we'd be back to exactly where we are right now. let's save everyone time and trouble and not do things we know how are going to end.

shows how well the Arabs rule when they have full control. First they destroy anything the Jews have built, then they use the area to launch attacks on Israeli citizens and, if the IDF responds, they go weeping about how miserable they are. Do we have to repeat the experiment again?

There is no law or provision under international law for Israel to retain any of its illegal settlements in the Palestinian WB. These half-measures and titbits that Israel sometimes half heartily agrees to are pathetic. The bare minimum for a just and lasting peace is as follows: 1) Israel withdraws from 100% of the WB to the 1967 borders. 2) Jerusalem is divided. 3) A just solution for the Palestinian refugee problem. 4) The Palestinian state has *fully* sovereignty over border crossing, airspace, costal region and armed forces etc. Until Israel agreed to these terms there will never be a lasting peace.

Israel? Why "cleanse" the new state of its Jewish residents instead of allowing them to continue to reside there, just as Arabs in Israel are not removed from their villages?

There are so many plans it's difficult to keep track of. The point is, the pals don't want to agree to anything short of their terms. Mofaz seems to be living in a dream world, but what can you expect from a man who promised to stay in Likud, and switched to Kadima the next day.

Israel's must start realizing that they must negotiate with the Arabs, not with themselves. Everyone from the extreme-Left to Mofaz comes up with "peace plans" to promote themselves politically and sedate the Israeli public with a false sense of hope. The only chance for peace is direct negotiations with the Arabs. It might turn out that there is no chance of peace because there is no possibility for two viable states.

Your ignorance is sickly, why do people comment and demand the most stupid things sometimes. I know...... Why don't you have the Palestianian army in Fairport and why don't you accept the refugees?? mmmmm guess what your answer would be..

The only plan Palestinians "might" accept is 100% of the West Bank, Gaza (which they had, but now Hamas owns), East Jlem and all Palestinian refugees which are in the millions absorbed into Israel proper. That's it! Anything else you offer them is a no-no. The Palestinians want 3 states, one in Gaza, one in the West Bank and one in Israel. Of course, that will mark the beginning of the end of the State of Israel. Which is actually their goal. The Palestinians and all other arab nations for that matter would rather see Israel destroyed then to live in peace next to it.

The Palestinians want FULL CONTROL of the West Bank and Gaza, the right of at least some refugees to return, control of Arab Jerusalem and an apology and compensation to the remaining refugees. Any other settlement will continue the violence out of a sense of pride. Pride to them is more important than a normal life. We need to understand that.

they'll be Palestinians Jews. East J'lem as Pals capital and West as Israel. Thats a fair deal

Finally a sane voice and some hope. Wait for the day Kadima will get back the power No choice to give up west bank to save my lovely country

"why do people comment and demand the most stupid things sometimes." What is 'stupid' about the Palestinians having the same rights and aspirations to statehood as Jews/Israelis? "Why don't you have the Palestinian army in Fairport". Don't be silly! A Palestinian army in Fairport wouldn't be able to defend innocent Palestinians in Gaza/WB against Israeli military aggression. "why don't you accept the refugees??" Why should we? Refugees have the right of return; such a right is enshrined in international law. Its quite simple Palestinian refugees are to be returned to Palestine/Israel. You seem to be under the misguided impression that there is some leeway here. The Palestinian problem, which Israel created, has to be dealt with by Israel, trying to fob off your problems on other people isn't on the cards.

the one that has governed all peace efforts since 1967 between Israel and it Arab neighbors. Phrases such as "Palestine", "Palestinians", "Palestinian state" don't even appear in it. Indeed, the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel / Palestine) had not perceived themselves as a people prior to the late 1960s, and "Palestine" as a political entity has never been in existence. So, when you send us to deal with international law, I would expect of you to do the bear minimum and learn the material first.

