Trump needs to revise his vision for Judea and Samaria

[Published 1 June 2020]

President Trump’s deal of the century envisioning the creation of a second Arab state in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan – is in tatters following its absolute rejection by the PLO – requiring its urgent revision by the President.

Trump has vainly struggled to keep the statehood possibility alive despite PLO President Mahmoud Abbas having consigned it to the dustbin of history on the day of its publication - 28 January 2020 - but the PLO has refused to play ball.

Being a beggar does not fit Trump’s persona. He is allowing Israel to apply sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria in July — with allocation of the remaining 70% requiring another Arab interlocutor to negotiate with Israel.

Trump’s vision was always a mirage — offering the PLO less than 100% of Judea and Samaria it had been demanding since 1967 - supported by the international community since the 1980 Venice Declaration.

Trump had predicated his vision without even defining who comprised the “Palestinians”.

In addition his plan had incorrectly asserted:

1. “Palestinians have aspirations that have not been realized, including self-determination”.

All West Bank Arabs became Jordanian nationals in 1954 until their nationality was revoked by Jordan in 1988.

2. “The State of Israel has also exchanged sizeable territories for the sake of peace, as it did when it withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with the Arab Republic of Egypt.”

Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 didn’t rate a mention.

3. “One reason for the intractability of this problem is the conflation of two separate conflicts: a territorial, security and refugee dispute between Israel and the Palestinians and a religious dispute between Israel and the Muslim world regarding control over places of religious significance.”

There is only one conflict – between Jews and Arabs - fuelled by the Arab League’s refusal to recognise the State of Israel since its establishment in 1948.

The religious dispute was resolved under the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty granting Jordan control over places of Islamic religious significance in Jerusalem.

4.Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin’s proposal for ending the Jewish- Arab conflict.

Rabin actually said:
“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines”.

Trump’s generous offer of statehood – rather than an entity less than a state – has gone begging with the PLO’s unbelievable rebuff of Trump’s proposal.

5. “This Vision addresses today’s realities, and provides the Palestinians, who do not yet have a state ...”

The “Palestinians” do have a state — called Jordan — created in 78% of former Palestine in 1946.

The key to ending this 100 years unresolved conflict now requires Trump to call on Jordan to replace the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner to allocate between them the areas designated “Proposed future state of Palestine” in Trump’s vision for peace.

June 1967 marked Jordan’s loss of Judea and Samaria to Israel after 19 years of illegal occupation. June 2020 will hopefully signal Jordan’s agreement to peacefully return.


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.

Trump's vision is a mirage based on shaky foundations

[Published 29 January 2020]

President Trump’s now released deal of the century – calling for the creation of a second Arab state in former Palestine in addition to Jordan (“the two-state solution”) – has predictably already been consigned to the dustbin of history by PLO President Mahmoud Abbas on the day of its publication.

Trump’s solution was a mirage based on the same shaky foundations unsuccessfully pursued by the international community since the 1980 Venice Declaration.

Trump’s failure to address the following issues ensured its collapse from the get go:

1. The term “Palestinians” is not defined in the plan’s Glossary.

Who comprise “the Palestinians” and what constitutes their common identity?

2. Trump’s plan states:

“Palestinians have aspirations that have not been realized, including self-determination”.

Trump ignores that the “Palestinians” right to self-determination was realized when all West Bank Arabs became citizens of Jordan between 1950 and 1967 – then continued to retain their Jordanian citizenship until revoked by Jordan in 1988.

3.Trump’s plan states:

“The State of Israel has also exchanged sizeable territories for the sake of peace, as it did when it withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with the Arab Republic of Egypt.”

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.Why was this not mentioned?

4.Trump’s plan states:

“One reason for the intractability of this problem is the conflation of two separate conflicts: a territorial, security and refugee dispute between Israel and the Palestinians and a religious dispute between Israel and the Muslim world regarding control over places of religious significance.”

There is only one conflict – between Jews and Arabs - fuelled by the Arab League’s refusal to recognise the State of Israel since its establishment in 1948.The religious dispute was resolved under the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty granting Jordan control over places of Islamic religious significance in Jerusalem.

5. Trump’s plan states that Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin:

“envisioned Jerusalem remaining united under Israeli rule, the portions of the West Bank with large Jewish populations and the Jordan Valley being incorporated into Israel, and the remainder of the West Bank, along with Gaza, becoming subject to Palestinian civil autonomy in what he said would be something “less than a state.” Rabin’s vision was the basis upon which the Knesset approved the Oslo Accords, and it was not rejected by the Palestinian leadership at the time.”

