David Singer: Britain Backs Jordan and Israel to End the Arab-Jewish Conflict

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has acknowledged that Jordan and Israel represent the only viable “two state solution” that can end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October – ahead of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November – the Foreign Secretary stated:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.” 

 The Royal Commission had been authorised by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936:

“… to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented”

Significantly the Royal Warrant did not mention or identify the “Palestinians” as being a party to the dispute. There were only two parties – the “Arabs” and the “Jews” – not three. The “two-state solution” - one Jewish, one Arab – first envisioned in article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) – had restricted Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in just 22% of the territory covered by the Mandate. The Jews had accepted that proposal but the Arabs had rejected it.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry confirmed that the “two-state solution” contemplated by the Mandate – one Jewish, one Arab – remained the only solution to end the grievances between Arabs and Jews – concluding that:

“two sovereign independent States would be established – the one an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

Transjordan – renamed Jordan in 1950 – comprised the remaining 78% of the territory contained in the Mandate for Palestine closed to Jewish settlement under the Mandate. Britain still retained full responsibility for Transjordan as Mandatory Power until Transjordan was finally granted independence by Britain in 1946.

The Peel Commission’s “two-state solution” is shown on the following map:

The Arabs rejected partition and the creation of any Jewish State. The Jews accepted the principle of partition – but not the borders designated on the map.

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that:

· the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel

· Jordan remains the Arab key to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - which a naïve and gullible world continues to ignore.

Trying to create two Arab States and one Jewish State in an area where only one Arab state and one Jewish state is warranted by history, geography and demography has been a diplomatic disaster with horrendous consequences for Arabs and Jews.

Messrs Arkush and Johnson: read article here

Jordan and Israel  the two successor States to the Mandate – currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine – need to sit down and resolve Jewish and Arab claims to the remaining 5%.

Britain’s reaffirmation of Peel’s proposed “two-state solution” is long overdue.

The “two-state solution” posited in 1922 and 1937 – Jordan and Israel – still remains the only viable solution to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 2017.

The British Foreign Office Identifies Israel As "A Country Of Concern"

The British government's attitude towards Israel is encapsulated in the letter that prime minister David Cameron sent this month to former mayor of New York Ed Koch:

"Let me reassure you that the UK, is and will remain a firm friend of Israel. I share your deep concern about the recent inflammatory statements made by Hamas leaders, including Khaled Mesha’al on 7 December, denying Israel’s right to exist. The UK also utterly and unreservedly condemns the recent call for a third intifada and a suicide campaign by a Hamas official. Incitements to violence and terror are unacceptable. We therefore welcome President Abbas’ public rejection of these statements and acceptance of the State of Israel within 1967 borders.

We firmly believe that the people of Israel have a right to live peacefully and free from terror. But we also believe that the only sustainable way to achieve this is through a negotiated two-state solution. As friends of Israel, it is important we do whatever we can tto reach that ultimate objective: two states, living side by side, in peace. We ask Israel to stop building settlements because they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and make a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, harder to achieve. They are, ultimately, not in Israel’s long-term interests. Simply building a fortress without a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians cannot deliver lasting security for Israel.

I do not share your analysis regarding the recent Palestinian UN General Assembly resolution. The UK’s position on this resolution was determined by the guiding principle of ensuring a rapid return to negotiations. Given this, we had asked Palestinian President Abbas not to move a resolution at the UN General Assembly in November. In the period prior to the vote, we engaged intensively to seek a commitment from the Palestinian leadership to return immediately to negotiations without preconditions and that they would not pursue immediate action in UN agencies and the International Criminal Court. In the absence of these assurances, the UK abstained on the vote.

We must now look forward. This year is an important one for peace in the Middle East. The UK will work urgently with the United States, our other international partners and with the Israelis and Palestinians to drive the peace progress forward before the window for a two-state solution closes forever.'

 In a report published last week regarding the situation regarding human rights round the world for the period October to December 2012 inclusive, the British Foreign Office identifies Israel as "a country of concern" (along with 27 other nations including such persistent human rights violators as Iran):

'Israel’s inclusion [observes this account of the report] is likely to cause its incoming government  some concern, in light of its close British ally’s repeated cautions in recent months that Israel’s “illegal” pursuit of settlement expansion risks alienating its international allies....

