BRAVO..BRAVO..BRAVO..A consice , articulate, summation of our current situation..But may I add..NOW WHAT?..Hard difficult questions lie ahead. I hope, no, pray, that we as a people, a Nation, have the courage, wisdom and faith, to guide us through these fateful times. The storm clouds are gathering.....

The Montevideo Convention has nothing to do with the United Nations Charter. During the the hearings on Israel's application for membership in the UN, U.S. Ambassador Jessup said: 'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." see UN Doc. S/PV.383, 2 December 1948

after 67 war king hussein tried to make a solution and he had the permition from naser to do it in west bank as it is part of his kingdom .sure israili leaders were full of the fake win of no war .the palastinians did not share the battel but share or in true the fault or the result was they were people on land of criminals .. i believe if israili had founf a solution with king hussein .the conflict would be ended but israili leaders were not criminals but --tamma3 - sorry i do not remember what it means in english

If Obama backs down to Netanyahu this time, he loses a lot of the Muslim support he gained from the Cairo speech and will push them closer to Russia/China. Is it worth it to the US economy support Israel with 6M people and alienate 1500M Muslims, are Americans willing to pay higher taxes/unemployment to support Israel that strongly.

but thank you for blaming the Jews it's very original

essence of the Arab Israeli conflict. The only proper response to this article that would counter its thrust is for the Palestinian Arab leadership to: 1) Accept Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people; state so in Arabic, Hebrew and English and accompany this newly found conviction with a few simple acts such as revising the Charters of PLO (now in the freezer), Fatah, Hamas, etc. Change your maps and school books; and cease all acts of terror and violence and all preparations for such acts. 2) Agree that any peace agreement with Israel will be considered the "end of the conflict". Sadly, so far the Palestinian Arab leadership has refused both requirements for precisely the reasons described so well in this article.

Under the 1933 Montevideo Treaty, a state must satisfy four specific requirements: It must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into peaceful relations with other states. The Palestinian Authority under Abbas does not satisfy any one of these requisites. While it has “permanent residents,” it has also a large portion of unsettled refugees. And it certainly does not have “a defined territory” as evidenced by its official maps. Its display of all of Western Palestine is indicative of its intentions to undermine the Jewish State. As to a “government,” Abbas is running a gang rather than an acceptable government; it lacks legitimacy, as large portions of the Palestinians do not accept him as the leader. The fourth criterion is absolutely clear- it lacks the capacity to live in peace with its neighbor – Israel. To paraphrase Dean Acheson’s words: being “inoffensive” towards a Palestinian terrorist state would destroy the oldest, most vibrant democracy in the Middle East as explained at: http://xrl.us/berwte

It is worth for the well being of the US technology to support 6 million Israeli Jews over 150 million Arabs. Just read The Israel Test.

Yes, the Israeli claim on the West Bank is based on myths lost in the myths of time. Yes, the US may realize their vetoes of criticism of Israel over the years have only encouraged extremism. They may well abstain on a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state if settlement building is not halted. The world knows that Israel would not or could not negotiate a just peace and that the 1967 Peace Plan will have to be imposed. Even then of course the hatred built up by Israel over the last sixty years will not go away.

Moshe Dann and other rabid posters here can try to de-legitimize the Palestinian people with the usual lies/half truths/selective history/etc as much as they want however this is nothing more than a means of trying to justify the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the brutal oppression of the Palestinian people. The only difference between the author of this article and rabid posters on this site is that Dann doesn’t wear his racism on his sleeve, nor does he descend to childish insults and name calling. When people try and de-legitimize the Palestinian people and their aspirations it is important to remember the following: 1) The Palestinian people exist, all 10 million of them. 2) They are not going away. 3) The Palestinians are united in a cause (self-determination/statehood) that IDF bombs and bullets cannot destroy. 4) The Palestinians have more global popular support than Israel. 5) The Palestinians are entitled to the same human rights as Jews and Israelis. No amount of disparaging comments, false claims, inhumane treatment etc will change the above 5 points.

Moshe Dann has it right, of course. Our problem is that we've allowed the PA to beat us to the punch in declaring sovereignty over the heartland of our country. We should have done it right after the Six-Day War, when (after an initial storm of protest) it would have been accepted as a natural thing. If we do it now - it will be perceived as a totally unacceptable "me too" copycat response to the Arab move. Yet I don't know what real choice we will have if the Arabs will go through with their threat.

