Bush and Abdullah Chew Over the Bones of Palestine

[Published July 2007]


US President George W. Bush held talks at the White House at a hastily arranged private dinner on Tuesday with Jordan's King Abdullah II to discuss major regional issues - with no joint public appearances afterwards.

Certainly their discussion over dinner would have included President Bush's intention - announced last week - to "call together an international meeting of representatives from nations that support a two state solution and that reject violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and commit to all previous agreements between the parties."

That two state solution involves the creation of a new Arab State in 6% of historic Palestine in addition to the existing Arab state of Jordan which occupies 77% of historic Palestine.

This proposed meeting is a vain attempt by President Bush to stave off acknowledging what should by now be patently obvious to him - the total collapse of his two state solution.

President Bush said the "key participants in this meeting will be the Israelis, the Palestinians and their neighbours in the region."

The Palestinians' mindset will be completely the opposite of the others attending the meeting since they have failed to:

1. reject violence - by still remaining committed to armed struggle as set out in the PLO Covenant, the Hamas Charter and the Fatah Constitution

2. recognise the State of Israel - by still retaining the clauses in all of the above documents that call for Israel's destruction and the liberation of every square inch of Palestine

Pussyfooting around this fundamental schism between Palestinian thinking and what the rest of the world would like to see happening in the West Bank and Gaza remains the stumbling block to the two state solution ever eventuating.

The PLO, Hamas and Fatah remain rejectionist, extremely violent and totally inflexible in changing their hard uncompromising stance against the Jewish State despite the billions of dollars in aid and diplomatic support lavished on the Palestinians by the international community.

It is time to dispel the notion that there is any difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian and to finally accept that there should be only one Arab state - not two - in former Palestine.

In an interview published in the Khaleej Times on 11 October 2006, King Abdullah presciently declared:

"I really think that by the first half of 2007 we might wake up to reality and realise that the two- state solution is no longer attainable, and then what?"

King Abdullah has already made it clear that he is not prepared to consider a confederation between Jordan and the West Bank until an Arab state is created in the West Bank.

With that now very unlikely to occur we may well ask - then what?

Will history repeat itself and King Abdullah find himself in the same position as his late father, King Hussein, whose rule in Jordan was challenged by PLO leader Yasser Arafat in 1970 when thousands died in the ensuing battle and Arafat was forced to flee to Lebanon with his fellow terrorists? Mahmoud Abbas was at the centre of PLO decision making at that time and he still is so now.

King Abdullah is well aware of the words of the late Abu Iyad - one of the highest ranking members in the PLO :

"You cannot make distinctions between a Jordanian and a Palestinian….we indeed constitute one people. When the Palestinian State and unity is established… the Jordanian will be a Palestinian and the Palestinian a Jordanian" [Kuna - 15 December 1989]

This accords with the thinking of King Abdullah's own great-grandfather King Abdullah 1 expressed at a meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on 12 April 1948 when he declared:

" Palestine and Transjordan [now Jordan - ed.] are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country."

There are many more similar statements by Arab leaders acknowledging these basic facts.

Denials at various times of these historic, geographic and demographic truths by the late King Hussein were self serving as he faced threats to his rule when they were issued. They were more easily rebuffed then as the Palestinians had no power structures in Gaza or the West Bank.

However throwing the Palestinians a bone and not the whole carcass of former Palestine west of the Jordan River has failed to appease them or satisfy their hunger despite the best efforts of America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - the Quartet - to convince them otherwise.

President Bush's planned meeting only postpones the curtain being finally pulled down on his two state solution.

Jordan cannot remain passively on the sidelines any longer without planning for this eventuality.

The issue of sovereignty in the West Bank cannot be allowed to fester because 77% of the carcass may be seen by the Palestinians as a more easier option to swallow than part of the 6% that has been offered to them and already rejected.

Jordan needs to return to the West Bank - which it occupied between 1948-1967- and do a deal with Israel. The sooner it takes the plunge the more favourable the conditions for this happening peacefully are likely to eventuate. The split between Hamas and Fatah has now made it a considerably more dangerous undertaking.

King Abdullah will need lots of diplomatic, financial and military support from the Quartet if he is to take this measure - which would reap the Quartet a far greater dividend than the same support currently being poured straight down the drain in propping up Mr. Abbas.

