Morsi Minces Two-State Solution (includes video)

"Palestine: Morsi Minces Two-State Solution" is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

(The illuminating and well-done video I've posted at the end isn't directly related to what David Singer writes, but it is not irrelevant either.)

He writes:

'Any hope of a negotiated two-state solution being achieved under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map has been blown away following the publication of statements made by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in September 2010 – which have recently surfaced and come back to haunt him in January 2013.
President Obama must rue the day he made the following reported comment in the New York Times after the Gaza ceasefire on November 21:

“Mr. Obama told aides he was impressed with the Egyptian leader’s pragmatic confidence ... He sensed an engineer’s precision with surprisingly little ideology."

To the contrary – Morsi's 2010 statements reveal a great deal of ideology concerning the two-state solution and Jews.

Morsi's scathing and dismissive comments were made on 23 September 2010 (as reported by MEMRI – the Middle East Media Research Institute)

"These futile [Israeli-Palestinian] negotiations are a waste of time and opportunities. The Zionists buy time and gain more opportunities, as the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the Muslims lose time and opportunities, and they get nothing out of it. We can see how this dream has dissipated. This dream has always been an illusion... This [Palestinian] Authority was created by the Zionist and American enemies for the sole purpose of opposing the will of the Palestinian people and its interests.

He added for good measure

"No reasonable person can expect any progress on this track. Either [you accept] the Zionists and everything they want, or else it is war. This is what these occupiers of the land of Palestine know – these blood-suckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs."

This tirade had been preceded by the following statements made by Morsi on Al-Quds TV (Lebanon) March 20, 2010:

"The Zionists have no right to the land of Palestine. There is no place for them on the land of Palestine. What they took before 1947-8 constitutes plundering, and what they are doing now is a continuation of this plundering. By no means do we recognize their Green Line. The land of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, not to the Zionists

We must confront this Zionist entity. All ties of all kinds must be severed with this plundering criminal entity, which is supported by America and its weapons, as well as by its own nuclear weapons, the existence of which is well known...

We want a country for the Palestinians on the entire land of Palestine, on the basis of [Palestinian] citizenship. All the talk about a two-state solution and about peace is nothing but an illusion, which the Arabs have been chasing for a long time now. They will not get from the Zionists anything but this illusion."

The publication of these remarks elicited the following mealy mouthed response from the White House

“We strongly condemn the remark that then-Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi made in 2010. The language that we have seen is deeply offensive. We completely reject these statements, as we do any language that espouses religious hatred. This discourse–this is a broader point–this kind of discourse has been acceptable in the region for far too long and it’s counter to the goal of peace. President Morsi should make clear that he respects people of all faiths, and that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable or productive in a democratic Egypt. Since taking office President Morsi has reaffirmed Egypt’s commitment to its peace treaty with Israel in both word and deed, and has proven willing to work with us towards shared objectives including a ceasefire during the crisis in Gaza last year. These commitments are essential to our bi-lateral relations with Egypt as well as for stability in the region.”

Morsi has so far not obliged the White House.

Why should he? The negotiations have failed – despite offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008.

Morsi's prescription for curing such failure is a recipe for disaster.

Pursuing a proposal so vigorously opposed by Egypt seems to be the height of stupidity. It cannot and will not eventuate in the face of such opposition.

Unfazed by this development – the following statement was made last week following a meeting in Perth of AUKMIN – the Australia-UK Ministerial Consultations attended by Australia's Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr, the Australian Minister for Defence (Stephen Smith) and the UK Foreign and Defence Secretaries, William Hague and Philip Hammond.

"The Palestinian Authority and the new Israeli government must engage seriously in negotiations without preconditions. Actions by both sides must be in the interests of peace. Neither side should create obstacles to that objective"

The obstacle to engaging in such negotiations is pretty basic – the PA is dead and buried since it was decreed out of existence by Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January.

Compounding their gaffe, the ministers continued:

"We call on the Palestinian Authority to exercise restraint and avoid provocative actions at international forums."

The PA has vanished into thin air – no longer able to cause or avoid provocative actions and will no longer be seen at international forums.

This inescapable fact and the revelation of the Morsi statements seem to be of no consequence to these Ministers.

They are in good company with President Obama – whose spokesman Jay Carney had this to say on 23 January:

"We believe that what needs to take place is direct negotiations between the two parties that address the final-status issues and that result in a two-state solution that provides the sovereignty that the Palestinian people deserve and the security that the Israeli people and Israel deserves"

The expectation that Israel could give the Palestinian Arabs what they themselves were never prepared to accept between 1948-1967 – has proved impossible to achieve

The restoration of the status quo that existed at 5 June 1967 – so far as can now occur given the changed circumstances on the ground - remains the last hope.

