David Singer On A Tantalising Prospect For Negotiations

In this, his latest article, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer ponders the question "Palestine – Imminent Breakthrough Or Lost Opportunity?"

He writes:

The publication of "A Palestinian State – Not A Priority" in the Palestine Telegraph on May 23 offers the tantalising prospect of a possible breakthrough in resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Three reasons support such optimism:

First – the Palestine Telegraph is published in Gaza, its web site declaring:

"The PT is a non-profit project that depends totally on donations from people of good will committed to freedom of speech for all people. Our success will come from the commitment of our volunteer reporters and the interest of people of good will seeking true change in our world; one where all people are respected and indeed have equal human rights...

...The Palestine Telegraph/PT is the first Electronic Newspaper based in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, staffed by Palestinians and international volunteers; professional journalists and members of the New Fourth Estate – citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media."

Secondly – the article's editor, Yoram Ettinger, is a distinguished Israeli whose CV includes:

"(Since 1993) Consultant to Israel’s Cabinet Members, to Israeli legislators and to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on US-Israel bilateral projects, US policy and Mideast politics.

Executive Director of "Second Thought – A U.S. Israel Initiative," dedicated to generate out-of-the-box thinking on US-Israel relations, Middle East politics, the Palestinian issue, Jewish-Arab demographics, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria."

Thirdly – Ettinger's article contains the following powerful message for Gaza's readers to digest – indeed for all who seek to end this conflict that has raged unresolved for the last 130 years:

 'The Palestinian issue has benefited from the Arab/Muslim talk, but – due to the Palestinian record of intra-Arab subversion – has never been supported by the Arab/Muslim walk. Arab/Muslim policy makers have never considered the Palestinian issue a strategic interest, but rather a tactical instrument to advance intra-Arab or Muslim interests and to annihilate the Jewish state.

Irrespective of this, Palestine has been a geographic, not a national, concept, as evidenced by the lack of distinct, cohesive national character of its Arab inhabitants. This lack of cohesion has been intensified by the violent internal fragmentation along various lines: cultural (such as Bedouin vs. rural vs. urban sectors), geographic (e.g. mountain vs. coastal Arabs, southern vs. northern, Hebron vs. Bethlehem, Nablus vs. Ramallah, Nablus vs. Hebron), ethnic, ideological, political (pro- or anti-Jordan), historical and tribal identity. Such turbulent fragmentation was fueled by the multitude of Arab or Muslim migration waves from Bosnia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Lebanon.

The establishment of a Palestinian state was not on the agenda of the non-Arab Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1517 through 1917. The Ottomans linked the area, defined by most Arabs as a region within Southern Syria or the Levant, to the Damascus and Beirut provinces.

The British Empire, which dominated the Middle East from 1917 until the end of World War II, did not contemplate a Palestinian Arab state, while establishing a series of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. Moreover, the 1917 Balfour Declaration dedicated Palestine, including Jordan, to the Jewish homeland. The 1920 San Remo Resolution, formulated by the principal Allied Powers, formalized the Balfour Declaration-based British Mandate for Palestine, which was ratified on Aug. 12, 1922, by the League of Nations, eventually transferring 77 percent of Palestine (Jordan) to the Arabs. The U.S. House and Senate approved it unanimously on June 30, 1922. In 1945, the Mandate for Palestine was integrated into the U.N. Charter via Article 80, which precludes alterations, and is still legally binding.

Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1949 through 1967, but did not ponder the establishment of a Palestinian state; nor did the Arab League.

According to Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna of Ariel University, who headed the Palestinian Desk at the Mossad Research Division, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated in September 1947 that the core problem was not a Palestinian state or Jewish expansionism. The only priority was the duty to uproot the Jewish presence from Palestine, which was defined by Muslims as “Waqf” – an area divinely endowed to Islam and not to the “infidel.” ....'

Such an article appearing in a Gaza electronic newspaper written by so eminent an Israeli with such close links to the Israeli Government would have been unthinkable just one month ago.

