We lost 5% of our population in the 1973 war?!?!? Bloke, did you fail grade school arithmetic??? I'd love to see how you calculated that blooper! As for the borders, we'll take the borders of Israel the country from 1000 BCE, since in 1967 there was no country called "Palestine". Gosh Ted, you know what? There never has been a country called "Palestine" at all.

Four questions: 1) Why do you interfer with our affairs and where do you get your legitimacy from? Why is it that you can sit safely in the USA and dictating to other nations what they should do? Remember, the age of European imperialism is dead and American imperialism is not that common with the unique exception for the Phillippines. You have no right to dictate anything to us John. You are not America and you are not international law, you are not the UN, you are not the "world" and you are not God - you are John - one tiny human organism on a tiny grain of sand called earth floating in the vast universe. There is no 'international law" in the natural world - it is man made. Most of human history no international law has ever existed. Most people on earth do not even know international law let alone care about it. International law exists because of human beings and not vice versa. 2) Why does "peace treaties" between Israel and the Arab world always have to be about Israel making concessions and especially territorial concession to the Arab world? Why can't the Arabs make territorial consessions to Israel? And don't give me that nonsense about UN Resolutions. I've told you dozens of times and a human being of normal intelligence should have understood by now what I've said - that UN Resolutions are recommendations, NOT binding and DE FACTO politically motivated. No law of nature and no law of society says that Israel must make any concessions to the Arabs and that Arabs can greedily receive concessions from Israel. Because no international law sets any demands for how peace treaties must be agreed upon. States and governments agree on how - not international law. 3) Why do you reject 4000 years of Jewish history in Israel? 4) What race, tribe, nationality, ethnicity, bloodline or ancestry do the "Palestinians" belong to and why has no "Palestinian" race, tribe, nationality, ethnicity, bloodline, ancestry, identity, history, people, culture, origins ever been mentioned in recorded human history? What kings, dynasties, currency, capitals, states, kingdoms, republics, city states, nation states, duchies, principalities or empires did the "Palestinians" have? If you can't answer any of these questions John - why interfer? Oh by the way - don't give me that nonsense about "Israel relying on America". We have fought and won all of our wars and our economic growth and standard of living, our universities and our high tech and science depend on the Jewish people and not on the USA. By the way: USA would not have existed today without French and Spanish military and financial aid to the fledgling American republic that took its first steps towards independence. Do you think that Paris and Madrid should be allowed to dictate the terms to America today? Oh by the way: does international law entail independence and sovereignty for nation states, right to exist, right of self defense, right to freedom and democracy and right to question things and the right to question international law or is international law the new "god" of mankind? Are you making any offerings John to international law - a piece of ink and paper? Essentially your arguments are nothing but subjective racist anti-Jewish opinions based on subjective ideas and absolute faith in international law - which can be modified you know.

..to where they belong: Germany, Italy, Albania, Bosnia, Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran/Persia, southern Russia, central Asia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Algeria, North Africa, Sudan and Somalia - that's where the "Palestinians" come from. "Palestine" is a ROMAN/LATIN name. No letter "p" exists in Arabic. There is no "Palestine" in the Bible.

Yes the US Empire stole and occupied the Philippines. They also took Guam, Samoa, and Puerto Rico as well from Spain. They also annexed occupied Hawaii from the natives.

I responded to both talkback #23 and 29. You chose not to print my responses. I would also respond to 33 but if you choose simply to censor my responses I won't bother. When you print my responses to 23 and 29, I will respond to 33. I was under the impression the purpose of talkback was to illicit a dialog on the authors opinion. Am I correct or is it simply to print those comments which reinforce the authors point of view?

After 30 years, Egypt is threatening to revise their Peace with Israel Land for peace is another term for Salami tactics, you slice off one piece, then another and another and another, then all you have left is the piece of string that was at the end of the salami, that is now good for nothing, except to remember how the salami looked once upon a time, which only leaves bitter memories of what it once had been

The best and lasting change is the secular and democratic one-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

You ignore the fact that the arabs started all the wars, got their land back, and kept starting them. You ignore that the arabs wanted to obliterate Israel, blockaded Eilat and therefore began the '67 war. You ignore that Israel is defending itself against Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel. (Hamas is the party that doesn't respect anything). Only a moron believes you do NOT need land for self defense; Israel has proven that they need it over and over, as they have had to defend against [how many countries?] bent on their destruction. All you have proven is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and that you assiduously ignore history and facts.