Hopefully neither the President nor the King suffered too much heartburn whilst chewing over the bones of Palestine.

President Bush Presses The Palestine Panic Button

[PublishedJuly 2007]

President George Bush is having a panic attack as his five year old vision of implanting an Arab state between Israel and Jordan in 6% of historic Palestine - the Bush Dream - has turned into a nightmare.

The President has been exposed as totally powerless and lacking in influence to resolve what seemed to him to be so readily achievable in 2002.

The Bush Dream has yet to get off the ground in the slightest detail and still remains only a distant mirage on the political horizon despite intense diplomacy over the last four years by America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - the Quartet - to transform it into a reality.

A desperate President Bush has now fallen back on three old chestnuts - an international conference, providing lots of weapons and throwing $190 million at the problem - in a last ditch effort to salvage something from the wreckage of his Middle East policy that is in tatters and utter disarray

The recipient of this largesse is Palestinian Authority President and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas who has been unceremoniously and ignominiously removed from control of Gaza and its 1.5 million inhabitants and who has no power to make any agreement with Israel that can possibly bind the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza.

President Bush is simply wasting his time and needlessly squandering his country's resources in thinking that Mr Abbas can ever deliver on the Bush Dream for the following further reasons:

1. No meaningful negotiations can even begin until the repeal of those provisions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Covenant which

(a) call for the State of Israel to be eliminated by armed military struggle and

(b) deny the legality of existing international agreements in relation to the former territory of Palestine - including the Mandate for Palestine, article 80 of the United Nations Charter and Security Council Resolution 242.

These provisions in the PLO Covenant are the very antithesis of the Bush Dream.

Creating a climate conducive to a peaceful resolution of the conflict can only be achieved by first erasing these offensive provisions.

President Bush has erred badly in not conditioning his further diplomatic and financial support on these provisions being immediately repealed.

2. President Bush's latest statement makes it clear that any negotiations "must lead to a territorial settlement with mutually agreed borders reflecting previous lines and current realities, and mutually agreed adjustments."

However Mr Abbas is unwilling to concede one square metre of the West Bank to Israel and requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines -a sure fire recipe for sinking any negotiations.

How can the Bush Dream ever eventuate given this totally uncompromising stance by Mr Abbas?

Furthermore "the current realities" are that

(a) Mr Abbas is demanding that 450000 Jews be uprooted from their existing homes for the Bush Dream to come to fruition.

(b) Mr Bush has already signalled this is not acceptable in a letter dated 14 April 2004 to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declaring:.

"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. "

How then can President Bush contemplate the successful conclusion of a final status agreement to which Mr Abbas is a party given his intransigent stance on these basic issues?

3. Remarkably Mr. Bush's latest statement makes no mention of a very sensitive issue - the demand by Mr Abbas that millions of Arabs be allowed to go and live in Israel. Mr Abbas has never indicated the slightest interest in modifying this demand - which is totally unacceptable to Israel.

However President Bush's letter to Mr Sharon makes America's position very clear:

" 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."

This is a deal breaker on its own. No wonder President Bush seeks to gloss it over. His reticence indicates an unwillingness by him to come to grips with recognising that further negotiations with Mr Abbas are doomed before they begin.

The Bush Dream - as well intentioned and heartfelt as it was when it was first proposed in 2002 - has failed and has now joined many other similar proposals that have fallen by the wayside over the last 70 years.

Prolonging the agony and raising false expectations can only be the end result of this latest effort to resuscitate a process that has realistically never had a chance of succeeding since it was first announced.

The adage - "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" - succinctly describes President Bush's failure to get the Arabs to genuinely negotiate with Israel in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict. He joins many other famous statesmen and diplomats whose efforts went unrewarded for the same reason.

Better he wakes up to the reality now than suffer the indignity of further rebuffs.

Humility is far preferable to humiliation - and there is plenty of that in store for President Bush if he continues down the road to nowhere.

Quartet Quartered, Road Map Thwarted, Palestine Aborted

[Published July 2007]

The Quartet’s Road Map has failed according to the ten foreign ministers of the European Union’s Mediterranean States - Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Italy , Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia - (“the Mediterranean Ten”).