This will involve negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States and the abandonment of the two-state solution.

Given Morsi's extreme views – the time for any negotiations involving Egypt might need to be put on hold – whilst negotiations with Jordan on the return of the major part of the West Bank to its last Arab occupier are attempted.

One thing is certain – a change of course is urgently required – or we will all suffer from the ensuing shipwreck that is staring us in the face.

Flogging a dead horse is not a good idea since the stench emanating from the decomposing body will soon become too overpowering.'

"O Bird, Take Me To [My] Homeland": PA Song Claims Israeli Cities As Palestinian (video)

Evidently, the writer of this Palestinian Authority song is a little weak regarding geography:

The uploader, Palestine Media Watch, translates the song as follows:

"Oh bird, take me to [my] homeland
Color my eyelids with the soil of Palestine
Send greetings to Acre and to the Upper Galilee
To Birzeit, Haifa, Tira and Ayn Ghazal (Moshav Ofer)
To Jerusalem, Jaffa, Gaza and Jabalya
To Nablus, Ramallah and Jenin
To Khan Yunis, Rafah and Qalqilya
To Lod, Tubas and Hebron
To Be'er Sheva -- every [Bedouin] tribe
To Tulkarm, Sila and Burqin
To Tiberias, Um El-Fahm and Beit Shean
To Tzippori, Lubya (Kibbutz Lavi) and Tur'an
To Nazareth and Safed of [Mount] Canaan
To Al-Shajara (Moshav Ilaniya), El-Bira and Hittin (Moshav Arbel)
Oh bird, take me to [my] homeland
Color my eyelids with the soil of Palestine"
[PA TV (Fatah), March 6 and 14, 2012]

It's Time To Release Jonathan Pollard

The Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer has chosen an alliterative title for his latest article: "Palestine – Peace, Petulance, Posturing, and Pollard".
It comes as usual via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

'Two significant – yet seemingly unrelated – events  have occurred during the past week within the ongoing Jewish-Arab conflict.

1. Israel’s release of 1027 terrorists for one of its soldiers – Gilad Shalit – with 80% of Israelis reportedly supporting the deal.
2. The PLO’s continuing refusal to resume negotiations with Israel until Israel ceases all building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – despite strenuous efforts by the Quartet to get PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating table.

The confluence of these two events, however, now presents an opportunity for the Quartet to get Israel and the PLO talking to each other again.

The Quartet represents probably the strongest diplomatic negotiating team ever assembled in history. Yet it has been made to look impotent in its inability to get the conflicting parties to sit across a table to try and peacefully resolve their differences.

Comprised of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – the Quartet is obviously concerned at the fallout that can occur should Abbas continue to unilaterally forge ahead with his request for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map.

Yet the Quartet has within its grasp a powerful negotiating card – the ability to pressure America to release and repatriate to Israel the convicted civilian American Naval Intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard in return for

• Israel implementing a total building freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for an agreed specified time period and
• The PLO immediately resuming direct negotiations with Israel

Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment almost 27 years ago for disclosing vital security information to Israel – which Israel was legally entitled to receive anyway according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.

The information withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities – being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement fully so-operating with the prosecution, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.

Yet he received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled – in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government – which promised a far less severe sentence.
Pollard was indicted on only one charge – passing classified information to an ally without intent to harm the United States.

No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally – only Pollard. The median sentence for this offence is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offences on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.

In November 1995, Israel granted Pollard Israeli citizenship.

On May 12, 1998, the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Pollard as an Israeli agent and  indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.

It was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, in 1995, first began openly to negotiate for Pollard’s release as part of the peace process.

President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Pollard as part of a Middle East peace settlement, but the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.
The opportunity presented itself when Israel’s current Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – went to the Wye River Plantation talks in 1998 with Yasser Arafat – thinking that he would return to Israel with Jonathan Pollard in return for the concessions Israel made at those talks. President Clinton strenuously denied there was any such agreement.

Pollard is now in poor health. Surely he has paid a high enough price for his transgressions. The circumstances leading to his life sentence following the intervention of Secretary of Defence – Caspar Weinberger – remain unexplained.

If the Quartet wants to see Israel and the PLO resume direct negotiations then a decision to release Pollard as part of a deal to bring this about would undoubtedly be received in Israel with the same overwhelming support that greeted the news of Shalit’s release.

