Biden: 'Overwhelming frustration' with Israeli govt

[notmyself]

J'street are a Soros funded bunch of barely concealed BDS supporters. It won't be long before any Jew who still desires an independent Israel will feel obliged to vote Republican.

http://www.jstreetexposed.com/j-street-s-anti-israel-positions.html

The fact Biden spoke to Jstreet is hugely revealing of the current U.S stance.

38% of American Jews say Israel is sincerely pursuing a peace deal. http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/comparisons-between-jews-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

It's not Biden and J Street who are wildly out of step with American Jewish opinion. It's you.

What a crock of <word which supposedly has magical properties>

[Morch]

At last an article that hits the nail on the head. Biden is in effect frustrated that the Israeli people don't share his appetite for withdrawal from the West Bank without cast iron guarantees this will lead to a peace treaty, Gaza being a precedent.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/joe-biden-versus-israeli-people/

Why can’t J Street and the administration see what the overwhelming majority of Israelis see? Perhaps they are too blinded by political bias and by their illusions about the Palestinians. Perhaps they are also too ideologically committed to their critique of Netanyahu to be able to realize that his three consecutive election victories is the consequence of Palestinian choices — which were illustrated yesterday by a bus bombing in Jerusalem and the discovery of a new terror tunnel that reached into Israel from Gaza

The settlements red herring is disingenuous nonsense seeing as less settlement expansion has taken place under Netanyahu than under the three previous governments. Also nearly all of the settlement expansion is on land that even the US conceded should remain under Israeli control due to land swaps.

The illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank are no red herring. The amount of construction under Netanyahu is hardly the issue, but rather their ongoing existence. As far as I am aware the USA never condoned Israeli construction in the West Bank (even though such claims were raised by Israeli right wing politicians). To date, there is no agreement and no agreed upon land swaps. At best, there are areas likely to be swapped due to population considerations. Ongoing construction simply seeks to create further facts on the ground. Whether the aim is getting better negotiation results or obstructing the possibility of agreement altogether is a matter of opinion.

[Jingthing]

Yes, but I do want to add that a survey I read said that the majority of YOUNG west bank Arabs are done with the Oslo Accord and they do want a one state "solution" and that they want full Israeli citizenship. But only as a TEMPORARY transitional step (which likely wouldn't take long) which would go something like this:

Israel

Israelastine

Palestrael

Palestine

Jews chased away/murdered/special being a Jew taxes, etc. Obviously.

It's a similar agenda as now being promoted by Iranian leaders ... let the majority Arabs vote the Jews away, and if they don't agree, murder them.

So this sentiment is not about a goal of coexistence with Jews. It's a path towards the END of Israel.

It's another path with the same goals as Hamas of Gaza. In their case, their agenda is EXPLICITLY genocidal towards Jews. Less polite and much more direct (and honest) but very similar endgame GOALS.

I'm sure there are a minority of leftist Israelis that also want a one state solution as above that have unrealistic expectations that Israel could still exist in such a scenario. But, obviously, it CAN'T.

The Israel demonization agenda fails to acknowledge the many centuries long realities of the history of the Jewish people in the diaspora. A TINY global minority in the world. One Jewish majority state, and over FIFTY Muslim majority states, and the obsessive Israel haters can't stomach even that. Somehow to the haters, Jews when they are weak aren't OK, and Jews with finally a strong state are ALSO not OK. Can't win! So using your head, from the perspective of the Jewish people -- having the ONE strong state is a MUCH BETTER position to be.

The Jewish people in the diaspora -- subject to an endless cycle of persecution, exile, and genocide. The Jewish people collectively decided enough was enough, the power of a nation state with a Jewish majority was needed. That is Israel. That is Zionism. If non-Jews can't handle that, tough cookies. The Jewish people aren't going to just voluntarily give that up. So for those who actually want peace ... there needs to be DIRECT negotiations between the two sides, and no, there will NOT be a one state.

In the fullness of future history, MAYBE it will be revealed that the decision of the Jewish people to create the nation state of Israel was a mistake. Nobody knows the future. But people who can't understand the very good reasons for the creation of that state, and the need to keep it going, based on history are really not being fair.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

Yes, but I do want to add that a survey I read said that the majority of YOUNG west bank Arabs are done with the Oslo Accord and they do want a one state "solution" and that they want full Israeli citizenship. But only as a TEMPORARY transitional step (which likely wouldn't take long) which would go something like this:

Israel

Israelastine

Palestrael

Palestine

Jews chased away/murdered/special being a Jew taxes, etc. Obviously.

It's a similar agenda as now being promoted by Iranian leaders ... let the majority Arabs vote the Jews away, and if they don't agree, murder them.

So this sentiment is not about a goal of coexistence with Jews. It's a path towards the END of Israel.

It's another path with the same goals as Hamas.

I'm sure there are a minority of leftist Israelis that also want a one state solution as above that have unrealistic expectations that Israel could still exist in such a scenario. But, obviously, it CAN'T.

You have just produced a mirror image of exactly what happened to Palestinians in the Nakba.

[stillbornagain]

stillbornagain, on 20 Apr 2016 - 16:30, said:

Steely Dan, on 19 Apr 2016 - 12:34, said:

J'street are a Soros funded bunch of barely concealed BDS supporters. It won't be long before any Jew who still desires an independent Israel will feel obliged to vote Republican.

http://www.jstreetex...-positions.html

The fact Biden spoke to Jstreet is hugely revealing of the current U.S stance.

38% of American Jews say Israel is sincerely pursuing a peace deal. http://www.pewforum....el-and-the-u-s/

It's not Biden and J Street who are wildly out of step with American Jewish opinion. It's you.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your characterization? Or are intimations of bad language all you've got? Are you familiar with the concept of evidence? You know, that thing that is used to support assertions, angry or otherwise. Do you know that American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democratic? In 2012, 69 percent of American Jewish voters voted for Obama. And that despite the fact that Binyamin Netanyahu openly campaigned against him. Got any explanation for that? Or just more self-deleted expletives? Evidence, please.

