The only "other side" I support is that which promotes a safe and secure Jewish and Democratic state with recognized borders, religious pluralism and a political culture that flows from Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognizes the civil and politcal rights of all its citizens. The men and women of tzahal as the veterans of the hagganah and the palmach are among.my heroes even if there actions at times have fallen short of rightious behaviour (taharat haneshech) in times of conflict and war.

just watch their children's programming and you will see who wants peace. Palestinians DO NOT want peace. Reality check long overdue...

need to be dealt with in negotiations and a final status agreement. The PA refraining from incitement would also be a reasonable pre-condition. Whether the Palestinians will negotiate in good faith is something the gov't has to weigh up. Now I just want to see Chaim becoming a peace-loving Israeli committed to a two-state solution!!

Bertram, allow me clarify your characterization of my writing. While I indicated Israel is willing to consider making "painful sacrifices such as giving up the majority of Judea and Samaria," does this suggest I characterize the conflict is about "land.?" If you've read my previous pieces including on called "Conflict Not About Borders," it's clear I do not believe the core issue of the conflict is about land. If such was the case it could have been settled long ago. The core issue boils down to which group, theology and god is superior, and the Muslims are convinced theirs is and must be submitted to. All you need to do is read the charters of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, PLO, etc. Coexistence with a Jewish state or Jewish people is unacceptable. So while I say Israel may need to give up some critically important land, I actually feel they will not secure peace with the Arabs if they do. That doesn't mean they aren't willing to try.

Dan's points are simply wrong. " In Israel’s case the desire for peaceful coexistence has long been known. " If that were the case how can we explain 45 years of holding millions of people hostage with no basic human rights whatsoever ? These same people launched hundreds of terror attacks against Israel killing over 3,000 civilians. Because of their lack of self policing themselves and with the blessing of their own leadership, it forced Israel to construct the security barrier. You reap what you sew. Stealing private property ? Illegal settlements on private land ? Violation of dozens of international laws ? You understanding of "illegal," and "international law" is subjective and accusatory. "It’s also worth mentioning they have never had suicide bombers murdering innocent Palestinian children" How about Baruch Goldstein ? Jack Teitel ? Eden Natan Zade ? Three mishuganas acting on their own cannot compare to an institutionalized system of jihad and martyrdom which is sanctioned by government and religious leaders. Or the hundreds of innocent people killed by airstrikes "accidentally".. Apparently you forgot that Israel did more to warn innocent civilians about being in harm way during Operation Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense than any army in human history. Your comment is blatantly wrong. "Israel does not have a charter which requires the destruction of any other state." We have voted against a Palestinian state in the UN. Please do not try and convince that a UN vote compares to an organization's founding charter which requires the destruction of a state and a people. That's a really poor effort on your part. The PLO on the other hand has recognized Israel No they have not. They discussed it, but it never happened. Besides, the very party Abbas is head of requires the destruction of the state he supposedly wants peace with. Your comments are emotional and without merit.

Let me kill two birds with one stone. First, Dan. I am sure you think it all boils down to 'theology', but I fear you are allowing yourself to be misled by Islamic rhetoric. If mutual strategic and economic interests can be met ideological ones can be placed on the back burner. So, in theory, 'coexistence with a Jewish state or Jewish people' may well be unacceptable in theory, but business is business. Next, to Sarah B - welcome back! I was beginning to miss your verbose, slanderous garbage. I must admit that I am increasingly convinced that you are a Palestinian agent provocateur. Unlike Chaim, who is not the brightest star in the firmament, you are sufficiently articulate to convince some people into thinking you are an genuine Zionist. However, your comments are so off the wall that they are clearly designed to provoke those who wish to see the destruction of Israel. Fortunately, this 'self-hating Jew' is not one of them.

