Trump Squeezes UNRWA, Checkmates PLO and Incentivises Jordan.

President Trump has created a veritable diplomatic tsunami affecting the political fortunes of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Hamas and Jordan – with his decision to cease all future donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) – currently US$360million per annum and comprising about 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget.

The numbers of UNRWA-registered Palestinian Arab refugees in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza have been increasing in leaps and bounds annually because they include all the descendants of those Palestinian Arabs caught up in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israel wars.

Currently:

  • 2,175,000 live in Jordan – 370,000 of whom reside in 10 camps.
  • 810,000 live in the West Bank – 200,000 of whom reside in 19 camps.
  • 1,300,000 live in Gaza – 580,000 of whom reside in 8 camps.

UNRWA only provides services to the camps.

UNRWA does not administer or police the camps, as this is the responsibility of the host authorities.

Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza comprise 83 per cent of the territory of former Palestine.

For UNRWA to count as “refugees” people who are now living in Arab-controlled parts of the same country where their forebears once resided – is really an insult to one’s intelligence.

For UNRWA to tolerate a system of apartheid and segregation that allows those “refugees” to be divided into camp dwellers and non-camp dwellers makes a mockery of the humanitarian principles espoused by the United Nations and the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Struggling under an accumulated deficit of US$271 million before Trump’s hammer blow – UNRWA had already shut down or slated for closure many programs and laid off large numbers of employees – mainly Palestinian Arabs.

The further cuts UNRWA will now be forced to make following America’s defunding will be critical to the PLO, Hamas and Jordan – as “refugees” coming under their respective jurisdictions affected by substantial cuts to their well-established entitlements see others not similarly subjected.

UNRWA funding decisions cannot possibly please all these “refugees” – and those receiving UNRWA aid in Lebanon and Syria.

The PLO, Hamas and Jordan will be lobbying furiously for UNRWA funding cuts to not be made to “refugees” living under their governance. Serious political consequences could ensue if they fail.
Jordan – enjoying a long-standing peace treaty with Israel – currently houses 50 percent of the total of UNRWA registered Palestinian Arab “refugees” in the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.

Jordan – 70 per cent of whose population comprises Palestinian Arabs or their descendants formerly living in Palestine west of the Jordan River – is eminently qualified to enter into direct negotiations with Israel to recover territory lost by it in the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Successful negotiations would enable Jordan to:

  • close the 29 refugee camps in Jordan and the West Bank currently housing 570,000 “refugees.”
  • fully rehabilitate and integrate all 2,985,000 “refugees” within the general Arab populations residing in the West Bank and Jordan.
  • extend Jordanian citizenship to all West Bank Arab residents.

Trump’s promise of direct American bilateral assistance to Jordan would facilitate this outcome.
In one fell swoop – Trump has:

  • Squeezed UNRWA into making refugee-relief choices that could affect the political futures of the PLO, Hamas and Jordan.
  • Checkmated the PLO’s claim to continue to be the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs because it lacks absolute authority to influence how UNRWA reduces current funding to the Palestinian Arab “refugees” living in Gaza and Jordan.
  • Incentivised Jordan to fill the diplomatic void left by the PLO by agreeing to begin negotiations with Israel on Trump’s peace plan without any preconditions.

Bucking – not backing – Trump is a sure-fire recipe for committing political suicide.

============

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 is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International.

Check Also

Jordan jumps on Trump bandwagon leaving PLO way behind.

Any lingering thought that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) would have any role to play …

17 comments

  1. I rather fear this is a sure-fire recipe for Israel committing national suicide.

  2. You can – and, Israel has already come very close to doing it via Oslo – when you fail to learn the lessons of the past. Land for Peace – especially for a tiny country with no strategic depth – amounts to national suicide for Israel as proved by the Oslo Discords and their aftermath.

    To repeat this mistake would be criminally negligent

    Besides, the current existential threat to Israel – and much of the Sunni Arab world including Jordan – lies to the north in Battleship Irano – Syria. This talk of a “Palestinian” Arab – Israeli peace deal is a dangerous distraction. A bit like focusing on applying a band aid to a cut finger whilst stood against a wall awaiting execution.

    • You only commit national suicide if you make the wrong decisions in any negotiations.
      Israel made some very bad decisions in the Oslo negotiations but has managed to avoid the doomsday scenario you are predicting will occur if Israel sits down at a negotiating table with Jordanian negotiators. Leave the decisions to the negotiators and their respective Governments.

      I would imagine that any resolution of the conflict between Jews and Arabs relating to the allocation of sovereignty in the last 5% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine would have to be signed off by the Arab League.

      This would leave Iran out in the cold.

      Maybe these negotiations may fail – but in my view they must be attempted.

      Jordan has been the key to resolving this conflict which remains unabated after 100 years when the groundwork was laid by the League of Nations to give the Arabs 78% of Palestine and the Jews 22% or even less.

      That is the bottom line that needs resolving between the two state-successors to the Mandate for Palestine – Israel and Jordan.

      • You are entitled to your opinion and, if you are so bereft of ideas to back up that opinion I guess it might follow that you’d fall back on allegations that suggest I said something I did not say.

        Speaking of opinions, however, you are the only person I am aware of that seems to hold the view that these rumoured but improbable negotiations might send the Iranians and their proxies scurrying all the way back to Tehran.

        On the other hand, most commentators, analysts and intelligence insiders I am aware of are asking just what the USA administration plans to do – if anything – to facilitate Iran’s withdrawal from Israel’s backyard.

        Rumour has it, Mr Trump plans to leave Israel to do the job.

