# Yuyutsu

I welcome your contribution to trying to solve the problem of the West Bank.

The problem is that whilst the West Bank does not belong to Israel - as you have correctly stated - it also belongs to no one else either.

It is what I call "no mans' land" whose sovereignty - or ownership - remains undetermined.

The issue is complicated by the fact that Jews do have a right to settle there under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article
80 of the United Nations Charter. The Geneva Conventions do not overrule these vested rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank. In fact Jews lived there before being driven out in 1948.

Moving 500000 Jews from their homes and businesses is an impossible proposal to countenance. Israel did precisely this with 8000 Jews living in Gaza and the resultant upheaval and destruction of their lives and livelihood would certainly ensure that such a policy would not be implemented in the West Bank.

America has already made it clear that Israel is entitled to reject any such proposal.

I agree with you - Jordan will not willingly want to do anything to regain occupation of any part of the West Bank.

Jordan's participation will require international pressure - which must inevitably occur when the farce called the two- state solution is finally declared dead and buried

David,

The Jewish National Home has long been established and recognized by the entire world. It is already much bigger in area than its 1947 allocation, why then would you seek any more territory? or do you propose a review and land-exchange based on the 1947 borders, where Israel is essentially cut in 3 pieces with the whole of Jerusalem under international control, entirely surrounded by Arab lands? (I wouldn't agree to that as such a state is indefensible!).

Thus, article 6 has been entirely fulfilled and sealed long ago. Article 80 only states that its surrounding articles do not override the likes of article 6, which is however no longer relevant.

"In fact Jews lived there before being driven out in 1948"

About 10000 of them, and no sovereignty.

"Moving 500000 Jews from their homes and businesses is an impossible proposal to countenance"

I agree with you that Israel has no power to do it on its own, which is why I suggested that Obama can help (if he wants).
About half of those 500000 that you mentioned, especially those in Eastern Jerusalem, some of which I know personally, are there only for economic necessity and will be more-than-glad to receive compensation and go elsewhere. As for "the resultant upheaval and destruction of their lives" of the rest, why should criminals go unpunished? Instead of being sent to jail, they would be given a second chance, with funds to start over in a clean way, what more can they ask for?

I suppose that those among the settlers who can behave themselves and own their land legally, may remain in the West-Bank under Palestinian (or whichever other, except Israeli) rule, but that implies no private militias or more land and water rights than their neighbours. It was clearly demonstrated however, that the Israeli army has no reign over them, so as long as Israel must keep its army there for its security, this is not an option.

"America has already made it clear that Israel is entitled to reject any such proposal."

Sadly. I hope they change their minds.

"Is anyone prepared to discuss my proposal to divide sovereignty of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan?"

We have been discussing it for months now.
The problem is you are the ONLY one who supports this idea.
I don't support it, the international community doesn't support it, the Jordanians don't support it, the Palestinians don't support it, the Arab community doesn't support it, the settlers don't support it, the zionists don't support it, the Israeli government doesn't support it.
It is your fantasy Singer and yours alone.

#Yuyutsu

You overlook the inescapable fact that sovereignty in the West Bank currently belongs to no one in international law. That means any State or group of people can make a claim to it.

The State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority are the only current claimants. They have spent the last 18 years unsuccessfully trying to resolve their competing claims.

I believe that after such a lengthy period of disagreement it is time to look for another Arab negotiating partner to replace the Palestinian Authority in an effort to resolve the issue of sovereignty. I don't see Hamas, Hezbollah,Islamic Jihad or the PLO being that negotiating partner. Jordan seems the best partner available to me.

You are wrong in asserting that:
" .. article 6 has been entirely fulfilled and sealed long ago. Article 80 only states that its surrounding articles do not override the likes of article 6, which is however no longer relevant."

These provisions are as alive and relevant to the West Bank today as they were when written into international law.

You are right - those 10000 Jews living in the West Bank before being driven out in 1948 lived in an area of Palestine in which Jews then had no sovereignty - but in which they had the legal right to settle. What you forget to mention is that no one else had sovereignty in the West Bank before the 1948 War either. That position is exactly the same in 2010.

Redrawing the boundary between Israel and Jordan to restore in a large measure the territorial situation that existed in June 1967 is the best possible solution that can now be achieved as a result of the failure to create a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel.

It is for Jordan and Israel to agree on the terms of any such solution. Hopefully they could do so where Israel and the Palestinian Authority have so miserably failed.

#mikk

Once again you make generalised and sweeping statements without any proof to support your claims.

However accepting your viewpoint that I am the only person in the world who supports the idea of Jordan and Israel sitting down to allocate the sovereignty of the West Bank between them - what is your proposed solution?

You see mikk - the current status quo is undesirable, volatile and highly dangerous. From your past comments you would at least appear to agree with me in this conclusion

So how can it be changed?

That is my challenge to everyone.

My proposal is to change the negotiating partners because the current ones are incapable of resolving who gets sovereignty in the West Bank.

Sometimes marriages are made in heaven. The marriage between Israel and the Palestinian Authority unfortunately turned out to be a marriage made in hell. It is time for a divorce.

What is your proposal?

David,

Indeed, a legal vacuum was created when Jordan decided to let-go of the West-Bank, so "any State or group of people can make a claim to it", but sigh, just because one CAN do something does not render it a GOOD idea to actually do it!

You touched a point with Mikk, mentioning "marriage from hell": the place is indeed a hell, and having sovereignty over a piece of hell is not in anybody's advantage (not even the Palestinians, who could have had it long ago if they wanted, though only on 99% of the area). Why should Israel, or anyone else, seek it?

Of course, Jordan could end the conflict at any moment by reclaiming its territory, but fortunately-or-not, they are not idiots. They correctly understand that including the Palestinian population is most likely to topple their own country and king, nor do they favour the alternative of (re)assuming the responsibility (and blame) for the Apartheid there.

Why are you desperately seeking to continue with negotiations?

You wrongly identify the problem as a matter of sovereignty, whereas the real problem is that the local inhabitants ("Palestinians" as they choose to call themselves for the last 30-something years) haven't got a life, and one of the results is that Israel has no security.

Before the Jewish settlers came and started their provocations, the locals had a reasonably-good life. They benefitted from Israeli tourism and employment, they did not even bother calling themselves "Palestinian" and hostilities toward Israel were kept at a minimum. This is hard now to reverse so don't expect miracles, but take away the settlers, give the locals a better life and allow the wounds to gradually heal over the decades. As the locals are allowed to move around freely and prosper, they will be less motivated to blow up themselves and their rockets in Israel, which in turn will be able to gradually reduce its military presence in the West-Bank. No negotiations are necessary for that.

P.S. How can Article-6 be still alive in isolation: what about Article-1 for example? Israel was never appointed "Mandatory"!