they are, in fact, "facts". You can question or challenge their importance and relevance by undermining or balancing them against other facts but you can't simply “disagree.” So what “facts” are you challenging? Chaim and SarahB's penchant for personal attacks? Read their responses to people they disagree with. I now respond to them in kind with, perhaps, a little more wit and panache than they merit.; My statement about ICC jurisdiction over Israelis for settlement related activities? It’s a fact: See Art12(a)(2) and Art8(2 (b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; My statement about the opinions expressed by former heads of the Shin Bet such as MK Peri? It’s fact – see "The Gatekeepers" AND read/watch their subsequent personal interviews. What else is there of substance in your comment to respond to? Basically, you say that history is important (an opinion and I agree), that Israel is surrounded by enemies and has to be very careful (an indisputable fact); that Chaim is right and people who disagree with him are wrong. (an opinion and I disagree.) Have I missed anything? Happy now?

I many times don't agree with Chaim, but this time I agree. What I disagreed with in your post is stating that because MK Peri is a former head of Shin Bet, he is right a priori. And that you say "that history is important, that Israel is surrounded by enemies and has to be very careful (an indisputable fact)" yet you want them to rely on Iron Dome, etc., ignoring how many arab and Muslim countries it is up against. Did I misread you?

solution will lead to another holocaust? I know of no reputable analysis supporting that claim. Rather, it appears to be a scare tactic used by those who believe that J & S are not disputed territories but belong wholly to Israel and should be annexed. It make more sense to listen to the opinions of former heads of Shin Bet and high-ranking IDF officers who have more knowledge about Israel's security needs and capabilities than lay people with have an ideological axe to grind like Chaim. Former Shin Bet chiefs not only disagree with Chaim’s hysterical predictions, they think that there is no viable alternative to the TSS -- some even think that extremist settlers have harmed and threaten to further harm Israel’s future more than Hamas. So convince me. Telling me to look at a map and use common sense is not enough. If the IDF and Shin Bet believe that it’s possible to give up most of the disputed territories, why should I disagree? Or is the truth simply that you believe keeping Judea and Samaria is worth subjugating, ghettoizing and evicting over a million Palestinian Arabs?

You misunderstand. There has to be a TSS, but NOT based on 1948 armistice lines (they are not even truce lines, by insistence of the arabs). I believe in Rabin's plan of an Israel with defensible borders, surrounding a yet another arab state, but one that will be demilitarized. The past history and present actions show that the arabs must PROVE that they want peace as all their words and deeds show this not to be true. Address what Hamas, Hezbollah and the PA say; you ignore it at Israel's peril. Whatever situation they are in is their own doing! The "subjugating, ghettoizing" of the "Pals" [who had long admitted they are not "Pals" but Syrian, Egyptian] is not true; they have their own government, their own fighters. Not all former heads of Shin Bet have said what you support; not even most. (Please provide information about the IDF saying this; I have heard of none. Also include the percentage of the IDF general staff, a number you avoid when speaking of the Shin Bet.) "If the arabs put down their arms, there will be peace. If the Israel puts down it's arms it will be annihilated". This still holds true no matter what you, or some former heads of Shin Bet think.

Logically, how can you say that you support a two-state solution and also agree with Chaim‘s claims that a two state solution will lead to another holocaust? (#15, #28). Similarly, if your goal is secure borders, not expansion, why should using the 1949 Armistice lines as a basis for negotiating secure borders be a problem? Former heads of Bet Shin ARE unanimous in the opinion that the occupation is unsustainable, that there is no alternative to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and that settler extremism poses a serious threat to our national security. Neither the IDF or GoI has advocated annexation of the Wst Bank on security grounds; Major-General Nitzan Alon's views, are widely known. Area C, over which Israel has absolute control, is a lattice creating and surrounding 227 non-contiguous islands, 199 of which are smaller in size than the Warsaw Ghetto. Israel was supposed to dismantle some settlements and withdraw from most of Area C in five years. It I now over twenty years. The communities of Area B are being slowly strangled while the settlements are not only still standing but have new neighbors. If I were a Palestinian I would be making tunnels and bombs.

Calling Palestinian Arabs by any other name is simply an attempt to delegitimize their right to live beside us in their own state. I have never advocated “putting down our arms.” On the contrary. I wish to transfer the immense resources being wasted on settlements to legitimate defense.