#1 - Wrong - it is our land. That is international law. #2 The blockade is an attempt to prevent war materials being brought in and fired at us in violation of many international laws. The Arabs are the agressors - they need to stop committing war crimes and hiding behind their children like the cowards they are. #3 - No such thing as 'Palestinian soil' it's that international law thing again - they Arabs have no legal claim to the land - we do. #4 - We are both - your point? The illegal Jordanian colonists are not under military law - they are and have been under Arab rule for many years now. #5 - We can't get the Arabs to meet - so no prior plans that is for negotiations. Nor have they ever fulfilled any of their obligations, they have also violated every single line of every agreement they have signed. #6 - Defined as building on our lands. The longer the Arabs put off doing anything for peace the less we will give them of our lands. Soon it will be none. Does that answer your questions? How about answering just one. Can you name one legal Arabs claim for any of the land?

Muslims/Arabs like to claim that the Jews of today are not true Jews but converts from Europe and even Kazakstan. However, science has disproven this. With genetic testing we can even tell whether or not one belongs to the tribe of the Cohanim. Your efforts to delegitimize the entire Hebrew people has been foiled by scientific fact. Go back to your huts and cooking your food over camel dung and forget trying to delegitimize the Jewish people. With our brains we will always defeat your hateful and lying ambitions.

1) That is not an argument, that is a statement. Come back with some evidence. 2) I said the economic blockade, not the military one. Israel is justified in stopping arms from reaching Hamas, but you fail to justify denial of imports and exports which punish the civilian population but have not weakened Hamas. 3) Again, you make a statement without backing it up. It's easy to say Palestinians have no claim, but there are records of them living for generations on that land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine). It is up to you to disprove this... good luck, you'll need it. 4) It's hard for you to come to terms with the fact that people lived there prior to the occupation, isn't it? See my answer to 3 5) The Arabs met face to face in direct negotiations this week in Jordan... Israel has violated many agreement as well such as the Oslo accords, Geneva accords, Camp David accords, and resolution 1701. Try again. 6) Again, you state the land is Israel's without any evidence to back it up. Hint: biblical texts don't count. In answer to your question, this article was written by experts in law for the UN to advise them on the legality of settlements. Israel is not the rightful owner, and has no legal basis for moving civilians onto occupied territory, let alone a logical argument based on security which is claims is the rationale for such an occupation. (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6B939C57EA9EF32785256F33006B9F8D)

ב"ה Sorry, Rain, but you've been falling for anti-Jewish propaganda (yes, anti-Jewish for anti-Israel IS anti-Jewish). Israel is breaking no international law. Even the UN (Nations United against the US and Israel) doesn't say that Israel can't be there. Israel isn't "occupying" this area -- it's Israel. And, as David pointed out, Arabs who live there have a better life than those living anywhere else in the Middle East. And, if you ask them who they want to live under, Israel or the PA, about 2/3 will say Israel (some even say that if the area were under PA rule they would move to be under Israeli laws). Let's not even start with the rights of women, non-Muslims and Gays in Israel vs PA run areas. I think you need to forget your pre-conceived notions and try to find the truth.

Thanks for your lines Will. Do you think 1) Israel has the right to exist? and 2)That Jews control the world? Baci, baby

I'm not interested to argue with people who refuse to be confronted with realities. If I write the following, it is for informing people reading the present talkbacks. 1. The '47 partition was a none binding proposal, refused anyhow by all the Arab countries. It could not be binding, because it would have negated the "Mandate for Palestine" that became International Law and was reaffirmed by the UN by Article 80 of its Charter. 2. A frequent lie is to pretend that previous declarations sought to create a Jewish Homeland, but not a state. The League of Nations decided under the "Mandate for Palestine" the creation of a "Jewish National Home" to be put under the A Class Mandates, countries considered as mature for independence, namely Syria, Irak, and the Jewish National Home. 3. Prof. Rostow was not just one professor... but the author of UN Resolution 242, that took into consideration the League's decisions, reaffirmed by Article 80 of the UN Charter, a resolution that became the cornerstone for diplomacy in the Middle-East, till today. Everything I wrote can be checked on Internet.

When pro Israel advocates say that all the Intel chips in our computers come from Israel, THEY LIE.

1)Canaan were of Greek origin, not Arabic. You are NOT related to them. 2) The British Mandate was issued by the League of Nations. 3) There is no "Palestinian people" - just Arabs, immigrated from the Arab world.

You didn't read the article, did you? OK, I give in. Ignore the dozens of lawyers who say otherwise, who advise their governments not to move their embassies to Jerusalem, who work in the Israeli Supreme court and acknowledge the occupation and therefore the illegality of settlement. But if Israelis think that they can keep the land they captured forever without giving the Palestinians a vote and equal rights, then they've got another thing coming. Israel is tiny, with an economy that is utterly dependent on Europe and the USA. If Israel continues along this path, you can kiss those preferential trade agreements goodbye. Never forget what was achieved in South Africa.

Finally, a great article. Why such a lonely voice. Shame on other PC writers. Way to go David Ha'ivri.

