No, it is not a slip of the tongue. The so-called "peace process" between the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East did by no means start with the Oslo Agreements 16 years ago. The peace process had its early beginnings 
The problem can only be solved through a reparation of the historic mistake which was made by Churchill.
at the St. James Conference (after St. James Palace in London, where this conference took place in 1939 under the auspices of the British colonial power of Palestine), and which by now has almost fallen into oblivion. The British offered to Jews and Arabs at that Round Table Conference to divide the western part of Mandate Palestine (located between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean coast) into two national entities: a Jewish state and an Arab state. The territory to the east of the river Jordan had by then been already allocated by the British to the Bedouin Hashemite Dynasty.
The Jews accepted that proposal, the Arabs rejected it. Seventy years have passed since then, years full of well-known global and local cataclysms. In the territory of historic Palestine (the Land of Israel in the Jewish tradition; the Holy Land in the Christian) two states have been founded: 1) the independent State of Israel, recreated by the Jews after almost two millennia of discontinuation; and 2) the Arab Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
A third, Palestinian state, has not yet been founded. The West Bank (in the Jewish historical tradition, Judea and Samaria), eastern Jerusalem (including the historic Old City with holy places of all the monotheistic religions) and the Gaza Strip changed hands. From 1948 till 1967 they were under the sway of Jordan and Egypt, since 1967 they have been controlled by Israel.
The Gaza Strip was left to its own devices in 2005, after the complete pullback of the Israeli army and the total liquidation of all Jewish settlements. The consequences are now common knowledge: the religious fundamentalists of Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip, incessant rocket shelling of Israeli territory from Gaza is continuing, hostage-taking remains the order of the day, etc. All this resulted in the Israeli military's Operation Cast Lead.
It is worthwhile considering the real and deep reasons for this 70-year-long confrontation. Why has an independent Palestinian state not been created by now? Churchill, in an arbitrary decision, assigned the eastern part of then-Mandate Palestine to the Hashemite Dynasty, which was well disposed to the British, and forbid Jews from settling east of the Jordan River, annihilating simultaneously flourishing Jewish settlements; whereas, in the western part of Palestine a mixed Arab-Jewish administrative entity was being created. Yet, even thereafter, the region has not had any chance to enjoy peace and tranquility.
Theoretically, it is assumed, the creation of a mini-state of "Palestine" - which would be squeezed in between the Kingdom of Jordan, with Palestinian Arabs comprising 70% of its population, and Israel, where Arabs who identify themselves as Palestinians represent 20% of the overall population - will result in the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, bring peace to the whole region and, as a consequence, resolve the global conflict between radical Islam and Western civilization. As a matter of fact, most leading politicians cling to this belief.
In our opinion, the creation of such a state would in fact produce opposite results. It would not contribute to the resolution of the problem, it will on the contrary constitute a new phase of the conflict. Despite the obligatory political rhetoric about peaceful aspirations and the commitment to the two-state solution for two peoples in Western Palestine, neither of the conflicting parties really desires such a solution.
First and foremost, the Palestinians are in fact deeply opposed to this concept, as they consider themselves to be the true and rightful owners of the entire historic Palestine, both its western and eastern part. Moderate Palestinian leaders are, at best, prepared to reconcile themselves with the idea of such a mini-state as a first step on the road to restoring historical justice (in their sense, of course); i.e., to extending such a state at the cost of destroying both Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan. Thus, they have the same reason to accept the two-state solution as did David Ben-Gurion in 1939 in accepting a mini-state for Jews (who then were supposed to make do with even smaller territory than the area which was ultimately granted to Israel by the United Nations in 1947).
It is no coincidence that the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) was founded on Jordanian soil in 1964; i.e., three years before eastern Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli control. It goes without saying that there was not a single Jewish settlement in these areas in 1964 and any Jew coming to these territories would have immediately been put to death.
Likewise, it is no coincidence that in 1970 Yasser Arafat attempted to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan (in "Black September") and to proclaim a "Palestinian State" in East Palestine (i.e., Jordan).
Those Palestinian aspirations are vividly recollected and understood in Jordan. Most Israelis are also well aware of them, especially after the bitter and painful events following the IDF pullout from Southern Lebanon and Gaza.
Hence, it is not by chance that the Netanyahu-Lieberman government was elected in February 2009, de facto opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.
What is to be done?
In our judgment, the problem can only be solved through a reparation of the historic mistake which was made by Churchill when he divided Palestine into western and eastern halves. This can be accomplished by means of a Confederation of Peoples of Palestine, consisting of three entities: 1) the State of Israel; 2) the Kingdom of Jordan; and 3) the Palestinian Autonomy.
It stands to reason that the overall geopolitical situation should not be affected by such a solution, as national and administrative organization of all the parts of the Confederation would be maintained. The Confederation would be pursuing common and coordinated foreign policy, and would have joint defense and economy structures. In the field of domestic politics, the Confederation's members should guarantee each other the preservation of their national institutions. All the controversial issues (including territorial claims, the situation of the refugees - both Arab and Jewish - the status of the holy sites, the environment, etc.) would be resolved in good faith at the institutional level in the Confederation through a reasonable compromise. Taking into consideration that the Confederation's population has very strong feelings about racial and religious issues, it would be expedient to transfer executive powers in the Jewish part of the Confederation to Jewish administrative and security authorities, and in the Arab part, to the respective Arab authorities. 
The Confederation would be pursuing common and coordinated foreign policy.
We are not naive, and we are acutely aware of the enormous challenges that everybody will face during implementation of this concept. There will certainly be considerable opposition to this idea. Yet, there appear to be few alternative solutions:
1. Maintaining the status quo; i.e., the continuation of the interminable conflict, liable to degenerate into a total war with numerous victims and a new wave of refugees.
2. Creation of a mini-state of Palestine, which will be squeezed between Israel and Jordan. We have already discussed the potential consequences of such a solution.
3. A total war, aimed at the annihilation of Israel, which will quite probably be fought with nuclear weapons and will result in the death of a large part of the population in the Middle East.
4. An Islamic revolution in Jordan.
We consider the proposed plan for the resolution of controversies in the Middle East to be most realistic and viable. Such an approach made it once possible for the Europeans to solve conflicts that were swelling on the continent over centuries, through the founding of the European Community. It is time that the peoples of Palestine took their fate into their own hands.