First, Trump said:
The United States is committed to a future of peace and stability in the region, including peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That aim is advanced, not harmed, by acknowledging the obvious facts.
There was no “two-state solution” mentioned, no “state of Palestine” was included. The Arabs of Palestine are simply “Palestinians.” They are a group of people. Don’t think that is minor. The United Nations has termed Jews simply as “Jewish Palestinians” in an attempt to erase our national identity.
Trump’s second remark was:
There is Israel, proudly celebrating its 70th anniversary as a thriving democracy in the Holy Land.
Keeping that in mind, let us return to Jordan’s King Abdullah who said:
Every UN resolution since the beginning of this crisis — every resolution, whether from the General Assembly or the Security Council — recognizes the equal rights of the Palestinian people to a future of peace, dignity, and hope. This is the heart of the two-state settlement, the only path to a comprehensive, lasting peace.
At the outset, he befuddles the legal aspect in that there is quite a difference between a decision by the General Assembly and one by the Security Council. For example, the famous partition plan of 1947 was apparently but a “proposal” that made a “recommendation.” It was not binding. And once rejected by the Arabs (the Zionists accepted it), it should have been called a dead letter 70 years ago. In fact, as I documented, the United States did think the plan was unworkable and should be jettisoned in the summer of 1948.
Abdullah was adamant: “Only a two-state solution … can meet the needs of both sides.”
Only? Is not Jordan part of historic Palestine?
He then defined the two states as “a viable, independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a secure Israel, fully part of its own region, recognized by Arab and Muslim states around the world.”
By “on the 1967 borders,” does he mean Israel must fully withdraw from all territories it now administers as a result of Arab aggression, foremost that of Jordan in 1967, as well as the PLO terror campaign that began in January 1965?
And what does “fully part of its own region” mean? Israel? Palestine? Does Israel have a “region”?
Abdullah then blamed Israel for an “endless cycle of violence” when he rhetorically asked: “How long must Jerusalem, a holy city to more than half the world’s people, face dangers to its multi-faith heritage and identity? How can we accept a status quo of continuing crisis and bigotry?”
If he is referring to the discriminatory and unfair “status quo” that denies Jews rights to and within the Temple Mount, I would agree. But he is not. And with Jordan and other Arab states promoting resolutions by UNESCO denying Jewish history in Jerusalem, then he is accusing himself, quite properly I might add, of being a danger to multi-faith heritage and identity.
Abdullah is quite clear further on in his speech in excluding Jews from Jerusalem’s “Old City”:
Above all, we need to safeguard the heritage and peace of Jerusalem, a holy city to billions of people around the world. The Hashemite Custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem is a duty that Jordan is proud to carry, and we will counter any attempts to change the holy city’s historic Arab Christian and Muslim identity.
No Jewish identity and no mention, at least, of Israel becoming, as it were, a “custodian” of Jewish holy sites in the city.
Jordan’s king has presented, as in the past, a false description of history and of current political affairs. And on that basis, he suggests “solutions” that can only weaken Israel’s security, and its rightful legal and historical claims, in addition to its future needs.
This is a prime example of the invidiousness of the anti-Zionism that continues to lie at the root of anti-Israel maneuvers and diplomatic efforts in international forums. They must be confronted, exposed, and countered.
Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israeli journalist and author.
