Abbas does not exist, he represents no one, he has no mandate! If israel were to give up the West Bank to a ghost, Hamas would step in and take over.

Idiots like you threaten the President of the United States. This is not freedom of speech this is a threat.

The real argument is that 65 years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory has not extended Israel's legally recognised sovereignty even 1 cm beyond its declared and accepted partition plan borders.

Should we call it "resettlement" like the Nazis or use the current zionist euphemism of "transfer." Good luck with that.

"Harry Truman recognized the newly created state of Israel in 1946 as a way to support the fledgling country."

FOREIGN POLICY BY JOHN MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN WALT. REMEMBER Bibi receiving 29 standing ovations before a joint secion of congress, and that after testifying under oath about Sadam and nuclear weapons not just WMD but nuclear weapons. remember how he was beating the drums of WMD remember the washing machine size centerfuges. Yet still he receives 29 standing ovations. Israerl owns USA politicians. OH wait this is YNET talk back board where Israel told the US not to invade Iraq and Assad murdered wimin and children in Sabra and shantila and fooled the world into blaming Israel

I believe so. Obama did say soon a new member will join the UN and that will be the State of Palastine.

It's amazing how spin doctors kept trying to rewrite history for 60 years, yet the Truth always emerges triumphant. Today, some 64 years later, some fanatical Zionists still claim Israel is a "Jewish State". Palestine will never be Jewish - regardless of what it's called....

While you are right that treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, U.S. votes in the Security Council are not subject to Senate approval nor grounds for impeachment. As #7 implies, Obama is completely free to instruct the U.S. not to veto Palestine's application for full membership in the UN. If this happens then Palestine will become a member of the U.N. within its 1967 borders subject to UNSCR 242 et seq. and any "dispute" about the existence of Palestinians and the State of Palestine or the illegality of the civilian settlements and annexation would be moot. Not that half truths and factual errors bother you. You still have not acknowledged your mistakes about Pollard’s right to parole, Palestine’s right to become a party to the International Criminal Court or the jurisdiction of the ICC over Israelis’ alleged war crimes, etc. etc. Maybe you should stick to racist hate attacks on Arabs and Jews who disagree with you or, your favorite, insulting “ugly” dead women and their grieving families.

they have to give a land to their brothers who by the way are saudi arabians egyptian and syrians. basically each palestinian has his own land for a long time already. Most of them came to Israel in 1800 Israel belonged to the jews in the past and we returned home. it was never palestinian land and it will never be. shalom!

Truman's recognition in 1948 (not 1946) was a de-facto recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel. De-Jure recognition of the State of Israel was on 31 Jan, 1949, after the first elections.

And, it was Wilkerson the Chief of Staff of Colin Powell that confimed Sharon advised Bush against invading Iraq. And it was Robert Hatem, the bodyguard of the Lebanese Phalangist militia, that declared Sharon was innocent of that massacre. You don't seem to like truth.

That's a prerequisite even for joining a deadbeat joke of an organization that shrinks from solving any real, tough problems in the world.

or implemented by: 1. The UN Security Council, which passed instead Res. 44, urging the General Assembly to go back and reconsider the future of Palestine. 2. The UN-appointed mediator. 3. The Arabs 4. The British 5. The State of Israel (never adopted de-jure or committed to implement... or did you think that Israel's founders were that stupid, having already won the war???). 6. The Security Council and General Assembly, when Israel became a UN member, accepting Israel's argument that the ONLY condition for membership is Article 4, para. 1 of the UN Charter (being a peace loving state). That ship has long ago sailed. So sorry, but all what you've written is rubbish. :-))

When did the PLO or PA ever recognize the sovereignty of Israel in any part of the land? The PLO charter was never formally anulled. The PNC never even voted on formal changes. . All that you can rely on is Arafat's quivering lip service. And in that regard let me quote Terje Roed Larsen the UN Special Coordinator for peace negotiations: "He lied all the time. And he knew it. I'd say, 'Abu Ammar [Yasser Arafat's war name], cut the crap. Let's talk serious.' And then he could either talk serious or not talk serious. He'd say nonsense."