The update of the climate between October and December 2012 concluded that despite Hamas receiving widespread condemnation from foreign leaders at the time of November’s escalation for instigating the exchange of hostilities, “the violence has resulted in a number of humanitarian needs, including a worsening of the already precarious humanitarian situation in Gaza”....'

This is what, inter alia, the FO report has to say:

'November saw a severe escalation of violence in Gaza and southern and central Israel....

The violence has resulted in a number of humanitarian needs, including a worsening of the already precarious humanitarian situation in Gaza.  Before the recent outbreak of hostilities, 80% of households in Gaza relied on humanitarian assistance and 44% of the population were food insecure.  Fuel, water and sanitation have been serious problems for some time and there are now critical shortages of essential drugs and medical disposables.    A UN Initial Rapid Assessment identified a number of additional emergency needs as a result of the conflict, including health, infrastructure and psycho-social care.  The psychological impact of the violence on both Israeli and Gazan citizens, particularly children, is a particular concern. In addition the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) assessed that 10,000 individuals living in north and north-east Gaza were displaced during the violence with an estimated 350-700 unable to return due to houses being destroyed or partially destroyed as of 26 November.

On 11 December, International Development Minister, Alan Duncan visited Gaza City to observe the impact of the airstrikes firsthand and announced an additional £1.25m in aid to be channelled through the Red Cross to address the humanitarian needs of people in Gaza affected by the conflict.'

 (Duncan it will be recalled, made the following outrageous statement a couple of years ago:

"The wall [Israel's security barrier] is a land grab. It hasn't just gone along the lines of the proper Israel boundary. It's taken in open land which actually belongs to Palestine.

Israeli settlers can build what they want and then immediately get the infrastructure so that takes the water deliberately away from Palestinians here." )

 Regarding settlements the report observes:

"The UK Government was concerned about developments relating to Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank over the reporting period. On 30 November, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced that he would advance the next stage of the planning process for the area of West Bank land known as ‘E1’, thereby building illegally on the last remaining open space of land East of Jerusalem.  Announcements were also made to progress plans for the future construction of 3000 additional illegal settlement units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.  Further settlement plans were advanced in East Jerusalem neighbourhoods including in Ramot Shlomo (17 December) and in Givat Hamatos (19 December).

In reaction to these announcements, the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the UK’s position that “Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and undermine trust between the parties”. Commenting on the most recent announcements, the Foreign Secretary said that “this decision constitutes a serious provocation and an obstacle to peace.  If implemented, it would make a negotiated two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, very difficult to achieve.”

The construction of a new settlement in ‘E1’ would, if implemented, have a severe impact on freedom of movement, limiting the ability of Palestinians to move easily along the length of the West Bank.  This would have an impact on the economic development, transport links and the ability of the Palestinian Authority to deliver services to its citizens.  Of particular concern is the impact settlement construction in E1 would have on the area’s 2300 Palestinian Bedouins, who would very likely be displaced if the plans were to be implemented."

Below, incidentally, is footage of the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick arguing the case for the settlements  recently (the entire debate, at a forum in London, where Ms Glick experienced hostility that shocked her, can be accessed here).

"With me, you have a Prime Minister Whose Belief In Israel Is Unbreakable ..."

During his recent visit to the United States David Cameron famously made a fool of himself by suggesting to television interviewer David Letterman that Rule Britannia was written by Edward Elgar.  He can be forgiven for not knowing the name of its composer, but he should have been aware that Rule Britannia was an eighteenth-century compostion and that it was one of the staple tunes that accompanied British men of war into action in those long-surrendered days when Britain really did rule the waves, so that it could not possibly have been written by Elgar!

Worse, Cameron did not know what every schoolboy and girl once knew (before traditional history lessons were banished from the British state school curriculum), that Magna Carta means "Great Charter".  An Old Etonian and Oxford First who could not translate that simple Latin?  Incredible!

But that was not the only television interview which Cameron gave, and in this one he was asked why Iran should not be allowed nuclear weapons when Israel has them:

Cameron, who in 2010 controversially described Gaza as a "prison camp" and who infamously resigned in 2011 as patron of the Jewish National Fund (allegedly owing to pressure from anti-Israel activists) avowed staunch support for Israel in a speech delivered last Monday.

He  told United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) bigwigs and fundraisers at a gala dinner in London:

"With me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is unbreakable and whose commitment to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.

