Palestine – France Signals Surrender To PLO And Muslim Pressure…writes David Singer

February 14, 2016 by David Singer
Read on for article

France’s extraordinary decision to try and resurrect the dead two-state solution smacks of:

1. Abject surrender to PLO demands for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State outside the parameters defined by Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.
2. A desperate attempt to appease France’s 4.7 million Muslims as they protest against the continuing state of emergency declared after the series of co-ordinated attacks by Islamic State in Paris last November that saw 130 people murdered and 368 wounded.

France made its intentions clear in the following statement released on 30 January by Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius:
“France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the two-state solution”
Mr Fabius issued this veiled threat on France 24:
 “If this attempt to achieve a negotiated solution reaches a dead end, we will take responsibility and recognize the Palestinian state,”
Respected commentator Aaron David Miller has already delivered his verdict on the proposed International conference in a scathing twitter:
“Another bone headed French play.Convene a peace conference doomed to fail; then recognize a faux Palestinian state”
In its Spring 2015 Global Attitudes Survey the Pew Research Centre found that 76% of France’s population had favourable views of France’s Muslim population whilst 24% had unfavourable views.
France no doubt hopes that calling this pro-Arab international conference will stem any growth in the anti- Muslim view in the next Pew Survey. Given the violent ongoing Muslim demonstrations such hope is doomed.
France’s Muslim population far exceeds that of the 475000 Jewish population whose number has been dramatically declining following 851 anti-Semitic incidents recorded in 2014 and 806 attacks in 2015.
Jews leaving France for Israel have also doubled and then doubled again since 2010 – reaching 8,000 last year – up from 1,900 in 2011. Such is the Jewish exodus that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was recently forced to acknowledge that French Jewry is in crisis and that France must work with:
“all its might to protect Jews”
France’s planned international conference and threatened recognition of a Palestinian State will have the opposite effect – ensuring an ever increasing number of French Jews will be fleeing to safer havens.
Any unilateral French declaration recognising Palestinian Statehood will only exacerbate the continuation of the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict – not contribute to its resolution.
Such a declaration could represent a complete turnaround in France’s stated foreign policy:
“France considers that the conflict can only be resolved by the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian State living in peace and security alongside Israel.”
Given the current authoritarian and undemocratic division of rule between two organisations pledged to wipe Israel off the map – the PLO in Areas “A” and “B” in Judea and Samaria and Hamas in Gaza – France needs to ensure that any State of Palestine it recognises is indisputably democratic.
France is being politically naive to believe the failed negotiations conducted over 23 years between Israel and the PLO can be revived.
An international conference aimed at jumpstarting negotiations to resolve sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan – not Israel and the PLO – would have made far more sense.
However the only winners from France’s proposed conference will be the airlines, the 5 star hotels,  3 hat Michelin restaurants, vignerons and limousine car companies catering to the needs of the delegations flying in for a talkfest that will go nowhere.
Hopefully Islamic State will not spoil the politicians’ party.
David Singer is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International. 

Comments

25 Responses to “Palestine – France Signals Surrender To PLO And Muslim Pressure…writes David Singer”
  1. david singer says:

    CORRECTION:

    My figure of 4.75 million Muslims forming part of France’s population as mentioned in my article was taken from the Pew Survey – but that was the figure in 2010

    The following web site shows at 2014 the Muslim population of France was 6.13 million
    http://www.muslimpopulation.com/Europe/

    It has obviously grown substantially since then with uncontrolled flood of Muslim immigrants into Europe in 2015.

    France is in even deeper trouble and its surrender to the PLO and Muslim pressure more transparently apparent as these latest figures indicate.

    Thank you to the person who drew this to my attention.

  2. Gil Solomon says:

    David,

    You are the one who fails to understand that the agreement you have been advocating for decades is not alive and kicking by any stretch of the imagination. How many more decades will it take for you to understand that circumstances have passed you by long ago. For you to have any credibility, it is time you stopped peddling this fiction and faced reality.

    • David Singer says:

      Gil

      How can you say the Jordan is Palestine (JIP) option is not alive and kicking when it has not even been attempted?

      Once this French international conference ends up in tatters — there is no other solution capable of being negotiated between Arabs and Jews.

