Gaza conflict: Truce ends amid fresh fighting

[Pakboong]

Assuming, of course, that it is indeed feasible for Israel to re-conquer the Gaza Strip and destroy the Hamas. Not an assured thing on both counts and unlikely Israelis will give continued support for such a long term endeavor. Even if this was to work out as planned, quite probable that a new outfit will take Hamas's place as soon as the space clears.

There are no magic solutions here - Israel can either accept the reality of ongoing hostilities on the current level, or attempt to re-conquer the Gaza Strip and stay in charge, or, alternatively - find a diplomatic solution (preferably one which makes the Hamas redundant while addressing most of the Palestinian grievances).

I agree with you, Morch.

An Israeli re-occupation would be very costly in lives (both sides) and another loss in the global PR stakes.

I know Israel has security issues, but the most sensible way of resolving that is not to back Hamas into a corner saying they must disarm or else...they won’t. They should try some diplomacy. Tit for tat goodwill..as long as the rockets don’t come as the weeks and months go by, a gradual easing of the blockade with the ultimate goal of ending it, plus a port and an airport if all is well after a year. Throw in some provisos such as PA/UN/NATO/IDF inspecting trucks at the Egyptian crossing, and a hotline to leaders, to sort out any rogue firing, while at the same time no provocative assassinations by Israelis.

It could be a win win..prolonged period of quiet for Israelis, and a better life for Gazans.

And during that quiet time, start negotiating a serious final peace agreement. If Hamas won’t recognize Israel, who cares? Many Zionist fanatics will never recognize a Palestinian state either. Both sides’ extremists would be sidelined in a majority referendum.

Shalom

The thing is you (and others) try to make it seem as if this is all up to Israel, which is not the case. Hamas is not all that open to the idea of inspections, and not getting the port/airport right away (mind, the Egyptians are

far from keen on both, for their own security issues). Both sides try to drive a hard bargain and "win" something they can present to their people. Goodwill does not come into this, goodwill does not even live in this neighborhood.

I have less confidence that if things come to a referendum there will indeed be a clear majority for peace on both sides. A related issue being leadership on both sides being either unwilling or unable to deliver when it comes to peace.

It does not matter that Hamas was democratically elected (insofar that this is even possible in an Arab locale). No one, not Israel, not the West, no one... should negotiate with Hamas. Hamas met, meets, sustains, propogates all that defines terrorism. Moreover, Hamas significantly represents other regional players who wholeheartedly do not want peace. Are those of you advocating peace with Hamas aware who/what Hamas is? Really. I mean no disrespect. This is not a valid partner to find a solution. Hamas raison d'etre is destruction of Israel. Its goals for the local arabs are secondary.

There can never be a sustained solution to the current problem through Hamas. They simply will not go down this road. However, in Islam, there is a core pillar that allows lying to enter treaties, etc, with your enemy to further your goals in Islam. Of course, all wrap up there various and personal actions by rationalizing they further Islam. If the local arabs are serious they must first clean their local house and put forth a legitimate representative council that reflects fully the will of the local arabs, not foreign players not radical islam.

Oh, I do not think that there can be peace (as we understand it) between Israel and the Hamas. The most that can be hoped for are temporary agreements and understandings which sort of regulate the bouts of violence.

When referring to negotiations with Hamas, this is as far as it can get.

Could be different with the Fatah, although its an open question as to how much support it represents.

There can only be peace when the arabs love their children more than they hate Israel

I think Golda Meir said that

It may be simply too bad that Darwin's laws of natural selection were not observed in the partitioning process.

[Pakboong]

But yes, there are indeed ignorant, racist, prejudiced and paranoid idiots on both sides. They are the ones who invest most in fanning the fires of hate.

That is one thing that we can agree on. However, the proportion of ignorant, racist, prejudiced and paranoid Arabs is far higher than among Israelis or the Palestinians would have been wiped out decades ago. There is no moral equivalency and people like you like to pretend otherwise.

It would be interesting to get a per capita count. Absolute numbers are limited to something less than 20 million on one side of the argument.

[arjunadawn]

"including creating a palistinian state;"

Where is this Palestinian state that Israel has "created"?

Many political analysts agree that Israel has not made any significant concessions toward peace since the 1990s. The last potential opportunity was in May this year with the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government. Their placatory tone was totally - and angrily - rejected by the Israeli government.

"the Israelis have had enough"

Israelis have not had enough - they want more. Land. That is central to what this is all about. Israel does not want a peace that establishes a 2 state solution. This would end the land theft that goes on daily, and is destined to continue until Israel cannot steal any more. It is so strange that the vision of some rabid Zionist colonists has set the agenda of the Israeli government for over a decade, and led to countless deaths. You would hope that a country able to produce 12 Nobel prize winners would manage its fundamentalist loonies more successfully. Most Israelis would probably trade the future colonies and settle for what is owned today to prevent the deaths of ever more IDF soldiers.

"Do you really think the arabs would show ANY restraint if roles were reversed?

Don't kid yourself, they would kill every Israeli without doubt"

In fact, there are Arabs who show remarkable restraint. Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, has long supported a 2 state solution through negotiation - and has always rejected the use of violence to achieve this.

A very Ghandi like figure. He has had many provocations, but has constantly maintained a line of a just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. When he was arrested and had his kneecap smashed by the rifle butt an over-enthusiastic IDF soldier during questioning, he did not use this to justify revenge or an aggressive stance. He recently condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on international television, just as he condemns the use of military force by Israel in Gaza.

Sure, he is in a minority in Palestine. And he will stay that way as long as Israel wants to marginalise people like him so it has a constant excuse for war and land theft. There are of course people similarly inclined toward peace in Israel - and they also are treated as pariahs by mainstream Israel.

To eventually resolve this conflict you first have to understand it. And to understand it you have to seek impartial information, and consider it fairly. Encouraging responses based in anger, frustration or vengeance rather than rational analysis will only prolong the troubles.

You make very good points; I points, I think, that go to the heart of the problem- the technical problems, that is. I am unsure that what exists could be inferred or declared a "state." A state should have unambiguous borders, self control, taxes, services, etc. A state should be sovereign. While it is substantially true that even now Israel continues to administer utilities, tax distributions, etc., this does not lend to what would be a state. The Palestinians have taken the additional step and achieved an interim state-like status, and this aids their cause internationally, It does not help locally because Israeli goals are based on local solutions that enable them to negotiate in final talks certain key issues. For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further.

Having two disparate, isolated entities, not connected by highways or land mass, defined as a "State" is finally not tenable. It is not workable for the Palestinians and in the end cuts a swath of hatred and death right through Israel proper. Israel does not want to surrender land captured in the various wars of aggression against them because they affirm, and are correct, that in the modern age they no longer have the means to protect themselves against threat with landmass providing depth. Tactically, this is a sound conclusion. Implementing this into the their final goal will be more elusive. A significant majority of the world are unaware of Israel's claim to this land, why they need/want it, only that it seems reasonable to return it to the arabs.

In my estimation Hamas is taking Israel for a ride. There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. Tactically they will win but in the long range, in the hard to measure public perception arena, Israel is handing considerable moral authority to an entity that really has none- Hamas. However, if Israel is hitting this hard it is because they have a combination of resources/intel imploring them to hit hard now, as they will need resources elsewhere soon. There is only a handful of scenarios that speak to why so much? Why now?

There are good men and women throughout the world, especially the wise of have seen war. It is them above all others who often seek earnestly to avoid conflict. In the final analysis, at the dinner table, at bedtime, most people throughout the world want to be secure, have food, worship and freely associate, be loved and loved, and avoid war. Its amazing the common bonds that are so easily bridgeable.

Personally, I see no solution that does not have other "boots" on the ground in this area. IMO this also represents a temporary solution- UN, etc. Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

Most people know, right, that Jews and Arabs are related? Maybe I just went too far but this is true. It is utterly amazing the deep physical and theological connections and still...

