West Bank - Loose Lips Increase Incitement Against Israel

[Published May 2010]


Semantics has played and continues to play a very important role in attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel as the Jewish National Home.

The recent decision by two Arab Parliament Committees calling on all Arab League members to halt “all direct and indirect contacts with Israel” highlights the dangers inherent in the use of loose - but deliberately and carefully chosen - language.

The reasons for that decision were explained in the following communique:

“All relations should be severed in protest of the policy of expulsion Israel carries out in Palestine, the latest decision being the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians living in the West Bank into Gaza, which is a new chapter of ethnic cleansing,” the panels said, in reference to two military orders enforced in April which expanded the definition of an “infiltrator,” thereby rendering potentially thousands of Gaza residents in the West Bank susceptible to deportation.”

In reaching this decision they were no doubt encouraged by the following comments made by the executive director of the Palestine Center - Yousef Munnayer. Commenting on the same military orders Munnayer wrote:

“There is little doubt that Israel has both the motive and the tendency to use these types of policies as tools for ethnic cleansing. With such ambiguity in these orders, a history of ethnic cleansing and the capacity to carry out such horrific acts, the world should be very wary of what is happening in the Israeli occupied West Bank where Israel is charged under international law with the protection of the native population and not its endangerment”

Munnayer no doubt had been encouraged to propound such views following earlier comments made by Nabil Abu Rudeina - the spokesman for Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas - who said in relation to the delivery of dozens of Court ordered eviction notices to Arab residents and threatened house demolitions for illegally built structures in East Jerusalem:

“It is an organised campaign of ethnic cleansing,”

Not unremarkably - generalised claims that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing are now regularly appearing in articles such as that written by Sam Bahour - a Palestinian-American management consultant living in Ramallah - who writes:

“... the tools of boycott, divestment and sanctions are much more powerful non-violent methods than negotiating in vain with a government bent on ethnic cleansing.”

The term “ethic cleansing ” was defined by a 1993 United Nations Commission to mean:

“the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogeneous.”

Certainly people are entitled to question and criticise anything the Israeli Government does - and the issue and enforcement of the military orders in question is a matter of legitimate public debate.

But for the Arab League and commentators like Munnayeh to describe such military orders as “a new chapter in ethnic cleansing” or as “tools for ethnic cleansing” is outrageous.

The implementation of those military orders against illegal Arab residents cannot possibly result in the West Bank becoming “ethnically homogeneous”. Enforcement of those orders cannot possibly result in 2.5 million Arabs being removed from the West Bank. That is a canard - pure and simple.

Even more preposterous is the Palestinian Authority spokesman’s claim that Court ordered evictions after hearings between disputing litigants amounts to “ethnic cleansing”

How can the enforcement of eviction orders - or even the demolition of a few dozen illegally built houses - against a small number of unsuccessful litigants amount to rendering East Jerusalem “ethnically homogeneous”?

The Arab League and the Palestinian Authority are playing with fire in using such language. It is clearly intended to incite the civilian Arab populations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to violence in the fear that Israel has embarked on a campaign to rid the West Bank and East Jerusalem of its Arab populations.

The history of Arab rioting in Palestine following incitement by the ruling Arab authorities in 1920,1929 and 1936 is well documented.

The need to avoid the use of incitement and hostile propaganda has long been recognised and deemed essential to achieve any peaceful resolution of the Arab- Israeli conflict.

The Oslo Accords (1993) stipulate:

“Israel and the Council [Palestinian Authority - ed] shall seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each other and, without derogating from the principle of freedom of expression, shall take legal measures to prevent such incitement by any organizations, groups or individuals within their jurisdiction.”

President Bush’s Roadmap (2003) specifically provides:

“All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.”

Maybe the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority might claim they are using the term “ethnic cleansing” to convey a meaning different to that defined by the UN Commission.

If this is indeed the case then it is incumbent on them to define what they mean when they use it to berate Israel for implementing policies with which they disagree.

In the absence of any such explanation one can only reasonably conclude that the two Arab political organizations most intimately involved in securing a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict are adopting the language of incitement to deliberately railroad any such solution.

It is difficult to control individuals who recklessly and with apparent malice use the term “ethnic cleansing” to incite and vilify. They need to be individually confronted and exposed.