Did the publication of this article somehow accidentally slip through the Hamas Government censor's scrutiny or does it signify the willingness of Hamas to engage in negotiations whose agenda for the first time would be based on the facts presented so succinctly by Ettinger?

Until now the PLO has dismissed the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and everything that has happened since then as being null and void.

However, three weeks ago Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh told Middle East Monitor:

"Both nations, Jordan and Palestine, share the same history and present"

Jordan and Palestine's joint modern history commenced with the Balfour Declaration and Mandate for Palestine – and subsequently unfolded as accurately recounted in Ettinger's article.

As negotiations to effect a reconciliation between Hamas and the PLO reportedly gain momentum, the beginnings of a commonly-agreed Jewish and Arab narrative based on fact – not fiction – could hopefully become the basis for resuming future negotiations.

Imminent breakthrough or yet another lost opportunity?

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.'

Jordan Is Preparing To Jettison The PLO: David Singer

Our current focus may be on Israel's struggle against the terrorists of Gaza, but Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest article, entitled "Palestine: Jordan Preparing To Jettison PLO", shifts our gaze to developments on Israel's eastern flank.


Writes David Singer:

'Jordan appears ready to fill the negotiating void that will be left by the PLO –  should its expected application to be admitted as a non-member observer state at the United Nations be successful on 29 November.

Such unilateral action by the PLO –  in violation of the Oslo Accords and international law –  will amount to an act of political suicide. It will invite similar unilateral action by Israel. This could include termination of all further negotiations with the PLO through its negotiating mouthpiece – the Palestinian Authority.

Statements made in recent weeks by Prince Hassan of Jordan and PLO power broker Farouk Kaddoumi have confirmed the desirability of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan after a lapse of 45 years.

Added impetus has now been given to these statements with the release of two textbooks issued by the Jordanian Education Ministry for use in grades 1 to 12 in Jordanian schools.

The textbooks purport to teach students about bad eating and the dangers of smoking –  but a wall map featured on some of its pages reportedly relays a skewed lesson in geography by excluding the names of  Jordan and Palestine –  inviting the following comment from the West Bank Association:

"In effect, the exclusion of these names annexes Palestine to Jordan"

The Jordanian Association Against Zionism and Racism was also quick to join in expressing its anger.

The chairman of the Jordanian agronomists' association, Mahmoud Abu Ghanima, and the chairman of  the teachers's association, Mustafa Rawashdeh, reportedly said those who helped distribute the textbooks should be indicted.

Their criticisms should fall on deaf ears.

Transjordan was the last Arab state to occupy the area known as "Judea and Samaria" between 1948  and 1967.  In 1950 Transjordan adopted the name "West Bank" for these areas after they had been unified with Transjordan to create a newly named territorial entity called "Jordan".

Transjordan's 1947 Constitution was repealed and replaced with a new Jordanian Constitution in 1952  –  in which Article 1 declared:

"The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded. The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab Nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy."

This provision still remains intact and unamended in 2012.

In 1988 Jordan severed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank.

King Hussein's meticulously crafted address to the Jordanian people at that time made it quite clear that Jordan was ready to resume its previous role in the West Bank should circumstances arise.
"Arab unity between any two or more countries is an option of any Arab people. This is what we believe. Accordingly, we responded to the wish of the Palestinian people’s representatives for unity with Jordan in 1950. From this premise, we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us as an independent Palestinian state. We say that while we fully understand the situation, nevertheless, Jordan will remain the proud bearer of the message of the Great Arab Revolt, adhering to its principles, believing in one Arab destiny, and committed to joint Arab action.

Regarding the political consideration, since the June 1967 aggression we have believed that our actions and efforts should be directed at liberating the land and the sanctities from Israeli occupation. Therefore, we have concentrated all our efforts over the past twenty-one years of occupation on that goal. We did not imagine that maintaining the legal and administrative relationship between the two banks could constitute an obstacle to liberating the occupied Palestinian land. Hence, in the past and before we took measures, we did not find anything requiring such measures, especially since our support for the Palestinian peoples right to self-determination was clear.

