David Singer: Israeli Right Does Not Seek Overthrow of Jordan’s Hashemite Monarchy

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

He writes:

The claim that “The Israeli right has no solution for civil rights for Palestinians after annexation, except for overthrowing Jordan's Hashemite monarchy” is a canard that must be totally rejected.

This defamation of the Israeli right needs to be debunked before it is allowed to become accepted fact in the run up to Israel’s elections on 2 March.

I feel qualified to call out this baseless allegation as the founder of the “Jordan is Palestine Committee” (JIP) 40 years ago.JIP was formed to inform public opinion that:

• Jordan comprised 76.9% of the territory once called Palestine

• The key to ending the conflict between Jews and Arabs required direct negotiations between Israel -17.1% of former Palestine -and Jordan -to allocate sovereignty of the remaining 6% of former Palestine – Judea, Samaria and Gaza – between their two respective States

• Jordan’s population alone should determine who Jordan’s ruler should be. JIP constantly pointed out the role the Hashemite monarchy had played for 60 years in preserving the major part of Palestine as an exclusively Arab State in which Jews were not permitted to live. 

JIP contrasted this with the failed efforts of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to secure sovereignty in one square metre of territory attempting to wipe Israel off the map.

JIP’s stated policy was actually challenged by one member who sought its replacement with a new policy calling for the overthrow of the Hashemites by replacing King Hussein with PLO leader Yasser Arafat.  JIP members rejected this argument and the disgruntled member quit the organisation.

However he did more – registering JIP in his name in Israel – then seeking to restrain my organisation using the name in Israel in connection with an international conference. 

This necessitated my taking Court proceedings in Israel at considerable expense.  The judge ruled in my favour.

Further sensational claims have also been made that

:•“the annexation the right plans has no chance of success without overthrowing the government in Amman and turning Jordan into Palestine.

•“Destabilising the regime in Jordan can be expected to be a joint project of the settlers, the ayatollahs and the evangelists who support Trump.”Extension of Israel’s sovereignty into Judea and Samaria can occur incrementally – starting in parts of Area C designated in the Oslo Accords which covers 60% of Judea and Samaria. 

Area C is under Israel’s full administrative and security control and 50000-70000 Arabs live there.

No Arab or Jew would have to move from his current house in Area C. Israeli residency or citizenship could be offered to those Arabs affected by Israel’s extension of sovereignty.Israel could unilaterally extend its sovereignty to all of Area C and offer Israeli residency or citizenship to the

Arabs affected – greatly enhancing their civil rights to those currently existing.

None of the above proposals requires the overthrow of Jordan’s King Abdullah or Jordan’s participation in negotiations with Israel.

However Jordan needs to negotiate with Israel on Judea and Samaria’s future after 40 years of refusing to take up the JIP solution to resolve a conflict now in its100th year – if it wishes to regain any part of Judea and Samaria that was unified with Transjordan in 1950 and then renamed Jordan  – with its Arab residents enjoying Jordanian citizenship until 1988.

Overthrowing the Hashemite sis not the stated policy of any of Israel’s major political parties although some individuals and groups espoused it at a conference in 2017 – which I strongly opposed.

Jordan is the Arab State in former Palestine -and no amount of double talk can alter this historic, geographic and demographic fact.
 
Author’s note: The cartoon—commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”-one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators—whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli  and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

David Singer: Burying the PLO and Resurrecting Jordan in the West Bank

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

He writes:

President Trump’s “deal of the century” – aimed at ending 100 years of conflict between Jews and Arabs over the territory once called “Palestine” – continues to flounder in the face of

· The PLO’s outright rejection of Trump’s deal – even before its details have been published

· Jordan’s continuing refusal to agree to negotiate with Israel when the deal is released

Jordan comprises 78 per cent of former Palestine and is the only sovereign Arab state to have ever occupied (albeit illegally) the West Bank – 4 per cent of former Palestine - between 1948 and 1967. Former Israeli Prime Minister – Ariel Sharon – proposed his own deal in 1992.

Sharon warned against granting autonomy to West Bank Arabs – something that occurred in 1993 after Oslo Accord I was signed and 95 per cent of the West Bank Arabs came under PLO administrative control:

“We must face a simple fact. Autonomy will inevitably lead to Palestinian statehood. The self-governing Authority will enjoy international recognition and command universal attention. Every self-respecting state will open a mission there.

Journalists will coo over keffiyeh-wrapped PLO murderers glowing with a romantic halo. The chairman of the Authority will sit in his office adorned with a wall to wall picture of another chairman, arch-murderer Yasser Arafat. And there will be a PLO flag in the front of the building.”

