Whoever lives in Samaria and Judea will need to offered "Palestinian" citizenship, Jews included, correct? No Judenrein's allowed. Unfortunately, that is precisely what Hamas advocates, which is why no peace is forthcoming. And, as long as no peace is forthcoming, Jews can settle in Judea and Samaria to their hearts content.

that the Arabs failed to comply with the Oslo Accords Arafat was to the clause calling for the destruciton of Israel, to be removed from the PLO Charter IT'S STILL THERE, after all of these years that have passed

Arafat had commited himself to removing the clause from the PLO Charter, it's still there after all these years There are no 1967 borders, they're merely a Rhodes Armistice Line the Arabs have ignored each & every time they had attacked Israel

1. "'67borders with land swaps" recognizes the "legitimacy" of the '67 "borders", which they are not. Even the arabs insisted they were not borders; not even armistice lines. There is no substantial difference whether with or without land swaps, given the overall principle. 2. The "Pals" are part and parcel of Israel's enemies. They have called for Israel's destruction time and time again; they have even said it is their goal. They should turn to their arab "brothers" for redress. Israel has no responsibility to those who wish for its destruction. 3. "Israel is not to violate the Geneva convention and become a pariah state in the eyes of the world." The arabs have already said that any land they have will be judenrein. Yet your statement does not offer the same caution to the arabs. Is this a double standard on your part? One of the problems is that there is a double standard throughout most of the world. If it is in Israel's interest to annex land that they won in a defensive war, it will do so. Much like changes of international borders throughout world history, including after WW2.

cease fire lines 1967 don't have legal basis. It's not necessary speaking more Vitenberg, attornay in Paris

242 did NOT recognize 1967 "borders" (actually, cease fire lines. The arabs insisted they were not borders, not even armistice lines). 242 states that Isreali gains should be negotiated. It consciously omits the term "all lands", emphasis on omission of "all". It is you who are bewildered.

Obama's idea concerning the 1967 borders showed that he knows very little about the conflict.

The Palestinian leaders want to keep the conflict going because they receive a huge amount of money from the international community every year. Most of this foreign aid is embezzled into their private bank accounts around the world. It is easier to play the victim and run a terror organization than run a country. So the Palestinians make these demands that they know Israel will never agree to like the right of return. The situation the way it is now with the security fence and Gaza under control of another Palestinian terror group, (Hamas) is the closest there will be to a two state solution. Israel will not leave the West Bank but instead they let the Palestinians control their own towns and villages there.

Can you please continue smoking whatever you smoke and continue sniffing !!!. maybe you will everyone a big favor and overdose. Thanks for your assistance !!!!

Only when your Country of Origin i,e, POLSKA to be govern by ISLAM

Solomon, I'm afraid everything you write is quite simply wrong. 1. Of course there is legitimacy to the 67 borders. Those are Israel's border, as defined by Israel itself. Those are the borders of Israel that most countries in the world recognize, including the US. 2. Your second point is downright racist. Every state has a responsibility for its citizens, even those citizens that might not like the state. There are millions of Americans that dislike both President Obama, his administration and his policies. It doesn't mean the White House has no responsibility for them. 3. Solomon, most of Israel's Arab neighbours are already pariah states. There are heavy international sanctions on both Syria's regime and on Hamas. And rightly so. Israel should not take their path. Israel's place is among the free and democratic nations in the world, Israel does not belong among the backwards dictatorships that you want to use for comparison.

....intended by Arabs to be their "state". The very name "Palestine"excludes any agreement after 1947 ,because Palestine use to be -and to mean-the whole area where Israel was created,BEFORE its existence. Arabs know the symbolic, subliminal use of words.In other words,they mean what they intend by using that FALSE word:the whole "palestine". UN must acknowledge that Palestine WAS something that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE and CAN NOT be recreated. Arabs MUST invent another name for their "dreams" and Israel MUST IMPOSE such a changing. It´s FUNDAMENTAL!

I have said this before and will say it again: For the life of me I could never understate how a state with 70% population of so called "Palestinians" is not "Palestine". In my opinion, anyone with as little as half a brain should realize that the ONLY workable solution would be to make Jordan a palestinian state (with or without a king - that should be their call) and if and when that comes to pass - perhaps parts of the West Bank with large blocks of palestinian population will become parts of the new Palestine, albeit - Never Militarized. Any other proposed solution is nothing but a smoke screen aimed at masking the arabs unyielding desire to destroy the Jewish state of Israel once and for all! Israel is grossly exposing itself to western world attacks by not stating the above clearly. There was never such a thing as 1967 borders, nor will it ever become a notion unless Israel is letting that notion happen. Israel's politicians cowardness is the sole reason for Israel being perceived as a pariah state oppressing the "Poor", defenceless palestinian terrorists.

All else is stolen landl

" A country is not allowed to occupy territory even in a defensive war." But it has been done repeatedly all over the world. Cyprus, Tibet, Prussia, India, Pakistan, United States, Russia, etc. So that part is just ignorant. Second is the fact that is OUR land you are talking about. International LAWS repeat LAWS state that fact, including the UN Charter. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Every country in the region was setup by the League of Nations - except Jordan (that too was stolen from us by the British) and thus have international legal claims (far better than any in Europe by the way) and that includes Israel. Care to name just one for the Arabs? Go ahead and consult anybody you care - I will bet any amount you cannot find a single legal claim for the 'Palestinians' to any of the land whatsoever. I await your challenge

"1. Of course there is legitimacy to the 67 borders. Those are Israel's border, as defined by Israel itself. Those are the borders of Israel that most countries in the world recognize, including the US." Wrong on both Israel and the US. Sorry but if you actually knew anything neither have ever done so. "2. Your second point is downright racist. " Nothing of the sort. "3. Solomon, most of Israel's Arab neighbours are already pariah states. There are heavy international sanctions on both Syria's regime and on Hamas." Yeah right and I have a bridge for sale too. Load of BS. So according to you we need to ignore minor international laws like the Geneva Convention, San Remo Treaty, Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter and allow illegal foreign colonists to steal our lands - thanks but we know better than that.

