Olmert's negotiator: Full Mideast peace impossible

No negotiation, no peace, no recognition..recall those 6 words? To remind, after the 67 War that the Arabs started ( 100,000 troops on the border and blockade of Israel's 2nd major port), Israel (mistakenly) offered the land back for peace. Has anything changed since? The ans. is obvious, no! Today, as then, the goal is a Judenrein land, Med. to the Jordan River. They hate us, They want to kill all of us. Hamas now threatens Israeli interests abroad. Al Qaeda has targeted all of us. Fatwas are issued daily to kill us, all 13m. We are at war for our very survival. Our enemies have joined forces: Hamas, Hez, Syria, Iran, and much of the Arab/Muslim worlds. This time, we have 400 nukes to strike back..thousands of tanks and rockets. We have an army of 1m with millions of Christians ready to aid. Olmert had pre-conditions.,.all of Israel after 67 to be given away. Fatah demanded the right of return (5m Arabs moving to the land between). A sure suicidal agreement. Israel, wake up.

Fellow Zionists and the anti-Israel posters here, lets be frank and honest. This is not about Syria, Hez, Hamas or Fatah, it's about the mullahs and Ahmad in Iran. W/O Egypt, Syria could not make war, (that's why the border is quiet). But with Iran's threats to destroy Israel, coupled with enriced uranium (to make nuke warheads). W/O Iran, there cannot be a war, only small skirmishes, annoying, but not a threat to Israel's existence. ( Goldstone report is going to the Hague, but so what ). Iran WIll do what they want, sanctions or not. Having a nuke capability gives them dominance in the M.E. and Gulf., but will they nuke Tel Aviv? If Israel warns Iran that an attack will result in a retaliation which will make Iran/Syria history....10s of millions of Muslims, killed and wounded..that will give Ahmad and the Guards second thoughts. Israel can deal with Assas by aiming shells into Damascus and other cities..and raking the Bekaa Valley. Those phosophorous shells will be history.

An Israeli journalist wrote, "Still not enough". He was referring to Israel's offers as NEVER being enough. I would add the 3 Nos..negotiation (Abbas/Assad want pre-conditions), no peace, no recognition. Doesn't everyone get it, this is NOT, about settlements, borders, the Temple Mt, Jordan Valley, Jerusalem ( the Pals want all of the city). Its about Israel, Judenrein. Judenrein means w/o Jews ( term used by Hitler's henchmen). The Arab world looks at Israel's cities and achievements..and thinks, " it could be ours"), They started 10 wars..and to date, have lost all. One win, and Israel is history. Iran said today, G-d will destroy Israel. The Mullah really means, our Shihabs, with nuke warheads..2 bombs..and goodbye Charley. Even if Israel strikes back with 100 bombs..so what. The Muslims believe in 72 virgins. Either way, they win.

We have finally an Israeli government that truly understands the situation: whatever Israel's concessions to the pals, the pals will only reciprocate with more demands.The pals have NOTHING to offer to the peace process, since they don't want to make concessions and CANNOT. Any pal leader making less than maximalist demands upon Israel, knows that the pals will assassinate him. Only the status-quo is good for the corrupt pal leadership.This is the tragedy of the pals, who never even had nat'l aspirations when they were under the rule of Egypt and Jordan.

it easy to blame the victum for not wanting peace while the facts says otherwise. Israeli are the one who continue to build settelements on Palestinian lands which was already agreed upon that will be Palestinian lands. Israeli are the one who continue to stall the process and put impossible demands. Fact on the ground may change but it will not change the outcome. 1967 land is the only solution and the minimum reqirement for a viable Pal state. buying time is not in the interest of the Israeli people. The idea of living without Israel in the ME is taking track and the Lebanese war proved that it is possible to attack Israel like Israel has attacked civilan arab. Learn and give the Palestinians their rights, also leave he Lebanese people alone and leave our Shebaa farm. Lebanese are not Palestinians and they know how to fight you and they proved it since 1982. The game is over. Leave Lebanon alone.

Michael is correct. Keeping land taken by conquest has been illegal since the creation of UN resolution 242. But you, Mark, chose, I suspect deliberately, the wrong statement of UNSC 242 to determine legality or violation of the resolution. The resolution determines as a premise the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war. That phrasing makes no demands. Israel is in violation of that part of the resolution which demands withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. That occupation also violates article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Protocol I, article 85 terms breaches of the Convention shall be regarded as war crimes. That is why your statement that it is not illegal to keep land conquered by war is wrong. The use of inadmissibility was not chosen to support your position. You should know that statutes for capital murder do not include the word illegal. But violation of the statute can carry the death penalty.

I have read 121 posts and not one of them has mentioned any of the following facts: 1. Jews lived in the West Bank and Gaza prior to being driven out in 1948 by the Egyptian and Jordanian armies. 2. The Arabs had 19 years to create a sovereign Arabs-only State in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived there but failed to do so. 3. Jewish rights to settle in the West Bank and Gaza to reconstitute the Jewish National Home were conferred by the League of Nations in the Mandate for Palestine and preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter. 4. The West Bank and Gaza are 6% of historic Palestine, Israel is 16% and Jordan makes up the remaining 78% of historic Palestine. If Israeli and Palestinian Authority negotiators cannot first agree on these facts, then any negotiations between them are doomed to failure. The only possible compromise in my view is the division of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan,Israel and Egypt.

If the US were to suspend the transfer of weapons and funds to Israel there would be peace tomorrow. It's really quite simple.

Michael is correct. Keeping land taken by conquest has been illegal since the creation of UN resolution 242. But you, Mark, chose, I suspect deliberately, the wrong statement of UNSC 242 to determine legality or violation of the resolution. The resolution determines as a premise the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war. That phrasing makes no demands. Israel is in violation of that part of the resolution which demands "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." That occupation also violates article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Protocol I, article 85 terms "breaches of the Convention shall be regarded as war crimes." That is why your statement that it is not illegal to keep land conquered by war is wrong. The use of "inadmissibility" was not chosen to support your position. You should know that statutes for capital murder do not include the word illegal. But violation of the statute can carry the death penalty.

"... the actual balance of power, all factors considered, has shifted overwhelmingly to the Palestinians." This is not obvious. The Israeli army still appears to be the most powerful army in the middle east -- by far the best funded. The IAF can destroy any other air force in the middle east. (Except the USAF in Iraq unless they did a really great sneak attack.) How can the balance of power favor Palestinians when the Israeli army can easily kill all the Palestinians? The Israelis could solve their Palestinian problem in two weeks if they had the political will to kill them all. The IAF could destroy every city in Syria and Lebanon and Turkey in a few hours. They have nukes and nobody else in the middle east does. If the USA objected, Israel could sink the Sixth Fleet in a few hours. They have our codes, and many of their pilots are US veterans. They could approach our ships pretending to be US planes. What power do Palestinians have?

TP: "If facts on the ground are irrelevant then where is the logic in the PA insisting on a total construction freeze in the settlements as a PRECONDITION to any further negotiations?" In no particular order: Israel agreed to a total freeze in 2003, and its subsequent refusal us therefore a demonstration of "bad faith". It is pointless negotiating with someone who refuses to be bound by their signature. If Israel can continue construction during the negotiations then that is an powerful incentive for Israel to drag out the negotiations indefinitely i.e. the longer it can delay then the more the "facts on the ground" will alter in its favour. Conversely, if there is a freeze then there is a powerful incentive for Israel to cut the crap and clinch a deal, because that deal will be the only way to "unfreeze" what has been "frozen". All perfectly logic, if you actually bothered to think about it from Abbas' point of view.

