@draugnar, it is dutch, i'm from the netherlands or holland like it is called on the diplomacy-map...

Where from? Friesland?

@Putin
I'm not sure how it requires any more or less analysis than any of the other positions here. My strong dislike of both sides has been born of many years watching them make life crap for each other, as well as listening to very convincing anti-palistinian arguments from the pro-isreal lobby and some well thought out anti-isreali arguments from the pro-palistinian lobby.

The easiest road by far is to be in favour of the poor Palistinians fighting for freedom against the evil Isreali/American hordes, as this is the road that tends to attract larger numbers of the more good looking girls to its ranks :)

Putin you are a very amusing creature. Never stop posting.

When I was young & in dispute over the ownership of anything with someone else.
My parents had a very simple solution.
If we could not or would not agree to share, then the possession was taken away from us both & given to someone who would appreciate it.
Not to mention the straight to bed with no supper or goodnight kiss.

The wisdom of Solomon, I believe.

Actually, Solomon would have cut the toy into pieces so each could would have a part of a toy. :-)

Of course it works better with a baby as the real mother will beg to let the kid live where as a bunch of spiteful kids might say "Fine, cut up our toy. Can we watch?"

"My fellow leftists need to wake up on this question. It is comforting that I've mostly been debating rightwingers on this issue here."
Isreal is a far right country abusing the rights of people of a far left country. How can you support them? (I don't support them for other reasons. )

Is that what you did Draugnar? ;-)

My only qualm is the initial uprising and turn of events, and aggression towards the British. The British wanted a calm, gradual movement, whereas the Jews preferred a militant and aggressive approach. Both sides have committed numerous atrocities (Jews/Muslims). I am not taking sides, but I can only imagine what it would be like for me if my home was ripped out from under my feet, because of some supernatural belief in ownership. I would be hard pressed to accept it as providence.

I believe it was Rome that had a solution for intertribal fighting that became a problem. Start burning villeges on both sides till they both stop fighting or were no longer problem.

@Eklade

Yes, it is very tough. I mean, imagine how it was back in 70 BC when the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans (yes, this is almost 2000 years ago and the Jews already had a country called "Israel", exactly where it is located now).

My point in bringing this up is that this conflict will not be solved by "I was here first" type of argument. Hamas needs to stop attacking peaceful population and concentrate on well being of Gazans. The moment they will do it, there will be peace and prosperity. It is quite tough for the Israeli government to promote peace with Hamas. Why? I suggest you read Hamas Manifesto.

In addition, I would like to paste here the text from http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2010/12/31/gaza-youth-break-out-gybo-gazan-youths-manifesto-for-change/

It will make you realize the situation in Gaza in a much better way, and make you maybe understand what Hamas really is and why Israel fights it.

------------------------------------------

By Gaza Youth Break Out (GYBO)

December 30, 2010

Fuck Hamas. Fuck Israel. Fuck Fatah. Fuck UN. Fuck UNWRA. Fuck USA! We, the youth in Gaza, are so fed up with Israel, Hamas, the occupation, the violations of human rights and the indifference of the international community! We want to scream and break this wall of silence, injustice and indifference like the Israeli F16’s breaking the wall of sound; scream with all the power in our souls in order to release this immense frustration that consumes us because of this fucking situation we live in; we are like lice between two nails living a nightmare inside a nightmare, no room for hope, no space for freedom. We are sick of being caught in this political struggle; sick of coal dark nights with airplanes circling above our homes; sick of innocent farmers getting shot in the buffer zone because they are taking care of their lands; sick of bearded guys walking around with their guns abusing their power, beating up or incarcerating young people demonstrating for what they believe in; sick of the wall of shame that separates us from the rest of our country and keeps us imprisoned in a stamp-sized piece of land; sick of being portrayed as terrorists, homemade fanatics with explosives in our pockets and evil in our eyes; sick of the indifference we meet from the international community, the so-called experts in expressing concerns and drafting resolutions but cowards in enforcing anything they agree on; we are sick and tired of living a shitty life, being kept in jail by Israel, beaten up by Hamas and completely ignored by the rest of the world.

There is a revolution growing inside of us, an immense dissatisfaction and frustration that will destroy us unless we find a way of canalizing this energy into something that can challenge the status quo and give us some kind of hope. The final drop that made our hearts tremble with frustration and hopelessness happened 30th November, when Hamas’ officers came to Sharek Youth Forum, a leading youth organization (www.sharek.ps) with their guns, lies and aggressiveness, throwing everybody outside, incarcerating some and prohibiting Sharek from working. A few days later, demonstrators in front of Sharek were beaten and some incarcerated. We are really living a nightmare inside a nightmare. It is difficult to find words for the pressure we are under. We barely survived the Operation Cast Lead, where Israel very effectively bombed the shit out of us, destroying thousands of homes and even more lives and dreams. They did not get rid of Hamas, as they intended, but they sure scared us forever and distributed post traumatic stress syndrome to everybody, as there was nowhere to run.

We are youth with heavy hearts. We carry in ourselves a heaviness so immense that it makes it difficult to us to enjoy the sunset. How to enjoy it when dark clouds paint the horizon and bleak memories run past our eyes every time we close them? We smile in order to hide the pain. We laugh in order to forget the war. We hope in order not to commit suicide here and now. During the war we got the unmistakable feeling that Israel wanted to erase us from the face of the earth. During the last years Hamas has been doing all they can to control our thoughts, behaviour and aspirations. We are a generation of young people used to face missiles, carrying what seems to be a impossible mission of living a normal and healthy life, and only barely tolerated by a massive organization that has spread in our society as a malicious cancer disease, causing mayhem and effectively killing all living cells, thoughts and dreams on its way as well as paralyzing people with its terror regime. Not to mention the prison we live in, a prison sustained by a so-called democratic country.

