"Sigh! I don't get paid to be a kindergarten teacher but here goes..." I am an attorney and I have a Master's in International Affairs. Harvard is not a kindergarten, dear. "Israel can *only* settle and retain such territory only if Israel annexes such territory." Wrong again. You need not annex in order to settle. Go read the Hague Conventions. Israel did formally annex the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Eventually, of course, Israel will formally annex Judea and Samaria and deport the Palestinians living there to the country of their citizenship, Jordan. "Did I explain that simply enough for you?" You are simple therefore anything you say is necessarily simplistic. You are also incorrect. "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)" The only chapter of the Hague Fourth Convention which has been ratified by Israel is the one dealing with international abductions of children. Nothing else therefore applies. ""The Palestinians have been vanquished." Really? Strange then that so much resistance against Israeli occupation and suppression is coming from Gaza and the WB." You are mistaking terrorism for legitimate resistance. Hizbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the other twenty-six Palestinian organization which each purport to be the sole representatives of the Palestinian people have at their core of their charters the stated goal of the destruction of the State of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people. That makes them terrorists, not freedom fighters. Using your logic, Al Qaeda would be considered resistance fighters, which -- further along in your alleged logic -- makes the events of September 11, 2001 justifable resistance. Fortunately, however, I do not use your logic, because it is not terribly logical. "You can keep your crumbs, its full statehood or nothing but ongoing resistance." Excuse me, but the Palestinians have three times rejected a two-state solution. How do you account for that? "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." There you go, using your illogical logic. The Palestinians are a poster child for Dark Ages mentality. Suicide bombings .... airplane hijackings .... illegal kidnappings. Wow. Cannot get more primitive than that -- well, actually you can. Firing missile barrages into civilian areas on a daily basis for eight years is pretty barbaric. "Simply put Israel needs to go through a phase/age of Enlightenment, other countries have but Israel never has." Did I miss the part where the United States entered into a phase/stage of enlightenment and restored all stolen lands to the native Americans who populated them? Moreover, I suggest you read "Innocents Abroad," particularly Chapter 56. You can find it on the Internet. It's a good read for people such as yourself who have completely bought into Palestinian propaganda that they have lived in the territory which is Israel for countless generations. As described by Mark Twain, Palestine was pretty devoid of people, and the land was desert in the south and swamps in the north. Not a single olive grove to be found (the pet Palestinian false claim. Twain also comments on how Jews have brought this desert to bloom, drained the swamps in the north, and brought schools, concert halls and art galleries to this barren land. You want to watch the sarcasm with me, by the way. It is rude, uncalled for and not conducive to healthy debate.

(1) First of all let me reveal that I welcome any peace plan submitted by any side as long as such a peace plan is the most feasible & the closest possible to achieving long-lasting ( if not permanent ) peace based on justice, as well as achieving stability,security,and prosperity of the conflicting parties. In principle such a peace plan that would satisfy all parties concerned would have to terminate all hostilities by guaranteeing the security of Israel & equally establishing a Palestinian state for the purpose of having the world community recognize the Palestinian identity.It could be stipulated,with solid guarantees of the five Superpowers,that such a Palestinian state would have police force only for maintaining law & order while simultaneously having UN forces manning the Israel-Palestine borders for consecutive time periods to be agreed upon by both sides. The issue of Palestinian refugees as acknowledged by the UNRWA could be solved by granting them money compensation & having them resettled in other countries willing to & capable of absorbing them.Any future Palestinian state could issue its own " Law of Return " & equally allow those refugees to have dual citizenship ( that of the country absorbing them, & Palestinian citizenship ). As for Jerusalem it should have a unique status as many followers of many faiths claim that city.Access to so-called "holy places " & " places of worship" should be guaranteed to all believers.Politically the Arabs ( both moslem & christian) & Jews could have their own political & or adminastrative councils to run the sections of Jerusalem alloted to them.Government headquarters of both Israel & Palestine could be established some twenty kilometers away from Jerusalem which is primarily a " sacred city " rather than a political symbol. What else,in principal, would be needed to satisfy both Arabs & Jews in order to terminate the state of war between them & establish mutual diplomatic recognition ?