      If you know of any solution other than unilateral annexation by Israel – please share it with us.

      We are talking about dividing a piece of territory one twelfth the size of Tasmania. Should be a piece of cake if Israel and Jordan do the carve up.

      The PLO have had their go and blown it.

      • Gil Solomon says:

        David,

        You persist with your view and by your own words have been advocating this line for “decades” in spite of the fact that negotiations on this fictional agenda have not even got off the ground.

        It appears that you have invested so much time and effort in this fiction that you now cannot and will not back down and admit you were wrong all these years.

        There will be no “carve up” by Israel and Jordan.
        Nevertheless, you no doubt will push this line for years to come.
        Personally, I don’t really care what you write but unfortunately your viewpoint may influence gullible readers into a false sense of possibilities.

        • David Singer says:

          Gil

          That Jordan comprises 78% of Palestine is no fiction.

          That Jordan occupied Judea,Samaria and East Jerusalem – 4% of Palestine – between 1948-1967 and drove out every single Jew living there – is no fiction.

          That Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine is no fiction.

          That 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine has been divided between Israel and Jordan is not fiction.

          That Jordan is part of the problem and must be part of the solution is no fiction.

          That tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs would still be alive today if JIP had been embraced 40 years ago is no fiction.

          If there is to be no carve up between Israel and Jordan – do you have any alternative proposal?

          I am patient and await the day Jordan and Israel start to negotiate. That it has not happened for the last 40 years has impacted detrimentally on the Arabs – as East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria’s Jewish population has gone from 0 in 1966 to 600000 in 2016.

          The UN and EU have been equally stupid in their approach. Their claim that such Jewish settlement is illegal is fiction and has blurred their vision and their thinking.What a mess they are both in now. Their judgement has proved wrong in so many areas of the world. Their decisions are a joke and have imperilled world peace and security – rather than advancing those two noble ideals.

          You obviously have no patience. Jews have been waiting patiently for the coming of the Messiah for more than 40 years. Are you advocating Jews back down and admit they were wrong for thousands of years?

          So what is the solution you propose to break the diplomatic impasse caused by the end of negotiations between Israel and the PLO?

    • Michael Kuttner says:

      The Jordan is Palestine option is the only logical option. The days of the Hashemite Kingdom (an artificial creation of the British) are limited. The majority Palestinian Arab population will at some stage be the so called Palestinian State. It’s inevitable and it’s only a matter of timing. At that time full Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria will be critical from a security, historical and above all legal perspective (San Remo agreement).

      This by the way is not just my point of view. I have spoken to Palestinian Arabs who advocate this as the only realistic solution. Anything else is pie in the sky and doomed to fail.

      • Gil Solomon says:

        Thanks Michael for your input into this.

        Your words in respect to Judea and Samaria that, in your opinion, this territory will, once and for all come under full Israeli sovereignty is totally at odds with the decades long obsession pushed by David Singer to this date where as he stated below:”I believe the two-state solution created by the division of Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan which I have advocated for decades remains alive and kicking until it too is dead and buried as a result of unsuccessful negotiations between Jordan and Israel”.

        Negotiations between Jordan and Israel to divide Judea and Samaria “are alive and kicking”! Give me a break.

        Viewpoints like David Singer’s, reiterated for decades have only muddied the waters in relation to intelligent debate.

        Whatever happens, it finally puts the nail in the coffin of David’s decades long obsession with fantasy, that this territory will somehow involve a two state solution by the actual division of Judea and Samaria, which in reality would be along the lines of a never ending loss of sovereignty by Israel.

        Michael, this is all theory. But as Judea and Samaria are part of historical Israel then if one day you are proven right, then it must follow that Arabs currently living there would be repatriated (voluntarily or forcibly) to their new “Palestine” (i.e. the old Hashemite Kingdom).

        Your last sentence is especially apt: “Anything else is pie in the sky and doomed to fail”. I hope David Singer is finally taking note.

        • david singer says:

          Gil

          Shooting yourself in the foot yet again.

          The negotiations between Israel and Jordan will decide whether Israel gains sovereignty in all or only part of Judea and Samaria.

