Israeli and Palestinian casualties follow further stabbings in West Bank

[Ulysses G.]

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

[Linky]

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

Whereas the israelis agreed to the borders and ignore them.

[dexterm]

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

Perhaps you could tell us exactly where Israel's borders are...they have never defined them and they keep moving. That's the crux of the whole conflct.

[thaibeachlovers]

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

LOL. You are reinventing history. Israel was given ( legal ) borders in 1948 by the UN, but the Palestinians didn't need to be given any borders, as everything outside the 1948 borders was already Palestinian ( and still is ).

The Arabs didn't agree that a bunch of aliens should be given THEIR land by some western group of politicians that actually had no right to do so, and went to war over it. The Palestinians never refused their borders as they refused to accept that there were any in the first place.

Would anyone accept that the Islamic refugees currently flooding into Europe should be given a country of their own by a grouping of Arabic states, to be taken out of Germany or France? That would be the equivalent of what happened in Palestine in 1948.

[thaibeachlovers]

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

Perhaps you could tell us exactly where Israel's borders are...they have never defined them and they keep moving. That's the crux of the whole conflct.

The actual borders were defined in 1948 and have not been changed by the UN. However, most seem to accept the limits that Israel reached at the end of the 1967 war, with the exception of the Sinai which was given back to Egypt in exchange for the peace treaty.

However, the land in the west bank is occupied territory, and does not belong to Israel, regardless of how many illegal settlements it builds. Jerusalem has never been part of Israel, as that was supposed to be under international rule.

[jacky54]

They gave back Gazza as well, and look what gratitude they got for that

[thaibeachlovers]

They gave back Gazza as well, and look what gratitude they got for that

Gaza was never theirs to give, and they didn't give it willingly. Gazan resistance made it impossible for them to stay. As for gratitude, would you be grateful to live in a ruined land that had blockaded borders? I think not.

[shirtless]

There needs to be some give and take from both parties , sadly this will never happen, alternatively they should invest in more hospitals.

[JingerBen]

They gave back Gazza as well, and look what gratitude they got for that

Gaza was never theirs to give, and they didn't give it willingly. Gazan resistance made it impossible for them to stay. As for gratitude, would you be grateful to live in a ruined land that had blockaded borders? I think not.

Very good reply.

Concise, factual, and to the point.

[Morch]

To the winners of battles go the spoils of war. I think its time for the Arabs to learn this lesson before they lose any more land to the Israelis.

Do you think the Israelis are going to stop taking Palestinian land if they accept occupation?

BTW, it's to the winner of the war that the spoils go to, and the war is ongoing. It's just a few battles that were won by the Israelis, the war is far from over. Ireland's war against the English lasted 600 years.

I guess the Israelis are going to have to realise that just occupying and harassing a population doesn't mean that they are going to lie down and take the shaft. How many years of occupation and it hasn't made Israelis safer, just more insecure.

Time to try something new, or expect more of the same for the indefinite future.

And there are many examples in history for long lasting conflicts not ending well for the occupied (or equivalent) side. Applying historical time frames of hundreds of years can sometimes make it complex to differentiate between temporary breaks in hostilities and an actual end of hostilities.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is currently hard to see the latter as a serious proposition. As long as significant parts of both parties do not truly accept compromise, or do not truly accept the other side's legitimacy, the best that can be hoped for is temporary break in hostilities. To be clear, this can be called peace, but as long as there's no fundamental change, it is not going to be another Western Europe.

The Palestinians do not need to, nor are expected, to accept the occupation. What they do need to accept (and I mean this in a true sense, not words on paper sense) that there is no going back to 1948 or pre-1948. That is the loss, or the compromise, which needs to be accepted and acknowledged, Otherwise, as long as the flame is kept alive for the break in hostilities is indeed temporary.

And the same goes for Israelis, of course. They do not need to accept the Palestinian view (and one which if often repeated on this forum) seeing them as aliens to the land. They do need to accept the Palestinian right for self-determination, and that the historical Israel of biblical times will not become a reality. Same as the Palestinians, this needs to be truly accepted for things to be over.

