Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In David Singer's case he proposes the same ludicrous "option" week after week in the hope it will gain acceptance.

His option is ludicrous because it cannot work. It cannot work because the Palestinians and the international community will never agree to it. They will never agree to it because it is immoral. It is immoral because you cannot force the Palestinians to abandon their right to self determination in their own state in the land of their birth.

Singer of course doesn't understand this because apparently he regards Jews as superior to Palestinians and therefore with superior rights to the land. He tries to justify this on spurious legal grounds (which have no acceptance by any government on earth other than right wing politicians in Israel) but the real basis for his position is unadulterated racism and bigotry. His right wing extremist views do not in my view represent the jewish community in this country or Israel. They represent the views of someone completely out of touch with reality; someone who can write as much nonsense as he likes from the comfort of Sydney; someone who does not live in Israel and will never need to live with the consequences of the intifada and isolation that will follow if his "option" was implemented

#Ben DR

Attack me as much as you like - but the basis for reuniting the West Bank with Gaza has its precedent - the 17 years that it actually happened between 1950-1967 when not one Jew lived in either the West Bank and Jordan.

This happened with Arab League approval.

It happened with PLO approval for three years between 1964-1967 from the time the PLO was formed.

Indeed Article 24 of the original PLO Covenant provided:
"This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."

In my opinion had Jordan not lost the West Bank and Egypt lost Gaza to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War - this would have still been the position today.

Diplomacy is the art of the possible.

20 years of trying to establish a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap has proved an abject failure.

Everyone is agreed the current status quo in Gaza and the West Bank cannot continue and that the allocation of sovereignty in those areas needs to be determined.

Seeking to unify the West Bank with Israel into one State is in my opinion an option that cannot possibly eventuate.

Seeking to unify part of the West Bank with Israel and part of the West Bank and Gaza with Jordan and possibly Egypt is far more likely to succeed.

Concentrate on the above facts - not me personally - and perhaps your eyes might be opened to encouraging diplomacy that can deliver results to help end the Arab- Jewish conflict.

<<In my opinion had Jordan not lost the West Bank and Egypt lost Gaza to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War - this would have still been the position today.>>

Quite so, but things have changed since.
Today's Gazan population in particular is an explosive barrel that would blow up any country they are in.

We can only mourn the past: had only the Israelis foresaw these developments in advance and withdrew early after that cursed war - but at the time only one Israeli (Yeshayahu Leibowitz) saw what's coming.

<<Seeking to unify part of the West Bank with Israel and part of the West Bank and Gaza with Jordan and possibly Egypt is far more likely to succeed.>>

The West-Bank on its own may succeed, but nothing will succeed while Israel is united with even one square-centimetre of the West Bank; and in particular with the 'holy-sites' therein; so long as the Messianic component of Zionism is not completely broken, which sanctifies the secular state of Israel and perceives the 6-day military victory in 1967 as the 'hand of God', thus sanctifying militarism itself. For any chance of peace, that must go!
(not withstanding Arab and Iranian belligerence, as a separate issue that should also be dealt with before peace can be achieved)

David,

Congratulations, you're not annexationist. You merely want the Palestinians permanently deprived of a state by reclassifying them as Egyptians or Jordanians. Do you want to do this without their consent (as the South Africa Nationalist party did with its indigenous population from 1948) or would you like them to just agree voluntarily to their own national suicide ?

I am assuming you mean "Politics is the art of the possible" (Bismark I think) ? If so, it seems to me that the 2 methods by which you seek to achieve your solutions fall significantly foul of that quote.

Incidentally, if you are ideologically opposed to any form of viable Palestinian state in the WB (which you appear to be) are you not just a hypocrite to bemoan the fact that no agreement has been reached on one for 20 years ? What, for example, have you done in 20 years to advocate for such an agreement ?

Perhaps it will help us understand you better if you could tell us whether you would support Livni if she reached a complete peace agreement, bridging the gaps between the parties that existed at, say, Taba or Annapolis (the closest the parties have ever been), and if not, why not ?

#Ben DR

The Palestinian Arabs have had chance after chance to have their own state - but have always knocked it back.

A State could have been theirs in 1937, 1947, between 1948-1967, in 2000/2001 and 2008 - but they failed to grasp any of those opportunities.

They will assuredly miss the boat again within the remaining six months of the time set for the current negotiations - and for the same reason that led to their rejection of such a State when offered to them on the previously stated occasions - they have only wanted a Jew-free Palestine - and will settle for nothing less.

For them Palestine is exclusive Arab territory and the Jews are persona non grata - as clear a racist and apartheid policy as anyone could ever hope to see espoused anywhere in the world.

Until the Arabs agree to accept the idea of a Jewish Nation State located within the ancient biblical, historical and internationally recognised and legally sanctioned area of the Jewish National Home - nothing will change with the Arab League, PLO, Hamas and the myriad band of terrorist groups operating under a bewildering assortment of esoteric names.

That is their prerogative - and yours if you like to support it.

It is however a certain prescription for continuing conflict - as the events of the last 90 years have clearly proved.

The reality is that with the imminent demise of the present "two-state" solution proposed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - reunification of the West Bank with Jordan still remains the only realistic solution.

In my opinion nothing else has any realistic chance of success.

You disagree as is your entitlement - but offer no other realistic solution.

You need to do so and then we can discuss your proposal.

David,

I'm assuming that when you say that "they" want a "Jew-free Palestine", you are referring to the area east of the so called green line ? The PA (and at least those negotiating now) obviously don’t think that way in relation to the area west of the line and you are spreading lies to suggest otherwise.

As for the land to the east, its an exaggeration to say that all those areas will be "Judenrein". The PA will probably (and bitterly) accept that many of the current illegal enclaves (around 4-6%) will form part of Israel and, for those who decide to move, there must be compensation.

Although it may be scant comfort, I have personally heard the PLO foreign minister state last year to an Israeli organisation that Jews remaining in a Palestinian state would have their rights protected. Israel's trump card in this is that the PA would be signing deportation orders for every Arab in Israel were it to do otherwise (as a signatory to the ICC it would also find itself in the ICC quicker than you can say Geoffrey Robertson QC).

While most people would sympathise with settlers who feel compelled to move, this would be balanced against the historical hardship incurred by 700,000 Arab refugees from 1948, for which Israel showed no sympathy (Benny Morris and others excepted).

Obviously the Palestinians don’t accept the idea of a Jewish Nation State located within ALL the ancient biblical, historical Palestine. For heaven's sake, nor does the entire international community, and they never will. If you are not prepared to even compromise on that then you are no better than maximalists like Hamas.

You would also be a gross hypocrite btw to complain about the failure of the Palestinians to grasp anything in 1947, in 2000/2001 and 2008 because none of those offers involved ALL the land. Put another way, you would have offered them nothing and they would have been right to reject that.