In an open letter to the Quartet’s new negotiating supremo Tony Blair, they state unequivocally and without any diplomatic nuances :

“Topping this analysis - we might as well admit it straight away - is the recognition of a shared failure we can no longer ignore: the “road map” has failed. The status quo which has prevailed since 2000 is leading nowhere, as we know.”

[http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/open_letter/2007/07/the_road_map_has_failed.html ]

This unusually frank admission heralds the end of the European Union’s involvement with America, Russia and the United Nations in the Road Map jointly sponsored by the four of them in 2003.

Four years of intense international diplomacy in the Middle East by the world‘s most powerful negotiating team ever assembled to achieve what the Mediterranean Ten call “an idea“ - the creation of a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan in 6% of historic Palestine - has finally been recognised as a total waste of time and effort.

This idea has never really progressed beyond an idea since its conception 70 years ago - due to continuing Arab intransigence at every point of time that it has been proposed.

But undaunted by this spectacular failure, the Mediterranean Ten have not yet given up on making this idea a reality.

They now hope to get there by laying down four “revised objectives” in a new European Union Road Map that are totally impossible to achieve - and which guarantee that this latest version will also be shredded into the waste paper basket like its many predecessors.

These four revised objectives include:

1. Negotiations without prerequisites on the final status, embracing such issues as refugees and borders.

What is there to negotiate about ?

On refugees, - the Palestinian Authority will not and cannot agree to compromise its demand that millions of Arabs be allowed to go and live in Israel. It would be dead in the water if it did.

On borders - the Palestinian Authority wants every square metre of the West Bank and Gaza - having rejected an offer of 92% in 2000. Do the Mediterranean Ten really believe the Authority would be prepared to accept less than 100 % after years of international arm twisting has failed to get it to moderate its demand?

2. Consider sending in a “robust international force”

Even the Mediterranean Ten acknowledge the risks are high and that this objective is predicated on the condition that “it must operate alongside a peace plan without taking its place…”

How can a peace plan ever emerge if the first objective hits a brick wall?

3. Get Israel to help Mahmoud Abbas by releasing the thousands of prisoners without blood on their hands, and by freezing Israel’s settlement policy.

The Mediterranean Ten are surely on the road to dreamland - displaying naiveté and stupidity that should forever disqualify them from holding their positions as Foreign Ministers for their respective countries.

Are they unaware of the damage, carnage and havoc that can be wreaked by just one of these convicted terrorists successfully making it through Israel’s tight defences next time? Are they blind to what has happened in America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, Bali, England and Scotland?

And the Mediterranean Ten still seek to maintain the Quartet’s racist and discriminatory policy to halt Jews populating and copulating in the West Bank. What international outcry would there be if the Mediterranean Ten suggested Arab residents similarly refrain?

4. Don’t push Hamas to up the stakes - reopen the border between Gaza and Israel.

In other words - reward terrorism and rejectionism, open the gates to enemies who are sworn to wipe you off the earth and are not prepared to change their mindset.

Incredibly the Mediterranean Ten believe these four objectives are within their grasp. Their arrogance and dictatorial attitude display a total lack of understanding of what the conflict is really about.

Seven of these ten Mediterranean countries were members of the League of Nations which in 1922 unanimously endorsed the creation of the territory of Palestine with defined borders for the first time in history - and voted in favour of the Jews being granted the right to reconstitute their national home there.

They were also parties in agreeing to postpone or withhold the right of the Jews to live in 77% of Palestine just less than two months later to appease Arab demands - which ultimately led to an independent Palestinian Arab State being created in that area in 1946 that is today called Jordan.

Are their Foreign Offices ignorant of their countries’ acquiescence in this process?

Do they seriously believe the idea of a State between Israel and Jordan is ever likely to happen after 70 years of trying have resulted in abject failure every time?

The Mediterranean Ten need to understand that the real key to resolving this conflict is two states - not three states - in former Palestine - one for the Arabs, one for the Jews.

This can be achieved by redrawing the boundary between Israel and Jordan so as to divide sovereignty in the West Bank between them.

This will give the Jews about 20% of historic Palestine and the Arabs about 80% of historic Palestine.

This solution will not require any negotiations on the four objectives proposed by the Mediterranean Ten.

