This is not definitive.  I won't necessarily argue this point, though.  You and I have been over this before. 

Yes, and you had no case.

Due to your lack of understanding constitutive theory and declarative theory.

But, in your mind, are they disputes and therefore to be negotiated, or are they violations to be enforced? 

I think in some ways Israel has a genuine legal and valid case for issues such as water and the right of return, it is not realistic that millions of Palestinians "return" to Palestine with many never having no previous connection or residency.

As for water again, along with Jordan and other neighbours, Israel has a legal case for negotiation on subjects like this. It is not realistic that one neighbour holds a monopoly on water as the sub-saharan countries accuse Egypt of doing with the Nile

You know as well as I do that these are armistice lines and not borders.  You also know as well as I do that there are no defined borders which are enforceable by law in any document since the 1920's -- which granted the entire as the Jewish homeland (Israel).  There are plenty of suggestions and plenty of calls for negotiation of secure borders, but no defined territory of Palestine.

What a load of rubbish.

There is no legal document that cites that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people in the 1920s. Also citing legality during a time where world jurisprudence was monopolised by the West and her allies is nothing short of a pathetic imperialist apologetics.

Realistically, resolution 181 did cite borders and those borders are near enough to Pre-67 borders, I'm not talking about the armistice lines. In fact Palestinians according to Boyle and other lawyers are actually asking less what they're legally entitled to with 22% of historic Palestine.

And you seem to have flip-flopped about the Jerusalem issue.  Is it to be negotiated?  Or is it already decided and written in a legally enforceable document?

East Jerusalem by all means is legally part of Palestine. I don't think it is by principle to be negotiated. But let's be realistic here, Israel is more powerful than Palestine. It is an occupier and oppressor, not interested in peace like Islamist groups. Many people see negotiation as the means of securing a viable State however there is no evidence that there will be a resolution without a halt to current Israeli actions.

And now you say the right of return should be a point of negotiation as well.  At least I think you are saying that. 

I believe the vast majority should be able to return but that means both Israel and Palestine, with numbers decided by each side.

You really need to decide which aspects of the dispute you think should be negotiated and which you think are already decided and legally enforceable (with relevant reference material).

I have already made my opinions crystal, it is up to you to understand them. 

But I have to say you do adequately portray the Palestinian pov. 

An ignorant statement.

The Palestinians are not united in opinion as you know.