Israel gave away the Sinai AFTER it discovered oil there - we got smuggling tunnels and terror in the desert. Gave away Gaza, got kassams and Hamas. Morons who said Israel should gave away the Golan to Syria - WHERE WOULD ISRAEL BE RT NOW IF SHE HAD?!? There are 66 Muslim countries, is one tiny Jewish state too much? Abbas represents NO ONE the fakestinians want Hamas, want Israel's destruction and death to all Jews. That is reality. Peace comes thru strength, not 'give aways' Bibi is a phoney 'right', bote Jewish Home next time!

"[S]tate's?" Don't you mean "states?" Ah, ignorance will out, each and every time. I don't find your comments/responses to be harsh at all. I find them to be remarkably laughable and wholly inaccurate. But since they reflect the level of your intellect, I suppose that cannot be helped.

You talk like you know where you came from, the sewers of Europe to steel and torture the Palestinian.

"Palestine" is not a sovereign state, you idiot. Only sovereign states can sign treaties. What is wrong with you? Why do you persist in making such a fool of yourself?

...to scream and throw an unrelenting tantrum. The irritated parent immeadiately gave in and gave the child a sweet. Each time the screams got louder the parent gave in; failing to see that rewarding negative behavior is not the best idea. Occasionally a swat on the butt is needed to concentrate the child's mind as to what it's best interests are. How hard the "potch" is depends on the child. Apply as needed until results are acceptable.

Would Ariel, Bennett and most of the Likud agree to this???

President Obama once said "I'LL DO WHAT I PROMISSED TO DO" He received the Nobel Peace Prize for the Middle East peace process not for anything else.

Some of todays Arabs are terrorists but it is a minority.However if you were in the shoes of an Arab 3rd generation,living across the line,I bet you would not exactly love Israel.even if you just went about your daily business.I can totally disassociate myself with Baruch Goldstein or Gilad Amit,but I'm inextricably part of the results of our peculiar political system whether I like it or not.There may me lots of "them" who hate us,but from their perspective they feel justified.And whatever anyone argues,the settlements only add to the result,if not the cause.That is why there may never be a solution before a tragedy.

Sitting high and dry on your balcony and having a high level perspective on decisive matters, tell me just one thing; when did the UNSC state that the settlements are illegal? It would contradict UNSC 242 that stated that Israel would have to withdraw, in case of an end of conflict with the Arabs, FROM territories and not from THE TERRITORIES, a decision based on the comprehensive study of the author of the resolution, Eugene Rostow, who took into consideration the League of Nations decisions of 1922, granting the Jews the right to settle between the Sea and the Jordan River. As I could understand from your previous posts, you don't keep in high esteem neither Rostow or Grief, nor I suppose Stone, Gauthier and others, as you know better! Should I remind you, that all written facts concerning Jewish rights (San Remo, League of Nations etc) disappeared, being swept under the carpet when Hitler came to power? I suppose it is unnecessary to tell to YOU, why! Even the two volume "History of Zionism" written by Nahum Sokolow disappeared. Why? Because sokolow, who became President (!!!) of the World Zionist Organization from 1931 till 1935 (!!!) wrote in his book that "the Jewish State never was part of the Zionist program". So I understand that it is rather inconceivable for a convinced leftist to disclose today all this hidden data, in order to defend Jewish-Israeli legal rights.

As usual the crazies in Israel see this as a negative. Peace is the only way Jewish people will survive. Not iron domes and settlements. Wake up

Thanks to the US weapons, intelligence, war planes, US taxpayers' welfare to Israel and the US Sixth Fleet.

Sarah, please refer to the ICC decision regarding complaints lodged by Palestine in 2009. In particular, paragraph 5. You will learn that the recent GA resolution elevating Palestine to non-member state status simultaneously made Palestine eligible to seek relief from the ICC. Simply read it. Unlike you, I do not proffer personal opinions as facts of law. I research the actual laws. Read it, and weep.

Sarah, please refer to the ICC decision regarding complaints lodged by Palestine in 2009. In particular, paragraph 5. You will learn that the recent GA resolution elevating Palestine to non-member state status simultaneously made Palestine eligible to seek relief from the ICC. Simply read it. Unlike you, I do not proffer personal opinions as facts of law. I research the actual laws. Read the decision, and weep.

