Israel should arrenge exchange with Russia or Libya like we did in you USA. Let send them 1000 people and get 3. Good deal for all sides, and I am sure many on the Left will be very happy.

A very good article. My only concern is whether it's too late to assert this position. After all this time, everyone is used to J&S being "Arab land".

"I AND MOST LEFTISTS ACCEPT THE FACTS AND BELIEVE THAT THE BORDER BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE IS THE BORDER THAT EXISTED UNTIL 1967" That "border" was nothing more than a cease-fire line from the war of 1948. In 1967, the Arabs broker the cease-fire and the war CONTINUED. Six days later there was a new cease-fire. The "1967 borders" are outdated lines in the sand.

Israeli leftists don't say you are irrational only because of world's pressure but much more importantly because the settlement enterprise is doomed to fail: The Palestinians aren't going away from the WB anytime soon so either there will be a 2-state solution which means most settlements will have to be uprooted or both Israelis and Palestinians will end up with a single democratic state, which will effectively end Jewish self-determination because of demographics (assuming the national camp wants to keep democracy - if it doesn't then there's another reason for leftists to label its members as "zealots").

You say everyone is used to it being Arab land by now. Not so. Anyone who has ever read the Bible knows it is Jewish land. Arab claims are barely a few decades old while Jewish claims go back thousands of years, and for all that time there was always a Jewish presence there and in Jerusalem. Jewdea and Jewrusalem are indeed Jewish.

before 45 years he was old poor living in one of the palastinians camp in jordan ..he said angry .. these twisted jews want to tell that they did not forget the land of their grandfathers before 2000 years and wante me to forget the land where i live with my father and grandfather and my son .... yes this article is so twisted about the jews and arabs and about people there in sanrimo and he forget sycs biko and elshareef ibn elshareef who wanted to be the king of the kings and what about bilfour .and mr. bush he is still alive in his own land happy and healthy ... hahaha twist twist to the right to the left

are you a child ???if there is no 48 it will not be 67 and if there is no 67 it will not be 73 and if tere is no 73 it will not be campdavid and if there is no campdavid it will not be eoslo and if there is no lebanon war the first it will be no the second . sir. you can not cut a peice of te history that you like and throw the remaining to your black cat

The gall. Your country captured territory belonging to Bolivia. Why aren't you campaigning in Chile for the return of that land that was never yours, unlike Judea and Samaria which were always Jewish.

I'm curious why you think it's any of your business what goes on between Israel and the palestinians? Do you also post comments about human rights abuses taking place in other parts of the world? Turkey? Syria? Saudi Arabia perhaps? Or are you just obsessed with israel? You sound very similiar to other anti- Israel 'activists' with no 'personal connection' to either Israel or any other arab/muslim country (or are the Smiths an ancient, semitic tribe) and a weird psychological need to make Israel the focal point of your hatred and ignorance.

Simple: Israel can't beat demographics. Also, Bolivia forfeited its claim over Antofagasta as part of our peace treaty, a long time ago, the only thing they want is a corridor so they can have acess to the sea, something I'm not against of as long as it doesn't cut our country in two and as long as the people who lived in such corridor agreed to it. If the people who live in Antofgasta want to be part of Bolivia they should be allowed to be part of it. Do the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza want to be part of Israel as a Jewish state (whatever that means) and basically forfeit their Palestinian identity? I don't think they do, and as far as the current demographic trends go, they will eventually be a majority of the population west of the Jordan river, and they are a majority of the population in the WB and Gaza right now. That means then that in the long run, as long as the Palestinians don't move somewhere else, they will eventually have their state and the Jewish people will keep its own state which means that the settlers will end up leaving the WB or there will be a single state that will end with Jewish self-determination (assuming it's a democratic state). As a Zionist (and a realist, given the recent history of violence) I prefer the first option. What about you?

Most people forget that Jews have 3500 or so yrs in Israel. Jews owned land throughout the mandate area back through and before Ottoman times The JNF and other groups bought land throught the area. This ownership was ended by the Jordanians by armed force the claims and rights are still valid. These lands have long been Jewish owned and these rights should be honored.

he is from u and you is from k and both are from uk iam from here from jerusalem ..it is my post .about something i do not know only i raed your post