The Arab League and the Palestinian Authority are entirely different cases.

The fact that they can continue to make these statements without challenge by interested parties such as America and the European Union - indicates the slippery slide to the edge of the abyss that Israel and its Arab protagonists are fast approaching.

Loose lips sink ships. They can also sink any hope of a peaceful resolution of the 130 years old dispute between Arabs and Jews.

Obama - Dancing With The Devil In The West Bank

[Published May 2010]

As the proximity negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority continue to meander aimlessly along the road to nowhere - two remarkable articles written this week by the Palestinian Arab journalist - Khaled Amayreh - indicate the direction that America and Israel need to follow if they wish to see a possible end to the 130 years conflict between the Jews and the Arabs in former Palestine.

Amayreh is certainly no friend of America or Israel. He despises and loathes both of them intensely.

Of America he has had this to say:

“America is the author of 60 years of suffering, death, bereavement, occupation, oppression, homelessness, and victimization.

America is the usurper of my people’s right to human rights, democracy, civil liberties, development, and dignified life.

America is the abettor and financier of Israeli occupation, apartheid, repression, terror, and land theft.

America is the protector, maintainer, sustainer and guarantor of despotism, dictatorship, dynastic fiefdoms, and brutal autocracies, theocracies, oligarchies, and monarchies in the Muslim world.”

On Israel he is equally condemnatory - writing this week in an article “Zionism must be abolished if real peace is ever to have a chance” :

“In 1948, the forces of Zionist terror ethnically cleansed more than 90% of Palestinians in pre-1967 Palestine, banishing them to the four winds. Now, they are dreaming or probably planning to do it again, and they want to ‘transfer’ millions of Palestinians to ‘the desert’ in order to maintain Israel’s pure Jewish identity and have more ‘Lebensraum’ for ‘God’s chosen people.’

Yes, despite the passage of nearly sixty years of ‘Jewish Statehood,’ Israel’s undeclared but ultimate goal remains the expulsion of most or all Palestinians from the area extending from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea."

How to avoid this looming catastrophe was to be explained by Amayreh in a second article published almost simultaneously titled - “Jordanian-Palestinian Unity Must Be Restored”.

In prescribing his solution - Amayreh was prepared to tell a few home truths that the Arabs have been deliberately suppressing for decades when he stated:

“... the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are the two most homogeneous and closest Arab peoples, given their ethnic, cultural and religious commonality. We are actually one people, as Arab clans on both sides of the River Jordan have one common ancestry.

This indisputable fact should debunk all the myths about any proclaimed intrinsic distinctiveness, let alone contradictions, between Jordanians and Palestinians.

It should also demolish all parochial ideologies such as territorial nationalism, namely exaggerated Palestinian and Jordanian nationalisms, ideologies that grow out of fanatical tribalism which Islam condemns as acts of Jahilyya or ignorance.”

This unity of the Arab people living on both sides of the Jordan River needed to now be revived in Amayreh’s view to prevent what he believed was to be the wholesale expulsion of the West Bank Arab population:

“Palestinians should welcome and encourage any Jordanian orientation to cancel or reconsider, even if gradually, the unwise Jordanian decision of 1989 to dismantle the administrative and legal ties with the West Bank. The Re-institution of these ties should strengthen the Palestinians’ ability to survive and thwart Zionist efforts to empty our homeland of its real people.

In the final analysis, the people of Jordan and the People of Palestine can’t and will not have separate fates. According to the Islamic prophecy, the liberation of Palestine from the hands of Zionist Jews, will come from the east, namely from Jordan .

Our fate, our kismet is that we are one people. We must not escape this ineluctable fate.”

One can certainly ask - if Amayreh is so wrong in his assessments of America and Israel’s future intentions - how can he be so right on the unity of the Arab populations living on both banks of the River Jordan?

The answer is to be found in the history, geography and demography of “Palestine” in particular:

(i) that Transjordan comprised 78% of Mandate Palestine from 1920-1946
(ii)that Transjordan occupied the West Bank in 1948
(iii)That the West Bank was unified with Transjordan on the East Bank in 1950 and the name Transjordan was then changed to Jordan.
(iv) That the two united banks of the River Jordan constituted a single territorial entity from 1950 until Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967.
(v) That West Bank Arabs enjoyed equal civil rights with East Bank Arabs as Jordanian citizens until 1988.