(2) Regarding Sarah's comment I am afraid she is totally turning a blind eye to the crystal-clear fact that the State of Israel can not survive without US help ( help in all forms ). I still vividly remember the first public statement the late Yitzhak Rabin made upon assuming the post of premier in 1974 ( following Israel's poor performance in the October 1973 War) ; let me quote him : " ... the State of Israel can not survive without US help ... " ! Hence Sarah gives the impression or rather has the strong feeling,if not delusional certitude, that Israel is indeed free & independent in the very true sense ! She must be unaware of the fact that Israel was driven to the edge of total defeat(let me exclude extinction) in the first four days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. So desperate was the IDF situation on the Egyptian & Syrian fronts that Golda Meir ( then premier of Israel) sent a letter via a third party to Sadat of Egypt to notify him that Israel was only too eager to withdraw from all Sinai on the spot if Egypt was ready to stop the war it was waging against Israel.Furthermore, so desperate was the IDF position on both fronts in the first four days that Golda Meir & Moshe Dayan thought it was " ...the end of the Third Temple , ... & how about using the A-bomb against Egypt ... " ( in order to stop the Arabs from crushing Israel). Sarah knows that Israel's military & financial & economic capabilities come mainly from the US ! Besides, those Hague Conventions(1899,& 1907) hardly mean anything to anyone except to Sarah.Since 1945 we go by the charter of the United Nations. Still Sarah seems to be hurting herself and,indirectly,Israel, by using acrid words such as " The Palestinians have been vanquished. They have to settle for any crumb Israel is willing to throw them .... or nothing at all." Well, absolutely not.We have proud people willing to sacrifice themselves and inflict agonizing pain on Israel as long as Palestinians are denied their basic rights as a people.And peace-loving people do not use such repulsive,insulting,and conceited words because foul language most often backfires. Compromise seems the best option & solution for both. I bet if reasonable,cool-headed people on both sides assume leadership then it would not be difficult to have this conflict fairly resolved for good !

"Simply put NO COUNTRY in the world has the 'right to exist'. Does America, Russia, England etc have a 'right to exist'? No. SIMPLE::::::::: Then why do you insist upon a Palestinian State?????????

Whether your facts describing the events during the 1973 war were true or not, supposing that they were TOTALLY true, then You just reinforce the reasons why Israel can not take any chances by letting its neighbours get too powerful or giving them a chance to militarize. You are basically justifying all of Israel's actions in self-defence exactly designed to prevent a 1973 Scenario, When the Arabs start understanding this position then a much better atmosphere for negotiations can take place.

exists, I wish to ask the esteem poster who, for any state to exist? While this poster demands the Palestinians' right to set up yet another state in addition to the two that they already have, i.e. Jordan and Gaza, he refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people? Isn't this a form of racism?

"What else,in principal, would be needed to satisfy both Arabs & Jews in order to terminate the state of war between them & establish mutual diplomatic recognition?" In principle, I'm not at all sure that it is all that necessary to satisfy the "needs" of Arabs. They lost six wars. How many bites at the apple do you think they should have? There will never be mutual diplomatic recognition with rejectionist Arab states in the mix, so that's a no-go from the get-go. And I still have a major problem with the fact that all of the thirty-odd organizations that purport to be the true representatives of the Palestinian people have at the core of their charters a call for the destruction of the State of Israel. Absent a repudiation of that desire, there is nothing to discuss.

Check your facts. United Nations resolutions are not enforceable. International conventions, on the other hand, are treaties which must be ratified by nations, in whole or in part, and absent repudiation by an individual state, are legally binding and enforceable. You seem to think that the fact that Israel has had to go to war on six occasions means nothing. You also seem to think that sixty-one years of unrelenting terror also mean nothing. You are wrong. It means NO COMPROMISE. Israel calls the shots. The plight of the Palestinians has gotten progressively worse over sixty-one years yet despite three opportunities for a two-state solution, the Palestinians have rejection each one. That makes their situation all of their own making and calls into question whether they really want a state or not. We know that they are incapable of managing and maintaining a viable state (you need look no further than the corruption rife in all Palestinian organizations). Contemplate the strong likelihood that Israel is not interested in proffering a fourth invitation to a two-state solution; certainly not before Palestinian organizations repudiate their call for the destruction of the State of Israel and the expulsion and./or extermination of the Jewish people which are enunciated at the heart of each of the charters of the thirty-odd Palestinian organizations. Rather nervy of you to suggest that Israel owes the Palestinians anything.