 I will always stand by the Jewish people. And it is humbling to be here tonight and to be called a friend.

Here in this room, we have many of the people who are determined to build the strongest possible relationship between Britain and Israel.

The business leaders who have taken our trade to well over $8 billion a year and made Britain the second biggest export market for Israel in the world.

The scientists who are taking forward an ambitious programme of joint research as part of the UK-Israel Life Sciences Council, which includes no less than four Nobel Prize winners.

The leading academics who are helping to forge new partnerships between Manchester and the Weizmann Institute, Oxford and Ben Gurion, Cambridge and Tel Aviv.

The hi-tech specialists who are making a reality of the UK/Israel Tech Hub – the first of its kind in the world....

I am a big admirer of what the UJIA does both here in Britain and in Israel. Let me explain why.

First, the Jewish community in Britain is a role model for successful integration because you understand that as well as being part of a community with a common faith you are also part of a wider community – that of our country....

Yes, you can love this country, take pride in its history, celebrate its Olympics, even cry with its football fans every other year. There is no contradiction between being a proud Jew, a committed Zionist and a loyal British citizen."

He continued:

"In the past, governments allowed a flawed state multiculturalism that said we should encourage different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.

I don’t subscribe to that. And neither do you. I believe we have to end the passive tolerance of segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

Let’s be clear what that means. It means getting preachers of hate out of our country.

It means proscribing organisations that incite terrorism. And it means zero tolerance for any form of antisemitism, especially on our campuses.

And to those in Britain’s universities and trades unions who want to boycott Israel and consign it to an international ghetto, I say not only will this Government never allow you to shut down 60 years worth of vibrant exchange and partnership that does so much to make both our countries stronger but I also say this: we know what you are doing – trying to delegitimise the State of Israel - and we will not have it...."

Regarding Iran, Cameron said:

".... Let’s be clear about the facts. Iran is flouting six United Nations resolutions. The Regime’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended purely for civilian purposes is not remotely credible.

And it has shown its violent agenda by exporting terror and violence to Iraq, to Syria, to Gaza, to Lebanon and to many peace-loving countries across the world.

Iran is not just a threat to Israel. It is a threat to the world. Now there are some who say nothing will work – and that we have to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

I say we don’t and we shouldn’t.

But at the same time I also refuse to give in to those who say that the current policy is fatally flawed, and that we have no choice but military action. A negotiated settlement remains within Iran’s grasp.

But until they change course, we have a strategy of ever tougher sanctions. Just today, Britain has secured a further round of new sanctions through the EU Foreign Affairs Council. And these relentless sanctions are having an impact no-one expected a year ago....

The Iranian regime is under unprecedented pressure and faces an acute dilemma. They are leading their people to global isolation and an economic collapse. And they know it.

They know too that there is a simple way to bring sanctions to an end. By giving the international community the confidence we need that they are not and will not develop a nuclear weapon.

I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action. Beyond the unpredictable dangers inherent in any conflict, the other reason is this:

At the very moment when the Regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets and when Iran’s only real ally in Syria is losing his grip on power a foreign military strike is exactly the chance the Regime would look for to unite his people against a foreign enemy.

We shouldn’t give them that chance. We need the courage to give these sanctions time to work.  But let me also say this. In the long term, if Iran makes the wrong choice, nothing is off the table. A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to Israel. And a threat to the world. And this country will work unwaveringly to prevent that from happening."

Before alluding to the issue of peace between Israel and the Palestinians he observed:

"... I understand how dark things were for Israel when surrounded by enemies on every border. And I understand how Israelis feel when gas masks are handed out to families; and car parks are converted into bomb shelters.

But I passionately believe that what we are seeing through the Arab Spring need not be a new threat to Israel’s security. Democracy and open societies are not the problem – they can be a big part of the solution.

Yes, there are those who believe that in a volatile region only an authoritarian strong man can maintain stability and security. But when brutal dictators suppress their people in the name of stability, the end result is a region is that more dangerous – not less....

But if the Islamists attempt to undermine the stability of other countries or encourage terrorism instead of peace and conflict instead of partnership then we must and will oppose them. And that is why we will not waver from our insistence that Hamas gives up violence and that the rockets from Gaza must stop. Hamas must not be allowed to dictate the way forwards for Israelis and Palestinians...."