Edited April 22, 2016 by stillbornagain

[Morch]

The Time Machine is fiction.

Essentially, you affirm your wish to see Israel eradicated, and a new country (which will obviously not be Israel) to take its place. You wish to see Jews in Israel (or, perhaps New Palestine) as a tiny minority, only this time without even the semblance of protection afforded by the Ottomans or the Brits. Yeah, that would work....

Guess while at it, you'd have all previous Israeli Jews denounce Zionism, sent to attitude adjustment camps or deported. Other minorities (Druze coming to mind) will have to fend for themselves.

Continuing on the same political trajectory, Israel will obviously come to a point where things with the Palestinians will need to be addressed. Right now, there are no signs of major changes in policy. It may frustrate Biden, but it is what it is. Frankly, even if such changes were to magically materialize, it is doubtful that they could be swiftly acted upon or that their application would bring about the imagined results any time soon.

Your assumptions regarding the future bargaining power and resilience of the Palestinians are based on conditions remaining similar to current ones (meaning regionally and domestically). This being the Middle East, the weight of such long term predictions with regard to anything is questionable, even if it was pronounced less biased. Nothing is more indicative of the the value of such statements than the "after decades of peace" bit.... (or assuming that the EU would be around at that time).

What JT is about is quite simple. If faced between a choice between eradication and not being an ideal democracy, Israel would go with the latter. As would most countries. Of course, no issues whatsoever with the Palestinians dreaming of enacting pretty much the same policies...

It's very handy this one fits all word "Zionist".. ..can be used to bludgeon TV members by accusing them of speaking in code, can be dismissed as rhetorical ideological categorization (whatever that is) even when crystal clearly defined by me and even the founding fathers of Zionism, and can be something warm and fuzzy yet somehow indefinable when describing a young Israeli politician.

I would suggest that you and others stop criticizing TV members for using the word, when they are willing to state exactly what they mean by it, while you cannot or will not.

I will continue to name people as Zionists as I clearly defined it: those who believe in a Jewish State and the free migration of Jews into Palestine based solely on their race/religion, while denying similar rights to Palestinians. Now if you want to hear something else, when I use the word, that's your problem not mine.

You may wish to see morality and democracy in terms of gray and concern yourself with the minutiae of day to day achievability while fence sitting, I prefer to aim for ideals. IMO you lack vision.

Interesting that you accuse me of seeing the world purely in black and white, then misquote my "after decades of peace [in a 2 state solution] the two peoples will gradually and inevitably assimilate into one country" and ramble on with extreme hyperbole about sending Zionists to attitude adjustment camps or deportation as though it were going to happen overnight in an all or nothing situation. Pure obfuscation.

If as Joe Biden points out Israel faces future difficulties in accommodating Palestinian refugees and/or losing their Jewish majority, remember: this a problem of Israel's own making. Palestinians did not invite Zionists to come to Palestine to colonize it and ethnically cleanse the resident population in order to maintain a Jewish majority. They have had a pretty good run for the last 70 years.The chickens are now coming home to roost.

Zionist, as a term, is not different than any other ideological or political definition. Meaning that it is a general concept incorporating multiple variants. Insisting otherwise is either is all very well, but even the OP indicates otherwise. Rather than cling to so-called early days definitions, and pretend that they never evolved, it would be better to explore current trends, which may prove more conductive to achieving a solution.

The only reason to persist with holding monolithic views of Zionism is that it serves to discredit anyone from the other side who does not fully conform to your radical views. Seems like the main goal is to denounce Zionism as a whole, rather than promote a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism. That this leads to prolonging the conflict and fosters hate between sides does not seem to be a concern,

Holding such a position while applauding Biden's speech is odd, considering it clearly exhibits a differentiation between various modes of ideological and political thought in Israel. This is evident from the title of the OP, the content of the speech and its closing remark on an Israeli opposition MP.

Lets take this a step further. According to you there are no meaningful variations within Zionism, it's all bad. Also, expression of support to Zionist ideas or movements is denounced. Voting would probably be counted as such an expression of support. The only political parties in Israel not holding Zionist notions represent Arab or Jewish Orthodox voter. The offshoot, most of the Israeli electorate (and especially the Jewish segment) is to be rejected and discredited. That's all very well for propaganda purposes, but not very constructive with regards to solving the conflict. Sort of like painting all the Palestinians as blood thirsty murderers.

As for having a black and white view of democracy - you seem to imply that there's a clear list of conditions defining democracy which are upheld by all countries claiming to be such and are not routinely criticized by you. well, posting this while living in Thailand is kinda rich, and does bring another prolific poster to mind.

Accusing me of a misquote while misquoting me on the very first line of your own post is also pretty routing. What I was pointing at is that envisaging "decades of peace" (not a misquote, just a partial one) does not indicate much connection with the realities of the Middle East. Furthermore, it is doubtful that such one state solution will actually peacefully mature to fulfill that rosy dream.

There is very little interest, from both sides, in your version of one state solution. Pretending otherwise is dishonesty. The Palestinians are not into united co-existence any more than the Israelis are. That does not make the demographic issues disappear, of course, but it does not spell anything benign for the future.

And still, not a word on Biden's criticism of the Palestinians, which does appear in the OP.

>>According to you there are no meaningful variations within Zionism, it's all bad.

You are misquoting or misunderstanding me.

How can I make it clear to you?

I am stating what I personally mean when I use the word Zionist to help you and others understand what it is exactly that I am criticizing to avoid confusion. It saves me repeatedly saying I object to a Jewish state and Israel's near exclusive Jewish immigration policy to maintain Jewish demographic and thus power superiority. I can use one word instead of 21. If Zionism means something else to you, fine. If it means something else to Joe Biden, fine. If it means something else to Stav Shaffier, fine.

I am not implying that my definition is the universal monolithic version.

>>The Palestinians are not into united co-existence any more than the Israelis are.

I am not familiar with any serious research on that. But I will take your word for it.

But if that is the case, as Joe Biden warns in the OP, Israel had better get its skates on to offer the Palestinians a viable just 2 state solution because the demographic problems are increasing for them, and if Netanyahu's right wing government continues the way it is, the problems are only going to get worse.

