What Is There To Talk About?

[Published August 2009]

Excitement mounts and expectations are raised as speculation increases that the man simultaneously wearing three hats as Palestinian Authority President, Fatah Chairman and PLO Chairman - Mahmoud Abbas - might be possibly meeting at the United Nations with Israel’s Prime Minister—Benjamin Netanyahu - around September 23.

They will no doubt be locked in a smiling and happy three-way embrace with President Obama - flanked by as many Quartet and Arab leaders as President Obama can cajole to join in this historic photo opportunity.

Like the failed Annapolis meeting less than two years ago with President Bush - there will supposedly be an announcement by his successor - President Obama - that sixteen years of failed negotiations to create a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan - the so-called “two state solution” - are going to once again be resumed.

Perhaps the announcement will be accompanied by the intention to hold an international gathering in Moscow to formally open the resumption of those negotiations.

However before this chain of events can happen it will certainly be necessary for Abbas to declare he is ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish State - something he has consistently and steadfastly refused to acknowledge.

As President of the Palestinian Authority Abbas is notionally committed to the “two state solution” accepted both by him and his predecessor the late Yasser Arafat- albeit the terms demanded by both of them have ensured the failure of this initiative since 1993.

As Chairman of the PLO Abbas is however committed to advocating 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 he is sworn to uphold Article 22 of its separate Charter:

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

It is no wonder then that Abbas has been loath so far to accept the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in 17% of former Palestine pursuant not only to the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - but also pursuant to the United Nations Charter.

He still continues to head two organizations that are hell bent on consigning the six million Jews now living in Israel into national oblivion - either by armed struggle or by changing the demographics of Israel’s population from its present ratio of 80% Jews/20% Arabs by continuing to demand the right for millions of Arabs to be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

Abbas is too weak to resist these plans to eliminate Israel as the Jewish National Home for all present - and future - generations of Jews no matter where they might happen to be born or to be living.

He is certainly frank about where his loyalties presently reside.

On 27 April 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 ” [YNet - 27 April 2009]

Abbas 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 after this address. The picture later appeared on the front page of both daily publications of the Palestinian Authority. [Israelinsider - 28 April 2009]

Perhaps Mr Abbas needs reminding that
1. There are no 1967 borders - only armistice lines
2. The United Nations had no trouble in understanding what the term “Jewish State” meant when passing Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 which declared:

“Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.”

The Jewish people did not struggle for 2000 years to return to their ancient homeland only to then be delegitimized and categorized as a “non-nation” - not entitled to enjoy in 0.01% of the former Ottoman Empire precisely the same rights of self determination as have been conferred on the Arab nation extending over twenty one sovereign states in the remaining 99.99% of the liberated Ottoman Empire.

Given his intransigent attitude - what will Abbas possibly have to talk about with Netanyahu at the United Nations unless Abbas has a life transforming change within the next three weeks? And why should Netanyahu be a party to such a farce unless Abbas accepts that Jews have the same rights as Arabs to determine their own future in at least some portion of the land where their national identity and destiny was forged more than 3000 years ago.

Pressure And Purges Panic Jordan

[Published August 2009]

Jordan’s King Abdullah is fast beginning to realise the serious ramifications threatening the continued rule of the Hashemite family dynasty in Jordan resulting from the failure of negotiations over the last 16 years to create a new Arab state between Jordan and Israel - “the two state solution“.

Jordan’s intensive diplomatic support for the “the two state solution” has come apart at the seams as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - emboldened by comments made by President Obama - now refuses to contemplate re-opening negotiations with Israel until Israel ceases all construction and building activity in the West Bank including the provision of residential housing to accommodate natural growth.

Apparently Abbas regards adding a bedroom, a family room or a parent’s retreat to an existing house as an obstacle to resuming negotiations. Completing partly constructed houses to lock up stage is apparently anathema to the Palestinian Authority. Israel has made it clear that it will not be accommodating Abbas’s farcical demand for a total freeze on all construction in the West Bank.

Some very neat diplomatic footwork will now have to be negotiated by President Obama - if Abbas - and Obama - are to save face and if Abbas is to be persuaded to resume the stalled negotiations.