As the likelihood of either side having a massive change of heart can be doubted, expectations should be be scaled down accordingly. There will be no amiable coexistence in our lifetimes, even if a peace agreement was to be signed tomorrow. The best that could be hoped for is a peace agreement, which while imperfect, and falling short of ideal will prevent the two sides from poking eyes and facilitate a future in which true acceptance of each other would be possible.

[Morch]

To the winners of battles go the spoils of war. I think its time for the Arabs to learn this lesson before they lose any more land to the Israelis.

No such thing as the spoils of war in the 21st century.

Just because the bully wins, doesn't mean to say his actions are right.

If you follow the might is right argument to its logical conclusion, then all that the barbaric terrorist group IS do is justified too. We'd have anarchy. That's why we have international law.

This is the 21st century, and Israel cannot behave like Attila the Hun. Israel has signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention which states:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. [except as an absolute military necessity because they are in a war zone]...Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased."

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Article 49,paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=77068F12B8857C4DC12563CD0051BDB0

What Israel has done is unequivocally illegal, and shame on the USA for its complicity.

Actually there is quite a lot of it. Nothing to make Israel's policy a righteous one, obviously. Just an premise is incorrect.

Words on paper, even signed and ratified do not always stand up to crude reality.

It would be far easier to put it another way - compare cases in recent history where the underdog got a fair deal or won the day, with cases to the opposite. Reality is consistently not as idealistic as some would like it to pretend.

If we follow might is right argument with regard to ISIS we get a wider scale Russian-style foreign intervention. The outcome of might makes right is not necessarily anarchy, but depends on several factors. As usual, an overly simplified slogan which doesn't hold water.

We have international law in order to regulate the application of might, and in order to make it legally right. If relevant rules were truly applied to each and every instance were might was applied, Israel would be but a side note. These laws are almost never applied to countries holding true might (USA, Russia, China are the obvious examples), and rarely to all countries regularly defying these laws.

Comparing Israel with Attila the Hun would be another one of the predictable over the top nonsense often found on these topics.

As usual, you take a lot of words to say very little.....You could have just said: yes, Israel is breaking international law and is so far getting away with it.

That the underdog , the Palestinians, are not getting a fair deal is what motivates me to post my opposition to Israeli policies. I hate bullies.

As usual, you post a collection of cliches and slogans, which come down to the same thing - an opinionated stance, rejecting anything resembling understanding or compromise. Obviously, coming to terms with complex nature of reality is beyond the abilities of some, hence the need for over-simplified catchphrases.

As usual, you make an unqualified general claim, and got no intelligent answer when called out. The attempt to reiterate your usual lines, while ignoring what you actually posted is pathetically predictable.

[Seastallion]

To the winners of battles go the spoils of war. I think its time for the Arabs to learn this lesson before they lose any more land to the Israelis.

Do you think the Israelis are going to stop taking Palestinian land if they accept occupation?

BTW, it's to the winner of the war that the spoils go to, and the war is ongoing. It's just a few battles that were won by the Israelis, the war is far from over. Ireland's war against the English lasted 600 years.

I guess the Israelis are going to have to realise that just occupying and harassing a population doesn't mean that they are going to lie down and take the shaft. How many years of occupation and it hasn't made Israelis safer, just more insecure.

Time to try something new, or expect more of the same for the indefinite future.

And there are many examples in history for long lasting conflicts not ending well for the occupied (or equivalent) side. Applying historical time frames of hundreds of years can sometimes make it complex to differentiate between temporary breaks in hostilities and an actual end of hostilities.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is currently hard to see the latter as a serious proposition. As long as significant parts of both parties do not truly accept compromise, or do not truly accept the other side's legitimacy, the best that can be hoped for is temporary break in hostilities. To be clear, this can be called peace, but as long as there's no fundamental change, it is not going to be another Western Europe.