Let me kill two birds with one stone. First, Dan. I am sure you think it all boils down to 'theology', but I fear you are allowing yourself to be misled by Islamic rhetoric. If mutual strategic and economic interests can be met ideological ones can be placed on the back burner. Says who? Your argument might, I say might hold water in a purely secular world. However, every move which Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah [ie: Abbas] make are in line with Islamic ideology and it's goals, so you are discounting the very driving element of what motivates them. You sound like a a secular who doesn't understand the influence of fundamental Islam. It's a dangerous and naive perspective.

If you are as you say you are, then thank you for your encouraging comment...and stay safe from those who would come after you.

"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." So in other words, if the Arab world ignores UN resolution 181, and 5 Arab countries attempt to destroy Israel, and are defeated Israel then has to give back taken land? ['48] If the Arab world is placing a strangle hold on Israel, and shutting the Suez Canal and leaves Israel with no choice but to take defensive action designed to ensure their survival, they must return any land taken, especially land west of the Jordan River which was not part of any sovereign nation? ['67] Have you any idea how baseless your comment and interpretation of the UN statement is? It's totally anti-Israel. The world lives by one standard, but Israel must live by a different one? C'mon....

It is true what you write that "land west of the Jordan River was not part of any sovereign nation. Are you unaware, or perhaps afraid to mention that this territory is a residual part of the "Mandate for Palestine" intended to be part of the Jewish State in formation as decided by the League of Nations? Are you afraid Mr. Calic to mention what Eugene Rostow wasn't afraid to explain in his articles about his UNSC Resolution 242? Articles I suggested to Nir to read, and I hope you did the same!

FO, League of Nations was superseded by UN, and UN voted to partition the land between the Jordan river and the sea. So I don't understand why some folks keep bringing up a decision by League of Nations.

And you of course never heard about Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. It was not meant only to preserve the League's decisions about the Mandate for Palestine, but ALL decisions ever made by the League. So, please, educate yourself concerning this subject. Reading Rostow's articles (the author of UNSC Resolution 242) may help you!

For people like Dan Calic it would be quite comfortable if Palestinians wanted Israel gone. But reality may be much more disturbing - that Palestinians actually no longer want Israel gone but just want their own state alongside Israel, with a capital in East Jerusalem. We can be certain that for some people this would be the worst nightmare.

Granted, many have been brainwashed into believing this 'conflict' is about land or about the Palestinians desire to have their own state side by side what remains of a rump of the Jewish state. But you wrote: "The core issue boils down the Muslims (being) convinced their theology and god is superior and must be submitted to...." That is the essential meaning of the jihadist war-cry Allahu Akbar, or Allah is "greater" (than every other god). Dan Calic: "All you need to do is read the charters of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, PLO, etc. Coexistence with a Jewish state or Jewish people is unacceptable. So while I say Israel MAY (emphasis mine) need to give up some critically important land, I actually feel they will not secure peace with the Arabs if they do. That doesn't mean they aren't willing to try..." Indeed, but why the qualifier "may need to give up some critically important land?" We must be honest ourselves and the international community; in particular with the Americans. A Palestinian state in any portion of Judea and Samaria, WILL be used as "a base of operations...to provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy (Israel) entirely," as called for in the PLO's 1974 "Phased Plan." Nothing has changed. We must not delude ourselves. A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will arm to the teeth. It will be a mortal threat to Israel's Jews. In the event of a future regional war, thousands of innocent Jewish civilians could be slaughtered, and likely will be slaughtered.

It is obvious that a large an ever increasing majority of Israelis are fed up with "peace talks" with genocidal "Palestinian" enemies who want us all dead. Moreover, they shout their genocidal intent for all to hear. Polls show 85% of Israelis oppose freeing "Palestinian" murderers to "talk peace with Palestinians". It is becoming increasingly obvious that Israel is ready for victory over "Palestinians". Not more mind numbing "peace talks" which get thousands of Israelis murdered and are intended to turn Israel into a 9 mile wide concentration camp.