This process has already begun with President Obama stating on 18 August:

“The Israeli government has taken discussions with us very seriously,” adding that he “was encouraged by what I am seeing on the ground.”

Abbas however now also finds himself embroiled in a serious conflict of interest - negotiating for the “two state solution” as the head of the Palestinian Authority whilst simultaneously chairing Fatah which calls for a “one state solution” - the total destruction of Israel.

Israel needs to seriously consider whether it should resume negotiations with Abbas whilst he retains both positions following his re-election as Chairman of Fatah in Bethlehem last week.

The long running power struggle between Hamas and Fatah continues unabated. The intrusion of a new terrorist movement into Gaza politics - Jund Ansar Allah - has seen 30 Gazans killed and more than 100 wounded in fratricidal blood letting last weekend. Gaza and the West Bank remain divided into separate Hamas and Fatah fiefdoms with no end to that confrontation in sight.

The prospects for the Palestinian Authority ever again being a credible and reliable negotiating partner with Israel in these chaotic circumstances has descended to rock bottom. Further negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have become pointless and have no prospects for success.

For these reasons it has become imperative that a new Arab negotiating partner or partners be found to sit down with Israel to determine the future sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

Jordan - as the last Arab State to occupy the West Bank between 1948-1967 - is perfectly suited to fill the role left by the castration of the Palestinian Authority‘s power and influence as a solid and reliable negotiator able to reach an agreement and more importantly ensure that it is enforced.

Jordan has begun to panic as its role in resolving the West Bank sovereignty issue is now being more frequently discussed - as events of the past few weeks have indicated.

Sarah Honig writing in the Jerusalem Post on 6 August - “Another Tack (Trans) Jordan Is Palestine”- highlights Jordan’s origins as one of the two successor States - with Israel - in former Palestine.

A flurry of diplomatic activity reportedly occurred this week as Israeli envoys secretly travelled to Jordan:

“to assuage concerns that Israel plans to transfer Palestinians from the West Bank to the Hashemite Kingdom”

Jordan’s decision to withdraw citizenship granted to those Arab residents who originated from west of the Jordan River seeking a new life and future in Jordan has provoked much resentment and unrest from those affected by that decision.

King Abdullah has now taken the extraordinary action of dismissing dozens of senior officers, including major and brigadier generals who were reportedly forced to agree to early retirement. In an address to the General Staff a few days before undertaking the purge of the generals, the king warned of internal and external plots designed to spark unrest among the Palestinian majority of Jordan‘s population:

“I clearly reiterate that no force can compel us to do anything against the interests of Jordan and Jordanians. The one who speaks about threatening Jordan, its identity and stability, and threatening our national unity, does not know Jordan or Jordanians and has not read their history.”

King Abdullah however needs to pay heed to the following resolution passed at the 8th conference of the Palestinian National Council of the PLO (now also headed by Abbas) in February-March 1971:

“Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity. It would be a continuation of fragmentation by which colonialism shattered the unity of our Arab nation and our Arab homeland after the First World War.

But this fragmentation has not prevented the masses, either west or east of the River Jordan, from feeling that they are one people, or from remaining united against the conspiracy of imperialism and Zionism.

In raising the slogans of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problems of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the west, nor did it believe that the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan..."

This resolution - whilst posing a direct threat by the PLO to the Hashemite family’s continuing rule in Jordan - can also be used to political advantage by King Abdullah - if he is prepared to rise to the challenge.

Reunifying the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank with Jordan in an enlarged Jordan with newly created boundaries would allow all its West Bank residents to enjoy Jordanian citizenship and equal rights with the rest of Jordan’s residents totally freed from Israeli occupation and control.

Jordan has enjoyed a signed peace treaty with Israel since 1994. Jordan is therefore uniquely placed to negotiate the future sovereignty of the West Bank with Israel by agreeing to a new internationally recognized border that will be mutually respected and observed by both Israel and Jordan.

The sooner King Abdullah steps up to the plate - the easier he will sleep at night.

