Jordan enclave in West Bank could be Trump's "two-state" solution

[Published 3 October 2018]

Creating another Palestinian Arab state — in addition to Jordan - has been seemingly consigned to the garbage bin of history following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s CNN interview on 28 September.

President Trump had just told Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly:

“I like two-state solution. I like two-state solution. That’s what I think works best. I don’t even have to speak to anybody, that’s my feeling.”

When asked if he was prepared to commit to a two-state solution - Netanyahu told his CNN interviewer:

“I’ve discovered that if you use labels you are not going to get very far because different people mean different things when they say “states”. So rather than talk about labels, I like to talk about substance”

Questioned on what he would like to see - Netanyahu replied:

“What I would like to see is that the Palestinians will have all the powers to govern themselves and not all the powers that will threaten us. What that means is that in the tiny area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — it’s all about 50 kilometres wide — that’s where the Palestinians live and the Israelis live — in that area under any peace agreement or without a peace agreement — Israel has to have the dominant power, the military power, overriding security power ...”

Netanyahu then stressed:

“Israel has to have the overriding security, not the UN, not Canadian Mounties, not — I don’t know — Austrian or Australian forces — Israeli forces have to have the security control, otherwise, that place will be taken over by Islamist terrorists, either Daesh, ISIS or Hamas or Iran, all of the above, and that’s my condition.”

Trump’s upcoming peace plan slated for release in 2-4 months needs to deal with Netanyahu’s concerns if it is to win Israel’s backing.

Israel’s security demands would best be satisfied by part of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan to create a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank — with the remainder of the West Bank being annexed by Israel.

This solution would enable Israel to:

1. Control access and egress between the West Bank and Jordan

2. Maintain security control for the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

3.Ensure the enclave be demilitarized and remain demilitarized

The enclave’s residents would acquire Jordanian citizenship. Jordanian law would apply in the enclave — which could be divided into any number of electoral divisions whose residents would choose their representatives to sit in the Jordanian Parliament.

The PLO has already rejected Trump’s peace plan — sight unseen — opening the door for Jordan — at peace with Israel since signing their 1994 Peace Treaty - to fill the negotiating void necessary to create this Jordanian enclave.

Israel’s former Foreign Minister Moshe Arens presciently stated on January 11, 1989:

“Jordan is a Palestinian state. And it is with Jordan that we must decide where the border will run…. Should the border follow the Jordan River, as it does today, or should it be west of the Jordan, as the Jordanians would like?”

I would suggest therefore that, when it comes to talking about territory there is only one negotiating party acceptable to the government of Israel. That party is the existing Palestinian state of Jordan.”

Creating a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank with Israel annexing the remainder could be - in Trump’s own words:

“the ultimate deal…as a deal maker, I’d like to do … the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

Don’t underestimate Trump’s deal-making ability to end what he himself has called “the war that never ends”.


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

Palestine - Israel Sheds PLO As Negotiating Partner

[Published 9 December 2015]


Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has concluded that completing successful negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) on the allocation of territorial sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), Gaza and East Jerusalem is a mission impossible to achieve.

Addressing the Saban Forum on 6 December – Netanyahu made his position clear and unequivocal:

“I have said and I continue to say it, that ultimately the only workable solution is not a unitary state, but a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That’s the solution. But the Palestinians have to recognize the Jewish state and they persistently refuse to do so. They refuse to recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people in any boundary. That was and remains the core of the conflict. Not this or that gesture or the absence of this or that gesture, but the inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to make the leap.”

Whilst the issue of a “demilitarized Palestinian State” is one possibly capable of being further negotiated – the issue of recognizing the Jewish State is definitely not.

Recognition of the right of Jewish self-determination in Palestine - whilst simultaneously recognizing the right of Arab self-determination in Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia (now Iraq) - has always been an issue with the Arabs - since these decisions were first made at the San Remo Conference in April 1920 establishing the Mandates for Palestine, Mesopotamia and Syria and Lebanon.

These decisions delivered to the Arabs 99.99% of the lands won from the defeated Ottoman Empire in World War 1 whilst setting aside the remaining 0.01% for the Jews.

