"Indeed, this war in Gaza shows why their MUST be two states...because whether Hamas is eventually destroyed or demilitarized or not, there are going to be hostile factions on both sides, and the one thing both parties would hate more than a two-state solution--there really is no solution that will satisfy both parties equally on all things--is a one-state solution where Jews are suddenly a minority in their own homeland and the Palestinians are more numerous but still have a lower standard of living"

I'm beginning to think you are physically incapable of reading.

You did notice I said the "one-state, two peoples" solution is even more unlikely than a two-state settlement, right? It's right there. I don't know why it's so hard for you to read.

"Israel has OFFERED two-state solutions. Multiple times."

Wrong. Israel "offered" them a Transkei type arrangement, bantustans, control of Palestine's best land, their water, continued expanded settlements, and in the latest iteration, a maximum of 5,000 refugees to return to Palestine, carefully selected by Israel. We saw what Israel had in mind, in practice with the Oslo Accords. There was no prospect of statehood there.

"It's the Palestinians who have turned them down"

Abbas offered Israel basically everything they wanted, Israel turned them down. The Palestine Papers exposes Israel for not wanting a two-state settlement. Israel can't even lie about this anymore.

"Again, that may well be unfair, but that IS the practical reality of the situation."

Do you always side with injustice just because it's "practical"?

@ Putin33: "I guess democracy doesn't work in the UK."

That's broadly accurate.

So you admit Israel offered them bad deals but you still manage to blame the Palestinians for everything. It's breathtaking really.

@Obi: "Indeed, this war in Gaza shows why their MUST be two states"

So how do you feel about Netanyahu saying that this is never an option? Not to even mention the Likud charter.

@Jamiet: "That's broadly accurate." +1

"So how do you feel about Netanyahu saying that this is never an option? Not to even mention the Likud charter."

Given that I've already stated repeatedly in this thread my disdain for the Likud party, how do you think I feel?

Frankly, Hamas is the enemy of Palestinian liberation for that reason as well--

Why do right-wing nutjobs get elected in a state but in response to an external power firing rockets at them and people therefore feeling more conservative/n want of security and less inclined to embrace diplomacy.

Hamas just sank all the Israeli moderates for the next few years, meaning Israel's parliament will get even more radicalized, meaning conditions in Gaza will get worse as Israel treats it harsher and harsher as per those right-wingers.

If not for Hamas, the Israeli Left and moderates could have a chance to take power, promising reform, and that would give the Palestinians a more amiable bargaining partner than Netanyahu will ever be.

But hey..."symbolically" firing rockets in "defiance" in such a way that leads to 1800 dead and an even tougher stance by Israel are surely worth Hamas' antics, right?

And the Palestinians already have a shitty status, Putin...

Again, they're not in a position to dictate terms for a state.

I said they had a chance at a state, not a good one.

They've lost war after war after war...it's time for them to be more realistic than Hamas with its "Take over all Israel or bust" attitude suggests.

Again, doesn't mean it's objectively "fair"...but, news flash--

Politics aren't fair, especially concerning war, especially concerning the Middle East, and especially concerning this particular instance.

Agree, except that I don't put the *cause* on the side of Palestine and the *response* on the side of Israel. That whole cause/effect ontology of this war I will never embrace, and I hope we can drop it from this discussion too. It only invites pointless historical debates about who started which is pretty damn pointless imho.

Can I adjust your statement? It now reads:

"Why do right-wing nutjobs get elected in [Israel and Palesting] but in response to an external power firing rockets at them and people therefore feeling more conservative/n want of security and less inclined to embrace diplomacy.

[Right-wing nutjobs] just sank all the [other side's] moderates for the next few years, meaning [their] parliament will get even more radicalized, meaning conditions in Gaza will get worse as Israel treats it harsher and harsher as per those right-wingers.

If not for [Right-wing nutjobs], the [other side's] Left and moderates could have a chance to take power, promising reform, and that would give [Israel/Palestine] a more amiable bargaining partner than [Right-wing nutjobs] will ever be."

"Again, doesn't mean it's objectively "fair"...but, news flash--

Politics aren't fair, especially concerning war, especially concerning the Middle East, and especially concerning this particular instance."

