Ottoman rule should have read FROM approximately 1,300 to the twentieth century. The point of course is the same. Perhaps, Chaim, you would like to debate the merits of your legal claim to the land?

I saw the interview, the Prime Minister did a commendable job. Thank you for impressively articulating Israel's positions.

and have no intention of any peace ever How many times do you expect Israel to keep allowing that? When are you going to allow fuel in to Gaza instead of just missiles ? After all Hamas says half of Gaza are Egyptians.

It appears the Prime Minister is talking absolute foolishness. Judea (including Gaza) and Samaria is Israel. Anyone who does not like to live in Israel or be ruled by Jewish government LEAVE!

In the Omert proposal to Abbas, there was to be either a bridge or tunnel from the West Bank to Gaza which would be built.. Credit for the cost,which Israel would bear, would go against other benefits offered to the Palestinians. I believe what Netanyahu was referring to was a repatriation of the illegal settlements which dot the West Bank beyond the Security fence.

Part of what had already been negotiated between former PM Omert and Abbas was that NATO troops would occupy buffer zones. The Palestinian police performed more than admirably during Cast Lead in the Gaza military operation. No attacks came from the West Bank. The PA has a policy of non-violence which both the US and Israel have praised them for. Hamas has no such policy. It is written where in the Quran that Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis? I do know that in the old testament that the father has a right to kill the disobedient son. Do you know someone in Israel who is following that directive?

Again, I hope John R understands English but somehow I doubt he does. Israel's Supreme Court does not regard Judea, Samaria and Gaza as official Israeli territory -no, because Israel hasn't annexed them yet. PRECISELY for that reason, more and more people in Israel want to expel the Arabs from these territories and annex them since they historically belong to us - the Jewish people. Israel has already annexed Jerusalem and Golan Heights and the Israeli Supreme Court regards Jerusalem and Golan as Israeli. Yes I know that the corrupt ICJ representing a corrupt UN does not regard that as legal, but the ICJ did not explain how they came to that conclusion - what documents did they rely on. And again: ICJ has -you guessed it right - an ADVISORY role regarding STATES and ICJ rulings are only binding if states agree to do so. Israel doesn't agree and 'Palestine" is no state. Now regarding Israel's Supreme Court's statements regarding Israel's legal status in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The man ultimately responsible for the pernicious but false notion that Israel is an "occupying power" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a man called Meir Shamgar who advocated "military government" in Judea, Samaria, Golan, Gaza and Sinai after the Six Day War in 1967. In short: The tragic mistake and violation of law committed by Shamgar has been made immeasurably worse by TWO recent Supreme Court judgments, rendered by the President of the Supreme Court and former Attorney-General, Aharon Barak, who decided, WITHOUT REFERENCE to any of the aforementioned laws or international documents (San Remo treaty e.g.) that indicated otherwise, that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are indeed territories held by Israel under "belligerent occupation". Barak, in his off-the-mark judgments, did not specify the states or people whose land Israel has been occupying or when such states or people were recognized under international law as having the sovereign right to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. That's where it comes from - an internal mistake by Shamgar and Barak. Israel's Supreme Court has power in Israel whereas ICJ has none.

...international law. Opinion polls in Israel show clearly that most Israelis want to keep Judea and Samaria and that most opinion polls among Arabs of Judea and Samaria show the Arabs want to leave. On top of that: enemy aircraft or enemy figher jets can fly across Israel in a eas-west direction in just a couple of minutes. Pentagon after 1967 said explicitly that Israel needs Judea and Samaria for self defense. One of many reasons why fewer Arab states attacked Israel after 1967 is because Israel had the control of Judea and Samaria. Ever since 1967, very few Arab states dared to attack Israel. After 1967, Jordan for example, no longer attacked Israel because of the Israeli military and civilian presence in the hills and mountains (that overlook the flat lands of central Israel where most Israelis live) of Judea and Samaria. A small country such as Israel has a military doctine which says that if a war breaks out, Israel needs to take the war to enemy state's territory because Israel is too small. When I earned my BA in political science years ago, I happened to write an essay or paper on IDF's modus operandi. Just ask me for professional knowledge.

Under the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928, the UN Charter Article 2 and international common law the inviolate law of nations is an “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" The Israeli Supreme Court is simply complying with the law and the Geneva Convention as it applies to occupied civilians,. Israel's illegal annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan have been deemed null and void by 5 UNSC resolutions going back to 1968. To pass those resolutions, they had to be not vetoed by the US,Israel's best friend and sole protector. The reason the US didn't veto them is because the stated US policy is that Israel's annexations are illegal. Of the 157 countries that diplomatically recognize Israel not 1 of them maintains an embassy in Jerusalem(Israel's stated capital) Do you think that is by accident? When Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, Israel screamed the loudest saying it was illegal. When Israel does the same thing ,do you think international law specifies Israel is an exception? The San Remo resolution does not specify any legal borders for Israel, it only creates an international obligation to create a Jewish State. When you don't like what your Supreme Court and every country that recognizes you says then they must all be wrong and only Alexander is right. Try looking in the mirror and asking yourself if that makes sense.

