Politics News

david singer asked:



President George Bush delivered a severe rebuff to the Arab League in remarks made by him at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 10 January 2008 (“the King David Declaration”).

The President had already made it clear in April 2004 that the Arab League needed to abandon its long standing demand that millions of Arabs be allowed to go and live in Israel when he stated :

“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.”

The Arab League has failed to embrace this suggestion as the solution to the refugee issue.

The King David Declaration has now raised the diplomatic bar even higher with the President stating :

“I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.”

These well chosen and carefully crafted words make it clear that President Bush is proposing additional “international mechanisms” to solve the refugee issue - other than resettlement in the proposed new Arab State. One of those “international mechanisms” will be “compensation” - and Israel won’t be the only country asked to pay it.

The President has thereby tacitly acknowledged that Israel cannot be held solely responsible for what befell the Arab residents who left Palestine in the wake of the Arab- Jewish conflict in 1947-1948.

Other countries - including members of the Arab League who have perpetuated the refugee issue for the last 60 years - will also be expected to contribute generously to an internationally administered and funded compensation package.

Any other “new international mechanisms” contemplated by the President were unidentified by him. The possibilities however are ominous and they do not bode well for the Arab League.

One could involve a demand that the refugees be given the option of being granted full rights of citizenship and equality in the Arab states where they have been kept stateless and in refugee camps for the last 60 years - dependent for survival on hand outs by the United Nations Works and Relief Agency (UNWRA) running into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Generations of dysfunctional human beings have been the end result of this inhumane policy - resulting in bitterness, hatred and despair as persons of all ages turn themselves into human bombs - choosing to kill Jews and achieve martyrdom as their way out of this pitiless existence.

The denial of citizenship and equality by their own Arab brethren has been buried in Foreign Office and State Department filing cabinets as nations have bent over backwards in their desire to maintain good relations with despotic Arab oil suppliers and cashed up Arab buyers for military equipment - tangible benefits flowing to these nations for their continuing silence or just looking the other way.

Now with oil hitting US$100 a barrel, the US economy facing recession and the Arab League having done nothing to endorse the President’s 2004 proposal for solving the refugee issue, President Bush has been forced to rethink this earlier policy - which had left the Arab States relatively free of any responsibility for solving the refugee issue.

That problem had been caused initially by the Arab League decision to refuse to accept partition of Western Palestine between Arabs and Jews pursuant to United Nations Partition Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 followed by the subsequent Arab League decision to invade Palestine on 15 May 1948.

The grounds for that invasion - as contained in the declaration issued by the Arab League on the actual day of the invasion - still remain dominant in Arab League thinking today and have acted as the major cause for the refugee problem remaining unresolved 60 years later :

“The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.”

The King David Declaration reiterated once more for the benefit of the Arab League that the President’s Roadmap envisioned not one but two States - Israel and Palestine - living side by side in peace and security and that there will be no withdrawal by Israel to the pre -1967 armistice lines.

This message - and warning - was conveyed to the Arab League by President Bush from the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 10 January:

1. Wake up to reality and abandon the idea of a unitary state - unequivocally and without reservation - and get the PLO to explicitly excise this objective from its Charter.

2. End the conflict by agreeing to the creation of an Arab state between Israel and Jordan in that part of the West Bank which leaves Israel with secure, recognised and defensible borders.

3. Accept resettlement of the refugees in this new State or alternatively receive compensation from an internationally sponsored and supported fund if they are not willing to emigrate there.

4. If you fail to endorse this solution over the next twelve months then you can say goodbye to a new 23rd member State called Palestine joining the Arab League. My successor will certainly not want to be publicly humiliated by the Arab League as has happened to me over the last 5 years.

5. Expect that it will then become your obligation to solve the refugee issue and the ongoing conflict without any further diplomatic or financial support from the United States.

6. Don’t be surprised if the United States then calls on you to resolve the refugee issue by demanding that you grant citizenship and equal rights to all refugees living within the borders of your member States and that you pay for their rehabilitation out of your own oil-bloated revenues.

This is the legacy President Bush has bequeathed to the Arab League for 2008 - and beyond.

david singer asked:


State Department spokesman Sean McCormack revealed this week that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been talking to ex-Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton about their experiences in trying to negotiate peace between Israel and its Arab enemies.