But what compels you to support an unfair outcome, then? You're not practical minded about virtually anything else, why so hard-headed simply when it comes to Israel?

"If not for Hamas, the Israeli Left and moderates could have a chance to take power"

Really, where were all those "leftwing/moderate" Israeli governments prior to the rise of Hamas in Gaza?

Israel has always had an excuse. If not Hamas, it'd be something else. They shoot at protesters in the West Bank. It has nothing to do with Hamas.

Obiwan, I have a question.

If some black American groups engaged in violence in the 50s/60s (which some certainly did), does/did that give the state and federal government justification to deprive them all of the right to vote? Should black Americans have simply accepted their unequal status because "politics isn't fair"?

I hope an answer is provided.

The same goes for South Africa, by the way. Black South Africans were in no position to "dictate the terms" to the Pretorian regime, but yet the Pretorian regime relinquished control. I suppose Obiwan would have been on the side of the National Party. After all, the ANC was engaged in terrorism.

"If not for Hamas, the Israeli Left and moderates could have a chance to take power"

Such bullshit. Hamas's rise to political prominence in Gaza is directly connected to the failure of the Israeli left to offer the Palestinians a reasonable settlement during the 1990s and early 2000s.

"If some black American groups engaged in violence in the 50s/60s (which some certainly did), does/did that give the state and federal government justification to deprive them all of the right to vote? Should black Americans have simply accepted their unequal status because "politics isn't fair"?"

I don't think those situations are equivalent at all...

That's not to say one is "worse" than the other, both groups are/were disenfranchised and have it bad (to put it mildly), but I think the circumstances are too different for that to be a commensurate analogy.

"Really, where were all those "leftwing/moderate" Israeli governments prior to the rise of Hamas in Gaza?"

I didn't say governments, I said they COULD have taken power had their been a lack of Hamas and a protracted period of peace from their incessant attacks...

And if there's one thing that the Israelis and Palestinians have BOTH lacked the last near-70 years, it's a prolonged period of peace.

"I suppose Obiwan would have been on the side of the National Party. After all, the ANC was engaged in terrorism."

But they did NOT aim or claim to wish to aim to exterminate every white person on the planet...

Like it or not, and whether you give a damn about Jews being threatened or not...

Jews, just to generalize, if I may? Generally, we, like most people, don't LIKE IT when someone says they want to exterminate us...and given how many people and groups have killed us by the millions in the past, we take that claim rather seriously.

But thanks for not caring at all.

So while it's all well and good for you to be flippant about it, threatening genocide against any group is wrong, and against a group that's already faced as many and as catastrophic a genocide (or, you know, genocides) as the Jews...good way to lose my sympathy, along with most people's sympathies, I might add, which is why while Israel is unpopular because of this war, so is Hamas, because civilized people just can't back a genocidal group like theirs.

Oh--and Hamas? Yeah...it's an INSULT to compare them to the ANC or MLK's Civil Rights movement...

Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela...all protested to gain their rights, NONE would have been OK with the kind of genocidal language and violent tactics of Hamas...and hey, somehow THEY were able to get rights when faced with a far stronger foe...

But, pfff...like their form of peaceful protest EVER worked, right?

Much better to rocket people, make yourself out to be a condemned terrorist group, and vow genocide, THAT'S what MLK and Gandhi woulda done, right?

No, but it's probably what Malcolm X might have suggested. And actually, Mandela was at one point down with some pretty violent tactics in the fight against apartheid.

Which is kinda the point. Not all Palestinians -- hell, not even close to most -- want protracted war with Israel or genocide against Jews, much as not all black people, not even close to most, wanted to resort to violent tactics to gain their civil rights. That hasn't spared the hundreds of dead, innocent Palestinians.

And you're right, it is an insult to compare the Palestinian situation to 1950s black America. At least in America you couldn't be indiscriminately blown up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time by the government in power.

You're reducing all Palestinian resistance to Israel as "Hamas". Not surprised, but really fatuous analysis you have here. It's insulting of you dismiss the non-violent resistance that Palestinians did engage in as worthy of comparison to other movements. The First Intifada (I know, long forgotten by now) was primarily a non-violent civil disobedience movement.