"There is no law or provision under international law for Israel to retain any of its illegal settlements in the Palestinian WB. " Of course there is. Check out the Hague First and Second Conventions. Israel acquired territory as a result of fighting two defensive wars. It is entirely Israel's right to retain the territory and to settle it as it wishes. For the record, the Hague Second Convention seems rather to imply that Israel would be well within her rights to deport all West Bank Palestinians to Jordan, the country of their citizenship at the time that Israel acquired the territory of Judea and Samaria. "The bare minimum for a just and lasting peace is as follows: 1) Israel withdraws from 100% of the WB to the 1967 borders. 2) Jerusalem is divided. 3) A just solution for the Palestinian refugee problem. 4) The Palestinian state has *fully* sovereignty over border crossing, airspace, costal region and armed forces etc." Wow. Pretty tough talk. I do have a quick question for you, though. Why should the Palestinians set the terms and conditions for anything? They lost six wars and have brought terror to the world an an unimagined scale. Moreover -- as I recall, Germany and Japan did not set the terms following their losses to the Allies in World War II. Why should a different set of rules apply to Israel? The Palestinians have been vanquished. They have to settle for any crumb Israel is willing to throw them .... or nothing at all. Frankly, I am a big fan of "nothing at all." No reason for Israel to act any differently than any conquering power. Thanks for your input; you are, however, a little long on anti-Israel rhetoric and woefully short on facts and international law. I suggest that you inform yourself on both before pulling "facts" and assertions from your nether region.

Maybe you should get out of your ISM world. Yisrael did not create the Filistin problem. They and their fellow arabs did. Who rejected partition in 1948? Not Yisrael. Never mind that hashemites got 70%+ of mandate territory already. never mind that arabs in mandate considered themselves sirian not filistin until 1960s. Never mind Arafat was eygpt arab. perhaps you should worry about trouble in fairport. I've been to. You have your own ghetto in "Pines of Perinton." You live in nearly all white christian town. All of which was iriqouis land before you. Give it back. Americaans created the indian problem. give back the land.

Then offer the Pals all or nothing. On second thought, offer them nothing. History and experience show us that they are incapable of governing themselves let alone behaving as a civilized people.

1) Nothing, nothing should take place before the Arabs, Palestinian and otherwise, finally accept Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. 2) Any agreement reached with them must be considered as the "end of the conflict". No more the signing of agreements only to find out that they have additional demands. We know, their long term demand is to see Israel gone, annihilated, whether by a single all-out-war as they have attempted to do several times, e.g. 1948, 1967, 1973, or in stages, as devised by Yassir Arafat and for which they have been pushing. The two simple demands will hopefully ensure that an accommodation of peaceful coexistence is reached, but that it is made of two parties, the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel, being one.

In Sweden, we have a saying that says: At some times are “good advices expensive”. And I would say that in my view you are close to that good advice. I actually think that is a fair deal and if UN would supervise that the people living in Palestine and Israel are treated equal, all would be fine.

While UN SC Res 242 doesn't mention phrases such as "Palestine", "Palestinians", "Palestinian state" you seem to erroneously think that this negates such realities as "Palestine", "Palestinians", "Palestinian state". Look at earlier UN SC Res's such as UN SC Res 43 which mentions "Arab and Jewish communities of Palestine". Just because this UN SC Res doesn't mention "Israel", "Israelis", "Israeli state" does this negate a future reality? Of course not. Eitan the simple fact is that "Palestinians" and "Palestinian state" are now a *irreversible* reality regardless of your hair-splitting.