The Palestinians do not need to, nor are expected, to accept the occupation. What they do need to accept (and I mean this in a true sense, not words on paper sense) that there is no going back to 1948 or pre-1948. That is the loss, or the compromise, which needs to be accepted and acknowledged, Otherwise, as long as the flame is kept alive for the break in hostilities is indeed temporary.

And the same goes for Israelis, of course. They do not need to accept the Palestinian view (and one which if often repeated on this forum) seeing them as aliens to the land. They do need to accept the Palestinian right for self-determination, and that the historical Israel of biblical times will not become a reality. Same as the Palestinians, this needs to be truly accepted for things to be over.

As the likelihood of either side having a massive change of heart can be doubted, expectations should be be scaled down accordingly. There will be no amiable coexistence in our lifetimes, even if a peace agreement was to be signed tomorrow. The best that could be hoped for is a peace agreement, which while imperfect, and falling short of ideal will prevent the two sides from poking eyes and facilitate a future in which true acceptance of each other would be possible.

You're nearly there Morch.

I agree with much of what you say. What's missing is actually mentioned in your post, but not acknowledged as significant, and that is that the Palestinians have to accept that there is no return to the 1948 borders.

That alone is a huge concession that no Israeli apologist recognises. What you and others are in effect saying is that the Palestinians have to accept Israel's reneging on the original partition plan that they agreed to. OK. so be it. Let the 1969 borders be it.

But don't start negotiations from there. That's not fair. Start negotiations from the 1948 borders, GIVE Israel up to the 1969 borders, and then what will Israel give in return?

[Morch]

To say that these posters have hate in their hearts is an oversimplification.

It is calculated propaganda to further an agenda.

Whereas all posters proclaiming unequivocal support for the Palestinian cause or those who seemingly hold that Islam is indeed the religion of peace, exhibit nothing but righteousness, brotherly love and moderation? All those endless posts are not driven by agenda and do not include one bit of propaganda, then?

The Palestinian's aspirations to live in peace on their own land doesn't have to be supported by deceptive propaganda. It is acknowledged by countries all over the world.

Israel's relentless territorial expansion and war crimes have made it a pariah state that is starting to be boycotted academically, culturally, and economically in exactly the same way that apartheid South Africa was... and for many of the same reasons.

And how is this example of calculated propaganda aimed at furthering an agenda free of the hate attributed to other posters?

Do tell more about the Palestinian peaceful nature and what exactly they consider their own land.

Currently, meaningful boycotts and sanctions are not a reality, and Israel is far from being the pariah state some of you imagine (or wish) it to be. My guess is that most of the posters countries have full diplomatic and trade relationship with Israel. Since you tied it with the usual falling back on "apartheid South Africa", here's what De Klerk makes of it:

South African president who helped end apartheid opposes boycott of Israel

De Klerk says in Israel Radio interview that boycotts only serve to make the society being boycotted more extreme and to shut out the voices of moderates.

South Africa's last president under white rule said Sunday that he opposes sanctions or a boycott against Israel as sanctions against South Africa had only served to delay reform and hurt the black population more than they hurt the white population.

Speaking in an interview with Israel Radio, F.W. de Klerk said that sanctions "are more counterproductive than helpful to change any country on the course it is taking."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Last-South-African-president-under-white-rule-opposes-boycott-of-Israel-406672

He also rejects defining Israel's current situation as an "apartheid state", while acknowledging that not addressing issues with the Palestinians might lead there in the future.

[Jingthing]

Just another day on the forum.

The typical nauseating Israel demonization agenda applauding terrorist behavior. They go after any Jew but sometimes they make mistakes and attack Arabs as well.

As this is a continuing story, here's a good source to keep track of the the pretty much daily terrorist attacks against Jews in Israel.

https://twitter.com/IsraelHatzolah?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Morch]

Daddywarbucks

as to south Africa , post apertheid , not the best choice in the world ,it is now not exactly a shinning beacon of peace ,love and wealth is it? in fact a friend of mines Daughter has just left there because of the state of the country and the daily violence .