27 years later, autonomy has not translated into statehood – due to the PLO’s racist policy of refusing to accept the right of Jews to live in the West Bank – the ancient biblical, historic and legally-designated heartland of the Jewish people.

Sharon posited instead:

“… The true solution is to recognize that Jordan is the Palestinian state. Only with Jordan should we discuss the future of the Arab inhabitants of Judea and Samaria, all of whom are Jordanian citizens. And it is with Jordan that we should discuss granting this kind of citizenship to Gaza residents.

We must also talk about how they will vote for and get elected to the Palestinian parliament in Amman, how they will pay taxes, and how they will be able to use Haifa and Ashkelon harbors and reciprocally, how we can use Akaba.

And we should talk of a common market in the Middle East, and about water projects and the mutual development of the Dead Sea resources and of a common front against Arab terrorism. Whether King Hussein or anyone else heads the Palestinian State, Jordan, is their decision."

Sharon continued:

“What I suggested in the past and I suggest again, is that there be autonomic regions without territorial contiguity. Their local police will act strictly within these regions. Non-Jews, after all, have no problem traveling on roads under Jewish control: the problem exists only for Jews under non-Jewish control.

Israeli sovereignty will then begin in all the zones in which Jews are settled. This will affect contiguity of Jewish areas from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River in Judea and Samaria, and from the Sea to the Western Negev in the Gaza district.

Thus all Jewish communities will be under Israeli sovereignty, while most of the Arab population will live in autonomous districts.” 

Trump’s US$28 billion economic plan for the West Bank and Gaza has been rejected by the PLO and received with little enthusiasm by Jordan.

Jewish ethics provides sage advice to Trump to present his political plan without further delay – irrespective of how the PLO and Jordan might receive it:

“It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but you are not free to desist from it either.”

Will Trump’s proposals – like Sharon’s – also bury the PLO and resurrect Jordan in the West Bank?


Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones” — one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

David Singer: United Nations and Trump should heed 1989 Balfour Declaration

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

He writes:

A lot of bloodshed, pain and suffering sustained by both Jews and Arabs over the last 28 years could have been avoided had the United Nations heeded the 1989 Balfour Declaration presented by the 4th Lord Balfour at the 4th international conference of the Jordan is Palestine Committee held in Jerusalem in November 1989.

The 1989 Declaration stated:

“The world should be fully aware of what was British Palestine; the misleading propaganda issued from oil-wealthy Arab states must be countered; Palestine has already been divided into two countries – Jewish Israel and Arab Jordan; the present governments of Israel and Jordan should be fully supported and upheld; and a third state as suggested by the PLO would upset the political and economic situation in the whole area”

The demand by the PLO to establish that third state – in addition to Jordan and Israel – in the territory comprised in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – remains unrealised in 2017.

President Trump at this point of time still seems wedded to this proposed three state solution  – eventually formulated by President Bush in his 2003 Roadmap – and endorsed by the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

The Bush Roadmap was also accepted unconditionally by the PLO and with 14 reservations by Israel. Bush – overwhelmingly supported by the Congress – made the following written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to secure Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank:

“… the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”

The PLO has failed over the last 13 years to comply with these obligations.

Yet Trump still apparently appears willing to allow PLO Chief Mahmoud Abbas to stride on the world stage as he simultaneously refuses to unconditionally return to negotiations with Israel on the Bush Roadmap – stalled since April 2014.

However, Amnesty International’s latest report presents an appalling overview of life under the PLO which could herald a rapid Trump-about face:

“The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Hamas de facto administration in the Gaza Strip both continued to restrict freedom of expression, including by arresting and detaining critics and political opponents. They also restricted the right to peaceful assembly and used excessive force to disperse some protests. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife in both Gaza and the West Bank. Unfair trials of civilians before military courts continued in Gaza; detainees were held without charge or trial in the West Bank. Women and girls faced discrimination and violence. Courts in Gaza continued to hand down death sentences and Hamas carried out executions; no death sentences were imposed or executions carried out in the West Bank.”

Elections – the first since 2007 – are urgently needed to test whether the PLO should continue to dominate the lives of the West Bank Arab population and to prevent all hell breaking loose as the negotiating void continues.

The 1989 Balfour Declaration beckons if the above measures do not break the current stalemate.