What did England do when Argentina tried to "take back" the Falkland Islands (a worthless piece of ground if there ever was one). What would the USA do if Mexico demanded parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and California back? Everybody knows that Israel is incredibly strong, so there's no reason it should constantly be bending over backwards to appease a barbaric people who never miss an opportunity to waste an opportunity.

Three of the last four Israeli PMs offered peace plans that left Israel the same 8 miles wide at its narrowest point. The expansion in their plans took place around East Jerusalem and the corridor leading to Jerusalem. This is about reclaiming ancient Israel not security. Virtually the entire 11,000 IDF troops in the West Bank are there to guard more than 100 illegal settlements. Eighteen former IDF generals have already stated the June 4,1967 borders are defensible. You have the strongest army in the Middle East and the other side has already agreed to a demilitarized state. Apparently these generals are wrong and Solomon the brilliant is right. Israel is breaking the law, Gaining land as a result of war has been illegal since 1928 and it is academic who started the war. The whole world has been saying it to Israel since 1968. Your biggest threat will be the US Gov't saying they are sick of defending Israel's illegal behavior and then supporting a world wide economic boycott. That is a much bigger threat than a Palestinian invasion. I will be amazed if this author prints this.

of course the arabs npeace!! They want a peace of tel Aviv, a peace of Jerusalem, and a peace of haifa

Yes all Israeli Prime Ministers since Yitzhak Rabin have agreed to swap land for "peace" with the "Palestinians". However, according to the Oslo Accords, Israel is ALLOWED to maintain military presence in Judea and Samaria. It's not called "West Bank" - that's a name that was coined by the Jordanians in the early 1950s. You give no proof whatsoever of any "Palestine "or "Palestinians" or their "ownership" of the land. Jordan has no claims on Judea and Samaria and Egypt has no claims on Gaza. Israel is the ancient owner of the land of Israel. There are no "settlements" - they are as "illegal" as New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Yes - it is both about us Jews reconquering our ancient homeland and two having secure borders. Its our land and no one will take it from us. Insecure borders was a risk that former Isralei Prime Ministers were willing to have for the sake of "peace". However, the 1967 arm istice lines are no permanent borders and both the Israeli people and the Israeli political establishment agree that Israel should not withdraw to 1967 borders. If you know that Israel is 8 miles wide at its narrowest point how can you honestly claim that Israel doesn't need this land? Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian air forces can penetrate Israel within minutes. Would that suggest a secure situation to you? Again - you are not answering the queston: why does Israel have to make territorial concessions to Arabs and why can't Arabs with their giant territory make territorical concessions to Israel? Are you seriously suggesting that international law demands that only Jews should make territorial concessions? Again - why do you care so much about international law? And who are you to judge Israel? "Gaining land as a result of war has been illegal since 1928 and its academic who started the war." Wrong! Gaining land as a result of self defense is legal. Gaining land as a result of war of aggression is illegal. STUDY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Why should international law be given any legitimacy or authority whatsoever? Why should international law be given any precedence over domestic/national laws? No it is not academic who started the war. International law will not support your biased anti-Semitic view. By denying who is the aggressor you also deny who is right and who is wrong. If it is an "academic question" of who started the war then it should certainly be an academic question of who owns the land. Conquering land in self defense is LEGAL - even today. Interestingly, in 1948, neither Gaza nor Judea and Samaria had any "Palestinian" population - they considered themselves either Egyptians or Jordanians - and Egypt and Jordan conquered Gaza, Judea and Samaria as a result of a war of aggression. Second, you admit that Israel has an ancient history in the land of Israel. If Israel has an ancient history in Israel and if you can't explain why no "Palestine" or "Palestinians" have ever existed in recorded human history let alone their 'right" to the land and since Jordan and Egypt have no claims on these territories - again WHO is Israel "occupying"? Since no "Palestinian" state has ever existed how can Israel "occupy" a country that has never existed? "The whole world" hasn't been saying anything against Israel since most people on this planet don't care about this conflict let alone know anything about it - it is clear you don't. The "majority argument" is not a legal matter nor is it a matter of truth, justice or being right. What nations think is not acceptable in international law. Countries' political interests are not a legal matter. Some IDF officers have said that the 1967 borders are defensible but that itself is not a legal issue. But most IDF officers agree that 1967 armistice lines ARE NOT DEFENSIBLE. Your issue is the "illegal" behavior of Israel - not whether the 1967 borders are defensible or not. Military strategy has nothing to do with international law.