I didn't know that it was obligatory to comment on every single sentence in an OP. But perhaps it's because I disagree with Biden's criticism of the Palestinians.

I did not even quote you, less so misquote. When someone continually uses the litany of negative descriptors you normally associate with Zionism, I think "all bad" is a fair enough assessment of what is meant. Your definition precludes the possibility of dialogue between mainstream Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, this may serve well as a propaganda position, but does not strike me as a particularly constructive (or even reasonable) trade off.

Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

There is no argument that Israel's right wing politicians are burying their heads in the sand. I have commented in detail on this previously. As the OP states, Biden's criticism is leveled in that direction, whereas you take pains to conflate it with Israel and Zionism en masse.

No requirement to comment on each and every line, of course. Then again, claim that Biden's words are an exact reflection of your views is...an exaggeration.

[DeaconJohn]

The Time Machine is fiction.

Essentially, you affirm your wish to see Israel eradicated, and a new country (which will obviously not be Israel) to take its place. You wish to see Jews in Israel (or, perhaps New Palestine) as a tiny minority, only this time without even the semblance of protection afforded by the Ottomans or the Brits. Yeah, that would work....

Guess while at it, you'd have all previous Israeli Jews denounce Zionism, sent to attitude adjustment camps or deported. Other minorities (Druze coming to mind) will have to fend for themselves.

Continuing on the same political trajectory, Israel will obviously come to a point where things with the Palestinians will need to be addressed. Right now, there are no signs of major changes in policy. It may frustrate Biden, but it is what it is. Frankly, even if such changes were to magically materialize, it is doubtful that they could be swiftly acted upon or that their application would bring about the imagined results any time soon.

Your assumptions regarding the future bargaining power and resilience of the Palestinians are based on conditions remaining similar to current ones (meaning regionally and domestically). This being the Middle East, the weight of such long term predictions with regard to anything is questionable, even if it was pronounced less biased. Nothing is more indicative of the the value of such statements than the "after decades of peace" bit.... (or assuming that the EU would be around at that time).

What JT is about is quite simple. If faced between a choice between eradication and not being an ideal democracy, Israel would go with the latter. As would most countries. Of course, no issues whatsoever with the Palestinians dreaming of enacting pretty much the same policies...

It's very handy this one fits all word "Zionist".. ..can be used to bludgeon TV members by accusing them of speaking in code, can be dismissed as rhetorical ideological categorization (whatever that is) even when crystal clearly defined by me and even the founding fathers of Zionism, and can be something warm and fuzzy yet somehow indefinable when describing a young Israeli politician.

I would suggest that you and others stop criticizing TV members for using the word, when they are willing to state exactly what they mean by it, while you cannot or will not.

I will continue to name people as Zionists as I clearly defined it: those who believe in a Jewish State and the free migration of Jews into Palestine based solely on their race/religion, while denying similar rights to Palestinians. Now if you want to hear something else, when I use the word, that's your problem not mine.

You may wish to see morality and democracy in terms of gray and concern yourself with the minutiae of day to day achievability while fence sitting, I prefer to aim for ideals. IMO you lack vision.

Interesting that you accuse me of seeing the world purely in black and white, then misquote my "after decades of peace [in a 2 state solution] the two peoples will gradually and inevitably assimilate into one country" and ramble on with extreme hyperbole about sending Zionists to attitude adjustment camps or deportation as though it were going to happen overnight in an all or nothing situation. Pure obfuscation.

If as Joe Biden points out Israel faces future difficulties in accommodating Palestinian refugees and/or losing their Jewish majority, remember: this a problem of Israel's own making. Palestinians did not invite Zionists to come to Palestine to colonize it and ethnically cleanse the resident population in order to maintain a Jewish majority. They have had a pretty good run for the last 70 years.The chickens are now coming home to roost.

Zionist, as a term, is not different than any other ideological or political definition. Meaning that it is a general concept incorporating multiple variants. Insisting otherwise is either is all very well, but even the OP indicates otherwise. Rather than cling to so-called early days definitions, and pretend that they never evolved, it would be better to explore current trends, which may prove more conductive to achieving a solution.

The only reason to persist with holding monolithic views of Zionism is that it serves to discredit anyone from the other side who does not fully conform to your radical views. Seems like the main goal is to denounce Zionism as a whole, rather than promote a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism. That this leads to prolonging the conflict and fosters hate between sides does not seem to be a concern,

Holding such a position while applauding Biden's speech is odd, considering it clearly exhibits a differentiation between various modes of ideological and political thought in Israel. This is evident from the title of the OP, the content of the speech and its closing remark on an Israeli opposition MP.

Lets take this a step further. According to you there are no meaningful variations within Zionism, it's all bad. Also, expression of support to Zionist ideas or movements is denounced. Voting would probably be counted as such an expression of support. The only political parties in Israel not holding Zionist notions represent Arab or Jewish Orthodox voter. The offshoot, most of the Israeli electorate (and especially the Jewish segment) is to be rejected and discredited. That's all very well for propaganda purposes, but not very constructive with regards to solving the conflict. Sort of like painting all the Palestinians as blood thirsty murderers.

As for having a black and white view of democracy - you seem to imply that there's a clear list of conditions defining democracy which are upheld by all countries claiming to be such and are not routinely criticized by you. well, posting this while living in Thailand is kinda rich, and does bring another prolific poster to mind.

Accusing me of a misquote while misquoting me on the very first line of your own post is also pretty routing. What I was pointing at is that envisaging "decades of peace" (not a misquote, just a partial one) does not indicate much connection with the realities of the Middle East. Furthermore, it is doubtful that such one state solution will actually peacefully mature to fulfill that rosy dream.

There is very little interest, from both sides, in your version of one state solution. Pretending otherwise is dishonesty. The Palestinians are not into united co-existence any more than the Israelis are. That does not make the demographic issues disappear, of course, but it does not spell anything benign for the future.

And still, not a word on Biden's criticism of the Palestinians, which does appear in the OP.

It is encouraging to hear that you favor promoting a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism.