95 years of bloody conflict between Jews and Arabs has ensued since then because the Arabs wanted – and still want - 100% of the Ottoman Empire pie and have never been prepared to settle for 99.99%.

Netanyahu points out where the Arab world now finds itself in 2015 because of such Arab irredentism:

“And what we see is the old order established after the Ottoman Empire collapsing and militant Islam, either of the Shiites, Shiite hue led by Iran, or the Sunni hue, led by ISIS, rushing in to fill the void.”

The PLO has never accepted the San Remo carve up of the Ottoman Empire between Jews and Arabs – as its current Charter declares:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

The PLO’s rejection of the right of Jews to have one State whilst the Arabs presently have 22 States is also virulently expressed in the PLO Charter:

“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.”

The PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has no intention of changing this racist and utterly offensive position – as Netanyahu points out:

“You got a hint of that the other day when Abu Mazen spoke about the “occupation of Palestinian lands for the last 67 years”. Did you hear that? Occupation of Palestinian lands? For the last 67 years?

Sixty-seven years ago was 1948. That’s when the State of Israel was established. Does Abu Mazen mean that Tel Aviv is occupied Palestinian territory? Or Haifa? Or Beer Sheba?”

The demise of the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner is long overdue.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry must urgently move to fill this negotiating void by replacing the PLO with Israel’s Arab partners in two long-standing signed peace agreements - Jordan and Egypt.

The Jewish-Arab conflict can still be peacefully resolved with the right partners sitting at the negotiating table.

Palestine - World Bank Exposes PLO's Disastrous Miscalculations

[Published 13 October 2013]


The failure by the PLO to accept two offers made by Israel in 2000/1 and 2008 ceding Israel’s claims in more than 90% of the West Bank have been political and economic catastrophes for West Bank Arabs - as substantiated by a World Bank Report published this week titled “West Bank and Gaza , Area C and the Future of the Palestinian Economy”.

Whilst Israel and the PLO are once again engaged in negotiations behind closed doors for the next eight months - any prospect for their successful conclusion seems destined to founder for the same reasons that led to the collapse of the negotiations in 2000/2001 and 2008 namely:

1. The PLO refusal to recognise Israel as the national home of the Jewish people
2. The PLO insistence that any Palestinian State not be demilitarised
3. The PLO rejection of the right of Jews to live in the West Bank under any circumstances
4. The PLO objection to abandoning the claimed right for millions of Palestinian Arabs to emigrate and settle in Israel.

The World Bank Report has highlighted the following disastrous economic outcomes suffered by the West Bank Arab population - because the PLO failed to grab those two political lifelines thrown to it by Israel:

1. Private investment has averaged a mere 15 percent of GDP over the past seven years, compared with rates of over 25 percent in vigorous middle income countries.
2. The manufacturing sector, usually a key driver of export-led growth, has stagnated since 1994, its share in GDP falling from 19 percent to 10 percent by 2011.
3. Manufacturing been not been replaced by high value-added service exports like Information Technology (IT) or tourism, as might have been expected.
4. Much of the meager investment has been channeled into internal trade and real estate development, neither of which generates significant employment.
5. Consequently, unemployment rates have remained very high in the Palestinian territories and are currently about 22 percent - with almost a quarter of the workforce employed by the Palestinian Authority - an unhealthy proportion that reflects the lack of dynamism in the private sector.

The World Bank has concluded:

“Whilst the unsettled political environment and internal Palestinian political divisions have contributed to investor aversion to the Palestinian territories, Israeli restrictions on trade, movement and access have been seen as the dominant deterrent.”

Accepting the Report’s conclusion - the fastest way to end these Israeli restrictions would be a signed peace treaty between the PLO and Israel.

In Area C - 61% of the West Bank where Israel exercises complete administrative and security control under the Oslo Accords - the World Bank report states:

”Area C is particularly important because it is either off limits for Palestinian economic activity, or only accessible with considerable difficulty and often at prohibitive cost. Since Area C is where the majority of the West Bank’s natural resources lie, the impact of these restrictions on the Palestinian economy has been considerable. Thus, the key to Palestinian prosperity continues to lie in the removal of these restrictions with due regard for Israel’s security.”

