A phenomenon unlike any other has flourished extensively over the past decades, coagulating ever so rapidly in many parts of the world: general distaste towards the west. And as educated and thoughtful individuals, it is our absolute duty to investigate the cause of such a situation for treatment and prevention of its further cancer-like metastasis. Before any of that can be properly addressed, the root cause of the problem must be thoroughly investigated (although the full reasons need more than a few compendiums to be completely analyzed). To understand this horrid phenomenon, it is imperative to look at its state of being in the Islamic World, particularly the Middle East. Over many years, there has been an expanding, self-created ocean of hate towards the west, particularly the United States and Britain by many Muslims. Although many neo-cons and their proxies would like the world to believe that this attitude came into being solely unprovoked, completely gratuitous in nature as they say, the reality is unfortunately the opposite. This feeling, shared by millions of individuals, was created by the political policies of the west, unjust, antagonizing and utterly contemptible. Now, this is neither a rationalization nor a defense for the atrocities committed by some extremists, whom it is a misnomer to call Muslims. On the other hand, this is an attempt to understand this serious problem, a political pathological view to a disease with a potentially terrible prognosis.

Britain, the imperialistic supremacist empire at the beginning of the 20th century, created the first ingredient for this rancid mixture of hateful emotions. At first, it was the sending of Thomas Edward Lawrence, later popularized as Lawrence of Arabia, to internally destabilize the Ottoman Empire, inciting revolts in the Islamic world. While masquerading under a veneer of lies during WWI, Britain then occupied and oppressed the inhabitants of modern day Jordan, Palestine, Iraq as well as many non-Muslim countries, like India and China. Making agreements such as Sykes-Pico (Where the French were involved as well) after the fall of the Ottoman empire, the British then went on to make the atrociously unwarranted Balfour Declaration in 1917. This promise guaranteed members of the Jewish faith a homeland on the territory of others. It promised, out of some non-existent authority, a land where already Palestinians live to someone else. So disgustingly obsessed were the British with their power that they even considered offering the Jews Uganda or Argentina as an alternative homeland. This unwavering, self-given right over the land of others is what first led to a feeling of injustice and absolute betrayal by the Arab and Muslim people.

The second and most impacting reason for this hate is the evident, completely vociferous support of the west to the illegal and certainly criminal occupation of Palestinian lands. The unremitting backing of the west, namely the United States and Britain, to Israel in all its endeavors, no matter how unwarranted, led to the view held by most Muslims that the international community is against them. Of course, this can be analyzed historically. While Churchill was ringing his anaphoric speeches all over the world, his country backed the illegal declaration in 1948, almost twenty years after the Balfour Declaration, of Israel as a state. In fact, even Churchill himself, the epitomic example of the chauvinistic view towards Muslims, after being asked regarding the issue of Palestine, said “I don’t believe the dog has the right to the manger, no matter how long it’s lain there.” That was the mentality then and many might argue that countries, after almost seventy years, have recovered from the atrocities committed by the British and that enmity should no longer be prevalent. Alas, that might be true had the British ceased to exercise their self-given, self professed, almost godly providence over the lands of others. In other words, the hold of the British, ostensibly removed after the abolition of the British Mandate, still persisted. They continued to supply arms, weaponry and financially and politically endorsed the augmenting amount of illegal settlements of Palestinian lands. Not only that, but the British, despite the presence of the UN council, also failed to react to the atrocities committed by the various Zionist gangs, including the Irgun, Hagana and many of Manachem Bagens genocidal organizations, operating under Theodore Herzl’s plan of separation and transfer of Palestinians, tantamount to the Nazi holocaust. The entire world has been properly educated about the repugnant acts of the holocaust, but none know about Deir Yaseen, Qana, Gineen, Sabra and Shatila. These were, just like the holocaust, acts of mass murder, only this time it was not Jews being killed, but Palestinians, slaughtered in cold-blood and forced to flee by the Israeli war machine. The victim became the aggressor and all of these acts were neglected and blatantly condoned. Not only that, but the west continued to support its new ally in the Middle East. A prime example is when Israel, the UK and France attacked nearby Egypt in the Tripartite Aggression in 1959. This unconcealed and deliberate invasion, this breach of international law was yet another injustice against the Islamic world. One might think, that after such acts of violence, no more would’ve followed. Yet still, the perverse desire for bloodshed, and the evident hostility of Israel and the west continued and in 1967, when Sinai was occupied. This Six-day war, as it came to be known, fashioned as some sort of self-defense, resulted in the occupation of the neighboring countries’ territories (Sinai, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights) to fulfill the Jewish dream of a state from the Nile to Euphrates. This invasion was backed by the US, which supplied continuous intelligence to the Israeli Generals, including the warmonger Ariel Sharon. Eventually, some territories were regained, in exchange for some Arab subservience promised by the marionette rulers of the time (such as Hafiz Al Asad and Sadat). Indeed, the stage was now being set for yet another act of belligerence towards an already internally and externally oppressed Muslim world. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, once again hiding behind the repeated excuse of retaliation rather than clear aggression. Thousands were killed, Beirut reduced to ruble and concentration camp-like residences established for the many refugees and the victimized families. The reaction of the U.S. and Britain, if there was any, was extremely tepid, and the perpetual breach of Israeli-backed infringements of so-called international law continued.