Your earlier claim that Palestinians have to be "realistic" and accept what you admit to be an "unfair deal" runs completely contrary to your call for Palestinians to engage in non-violent civil protest against Israel. That smacks of naive idealism. If armed resistance won't get Israel to give them a fair deal, why would non-violence?

And the ANC most certainly did have the same kind of 'racially insensitive' songs against white rule.

But more to the point, shouldn't the ANC or black Americans have just given up and accepted the fact that "politics is unfair" and they're in no position to dictate anything?

*unworthy

"Hamas's rise to political prominence in Gaza is directly connected to the failure of the Israeli left to offer the Palestinians a reasonable settlement during the 1990s and early 2000s."

Actually, I'd argue that their rise to power has as much to do with the corruption in Fatah at the time, and the Gazans thus losing faith in that long-established party...without that, I suspect they'd have won in 2006, rather than lose credibility and create a power vacuum which, as with so many vacuums, was instead filled by the group that simply shouted the louded and most radical nonsense, rather than giving practical solutions (since, hey, 8+ years later, and aside from 3 wars with Israel in that time...Hamas has done such a great job.)

What's more, Jamiet, they did try at Camp David in 2000...

And international sources place the blame on our good friend Yasser Arafat and contention over Jerusalem because, well, it's Jerusalem.

But they did try, and that wasn't even with a truly Israeli Leftist in office--

I think it's fair to say that this generation, the one that just got Obama elected, in part, is across the world more generally liberal and Leftist than the one that came before it, and I'd argue a lot of this has to do with the rise of the Internet and the sort of culture sharing it's brought about.

My argument is thus more gradual and cummulative than cause and effect, Jamiet--

IF there had been protracted peace, then Israeli (and perhaps Palestinian) youth could have trended more liberally, and that, in turn, could have spurred on more Leftist governments, since youth blocs are more likely to vote liberal. THAT, in turn, could have allowed for Israel's parliament to grow more and more liberal, until finally there would come a point where it'd have a PM that would take both the stances that must be taken AND give the concessions that should and must be given in order to have peace.

INSTEAD, Hamas' attacks have ensured a new generation of Israelis have grown up hating Hamas, hating Gaza, and thus not at all being as inclined to peace as they might otherwise have been, because constant war has made them more radicalized, and has produced leaders that have shifted further and further to the right...and that same shift to radical conservatism is seen in Gaza as well as throughout the region overall.

Prolonged peace could have bred cooperation, but instead, we have one side vowing to exterminate all the Jews, and the other side keeping them at gunpoint for fear of being overwhelmed by the superior numbers of first the Palestinians and then any associated nations or terror groups that might want a replay of 1947.

"I didn't say governments, I said they COULD have taken power had their been a lack of Hamas and a protracted period of peace from their incessant attacks..."

What evidence do you have to support this? Hamas has only been around since the late 80s. Israel had 20 years to occupy the territories before Hamas was ever relevant. Hamas is just the most recent excuse.

"What's more, Jamiet, they did try at Camp David in 2000..."

That narrative of Camp David has been widely debunked. Israel wanted control of 80% of the West Bank including the Jordan Valley, divided into four cantons each separated by territory controlled by Israel, 1/3 of East Jerusalem, and even demanded that Palestine assent to the construction of a synagogue on the al Haram al Sharif. They made no offer regarding Gaza.

What I was about to say-

Thanks Putin

"You're reducing all Palestinian resistance to Israel as "Hamas"."

I've been SPECIFIC about discussing things in terms of Gaza, Putin, that's not true.

"No, but it's probably what Malcolm X might have suggested."

Yes, but it's MLK who deserves the greater share of credit for the Civil Rights victory.

"Not all Palestinians -- hell, not even close to most -- want protracted war with Israel or genocide against Jews, much as not all black people, not even close to most, wanted to resort to violent tactics to gain their civil rights. That hasn't spared the hundreds of dead, innocent Palestinians."

Which is why:

1. I sympathize with the Palestinians, but NOT with Hamas, and am therefore specific when saying I condemn Hamas and NOT that I condemn the Palestinians at large, and

2. That's also why I'm saying that this radicalization and violence isn't healthy and isn't effective...you yourself said it, most Palestinians don't want that, they KNOW they'll be on the losing side of violence--so why give any support to a violent group? As trendmote showed earlier, you can oppose Israel without supporting Hamas' dealings in the slightest, and that's a position I can in turn be far more sympathetic towards.