Thank you for asking. Re: "Does Israel in his opinion have the right to exist as a Jewish state that it is?" Geulah there are 3 parts to this. "Does Israel have the right to exist - as a Jewish state - that it is?" Re: "Does Israel have the right to exist". Israel exists as does England, Canada etc. However *no country* (including Israel or the future state of Palestine) has a given/lawful 'right' to exist. It is really that simple. Re: "as a Jewish state?". This is a wider topic, and touched on the last part of you question, but in my opinion no. To form a country 'solely' on religious preference is a throwback to the Dark Ages. It is also a form of religious racism. To define citizenship solely on religion is nothing short of racial discrimination. Do you really want Israel to be a religiously racist state? Re; "that it is?". This is taking the assumption that Israel is already a 'Jewish state'. This is of course not the case, Israel currently comprised of Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. Geulah the region of Palestine (of which modern day Israel is part of) has always throughout the centuries has always been a shared land foe all cultures and religions. No culture/people can claim exclusive 'religious ownership' over any part of it. I hope this clarifies matters.

"If, as you say, "NO COUNTRY in the world has the 'right to exist'", then neither does a hypothetical Palestinian state, in your opinion." Well I'm glad to see that half of what I have said has sunk in. Yes Darren no country (or future state) has a lawful 'right' to exist. There is no clause on any charter/international law stating any given right for *any* country to exist. In short Israel nor Palestine nor America/etc have a legal right/provision to exist.

Stop with the existential theoretical nonsense (you especially, Matty). Whether states have a "right" to exist or not, the fact remains that they do, and have a long and well-established common law tradition of existing. What's the alternative? Complete and total anarchy. May as well ask if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Stupid point, actually, but Matty seems to have quite a few of those.

Israel is a member state of the UN and no UN member state, including all the Arab states that border it are also members of this international organization and have no right to even attempt to eliminate it, based on the UN Charter. Furthermore, Israel has the right to exist as a JEWISH STATE since it was set up as such based on UN resolution 181 that explicitly called for the establishment of a "Jewish state" in the Land. And indeed, on 14 May 1948 Israel was proclaimed the nation-state of a people, of the Jewish people - Judaism being the civilization of a nearly 4,000 year old people and not merely another faith - and to this day Israel has maintained itself as such. I would say further, Israel in its modern form is an expression of the universally accepted right of all peoples to national self-determination and independence. This right of the Jewish people - not the Jewish religion - has been accepted by the international community as early as 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, was reiterated by the League of Nations in 1923 which accepted the Balfour Declaration. It received yet another expression of validity in 1937 with the Peel Commission and finally was voted for in 1947 by the United Nations. Denying the Jewish people and only the Jewish people its right to exercise this universal right while demanding the very same right to apply to other collectives and peoples is nothing short of racism, anti-Jewish racism. Israel, being the nation-state of the Jewish people is identical in its characterization to any other nation-state on earth, e.g. Greece, Finland, Lithuania. Indeed, most countries on earth today are nation-states and their number is growing. And each of these countries has minorities, just as Israel has Arab minority members. The existence of minorities does not change a country's characterization as a nation-state. Greece remains the nation-state of the Greek people despite the existence of a large Albanian minority. Finland is still the nation-state of the Finish people despite the large Swedish minority there. And Lithuania is the nation-state of the Lithuanian people despite the large Russian as well as Polish minorities in that nation-state.