The early and mid 20th century support of the west towards Israel continued and continues to this day. One prime example of the dog-like devotion of U.S. presidents towards Israel can be proven by the means by which they get elected. Living in the “democracy” they live in, any U.S. president desiring to reside in the White House must be the spaniel of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Bush Jr. and Sr. were tied to the leash, even Barrack Obama, vice president Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton and many more submit and continue to submit to the Israeli Lobby. It is no wonder then, to hear President Bush referring to Israel as America’s closest ally and to witness his frequent visits to the lobby. And certainly, it is no surprise either that in every UN vote, the United States, represented by crazed conservatives like John Bolton, votes pro-Israel and vetoes any fair or just resolution towards Muslims. Indeed, apartheid has been and is being established in Israel, and the U.S., Britain and many others condone it. Whether it’s the building of the West Bank Wall to separate Palestinians from society, or the starving of innocent civilians in Gaza by the orders of current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his posies, the west remains silent. The uninhibitedly mild responses mean nothing and did nothing as this pandemonium of violence continues. Another example is the summer 2006 invasion, a 33 day war and a second invasion of Lebanon. In their usually cyclical manner, western governments declared the war to be an act of self-defense, asserting that the killing of hundreds of civilians and the kidnapping of hundreds was a totally justifiable reaction to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, who were illegally in Lebanese land at the time of their kidnapping. Qana, which was the place where the now almost-dead Ariel Sharon massacred hundreds, was once again a subject to Israeli genocide when a building, full of children and innocent families, was bombed. And all we have are futile condemnations and suppression of international outcries. All of this injustice, committed over the decades we are so often encouraged to forget, is only one reason to the “swamp of hatred” as George Galloway put it, was created.

The United States further replenished the feeling of contempt by Muslims when it invaded Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War. Justifying it as some sort of American act of liberating generosity, the war on Iraq was in reality a callous attempt to control the financial resources of one of the richest states in the Muslim Arab world. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld, whom many consider as much as war criminal as the recently captured Karadzic, visited Saddam Hussein and supplied him with weapons and maps to invade Kuwait. With this encouragement, Sadam invaded Kuwait and then the U.S. had succeeded in creating a rationalization for the invasion of Iraq. This traitorous, unscrupulous and illegal act not only generated blood-shed in the Middle East, but allowed the kleptomaniac of a ruler George Bush Sr. to lay his hands on the tons of oil in the Middle East. Having killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and plunged the country into an abyss of economic and humanitarian depression, the U.S. secured its economic gains and left only to be revisited by the moronic ignoramus George Bush Jr. a few years later. Using the emotionally charged world after the horrible, non-tolerable acts of 9/11, which no Muslim would ever support nor excuse, Bush and his doll Blair, despite international opposition to the war, invaded Iraq illegally once again. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result, sectarian conflicts flourished, billions of dollars were looted and crimes like Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were tortured and humiliated for the perverse entertainment of soldiers and Falujah, where thousands of innocent civilians were killed, were committed. All of this was due to the fabrication of facts by Colin Powel and many more as well as the United States’ refusal to listen to its own intelligence agencies that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that it had as much ties with Al Qaeda as Mother Teresa did. But that was not enough to satisfy George Bushes abhorrent lust for blood. After invading Afghanistan, Mr. Bush then went on to create torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay where prisoners were taken, water boarded and starved to give information they did not even have about Bin Laden. And who is Bin Laden? Is he not the man who was sent by the United States itself to combat the Soviet Union in the 1980s? Is he not the man who was supplied by the U.S. with weapons and money to do their dirty work in the region? Is he not the criminal the U.S. had created? All of this, and yet the question persists, why does the world, not only Muslims, hate the west?

So great is the negative and obscene influence of the west in the Muslim world that they have succeeded in recruiting every collaborator, every disloyal, unscrupulous individual to be their marionette ruler of the subdivided Muslim World. Recently, Omar Al Bashir, the president of Sudan was accused of crimes against humanity in the Darfour Region. Before, Sadam was accused of the same thing. Yet, it is impossible to find the same accusations lain rightfully against the late King Hussein of Jordan, his son King Abdullah, the kings of Saudi Arabia, Hafiz Al Asad of Syria or Hussni Mubarak, the “president” of Egypt. Is King Hussein, who bombed his own capital city in 1970 and installed his own son as King after his death and acted was a servant for the Israeli Mossad not a criminal? Is King Abdullah, who gambles with the public’s money and lives in a palace while his citizens starve from inflation and high oil price not a repugnant criminal? Is Hussni Mubarak, who has been president for over 20 years, somnolently squandering the country’s money not a criminal? Are the corrupt kings of the kleptomonarchy Saudi Arabia, uneducated and illiterate, enforcing laws of subjugation and oppression while presiding over the largest oil supply not criminals? In the eyes of western governments they are not because they economically sustain their country, yet in the eyes of every commonsensical, educated and humanitarian individual, they are. When Muslims see King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia dancing with Bush while the American Armies kill Muslim civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and supply Israelis with Apaches and F-16s, what will they think? What should they think? Shackled and chained in a figurative prison, the Muslim world knows that all the corrupt leaders are politically supported by United States in return for economic gain. And this, this is what contributes to hatred.