It is this: take a self-serving statement by a zionist, and then apply it to other situations and see how well it fits. As in... 17: "...taken by conquest from another STATE." In WW2 the British invaded and occupied Mandate Syria which, clearly, was not the territory of any STATE. According to 17 that meant that Britain had "conquered" Syria i.e. it was no longer a Mandate territory but was now a part of the British Empire. Funny, but they didn't see it that way, 17.. In addition, Japan invaded Rabaul and New Guinea (both Mandate territory) and yet nobody claimed that Japan "owned" those territories as a result of that invasion. And, of course, the Americans overran many islands that where under a Japanese Mandate i.e. were not the territory of another state. The Americans did not claim that they had "conquered" those islands, 17, even tho according to you they had. How odd, heh?

M: "I hate to keep pounding on Johnboy," Funny, but I haven't actually noticed a glove being laid on me by Marty... M: "When Muslims talk about 'RIGHTS' what they mean is that they get what they want in any conflict with non-Muslims, who are considered inferior human beings."... Let me stop you there and tell you to talk to Dekel, because he is clearly of the opinion that "The Palestinian approach was in principle the demand of 100 percent of their rights from 1967." Or, in short: both Dekel and I talk about the same subject, while you spout rhetorical nonsense regarding your preconceptions of "the Muslims". Polemics, in a word. M: "The world would not tolerate Jews claiming anything as their right since, in much of the world, Jews simply don`t have any rights." Marty, the negotiations Dekel discusses were between "Israel" and the "PLO", not between "the Jews" and "the Muslims". Yet you pontificate only about the latter. P.O.L.E.M.I.C.S.

I: "What the heck are you doing in Australia?" The entire continent is under the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I am a citizen of that Commonwealth. That's why I'm here. Compare and contrast that with the Israeli colonists inside the West Bank..... I: "You have no claim to that land!" I'll repeat it for the slow people: the Commonwealth of Australi has undisputed and universally acknowledged sovereignty over the entire continent, and all its citizens share in that. Compare and contrast, Ishai... I: "Pack your stuff and go back to Great Britain!" *sigh* The U.K. ceased to be the sovereign in 1901, when "state succession" took place a.k.a. "Federation". Therefore the U.K. is as foreign to me as the West Bank is foreign territory to an Israeli. I: "Get it now?" Yeah, I do, and you don't. I: "This is not about rights." And that statement tells you volumes about the zionist mindset, doesn't it?

I hate to keep pounding on Johnboy, but this is something else he doesn't understand. When Muslims talk about "RIGHTS" what they mean is that they get what they want in any conflict with non-Muslims, who are considered inferior human beings. (This last point is made explicit in the Arab Declaration of Human Rights.) This view is fundamentally racist, and is largely unknown in those parts of the Western world where denunciation of Israel as a racist state is widespread. The world would not tolerate Jews claiming anything as their right since, in much of the world, Jews simply don't have any rights. That is why "enlightened" European countries tolerate efforts to use their legal systems to criminalize Israeli self-defense against Muslim violence, but won't consider taking action against those who incite to war crimes directed at Jews. Unfortunately many of those posting in this blog have internalized this notion.

az: "Being that Israel is now an enemy of the US," That comes as news to the 58% support Israel enjoys in the U.S., considering the Jewish population in the U.S. is less than 0.5% Jewish that's pretty good. az: "Njad in 47-48, cleansed it of its people and build Sderot on the ruins." Lets be more accurate about Najd the Palestinian village. First it was not "cleansed" as you put it, and was NOT leveled with rockets, both of these claims and simply wrong. This village had a population of 620 and during the war the population was expelled, as happens in all wars. So this was not some large Arab town "cleansed" which implies murdered or worse. It was a tiny farming village of 620 people that were expelled(by Negev Brigade) into Gaza with no deaths during that process. After the war the small village was leveled and Sderot was built. Either you do no research, or your a liar?

Michael: "as you probably know. Keeping land taken by conquest has been illegal at least since the creation of the UN" Mark: No it is not "illegal" as you put it. If it was then you would increase the possibility war. In Res. 242 for instance the word "inadmissible" was used, not "illegal" there was a reason for this careful selection of words. There must be a consequence to the aggressor(the country starting the won just to steal land or resources etc.). If the defender wins the war a takes land from the country that attacked it without cause, your logic would force the defender to give back the land it conquered defending itself. Thereby removing the consequence for starting a war. It would, in effect make it easier(reward the aggressor) to start a war because the aggressor country has nothing to lose. Even if they lose they get their land back, that's why it is not "illegal" to keep land conquered in war, that was why "inadmissible" was used in 242 not "illegal". Get it!

It is amazing to me how the Israeli officials keep saying the Palestinians have this "All or nothing attitude". Not sure which world those officials/commentators are living in but 1967 borders represent 23% of historical Palestine. so accepting 1967 is by no stretch an "all or nothing" stance. My grand parents and family were forced out of their village in 1948 and yet we find it in our hearts and for the future of our kids and next generations to accept the very tough deal of accepting 1967 borders. If any Palestinian leader would compromise on that then he exposes him/her self to being called a traitor and some might want his head. If I were in Bibi's shoes I would know that it's in the best interest of Israel to make peace now and change the momentum in the region. I unfortunately don't think that he has what it takes to do it. Palestinians all over the world want a place to call home and live in peace but it?s the dream of a greater Israel that might one day lead to no Israel.

It seems the Palestinian negotiating position is that Israel agree before negotiations begin to return to the 1967 borders and the right of return. So if Israel agrees to this, what is left to negotiate? Those who advocate a return to 1967 and the right of return clearly believe that Israel has no right to exist. I am not aware of any negotiating team negotiating its'own extinction. The Palestinains can always declare a unilateral State but then Israel would have the right to seal its'border. Who would be in charge of such a State-Hamas or Fatah? If the Palestinians really want a viable State, they must face the reality that 1967 or close to it can only be achieved in negotiation and that the right of return is a non starter for Israel. But I really do not believe the Palestinians want a State in Gaza and the West Bank, Thay really weant a one State solution with Jews treated the way they are now in the other Arab countries. Why should the Palestinians be any different.

Petra has a friend in the S. US. Petra is obsessed with rockets. Why the rockets? For one, Israel leveled the Pal village of Njad in 47-48, cleansed it of its people and build Sderot on the ruins. That is why the rockets. I take it you two have dual citizenship OR love Israel better than your home country. Being that Israel is now an enemy of the US, you must make a choice. You can no longer have it both ways. What is it? Be bold and admit your truths.

What I meant more was that the actual balance of power, all factors considered, has shifted overwhelmingly to the Palestinians. Politics and personalities will determine how events develop, but "Israeli" politicians would be wise to quickly realize that ultimately their only "currency" in requesting stable political control over land in the -land of Israel- will be Palestinian generosity. It may not be obvious to everyone but it is a simple fact. I doubt it will be different than that for many generations.