A similar proposal was floated by Israel twelve months ago but fell on deaf American ears. The political situation has deteriorated since then and the future appears bleak for both Arabs and Jews – indeed for world security – if negotiations are not resumed..

On the 20th February this year Gilad Shalit’s father made the following plea to President Obama on the occasion of Gilad’s 1,700th day in Hamas captivity in Gaza:

"[Pollard] has served his sentence, and the time has come to free him."

One week previously a letter from 19 former Soviet Prisoners of Zion was sent to President Obama asking him to grant Pollard clemency – which stated:

"Your silence worries us We, former Prisoners of Zion in Soviet Russia, know the danger of silence. We know the terrible suffering that comes with each passing day in prison. Therefore, we appeal to you with a heartfelt cry – end this Jewish prisoner’s prolonged and terrible ordeal! You are the only one who can do so. Please, Mr. President, free Pollard now!"

Prominent Americans who have recently called for Pollard’s release include former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle, former CIA Director James Woolsey and  former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz.
However any such decision will be difficult for President Obama to make following Vice President Joe Biden‘s recently reported remarks:

"President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time. If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life."

Well it is not up to Vice President Biden – it is a decision which only President Obama can make.
The decision to release Pollard in the interests of pursuing peace stands in stark distinction to Netanyahu’s extremely difficult decision to release 1027 terrorists – a decision which almost certainly will cause a further threat to peace – judging by the reported  comments of some of those released.

Pursuing peace – not perpetuating petulance or political posturing- should be President Obama’s catch cry at this very critical point in time.'

More Hard Facts About Palestine From Analyst David Singer

I'm an ardent admirer of the cogent and substantial contributions to debate of Sydney-based international affairs analyst David Singer, one of the driving forces behind the very-welcome new group Australians For A Secure Israel (AFASI).  As regular readers will be aware, he is a lawyer and a founder-member of the International Analysts Network, and his articles are carried regularly by the antipodean J-Wire service.  His latest such article is entitled "Palestine –  Fixing The Figures, Fudging The Facts," and as always I believe his work deserves a very wide audience.  I reproduce it here, with illustrative material added.

Writes David Singer:

'As the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly continue to consider the PLO application for the State of Palestine to be admitted as the 194th  member of the UN – there is concern  in Jordan that approval of such application could

1. represent  a distinct threat to continued Hashemite rule in Jordan and
2. challenge Jordan’s right to exist as a viable and independent State within secure and recognized boundaries….writes David Singer.

Jordan’s King Abdullah had indicated his concern at these possibilities prior to the PLO presenting its application for membership to the UN on 23 September.

Clearly worried by the possible outcome of the current UN hearings – the King had been at pains to stress Jordan’s independence stating on September 12:

"Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine.  We haven’t changed politically and we will not change. The ‘alternative Palestinian homeland’ will never be part of the discussion; it is not an option and is not in the Jordanian lexicon"

Jordan’s foreign minister – Nasser Judeh – reportedly said  two days later that whilst his country supported the Palestinian campaign – the best way to attain statehood was by direct negotiations.

Whilst this might well be Jordan’s position – it is certainly not the PLO‘s.

Jordan’s fears appear to be have been well founded after PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told the General Assembly on 23 September :

"Yet, because we believe in peace and because of our conviction in international legitimacy, and because we had the courage to make difficult decisions for our people, and in the absence of absolute justice, we decided to adopt the path of relative justice – justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people. Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22 per cent of the territory of historical Palestine – on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967."

Mr Abbas’s statement followed closely on the heels of a similar one made just four days earlier by Palestinian Ambassador to Australia – Izzat Abdulhadi – who said:

"Palestine would become a State on the Occupied Palestinian Territories or 22 per cent of historic Palestine, while Israel retained 78 per cent of historic Palestine." (The Australian, September 19).

The publication of these virtually identical – but misleading and deceptive – statements within days of each other must surely have confirmed King Abdullah‘s worst fears.

They were the latest in a long line of similar statements made by Abbas and other PLO spokesman over recent years designed to deceive, mislead and conceal what the PLO Charter itself declares – and what the PLO ultimately seeks to achieve – the destruction of the State of Israel and the overthrow of the Hashemite regime in Jordan and its replacement by the PLO.

Article 2 of the PLO Charter makes these twin objectives crystal clear by declaring:

"Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit."

