I felt like I had returned to the 1970s while reading this article; its been that long since I had read or heard anyone seriously suggesting that Palestine and the Palestinian people don't exist. Golda Meir described Israel as "a land with no people for a people with no land" and David Singer is trying on a similar colonialist misinformation. Terra Nulius anyone? Just because the more extreme end of the "Israel-right-or-wrong" lobby would like the Palestinians to disappear (much like the 18 century Australian eugenicists wished that Aboriginal people would die out) doesn't mean that Palestinians will give up their heroic struggle to regain their homeland. The really sad thing is that bigots like Mr Singer are ultimately working against the interests of the Jewish people. Ignore the lies of people like Singer and instead have a squiz at Israeli academic Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine if you want to understand the true story of Palestinian dispossession in the face of Israel's founding.

Oh, dear. And after only 4 paragraphs into David's latest we find the expected get-out-of-jail-free card: Redrawing Jordan’s international boundary with Israel to restore the status quo existing before the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War - as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground - provides a realistically achievable alternative to the doomed Israel-PLO negotiations.
- as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground -
And in a few more years those "changed circumstances on the ground" will include all of occupied Palestine, and the only option will be to finally declare that there is only one state between the river and the sea.
As this is inevitable, the race is now on, as it has been since 1948, to see how many Palestinians can be induced, whether by force or bribes, to leave. Otherwise any fair election in the new single state might result in some unacceptable returns.
The other, unmentionable desire to get rid of this Palestine is because a recognised State would have the right to take Israel to court for crimes against humanity.
That's right. Crimes against humanity. By Israel. Oops!
Time's running out, David. It's still possible to join the community of nations, but time is running out.

David, with your huge knowledge and extremely intimate grasp of the situation and underlying causes. They should retire Kerry and send you in his place.
And given your immense knowledge and abundant expertise, your are bound to fix things/find a permanent solution!
In fact, after reading your many posts and endless critiques, One could safely assume, you're the only one that could!
Y'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.

1) "Kamel’s claim is refuted by article 2 of the PLO Charter”:
I am not sure how the PLO charter would refute that "never did the land beyond the Jordan have a religious, social or cultural value comparable to the land between the river and the Mediterranean Sea". Abu Khalid Thawr Ibn Yazid al-Kalai (764–854): “The holiest place [al-quds] on Earth is Syria; the holiest place in Syria is Palestine; the holiest place in Palestine is Jerusalem [Bayt al-maqdis]”. The perception of the local population is what it matters.
The PLO Charter is irrelevant, but also if we decide to focus only on it we should keep in mind that that Charter referred to the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, that is the land on which the "palestinian nationality" applied. The inhabitants of Transjordan were in fact excluded from the scope of Palestinian nationality by Article 21 of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order:
"For the purpose of this Order: (1) The expression ‘Palestine’ includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territory comprised in Palestine to the East of the [River of] Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated 1 September 1922". Government of Palestine, Proclamations, Regulations, Rules, Orders, 1925.

2) "Indeed, from the moment Prince Faysal set up a government in Damascus in October 1918":

a) Chaim Weizmann to his wife, July 17, 1918: “I made the acquaintance of Fayṣal [...]. He is not interested in Palestine [...] He is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t even regard as Arabs”. Cit. in Weizmann, Litvinoff (ed.), The essential Chaim Weizmann, p. 209.

b) During WWI Arab nationalists cooperated with Sharif Hussein and his sons in order to have an Arab kingdom. The Palestinians, who were part of this ideology, thought at that time, tactically, that it would be in their interest to be part of the Faisal kingdom in the Bilad al-Sham. That’s why it is the only two years (1918-1920) during which they speak about Palestine as Southern Syria or the kingdom of Faisal. After Faisal is kicked out of Damascus, the next conference doesn’t speak about being part of Syria or the kingdom of Feisal. In the summer of 1920 the episode is finished.

c) No documents have been produced by the local majority, prior to 1918 or after 1920, which put aside Palestine and all it represented in favor of the concept of “Southern Syria”. In order to understand the reasons behind the political statements made by the future founder of the OLP Ahmad ash-Shuqayri (1908-1980) and other Arab leaders, often cited in order to negate the existence of a particular Palestinian identity see D. Pipes, Is Jordan Palestine?: "For advocates of Jordan-is-Palestine, such claims suggest Arab agreement that Palestine and Jordan are identical. But this interpretation distorts the real character of these remarks, which are not disinterested analyses but propaganda ploys and declarations of hostile intent. Minimally, they establish diplomatic positions within inter-Arab arena. Maximally, they assert rights to expand and rule other regions; the PLO hopes to stake out a claim to territory it does not control; Amman seeks to protect territories it either controls or hopes one day to control again".

3. "Transjordan was always included in the annual Report for the Mandate for Palestine presented to the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission."
Transjordan was included with this clarification: "In view of the fact that Transjordan was a mandated territory, and since it was not excepted from the provisions of Article 24 of the Mandate, would it not be possible for the mandatory Power to take the necessary steps in order that the Commission should receive regularly the laws and other regulations promulgated in Transjordan?
In Yithak Gil-Har's words: "Great Britain had always treated Trans-Jordan as a political entity completely separate from Palestine. Its inclusion within the framework of the Palestine Mandate was an outcome of the political events following the fall of Faisal’s government in July 1920. The Palestine-Trans-Jordan boundary served as a political barrier separating two states. Therefore, the postulation by some writers that the boundary was merely administrative in its character, delineating two territories subjected to the one British rule within the British Empire has no foundation in reality”.

As for the Arab Legion: Transjordan was the only political entity in the region, among the ones within London’s sphere of influence, not directly garrisoned by British troops.

As for "Immigration from Transjordan": "Now Trans-Jordan has a government entirely independent of Palestine – the laws of Palestine are not applicable in Trans-Jordan nor are their laws applicable here. Moreover, although the High Commissioner of Palestine is also High Commissioner for Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan has an entirely independent government under the rule of an Amir and apart from certain reserved matters the High Commissioner cannot interfere with the government of Trans-Jordan […]. Trans-Jordan nationality is recognised […] Palestinians and Trans-Jordanians are foreigners and therefore Trans-Jordan must be regarded as a foreign state in relation to Palestine". 1945, British High Court (in Jawdat Badawi Sha’ban v. Commissioner for Migration and Statistics）