SCR446 begins by reconfirming that the Geneva Convention applies to the occupied territories and then states that "… the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace…;" Please read it yourself. UNSCR446 does not contradict UNSCR242 because the latter did not give Israel the right to create civilian settlements in the occupied territories before it has negotiated its borders. In passing, Rostow was not “the” author of 242 –the resolution was the carefully worded product of negotiation between numerous countries and members of the SC in particular, ALL of whom consider the settlements illegal. The International Court of Justice has also stated that the settlements are illegal. The opinions of the Security Council and ICJ trump individual lawyers' interpretations of international law. There is no dispute within the international community about the status of the settlements. ONLY Israel argues that the settlements are legal. I know nothing about “leftist hidden data” nor its supposed relevance to my comments. My comments about the law are not based on my personal political views (Republican/Libertarian) but upon the most recent and authoritative statements of the law itself.

when faced with the truth. I notice that you have no factual response to the refutation of your latest false assertion that the ICC has no jurisdiction over "war crimes" committed by Israel in the occupied territories (See Art. 12 and Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) of the ICC Rome Statute). On April 3 2012 the ICC stated (para. 5 et. seq. of its “Decision Not to Proceed”) that Palestine would have standing to bring an action before it if it were accorded non-member state by the UN General Assembly. On November 30, 1912 the UN GA accorded Palestine non-member state status. Palestine may therefore become a state party under ICC rules. I suppose you will ignore this inconvenient reality just as you ignored the official U.S. government sites confirming that Jonathan Pollard is scheduled for Parole in 2015. Tell me, do you always make things up as you go along? p.s. I would enjoy a battle of wits with you; unfortunately, you appear to be unarmed

As long as Israel will refuse to lead a battle to preserve its legal rights, its future may be put at risk. Decisions were made: San Rémo, the League of Nations Mandate of 1922, that gave the Jews the irrevocable right to settle in the area between the Sea and the Jordan River, the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, to guarantee this Mandate, and Article 80 of the UN Charter. All this may be considered in a context of "La Chose Jugée). But the State of Israel refuses to fight this legal battle, because it would disclose the fact that the Zionist movement in the years twenty and further on, was marxist oriented and disowned Herzl's program for a Jewish State. A state that could have been born before WWII, and would have prevented, partially or perhaps totally the Shoah. This reluctance to fight a legal battle transformed itself in a sort of Stockholm syndrome. The same phenomenon happened with the famous "Al Dura" affair. The IDF spokesman was prompt to declare that the boy may have been killed by IDF fire, and apologized for it. This affair is a hoax, but no Israeli government ever stood up to defend its own army. The two cases are of importance: they made Israel to be considered as a colonial power, stealing territories from the poor "Palestinian(?!) people " and as a country of child murderers. The consequence is that Israel is relegated to the bottom line in world opinion, joining the two other rogue states, North Korea and Iran. Some stuff to think about.

at least some of our settlements in Judea and Samaria!

Yes, much to ponder. I empathize with your angst over lapses in the Zionist movement that cost us so dearly. Cavalier dealings by the British were also costly. But dwelling on past betrayals, injustices and defunct agreements is pointless. We have to start from where we are and look forward. I can sympathize with arguments in support of Israel’s settlement policy from emotional, religious, pragmatic and moral perspectives –but not from a legal one. The institutions most responsible for defining international law, including the UN GA, SC, ICJ and ICRC, decided long ago that our civilian settlements on occupied territory are illegal. You know this for yourself if you have read UNSCR 446 and the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the security barrier. Illegal settlements constitute a war crime subject to ICC jurisdiction --which may explain Israel’s alleged willingness to stop building now that the Palestinians can go to the ICC. An ICC judgement against the settlements would have far reaching consequences. The only realistic alternative is to negotiate with Palestine on the basis of UNSCR 242 in order to save as many settlements as possible. A bitter pill, I know –but it has to be swallowed and the sooner the better.

By the way, thanks for your empathy, but of no importance to the core of the problem. Yes, I read UNSCR 446 and I can tell you where is situated the flagrant cheating in the text, and I quote: The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention... Article 2: the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. "The conditions of armed conflict" between two or more of the High Contracting Parties", as set forth in the article, are fulfilled in that there was a war between two signatories, Israel and Jordan". Unquote !!! A mockery !!! I suppose, Balcony, that you know the Hebrew expression "Kaan kavur hakelev". The "West Bank" was NEVER part of the Jordanian state, but a residual part of the "Mandate for Palestine", an evidence that you seem to have reluctance to accept, as well as the importance of Article 80 of the UN Charter, introduced and formulated in a visionary way by a group of people including PM Netanyahu's late father. But anyhow, I feel some progress in your stand when you write in your post # 50: "We must start with SCR 242." And I would add, in the spirit of its author, Eugene Rostow. Again, I know you don't accept Rostow as "the" author, but I suppose you know that Rostow was an expert in International Law, being the Dean of the School of Law in Yale, what Lord Caradon was not. Neither is it the result of all the delegates of the SC sitting around a table to draft a text in team-work.