The latest of the west’s attempt to irrationally punish Islamic countries is the attempt to disallow Iran from owning nuclear power. Constant utterances, made by western administrations, stress that Iran has no right to have nuclear power. Yet one cannot help but wonder why? Why can the U.S., India, and Israel, who according to its own agent Mordechai Vanunu, announced to the world in 1986 that it has hundreds of nuclear weapons capable of reaching every Muslim country, be allowed nuclear weapons? Pleading that they are responsible to own such terrible devices, one must also wonder why they, as the British had done before them, should be allowed to decide who is responsible and who is not responsible to own nuclear weapons let alone nuclear power? In fact, Iran, just like Iraq, had and has no nuclear weapons. It does however plan to own nuclear power as a source of energy. Is that not its legal right? In addition, the United States seems to have fallen under the delusion that they can selectively choose which countries can and cannot have them. Pakistan, which is ruled by yet another despot, the tyrannical General Musharaf, was actually encouraged to have nuclear weapons and rewarded for developing them by the United States. Yet Iran, just because it is against the abominable policies of the United States and Britain and just because it is against the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel cannot have them. Such preposterous selectivity is what leads to further fury in the Islamic world.

The last ingredient to this mélange of self created contempt is the deleterious media bias, shown everyday in all western news channels. To begin with, Rupert Murdoch, a man whose loyalties are known to have shifted according to the location of his business ventures, owns the most biased news channels, characterized by nothing more or less than great mendacity and absolute aptitude to produce half-truths and balderdash. Sky News, Fox Channel and many more, with reporters like Bill O’Reilly, Michelle Malkin and Anna Botting, show every tendency to be elusive when faced with truths and arrogant about their inexcusable bias. But not only that, CNN and BBC, masked as some sort of two-sided news channels, also equate Islam with terrorism and insinuate indecent and immoral characters to the Muslim faith. Indubitably, this kind of reporting is what has lead to the growing two-sided hatred, where it is now popular for Americans to discriminate against Muslims for wearing the hijab and where great animosity and mistrust towards Americans has now formed. What the Taliban did, in violation of Islam, is now being reported as Islamic tradition and the hijab, worn by choice and considered a sign of modesty and devotion is now fashioned as some sort of oppression. Criminal acts, such as the slaughtering of members of a Palestinian family by an Israeli warship have not even been shown, and Israeli apartheid is now regularly justified as either self-defense or a condemned mistake. This, along with further selective quotation and constant implication of Islam as an evil doctrine is discriminatory and every discerning member of society must take all measures to prevent it from thriving any further.

On must now also recognize that it’s not only Muslims, but people from all over the world sharing these ill-fated yet real sentiments towards the west. In Vietnam, where children are still being born with congenital defects and deformations as a result of the inexcusable invasion in the 1960s, citizens hold the U.S. in disrespect for their horrible deeds. Even in China, excessive western interference and a bias media have incited disapproval and in many more countries, this also holds true. One must understand, that this is not an unfounded hate of people, but a hate of subtle western autocracy and hegemony. The excessive and unrestrained support of Israeli policies, the unending killing and invasion of Muslims, the selective political support of tyranny and the bottomless media bias are just some of the reasons to this. Often, we are told that the west is working towards the amelioration of lives as validation of its blood shed. Yet rightly so, no one should believe this constant instilment of delusions as to the benevolence of west and its policies. It is time for a change. It is time for the west to recognize its faults and deal fairly with an area in a chasm of despair, poverty and despotism. It is time to halt our policies that create hundreds of Bin Ladens and Zarqawis everyday.

By B.B.J.

Ref: 0901-NASA-006 of 14-Jan-2009
War Drums Beating on Iran -Attack Imminent
CAUTION: Following situation is based on strong media reports. The events may or may not happen. However, we try to err on safe side. Please exercise your discretion. Do not take holiday if you are seized up with large portfolio.

News – Date of News or Event: 2009/01/14

There are reports that

1. Israel is planning massive strike on Iranian Nuclear facility with the blessings of United States.
2. Iran had earlier mentioned that should Israel or US attack Iran, there will be counter attacks on Israel and 32 US bases in Middle East. There could be battery of attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas from Palestine.
3. Although President Bush has officially denied any support for such operations, his ex-hawks in United Nations Mr. Bolton has indicated such actions are more closer to reality.
4. There is a growing feeling  that Bush wants to get into the final act of the war before he officially departs on 20th of January, 2009. It will be final act of devastation from the reckless President of United States who will leave a legacy of not only bankrupt banks and economic mess, but also physical blood and body parts flying around.
5. The attack may take place in next 5 days.
6. There could be a war between India and Pakistan due to recent non cooperative attitude of Pakistan in dealing with the terrorists. If the war erupts, watch out for the damage on refineries in Gujarat as Pakistani Intelligence strongly dislike Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat.
7. In short, Middle east will be the hot bed of war on multiple front.
8. BEWARE of WAR DOGS

Analysis  

Logically, a sitting and departing President is not supposed to get into war gears, but the President Bush, a republican and his War Monger Vice President Mr. Dick Cheney, want to help the war industry as much as they can during final phase before Obama takes over. They want to leave such legacy that President Obama will be left with no choice except to adapt to war and be dictated by what is left behind.

