Negotiating semantic minefield of 'occupied' and 'disputed' becomes a pressing necessity

Are they really unaware that 40% of the West Bank-including Nablus and Bethlehem - contains 96% of the West Bank Arab population-and has been under the total administrative control of the Palestine Liberation Organisation since 1995?

Have they forgotten that Israel offered to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/2001 and 2008-and that both offers were rejected.

Carr and Evans aren't averse in misleading their readership when they assert:

The International Court of Justice in 2004 declared not only that the West Bank was occupied but that this was illegal.

It is unseemly that they forget to mention that this decision was an Advisory Opinion only and has no binding legal effect.

What is completely inexcusable is that Carr and Evans relied only on this International Court of Justice decision-whilst apparently failing to consider the following established international law with specific application to the West Bank-namely:

1. The Mandate for Palestine 1922 - especially article 6-and article 80 of the United Nations Charter and

2. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

These provisions provide the legal basis for Israel using the term "disputed territory" and Australia rejecting the pejorative term "occupied territory" used in countless UN Resolutions - misleadingly suggesting an Arab entitlement to 100% exclusive sovereignty.

The Arab-Jewish conflict has been an ongoing battle of words as much as a series of real live battles fought by the Jews against its Palestinian Arab neighbours, the armies of six Arab States and a myriad number of terrorist groups over the last 130 years.

Notable semantic battles that have influenced the political debate include:

1. Do the words "in Palestine" as used in the Mandate for Palestine mean "all of Palestine"?