          If the Israeli negotiators secure the lot – so be it. If they only secure part – so be it.

          Israel has already made it clear in the offers it made in 2000/1 and 2008 that it does not seek sovereignty in 100% of Judea and Samaria.

          True they were offers made by Barak and Olmert but nevertheless they must be taken into consideration when the negotiations are being undertaken.

          So must the fact that Israel agreed to the division of Judea and Samaria into Areas “A”, “B” and “C” and it is only in Area “C” that Israel exercises full administrative and security control

          I am interested in seeing some advance in peacefully ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews over a piece of land one twelfth the size of Tasmania.

          You only seem intent on prolonging that conflict – which is not in the interest of either Jews or Arabs or indeed the rest of the world.

          • Gil Solomon says:

            David,

            You say I have shot myself in the foot.
            I don’t think so.

            As Michael Kuttner said in his post, there will be no negotiations with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan over the “carve up” (your terminology) of Judea and Samaria.

            You cannot have it both ways. You reply to Michael referring to him as the cavalry and thank him for his supportive comments. However, I think you should re-read what Michael said. His comments are diametrically opposed to what you have been saying for decades. If Michael is correct, then the artificial creation known as the Hashemite Kingdom’s days are numbered. It therefore follows that there is no way Jordan’s King will be in a position to negotiate anything.

            At the first sign of any real threat to his authority, I would imagine he will fly himself and his family to a safe haven somewhere out of the Middle East to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle.

            In my opinion, Michael has put the final nail in the coffin of the ideas that you have been advocating for decades.

            And you think I have shot myself in the foot!

            • david singer says:

              Gil

              You state:
              “As Michael Kuttner said in his post, there will be no negotiations with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan over the “carve up” (your terminology) of Judea and Samaria.”

              Can you please quote the specific part of Michael’s article on which you rely?

              • Gil Solomon says:

                David,

                This is what Michael Kuttner said: “The days of the Hashemite Kingdom (an artificial creation of the British) are limited. The majority Palestinian Arab population will at some stage be the so called Palestinian State. It’s inevitable and it’s only a matter of timing. At that time full Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria will be critical from a security, historical and above all legal perspective (San Remo agreement.”

                It follows that as there have been no negotiations to date and the Hashemite Kingdom’s days are limited why can’t you read between the lines. A shaky regime like King Hussein’s is therefore in no position to negotiate the “carve up” of Judea and Samaria as you obsessively maintain.

                Can you at least have the courage to admit that far from supporting your views, Michael’s views are not in any way supportive. His view is that there can only be full Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

                It appears your reply to Michael where you stated: “Thanks for your supportive comments Michael” was a piece of propaganda designed to fool the gullible (who do not pay careful attention to what was said) into thinking Michael’s views support yours, when clearly they do not.

                Your words to me: “Can you please quote the specific part of Michael’s article on which you rely?” indicates the obsessive trait of someone clutching at straws unable to face reality, one who tries desperately to put a positive spin on every word uttered.

                Finally, I repeat what I said earlier on: “In my opinion, Michael has put the final nail in the coffin of the ideas that you have been advocating for decades.”

                • david singer says:

                  Gil

                  Michael’s statement that you supposedly rely on misconstrues what he said.

                  Michael is stating that in his opinion the days of the Hashemites are limited and when that regime falls- full Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will be critical.

                  Even you must agree that day has not come yet. Until that day comes the option for Israel and Jordan to redraw their borders is alive and kicking.

                  The Hashemites have ruled Jordan for the last 93 years. They threw out the PLO who tried to take over in 1970. They have done more for Palestinian Arab self-determination than the PLO or Hamas or any previous Arab leaderships have done in keeping 78% of former Palestine – originally promised to the Jews – “judenrein” since 1922.

                  Michael and you are entitled to your opinions that the Hashemites time is “limited” or “shaky” though I am sure Israel and the US would have something to say if someone else tried to take over Jordan by force.

                  Until Abdullah is removed (not Hussein as you state in error) the option of negotiating a carve up with Jordan remains an option for Israel to pursue to bring to finality the two-state solution first contemplated in 1922.