Palestine - Abbas Accelerates Into The Abyss

[Published August 2009]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has signed his own death warrant as the preferred Arab partner to negotiate the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Arabs and Jews.

His demise follows his failure - after being re-elected as Chairman of Fatah in Bethlehem this week - to propose or procure any changes to the constitution of that terrorist organization at its first convention held in the last 20 years.

The constitution of Fatah presently calls for the destruction of Israel and contains the following unambiguous clauses that make this objective clear and unequivocal.

Article 12: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Article 13: Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem as its capital city ...

Article 22: Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine …

The constitution has remained unchanged since 1964 - at a time when the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt.

Any suggestion, therefore, that Fatah’s constitution is restricted and directed in its application only to the liberation of the West Bank and Gaza from Israel is disingenuous.

Abbas reportedly succeeded in achieving consensus over a political strategy at the convention to continue pursuing negotiations with Israel to achieve the Palestinian Authority’s demand for independence and freedom in a sovereign state in all of the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as the right for millions of Arabs to emigrate to Israel. The right of resistance was reserved as a legitimate option in case such negotiations fail.

Since intensive negotiations to achieve such a result have abysmally failed over the last six years under the auspices of the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations- the expectation of such an outcome ever eventuating is totally unrealistic.

Fatah ideology - as expressed in the constitution - is incompatible with - and is the very antithesis of - the creation of a new Arab state in only the West Bank and Gaza.

Fatah’s stated aim is the total destruction of Israel and nothing less.

Fatah is :

“an independent national revolutionary movement representing the revolutionary vanguard of the Palestinian people” (Article 11).

Clearly it is thus empowered to act independently of any decisions made by the Palestinian Authority or anyone else with whom it cares to disagree.

Abbas has placed himself in a position of total conflict negotiating for the “two state solution” as President of the Palestinian Authority whilst simultaneously chairing Fatah which still unconditionally calls for a “one state solution” under its clearly worded constitution..

On 9 September 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - which also happens to now be headed by Abbas - was required to give the following commitment to Israel before the Oslo Accords were signed:

“In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, he 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”

Whilst there is considerable doubt as to whether the clauses mentioned were subsequently changed in the PLO Covenant, nevertheless Israel declared that it was satisfied such changes had been effected and proceeded to negotiate with the newly constituted Palestinian Authority on the basis of the above commitment.

No such commitment however was sought from Fatah nor was any commitment given by Fatah to similarly delete the offending clauses from its own separate constitution either in 1993 or in 2009 when the opportunity arose to do so at this week‘s convention.

Israel accordingly needs to view the past week’s events in Bethlehem with grave apprehension.

It is clear that any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority will not in any way be binding - either on Hamas or Fatah.

Both Hamas and Fatah remain independent terrorist groups that will be free to thumb their noses at any concluded agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel and resort to any form of action they consider necessary to bring about the destruction of Israel.

Doubtless Abbas hopes that this continuation of the common hatred of the common enemy will help to repair the relationship between Hamas and Fatah, facilitate ending the power struggle between them, reunify the West Bank and Gaza into one territorial unit enabling them to reconcile their differences and establish a government of national unity.

Israel should now make it abundantly clear that Abbas cannot be regarded as a bona fide negotiating partner unless Fatah makes the same commitment to Israel that the PLO did in 1993 and takes immediate action to omit the offending articles from its constitution that call for the destruction of Israel.

Not only Israel should be making such a demand.

President Obama needs to make it clear to Abbas that America is not prepared to deal with him whilst Israel’s demand goes unanswered - or at the least whilst he continues to act as both President of the Palestinian Authority and as Chairman and a member of Fatah.

Obama Must Focus On Jordan And Egypt

[Published August 2009]

President Obama has already invested much personal time and considerable diplomatic resources in unsuccessfully pursuing former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton’s failed attempts to create an additional Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza - some 6% of former Palestine.

In doing so President Obama has completely ignored the fact that another Arab State - today called Jordan - was established in 77% of former Palestine 63 years ago.