This is an idea that can quickly become an achievable reality. Anything else is surely certain to fail.

Israel's Illusion - Fatah Feted Is Hamas Hated

[Published July 2007]

Israel's unilateral decision to release 250 Fatah terrorists from Israeli jails continues the insane policy of appeasement adopted by successive Israeli Governments since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993.

This latest decision coupled with unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000, Gaza in 2005 and the unilateral release of another 500 terrorists in February 2005 sends a clear message to its Arab enemies - that terrorism coupled with no compromise and no meaningful negotiations is bringing concrete and tangible benefits towards the ultimate goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

The decision to release these 250 terrorists was taken in obscene haste since their names and the crimes they committed were not even known to the Israeli cabinet when it made its astounding decision.

Israel is no Guantanamo Bay - all those to be released have been tried sentenced and convicted by due legal process.

The Israeli Cabinet was only told that those to be released did not have "blood on their hands". That they had "blood on their minds" - and still no doubt harbour the same thoughts now - apparently was a matter of complete indifference to the Israeli Government.

Coupled with this release was the release and return of four terrorists "with blood on their hands" to Jordan - a state with whom Israel has diplomatic relations. They are to serve out in Jordan a ridiculously short period of only 18 more months of their life sentences for murder for which they were convicted by Israel.

As controversial and shocking as this decision was, at least it could be argued that Israel was releasing them in the national interest of forging better relations with an Arab State with whom it has a signed peace treaty.

But the rationale offered by Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for the release of the 250 Fatah terrorists makes amazing reading:

"We want to make use of all means to strengthen moderate forces within the Palestinian Authority, and to encourage them to follow the path that we believe can create conditions for real talks" [Israelinsider - 8 July 2007]

The "moderate forces" are Fatah - an organisation committed to Israel's destruction in stages - as contrasted to the "extremist forces" namely Hamas - an organisation committed to Israel's destruction in one fell swoop.

Some option for Israel to choose - death by one blow or by a thousand cuts. Why choose either?

Does Mr Olmert not understand that contrary to strengthening Fatah, this decision will only encourage Hamas to keep undermining Fatah in an attempt to coerce Israel into releasing even more terrorists to continue propping up Fatah?

Are we now going to see an "unending cycle of terrorist releases" in response to an "unending undermining of the moderates"?

The path that Mr Olmert believes the moderates will now be encouraged to follow to create conditions for "real talks" was articulated by Mr Olmert at the meeting he held at Sharm El Sheikh with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah and Mahmoud Abbas on 25 June:

"We recognize the new government in the Palestinian Authority, which recognizes Israel's right to exist and a solution of two states for two peoples. It is ready to implement the agreements signed, renounces terror and violence as a means and a goal, and has no members of terrorist organizations. We will work together to implement the Roadmap and advance the goals set out therein."

The new Government in the Palestinian Authority recognises Israel's right to exist and renounces terror and violence as a goal? Has it taken any steps to revoke the Palestine Liberation Organisation Charter that calls for Israel's annihilation and armed struggle as the only way to liberate Palestine? Has it done anything to stop the virulent hatred of Jews endemic in its educational system, its newspapers and television programming?

The Palestinian Authority recognises the two state solution ? Well maybe - if that two state solution results in a Jew free state between Israel and Jordan and the entry into Israel of millions of Arabs. This recipe for Israel's suicide is one that even Mr. Olmert cannot accept and Mr Abbas can never compromise on. It is and always has been a non-starter since it was first proposed by Yasser Arafat 33 years ago.

The only real two state solution involves the division of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel - the two successor states in former Palestine. That's what "two states for two peoples" - the Jews and the Arabs - surely means.

Implementing the Road Map is surely fanciful from anyone's perspective. It has failed to get off the ground after four years of prodding and cajoling by its sponsors America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - surely the most powerful group of "enforcers" ever assembled. It has been rejected by the Arab League whose members are now urging negotiations based on their own five year old plan that would have even harsher consequences for, and has already been rejected by, Israel.

Mr Olmert said of his decision to release those 250 terrorists:

"I think that this gesture is a fitting one, and not a product of some illusion" [Israelinsider - 8 July2007]

"Fitting"? - the unconditional release of 250 convicted and sworn enemies of Israel and a brutal slap in the face for the Israeli Defence Forces, police and security services who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect ordinary Israeli civilians from these would be mass murderers?