I Claudius,

What South Africa is today is irrelevant to the point I made. I agree that it's a mess, but that doesn't mean that the hideous apartheid regime should have been kept in power.

Not a strong enough argument to deny the Palestinian right for self-determination, for sure.

At the same time, considering the current nature of Palestinian society (while acknowledging the part Israeli occupation played in shaping it), and current trends in the Middle East, concerns regarding what will the Palestinian state be like are certainly relevant. More so with regard to its future neighbors, and I do not mean just Israel.

[Jingthing]

Exactly. It's not as if Israel and a potential future "Palestine" exist in a vacuum in the middle of the sea. They're in the Middle East. An incredibly UNSTABLE region, with Israel or without.

[Morch]

Complete and utter rubbish.

MOST of the Muslim faith do not have hate, but are just like .....I was going to say "you and me, normal people", but that would be incorrect as you do seem to have hate in your heart for an entire religion.

To say that these posters have hate in their hearts is an oversimplification.

It is calculated propaganda to further an agenda.

Whereas all posters proclaiming unequivocal support for the Palestinian cause or those who seemingly hold that Islam is indeed the religion of peace, exhibit nothing but righteousness, brotherly love and moderation? All those endless posts are not driven by agenda and do not include one bit of propaganda, then?

Don't include me in your "unequivocal support". I don't support Islamist jihadists at all. However, I do think the Palestinians should be allowed to have their own state to live in, and Israel is preventing that, therefore, they are being a bully, and I despise bullies. So when it comes to Israel vs Palestine, I support Palestine's right to exist, and Israel should return to their legal borders as defined by the 1948 UN resolution. If that is unsafe for Israel, it is their own fault for being a bully for the past many years and PO a lot of people on the planet, and certainly many countries.

I was merely commenting on the tedious painting of all posters not agreeing with one side as ______ (fill the blank). The same attitude is prevalent on almost every contested topic on this forum. Doesn't add much to discussions and tells more about those who constantly engage in such.

We have no fundamental argument regarding the Palestinians right for self-determination, even if we might disagree on certain details.

Guessing that "Islamic Jihadists" is a reference to IS, AQ or BH. Fair enough. But how is one to consider certain Palestinian organizations holding similar notions (different scope, different abilities), namely - the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Hamas (Hamas is an acronym, the full name translates "Islamic Resistance Movement") which often uses Jihad terminology in statements, and bases doctrine on religious concepts. That they do not pose much of an international threat is irrelevant to their immediate neighbors (not just Israel).

And this bit from the Palestinian constitution - "The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.".....

[Morch]

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

LOL. You are reinventing history. Israel was given ( legal ) borders in 1948 by the UN, but the Palestinians didn't need to be given any borders, as everything outside the 1948 borders was already Palestinian ( and still is ).

The Arabs didn't agree that a bunch of aliens should be given THEIR land by some western group of politicians that actually had no right to do so, and went to war over it. The Palestinians never refused their borders as they refused to accept that there were any in the first place.

Would anyone accept that the Islamic refugees currently flooding into Europe should be given a country of their own by a grouping of Arabic states, to be taken out of Germany or France? That would be the equivalent of what happened in Palestine in 1948.

Less of clear cut proposition then some make of it.

That Israel had no rights for anything beyond the lines defined by the partition of 1947 is one thing.

That Palestinian (or rather, Arab) rejection of the partition did raise a question as to the legal status.of the territory conquered by Israel, occupied by Egypt and annexed by Jordan. The Palestinians neither asserting their right or nor accepting the UN resolution effectively created a legal limbo. Things got even more complicated post 1967 and onward.

The current internationally accepted formulation treats Palestinian territory as represented by the 1967 lines. It might no be the epitome of absolute justice, but it is what it is. The main argument for it being the definition of choice is pragmatic. Harping on the 1948 lines as being the baseline for future negotiations serves no purpose for anyone wishing for a workable resolution of the conflict. The same goes for upholding the Palestinian rejection of the partition plan - it contributes nothing to finding a solution to the mess.

