An Israeli Defense Force blog from January 2012. Not outdated at all. And known for factual accuracy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10091629/Iran-cuts-Hamas-funding-over-Syria.html

Oh and

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0409/Iran-s-axis-of-resistance-loses-its-Palestinian-arm-to-Syrian-war

Maniac: I believe that an earlier post of mine reflected similar views to yours. An armed conflict is unwinnable. Unfortunately, I believe it will take decades for the two sides to find common ground and form an agreement. Reason being the perception of each side of the other. Only through education can things change, and unfortunately that takes a loooong time. In Ireland it took more than a century, South Africa has oppressed its native population since the arrival of the Europeans, and so on.

Regarding the solution itself, I can't see it coming soon since the Palestinian ethos requires granting a general right of return to all refugees from '48, meaning the virtual annihilation of Israel as it is today, something our gov't cannot possibly agree to. The Palestinian public will accept nothing less. This has been their demand from day 1 of the talks, and it isn't likely to change. Again, I believe that an understanding of the infeasibility of such a demand is a slow process, since it requires a shift in the perception of an entire nation.
All this refers to the PA. Hamas's stated goal is a Palestinian state on all parts of pre-48 Palestine. They are unwilling to recognize us or have any dialog. This can and will change, but it will take a long time and must be built from the ground up.

putin, you quoted the christian monicker,Whatever the fuck that is, and the telegraph, which said, if you just read the first sentence, they cut 15 million from hamas and cut them out all together

"They are unwilling to recognize us or have any dialog. "

Sorry but this gripe only has merit (even if it weren't completely false, which it is) if Israel were willing to recognize them or have dialogue.

" Palestinian ethos requires granting a general right of return to all refugees from '48, meaning the virtual annihilation of Israel as it is today, something our gov't cannot possibly agree to"

You know very well that the stated PA position is to settle the refugee question through negotiations. It's a negotiating position. To dismiss any hope at talks out of hand because of this is like the PA refusing to talk to Israel because high profile Israelis keep calling the West Bank historic Judea and Samaria.

And Abbas drew a lo of flak when he suggested that his birthplace was Israeli territory, giving up his own 'right of return'. You know very well this position is negotiable.

You consider yourself a serious person and you don't know what the Christian Science Monitor is?

i didnt say i was serious, i said you were irrelevant

"the terrorist group Hamas , which uses it own peoples as shields for their protection"
Do you think if you say something long enough it becomes true, it is seriously desperate stuff from the supporters of such barbaric acts against innocent people, absolutely disgusting

You're entirely right, Putin33. That is the PA's position. Israel is making a historic mistake to not take advantage of its current dominance and do a deal on those terms. However, H.H was talking about Hamas. And Hamas is the the PA. Hamas will settle for nothing less than the replacement of the State of Israel with an Islamic state. Maybe even THE Islamic State. I honestly don't know if they've accepted our new caliph or not. I wonder if this was a real misunderstanding on your part or an excuse to attack someone who doesn't buy into your worldview.

*Hamas is not the PA.

For all the demagogue of Hamas, offer them a real 2 state solution and they will bite your hand off. And if they didn't the would be ousted by the palestinian people fairly quickly. Their extreme rhetoric is only attractive because of the perceived lack of an alternative.

What is a real two state solution? How would it be different than what Arafat turned down in 2000? Or what Olmert offered in 2008?

maybe a solution that got rid of all the illegal settlements, returned to 1967 borders. if israel offered that, and showed real sincerity i think it would be popular.

So a real two state to you is total Israeli capitulation on the issue of land?

The solution Olmert offered was basically a return to 1967 borders with minor adjustments and land compensation for the Palestinians where necessary. This included a compromise in the temple mount, Israel's holy of holies in terms of political tension. Abbas was forced to turn it down because Olmert did not offer a return of the refugees.

This point cannot be ignored. The Palestinians are being taught that those who fled (or were driven out) in would return one day. This is as unrealistic as demanding that Jewish refugees be given the right of return to Arab states which deported them in the 50s and 60s. This pipe-dream is undermining any real chance of a solution for now.