Rabin actually said:

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines”.

6. Trump’s plan states:

“This Vision addresses today’s realities, and provides the Palestinians, who do not yet have a state ...”

The “Palestinians” do have a state — now called Jordan — created in 78% of former Palestine in 1946.

The key to successfully ending this 100 years unresolved conflict requires Jordan’s borders to be extended to incorporate those areas designated as “A Future State of Palestine” in Trump’s already-defunct proposal.

President Trump needs to go back to the drawing board and persuade Israel and Jordan to urgently negotiate those new borders.

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.

Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American policy on Israel

By a vote of 342-80 Congress resolved on 5 January 2017:

“the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 undermined the long-standing position of the United States to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel, reversing decades of bipartisan agreement;”

Congress’s decision goes a long way to restoring America’s reputation and integrity.

Vice President-elect Pence has certainly signalled the incoming Trump Administration’s approval of such Congress action with the following tweet:

"Great to see strong bipartisan vote in Congress opposing recent UN resolution against our most cherished ally. America stands with Israel"

Congress now needs to rectify Obama’s abandonment of the written commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (“Commitments”).

Congress has a vested interest in seeing those Commitments restored - because it overwhelmingly approved Bush giving those Commitments to Israel by a massive vote of 502 to 12.

Among those voting to support those Commitments was Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator John Kerry — whilst not casting a vote in the Senate - made his position very clear to Moderator Tim Russert on Meet The Press on 18 April 2004:

RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

KERRY: Yes.

RUSSERT: Completely?

KERRY: Yes.

Subsequent decisions by both Clinton and Kerry respectively as Secretary of State played an active role in aiding and abetting Obama’s abandonment of the Bush Commitments - marking a shameful period in American history.

Bush gave his Commitments to Israel for the following stated reasons:

“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.

The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Neither Bush nor Sharon could have envisaged what followed:

1. Hamas installed as the Government in Gaza,

2. a terrorist tunnel network being dug into Israel,

3. thousands of rockets indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centres,

4. chaos in Sinai,

5. three wars with heavy Jewish and Arab casualties.

Clinton and Kerry should have resigned in protest at Obama abandoning the Bush Commitments.

Reaffirming those Commitments should be an immediate priority for Congress — which is clearly in no mood to allow Obama to do any further damage.

Congress has signalled it will not tolerate Obama or Kerry attempting to subvert American foreign policy on Israel at the forthcoming international conference in Paris on 15 January or in the Security Council in the last five days of Obama’s Presidency.

America can stand tall and proud. American commitments to Israel will be honoured once again.

State Of Palestine And Islamic State Highlight International Double Standards

[Published 2 July 2015]


UNESCO, the United Nations and just this week - the Vatican - have recognised that the “State of Palestine” exists — despite the fact that it lacks all four basic requirements laid down in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a) a permanent population;
b) a defined territory;
c) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Reverend Federico Lombardi — the Vatican spokesman — confirmed the Holy See’s stance:

“Yes, it’s a recognition that the state exists”

The Vatican is justifiably concerned to protect Christian communities in the Middle East against further ongoing death, dispersion and destruction of their churches as has occurred to Christian communities in Syria and Iraq during the last twelve months.

Easing the concerns of Christians in the West Bank would have certainly played a part in the Vatican’s decision.

Bethlehem’s Christian population has been reduced from 60% in the 1990’s - prior to coming under Palestinian Authority control in 1995 - to 15% Christian by 2013 - whilst 1,000 Christians are reported to be leaving every year.

However Christian population growth in Israel last year stood at 1.3%.

Risking a rift in its relations with Israel displays poor judgement by the Vatican given these realities.

Those 107 member States voting for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO on 31 October 2011 did so in direct contravention of Article II (2) of the UNESCO Constitution which provides:

”...states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization….”

Voting to admit an entity into UNESCO that is not a lawful state is beyond understanding.

The UN General Assembly compounded UNESCO’s amazing decision when 138 UN member States voted to recognize Palestine as a “non-member observer state” on 29 November 2012.

The rule of law was thrown out the window with these UNESCO and UN decisions.

The international response to Islamic State has been markedly different since its declaration on 29 June 2014.

In just one year Islamic State has pillaged, plundered, beheaded and murdered its way through Syria and Iraq - now governing the population and controlling state assets in an area larger than Great Britain. Pledges of allegiance have come from many terrorist groups including Boko Haram and Sinai Province.