This will be a foreign policy matter which will be managed by another hawk Hillary Clinton. She is in deep debt after losing primary democratic election. It is said that she is in debt in excess of US$ 7 millions. The only way she can mitigate the debt is to appease the War Industry in United States who need desperate orders after sudden calm in Iraq and Obama’s avowed intention to leave Iraq as soon as he can.

There is more logic in above reports. Recent Israeli incursion in Gaza, largest since 1967, was a preparatory exercise and practice ground to launch massive attack on Iran. Israel killed over 800 people and lost only 5, 3 of whom from its own friendly fire, which clearly shows the disproportionate use of force. The attack was also intended to incite Iran into action which may justify the war later on. Iran so far has avoided such instigations.

If the war does erupt, there will be wholesale chaos every where.

1.      Oil prices will suddenly spurt to extremely high level.

2.      Oil Futures for February will be expiring on or about 19 January, so the rise in oil prices will be a distinct possibility.

3.      Gold and Silver may rise, if US$ falls as result. Of course, the forces are at play to prop up the dollar and spread its acceptance as “haven” in the time of war.

4.      Government of India who wanted to reduce oil prices further, may be forced to wait  on such announcement or may make sudden U turn on its proposed policy.

5.      Oil; Producers like ONGC may rise

6.      Refiners may fall due to contraction of their margin again. Reliance Industry may have to prolong the closure of Petrol Pump stations much longer as result.

7.      Government of India may be forced to suspend any announcement on lifting of price control on the petrol.

8.      Fear of inflation amid deflation and recession will rise. Interest rates may also perk up on Libor front

9.      Rupee may weaken by 2% to 3% due to rise in oil bill and lower export revenue due to Satyam saga affecting Software industry. It will be a time to send remittances to India during sudden weakness.

Strategy

1.      To stay away from Air Line stocks for the time being.

2.      to stay away from Auto Stocks of high value. Take this opportunity to build position in Ashok Leyland

3.      Although refiners may suffer, the stocks are so beaten up that this is perhaps last time you may be seeing the lower level. These stocks, especially State Owned Enterprise like HPCL, BPCL and IOC are showing signs of good strength. War related weakness provide good buy opportunity.

4.      To build up the position in Cairns energy slowly. The company may come into production at good time – rising oil prices again. Watch this counter to buy in correction. The company may come into production in June 2009

5.      Gas stocks may rise again. To build up position in Petronet and Gail

6.      Metal stocks may gain due to rise in inflation. Commodities may rise a bit.

7.      Australian currency may also gain due to rise in metal stocks and commodity prices.

8.      Interest rates may not rise due to rise in inflation. Government is in dilemma – to go here or there. That is if they raise interest rates, the recession will deepen, and if they do not do anything, the inflation will raise its head near election.

9.      Major blue chips and finance stocks may go south or lower.

10.  Cash rich companies like HLiver, ITC may do better.

11.  There may be good correction in mid caps after strong rally in last 1 month or s.

12.  Avoid banks and financial stocks. We may also see some bad news coming from this sector in USA during reporting season for Dec 08 quarter.

Actions    

1.      Reduce the position by 60% in non core stocks as above

2.      If war does not take place before Bush leaves White House, you may re-enter

3.      Gas stocks are the best choice in the world. In India, Petronet, GSPL and Gail are the best

4.      Please note that the situation may go either way. The market risk has increased. So do not attempt to get rich in 3 days.

Anil Selarka – Hong Kong

Blog: http://anilselarka.com

Ref: NASA – 0901-006 of 09.01.14

Screaming Yellow News: Ripped From The Headlines
J. E. Kitchell

June 13, 2009

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory over former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi in the Presidential elections in Iran. He beat the reformist Mousavi through his immense charisma, his scintillating oratory and the secret police.

Pre-election polling suggested that Mousavi would likely beat Ahmadinejad, but the ballots told a different story. Al Gore called Mousavi and coached him on his next moves. First, he said, file a lawsuit to recount the ballots, and then challenge the ruling, then drop out of politics, make up a ridiculous junk science theory, sell it to the ruling class and become wealthy. 

Ahmadinejad can now claim a mandate from the people to continue his agenda to restore Iran’s respect from the international community. Next on the list: ask the Mullahs to declare fatwa on late-night television comedians.

David Letterman has issued a non-apology for a joke he told about Sarah Palin and her fourteen-year-old daughter having sex with Alex Rodriguez. The conservative community is outraged that Letterman would make such a tasteless reference on television and condemnation is coming from congressmen, talk show hosts, clergymen and women’s rights advocates. Letterman deserves every bit of it. I mean, come on! Like A-Rod would leave the field in the middle of a game. 

CBS executives have gone into overtime dealing with the bad publicity. But the signs are positive. Next time they are in the ratings cellar, the plan is they will have Letterman make another questionable joke.

President Obama pushed Congress to fast track his proposal to create a national healthcare program. Legislators got to work immediately to figure out how to balance the nearly $1 trillion-dollar combination of tax hikes and benefit trims to make the proposal work. Obama did his part to help them by issuing an Executive Order putting in a 24-hour Starbucks kiosk on the House floor.

Pharmaceutical representatives, medical provider lobbyists and insurance companies descended upon the House to argue for some advantage to their industries. The AMA has issued guidelines for dealing with elected officials: they recommend take two Congressmen and call me in the morning. 

