This message was self-deleted by its author

[FBaggins]

19. You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts

You're simply wrong here. You cite that the Arab League "won't accept changes" to their peace initiative of 2002/2013 - and link to Abbas' position at one time (which also cited the Arab League's initiative)...

... what you keep missing is that the Arab League's peace initiative included the assumption of land swaps. You can't rationally continue to pretend that "The only consensus that Israel can keep any settlements is with Israel, nobody else" when the reality is that it's pretty much all players but Hammas. There is only debate over how much of the land will be swapped and what is acceptable in trade... not whether there will be swaps.

Abbas: Gaps Remain in Land Swap Deal With Israel

Responding to reports he offered to trade more land than in the past, PA President only says no agreement has been reached on the amount of land to be traded.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday that he is ready to swap some land with Israel but that gaps remain on how much territory is to be traded.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/abbas-gaps-remain-in-land-swap-deal-with-israel-1.291562

So the question is whether the continued claim on your part is ignorance or intentional dishonesty. There appears to be no third option.


Until someone explains to me how a two-state solution is practically possible with the settlements in place

Simple - By giving the new Palestinian state comparable value of land that is currently part of Israel. Ideally, this would be land that makes the Palestinain state more viable (expand Gaza, less-convoluted borders for the West Bank, etc.)

As Abbas said: ""We did not agree about the land area, but we agreed on the principle of swapping land [equal] in quality and value,"

don't understand how Ariel U could be considered a legal entity when every aspect of its existence and activity is in breach of international law...

There are obviously lots of things that you don't understand. It's simply false to say "every aspect of its existence and activity is in breach of international law". Only its current location (not its existence) is disputable.