President Obama needs to question why another Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza should be created now when it was not established between 1948-1967 during which time Jordan and Egypt respectively occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Not one single Jew then lived in those areas since they had all been driven out and dispossessed by the invading Jordanian and Egyptian armies.

Arab voices and indeed those of the world community through the United Nations remained silent during that 19 years window of lost opportunity. Talk of a separate Arab ethnic or national identity between Arabs living on either side of the Jordan River was never raised or seriously discussed with good reason - there was not and never has been any difference.

To expect that such an additional Arab state can possibly emerge in 2009 when 500000 Jews now live in the West Bank is nothing more than an illusion.

President Obama now needs to focus on the role Jordan and Egypt can play in resolving the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza - the only area of former Palestine where territorial sovereignty still remains unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

Jordan owes an enormous debt of thanks to America for facilitating Jordan’s creation as a sovereign independent Arab nation in 1946 and its subsequent admission to the United Nations.

America’s then President - Harry Truman - acquiesced in Great Britain’s action in unilaterally granting Jordan [then called Trans-Jordan] its independence on 22 March 1946 in breach of Article 27 of the Mandate for Palestine which provided:

“The Mandatory [Great Britain] shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power.”

Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson in a confidential memorandum to President Truman on 15 July 1946 had advised that Zionist leaders desired that the United States take the position that Great Britain had acted:

“illegally and unilaterally in granting independence to Trans-Jordan. They urge that the United States refuse to recognise Trans-Jordan as an independent country and oppose the admission of Trans-Jordan into the United Nations. They insist that Great Britain, in recognizing the independence of Trans-Jordan has violated the terms of the Palestine Mandate received from the League of Nations; that it has violated certain obligations contained in the American-British Convention relating to Palestine of December 1924 and that it failed to observe certain stipulations in the Charter of the United Nations.”

[www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/un/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1946-07-15&documentid=1&studycollectionid=UN&pagenumber=1]

After examining these claims Mr Acheson advised President Truman :

“that in the absence of precedents, and in view of the possibility of various interpretations being placed on the language used in the Mandate, in the American- British Convention and other pertinent documents, the Zionists can produce plausible arguments in favour of their position.”

However without producing any justification for the following statement whatsoever Mr Acheson then continued:

“The Department is of the opinion, however, that the position of the British from the legal point of view is the more sound.”

Since there are always two sides to any legal dispute that can only be eventually resolved by Court process - the State Department was on safe ground in propounding the view it took at that point of time.

However Mr Acheson then continued:

“The Department also feels that in making its decision, the Government of the United States should consider the factual and international political aspects of the problem, not solely those of a legal nature”

One of those aspects considered by Mr Acheson and advised to President Truman was that:

“Great Britain has gone so far in setting up and recognizing an independent Kingdom of Trans-Jordan that it is not now possible for it to change its policy in this respect. Great Britain, therefore, apparently has no choice other than to support the application of Trans-Jordan for admission into the United Nations. If the United States should oppose the admission of Trans-Jordan, a rift would take place between Great Britain and the United States in the Middle East with a resultant weakening in the position of the Western powers and a decline of Western influence in that area. Such a development would be extremely unfortunate in the present world situation.”

Mr Acheson concluded that in view of the above consideration (and others looked at by him)

“ and of the over-riding political necessity of maintaining the peace and stability of the Middle East, it is recommended that the delegate of the United States be instructed to vote for the admission of Trans-Jordan to the United Nations”

Peace and stability in the Middle East was shattered just two years later when Trans-Jordan’s British trained armed forces invaded the remaining 23% of Palestine not already under its sovereign control occupying about one quarter - comprising the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem - for 19 years until lost to Israel in the Six Day War in June 1967.

President Obama needs to appreciate that Jews had - and still have - the right to return and settle in the West Bank after 1967 under the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter. He needs to respect these clearly defined legal rights.

America needs to call up its favour in recognizing Jordan’s birth 63 years ago and insist it now play a direct role in determining the allocation of territorial sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza in direct trilateral negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt.

It is never too late to repay that debt and the time is fast approaching for President Obama to call on Jordan to make this commitment.