Lately, it has transpired that there is a general Palestinian and Arab orientation which believes in the need to highlight the Palestinian identity in full in all efforts and activities that are related to the Palestine question and its developments. It has also become clear that there is a general conviction that maintaining the legal and administrative links with the West Bank, and the ensuing Jordanian interaction with our Palestinian brothers under occupation through Jordanian institutions in the occupied territories, contradicts this orientation."

Described as a "disengagement" on King Hussein's official web page (the same term used to describe Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005), the reasons given were as follows:

'Prior to 1989, Jordan’s last parliamentary elections were held in April of 1967, two months prior to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Since their union in 1950, the East and West Bank had been allocated equal representation within Parliament: each had thirty representatives in the House of Deputies. The 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and the 1974 Arab Summit resolution at Rabat, which designated the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative" of the Palestinian people, posed constitutional and practical obstacles to the holding of general elections.

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.

Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.

The decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. During the same period, mounting economic difficulties led to a spate of rioting in certain parts of the Kingdom. Circumstances had therefore coalesced to produce a situation favoring the resumption of the democratic process King Hussein had initiated early in his reign. In November 1989, general parliamentary elections were held in Jordan for the first time since 1966, ushering in a new era for the institutionalization of Jordan’s democratic experience.'

Jordan's disengagement from the West Bank in favour of the PLO has proved an abject failure.

Reinstating Jordan 's severed legal and administrative ties with the West Bank Arab population in direct negotiations with Israel is now rapidly shaping up as the most viable option to resolve sovereignty in the West Bank as the PLO slowly sinks into the political sunset.'

David Singer on Why It's Time To Talk Tachlis with Jordan

Jews fleeing their Jerusalem homes in 1948

I'm delighted to present this article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, who is of course no stranger to regular readers of this blog.  It's headed "Palestine: Jordan, part of the problem, part of the solution".

Writes David Singer:

'A new strategy to resolve the 130 years old Jewish-Arab conflict is urgently needed with the growing recognition that the “two-state solution” proposed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap for the last 20 years is dead and buried .

Dr. Carlo Strenger has recently expressed this view in an article entitled "Requiem for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

Dr Strenger is Chair of the Clinical Graduate Program of the Department of Psychology at Tel Aviv University. He serves on the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists, the Seminar of Existential Psychoanalysis in Zurich, and the Scientific Board of the Sigmund Freud Foundation, Vienna in addition to maintaining a part-time practice in existential psychoanalysis.

He is –  and has been –  a constant critic of the policies of Israel’s Government and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Dr Strenger’s summation of the current position is succinctly stated:

"I came to the conclusion that the two-state solution was dead at the end of 2011, when Abbas’ bid for recognition of  Palestine by the UN failed. Ever since I published this assessment, friends and readers have asked what I suggest as an alternative. Some thought that I had finally moved to the extreme left’s endorsement of the one-state solution; others thought that I had moved to the right.

Neither is the case. There are moments when reality flies into your face, and in which you realize that your political program is no longer viable, even though you do not endorse any of the alternatives. I do not derive much comfort from being in good company: The remainders of Israel’s left pay lip service to the two-state solution, knowing that there is no longer a way to implement it.

My conversations with European diplomats and politicians generate the impression that the same holds true for Western Europe. For lack of an alternative to the two-state solution, European governments have not endorsed any alternative conception, but they are beginning to realize that the two-state solution won’t happen."

 Dr Strenger further confesses that he too "does not have any coherent strategy to propose".

There is however a coherent strategy or alternative conception that can be pursued outside the options mentioned in his article - which Dr Strenger and Western Europe have failed to consider  –  focusing on Jordan  –  78 per cent of former Palestine.

Jordan’s entry into the Six Day War on 5 June 1967 – against Israel’s warning to refrain from doing so –  resulted in Jordan’s loss of control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel. .

The War broke out when Israel responded to the Egyptian military build-up by launching a surprise attack on Egypt’s air force, destroying most of it on the ground within a matter of hours.

That same morning, Israel had 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 any such conflict – and launched the following attacks on Israel before Israel acted militarily against Jordan or moved into the West Bank:

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.

