Please feel free to email me some time. I would like to talk more to you. I pray that Hamas asks the Olmert Government for immediate negotiations. Then what? Would Jerusalem say no? I pray that Olmert asks for immediate negotiations. No harm in talking. Ever. Both of our peoples have been victimized. Blaming the other exclusively is a rescipe for more years of murder and violence.

I never said that the issue of refugees had to be resolved IN ISRAEL! I never never said it! I said that it has to be resolved, Surely by a negotiated solution!....How is what a joint negotiation has to determine. Now don't compare the gaza settlers who were living in heaven, and in VERY SMALL Numbers, all in all 8000....with the Palestinian refugees , who are living in ghettos in huge numbers! Its my duty as a palestinian to care about them! Without harming anyone if possible! Everyone deserves a fair solution! Even the settlers who didnt colonize the lands by theirselves but by the help of greater powers above them, in the ISRAELI Governments! Remember, France Decolonized Algeria....The British mandate left Palestine, jordan.....The colonization era is OVER now! And this applies to israel too! Israel and the palestinians both did things that harmed them ! NOW ITS TIME TO WORK TOGETHER AND LIMIT THE DAMAGE! and I NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER on earth said that I want to get without giving! As long as its on equal grounds and as long as a majority on both sides agree! Otherwise, no need to advance! In order to advance we need a BI-NATIONAL conscensus! and now is the time...stop talking about the past, it will lead you to nowhere! As for the Barak offer, now its way behind us! Gaza settlements are way behing us too! WE SHOULD ONLY LOOK ON THE FUTURE! The past will only bring trouble! The goal for negotiations must be Prosperity, peace, security and well being for our both nations!

no

I neglected to address your last point. You need to realize that Israel is at war with the rest of the Arab world, and a good part of the Islamic world with the arguable exception of two nations, Egypt and Jordan. The experience with Gaza's border transfer proves without any shred of doubt how incapable Palestinians are of protecting their border. In fact, you don't want to. The result is Israel is less safe. Therefore, it's very, very naive and foolish for Israel to give you the rights to an army that you want, and the open borders you want. Until you are a stable democracy that has proven it's desire, not just willingness, to defend it's boundaries and at the same time, the safety of Israel's boundary, as Jordan does (Egpypt doesn't, regretably) you'll not get those things. As far as arms, you have much more than you need. You have more "police" than you agreed to, you have about 5 times more armed gangs in protection rackets than any nation the size of yours needs to face any threats you face, and you fail to recognize that Israel would be the first to be threatened by your government's loss of control of these weapons, which given recent experience would be extremely likely. So, if you "can't accept this" well, Ramzi, what can I say? I guess you're not ready yet to understand your opponent's basic needs in this conflict, and aren't ready to understand yet that a peaceful life for Palestinians, the one you claim you want, is a higher value than "border control, etc."

B"H The simple matter is that the Arabs cannot be trusted in negotiations, because their goverment shreds the agreements up after concessions are made! So Olmert is looking for something that he considers a fair settlement for himself, and declaring it clearly. The Arabs are not going to accept it, because a Jewish leader is speaking and they are looking to drive Jews completely off of the land. The Jews living there are not accepting it because it is not in their interests to do so, anymore than it would be an Arab interest to leave settled land. The land flourishes under the Jews, and the sacrifice of the land is for a political agenda that makes no sense except to the very few who benefit from it. Everyone is his own king. It is just a question of how big the kingdom is and where the respective moats are set, as well as who are the surfs, and how well the proclamations are made and defended. The secret to negotiate in this environment is "No negotiations!", or at least that is what Hamas has concluded.

"please tell me how can we trust the jews after all they have done to us." What have the Jews done but defend themselves after wave after wave of Arab agression? Whoever is teaching you, you need to go elswhere. Still we recieve more Arab agression, your terrorist government, and you want to play the role of the victim, is it your Imams that force feed you these pack of lies? You are insane, and the reason why no one can negotiate with people who deep down want to belive a lie so bad, they actually beleive it. The Jew is not your problem, it is yourself......Think about it

Dear moderate compatriots and moderate israeli neighbours posting here, I shall say that i am proud of your courage to say that YOU WANT PEACE! Abdel from Nablus, your position is great, keep spreading the good spirit! I see that some great voices are rising in israel! We all need to unite for the sake of our goals! PEACE PEACE AND MORE PEACE! And if you loose the courage one day, remember that peace is always made between enemies and never between partners and friends! Friendship is the result of peace! We shouldnt be scared of calling each other enemies, any other adjective would be total hypocrisy! FROM BOTH SIDES! ...... The road to peace is florishing slowly....be part of it! Make it florish more and more, plant your own flowers on it, One day you will be very proud of your garden! Thank you!