                  If the Hashemites are overthrown then Israel would at that time and in the absence of any such negotiations having being successfully concluded probably- but not even then necessarily – claim sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria as Michael has suggested.

                  Guess you are just miffed that Michael should state: “The Jordan is Palestine option is the only logical option.” Seems a pretty good endorsement to me.

                  Keep clutching at straws if you want to.

                  The Jordan is Palestine option involving the carve up of Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan is available for negotiation and conclusion right now.

                  What may happen tomorrow is pure speculation.

      • david singer says:

        The cavalry has arrived. Thanks for your supportive comments Michael.

        Not only Palestinian Arabs advocate this solution as you have pointed out – but so do a lot of influential Israelis – including PM Netanyahu – who knows his history very well – having told the UN on 11 December 1984 (yes the date is right!):
        “Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two States in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some 3 million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 th of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over 4 million of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 th of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate?. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22 nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949”

        Obama persuaded Netanyahu to put this principled statement on the backburner and instead negotiate with the PLO for the creation of a second Arab state in Mandatory Palestine – in addition to Jordan. It was a non-starter from day 1 and doomed to failure.

        Pressure being what it is however – Netanyahu agreed.

        Now those negotiations have totally failed and France is trying to resurrect them – whilst the UN, EU, Obama, Kerry and the Quartet are slowly sinking in quicksand of their own making.

        I wonder when Netanyahu will throw them all lifelines by re-delivering his 1984 speech to the UN again?

  3. Gil Solomon says:

    David,

    At least we can all see that you have finally come around to acknowledge that the “two State solution” is dead and buried, a solution that up till recent times you were advocating for decades.

    • David Singer says:

      Gil

      Sorry to disappoint you.

      I have never believed the two-state solution designed to create a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan was necessary or capable of happening – and I have been consistently pointing this out since it was first proposed by the Bush Roadmap.

      13 years of wasted effort by the Quartet and the UN down the drain. They should have listened and spent their time on other proposals.

      On the other hand I believe the two-state solution created by the division of Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan which I have advocated for decades remains alive and kicking until it too is dead and buried as a result of unsuccessful negotiations between Jordan and Israel.

      Until those negotiations are undertaken the solution remains alive and kicking.

      There are two – state solutions and two-state solutions. You just fail to understand the very great differences.

      • Paul Winter says:

        David, your “state solutions and two-state solutions” is as clear as mud. You accuse Gil of not understanding “the very great difference” which you fail to explicate. I seriously suspect that you don’t understand the difference yourself.

        More importantly you fail to comprehend that the negotiations between Israel and Jordan over the division of Judea and Samaria are alive only in your fantasy world. You know better than most that Jordan’s occupation was illegal and that Jordan has formally renounced claims to those territories. As I have pointed out to you ad nauseam, the Hashemites cannot negotiate on behalf of the Arabs under the PA regime and Israel cannot negotiate the loss of its land to a tottery Jordanian monarchy. It can far less negotiate with a PA that need IDF support to prevent Hamas from taking over that half of “Palestine” it runs.

        Most importantly, you have just revealed that your Jordan is Palestine campaign was nothing but an anti-Zionist ploy to buy peace by selling Jewish land to Jordan.

        The long and short of the matter is that Israel must control the Jordan valley and the heights overlooking the centre of Israel. That is the only solution that I can state. The Arabs living there can have self-government if they abandon jihad, accept a golden handshake and pack up their tents or if that handshake is not good enough, have an iron fist around their necks.

        • david singer says:

          Paul

          Let me get the mud out of your eyes.

          The”two-state solution” everyone has been talking about for the last 13 years is in fact “the Three-state solution” – Israel, Jordan and another Arab State plonked in between them.

          The “two-state” solution I have been promoting for the last 40 years is that first laid down in 1922 by the Mandate for Palestine – which is today’s Israel and Jordan with two little bits of land plonked in between them called Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza.

          The completion of the 1922 “two-state solution” involves Jordan and Israel redrawing the boundaries between their two existing States to incorporate those two little pieces of land plonked in between them that currently have no internationally recognized sovereign.

          Get it now?