The territory of the British Mandate covered Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.  Israel comprised 17%, the West Bank and Gaza comprised 5%, whilst Jordan comprised the remaining 78% of historic Palestine.

The Committee for Accurate Reporting of the Middle East in America (CAMERA) succinctly summarizes this reality as follows:

"In fact, the original land of Palestine, as determined by the League of Nations, included what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the entire state of Jordan. The British transferred nearly 78% of historic Palestine to the Arabs to create a new entity called the Emirate of Transjordan. Jews were forbidden to live, buy land or become citizens there. The UN partition plan proposed a division of the remaining 22% of the land between Jews and Arabs, and the armistice lines (1949-1967) left Israel with approximately 16.5% of the original Mandate area."

Abbas’s misrepresentation of the boundaries of historic Palestine at the UN was designed to:

1. enlist international sympathy by misleadingly claiming that Israel is the greatest territorial beneficiary of the Mandate – when in fact it was Jordan that has secured the lion’s share of the Mandate territory and
2. conceal the fact that the PLO has any designs on removing the Hashemite rulers in Jordan

The PLO intention to take over Jordan has never been revoked or withdrawn since Yasser Arafat tried to do so in September 1970 and failed.

At the 8th meeting of the Palestine National Council in March 1971 the following Resolution was passed:

"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 the fragmentation by which colonialism shattered the unity of our Arab nation and the unity of our Arab homeland after the First World War.

…In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem 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 the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan"

Professor [Yehoshafat] Harkarbi in his book The Palestine Covenant And Its Meaning [1979] states:

"One major conclusion may be drawn from the above that the Palestinians will not admit: If Jordan and Palestine are one land and the Jordanians and Palestinians are one people, then the    Palestinians are not a people bereaved of a homeland, their struggle against Israel is not to liberate a homeland they do not possess, but to expand a homeland they do have. Moreover, the very participation of Palestinians in the political life of Jordan is an expression of their self determination, and thus their argument that they have no possibility of self determination unless they regain the whole area of Palestine (or any part – author) is spurious." (page 37)

Whilst Article 2 of the PLO Charter remains unrevoked – the possibility of having the UN recognize a PLO controlled State as Jordan’s next door neighbor – must be causing His Majesty many sleepless nights.
UN member states would do well to heed Jordan’s apprehension that by recognizing Palestine at the UN – rather than calling for direct negotiations to be resumed – the UN might well be gaining a new member but signing the death warrant of another.'

Abu Toameh Talks In Sydney On The Palestinian Statehood Bid and Prospects For Peace

Shown on the following unconnected video speaking about the Arab Uprisings earlier this year, the distinguished Palestinian Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, who's written for the Jerusalem Post since 2002, addressed a standing-room only meeting of some 300 people yesterday at Sydney’s Central Synagogue.

 Reports Henry Benjamin for J-Wire:

'..... A graduate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Abu Toumeh [sic] works mostly in areas not deemed safe for Israeli journalists. Alluding to the rise of anti-Israel sentiment throughout Western society Abu Toumeh  wryly said that he felt safer with Fatah and Hamas than talking on a university campus in North America.

He said that in 2007 the Hamas, after gaining power, had expelled the PLO from Gaza many fleeing to Egypt. “Egypt sealed its borders and many Muslim PLO members found themselves trapped in Gaza. We saw one country that came to their aid, sending helicopters, ships and buses and even taxis to save Muslims from being slaughtered by Muslims. Israel took the Palestinians from Gaza and moved them to the West Bank” adding that the Palestinians already  have two States. Gaza, backed by Iran, Syria, Sudan, Muslim Brotherhood and the West Bank. He quietly said: “As a Muslim, I feel safer being in Israel than being in Gaza.”

Abu Toumeh said that what Palestinians say publicly is not always the official line pointing out that if Israel carries out what the PLO is demanding in public…a withdrawal to the 1967 lines, the PLO will collapse in less than a week and Hamas will take over. He pleaded that Israel should not make the same mistake as it did in 2005 by handing over Gaza to the PLO only to see Hamas gaining control over the area..He said that land should only be handed over to those who can control that.

He conjectured that if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank where the PLO is seen to be as being weak, the territory may well come under the control of Iran, Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

Commenting on the 1967 lines, Abu Toumeh said that there is no clearly defined boundary. He said that tracing that line today would mean going through private properties.

[H]e commented that if it were it not for Israel’s presence between Fatah and Hamas, there could well be war between the two Palestinian organisations.

