David Singer: How The Arab League & Kerry Could Create A Breakthrough to Peace

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It is entitled "Palestine Mandate Legally Triumphs Over Discredited PLO Charter".

Writes David Singer:

The 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – and international law – have finally emerged as triumphant victors over the 1964 PLO Charter following the collapse of 50 years of failed attempts by the PLO to arbitrarily void the vote of the 51 members of the League of Nations unanimously endorsing the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in 23 per cent of former Palestine.

This significant PLO defeat and loss of face follows the ignominious end – on 29 April 2014 – of the nine months negotiating deadline period imposed on Israel and the PLO by US Secretary of State  John Kerry designed to achieve the "two- state solution" – the creation of a second Jew-free Arab State - in addition to Jordan - in former Palestine for the first time ever in recorded history.

The American and PLO failure to achieve the "two-state solution" after 20 years of fruitless negotiations represents a lost opportunity not likely to return for a long time - leaving the political prestige influence and credibility of those much vaunted negotiators in total disarray in the rapidly growing silent and abandoned diplomatic graveyard.

The PLO – since its formation in 1964 – had arrogantly strode the world stage claiming Palestine as the sole property of the Arab nation whilst simultaneously denying the Jewish people any right to live in their 3000 years old Jewish ancient, legally sanctioned and biblical homeland.

Article 18 of the 1964 PLO Charter had brazenly declared:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states."

Four years later Article 18 had been replaced with a more strident, equally dismissive article 20:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

This outright rejection of international law by the PLO has never been questioned by the League of Nations compliant successor, the United Nations, which – acting in clear breach of Article 80 of the UN Charter – knowingly collaborated to prolong the Arab-Jewish conflict in violation of international law when welcoming the PLO purveyor of Jew-hatred –Yasser Arafat – into its midst with adulation and enthusiastic applause on 13 November 1974.

The acceptance of this terrorist organisation into the realm of civilised political discourse by the United Nations whilst the PLO simultaneously continued to assert that the League of Nations had no power to make any legally binding decisions – must surely rank among the most shameful episodes and low points in United Nations history.

Lecturing to Israel on international law whilst allowing the PLO to reject international law was breathtaking hypocrisy on the United Nations part.

The principle of respect for the law was cast aside by United Nations members as they trashed the original and noble principles enunciated in the Mandate on the altar of expediency and national self- interest

Adopting countless condemnatory General Assembly resolutions of non-binding validity those spineless members lined up with the the automatic majority represented by Arab Islamic and third world member States to sell out their souls to appease an organisation of terrorists, law-deniers and Jew-haters.

Former UN Secretaries General stood by in silence as anti-Israel resolutions denigrating and delegitimising Israel were ramped up with ever increasing hatred.

The legal commitments enshrined in the Mandate had previously stood resolutely firm against this Arab assault on the Jewish National Home since 1922 – as partition proposals by the Peel Commission in 1937 and a newly created United Nations in 1947 were contemptuously shredded into the garbage bin of history by an Arab leadership that would not brook any compromise or reconciliation with the Jewish people.

The advent of major wars including the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought staggering losses and suffering for both Arabs and Jews as the Arab League armies still vainly attempted to eliminate the Jewish State and the consequences of the Mandate.

Whilst the PLO fails to recognise Israel as the Jewish State no peace between Jews and Arabs is realistically likely to occur.

The Arab League and Kerry have the power to create a breakthrough – pressuring Jordan and Israel to redraw the internationally recognised boundary between their respective countries as successor States to the Mandate for Palestine

In view of their loss of political clout do these neutered politicians and the United Nations really possess the diplomatic ability to make peace finally happen?

Using the wisdom and political sagacity of their League of Nations ancestors – the miracle created by the Mandate for Palestine 92 years ago is hopefully set to resurface.as attempts to rescue the peace process are started once again.

Deluded Kerry Urgently Needs To Realise What The Only Answer Is, Warns David Singer

In this, his latest article ("Palestine – Kerry Can’t Keep Kidding Himself"), Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer continues to scrutinise and criticise the American Secretary of State's delusions.

Writes David Singer:

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s unshakeable belief that he could succeed in facilitating what had eluded former American Secretaries of State for the last 20 years – the creation of a 22nd Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza for the first time ever in recorded history - has been shattered following Israel cancelling the release of 26 prisoners convicted of terrorist attacks prior to the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Israel’s action followed the PLO lodging applications to join 15 UN international agencies in breach of its commitments not to do so whilst negotiations between Israel and the PLO were being conducted.

