I appreciate the reply David.

1. Well, the term “Palestinians” now referring to non-Jewish people is indeed a shift in meaning as often happens to words but as long as one accepts that Jews & Arabs & others are indigenous inhabitants of those lands I don’t think it’s a big problem. Jews also stopped using the term to refer to themselves. I do agree it makes racist anti-Jewish rhetoric easier. The PLO Charter by the way, which I certainly don’t endorse, does actually contain an Article 6 stating that “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”

2. Yes Israel has sole administrative and security control over Area C under the Oslo Accords. That’s why it’s called an “occupation”. The Areas were only established as a temporary transitional arrangement. Area C contains 60% of the West Bank and has ~380,000 “settlers” and ~300,000 Arabs, which I don’t think is very small population. There would be a lot more Arabs if Israel didn’t restrict construction in a brazenly apartheid/racist way. By the way, under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which the Jewish side apparently agreed to, the Area C would go to a Palestinian state. I’d be interested to know what you think should happen to it? Do you support a two-state solution, a one-state solution, or something else?

3. The twin requirements of resolution 242 also say nothing about there not being an additional Arab state. That’s left to negotiations of a dignified outcome acceptable to the majority of both sides, which requires peace-building momentum from both sides. Trying to cement control over the hotly disputed & expanding settlements does the opposite. It’s already accepted by the Arabs that they will not get 100% but an Arab state without the vast majority of Area C is unviable, the result would be extremely unfair to the Arab side, and it has little chance of achieving a just and lasting peace. The other alternative, a one-state solution, would require full citizenship of Israel by West Bank & Gaza Arabs, constitutional guarantees for all, full equality, a change of flag, anthem, perhaps of the country name to Israel-Palestine, etc.

Eugene:

1. Sorry – the term “Palestinians ” has been appropriated by the Arab residents of former Palestine to apply solely to them and not to the Jews or other non-Arab people who lived in former Palestine – as the PLO Charter makes unambiguously clear. This is a racist and apartheid concept that should be absolutely condemned by everyone.

2. Israel has sole administrative and security control over Area C under the Oslo Accords. Decisions for Area C are its to make and no one else. The European Union’s attempt to meddle in Area C policy is disgraceful. The Arab population of Area C is very small and attempts by the European Union to create facts on the ground for them without receiving Israeli permission is fueling and encouraging Arab discord.

3. You omit to mention that the requirements for a “just and lasting peace” in Security Council Resolution 242 require the application of both the following principles:

(a) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and

(b) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Israel has already withdrawn from over 90% of the territories occupied in the Six Day War. Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from 100%. Resolution 242 says nothing about creating an additional Arab state between Israel and Jordan. Israel is entitled to enjoy secure and recognized boundaries.

When the Arabs realise they are not going to get 100% of Judea and Samaria – the peace train can leave the station. If they want to ignore this simple fact – then the conflict will continue and the train will stand stationary whilst continuing to let off a lot of steam.

Trump’s decision will hopefully be an important stepping stone towards realising the twin requirements of Resolution 242.

Currently the civil rights of non-Jewish communities are being severely prejudiced, for example via restrictions in building permits in “Area C”, restricted water allocations, and the loss of land to exclusively Jewish “settlements”. There is a horrific long-term cycle of violence, with much hatred & distrust on both sides, and with evil & counter-productive terrorist attacks leading to retaliation and mass casualties among civilians, thereby fueling more hatred & terrorism.

Security Council Resolutions 242 calls for “a just and lasting peace”. A lasting peace requires that the land be shared with a spirit of mutual dignity. This can only be achieved if the momentum changes into the direction of comprehensive peace-building & trust-building. This has a chance of reducing support to increasingly dangerous terrorists & getting the terrible Palestinian leaders to do more against them. The settlements and Trump’s latest decision go in the opposite direction, and will certainly not end demands to end “the occupation”..