[arjunadawn]

Israel gets especially bad "special" treatment from it's relentless critics.

When Russia takes over Crimea and China takes over Tibet (both not really defensible), NOBODY questions Russia or China's right to even EXIST in the first place within SOME borders.

But Israeli demonization today still irrationally obsessed with attacking the very legitimacy of the very EXISTENCE of the one majority Jewish nation in the world. Wonder why? I don't.

This fixation with the BIG LIE that Jewish Israelis "are European" is a classic case in point of the demonizer's attacks on the right of Israel to even exist. The implication often openly stated is really no different than Hamas -- Jews go "home" (away from Israel) or prepare to die. Just as offensive from left wing Europeans as from Hamas.

You know, your above point is really quite valid. You are correct. There are other precedents to look to in the modern world (similar to the mideast issue), and how have others (Nation States and Media) responded in those examples? That the Jews are especially held to a standard not adhered to elsewhere is suggestive. I think its pretty well accepted that antisemitism is on the rise globally. It is also pretty clear that Israeli condemnation is on the rise. If I made a graph of 1) antisemitism and 2), arab sympathy/Media bias, and calculated points since 1945, I would see two lines converging and racing off the chart.

Is there a correspondence?

I have been uncertain for some part of this thread what the issue is about European Jewry or not. Is this a suggestion that they are definitively from elsewhere? If so, isn't everyone from elsewhere? Frankly speaking, why do the apologists for the local arabs assign themselves the authority to declare when "time" is relevant? For example: "In 1946 the land was arabs..." Ok, but "in 69CE the land was Jews."

Over millennia, through various empires and such, a leveling eventually took place that did have Jews, arabs, and Christians living side by side in the Levant. In fact, in some places this continues. So, notwithstanding the examples each side can show for claim, there is an underlying reality also that suggests cohabitation. Why now is it unworkable?

I am so interested in the subject but for the life of me cant imagine a solution. There is so much pain and mistrust on both sides, and regional players with other aims stir the pot- this includes the US, Iran, Syria, etc.

[Jingthing]

Jews and Italians are also related. So bloody what?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

"including creating a palistinian state;"

Where is this Palestinian state that Israel has "created"?

Many political analysts agree that Israel has not made any significant concessions toward peace since the 1990s. The last potential opportunity was in May this year with the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government. Their placatory tone was totally - and angrily - rejected by the Israeli government.

"the Israelis have had enough"

Israelis have not had enough - they want more. Land. That is central to what this is all about. Israel does not want a peace that establishes a 2 state solution. This would end the land theft that goes on daily, and is destined to continue until Israel cannot steal any more. It is so strange that the vision of some rabid Zionist colonists has set the agenda of the Israeli government for over a decade, and led to countless deaths. You would hope that a country able to produce 12 Nobel prize winners would manage its fundamentalist loonies more successfully. Most Israelis would probably trade the future colonies and settle for what is owned today to prevent the deaths of ever more IDF soldiers.

"Do you really think the arabs would show ANY restraint if roles were reversed?

Don't kid yourself, they would kill every Israeli without doubt"

In fact, there are Arabs who show remarkable restraint. Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, has long supported a 2 state solution through negotiation - and has always rejected the use of violence to achieve this.

A very Ghandi like figure. He has had many provocations, but has constantly maintained a line of a just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. When he was arrested and had his kneecap smashed by the rifle butt an over-enthusiastic IDF soldier during questioning, he did not use this to justify revenge or an aggressive stance. He recently condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on international television, just as he condemns the use of military force by Israel in Gaza.

Sure, he is in a minority in Palestine. And he will stay that way as long as Israel wants to marginalise people like him so it has a constant excuse for war and land theft. There are of course people similarly inclined toward peace in Israel - and they also are treated as pariahs by mainstream Israel.

To eventually resolve this conflict you first have to understand it. And to understand it you have to seek impartial information, and consider it fairly. Encouraging responses based in anger, frustration or vengeance rather than rational analysis will only prolong the troubles.

You make very good points; I points, I think, that go to the heart of the problem- the technical problems, that is. I am unsure that what exists could be inferred or declared a "state." A state should have unambiguous borders, self control, taxes, services, etc. A state should be sovereign. While it is substantially true that even now Israel continues to administer utilities, tax distributions, etc., this does not lend to what would be a state. The Palestinians have taken the additional step and achieved an interim state-like status, and this aids their cause internationally, It does not help locally because Israeli goals are based on local solutions that enable them to negotiate in final talks certain key issues. For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further.

Having two disparate, isolated entities, not connected by highways or land mass, defined as a "State" is finally not tenable. It is not workable for the Palestinians and in the end cuts a swath of hatred and death right through Israel proper. Israel does not want to surrender land captured in the various wars of aggression against them because they affirm, and are correct, that in the modern age they no longer have the means to protect themselves against threat with landmass providing depth. Tactically, this is a sound conclusion. Implementing this into the their final goal will be more elusive. A significant majority of the world are unaware of Israel's claim to this land, why they need/want it, only that it seems reasonable to return it to the arabs.

In my estimation Hamas is taking Israel for a ride. There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. Tactically they will win but in the long range, in the hard to measure public perception arena, Israel is handing considerable moral authority to an entity that really has none- Hamas. However, if Israel is hitting this hard it is because they have a combination of resources/intel imploring them to hit hard now, as they will need resources elsewhere soon. There is only a handful of scenarios that speak to why so much? Why now?

There are good men and women throughout the world, especially the wise of have seen war. It is them above all others who often seek earnestly to avoid conflict. In the final analysis, at the dinner table, at bedtime, most people throughout the world want to be secure, have food, worship and freely associate, be loved and loved, and avoid war. Its amazing the common bonds that are so easily bridgeable.

Personally, I see no solution that does not have other "boots" on the ground in this area. IMO this also represents a temporary solution- UN, etc. Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

Most people know, right, that Jews and Arabs are related? Maybe I just went too far but this is true. It is utterly amazing the deep physical and theological connections and still...

There's a few things I would like to address to your post. Hopefully you will respond to them honestly. (And may I say that prevarication or non-response is "honest" only in a certain light..cf your previous reticence to respond to some of my points, and cf your claim to be honest). Sorry to force the issue, but you did ask for it.

1. A state should have unambiguous borders, True! How about the (virtually) contiguous border that Israel actually accepted in 1947?

1.a. A state should have unambiguous borders. True! Does the state of Israel have unambiguous borders currently? No it doesn't, mainly because it constantly tries to expand them.

2. "For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further. " Yes, we all know that. It is only those that can not be unbiased that resent UN "democracy" in this issue.

3. Your posts suggest a "might is right" attitude. If so, so be it. Lets look at your comment, "There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. ". ..."Might" is not necessarily muscle; It can be moral or other advantage too.

4. " Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

" . Let me suggest a correction; Zionists will never accept a perceived threat on the pretense to grab more land. I think local Arabs will accept a fair deal.

"fair deal" being the crux.

[Morch]

"including creating a palistinian state;"

Where is this Palestinian state that Israel has "created"?

Many political analysts agree that Israel has not made any significant concessions toward peace since the 1990s. The last potential opportunity was in May this year with the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government. Their placatory tone was totally - and angrily - rejected by the Israeli government.

"the Israelis have had enough"

Israelis have not had enough - they want more. Land. That is central to what this is all about. Israel does not want a peace that establishes a 2 state solution. This would end the land theft that goes on daily, and is destined to continue until Israel cannot steal any more. It is so strange that the vision of some rabid Zionist colonists has set the agenda of the Israeli government for over a decade, and led to countless deaths. You would hope that a country able to produce 12 Nobel prize winners would manage its fundamentalist loonies more successfully. Most Israelis would probably trade the future colonies and settle for what is owned today to prevent the deaths of ever more IDF soldiers.