It is amazing how many Jews consider Jordan to be Palestine. Is it possible they all grew up without access to history books? The British Mandate made it quite clear that the British did not consider Transjordan to be part of Palestine, although the Mandate included Transjordan, it absolutely did not include Transjordan as part of a national home for Jews. So the preamble declared The British Govt,to be in favor of the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine but that nothing should be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities.The mandate said the area East of the Jordan river should be Arab and independent. Jews were barred from living or owning property east of the Jordan river. It said also room was to be made for Zionists in Palestine, but not that they should turn the whole country into their home. In 1946 Jordan became an independent sovereign nation. It has the same degree of sovereignty as Israel.

Most Palestinians are ready to establish a violence free society. The opponents are the Hamas and Fatah leaders. This failure was stated by the one Gene Sharp in the interview with The Progressive: http://www.progressive.org/mag/intv0307 or look at the www.aeisntein.org Can the supporters of the Palestinians pledge non violence ideals???? The opposite is invitation to terror and violence!

" If I were a Palestinian Arab living amongst Palestinian Jews during the British Mandate I would have welcomed with open arms the arrival of a people from the haunting of the Holocaust, especially when they showed such industriousness and a gushing romance for the land." Lavi Heart rendering stuff Lavi, but see below the real Zionist face--that the Palestinians foresaw. In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote: "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403) you have ben brainwashed Lavi--badly so. Lay off the Joan Peters --it can be fatal.

"The Palestinian approach was in principle the demand of 100 percent of their rights from 1967. The practical aspect interested them less. They are not willing to discuss any further compromise," This statement is clearly false, it is not 100% but more a number like 98% with compensation for two big settlements. Interesting what the Israeli proposal was... "Dekel maintains that Israel's position in the negotiations was meant to include within its territory as many settlers as possible." One look at the map shows that is a bit too much ...

FINE...THEN LET PEACE TAKE ITS COURSE...OBAMA IS FINE TO WAIT 'TIL BOTH SIDES FEEL IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO PROCEED...GOOD TO KEEP OUT THE OLIVE BRANCH...BUT NOT TO INVEST OBAMA IN ANY MORE WAIT AND SEE.HE IS NOT NAIVE..HE WANTS RESULTS.....HE IS RIGHT TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT TIME TO USE HIS POLITICAL CAPITAL..WHICH..BY THE WAY HE STILL HAS..NOT WITHSTANDING THE STORIES TO THE CONTRARY..IF NO ONE WANTS PEACE ..SO BE IT..

Sir, ...taken by conquest from another STATE.

I actually agree with your comments (some of them). The Middle East does not include non-Arab, Muslim nations, including Afganistan, Iran and Turkey for example. The latter is called the "Greater Middle East" in which Israel with all the disputed territories makes up 1/800th (IE: 0.125 percent). But in the terms of the MIDDLE EAST, massive expansionist colonialist Israel makes up 1/450th of the land mass (IE: 0.25 percent), which really makes me understand your amazing logic. That Arab nations have no room for Palestinians in the remaining 99.75% of the Middle East, and have kept them in refugee camps for over 60 years after they started a failed war in order to annihilate Israel is indeed irrelevant to this discussion, because it it deflects blame from the expansionist, colonialist, ethnic cleansing Zionists. Thank you.

Irrespective of your position, the west bank+gaza is not economically viable, it could not possibly exist as a functioning state without massive world aid forever. It's got to be split between Egypt and Jordan. There is no other way. I'm not sure why people oppose this? Jordan is 75% full of pal anyway. I'm a bit upset about the Egypt part as I like holidaying in Dahab which the pals will no doubt destroy completely but that would be their Arab brothers problem then.

Let's cut to the chase here. The majority of Israel's critics don't believe Israel has a RIGHT TO EXIST...regardless of boundaries. So what is there to talk about?

Brigadier General Udi Dekel was head of the Israel Defense Forces Strategic Planning Division and therefor a fine fellow to provide a balanced report of negotiantions: According to Dekel the Palestinians refused to show any flexibility in their positions during the talks, preferring to remain stalemated rather than lower their aspirations. and Dekel also maintains that Israel's position in the negotiations was meant to include within its territory as many settlers as possible. So the Palestinians are inflexible as they will not lower their expectations. The Israelis on the other hand are flexible as they try to increase their expectations.

.. know that Uganda wasn't an option for a Jewish State, nor is Europe like Dr. of Death Ahmadinejad is proposing. To state that Jews chose to return to Israel is akin to saying that Muslims choose to go to Mecca for the Haj. If I were a Palestinian Arab living amongst Palestinian Jews during the British Mandate I would have welcomed with open arms the arrival of a people from the haunting of the Holocaust, especially when they showed such industriousness and a gushing romance for the land. They showed up everyone who took over their land since their worldwide dispersion by the Roman Empire. In fact, their only competition would be their forefathers, the ancient Israelites and what they accomplished. I would have worked with the Israelis and won their wars alongside them and contributed to society and I'd teach my children to do the same, and I'd have a standard of living to be proud of, not the self-inflicted misery brought on by the succession of greedy, self-serving PA leaders.

.. know that Uganda wasn't an option for a Jewish State, nor is Europe like Dr. of Death Ahmadinejad is proposing. To state that Jews chose to return to Israel is akin to saying that Muslims choose to go to Mecca for the Haj. If I were a Palestinian Arab living amongst Palestinian Jews during the British Mandate I would have welcomed with open arms the arrival of a people from the haunting of the Holocaust, especially when they showed such industriousness and a gushing romance for the land. They showed up everyone who took over their land since their worldwide dispersion by the Roman Empire. In fact, their only competition would be their forefathers, the ancient Israelites and what they accomplished. I would have worked with the Israelis and won their wars alongside them and contributed to society and I'd teach my children to do the same, and I'd have a standard of living to be proud of, not the self-inflicted misery brought on by the succession of greedy, self-serving PA leaders.

Nasser accepted that he incited the "67 war on behalf of the arab world including palestinians. His avowed intention was to destroy israel and he even had gas bombs ready for the clearance of tel aviv.......why is the world dismayed that 40 years on we are hardly closer to a settlement? Every major war results in a change of facts on the ground...especially so when the intention of one state is not just to war with another ( as Britain intended with Germany---40 years before full technical sovereignty was restored) but to destroy it. Palestinians , with no State have the chutspah to not fully accept the right of Israel to exist, yet Israel a viable State for 60 years acknowledges the right of Palestinians to have a State. What a topsy turvy world we live in!

Thank you for writing slowly but surely and peacefully to these so called humanists. Their falsity is evident. Avanti!

the Pals must give up. Citizenship for west bank and Gaza pals, or control of there boarders. They are entitled to one of the two, if gaza can't control there ports and water, then it's an occupation. Since jews don't think non jews are not human this will never happen

Jews were expelled from this land by the Romans and not Palestinians. The fact is the Palestinians of today are the children of jews who were converted to Christianity and Islam.

What the heck are you doing in Australia? You have no claim to that land! Pack your stuff and go back to Great Britain! Get it now? This is not about rights. By the way, do you or your `people` have some historic, religious, or cultural attachment to Australia, or are you there simply as a result of past illegal colonisation? Ishai said. --------------------- and you living in South Africa,a Black State stolen from Africans by racist white? Shame on you Colonizer!

Are one of those lunatics who believe in !Fairy Tales",chosen People,Primissed land?