Islamic State meets all four Montevideo Convention criteria.

Yet British Prime Minister David Cameron urges Islamic State’s existence not be recognised by simply not using its self-declared name — reportedly telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

“I wish the BBC would stop calling it ‘Islamic State’ because it is not an Islamic State. What it is, is an appalling barbarous regime ...it is a perversion of the religion of Islam and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has an even whackier view:

“This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats’.”

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has reportedly used the term “death cult” 346 times since last September.

The Pope too seems reluctant to use the term “Islamic State”.

President Obama uses the acronym “ISIL” to deny it is Islamic or a State.

“Palestine” — not a State — is recognised as a State. “Islamic State” — a State —is not recognised as a State.

No wonder the world is in such a state of turmoil and confusion.

Islamic State - Egypt Wakes Up - When Will America And Russia?

[Published 24 February 2015]


Whilst the American—led coalition continues its largely ineffectual air strikes in Iraq and Syria — Islamic State has spread its barbaric tentacles into Libya with alarming rapidity.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for:

1. Attacking Tripoli’s downtown luxury hotel in January - the Corinthian - which left 11 dead

2. The brutal mass beheading of 21 Egyptian Christian Copts

3. A multi-pronged suicide attack that killed at least 45 people in the town al Qubbah in Libya’s east.

4. Seizing the university in Sirte - deposed dictator Muammar Gadaffi’s hometown.

Egypt’s President - Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi—has called for intervention by the United Nations:

“What is going on in Libya could change this country into a breeding ground that could threaten the whole region, not only Egypt. Egypt, the Mediterranean Basin and Europe have to deal with this problem because the mission was unaccomplished, was unfinished by our European friends. We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias.”

An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was told this week by Libya’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Dayri:

“Libya needs a decisive stance from the international community to help us build our national army’s capacity and this would come through a lifting of the embargo on weapons ... so as to deal with this rampant terrorism,”

The Security Council ignored his plea — and with good reason.

Libya currently has two Governments — one located in Bayda and the other in Tripoli. In November 2014 Libya’s Supreme Court held the Bayda Government to be illegal and unconstitutional - a decision ignored by its two principal backers - the United States and the European Union.

Removing the arms embargo — in force since 2011- would mean new shipments of arms could risk ending up under Islamic State’s control.

U.N. special envoy to Libya - Bernardino Leon - has said that Islamic State and other militants can only be defeated with a united Libyan government in place that has strong international support.

Any expectation that the United Nations can mediate between these rival Governments to forge a unity government to end ongoing hostilities and divisions in Libya is fanciful.

Leon himself has frankly admitted the immediate threat Libya faces from Islamic State:

“In Libya, Islamic State has found fertile ground in the growing post revolution political instability, capitalizing also on the weakness of state institutions and state security sector,”

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has also acknowledged Libya’s parlous situation.

“What we are seeing today in Libya is a double threat: it is a threat of a country that is breaking apart and of a country where Daesh (Islamic State) is taking power and infiltrating,”

President Obama’s urgently needs to rethink his September 2014 assessment that Islamic State:

1. Is not Islamic

2. Is not a state but only a terrorist organisation with no other vision

3. Can be degraded and destroyed by an American-led coalition

Professor Deborah Lipstadt has succinctly summed up President Obama’s continuing political blindness:

“He has bent over backwards to try to separate [Islamic State] from Islam, Sometimes people try to keep an open mind. And when you have too open a mind, your brains can fall out.”

Islamic State continues to morph as groups such as “Province of Sinai “ — creating mayhem and havoc in the Egyptian desert area neighbouring Israel and Gaza - swear allegiance to it

Islamic State will continue acquiring territory whilst military action remains unauthorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

America and Russia must both be brain dead in ignoring Islamic State’s increasing threat to their vital respective interests in the Middle East.

Palestine - Goodbye Land Swaps - Hello Land Grants

[Published 12 September 2014]


The two-state solution has suddenly come back to life.

Thought dead and buried after Hamas had shown that it could indiscriminately fire rockets from Gaza into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem over a 50 day period — even forcing international carriers to cancel flights into Ben-Gurion International Airport for 24 hours—Caroline Glick reported on its amazing resurrection:

“Something extraordinary has happened.

On August 31, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told an audience of Fatah members that Egypt had offered to give the PA some 1,600 kilometers of land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza, thus quintupling the size of the Gaza Strip. Egypt even offered to allow all the so-called “Palestinian refugees” to settle in the expanded Gaza Strip.