"Do you really think the arabs would show ANY restraint if roles were reversed?

Don't kid yourself, they would kill every Israeli without doubt"

In fact, there are Arabs who show remarkable restraint. Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, has long supported a 2 state solution through negotiation - and has always rejected the use of violence to achieve this.

A very Ghandi like figure. He has had many provocations, but has constantly maintained a line of a just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. When he was arrested and had his kneecap smashed by the rifle butt an over-enthusiastic IDF soldier during questioning, he did not use this to justify revenge or an aggressive stance. He recently condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on international television, just as he condemns the use of military force by Israel in Gaza.

Sure, he is in a minority in Palestine. And he will stay that way as long as Israel wants to marginalise people like him so it has a constant excuse for war and land theft. There are of course people similarly inclined toward peace in Israel - and they also are treated as pariahs by mainstream Israel.

To eventually resolve this conflict you first have to understand it. And to understand it you have to seek impartial information, and consider it fairly. Encouraging responses based in anger, frustration or vengeance rather than rational analysis will only prolong the troubles.

You make very good points; I points, I think, that go to the heart of the problem- the technical problems, that is. I am unsure that what exists could be inferred or declared a "state." A state should have unambiguous borders, self control, taxes, services, etc. A state should be sovereign. While it is substantially true that even now Israel continues to administer utilities, tax distributions, etc., this does not lend to what would be a state. The Palestinians have taken the additional step and achieved an interim state-like status, and this aids their cause internationally, It does not help locally because Israeli goals are based on local solutions that enable them to negotiate in final talks certain key issues. For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further.

Having two disparate, isolated entities, not connected by highways or land mass, defined as a "State" is finally not tenable. It is not workable for the Palestinians and in the end cuts a swath of hatred and death right through Israel proper. Israel does not want to surrender land captured in the various wars of aggression against them because they affirm, and are correct, that in the modern age they no longer have the means to protect themselves against threat with landmass providing depth. Tactically, this is a sound conclusion. Implementing this into the their final goal will be more elusive. A significant majority of the world are unaware of Israel's claim to this land, why they need/want it, only that it seems reasonable to return it to the arabs.

In my estimation Hamas is taking Israel for a ride. There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. Tactically they will win but in the long range, in the hard to measure public perception arena, Israel is handing considerable moral authority to an entity that really has none- Hamas. However, if Israel is hitting this hard it is because they have a combination of resources/intel imploring them to hit hard now, as they will need resources elsewhere soon. There is only a handful of scenarios that speak to why so much? Why now?

There are good men and women throughout the world, especially the wise of have seen war. It is them above all others who often seek earnestly to avoid conflict. In the final analysis, at the dinner table, at bedtime, most people throughout the world want to be secure, have food, worship and freely associate, be loved and loved, and avoid war. Its amazing the common bonds that are so easily bridgeable.

Personally, I see no solution that does not have other "boots" on the ground in this area. IMO this also represents a temporary solution- UN, etc. Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

Most people know, right, that Jews and Arabs are related? Maybe I just went too far but this is true. It is utterly amazing the deep physical and theological connections and still...

There's a few things I would like to address to your post. Hopefully you will respond to them honestly. (And may I say that prevarication or non-response is "honest" only in a certain light..cf your previous reticence to respond to some of my points, and cf your claim to be honest). Sorry to force the issue, but you did ask for it.

1. A state should have unambiguous borders, True! How about the (virtually) contiguous border that Israel actually accepted in 1947?

1.a. A state should have unambiguous borders. True! Does the state of Israel have unambiguous borders currently? No it doesn't, mainly because it constantly tries to expand them.

2. "For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further. " Yes, we all know that. It is only those that can not be unbiased that resent UN "democracy" in this issue.

3. Your posts suggest a "might is right" attitude. If so, so be it. Lets look at your comment, "There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. ". ..."Might" is not necessarily muscle; It can be moral or other advantage too.

4. " Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

" . Let me suggest a correction; Zionists will never accept a perceived threat on the pretense to grab more land. I think local Arabs will accept a fair deal.

"fair deal" being the crux.

The 1947 partition plan borders were attainable only with a lot of goodwill from both sides (not to mention neighboring countries). As everyone knew the score, it was quite obvious that things would go south real quick after the map was to become a reality. I do not think that the following war came as a huge surprise to anyone (just the outcome part). Going back to the 1947 borders is not something Israelis will accept (forget governments), certainly not workable with the added weight of distrust and hatred going that far back. Most formulations for solving the conflict center on 1967 lines, which are somewhat more reasonable in terms of geography.

Israel does not constantly try to expand its borders. The borders with two of its neighbors are quite clear (Egypt and Jordan), a third is mostly so apart from a rather small area (Lebanon), and Syria - well, that's an issue for sure (but as there's no one home at Syria right now, can't solve that one anytime soon). The relevant border issues are more to do with the final formulation of an agreement with the Palestinians, then.

What reason do you have to believe that "local Arabs" (I take it those would be the Palestinians? Or perhaps just the Fatah's PA?) will accept a "fair deal"? And what would be considered a fair deal under the circumstances?

[arjunadawn]

There's a few things I would like to address to your post. Hopefully you will respond to them honestly. (And may I say that prevarication or non-response is "honest" only in a certain light..cf your previous reticence to respond to some of my points, and cf your claim to be honest). Sorry to force the issue, but you did ask for it.

1. A state should have unambiguous borders, True! How about the (virtually) contiguous border that Israel actually accepted in 1947?

1.a. A state should have unambiguous borders. True! Does the state of Israel have unambiguous borders currently? No it doesn't, mainly because it constantly tries to expand them.

2. "For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further. " Yes, we all know that. It is only those that can not be unbiased that resent UN "democracy" in this issue.

3. Your posts suggest a "might is right" attitude. If so, so be it. Lets look at your comment, "There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. ". ..."Might" is not necessarily muscle; It can be moral or other advantage too.

4. " Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

" . Let me suggest a correction; Zionists will never accept a perceived threat on the pretense to grab more land. I think local Arabs will accept a fair deal.

"fair deal" being the crux.

Gosh, why wouldn't someone respond honestly? If I overlook a point here or there in response its not to evade, or make my point without due consideration. Sometimes I forget, or get long winded and lose my way a bit. I don't have all the answers but this dialogue with others here allows me to look at both what is said to me, and what I really think I know about these issues. I don't know so much; I only think I know enough to have an opinion. I find frequently I do not have enough to have an informed opinion. I then try to rethink.

Regarding 1 & 2. I think you miss my point; I am conceding the argument that the Arabs assert, or reason demands. A state should be these things. I am not arguing that the Palestinian "state" has this. It clearly does not. So the assertion that Israel provided the local arabs a state cant really be construed as meaningful. It just is not a state. I am uncertain what is meant by tries to expand the borders. However, I find that Israel's upping the ante of final status by expanding settlements into contested areas is inappropriate and a valid grievance. There is already contested land being argued, to go and settle into other areas in order to enhance what you perceive to finally grant in concession is strong-arm tactics.

I am unsure what you mean regarding 2. It is a fact, whether pleasant or not, that Israel sees Palestinian state recognition prior to final status a threat to its position. I make no qualitative comment here. It simply complicates things from the Israeli perspective. From the arab perspective, it is quite enabling.

3. Clearly, if you think my post suggests a "might is right" attitude you reveal you've no comprehension of what I had said. Not only do I not suggest that here, but it is contrary to my basic core principles as a man so it would not have ever insinuated itself into my thoughts. "Might" in the context of what you describe, can indeed by many things. However, my point is unrelated to "might" or any issue of force; it is simply unrelated like apples and sailboats.