These facts certainly appear to have escaped President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell. Maybe they are totally ignorant of them. Amayreh certainly isn’t.

For the wrong reasons Amayreh has nevertheless postulated the right direction which must be taken to resolve the current conflict - the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan.

This solution is readily achievable by redrawing the boundary between these two successor States to the Mandate that already possess sovereignty of 94% of Mandate Palestine between them.

What of the PLO and its offspring - the Palestinian Authority (PA) - the “johnny come lately” organization cobbled together in 1993 under the now thoroughly discredited Oslo Accords?

Amayreh pulls no punches when he points out:

“The PLO used to be a true representative of the Palestinian people. But this was when the PLO still retained it national chastity. Now, in my opinion, the PLO lost much if not all of its national honour, if only by indulging in manifestly treasonous acts such as the so-called security coordination with Israel. Some Palestinians are already calling the PA, the daughter of the PLO, a Palestinian “judenrat”.

On the PA being a corrupt organization - Amayreh is equally critical:

“For the Palestinian Authority to truly and sincerely fight corruption, it would have to demolish the entire Palestinian Authority apparatus because corruption, in its various forms, is the other side of the Palestinian Authority regime. In fact, there is an umbilical relationship between the Palestinian Authority and corruption. This might sound as an exaggeration to many, especially in the West. But this is taken for granted here. In short, corruption infests every aspect of the Palestinian Authority so much so that only a thorough and complete overhaul of the Palestinian Authority would stem the plague of corruption.”

There is no love lost between Amayreh and the PA. On 22 January 2009, Amayreh was arrested by the police forces of the PA. He was questioned and imprisoned in a blacked-out room for two days.

Are these views of such a rabid American and Israel hater likely to influence a change of direction by America and Israel? Only time will tell.

President Obama - and the Quartet - would do well to heed Amayreh’s message - even though the devil himself is dancing there in the detail.

Obama Accelerates, Israel Graduates, The West Bank Separates

[Published May 2010]


The announcement on 10 May that Israel has been invited to become a member of the Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has been interpreted by many as being a “reward” for Israel entering into proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority.

Nothing could be further from the fact.

The OECD decided to open accession discussions with Israel in May 2007. A Roadmap adopted at the end of November 2007 set out the terms, conditions and process for accession, including in-depth reviews by 18 OECD Committees. Israel has completed all 18 accession reviews in under three years.

The OECD will welcome Israel at an event on 27 May. An Accession Agreement - scheduled to be signed in Israel on 29 June - will formally acknowledge Israel’s membership of the OECD.

Today the OECD presently comprises 31 countries - including Canada - committed to providing the best possible education, health and employment opportunities for their citizens.

The admission of Israel to the OECD is a direct blow to those seeking to delegitimize Israel by imposing boycotts, undertaking divestment and attempting to exclude Israel from organizations such as the OECD.

Israel’s already impressive credentials were highlighted by the OECD when announcing:

“The accession reviews of Israel have also been valuable for OECD countries—the OECD has learned from Israel’s experience in certain areas, such as in the policy areas of innovation and scientific and technological policy. Total civilian R&D expenditures were 4.7 % of GDP in 2007, giving Israel the highest R&D intensity in the world. It accounts for the third highest number of scientific articles per million population and has an impressive patenting performance in science and technology. Performance in certain high technology sectors, notably biotechnology, is also particularly strong “

This is remarkable praise and acknowledgment for outstanding achievements in the face of the refusal of the Arab League - with the exception of Egypt and Jordan - to recognise Israel’s existence since its creation 62 years ago.

It is also noteworthy that not one of the 21 member States of the Arab League is a member of the OECD - despite the vast wealth generated from oil revenue in many of those States.

One can only imagine the heights to which Israel would have ascended had not so much of its GDP been squandered on fighting its neighbours and remaining in a constant state of alert by tying up its citizens in compulsory military service.

Significantly the OECD also made the following announcement:

“The question of the geographical scope of statistical data provided by Israel, which include data on the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank, was the subject of lengthy discussions within the OECD. A footnote will be included in all OECD documents containing statistical data on Israel stating that the data are supplied by and under the responsibility of the Israeli authorities and that their use by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. “

The use of the words “international law” is a welcome inclusion and a recognition of the need to abide by and be cognisant of existing international law in any future negotiations on the status of the West Bank.

