I don’t give a crap about the UN or even about international law (which is based on the law of the victor, hardly every applied, and conveniently leaves out anything that would make the world powers suffer at all.). Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians because it is the moral thing to do, because the Palestinians need a state to feel secure for themselves, and because if they ever want to live in any security, they are going to have to make a deal. The problem with your “Yehudi from Brooklyn” line and indeed with the whole “Palestinians have a connection to the land that Jews from America/Britain/etc.. don’t” is that argument will expire if Israel just waits. Fewer and fewer Israelis are now born abroad and if Israel waited, say 60 years, there would be no refugees who had ever been born in Palestine, almost none whose parents were born there, and many whose grandparents and great-grandparents were not born there while settlers and their descendants living on some hill top near Hebron might have been there for 80 years. The settler family would then surely have a vastly greater attachment to that land. Israel can just look at Northern Ireland and see how, after a long time, colonization becomes impossible to undo. The argument to be made is not about who has an attachment to the land, but who has the moral right to the land. Those settlers, whether they come from Brooklyn or are fourth generation Sabras, equally have no right to be there.

“That implies a foreign entity, with no real connection to a place, exploiting that place and its inhabitants.”

The only connection Yehudi from Brooklyn has to Palestine is very old mythology. This then is your basis for refusing to accept the term ‘colonisation’? This mythical connection gives him the right to colonise someone else’s land? Go tell it to the UN.

Homo originated in all likelihood in Africa. Can justify past colonisation of Africa this way?

By the way “in time tested and old fashioned Hasbarist methodology” is where I found that ‘tone.’ But if you didn’t intend it – then I take back what I said.

Well, you could call it something else if you like. ‘Population Centers’ instead of ‘Settlements’ for instance. Doesn’t change much though, does it?

Second, there is no colonialism here. That implies a foreign entity, with no real connection to a place, exploiting that place and its inhabitants.

Finally, even if you do see it as colonialism – then it’s a bargaining chip, fine. With that argument, deals have been offered countless times – and have been answered with war every single time.

“A deal with the Palestinians? No. There is simply no evidence that any deal (short of one that will eliminate Israel as a Jewish state) will neutralize the threat of terrorism.”

I see. No deal with the Palestinians. Unbridled colonisation and let’s blame anti-Semitism (‘The New New New anti-Semitism”) as any opposition to it.
Now LB will, in time tested and old fashioned Hasbarist methodology, tale my comment apart, syllable by syllable, and find fault. Watch.

Furthermore, Israel might end up jeopardizing it’s relationship with the US – but that relationship is not more important than all else. As I’ve said in the past – American money does more harm to Israeli independence (regardless of steps taken with said independence) than almost any other factor.

“Israel’s two security priorities should be preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and coming to a deal with the Palestinians.” Iran – yes, of course. A deal with the Palestinians? No. There is simply no evidence that any deal (short of one that will eliminate Israel as a Jewish state) will neutralize the threat of terrorism. Neutralizing that threat is the priority, and Israel’s primary responsibility.