No matter how current events turn out, no matter what Israel rationalizes it must do in the current morass, things will not turn out as pleasant as they would hope. There is a growing chorus of displeasure with Israeli actions and it makes no difference any longer what provoked it, of if it is valid. Footnotes in history may validate Israel, or not, but contemporary public opinion will be a serious obstacle for Israel to overcome. I do not see how Israel can turn the tide of perception regarding this current mess. They may feel they have achieved tactical security for a while, but the price strategically will cut into their overall long term security needs. This has nothing to do with might.

I have honored your post with my most candid responses. I try to remain objective. However, on this last point you simply unravel. 4. Israel, irrespective of your convenient effort to itemize Israel into sub parts (Zionist) to make some additional point (land grab), remains an singular entity for the purposes of the point I made: A state, any state, particularly Israel with its history and outright declarations, will not allow existential threats to persist whether there is a co state of Palestine or not. Therefore, I see continued problems.

I am uncertain why you used the phrase fair deal, then repeated it with quotations, "fair deal." Oh, after re reading, are you suggesting that Israel will conveniently perceive threats, whether real or not, to consume more land? If so, I don't know. I just don't know.

BTW, the entire introduction and delivery of your message is an ad hominen attack. When someone says "no offense intended" they will likely insult the listener. Likewise, when you affirm something regarding my honesty, then digress into a commentary how this may have faltered previously (perception), you attempt to poison the well and suggest I am not. There is simply no other utility to a preamble like that. After you wrote this entire thing, you should have scanned it, and removed the first part. There is no need for that. (Perhaps I did ask for it. I just didn't see it coming).

[Steely Dan]

Jews and Italians are also related. So bloody what?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

To me it's quite clear, ideology is what defines interactions between groups of humans far more than genetics. It is the ideology of political Islam that can't abide the other within its midst; Islam has bloody borders as Samuel Huntingdon wrote. The logistical steps towards Palestinian statehood are a little tricky to navigate, but with a separation of religion from state it would be possible. Israel has had reasonable relations with Muslim states where religion was kept in check, but until they become democracies I see no prospect for a permanent peace.

ISIS gives Islam a chance to reject its savage past should it's main schools of jurisprudence accept the challenge, but this would be a bloody and drawn out process.

[Johpa]

Yes, by Ultra Orthodox Jews, many of them teenagers and young men who have been brought up on Zionist dogma of the promised land Just as fanatical and radical as the most extreme Muslim.

These are the men that make women sit at the back of the public bus.

The ultra orthodox, the Nuturei Karta of Mea Sharim, are not Zionists and do not force women to sit in the back of bus. They do force those who walk through their neighborhood to strictly observe their imagined rules of the Sabbath and have been known to violently protest against those who would break those rules. The more traditional orthodox Jews do comprise some of Netanyahu's supporters and have long been at the forefront of the settler movement, often families whose origins are from the US. The misplaced settlers in Hebron are from this group.

As for my earlier post, my inference for your detestation is quoted in the post. I will let others decide whether I inferred too much. I assume both is us will remain posting on these boards and we will continue to disagree upon some issues.

[Wat dee]

I think what many detest about Israel, aside from the historical inequity in the Jewish land grabs, is that Israel IS the aggressor. Responding to a bunch of rockets that fall in barren fields with the disingenuous cry of "We have a right to defend ourselves" and employing a barrage of modern weapons to kill hundreds is aggression.

If a little waif off the street picks up a pebble and throws it harmlessly at my feet, and I respond by yelling "I have a right to defend myself" and attack the waif with a knife and a club, giving him a sound beating...who is the aggressor? Add to that scenario that the waif happens to have something I want, and if he runs away I'll obtain, and my motives become clear.

Ok, "what many detest about Israel," and you then make a valid point about the land, but you digress into the very thing under consideration as a declared fact, "Israel IS (I guess no ISIS pun intended) the aggressor."

It's convenient for an observer to arbitrarily decide "a bunch of rockets" doesn't deserve response; today, yesterday, last month, last year, every year, on the ground, in the air, overseas, on the coast. Because that the attackers aren't brilliant does not an excuse make. It's been a varying standard in war that you don't go into a gunfight with a knife. So, assuming this is known- and the whole world knows Israel will respond- why then does Hamas continuing using a knife? Doesn't reason and personal mental justice compel one to ask the question? "If Israel keeps rooting us out, forcing us to flee for our lives and hide amongst our citizens, in hospitals, in camps, why do we attack with a knife (a bunch of rockets)?" The answer is unambiguous. Hamas sacrifices Palestinians because their strategic warfare rests on the attrition of public perception. Every Sovereign since time immemorial had steadfastly guarded it's terrain. Your point is not invalid, it just doesn't seem complete, or it's lacking context. To me.

It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone. Your point is not that obvious to me. false analogy (a bit overdone)=Hamas is not a little waif off the streets. Rockets are not little pebbles. I can't comment on secondary scenarios to the waif; that one wiped me out. I hope your smiling because my intention is not unkind. I just think differently. Your position, if exercised, still produces war, conflict, or non resolution.

If Israel only return fired rockets in empty fields in response invariably Hamas would what... Get more precise. Then, extrapolating a scenario from your point, Israel would respond in kind? If Hamas rocket hit a bus and Israeli planners were considering target packets they should the correspondingly look for a target that wipes out.... Hrmmm there were 18 bus victims so... 18 Hamas fighters. You ask of Israel a standard not asked of anyone, anywhere, ever, as a tool of state.

Sorry my friend, you are using sophistry. Unintentionally, I'm sure. You concede the land issue is valid, you then go on to talk about the reality of going to a gunfight armed with a knife. So true and apt, but it avoids the issue of justice, and another reality; that of fighting to your last breath, tooth and nail, for your home. And if you hit below the belt, really, who uses Queensberry rules when the literal life of your entire community is at stake (not to mention your opponent doesn't fight by the rules either)?

You say it's a false analogy, that pebbles are not rockets. Helicopter gunships, white phosphorous, and tanks are not a knife and a club, either. Actually, to make the analogy more accurate, I should tie one of the waif's hands behind his back, and starve him of sustenance so he has low energy. I do not think I overdid it at all. You did not mention my cry, as I brutally bully the waif, of "I have a right to defend myself!". It was important to the analogy. Also important to the analogy was the fact that I want something that the waif has, and with him gone or incapacitated, I am free to take it.

I don't dispose of your point regarding proportionate responses. I think, though, you were a little disingenuous to suggest that I think Israel should kill 18, for the 18 Hammas killed. But there's proportionate and then there's vastly disproportionate, ie pebble harmlessly falling in my direction vs a severe beating with a knife and club. Surely if I had slapped the waif, or even boxed his ears I would not earn (as much) censure?

As you say, "It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone.".

I avoid the secondary points of your post and go to the heart.

And so you capture and define my weakest point; I am aware of it. If any reads my posts they could infer it. But you are correct. In a world of absolutes (suspend the relative for a moment), Israel took land from others. I often sidestep this issue by declaring there was no Palestinian State, ever. I declare that the Arab world never even recognized a Palestinian State previously. Yes. I do not do this to be evasive or sell a product. I believe this. But my mind operates from a singular perspective:

If we aren't going to kill all the Jews, and we aren't going to kill all the Arabs, how do we proceed. History should inform the future and the absolute fact of the land grab doesn't inform any current, relative choices.

I do find myself mixing relative arguments with absolute reality (land grab). I try to avoid it but then it becomes insufferable to defend my position when people introduce the issue of first cause- the land grab. It is at this point where my line item arguments come to an end, or don't connect. I am an honest man and I have an abiding respect for keeping my mind subordinate to reason. I try to have no opinion I cant defend with reason or self evidence. Every post I make I consider deeply and mean. Sometimes I am mistaken or post wrong and when shown, I hope my humility equals the observation.