President Obama will sign a landmark bill handing the FDA authority over the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. The bill promises to add fees, increase compliance paperwork and strictly regulate tobacco companies in order to protect Americans from the deadly effects of smoking but stops short of banning sales of the product. In reality, it is part of the stimulus plan. How many jobs will open up for inspectors, paper shufflers, accountants and legal analysts to figure out how to get around the rules. 

One of the measures in the bill will require larger warnings on cigarette packs. Phillip Morris beat the FDA to the punch. Next year, they will begin marketing These Things Will Kill You 100’s.

One section in the bill will require a health warning be shown before any Warner Brothers movie made in the nineteen-forties and fifties.

Former President George H.W. Bush celebrated his 85th birthday by skydiving. Originally, he and former Presidnet Bill Clinton were scheduled for a tandem jump, but Clinton didn’t make it. He was in the back of the plane joining the Mile High Club.

More at http://screamingyellownews.blogspot.com

President Bush appears to have abandoned any hope of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

His closest confidante – the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – suggested as much when she made this blunt observation after her visit to the Middle East this past week:

“I spent a lot of time on security issues, not on-the-ground today security issues, but how would you envision the security of two states living side by side, because they’re going to have to come up with a security concept between them. It’s one of the problems that we’re dealing with, frankly, in the Israeli population. And I heard it not just from the Israeli officials but from a broad range of Israelis. They had the withdrawal from Lebanon and it brought instability in Lebanon. They had the withdrawal from the Gaza, and look what happened in Gaza.

If, in fact, they’re going to be asked to withdraw from the West Bank at some point, what does that mean for the security of Israel? That’s a fair question. It really is. And so one of the things that I take back is that we are going to need to spend a lot of time thinking about how this state, if we are fortunate enough to be able to bring it into being, how it is going to relate to the security of its neighbor and vice versa.”

This marks the first time that the Secretary of State has so forcefully come to grips with the security guarantees that Israel needs to receive before the President’s two state vision can ever get off the ground.

It would be inconceivable that she would make these momentous comments without first having discussed them with the President.

Ms. Rice would be well aware that when President Bush first spoke of his two state vision on 24 June 2002, he laid down two preconditions necessary for its achievement:

1.The Palestinian people must elect new leaders not compromised by terror

2.These new leaders must build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

These conditions remain substantially unfulfilled more than 5 years later – and present indications are they are going to be a long time coming – if ever at all.

It was his recognition of this reality that inspired President Bush to call his planned international meeting in Annapolis next month – which he designed essentially to try and advance the fulfilment of these fundamental preconditions. His concern was well founded.

Both persons currently claiming to lead the Palestinian Arabs – Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas – are compromised by terror.

Haniyeh heads Hamas – a movement that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas – one of Yasser Arafat’s closest advisors – is now the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation which is no less vehement than Hamas in its desire to wipe Israel off the map. They only differ in the strategy they wish to employ to achieve their common aim.

A practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty are mere mirages on an invisible horizon.

The Arabs have totally rejected President Bush’s agenda insisting that their attendance at Annapolis be conditioned on substantive agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority being reached before the meeting even begins concerning the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders

Significantly Ms Rice has rebuffed the Arabs attempted hijack of the President’s agenda stating:

“So I know we get very focused on, you know, what will be said about borders, what will be said about Jerusalem, what will be said about the refugees. In fact, a lot has been said over a long period of time about those issues and more will have to be said. But I’m also quite convinced that one of the really crucial pieces that has to be filled in are these concepts of how the states will relate to each other in practical terms concerning security and in practical terms concerning economic issues”

Perhaps the penny is slowly dropping and the realisation is dawning that the Arabs are totally disinterested in Israel’s security concerns and in meeting the very conditions laid down by President Bush as essential if his two state vision is going to be achieved.

The abandonment of the President’s vision does not necessarily mean that the conflict in the West Bank need continue unabated until a democratic nirvana is achieved there under a leader not compromised by terror.

The Arabs have already publicly signalled they would be prepared to consider Israel swapping some of its vacant land in return for keeping those parts of the West Bank populated by 450000 Jews.

Satisfying Israel’s security needs in the context of a territorial resolution that does not involve all of the West Bank remaining under Arab control can be achieved very quickly if Israel and Jordan divide the West Bank between them.

Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel already contains the following guarantees concerning Israel’s security that have stood the test of time for the last 12 years and remained rock solid through several crises:

“1. They recognise and will respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

2. They recognise and will respect each other’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries;

3. They will develop good neighbourly relations of co-operation between them to ensure lasting security, will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means;”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel within the framework of this existing peace treaty offer the hope of a better life and prosperity for the Arab residents of the West Bank, will free them from Israeli occupation and achieve a measure of peace stability and security in the region not enjoyed for 60 years.

Such negotiations will not resolve the issue of refugees. No plan can ever hope to do so whilst the Arabs insist on millions of refugees and their descendants becoming citizens of Israel.

Stay with the vision or accept the reality? President Bush at last appears to be succumbing to the reality.

Jordan’s King Abdullah and Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert certainly had a lot to talk about when Mr Olmert made a surprise visit to Amman yesterday for a two hour working lunch with the King.