 "Jerusalem is totally engulfed in war…" reported the British Consul-General that morning.

Jewish refugees in Jerusalem 1948

At that fateful moment in time Jordan had continuously occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem from 1948-1967; not one Jew had lived in the West Bank or East Jerusalem for those 19 years.

The West Bank and East Jerusalem had been incorporated as part of Transjordan following a conference of hand picked Palestinian Arab leaders held on 1 December 1948 in Jericho.  Transjordan had officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on 25 April 1949.

On 24 April 1950 the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a resolution declaring

"complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union in one state... at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Hussain, on a basis of constitutional representative government and equality of the rights and duties of all citizens".    

West Bank Arabs had become Jordanian citizens and held Jordanian passports.

Not one call to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state in every square centimetre of the West Bank with its capital in Jerusalem had been made during those 19 years.

The Palestine Liberation Organization had only been in existence for three years but article 24 of  its constitution clearly stated that the organization:

"does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the Western Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan …"  [my emphasis]

Jordan must now be pressured to fill the Arab void following the burial of Oslo, the Roadmap and the Palestinian Authority with it –  because Jordan’s decision in 1967 to join the Six Day War against Israel and its consequent loss of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel created the problem that still persists unresolved to this day.

Jordan cannot be allowed to simply bow out of resolving a problem which it helped create by either  refusing point blank to come to the negotiating table with Israel, or by claiming to have washed its hands of the problem in 1988 when foregoing any territorial claims in areas it had ruled for 19 years between 1948-1967.

There is a beautifully expressive Yiddish word –  tachlis  – which the Everyday Yiddish-English-Yiddish Dictionary defines as: "substance, worth, basics, 'brass tacks'"

It is time to talk tachlis with Jordan and let it know in no uncertain terms that it is part of the problem in the West Bank and East Jerusalem –  and must now be part of the solution.'

David Singer On Abbas & Abdullah

I began this month's blogposts with those incorrigible "singers" from Sydney wobbily warbling Israel-bashing "carols".

Now to another, much more welcome, Sydney Singer - the lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, who last month resigned his longtime membership of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies in protest at its giving a platform to former Ha'aretz editor David Landau.  In his latest article, carried as usual by the antipodean J-Wire service, he turns his attention to the PLO's possible intentions towards Jordan.  The article is entitled "Palestine – Jordan in Abbas's Sights?"

Writes David Singer:

'Jordan’s King Abdullah must now be very concerned at the prospect of the Hashemites possibly seeing an end to their 90 years uninterrupted rule in Jordan.  This can only be the rational explanation for the King’s sudden helicopter flight to Ramallah to meet PLO and Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas last week and his announcement that Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal will visit Jordan for discussions within the next two weeks.

With negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a dead end, reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas at a standstill, Mubarak toppled in Egypt, Gadaffi shot dead in Libya and Assad facing removal in Syria – King Abdullah is keen to make sure that neither the PLO or Hamas have any designs for taking over Jordan.

Mashaal owes his life to the swift action of Abdullah’s father – the late King Hussein – after a bungled attempt by Israel to assassinate Mashaal im 1996. Getting Israel to swiftly reveal the antidote for a deadly poison injected into Mashaal – in return for the release of the Israeli agents caught in the act – is certainly something for which Mashaal will be greatly indebted to the Hashemites. No doubt King Abdullah will be calling in the favour when they meet. Mashaal is more than likely to assure the King that he has enough on his plate in Gaza.

The Jordanian Islamists will foment a few demonstrations but Mashaal will make sure the King will not be dethroned and sent packing.

Abbas is a different kettle of fish.  He heads an organization that is dedicated to liberating and reuniting into one indivisible territorial unit what is today called Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan – a goal that has remained unchanged and unmodified since the promulgation of the PLO Charter in 1964.

Jordan’s relation with the PLO has always been uneasy – ever since Yasser Arafat tried to take over Jordan in 1970 resulting in thousands of dead and wounded on both sides. The PLO remains absolutely committed to its Charter. If the PLO sticks to its guns and refuses to negotiate with Israel – then frustration might well see the PLO again turning its sights on Jordan.
Israel is also very concerned to ensure the continued stability of the Hashemite regime and has given King Abdullah the clearest signals of such intention.