I just deeply believe that the issue with the Palestinians is much more fundamental than land (Indeed for the remainder of Islam the land is a vehicle only; they hate Jews). I am an avid student of Islam having once written a book on the mystical similarities of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The problem was after I began collecting my facts on Islam, reading the many suras, the hadith, islamic exegesis, etc., I became appalled and realized that I would be fitting a round hole in a square socket. I could not edit it nor publish it. Indeed, even Sufi suffered greatly. In my instance, I could not complete the comparison for the book but the knowledge, and the many years in these areas, informed me that there is a very deep, underlying maleficence motivating Arabs towards Israel and in another book I called that chapter The Thorn in Ishmael's Side. This is the issue. (Note: The Book in reference will never be mentioned).

Demolishing settlements and bringing back orthodox's and fifth generation russian jew's would be a good start to defuse the situation.

Arabs hate jew's...There were plenty of jews before, prior ww2.

We know where your "i just deeply bel.."come from.

[dr_lucas]

Ok, "what many detest about Israel," and you then make a valid point about the land, but you digress into the very thing under consideration as a declared fact, "Israel IS (I guess no ISIS pun intended) the aggressor."

It's convenient for an observer to arbitrarily decide "a bunch of rockets" doesn't deserve response; today, yesterday, last month, last year, every year, on the ground, in the air, overseas, on the coast. Because that the attackers aren't brilliant does not an excuse make. It's been a varying standard in war that you don't go into a gunfight with a knife. So, assuming this is known- and the whole world knows Israel will respond- why then does Hamas continuing using a knife? Doesn't reason and personal mental justice compel one to ask the question? "If Israel keeps rooting us out, forcing us to flee for our lives and hide amongst our citizens, in hospitals, in camps, why do we attack with a knife (a bunch of rockets)?" The answer is unambiguous. Hamas sacrifices Palestinians because their strategic warfare rests on the attrition of public perception. Every Sovereign since time immemorial had steadfastly guarded it's terrain. Your point is not invalid, it just doesn't seem complete, or it's lacking context. To me.

It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone. Your point is not that obvious to me. false analogy (a bit overdone)=Hamas is not a little waif off the streets. Rockets are not little pebbles. I can't comment on secondary scenarios to the waif; that one wiped me out. I hope your smiling because my intention is not unkind. I just think differently. Your position, if exercised, still produces war, conflict, or non resolution.

If Israel only return fired rockets in empty fields in response invariably Hamas would what... Get more precise. Then, extrapolating a scenario from your point, Israel would respond in kind? If Hamas rocket hit a bus and Israeli planners were considering target packets they should the correspondingly look for a target that wipes out.... Hrmmm there were 18 bus victims so... 18 Hamas fighters. You ask of Israel a standard not asked of anyone, anywhere, ever, as a tool of state.

Sorry my friend, you are using sophistry. Unintentionally, I'm sure. You concede the land issue is valid, you then go on to talk about the reality of going to a gunfight armed with a knife. So true and apt, but it avoids the issue of justice, and another reality; that of fighting to your last breath, tooth and nail, for your home. And if you hit below the belt, really, who uses Queensberry rules when the literal life of your entire community is at stake (not to mention your opponent doesn't fight by the rules either)?

You say it's a false analogy, that pebbles are not rockets. Helicopter gunships, white phosphorous, and tanks are not a knife and a club, either. Actually, to make the analogy more accurate, I should tie one of the waif's hands behind his back, and starve him of sustenance so he has low energy. I do not think I overdid it at all. You did not mention my cry, as I brutally bully the waif, of "I have a right to defend myself!". It was important to the analogy. Also important to the analogy was the fact that I want something that the waif has, and with him gone or incapacitated, I am free to take it.

I don't dispose of your point regarding proportionate responses. I think, though, you were a little disingenuous to suggest that I think Israel should kill 18, for the 18 Hammas killed. But there's proportionate and then there's vastly disproportionate, ie pebble harmlessly falling in my direction vs a severe beating with a knife and club. Surely if I had slapped the waif, or even boxed his ears I would not earn (as much) censure?

As you say, "It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone.".

I avoid the secondary points of your post and go to the heart.

And so you capture and define my weakest point; I am aware of it. If any reads my posts they could infer it. But you are correct. In a world of absolutes (suspend the relative for a moment), Israel took land from others. I often sidestep this issue by declaring there was no Palestinian State, ever. I declare that the Arab world never even recognized a Palestinian State previously. Yes. I do not do this to be evasive or sell a product. I believe this. But my mind operates from a singular perspective:

If we aren't going to kill all the Jews, and we aren't going to kill all the Arabs, how do we proceed. History should inform the future and the absolute fact of the land grab doesn't inform any current, relative choices.

I do find myself mixing relative arguments with absolute reality (land grab). I try to avoid it but then it becomes insufferable to defend my position when people introduce the issue of first cause- the land grab. It is at this point where my line item arguments come to an end, or don't connect. I am an honest man and I have an abiding respect for keeping my mind subordinate to reason. I try to have no opinion I cant defend with reason or self evidence. Every post I make I consider deeply and mean. Sometimes I am mistaken or post wrong and when shown, I hope my humility equals the observation.

I just deeply believe that the issue with the Palestinians is much more fundamental than land (Indeed for the remainder of Islam the land is a vehicle only; they hate Jews). I am an avid student of Islam having once written a book on the mystical similarities of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The problem was after I began collecting my facts on Islam, reading the many suras, the hadith, islamic exegesis, etc., I became appalled and realized that I would be fitting a round hole in a square socket. I could not edit it nor publish it. Indeed, even Sufi suffered greatly. In my instance, I could not complete the comparison for the book but the knowledge, and the many years in these areas, informed me that there is a very deep, underlying maleficence motivating Arabs towards Israel and in another book I called that chapter The Thorn in Ishmael's Side. This is the issue. (Note: The Book in reference will never be mentioned).

Demolishing settlements and bringing back orthodox's and fifth generation russian jew's would be a good start to defuse the situation.

Arabs hate jew's...There were plenty of jews before, prior ww2.

We know where your "i just deeply bel.."come from.

Right, there were. And Arabs slaughtered them on numerous occasions, prior to WW2.

[Pakboong]

Jews and Italians are also related. So bloody what?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

To me it's quite clear, ideology is what defines interactions between groups of humans far more than genetics. It is the ideology of political Islam that can't abide the other within its midst; Islam has bloody borders as Samuel Huntingdon wrote. The logistical steps towards Palestinian statehood are a little tricky to navigate, but with a separation of religion from state it would be possible. Israel has had reasonable relations with Muslim states where religion was kept in check, but until they become democracies I see no prospect for a permanent peace.

ISIS gives Islam a chance to reject its savage past should it's main schools of jurisprudence accept the challenge, but this would be a bloody and drawn out process.

I believe you are correct. I am guessing that Baruch and crew actually believed that Jews could do for Palestine something like happened with the wealthy capitalist Chinese in Thailand and Malaysia. The difference is probably Islam. There really is no way to two can co-exist. I guess they simply balked at being the underclass labor for the Israeli effort. Or perhaps, the Jews were rougher about it than the Chinese were. Either way, it will be next to impossible to fix. Isreal is probably taking the only approach they can at this point in time.

[CBR250]

Right, there were. And Arabs slaughtered them on numerous occasions, prior to WW2.

And my sabra friends report that their parents and their Arab neighbours had frequent meals together prior to and during WW2.

Pity that bond of humanity has been badly damaged - if not broken -since that time by the greed and excessive thirst for power of generations of Israeli politicians.

[dr_lucas]

Right, there were. And Arabs slaughtered them on numerous occasions, prior to WW2.

And my sabra friends report that their parents and their Arab neighbours had frequent meals together prior to and during WW2.
Pity that bond of humanity has been badly damaged - if not broken -since that time by the greed and excessive thirst for power of generations of Israeli politicians.