I think you are wrong. It is not about 'fundamentalism'. Haredi Judaism is fundamentalist. The US is rife with fundamentalist Christian sects (e.g. the Christian Zionists so beloved of the Israeli right). Let's take Saudi Arabia, a country dominated by one of the most extreme, medieval forms of fundamentalist Islam. It is practically a neighbour of Israel's (and a longstanding US ally) but hardly figures on its radar, especially when compared with Iran. Oil trumps religion in international trade and international relations. You are right in observing that this is not a purely secular world, but neither is it purely religious. Even the 'fundamentalist' communist North Koreans act pragmatically if its in their interests, as we have seen.

I do not state my political opinions or leanings, they are irrelevant. I adhere to facts only. It would be worthwhile pointing out to people like Bertram and Nir and their followers the following. The Balfour Declaration became a legal document by international standards the moment the San Remo Accords were signed and implemented. The Arabs violated International agreements laid down by UN resolutions the moment they attacked the newborn State of israel in 1948. The Arabs were the instigators of the 1967 war by dint of the closure of The Tiran Straits, this by international law is cassus belli. The land captured by Israel in 1967 was at that time, and to this day remains, disputed territory marked by armistice lines and not by lines of agreed demarcation and according to prior international resolutions was designated to be part of the Jewish State. Israel was attacked in 1973 and not the other way around. Professors of Internation Law, such as Dershowitz et al do not consider the settlement project as illegal. The use of the term "illegal settlement" can indeed be applied to one not sanctioned by the Israeil authorities. Its use by Palestinians and world leftists and anti Israel activists is rhetorical and demagogic and unfortunately people like Nir "fall" for it and are taken in. The use of the word "Apartheid" falls into the same category. If indeed there has been, and continues to be, such a gross violation of International Law, as proclaimed by the Palestinians, in the form of "illegal settlements", and this is causing such an outrage in the world, it begs the question why have they and other international activist bodies and human rights experts not brought this "monstrosity" before the International Court of Justice. The answer to this question is self evident, they would not have a legal leg to stand on, and they know it. Nir and others should stick to facts, emotions and rhetoric amount to nothing. Facts are pertinent, fiction is irrelevant.

It's not clear to me how Article 80 of UN Charter prevents UN from partitioning Palestine (the land between the river and the sea). The British Mandate for Palestine doesn't say either that the whole of this land should be made into a Jewish national home. Regarding UNSC resolution 242, it was approved by the countries constituting the UN Security Council, so it is of primary importance how these countries interpreted the text.

³38 Im speaking from my heart dan, I know whats going on in that region because i dont read any turkish or north european news, i really get tired of their ugly propaganda here. Im just somebody who wants to know the truth and I prefer to keep with concrete data and facts. Im on the side of Israel!

Germany started World War 1, Turkey joined in, they lost and both paid a heavy price. They were humiliated in post war negotiations and received no gestures and concessions before negotiations started. Germany again started World War 2 and Japan joined in, again they both lost and suffered the same fate as stated before. The Arabs started all wars with Israel, lost all wars with Israel, yet they demand gestures and concessions in contradiction to all logic and reasonable thinking and to all precedents. Why they believe that they have this right to gestures and concessions I can not understand. Why Israel gives into them simply beggars belief, not only that, it encourages them to be even more demanding. They have no legal claim to the entire strip of land known as the West Bank, they lost all wars, yet they continue to demand. Ruthless in war but magnanimous in victory is fine, but the magnanimity can only come during "give and take" negotiations and not by setting preconditions. Israel is foolish to give in to these demands and she shall pay a heavy price for this.

Going on and on about legality is pointless, what seems clear to ones may not be to others. One thing is certain though, time is on the Palestinians´ side, and if we don´t put a rapid end to our greedy real estate adventures, we will find ourselves in a completely different reality. Don´t assume the ¨western world¨ will do anything to insure the Jewish state for ever, they wont. America is less and less respected around the world and has lost the diplomatic dominance it had for the last 60 years. Europe doesn´t give a damn about world Judaism as we all know, and the new powers on the rise - Russia and China, will not be so keen to side with us.