You have to be joking telling me to tone down my message #79! Remember, you were the one who delivered the threat of more bloodshed re:#63 shoving aside Oslo and Camp David....ha ha. Funnier still your post (63) contradicted yourself big time. For a moment when talking about 2 thousand years ago, one would think you were talking about yourself. I remind you again:Consider yourself lucky. It is all about our glowing humanity. BTW: Where in the name of G-d does your koran mention Jerusalem? (still laughing)

B"H Recognize the prisoners of Israel ... if not Israel. See, Abbas considers it a big step if Hamas can recognize a plan put together by prisoners, that is recognize that prisoners of Israel can put together a plan. If prisoners in the United States put together a plan, it would be called an "escape plan", which would naturally motivate these prisoners. My question is if this is such a great way to negotiate, why is the Hamas leadership also not in the same jail to facilitate the process? That way everyone can better recognize each other and the pieces of paper without having to get the glasses out. Now here is a peace plan. Either Hamas recognizes the prisoner's plan, or the whole group goes to that jail to facilitate the process! Any objections? Otherwise I am not sure how Israel is going to guarentee Abass's safety. Is Israel going to construct a prison for Abass like there was for Arafat to guarentee HIS safety from the other prisoners?

There is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian State between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. (study the partition plan) Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for NEGOTIATIONS ONLY on a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from THE territories" - recognize the intentional wording of only saying TERRITORIES) captured in 1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with NON - MANDATORY RECOMMENDATIONS - as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken against Iraq." Yet even those under VII - mandatory - have little or any effect - since the UN has legally never such power - the UN has never real power since they are only an organization that has no Sovereign Power - as we saw in Iraq - The UN never had the strength to ever enforce any of the 17 resolutions against Iraq under clause VII. What does that tell YOU ? All Resolutions considering Israel are always falling in this term under Charter Clause VI - Only ever Recommendations. Charter VI - is ALWAYS only recommendations - NOT Law. In general the UN is not a body that legally can enforce any laws. Constitutional Law of any Sovereign State - ALWAYS over rules legally any UN trial to want to set laws. ALSO: Israel White Paper – Israel's Legal Rights to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza http://www.israelwhitepaper.org/ "According to international law," "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. The most relevant fact is, the Arabs cannot make no demands under any of ALL for the simple reason: ........The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, voids the recommendation of any legal basis............. Arabs refused ALL and any of the Partition plan then - so legally that was off the table then - since they chose to attack Israel instead - but suddenly now want to reverse to the times of the Partition Plan ? Legally this is off the table for the Arabs and cannot be reversed. The only real issue left for Arabs who were the losers in all wars - is trying to negotiate with the party Israel that was the victor. A victor legally sets normally the setting of possible negotiations - and not the loser. Example: When Germany lost the war W.W.II - It was NOT Germany who was legally able to set the arguments or demands. Now: Armistice agreement did not set the permanent border between Israel and a future Arab State in the WB - better known as Judea and Samaria. In any of these past resolutions there was never once the question of a separate Palestine - or Palestinian State. There was only ever talk about Arabs - never Palestinians - They did not exist in legal language. Armistice = always only ARMISTICE ............ Definition: ....A break in fighting: A truce in a war to discuss terms for peace ..... So Armistice lines anywhere in the world - are legally never a border ...... but a Line of cease fire

No what? you want to post something.....post something that has a VALUE....

I dont refuse your position, i refuse your patronizing TONE! Just as i am willing to understand you, You should be willing to understand me! Just like some things i say sound impossible to you , some things you say sound impossible to me! You dont hold the monopoly of truth, we both are right, but each one is right according to his position, we have to harmonize our positions! Thats all....till then, accept that we are on the SAME LEVEL! you are not better than me and i am not better than you so what you say and what i say have the same VALUE and deserve the same interest! if you don't accept this condition, consider this my last reply to you! Thank you

Because the opening point of Abbas; referendum would include affirming the right of return of all Palestinians to Israel, unfortunately, Abbas' grand step to push the Palestinians back to the table will likely not bring the parties closer to peace or resolution.