Palestine - Jumpy Jordan Generates Gerrymander

[Published July 2009]

Jordan - 77% of former Palestine - moved this week to start revoking the citizenship of 70% of its population who originated from the remaining 23% of former Palestine - today called Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

In doing so Jordan’s Interior Minister Nayef Al-Kadi stressed

"We insist that Jordan is not Palestine, just as Palestine is not Jordan,”

The speciousness of Mr Al-Kadi’s argument is exposed on the official website of Jordan’s late King Hussein - who died in 1999 - in which the late King stated:

“The majority of Jordan’s [then] population of 4.4 million people are Arabs descended from various tribes that have migrated to the area over the years from all directions.”

Arab spokesmen from both sides of the Jordan River have asserted for decades that there is no cultural religious or ethnic difference between Arabs living on either side of the Jordan River.

King Hussein himself stated in his book Uneasy Lies The Head [1962 p.118]:

“Palestine and Jordan were both under the British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs they were hardly separate countries. Transjordan being to the east of the Jordan River, it formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine”

Abu Iyad told the Near East Report on 8 January 1990:

“You cannot make distinctions between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. It is true that we encourage unity between Arab peoples but the relation between Jordan and Palestine in particular is clearly distinctive; all those who tried in the past and are still trying to create divisions between the Jordanian and Palestinian people have failed. We indeed constitute one people”

Yasser Arafat told Der Spiegel [No.29/1986]:

"Indeed Palestinians and Jordanians are one people. No one can divide us.”

The Crown Prince of Jordan wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1982:

“Small as Jordan is, our country is politically, socially, economically, militarily and historically inseparable from the Palestinian issue.”

Jordan’s latest decision to revoke the citizenship of its majority population was stated by Mr Al-Kadi to have been made at the request of the PLO and the Arab world to consolidate the status of the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - heaping one fiction on another as the PLO is locked in a deadly struggle for power against Hamas that sees no prospect of being resolved.

Those Jordanians who have their citizenship revoked will suffer serious financial hardship and loss of rights guaranteed by Articles 5 -23 of the Jordanian Constitution.

Article 20 of the Constitution provides:

“Elementary education shall be compulsory for Jordanians and free of charge in Government schools“.

Under the Jordanian Nationality Law 1954 a Jordanian woman marrying a non-Jordanian man can neither pass on her nationality to her children nor grant them residency permits. Such children do not have access to many rights, including enrolement in the school system, social entitlements, or political rights.

If this provision were to be enforced against the children of those parents now being stripped of their citizenship one could confidently predict a lot of unrest and civil disturbance as a result.

Jordan appears to be taking a calculated gamble in this current citizenship stripping exercise in an attempt to completely distance itself from becoming involved in the allocation of sovereignty of the West Bank - which it occupied between 1948-1967 until it was lost to Israel in the Six Day War.

Jordan’s current action is designed to sustain the fiction that there is a national differentiation between Arabs living west of the Jordan River and those living east of the Jordan River. This fiction has been the single greatest obstacle to ending the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine. It has led to futile negotiations over the last 72 years to create a new Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan and Israel where no such state has ever existed before in recorded history.

Attempts by President Obama to create favourable conditions for reviving the stalled and inconclusive peace talks between Israel and yet another fictitious entity - the Palestinian Authority - nee the PLO - to create such a new fictitious state have so far proved unsuccessful. In the unlikely event that these negotiations were to be resumed they would not result in any final status agreement being concluded since the parties remain too far apart in their negotiating positions without any real prospects of the yawing gap between them being bridged.

Only Jordan can break the deadlock in the West Bank by once again occupying and annexing the heavily populated Arab areas within the West Bank and incorporating such areas within the territorial boundaries of Jordan. The extent of such annexation needs to be resolved in direct face to face negotiations with Israel which would require the international boundary between those two existing sovereign states to be redrawn.

Two countries at peace with each other since 1994 have a far better chance of allocating sovereignty in the West Bank between them than the current failed strategy of trying to implant a new state between them that has been - and will continue to prove to be - an abysmal failure.

