everywhere, and and busting their arms patting themselves on the back. Somehow they must have all missed what appears to be obvious to only you...that the British MP's recognition of "Palestine" is in fact a pro-Israel move.

Britain knows this is a lie and an anti-Israel doctrine.

This tiny land has belonged to Jews for more than 4,000 years. We need to claim Judea and Samaria forever. Implement the Israeli Solution as envisaged by Caroline Click and Moshe Feiglin. The foolish author of this article is among the leftists who urged Israel to cede Golan barely a year ago. Leftists are infallibly wrong on every major issue from Oslo to Disengagement to Arafat to everything.

action that classes the UK among the goat nations that will be cast into the lake of fire when the Jewish Messiah Yeshua returns in glory. Ephraim (Britain and Commonwealth) is NOT listed among the Tribes of Israel in Revelation in Scriptures! There are NO 12,000 virgins (true in faith) among the Tribe of Ephraim in the latter days of Gentile world rule. The Tribes of Ephaim and Dan are cast out of the Tribes of Israel. That is the great tragedy of those lands: their rejection of the Elohim of Scriptures.

Steve mentions: "... increase its demand that the Jewish community in the "Greater Land of Israel" cease the apartheid against the Palestinian community ..." How come you don't mention the discrimination of the Arabs against the Jews? Can we Jews walk in Ramallah, in Jenin or Jericho? Can we buy apartments there or even in Silwan? Why do you focus on what we do and not what they do? Sharon gave the Arabs in Gaza their own state and what did they do? They did not thank us; they built a terrorist army so strong that it continues to threaten our civilian and military powers. If we give the West Bank territories to the Arabs their as a state, do you really believe they will open up and be friendly? Ha ha ha! They will begin to build an army, arm themselves and begin to attack from their territories. Let them show us that they want peace; then maybe we will talk peace!

Zionism has absolutely no power, no meaning, no relevance, in of and by itself. It exists solely because it mimics the underlying Biblical reality, that this Holy land is the homeland of the Jewish people for the purpose of serving the G-d of Israel.

Israel is not an apartheid state. The restrictions on the Palestinians are designed to prevent terror. The Palestinians could have had their state several times in the past but opted for the destruction of Israel. The three Noes of Khartoum still apply.

With ISIS the Revolutionary Guards of Iran and Neonazis and Psychos of all Types the Land is in fact a Threshold Armageddon State with a Decade or less to Prepare both Jews and Arabs and Internationals .An International Sancturary State needs Contingency Plans .

stupidity combined with incredible self-deception can lead only to articles like this.

The Arabs are happy. Why? Because they see the obvious, which is that the resolution hurts Israel and helps the PA. Plocker's logic is the same as a man who is about to be hanged who announces that he is eager to meet his maker, and just as convincing.

The writer isn't pro Israel of course. The MP's who supported this resolution all believe the problem started in 1948 not 1967. The leader of the PLO Abbas also is clear the problem started in 1948 and will be resolved when Israel is destroyed. After Israel gives the PLO a state of course we will here how the Arabs of the Galilee suffer under Zionist apartheid. Every Arab refugee from pre 1967 will still be demanding to "return" to Israel as will their children and grandchildren. The Arabs of Jaffa will demand the expulsion of the Zionist occupiers as will the Bedouin in the Negev.

Ever heard about ARTICLE 80 of the UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, Mr. Plocker? Or should it remain classified, in order to prevent opening the Pandora Box by making public the disastrous leftist decision to disregard the League of Nations rule to create a Jewish state? A Jewish state that could have prevented the Shoah! And what is this ARTICLE 80 exactly? In 1945, at the San Francisco Conference, a group of Jews, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Peter Bergson, Eliahu Elath, A. S. Yehuda, Harry Selden and … Professor Ben-Zion Netanyahu, yes Mr. Plocker, you read well, indeed the actual PM late father, introduced ARTICLE 80 in the Charter of the new world organization, the United Nations, to protect the LEAGUE OF NATIONS "MANDATE FOR PALESTINE" that gave the Jews the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT" to settle anywhere on the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, including the Golan Heights for creating their independent state!!! And you, Mr. Plocker, you dare to write in your article, and I quote: "The occupation of territories can be solved with acceptable borders". Unquote. No, Mr. Plocker, it's only from a position of exclusive Israeli ownership of the so-called territories that a creative solution has to be found. To conclude, I want to recall an Interview given to the Belgian (Flemish) Television by Yitzhak Rabin (which vision was totally distorted by leftist propaganda): …" With Jordan we have got borders, south of the Dead Sea, till the Golf of Aqaba, north of the West Bank along the Beit Shean Valley and the Jordan Valley. Therefore, in a solution, peace solution between Jordan and Israel, I believe that the Palestinian issue can be solved in a way that the Palestinians will find their right to express their special identity, but, it will never be through the so-called PLO or through a third independent state. Because a third independent state between Jordan and Israel cannot solve the Palestinian issue and will serve as a time bomb against Jordan as well as against Israel."

1.Central Israeli Government in Jerusalem 2.President with the dual title of Israel- Palestine 3.Autonom Palestinian administration in West Bank and Gaza 4. Common currency, common army 5. All subject pledge loyalty to Dualist State and President Pretty hard to achieve while Iran, Russia, Syria, Qatar incites the Palestinians against Israel. The pre-condition is a no-violence civil society building in Palestine.

For the Jewish interest, there are three solutions to the conflict with the Palestinians – The just and the best one, but not feasible, and the two mentioned in the article. The just solution means the reclamation of Judea and Samaria to its Jewish nation, and expulsion of its Arabs to Jordan, their actual homeland. The world and Jordan will not allowed it to happen. The author is correct with his prediction about the menace posed by the one-state solution. The two-state option is the sole possible, provided the Pals will prove that they no longer strive to destroy Israel, by dropping all their current demands for such paradigm.

The British Parliament has 650 MP's, of whom the majority did NOT vote. A backbench debate such as this normally ends with a free vote, but Ed Miliband broke the rules and whipped Labour MPs to vote as a bloc. The Conservative Govt is very pro-Israel and fully supports Israel's right to respond to rockets being rained on southern Israel. The backbenchers accept the two state solution, as does the Israeli Govt.

I see the logic here, that support for a two-state solution implicitly recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, but within significantly diminished boundaries from those they captured in their war of self-defense in '67. The pre-'67 borders, however, were indefensible, and Israel is being asked to give up land they had no designs on taking in the first place, but captured in a war designed to drive them into the sea. Nevertheless, Israel has strong historic claims to that land. So, respecting Israel's right to maintain an ongoing military presence in the Jordan Valley and its own legitimate claims to that land, where do you draw the line? The devil is in the details, and the Palestinians seem intractable even on Israel's most basic defense concerns. Will the UK back Israel on maintaining a permanent military presence in the Jordan Valley, or is its resolution only about Israel giving up land and retreating to its indefensible pre-'67 borders?