Carter successfully brokered a peace treaty at Camp David in 1978 between Egypt and Israel, which has endured for 29 years surviving many strains that could have permanently ended the relationship during this period.

Clinton walked away empty handed in 2000 at Camp David after two weeks of intense one on one diplomacy with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat.

Ms Rice certainly needs all the advice and help she can get as she struggles to get her planned international meeting in Annapolis off the ground. Even if she succeeds it could end in so much bitterness and enmity that it could signal the end of President Bush’s vision to create a new democratic Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

Why then did Carter succeed and Clinton fail and what lessons are there to be learnt by Ms Rice?

Three critical differences marked the negotiations that were undertaken by each President:

1. Two sovereign States - Israel and Egypt - were the parties in the Carter negotiations.

One sovereign State - Israel - and one non sovereign entity - the Palestinian Authority - were the parties in the Clinton negotiations.

2. Egyptian sovereign territory - the Sinai - was the territorial issue at the Carter negotiations.

Territory belonging to no sovereign State - the West Bank and Gaza - was the territorial issue at the Clinton negotiations.

3. Up to 7000 Jews faced removal from the Sinai to successfully conclude the Carter negotiations, whilst up to 200000 Jews faced removal from the West Bank and Gaza if the Clinton negotiations were to succeed.

Additionally, highly emotive issues concerning refugees and Jerusalem were the sting in the tail for Clinton’s negotiations once the territorial issue had been resolved.

Israel had no historic territorial claims on Sinai. Israel returned every square metre of the Sinai and removed all 7000 Jews living there to secure peace with Egypt.

In the process Israel also handed over the Alma Oil Field it had discovered valued at over $100 billion - which would have secured energy independence for Israel if it had been retained - as well as military bases and airfields.

100% of Egyptian sovereign territory captured by Israel in the Six Day War was thus returned to Egypt by Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin - for solemn promises of peace contained on a piece of paper.

Arafat similarly demanded the return of every square metre of the West Bank and Gaza in the Clinton negotiations which would have necessitated all 200000 Jews living there being uprooted. If it had worked for Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat - Arafat probably reasoned -why would it not work for him?

There was one great difference.

The land Arafat sought exclusively for himself was “no man’s land “- territory in which sovereignty remained unallocated between Jews and Arabs and whose last sovereign ruler was Great Britain under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine from 1920-1948.

Following Britain’s withdrawal in May 1948, Jordan had seized and occupied the West Bank - dispossessing those Jews then living there - until losing it to Israel in the Six Day War in 1967.

Jews - who had been entitled to settle in the West Bank from 1922 under Article 6 of the Mandate as later confirmed by article 80 of the United Nations Charter - started returning to live there after 1967.

Arafat was offered 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, refused to take it and ended up with nothing. 450000 Jews currently living in the West Bank complicate any such offer being renewed again.

Condolezza Rice has hopefully learnt the following four lessons from these two Presidential negotiations :

1. Israel has valid territorial claims in the West Bank - the biblical heartland of the Jewish people - created by the League of Nations and the United Nations, that will not be ceded in their entirety.

2. Removing 450000 Jews to satisfy the territorial demands of a non-sovereign claimant with an inferior claim in international law to Israel is a certain recipe for negotiations to fail.

3. Negotiations between Sovereign States are easier to successfully conclude - especially where territorial disputes are involved that have a linkage to those States historically, geographically and demographically as is the case with Israel, Jordan and the West Bank.

4. Negotiations that have failed are not likely to succeed in the future if the same demands continue to be made without any real change by the party who caused the original negotiations to fail.

Sean McCormack said Ms. Rice:

“is a student of history and has a keen appreciation for how we can apply the lessons of history, what we can learn from those who have gone before us”

Her discussions with Presidents Carter and Clinton should have convinced her that further negotiations on President Bush’s two state vision have the hallmark of Clinton failure stamped all over them.

Ms Rice needs to have the candour to tell the President just that and to formulate a policy which can lead to negotiations between Israel and Jordan on the future of the West Bank which can have successful outcomes like those achieved between Israel and Egypt in the Carter negotiations.

President Bush can still leave the Oval Office a winner and avoid being buried in the diplomatic graveyard among those who tried - and failed - to resolve any aspect of the Arab-Israel conflict.