Proceeding with the Jordanian option will preclude any of its citizens losing their current citizenship and will restore the status quo existing before this hasty and ill considered decision was taken.

It will reaffirm the vision of Jordan as seen by the late King Hussein in an address given by him to the nation in Amman on 31 July 1998 in which he stated that Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin

“ all have the full rights of citizenship and all its obligations, the same as any other citizen irrespective of his origin. They are an integral part of the Jordanian state to which they belong, on whose soil they live, and in whose life and various activities they participate.”

King Abdullah appears to be an honourable man who respects and reveres the memory of his late father. It would be a pity if he were to succumb to political pressure from the PLO and the Arab League and depart from these noble principles laid down by the late King Hussein.

The attempt to strip any current citizen of his citizenship rights in Jordan should be universally condemned and steps need to be taken by King Abdullah to have such decision immediately annulled.

Palestine - Negate The Debate On The Jewish State

[Published July 2009]

Any prospect of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan took another nosedive this past week with an extraordinary outburst by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak saying he could not accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 10 July President Mubarak said Israel’s request for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state is unacceptable.

“Don’t you have Arab citizens in Israel?” Mubarak asks. “You want to turn Israel into a Jewish state only? That is very bad. I’m telling you. It’s a serious mistake which will harm you. A Jewish state will become the target of all terrorists. An open state, on the other hand, is a different matter. Look at us in Egypt: We have Muslims, Christians, Copts and Jews,”

President Mubarak was being blatantly misleading in suggesting that the term “Jewish State” meant a state where only Jews and no one else can reside. 20% of Israel’s 7 million population is Muslim Arab and there are over 100000 Christian Arabs living in Israel. Any suggestion that either group will lose its citizenship is nonsensical.

What the President conveniently forgot to mention was that 90% of Egypt’s 80 million population is Muslim Arab, that only 9% is Coptic Christian which group is massively discriminated against and that there are no more than 500 Jews living in Egypt.

Like so many issues in the Middle East words - and the meaning to be ascribed to them - are very important. None is more important at the present time than Israel itself defining what the words “Jewish State” means.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made it clear on 14 June that any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority would fail unless the Authority was prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish State when he stated unequivocally:

“As we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.” I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

US President Barack Obama had welcomed Mr Netanyahu’s speech, calling it an important step forward. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs affirmed the following day that :

“The president is committed to two states, a Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples,”

On 12 July Prime Minister Netanyahu again reiterated his position at a ceremony in Jerusalem commemorating 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl:

“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians.”

The term “Jewish State” should be defined by Israel so that there is no doubt as to its meaning by anyone choosing to use those words.

No better definition exists than that given by David Ben Gurion to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine at Lake Success New York on the 7 July 1947:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name “Palestine,” - I said if - then all would be Palestinian citizens If the State would be given, another name - I think it would be given another name - because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as “Palestine” at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew.”

Whilst Ben Gurion’s utopian ideal has not yet been fully realised in relation to the “slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew” his vision is steadily being advanced in the face of the constant draining of Israel’s financial resources spent on armaments to fight innumerable wars and to ensure it remains in a state of preparedness to defend all its citizens - both Jews and Arabs- in the face of refusal by all 21 members of the Arab League to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

Many members of the Arab League have abbreviated their official State names. Egypt is officially designated as “The Arab Republic of Egypt”, Syria as “The Syrian Arab Republic”, Jordan as “The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” and Libya as “The Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”

Israel’s Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948 merely proclaimed :

“the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called ISRAEL”

Perhaps it is time for Israel to formally adopt Ben Gurion’s definition, to officially designate itself as “The Jewish State of Israel” and to get the two Arab countries with whom it has signed peace treaties - Egypt and Jordan - to acknowledge that fact.