And no, the migrant/refugee crisis in Europe is not equivalent to the situation in 1948. Denying the Jewish people's connection to the area and the land is plain silly. Again, something which certain members seem to not realize that the Palestinians conceded (officially, at least). Similar connections do not exist between the current migrants/refugees and Europe.

As a side note, the Hamas's often touted recognition of Israel, is just another version on the same. It doesn't actually talk about Israel, just a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines, the reference to what lies beyond the 1967 lines is intentionally ambiguous.

[Morch]

They gave back Gazza as well, and look what gratitude they got for that

Gaza was never theirs to give, and they didn't give it willingly. Gazan resistance made it impossible for them to stay. As for gratitude, would you be grateful to live in a ruined land that had blockaded borders? I think not.

Correct that the Gaza Strip was not "given back", Israel simply withdrew unilaterally.

The reasons leading to this move were more complex than "Gazan resistance".

The Gaza Strip was not in ruins at the time of the Israeli withdrawal. Disconnecting both the blockade and the devastation later visited on the Gaza Strip from Hamas actions is misinformed at best.

There is hardly any goodwill or gratitude to be had between both sides, pretty irrelevant to bring it up in either direction.

The main lesson of the Israeli unilateral withdrawal is that it having an agreement and coordinated actions are much preferable to one sided moves.

[dexterm]

sorry threa full.

Morch wrote..

As usual, you post a collection of cliches and slogans, which come down to the same thing - an opinionated stance, rejecting anything resembling understanding or compromise. Obviously, coming to terms with complex nature of reality is beyond the abilities of some, hence the need for over-simplified catchphrases.

As usual, you make an unqualified general claim, and got no intelligent answer when called out. The attempt to reiterate your usual lines, while ignoring what you actually posted is pathetically predictable.

Of course I have an opinionated stance. That's why it's called a forum.

i don't see why Palestinians should compromise any more, having been ethnically cleansed twice already. But amazingly they are willing to...to accept lands swaps in return for further land stolen by Israel in the West Bank on which Zionist colonies have been built since 1967. It is the frustration among Palestinian youths that Israel is too greedy even to accept that and continues in its daily occupation and repression. Hence the OP backlash.

IMO the racist Zionist state of Israel is ultimately doomed to failure. Thanks to the internet, people worldwide (and they vote!) are nowadays far more aware of the great Israeli hoax :Israel plays the role of victim when they are in fact the aggressors. That and the natural transmigrations of peoples. Eventually Israel will peacefully disappear. The only hope they have of a few more decades of a state with a mainly Jewish character is a two state solution. And that is fast disappearing too.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. Please stay on topic.

[DaddyWarbucks]

sorry threa full.

Morch wrote..

As usual, you post a collection of cliches and slogans, which come down to the same thing - an opinionated stance, rejecting anything resembling understanding or compromise. Obviously, coming to terms with complex nature of reality is beyond the abilities of some, hence the need for over-simplified catchphrases.

As usual, you make an unqualified general claim, and got no intelligent answer when called out. The attempt to reiterate your usual lines, while ignoring what you actually posted is pathetically predictable.

Of course I have an opinionated stance. That's why it's called a forum.

i don't see why Palestinians should compromise any more, having been ethnically cleansed twice already. But amazingly they are willing to...to accept lands swaps in return for further land stolen by Israel in the West Bank on which Zionist colonies have been built since 1967. It is the frustration among Palestinian youths that Israel is too greedy even to accept that and continues in its daily occupation and repression. Hence the OP backlash.

IMO the racist Zionist state of Israel is ultimately doomed to failure. Thanks to the internet, people worldwide (and they vote!) are nowadays far more aware of the great Israeli hoax :Israel plays the role of victim when they are in fact the aggressors. That and the natural transmigrations of peoples. Eventually Israel will peacefully disappear. The only hope they have of a few more decades of a state with a mainly Jewish character is a two state solution. And that is fast disappearing too.

Allow me to disagree.