I can find at least 36 CURRENT Israeli generals that will say the exact opposite, and they would be right and the 18 morons would still be wrong. You keep ignoring the simple fact that according to INTERNATIONAL LAW all land wet of the Jordan River is ours. That's what the laws state. Now care to present a single one that states it belongs to the Arabs? I bet not only that you cannot, I will bet that you will continue to avoid that fact because you are not able to challenge facts. You have not one legal fact to support your claim.

Ted, what nonsense is this that your write? In fact Israel, immediately after the '67 war offered to return the territories back to Jordan and Egypt, yet they refused! Israel did not as you write annex everything, rather only Jerusalem and 12 years later the Golan. The rest is still administered and/or Palestinian held territories. Yes, we returned the Sinai in return for peace, now if the Egyptians want to go back on their end of the deal, why should we keep our end?

You just propose to refresh an old biblical mantra, whose sadly success we experiment every day. Please move your sight to the South and take care of your teeth

In a June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are NOT part of Israel. “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” In other words your own courts are saying per international law the land is not part of Israel. International law says you cannot gain territory as a result of war. When Israel was considerably weaker than today (ie:1967) and was threatened by both Egypt and Jordan(both of whom you have peace treaties with) Israel was able to defend its 1967 borders. Under art 73 of the UN Charter, the Palestinians (who are in the majority in the West Bank) have an absolute right of self-determination. Israel accepted borders under UNGAR 181. As a result they have no further rights under the Mandate and in fact said as much by declaring full independence from the Mandate in 1948.

The Geneva Convention is clearly applicable when settlements are constructed in occupied territory and the Israeli High Court has confirmed this. The Convention defines West Bank Palestinians as “protected persons” under Article 4 and that, in turn, specifically shelters them under Article 49. Article 49 paragraph 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention reads as follows: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” There are multiple rulings by Israel’s own courts that state it is an occupying power in the West Bank. In a June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during WARFARE, and are NOT part of Israel. “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” The Oslo accords do not allow civilian settlement construction. You don't know the law. The balance of the garbage you are saying is so embarrassingly ignorant it is not worth responding to. I hope the author will print this.