Then Abbas told his Fatah followers that he rejected the Egyptian offer.

On Monday Army Radio substantiated Abbas’s claim.

According to Army Radio, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi proposed that the Palestinians establish their state in the expanded Gaza Strip and accept limited autonomy over parts of Judea and Samaria.

In exchange for this state, the Palestinians would give up their demand that Israel shrink into the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, surrendering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Sisi argued that the land Egypt is offering in Sinai would more than compensate for the territory that Abbas would concede.

In his speech to Fatah members, Abbas said, “They [the Egyptians] are prepared to receive all the refugees, [and are saying] ‘Let’s end the refugee story.’” “But,” he insisted, “It’s illogical for the problem to be solved at Egypt’s expense. We won’t have it.”

Secretary-General of Abbas’ office - al-Tayyib Abd al-Rahim - said the reports were “fabricated”.

Arutz Sheva reported:

“Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Monday denied reports that he had offered to establish a Palestinian state in the Sinai Peninsula - the website of Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper reported.

In a speech to mark national teachers’ day and which mostly dealt with education Sisi stressed that no one can make such promises and that there is no room for talk about the matter.”

Amidst these claims and denials - the idea of land grants by Egypt - and also Jordan — now remain the last route to peacefully creating the two-state solution so earnestly sought by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

President Obama’s policy for bringing such a state to fruition was expressed in his State Department speech on 19 May 2011 — which has now been well and truly trashed as a result of the latest Israel-Hamas War:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s remarks at a joint press conference with President Obama in London on 25 May 2011 now sound equally as ludicrous in 2014:

... the Palestinians need to know that we understand their need for dignity and for a Palestinian state, using the ‘67 borders as land swaps as the start point. That is I think what is so key to the speech that’s been made. So neither side now has I believe the excuse to stand aside from talks."

At the time I wrote the following:

“Now in 2011 — apparently to satisfy the Palestinians “need for dignity “— Israel is being asked by America and Britain to consider transferring sovereignty of Israeli land to a sovereign Palestine to compensate that State for the loss of any areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that Israel seeks to retain.

This is a request that is doomed to failure in the light of Israel’s escalating security and national interests — particularly in the face of the dramatic developments that have taken place in Egypt and Jordan in recent months and the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

... To believe Israel should now offer additional Israeli territory to bring the border between it and a sovereign Palestine closer to the heartland of Israel is irrational and absurd.

For Obama and Cameron to espouse such a policy seems the height of folly and farce.”

I also pointed out at the time:

“If Arab dignity is the key — then there is another policy that should be explored — the grant of sovereign Jordanian land to the Palestinian Authority equivalent to the area of the West Bank land retained by Israel.

The area of Jordanian land required to satisfy such Palestinian dignity is extremely small. The entire area of the West Bank is only 5640 km2. Assuming Israel’s security needs necessitated it to acquire sovereignty in 20% of the West Bank — Jordan would be required to make a land grant of about 1130 km2 to a sovereign Palestine. Given Jordan’s area is 92300 km2 — compared to Israel’s 22070 sq km2 — Jordan’s security and national interests would hardly be affected."

Obama’s land swap proposals — enthusiastically backed by Cameron - have now become the latest in a long line of lost opportunities presented in 1937, 1947, 1948-1967, 2000, 2008 and 2014 to create a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine — in addition to Jordan.

Land grants by Egypt and Jordan are lifelines desperately needed by Obama now — if the two-state solution is ever to eventuate.

As Obama signs up Egypt and Jordan to join his coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State — he might just be whispering this politically savvy message in their ears.

Palestine - Creative Compromises Can Conquer Conflict

[Published 4 January 2013]


t has taken less than a month for the euphoria generated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution conferring non-member observer status on the “State of Palestine” to dissolve into a farcical denouement.

Mahmoud Abbas’s folly in unilaterally approaching the United Nations in breach of the Oslo Accords has been neatly summed up by CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk in her article “Is Palestine now a State?”

“In the end, the Resolution does not change the Palestinians lives on the ground, and it does not “recognize” Palestine as a state.”

UN Special Rapporteur for the West Bank - Professor Richard Falk - offered his own prognosis on 2 January on his blog page:

” At this point, I do not believe that the two-state consensus can be implemented, nor is the one-state alternative politically feasible.”

Demise of the two-state solution is confirmed by the following recent developments:

Firstly - Jamal Muheisen, a member of the Fatah Central Council, has reportedly told the Jerusalem Post that Hamas is conducting secret negotiations in an Arab country to reach agreement with Israel over the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders in the Gaza Strip and Sinai.