And then he said:

"....We can’t advocate democracy and open societies in one breath and then cite the need for stability as an excuse for why the Palestinians shouldn’t renew their democracy too.

It’s now seven years since Palestinians voted for a President and six since parliamentary elections. The Palestinian leadership needs to refresh its mandate and show it has the consent of its people, starting with municipal elections later this month. And it needs to resolve the situation in Gaza and restore to Palestinians a unified, leadership able to deliver peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel.

So Palestinian reconciliation and Palestinian elections are key points on the path to peace – because without consent there can never be credible negotiation.

It will require great strength and courage to take the hard choices needed to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.

.... I know it takes two to negotiate. So let me tell President Abbas something very clearly there is no path to statehood except through talks with Israel.

So if the Palestinian plan is simply posturing with the UN rather than negotiating with Israel, Britain will never support it.

And let me say this to the Palestinians too. Britain will never support anyone who sponsors a football tournament named after a suicide bomber who killed 20 Israelis in a restaurant. We will not tolerate incitement to terrorism.

But in the search for peace both sides have to make hard choices. And just as President Abbas has followed through his commitment to non-violence with real progress on the West Bank so Israel needs a real drive to improve life for ordinary Palestinians.

That means more support for economic development in the West Bank, relaxing restrictions on Gaza, ending the demolition of Palestinian homes, and yes, it means meeting Israel’s obligations under the Roadmap and under international law to halt settlement building.

Britain’s position will not change. Settlements beyond the green line are illegal.

I know how hard the concessions needed for peace can be. But the truth is, time is running out for a two state solution – and with it Israel’s best chance to live in peace with its neighbours...."

Read the entire speech here

British Minister Alan Duncan In Whitehall Row Following His Absurd Remarks About Israel

Britain's Minister for International Development Alan Duncan has an unfortunate habit of attracting controversy.  During the MPs' expenses scandal his name figured prominently.  More recently, during a visit to the Palestinian Authority, he pompously made outrageous, ignorant claims about Israel in a video posted on his Department's website (apparently in defiance of the Foreign Office).

With cavalier disregard for essential facts, Duncan pontificated:

"The wall [Israel's security barrier] is a land grab. It hasn't just gone along the lines of the proper Israel boundary. It's taken in open land which actually belongs to Palestine.

Israeli settlers can build what they want and then immediately get the infrastructure so that takes the water deliberately away from Palestinians here."

I posted the offending clip at the time: http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-camerons-man-slams-israels-land.html  You can still read my description there, but you can no longer see the video. It's been taken off by the Department, following a furious response from the Israeli Embassy in London as well as communal leaders.
[Update: you should still be able to view it here: http://jacobklamer.com/pages/videos/israel/vid-israel-palestine-alan_duncan.html Good work, Jacob!]

To quote the Israeli Embassy:

"The reality on the streets of Israel was one where Palestinian suicide attacks scattered the limbs of hundreds of innocent civilians across buses and restaurants.

 Claiming that the security barrier, which has prevented the deaths of thousands more Israelis, is not for security purposes, shows a disrespect for Israeli life, and we are therefore convinced that this could not be the official British government position."

The President of the British Board of Deputies, Vivian Wineman, protested:

 "Mr Duncan's apparent disregard for Israel's legitimate security concerns is of great concern."

Both Foreign Secretary William Hague and Duncan's superior minister at his department were drawn into the row.

In removing the video the Department claimed that Duncan had been "misinterpreted" but refused to comment further.

See: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/53621/government-chaos-over-alan-duncans-land-grab-video

David Cameron's Man Slams Israel's "Land Grab" Wall (video)

Here's Call Me Dave's Minister for International Development Alan Duncan echoing his master's own demonstrated iignorance of the conflict.  Evincing not an iota of sympathy for Israel, Duncan in self-righteous tones calls the security fence a "land grab" wall, and demonises Israel in other ways, just like the most egregious NGOs: assuming the 1949 ceasefire lines are definitive borders, falsely accusing Israel of "deliberately" stealing water in the Jordan Valley, and saying not one word about the terror threat that Israel constantly faces.

 See  also: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2011/Britain-sets-out-four-year-plan-to-tackle-poverty-in-OPTs/
as well as  http://www.melaniephillips.com/arabs-in-wonderland

Down Under, the Dream Time ... But What of Middle East Reality?