High on their agenda would have been the disastrous performance of PLO Chairman and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas this past week after he had left the White House “bitterly disappointed” and empty handed following his meeting with President George Bush.

Statements made after that visit by Abbas and his advisors have made it glaringly obvious that the idea of a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel is rapidly disappearing down the kitchen sink.

This was reflected in the following statement made by Abbas to Reuters on April 26:

“We have discussed all the final issues with the Americans in detail. I told them we do not want them to present their own ideas for a solution because it will be difficult for us to reject them — and it would be even more difficult to accept them,” .

The Americans’ ideas for a solution are certainly not a secret. Any suggestion by Abbas that they are is ingenuous to say the least.

President Bush laid out those ideas on 14 April 2004 making it quite clear that the proposed new Arab state could not realistically be expected to be established in all of the West Bank and Gaza.

Yet on April 27 Reuters further reported “a senior aide” to Abbas remarking – as though this was something new and entirely unexpected:

“ …Israel wants to annex settlement blocs, and so in short, what we are being offered is much less than the 1967 borders”

In the same report Abbas himself was quoted as saying:

“I am concerned …we could be offered less land. I asked Mr Bush during our talks to publicly reiterate his position for the creation of a state on lands occupied in 1967,”

Abbas needs to be jolted back to reality. Apart from the fact that this statement completely contradicts what he said just the day before, the idea that the new State should be established on 100% of the West Bank and Gaza has been Mr Abbas’ demand and that of his predecessor Yasser Arafat for the last 40 years – never President Bush‘s position.

The President is savvy enough to realise that you can’t expect 450000 Jews to abandon their homes and livelihoods after living there for more than 40 years and that there has to be some division of the West Bank with Israel.

In persisting with his intransigent demand to the contrary Abbas is ensuring that this “all or nothing“ approach on borders is a recipe for total failure of President Bush‘s Road Map.

That Abbas intends to persist with this nonsensical position was confirmed just two days later when his top negotiator Ahmed Qureia angrily rejected a proposed map presented to him by Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni showing the areas of the West Bank that Israel proposed annexing.

In doing so Qureia said according to a report in Israelinsider:

“On principle, we know what our rights are and will fight for them using all means and ways. We reject any demand, any position, or any Israeli statement regarding territory outside the 1967 borders.”

Apart from the fact that there are no 1967 borders – only armistice lines – all of these statements fly in the face of the outcome that President Bush has laid down as being able to be achieved if his Road Map is to succeed – and which have been quite clear and unambiguous to Abbas since 2004.

Abbas is now clearly swimming against the tide – pressuring President Bush to change his position to save Abbas’s hide in an effort to suppress the rise of Hamas as it steadily erodes Abbas’s authority and threatens a takeover in the West Bank.

Abbas knows that to back down on the so- called “moderate” Palestinian position – a state in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza – could sound his death knell. Hamas would have great delight in branding him a traitor, ignore any such deal and call for his head as the price for selling the Palestinians out.

Loss of face is usually not tolerated or forgiven in the Arab world. Assassination is often the punishment meted out to those who do not toe the line.

Fortunately however there have been a handful of Arabs with the courage and wisdom of the late Anwar Sadat, the late King Hussein and now his son the present King Abdullah to recognise the reality of Israel and its right to exist, to stop arguing over postage sized pieces of land and to get on with life.

Abbas looks as though he does not fit into the mould of those brave leaders.

Judged by the above statements Abbas has made it clear that he has decided to tough it out knowing full well his demands will not be accepted – giving him the opportunity to then leave the negotiations with his head supposedly still held high saying he tried the peaceful route but Israel refused to play ball.

He hopes then to triumphantly return into the welcoming arms of Hamas and join with them in taking the violent route to pursue the common objective which both the PLO and Hamas have always shared – the destruction of Israel. He may find out that in doing so he has bitten off more than he can chew.

Having to digest Abbas’s unpalatable conduct this past week and its possible impact on the region would certainly have not whetted the appetites of the King and Mr Olmert for the lunch they were served. They must surely realise that crunch time is now rapidly approaching for both of them.

They need to draw up a plan for joint action to protect the national interests of both Jordan and Israel to ensure that the West Bank does not become a bloodbath that could spill over into either or both countries if Abbas does not show real intestinal fortitude and lower his demands.

Their message to Abbas should be clear and uncompromising – swallow your pride, eat a bit of humble pie and share some of it with Israel – or end up getting your just desserts.

PLO Chairman and President of the Palestinian Authority – Mahmoud Abbas – was clearly not happy with the remarks made by President Bush on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of Israel‘s reconstitution as an independent Jewish state within its biblical homeland 2000 years after it had last flourished there.

In what the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram’s Publisher Mursi Attallah described as “a Torah (Old Testament) inspired speech”, President Bush told the Knesset:

“We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

President Bush’s words affirming such ancient and historical Jewish rights certainly did not break any new ground that would justify Abbas’s outrage as he told a news conference in Sharm El Sheikh:

“What President Bush said at the Knesset made us angry and did not satisfy us. We told him what we need is a balanced position,”

Regrettably a more balanced position is what Abbas needs at this time when it comes to the Jewish people – something he has lacked and continues to lack.