Kerry now needs to immediately focus his attention on Jordan – the last Arab State to have occupied the West Bank between 1948-1967 – and which together with Israel comprise the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine 1920-1948.

Redrawing Jordan’s international boundary with Israel to restore the status quo existing before the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War – as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground – provides a realistically achievable alternative to the doomed Israel-PLO negotiations.

Lorenzo Kamel, an historian at Bologna University and a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, has published an error-riddled article attempting to distance Jordan from becoming involved in any such negotiations – which Kerry should unequivocally reject.

Kamel’s following misleading claims have been corrected by my bold-font responses:

1. “Whenever there is a concrete effort to push forward the peace process, talk about “a substitute homeland” for the Palestinians re-emerges. Most of those supporting this scheme claim that well before the partition suggested by the UN General Assembly in 1947, the Zionist movement suffered a mutilation of territory following the unilateral British decision in 1922 to separate Transjordan from the rest of the land subject to the Mandate for Palestine…

...” Transjordan was thus part of the Mandate for Palestine with the proviso that Britain might administer it separately and for a period which at best may be considered scarcely relevant.”

Transjordan remained subject to the Mandate for Palestine from 1920 until 1946.

It was only the provisions of the Mandate relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine that were “postponed or withheld” in Transjordan under Article 25 of the Mandate – as this Note presented by the Secretary General to the League of Nations clearly stated:

"In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.

His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable."

The seeds for an independent Jew-free Arab State in 78 per cent of Palestine had thus been planted by Great Britain in 1922.

Transjordan achieved its eventual independence on May 25, 1946 – whilst the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine continued to be subject to the Mandate until 1948.

2. “Transjordan, unlike Palestine, was never occupied by British troops and during the mandatory period there was no “overlapping”, either at a legal or practical level, between the two areas.”

The Arab Legion was formed in Transjordan in 1923 and financed by Britain and commanded by British officers under Captain Frederick Peake.

Transjordan was always included in the annual Report for the Mandate for Palestine presented to the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission.

3. “A citizen of Transjordan was required to ask for official permission before being admitted to Palestine.”

Immigration from Transjordan was not illegal, and was not recorded as immigration at all until 1938.

4. “The awareness that Palestine was distinct from Syria and Lebanon is said to have always been present in the Arab and Muslim consciousness.”

An early nineteenth-century Egyptian historian, 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Jabarti, referred to the inhabitants of El Arish in the Sinai Peninsula as Syrians. Palestine was called Southern Syria first in French, then in other languages, including Arabic. …

…Indeed, from the moment Prince Faysal set up a government in Damascus in October 1918, he stressed that Palestine was a part of Syria. At the Paris Peace Conference, where the British, French and Americans sorted out their interests after the war, Faysal called Palestine his "right hand" and promised to work for it as he would for Syria and Iraq. "I assure you, according to the wishes of its people, Palestine will be a part of Syria." Three months later, Faysal wrote General Edmund Allenby that Palestine "is an inseperable [sic] part of Syria."

5. “Zionism certainly accelerated the general development of the region and the process of self-identification of the local majority, but never did the land beyond the Jordan have a religious, social or cultural value comparable to the land between the river and the Mediterranean Sea.

Kamel’s claim is refuted by article 2 of the PLO Charter which states that “Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit.”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel have now become the only answer to avoiding renewed conflict and violence between Jews and Arabs.

Kerry is kidding himself if he thinks otherwise.

Why Jordan Needs To Be Seated At The Negotiating Table – Now!: David Singer explains

Titled "Palestine  – Jordan Gets Jittery Again", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

Writes David Singer:

'Jordan has become increasingly jittery after US Secretary of State John Kerry's framework agreement for peace missed meeting the second deadline for its release on 21 February – having initially been promised by the end of January.

Now US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has let slip at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Board of Governors in Jerusalem on 24 February that the US hopes to present the framework agreement before the end of April.

The idea behind the framework agreement had been posited by a Senior State Department Official during a teleconference on 2 January:

"As you will have seen from the press, and indeed President Obama has spoken about the idea of establishing a framework for negotiations, that’s what we’re trying to achieve here – agreement on a framework that would serve as guidelines for the permanent status negotiations and that would address all of the core issues.

We are not coming in with an American plan that would be imposed on the parties, but rather we want to have a detailed consultation with them about these ideas that have been generated as a result of the negotiations between the parties themselves, and see whether they can serve as gap bridges which could lead to this agreement on the framework for permanent status negotiations.