"Not the product of some illusion"? - believing that any unilateral compromise ever has or ever will bring any meaningful concession from the Palestinian Authority?

Call it an illusion, a mirage, an aberration - Olmert's poor political judgement has once again caused serious harm to Israel's national interest and any prospect for a resolution of the Arab- Jewish conflict.

Palestinians Must Change Mindset

[Published June 2007]

Tony Blair had started his new job as special envoy for the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations - even before he had been appointed.

He affirmed the Quartet’s mantra to the House of Commons in his departure speech :

"The only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution, which means a state of Israel that is secure and confident in its security and a Palestinian state that is not merely viable in terms of its territory, but in terms of its institutions and government."

Is he really serious -“the only way“? No other options at all? What a doomsday prognosis.

After 14 years of trying and failing dismally to create a State between Israel and Jordan it seems that the same flawed policy objective is going to be around at least until Mr Blair is replaced by some other eminent person of the status of a former US President, British Prime Minister or head of the World Bank.

George Bush or Condoleezza Rice will probably relish such a job in two years time.

If Mr Blair is serious in his pronouncement and believes the “two -state solution” is the only way, then there first has to be an immediate change of mindset by the Palestinians before he starts any new negotiations to achieve that goal.

For this he will need the support of Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. His adviser, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told AFP that Mr Abbas had given Mr Blair an assurance that he will work with Mr Blair to arrive at a peaceful solution on the basis of two states.

Mr Abbas - the head of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority - must immediately call a meeting of the Palestinian National Council to amend or repeal the following offensive and belligerent provisions of the PLO Charter - which totally contradict the “two- state solution“ to which the Quartet is so inextricably tied and make a mockery of any “peace process“ to be undertaken by Mr Blair:

Article 1:“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.”

This must be amended to state it is also the homeland of the Jewish people. What does a“two-state” solution otherwise mean?

Article 2:“Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”

British Mandatory Palestine comprised Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. This clause must be repealed. It is a total denial of the “two state solution”.

Article 9:“Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine”

If this is allowed to stand, the Quartet and Mr. Blair may as well go and fly kites now.

Article 10: “Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war”

How does this type of officially sanctioned conduct gel with a peace process ?

Article 15: “The liberation of Palestine … aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine”

This is totally incompatible with the “two state solution” and must be repealed now.

Article 19: "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time”

How does this permit a “two-state” solution to ever be negotiated?

Article 20: “The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.”

Total disregard for international law and the rule of law including Security Council Resolution 242 have no place in negotiations being conducted by the Quartet. If Mr Blair wants his authority to be respected and treated seriously, this clause must go.

“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history ..”

Offensive - not only for Jews - but for Christians as well. These ideas need to be erased.

“Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own;

Letting this stand makes the two state solution impossible to attain.

Article 22: Displays a racist and anti-Semitic state of mind and attitude totally inimical to any peaceful resolution and must be expunged entirely.

It takes a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the Palestinian National Council at a special session convened for that purpose to amend the above articles.

In 2003 the Council had 669 members, 88 from the Palestinian Legislative Council, 98 representing the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza and 483 representing the Palestinian Diaspora
(Source: Wikipedia).

Such numbers now would represent a fair and representative cross section of the movers and shakers in Palestinian public opinion. Action taken by them to amend these offensive articles would send a powerful message to the constituency that the days of hating Jews, armed struggle, resistance and terror are over.

This meeting can be called in 60 days to see if the Council members are really serious in wanting to end the conflict by taking such ground breaking and historic decisions.

There would be those who would ignore the change of direction and continue to engage in terror. They would have to be dealt with as ruthlessly and effectively as possible.

Oslo and everything that has followed has had no chance of success because this quantum leap in thinking was not demanded before any negotiations took place. A handshake on the White House lawns was not sufficient.

The charade that Mr Blair can play peace games whilst the body politic can play war games and engage in pathological hatred of your “partner for peace” must end.

If Mr Blair doesn’t press for this meeting of the Palestinian National Council, then his mission will - like so many of those before him - have only one certain outcome - lots of frequent flyer points, heaps of photo opportunities, and a few extra kilos in weight put on at lavish banquets held in his honour.