..of the Geneva Convention. You are not answering my fundamental question: Who are the "Palestinians" and WHO is Israel "occupying"? Without answering this question all your other assumptions will fail. Plain and simple. Jordan has no claims on Judea and Samaria and Egypt has no claims on Gaza and no "Palestinian" people or state have ever existed in recorded human history. Who is Israel "occupying"? And why do you concern yourself with international law and why do you care? And why do you care where Jews live and construct their homes? Repeating over and over again what "international law" says does not answer the fundamental question of why international law should be given precedence over domestic/nation laws. If someone is speaking garbage and if someone is embarrassingly ignorant that is you. Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria and Gaza since ancient times. The only times when Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan's rule from 1948-1967. Strange that 4000 years of Jewish history is no "illegal". Also, if there can be Arabs inside Israel then why not Jews in an artificial "Arab" state? According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in Judea and Samaria. The resolution "allows Israel to administer the territories" won in 1967 "until a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is achieved' Rostow wrote. "Settlements" have never been an obstacle to peace. From 1949-1967, when Jews were forbidden to live in Judea and Samaria, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel. From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic "settlements" in the territories, yet the Arabs showed no interest in making peace with Israel. THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION prohibits FORCIBLE transfer of people (you used the words "deport" or 'transfer") of one state to the territory of another state that is occupied as a result of a war. You, as embarrassingly ignorant as you are, are "missing" two significant details: 1) The Geneva Convention refers to "states". Jordan has no claim on Judea and Samaria. And no "Palestinian" state existed in neither 1967 nor 1948. 100, 500, 1000 or 5000 years ago there was no "Palestinian" people or state either The 4th Geneva Convention deals with STATES. "PALESTINE" IS NO STATE. Is this too difficult for you to understand? . 2) You are "forgetting" that Israel de facto is not "forcing", "transferring" or "deporting" its own population. Jews are not being forced to go to Judea and Samaria (and Gaza in the past as well). On the contrary, Jews are voluntarily moving back to places where they and their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others such as Egypt and Jordan. Having Israeli "settlements" in Judea and Samaria is de facto a part of the Oslo Process. You really need to study law - seriously. In nr 42 you said: "Gaining land as a result of war has been illegal since 1928 and its academic who started the war." Since Israel gained land from the 1948-49 independence war - so called "pre-1967" borders, and these territories were accepted by UN and international law as Israeli territory, why wouldn't Israel be able to annex Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the future? Ah, you are beggining to understand international law my friend. The reason why the Israeli Supreme Court does not recognize Judea, Samaria and Gaza as Israeli territory is because Israel has not yet annexed these territories for polital reasons. Israel annexed Golan in 1981 and the Israeli Supreme Court regards Golan as Israeli. And you seem to have no problems with Golan being in Israeli hands.

Israel won the war BECAUSE Israel captured Judea, Samaria from Jordan, Gaza from Egypt, Golan from Syria and Sinai from Egypt. Our own courts are saying that Judea and Samaria and Gaza are not parts of our own territory because we have not annexed these territories yet. These territories are defined as RES NULLIUS - "no man's land" - precisely because Israel has not annexed them, Egypt and Jordan have no claims on them and no "Palestine" or "Palestinians" exist. Is it too difficult for you to understand ? Golan was annexed in 1981, Israeli law is applicable to Golan and the Israeli Supreme Court regards Golan as Israeli. I will explain something to you John in plain and simple English because even though English is your native language you don't seem to understand what is being said by the Israeli Supreme Court nor in international law. The REASON WHY THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT does not accept Judea, Samaria and Gaza as Israeli territory is because the Israeli state has not yet annexed Judea, Samaria and Gaza - plain and simple. Golan Heights are annexed by Israel since 1981 and the Israeli Supreme Court regards Golan as Israeli. Now again: why did you Americans occupy Guam, Samoa, Philippines and Puerto Rico? And again: why are you so concerned with the "legality" of Israel's borders and communities? Answer my question: WHO are you to judge us? Answer my question. Why do you have so much faith in international law and why do you believe that international law should be given any legitimacy or authority whatsoever? Repeating what "international law" says is not the same as UNDERSTANDING international law - and it is painfully and embarrassingly obvious you don't understand international law, nor does it mean that international law is legal. Not all laws are legal you know. Every single time I ask you WHY should international law be the single authority on this earth - WHY should international law have "the last word" and WHY you have so much faith in it - you dodge the question by repeteating over and over again what "international law" says. You are not answering anyone's questions.

Solomon is not brilliant; I deal in facts, not fantasy. Parts of your fantasy :" Don't expect Hamas to respect it when Israel doesn't. [!?] Every peace treaty ever offered by Israel includes land gained from the 67' war. [No mention of why that war began? The threats, arab armies moving to Israel’s borders (the size of NJ)?] That violates international law and only a moron believes you need the land for self defense". You're as blind as "observer". And if I may borrow words from Sarah B: "After World War Two. Germany lost roughly 20% of its territory. Italy lost Istria. Japan lost Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Why should Israel pay the price for having won six...wars that were all started by the Arabs?" No John, I'm not brilliant. But when it comes to this discussion, I speak of facts. You are in La La land.