They all seem to be zealots to me. The radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron present what is certainly a candidate for being the ugliest face of Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached a point that renders the so-called Two State Solution an impossibility.

The vast majority of West Bank Palestinians now live in Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements. A network of Israeli-only access roads connecting the settlements and a system of checkpoints controlling entry and exit at the boundaries carve up the Bantustans into disconnected bits and pieces.

Biden's speech was a welcome sign of possible change. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American complicity in Israel's "solution" to the Palestinian problem is not at issue in the current presidential race. This can be seen in the obsequious speeches to the recent AIPAC conference made by all the other candidates.

Moderate versions of Zionism will only prevail after the radical Likhud Party is removed from power.

[Morch]

Yes, but I do want to add that a survey I read said that the majority of YOUNG west bank Arabs are done with the Oslo Accord and they do want a one state "solution" and that they want full Israeli citizenship. But only as a TEMPORARY transitional step (which likely wouldn't take long) which would go something like this:

Israel

Israelastine

Palestrael

Palestine

Jews chased away/murdered/special being a Jew taxes, etc. Obviously.

It's a similar agenda as now being promoted by Iranian leaders ... let the majority Arabs vote the Jews away, and if they don't agree, murder them.

So this sentiment is not about a goal of coexistence with Jews. It's a path towards the END of Israel.

It's another path with the same goals as Hamas.

I'm sure there are a minority of leftist Israelis that also want a one state solution as above that have unrealistic expectations that Israel could still exist in such a scenario. But, obviously, it CAN'T.

You have just produced a mirror image of exactly what happened to Palestinians in the Nakba.

@Jingthing

A link to such survey would be welcome. While the sentiment exists, I cannot say I'm aware of anything widespread explicitly detailing this sort of thing.

@dextrem

There was no mutual agreement back then, and no talk about one state as such. Lets dispense with the usual forays into historical revisionism.

[Jingthing]

A very reasonable request. I read it fairly recently in the Israeli media but I'm not sure I can find it. But I recall the conclusions were about the YOUNGER west bank Arabs specifically. Overwhelmingly NOT interested in a two state solution, and very understandably not believing it's going to happen anyway.

Of course they're very important as they're the future and they're also mostly the players in recent violent acting out.

As I'm sure you know already, they are overwhelmingly negative towards BOTH Abbas/Palestinian Authority and Israel.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Zionist, as a term, is not different than any other ideological or political definition. Meaning that it is a general concept incorporating multiple variants. Insisting otherwise is either is all very well, but even the OP indicates otherwise. Rather than cling to so-called early days definitions, and pretend that they never evolved, it would be better to explore current trends, which may prove more conductive to achieving a solution.

The only reason to persist with holding monolithic views of Zionism is that it serves to discredit anyone from the other side who does not fully conform to your radical views. Seems like the main goal is to denounce Zionism as a whole, rather than promote a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism. That this leads to prolonging the conflict and fosters hate between sides does not seem to be a concern,

Holding such a position while applauding Biden's speech is odd, considering it clearly exhibits a differentiation between various modes of ideological and political thought in Israel. This is evident from the title of the OP, the content of the speech and its closing remark on an Israeli opposition MP.

Lets take this a step further. According to you there are no meaningful variations within Zionism, it's all bad. Also, expression of support to Zionist ideas or movements is denounced. Voting would probably be counted as such an expression of support. The only political parties in Israel not holding Zionist notions represent Arab or Jewish Orthodox voter. The offshoot, most of the Israeli electorate (and especially the Jewish segment) is to be rejected and discredited. That's all very well for propaganda purposes, but not very constructive with regards to solving the conflict. Sort of like painting all the Palestinians as blood thirsty murderers.

As for having a black and white view of democracy - you seem to imply that there's a clear list of conditions defining democracy which are upheld by all countries claiming to be such and are not routinely criticized by you. well, posting this while living in Thailand is kinda rich, and does bring another prolific poster to mind.

Accusing me of a misquote while misquoting me on the very first line of your own post is also pretty routing. What I was pointing at is that envisaging "decades of peace" (not a misquote, just a partial one) does not indicate much connection with the realities of the Middle East. Furthermore, it is doubtful that such one state solution will actually peacefully mature to fulfill that rosy dream.

There is very little interest, from both sides, in your version of one state solution. Pretending otherwise is dishonesty. The Palestinians are not into united co-existence any more than the Israelis are. That does not make the demographic issues disappear, of course, but it does not spell anything benign for the future.

And still, not a word on Biden's criticism of the Palestinians, which does appear in the OP.

It is encouraging to hear that you favor promoting a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism.

They all seem to be zealots to me. The radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron present what is certainly a candidate for being the ugliest face of Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached a point that renders the so-called Two State Solution an impossibility.

The vast majority of West Bank Palestinians now live in Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements. A network of Israeli-only access roads connecting the settlements and a system of checkpoints controlling entry and exit at the boundaries carve up the Bantustans into disconnected bits and pieces.

Biden's speech was a welcome sign of possible change. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American complicity in Israel's "solution" to the Palestinian problem is not at issue in the current presidential race. This can be seen in the obsequious speeches to the recent AIPAC conference made by all the other candidates.

Moderate versions of Zionism will only prevail after the radical Likhud Party is removed from power.

My positions are not new and have not changed much since we last had the same exchange.

The issue is more with posters focusing on the extremists of the "opposing" side while ignoring those hanging on the edge of their "pet" side. And the same goes for the litany of woes brought up. The above is no different - there's hardly any mentions of the Palestinian's contribution to the sorry state of affairs and to the ongoing failure to sort it out.

The Likud Party is not really all that radical compared with some coalition partners. There's that difference between nationalistic ideology, and one coupled with religious zealotry. Easier to deal with the former. As for "removed from power" - no real concrete suggestions noted. Short of undemocratic interventions, which I assume most liberal posters are opposed to, the only way for moderate forces to ascend is through popular support. This is not likely to be achieved via general external pressure, vilification and violence. Them moderate forces need some incentive for voters - and they don't have much to offer under current conditions.