You must understand, Barak's plan wasnt a bang and over plan, it was a plan on the span of a few decades, for the first 10 years the Palestinians would recive autonomy over 80% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with checkpoints and strips across them, this will be a test for the Palestinians, if after 10 years the situation improves (meaning, no massacres of Israeli civilians by Palestinians, what didnt happen) then the Palestinians would recive 97% of the territories and a compensate of those 3% from Israel's own land. In this gradual proccess the Palestinians would recive independence in steps, by the way, the Palestinians did not establish a full army but in the Oslo accords themselves the Palestinians recived tens of thousands of guns in order to maintain law and order (those guns were later used to murder Israelis). Basicly, you Palestinians were presented first with an opportunity for independence (1994) and you chose knowingly the path of war, you were directly punished by Bib, then Barak came and gave you a second opportunity, you threw that one away too, this time you were punished both immediately and on the long span. The Rambam said about this, that god gives a man a chance to do tshuva and return from his bad ways, god is merciful and compassionate, so he gives man many opportunities to return from his sins, you were given the opportunity to hit on your sins, but you chose knowingly to return to your bad ways of terror and murder, giving up the chances to do tshuva and recive independence, and god punished you, but although he punished you he still gave you another chance to do tshuva, god did not give up completly on you Palestinians, but instead of following god's ways and listening to his warnings you decided to add crime over sin, knowingly returning to your bad ways, and know, even if you cry over your sins and ask for forgivness, you wont know if god has given up on you or not.

Did I deny that UNSCR called for negotiations? No. Did I say international law require a Pali state beween the Jordan and MedSea? No. So why not just answer the questions I had? My question was whether a UNSCR is a "recommendation" like UNGCR is, or whether you are claiming UNSCR's are "recommendations" as well, instead of what I claimed, which is that they are "international law". Your answer wa that there are 2 types of UNSCR's, depending on whether they are Clause VI or Clause VII. Thanks - that's the answer I was looking for. I was under the impression that all Clause VI's were GCR's, and all Clause VII's were SCR's. Re armistice, I don't think you're right - else, tell me the date that Israel became an internationally recognized country. Was it the day they entered the UN? If so, is Taiwan a country? I believe they are not members of the UN. I claim it was the day of the armistice agreement, in which case the boundaries on that day were the recgnized boundaries of Israel. What's your dispute with this SPECIFIC case?

The same way you expect us to trust you after all you have done to us. If you think one is possible, why not the other?

congratulations to all Israelis, palestinians and others who have today risen above name calling and truisms to enter into an intelligient dialogue and debate. Now imagine if those with true power on both sides mirrored these discusions.... perhaps there is hope

NO Jerusalem separation, NO "refugees" comeback, and NO retreat to the 1967 borders and abandonment of the inhabitants of Yehuda & Shomron. YOU PALS ARE SIMPLY 40 YRS TO LATE History has already put you in OBLIVION

Ramzi, that you find a patronizing tone around every word is your hang up, and that of honor-loving Palestinians everywhere. I don't care if you respond precisely because it makes no difference what you think of me. And frankly, it makes no difference what I think of you and your nation's claims. There is a very practical issue to resolve here so that we can both live in peace, and frankly it's going to require both of us to swallow a lot of pride. So check all that patronization bullshit at the door, Ramzi, we're not going to be friends. Come to the table with solutions and then you'll earn the respect you seem to want so much.

1. The name "Abu Shishlik" is obviously a joke. 2. Anyone who knew anything about the Middle East would recognize that and would know what shishlik is. 3. Gabrielle Goldwater utterly failed to recognize that. In fact she went on a rant insulting and abusing "Abu Shishlik" in racist terms. 4. Gabrielle Goldwater knows nothing about the Middle East.

so ask your lawyer instead You as usual have a set agenda that only supports your views that are LEFT So if you don't want to have answers then don't ask questions

Don't worry, i finished 3rd grade a long time ago...." we will not be friends" ....so what ???? what will this change in my existence ?