"A Storm Is Coming In Jordan": Mudar Zahran talks to Jamie Glazov (video)

Here's the eminently likeable Jordanian politician in exile Mudar Zahran, the son of refugees from Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria (as he puts it), talking on the Glazov Show, in a video that he's recently uploaded:

Inter alia, he addresses fears that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in Jordan were King Abdullah to fall.

"The Palestinians [Are] One of Many Many Created Bogus Names": Arab Politician

"Needless to say it's very sad what is happening right now in Israel and ... in Gaza.  I bet most Israelis and the Israeli establishment and government did not desire the war on Gaza and did not desire to be bombing Hamas.  But unfortunately Hamas, a terrorist group, has brought misery for my people the Palestinians and for the Israelis....

Unfortunately the media antisemitism ... has reported very badly on Israel at the moment.

As a Palestinian leader it is in my best interests that Israel does well because whenever Israel does well we do very well and we thrive. Whenever Israel is in trouble because of Hamas and the antisemites in the West we suffer.

In fact, Hamas has only survived because of the tolerance and the media support of the West and elsewhere .....

.... All this is happening because the Palestinians need a state. It's true we do deserve a state....That state today is Jordan....

.... There is no question about the right and the entitlement [of the Jews] to The Land ....

It's about time the Israel-lovers in the United States, and there are millions of them, should consider the Jordanian option....

Most so-called Palestinians, my people, live in Jordan ..."

 That's the message of  the brave and personable Mudar Zahran, the Jordanian opposition leader who we have had the pleasure of meeting several times before on this blog.

He makes the point quoted in the header at 19:20, during a theme that begins at 18:48.

Among his other observations is that Israel is fighting the West's war against Islamism and that if Israel falls, other western countries will follow.

He is speaking at length to Brett and Jon Rappaport of Rappaport Media.Com, in a long discussion on paths to peace that also includes Sarah Stern, founder and president of the Endowment for Middle EastTruth


In this superb must-hear discussion she aptly describes Mr Zahran as a"profile in courage".

"[BDSers] Don't Care For My People – They Just Hate Jews ... We Should Respect & Support Israel's Sovereignty ... as a Jewish State" (video)

Want a nice way to start the week?  Well, here's a video lasting about 38 minutes that really must be viewed, or at least listened to, from beginning to end. 

"I came to this part of Stockholm, where Israel is hated, at considerable risk to my life, to tell the truth," the exiled leader of the Palestinian Jordanians, Mudar Zahran, declares. ".... There have always been Jews in that Holy Land, for thousands of years ..."

A practising Muslim, the personable Mr Zahran has kind things to say about Jews and Israel, and harsh things to say about the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic terrorism, the Jordanian monarch, Arab dictatorships, and the BDS movement.

Snippets:

 "I have one word for them: 'shmucks'.  They don't care for my people – they just hate Jews" he says of the Boycott Israel brigade, for whom he has this message: "We are against you and we don't need you, because you are only hurting us and not the Israelis..."

"Israel has served as the airbag for the West... If they did not have Israel to fight, they would be fighting you.  We should respect and support Israel's sovereignty over all its land, as a Jewish State ..."

"Sooner or later, the weak King of Jordan is going to fall ... As a result we are going to have a Palestinian State for the first time ..."

"Had Israel Cared To Listen To Me ... Would Kerry Be Pushing Israel To Give Up All of Judea and Samaria Today?"

"Jordan has always been the homeland for the Palestinians ....The only thing that is not Palestinian in Jordan is the King!"

Here's Jordanian intellectual and dissident Muhdar Zahran, a political exile in London, in conversation with Canadian broadcaster Michael Coren back in 2012.

Muses Muhdar Zahran (whom we've met before on this blog) on Facebook now:

"Had Israel cared to listen to me three [sic] years ago, would Kerry be pushing Israel to give up all of Judea and Samaria today?"

Falk & Singer On A Jordanian Solution

As regular readers of this blog will be aware, frequent guest blogger David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst, has in the past been deeply critical of Professor Richard Falk, but this new article, entitled "Palestine:  Jordan/West Bank Bi-National State Under Discussion," indicates that the two might now be in agreement.

Writes David Singer:

'Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been discussing the creation of a bi- national State in the West Bank and Jordan according to Professor Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967.

Professor Falk is revered by the Palestinians whilst simultaneously being targeted by many others – including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay – for his controversial views on a range of matters including his suggestion that the Boston marathon bombing was a justifiable response to America's interventionist US foreign policy and his posting of an antisemitic cartoon on his web site.