As we commemorate Neil Armstrong’s setting foot on the moon on 20 July 1969 we might well use his first words on that momentous occasion to describe what the official adoption of such a name change by Israel might possibly herald:

“That’s one small step for man: one giant leap for mankind”

Palestine - G8 Novate The Great Debate

[Published July 2009]

The creation of a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel -the so called “two state solution” - is by no means an assured certainty - despite the confident predictions emanating from such influential sources as President Obama and the Quartet over recent weeks that it remains the only viable solution to resolving the 120 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs over the territory once called Palestine.

The latest meeting of the G8 world leaders concluded in L’Aquila Italy on 10 July 2009 appears to have taken a far more cautious approach - refusing to back itself into a corner by endorsing the two state solution as the only viable option to resolve the conflict.

The G8 Summit annually brings together the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition, the European Union participates and is represented by the president of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.

The Chairman’s Summary presented by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi at the conclusion of the three day meeting included the following statement:

“Looking forward to a comprehensive peace between Israel and all its neighbours, the Leaders reiterated their full support to the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and urged the parties to rapidly resume direct negotiations. They also called on them to fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap. G8 Leaders remained engaged to fully support the Palestinian Authority including, once a peace agreement reached, through the launching of an ambitious and comprehensive plan that would develop infrastructure and foster economic activities in the future Palestinian State”

This statement is silent on how the G8 sees a comprehensive peace between Israel and all its neighbours being achieved and the G8 was apparently loath to indicate how it could expect that to ever eventuate.

It is noteworthy that whilst the G8 fully supported the two state solution it specifically refrained from endorsing it as the only viable solution - which puts the majority of the G8 leaders distinctly at odds with the pronouncements of President Obama and the Quartet.

Since America, and Russia comprise two of the four members of the Quartet and two of the 8 members of the G8, the failure of the G8 to collectively toe the American and Quartet line indicates considerable doubt by the remaining members of the G8 in the two state solution ever coming to fruition.

The statement also calls for the rapid resumption of direct negotiations. However the senior negotiator for the Palestinian Authority- Saeb Erekat - has angrily denounced the conditions laid down by Israel’s Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu - for the creation of this new Arab state - especially its demilitarization- with the following dismissive declaration:

“Netanyahu will have to wait 1000 years for someone to agree to talk to him”

Interestingly the G8 have also called on the parties to fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap first proposed by President Bush in 2003. These obligations still remain unfulfilled in any substantive detail - despite six years of the most intense international diplomacy to procure compliance.

Indeed one of the complexities to be resolved at the present time is the status of the Roadmap itself and whether Israel and the Palestinian Authority still regard themselves as obliged to negotiate solely on the basis of the proposals laid out by President Bush.

Whilst Israel has indicated its acceptance to enter negotiations based solely on the Roadmap, the Palestinian Authority has been calling for negotiations based on the Arab League Initiative as well.

Until the ground rules are definitively established it is difficult to see how any negotiations can ever commence.

The pledge by the G8 of full support for the Palestinian Authority might give its President - - Mahmoud Abbas - some traction in seeking popular support for his Fatah administration to represent the Palestinian Arabs. It will not and cannot disguise the huge gap in the positions of Hamas and Fatah as they compete for undivided political control of the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.

The G8 statement remains silent on the ability of the Palestinian Authority to enter into a final and binding peace treaty with Israel that would be capable of being honoured or enforced in the face of Hamas opposition to any such treaty - especially whilst the West Bank and Gaza remain divided as separate territorial units under respective Hamas and Fatah control.

The carrot dangled at the end of the statement promising an ambitious and comprehensive plan for the development of infrastructure and economic activities in the future Palestinian State “once a peace agreement has been reached” - amounts to a sober realisation that the billions of dollars that have been recklessly poured into the bottomless coffers of the Palestinian Authority for years by the G8 members - without any substantial improvement in infrastructure or economic activities - will not be repeated by them until a peace agreement has been signed..

The G8 communique amounts to nothing more than a motherhood statement with one notable exception - it does not endorse the two state solution as the only solution to the conflict. Given the difficulties in negotiating such a solution after seventy two years of international efforts trying to do so, this assessment represents a welcome acceptance of reality and lays the way open for alternative solutions to be proposed or adopted by the G8 leaders as the two state solution continues its slide to its inevitable denouement.