[DeaconJohn]

Zionist, as a term, is not different than any other ideological or political definition. Meaning that it is a general concept incorporating multiple variants. Insisting otherwise is either is all very well, but even the OP indicates otherwise. Rather than cling to so-called early days definitions, and pretend that they never evolved, it would be better to explore current trends, which may prove more conductive to achieving a solution.

The only reason to persist with holding monolithic views of Zionism is that it serves to discredit anyone from the other side who does not fully conform to your radical views. Seems like the main goal is to denounce Zionism as a whole, rather than promote a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism. That this leads to prolonging the conflict and fosters hate between sides does not seem to be a concern,

Holding such a position while applauding Biden's speech is odd, considering it clearly exhibits a differentiation between various modes of ideological and political thought in Israel. This is evident from the title of the OP, the content of the speech and its closing remark on an Israeli opposition MP.

Lets take this a step further. According to you there are no meaningful variations within Zionism, it's all bad. Also, expression of support to Zionist ideas or movements is denounced. Voting would probably be counted as such an expression of support. The only political parties in Israel not holding Zionist notions represent Arab or Jewish Orthodox voter. The offshoot, most of the Israeli electorate (and especially the Jewish segment) is to be rejected and discredited. That's all very well for propaganda purposes, but not very constructive with regards to solving the conflict. Sort of like painting all the Palestinians as blood thirsty murderers.

As for having a black and white view of democracy - you seem to imply that there's a clear list of conditions defining democracy which are upheld by all countries claiming to be such and are not routinely criticized by you. well, posting this while living in Thailand is kinda rich, and does bring another prolific poster to mind.

Accusing me of a misquote while misquoting me on the very first line of your own post is also pretty routing. What I was pointing at is that envisaging "decades of peace" (not a misquote, just a partial one) does not indicate much connection with the realities of the Middle East. Furthermore, it is doubtful that such one state solution will actually peacefully mature to fulfill that rosy dream.

There is very little interest, from both sides, in your version of one state solution. Pretending otherwise is dishonesty. The Palestinians are not into united co-existence any more than the Israelis are. That does not make the demographic issues disappear, of course, but it does not spell anything benign for the future.

And still, not a word on Biden's criticism of the Palestinians, which does appear in the OP.

It is encouraging to hear that you favor promoting a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism.

They all seem to be zealots to me. The radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron present what is certainly a candidate for being the ugliest face of Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached a point that renders the so-called Two State Solution an impossibility.

The vast majority of West Bank Palestinians now live in Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements. A network of Israeli-only access roads connecting the settlements and a system of checkpoints controlling entry and exit at the boundaries carve up the Bantustans into disconnected bits and pieces.

Biden's speech was a welcome sign of possible change. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American complicity in Israel's "solution" to the Palestinian problem is not at issue in the current presidential race. This can be seen in the obsequious speeches to the recent AIPAC conference made by all the other candidates.

Moderate versions of Zionism will only prevail after the radical Likhud Party is removed from power.

My positions are not new and have not changed much since we last had the same exchange.

The issue is more with posters focusing on the extremists of the "opposing" side while ignoring those hanging on the edge of their "pet" side. And the same goes for the litany of woes brought up. The above is no different - there's hardly any mentions of the Palestinian's contribution to the sorry state of affairs and to the ongoing failure to sort it out.

The Likud Party is not really all that radical compared with some coalition partners. There's that difference between nationalistic ideology, and one coupled with religious zealotry. Easier to deal with the former. As for "removed from power" - no real concrete suggestions noted. Short of undemocratic interventions, which I assume most liberal posters are opposed to, the only way for moderate forces to ascend is through popular support. This is not likely to be achieved via general external pressure, vilification and violence. Them moderate forces need some incentive for voters - and they don't have much to offer under current conditions.

I disagree with your last two sentences.

A comprehensive economic, academic, and cultural boycott of Israel would bring changes. Exactly what changes remain to be seen, but as the situation stands now, things couldn't be much worse for the Palestinians and the moderate Israelis who want to see their country join the civilized world.

[Morch]

Zionist, as a term, is not different than any other ideological or political definition. Meaning that it is a general concept incorporating multiple variants. Insisting otherwise is either is all very well, but even the OP indicates otherwise. Rather than cling to so-called early days definitions, and pretend that they never evolved, it would be better to explore current trends, which may prove more conductive to achieving a solution.

The only reason to persist with holding monolithic views of Zionism is that it serves to discredit anyone from the other side who does not fully conform to your radical views. Seems like the main goal is to denounce Zionism as a whole, rather than promote a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism. That this leads to prolonging the conflict and fosters hate between sides does not seem to be a concern,

Holding such a position while applauding Biden's speech is odd, considering it clearly exhibits a differentiation between various modes of ideological and political thought in Israel. This is evident from the title of the OP, the content of the speech and its closing remark on an Israeli opposition MP.

Lets take this a step further. According to you there are no meaningful variations within Zionism, it's all bad. Also, expression of support to Zionist ideas or movements is denounced. Voting would probably be counted as such an expression of support. The only political parties in Israel not holding Zionist notions represent Arab or Jewish Orthodox voter. The offshoot, most of the Israeli electorate (and especially the Jewish segment) is to be rejected and discredited. That's all very well for propaganda purposes, but not very constructive with regards to solving the conflict. Sort of like painting all the Palestinians as blood thirsty murderers.

As for having a black and white view of democracy - you seem to imply that there's a clear list of conditions defining democracy which are upheld by all countries claiming to be such and are not routinely criticized by you. well, posting this while living in Thailand is kinda rich, and does bring another prolific poster to mind.

Accusing me of a misquote while misquoting me on the very first line of your own post is also pretty routing. What I was pointing at is that envisaging "decades of peace" (not a misquote, just a partial one) does not indicate much connection with the realities of the Middle East. Furthermore, it is doubtful that such one state solution will actually peacefully mature to fulfill that rosy dream.

There is very little interest, from both sides, in your version of one state solution. Pretending otherwise is dishonesty. The Palestinians are not into united co-existence any more than the Israelis are. That does not make the demographic issues disappear, of course, but it does not spell anything benign for the future.

