true reconciliation is to be achieved.

Other fundamental doctrinal issues also indicate the unrealistic possibility of reconciliation.

They centre around the provisions of Article 13 and Article 27 of the Hamas Covenant 1988

Article 13 declares:

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.”

Hamas could hardly agree to be part of a Government seeking to create a Palestinian Arab State in only 5% of former Palestine. Abandoning its stated goal of securing sovereignty in 100% of former Palestine would defeat the raison d’etre for its very existence.

Article 27 poses even bigger problems for the mooted reconciliation by making it clear that Hamas is opposed to a secular State of Palestine as endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organization - of which Fatah is the controlling factional member - whilst Hamas is not even a member:

“Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies.

That is why, with all our appreciation for the Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser. The day the Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.”

The struggle for the hearts and the minds of the Palestinian Arabs is set to continue for a long time - whilst these fundamental differences of philosophy divide Hamas and Fatah. Reconciling these two conflicting viewpoints in a united Government seems impossible to achieve.

Officials in Israel and the United States have also greeted news of the meeting with Mashal with trepidation. Israel has warned that an agreement with Hamas would have grave consequences for its relations with the Palestinian Authority, both in terms of security and the transferral of funds.

Speaking anonymously, an Israeli official stated:

“The prime minister [Binyamin Netanyahu] has said repeatedly, the Palestinian Authority must choose between peace and Hamas. They cannot have both. Our security co-operation with the Palestinian Authority, for example, has been based on the commitment of both sides to fighting terrorism. If Hamas is in the government, what will this mean?”

America has already threatened to cut funding should the reconciliation proceed. The US is one of the Palestinian Authority’s most significant donors, having invested more than $3.5bn (£2.2bn) since the authority was established in the mid-90s

Abbas is grasping at straws and putting the two state solution in jeopardy in going to Cairo to meet Mashal - rather than travelling to Jerusalem to resume direct negotiations with Israel.

Abbas is lucky that his last attempt at moving unilaterally to join the United Nations ended in ignominy. Success would have had serious repercussions for the two state solution.

He seems set to have his luck continue by failing to achieve anything in his meeting with Meshaal this Friday.