Jordan considers replacing PLO as Israel's negotiating partner

[Published 8 April 2018]

Two recent events confirm that Jordan is seriously considering replacing the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as Israel’s negotiating partner to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between Israel and Jordan:

1.The ending of a 9 months diplomatic impasse between Jordan and Israel following Jordan’s acceptance of Amir Weissbrod as Israel’s new ambassador to Jordan.

Jordan’s approval came after the two countries agreed to end their standoff following the shooting deaths of two Jordanians in the Israeli Embassy compound by an Israeli security guard who Israel alleged opened fire in self-defence after one of the men tried to stab him.

Weissbrod will replace former Ambassador - Einat Schlein – who had hurriedly left Amman last July following this incident.

Restoration of full diplomatic ties will facilitate Israel and Jordan’s ability to amicably resolve the division of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between their two respective states within the framework of their existing 1994 Peace Treaty – ending a long-running border dispute dating back to 1922.

2. The publication by the Jordan Times on 31 March of an article by Jordanian journalist Nermeen Murad headlined “Should Jordan claim the West Bank on our behalf? An old yet new question”

The Jordan Times is published by the Jordan Press Foundation – in which the Government owned Social Security Investment Fund has a majority stake.

The provocative headline suggests the Government could be flying a trial balloon to gauge public opinion should Jordan decide to negotiate with Israel.

Murad opines:

“Did the Arab world and the Palestinian leadership make a strategic mistake when they kick started a political process that drove Jordan to the 1988 decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank? That step has long been seen to have, perhaps irreversibly, removed Jordan from the table of any serious negotiations for a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based in a “land for peace” formula.”

Murad argues:

“I believe that it can be credibly argued that it was a strategic mistake to focus Arab and Palestinian effort solely on creating an alternate and less legally legitimate claimant to the West Bank, regardless of how nationalistic and symbolic it was to have a Palestinian body representing Palestinian rights, instead of focusing on claiming the land itself as the most pressing priority — even if only for purely tactical considerations".

Murad then concludes:

“.. it appears that the decision to squeeze Jordan out and undermine the legal opportunity that Jordan had to reclaim the West Bank back in the 1970s, is a relevant and important starting point in our review of our past strategies and a critical ingredient in our discussions of a way forward towards a solution.”

Jordan’s long-abandoned West Bank claims could be resurrected following the PLO committing political suicide by refusing to have anything further to do with President Trump’s soon-to-be-released “ultimate deal”.

Trump’s deal will be still-born if no Arab negotiating partner is prepared to sit down with Israel.

In 1988 the PLO could justifiably claim to be the sole spokesman for the Gazan and West Bank Arab populations. Hamas – founded only in 1987 – never represented any challenge to the PLO then. However in 2018 the PLO sole-spokesman claim has been completely undermined by Hamas - which itself has governed Gaza with disastrous results since 2007.

Both organisations continue to fail to reconcile their differences, engage in on-going internecine conflict and refuse to give their long-suffering populations any say in their own future.

Jordan appears to be readying itself to jump on the Trump bandwagon - leaving the PLO and Hamas behind battering themselves into political irrelevance.

Mattis-Bolton accord can sway Trump to dump PLO for Jordan

[Published 2 April 2018]

President Trump’s possible call for Jordan to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as Israel’s negotiating partner under Trump’s soon-to-be-released “ultimate deal” will be considerably strengthened if Trump’s newly-appointed National Security Adviser - John Bolton - and Secretary of Defense - James “Mad Dog” Mattis - concur on such a move.

Bolton has supported this strategy since 2009– telling Eric Shawn on 21 January 2018:

“I hope at some point the Administration recognizes and perhaps it is already quietly – that the two-state solution isn’t going anywhere. If anything I would say to King Abdullah of Jordan – “Be prepared to reassert Jordanian sovereignty over part of the West Bank – negotiate with Israel”. I think that’s a far better outcome than the continued pursuit of a mythical – I believe – unattainable viable Palestinian state”

Mattis has favoured the Obama-Kerry strategy – pointing out to the Aspen Security Forum in July 2013:

“We have got to find a way to make the two-state solution that Democrat and Republican administrations have supported, we’ve got to get there. And the chances for it, as the king of Jordan has pointed out, are starting to ebb because of the settlements and where they’re at, are going to make it impossible to maintain the two-state option.”

Mattis further reasoned:

“I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for the Arab Palestinians. So he [Secretary of State John Kerry] is right on target with what he’s doing. And I just hope the protagonists want peace and a two-state solution as much as he does.”

Kerry however failed miserably – being unable to get the PLO back to the negotiating table after a PLO walk-out in April 2014 following nine months of unsuccessful negotiations on proposals specifically formulated by Kerry to resolve the long-running conflict.