Now now Harold, relax. Saying that a President should or will be Impeached for doing something is hardly a threat. SarahB is simply feeding into and off of the paranoia of Jew-haters who believe that we really do control the U.S./ world. I have little doubt that if SarahB had been born Christian she would be spouting the "Protocols" as vehemently as she does her version of "Zionist" ideology.

is best left to those who can't live with the truth. Although, I have to say, you and Chaim, SaahB, and cohort aren't doing a very good job of it, since most of your "arguments" still appear to be directly or indirectly based on our founding myths and the iconoclastic opinions of a few dead lawyers. In the meantime, reality prevails and Bibi is moving closer and closer to a full resumption of the peace talks based on a two state solution with "land swaps."

stop taking your medication. ))) Sorry, sometimes I can't resist a laugh although we both know that the issues are indeed, deadly serious. We simply disagree on who needs to take what kind of medication.

Stuff it, Harold. Were you to grow a second brain, it would die of loneliness. You are an idiot. A pompous one, at that.

Well, honey, there are rules of war, you know? The Arabs have started -- AND LOST -- six wars. There are territorial consequences, you know? And unless you are prepared to demand that France cede Alsace and Lorraine back to Germany, or that Poland restore East Prussia to the Germans, et cetera, et cetera, those rules of war haven't changed. I have more examples. Care to read them? Didn't think so.

1946? Are you QUITE sure? We all know that you are an idiot. You do not have to keep on proving to us that which we already know. Here's your homework assignment: Read the Constitution of the United States.

you don't use the term so-called jews without being called anti-semitic. Why is it ok for right-wingers to use the term so-called palestinians...Yes I know the story behind it, but that's b-s. It's a way of denying Arab history to the land and strenghtening Jewish history. It's very convenient these days to blame it all on the Palestinians. But in this conflict there are two actors and they are both to blame.

If anyone is confused about the real goals of the Arabs, all they need to do is read the charters of PLO, Fatah, and Hamas. Each of them are clear their goal is the elimination of Israel. Yet where are the demands by the US for these documents to be purged?

Wilkerson said Sharon wanted Bush to atack Iran and he didn't say not to attack Iraq only not to occupy Iraq .Nonethe less Israel largly remained silent. Silence implies consent

Tsk tsk dear, you really should bring yourself up to date. The rules of war have indeed changed since Napoleon at Waterloo. Territorial acquisition by military means has been prohibited by international law since the end of World War II. And for some hundred years before that territory could only be acquired militarily upon the completion of a peace treaty. (That's why the Mandate's borders weren't determined until after Turkey signed a peace treaty.) Frankly, dear, I find your assertions a little confusing since surely you have read UNSCR242 which explicitly emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” This was clearly intended for Israel's benefit since we alone did not lose control of a single centimeter of territory in the 1967 war (You'll happily note , however, that the international community implicitly recognizes Israel’s right to all of the territory acquired in the War of Independence - a tacit recognition of the Partition Plan’s shortcomings, Israel’s security needs and perhaps too, a nod to the moribund concept of the spoils of war for you old imperialistic colonizers.)

Your "no's" that Israel has said have great logical backing. It is the "No's" of the Palestinians that do not. You want to return to the 67 borders? Before 67, the west bank was controled by the Jordanians... not the palestinians. You want a return of Palestinian refugees? They can go to the West Bank and Gaza whenever they want... do they want to? You want East Jerusalem as a capital? Jerusalem has never served as a capital for any group of Arabs, especially not the palestinians. East Jerusalem is a part of the WHOLE Jerusalem which has served as the capital for the Jewish people for over 2,000 years even during the time we weren't there.

especially pages 159 to 161