Dear Ferdinand. I agree with you, but not entirely. 1967's borders, that endangered Israel very much before Six Days'War, can't be restored. Other ones must be drawed, on the scope of the best solution; two States into Old Palestine. But if Arab Palestine's leaders don't recognize and respect their Jewish neighbor, giving up from erred "right of return", that solution will be impossible. While the refered position will not be changed, I think, frankly, Israeli troops can't withdraw from "West Bank" (or Judea/Samaria). It is a question of self defense. Nevertheless, annexation oughts to be repealed. As you say, we live in the 21th century; and Israel is loved by all true Democrats around the world, for her good roots and principles. (Au revoir, mon ami).

Dear Keren. Excuse me, but I think that names don't care. If Arab leaders recognize and respect Israel, through redrawed and secure frontiers, their new State may, perfectly, be called "Palestine". Remember our South (and Latin) American country, and others, while the expression "America" belongs to Yankee's Nation since 1789. Or South Africa's Republic beside of Lesotho, Namibia, Angola, etc. But if there is not a honoured peace into "Holy Land", be sure the refered new State will never be real. (Um abraço).

Names DO care,specially in this case and specially in Israel.They do care. I challenge you to suggest a beautiful name to be implemented by Abbas and then we are going to analyze the consequent effects in further discussions about the matter " ex-Palestine"in UN and other instances. I keep saying that Israel MUST petition UN about this fundamental matter.

Dear Gee, 1. Just because you say "wrong" doesn't make it wrong. Surely you are aware that Israel has never annexed Samaria and Judea. All the land within the 1967 borders are considered by the State of Israel to be part of the State of Israel, that is not the case for the any land outside the 1967 borders except Jerusalem and Golan Heights. That is the Israeli view. 2. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't change anything. 3. You call it BS that Assad's Syria is a pariah state and that there are sanctions on Hamas? I guess that that only proves that you don't know much about the region. Last but not least. I never said anything even remotely like that Israel should give up any land. Try to be a bit more honest in your future comments, thanks!

You seem to have forgotten that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967. Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel, not the other way around. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping -- an act of war under international law -- and Jordan and Syria attacked Israel, despite being warned by Israel to sit the war out. They didn't, and they paid -- they lost territory. That's how war works -- whether you like it or not. Israel gave back Sinai and Gaza, and we see from current events that Arab promises of peace are not to be trusted. Israel annexed the Golan Heights, and we see that it was a wise decision indeed, given the current instability in Syria. Judea and Samaria will be annexed, and its Arab population repatriated to Jordan, country of their citizenship. You don't have to like that, either, but that is how it is going to be.

Mr. Duhulin spent a lot of time explaining the obvious yet missing why most countries support a return to pre june !967 ceasefire lines between Israel and Jordan as a basis for an agreement (not the same as peace). Egypt ruled Gaza from 1948 and Jordan annexed 'the west banl and east Jerusalem in 1950 and all the Arabs wanted Israel destroyed and so rejected a Palestinian state in the Arab ruled areas. As Dudgulin noted, the Arabs now want to go back to square one as if nothing has changed but everything has. Israel fortunately controls the land. The 1948 ceasefire lines betwenn Israel and Jordan were destroyed by the Jordanian attack of June 1967, Jordan was defeated and lost control of the land. Israel controls it but wants to transfer most of it to the Palestinians for peace. The Palestinians however reject recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and claim all of Israel for any Palestinian descendant of the 1948 Arabs who left their homes as the Arab states invaded Israel. Thus as Israelis know the Arabs want to deny history and forget their wars against Israel. The world is happy to oblige -partly because there are 56 Moslem states and one Jewish state but also because before June 196 7only Arabs lived there, the Jews had been expelled and so returning to that Arab- only status seems easy. It is not because hundreds of thousands of Jews live in the Land of Israel as they have historically and have the right to do now. However, Israel cannot have these many Arabs so it is in the mutual interest of Israel and Palestinians. It is up to the PA to negotiate what they could not get through terror. The UN cannot give them control of territory they have never controlled before.

It's no more relevant. Image Golan in Syria hands? The change in Egypt brought the Nassarism back with nuances of Islamic radicalism Jordan easy can

Because Israelis and Palestinians are the same, they should all support the one-state solution.

Sarah, no matter how often you repeat the claim that a land grap is allowed in a defensive war, it still does not make it true. Under international law, conquering land is not allowed. It does not matter one bit who started the war, no state is allowed to occupy land. Overall, what you are suggesting is truly disgusting, when you say that Israel should perform one of the largest ethnic cleansings in human history. You seem to think like Milosevic and Stalin.

No Judenrein in Judea or Samaria, otherwise your argument falls apart

come about with Germany, if not through war, and conquering land? Who gets Alsace Lorraine?

this talk back board. unbelievable. King Hussien of Jordan wanted to drive the Jews into the sea . The king was secretly negoiating with Israel for years. He sent a letter of appology after terrorists infiltrated Israel and killed 4. Offcorse Israel said they never got it and launched that death squad raid village as Samu. Obama never said return to 67 borders he said negoiate with land swap. this article is a joke. you people have realley drank the koolaid. You sound like my Jewish friends. Completley divorced from reality. unbelevable