THE SOCIALISTIC WIEV IS, INTERNATIONALISTIC AND TOTALITARIAN KOLLEKTIVISTIK, WHETER EXERCISED BY DEMOCRACY OR DICTATORSHIP. IT IS THEREFORE - ANTINATIONALISTIC - ANTIINDIVIDUALISTIC - ANTIMESSIANISTIC - NO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM IS ALLOWED - NOT EVEN IN RIGHTOUSNESS. SOCIALISM IS AN UPROAR AGAINST ALL DIVINE ACTION OF RULE, AND HAS ONLY ONE TEORETICAL TRUTH, AND THAT IS - EQUALITY. THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THOUGH, THAT EQUALITY IN JEHOVAH, IS NOT SOMETHING YOU DO, BUT SOMETHING YOU ARE. ALL ACTION MUST BE PERFORMED IN AN AUTHORITARIAN AND SUBMISSIVE WAY, AND NOT IN AN DEMOCRATIC/KOLLEKTIVISTIK ONE. OTHERTWISE IT WILL NOT FUNCTION. ALL HISTORY HAS SHOWN THIS, SOVJET IS HERE THE EXAMPLE, IT FELL. ALL ACTION IS INDIVIDUALISTIC IN PRINCIPLE, AND IF PERFORMED KOLLEKTIVELY, BY MANY PATICIPATORS, IT MUST BE THE AUTHORITARIAN PRINCIPLE, WITH SUPERIORS AND SUBORDINATE. ALL KOLLEKTIVE ACTIONS DEMANDS THEREFORE AN HIERACHY, WHERE ALL POSITIONS ARE AUTHORITARIAN. THIS PRINCIPLE, THE LEFTIST ARE IN UPROAR AGAINST, IN ALL RESPECTS, AS ABOVE. AND THEY ARE TOTALY WRONG. Arn.

ALL INDIVIDUAL SOULS AND PERSONALITIES ARE DEVELOPED BY( JEHOVAH), EVOLUTION. THOSE SOULS HAVE DIFFERENT CAPACITYS AND PERSONALITYS, ACCORDING TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND MATURITY. THIS IS AS PRINCIPLE, BOUTH, ETERNALY TRUE, AS WELL AS AN ETERNAL TRUTH. THIS HOLDS ALSO TRUE REGARDING NATIONAL PERSONALITIES YOU CAN THEREFORE NOT DENYE THIS, AS IN AN LEFIST SOCIALISTIC WIEV, THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS ALL INDIVIDUAL NATIONS, SHOULD BE EQUALS REGARDING ACTIONS, WHEN THEY ARE THIS ONLY AS BEEINGS. Arn.

that were the state of Palestine be created, Israel would not only have to relinquish its heartland (including Jerusalem) but also would end up split in two - literally. Olmert, the US and Abbas had already agreed on an Arab land corridor between Ramallah and Gaza. For obvious reasons you don't want a Chile cut in two. Can you imagine a much smaller and infinitely more threatened Israel divided in two? How do you defend such a country? 2. Your reasoning that if the Arabs don't want to be part of Israel and forfeit their Palestinian identity can be easily solved with them emigrating to other Arab countries or to Europe or any other country. Incidentally, do you also advocate for a separate home for the Mapuches in your country? I don't think so. You may be surprised, though. Although no Palestinian will admit it, those not engaged in actual terror would much rather live in Israel than in a future Palestine. Particularly after what they have experienced under Fatah and Hamas rule. Here's an example: there's a steady migration of Arabs from east to west Jerusalem because, guess what? Once Jerusalem is split they'd rather live in Israel. This is happening on top of the usual Arab infiltration from Judea and Samaria across the green line. 3. Given recent history of violence, you say, you'd rather capitulate and give them a state. Two things are wrong with your reasoning. The first one is that violence won't stop if you give them a state. Their charters (Fatah, Hamas) call for overtaking all of Palestine. The second one is that all you remember is the recent Intifada, but you forget that violence against Israel pre-dates 1967. There were no Palestinians then. They called themselves Jordanians. They have a country already. You also forget the two thousand years of violence Jews have suffered because they did not have a state, including the still recent Holocaust. Shrinking tiny Israel for no good reason (as I said, Arabs won't be satisfied with a state) and having even less defensible borders means that Israel won't last very long. Probably won't reach its one hundredth birthday. Being a realist and a Zionist, as you say you are, means understanding those things. Not capitulating without a fight.

Thank you

#15 Stan. You're entitled to believe that Judea and Samaria, which have belonged to Jews for more than 3,500 years, don't really belong to Jews. However, the vast majority of Israelis disagree with you. That is why the leftist Knesset parties are being voted out of existence. This is our land now and forever. We're staying forever.

THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IN THE REFUGEE AREAS WANT RIGHT OF RETURN AS DOES IRAN AND IN PRINCIPLE ALL ISLAMISTS but its impossible for it not to lead to a blood bath of enraged hate with massacres nuclear explosions and radioactive carnage, Better to compensate the refugees and for the refugees to accept the compensations .