Today:

1. Moderate Arabs – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman - have come out publicly - joining Jordan and Egypt in meeting with Israel in the White House – without PLO participation - to discuss Gaza’s deteriorating situation.

2. The PLO refuses to resume negotiations with Israel on the two-state solution: creating a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – in the territory covered by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

3. The PLO will no longer accept America as sole mediator and is demanding an international conference be convened by mid-2018

The media have castigated Trump for appointing Bolton – typified by highly-credentialled columnist George Will claiming:

“Bolton will soon be the second-most dangerous American.”

Yet Will himself had written in the Washington Post on 17 April 1987:

“May 14 will be the 30th Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, June 6 will be the 20th anniversary of the Six Day War. The West Bank has been held by Israel longer than it had been held by Jordan, the 1967 aggressor, which ever since has presented itself as the aggrieved party. Today, as every day since 1948, the key to peace is direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel, not a committee”

Mattis’s jocular remarks on meeting Bolton at the Pentagon - caught in an off-microphone exchange – signals Mattis could have already changed his thinking:

"I heard you're actually the devil incarnate and I wanted to meet you"

A Mattis-Bolton accord on Jordan replacing the PLO in future negotiations with Israel will undoubtedly reinforce Trump’s preparedness to make this long-overdue call.

Trump flags Israel-Jordan-Egypt subdivision of West Bank and Gaza

[Published 26 March 2018]

President Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as National Security Adviser flags the possibility that the centrepiece of Trump’s eagerly-awaited “ultimate deal” could involve the subdivision of Judea and Samaria (“the West Bank”) and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Such tripartite negotiations would replace the stale-mated Israeli-Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) negotiations - suspended in 2014 following a PLO walk-out when:

1. The PLO was demanding a new Palestinian Arab State with Jerusalem as its capital in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza (“disputed territories”) for the first time in recorded history – which was unacceptable to Israel.

2. Offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2007 to cede its claims to sovereignty in about 95% of the disputed territories had been rejected by the PLO.

3. The 1993 Oslo Accords had seen the West Bank divided into three Areas - “A”, “B’ and “C”:

"A" (18%) - under total PLO administrative and security control.
"B" (22%) - under total PLO administrative control and joint Israel-PLO security control
“C” (60%) - under total Israeli administrative and security control

4. Israel and the PLO had been negotiating the final status of the disputed territories under President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap - endorsed by the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

5. President Bush had given Israel written commitments on 14 April 2004 – overwhelmingly endorsed by the US Congress - to support Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza – which Israel honoured in 2005. America committed it would not expect Israel to withdraw from 100% of the disputed territories.

Now Abbas and the PLO have:

1. Rejected considering any future Trump proposals following Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital last December.

2. Declared the Oslo Accords “dead” in January.

Enter Trump-appointee John Bolton into this Israel-PLO standoff – as President Trump ponders how to fill this negotiating void.

Bolton has an answer - provided with amazing prescience on 5 January 2009 in his Washington Post article headlined “The Three-State Solution”:

“Let’s start by recognizing that trying to create a Palestinian Authority from the old PLO has failed and that any two-state solution based on the PA is stillborn. Hamas has killed the idea, and even the Holy Land is good for only one resurrection. Instead, we should look to a “three-state” approach, where Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. Among many anomalies, today’s conflict lies within the boundaries of three states nominally at peace. Having the two Arab states re-extend their prior political authority is an authentic way to extend the zone of peace and, more important, build on governments that are providing peace and stability in their own countries. “International observers” or the like cannot come close to what is necessary; we need real states with real security forces.”

John Bolton still retains these views – telling Eric Shawn on 21 January 2018:

“I hope at some point the Administration recognizes and perhaps it is already quietly – that the two-state solution isn’t going anywhere. If anything I would say to King Abdullah of Jordan – “Be prepared to reassert Jordanian sovereignty over part of the West Bank – negotiate with Israel”. I think that’s a far better outcome than the continued pursuit of a mythical – I believe – unattainable viable Palestinian state”

Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza respectively between 1948 and 1967.

Bolton’s appointment is shaping up as yet another Trump-inspired circuit breaker.

Trump’s decision to accept Bolton’s advice would spell curtains for Abbas and the PLO and give Trump the momentum he needs to get meaningful Israel-Arab negotiations started.

Trump Thrashes Clinton On Ending Sexual Violence In Syria And Iraq

[Published 16 October 2016}


Mainstream American media’s obsession with groping allegations against Donald Trump going back twenty years or more has papered over public discussion of major policy differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton on defeating Islamic State and ending the horrific sexual violence perpetrated on women and children in Syria and Iraq for the last two years.