I don't know if you have noticed but I rarely enter the endless debates over legalities. These seem to me a waste of time since one legal opinion will be pitted against another for the next thousand years. Detroit has declared bankruptcy - an action in law - but so what? The people of Detroit still have to continue with their individual and collective lives! The same with the peoples of the Middle East. The tragedy is that everyone believes they are right and in that respect they are prepared to kill and be killed. It is not 1917, or 1920, or 1947, or 1967 or 1973. It is 2013 and time for everyone to stop the constant 'remembering' and get down to working out a practical way of living together. Immensely difficult - families don't find it easy, let alone different communities - but the alternative? Chaim's way, which would destroy Israel? Thankfully, even most Israelis are not that stupid. But the continuation of the status, which I fear is the likely scenario, will simply prolong the misery for all concerned.

Steve, Your very much on target in my opinion. I agree an armed Palestinian state will be a nightmare. All cities from TA north will become like Sderot. That's why I have suggested previously that any state of theirs must be unarmed and Israel must have a presence in the Jordan Valley, along with international soldiers prepared to shoot to kill, rather than useless UN observers who will give the enemy a free pass. When I say Israel is willing to try I mean they are doing so to please outside influences, ie: the US, EU and others who exert tremendous pressure on them. Frankly I don't believe Netanyahu truly wants a Palestinian state, but feels to some degree he has little choice. If it should come to be and they have their own army, war will be unavoidable, as they will continue with their assault on Israel's existence.

#51 Nir. Have you been living under a rock? Your "Arab demographic bomb" has been proven a hoax long ago by both highly credible Israel and American studies. Give it up! "Palestinians" are a declining minority in Israel and they know it. That explains their desperation. Within about 5 years, we will have almost a million Jews in Judea and Samaria. Within 20 years; more than two million.

#52 Bertram. Nothing is more obvious than the fact that the status quo is INFINITELY better than any "peace deal" with the P.A. Israel now has Judea, Samaria, defensible borders, freedom from constant rocket attacks, viability. Israel would lost ALL of this in a "peace deal" with the P.A. The real answer is total victory over genocidal "Palestinian" poseurs and their mass departure from our land. Hopefully, that is coming sooner than most people imagine.

If Article 80 isn't clear to you, then the problem is with you. I suggested you read some of Rostow's articles in order to understand the how and the why of the formulation, "withdrawal FROM territories, and not from THE territories. I suppose you did not. I hope you do not suspect Rostow to have been an ultra-nationalist Zionist, an extreme- right-winger or a settler. He was just an American, Dean of the School of Law at Yale, besides also Director, Arms control and Disarmament Agency, and Under Secretary of State (Political Affairs) Did I put your mind at ease? An other important point. You wrote: "it is of primary importance how these countries interpreted the text". I hope you are kidding! Remember the French, (if you have some knowledge of their language) adding just one letter, just ONE,and transforming, "De territoires" in "Des territoires". A pity for them, but the English version was and remains the only official one. And last but not least, UNSC Resolution 242 remains the cornerstone for diplomacy in the Middle-East.

I think you will find a strong view that the economic humiliation of Germany by the Allies following World War One laid the basis for the rise of the Third Reich. The Allies did not make a similar error following World War Two with Germany eventually becoming the most powerful, yet peaceful and democratic, economic power in Europe. Does this mean lessons for the Middle East? I don't know. But then neither do you.

You talk about Israeli and American ¨studies¨ that are by no means neutral and objective. I´m talking about real numbers. The UN, CIA world factbook and world bank all rank Palestinian growth rate as one of the highest in the world. Palestinian authority - 3.18 %, Gaza strip - 3.11 %, west bank - 2.65 % Israel´s growth rate - 1.66 %, 1.54 %,1.80 %. This is mathematics. As for Arab Israelis - the vast majority are Muslim and have a lot of babies, they account for about 21-22 % of Israelis, not so long ago they were 20, 19 and 18 % as you may remember. Unless you have a plan to increase Jewish fertility rate, we have a problem.

I replied to your # 52 in great length and detail. It has not been published. I can only apologize for the lackadaisical attitude of the Ynet editors.