Firstly, Israel’s Foreign Minister – Avigdor Lieberman -  stated that:

• “regional turbulence” is bringing Islamist parties to power “that all share an anti-Israel message.”
• “Instability in the Middle East is not good for anyone,” he said, emphasizing that it is “a major danger for Jordan.”
• “Those who say that Jordan is Palestine are mostly harming Israel,” Lieberman added. “That would create a continuous Palestinian state which would endanger us. It’s in our interest for this not to happen.
• “Stability in Jordan is in Israel’s interest.”
• Our shared border is the longest and quietest. Both sides enjoy the benefits of peace and economic cooperation.”

Lieberman’s warning to Abbas to not meddle in Jordan’s internal affairs was clear and uncompromising.
Although Jordan does comprise 78% of former Palestine – any thought that an attempt would be made by the PLO to reunite it at any time or in any way under PLO rule with any part of the remaining 22% would cross a red line that would be resisted by Israel.

Lieberman’s statement of support was followed by a visit to King Abdullah by Israel’s President Shimon Peres on 28 November.

A news release issued by Media and Communications Directorate of the Royal Hashemite Court declared:

“The King emphasized that the end of the decades-long Palestinian-Israeli conflict can only be achieved through resolving all final-status issues, foremost of which are refugees, borders and Jerusalem, leading to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and security.”

Interestingly, eighteen years of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not got to first base in resolving these outstanding issues. Yet, agreed solutions to refugees and Jerusalem are set out in the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. A solution to redrawing the boundary between Israel and Jordan so as to return to Jordan the major part of the West Bank it lost to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War could be achieved with relative ease in direct negotiations with Israel.

Abbas needs to get back to negotiating with Israel without delay if he does not wish to see yet another opportunity slip through the fingers of the Palestinian Arabs because of stubborn and intransigent leaders.
Should Abbas fail to do so – King Abdullah will be waiting on the sidelines to step into his shoes and negotiate with Israel.

No doubt King Abdullah will strongly resist being pressured into re-occupying a large part of the West Bank. But if his failure to negotiate with Israel could mean the loss of Israel’s continuing support of the Hashemite regime – then a change of heart could be reasonably anticipated.

One wild card that could let Abdullah off the hook would be the return of Abbas to the negotiating table with Israel.

In this regard, President Obama holds one trump card – the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison after 26 years of imprisonment in return for Israel imposing a fixed period during which it will cease building houses in the West Bank. Talks between American Jewish leaders with Vice-President Biden taking place now could possibly lead to such a proposal.

President Obama also needs a boost to his falling popularity. Releasing Pollard may be the bitter medicine he needs to take with the presidential election season starting to hot up.

All in all – some interesting times ahead in the next three months.'

Jeopardising Jordan

The latest incisive article by Sydney lawyer David Singer, a founder member of the International Analysts Network, is entitled "Jordan –  Abbas Offers Abdullah The Kiss Of Death".  The article comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

'Jordan’s King Abdullah is clearly worried about the future direction of his country – if developments over recent weeks are any indication.

His Majesty told the Washington Post on 16 June:

“2011 will be, I think, a very bad year for peace,  Although we will continue to try to bring both sides to the table, I am the most pessimistic I have been in 11 years.”

Whilst the Palestinian Authority refuses to resume negotiations with Israel any hope of peacefully resolving sovereignty in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza will deteriorate and the King‘s pessimism will  become self-fulfilling.

The absence of any such negotiations impacts on Jordan (known as Transjordan until 1950) because of its following historic, geographic and demographic ties with the West Bank and East Jerusalem:

Jordan comprises 78% of former Palestine – whilst Israel comprises 17%. The remaining 5% comprises the West Bank and Gaza.

Jordan’s population is overwhelmingly comprised of Arabs (or their descendants)  who fled the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies (including Jordan) in 1948.

Jordan was the last Arab occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from 1948-1967 – driving out all the Jews who had lived there prior to 1948.

