As an example of futile thinking and dogma, Ramot has been built into a model community and suburb of Jerusalem. Over 30,000 families live there. It is not a small yeshuv of 30 families. The reality is that no way would any one with even a half of a brain think that any Israeli government would force 100,000 plus people out of their homes. This is true for Gilo and all other places that we Jews live in Israel. Perhaps if the politicians would actually spend some time looking at reality and less time spent with brainless dogma, then there might be a realistic chance for peace.

You are quite right, just don't speak about "armistice lines", it was only '1949 cease fire lines" This difference is our best card, don't throw it down!

Excellent work for jewish readers!, but not so useful for magistrates of IPC. In a war, better to be on a hilltop, and not rely on understanding and empathy of others.

Don't you remember how much land the U.S. grabbed from Mexico ,was that alright or should the Mexican goverment take it to U.N. like the Pals.

Between 1942 till 1945 , 2 millions nazi settlers were implanted in Poland and Ukraine ,looks what happened to them. It is never to late !!!

Obama said '67 borders with land swaps. He "declared" a starting point that the arabs have already rejected and that Israel will not go back to. You speak about a raid? Better listen to what the "peaceful Pals" are saying. Both Hamas and the PA will not accept a Jewish state in the area. Therein lies the crux of the problem. You are completely divorced from reality; unbelievable!

"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. " I hate to tell you this - but I must. We don't have to annex - it's OURS by international laws. Try reading the San Remo Treaty, Covenant of the League Nations and the UN Charter. "3. You call it BS that Assad's Syria is a pariah state and that there are sanctions on Hamas? " Wow two whole groups out of how many that was business committing genocide, 10, 20, 30? Most of our neighbors? Care to try that again, we have far more than two groups in the neighborhood.

is the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their land in 1949, and the bequeathing of State land (read: non-private land) ot Jews for a homeland in the Balfour Declaration which was voted on with the majority of global support in 1922 by the League of Nations. Under correct historical reality Jews settling in the West bank are not settlers but rather Israeli citizens reclaiming land in a disputed region before final and official agreements on its status. And isn't that the same the thousands and thousands of foreign Arab immigrants from Jordan did between 1949-1967?

I have read the San Remo resolution which agreed: "To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Ferdinand, I'm afraid everything you write is quite simply wrong. 1. There is NO legitimacy to the '67 "borders". Israel has NEVER declared these are their final borders. To ignore arab statements is to play bad cop-good cop; it matters not what others say- just because they say it does not make it so. It matters most what enemies who want to kill you say. All else is meaningless. 2. Your example is not the same; it is grasping at straws. Both the PA and Gaza have their own governments. They want to destroy Israel. Yet Israel lets in food, fuel, etc. No other country would do such a thing. 3. By ignoring the actions of the arab states, or worse yet, by accepting them as fait accompli, (no word about Egypt?) you prove your double standard, and my point. Thank you.

Which international law are you speaking of? International law does not deal in disproportionate force between armies; that has to do with civilians. By the same token, international law states that keeping land is illegal, in the context of offense. It does not clarify that it has to do with defense. If it did mean defense, any country can attack many times, knowing they would get back any land they lost, something the arabs have been doing for years. International law (any law) requires rational thinking. Your thinking is far from rational. Wrong again.

They gave up those rights when they supported the invasion of seven arab armies. They gave up those rights when they 'got out of the way' as requested by arab governments who denied the rights of those living there, both Jews and arabs. Cause and effect. No such thing as a free ride.

only 65 years ago jews were also called palestinians by the british, go check mandatory Israeli-british bank notes. I wonder if what you say can be true to france, can you ignor completely what Germany did to France, and 1948 is in the 20th century, if you can count years. barly a life time passed by. the most important thing is... History makes today events, british policy created the refugees camps, and the grim reality that lingers today, BTW the blue prints for the pali's refugee camps still in the british gov archives.

You left out a few words. From the San Remo Treaty: " it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. " Civil and religious - not political. They do not have a right to take our lands and the treaties explicitly state that fact.