Similar moving and eloquent words to those spoken by President Bush had been used by the Peel Commission in 1937 when attempting to resolve the then escalating conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Commission’s words were equally as compelling as President Bush‘s:

“ While the Jews had thus been dispersed over the world, they had never forgotten Palestine. If Christians have become familiar through the Bible with the physiognomy of the country and its place names and events that happened more than two years ago , the link which binds Jews to Palestine and its past history is to them far closer and more intimate. Judaism and its rituals are rooted in those memories. Among countless illustrations it is enough to cite the fact that Jews, wherever they may be, still pray for rain at the season it is needed in Palestine. And the same devotion to the Land of Israel, Eretz Israel, the same sense of exile from it, permeates Jewish secular thought. Some of the finest Hebrew poetry written in the Diaspora has been inspired, like the Psalms of Captivity , by the longing to return to Zion.” (pp 8-9).

Arab leaders then refused to accept the truth inherent in those words – just as Abbas today refuses to accept the words spoken by President Bush in the Knesset.

President Bush’s Road Map is but the latest in a long line of well intended and serious attempts by the international community to resolve the conflict in Palestine between Jews and Arabs since the League of Nations in 1922 affirmed “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”.

This recognition affording the Jewish people the right of self determination in Palestine did not take place in isolation but as part of a series of international obligations that granted the Arabs the right to self determination in what today is called Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan – an area 99.99% larger than the size of former Palestine.

President Bush had made it clear to Abbas four years ago that the successful outcome to his Roadmap involved Abbas accepting Israel as the Jewish State existing alongside a 23rd Arab state that would be created for the Arab residents of former Palestine under the President‘s plan.

Yet the idea of a Jewish State has long been anathema for Abbas since his days in exile in Tunis with Yasser Arafat more than 25 years ago. He has been unable to rid this monkey off his back as he continues to lead the Palestine Liberation Organisation whose Charter rejects the very words uttered by President Bush in the Knesset last week and by the Peel Commission six decades ago.

The most Abbas has been able to bring himself to grudgingly acknowledge was contained in the following statement made by him last December:

“From a historical perspective, there are two states: Israel and Palestine. In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else,”

That is not the historical perspective President Bush expressed in the Knesset last week. Whilst Abbas refuses to recognise the President’s perspective – and his vision – then Abbas’s ability and competence to negotiate any form of settlement with Israel will be rendered totally impotent.

There were Arab leaders such as Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan who were prepared to make the quantum leap and recognise Israel as the Jewish State – a jump that Abbas is still obviously not prepared to take judging by his reaction to President Bush’s speech in the Knesset.

Abbas’s outburst at President Bush’s remarks indicates that he is just one more Arab leader in a long line of failed leaders who refused to accept the idea of Jews having their own state and as a result ensured continued suffering and humiliation for those whose national interest he was supposed to advance.

Abbas – like those failed leaders who preceded him – has surely lost the plot and needs to get off centre stage.

Subdivision of the West Bank between Jewish and Arab claimants has always been an essential ingredient of President Bush’s 2002 vision to create a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

Indeed such a subdivision had been pursued by President Clinton in 2000 before negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) broke down after Yasser Arafat had demanded all of the West Bank and ended up getting nothing at all as a result.

President Bush made his position on this issue abundantly clear on 14 April 2004 when he declared in a letter to Israel’s then Prime Minister – Ariel Sharon:

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Fifteen years of negotiations with the PLO – begun with the much heralded but totally ineffectual Oslo Accords in 1993 – have proved a complete waste of time in achieving the determination of sovereignty in the West Bank – an area that has had no recognised sovereign authority since 1948 when Great Britain terminated the mandate conferred on it by the League of Nations in 1922.

President Bush’s Roadmap – backed by the United Nations, Russia and the European Union – has failed to make the slightest impression on securing PLO agreement to any part of the West Bank remaining in Jewish hands.

The PLO’s continuing intransigence has forfeited its right to continue to negotiate the future of the West Bank on behalf of the Arabs. Its conditions for statehood are incapable of fulfilment.

Jordan was the last sovereign Arab State to occupy the West Bank, which it did from 1948 to 1967 until it was lost to Israel in the Six Day War in 1967.

Jordan ceded all claims to the West Bank in 1988 in favour of the PLO in the face of extreme pressure by the Arab League to do so. That decision has proved disastrous for the Arab residents of the West Bank and now requires to be urgently reviewed by the Arab League and reversed.

Jordan needs to be brought back as the appropriate partner to negotiate a subdivision of the West Bank with Israel so as to enable its Arab residents to at least be freed of Israeli military control and restrictions on their freedom of movement and assembly.

Randa Habib of Agence France Presse in an article dated June 10 and posted on http://www.canada.com titled “Jordan fears new pressure to merge with West Bank” reports of Jordanian concerns at such a possibility quoting “a senior Jordanian official” as stating:

“The only acceptable scenario for us is the merger of Jordan and all of the West Bank”

In the same breath the same official however is quoted as saying:

“ Jordan does not want to be linked to 30 or 50 per cent of a territory which it owned from 1950 – 1967. To get half or less of the West Bank with all the Palestinian population would be suicide.”