        • I am not bereft of any ideas to back up my opinion – but I am not the one who will be negotiating the new border between Israel and Jordan – and neither are you.

          Not sure why you try to twist my opinion that successful negotiations between Jordan and Israel would probably have to be signed off by Arab League. The negotiations are supposed to end the Arab-Jewish conflict – not perpetuate it.

          Why are you so opposed to the idea of Israel and Jordan negotiating a new international boundary between their two respective States?

          • To answer your question, the main reason there is no need whatsoever to renegotiate the international boundary between Israel and Jordan is because the latter gave up its illegal and internationally unrecognised claim to any sovereignty west of the Jordan River as part of the historic and legally binding 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.

  3. In response to John McDonagh 24/09/2018 at 11.27 am:

    I beg to differ

    Article 3(2) of the peace treaty provides:
    “The boundary , as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.”

    • No, Israel is the only sovereign state to have a legitimate claim on Samaria and Judea. Jordan illegally occupied the area for 19 years only and its annexation following its invasion was recognised by Pakistan and Perfidious Albion only.
      Jordan was originally known as Transjordan for good reason, David and has never had a legal claim to HaEretz Yisrael, and the clause you refer to does not signify any spurious Jordanian territorial claim whatsoever.

      • I again beg to differ
        Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine exercising sovereignty at present in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate. Sovereignty only remains unresolved in Judea and Samaria (4% of the Mandate territory) and Gaza (1% of the Mandate Territory).
        Jordan is perfectly entitled to maintain a claim as a successor state to the Mandate in these two areas – as is Israel. That right is preserved in article 3 (2) of the Jordan Israel Peace Treaty as I have previously explained.
        The question that needs to be asked of King Abdullah is:
        “Does Jordan claim the right to sovereignty in any part of Judea and Samaria?”
        That is the question that Abdullah has so far refused to answer – and one that Trump, Bolton, Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman should be continually asking him until he does anwer “Yes” or “No”.
        This isn’t rocket science – just pure common sense.

        • Well, I beg to differ, and so does history.

          Jordan has never had any legal rights to territory west of the Jordan River. It is an historical fact that no illegal annexation of territory gained through genocidal war has ever been acceptable to the UN or to any International body of Law as a means of acquiring sovereignty or any claim to sovereignty.

          Furthermore, as already stated, it is a historical fact that Jordan gave up ALL its spuriously illegal claims to the territory west of the Jordan River as part of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.

          Therefore, it is a historical fact that Israel is the only modern sovereign state to have any claim whatsoever on territory west of the Jordan River, namely Samaria and Judea.

          • You make the following claim for a second time:
            “it is a historical fact that Jordan gave up ALL its spuriously illegal claims to the territory west of the Jordan River as part of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty.”

            I have previously pointed out the incorrectness of this assertion by referring you to Article 3(2) of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty – which you continue to ignore.

            Why do you think that article was specifically inserted in the Peace Treaty and what do you interpret it to mean?

  4. I have already answered your point as I think you well know.

    The article you refer to does not signify Jordan but rather a possible future “Palestinian” entity. Jordan did forgo ALL claims to Samaria and Judea and the border between Israel and Jordan was set at the River Jordan. This formed the basis of the agreement between the two nations.

    It is patently absurd to suggest a nation would sign a Peace Treaty with another nation that still allowed that nation to lay claim to its territory. Pure Pallywood, David.

    Time for you to answer my points and questions and to stop ignoring them, especially:
    1) the point of the illegality of Jordan’s invasions of Israel in 1948 and 1967, and
    2) its illegal and internationally unrecognised annexation of Samaria and Judea in 1948 which, clearly undermines any spurious claim you might dream up on Jordan’s behalf today.

    • Article 3(2) does not mention “a possible future “Palestinian”entity.”

      Your interpretation gives legitimacy to those who want to see a second Arab state created in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan. I do not agree with your interpretation of Article 3(2).

      Your view that there should be no negotiations between Jordan and Israel only guarantees the continuance of the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict. My view that there should be negotiations between Israel and Jordan offers some hope that – if successfully concluded – that long-running conflict might finally be ended.

      I think this a fair summation of our positions.

      Do you agree?

      Just a “Yes” or “No” will suffice.

      • Don’t be so disingenuous, David. The context does indeed suggest a possible future “Palestinian” entity because the Oslo Accords were being negotiated at the time between Israel and the PLO.

        Furthermore, at that time Jordan publicly relinquished all claims to territory west of the River Jordan and publicly acclaimed the PLO as the sole representatives of the “Palestinian” people living in the disputed territories west of the River Jordan.

        The main agenda of the treaty was to clear the path so that Israel and the PLO could negotiate without third party (Jordanian) interference.

        • I do not agree with your interpretation of article 3(2).

          • Well, David I do not agree with your interpretation of said article 3(2) either.

            However, as stated by myself to you elsewhere there is nothing for Israel and Jordan to discuss because Jordan’s aggression against Israel in 1948 was a crime under international law.

            Therefore, Jordan’s annexation of Samaria and Judea was illegal and former, illegal occupation of territory by Jordan does not entitle Jordan to lay claim on said territory now, some 24 years after the border between Israel and Jordan was agreed under their peace deal.

            If I had PM Netanyahu’s ear I would urge him to resist this with all his might because what was an illegal and criminal undertaking by Jordan cannot now be rendered legal by anybody’s wishful thinking.

            Not even yours, David.

Love to hear your opinion, however given name & surname are required. Email addresses are not published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.