Your argument is accurate. Israel has not violated interbational law by settling in the West Bank and a return to 67 borders is extremely dangerous for Israel. Nontheless sometimes you have to choose between bad and worst alternatives. Israel won't be able to occupy forever. It will have to annex or withdraw. The day the PA will drop out the demand for a palestinian state and will start fighting for civic and political rights within a single state, Israel will be much more complicated in political and security terms, than with a free palestinian state. You have to think in that alternative, which is an option that most Israelies wont be able to accept.

You write: "According to ancient Greek laws, ... Isreal IS the righful owner." Wow! And so those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of an international treaty which Israel signed up to 60 years ago (called "The Fourth "Geneva Convention") claim Israel's right under "ancient Greek laws" which no country in today's world signed up to. And what you seem not to have noticed is that all international law says clearly that if Israel is the rightful owner, the inhabitants are all Israelis. That's why even right-wing Israelis haven't claimed the West Bank: they know what it comes with. But hey, CM, thanks for showing us how low you go, scraping the bottom of the legal barrel to find some law under which Israel can claim legitimacy!

"I quote you `The last time Israel possessed the West Bank was prior to the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE. That was 2732 years ago.` That is wrong the last time is 1967. Two generations ago. According to ancient Greek laws, one generation is a period for soverenty to change hands. Israel is now owner of Judea, Samaria. Perhaps it will decide to pass some of it to PA. But Isreal IS the righful owner."CM Fact is that the Highest Court in Israel has ruled the West Bank--formerly Judea/Samaria--biblical terms only is held under "Belligerent Occupation by Israel. If in doubt---google "Belligerent Occupation". But do you have the guts CM. You could pray to the Greek Gods and ask for the courage to face facts.

I think everyone would have to agree that theis so called 10 month settlement freeze is a myth. It has so many exceptions as to make it inoperable. Israel continues building and expanding and supporting the entire settlement movement. It has declared East Jerusalem off bounds for discussion. A settlement freeze was required by the entire intantional community. It is not something the Palestinians are holding out on. How can they enter talks while the tghe formation of the nation they are negotiating is being stolen under their feet while they talk? Clearly, Israel is saying and doing everything in their power to prevent any viable Palestinian state and then the Palestinians are called obstructionist??

no. 31- lisa peace lover writes about "self-hating" jews. i know that when a jew who is critical about zionism and the israeli government, she/he is often called a "self-hating" jew. but that is a silencer. everybody has the right of her/his own opinion in a real democratic state. that is one of the basic foundations of a real democracy! i am also critical of the dutch government, so i am a "self-hating" dutchman. the terms "self-hating" jew or - dutchman is nonsense or otherwise there is no democracy, but dictatorship!

Well if both sides hang on to maximalist demands probaly yes. Israel cannot keep it all and the Palestinians won't get it all back. It may not be fair but there you have it. But both sides are to extreme and stubborn to recognise this. The constant creation of facts on the ground doesn't help either. A 2 state solution becomes increasingly unlikely and a 1 state solution is unacceptable for the stronger party in the conflict Israel. The best one can hope for is reasonable leaders on BOTH sides who are willing to make and carry out difficult decisions. But they probably have yet to be born on both sides.

If we can't even get a commitment for a real peace what was the point of giving away our land? what was the point of the Israelis who were brutally killed because we took down roadblocks or did not erect roadblocks? What is a half a peace? the term itself is a contradiction. I think all Israelis should ask themselves this secenario, " I like your house,I want your house give it to me and I may give you something for it at a later date if I think you are trustworthy. On an individual level would anyone make a deal like that?! No so why would you do it on a a National level?

Fatah option is State Dept fiction and doesn`t exist in reality. Only power keeping Fatah alive and preventing West Bank from turning into another Gaza under Hamas, is the Israeli army. Solutions: (a) Gaza: Under linkage to Egypt or Jordan, turned into Dubai-like indl/comml hub on East Med; (b) West Bank: Parts federated with Jordan, safeguarding security & settlements for Israel, demographics for Arabs, holy sites for both. 2-State Plan doesn`t make sense only if you think its aim is Peace; it makes a lot of sense if you realize its aim is to provide the necessary next step along the 1974 PLO Staged Plan to dismantle Israel.

The date the UN voted for partition was in 1947, the Jews living in the land accepted it, the Arab countries said they would drive the Jews into the sea, an attempt started in 1948. During the war, Jordan took over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, killing Jews there in violent massacres. In 1967, when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, the Israelis asled Jordan to refrain from attacking. But Jordan joined it and was driven out of the lands they occupied for less than 20 years. Amd when the peace treaty was signed, Jordan did not want these lands back. (Incidentally, they were never part of the partition given to the Arabs in 1947.)So what does everyone meanby 1967 borders or "occupation"? Furthermore, people talk about apartheid who have never been to Israel. Arabs live within Israel, they elect representatives to the Knesset, some of whom express views indicating they prefer not to serve Israel's legislature. Erekat has said the Palestinian state must not have any Jews.

Michael, no compromise and no peace acceptable for Israel, no Palestinian state - and more settlements. Differently from the Brits with all their lost colonies, Jews are in Israel at home, and Judea & Samaria will be populated by Jews and Jewish life also in the next 1000 years, even if eventually in small enclaves. Get used to it.

"Your false attempt at neutrality is laughable." Well, first of all it's not a false attempt and secondly, after all the gratuitous insults, you haven't actually denied anything I said! Ludicrous. I wouldn't even particularly disagree with anything you said, except that "The Arabs having 99.75% of all land in ME" is clearly irrelevant and innacurate since neither Turks nor Iranians are Arabs, and the Arabs are all difftenet countries, and having Algeria, doesn't mean the Pals should give their land away. It's like saying the US can lose California to Mexico because it's got Alaska. Also, "Israel kept the land they won in the war of aggression waged upon them" is also irrelevant, as you probably know. Keeping land taken by conquest has been illegal at least since the creation of the UN. Doees the UK still own Palestine? Do Britain, France, the US and Russia still jointly own Germany?

1st of all change ur name because nothing from ur attitude suggests anything of peace-loving or empathy except for ur own kind..... ironically fascist. 2ndly, u talk about no Pal state existing before. true but they were under the Ottoman empire then British mandate. Israel was declared & won with terrorist groups too (hagganah, irgun). Either way, people LIVED there, for hundreds of years u cant just kick them out like that. THATS RACIST u HYPOCRITE. Not everything is about political events & wars, theres also morality. Palestinians dont attack u just because they r born with Jew-hating blood already pumping their veins, its because of the injustice they have faced & continue to face. If u'r an everyday person trying to get by & u have an 'army' invading ur every human-right possible then naturally u will hate them, something u dont understand. u just live in a world where everyone MUST think like u otherwise they r antisemites or self-hating jews. How self-absorbed is that?

Your false attempt at neutrality is laughable. You tell the Pro-Israeli story from a Palestinian point of view? Then pretend to be telling both points of view. Let me help you as a Pro-Israeli I guess you would call it. The Jewish people do feel a biblical attachment to Israel. They have lived on the land continuously for last 3000 years. Although not as a majority population. In the 1890's the Jewish people started coming to Israel from around the world. They legally purchased the land mostly from absentee Arab landowners. First poor quality land i.e. arid desert, swamp and then began to buy higher quality land. The Jewish people took their case to the world and both the League of Nations and the UN approved their request for Israel to be reborn. The Arabs having 99.75% of all land in ME said no, declared war and attacked the new nation with 5 Arab armies and lost. Israel kept the land they won in the war of aggression waged upon them.