Re: "I am an attorney and I have a Master's in International Affairs." So you say. Then again for all I know you might be a bored 14 year old with illusions of grandeur. Then again even if you where an attorney with a master's in international affairs it doesn't actually mean that you might be any good at your job. Pardon me while I take a pinch of salt. Re: "You need not annex in order to settle. Go read the Hague Conventions.". I did and there is nothing that negates the Forth GC clause I quoted earlier. Alluding to international law is not enough Sarah B please quote your legal references as I have. "Eventually, of course, Israel will formally annex Judea and Samaria and deport the Palestinians living there to the country of their citizenship, Jordan.". The key word here Sarah B is 'Eventually'. 'Wishful thinking' is far removed from actual international law. Re: "The only chapter [...] ratified by Israel is the one dealing with international abductions of children. Nothing else therefore applies." Grand so, in that case any claim that Israel has over the occupied Palestinian territory is null and void under international law which Israel is not part to. Re: "Excuse me, but the Palestinians have three times rejected a two-state solution. How do you account for that?" Simply due to the fact that Israel has never been willing to afford the Palestinians anything remotely near 'statehood' so pardon me while I scoff at your usage of the term 'two-state solution'. Re: "You want to watch the sarcasm with me, by the way. It is rude, uncalled for and not conducive to healthy debate." If you seemed capable of a healthy debate it might have merit but sadly you seem ingrained in your 'might is right' mentality and lame referenced to international law. "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)" You still have a long way to go to prove that Israel is not in breech.

Israel is not in breach of any international statute. (Note proper spelling of breach, by the way.) I am not going to get in a pissing contest with you. You remain as free as you like to be as anti-Israel as you like. Facts on the ground? Israel is a powerful and accomplished nation. The Palestinians are nothing. Destiny counts for something, dear. Go stamp your foot and have your little temper tantrum elsewhere. Try Al Jazeera. Your soul-mates, no doubt.

this guy who has chosen to single Israel out of all other peoples on earth in denying it and the people whose nation-state it is, a member state of the U.N. as you say, the right to exist as a our national home.

"Israel is not in breach of any international statute." Mainly because Israel won't sign up to such any international statutes. Try signing up to the Rome Statute and we'll discuss "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime. "I am not going to get in a pissing contest with you." Thus you cannot refute the following statement: "There is no law or provision under international law for Israel to retain any of its illegal settlements in the Palestinian WB. " You made vague reference to the "Hague First and Second Conventions" but when asked you could not quote any clause to back up you claim. This is not a pissing contest as you put it, you seem incompetent to back up anything you claim with actual facts particularly in regard to international law. So much for 'an attorney with a master's in international affairs'. Keep going to the night classes. "Israel is a powerful and accomplished nation. The Palestinians are nothing." Again with the imbecilic, rabid, rightwing rhetoric. "Destiny counts for something, dear." No it doesn't pet, there is no 'higher power' controlling fate. Still if you wish to believe in such superstition then go ahead. "Go stamp your foot and have your little temper tantrum elsewhere." Nah, its to nice here. Plus I get to teach people like you the difference between 'occupied' and 'annexed'.

...solution". Actually, many more times: 1) 1917, Balfour Declaration 1) 1937, Peel Commission 2) 1947, United Nations 3) 1948 to 1967 when the entire West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and Gaza were Jew-free and under Arab rule 4) 1978, Begin Sadaat offer for autonomy to be turned into statehood 5) 2000, Ehud Bark and Bill Clinton 6) 2008, Ehud Olmert Two elements were always there, explicit or implicit thus the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) couldn't accept: 1) The right of the Jewish people to its own independent nation-state, and 2) An agreement, an accommodation would have to be the end of the conflict. Accepting either one or both these elements goes directly against the very reason the Arab Israeli conflict exists: The annihilation of any Jewish political and cultural existence on any parcel of land between the River and the Sea, the hear of Jewish civilization, the heart of the Jewish people, that is Zion/Jerusalem and Eretz Israel. And some advocates of the Muslim-Arab advocates based in Fairport, NY hope to bring this reality about... I wonder, why...??

"Stop with the existential theoretical nonsense (you especially, Matty)." Sorry Sarah B I didn't realize that all this was too much for you. "Whether states have a "right" to exist or not," Good, you seem to be coming around to comprehending that NO nation/country has the 'right' to exist under any legal framework. Thus you should now understand that Israel's instance of 'a *right* to exist' is a makey-up right. Let us never gain hear anyone claim that Israel has some imaginary legal right to exist.

Try harder, Matty. Your anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias is showing. Are your SS tattoos from the jailhouse or just 'cause you are a true believer? Israel's right to exist dates back some four and one-half thousand years. How far back does America's go, and don't you think some native American tribes just might disagree. You are an idiot. Face up to it, and educate yourself. Assuming you can.