To legal issues They are wonderful in arbitration http://www.asser.nl/index.htm

The reason there is no peace is that the Israelis and their allies want ALL of Palestine for their own with a minority of "others" to do their menial labor and dirty work. Excuses will be made by the Israelis forever , they will make life so difficult that the Palestinians will leave, starve, be killed, or enslaved. Each year passes and everyone says why don't the Palestinians make peace? Well simply stated they don't have the power the Israelis do and they don't want peace. To them a few hundred of theirs could die a year and that gives them the excuse to inflict enormous retribution on the remaining Palestinians until they give up and flee or die fighting. It won't end until the Israelis have it all because that has been their goal from the beginning and no one has the b___ to stop them.

RAMZI ya sahbi, ya ahi. Good man, keep it up. I just want you,and others to admit some truths and then I shall respect you. Pals want to kill me, I want to kill them first. Pals want to deny me the right to exist, I will deny them the right to exist. Pals want to respect me, I shall respect them tenfold. SHAI, you are a lawyer and are trying to make rings round Gabrielle, unethical. You know full well what an armistice line is and you have better understanding than Gabrielle and probably me too on this subject. We have been through this before and I know you accept many of my points and understanding of international convention. GABRIELLE, Ramzi is a good guy and so is Shai. I do not agree with Shai on all things because I am very right wing when it comes to our survival, no compromise. This is why our demand for them to lay down their weapons is more than reasonable. Hirohito fell on his bended knees and surrendered his sword to MacArthur, this we do not ask, just lay them down, this in itself will be the start of showing respect. All the other issues can be worked out, but only with someone who admits our rights and stops all the lying and denials. To all three, land swap and population swap are the two key issues, for a viable Pali state it is imperative, for Israel it is demographically an imperative. The problem is that the Israeli Palis will not accept it for two reasons. One, it is better on this side, two, in their minds it weakens the Pali positions, better to have as many Palis as possible in Israel, the battle of the womb etc. This will be a sticking point, in my estimation an insurmountable one. Mabruk,shalom,et salutations.

Three points: 1) In 638 CE the Arab Imperialism stole and colonized the land of Judea and Samaria from the original native peoples, the Jews They being the plurality of the people living there at the time. 2) It was the Turks who drove out the Crusaders not the Arabs. Salah Ad-din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (westernized to "Saladin") was a Kurd. 3) Ms Goldwater is absolutely correct about the international legal issues pertaining to her post Talkback #39. Judea and Samaria are unassigned territories of the British Mandate for Palestine not "occupied territories." Especially relevant is Article 6, "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use" was to be encouraged. Pursuant to the Treaty of Lausanne 1922 when Turkey relinquished its rights to Palestine; the Treaty of Versailles 1919 where the concept of the British Mandate for Palestine was incorporated, the Treaty of San Remo where the 1920 Mandate for Palestine was legally conferred, the Treaty of Sèvres 1920 where the terms were outlined; and United Nations Charter 1946, Article 80 pertaining to territories under Trusteeship system, "nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments."; and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950 on United Nations Charter's Article 80 pertaining to the international status of South-West Africa. Ms Goldwater gotcha boys!

I am very pleased with our friends from everywhere of the globe.from amerika,from europe,thank you for the care,from the worries what you attest.But you know,you are living in a far away country,and we are here alone.Not that we have something against you in the contrary,you are wellcome any time if you choose to come here and live and share with us the life in Israel with all of his everyday joys and worries.But till you come,please have a bit pacience and let us alone decide what is good and what is bad for our Medina.In thise critical time we need to think about many problems very carefully and we need to be not disturbed.You know for the kibitz is nothing too expensive.I beg your pardon of my harsh words but you can really help us in a lot of another ways....I wrote about how dangerous this Abas is,with his theory of another way to distroy Israel.Here I should like to warn our leader about his words.Mr Olmert he says we must take what we can get N O W! Mr president maybe ask him and what about afterwards? You see my friends /we are not sleeping/ andi hakfarsabai.

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 NOVEMBER 22, 1967 :: "The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" That's right, ILLEGAL to annex territory by war, which is what happened in the 6-day WAR in 1967. "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" We can stop there. The 'conflict' was the Israeli-Arab war in 1967 which lasted 6 days. Withdrawal of Iraeli forces from territory occupied in that war is requirement of 242, Gabrielle, what part of that don't you understand?