I want to stress, as we always do but it never seems quite to convince doubters, particularly, I think, in the region, that this is not an effort to achieve an interim agreement. It is an effort to provide agreed guidelines for a permanent status agreement, that is to say a full and final peace treaty between the parties. And that purpose here is, in effect, if you like, to – for the Secretary to climb with the two leaders to the top of the hill and be able to share with them the view of what’s on the other side, what peace will look like in terms of all of the core issues that have to be resolved between them. And once they have a shared vision of what that will look like, then it will become easier to finalize the details, and there will be a lot of details in the actual permanent status agreement itself."

Shapiro admitted Kerry had run into a lot of trouble climbing that hill whilst attempting to persuade Israel and the PLO to agree on the framework's terms:

“It would involve both sides being willing to negotiate on the basis of a framework that contains things in it that are uncomfortable for them [and about which] they may have reservations”

The framework, he said, “is very detailed.” At this point in the process, “everyone fights over every word as they should because the stakes are very high".

King Abdullah II of Jordan is nervous at the possible outcome and could now be positioning himself to take part in these negotiations  – from which he had always previously sought to distance himself.
Former Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bahit told Al-Hayyat, a London based Arabic-language news source, on 3 January:

"Jordan needs to be present and involved in all future negotiations"

Al- Bahit  – currently the deputy head of the King's Council, an advisory board closest to King Abdullah  – continued:

"It is unthinkable that Jordan should sit on the side, as an observer. Jordan should join the negotiating table immediately - since it is bound to be the one paying the price of the Israeli and American positions."

Al-Bahit's position did not represent the prevailing opinion in Amman  – according to the article.
One senior official  – who spoke on condition of anonymity  – reportedly told Al-Hayyat:

"Jordan would welcome the decisions sealed by the negotiating process - "without any need whatsoever to sit at the negotiating table." Amman did stress, however, that it would get involved if - and only if - the talks directly harmed their interests, specifically Jordan's borders."

Abdullah cannot ignore – just seven weeks later – that the further delay in releasing the framework agreement could possibly lead to the total breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the PLO, which could directly harm Jordan's national interests.

Abdullah is now in the identical position he found himself on 11 October 2006, when he told the Khaleej Times:

"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. I think we are really running out of time . Physically on the ground and geographically, I think there is less and less of a West Bank and Jerusalem to talk about."

He then warned:

"We want to go back to the 1967 borders. We are talking about that today. Are we going to talk about that tomorrow though? This is the danger."

Abdullah recognised then that compromise would inevitably involve Israel retaining part of the
West Bank – notwithstanding the PLO demanding it all.

With a negotiated two-state solution likely to fall by the wayside despite Kerry's desperate efforts to keep it alive, Abdullah is clearly aware that with less of the West Bank to talk about in 2014 than in 2006, the PLO might attempt to overthrow Abdullah  – as it unsuccessfully tried to do in 1970 with Abdullah's father, King Hussein.

Whilst Abdullah warned this week that "Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine" the PLO Charter  – and history  – ominously state otherwise.

Jordan needs a seat at that negotiating table – immediately.'

"An Hamas terrorist has more rights inside Israel than a Palestinian in Jordan": An Arab in exile slams the BDSers

Mudar Zahran is a writer and dissident of Palestinian background from Jordan who having fallen foul of the Hashemite regime was obliged to seek asylum in London, where he's lived since 2010.

Mr Zahran is described in this interesting article as

"a secular Jordanian pro-democracy activist of Palestinian heritage that supports peace with Israel and often refers to the Faisal Wiesel Agreement by which Arabs were to turn 78 percent of historic Palestine—-today’s Jordan—into their homeland. He claims that he is well-heard and followed in Jordan, noting many incidents, for example when he called for them not to protest against the Israeli Embassy in Amman, and as he notes, the Washington Post reported less than 200 people showed up for the Jordanian government-backed anti-Israel protest."

In an interview with Canadian broadcaster Jamie Glazov  (managing editor of FrontPageMagazine), the admirable Mr Zahran has been talking a great deal of sense not only about the Kerry Peace Plan (it would, he fears, mean Israel's erasure from the map), but about the status of Palestinians in Jordan compared with their far better status in Israel, and the antisemitic nature of the Israel-is-an-apartheid-state slur.

He labels "a huge disgrace" the fact that western Israel-haters portray Israel as an apartheid state and seek to boycott it, yet (in that characteristically hypocritical way of theirs) are silent regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Jordan:

"An Hamas terrorist has more rights inside Israel than a Palestinian in Jordan"

He asks rhetorically why the BDSers do not target Islamic universities which deny education to women, and adds that antisemitism drives the western anti-Israel movement.