Realistically these restrictions in Area C are not going to disappear until the signing of a peace treaty that guarantees Israel’s security.

Yet the PLO stubbornly maintains its intransigent and rejectionist demands - whilst simultaneously encouraging economic, divestment and sanctions boycotts and public relations campaigns undertaken with funds supplied by foreign Governments and wealthy private foundations - designed to denigrate and delegitimise Israel and erode Israel’s legal rights negotiated under the Oslo Accords with the PLO.

That is the PLO’s prerogative - but it has come at a heavy political and economic cost.

The World Bank report confirms this gloomy assessment:

“Access to Area C will not cure all Palestinian economic problems - but the alternative is bleak. Without the ability to conduct purposeful economic activity in Area C, the economic space of the West Bank will remain crowded and stunted, inhabited by people whose daily interactions with the State of Israel are characterized by inconvenience, expense and frustration.”

Regrettably those affected by the PLO’s political stance - the West Bank Arab population - are denied any say in determining whether changes need to take place that would improve their economic and political fortunes.

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas refuses to hold elections in the West Bank - preferring to continue with failed policies that threaten the future aspirations of the people he claims to represent - so clearly exposed in this damning World Bank Report.

Abbas continues to travel the world’s capitols unsuccessfully seeking financial support whilst an ailing economy collapses before his very eyes - as the World Bank Report makes ominously clear:

” Recent growth rates are proving unsustainable, however. Growth in recent years has been driven largely by extraordinary levels of donor budget support, which amounted to USD 1.8 billion, or 29 percent of GDP, in 2008. This fuelled a significant expansion in consumption, particularly the consumption of valuable public services such as policing, education and health (the share of public administration, education, and healthcare in GDP increased from 19 to 26 percent between 1994 and 2011). By 2012, however, budget support had decreased by more than half, and growth rates had declined from 9 percent in 2008-11 to 5.9 percent by 2012 and 1.9 percent in the first half of 2013 (-0.1 percent in the West Bank).”

International donors financial support is running out - as is PLO peace treaty signing time - as is the continuing disenfranchisement of the West Bank Arabs.

An explosive cocktail indeed.

Palestine - Kerry Commits Harakiri

[Published 29 July 2013]


US Secretary of State John Kerry has fallen on his sword in attempting to seek a renewal of negotiations designed to culminate in the creation of a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history.

He has apparently learned nothing from the failed attempts of his predecessors - James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.

Each was confident in his or her ability to persuade and cajole Israel and the PLO to do a deal - but all failed for one simple reason - both Israel and the PLO hold the following positions from which neither is prepared to resile.

1. Israel has demanded the PLO recognise Israel as the Jewish State and that any new Arab state - created as a result of negotiations - be demilitarised.

These demands are non-negotiable - since the PLO Charter - first promulgated in 1964 - does not accept the right of the Jewish people to have their own state existing alongside 22 Arab Islamic States and calls for armed struggle to eliminate the Jewish State.

2. The PLO demands that Israel withdraw from every square meter of the West Bank and East Jerusalem - the ancient biblical heartland of the Jewish people legally sanctioned for Jewish settlement under the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - and that its 600000 Jewish residents be removed from their homes and businesses.

Land swaps - first suggested in 2008 - are unlikely to succeed.

3. The PLO demand that millions of Arabs be given the right to emigrate to Israel - threatening an end to the Jewish majority by demographic default rather than military conquest - is not one that can be accepted by Israel or foregone by the PLO.

Reconciling these irreconcilable demands has proved to be a diplomatic graveyard for Kerry’s predecessors - and so it will be for Kerry.

Kerry must be feeling decidedly uncomfortable after his five hour dinner date with PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Amman last week - to read journalist Stuart Littlemore referring to:

“... the obnoxious quisling Abbas. As everyone knows, this ‘grey suit’ is living a privileged life on borrowed time. His term as Palestinian President officially expired in January 2009, but the western-backed parasite has clung like dried excrement to power.”