Regarding your points: 1. I agree with you that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank it would lose part of its already scarce strategic depth vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Yet part of this loss may be avoided by keeping some of the major settlement blocs and swapping land - something that will probably happen anyway. Also, I believe that both Israel and the Palestinians will need the presence of a multinational force (ideally NATO) in the future Palestinian state, for 10 years at least. Regarding the passage that would connect WB and Gaza, I think that such a passage should be an underground passage to preserve Israel's territorial contiguity and to prevent infiltration, terrorism. 2. I'm not against giving Mapuches autonomy or even a state as long as non-Mapuches got compensated for the loss of their properties (by our gov't) and as long as security aspects are taken into account (such as territorial contiguity). But I'm not against giving them the chance to self-determine. I don't think the Palestinians will leave their homes voluntarily to Europe or the rest of the Arab world, and I'm against kicking them out. I know that some of the Arabs living in east Jerusalem are against becoming Palestinian citizens (and if they are willing to be Israelis, I think Israel should be open to recieve them), but do you have data regarding Arab infiltration from the WB? If it was so widespread, why haven't we heard about recent suicide bombings (as I'd expect terrorist infiltration along with civilians)? 3. It's not just the recent history of violence, Israel will have bigger problems in the future to rule over Judea and Samaria because of demographics. Regardless of what Fatah's charter states, they basically run the PLO (and have always done so), and PLO agreed to recognize and negotiate with Israel in 1993. Even if they are not sincere about peace, I think that any deal should include a multinational force to make sure stability will be preserved in the WB and Gaza in the first years after a deal is reached (at least 10 years), they would also have the task of disarming terrorists, defending the territories and basically making sure they stick to the deal. In fact Israel should reject any deal that doesn't contemplate such a force, even though the truth is that the Palestinians know they will need help from the international community to preserve internal security. Jordan stopped being the Palestinians' country in September, 1970. I'm also well aware of violence against Israel and Jews before 1967 (with the first major massacres against Jews in the Mandate during the early '20s), letting alone centuries old violence against our people (yes I'm Jewish as well). But, if a two state solution can help Israel to achieve peace (even if it is a cold peace), then it is worth trying. At last, I don't think Israel would be capitulating without a fight if a Palestinian state was founded and peace was finally reached. On the contrary, Israel has been fighting since the very moment of its founding to have its right to exist recognized by the world, especially Arabs and Muslims, and achieving peace with the Palestinians would help Israel to achieve this goal. I don't see this as capitulating, I see this as accepting a big sacrifice to achieve an even bigger goal - a victory that has costed thousands of Israeli lives in several wars, a victory achieved with a LOT of fighting.

I enoyed reading this article. on the mark i listen to yishai fleisher's podcast all the time on israelnationalradio.com..

1. The main issue is the idea of a Palestinian state. Years ago people could still argue in favor out of idealism. Today reality has overtaken idealism with the emergence of Iran as an expanding threat in the region, with influence in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and soon in the WB as well. This changes everything. 2. You can't dangle autonomy or statehood without full sovereignty. That's where the PM is wrong. Even if the PA agreed to demilitarization, how long would such agreement last? Hizbullah is under UNFIL watch and that hasn't stopped them from arming themselves to the teeth. Why no more terror in Israel? Aha! Good you asked that. It's because Israel has good intelligence on what goes on in the WB. If you were to read the News Briefs section on Israel National News, you'd find out that potential terrorists are caught all the time. Alertness and good intelligence works well. I don't have numbers of PA infiltrators but they are caught all the time. Their intentions are mostly to live and work in Israel, not to do mischief. 3. Multinational force. Please refer to UNFIL mentioned above. Useless. Them disarming terrorists? Did you read how Italy, France and another country wanted to pull out of UNFIL in Lebanon because they did not like being attacked by the locals? Nobody can defend Israel as well as the IDF itself. It's a grave mistake to entrust hostile nations to protect Israel. The EU and everyone else are hostile nations. You write: "But, if a two state solution can help Israel to achieve peace (even if it is a cold peace), then it is worth trying. At last, I don't think Israel would be capitulating without a fight if a Palestinian state was founded and peace was finally reached." The above words are full of wishful thinking. People don't conduct their lives "hoping and wishing" they will be safe. On the contrary. They set up their lives and their homes in such a way as to PREVENT catastrophe. They consider the chances for bad things happening. If based on statistics, previous history, and concrete evidence (in this case a plethora of video and written statements spelling out Fatah's true aims) you find that your chances are not good, then you just don't put your existence at risk. You find other ways of doing things. In this case this would involve annexation, residency for Arabs, etc.