And still, not a word on Biden's criticism of the Palestinians, which does appear in the OP.

It is encouraging to hear that you favor promoting a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism.

They all seem to be zealots to me. The radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron present what is certainly a candidate for being the ugliest face of Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached a point that renders the so-called Two State Solution an impossibility.

The vast majority of West Bank Palestinians now live in Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements. A network of Israeli-only access roads connecting the settlements and a system of checkpoints controlling entry and exit at the boundaries carve up the Bantustans into disconnected bits and pieces.

Biden's speech was a welcome sign of possible change. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American complicity in Israel's "solution" to the Palestinian problem is not at issue in the current presidential race. This can be seen in the obsequious speeches to the recent AIPAC conference made by all the other candidates.

Moderate versions of Zionism will only prevail after the radical Likhud Party is removed from power.

My positions are not new and have not changed much since we last had the same exchange.

The issue is more with posters focusing on the extremists of the "opposing" side while ignoring those hanging on the edge of their "pet" side. And the same goes for the litany of woes brought up. The above is no different - there's hardly any mentions of the Palestinian's contribution to the sorry state of affairs and to the ongoing failure to sort it out.

The Likud Party is not really all that radical compared with some coalition partners. There's that difference between nationalistic ideology, and one coupled with religious zealotry. Easier to deal with the former. As for "removed from power" - no real concrete suggestions noted. Short of undemocratic interventions, which I assume most liberal posters are opposed to, the only way for moderate forces to ascend is through popular support. This is not likely to be achieved via general external pressure, vilification and violence. Them moderate forces need some incentive for voters - and they don't have much to offer under current conditions.

I disagree with your last two sentences.

A comprehensive economic, academic, and cultural boycott of Israel would bring changes. Exactly what changes remain to be seen, but as the situation stands now, things couldn't be much worse for the Palestinians and the moderate Israelis who want to see their country join the civilized world.

So yet another generic BDS post. How trivial.

Traditionally, external pressure serves to bolster popular support for the right wing (or whomever is taking up a defiant position). If one was aiming at getting the current situation worse, this would be one sure way to get there. Claiming that is as bad as it can be is simply another attempt at demonizing Israel. Have a look around the Middle East to get a clue how bad things can get.

The whole lets-make-things-worse-in-order-for-them-to-get-better approach usually ignores the price which will be paid by others. And if it fails...oh well?

There ought to be more creative ways of encouraging moderate forces on both sides (yeah...lack of that among the Palestinians as well, which is rarely addressed). More carrots, perhaps.

[Jingthing]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

[DeaconJohn]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

That's just demonization of an organization that has never carried out a violent act nor advocated one.

The illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs are what provoke the bloodshed - not BDS.

[Jingthing]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

That's just demonization of an organization that has never carried out a violent act nor advocated one.

The illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs are what provoke the bloodshed - not BDS.

Not going to argue with you about this. Numerous people have posted very strong evidence about the intentions of BDS leadership (ENDING Israel) and also their close linkage to Jew hatred as well. You're obviously a true believer in Israel demonization ... so a waste of time replaying that evidence. Especially here and this is too off topic. If you're really interested, look it up.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[stevenl]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

That's just demonization of an organization that has never carried out a violent act nor advocated one.

The illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs are what provoke the bloodshed - not BDS.

Not going to argue with you about this. Numerous people have posted very strong evidence about the intentions of BDS leadership (ENDING Israel) and also their close linkage to Jew hatred as well. You're obviously a true believer in Israel demonization ... so a waste of time replaying that evidence. Especially here and this is too off topic. If you're really interested, look it up.

Opinions have been posted, evidence not yet. But I'm sure you can help us out here.

[johnatong]

The only voiced "ambition" of the rabid,fanatical Palestinian "leadership" is to achieve the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews.

It is not possible to negotiate with these Terrorists. The only means of control is, as Israel has learnt, containment and measured retaliation to terrorist attacks.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

The only voiced "ambition" of the rabid,fanatical Palestinian "leadership" is to achieve the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews.

It is not possible to negotiate with these Terrorists. The only means of control is, as Israel has learnt, containment and measured retaliation to terrorist attacks.

At least a true troll is here.

"measured retaliation"..what a joke

You forgot to mention : let's grab all their land and kill them all

Edited April 22, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[stillbornagain]

I disagree with your last two sentences.

It is encouraging to hear that you favor promoting a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism.

They all seem to be zealots to me. The radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron present what is certainly a candidate for being the ugliest face of Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached a point that renders the so-called Two State Solution an impossibility.

The vast majority of West Bank Palestinians now live in Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements. A network of Israeli-only access roads connecting the settlements and a system of checkpoints controlling entry and exit at the boundaries carve up the Bantustans into disconnected bits and pieces.

Biden's speech was a welcome sign of possible change. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American complicity in Israel's "solution" to the Palestinian problem is not at issue in the current presidential race. This can be seen in the obsequious speeches to the recent AIPAC conference made by all the other candidates.

Moderate versions of Zionism will only prevail after the radical Likhud Party is removed from power.

My positions are not new and have not changed much since we last had the same exchange.

The issue is more with posters focusing on the extremists of the "opposing" side while ignoring those hanging on the edge of their "pet" side. And the same goes for the litany of woes brought up. The above is no different - there's hardly any mentions of the Palestinian's contribution to the sorry state of affairs and to the ongoing failure to sort it out.

The Likud Party is not really all that radical compared with some coalition partners. There's that difference between nationalistic ideology, and one coupled with religious zealotry. Easier to deal with the former. As for "removed from power" - no real concrete suggestions noted. Short of undemocratic interventions, which I assume most liberal posters are opposed to, the only way for moderate forces to ascend is through popular support. This is not likely to be achieved via general external pressure, vilification and violence. Them moderate forces need some incentive for voters - and they don't have much to offer under current conditions.

A comprehensive economic, academic, and cultural boycott of Israel would bring changes. Exactly what changes remain to be seen, but as the situation stands now, things couldn't be much worse for the Palestinians and the moderate Israelis who want to see their country join the civilized world.