Germany, Japan and Italy lost land in a peace treaties (mutually agreed to with the allies). That is legal. Unilaterally annexing land acquired by war is not legal and hasn't been since 1928. If Sara B is your source for international law it would explain your idiotic comments. Maintaining a military presence until a peace treaty is signed could, under circumstance different than yours, have legal justification. Building WB settlements in violation of art 49 of the Geneva Convention has no legal justification and your response is nothing more than a smoke screen to divert attention from your illegal behavior.

We both know I responded to #50 and #51. Those were long legal explanations which any fair and honest journalist would print. Is it you or your editors who require a censoring of reader responses or did you just accidentally loose mine?

Could it be that Germany, Japan and Italy "agreed" to lose land in "peace treaties" because they had no other choice? If you have the military, political and economic power to coerce and force your will on your enemies, your enemies will "agree" to anything. Unilaterally declaring independence of a country inside another country is not legal either - yet Kosovo, Montenegro, South Sudan as examples, have recently declared themselves as independent states and UN has agreed to that. Taiwan is a fully independent and sovereign state yet not recognized by the UN due to fear of Chinese pressure. UN Resolutions can be VOTED ON - meaning that the actual vote is political and ideological and takes realpolitik and very often bias, prejudice and racism into account. UN Resolutions cannot be given any "legal" legitimacy.

Why do you reject 4000 years of Jewish history in Israel? What history do the "Palestinians" have? What race, tribe, nationality, ethnicity, bloodline or ancestry do the "Palestinians" belong to and why has no "Palestinian" race, tribe, nationality, ethnicity, bloodline, ancestry, identity, history, people, culture, origins, language, alphabet, religion ever been mentioned in recorded human history? What kings, dynasties, currency, capitals, states, kingdoms, republics, city states, nation states, duchies, principalities or empires did the "Palestinians" have? Occupation can ONLY take place if a state conquers, as a result of war, the territory of another state. Since no "Palestinian" state has ever existed in recorded human history how can Israel "occupy" a "Palestinian" state that has never existed? Since the "Palestinians" are no different in their ethnicity than Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Sudanese, Algerians and Somalians and so on - what is so distinctly "Palestinian" about the "Palestinians'" and what is the legal basis to the territories of the "Palestinians"? And why did the "Palestinians" reject land for peace 8 times? You are simply not answering any of these questions. If you can't answer any of these questions John - why interfer? You are not answering my fundamental question: Who are the "Palestinians" and WHO is Israel "occupying"? Without answering this question all your other assumptions will fail. Plain and simple. Jordan has no claims on Judea and Samaria and Egypt has no claims on Gaza and no "Palestinian" people or state have ever existed in recorded human history. Who is Israel "occupying"?

1. The "mutually agreed to" peace treaties were dictated by the allies after defeating their enemies. 2. Also [yet another reminder of facts]: The '67 line is not and never was a border. This is also according to the insistence of the arabs immediately after the '67 war. 3. You also fail to mention (as usual) why [if] 'unilaterally annexing land acquired by war is not legal', why you obviously consider it legal when the arabs did exactly what you describe in the late 600's CE. 4. International law is my source for international law. Sarah B's words were an excellent description of it. 5. Facts, John, facts.

1) WHO are you to judge us? 2) Was there any "Palestinian" state before and during the outbreak of the Six Day War in 1967? Yes or no will do. Make sure you ANSWER my question. 3) HOW do you define the word "occupation"? Can an "occupation" occur if a state conquers the territory that does not belong to any state?

I answered every one of your questions. Ask Guy Becher to print my answers.

What the Arabs did in late 600CE is irrelevant since it is before 1928. Your right the 1967 lines are not Israel's recognized borders. The UNGAR 181 borders of 1948 are Israel's only legal borders which qualified them for recognized statehood by 162 countries.Everything else is negotiable. The stumbling block to a treaty is Israel builds settlements so they can create a preordained territorial solution and not surprisingly the Palestinians have not agreed to that. If you think they are legal then you don't know International law. If Guy Becher would print all my responses maybe you could learn what the law is but Ynet , it's editors or Guy Becher apparently believe seeing the truth is not in you best interest.