What about Russians occupying Kenigsberg, Japanese islands, part of Poland and Finland? Read history first, before claiming International Law.

For anyone interested the US Dept of Defense (DOD)'s Dictionary of Military Doctrine defines "occupied territory" as: "(DOD)Territory under the authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force. The term is not applicable to territory being administered pursuant to peace terms, treaty, or other agreement, express or implied, with the civil authority of the territory." So, 1) given that Israel took control of the territory in a defensive war it is not a belligerent; and 2) following Oslo the PA is the civil authority of territory where 90% of Palestinians live and the rest is being administered by Israel pursuant to those same terms as agreed to under Oslo until the final status agreement. So the only conclusion that one can come to is that even if there were occupied territories, and I'm not suggesting that there ever were, now for sure there are no occupied territories.

1) I guess the Mandate for Palestine and the UN Charter Article 80 are not proof of ownership? Guess again - go read them. 2) As a sovereign nation we have the right to decide what if anything goes from our lands into Gaza. That is Article 7 of the UN Charter. As for imposing a blockade - well there is a little thing called the OSLO ACCORDS and WYE RIVER AGREEMENTS that give us that duty. Learn to READ. 3) Since the Arabs do not have any such legal claim nobody can prove a negative sorry. That is your job - prove me wrong. Please produce a single legal claim - bet you won't even try. 4) They are illegal Jordanian colonists that have no rights whatsoever on our lands. 5) And stated that they were not negotiating - you really should learn to read. And Israel has given up one sided fulfillment. The Arabs have not fulfilled a single obligation, and they have violated every single line of every treaty they have signed. Sorry but after over a decade of violations we are no longer required to keep to treaties that only one side has EVER obeyed. 6) See number one. Learn to READ. In short you are wrong across the board - our claims are based on real international laws and treaties. The Mandate for Palestine is based on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations - go read it. The UN Charter - Article 80 states that the UN took over the Mandate without any changes - Read it. The Arabs' claim is based upon what? When the PLO was invented in 1964 they renounced all claim to Jerusalem, Gaza, Samaria, and Judea - Read it. They claimed it in 1968 that too you can read.

Every Intel chip is DESIGNED here. By the way EVERY USAF AIRCRAFT is flying with ISRAELI AVIONICS. That is not a lie either.

who can do it .... i can not draw karikator cartoon ..

it is not a joke ...some moslemes use to say .i make a pray to choice i find that god does not agree .. i said evrything is put on back of god . these some said that iam kafer .. d,,,, do you think that iam ??????

That's right. Bombing hospitals, funerals and schools is perfectly acceptable.

Article 80: Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77. Seems to me that this article says nothing about ownership, only trusteeship. Since article 79 makes it clear that the "mandated power", namely the UK in this case must agree to the trusteeship of Mandate Palestine (including the disputed territories), trusteeship of the aforementioned territory does not follow. Moreover, article 80 states that such a trusteeship should not alter the rights of the peoples living in the territory. Since the rights of the Palestinian Arabs have been vastly altered, article 80 is null and void regardless. Try again

First Question: The occupation of the West Bank is for security purposes, correct? If so, why would Israel offer monetary incentives for civilians to move their when the settlers inflame the situation as we have seen with recent mosque burnings, the attacks on the IDF, and the decades of vandalism against Palestinian farms? THAT WAS A PAST POLICY BEFORE THE GOVT OF ISRAEL ACCEPTED THAT FOR THE SAKE OF PRAGMATISM A TWO STATE SOLUTION HAD TO BE ARRIVED AT Second Question: The economic blockade of the Gaza Strip has not weakened Hamas, correct? The blockade has however, punished the 1.6 million civilians living there for Hamas's actions. What justification is there for continuing the economic blockade, and for the collective punishment of the civilian population, 900,000 of which are children? AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A BELLIGERENT GOVT VOTED BY THE PEOPLE INDISCRIMINATELY SHOOTING MISSLES AT CIVILIANS (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS A WAR CRIME) ISRAEL IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING. THE EGYPTIAN BORDER CROSSING IS OPEN AND CAPABLE OF FULFILLING THIS NEED. Third Question: Why is the separation barrier placed on Palestinian instead of Israeli soil? WHEN YOU HAVE PPL BLOWING THEMSELVES ALL OVER THE PLACE, IS IT NOT REASONABLE TO EXACT A PRICE FOR A DEFENSIVE BARRIER BY PLACING IT ON THE LAND OF THE AGGRESSOR? Fourth Question: Jews define themselves by race as well as a religion, correct? If Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank live under military law and suffer a lack of freedom of movement or right to protest, while the Jewish Israeli settlers do not, how is this not Apartheid? THIS POLICY IS SOLELY BASED ON SECURITY CONCERNS. ALL THE DATA POINT TO AN ONGOING CAMPAIGN TO MAIM AND KILL CIVILIANS ON THE ISRAELI SIDE. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A RESTRICTION ON MOVEMENT TO THE ALMOST 2M ISRAELI ARABS? THEREFORE, YOU CAN NOT MAKE CLAIMS OF APARTHEID IF IT IS NOT A STATED OR PRACTICED POLICY OF THE GOVT Fifth Question: If we are to believe the Israeli government it is the Palestinians who are an impediment to peace. However, have the Palestinians not put forward detailed plans for borders, security issues and their position on the right of return? If so, where is the Israeli proposal? SIMPLE ANSWER, READ THE CHARTERS OF BOTH HAMAS AND FATAH. AS LONG AS MISSLES FLY AND CHILDREN ARE INCULCATED FROM WOMB TO GRAVE TO KILL THE JEW, ISRAEL IS IN NO RUSH TO OPEN UP TO A BLOODTHIRSTY MOB OF ARAB CLANS IN HER HEARTLAND. Sixth Question: If Netanyahu wants negotiations without preconditions, how should we define settlement construction? To continue constructing settlements on occupied land is precluding the possibility that that land should be part of a Palestinian state, correct? ISRAEL HAS SET A PRECEDENT IN THIS AREA MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN PEACE WAS ACTUALLY WITHIN REACH. CAN YOU EXPLAIN ONE SINGLE COMPROMISE THE PALESTINIANS HAVE TABLED IN AN EFFORT TO NEGOTIATE A TRUE SETTLEMENT? HOPE THAT HELPS PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU BUT YOU SEEM TO IGNORE ALL THE FACTS THAT DRIVE ARAB BELLIGERENCE AND SIMPLY ARE FOCUSED ON ISRAEL. THAT IS NOT TO SAY ISRAEL DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES.....I CAN SAY THAT ISRAEL HAS MADE FAR MORE CONCESSIONS FOR PEACE THAN THE PALESTINIANS WOULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED.

