D: "olmert never built these settlements, so he can demand what he wants" You are saying that because Olmert is the recipient of stolen goods - rather than the thief himself - then the goods have magically been transformed from "stolen" to "kosher". I Don't Think So. D: "he wants a signed agreement, if the palestinians agree it must be legal." You are suggesting that the POSSIBILITY of a HYPOTHETIC future agreement "pre-emptively gives retrospective legitimacy" to the settlements. Laughable. The question: were the settlements established illegally and are they legal now? The answer: they were - and are still - illegal. D: "us military experts concluded after six day war that Israel is not miltarily defensible in `67 borders." Whacko! So a nation can "improve" its military defenses by the annexation of land from its neighbors? No argument from me. There is still remains the wee little issue of LEGALITY, Duncan.
Western-backed Syrian rebels say kill foreign Islamic State (Reuters)
from the article: Failed marks in comprehension