Jordan need have no fears on this score. Israel was prepared to cede its claim to 93% of the West Bank in 2000 and reportedly to a slightly lesser area in the failed negotiations on President Bush’s Road Map. The radicalisation of the Arab population of the West Bank might well necessitate a staged withdrawal by Israel from the areas it agrees to cede to Jordan in direct negotiations.

Jordan represents the only realistic option for removing Israel’s grip on the West Bank’s Arab population. Failure to grasp the opportunity now presented will be a tragedy and end any prospects of a peaceful settlement of the Jewish-Arab conflict in the foreseeable future.

Jordan cannot go it alone. It will need the backing of the Arab League as well as American and hopefully international support – politically, militarily and financially – to secure Jordan against any attempt to overthrow its monarchy and governing structure by Arab terrorist and radical groups who oppose any concessions or any territory in the West Bank being kept by Israel or the recognition of a Jewish State anywhere in the Middle East.

Additionally the implementation of any agreed subdivision will entail a joint co-operative effort between Israel and Jordan to render the West Bank an “arms free” area where the only weapons there are under the control of the Jordanian and Israeli military and police forces.

No doubt demilitarization of the West Bank – partially or totally – would be on the negotiating agenda.

The existence of a peace treaty signed between Israel and Jordan in 1994 puts Israel and Jordan in a position of equal negotiating strength as sovereign States already living side by side in peace – a critical factor never existing in any previous negotiations over the last 70 years.

Substantive issues such as water, refugees and Jerusalem are already covered under the peace treaty and afford ready made, agreed solutions to what has been considered impossible to achieve under previous negotiations.

Redrawing the boundary between these two sovereign states should be a relatively simple task that can be accomplished in a matter of weeks – well before President Bush leaves the Oval Office in January 2009.

Another Arab State in any part of the West Bank would require the joint consent of Jordan and Israel. Maybe when the current environment turns from confrontational to peaceful and cooperative, the opportunity might then be afforded to complete what President Bush’s vision so earnestly desired and what proposals over the last 70 years have been unable to achieve.

That is for the future. The present demands swift and decisive intervention by Jordan.

For better or for worse Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) are the parties that will – for the next 12 months – be negotiating the resolution of sovereignty in the West Bank with a view to ultimately creating a new independent Arab State between Israel and Jordan. These identical parties have been negotiating on the same issue for the last 14 years without the slightest sign of success.

One major reason has been the inability of the PLO to seriously change its mindset and specifically revoke or amend the offending provisions of the PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of Israel and that prevent the creation of this new State as envisioned by Oslo, former President Bill Clinton, President George Bush and his Quartet partners – Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

On 9 September 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat had made that written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin as the quid pro quo for the Oslo negotiating process to commence between Israel and the PLO and for the historic handshake between them on the White House lawns just four days later.

A long and tortuous process by Israel and America then followed to ensure Arafat’s total compliance with that commitment. On 14 December 1998 President Clinton stated:

“I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there.”

Yet despite this declaration not one article of the Covenant has been revised or revoked to this very day nor has that message touched the Palestinian Arabs or reached their hearts.

The Chairman of the Palestine National Council charged with making those changes – Salim Za’anoun – stated on 3 February 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida as translated by MEMRI]

A look at just three of the thirty three Articles in the PLO Covenant shows why it is essential that every Article be reviewed and altered if any meaningful negotiations can possibly be undertaken post Annapolis.

Article 1

“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people: it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

This article ignores any Jewish rights in Palestine. Why not amend it to read as follows:

“ Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people and of the Jewish people,and the Arab Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

Article 2:

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

This article absolutely prohibits President Bush’s two state solution and could be changed as follows:

“Palestine comprises the land contained within the boundaries that existed during the British Mandate from 1920-1948 and has now ceased to comprise an indivisible territorial unit. For purposes of clarification Palestine includes the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which comprised part of the British Mandate until 1946.”

Article 15:

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

This article ignores the binding effect of international law and is racist, discriminatory and offensive in the extreme. It needs to be redrawn to perhaps read as follows:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed legal and binding. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are compatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism is both a divine religion and an independent nationality. Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they can like Palestinian Arabs be citizens of the states to which they otherwise belong”

How can successful negotiations be concluded whilst this current unclear and confusing mindset confronts the PLO and Israeli negotiators? How have these provisions been specifically rejected by the PLO ?

The PLO needs to immediately face these demons and excise them unequivocally and indisputably from its thinking if the ongoing negotiations are to have any prospect of success.

This is not a question of semantic pettiness or nit picking. It goes to the very bona fides of Israel’s negotiating partner and the sincerity and seriousness with which it intends to conduct these negotiations.

Perhaps the first indication of this troubling mindset – and the effect it can have on the negotiations – was the following remarkable statement recently made by the PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat :

“One of the more pressing problems is the Zionist regime’s insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state… Israel could call itself whatever it wanted, but the PA would never acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity.” [ Jerusalem Post, 14 November 2007]

Sweeping this – and similar recent statements by leading Arab spokesmen – under the carpet will only guarantee the failure of future negotiations. They will be difficult and complex enough – without such institutionalised mind blocks to reconciliation and recognition that had supposedly been dead and buried with President Clinton‘s declaration on 14 December 1998.

The PLO needs to liberate itself first before it can hope to liberate any land. Failure to do so over the last 14 years has seen its continuing decline in influence. It is now time to get serious and stop playing games.