"The solution Olmert offered was basically a return to 1967 borders with minor adjustments and land compensation for the Palestinians where necessary. "

My goodness. I mean the Palestine Papers reveal exactly what the 'solution' was. Olmert didn't even provide a map to Abbas!

Israel demanded a demilitarized Palestinian state, control over the Jordan valley, control over Palestinian borders, control over Palestinian airspace, most of the settlements in East Jerusalem, 10% of the West Bank including land that was vital for Palestinian water resources. The PA concede a whole slew of settlements but asked for the removal of others, and this was too much for the Israeli side.

As for the refugees, Israel was only going to allow 5,000 refugees carefully selected by Israel, out of a total population of millions. You want the PA to give up right to return completely, with no refugees being allowed to resettle at all.

The canard of millions overruning Israel is just that, a canard. An excuse not to negotiate in good faith.

Olmert's offer was a great plan at the worst time. Right on the cusp of the market crash. Right as Olmert's scandals were in full bloom. Right when Palestinians could hope that the as-yet-untarnished Obama could get them a better deal in few months' time. It's really too bad.

Don't let people who claim Olmert gave a good offer to Abbas and the PA was being unreasonable fool you into to thinking they care anything for peace. If they think the PA was being unreasonable on those negotiations then they're willing to say and do anything to sabotage peace.

It's strange how you argue Israel is such an obstacle to peace and yet defend the settlements, the primary reason it is hard for Israel to make peace. It really, really makes no sense.

Recent developments:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4543633,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/14/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

There are further sources if you consider these two unreliable, but it basically boils down to the same things.

Israel should get all of Jerusalem, true, but there still needs to be some territory for a Muslim Palestinian state to reasonably exist.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-proposes-israelis-hamas-cease-fire-24557638

" A senior Hamas official says the Palestinian militant group rejects an Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire with Israel.

The official, Sami Abu Zuhri, spoke moments after Israel accepted the offer on Tuesday.

Abu Zuhri told The Associated Press that "this proposal is not acceptable."

You were saying Hamas was ready for a ceasefire, Putin?

And that it was Israel who didn't want one?

Seems to be the other way to me...

http://news.yahoo.com/hamas-rejects-egypt-proposal-truce-israel-065724190.html

First, no offer was given to Hamas.

Second, as the Jpost readily admits, this is a ploy to gain Israel greater legitimacy when it launches a renewed offensive against Gaa. The siege of Gaza has not been lifted. The border crossings are still closed. The prisoners are still in prison.

Egypt, mind you, is also the same government executed hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood followers and detests Hamas because of its affiliation with the MB.

And is ABC news your go-to news source? It's the only the news channel that lied about Israeli attacks on Gaza being Palestinian attacks on Israel.

"First, no offer was given to Hamas."

...Then how do you explain the Hamas spokesperson above explicitly denying the proposal and saying it's not acceptable? Hard for them to call an offer not acceptable if said offer was never given.

And you'll notice I gave two sources, and that good-old, Far-Right rag The New York Times is corroborating the story now as well.

I'm going to assume at this point that, if I told Putin the Earth goes round the Sun, he'd find a way to argue the point...

So I'll address the rest of the anti-Israel crowd here, and ask what you make of the sources I cited and quoted, on Israel accepting the ceasefire and Hamas not doing so, describing a ceasefire (one Putin insists they're eager for) as "not acceptable."

".Then how do you explain the Hamas spokesperson above explicitly denying the proposal and saying it's not acceptable?"

You left out the part where he said no details of any offer was officially given. Convenient.

"And you'll notice I gave two sources, and that good-old, Far-Right rag The New York Times is corroborating the story now as well."

The NYT's poor reporting on Israel-Palestine is pretty legendary, especially considering its bureau chief in the region's son is a member of the IDF.

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-Record-Misreports-Conflict-Middle/dp/1844671097

Here's a book about it, if you're interested, which you're not since you're a zombie.

Trust me, Putin, if I were a zombie, I'd have staggered away long ago, in search of some real brains.