a nation state needs to be governed by laws and a democratic nation state by laws and the right to protest and advocate for the peaceful change of laws. No state should have to negotiate the law with felons and those contemplating crimes. Bibi, throw these messianists under the political bus and negotiate the strong peace only you are capable of! History will not judge those who miss the opportunity for a negotiated peace with international guarantees and support likely.

I too will stop holding up banks if you just deposit the money to my account.

You are crud. You really are. Indeed, you are a crud. I hope you are an anti-Semitic gentile - a believer in the Cross - God-forbid, not a Jew. Tell me you are not a self-loathing Jew.

The problem here is that in Netanyahu's eyes, the new U.S. Muslim president is more important than Wallerstein or any Jewish settlements. Mr. Netanyahu made this abundantly clear in his recent speech wherein he bowed to U.S. President Hussein's principle demand; that Israel establish a Muslim enemy state in Israel's historic and Biblical heartland. Thus Netanayhu put his government on the side of U.S. President Hussein against his own people and his nation's security. Who can say definitively, that negotiating with this unfaithful prime minister - who is willing to give Israel's patrimony to those who will kill innocent Jews - will be fruitful. Is Prime Minister Netanyahyu with his people or is he with U.S. President Hussein?

to give His land to a single people ...

In order to be a productive, strong and righteous society we must obide by international law. International law (which is not unfairly biased against the jews as many settlers believe) states that colonization of conquered land is illegal. Even if I agree that the jewish people have a legitimate claim to live in the entire West Bank, that area was still conquered in 1967. It is more important to follow international law than to follow ones own messianic sentiments and religious fervor. Not to mention the fact that all the checkpoints are far to expensive to keep up and maintain. They also make life unnecessarily difficult for the population there. Any way you look at it, the settlements are morally and legally unjust.

"if an outpost is found to have been built on private land, which belongs to someone, and there is no way to settle it or purchase it, we will be willing to pay the painful price and transfer it to a permanent location somewhere nearby"... "only on the condition that the decree regarding the freezing of settlements is removed". No Wallerstein, you remove outposts shown to be built on private land that can't be purchased or otherwise settled because it is the right thing to do without any linkage to your opposition to a natural growth freeze in settlements.

His statements indicates his (and the settlers in general) reasonable interests in negociating through a complex and difficult problem. I am pleased by this. We belong in the "Westbank" as much as Palestinians belong in Israel proper but may need to compromise on some of the more extreme positions taken by some settlers. In the end, these two-state solutions are nonsense anyway. The Westbank and Gaza are lumped together the way Marshall Tito established a country called Yugoslavia from disparate elements and which totally disintegrated after two generations. Gaza clearly belongs to Egypt but the Egyptian government is too canny to accept it as it would only cause them additional problems as the state of Egypt is always threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood (cousins to Hamas). And the Westbank is really an extension of Jordan as the ethnic population of Jordan mirrors that of the inhabitants of the Westbank. Nonetheless, Queen Noor does not want the Westbank as she does not wish to invite any troubles into her kingdom. In spite of these difficulties, both countries might be induced into taking over governorship of the two entities, the Westbank and Gaza, for the right price. This is the goal that the Americans and the European nations should be working towards, not the insistence on establishing the fractionalized state called "Palestine".

WHAT DO U MEAN BY BELIEVE IN THE CROSS ? DO U MEAN THAT THE CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI SEMITE OR JEW HATING PLEASE STP USING THAT UNPOLITE LANGUAGE THE CHRISTIANS ARE THE ONLY ISRAEL FRIEND AND ALL THE CHRISTIANS WHO BETRAYED ISRAEL OR THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY WRONG SHALOM FROM A CHRISTIAN ZIONIST

As we know in the state of Isreal there are various factions who decide which parts of the law they actually obey. How nice of the settlers association to realise their are laws in this country.

Good general discussion, but with the same, inherent fault of all historically based arguments: You choose to view 1967 as the beginning of history, I do not. Without making the biblical argument, that this land was given to the Jews as their patrimony, I offer another set of much more recent times: Late 1800s - Jews actively begin purchasing property on a very large scale, mostly from absentee landlords. (At that time, Arab governments had not imposed the death penalty on their bretheren who engaged in commercial dealings with Jews.) Later 1800s, Arabs from surrounding areas arrive, primarily seeking work on Jewish-owned farms. 1917 - Balfour Declaration seeks the re-establishment of the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine). 1922 - San Remo conference adopts language under which the League of Nations apportioned essentially all of Mandatory Palestine for establishment of a Jewish state. 1947: United Nations formally approves establishment of Jewish state west of the Jordan (a considerable reduction in size from that approved by the League of Nations). May 14, 1948 - Israel declares independence. May 15 1948 - Seven Arab countries invade Israel. 1949 - Fighting ends with armistice agreement (not peace treaty). At the time of the 1949 armistice, it was Jordan, not Israel, that was the conquering country, acting contrary to international law. Edan, we could argue this all day. We each have political positions that may never be reconciled. But we have an obligation to those who may read what we write to tell them that history rarely begins at the time we want, and that those who ignore it are doomed to repeat it. I do not think your posting fulfilled your obligation to readers.

It is high time for Israel to be making demands upon the Arabs, starting with territorial concessions from the vast Arab world. Based upon prior precedents in Muslim history going back to the time of Mohammed and his dealings with the Queresh tribe in Mecca, the Arabs will never make peace or accept a Jewish sovereign state in territory they have previously conquered in the name of Allah. Thus, Israel should now begin reclaiming territory it has foolishly given away since the Oslo 'peace' Accords. The Arabs will be forced to accept such demands if they finally realize that the Jewish state is once again so overwhelmingly strong militarily, morally and spiritually that they simply cannot destroy it. About an additional Arab state west of the Jordan (in 4 parts): http://xrl.us/osjq5

Few nations can match the fundamental legitimacy that Israel has. Beyond the fact that Jews were returning to their ancient homeland, the League of Nations authorized the land west of the Jordan as a Jewish homeland (and, by the way, included the Golan Heights, once known as Northern Galilee) under the Palestine Mandate of July 24, 1922. So it has no lesser legitimacy than Syria or Lebanon (under French Mandate) or Iraq (under British Mandate). Much of the land in Palestine which is claimed to be "stolen" was in fact purchased. Few nations can match the fundamental legitimacy that Israel has as explained : http://xrl.us/berwte