Muheisen has claimed that the negotiations were being held under the auspices of the US claiming that:

“Hamas is seeking to establish its own emirate while leaving the West Bank as cantons that are separated by settlements. Hamas’s goal is to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state on all the territories that were occupied in 1967.”

Secondly - The 2003 United States Roadmap proposing a two- state solution has disappeared off the radar with State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland only being able to offer this vision:

“As we turn the calendar to 2013… now is the time for leaders on both sides to display real leadership, to focus on the work that’s necessary to return to direct negotiations,”

That option is unlikely to happen.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not held direct high level talks since September 2010 - at the tail end of a 10- month Israeli settlement freeze to which Abbas failed to respond until the freeze had nearly expired.

The Palestinian Authority still demands that settlement construction stop once again before they engage in talks - which they have said should pick up where they left off with Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.

These demands will certainly not be met by Israel in the aftermath of November’s General Assembly Resolution.

Abbas has now become firmly stuck on his high horse with no way to get down without considerable loss of face and prestige.

Thirdly - Attempting to salvage something from the wreck - Abbas has let it be known that he would be prepared to consider a confederation with Jordan once a Palestinian State was recognised in the territory lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

If the creation of such a state has not reached first base after twenty years of tortuous negotiations - then it certainly will not do so after Abbas’s foray at the United Nations.

Creative compromises are now urgently needed to determine the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza that do not involve the creation of a State between Jordan, Israel and Egypt for the first time in recorded history.

Seeds for some such compromises appear to be sprouting from two different sources.

Firstly - Reports emanating from Gaza suggest that discussions are underway with Egypt to supply electricity and natural gas to Gaza to reduce its dependency on Israel.

Egypt has also been permitting freer access and egress to and from the Gaza Strip.

Such moves would materially assist in restoring the close relationship Egypt had with Gaza when it occupied and administered Gaza from 1948-1967.

If this relationship can be creatively nurtured to enable Egypt to provide a sphere of influence that persuades Gaza to look to Egypt for its salvation - rather than targeting Israel in continuing conflict - then the prospects for an improved relationship between Israel and Gaza could well be the end result.

Secondly - Reunification of the West Bank with Jordan as existed between 1950-1967 has now been raised as a possibility by the well respected and well connected Palestinian Arab commentator Daoud Kuttab in his article published in the Atlantic on 26 December - “Are the Palestinians ready to share a State with Jordan?”

Kuttab recalls his exclusive interview in 1993 with Israel’s then Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin - the first ever given to a reporter working for a leading Palestinian newspaper.

Kuttab writes:

“I asked Rabin for his vision as to the ultimate political status of the West Bank and Gaza in 15 or 20 years. Rabin, who at the time, we later discovered, had approved the Oslo back-channel, took a puff at a cigarette given to him by one of his aides, and answered that he envisions it being part of an entity with Jordan.”

Kuttab has also dismissed the confederation idea proposed by Abbas:

“Confederations are political systems that include two independent countries. For some time in the 1980s, this was the most talked-about term in the region. The late Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyyad), the former head of intelligence for the PLO, was quoted as saying that what Palestinians wanted was five minutes of independence and then they would happily agree to a confederation with Jordan. However, the issue became politically poisonous as soon as the late King Hussein of Jordan said publicly that he doesn’t want anyone to ever utter the term “confederation.” And so it has been for the past two decades.”

And so it will apparently continue - no matter what Abbas says.

Kuttab concludes:

“While it is unclear if Jordan will ever end up having any sovereign role in the West Bank, support for a greater role for Jordan in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt increase in the coming months and years if the current decline of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority continues. The one determining factor in all of the discussions will have to come from the Israeli side, which has yet to decide whether it will relinquish sovereignty over the areas occupied in 1967 to any Arab party, whether it be Palestinian or Jordanian.”

Israel has already agreed to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of those areas in 2000 and 2008 and only needs a willing Arab partner to close the deal.

Jordan is rapidly readying itself to fill that role.

Creative compromises can indeed conquer conflict as a means of resolving even the most intractable and long running disputes.

The Six Day War, Gaza, the West Bank - and Fairy Tales

[First published June 2007]

The failure by editors of supposedly impartial and respected newspapers to correct inaccuracies in media articles regarding the West Bank and Gaza prior to their publication, gives continuing credence to total Arab denial of any Jewish rights in those areas - and also seriously misleads and misinforms their trusting readers as to the nature of the conflict that is taking place.