1. OK, let's say Israel decides to hold onto the WB and not give the Palestinians a state. What happens once the Palestinians represent a clear majority in both sides of the Green Line? My answer: They will demand Israeli citizenship, if they get it it will be the end of Israel as a Jewish state, if they don't then Israel ceases to be democratic and if the latter happens then the Palestinians will fight until they become citizens, they get kicked out of the WB and Gaza or they get killed. Even if you don't think this is the right time to sign peace (because of potential Iranian, which is a legitimate concern) I think that we should all be aware that the status quo is not sustainable, it will have to end sometime and if it doesn't eventually end with two states west of the Jordan river, it will end badly for Israel and also for those of us from the diaspora. This answers why the settlement enterprise is irrational IMHO. 2. No, you cannot think of statehood without sovereignity, but reality forces the Palestinians to accept a foreign presence at least during the first years after any deal is signed. I understand Israel can't just sign a deal and wish the Palestinians stick to it (or, even if Fatah wishes to stick to such a hypothetical deal, Israel can't hope that Fatah is able to guarantee it will be able to guarantee Israel will be safe from terrorists considering they were kicked out from Gaza in 2007). I'm aware of UNIFIL's failure in Lebanon, that's why I prefer NATO forces instead of incompetent UN forces. Part of this force mandate should be to rid Gaza and the WB from terrorists - something that I don't find so unlikely to be accepted by the local population if the Palestinian gov't agreed to it, and this also means that such force should have the material capability of doing so (i.e.. it should be able to fight Hamas, unlike UNIFIL which doesn't stand a chance against Hezbollah). Regarding infiltration, I'd rather see statistics than several press reports, to see the bigger picture of the problem. If it's about jobs then it's easier to solve (by having a strong economy in the WB, something Bibi is working on) than if it is about terrorism. 3. Multinational force was addressed above. No, people don't live out of wishful thinking, I understand Israel's concerns an think they are legitimate (it's also legitimate that Israel goes to war to preserve its security, to stop Palestinian or Lebanese terrorism). But this doesn't mean we should lose our wider goals, or to stop discussing them if we don't know what these goals are (i.e.Should Israel permanently rule over Gaza and/or the WB? Even if that means to, for example, kick the Palestinians out of there?).

1. Population - The left has been spreading misinformation. A recent audit quoted by expert Yoram Ettinger says that Jews constitute a 67% majority west of the Jordan River. PA Arabs are 1.55 million and not 2.5 million as claimed by them. Inflated numbers have provided them with inflated foreign aid and water from Israel. (See Yoram Ettinger, Yes to Demographic Optimism.) Citizenship - It does not have to be granted automatically. They would have to apply. But they would get residency from the start. Lots of Americans reside legally in France, for example, but they don't need to have citizenship. The status quo is indeed unsustainable. I fully agree. Israel should have annexed the land in 1967 with citizenship for everyone. Much grief would have been saved that way. 2. What makes NATO better than UNFIL ? NATO is made out of countries that pander to their minorities at home and are already talking and acting in ways that are detrimental to Israel. And no, NATO won't fight terrorists in Palestine because they don't even dare to fight them at home! Paris has no-go zones for police. The French, the British, all the rest are afraid! And now the US government does not even want to use the word "terror". Future goals? That's a big issue. Neither the government nor most Israelis seem to have a long-term goal. They don't reflect on what another Arab state would mean for the survival of Israel. The possible expulsion of Arabs is another piece of leftist misinformation. It is completely out of the question. What is more likely is that governments might implement financial incentives for their voluntary emigration. Anyway, the religious Jews' birth rate is quite high. And if Israel were to annex the land, there would be a significant increase in Aliyah.

1. Interesting. I found Mr. Ettinger's source up here: http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS65.pdf Now, the World Bank at least in 2009 believed that the Palestinian territories' population is 4 million (that implies the usual figures of 2.5 million people in the WB and another 1.5 million in Gaza): http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/POP.pdf I'd need to read the first link (I don't have time now), but I'd rather be careful if the World Bank hasn't taken into account these findings in its population statistics. At last, what would happen if for instance Israel annexes the WB, offers citizenship to Palestinians and they refuse to become Israelis? That's a possibility as well (look east Jerusalem), and it would lead to violence for sure... I think both sides will eventually have to agree to something (even if it isn't the two-state solution). 2. Regarding NATO, they are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, I'd say they have a chance of doing a fine job in the WB and Gaza, especially because it wouldn't be as easy for the terrorists to get support from neighbors (Egypt and Jordan aren't as supportive of Hamas as the Pakistani Taliban is supporting of the Afghan Taliban). Even more if such intervention has the approval of Fatah. I don't think the vast majority of Israelis want to kick the Arabs out from the WB and Gaza, but I'd say there is a very noisy minority that does. Let's not fool ourselves on this issue. But it's good to see we agree on this issue - and more importantly, we agree that the current situation is not sustainable.