Dann's observations are obvious and true. Why should "Palestinians" give up on their goal of destroying Israel when the Israeli left largely supports them every step of the way? The Israeli left is a huge part of the problem. The concessions and retreats, they constantly urge, have brought us our last two wars and threaten our security and survival. Israeli voters strongly reject the sick leftist agenda in elections. It is time for a complete u turn in Israeli policy.

MOSHE DANN MAKES THE CLEAR ,HONEST POINT. THE REST OF THE iSRAELIS ARE ONLY FOOLING THEMSELVES ON THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THE PALESTINIANS.

Why Israel didn't declare sovereignty over areas it acquired in 1967 is beyond me. It's Israel.

God justifies the Jews living on the land he swore to give them. In the end all will see this fact in all it's humiliation. The whole world is being draw like fish on a hook for this day when The writer of history in advance shows his true ability to do what he said he will do. Poor little fishes...

Although I esteem "Matty's" input and I always seriously reflect on it, the weakness of his argument is his normal simplicity in analysis (what we get from outmoded form of logical positivism as a basis for understanding) and his refusal to acknowledge and deal with the most important factor of all, social context. In this case, the Arab people who identify themselves as "Palestinians" appear to be betwixt and between. On the one hand, Arabs residing in Samaria and Judea are offended by the Jewish presence but are, nonetheless, dependent on Israeli Jews for economic reasons. If "Matty", or anyone for that matter, were to view any one of the numerous construction sites in either Jerusalem or west of the Green Line, you would find few Jews either working as laborers or as foremen. Why is that? Because Arabs (in general) pay nothing in taxes and are able to live much more cheaply than Jews and therefore their demands for wages are significantly less. Anyone intimately familiar with life in Israel also recognizes how incredibly hard it is for most Israeli Jews to eek out a living. So work and economic conditions represent one aspect of the (natural) ambivalence which Palestinians have about building their own state. Without a tie to Israel, however objectionable, the economic fallout would likely be severe much as it was during the intifada years. A second problem for Arab Muslims, especially those residing west of the Green Line, is their fear of being taken over by Hamas. While Hamas appears to represent only a fraction of their population, its influence is enormous. Although a village may only have two or three Hamas members, for instance, moderate people are really frightened of them knowing that they are organized to create violence, that they can bring in other members from outside the village to threaten the "indigenous" population and that Hamas members are quite capable of carrying out their threats on their own people. There is also another aspect regarding fear of reprisal: Hamas representatives place their demands, i.e., eradicate Jews, in a religious (Muslim) context. Anyone flouting these "religious prescriptions" might well be considered an apostate and therefore subject to dire results such as damage and death to oneself and one's family. Fortunately for these villagers, Israelis represent not only the common enemy but the "protector" as well because, as long as Israel is intimately involved in their daily affairs, opposition to Hamas is stymied. In short, and to sum up, as long as Arab "Palestinians" are economically dependent on Israel and, as long as they require the protection which Israel affords them, they will remain ambivalent about Israel's presence and influence and therefore remain disunited. My own preference is for "Palestinian" Arabs to build up their own economy independent of Israel and, as well, to build up their own indigenous non-Hamas police force to counteract the iniquitous influence of Hamas. I am dreaming here but If both peoples could separate and go their own ways, I think, eventually, that we could develop a more positive relationship and actually trade on one anothers' strengths. But this must be done organically, not by proclamations and international declarations. I've offered two concerns with regard to "Palestinian" Arab disunity in this rather long commentary. There is at least one other. A third, and perhaps the most significant concern, are the contagious effects of modernization in "Palestinian" society, the confusion and divisiveness it causes and the part Israel plays and is seen to play in all this. A written expansion of this aspect of "Palestinian" social life in the present commentary is not feasible, however.

The last sentence of the second paragraph should have read: "opposition by Hamas" as opposed to "opposition to Hamas". This is what I meant; as it currently stands, it's confusing and the opposite of what I meant. Thank you for making the change in your minds, "Kind Readers".

the most important is what to have to pay .. it is not about the price .the same about palastinians they know how it is high its price but they pay what they can own

12 told it as general but 18 did not so if 12 want to explain more he would bound it to economy .. and 18 if he want to generalized it .. so people want a home if they are hungry or wealthy so economic is not the all humans are not mashines without soul or mind ..people are not only pockets and bully