I'll skip your usual biased and false blanket statement (although I am sure that was your entire reason for posting this) and just tell you: It might surprise you, but this bond of humanity certainly have not been broken - even nowadays there are many (Jewish) "sabras" who have frequent meals together (and of course work, study and even serve in the IDF together) with some of their Arab neighbors (Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin).

[Seastallion]

There's a few things I would like to address to your post. Hopefully you will respond to them honestly. (And may I say that prevarication or non-response is "honest" only in a certain light..cf your previous reticence to respond to some of my points, and cf your claim to be honest). Sorry to force the issue, but you did ask for it.

1. A state should have unambiguous borders, True! How about the (virtually) contiguous border that Israel actually accepted in 1947?

1.a. A state should have unambiguous borders. True! Does the state of Israel have unambiguous borders currently? No it doesn't, mainly because it constantly tries to expand them.

2. "For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further. " Yes, we all know that. It is only those that can not be unbiased that resent UN "democracy" in this issue.

3. Your posts suggest a "might is right" attitude. If so, so be it. Lets look at your comment, "There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. ". ..."Might" is not necessarily muscle; It can be moral or other advantage too.

4. " Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

" . Let me suggest a correction; Zionists will never accept a perceived threat on the pretense to grab more land. I think local Arabs will accept a fair deal.

"fair deal" being the crux.

Gosh, why wouldn't someone respond honestly? If I overlook a point here or there in response its not to evade, or make my point without due consideration. Sometimes I forget, or get long winded and lose my way a bit. I don't have all the answers but this dialogue with others here allows me to look at both what is said to me, and what I really think I know about these issues. I don't know so much; I only think I know enough to have an opinion. I find frequently I do not have enough to have an informed opinion. I then try to rethink.

Regarding 1 & 2. I think you miss my point; I am conceding the argument that the Arabs assert, or reason demands. A state should be these things. I am not arguing that the Palestinian "state" has this. It clearly does not. So the assertion that Israel provided the local arabs a state cant really be construed as meaningful. It just is not a state. I am uncertain what is meant by tries to expand the borders. However, I find that Israel's upping the ante of final status by expanding settlements into contested areas is inappropriate and a valid grievance. There is already contested land being argued, to go and settle into other areas in order to enhance what you perceive to finally grant in concession is strong-arm tactics.

I am unsure what you mean regarding 2. It is a fact, whether pleasant or not, that Israel sees Palestinian state recognition prior to final status a threat to its position. I make no qualitative comment here. It simply complicates things from the Israeli perspective. From the arab perspective, it is quite enabling.

3. Clearly, if you think my post suggests a "might is right" attitude you reveal you've no comprehension of what I had said. Not only do I not suggest that here, but it is contrary to my basic core principles as a man so it would not have ever insinuated itself into my thoughts. "Might" in the context of what you describe, can indeed by many things. However, my point is unrelated to "might" or any issue of force; it is simply unrelated like apples and sailboats.

No matter how current events turn out, no matter what Israel rationalizes it must do in the current morass, things will not turn out as pleasant as they would hope. There is a growing chorus of displeasure with Israeli actions and it makes no difference any longer what provoked it, of if it is valid. Footnotes in history may validate Israel, or not, but contemporary public opinion will be a serious obstacle for Israel to overcome. I do not see how Israel can turn the tide of perception regarding this current mess. They may feel they have achieved tactical security for a while, but the price strategically will cut into their overall long term security needs. This has nothing to do with might.

I have honored your post with my most candid responses. I try to remain objective. However, on this last point you simply unravel. 4. Israel, irrespective of your convenient effort to itemize Israel into sub parts (Zionist) to make some additional point (land grab), remains an singular entity for the purposes of the point I made: A state, any state, particularly Israel with its history and outright declarations, will not allow existential threats to persist whether there is a co state of Palestine or not. Therefore, I see continued problems.

I am uncertain why you used the phrase fair deal, then repeated it with quotations, "fair deal." Oh, after re reading, are you suggesting that Israel will conveniently perceive threats, whether real or not, to consume more land? If so, I don't know. I just don't know.

BTW, the entire introduction and delivery of your message is an ad hominen attack. When someone says "no offense intended" they will likely insult the listener. Likewise, when you affirm something regarding my honesty, then digress into a commentary how this may have faltered previously (perception), you attempt to poison the well and suggest I am not. There is simply no other utility to a preamble like that. After you wrote this entire thing, you should have scanned it, and removed the first part. There is no need for that. (Perhaps I did ask for it. I just didn't see it coming).

I am sorry that you perceived an ad hominem attack. None was intended. My introductory paragraph came from feelings that you previously and conveniently ignored some strong points I had made. You even stated as much "I avoid the secondary points of your post and go to the heart. ".In fact, in my mind what you called "the heart" was secondary and the other points important.

I'm sorry too that I have treated you like some of the posters here deserve. When faced with valid points or questions, they ignore or obfuscate. You do not deserve that from just one instance of ignoring certain points. Some people here often evade, are often disingenuous, and are sometimes not honest, even with themselves!. I apologise for acting as if you were one of them.

To respond to your post...I will make a different post so my apology can stand alone.

[CBR250]

Right, there were. And Arabs slaughtered them on numerous occasions, prior to WW2.

And my sabra friends report that their parents and their Arab neighbours had frequent meals together prior to and during WW2.

Pity that bond of humanity has been badly damaged - if not broken -since that time by the greed and excessive thirst for power of generations of Israeli politicians.

I'll skip your usual biased and false blanket statement (although I am sure that was your entire reason for posting this) and just tell you: It might surprise you, but this bond of humanity certainly have not been broken - even nowadays there are many (Jewish) "sabras" who have frequent meals together (and of course work, study and even serve in the IDF together) with some of their Arab neighbors (Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin).

A bit off today, eh? Never mind. You'll feel better soon. However, while I wouldn't normally bother when you stoop so low, I will answer this one. But that's your ration for today.

You make it sound like happy families having picnics together. I wasn't able to find the exact numbers of Arabs & Christians in the IDF (Druze and Bedouins are slightly more special cases), but Professor Wiki notes: "From among non-Bedouin Arab citizens, the number of volunteers for military service—some Christian Arabs and even a few Muslim Arabs—is minute." So it seems that the "many" to whom you refer only reach the level of "minute" for Professor Wiki. And I know who has the highest credibility rating between you and Wiki. Note: "Many" is not a synonym for "minute".

And you are living in some parallel - and warped - universe if you think there has been no damage or fracture to the "bond of humanity" that once existed between Jewish and Arab neighbours in what is now Israel / Palestine. A simple tip for you: Open. Your. Eyes. Over-exposure to propaganda does damage the ability to see clearly. There are many angry, grieving Palestinians as a direct result of Israel's warmongering over the years, not just from this most recent incursion. They are justly angry at seeing their houses maliciously damaged, destroyed and even looted by the IDF. Their crops and income destroyed by insane settlers who are being protected by the IDF. Knowing of their children and family members in the UN's safe havens being killed by Israeli missiles, artillery and fletchette bombs. Watching their land being illegally appropriated for right-wing god-crazy settlers. Suffering egregious humiliations at the hands of the IDF and other Israeli institutions. And you suggest that they all get along just fine!

[Ulysses G.]

And you are living in some parallel - and warped - universe if you think there has been no damage or fracture to the "bond of humanity" that once existed between Jewish and Arab neighbours in what is now Israel / Palestine.

You must be talking about back in the 1800s before the Arabs attacking their Jewish neighbors on a regular basis. If they had not started the violence in the first place, they would not be in the pickle that they are in today.

[Seastallion]

And you are living in some parallel - and warped - universe if you think there has been no damage or fracture to the "bond of humanity" that once existed between Jewish and Arab neighbours in what is now Israel / Palestine.

You must be talking about back in the 1800s before the Arabs attacking their Jewish neighbors on a regular basis. If they had not started the violence in the first place, they would not be in the pickle that they are in today.