In a stark report to the UN Security Council on 30 September — UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon warned:

“ISIL [Islamic State] continues to systematically use sexual violence against Yazidi women and girls in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as against other minorities caught up in the conflict. Even though some women have managed to escape their captors, around 3,800 abducted Yazidis were still missing at the time of writing. This is a matter of grave concern. Those who have escaped have described the appalling conditions under which they were bought, sold, traded and abused. Both girls and boys are advertised online and traded for weapons, suicide vests, cars and a range of other commodities. Thus far, no formal mechanisms have been established to secure the release of those held captive by ISIL. Those who have managed to escape have done so with the help of their families and smugglers or by taking advantage of other opportunities. Some have resorted to suicide as their only escape. The children of women who commit suicide, or who attempt to escape, are beaten or killed as punishment”

You have to search high and low to find any American media discussion of these highly disturbing revelations.

America and Russia have become embroiled in these conflicts raging in Syria and Iraq and both bear a major role in ending this ongoing dehumanisation of women and children. Yet American media has not critically examined Trump or Clinton’s views on what each would do under their Presidency to defeat Islamic State and end such reprehensible sexual violence.

Co-operation with Russia to achieve these objectives — as espoused by Trump — has been rejected by Clinton - who promises to follow President Obama’s resolute refusal to co-operate with Russia in defeating Islamic State in Syria since November 2015.

Clinton made her policy crystal clear in the second Presidential debate:

“It’s also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations.”

Who these Muslim nations are and how Clinton intends to defeat Islamic State in Syria without Russian co-operation remains unexplained. It is a pipedream the American media should be grilling her on every day until they get an answer.

Trump however indicated in the same Presidential debate that he would welcome co-operation rather than confrontation with Russia:

“I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example.”

Trump and Putin acting in concert or going hand in hand to the Security Council jointly sponsoring a commonly agreed plan of action to eradicate Islamic State represent two possible ways forward.

Meanwhile new allegations of decades-old sexual transgressions by Trump surface in the American media accompanied by sanctimonious expressions of indignation to justify his unfitness to be America’s next President.

Makes for salacious reading — but keeps voters in the dark on whether Trump or Clinton is the best candidate to:

1. See Islamic State defeated

2. End the ongoing sexual violence in Syria and Iraq

3. Extricate America from Obama’s disastrous forays in the Middle East that continue to cause American military casualties and bankrupt America both morally and financially.

Trump may not be perfect but America’s media should hang its head in shame.

Clinton Will Continue Obama Policy Confronting Russia In Syria And UN

[Published 10 October 2016]


Hillary Clinton has made it very clear in the second Presidential Debate that if elected next President of the United States she will continue President Obama’s confrontation with Russia both in Syria and at the United Nations.

Clinton told 66.5 million viewers:

“Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.
Russia hasn’t paid any attention to ISIS. They’re interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it’s all in, in Syria. And they’ve also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it’s not me.”

Clinton’s no-fly zone over Libya proved disastrous and has already been rejected by Russia over Syria.

She left unexplained what leverage she could put on Putin to get him to the negotiating table.

Her assessment that Russia wanted Trump elected as President of the United States was probably correct for the following reasons enunciated by Trump during the debate.

“I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS..

... I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she [Clinton] made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.”

The choice for America’s voters could not be clearer:

1. co-operation with Russia to first get rid of ISIS and - unmentioned during the debate - al-Nusra threats to world peace and security already declared by the UN Security Council or

2. continuing confrontation with Russia seeking to resolve the Syrian civil conflict which has raged since 2011.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov extended the following olive branch to America on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

Obama has spurned Russia’s offer - Clinton is adopting Obama’s position.

Trump seems ready to take up Russia’s offer of defeating ISIS first.

American voters have been presented with a stark choice between Clinton and Trump on America’s future involvement in Syria.

Trump gets Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman talking

[Published 18 March 2018]


President Trump has amazingly managed to cut through 100 years of Arab-Jewish antagonism by hosting a conference at the White House on 13 March with representatives from 20 countries - including Israel and seven Arab states (“Conference”).

Ostensibly called to discuss solutions to the worsening humanitarian and economic conditions in Gaza – this Conference also has very significant ramifications for Trump’s soon-to-be-released proposals to end the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Convened by White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and members of the National Security Council (NSC) staff and the Department of State – the Conference was attended by representatives from the United Nations, the European Union, the Office of the Quartet, and the following countries: Bahrain, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

Shamefully the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) - claiming to be the sole spokesperson for the Gazan Arabs since 1974 - could not set aside its enmity for Trump to attend this truly-international Conference designed to relieve the hell-hole that Gaza has become since Israel’s unilateral Disengagement in 2005.

PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas could well rue his decision to boycott this Conference following his virulent reaction to Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there in May on the occasion of Israel’s 70th anniversary.

The White House Readout makes no bones about where Trump wanted this Conference to go:

“The Administration of President Donald J. Trump believes that deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza require immediate attention. The situation in Gaza must be solved for humanitarian reasons and for ensuring the security of Egypt and Israel. It is also a necessary step toward reaching a comprehensive peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, including Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank.”