"To all you pro Arafat/Hamas fools you just don`t get the point - If you keep supporting an impossible "67 border solution" you are leading the arabs into the same dead end that they`ve been in for the last 80 yrs." So Pals have wanted their land back for 80 years. It never fails to amaze me that a people who returned to Palestine, 1800 years after most were kicked out, can think thay they will dispossess the Pals in a couple of generations.

I quote you 'The last time Israel possessed the West Bank was prior to the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE. That was 2732 years ago.' That is wrong the last time is 1967. Two generations ago. According to ancient Greek laws, one generation is a period for soverenty to change hands. Israel is now owner of Judea, Samaria. Perhaps it will decide to pass some of it to PA. But Isreal IS the righful owner.

Facts on the ground are not irrelevant! In any war (and this IS a war), peace talks are preceeded by an armistice, a cessation of hostilities. In this case, a reasonable condition for armistice is that Israel totally freeze her settlement and building activity while peace talks proceed. The PLO has already presentd a peace plan (behind closed doors) to the Israeli government. The Israeli government has rejected it. Israel refuses to institute a total freeze. The only conclusion to be drawn is that she does not want to talk peace. Actions speak much louder than political statements. There will be no peace talks this time around, Obama, Mitchell, and Clinton notwithstanding. And it will not be because PLO or Abbas block the peace process, either.

To all you pro Arafat/Hamas fools you just don't get the point - If you keep supporting an impossible "67 border solution" you are leading the arabs into the same dead end that they've been in for the last 80 yrs. You can ridicule all those that supported Bibi and the present government but don't forget only 3% of Israelis support Meretz/Arafat "67 border solution" - The rest of the centrist support a PA in the WB in a lot less than the 67 borders - With

Just a thought: There are those posts here that are genuinely interested in helping the Palestinian population. These people mostly understand that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not black and white, but unfortunately has many issues that are not easy to find a solution for. Then there are those who are only interested in condemning Israel regardless. For them everything is black and white. I belong to the first group.

You do believe in boogyman don't you? Time works for Israel and against it enemies. You fancy yourself to be a tech guy. If you are you should know the way technology changes importance of factors such as demography, man versus machine, control on land versus control of space. Israel is way ahead of it's enemies in technologies and the gap is growing.

What the heck are you doing in Australia? You have no claim to that land! Pack your stuff and go back to Great Britain! Get it now? This is not about rights. By the way, do you or your 'people' have some historic, religious, or cultural attachment to Australia, or are you there simply as a result of past illegal colonisation? I bet the land had some other name before the Europeans got there.

The problem is that Israel does not ask for compromise. She demands capitulation. If the day ever comes when Israel does ask for compromise, that day will mark the beginning of the peace process. Until that day arrives, the world can forget about peace in the Middle East.

Sir, Kindly inspect SA map and find the state Lesotho. This is a model for expected WBank state living in peace with its neighbors.

"You can change the facts on the ground,but you cannot change history." The last time Israel possessed the West Bank was prior to the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE. That was 2732 years ago. Today Israel tries with all its might to change the facts on the ground, a futile enterprise at best, since, as you say, you cannot change history. Here's hoping the Israeli government will take your remark to heart. But I don;t think they will.

"If Israel goes to 67 borders, not a single airplane could take off from BG airport" Really? The ones I saw landing and taking off from what was then Lod airport (in the same area as BG) in the early 1960s must have been a mirage. No. Mirages and Magistères used to take off from the nearby military airport, so the ones I greeted were definitely passenger planes. You sure know how to spout nonsense, Lisa Warmonger.

"The occupation is the best of all evils" Only for those with a penchant for 'end times' fantasies. "...Arafat (a confessed terrorist)..." Yeh, like Shamir and Begin were boy scouts... "Arafat turned down 95% of WB" According to 'most' readings of International Law, the Palestinians are entitled to 100%, anything given up should be compensated with a 1:1 land swap. That was never offered at Camp David. The more generous offer at Taba was close enough but Barak withdrew from negotiations weeks before elections, Arafat did not walk away. "You don`t get another state after that" ...says Lisa. As for 'naive talkbackers', I think its a trifle naive to believe that a worsening demographics that will wee one in three non Jews in Israel proper within two decades and a population of up to 7 million Palestinians in the OT's, combined with the ever worsening economic outlook for a busted USA, will not create the perfect storm for Israel in the absence of a two state solution.

"The WB is by no means "Palestinian territory". There never was a Palestinian State so it is disputed at best." Lisa misses the point. Whether Palestine is or is not a declared state is irrelevant. The fact is that the border of Israel was defined by the UN in 1948: The Green Line. Later, in 1967, that corder was modified by the armistice with Jordan What lies on the other side of that modified border is definitely NOT Israel. The controversy is not about where the borders of Palestine lie. The controversy is about where the legitimate border of Israel lies! Israel has crossed her own clearly defined borders to attempt extra-territorial possession of land that does not belong to her. In 1940's Europe, this was called an act of war. Vichy France was "disputed territory". But giving it such a polite name did not make it legitimate. No more so today in Israeli occupied West Bank, Golan Heights, or Israeli besieged Gaza.

Maybe it's time for a UN Truth and Reconciliation mission because ultimately most of the problems boil down to two mutually exclusive narratives. Pro-Israelis see Israel as a legitimate continuation of an ages-old Jewish presence in the Holy Land, that has survived numerous attacks and has basically no obligations to the Pals whatsoever. In this scenatio, it's up to the Pals to prove to Israel why they should be given any free land on the West Bank whatsoever. Pro-Pals see Arabs from the 19th century onwards resisting European Jewa as they tried to establish a Jews-only political entity in their land. In their eyes, that explains acts of resistance to the Jewish state and it means that Israel has huge obligations to the Pals because it has taken large chunks of their land and still refuses to let them be free. The two positions have become so hardened and mutually exclusive that it's extremelt difficult to see how common ground can emerge in any negotiations.

of the territory it has stolen.Demanding to be allowed to keep something you stole on the basis that you need it to survive is of no consequence. I doubt you would accept such a proposition were it to apply to something stolen from you. Jews chose to return to Israel--the UN gave you borders in 1948 -the ones declared by Ben Gurion. Those are your legal borders---anything else you got by greed and force. Be happy---- that srip of land is not a basis for theft or war mongering or stealing from your neighbours.

thought you couldn't convert to judaism = make your minds up.

You're saying that the Pals aren't ready for their own state and that in the meantime, Israelis will have to control them as an underclass for their own, and everybosy else's, good. It's the argument used by colonialists everywhere. The British Empire used to say it and, of course, the white South Africans. "We'd just love to give the natives freedom, but they have to show they're ready for it and deserve it, and all this violence against us just indicates they're not mature wnough yet. Maybe one day. In the meantime we'll just have to soldier on, enjoying all the best lands and natural resources. It's a hard job but somebody's got to do it!"