Yeah, right. Where do you quote your so-called "facts" from? Sounds like traditional jabber from people who claim "Mein Kampf" as their Bible. Won't work here, ace. We recognize idiots for whom they are. It's a club in which you are a member in good standing, so don't even bother trying. What are you, Irish? Hmmm. How many Nobel prizes have your people won? I suggest you look up Jewish Nobel laureates and take your cue from them. Lay off the booze, too. It can only help. Just think -- maybe you can get to be foreman on the night shift! Sweet.

Thank you, dear. Shabbat shalom to you, and much gratitude for putting pluperfect idiots (say hi, Matty) in their place. He is just your basic run-of-the-mill anti-Semite who learned all his facts in the penitentiary (Wow! Not exactly the establishment where I would go to learn history, but Matty's just a skinhead, or worse. For sure he is far more familiar with penitentiaries than you or I. He is, after all, not Jewish, and wears his ignorance and considerable prison experience as a badge of pride. He just doesn't know any better. Well, his fault, I suppose.) Hope he doesn't come running to me when he needs a really good lawyer to stave off his execution date. Hell, I'll probably submit a petition in favor of executing his sorry, uneducated ass.

Israel's right to exist. Eitan, Qatzrin, Israel, clearly contradict your legalistic point.

You should discount the idiot postings of blissfully uninformed and uneducated Matty. He doesn't have a "legalistic point." What he has is quotes from "Mein Kampf" and "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Legalistic? Not on the best day of his life. That would be the day he finally masters "Cat in the Hat." He's still not there, but --- not our fault that he's a Mongolian idiot. Meaning no disrespect to Mongolians, of course. Go away, Matty. Come back when you've actually acquired an intellect. ('s okay, folk. He couldn't capture an intellect on the best day of his life. Legalistic? Skinheads and neo-Nazis couldn't recognize something legal if it were to bite them on the ass. That would be Matty's friends du jour. Oh well. C'est la vie.

He does not have a "legalistic point." What he has is blowhard tautology. With any luck, he'll stay away. I don't exactly relish making people cry, but that IS Matty's fate. He REALLY needs either (a) a full medical workup or (b) free membership to the Al Jazeera website where he will feel right at home.

"SS tattoos/anti-Semitism/anti-Israel/Mein Kampf/You are an idiot/etc" Sarah B if you can't debate, let alone back up your rightwing rhetoric with facts, then I suggest that you refrain from embarrassing yourself with such a childish schoolyard mentality as name calling and character assassination. I think it is really sad that you have to stoop to such petty and juvenile levels. "Where do you quote your so-called "facts" from?" International law ie: the Geneva Convention/ UN resolutions etc. You may have heard of these before although your lack of knowledge would suggest otherwise.

Once more, for the dim of wit: United Nations resolutions are not binding. Nor are they enforceable. The Hague Conventions are international treaties, which must be ratified, in whole or in part, by nations. Once ratified, they are BOTH legally binding and enforceable. What part of the words "legally binding" and "enforceable" do you NOT understand? Lack of knowledge? Try again. What I've already forgotten you have (obviously) not yet learned. But really. Why are you here? Wouldn't you rather be on the Al Jazeera website with your like-minded compatriots? This is, after all, an Israeli website. You hate Jews and Israel so much .... why are you here?

"United Nations resolutions are not binding." How many times can you be wrong in one day Sarah B?! UN SC Resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter *are* binding which allows for enforcement measures. For example see Resolution 1718 (2006). News item: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20261&Cr=DPRK&Cr1= Please note the word 'binding'. Look Sarah B clearly you are clueless when it comes to international law so please stop trying to pretend that you know something about such. You are also wasting my time as I find that I'm correcting you in nearly ever post. From here on in you'd be wise just to stay mute on any matter of international law as it is cringe-worthy to see you embarrass yourself so often. You may of course continue your immature name calling and belittling comments because you can't win an argument or make a valid point with verifiable facts to back up such points.

Please visit the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution It makes it quite clear that the only binding resolutions are some -- not all -- of those dealing with internal United Nations matters, such as budgetary matters or instructions to lower ranking organs. Moreover, you will read that "Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law." If the best weapons in your arsenal are name-calling and insults, you are not a worthy opponent. Sorry. I will not reduce myself to your level.