No amendments now to the PLO Charter = no further negotiations, no State.

The equation for progressing the “two state solution” is really is as simple as that.

Palestine, Partition and Propaganda

[Published June 2007]


President Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stubbornly and foolishly continue to push for the creation of an independent Palestinian State between Israel and Jordan, as Hamas and Fatah turn the proposed site for such a state - Gaza and the West Bank - into battlegrounds of blood, misery and privation for the Arab populations caught in their deadly crossfire.

The 70th Anniversary of the Peel Commission Report released on 7 July 1937 presents a unique and impartial insight into understanding what the so called "Palestinian problem" was - and still is today - really about.

The Peel Commission recognised there was an insoluble conflict in Palestine between the Arabs and Jews necessitating the partition of Palestine into two independent sovereign states.

There was no mention of a third interested party - the "Palestinians" or "the Palestinian people" - who also deserved a separate state. This "people" was the subsequent creation of skilful Arab propaganda in the 50's and 60's in response to Israel's creation in 1948.

The Peel Commission Report succinctly summed up the nature of the conflict in the following words:

"An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State."

In 1937 there was no independent State called Jordan. It was then called Trans-Jordan, it comprised 77% of the territory administered by Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - the operation of which was specifically the subject of inquiry and consideration by the Peel Commission .

The right of Jews to settle in Trans-jordan pursuant to the Mandate had been "postponed or withheld" by Britain with the consent of the League of Nations from 16 September 1922 thus restricting the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national homeland in only the remaining 23% of Palestine.

The Peel Report records that:

"The articles of the Mandate concerning the [Jewish] National Home do not apply to Trans-Jordan and the possibility of enlarging the National Home by Jewish immigration into Trans-Jordan rests on the assumption of concord between Arabs and Jews."

That concord never eventuated and Trans-Jordan remained an exclusively Arab reserved territory in 77% of Palestine - free of any Jewish settlement - until independence was granted by Great Britain in 1946 with the approval of the League of Nations at its last sitting before dissolution. No Jew resides there today.

The Peel Commission proposed partition into two independent Arab and Jewish sovereign States.

The Arab State was to be in all of Trans-Jordan - where no Jews and an estimated 300000 Arabs lived - united with a further part of Palestine in which only about 1250Jews lived among about 750000 Arabs. This would have given the Arabs a sovereign State in about 90% of the territory of the Mandate.

The remaining 10% was to become the sovereign Jewish State where about 400000 Jews and 225000 Arabs then lived, whilst a new Mandate was to be enacted "for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, to remove all anxiety lest the Holy Places should ever come under Jewish control."

Transfer of the minority population in each State was also proposed to follow the precedent set by the exchange between the Greek and Turkish populations following the Greco-Turkish War of 1922.

The Peel Report noted:

"There was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to concede little Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia were free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now. In less than three years' time all the wide Arab area outside Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean will be independent, and, if Partition is adopted, the greater part of Palestine will be independent too. "

The Report stated the advantages to the Arabs and the Jews of Partition in the following terms:

"The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be summarized as follows:--

(i) They obtain their national independence and can co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress.

(ii) They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jews, and from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule."

"The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be summarized as follows:--

(i) Partition secures the establishment of the Jewish National Home and relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected in the future to Arab rule.

(ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism--a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life."

The Arabs rejected the proposal and therein sowed the seeds for the continuation of the conflict that still remains unresolved in 2007 in just the West Bank and Gaza - only 6% of Palestine - where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews .

President Bush and Mr Olmert need to recognise that the proposal to create a State between Israel and Jordan - the product of the totally discredited 1993 Oslo Process - has turned out to be a dismal failure and that it flies in the face of the conflict and its history, geography and demography.

Looking back 70 years can be the catalyst and inspiration for a new direction in 2007which consigns the idea of a third State in former Palestine to the garbage bin and substitutes for it the partition of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel to finally complete what the Peel Commission had recommended.

Failure to change course will have only two assured outcomes - continued death and suffering for both Jews and Arabs and a continuing threat to world peace.

Palestine, Paralysis and Plato

[Published June 2007]

The Arab League and the Quartet – America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - have become totally paralysed as Hamas and Fatah lay into each other in Gaza with a ferocity that makes the never ending procession of pious resolutions passed at the United Nations condemning Israeli "brutality and breaches of international humanitarian law " what they always have been – totally hypocritical and quite farcical.