Letters written to the editors requesting corrections are usually consigned to the waste paper basket and even if printed, are too late to undo the damage - allowing gross distortion of facts to be perpetuated and in many cases repeated by the same and other journalists.

A classic case in point is the article - “War over, but the fight goes on” - written by Ed O’Loughlin, which appeared in two of Australia’s most respected newspapers - the Sydney Morning Herald and the Brisbane Times - on 2 June 2007 to mark the 40th Anniversary of the Six Day War in 1967. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/war-over-but-fight-goes-on/2007/06/01/1180205513190.html

Consider these five gems (and there are many more) in Mr O’Loughlin’s article:

1. “ A native of New Jersey, he is one of several hundred Jews who live under heavy military protection in the first and most extreme of all Jewish settlements on the West Bank, carved out of the historic heart of the Palestinian city of Hebron.”

The author fails to mention that “the historic heart of the Palestinian city of Hebron” happens to include the ancient Jewish Quarter of Hebron built on land purchased by Jews in 1540.

Jews lived there until 24 August 1929 when 67 Jewish men women and children were slaughtered by a crowd of rampaging Arabs . The remaining Jewish population of 750 were forced to flee. Some returned in 1931 but were forced to leave when the Arabs rioted again in 1936. Jews returned to the Jewish Quarter after the Six Day War to a very hostile welcome from the Arab residents.

Hebron contains the traditional burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rebecca - one of Jewry’s holiest sites - which the Bible records was purchased by Abraham in 1753BC.

Hebron is therefore more than just a Palestinian city. It has a far longer Jewish history - one of great religious significance for Jews.

Any editor worth his salt should have taken steps to have the author correct this statement.

2. “Of all the territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day war, only the Sinai Peninsula has been returned to its former owner, Egypt, thanks to the 1978 Camp David Accords of the then US president Jimmy Carter.”

The inference is that the Sinai Peninsula is only a small part of all the territories captured by Israel.

In fact the Sinai Peninsula comprised 90% of all the territories captured by Israel. It was returned to Egypt as part of the historic Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt along with the Alma oil field discovered and developed there by Israel and reportedly worth $100 billion as well as strategic military airfields and early warning installations built by Israel. 7000 Jews were also expelled from Sinai as part of the agreement.

Why this misleading statement was allowed to go to print beggars belief.

3. “In the West Bank and East Jerusalem tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers and paramilitary police are needed to control 2.5 million indigenous Palestinians and to protect the 450000 Jewish settlers planted in their midst since the war”

Describing the Palestinians as “indigenous” is very disingenuous.

Weren’t the Jews given the right by the League of Nations under the Mandate for Palestine to “reconstitute” their former national home in these very areas after 2000years of dispersal throughout the world. Has this right not been preserved to this very day by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

Who are the indigenous people then - the descendants of Jews who were driven from their country 2000 years ago or the descendants of Arabs who occupied it by conquest seven centuries later?

Mr O’Loughlin’s use of the word “indigenous” is inflammatory, judgemental, totally irrelevant in relation to the context and should have been simply edited out.

4. “Gaza’s air space, sea access and border crossings are all under tight Israeli military control …”

The Rafah border crossing is under Egypt’s control - not Israel’s.

Why was this incorrect statement let through?

5. ”The Six-Day War might have appeared to be a decisive victory for Israel but its outcome was never transformed into a workable political peace settlement”

Aren’t Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) workable political peace settlements ?

If Mr O’Loughlin intended this statement to only refer to the West Bank and Gaza, then he should have made that clear in his article. However that would have created a little problem for him.

Both Gaza and the West Bank had been continuously occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively from 1948 until 1967. Not one Jew lived there during all that time - although many had been driven out by six invading Arab armies in the 1948 War.

The Arab League could have created another Arab State in those areas at the drop of a hat at any time during those 19 years. What they demand now in the Arab League Peace Initiative was theirs for the creating until 1967.

Israel is now being pressured to make this happen 40 years later and remove 450000 Jews who have, since 1967, gone to live in the West Bank - an area that is part of their ancestral homeland and has been internationally designated and sanctioned for the Jewish National Home.

Perhaps Mr O’Loughlin should use his privileged access to these prestigious newspapers to canvas why another Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza is now thought necessary, why all the Jews must move out and how this will end the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

It might just give the editors the chance to rectify the damage caused to the reputation of their papers by allowing the publication of this article in its present form.

Fairy tales are no substitute for truth and accuracy - especially when it relates to the Arab-Jewish conflict.