It is a pity the OECD statement chose not to identify the applicable international law - which includes

(i) the San Remo Conference,
(ii) the Treaty of Sevres,
(iii)the Mandate for Palestine,
(iv) the United Nations Charter and
(v) Security Council Resolution 242.


Under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter Israel is legally entitled to encourage close settlement by Jews in areas of the West Bank that are State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The OECD has acknowledged - by omitting any reference to Gaza - that Gaza is an area outside the physical control of Israel . This confirms Israel’s position that it is no longer responsible for - or obligated in any way to look after - the future welfare of Gazan Arabs after its total withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Hamas has governed Gaza since forcefully removing the Palestinian Authority in 2007. Hamas must accept the consequences of that decision and Gazan Arabs the consequences of having elected Hamas. Gaza needs to conduct its future trade, seek freedom of passage and growth through its common border with Egypt and not rely on Israel to provide any of its existing or future needs.

Israel’s admission to the OECD comes at an important time as Israel steels itself to make further concessions to the Palestinian Authority without any meaningful tangible concessions being received in return.

“Goodwill gestures” will be sought by the Obama administration from Israel - as Obama and his administration accelerate into the proximity negotiations.

These will include

(i) the release of more prisoners,
(ii) removal of more checkpoints,
(iii)the extension of full Palestinian Authority civil and security control beyond Area A - the 17% of the West Bank which currently houses 55% of the Arab population of the West Bank - into Area B - which constitutes 24% of the West Bank and 41% of its Arab population where the Palestinian Authority does not presently exercise security control
(iv) Curbs on construction of houses and public facilities for Jews in Area C - the remaining 59% of the West Bank where only 4% of the Arab population lives and where the Palestinian Authority possesses no civil or security control.

It would appear that Obama has effectively given up on Gaza and the two-state solution.

Obama will be happy to achieve some movement in the West Bank concessions that Israel will concede to maintain the relationship it has with America. Not all will be accepted by Israel - especially those that will impact on Israel’s security or hinder or impede its growth.

Whilst this will create the impression of movement - which Israel can probably afford to some degree—it will not lead to a final settlement of the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Jews and Arabs.

However any such concessions will help to ease the current restrictions prevailing on travel and lessen the inconvenience in the daily lives of the West Bank Arab population in moving from one part of the West Bank to another. It will enable the Palestinian Authority to assume full responsibility over an increased majority of the West Bank Arab population.

A new separate Arab State between Jordan and Israel will remain a pipe dream destined to failure. Any progress made in the proximity talks will not help advance the realisation of that goal. The parties will still remain poles apart on the terms that each can agree on to bring the two-state solution to fruition.

In the meantime - Israel will get on with its own nation building and consolidation as a scientific, intellectual and technological powerhouse for others to aspire to and emulate.

Obama, The West Bank And A Tale Of Two Letters

[Published May 2010]

“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead” — Benjamin Franklin

President Obama seems to have become embroiled in an exercise in deceit that could spell the end of his - and America’s - role as an honest broker in the proximity talks planned to start shortly between Israel and the Palestinian Authority sitting in separate rooms whilst America shuttles back and forth between them.

Letters are integral to understandings and agreements between parties to such negotiations and are designed to confirm and guarantee what once might otherwise have been the subject of a verbal wink or nod.

Trust these days is very limited and reliance on verbal undertakings is a risky business - especially where the Arab-Israeli conflict is concerned.

When a letter is suggested as having been given secretly to one side without being disclosed to the other - a crisis is more than likely to ensue.

President Obama seems to have stumbled into this dangerous minefield.

On 20 April 2010 in a well publicized letter to Alan Solow - the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations - President Obama wrote:

“I am deeply committed to fulfilling the important role the United States must play for peace to be realized, but I also recognize that in order for any agreement to endure, peace cannot be imposed from the outside; it must be negotiated directly by the leaders who are required to make the hard choices and compromises that take on history.”

The import of this statement seemed clear and unambiguous. The parties alone would negotiate directly on the terms of any agreement. The United States would have a role in putting forward its own proposals but would not attempt to impose any terms on a reluctant party.