If the state of Israel hadn't been created in the first place, there would be no need for Palestinians to protest with violence.

[Ulysses G.]

The State of Israel was created in 1948. The Arabs started attacking the Jews in the early 1900s. If the Arabs had tried to get along, instead of using violence, the UN might never have felt the need to create two states in the first place.

[Jingthing]

And you are living in some parallel - and warped - universe if you think there has been no damage or fracture to the "bond of humanity" that once existed between Jewish and Arab neighbours in what is now Israel / Palestine.

You must be talking about back in the 1800s before the Arabs attacking their Jewish neighbors on a regular basis. If they had not started the violence in the first place, they would not be in the pickle that they are in today.

If the state of Israel hadn't been created in the first place, there would be no need for Palestinians to protest with violence.

Too late. Israel demonization also kvetching about the very existence of Israel. At least that's honest. Same hateful garbage as Hamas.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[dr_lucas]

Right, there were. And Arabs slaughtered them on numerous occasions, prior to WW2.

And my sabra friends report that their parents and their Arab neighbours had frequent meals together prior to and during WW2.

Pity that bond of humanity has been badly damaged - if not broken -since that time by the greed and excessive thirst for power of generations of Israeli politicians.

I'll skip your usual biased and false blanket statement (although I am sure that was your entire reason for posting this) and just tell you: It might surprise you, but this bond of humanity certainly have not been broken - even nowadays there are many (Jewish) "sabras" who have frequent meals together (and of course work, study and even serve in the IDF together) with some of their Arab neighbors (Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin).

A bit off today, eh? Never mind. You'll feel better soon. However, while I wouldn't normally bother when you stoop so low, I will answer this one. But that's your ration for today.

You make it sound like happy families having picnics together. I wasn't able to find the exact numbers of Arabs & Christians in the IDF (Druze and Bedouins are slightly more special cases), but Professor Wiki notes: "From among non-Bedouin Arab citizens, the number of volunteers for military service—some Christian Arabs and even a few Muslim Arabs—is minute." So it seems that the "many" to whom you refer only reach the level of "minute" for Professor Wiki. And I know who has the highest credibility rating between you and Wiki. Note: "Many" is not a synonym for "minute".

And you are living in some parallel - and warped - universe if you think there has been no damage or fracture to the "bond of humanity" that once existed between Jewish and Arab neighbours in what is now Israel / Palestine. A simple tip for you: Open. Your. Eyes. Over-exposure to propaganda does damage the ability to see clearly. There are many angry, grieving Palestinians as a direct result of Israel's warmongering over the years, not just from this most recent incursion. They are justly angry at seeing their houses maliciously damaged, destroyed and even looted by the IDF. Their crops and income destroyed by insane settlers who are being protected by the IDF. Knowing of their children and family members in the UN's safe havens being killed by Israeli missiles, artillery and fletchette bombs. Watching their land being illegally appropriated for right-wing god-crazy settlers. Suffering egregious humiliations at the hands of the IDF and other Israeli institutions. And you suggest that they all get along just fine!

Well, exactly as I wrote - that was your entire reason for posting this: you had to start/hijack-and-switch-the-thread-to your usual anti-Israeli rant somehow, some time....

I don't make anything sound like anything, you twist and interpret my words again, as usual.

You were talking about Arabs and I was referring to exactly that - Arabs (which is a combination of Druze, Bedouins, Christians AND Muslims & a few other minorities) but you are now suddenly referring only to Muslims.

Funny that you are distinguishing between Arabs & Christians when they are the same thing in this context (Again there are Muslim, Christian, Bedouin and Druze Arabs), shows a lot of ignorance, again. Not that anyone needed any more evidence of it.

Go read that in your Professor Wiki and get back to us later. The true knowledgeable people on these topics have real life experience with things they write, while you need your Wiki & Google to search for excuses that justify your bias. Oh, well, whatever floats your boat.

Unfortunately, you are not alone who's clearly ignorant on these topics.

Some people have the humility to not form an opinion or make posts on things they don't have full knowledge & experience of, or are partially ignorant. Some people don't.

For example: I have lived in Sydney, Australia (lovely place IMHO, great to live in an isoltaed place which has no enemies or any other neighbors surrounding you) for quite a while, yet I won't post things about your country which I am not 100% sure about and I won't try to pretend to know what I am not 100% sure about. I did notice a lot of ignorance and anti-Semitism there, more than most other places I have been to (and I am very well traveled). Just my personal feeling, nothing academic and I am never generalizing.

I also never said or suggested there is no damage, or that everything is perfect, read again. Of course there is. I also didn't suggest all get along just fine and everybody go to picnics. Maybe hatred for Israel can affect vision and/or reading comprehension when reading some posts.

Seems like your over-exposure to Palestinian propaganda does damage the ability to see clearly.

Yes, there are many angry, grieving Israelis as a direct result of Palestinians warmongering over the years, not just from the most recent attacks.

They are justly angry seeing their innocent civilians deliberately targeted & slaughtered in buses, restaurants, Olympic games, shopping malls, markets, driving the roads, sleeping in their homes, touring the world etc. etc.

Not to mention the long list of thwarted terrorist attacks (such as bombing civilian airplanes etc.).

Of course, in your and the other Israel-demonizers hate-book: Israel deserves all that and you will find some sort of justification to any historical hostility against Jews and Israelis, or blatantly ignore their suffering and all facts related to their suffering and/or rights.

Indeed, there is Palestinian suffering, as well as Israeli suffering. The reasons are not as simple or as one-sided as you keep trying to portray and while Israel does have responsibility for some issues, the Palestinians have responsibility for many others.

Any attempt to put all the blame on Israel is not only completely biased & disingenuous, but ridiculous.

Note that you keep on blaming Israel for land grab ("theft" as you like to define it), although Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza strip in 2005 and....at the same time...Ariel Sharon has removed four West Bank settlements , in what was interpreted as a possible preparation for a similar withdrawal from the West Bank.

What happened instantly? Non-stop rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians...

So you keep on only blaming Israel. Easy for you.

[Seastallion]

And you are living in some parallel - and warped - universe if you think there has been no damage or fracture to the "bond of humanity" that once existed between Jewish and Arab neighbours in what is now Israel / Palestine.

You must be talking about back in the 1800s before the Arabs attacking their Jewish neighbors on a regular basis. If they had not started the violence in the first place, they would not be in the pickle that they are in today.

If the state of Israel hadn't been created in the first place, there would be no need for Palestinians to protest with violence.

Too late. Israel demonization also kvetching about the very existence of Israel. At least that's honest. Same hateful garbage as Hamas.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Could you use English, please...it is a forum rule.

I suppose it's anti-Semitism to ask you not to use Hebrew or Yiddish whatever it is?

[Seastallion]

The State of Israel was created in 1948. The Arabs started attacking the Jews in the early 1900s. If the Arabs had tried to get along, instead of using violence, the UN might never have felt the need to create two states in the first place.

Because the Zionist movement was starting to make waves at that early stage.

If the Zionists had stayed in Europe, you and I might be sharing a beer right now because there'd be nothing to argue about.

[Seastallion]

"including creating a palistinian state;"

Where is this Palestinian state that Israel has "created"?

Many political analysts agree that Israel has not made any significant concessions toward peace since the 1990s. The last potential opportunity was in May this year with the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government. Their placatory tone was totally - and angrily - rejected by the Israeli government.

"the Israelis have had enough"

Israelis have not had enough - they want more. Land. That is central to what this is all about. Israel does not want a peace that establishes a 2 state solution. This would end the land theft that goes on daily, and is destined to continue until Israel cannot steal any more. It is so strange that the vision of some rabid Zionist colonists has set the agenda of the Israeli government for over a decade, and led to countless deaths. You would hope that a country able to produce 12 Nobel prize winners would manage its fundamentalist loonies more successfully. Most Israelis would probably trade the future colonies and settle for what is owned today to prevent the deaths of ever more IDF soldiers.