The PLO no-show at the White House could see Abbas being excluded from any new negotiations with Israel under Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals. Trump does not take kindly to such PLO grandstanding. After unsuccessful negotiations between Israel and the PLO spanning the last 25 years – Abbas’s latest Presidential rebuff is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

Trump’s “ultimate deal” could see Israel negotiating with an Arab delegation to replace the PLO - comprising White House attendees Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrein, UAE, and Oman – Arab States that have no diplomatic relations with Israel - but who had the courage to publicly meet with – and talk to - Israel at the Conference.

They would join the other two Arab States that attended the Conference – Egypt and Jordan – who have enjoyed diplomatic relations with Israel since respectively signing peace treaties in 1979 and 1994.

For far too long the PLO has sought to define the 100 years old unresolved Arab-Jewish conflict as one involving only “Palestinians” and “Israelis” - when no “Israelis” existed until 1948 and no “Palestinians” existed until 1964.

This false PLO narrative has been swallowed hook line and sinker by the United Nations and the European Union. Their on-going support has enabled the PLO to remain sole Arab negotiator with Israel over the last 25 years – with Arab League backing - seeking to create a second Palestinian Arab State - in addition to Jordan – in former Mandatory Palestine.

Trump’s Conference has junked such thinking, shown there are seven other Arab interlocutors ready to negotiate with Israel under American auspices and seen the PLO commit political suicide.

Those who continue to pillory Trump and underestimate his unique skills as an incredible circuit breaker are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Israel, Trump and United Nations should boycott Abbas and PLO

[Published 11 March 2018]


Israel’s Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – has used his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – to savage the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) policy that rewards Palestinian murderers of Israelis and other innocent civilians with lifetime payments.

Netanyahu’s PLO-onslaught in front of 18000 people attending the annual AIPAC Conference in Washington was unequivocal and unrelenting:

“But to get peace, to get peace President Abbas has to embrace peace and to stop supporting terror. Raise your hands high if you agree with me that President Abbas should stop paying terrorists who murder Jews. You know how much he pays? He pays about $350 million dollars a year to terrorists and their families, each year. That’s about a little less than 10% of the total Palestinian budget. That’s an incredible number. He pays Hakim Awad. Hakim Awad is the terrorist who murdered this beautiful family of Ehud and Ruth Fogel and their three children, including a 3 month-old baby girl, Hadas. So he pays Hakim Awad, this murderer, and over the lifetime of this killer, he will be receiving two million dollars.”

Hakim Awad - aged 18 – and his 19 years old cousin and accomplice Amjad Awad - each received five consecutive life sentences for murdering the five sleeping Fogel family members in March 2011.

Netanyahu’s attack on Abbas comes at a particularly sensitive time politically as:

1. President Trump mulls over the final details of his “ultimate deal” to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict

2. PLO chief – Mahmoud Abbas – has already signaled he will not enter into negotiations with Israel mediated by Trump

3. Abbas has called on the United Nations to convene an international peace conference by mid-2018 to accept the non-existent “State of Palestine” as a full UN member

4. The US Senate is currently considering the Taylor Force Act – overwhelmingly passed by the House in December 2017 - suspending US financial assistance to the PLO, and any successor or affiliated organizations until these payments are terminated. Taylor Force – a US citizen – was murdered on 8 March 2016 by a Palestinian Arab during a stabbing spree in Tel Aviv that also injured ten other people.

5. Israel’s Knesset has passed the first reading of a bill requiring such blood-money presently being paid to 35000 Palestinian families to be deducted from the US$2.1 billion in taxes and tariffs Israel presently collects for the PLO.

6. Abbas - 83 and in poor health – faces challengers to his leadership

Palestinian prisoners serving 20-30 year sentences for these murderous attacks reportedly receive a monthly US$3400 stipend for life.Those receiving a three-to-five-year sentence get a monthly wage of US$570. Palestinian prisoners who are married, have children, live in Jerusalem, or hold Israeli citizenship receive additional payments.

Trump called on Abbas to abandon this immoral and heinous policy during a joint press conference in Bethlehem in May 2017:

“Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded and even rewarded”

Just one month later Jared Kushner - Trump’s son-in-law and chief Middle East adviser - and Trump’s international negotiator Jason Greenblatt – met with Abbas in Ramallah.

According to reports in Arabic media, the Americans then allegedly watered down Trump’s demands – only wanting these payments stopped to some 600 prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli prisons.

Abbas defiantly rejected that proposal.

Abbas seems to believe he can publicly humiliate Trump and escape the consequences.

Monetary retaliation is a totally inadequate response to the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians.

Israel, Trump and the United Nations should boycott Abbas and the PLO by terminating all diplomatic contact until their vile and repulsive “murder for money” policy is ended.