It didn’t take long for that notion to be possibly dissipated.

Writing in the International Herald Tribune on 27 April 2010 journalist Roger Cohen reported:

“Last week, a letter from President Barack Obama was conveyed to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. In it, I understand, Obama spoke of his very strong commitment — unprecedented commitment — to a two-state peace and said that if Israel seriously undermines trust between the two parties, the United States will not stand in the way of a United Nations resolution condemning that.”

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor was quick to issue a denial:

“This report is inaccurate. Our policy about issues relating to Israel at the U.N. is clear and will not change. We will continue to speak out strongly for Israel’s right to self-defense and to oppose efforts to single Israel out unfairly for criticism,”

Interestingly however Vietor didn’t deny the existence of a letter being given to Abbas and also said,

“We’ve asked both sides to take steps to rebuild trust and proceed with proximity talks. We’re not going to get into the details of those requests because we think they should be discussed in private diplomatic channels.”

Israel should be concerned at the fact that a letter might exist - whose contents have been withheld from it by the White House - which seemingly gives assurances to the Palestinian Authority that the United States might well attempt to impose a solution on Israel by threatening to vote in a certain way at the United Nations if Israel refuses to accept any particular American proposal put during the proximity talks that Israel finds objectionable.

This can hardly be seen to be an exercise in building trust - rather the direct opposite.

Some deal involving a moratorium on building construction in East Jerusalem by Israel as a result of tacit understandings between Israel and America may well have been the catalyst for the issue of this letter to induce the Palestinian Authority President to get off his high horse and agree to the proximity talks.

Israel could have assured America that whilst Israel would suspend any building in East Jerusalem - it could not be seen to have done so openly for domestic political reasons.

Such a behind the scenes deal could have been done between Israel and America - backed up by a letter of assurance from the White House to Abbas that if Israel dared turn one sod of soil in East Jerusalem during the proximity talks then the Palestinian Authority could get the Arab League to run off to the United Nations to procure a resolution censuring Israel that America would not veto.

Then again the letter could be far more sinister and threatening in content - assuring the Palestinian Authority that America would not support Israel in the United Nations if Israel turned down a suggested American - or even Palestinian Authority - proposal that America thought should be part of a peace settlement.

Back channels, secret deals and vehement denials are a normal part of international diplomacy and can generate their own web of deceit.

However in the present case there is a somewhat unique situation developing - a published letter is being possibly countermanded by an unpublished letter given to one side only in the dispute just a few days later.

Israel may well have received a copy of the unpublished letter and accepted its contents without demur. Then again Israel may not have.

Those not privy to what is in the unpublished letter can - however - only speculate about its contents and the effect it might have on the proximity negotiations.

If such speculation reflects unfairly on one or more of Israel, America and the Palestinian Authority - then the affected parties have no one but themselves to blame for the consequences of their clandestine actions.

Perhaps the fog may lift - if America is called on to support Israel at the United Nations should any moves to censure Israel be proposed during the proximity negotiations.

It would appear that the tale of the two letters has not yet ended - and will not go away until the contents of the second letter are publicly revealed.

Hopefully it will not take the demise of two of the parties for the secret to get out.

Will the UN and the European Union ignore this video?

This outstanding 15 minute video is compulsory viewing for anyone concerned at the ongoing campaign being waged to delegitimize the State of Israel as the Jewish State in its biblical and historical homeland as mandated and sanctioned by international law.

Featuring three international law experts - Howard Grief, Jacques Gauthier and Dore Gold - this video comprehensively sets out the legal basis for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home from 1920 - 2011.


http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif


It is unthinkable that:

1. The European Union as witness to the Oslo Accords will agree to those Accords being violated by unilaterally voting for a change in the status of the West Bank

or

2. the United Nations in September 2011 will agree to the terms of Security Council Resolution 242 being breached by unilaterally determining issues that can only be agreed on in negotiations.