Abbas has no constitutional imprimatur to sign anything that could remotely be seen as constituting a binding peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Littlemore was equally as scathing of PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat - who no doubt has also been dining with Kerry in Washington this past week:

“In the Palestinian corner we have one of President Abbas’s closest aides, Saeb Erekat. He’s their chief negotiator and has occupied that vitally important position for 20 years, during which he has achieved… well, what? He must be the most unsuccessful negotiator on the planet. Why is he still there? We know perfectly well why. He’s a loser and can be relied on to fail.”

The Palestinian Information Centre published many responses from prominent Palestinian Arabs that provide clear warnings to Kerry and Israel that decisions taken by the PLO will be unenforceable and not worth the paper they are written on.

Professor of Political Science Abdul Sattar Qassem condemned the decision to return to negotiations and considered it treason. He also considered the resumption of negotiations a deal to sell Palestine, demanding the Palestinian people to dismiss these “traitorous negotiators”

Member of the central committee of Fatah Abbas Zaki stated that pressures were exerted by the Arabs on Abbas to push him to accept negotiating with Israel.

Dr. Ahmed Bahar, First Deputy Head of the Legislative Council, said in a statement that a return to negotiations according to the Israeli conditions was political suicide, and direct liquidation of Palestinian rights and national constants.

Hassan Khreisha, Second Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, also considered the resumption of negotiations “political suicide”, and revealed that the leadership in Ramallah accepted Israeli bribes to return to negotiations.

Hovering over any resumed negotiations - if indeed they ever get off the ground - is the spectre of Hamas - which will never accept anything other than the total elimination of the Jewish State.

Kerry would surely have been alerted to the growing frustration within Jordan that led to a highly unusual and rare demonstration in central Amman on 24 July calling for a Jordanian “Republic,” that would combine the “East and the West Bank.”

The location for the demonstration - Jamal Abdel Nasser Square (Interior Ministry Circle) - was the site for the largest ever protest held in Amman on March 24, 2011.

When Kerry twigs that Jordan - part of creating the problem that has plagued the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1948 - must now be part of any solution in those disputed territories in 2013 - then perhaps he might be able to succeed where former Secretaries of State have so miserably failed over the last 20 years.

Continuing to kow tow and bend to the demands of people like Abbas and Erekat has been and will continue to be a recipe for unmitigated disaster and failure.

Kerry is still apparently on a learning curve - one that unfortunately will lead to a diminution in his reputation for concluding successful negotiations and result in the continuing humiliation of the prestigious and influential office of Secretary of State.

“Know a person by the company he keeps” - is an adage that Kerry needs to embrace - and soon

Palestine - Trojan Horse Exposes Duplicitous Doublecross

[Published 16 January 2013]


Any doubt that the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map are dead and buried has been put to final rest by John V Whitbeck - an international lawyer who has served as an advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.

Writing in the Cyprus Mail on 13 January Whitbeck reveals that the Palestinian Authority “has been absorbed and replaced by the State of Palestine” in a decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January and signed by him acting in his capacities as president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Whitbeck’s confirmation of the demise of the Palestinian Authority signals the definite end to any further negotiations under the Oslo Accords and the Road Map being conducted between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - the designated parties to both agreements.

To make sure the message was fully understood - Whitbeck states unequivocally:

“The Trojan horse called the “Palestinian Authority” in accordance with the Oslo interim agreements and the “Palestinian National Authority” by Palestinians, having served its purpose by introducing the institutions of the State of Palestine on the soil of Palestine, has now ceased to exist.”

The sordid truth and fraudulent intentions of the PLO in this long running duplicitous doublecross over the last 20 years have now been well and truly exposed by Whitbeck for all to see.

The Palestinian Authority never intended to negotiate in good faith to bring about the two-state solution prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road map. It was a Trojan horse fronting for the PLO whose objective was to procure recognition of a Palestinian State without giving up or compromising any of the PLO’s claims and demands.

This latest loss of the opportunity offered by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map to realise the two-state solution matches the two opportunities thrown away by the PLO in 2000/1 and 2008

Three strikes - and the PLO has been definitely outed.

The reaction of the international community will be followed with interest.