Writing in his blog "Citizen Pilgrimage," Professor Falk disclosed discussions were taking place on a bi-national State during an exchange he and I were having – after he had written:

'I do agree with you about the "two state" solution being a dead letter, and rather bad faith on all sides to pretend otherwise.

The question seems to me to be “What Next?” I think the Jordanian option is one answer, but not one I endorse. There is a need for this discussion, I agree to this extent.'

I then sent Professor Falk a recent article written by me arguing for the creation of a bi-national state in Jordan and the West Bank to embrace the aspirations of the Arab populations of both territories.

Professor Falk's response on 8 July was unexpected and very encouraging:

"I have read your article with care, and it does provide a clear alternative to the two-state solution. It is also an approach that I know from my diplomatic contacts is being encouraged by Israeli negotiators in private meetings with the Palestinian Authority, and toward which the PA has not expressed outright rejection, but apparently a willingness to consider."

Whilst expressing the fact that he had several problems with this solution – which he enumerated – Professor Falk continued:

"Given the paucity of decent alternatives, if the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people genuinely accepted such a solution without it being imposed, it might be better than nothing, and the best among bad options."

I addressed Professor Falk's concerns, to which he made the following response:

"Without attempting to respond point by point because there are some underlying gaps separating our positions that cannot be bridged by reasoning or compromise, I will merely express my reservations about advocating a resumption of negotiations"

Two of Professor Falk's reservations were:

"I do not discern any support among Palestinians for the Jordan bi-national option that you are proposing"

This was a surprising statement in view of the fact that he had earlier indicated that Palestinian negotiators had expressed a willingness to consider such a proposal and were in fact negotiating with Israeli negotiators on such a proposal.

"I find no interest in this approach among Jordanians, either those in government or those in leadership roles among the various ethnicities living in the country."

Professor Falk was apparently unaware that the following statement had been recently made by Jordan's Minister of Culture, Barakat Awajan:

"Jordan and Palestine are joined by one culture and connected by blood, geography and sacred ties"

My attempt to respond to Professor Falk has been met by an impenetrable fire wall. Three efforts to contact him using three different computers have not been successful. That is unfortunate.

Professor Falk is obviously well placed to know what is going on among the Palestinians.

I would regard his comments on discussions for a bi-national State being conducted between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as well-sourced and authentic.

Jordanian knowledge and acquiescence in those negotiations can be gleaned from the above statement by Jordan's Minister of Culture – which incidentally was made face to face to his Palestinian counterpart Anwar Abu Aisha in Amman.

US Secretary of State Kerry has not been travelling backwards and forwards between America and the Middle East merely to have his prestige and reputation trashed in a repeat of what has occurred to previous Secretaries of State over the past 20 years.

Creating a bi-national State in Jordan has always been the solution most likely to succeed in resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

It is a solution which accords with the historic, geographic and demographic realities of the region and will result in the Jews ending up with sovereignty in about 20 per cent of Mandate Palestine and the Arabs with sovereignty in about the remaining 80 per cent.

There will be many Jews and Arabs not happy with an outcome that does not yield them 100 per cent and the other nothing.

That however is not what a settlement is about. A good settlement is one which leaves both sides bemoaning what they have gained.

Professor Falk's opinion that the bi-national state is the best of many bad options will surely resonate with the Palestinians. He has their confidence and their ear. I hope he is instrumental in helping them understand the wisdom of accepting such a resolution – if further conflict and suffering is to be avoided.

Maybe indeed we might at last just be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel after travelling for more than 95 years in the darkness – witnessing conflict after conflict with intolerable suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

After all, the right to breathe is the most fundamental human right we all have.'

David Singer On Abbas, Attitude, & Annexation

The latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer is entitled "Palestine: Abbas, Attitude and Annexation".

Writes David Singer:

'Annexation of large areas of the West Bank by Israel has now become a distinct possibility with the unilateral decision this week to scrap any trace of the existence of the Palestinian Authority by its President Mahmoud Abbas.

In a "presidential decree" Abbas has called for all official documents – including passports, drivers' licenses, postage stamps and car number plates – to now bear the name 'State of Palestine', instead of the generally used 'Palestinian National Authority'.

Abbas has also ordered foreign ministries and embassies around the world to start using the title.

Abbas's decree comes just a few days after he had reportedly told an Israeli politician that if there was no progress in the peace talks:

“I will take the phone and call Netanyahu and tell him: ‘Sit in the chair instead of me; take the keys and you will be responsible for the Palestinian Authority."