In 1950 a joint parliament comprised equally of members from the West Bank and Transjordan voted to unify the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Transjordan into one state which was renamed Jordan – and it remained so unified until the loss of the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized such union but it flourished unchallenged for 17 years.

West Bank Arab residents became Jordanian citizens and enjoyed that status from 1950 until 1988 – when Jordan finally relinquished all claims to the West Bank  – but not its custodianship of the holy sites in East Jerusalem.

Jordan has kept its territorial claims alive to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a result of clause 2 [A] of Annex 1 (a) of the peace treaty it signed with Israel in 1994. Sovereignty in all or part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem could be claimed by Jordan at any time under this clause – with Israel‘s concurrence – notwithstanding Jordan’s earlier repudiation in 1988. Any renewed claim would not result in a breach of the terms of Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel.

King Abdullah’s pessimism has no doubt been also heightened as Jordan has  become increasingly caught up in the turbulence spreading throughout Arab countries in the region.

Thousands of Jordanians demonstrated on 1 July  in the cities of Irbid, Maan, Karak and Tafileh, in addition to the capital, Amman, demanding transparency and an end to corruption. The number of participants has been increasing in recent weeks, organizers and witnesses have reportedly said, and the slogans have taken on a notable harshness.

Unrest of any kind cannot be accepted kindly by King Abdullah. It could well grow into a call for the removal of the Hashemite ruling dynasty in Jordan and its replacement by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – as was last attempted by Yasser Arafat in 1970 when thousands of  deaths and injuries occurred and the PLO was expelled to Lebanon.

The PLO claim to Jordan still remains clearly expressed in unequivocal terms in the PLO Charter which states in Clause 2:

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

Jordan remained part of the British Mandate from 1920-1946 until Great Britain  purported to grant it independence in apparent breach of  Clause 5 of the Mandate which provided:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. “

Statements made by Arab political leaders including the late Yasser Arafat and the late King Hussein of Jordan acknowledge that  Jordan is part of Palestine.

PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas however was quick to assure Jordan he had no intention of a PLO takeover when he met a delegation of Jordanian parliamentarians in Ramallah on 6 July.

Abbas reiterated the Palestinian people would turn down any proposal that involves “resettling Palestinian refugees at the expense of Jordan”, stressing that Jordan is for Jordanians and Palestine is for Palestinians.

Given the clear terms of Clause 2 of the PLO Charter  – and the composition of Jordan’s population – Abbas’ statement certainly makes intriguing reading.

Abbas appears to have been motivated in giving this assurance hoping to change Jordan’s view – as expressed by a senior Jordanian official on 29 June to UAE based al-Bayan – that Jordan would vote against recognition of a Palestinian Arab state scheduled to be put before the UN General Assembly in September.

The official issued this further warning:

“Jordan’s top national interests will be in danger if the Palestinian Authority declares statehood unilaterally – especially in everything related to the issue of refugees, water, Jerusalem, and the borders.”

No doubt the Abbas assurance was hoping  to change Jordan’s view – which could have disastrous consequences for Abbas should he seek United Nations recognition in September.

The Hashemites have been around far too long to fall for this sudden PLO show of affection.

The Hashemites have astutely ruled in Jordan for over 90 years and have preserved Jordan as an independent and exclusively Arab State in 78% of Palestine since 1946.

The Hashemites – together with Israel – have been the stable and constant political influences in the region which has otherwise known nothing but turmoil since the League of Nations unanimously endorsed the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1922.

Should Abbas refuse to return to the negotiating table then Jordan remains the only Arab interlocutor able to negotiate the future sovereignty of the West Bank and East Jerusalem with Israel.

As the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine and the signatories to a peace agreement that has held fast for the last 17 years – Jordan and Israel have the credentials and the clout to peacefully resolve sovereignty of the remaining 5% of Palestine that still remains unallocated between them – and to guarantee that any agreement between them is honored and enforced.

Believing any Abbas assurance that the PLO does not covet a takeover of Jordan is tantamount to King Abdullah accepting the kiss of death.'