One may debate and run away with the quantum pressure notion of prevaling ethics, but, in an attempt to look at it counter intuitively, I am sure that ethical values are a qualitative cathegory.
Although I hate analogies, let’s take one Karl Marx as a determinant sole factor and the persuasive dynamics of the quality of his arguments.
Analogies aside, a certain pattern of political strategies will enable a positive shift in the palestinian approach to Israel and Jews in general.
To term me,or generally such notions, as idealistic is perfectly acceptable for without ideas and ideals nothing can be achieved in the field of behavioural modifications.
Last analogy : only less than 70 years ago the idea that Berlin will host a Zionist congregation, Jewish State embassy and,to top it all, an increase- the greatest – in the number of Jews moving in and opening new geschefts on Kunfursterdam was simply………

I agree with your sentiments. However a drastic ethical shift in the attitude of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states generally (even now including Jordan and Egypt) is impossible to contemplate. One tiny Jewish state existing among 21 or 22 Arab states is simply not in the Arab psyche.

I knew that,in fundamentals, you will agree with me,as I,indeed,underlined the same principles by, at least, not alluding to any notion that settlers would not be entitled to their…position.
We seem to differ only in our modest predictions about the detailed configurations of the settlement profiles, both “geometric” and geopolitical.
My indulgence in propositions contains the caveat of humbleness that the settlers themselves are the BEST at appreciating their prospects and, so far,there have been no indications that these incredibly wonderful people,whom I would have dearly joined ( and I do NOT want to hear the encouraging sounds of ” why don’t you just go, Otto !!” implying a clear coda: “… and leave us alone !”)are very determined to make their space a real Israel as so Providentially meant to be !
We may discuss, simply because we have the passion, need and time, how their newly created status will be managed, considering the imminent formation of a palestinian state.Mind you, I accept the notion of a palestinian state forced by circumstances, fluid as they are by definition.
Yet, I come back to the original idea that only a drastic ethical shift in the attitude of palestinians toward their Jewish neighbours,both outside the formal or otherwise, borderlines, will ensure a genuine peace, security, safe and durable existence of the settlements as such and the region in general.

Security Council Resolution 242 prescribes that the 1949 armistice line will not be the future boundary between Israel and its neighbour (then at that time expected to be Jordan) .

Jordan’s renunciation of any claim to the West Bank in 1988 and the rise of a new Arab claimant -the Palestinian Authority in 1993 – does not in any way impact on Resolution 242.

The UN will be the laughing stock of the world if it in any way attempts to act contrary to Resolution 242.That could indeed signal its final fall from grace and lead it into the grave inhabited by its predecessor – the League of Nations.

Jews have the legal entitlement to settle in the West Bank under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in that area – UN General Assembly resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding. Refusal of the UN to accept these fundamental and binding principles of international law have led to its sorry decline as the upholder of international law it claims to be.

To compound this breach of article 80 of its own Charter and to then ignore the binding effect of Resolution 242 will spell disaster for the future of the UN .It will be exposed as an organization pursuing the vested interests of its members – rather than a world body designed to ensure its members at all times are bound by and observe international law to ensure and preserve world peace.

You state:
“I hold that the MOST important issue is the acceptance by the non Jewish party(ies) to the negotiations that Jews may be allowed to live among palestinians.”

This will not occur. Abbas,Erekat and Haniyeh have all made this abundantly clear. A Palestinian State will be Judenrein and that is non-negotiable. These high priests of apartheid make such outrageous statements and the world silently nods in agreement. There is no Durban 3 to show the world’s absolute rejection of such a policy.

Even if there were miraculously some change of heart – would the rights and security of Jews living in a Palestinian State be protected? Would terrorist groups refrain from kidnapping Jews living in the Palestinian State and demanding the release of hundreds of terrorists held in Israeli jails? Could Jews be assured that the Itamar massacre would not be replicated?

Your wish is a pipe dream that will have to await till the coming of the Messiah.

Your rush to reply obviously caused you to overlook or completely miss this paragraph in my analysis:

“Egypt and Jordan eventually came to realise the folly of their action. Both entered into peace treaties with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively. Syria refused to join them. But the current upheaval in Egypt, Jordan and Syria now put the continued operation of these two treaties at real risk.”

Certainly Egypt’s opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza does not bode well for the future of its peace treaty with Israel. As I pointed out in my article there is evidence that the threat of civil war in Jordan helped drive Hussein into the alliance with Egypt and Syria in 1967. Can anyone confidently predict that the threat of civil upheaval could not happen again in Jordan in 2011 to force the abrogation of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty? These are worrying and uncertain times requiring extreme caution by Israel.

If you have any other aspects of my analysis you disagree with and are prepared to detail then I am more than happy to try and answer.

However vague statements such as accusing me of “spinning a tale based on flimsy foundations” and “poorest analysis imaginable” are a total waste of space and cannot be replied to – and I guess you know this very well.

Get specific with your criticisms and I will happily reply.