          You may well be right – negotiations between Jordan and Israel might achieve nothing. But until those negotiations are attempted and end up in the dustbin (as have the negotiations with the PLO after 23 years of trying) – then we will never know.

          Jordan must be publicly and directly confronted by Obama to salvage any Arab claims to Judea and Samaria and Gaza by entering into direct negotiations with Israel.

          If Jordan refuses then Israel will be entitled to take whatever action it decides is in its national interest.

          96 years of trying to bring the Arabs to compromise would be at an end.

          Thanks for accusing me of an “anti-Zionist ploy to buy peace by selling Jewish land to Jordan” How much am I suggesting it be sold for? How much is one Jewish life saved, one Jewish civilian not injured or traumatised for life?

          In fact how much have the Jews already paid to see 24969 killed and 36360 wounded since this conflict started in 1920? What about the 91105 Arabs killed and 78038 wounded during that time?
          http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html

          You are prepared to have Israel keep paying that price – I am not.

          The sooner the negotiations with Jordan commence – the sooner some end to this carnage appears possible.

          BTW – the PA no longer exists having been disbanded on 3 January 2013.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v-whitbeck/the-state-of-palestine-ex_b_2431690.html

          It helps if you get your facts right before shooting from the hip.

          • Gil Solomon says:

            David,

            You say: “Jordan must be publicly and directly confronted by Obama”. Where have you been for the past 8 years. You still believe Obama is an honest broker?

            Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood and has about 10 of these people working in his administration in various capacities. They were all appointed under executive privilege to avoid any nasty Senate confirmation hearings as to their suitability.

            If you haven’t learned by now that Obama doesn’t give a damn about Israel, you never will.

            And by the way, Paul’s eyes are just fine, they’re crystal clear.
            Your sarcastic comments don’t do your credibility much good.

            • david singer says:

              Gil

              It was Paul who raised the question of mud – not me – with this statement:
              “David, your “state solutions and two-state solutions” is as clear as mud”.

              If Obama does not pressure Jordan to enter into direct negotiations with Israel then Obama will have to answer for any adverse consequences from failing to do so.

              Obama has already won one Nobel Peace Prize. This could be his opportunity to earn another.

              This is the last chance for the Arabs to peacefully resolve the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. If they reject it so be it. Israel will then be free to act as it thinks fit.

              • Gil Solomon says:

                David,

                You say: “Obama will have to answer for any adverse consequences”.
                Answer to whom?

                Then you go on to say: “Obama has already won one Nobel Peace Prize. This could be his opportunity to earn another”.
                Earn another?
                I remind you that the first one was a political sham!

                This is turning into the dialogue of the deaf.

                Your attempts to rationalise the irrational is becoming laughable if the issues at stake were not so serious.

                • david singer says:

                  Well let us turn the dialogue of the deaf into the dialogue of the hearing aids.

                  The issue at stake – in my opinion – is who gets sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

                  It has been the issue in my opinion – since Israel captured it from Jordan in 1967.

                  I remain bemused as to why your opinion continues to oppose negotiations between Israel and Jordan to sort this out?

                  Is it your opinion that Israel unilaterally declare sovereignty over Judea and Samaria? Can you please answer “Yes” or “No”.

                  • Gil Solomon says:

                    David,

                    I will not indulge your endless “Yes” or “No” questions but will say that especially in the event that Michael’s viewpoint is realised in that the Hashemite Kingdom (by its days being “limited”) is toppled in a “Palestinian” coup, then Israel could very well declare sovereignty with Arab residents strongly encouraged to immigrate to their new homeland.

                    All this is speculation but one thing is certain, Jordan will have no role in the “carve up” as you call it, of Judea and Samaria.

                    In spite of everything that Obama has done to undermine Israel, including the disclosure of the secret Israeli air force base at Azerbaijan (an act of treachery to a supposed ally) I assume by your non comment in this regard, you still appear to have high hopes that Obama will somehow be an honest broker.
                    Pure fantasy.

                    • david singer says:

                      Gil

                      So are you proposing nothing be done to allocate sovereignty in Judea and Samaria until the Hashemites are removed in Jordan?

                      Try a “yes” or “no” answer if you possibly can.

  4. Samuel Terry says:

    The end of the beginning?

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments