and Ivar. On this occasion though, I disagree with both. The only land that MODERN Israel is entitled to is that generously given to it in 1948 by the UN. Everything else has been achieved by conquest (illegal) or settlement (illegal). If the UN condones these, then it is on a slippery slope of what is right and wrong. It would administer to the Israeli public in general and the aggressive right in particular a dose of healthy reality, namely that all these facts on the ground that successive governments have created at great cost, have been a flawed, meaningless exercise. That would be a good starting-point for sensible, real-world negotiations, rather than Israel ALWAYS pushing for more and demanding nine-tenths of the cherry cake. If they want the land up to the security barrier, then they should pay for it in cash or kind, surrendering land of equal value elsewhere. Why not? Why should illegal facts on the ground be a starting point, they certainly aren't in international law?
Suspect Bangkok bomber arrested, found with possible bomb-making materials (Reuters)
from the article: Netanyahu: Israel and U.S. have resolved settlements row