The occupation is the best of all evils. The arabs turned down the partition plan in 1947 - we all agree - the rest is history!! Rabin reluctantly brought Arafat (a confessed terrorist) to the WB and gave him a police force land and offered him 95% of the WB Arafat turned down 95% of WB - per Dennis Ross and he led a massacre against all Israelis everywhere trying to kill them on busses, cafes, markets You don't get another state after that - I support occupation - until a viable Arab leadership can step up to the plate and be totally reliable - absolutely not the 67 borders. Most of you talkbalkers are either naive, blind or overt rascists - shame on you...

There will never be peace or the prospect of "Two States" as the Pals cannot stop their insane behavior or responding via rockets. For this they expect "Peace" or their own 'State" ha ha, good luck w/ that. It hasn't worked for years and wont in the future years. The Pals are right where Israel wants them and will remain that way for the rest of their miserable lives. The Pals never learn.

I thought you said you were a moderate Lisa LOL. Oh well, anyway, you seem very clear that you'd like Israel to keep all the West Bank. So how's that going to work with the indigenous Pal population? Are you going to treat them as equal to Jews and give them Israeli citizenship? Or are you going to treat them as an underclass, with few political rights, cheap labour for the settlements? Or are you just going to boot them onto lorries and chuck them out?

That's the reason this conflict is so complicated. Pals and Israelis have both made mistakes and are both right in some demands. If Israel is wrong in keeping the settlements, it is right in being careful on the proposal of giving land back after what Ghaza turned into. The Palestinians until few years ago openly defended the end of Israel. Any agreement was until them seen just as a first step to recover Haifa, Ako, Tel Aviv. This is registered in all speeches by Immans, Arafat, Arab journalists. They say they have changed. Maybe, but the crucial point is to assure Israel of this change. I dont believe Israelis are genetically bad people, greed for land, colonialists or sadists, eager to see Palestinians suffering. They received one million Russians and Ethiopians. They could have driven this mass of immigrants to the West Bank and finish off the Palestinian dream of a State as did Morocco in West Sahara and China in Tibet.

to get the things they are willing to negotiate for, you just may get your wish because the current situation can not continue forever and the next time there is a war there is no guarantee that Israel will win. Just because Israel had sufficient military power to win in the past does not mean it will win in the future. It is better to negotiate now than to lose everything in the future. Remember, the Arabs only have to win once for the Jews to never to be able to live in the ME again.

Do you have any idea of how small a section of land this whole area is? Trace it over Australia first and think about it. Then visit it and walk with your hands outstretched to measure and fathom its very human scale. Dekel mentioned "of secondary importance" (regarding Israel's security and defensible borders) which certainly doesn't equate to "no importance". His choice of words were weighted with knowledge of an overlapping array of Israeli defensive measures already in place and with some proposed additions not yet implemented. His trust of the PA's true intentions are closer to zero as they had many a chance over the years to purge their historical revisionism fed daily to their children to gird up future generations of militants. If modern Israel was now forcefully growing to the boundaries of the ancient Israelite Empire and exceeding those, you may have a point about "expansionism", until then you're no judge of small, fragile spaces to safely birth families.

Live with it ! They and other Arabs started that war. They lost the war. To the victor belong the spoils. They are hardly in a position to demand anything. Palestinians will lose even more land and be cast out all together if they press the issue. These dogs shall not eat the bread of the children ! Palestinians think to take away what God has given to Israel ! Doesn't seem like their god is treating them so well ! Perhaps they should convert to Judaism.

There is only one important fact on the ground. That fact is the Israel Army. There is one important fact in the air -- the IAF. The rest are negotiating chips. After the 1973 war, the USA wanted peace between Israel and Egypt. Israel wanted to keep half the Sinai to help in the next war with Egypt. US: Move back to the pre-1967 border. Israel: We can't, that border is not defensible. US: Peace is worth it. Israel: It would cost us $20 billion to move our bases. US: Here's $20 billion. Do it. They did, and it will hurt them in the next war with Egypt. If there were real peace negotiations .... US: Move out the settlers. Israel: We can't. It would cost us $500 billion. US: Here's $500 billion. Do it. Israel would create as many settlers as they could, because each settler would be worth a million dollars. Negotiating chips to cash from the USA. And later the Israeli Army could take it all back.

Do you have any idea of how small a section of land this whole area is? Trace it over Australia first and think about it. Then visit it and walk with your hands outstretched to measure and fathom its very human scale. Dekel mentioned "of secondary importance" (regarding Israel's security and defensible borders) which certainly doesn't equate to "no importance". His choice of words were weighted with knowledge of an overlapping array of Israeli defensive measures already in place and with some proposed additions not yet implemented. His trust of the PA's true intentions are closer to zero as they had many a chance over the years to purge their historical revisionism fed daily to their children to gird up future generations of militants. If modern Israel was now forcefully growing to the boundaries of the ancient Israelite Empire and exceeding those, you may have a point about "expansionism", until then you're no judge of small, fragile spaces to safely birth families.

99% of the world believes that land with oil belongs to Arabs. I must disappoint the Pals, there is no Oil anywhere in the Holy land. So go relocate to Venezuela, Where Chavez will welcome you with open arms and kisses on both cheeks. Venezuela belongs to the Pals anyway, because of its oil.

The Arabs have 800 times more land than Israel. The Arabs have 4 times more land than Israel in British Mandated palestine. The Palestinians have turned down peace and compromise 8 times in the last 80 years - Each time Israel can offer less and less. The WB is by no means "Palestinian territory". There never was a Palestinian State so it is disputed at best. If the Palestinians expect to get the 67 borders and demand that they will get nothing!

L: "For the Israelis, security and the strategic depth to ensure that safety is non-negotiable at the best of times" Dekel: "And when we look at the maps, in the end we evaluate the borders on the basis of how many residents we will not have to move from their homes and the defensible borders issue becomes of secondary importance." Or, put another way, Israel says it wants one thing, but then demands something else. You accept the rationalization, and that blinds you to the reality of Israel's ambition. Which Dekel is telling you is "colonial expansionism", rather than "strategic depth".

D: "Facts on the ground are always relevant - this is the reality one has to deal with." Except..... they do suffer that nasty limitation of being "subject to change". As in: If Israel ever suffers a really, really nasty reverse then those "facts on the ground" can unravel overnight as the "settlers" flee back to the safety of Israel. So, an IDF military defeat that leaves the West Bank defenseless. Or a crippling embargo that does to Israel what Israel has done to Gaza. Maybe an attack on Iran that goes horribly, horribly wrong. Unthinkable? Oh yeah, I'm sure that all Israelis think the IDF is unbeatable. Impossible? No. Bigger armies than Israel's have been humbled, and they very seldom see it coming. Israel keeps these "facts on the ground" in play because it thinks itself invincible, but it would be better off cashing in its chips and taking the offer that's already there.

MC: "For 'Palestinians lowering their expectations', read 'succumb to Israeli diktats.' " Or, perhaps even more accurately, it should be rewritten as: "preferring to remain stalemated rather than concede their rights". In 1993 the Palestinians tried the tactic of conceding their right to half of the territory assigned to them under the Partition Plan, and that got them nothing except further territorial demands from Israel. They won't make the same mistake again i.e. they have RIGHTS, and they will not give them up merely because Israel insists. Because that is the interesting thing about RIGHTS i.e. they can not be taken away from you, they must be conceded by you.

lis: "Jewish presence in the WB and Gaza is essential" Perhaps. But explain to me why that has to lead to this territory becoming a part of ISRAEL. After all, there is a very significant Arab presence inside Israel (20%?), but Abbas does not claim that this gives him the right to demand 20% of Israel. Read Dekel's words again: he is saying that Israel keeps insisting on grabbing territory merely because the state has seeded that territory with its own citizens. So sorry, but WHY can't those colonists remain where they are, to become ex-patriot Israelis living inside "Palestine"? WHY can't they become "Jewish Palestinians" in exactly the same way that the Arabs who remained behind when Israel was declared became "Arab Israelis"? Dekel and his ilk can negotiate the rights and entitlements for those Jews who intent to stay on as "Jewish Palestinians", and if they DON'T want to stay then there is always the Law of Return....