Abu Toumeh questioned as how to move forward with the peace process.  He said relations between Israel and Palestinians have “been going downhill” since the peace process started in 1993 adding “we miss the good old days before the peace process.” He said the radical Palestinian camp is saying “I want everything. This land is all Muslim-owned land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. I want to replace the Jewish State with an Islamic State. This is the Hamas-led radical camp. It is not a tiny minority and it does not want talk with you, it does not want to negotiate. It wants to destroy you. The moderate camp is the less radical PLO camp. It wants to go back to 1967 lines with no concessions. They do not want to negotiate with Israel because Israel will not give 100%. The PLO has told its people that anyone willing to give 1% to Israel is a traitor.”

He said that next month’s United Nations Statehood Bid is all about trying to negotiate a country without talking to Israel and the campaign is ultimately aimed at isolating and delegitimising Israel.

Abu Toumeh forecasted that the UN will not declare a Palestinian State but that Palestine, should it become a member country of the UN, will complain to the Security Council that one member is occupying another. He is of the view that they will demand that UN issue a resolution for Israel to withdraw from Palestine. He added: “They will not comply so they will demand sanctions against Israel calling for the country to be kicked out of all human rights groups. and its leaders brought to trial for war crimes. I feel that it is more about punishing Israel than acquiring a State”.  [My emphasis]

He continued with advice for the Palestinians:  ”There is only one way of achieving a State. You have to negotiate with Israel whether you like it or not.”

The meeting was told that there are 200,000 Jews living in the West Bank and that the majority of Jews in Israel want a two State solution. “But there should be separation. Israel should not be meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians.” he added.

Abu Toumeh believes Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas is making a major mistake driving Israel into a corner at the UN, expressing concern about the possibility of sanctions against his people.

Of Abbas  he said: “He does not have a mandate from the Palestinians. There has been no debate. There is no democracy or free press in Ramallah. We do not have a functioning parliament. Abbas has only consulted with people on his payroll. He said Hamas would not accept Abbas’s concept because they want a State to replace Israel, not sit alongside it. Abu Toumeh said that this would have an effect on the millions living in refugee camps and who are being made aware of the right of return…the right to return to their original homes.”

He went on to say that the Palestinians to [sic] turn against Israel and America in case the push for the declaration of a Palestinian state fails. They want people to march on IDF checkpoints to embarrass Israel. Throwing stones and molotov cocktails will provoke reaction from the IDF adding that he PA does not treat Israel as a peace partner. They treat Israel as an enemy. The Palestinians have been radicalised by Abbas ...'  not only Hamas. His rhetoric is very strong, They do not treat Israel as a peace partner. They treat Israel as an enemy.

Abu Toumeh is concerned about the future believing that the Third Intifida could be “around the corner”.

Khaled Abu Toumeh’s message to the Palestinian Authority? “Go back to the negotiating table very quickly before things get out of hand. What he is doing can destroy the peace process and lead to more violence.”'

 See also:  http://www.hudson-ny.org/2350/palestinian-spring  (Hat tip: reader Shirlee)

Bibi Netanyahu Describes His Vision For Israel's Future (videos)

Here's Binyamin Netanyahu speaking on 23 June at the President's Conference in Jerusalem.
Personally, I'd always make time for the charismatic Bibi ... but if you're reluctant to watch them all, I particularly recommend the fourth, in which he outlines what Mahmoud Abbas must do to achieve peace with the Jewish State:

Since A Slim Israeli Waistline Courts Death ...

In view of the 44th anniversary of the Six Day War, David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and foundation member of the International Analysts Network, has written one of his typically thoughtful and thought-provoking articles on the Middle East. 

Entitled "Palestine – an Arab West Bank is a lost cause," the article recalls, to quote its author, "some of the significant events that led to Jordan’s loss of the West Bank in that War ending 19 years of uninterrupted occupation" and demonstrates  "why all of the West Bank – or its equivalent area – will never again return to Arab control".

At the beginning of the article Singer notes his indebtedness to http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/timeline.htm and notes that that website in general "should be required reading for all who wish to understand why international pressure to  return all of the West Bank to the Arabs must fail". (I've added the illustrations, and that website is my source for the two Arab cartoons, produced in the early stages of the war when it was assumed that Nasser would succeed in his vow to push Israel into the sea; the second cartoon is how a cartoonist in a Syrian newspaper imagined the fate awaiting Tel Aviv.)