His remark prompted this angry response from senior Hamas official Abu Marzouk, in a posting on Facebook: 

“Why does Abbas want to hand the keys over to Netanyahu? Why not hand it over to Hamas?” 

Abu Marzouk – who turned 62 on 9 January and is slated to replace Khaled Mashaal as head of Hamas – said it would have been:

 “better and more effective had Abbas threatened to hand the West Bank to Hamas.”

In a fearless riposte, Jamal Muheisen, a member of the Fatah Central Council, said the Palestinians should first hold presidential and legislative elections to choose their leaders

“Whoever wins in the elections will be handed the keys of the entire Palestinian Authority, be it Hamas or Fatah or any other Palestinian faction”

Now it seems the keys to control of the entire Palestinian Authority have been thrown down the drain by its own president just days later – as have any hopes of negotiating a two-state solution as prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

This solution has simply vanished into thin air after being flavour of the month for the last twenty years – with one of the two principal negotiating parties having gone missing in action.

We are now being subjected to the following delusional garbage being spouted on Al-Jazzera on 8 January by the now defunct chief negotiator of the now defunct Palestinian Authority – Saeb Erekat: 

"Palestine is a country under occupation. What were Norway, Finland, Holland, France, Korea, Philippines between 1939 and 1945? – nation states under occupation. Today, the state of Palestine is officially a state under occupation. It has 192 member countries that recognise this and a nation state, Israel, which is the occupying power; these are the new realities."

The comparison is totally fictitious and Erekat's arrogance is unbounded.

Comparing States that had existed for centuries to a State that has never existed in recorded history whilst claiming statehood in an area it has never controlled is mind blowing.

Certainly 192 "member countries" – presumably in the United Nations – do not recognise Erekat's outrageous statement.

Purporting to draw many of these countries into what is increasingly appearing to be a continuation of the Fatah-Hamas rivalry for control of the hearts and minds of the long suffering Palestinian Arabs is political madness.

Certainly 50 of those countries did nothing of the sort – 9 rejecting and 41 abstaining from supporting the General Assembly resolution on 29 November last granting Palestine the status of a non-member observer State at its meetings.

Abbas and Erekat should have heeded the explanations given by Singapore and Germany for abstaining - before embarking on their new flight into unreality

A summary of these two countries views was issued in a release from the United Nations Department of  Public Information News and Media Division; Germany's vote against the Resolution was summarised as follows:

"The delegate of Germany said his nation firmed believed in “two States for two peoples” and shared the goal of a Palestinian State.  However, such status must be achieved only through direct negotiations.  There was doubt that today’s action would be helpful for the peace process at this point in time.  “It might lead to further hardening of positions instead of improving chances of a two-State solution through direct negotiations,” he said.  He explicitly welcomed that today’s resolution called for a two-State solution and, hence, recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace.  However, Israel’s legitimate security concern had to be addressed in a credible manner."

To say Germany was spot on in its predictions would be an understatement.

Singapore was even more circumspect in its sober assessment made against the baying cries from those 138 states who could not see the wood for the trees.

"The representative of Singapore said that his delegation supported the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and had, in the past, supported relevant Assembly resolutions.  However, his country had abstained from today’s vote because only a negotiated settlement, consistent with Security Council resolution 242 (1967), could provide the basis for a viable, long-term solution.  Both sides had legitimate rights and shared responsibilities and must be prepared to make compromises to achieve the larger good of a lasting peace.  Because of those interlinked rights and responsibilities, no unilateral move could result in a just and durable outcome."

The preparadness of especially the democratic states to vote for the General Assembly Resolution on 29 November and abandon Security Council Resolution 242 – the only internationally accepted United Nations resolution binding both Jews and Arabs to ending their conflict – was shameful.

Those democracies must now rue the day that their votes could be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the state of utter confusion that now exists following Abbas's presidential decree and Erekat's involvement of them in his latest statement.

Israel will hold elections on 22 January.

A new political party, Bayit Hayehudi – the Jewish homeland party – could possibly end up exercising a controlling vote in the next Parliament.

Its leader Naftali Bennett has already made clear that he will be calling for Israel to annex at least 60 per cent of the West Bank – adding in an interview in Haaretz on 28 December:

"And in the end, Jordan will be Palestine. There is no chance that, between the river and the sea, a Palestinian state will arise. The two-state solution is dead. There is no need to bury the two-state solution because it is already buried."

Abbas has helped advance this possible outcome because of his inane presidential decree consigning the Palestinian Authority to the dustbin of history.

Ave atque vale, Palestinian Authority.

Others less charitable might say – "good riddance".