So yet another generic BDS post. How trivial.

Traditionally, external pressure serves to bolster popular support for the right wing (or whomever is taking up a defiant position). If one was aiming at getting the current situation worse, this would be one sure way to get there. Claiming that is as bad as it can be is simply another attempt at demonizing Israel. Have a look around the Middle East to get a clue how bad things can get.

The whole lets-make-things-worse-in-order-for-them-to-get-better approach usually ignores the price which will be paid by others. And if it fails...oh well?

There ought to be more creative ways of encouraging moderate forces on both sides (yeah...lack of that among the Palestinians as well, which is rarely addressed). More carrots, perhaps.

There's a problem with the use of the word "moderate". Does it mean the current averaged Israeli opinion or are you referring to some unchanging standard? If you mean average, here's an interesting datum. In a recent Pew poll, 48% of Jewish Israelis supported expelling the Arabs from Israel. 46% oppose it. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/09/among-israeli-arabs-and-jews-limited-optimism-about-a-two-state-solution/

[Morch]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

That's just demonization of an organization that has never carried out a violent act nor advocated one.

The illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs are what provoke the bloodshed - not BDS.

Not going to argue with you about this. Numerous people have posted very strong evidence about the intentions of BDS leadership (ENDING Israel) and also their close linkage to Jew hatred as well. You're obviously a true believer in Israel demonization ... so a waste of time replaying that evidence. Especially here and this is too off topic. If you're really interested, look it up.

Opinions have been posted, evidence not yet. But I'm sure you can help us out here.

Are you seriously claiming that the BDS movement have no connection whatsoever with such notions?

Links to statements and opinions of various BDS leaders indicating support for such WERE posted in the past.

It is, of course, possible to claim that they do not represent the BDS movement, but then the BDS movement does not exactly do its best to distance itself from such views. There are quite a few BDS leaders and supporters which are also active in other, more direct action oriented organizations.

[johnatong]

The only voiced "ambition" of the rabid,fanatical Palestinian "leadership" is to achieve the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews.

It is not possible to negotiate with these Terrorists. The only means of control is, as Israel has learnt, containment and measured retaliation to terrorist attacks.

At least a true troll is here.

"measured retaliation"..what a joke

You forgot to mention : let's grab all their land and kill them all

Perhaps you can list the objectives of the Terrorists?

Where on the list is "cease our terrorist activity and live in peace with our neigbour" ?

[Morch]

The only voiced "ambition" of the rabid,fanatical Palestinian "leadership" is to achieve the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews.

It is not possible to negotiate with these Terrorists. The only means of control is, as Israel has learnt, containment and measured retaliation to terrorist attacks.

At least a true troll is here.

"measured retaliation"..what a joke

You forgot to mention : let's grab all their land and kill them all

@johnatong

There is a rather solid cooperation between the IDF and the Palestinian Security forces. Israeli governments (including the current one) held (indirect) negotiations even with the Hamas.

@GeorgesAbitbol

More like Troll vs. Troll considering the often claimed "time is on the Palestinian's side".

[stevenl]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

That's just demonization of an organization that has never carried out a violent act nor advocated one.

The illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs are what provoke the bloodshed - not BDS.

Not going to argue with you about this. Numerous people have posted very strong evidence about the intentions of BDS leadership (ENDING Israel) and also their close linkage to Jew hatred as well. You're obviously a true believer in Israel demonization ... so a waste of time replaying that evidence. Especially here and this is too off topic. If you're really interested, look it up.

Opinions have been posted, evidence not yet. But I'm sure you can help us out here.

Are you seriously claiming that the BDS movement have no connection whatsoever with such notions?

Links to statements and opinions of various BDS leaders indicating support for such WERE posted in the past.

It is, of course, possible to claim that they do not represent the BDS movement, but then the BDS movement does not exactly do its best to distance itself from such views. There are quite a few BDS leaders and supporters which are also active in other, more direct action oriented organizations.

As usual just words, no proof of the claimed connections.

[Morch]

I disagree with your last two sentences.

It is encouraging to hear that you favor promoting a compromise between Palestinian aspirations and moderate versions of Zionism.

They all seem to be zealots to me. The radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron present what is certainly a candidate for being the ugliest face of Israel's creeping annexation of the West Bank. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has reached a point that renders the so-called Two State Solution an impossibility.

The vast majority of West Bank Palestinians now live in Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements. A network of Israeli-only access roads connecting the settlements and a system of checkpoints controlling entry and exit at the boundaries carve up the Bantustans into disconnected bits and pieces.

Biden's speech was a welcome sign of possible change. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American complicity in Israel's "solution" to the Palestinian problem is not at issue in the current presidential race. This can be seen in the obsequious speeches to the recent AIPAC conference made by all the other candidates.

Moderate versions of Zionism will only prevail after the radical Likhud Party is removed from power.

My positions are not new and have not changed much since we last had the same exchange.

The issue is more with posters focusing on the extremists of the "opposing" side while ignoring those hanging on the edge of their "pet" side. And the same goes for the litany of woes brought up. The above is no different - there's hardly any mentions of the Palestinian's contribution to the sorry state of affairs and to the ongoing failure to sort it out.

The Likud Party is not really all that radical compared with some coalition partners. There's that difference between nationalistic ideology, and one coupled with religious zealotry. Easier to deal with the former. As for "removed from power" - no real concrete suggestions noted. Short of undemocratic interventions, which I assume most liberal posters are opposed to, the only way for moderate forces to ascend is through popular support. This is not likely to be achieved via general external pressure, vilification and violence. Them moderate forces need some incentive for voters - and they don't have much to offer under current conditions.

A comprehensive economic, academic, and cultural boycott of Israel would bring changes. Exactly what changes remain to be seen, but as the situation stands now, things couldn't be much worse for the Palestinians and the moderate Israelis who want to see their country join the civilized world.

So yet another generic BDS post. How trivial.