Israel will never peacefully disappear.

Once the US, UK, and Europe get tired of licking their wounds and hemorrhaging money they will get out of the Middle East.

Israel will become a Fort Apache surrounded by savages.

Whatever the eventual finale is, the last act is unlikely to be peaceful.

[Morch]

To the winners of battles go the spoils of war. I think its time for the Arabs to learn this lesson before they lose any more land to the Israelis.

Do you think the Israelis are going to stop taking Palestinian land if they accept occupation?

BTW, it's to the winner of the war that the spoils go to, and the war is ongoing. It's just a few battles that were won by the Israelis, the war is far from over. Ireland's war against the English lasted 600 years.

I guess the Israelis are going to have to realise that just occupying and harassing a population doesn't mean that they are going to lie down and take the shaft. How many years of occupation and it hasn't made Israelis safer, just more insecure.

Time to try something new, or expect more of the same for the indefinite future.

And there are many examples in history for long lasting conflicts not ending well for the occupied (or equivalent) side. Applying historical time frames of hundreds of years can sometimes make it complex to differentiate between temporary breaks in hostilities and an actual end of hostilities.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is currently hard to see the latter as a serious proposition. As long as significant parts of both parties do not truly accept compromise, or do not truly accept the other side's legitimacy, the best that can be hoped for is temporary break in hostilities. To be clear, this can be called peace, but as long as there's no fundamental change, it is not going to be another Western Europe.

The Palestinians do not need to, nor are expected, to accept the occupation. What they do need to accept (and I mean this in a true sense, not words on paper sense) that there is no going back to 1948 or pre-1948. That is the loss, or the compromise, which needs to be accepted and acknowledged, Otherwise, as long as the flame is kept alive for the break in hostilities is indeed temporary.

And the same goes for Israelis, of course. They do not need to accept the Palestinian view (and one which if often repeated on this forum) seeing them as aliens to the land. They do need to accept the Palestinian right for self-determination, and that the historical Israel of biblical times will not become a reality. Same as the Palestinians, this needs to be truly accepted for things to be over.

As the likelihood of either side having a massive change of heart can be doubted, expectations should be be scaled down accordingly. There will be no amiable coexistence in our lifetimes, even if a peace agreement was to be signed tomorrow. The best that could be hoped for is a peace agreement, which while imperfect, and falling short of ideal will prevent the two sides from poking eyes and facilitate a future in which true acceptance of each other would be possible.

You're nearly there Morch.

I agree with much of what you say. What's missing is actually mentioned in your post, but not acknowledged as significant, and that is that the Palestinians have to accept that there is no return to the 1948 borders.

That alone is a huge concession that no Israeli apologist recognises. What you and others are in effect saying is that the Palestinians have to accept Israel's reneging on the original partition plan that they agreed to. OK. so be it. Let the 1969 borders be it.

But don't start negotiations from there. That's not fair. Start negotiations from the 1948 borders, GIVE Israel up to the 1969 borders, and then what will Israel give in return?

Yes, in the real world certain actions take their toll. And as addressed in a previous posts, there are actually many instances where might shapes reality.

There is no argument that Israel did not have a right for territories beyond the partition lines. There is also nor argument that these were disregarded by all sides at the time. The following occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory by Egypt and Jordan illustrates this well. Had the losing sides been willing to accept the partition plan right after the war (even without a comprehensive peace agreement), things could have gone better for them.

Most of the acceptable formulations refer to the 1967 lines as a baseline for negotiations. Not for reasons of absolute justice, but for practical and pragmatic ones. You are taking up a hardliner position which deviates from the official Palestinian one. If the aim is to point at the situation as being unfair, well - life is not always fair. Agreed. If the goal is to reach a workable imperfect peace agreement, rather than a prefect unworkable one, then this position is not constructive.

As often stated, my own point of view is less to do with moral posturing, settling historical scores and realizing idealistic notions. More interested in applicable solutions, identifying problematic issues, and preventing poked eyes.