"It is entirely Israel's right to retain the territory and to settle it as it wishes." Sigh! I don't get paid to be a kindergarten teacher but here goes... Sarah B Israel can *only* settle and retain such territory only if Israel annexes such territory. Did I explain that simply enough for you? Clearly Israel hasn't annexed this Palestinian land (only 'occupied') thus it is *illegal* to settle Israelis there. See the Fourth Geneva Convention ie: "an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)" "Why should the Palestinians set the terms and conditions for anything? They lost six wars ..." I think you are confusing "Palestinians" and "Arabs". "The Palestinians have been vanquished." Really? Strange then that so much resistance against Israeli occupation and suppression is coming from Gaza and the WB. "They have to settle for any crumb Israel is willing to throw them .... or nothing at all." You can keep your crumbs, its full statehood or nothing but ongoing resistance. Sarah B if you want peace (which I don't think you do) them you have to move beyond this Dark Ages mentality that you seem wrapped up in. Simply put Israel needs to go through a phase/age of Enlightenment, other countries have but Israel never has.

right to exist as a Jewish state that it is? Yes or no answer would suffice. Thank you, Geulah Bar-Giora, Israel

"Nothing, nothing should take place before the Arabs, Palestinian and otherwise, finally accept Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people." Eitan why should Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise recognize 'Israel's right to exist' when there is no such International Law/Right for *any* country to 'Exist'? Simply put NO COUNTRY in the world has the 'right to exist'. Does America, Russia, England etc have a 'right to exist'? No.

right to exist, meaning in his opinion, Israel, being a UN member state and having been established based on a UN resolution is of no meaning. As soon as the Arabs can decimate it, they may do so. So much for this friend of ours visiting us from Fairport.

Matty Groves, to your knowledge: you can't be right because you are wrong, and, here we go: Your 100% of the WB or nothing... Well, there is Samaria and Judea, no "West Bank" ever existed. As simple as that. Your illegal settlements... Well, those villages and towns are fully OK in the disputed lands of Samaria and Judea. Perhaps also Your, to the 1967 borders... Well, in 1967 there were just armistice lines from 1948 and for this fact we have to thank the Arabs not wanting any Israel anywhere. Your, Jerusalem is divided... Well, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the city never in history served as a capital for anyone else. No reason to do so either in the future. Jerusalem is and shall be united. Your, a just solution for the Palestinian refugee problem... Well, first we need to define "refugee" in a good-for-all manner, id est: we dismantle the UNRWA and those Arabs can be just first generation refugees like anywhere else in the world. Secondly, we need to define "Palestinian", this contemporary concept means nowadays those, mainly Arabs who were converted overnight into "Palestinians" in 1964 at the Arab League summit in Cairo to be used as a tool against Israel. Your, the Palestinian state... Well, see above the defintions and then we'll continue, if any need arises, which, however, I deeply doubt. Your, until Israel... Well, until - according to Golda Meir - the Arabs hate less Israelis than they love their own kids there will never be a lasting peace.

...what about applying to yourself the concept of intellectual honesty. This means: get acquainted to the facts of history writing and to honest reporting. Then, you can't but draw the conclusion: me, Matty, regret my words about Israel, and correct my ways. From this on, me, Matty, I will write in a truthful way.

Mofaz is not to be trusted with anything after he sat on his rear end during the lebanon war and did not insist and him leading the war politically and olmert and peretz were incompetent. So I have no trust in him. halutz is an air force man and is out of his element as overall commander. For him to think that he could defeat hezbollah by air alone or even limited militry invasions show how out of touch he was other than in the air.

If, as you say, "NO COUNTRY in the world has the 'right to exist'", then neither does a hypothetical Palestinian state, in your opinion. If a hypothetical Palestinian state has no right to exist, according to your own logic, why are you even commenting on this board in the first place? It seems to me that your defense of Arab colonialism is just a thin veneer covering up your hatred for Jews in general. Why else would you single out Israel with your half-baked analyses?

San Remo Treaty 1920. All lands west of the Jordan are to be for a Jewish homeland and cannot be given to any other country or government. Article 22 Covenent of the League of the Nations - same thing. Article 80 UN Charter accepted the mandates without any changes to the League of Nations rules. Now for a real difficult issue. I challenge anybody in the entire world that can find a single LEGAL claim for the Arabs. Go ahead I dare you. Put up or shut up time.