Traditionally, external pressure serves to bolster popular support for the right wing (or whomever is taking up a defiant position). If one was aiming at getting the current situation worse, this would be one sure way to get there. Claiming that is as bad as it can be is simply another attempt at demonizing Israel. Have a look around the Middle East to get a clue how bad things can get.

The whole lets-make-things-worse-in-order-for-them-to-get-better approach usually ignores the price which will be paid by others. And if it fails...oh well?

There ought to be more creative ways of encouraging moderate forces on both sides (yeah...lack of that among the Palestinians as well, which is rarely addressed). More carrots, perhaps.

There's a problem with the use of the word "moderate". Does it mean the current averaged Israeli opinion or are you referring to some unchanging standard? If you mean average, here's an interesting datum. In a recent Pew poll, 48% of Jewish Israelis supported expelling the Arabs from Israel. 46% oppose it. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/09/among-israeli-arabs-and-jews-limited-optimism-about-a-two-state-solution/

That's the empty half of the glass, I'm referring to the full. For various reasons, some to do with the Palestinians and some domestic, there is no pro-peace majority in Israel, while right wing and religious forces are on the rise. My point was that conditions do not exactly play in favor of moderate factions and that the Palestinian's actions coupled with attitudes as in the post above make things even harder.

As mentioned, similar (and worse) figures apply to the Palestinian side when it comes to attitudes toward Israelis.

[Morch]

Not to mention the core leadership of the BDS movement has intentions to work towards the end of Israel. That is not a peace movement.

That's just demonization of an organization that has never carried out a violent act nor advocated one.

The illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs are what provoke the bloodshed - not BDS.

Not going to argue with you about this. Numerous people have posted very strong evidence about the intentions of BDS leadership (ENDING Israel) and also their close linkage to Jew hatred as well. You're obviously a true believer in Israel demonization ... so a waste of time replaying that evidence. Especially here and this is too off topic. If you're really interested, look it up.

Opinions have been posted, evidence not yet. But I'm sure you can help us out here.

Are you seriously claiming that the BDS movement have no connection whatsoever with such notions?

Links to statements and opinions of various BDS leaders indicating support for such WERE posted in the past.

It is, of course, possible to claim that they do not represent the BDS movement, but then the BDS movement does not exactly do its best to distance itself from such views. There are quite a few BDS leaders and supporters which are also active in other, more direct action oriented organizations.

As usual just words, no proof of the claimed connections.

As usual, ignoring previous topics and posts, like this haven't been re-hashed over and over. Get yourself a secretary.

[Thorgal]

At last an article that hits the nail on the head. Biden is in effect frustrated that the Israeli people don't share his appetite for withdrawal from the West Bank without cast iron guarantees this will lead to a peace treaty, Gaza being a precedent.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/joe-biden-versus-israeli-people/

Why can’t J Street and the administration see what the overwhelming majority of Israelis see? Perhaps they are too blinded by political bias and by their illusions about the Palestinians. Perhaps they are also too ideologically committed to their critique of Netanyahu to be able to realize that his three consecutive election victories is the consequence of Palestinian choices — which were illustrated yesterday by a bus bombing in Jerusalem and the discovery of a new terror tunnel that reached into Israel from Gaza

The settlements red herring is disingenuous nonsense seeing as less settlement expansion has taken place under Netanyahu than under the three previous governments. Also nearly all of the settlement expansion is on land that even the US conceded should remain under Israeli control due to land swaps.

The illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank are no red herring. The amount of construction under Netanyahu is hardly the issue, but rather their ongoing existence. As far as I am aware the USA never condoned Israeli construction in the West Bank (even though such claims were raised by Israeli right wing politicians). To date, there is no agreement and no agreed upon land swaps. At best, there are areas likely to be swapped due to population considerations. Ongoing construction simply seeks to create further facts on the ground. Whether the aim is getting better negotiation results or obstructing the possibility of agreement altogether is a matter of opinion.

Do you expect that Biden will defend the Palestinian cause with criticism to latest developments of new illegal Israeli settlements ?

You underestimate the public awareness...

http://investmentwatchblog.com/joe-biden-i-am-a-zionist-you-dont-have-to-a-jew-to-be-a-zionist/

Edited April 22, 2016 by Thorgal

[Morch]

@Thorgal

How does "expect" come into this?

Seems like you're a bit confused: I'm not holding the position that Zionist = absolute support of anything Israel does.

[up-country_sinclair]

Of course the current administration (and many career professionals within the government) are frustrated with Israel.

Despite more than $3,000,000,000 in annual aid and allowing Israel to hide behind the US's skirt at the UN,

They continue with the illegal land grabs which make stability an impossibility

Their Prime Minister attempted to intervene in US policy (this won't soon be forgotten)

High ranking Israel officials insulted the US Secretary of State (and I can assure this will also be remembered).

The severe displeasure with this behavior is found on both sides of the aisle, and more importantly among non-partisans.

This administration is speaking openly about the frustration and this would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. Americans are starting to realize that the tail has been wagging the dog for too long and it's time for that to end.

And yeah, yeah, we've heard all the spin about how the 3 Billion in aid goes to US defense firms. OK, fine. Let's provide that 3 Billion to Turkey, Taiwan, S. Korea or any other nations who don't repeatedly bite the hand that feed it.

[Jingthing]

@Thorgal

How does "expect" come into this?

Seems like you're a bit confused: I'm not holding the position that Zionist = absolute support of anything Israel does.

Of course. The typical conflation of being supportive of Israel's existence and agreement with every Israeli government policy -- past, present, and future.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

The only voiced "ambition" of the rabid,fanatical Palestinian "leadership" is to achieve the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews.

It is not possible to negotiate with these Terrorists. The only means of control is, as Israel has learnt, containment and measured retaliation to terrorist attacks.

At least a true troll is here.

"measured retaliation"..what a joke

You forgot to mention : let's grab all their land and kill them all

Perhaps you can list the objectives of the Terrorists?

Where on the list is "cease our terrorist activity and live in peace with our neigbour" ?

My neighbor doesn t invade my living room and tell me it is his property from now.

My neighbor doesn t steal my water, ny neighbor doesn t use white phosphorus on my family, my neighbor...