About so called settlements

This time I will start untipically by link to the article in American Thinker that I completly agree with and than add few of my own reflections
Are the settlements impediment for peace???

The author of this article clearly points that settlements are definitely the excuse for anti-Israeli forces rather than real obstacle to anything. And to her/ his opinion I would like to add a handful of my own reflections upon the topic:

• in Oslo Agreement Palestinian Authority agreed upon existing settlements - absolute mojority of building took place since in existing settlements (e.g. people are having new babies or their grown up children start their own famielies). There is nothing illegal in it,
• the settlements take around 1.6% of PA territory of which over 80% is in sphere C according to Oslo Agreements (agreed upon, let me remind, by BOTH sides)
• 20% Israeli citizens are Arabs with full citizen rights (and rightly so of course), they are represented in Knesset, they are judges like e.g. the one who presided over Supreme Court when it sentenced former Israeli president Katsav. By contrast PA authorities - even those "moderate" in Judea and Samaria - openly declare that once the Palestinian state is created it has to be "free of Jews". I know from history - and hope you do too - what does "Judenrein" mean and when and where was it used. And any human being has to be alarmed and deeply opposed to reintroducing terms from the most horrible times. Yet such statements do not cause any oficial UN reaction - how come?
• Jerusalem is capital of Israel, yet other countries feel entitled to try and dictate this souvereign country what it should/ should not build there. This is ridiculous - it is not even part of Palestinian Authonomy. Would UK be so willing if illegaly declared sharia zones in London were defended by other countries as perfectly understandable? Same goes for Paris. If not (and the question was rethoric) than I condemn the double standard they try to apply to Israel
• There is no Israeli presence in Gaza - they are free to govern themselves. Yet the only activity obviously present is terror against Israel. But somehow the fact that Israel needs Iron Dome to protect her civilians from constant rockets, that people live in danger, that nearly every day there are rocket alarms, that recently kindergarten and synagougue were hit (luckily empty at the time) skips international attention and is not considered an obstacle to the peace. True enough - little demage is done by rockets. But the major reason is that Israel is dedicated to protection of her civilians and does whatever she can to prevent injuries - by contrast with Hamas using Gazans as human shields. But does the fact that I am able - better or worse - to protect myself (say: engage bodyguerd) mean it is legal and acceptable to attack me? 
• Finally, Judea and Samaria were won in defensive war against Jordan (not Palestine). And for the moment they are the Israeli territory. There are many authonomies around the world but I haven't heard about single one that has the law forbidding citizens of all but one ethnic group live somewhere in the state. And if you are not willing to throw all but Scots from Scotland, all but Tibetans from Tibet, all but Bretons from their land and all but Basks from Bask country (and all but Catalans from Catalonia) maybe stop using this unapplied anywhere double standard to Israel?

Having said all above I definitely see tens more important obstacles to peace than these few so called settlements.