FO, The settlements are illegal under international law. It’s a fact, not an opinion. You appear unable or unwilling to understand that the opinions of individual jurists or of a single country in matters of international law are irrelevant when everyone else has reached the opposite conclusion including the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention, the SC which passed SCR242, the UN GA which has accorded Palestine state status, the ICJ which adjudicates issues of international law and even the ICRC. International law is law between nations. Not a single nation in the world agrees with Israel's claims to the occupied territory based on its iconoclastic interpretation of international law. Not one. Not even Israel’s closest ally, the United States. No one. At last fifty percent of all litigants disagree in part or in full with every judicial tribunal’s ruling. But, while they are free to verbally disagree with the decision, they are not free to ignore it as Israel has been doing, (enabled in large part by the U.S.’s SC veto power). The U.S. can do nothing to prevent an ICC ruling against the settlements should Palestine pursue this route. Unlike GA or SC resolutions, an ICC ruling likely will have an immediate and potentially drastic effect. Is Israel’s humiliation required for you to stop arguing, accept reality and begin negotiating? I really want to know because the settlements are patently illegal under international law. It’s a fact, not an opinion. Only an ignoramus or arational “true believer” would persist in arguing otherwise. From your posts, you don’t appear to be ignorant.

Rostow and Stone were lawyers, not judges and both are dead. Thomas Buergenthal is alive, a Jew, a Holocaust survivor, a recognized International law scholar and the only one of fifteen Judges on the International Court of Justice to dissent with its blanket condemnation of the security barrier. But even Buergenthal states in his dissent that the settlements are illegal under the Geneva Convention: 9. … I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. Judges are the final arbiters of what is and isn’t currently the law. If you will not accept what the judges of the ICJ tell you then you have placed yourself outside the law. It’s that simple.

Who said once that the enemy of truth was not falsehood, but conviction? I'm not a lawyer neither a jurist, nor an ignorant, as it appeared to you. I'm lucky to be rational, and having the faculty and ability to analyze texts with my brain and not with the brains of others. Don't try to force me, Balcony, to bow in front of flagrant piece of treachery: to pretend that Israel is violating Article 49 concerning the West Bank, because Israel and Jordan, both High Contracting Parties were at war? What was the link between Jordan and the West Bank? None! A comedy, but indeed it got world support. Did Israel try to intervene? No! On the contrary, Meron supported this forgery. Is it a sort of auto-flagellation because of a guilt complex (Shoah) or a continued galut inferiority complex? Trembling to let your voice been heard, even when you are right? Of lesser importance, but a similar situation, the Al Dura affair: same official Israeli behaviour, and same consequences! As told by the British journalist Melanie Phillips to the Israeli TV: "Your Hasbara is a joke!".

building in smaller settlements or illegal building will be halted. Building in larger settlements will continue, which covers the majority of all settlement building. Abbas demanded a total freeze despite this contradicting agreements the PLO signed with Israel. So, not much of a new sheriff in town as a person placing more emphasis on this tiny gesture which was already offered by Israel since 2010.

since most of these prisoners will return to lives of terrorism and end up causing a great deal of bloodshed on both sides. Because Israel keeps them on ice is the reason both sides have relative peace today.

Because that's when previous legal agreements and Intl law come into play and negate Abbas' claim for 1967 borders which is really an armistice line. Then, that would bring into light the real ownership of land (which Pallys still can't prove) and many, many Jewish homes and property stolen from them in the 1949 ethnic cleansing and illegal annexation. So, please Abbas, go to the ICC. You'll end up with a really tiny area and be answered to Amman in the end. Well, maybe not Abbas. He might find himself in exile with other Arab leaders, somewhere on a country club near Riyadh.

and under the UN charter, which covers all UN-based organizations, borders cannot be unilaterally set. A fact that was underscored by the authors of UNR242 way back in 1967. Speaking of making one's self look silly - each group you cited - UNSC, ICRC - took their position on settlements from the ICJ non-binding advisory ruling. The ICJ itself admitted their ruling was jsut advisory and not holding legal weight, and followed the text given to it by the UN who made the request. The text already declared the settlements illegal and Israel an occupier. Therefore, the ruling was made using biased documents and NO litigation whatsoever - which is why its non-binding. In other words, a biased ruling was assured so groups could use it as a platform to support their position, but it still remains - LEGALLY NON-BINDING.

Obama received the Peace Prize mostly because he promised to re-build ties with Europe, and to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tackling the Israeli-Arab peace process was just one of many tasks he put on his list. But like his many predecessors who also tackled it and received no peace prize, Obama will find its more complex than previous envisioned. Plus, Obama received the award before lifting a finger, based solely on promises. What does that say about Nobel Prize judges?

The dispute was over land and between the two parties, Israel and Jordan, with the latter being guilty of war crimes for the illegal annexation of the land and ethnic cleansing of Jews in 1949. The removal of that population must be reversed under Intl Laws which allows for the repatriation of Jews to build homes there. Rostow also admitted that fact in subsequent interviews with the UNR242 authors who said no Jewish residency should be barred from those lands. The ICJ ruling is a non-binding advisory ruling, not a legal decision. SCR446 read the Geneva Convention to mean all land acquired through war which is a contradiction to the letter of the law which claims land won through offensive war, but allows defensive war claims which are a result of increasing security of the defending sovereign entity. No big deal over what the intl community thinks. At the end of the day, its the court's decision which will follow the law, not a political or populist decision, as you make it out to be. Otherwise....wouldn't Tibet be free by now?