The following article, “Palestine – Time for Hard Questions and Even Harder Answers”, by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, was obtained from the antipodean J-Wire service http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/palestine-time-for-hard-questions-and-even-harder-answers/14479




Hague and Rudd (Daily Telegraph)

 The international failure to accept the final breakdown of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was yet again highlighted in the communiqué issued in Sydney on 18 January 2011 at the conclusion of the Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations between Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Kevin Rudd and Minister for Defence Stephen Smith, and the United Kingdom’s First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague and Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox.

“The answers are getting harder and harder And there ain’t no way to bargain or to barter”
Blues Traveler

It seems as though both countries were living in a dream world of their own as they solemnly pronounced:

“Australia and the UK highlighted their strong support for a just and enduring peace in the Middle East based on a negotiated two-state solution where Israel and a future Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security. Both countries highlighted the urgent need for Israel and the Palestinians to return, as a matter of urgency, to direct talks on final status issues, and to refrain from actions which undermined confidence, such as settlement construction. Both countries reaffirmed their practical support for Palestinian institution-building in preparation for statehood.”

Surely the Ministers were engaging in wishful thinking with no possible hope of their wish-list ever coming to fruition.

With

• direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority effectively ended,

• an impotent Quartet comprising America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations unable to bring the parties together and

• a raft of countries recognizing or threatening to recognize a non- existent , undefined and undeclared 22nd Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt in flagrant violation of international law

 it surely is time to question whether there is any reasonable prospect of ever achieving a negotiated two-state solution between Jews and Arabs pursuant to the Oslo Accords formulated in 1993 and the Roadmap proposed by President Bush in 2002.

There are those countries such as Australia and Great Britain that apparently believe such a resolution is still possible.

Yet 17 years of negotiations have only seen

• the division of the West Bank into three administrative districts and

• the unilateral decision taken by Israel to evacuate Gaza in 2005.

The evacuation of Gaza has proved a total disaster

• ruining the lives of thousands of Jews forcibly removed from their homes,

• splitting the area proposed for the new Arab state – the West Bank and Gaza – into two separate and separately administered entities with no prospects of reconciliation between the two governing political entities – the Palestinian Authority and Hamas

• sparking the return of Israel’s army to Gaza in December 2009 to root out the threat posed to Israel’s civilian population by the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets from Gaza

• causing Israel and Egypt to impose a blockade to prevent the entry of terrorists, arms and war materiel into Gaza

• Witnessing an ever increasing level of violence from Gaza and retaliation by Israel

Gaza and Hamas now appear to have been placed in the “too hard basket” by the international community. Instead it has thrown its weight behind the Palestinian Authority in seeking to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – a far cry from the two-state solution posited by Oslo and the Roadmap.

Administrative responsibility for 95% of the West Bank Arab population has been vested in the Palestinian Authority and has indeed begun to see a marked improvement in their daily lives.

However the continuing refusal of the Palestinian Authority to moderate its political claims to sovereignty in anything less than 100% of the entire territory of the West Bank remains a stumbling block that has precluded any progress at all in resolving the division of sovereignty in the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

There are other impediments to the conflict that have defied resolution and increasingly make it certain that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are already dead and buried.

If countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom still believe otherwise – then they would do well to seek answers to the following questions from both Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

1. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home reconstituted pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

2. Does the Palestinian Authority intend to persist with its demand that every square centimeter of the West Bank be ceded to it by Israel or is it prepared to accept less in exchange for an equivalent land swap by Israel?

3. Is Israel prepared to contemplate a land swap?

4. Is the Palestinian Authority still committed to former Arab residents of what is now Israel or their descendants being given the right to return to live there, what would be the appropriate number the Palestinian Authority would demand be given this right and what number would Israel be prepared to accept?

5. Is Israel prepared to allow the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan in the West Bank with full and unfettered access and control over West Bank air space?

6. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to accept a State in the West Bank with restricted control over its air space?

7. Is Israel prepared to evacuate and relocate all the Jewish residents of the West Bank?

8. Is Israel prepared to cede its claims to sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem?

On any minimal understanding of the conflict – one could not expect answers to these questions that would pose the slightest optimism in believing the negotiated two-state solution has any chance of success.

The sooner alternative solutions are introduced to replace the failed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority – the sooner the current dangerous impasse that threatens the resumption of hostilities can be averted.