The San Remo Conference 1920

The San Remo Conference has been rightly described as the "Magna Carta of the Jewish People" grounding its right in international law to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

The following news item from CBN News on 9 July 2010 explains the importance of this Conference and its relevance 91 years later in 2011

You can view the CBN news item here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The importance of the San Remo Conference is discussed by Howard Grief at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWvKsrb8u8&feature=related

A summary of the San Remo Conference and its importance in resolving the current conflict can be seen at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNgt7Nxb1ms&feature=related

Return of the Jordanian Option

Asaf Romirowsky's article "Revisiting the Jordanian Option" elicited the following response "Return of the Jordanian Option" on 23 April 2011.

The international community needs to get serious on the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank,East Jerusalem and Gaza.

If the Palestinian Authority is not prepared to get its act together with Hamas and accept sovereignty in the 95% offered to be ceded by Israel (with a land swap of Israeli sovereign territory for that remaining 5%) - then Jordan should be invited to negotiate with Israel on restoring as far as is now possible the status quo that existed at 5 June 1967 within the framework of their 1994 Peace Treaty.

It seems the sensible way to go in an attempt to avoid escalating conflict.

The only thing preventing it happening is the acute embarrassment and loss of face that would be suffered by the United Nations and its member states after pursuing the two-state solution for the last 17 years. Surely by now it must be obvious to them all that such a solution will never be capable of coming to fruition.

If I had to choose between saving Jewish and Arab lives OR eating humble pie - I know which one I would choose.

*************************************************************************************
Return of the Jordanian Option

Because the Palestinian Arabs have perpetually refused to end hostilities with the Jews through accepting a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, some Israeli Knesset officials are revisiting the Jordanian option.

Amid the unrest now sweeping the Middle East, Israeli government and security officials are quietly discussing an unusual strategy that would pass the Palestinians’ political future off to Jordan. With the odds of a negotiated two-state solution at an all-time low, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin resurrected the “Jordan is Palestine” model for regional peace.

Israeli officials fear that a Palestinian Intifada could break out on both sides of the Jordan River, and they seek to make it as much a Jordanian problem as an Israeli one.

Although anti-Zionist radicals of the sort that frequent Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian look upon the Jordanian option with extreme distaste because it means the resolution of the conflict, that is not Israel's problem.

Nor is it mine, of course.

The fact is that Jordan comprises about 77 percent of British mandated Palestine and the Palestinians represent something like 75 percent of the population of that country. This means that Jordan is, essentially, "Palestine."

As a long-time supporter of the two-state solution it is more than a little disappointing that oppressed and occupied Palestinians absolutely refuse to end their oppression and occupation by accepting a state for themselves in peace next to Israel.

It's just very unusual. In the long history of human oppression, I have never heard of any oppressed people who refuse to give up their oppression until their conditions are met.

It's remarkable, in fact.

From early in the twentieth century until today the Palestinians, and before them the Arabs of the British mandate, have never accepted the partition plan and have never accepted a Jewish state on any part of formerly Muslim controlled land. For reasons having to do with extreme, Koranically-sanctioned, hatred toward Jews, as well as the requirements of the Sharia, the Arabs have consistently refused acceptance of Israel as the Jewish state.

As anyone who reads this blog knows my stance is to respect the Palestinians by respecting their decision. Their decision is "no." For almost a hundred years their position has consistently been "no."

No negotiations. No recognition. No peace.

These are the three famous "nos" of Khartoum, issued by the Arab League immediately following the "humiliating" Arab defeat in the 6 Day War, and there is very little, if anything, to indicate that they are not still in effect.

That being the case we need to accept the fact that "no means no." And since "no means no," since the Palestinians have consistently refused to end the conflict via a negotiated settlement, Israel needs to resolve the conflict in a manner that does not depend on a negotiated settlement. One way to do that, the way that I have generally supported, is for Israel to declare its final borders on the western side of the Jordan river and then move the IDF behind those borders.

That represents one potential resolution, but the Jordanian option represents another possibility. Given that its population is three-quarters Palestinian, it makes sense to declare Jordan the Palestinian state, with an annexation of much of the western bank of the river.

At the moment only a relatively small proportion of Israelis see the Jordanian option as viable, but given the circumstances of perpetual Palestinian intransigence and refusal to accept a state for themselves, it's an option that Israel should explore. What's needed is for Israel to come up with the incentives necessary to bring the Jordanian government into agreement.

This will certainly not be easy, but what's there to lose?

Besides, as PLO executive Zuheir Mohsen acknowledged:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Heck, they'd barely even need to modify their flags.