1) You haven't even attempted to justify settlement, you have only stated that it is now the policy of the Israeli government, which I already knew. 2) An eye for an eye? Very biblical. However, does it seem fair to you that 900,000 minors are punished for the crimes of their parents, just as it was for those Israeli children on that bus were recently killed for the actions of their government? I suspect you'll find that hard to rationalise. 3) Similar to 2. You say that the barrier is a punishment placed on all Palestinians, regardless of their actions or opinions. That my friend is the definition of collective punishment, outlawed after WW2 for reasons that should be obvious to you. 4) I have not 'seen' it with my own eyes, but I believe the testimonies collected by Peace Now and UN monitors, as well as the statements of my own government which run contrary to what you say. However, I'm glad you admit that it is an Apartheid. 5) I'm almost certain I asked about the Israeli peace proposal, not the charters of Fatah and Hamas, but thank you for admitting that an Israeli proposal doesn't exist. 6) I won't pretend that previous opportunities for peace weren't wasted by the Palestinians, but I'm specifically asking about the present situation. I can name many compromises, including giving up E.Jerusalem and the right of return. I suggest you go read the Palestine Papers that Al Jazeera released last year and see what Abbas offered Livni. I understand both positions, and I too will not ignore Arab failings, but it is time for this to end.

So you haven't bothered to read the Mandate for Palestine. Which is exactly what Article 80 states. It does state that it is not only our land, but that it cannot be given to anybody else. Try reading it. As for altering the rights of the 'Palestinian Arabs' the only right we alter was the one that they claim to have about committing genocide. Yes we did alter that - so what. You still haven't answered where is the Arab claims to the land? Why not? Because maybe just maybe they are the illegal colonists on our lands? Come on, show us a single example of one of their claims, bet you will again not answer that one.

Utter bull. The Mandate says no such thing. It says 'for putting into effect... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...' Jewish home does not equate to state, unfortunately for your argument. If they wanted to found a Jewish State, they would have said so. Jewish Home is legally ambiguous and it is impossible to prove its equivalency with 'state'. You also forget that the Mandate states: 'There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine'. This section clearly states the intention that the Jewish immigrants were to accept citizenship in the state of Palestine, and not form a state of their own. The whole mandate is written with the protection of all races and religions in mind, and assigns no overall control to any one of them. If you believe that every Palestinian is a genocidal suicide bomber who is ilegally squatting on Israeli land and deserves to be punished, then you are truly blind.

What is a homeland if not a state? How can a homeland exist without it being sovereign, manageable and defendable? What is the legal precedence here? The mandate is all about Jews. Jews Jews Jews. How can a 'Jewish national home' be anything but a nation state? You're walking into a corner here bud. You started off with J&S and as I rightly suspected are now talking about the whole of Israel, and starting to fall back on semantics with a smattering of rhetoric. I love the Midlands I tell ya. Lotta heart. I just happen to disagree on who are the underdogs here.

The mandate is most certainly not just about the Jews. For every mention of a homeland for the Jews, there is another clause that sought to protect the rights of the Christians and Muslims living there. A homeland can be stateless, and such occurances are very common throughout the world. For example the Kurdish region is the homeland of the Kurds, but it is not a state of its own. Similarly, the mandate for Palestine sought to allow Jews to settle in their religious and historic homeland, but definitely did not promise evey inch of the land to Jews to do with it as they please. I suggest you read all the talkbacks, CNA. I began with the West Bank, but it was in fact Yaakov who claimed that all of mandate Palestine was gifted to the Jews. I sought to prove him wrong.