[Morch]

sorry threa full.

Morch wrote..

As usual, you post a collection of cliches and slogans, which come down to the same thing - an opinionated stance, rejecting anything resembling understanding or compromise. Obviously, coming to terms with complex nature of reality is beyond the abilities of some, hence the need for over-simplified catchphrases.

As usual, you make an unqualified general claim, and got no intelligent answer when called out. The attempt to reiterate your usual lines, while ignoring what you actually posted is pathetically predictable.

Of course I have an opinionated stance. That's why it's called a forum.

i don't see why Palestinians should compromise any more, having been ethnically cleansed twice already. But amazingly they are willing to...to accept lands swaps in return for further land stolen by Israel in the West Bank on which Zionist colonies have been built since 1967. It is the frustration among Palestinian youths that Israel is too greedy even to accept that and continues in its daily occupation and repression. Hence the OP backlash.

IMO the racist Zionist state of Israel is ultimately doomed to failure. Thanks to the internet, people worldwide (and they vote!) are nowadays far more aware of the great Israeli hoax :Israel plays the role of victim when they are in fact the aggressors. That and the natural transmigrations of peoples. Eventually Israel will peacefully disappear. The only hope they have of a few more decades of a state with a mainly Jewish character is a two state solution. And that is fast disappearing too.

Opinionated as in opposed to experienced. Opinionated as opposed having a more objective take on things. Opinionated as opposed pragmatic. Hope it s clearer now.

I have no idea what is specifically referred to by "compromise any more". In general, and despite previous assertions, might does dictate certain conditions with regard to negotiations. This is by no means unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it simply is how things go. The question is not whether the Palestinians should or shouldn't compromise, but more to do with what they are willing to compromise in order to achieve their goals. Outsiders taking up a hardliner stance outflanking the official Palestinian position is odd, to say the least. If the Palestinians were to adhere to the proposed hardliner stance they wouldn't have had even the limited achievements secured so far.

Your opinions of Israel are not a secret. The usual pointless collection of negative descriptions, slogans and cliches is not constructive, does not promote any goodwill or chances of dialogue, and got little to do with the Palestinian cause. Israel's prophesied (or wished for) demise in the far future, is not very relevant for the current situation of the Palestinians. Obviously, it could all be expressed in more moderate tones, but that road is seldom taken.

[Morch]

Allow me to disagree.

Israel will never peacefully disappear.

Once the US, UK, and Europe get tired of licking their wounds and hemorrhaging money they will get out of the Middle East.

Israel will become a Fort Apache surrounded by savages.

Whatever the eventual finale is, the last act is unlikely to be peaceful.

Did you just insult both Native Americans and the Palestinians by calling them savages?

The real Battle of Fort Apache went quite differently than the movie version,

[Jingthing]

And how is this example of calculated propaganda aimed at furthering an agenda free of the hate attributed to other posters?

Do tell more about the Palestinian peaceful nature and what exactly they consider their own land.

Currently, meaningful boycotts and sanctions are not a reality, and Israel is far from being the pariah state some of you imagine (or wish) it to be. My guess is that most of the posters countries have full diplomatic and trade relationship with Israel. Since you tied it with the usual falling back on "apartheid South Africa", here's what De Klerk makes of it:

South African president who helped end apartheid opposes boycott of Israel

De Klerk says in Israel Radio interview that boycotts only serve to make the society being boycotted more extreme and to shut out the voices of moderates.

South Africa's last president under white rule said Sunday that he opposes sanctions or a boycott against Israel as sanctions against South Africa had only served to delay reform and hurt the black population more than they hurt the white population.

Speaking in an interview with Israel Radio, F.W. de Klerk said that sanctions "are more counterproductive than helpful to change any country on the course it is taking."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Last-South-African-president-under-white-rule-opposes-boycott-of-Israel-406672

He also rejects defining Israel's current situation as an "apartheid state", while acknowledging that not addressing issues with the Palestinians might lead there in the future.