Throwing people off high rise buildings, murdering patients in hospital wards and shooting off peoples' heads now join Gaza's bizarre list of inhumane and barbaric practices.

Gaza's culture of violence has exploded to new limits of horror and revulsion yet the Arab League and the Quartet are not lifting a finger to actively end it.

The chickens are now coming home to roost with a vengeance for the Arab League and the Quartet.

The Arab League's Peace Plan (2002) and the Quartet's Road Map (2003) sponsoring an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza - just 6% of historic Palestine - were catastrophic decisions that set back any hope for peace in the region during the last five years.

Expectations in the Palestinian Authority that it now had worldwide public and political support firmly behind it for the creation of an independent State in the West Bank and Gaza, emboldened it to continue to make three impossible demands that Israel could not ever possibly accept:

1. The withdrawal from every square inch of Gaza and the West Bank

2. The right to return and live in Israel for millions of former Arab residents and their descendants who wished to do so

3. The removal of 450000 Jews from Gaza and the West Bank where they had lived for up to 40 years and their forced repatriation to Israel if they did not wish to leave willingly.

Israel's precipitate action in unilaterally evacuating all 7000 Jewish residents from Gaza in 2005 contributed to a fuelling of these expectations and even more – the belief that this was the first step in the ultimate destruction of Israel.

Instead of dancing and singing in the streets and engaging in nation building, Gaza reverberated to the sounds of hundreds of Kassam rockets fired at Israel, more suicide missions were undertaken into Israel, a total breakdown of law and order occurred and increased smuggling of weapons from Egypt was carried out - at the same time as an increasingly hostile and belligerent population were voting Hamas into power.

Whatever you think of Hamas – they mean what they say and don't mince the words they use. The goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel - nothing more, nothing less.

The Arab League and the Quartet however weren't listening and continued to pursue their misguided and flawed policy by supporting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in his supposed quest to achieve a state in Gaza and the West Bank - even as Hamas began to consolidate its position as the Government in Gaza.

Attempts by the Arab League to broker a unity Hamas/Fatah Government failed dismally.

Abbas had become a powder puff President with no real power or authority. Now Abbas' demise in Gaza is very close at hand as his forces wilt under the Hamas onslaught.

The current carnage has ensured once and for all the demise of any plan for the creation of an independent State in the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps the Arab League and the Quartet now need to ponder on the phrase used by Plato in his Republic written in 369BC:

"Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a State and yet the true creator is necessity,who is the mother of our invention"

The idea of creating a State in Gaza and the West Bank may have seemed a good idea and been undertaken with the best of intentions by both the Arab League and the Quartet.

Yet by refusing to accept anything less than they demanded, the Arab populations living in those areas put their hatred of the Jews above their claimed necessity for such a State.

Rejection of Statehood had been similarly refused by the Arabs when proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and the United Nations in 1947.

It had also been rejected between 1948-1967 during the occupation of the West Bank by Jordan and of Gaza by Egypt.

It was rejected again after the Six Day War in 1967 when the Arab League refused to negotiate with or recognise Israel.

In every case, hatred of the Jews was thought more important than the Arabs having a second Arab state in Palestine in addition to Jordan .

Five attempts to create a new Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt over the last 70 years have failed miserably and have brought nothing but continuing death and suffering to both Jews and Arabs. It is time to close the book on this proposal as the means of achieving an end to the 130 year old conflict in former Palestine.

The current parlous position in Gaza and the potentially looming confrontation in the West Bank between Hamas and Fatah have created a new, very urgent and different necessity that needs to be addressed by an inventive solution that is not based on the creation of a state in these areas.

This solution can only be found through the re-entry of Jordan into the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank - to assume control there and incorporate the area into Jordan - with the unconditional diplomatic and financial support of the Arab League and the Quartet and with the express consent of Israel.

Gaza has now become a place no one wants to enter. It has become Israel's neighbour from hell. Israel will no doubt have to deal with the mess there. It will not be a pretty sight.

The Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank have managed to turn their call for self determination into a dangerous game of self extermination. They only have themselves to blame.
A