To do so he needs to quickly jettison his two state vision which has gone nowhere in five years. His decision - either way - will become history too.

david singer asked:



President Bush appears to have abandoned any hope of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

His closest confidante - the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - suggested as much when she made this blunt observation after her visit to the Middle East this past week:

“I spent a lot of time on security issues, not on-the-ground today security issues, but how would you envision the security of two states living side by side, because they’re going to have to come up with a security concept between them. It’s one of the problems that we’re dealing with, frankly, in the Israeli population. And I heard it not just from the Israeli officials but from a broad range of Israelis. They had the withdrawal from Lebanon and it brought instability in Lebanon. They had the withdrawal from the Gaza, and look what happened in Gaza.

If, in fact, they’re going to be asked to withdraw from the West Bank at some point, what does that mean for the security of Israel? That’s a fair question. It really is. And so one of the things that I take back is that we are going to need to spend a lot of time thinking about how this state, if we are fortunate enough to be able to bring it into being, how it is going to relate to the security of its neighbor and vice versa.”

This marks the first time that the Secretary of State has so forcefully come to grips with the security guarantees that Israel needs to receive before the President’s two state vision can ever get off the ground.

It would be inconceivable that she would make these momentous comments without first having discussed them with the President.

Ms. Rice would be well aware that when President Bush first spoke of his two state vision on 24 June 2002, he laid down two preconditions necessary for its achievement:

1.The Palestinian people must elect new leaders not compromised by terror

2.These new leaders must build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

These conditions remain substantially unfulfilled more than 5 years later - and present indications are they are going to be a long time coming - if ever at all.

It was his recognition of this reality that inspired President Bush to call his planned international meeting in Annapolis next month - which he designed essentially to try and advance the fulfilment of these fundamental preconditions. His concern was well founded.

Both persons currently claiming to lead the Palestinian Arabs - Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas - are compromised by terror.

Haniyeh heads Hamas - a movement that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas - one of Yasser Arafat’s closest advisors - is now the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation which is no less vehement than Hamas in its desire to wipe Israel off the map. They only differ in the strategy they wish to employ to achieve their common aim.

A practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty are mere mirages on an invisible horizon.

The Arabs have totally rejected President Bush’s agenda insisting that their attendance at Annapolis be conditioned on substantive agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority being reached before the meeting even begins concerning the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders

Significantly Ms Rice has rebuffed the Arabs attempted hijack of the President’s agenda stating:

“So I know we get very focused on, you know, what will be said about borders, what will be said about Jerusalem, what will be said about the refugees. In fact, a lot has been said over a long period of time about those issues and more will have to be said. But I’m also quite convinced that one of the really crucial pieces that has to be filled in are these concepts of how the states will relate to each other in practical terms concerning security and in practical terms concerning economic issues”

Perhaps the penny is slowly dropping and the realisation is dawning that the Arabs are totally disinterested in Israel’s security concerns and in meeting the very conditions laid down by President Bush as essential if his two state vision is going to be achieved.

The abandonment of the President’s vision does not necessarily mean that the conflict in the West Bank need continue unabated until a democratic nirvana is achieved there under a leader not compromised by terror.

The Arabs have already publicly signalled they would be prepared to consider Israel swapping some of its vacant land in return for keeping those parts of the West Bank populated by 450000 Jews.

Satisfying Israel’s security needs in the context of a territorial resolution that does not involve all of the West Bank remaining under Arab control can be achieved very quickly if Israel and Jordan divide the West Bank between them.

Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel already contains the following guarantees concerning Israel’s security that have stood the test of time for the last 12 years and remained rock solid through several crises:

“1. They recognise and will respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

2. They recognise and will respect each other’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries;

3. They will develop good neighbourly relations of co-operation between them to ensure lasting security, will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means;”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel within the framework of this existing peace treaty offer the hope of a better life and prosperity for the Arab residents of the West Bank, will free them from Israeli occupation and achieve a measure of peace stability and security in the region not enjoyed for 60 years.

Such negotiations will not resolve the issue of refugees. No plan can ever hope to do so whilst the Arabs insist on millions of refugees and their descendants becoming citizens of Israel.

Stay with the vision or accept the reality? President Bush at last appears to be succumbing to the reality.

david singer asked:


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.