3. You're right, the fighting hasn't spared those Palestinians...so, again, why are we making excuses for the Malcolm X way of doing things when clearly that's not working and the MLK/Gandhi way is clearly the way to go, especially when you're this badly outnumbered and outgunned and any violence means skewered death tolls like this?

4. The MLK/Gandhi way is effective...it'd be even more effective in the age of social media...and that's what I think Gazans should embrace, and NOT Hamas. I'm not a Mandela expert, so I'll defer to you there...but I AM pretty sure that neither he nor MLK nor Gandhi ever made a vow to commit genocide against another race.

Because what MLK and Gandhi both knew, and what helped in large part contribute to MLK's success in particular, was the idea that peaceful protests could, over time, not just be effective, but convert people to their way of thinking, and win the mainstream popular support necessary for REAL reform, the kind the Kennedys got going on and LBJ signed into law with the Civil Rights Act.

IF MLK had vowed to exterminate all whites, do you really think he could've won over not one but two white Presidents? (I oversimplify a bit, since he had complex relations with JFK and LBJ, but for simplicity's sake I think that works, the point being that he had to win over the white mainstream and white government officials for real reform to take place...and how will ANY Israeli be won over by Hamas' actions, when Israeli movement and a shift in Israeli policy is what's needed most on their end? Again, we need less of the Malcolm X Hamas and more of an MLK type, and that can't happen so long as the former promises to commit genocide.)

"What evidence do you have to support this? Hamas has only been around since the late 80s. Israel had 20 years to occupy the territories before Hamas was ever relevant. Hamas is just the most recent excuse."

I'm trying to remain relatively current with this, Putin...Hamas is the force that's been current and relevant for two generations now in Gaza...

If we're going to go back further, then frankly, what's to stop us from going back to 1947 and the Palestinians turning down the two-state solution proposed by the UN, fighting a war with Jews because they wanted all the land and then losing?

Unless you really want to go over every year of this war, I think sticking to the late 1980s and the last 25 years or so is fair, as that's a whole generation or two of leaders.

LOL, you can't sit here and tell Palestinians to accept an unfair deal, because "politics is unfair" and basically taunt the Palestinians about their lack of power, while extolling the virtues of non-violent civil disobedience to get anything accomplished. The Palestinians tried the "MLK/Gandhi way". Read about the First Intifada.

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Revolution-Palestinian-Nonviolent-Resistance/dp/B0035G035I

And I again said that they made an offer in 2000--

I didn't say it was a fair one. I've said repeatedly...

Israel has the leverage...and any deal is going to reflect that fact, as Israel, with its stronger economy and even stronger military, is in the position to dictate terms to the Palestinians, and not so much he other way around.

That's not fair, but that's the practical truth--and will remain so as long as Israel remains the more dominant of the two, which is a near certainty.

No, you can't do that. You can't make claims that Israel would be nice and cuddly if only big bad Hamas wasn't around, while ignoring the history of Israel not doing anything of the sort before they had the whipping boy of Hamas to blame for everything.

Provide *evidence* that Israel would be more accommodating if only Hamas wasn't around.

"Israel has the leverage...and any deal is going to reflect that fact, as Israel, with its stronger economy and even stronger military, is in the position to dictate terms to the Palestinians, and not so much he other way around.

That's not fair, but that's the practical truth--and will remain so as long as Israel remains the more dominant of the two, which is a near certainty."

Then why do you sit here and claim non-violence will get Israel to do anything while making excuses for the fact that Israel never bothers to give a fair deal?

"LOL, you can't sit here and tell Palestinians to accept an unfair deal, because "politics is unfair" and basically taunt the Palestinians about their lack of power, while extolling the virtues of non-violent civil disobedience to get anything accomplished. The Palestinians tried the "MLK/Gandhi way". Read about the First Intifada."

Politics IS unfair...and yet, in the midst of that unfairness, MLK and Gandhi still did it.

Yeah, I know about the First Intifada, thanks...

But since we've just had 3 wars in 8 years...maybe we could try the peaceful protest thing again, especially since, you know, the wars did nothing but hurt Palestinians, and in the age of social media, peaceful protests HAVE seen revolutions occur in the Middle East?