The only way this issue is going to be resolved giving the complex of competing aims and tensions on both sides is slowly and step by step Rebuilding confidence and trust isnt a two minute job...and is impossible to rearrange all the pieces of the jigsaw in one go. Its done piece by piece by piece. In any case it would be destabilising and we would be back to square 1 First with the support of 90% of East Palestinians we should go it alone INDEPENDENT of Hamas. The gulf between us is too wide Second we may agree to a demilitarisation on condition that soemone guarantees to protect OUR future borders from attack - whether by Israel, Syria or Jordan. What if Hamas or Assad or a rogue IDF shot over a few of their rockets to East Palestine - who would protect us then? Its absolutely vital that we have a viable contiguous border in East Palestine with guaranteed access to port facilities in Israel For the sake of social cohesion we do not want any Jews from Israel to live in East Palestine. We would want compensation for all returning refugees to East Palestine to help them build a new life and future That enough to get started with?

if you don't think that an event is probable, you don't waste time denying it will happens. If you do so, that means you already think this event (the one-state of Palestina) is more than a remote possibility

The Pentagon never said you needed all the West Bank and also they said it in 1967 when Israel was far weaker and had no treaties with Jordan and Egypt. I should also note they said you needed the Midi and Gitla passes in the Sinai which you gave up in your treaty with Egypt. Jordan isn't attacking Israel because they know they couldn't possibly win and they have a peace treaty with you. As for planes, three of the last four Israeli PM's offered peace plan maps in which Israel was still 8 miles wide at it's narrowest point. The main difference in the maps was the expansion of the corridor leading to Jerusalem and East Jerusalem going from 5 sq. kilometers in 1967 to over 70 sq. kilometers today.The maps also included all the West bank water aquifers. That has nothing to do with security and everything to do with trying to illegally reclaim your ancient borders and take water you never had prior to June 4,1967. Stop trying to paint this as security needs when the reality is you want water, all of Jerusalem and the best farmland in the Jordan valley for your illegal settlements. If you want to construct a just peace with your neighbors that complies with international law then I would say your motive is for security.

We have been through this before. ICJ has an advisory role. In order for ICJ rulings to be binding states need to agree to them. ICJ deals with states. Israel doesn't agreee and "Palestine" is no state. The San Remo treaty does specify the borders of Israel/the Jewish state as Cis-Jordan (including Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Golan) and Trans-Jordan (Jordan) and southern Lebanon up until the bend of the Litani River. The Israeli Supreme Court - first and foremost Meir Shamgar and Aharon Barak wre not able to specify who Israel is occupying, who Israel should return the land to and what state and people could claim legitimate and legal rights to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Basing your argument on that makes your argument a bit thin to say the least. We have also gone through this before. The 4th Geneva Convetion deals with states and forced transfer. "Palestine" is not and never was a state and Jews move freely into Judea and Samaria. We have alos gone through this before. Un resolutions in the General Assembly are not binding but resolutions by the Seucurity Council are binding. We have gone through this before as well. The UN does not represent the world opinion, you cannot elect UN representatives, the voting in the General Assemby is not objective, fair or unbiased and the ICJ judges are largely elected by despotic countries. Most European states are anti-Semitic but Europeans do not represent the majority of the world. Despotism, Arab oil and anti-Semitic cause the UN representatives to vote against Israel. Why should the UN be given any legitimacy or authority whatsoever? We have also gone through this before. USA and UK signed the Anglo-American treaty December 3rd 1924 in London agreeing in a legally binding document the precise borders of the British Mandate of Palestine that was supposed to be the Jewish state.

Islamic law requires non-Muslims to be subjugated and oppressed. Under Jewish law, a non-Jew can live and thrive in Israel, with full equal civil rights. However, they have no political rights. If Israel implemented this policy, the Palestinian Arabs would live far better lives than they do today.

Sammy, i agree with with most of what you say but I would add some caveats. You can't have a lasting peace with the West Bank and ignore Gaza. If Hamas is willing to respect a cease fire they can sit at a peace table because I would rather have them yelling at me across a table than shooting at me from behind a wall. They must agree to one additional thing front end however. In a referendum if Israelis and all Palestinians by majority agree to a peace treaty which provides for a permanent peace, Hamas must agree they will respect it. If they can't agree to those terms they can't sit at the table. The US should propose the peace accord and establish an outline of its terms. In terms of the settlements, Israel could lease them from the Palestinians and vacate most over the lease term. The Pals have already agreed to a land swap that would keeps 60% of the settlers in Israel. The international community would also have to cover half the repatriation costs to Israel. I have thoughts on Jerusalem and details but they are too long to list.