Denouncing both Hamas and the Palestinian authority, he notes that his relatives in Jerusalem like living under "Israeli prosperity".

There are several videos on YouTube featuring Mr Zahran ("a very brave man, a truth teller", as Jamie Glazov describes him.

See the interview that I've briefly described here

 (Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

On the apartheid smear, great article here

Why Jordan's Not Jumping for Joy: David Singer explains ...

Photo: US State Department

"Palestine – Jordan Not Jumping For Joy" is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

'Jordan is becoming increasingly unhappy at the role US Secretary of State John Kerry might be planning for it in his eagerly anticipated framework agreement designed to end the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

The Jordan Times reported on 28 January:

“Figures representing professional unions and political parties are planning to hold a national conference to “protect Jordan and Palestine and repulse Kerry’s peace plan”. And a number of lawmakers signed a memorandum to convene a special Lower House session to discuss Kerry’s controversial proposals.

Jordan’s main opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, issued a communiqué last week warning of an impending plan to liquidate the Palestinian cause, which, it said, threatens both Jordanians and Palestinians.

It said that the current regional situation will encourage the US and Israel to impose their conditions on the Palestinians and put pressure on Jordan.

One Islamist leader, Salem Al Falahat, told a local news website that while detailed information on Kerry’s proposals is scarce, it is clear that current negotiations will not serve the interests of Palestinians or Jordanians.”

Jordan’s central role in bringing Kerry’s push for peace to fruition arises from the following facts:

1. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter claims that “Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

2. Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the British Mandate – Jordan exercising sovereignty in 78 per cent of the territory covered by the Mandate - and Israel in a further 17 per cent

3. Stuck between them is the West Bank – 4 per cent of the Mandate territory – which was:

(a) conquered and occupied by Transjordan in 1948 after having being called “Judea and Samaria” from biblical times until United Nations Resolution 181 (II) in 1947

(b) then renamed “the West Bank” after being unified with Transjordan in 1950 to create a new territorial entity renamed “Jordan”

(c) lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

“West Bank” Arabs became “Jordanians” with Jordanian citizenship and passports between 1950 and 1988.

Abu Iyad, deputy chief and head of intelligence for the PLO, ranking second after Yasser Arafat in Fatah – the major faction within the PLO – told the Kuwaiti News Agency on 15 December 1989:

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

Jordan’s Prince Hassan Bin Talal – the uncle of Jordan’s current King Abdullah – succinctly summed up Jordan’s pivotal position in 1982:

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

Small as Jordan might be, Israel is much smaller – fitting into Jordan almost five times.

Jordan’s land mass could help resolve two thorny issues by:

1. Making land grants to the PLO to compensate it for land retained by Israel in the West Bank

2. Assisting in resettling Palestinian Arab refugees from other Arab countries.

Kerry’s predecessor – Condoleezza Rice – had envisaged Jordan’s involvement in the long running negotiations – as the following extract from the WikiLeaks Palestine Papers makes clear:

“… negotiators tried to resolve disagreements by offering in earnest what, to some, might sound like outlandish suggestions. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the source of one such proposal during a meeting on July 30, 2008 at the State Department. Rice kicked off the session by asking for a progress report on the points of agreement between the parties. After a quick update from Qurei and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, the latter said that some major decisions had not been reached as far as how a future state of Palestine would look. “We need to know how it is going to work,” she said, “The Airport and Seaport.”

Addressing the Palestinians, Rice then dropped this bombshell: “[Y]our airspace is so small - put it in Jordan.” The Palestinian negotiators appeared shocked at the suggestion that they use a sovereign country’s airspace as their own. Just under Rice’s comment, the Palestinian note taker wrote in brackets: “Discussion on whether this is a joke or a real option. Tzipi Livni and Condoleezza Rice clearly think it is realistic as an option.”

Jordan’s likely inclusion in Kerry’s framework agreement has been raise by US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and Jordan’s Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh in Lebanon’s Daily Star:

“… the only goal of the final status agreement is to bring peace and prosperity to not only the Israeli and the Palestinian people, but to the region,” adding that “throughout every point in the process the United States has been engaged in consultations with the government of Jordan.”

“Seeking to allay parliamentary fears, Judeh told lawmakers that Jordan, which shares the longest Arab border of 335 kilometers with Israel and the West Bank, had the right to “accept or reject” any point in the negotiations that does not bode well with its interests.”

Kerry appears to understand that Jordan – an integral part of the Jewish-Arab conflict since 1920 – is the lynchpin to achieving any solution.

Jordan is not jumping for joy at the prospect.'