"Do you really think the arabs would show ANY restraint if roles were reversed?

Don't kid yourself, they would kill every Israeli without doubt"

In fact, there are Arabs who show remarkable restraint. Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, has long supported a 2 state solution through negotiation - and has always rejected the use of violence to achieve this.

A very Ghandi like figure. He has had many provocations, but has constantly maintained a line of a just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. When he was arrested and had his kneecap smashed by the rifle butt an over-enthusiastic IDF soldier during questioning, he did not use this to justify revenge or an aggressive stance. He recently condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on international television, just as he condemns the use of military force by Israel in Gaza.

Sure, he is in a minority in Palestine. And he will stay that way as long as Israel wants to marginalise people like him so it has a constant excuse for war and land theft. There are of course people similarly inclined toward peace in Israel - and they also are treated as pariahs by mainstream Israel.

To eventually resolve this conflict you first have to understand it. And to understand it you have to seek impartial information, and consider it fairly. Encouraging responses based in anger, frustration or vengeance rather than rational analysis will only prolong the troubles.

You make very good points; I points, I think, that go to the heart of the problem- the technical problems, that is. I am unsure that what exists could be inferred or declared a "state." A state should have unambiguous borders, self control, taxes, services, etc. A state should be sovereign. While it is substantially true that even now Israel continues to administer utilities, tax distributions, etc., this does not lend to what would be a state. The Palestinians have taken the additional step and achieved an interim state-like status, and this aids their cause internationally, It does not help locally because Israeli goals are based on local solutions that enable them to negotiate in final talks certain key issues. For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further.

Having two disparate, isolated entities, not connected by highways or land mass, defined as a "State" is finally not tenable. It is not workable for the Palestinians and in the end cuts a swath of hatred and death right through Israel proper. Israel does not want to surrender land captured in the various wars of aggression against them because they affirm, and are correct, that in the modern age they no longer have the means to protect themselves against threat with landmass providing depth. Tactically, this is a sound conclusion. Implementing this into the their final goal will be more elusive. A significant majority of the world are unaware of Israel's claim to this land, why they need/want it, only that it seems reasonable to return it to the arabs.

In my estimation Hamas is taking Israel for a ride. There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. Tactically they will win but in the long range, in the hard to measure public perception arena, Israel is handing considerable moral authority to an entity that really has none- Hamas. However, if Israel is hitting this hard it is because they have a combination of resources/intel imploring them to hit hard now, as they will need resources elsewhere soon. There is only a handful of scenarios that speak to why so much? Why now?

There are good men and women throughout the world, especially the wise of have seen war. It is them above all others who often seek earnestly to avoid conflict. In the final analysis, at the dinner table, at bedtime, most people throughout the world want to be secure, have food, worship and freely associate, be loved and loved, and avoid war. Its amazing the common bonds that are so easily bridgeable.

Personally, I see no solution that does not have other "boots" on the ground in this area. IMO this also represents a temporary solution- UN, etc. Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

Most people know, right, that Jews and Arabs are related? Maybe I just went too far but this is true. It is utterly amazing the deep physical and theological connections and still...

There's a few things I would like to address to your post. Hopefully you will respond to them honestly. (And may I say that prevarication or non-response is "honest" only in a certain light..cf your previous reticence to respond to some of my points, and cf your claim to be honest). Sorry to force the issue, but you did ask for it.

1. A state should have unambiguous borders, True! How about the (virtually) contiguous border that Israel actually accepted in 1947?

1.a. A state should have unambiguous borders. True! Does the state of Israel have unambiguous borders currently? No it doesn't, mainly because it constantly tries to expand them.

2. "For Israel, having this negotiating leverage removed, tentatively, by a supranational entity, conflicts things further. " Yes, we all know that. It is only those that can not be unbiased that resent UN "democracy" in this issue.

3. Your posts suggest a "might is right" attitude. If so, so be it. Lets look at your comment, "There is no combination of scenarios or developments, IMO, that Israel strategically winning this current mess. ". ..."Might" is not necessarily muscle; It can be moral or other advantage too.

4. " Israel will never tolerate existential threats and the local arabs will never tolerate a cohabiting Jewish pretense in the Levant. Monitors might only be a band-aid.

" . Let me suggest a correction; Zionists will never accept a perceived threat on the pretense to grab more land. I think local Arabs will accept a fair deal.

"fair deal" being the crux.

The 1947 partition plan borders were attainable only with a lot of goodwill from both sides (not to mention neighboring countries). As everyone knew the score, it was quite obvious that things would go south real quick after the map was to become a reality. I do not think that the following war came as a huge surprise to anyone (just the outcome part). Going back to the 1947 borders is not something Israelis will accept (forget governments), certainly not workable with the added weight of distrust and hatred going that far back. Most formulations for solving the conflict center on 1967 lines, which are somewhat more reasonable in terms of geography.

Israel does not constantly try to expand its borders. The borders with two of its neighbors are quite clear (Egypt and Jordan), a third is mostly so apart from a rather small area (Lebanon), and Syria - well, that's an issue for sure (but as there's no one home at Syria right now, can't solve that one anytime soon). The relevant border issues are more to do with the final formulation of an agreement with the Palestinians, then.

What reason do you have to believe that "local Arabs" (I take it those would be the Palestinians? Or perhaps just the Fatah's PA?) will accept a "fair deal"? And what would be considered a fair deal under the circumstances?

Why are the 1947 borders different to the 1967 borders which are different to the 1976 borders which are.......up to today..and in all those changes, Israel has more and more land in it's control. The next settlement it makes in the Westbank is yet another expansion. The next Arab family it kicks out of East Jerusalem and install a Jewish family in the house is another bit of expansion.

The recent thread suggesting Israel follow the Arab Peace Initiative included the plausible notion that in doing so, not only would Palestinians be satisfied, but Hamas would be undermined and lose a lot of traction. Unfortunately, it would mean Israel could no longer expand, and that is what keeps this war going, because to reach a peace, means Israel becomes a finite size. They haven't seized all the aquifers yet.

[Ulysses G.]

The State of Israel was created in 1948. The Arabs started attacking the Jews in the early 1900s. If the Arabs had tried to get along, instead of using violence, the UN might never have felt the need to create two states in the first place.

Because the Zionist movement was starting to make waves at that early stage.

ํYou mean that Jews were legally buying land that no one else wanted. Shame on them. They were just asking to be exterminated.

[coma]

Hamas breaks yet another truce. Savages.

Not true mate, not this time, according to the Israeli press of this morning the Israelis tried to

assassinate Muhammad Daff, is a marked man, he's the head of the militant arm of the Hamas, who has been

on Israel 's most wanted list for years and mange to miraculously survive 4 assignations attempt in the past,

this time also the papers that he might have survived but his wife and daughter got killed,

Woman and child murdered. Who is the savage ?

Israel are savages. Not Hamas. The casulty figures speak for themselves. Hamas kills only 3 civvies whilst Israel kills hundreds.

[Seastallion]

The State of Israel was created in 1948. The Arabs started attacking the Jews in the early 1900s. If the Arabs had tried to get along, instead of using violence, the UN might never have felt the need to create two states in the first place.

Because the Zionist movement was starting to make waves at that early stage.

ํYou mean that Jews were legally buying land that no one else wanted. Shame on them. They were just asking to be exterminated.

Yes buy why were they buying up land?

[Ulysses G.]

Hamas kills only 3 civvies whilst Israel kills hundreds.

In this one conflict in which Israel protects its civilians and Hamas uses its civilians as human shields. Go back before Iron Dome and the protective wall that keeps out suicide bombers and the casualty figures are very different. Hamas are savages, but not very effective ones any more.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes buy why were they buying up land?

To live on, improve and farm and they had every right to.