Whitbeck continues:

“In his correspondence, Yasser Arafat used to list all three of his titles under his signature - president of the State of Palestine, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and president of the Palestinian National Authority (in that order of precedence). It is both legally and politically noteworthy that, in signing this decree, Mahmoud Abbas has listed only the first two titles… There is no further need for a Palestinian leader to be three-headed or three-hatted.”

But two hatted and two-faced Abbas must remain - because as Whitbeck explains:

“While the Palestine Liberation Organisation will continue to represent all Palestinians everywhere, those Palestinians who live in the State of Palestine (whose territory is defined by the November 29 General Assembly Resolution as “the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967”) or who, living elsewhere, will be the proud holders of new State of Palestine passports will now also be represented by the State of Palestine.”

The fact that Hamas is not a member of the PLO and that its constituency running into millions is engaged in an internecine struggle with the PLO seems to have escaped Whitbeck’s notice.

Whitbeck must have been reading the wrong wire services to draw the following conclusions:

“Perhaps due, at least in part, to the low-key manner in which this change has been effected, it has attracted remarkably little attention from the international media or reaction from other governments, even the Israeli and American governments. This is not necessarily disappointing, since passive acceptance is clearly preferable to furious rejection. The relatively few and brief media reports of the change have tended to characterise it as “symbolic”. It could - and should - be much more than that. If the Palestinian leadership plays its cards wisely, it could - and should - represent a turning point toward a better future.”

He obviously has missed the many articles critical of Abbas being forced to tip toe through the minefield that his unilateral actions have created.

More repercussions are yet to come as a disappointed international community comes to appreciate how this Trojan horse has pulled the wool over their collective eyes.

Certainly passive acceptance - instead of furious rejection - of Israel’s demands that any Palestinian Arab State be demilitarised and that Israel be recognised as the Jewish State - would have helped the two-state solution possibly come to fruition.

The reasons for such furious rejection by the Trojan horse have now been revealed.

The Trojan Horse fooled everyone. The negotiations were only a cover to grab what the PLO could get on the way to claiming their ultimate prize - the elimination of the state of Israel.

Whitbeck repeats the mantra of self delusion expressed by the PLO leadership:

“The State of Palestine now exists on the soil of Palestine - albeit still, in varying degrees and circumstances, under belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.”

The soil of Palestine includes the soil of Israel and the soil of Jordan.

Whitbeck was circumspect in not bringing up that darker side of the PLO Covenant which regards Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza as one indivisible territorial unit.

The Trojan horse is clearly biding its time to take over Jordan.

In what must amount to one of the greatest tongue in cheek pronouncements ever issued over the course of the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews - Whitbeck concludes:

“The members of the international community must now show their determination not simply in words but also in deeds and actions. In a world which professes to take human rights and international law, including the UN Charter, seriously, the perpetual belligerent occupation of one state by another state is inconceivable. The fact that the Israeli occupation of Palestine has been permitted to endure, expand and entrench itself for more than 45 years represents an appalling black mark against mankind. This occupation must now end.”

The democratic world does not like wiping egg off its collective face - and neither does Israel.

With the Palestinian Authority now defunct - the only two possibilities for negotiations now remaining are those between:

1. Israel, Jordan and Egypt - to allocate sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between them in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter or
2. Israel and all the Arab states - to negotiate an end to the Arab-Jewish conflict in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242.

You can lead a Trojan horse to water but you can’t make it drink - or think.

Palestine - Israel Has Had Enough

[Published 10 May 2012]


The Palestinian Authority’s decision to unilaterally seek Palestinian statehood at the United Nations and UNESCO - in breach of its obligations under the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap - has propelled Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz into forming Israel’s government of national unity this week.

This was made abundantly clear when one of the four priorities announced by both leaders was:

“to move forward responsibly in the peace process”

With the new Government now controlling 78% of the votes in the Knesset - a new offer is set to be made by Israel to the Palestinian Authority in a final endeavour to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between Jews and Arabs.

Israel has endured the machinations of the Palestinian Authority for the last 19 years. Its continuing obduracy in demanding - as a minimum - a Palestinian State equal in size to 100% of the West Bank and Gaza - with its capitol in Jerusalem - has been a major stumbling block in ending the conflict.