"The Palestinians understood that the Americans were closer to their position on the issues of Jerusalem, the borders and security, and opted to wait it out." Well, there's your problem right, good sir! Even the RIGHT WING Bush Administration represented by Rice agreed with the Palestinians. Maybe, just maybe, it was the Israelis who took the extremist stance?

W: "If they want to let the Israelis keep a little land, that would be generous of them." They were much more than merely "generous" in 1993 when the PLO conceded fully half of all the territory that had been allocated to "the Arab state", telling Rabin that they were willing to let Israel keep that land in exchange for an end to the occupation and an independent state of Palestine in the 22% that remained. Q: what did that get them? A: Israel pocketed that concession without even a "thank you", and then said it wanted more. So the PLO gave away half of the territory that they were entitled to claim, and got nothing in return except an ever expanding colonization of what was left. I think that told them all they needed to know about the "value" of being "generous" to Israel.

jordan is 78% of the palestine mandate !

jordan is arab palestine and the only solution 1

We all know that Israel picks and chooses which UN resolutions it wants to follow. and of course only those which benefit Israel. So all of the ones which include granting any kind of rights for the Palestinians are a complete no-no. Strange that the UN has never considered sanctions on Israel, considering it must have the worst tracl record for obeying UN resolutions!

We all know that Israel picks and chooses which UN resolutions it wants to follow. and of course only those which benefit Israel. So all of the ones which include granting any kind of rights for the Palestinians are a complete no-no. Strange that the UN has never considered sanctions on Israel, considering it must have the worst tracl record for obeying UN resolutions!

Exactly! Palestinians can take as much time as they want. Now its time for Israel to do the running if they really want peace. Perhaps we will now see how much they want it - if at all.

There is a reason for this. This whole conficlt started BEFORE 1948 when Israel was unilateraly declared. It started when the Arabs of Eretz Yisra'el (today called Palestinians, which are part & parcel of the People of Israel, albeit Arabized ones, & of the Muslims, Christian & Samaritan faiths) refused to accept our presence in Eretz Yisra'el. But can we blame them? They were told by us, the Jewish Israelites, "we're back, it's not your land, & we're taking charge." We said to them, "screw the fact that we are a minority in Eretz Yisra'el as a whole", "screw the fact that what numbers we do have is largely because of the New Yishuv, from aliyot of only a century earlier". We said "accept our supremacy & our dominion". Zionism never called for an egalitarian binational state. Like anyone with dignity, they didnt accept these terms. So THEN we asked for partition. Its not that they didnt want peace or coexistance; they didnt want overloards! They saw what was comming for G-d's sake!

because it is their land that was stolen by Arabs and international community from them and next generations must know the truth. You can change the facts on the ground,but you cannot change history.

For "Palestinians lowering their expectations", read "succumb to Israeli diktats."

The hatred and distrust are now part of the cultures of Arabs and Israelis. No one expects that the Arabs will keep the West Bank demilitarised for very long once there is some type of evacuation/disengagement. Israel's ex-negotiator is right about the arab position. However, an Israeli evacuation to the 1967 border would create a civil war. It just won't happen, I have visited and know these people in Judea/Samaria. The Israeli's will keep the dialogue going for years and so "facts on the ground" will become relevant. I think there will be some type of partial withdrawal behind the security barrier and the Arabs will not accept this. The other issue is that Israel's demographic is changing. There will be more religious in Israel's population due to their higher birth rate. This will harden attitudes on both sides. It is complicated indeed.

Their ability to undermine US interest, where their lobbying is masked by an agreeable and jewish controlled is the real hinderance for peace. The other 95% of the americans are busy paying toll. checking the weather and trying to save on their tax bills by accumulating taxi receipts. Israel is not home free by a long shot.

Life is full of surprises but this is not one of them !

Maybe Jorge doesn't know that Texas and California were independent countries before becoming American States. Maybe he doesn't know about Steward or Gadsden or what the US purchased and paid for. Or maybe he's never heard of the Geneva Conventions. He might just be ignorant, or maybe he's just trying to misdirect the argument. Note, he's not suggesting that all of European descent abandon Mexico or even Honduras to the descendants of the surviving Aztecs or to the descendants of the Mayans or the Apache.

If Isael goes to 67 borders , not a single airplane could take off from BG airport. There never was a Palestinian State so Israel is not occupying anything The British mandated Palestine went 75% to Palestinian Trans Jordan. Even so Israel is willing to provide a PA state on part of the WB if the Arabs agree to compromise. However since the Arabs keep yelling "occupation occupation" and "67 borders" - ultimately the arabs will miss another opportunity and Israel will keep the entire WB and the the Arabs and self hating Jews will keep barking "Occupation occupation occupation occupation" and the Yehuda and Shomron train will keep roaring on....

-Yehuda and Shomron never ever belonged to a never existing Palestinian State!! -King Hussain was well aware that Israel could never go bk to the Aushwitz/67 borders!! -Israel won Yosh in a war that the arabs Initiated! - 500,000 Jews live in Yosh and thousands more move in daily!! - Time is on Israel's side with ther Leiberman Bibi and shas Govt!! - Jewish Yosh is best alternative for the Arabs of the WB!! - Thousands of Palestinian Arabs continue to build all the Yosh towns!! -Jewish Yosh is the only way to secure the Tel Aviv area from missles!! - The Arab layman all out support Jews living in Yosh!! - It is only the Jewish left along with Arafat's men that opposed Jews living in Yosh.

Before the 6 Day War, there was a no man's land running through Jerusalem dividing it between Jordan and Israel. Why return to that? Why should Israel divide it's capital? Jordan conquered half of Jerusalem in 1948. It was no more theirs than anyone else. At least the plan was for J'lem to be either international or since it was predominantly Jewish, a part of Israel. What was lost in one war was gained back in another. The same applies for parts of the West Bank. If you support a Palestinian State (besides Jordan which already IS a Palestinian state) then you must realize that demands that undermine the Jewish Identity (of which J'lem plays a major part) will not be acceptable and you must compromise.

...in the PA insisting on a total construction freeze in the settlements as a PRECONDITION to any further negotiations?

Israel is the only democracy in this region of the world. It should rest assure that Europe, the US and Canada will not let it down. This ought to incite Israel to be bold and grant the Palestinians what they are asking. A peaceful and properous Israel-Palestine coexistence will have a profound impact on the surrounding countries. The middle-east will be transformed.

If they want to let the Israelis keep a little land, that would be generous of them. It is entirely up to them.