As usual, David Singer's article comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes Singer:

'Jordan’s path down the road to its disastrous loss of the West Bank began on 30 May 1967 – 6 days before the start of the Six Day War.  This was the fatal day that Jordan signed  a five year mutual defence treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian General.

Jordan’s King Hussein had been caught up in the Arab euphoria and vitriol emanating from Egypt’s President Nasser who had declared on 28 May 1967:

“We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948”.

Such was the mood of Jordan’s population that Jordan’s Army Commander-in-Chief General Sharif Zaid Ben Shaker warned in a press conference that :

“If Jordan does not join the war a civil war will erupt in Jordan”.

The West Bank had been unified with Transjordan in 1950 and the country renamed Jordan after  unanimous ratification by a Parliament comprised equally of representatives from the West Bank and Transjordan.  No demand was made in the next 17 years for the creation of a separate Palestinian Arab State – even though all the Jews living there had been driven out by six invading Arab armies in 1948.

On 31 May 1967 President Aref of Iraq declared:

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out  the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map”

Al Akhbar – Cairo’s daily newspaper correctly summed up Jordan’s involvement on the same day:

“Under the terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, coordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two at Qalqilya, where Israeli    territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only 12 kilometres wide”.

What was true in 1967 remains as valid in 2011.  Israel’s vulnerable waistline of only 12 kilometers would return again with all of the West Bank under Arab control.

On 5 June Israel made its pre-emptive strike against Egypt. That same morning, Israel sent a message to Jordan’s leader King Hussein via the US State Department, the UN and the British Foreign Office, saying that, despite the outbreak of war, it would not attack the West Bank if Jordan maintained quiet on that front.

Jordan ignored Israel’s appeal to avoid conflict  and  launched immediate multiple attacks on Israel

• civilian suburbs of Tel-Aviv were shelled by artillery;
• Israel’s largest military airfield, Ramat David, was shelled;
• Jordanian warplanes attacked the central Israeli towns of Netanya and Kfar Sava;
• thousands of mortar shells rained down on West Jerusalem hitting civilian locations indiscriminately, including the Hadassah Hospital and the Mount Zion Church;
• Israel’s parliament building (the Knesset) and the Prime Minister’s office, each in Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem, were targeted;
• 20 Israelis died in these attacks; 1000 were wounded. 900 buildings in West Jerusalem were damaged.

All this happened before Israel reacted militarily against Jordan, or moved at all into the West Bank.
The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242 on 22 November 1967 recognizing  that secure and recognized boundaries needed to be drawn between Israel and its neighbours to  ensure the Arabs would not be tempted to again try and cut Israel in two in the future as the first step in any attempt to wipe Israel off the map.

Egypt and Jordan eventually came to realise the folly of their action. Both entered into peace treaties with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively. Syria refused to join them. But the current upheaval in Egypt, Jordan and Syria now put the continued operation of these two treaties at real risk.

Jordan withdrew all its claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1988. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was created in 1993 as a result of the Oslo Accords – stepping into the void left by Jordan.

The PA has since then sought  to undo the 1950 reunification and substitute the creation of a Palestinian Arab State in all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza for the first time in recorded history

The PA is now threatening to approach the United Nations in September to achieve this outcome. The UN’S  abject surrender to an Egyptian diktat was the catalyst that led to the Six Day War.

UN Secretary General U Thant had of his own volition agreed to Nasser’s demand that  the United Nations Emergency Force be withdrawn on 18 May 1967 – just seven hours after Egyptian ambassador Kony had informed U Thant:

“Egypt has decided to terminate the presence of the United Nations Emergency Force from the territory of the United Arab Republic and Gaza Strip. Therefore I request that the necessary     steps be taken for the withdrawal of the Force as soon as possible.”

Britain made its position very clear when its Foreign Secretary George Brown stated:

“UNEF was established with the full concurrence of the United Nations…any decision to withdraw the force should be taken in the United Nations after full consultation with all the countries involved – it should not be taken as the result of some unilateral decision.”

It is unthinkable and immoral that Jordan’s heinous conduct should be rewarded by the United Nations now ignoring  Security Council Resolution 242 and returning Israel to the vulnerable 1967 armistice lines.
That the UN might seek to do so in clear contravention of its own resolution and international law – specifically the Montevideo Convention 1933 – would certainly not surprise. Treachery knows no bounds when it comes to double standards by the UN in dealing with Israel.

Jordan paid a high price for joining in an alliance with Egypt and Syria – the loss of  the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Those pre-June 1967 halcyon days are not going to return in 2011 – either for Jordan or the PA.'