Avw, you're right. My mistake. Resolution 242 does not use the word "all". But it does say that Israel should withdraw from territories it conquered in the Six Day War. It doesn't say "some territories" either. I assume the resolution means "all territories". I don't think Israel has the legal right to choose what territories it should withdraw from. You can read the text of the resolution in full here: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/7d35e1f729df491c85256ee700686136?OpenDocument

I'm not psychic, but I don't see Syria attacking Israel any time soon. I don't know what claim Israel has to the Shebaa Farms or the Golan Heights.

Regarding Israel's "right to exist", I believe this concept needs to be examined further. The process of the creation of the state of Israel was a monumental injustice for the Palestinian people. The Palestinians were raped, massacred, and forcibly expelled. None of the people responsible has ever been brought to justice. On the contrary, some went on to become high-ranking Israeli politicians. At least two of them became Israeli Prime Ministers. The state of Israel confiscated all the Palestinian refugees' property sans any compensation. The Palestinian refugees have since been living in poverty-stricken limbo in refugee camps ever since. Israel has, in defiance of United Nations resolutions, denied the Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homelands. Meanwhile, under Israeli law, every Jew in the world is instantly a citizen of Israel and is encouraged to migrate there. And the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel are systematically discriminated against. If, for the sake of argument, the acceptance of Israel's "right to exist" means accepting such a state of affairs, then I do not for the life of me see how anybody in good conscience could accept Israel's "right to exist".

For the record, I support the one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be a win-win for Israelis and Palestinians.

Regarding the blockade of Gaza, you seem to be saying that there was never such a thing as a crippling blockade of Gaza. Not that it has been eased, but that there was never such a restricting blockade in the first place. To claim this you would have to claim that all of the links I provided - links to United Nations, BBC, and Red Cross reports - are inherently wrong, and that Israel never blocked such items as pasta, tea, coffee, or crayons from enterring Gaza, that Gazan exports were never blocked by Israel, and that Israel never restricted Gazan Palestinians' fishing.

fungus:

Regarding R242. A lot of work has gone into formulating the resolution to make is acceptable to all parties, including the Arabs, the Israelis, the US and the Soviet Union. One of the initial drafts stated Israel should “withdraw… from THE territories occupied in the recent conflict”, implying ALL The territories. However this was changed to “withdraw… from territories”, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal, to allow the resolution to be passed. Also mentioned in the same resolution is the need for termination of state of belligerency etc. Once an agreement is reached with Syria most (if not all) of the captured land will be returned, as it was when peace agreement was reached with Egypt.

I am always amazed that some people still support the so-called one-state solution, even though it is the worst possible solution imaginable. Have you not seen the results of the Yugoslavia experiment? How about Lebanon? Forcing the Jews and Arabs to live together will create a ticking time bomb, and it will only be a matter of time before the conflict escalates sufficiently to make the current skirmishes look like peaceful co-existence.

Regarding the blockade, I did not say it never existed in the first place. All I’m saying is that nowadays, the blockade, for all intents and purposes, is no more.

I believe the one-state solution is the best solution.
The two-state solution will solve many of the problems faced by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and will go a long way in ending Palestinian violence against Israelis. But it will leave the Palestinian refugees in the same miserable position they are in now. The same with the non-Jewish Israelis who will continue to be second-class citizens in their own country.
One state in which all of its citizens are equal regardless of ethnicity or religion is the ideal solution.

fungus:

As I said, one-state solution has been tried elsewhere and failed miserably. There is absolutely no reason to believe it will succeed here. In Yugoslavia, as well as Lebanon, the one-state for two (or more) peoples resulted in terrible conflicts and unimaginable bloodbath. Similarly in Palestine, due to generations of animosity, a one-state solution is very likely to result in escalated violence and complete mayhem. What we need here is to separate the two parties, rather than bring them together. Only separation has any chance of halting the escalating conflict.

When looking at a solution to a conflict, the overwhelming evidence against a one-state solution should put this option at the bottom of the list, under the label ‘avoid at any cost’