I don't normally quote URLs because the talkback may get censored. I just give enough info so that an interested reader can Google it. But here is the link to Yoram Ettinger's archive. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/520 His column Yes to Demographic Optimism refers to the latest audit done on census figures. Ettinger is a former Ambassador and a reputable analyst. I recommend every one of his columns. He debunks many of the myths spread by the left, the Arab population threat being just one of them. The website I offer you above (INN) is a good source of news from another perspective, Adrian. Take a look.

I'm drafting this talkback again. The first time it did not go through. I'm not sure which were the objectionable words, but I'll give it another try. - Be careful when searching for PA demographic data. Those based on Palestinian sources have been found largely inflated. - What would happen if the Arabs refuse citizenship? I don't know. The truth is that an adjustment between the two populations would take time. My estimate is that it would take at least two generations. There is a lot of anti-Israel propaganda in the PA, particularly on children's television. (Check Palestinian Media Watch.) Would annexation lead to violence? It might but it would eventually subside. - NATO would not fight the Palestinians. It would be politically harmful for a government to use troops to fight Palestinians. There is a different attitude for the Palestinians than there is for the Taliban. - Finally let me clarify something. There is no "noisy minority" - as you write - calling for the expulsion of Arabs. This is an extremely sensitive subject. Israelis can be charged by police for just publicizing an opinion in its favor. Everyone knows that it just won't happen. The government would not allow it and many Israelis would object.

Regarding post #56: I found his article on INN by googling. The first link is the study he quotes, I think. I don't really like Arutz Sheva for reading news, I prefer to read JPost for a (center?) right-wing POV Re post #57: - I know the Palestinians incite violence against Israelis and Jews on their media. The effect of this won't subside completely regardless of wether there is a deal or not. I think that post-annexation violence wouldn't subside that easily if the Palestinians prefer to have their state and self-determine. -I think there would be political support for NATO (or any multinational force) to do this job if their presence is accepted by the Palestinians under an agreement. Well, not among islamists of course. - I know it's a sensitive subject, but I'm guessing that Kach still has its followers? Ok, I'll admit that maybe "noisy" isn't the right word to describe them given Israel's anti-incitement laws, but these kind of people are there. It's a sign that Israel is, after all, a country: All countries have their extremists, especially when they are engaged in conflicts like the Israeli-Arab conflict.

To better understand the situation in Israel one has to listen to both sides. The Israeli media is almost 100% left wing. Even the Post, except for a few regular columnists. INN is not extreme, although some talkbackers are. But you would be surprised at how many facts (not just opinions) are absent from the leftist media. Take a moment, Adrian, and ask yourself whether any of the self-destructive policies in the last decades makes any sense to you. Israel has been on a downward spiral and it has all happened according to an agenda dictated by the left. From Oslo on. Replace Israel with Chile in many of these big issues. Imagine the UN Human Rights Council devoting 80% of its criticism to Chile, while ignoring real HR violations elsewhere. Imagine the whole world ganging up on Chile and demanding that your government give the Mapuches a country of their own. Imagine other countries saying Chile has no right to exist, that all Chileans are occupiers. And then imagine the USA coming in and arming and training a Mapuche army (the US actually is doing that with a Palestinian "Special Forces"). Now ask yourself: would Chileans stand by and allow this? Would some Chileans be allowed to side with the country's enemies? Would citizens allow your government to follow the dictates of other countries instead of the party's platform? That would not be normal behavior. But if Chileans had been subjected to a pro-Mapuche media for decades and gone to high schools and universities where most of the educators are pro-Mapuche and anti-government, you would have a very confused population. And that's what has happened in Israel, more or less, although the situation is obviously way more complex. There are things that the left does not want you or anyone to know. Often they throw this "racist" accusation to the right wing to paint everyone with the same brush. But the Kachanists are a tiny minority. Most patriotic Israelis just want the world to respect the League of Nations Mandate Agreement. They want to live and build on their own land, based not only on that Agreement but on a documented history that goes back thousands of years. Only a handful of countries can claim such long roots to their land. .

Ynet offers some very good columnists. This column's author, Yishai Fleisher, works at Israel National News, the internet radio section (Israel National Radio) to be precise. When you visit the J. Post please make sure you don't miss Caroline Glick's columns. Another J. Post writer of note is Sarah Honig. It's hard to find her on the Post so you may just go straight to her blog. Caroline also has her own blog. They are both excellent.