This includes Jerusalem. Afterall, until Jordan Palestine purged the city of Jews, it was Jews who were the majority in what the Arabs call E Jerusalem. Who determines where the borders are set....the victor in a war. This has been true for all times and will be for all times. There is no such thing as a 67 border. Golan was part of Mandate Palestine, hence is part of present day Israel. Judea and Samaria were part of mandate Palestine that was to be turned into Israel. TransJordan was created as the Arab Palestinian state. Which you like years when all this happened? It doesnt really matter, just like 67 doesnt matter. Winner determine borders. People move. Alsace Louraine is part of France, not Germany, but it didnt have to be. Look at the Pakistan India border. Iraq is a made up country with rediculous borders. It should have been multiple countries. Whats an Arab Palestinian even? They were invented in the 60s. Whats an Arab refugees...2 years living in a place.

You must implement what is agreed to immediately, and then continue with negotiations. As we know the Palestinians have always had the "all or nothing" approach. They are doing that now with the Shalit deal. The reason the Palestinians won't agree to this is simple. It would reveal their true intentions, which is not peace with Israel, but to destroy Israel. If the Pals had a country all attacks against Israel would have to stop. As a country the rockets would be considered "acts of war", by one country against another country. The "resistance"(terrorism) could not be justified and Israel could respond to the country attacking it. The positive part for the Palestinians is they could prove to the world they truly want peace. If the attacks stopped public opinion could force concessions from Israel they refuse to give at this time. The problem is the Pals really do not want peace.

Haifa, Acca, Tel Aviv was all for the Palestinian people up to Nablus, Gaza, Tiberias etc... That was 100% of Palestine. Accepting 242 and 338 entails for Palestinians abandoning 78% of historical Palestine. In return, Palestinians get the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. If any land goes to settlements, then Israel must give an equivalent of land from 1948, but Israel is not honoring the spirit of UN 242 and 338 with the Palestinians or Syrians. Israel hasn't shown sincerity. An annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal and will put the US at odds with a billion Muslims for the sake of Israel and violates international law. Why should the US allow Israel to violate international law? Israel acts like Palestinians should be flexible i.e. give up more than 242 and 338. That's a rejection of UN Security Council Resolutions. If a two state solution is not possible, make Palestinians citizens.

with examples that actually mirror those in the west bank. no generalizations, please.

Akiva Eldar and Gideon Levy should form their own coalition and run for Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. These two are the clear voice of reason, justice, and what Israel as a nation should be. They seem like the only ones who "get it" and, unlike the Three Stooges Moe, Larry, and Curly (Bibi, Barak, and Lieberman), they would bring respect back to Israel from the international community. Come on, Israelis, vote them in!

if we all know real intentions of those who are involved in the war against Israel? Who told you that Hamas? Hezbollah? Iran? Or Syria? Let's face it Judge.You don't want peace with Israel because you don't want Israel in the ME at all. Why should you be suddenly happy with the PRE-1967 borders if you refused to recognize Israels borders of 1948? Or maybe you were just joking? ;-)

J: "IF FACTS ON THE GROUND IRRELEVANT All of Europe should be redrawn, the U.S should return Texas, California and New Mexico to Mexico, Alaska to Russia, if I go on I would fill many pages" No, because all of the examples you mention were carried out during the time of colonial expansionism, which is an age that is long since past. Indeed, most of the examples you mention were accomplished by TREATIES, and a BILATERAL INTERNATIONAL TREATY is the very antithesis of a "fact on the ground". So ask yourself these two simple questions: Q1: Can Britain do now what it did so often in the 18th century, even if it had the means to do so? Q2: Can Israel point to any TREATY that says it has the right to annex those colonies? The answers are: A1: No. A2: No. So sorry, but Israel missed the boat when it came to the Age of Colonial Expansionism, and that boat ain't never comin' back.

There is no point in making peace if the terms are not going to be recognized by one side or the other. The Palestinians have nothing to lose by waiting as Israels stock continues to plummet all around the world. The reliable rule of thumb is, if Israel is willing to sign it, then the peace treaty is unfair to the Palestinians. They need to wait until the Americans hold Israels toes in the fire, no matter how long this takes.

All of Europe should be redrawn, the U.S should return Texas, California and New Mexico to Mexico, Alaska to Russia, if I go on I would fill many pages

The Palestinians are sticking to their RIGHTS. The Israelis are sticking to their DEMANDS. The question that no Israeli (certainly not Dekel) ever asks: Q: What RIGHT does Israel have to make these DEMANDS? A: None i.e. these demands are driven entirely by your greed, and not from any entitlement that you might have. Once you get your head around that concept then the Palestinian position is much more understandable i.e. they are doing nothing more than refusing to give up *their* RIGHTS in order to satisfy *your* GREED. Nor. Should. They.

do Israelis want? Palestinians cannot, and should not, accept anything less than the '67 borders with minor, agreed upon 1:1 swaps, a just solution for the refugees, and the same kind of compensation and reparations that Israel is still exacting from Germany, more than six decades after the fall of the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, Israeli greed for Palestinian land has all but destroyed the two-state solution already.

The peace is perfectly possible,but it will take many steps that can't be taken in the present political enviroment.The west is cowtowing to the moslem oil and to the waves of moslems taken over europe...It's very simple.The west has to get rid of moslem oil and to realize that 'pal" is in Jordan.Schluss

There needs to be a paradigm shift. The 67 war was fought with egypt and jordan not the paletinians. there is no obligation on israel to make a viable palestinian state. Obviously jordan did not want more palestinians but that is not israels problem. Gaza has been ceded and Israel can cede the land it does not need back to jordan and then jordan can do what it wants with the land and palestianians. Aparently the palestinians are not wanted by anyone.

Who wrote the bible God or Mohammed? If they were both written by the same God do they say the same thing? Who built the idols? God or craftsmen?

and tell the Palestinians that are suffering materially and morally that they will have no peace. I think they will "peace" on you!

The Palestinians already have three nations - Jordan, PA, and Gaza.

That is why Israel already exists today. Why should they be forced to give up even more, when they have already given up so much?

pre 1967 is just first step for the Palis. After that they will demand Haifa and Tel Aviv.

Facts on the ground are always relevant - this is the reality one has to deal with. Don't you base your own position to the "facts on the ground" as they were in 1967? Sticking to such basic arguments will not help make any progress

We know why there will neevr be no peace soon.List to how these thugs talks.Simple you steal something return it back.

Oslo agreements were the biggest Israeli mistakes. They accepted in principals the idea of the creation of Palestinian state and allowed Arafat's gang return from Tunisia without any real reciprocity from Palestinian side. Only now, more than a decade later they finally realize that Palestinians are not ready for any real agreements.

BACK TO PRE-1967 OR NO PEACE.

... and when they get that they'll demand in war what they can't get in future peace talks. The Palestinians' demand of right of return and their demands for jurisdiction over Jerusalem's Temple Mount are non-starters for the Israelis and yet any PA leader accepting anything less in negotiations will be signing his own death sentence that will be carried out by any number of willing militant Muslim factions. For the Israelis, security and the strategic depth to ensure that safety is non-negotiable at the best of times, never mind the worst of times as is still evident in the militancy of the Palestinian groups and their supporters.

People can't understand the Palestinian problem with settlements expanding and wonder why they demand it stop. "Israel's position in the negotiations was meant to include within its territory as many settlers as possible". "When we look at the maps, in the end we evaluate the borders on the basis of how many residents we will not have to move from their homes."