God's will transcends ALL law. HE gave the Jewish people Israel. This is all prophesied. The other nations and their hostility against Israel, must be taken seriously...read the Book...it's all in there.

Ok, what do we get then?

Lisa, civilization and the ground rules for relations between nations are based on mans law. Hopefully mans law has a moral basis from text in the bible and other religious teachings, but it is mans law that rules. Israel is not a theocracy it is democracy. There are countries which are theocracies like Iran but I think Israel's system is far superior and I'm sure you also think so. Israel is not an island in a vacuum. It cannot exist without the support of the rest of the world and if it doesn't modify its behavior to comply with international law, it will lose its best friend , America. God's law won't change that.

70 year old international "laws" won't force Israel to surrender what is rightfully hers.

Sir, ICJ is the final arbiter on maters concerning the Mandate. It says it in the Mandate. Even an advisory ruling has the force of law.Try reading art 93 and 94 of the UN Charter. Because the ICJ has no army to enforce their rulings doesn't make them void. If Israel believed that they would never have submitted a brief to the Court on the Security Fence ruling in 2004. The San Remo resolution does not specify the borders for Israel and even the Council on Foreign Relations says that. Eugene Rostow, up until his death was a member. The Israeli Supreme Court issued its ruling. I could care less what two members said. Under Chapter XI of the UN Charter it gives the indigenous population the right of self determination. One would assume the Palestinians would vote to become a state. The 4th Geneva Convention Article 49 ,Paragraph 6 says absolutely nothing about requiring forced transfers. Here is what it says: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or TRANSFER parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The UNSC resolutions you are referring to were not passed under Chapter VII only because the US would veto them . Such is the power of AIPAC which Fortune Magazine dubbed the 2nd most powerful lobby in Washington. Three times the Security Council tried to pass crippling economic sanctions on Israel. Fourteen of the 15 members approved them. Are you somehow construing that that means you are obeying the law? Because you can get away with breaking it because of the US? The Anglo-American accord which you address simply made the US effectively a ratifier of the Palestine Mandate since they were not a member of the League of Nations. No where in the Palestine mandate does it give the exact borders for a Jewish state it simply says the state must be IN the Mandate. Try reading what David LLoyd George the British PM of 1922 said in regard to the intent of the Mandate. Read the White Paper which Britain published prior to the Mandate's ratification in 1922. They never intended for the whole Mandate to be a Jewish State. I will not continue to answer your utterly stupid comments which are baseless and show a complete ignorance of facts.

What I want too...Peace security and prosperity for both of us and future generations Its a prize no money can buy...Its a prize within our grasp...Its a prize that means we are ALL winners

I admitted also that Gaul was conquered and occupied by Rome. You must contact the Italian Government and tell them they have a legal claim to France.

I agree.

Here's the issues that are contentious that you mentioned or didn't 1. Borders- Should be able to get around 75% of settlers with land swaps,without interrupting the contiguity of the Palestinian State(Geneva Initiative has some ideas, a thing call the baker plan is better) 2. Security- an international force will be in the Jordan valley after the IDF withdraws, this is to prevent smuggling, but will also act as a trip wire and protection from invasion from the east. 3. Refugee's- International fund is the solution, give up the "right of return". You will be compensated for property+Refugeehood from the 4. Jerusalem- Suprisingly much agreement between both sides within the city already exists, the issues are using a complex soverignty arragement for the Temple mount and issues over Har Homa+an arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem with a heavy Israeli Arab minority living there

its clear thinking and you are not exactly compatible, let your noodles rest.

and the Arabs out of Gaza ....

I don't want to rule fictional "Palestinians" either. Simply pay them to leave as the vast majority tell pollsters they want to. They've been telling this to pollsters for decades. Pay them to leave. Even without Israeli compensation, "Palestinians" are leaving Judea and Samaria by the tens of thousands annually. With fair compensation, we could solve this problem within a few years.

John R, fictional legal expert for fictional Palestine, I'll take Eugene Rostow's legal opinion over yours. I'll take Professor David M. Phillips' opinion (Northeastern University School of Law) over yours. I'll take MK Danny Ayalon's opinion over your anonymous, pretentious nonsense. If you are a legal expert, as you claim, prove it. Go public and debate MK Danny Ayalon on the issue. An equitable peace means fictional "Palestinians" to Jordan or anywhere else they would like to go and are welcome.