Yes, and never forget the REAL objective of the BDS boycott Israel movement. It's not about ending settlements. It's about ending Israel. Don't believe it? Believe it:

http://www.peacenothate.com/faces

Boycotting Israel is bigotry, plain and simple. It’s an attempt to economically strangle the only Jewish state in the world.

...

The hate behind boycotting Israel is no secret. Even the founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, admits the end goal of the BDS movement is not peace — it’s the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.

(Chopped to allow posting.)

Edited November 24, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

And how is this example of calculated propaganda aimed at furthering an agenda free of the hate attributed to other posters?

Do tell more about the Palestinian peaceful nature and what exactly they consider their own land.

Currently, meaningful boycotts and sanctions are not a reality, and Israel is far from being the pariah state some of you imagine (or wish) it to be. My guess is that most of the posters countries have full diplomatic and trade relationship with Israel. Since you tied it with the usual falling back on "apartheid South Africa", here's what De Klerk makes of it:

South African president who helped end apartheid opposes boycott of Israel

De Klerk says in Israel Radio interview that boycotts only serve to make the society being boycotted more extreme and to shut out the voices of moderates.

South Africa's last president under white rule said Sunday that he opposes sanctions or a boycott against Israel as sanctions against South Africa had only served to delay reform and hurt the black population more than they hurt the white population.

Speaking in an interview with Israel Radio, F.W. de Klerk said that sanctions "are more counterproductive than helpful to change any country on the course it is taking."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Last-South-African-president-under-white-rule-opposes-boycott-of-Israel-406672

He also rejects defining Israel's current situation as an "apartheid state", while acknowledging that not addressing issues with the Palestinians might lead there in the future.

Yes, and never forget the REAL objective of the BDS boycott Israel movement. It's not about ending settlements. It's about ending Israel. Don't believe it? Believe it:

http://www.peacenothate.com/faces

Boycotting Israel is bigotry, plain and simple. It’s an attempt to economically strangle the only Jewish state in the world.

...

The hate behind boycotting Israel is no secret. Even the founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, admits the end goal of the BDS movement is not peace — it’s the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.

(Chopped to allow posting.)

If there are those on this forum that wish for Israel to disappear, one should look no further than the occupation of Palestinian land by the state of Israel and the daily harassment of Palestinians for the reason. By the Israeli unwillingness to grant the Palestinians what they themselves desire ( a state to call their own ) they alienate reasonable people all over the world, even those that would not normally support Muslims or Arabs.

BTW, equating anti occupation sentiment to anti-Semitism is just silly. That's like saying opposing Nazism is being anti German.

[Jingthing]

I was speaking about BDS. It is not only about occupation. As anyone can discover, the leaders of BDS are against the very existence of Israel in ANY borders. Your Nazi analogy doesn't have any relevance to this discussion. I do understand that many naive supporters of the BDS movement do not fully understand the actual evil intentions of that movement but it would bode them well to learn about it. To the Israel demonization movement which embraces BDS all of Israel is "occupied" and "Free Palestine" means Jews go away or dead.

https://www.facebook.com/theisraelproject/videos/vl.342342745965916/10153611741797316/?type=1&theater

Edited November 24, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

I was speaking about BDS. It is not only about occupation. As anyone can discover, the leaders of BDS are against the very existence of Israel in ANY borders. Your Nazi analogy doesn't have any relevance to this discussion. I do understand that many naive supporters of the BDS movement do not fully understand the actual evil intentions of that movement but it would bode them well to learn about it.

The intent or otherwise of BDS is irrelevant. If it gives the ordinary westerner the ability to oppose Israel in even a small way, other than just complaining, many people will take that opportunity, as the actions of Israel have driven so many to wish to oppose them in some real way, given that the UN is powerless to do so because of the US veto. It's called "people power" and is a mighty weapon if mobilised, as was the case against apartheid.

If Israel doesn't want to be boycotted, the answer is simple- withdraw from occupied Palestinian land, stop blockading Gaza and allow the two state solution.

[Jingthing]

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Jingthing