Successive Israeli Prime Ministers of differing political persuasions have laboured in vain to try and achieve an equitable division of these territories between Israel and the Palestinian Authority within the context of a negotiated peace treaty.

Refusing to budge from 100% is hardly a basis on which anyone can ever hope to successfully negotiate.

The Palestinian Authority will now pay dearly for its mistake in breaking away from the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to unilaterally seek recognition of statehood at the United Nations and UNESCO in September and October 2011.

These disastrous diplomatic forays were made outside - and in breach of - the negotiating framework established by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - which provided in Clause XXXI (7) of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

“Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

President Obama’s attempt to counsel the Palestinian Authority against taking such action was made very clear when addressing world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly:

“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.”

Notwithstanding the threat by America to veto any such move for statehood - the application was pressed - only to find it ignominiously rejected before it was even voted on by the Security Council.

Undeterred - the Palestinian Authority then sought international recognition of Palestinian statehood at UNESCO - where it succeeded - despite Israel and America’s strong opposition.

America immediately suspended the payment of its membership dues to UNESCO under a domestic 1994 law on America's statute books - which prohibited payments to:

“any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”

Palestine’s application did not comply with the internationally recognized attributes of statehood laid down in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - yet UNESCO had recognized Palestinian statehood in breach of such well established international law.

None of the 194 member states of UNESCO - including Israel and America - has taken any steps since to try and reverse UNESCO’s unlawful decision or withdraw its delegates from UNESCO in protest - even though 87 of them did not affirmatively vote for Palestine‘s admission as a member state of UNESCO.

Their inaction amounts to recognition of Palestinian statehood and an end to Palestinian homelessness - resulting in the achievement of the two state solution outside the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap.

This state of Palestine is not required to be demilitarized nor recognize Israel as the Jewish State - as Israel had been demanding as conditions for its recognition of a Palestinian State.

So where is Israel going to go from here in “moving forward responsibly in the peace process?"

A clue can be found in the following views expressed by Mofaz in November 2009 - which remain equally relevant in 2012:

“Today in Gaza, 100% of the territory and 100% of the population is under Hamas control.

In the West Bank, there are three types of areas; Area A, B, and C.

Palestinians have security and civilian responsibility in Area A.

In Area B, Israel has security responsibility, the Palestinians have civilian sovereignty.

Security and civilian issues are controlled by Israel in Area C

Today, Areas A and B represent 40% of the West Bank territory and 99.2% of the Palestinian population. But there is no continuity between the Palestinians in Areas A and B.

I am suggesting adding 20% of Area C to give full continuity to the Palestinian state, with 60% of the territory in the West Bank and 99% of the population.”

On Jerusalem - Mofaz was very definite:

“ The issue of Jerusalem should be discussed in a very sensitive way. There is no chance to divide Jerusalem. It will remain united as the capital of the state of Israel and we have to find a way to handle the daily life of the Jewish and Palestinian people in Jerusalem.

On the vexed issue of building in Jewish settlements in the West Bank during negotiations - Mofaz was clear:

“We will not freeze the life or building in Ma’ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, Efrat, Ariel and some others, all of which are known as the settlement blocs.

Regarding the areas that will be the future Palestinian state, I believe that we should consider the continuation of the life of the people, but we should not build in this area because it will be under the sovereignty and responsibility of the Palestinian state.

This makes it very clear which areas we will continue to build in and which we should allow daily life to continue but without any building.“

Mofaz’s views - if accepted by Netanyahu - will form the basis for a final offer that Israel will be making to the Palestinian Authority.

No doubt such offer will be rejected - because it would mean a substantial diminution in territory from the last offer made by Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert in 2008 - and several even more attractive offers made and rejected in 1937, 1947 and 2000.

Israel would be totally justified in this decision - since it is now facing a militarized Palestinian State that does not recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

For Israel - the refusal of such an offer would signal that it is time to annex Area C, retain security control in Area B - and let the state of Palestine exercise its new found sovereignty in Areas A, B and Gaza.

Israel’s national unity Government clearly signals that it is not in a mood to play the Palestinian Authority’s game any more