History is repeating itself in its most cruel way and nobody seems to care. We are scared. Here in Gaza we are scared of being incarcerated, interrogated, hit, tortured, bombed, killed. We are afraid of living, because every single step we take has to be considered and well-thought, there are limitations everywhere, we cannot move as we want, say what we want, do what we want, sometimes we even cant think what we want because the occupation has occupied our brains and hearts so terrible that it hurts and it makes us want to shed endless tears of frustration and rage!

We do not want to hate, we do not want to feel all of this feelings, we do not want to be victims anymore. ENOUGH! Enough pain, enough tears, enough suffering, enough control, limitations, unjust justifications, terror, torture, excuses, bombings, sleepless nights, dead civilians, black memories, bleak future, heart aching present, disturbed politics, fanatic politicians, religious bullshit, enough incarceration! WE SAY STOP! This is not the future we want!

We want three things. We want to be free. We want to be able to live a normal life. We want peace. Is that too much to ask? We are a peace movement consistent of young people in Gaza and supporters elsewhere that will not rest until the truth about Gaza is known by everybody in this whole world and in such a degree that no more silent consent or loud indifference will be accepted.

This is the Gazan youth’s manifesto for change!

We will start by destroying the occupation that surrounds ourselves, we will break free from this mental incarceration and regain our dignity and self respect. We will carry our heads high even though we will face resistance. We will work day and night in order to change these miserable conditions we are living under. We will build dreams where we meet walls.

We only hope that you – yes, you reading this statement right now! – can support us. In order to find out how, please write on our wall or contact us directly: [email protected]

We want to be free, we want to live, we want peace.

FREE GAZA YOUTH!

------------------------------------------

Maybe it is because I am English but I just do not see how it matters who we pay our taxes to, as long as we get value for money in terms of the services provided out of them.
We should all be good neighbours to each other because you never know when you will need a helping hand yourself & it is much nicer to to say hello than it is to ignore each other, don't you think?

"Naturally you pick the one year attacks were low and claim that this was due to Oslo, but yet in 1994 there were 73 killed by Palestinian terrorists, in 1995 there were 52 killed, and in 1996 there were 92 killed, in 1997 there were 29 killed. How long do we need before the timeline becomes longer than "overnight"? The point is the 5 years after Oslo was a period of unprecedented violence, not unprecedented peace. And when you look closer, you'll find that it wasn't as if there were fewer attacks in 1998, they just weren't as successful in killing people. But according to your logic, if they don't succeed in killing dozens then that equals "Oslo calm". "

I couldn't find any statistics on numbers of attacks versus number of fatalities. I imagine you didn't, either, or you would've provided a link to it. Or maybe you just forgot. My point is that terror attacks (or fatalities from terror attacks, if you've got that cite) declined significantly in 1998-2000. That cannot be disputed.

"it had nothing to do with the fact that Arafat refused to crack down on Hamas and even signed deals with them, PLO police even hired them to go murder people for 'immorality'. It had nothing to do with the fact that PLO officials bragged about the cooperative relationship between Hamas and the PLO, and praised Hamas and PIJ for their attacks. But let's look at your claims."

Even your own source (a highly dubious one) doesn't claim that the PLO hired Hamas to murder people for immorality. If the 'hiring' even happened, I imagine Hamas' reaction to immorality was rather similar to what immodestly dressed Jewish women can expect in some Hasidic neighborhoods. As for the 'chummy relationship', well...
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/9430/attempted-bus-bombing-leads-to-hamas-crackdown/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/arafat-arrests-120-in-crackdown-on-hamas-1321447.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/POLICE+AT+TACKED+AS+ARAFAT+GETS+TOUGH;+CRACKDOWN+ON+HAMAS+FOUNDER.-a080593244
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2001/12/21/2001-12-21_defiant_backlash_to_arafat_s.html

Your source for your allegation of a chummy relationship also proudly boasts of contributors such as Steven Emmerson (who claimed that the Oklahoma City Bombing was the work of Arab terrorists), Daniel Pipes (who claims that Obama is trying to 'implement Sharia' in America), and Robert Spencer (who claims that Muslims are taking over America in a 'Stealth Jihad').

"Oslo didn't prohibit or even limit settlements, so what does this have to do with anything? "

Well generally, when people want peace with a neighbor, they will avoid doing things to antagonize that neighbor whether their formal agreement covers the subject or not. Are you seriously suggesting that it never occurred to anyone in Israel that building more settlements might rankle the helots a little bit?

"This sounds made up. Any proof of 'refusal' to prosecute? I have heard of Palestinians routinely getting away with destroying crops, however"

Most prominently, the Israeli authorities immediately fingered Baruch Goldtsein as the 'lone gunman' of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre (29 killed, dozens wounded), despite testimony not just from the Palestinian victims but also some of the Israeli guards that there was another person involved. There also is some speculation that at least one of the Israeli guards was directly involved, and two soldiers admitted firing at the panicked crowd of Palestinians attempting to flee in confusion. The armed Israeli soldiers took absolutely no action to stop Goldstein (in fact, their gunfire kept the victims trapped); the massacre ended only when he ran out of ammunition and was beaten to death by the Palestinians (all of whom, of course, were unarmed).

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/18/world/confusing-israeli-testimony-poses-possibility-of-hebron-accomplice.html?src=pm

There are tons and tons of historical examples of Israelis murdering Palestinians in cold blood and getting away with - at best - a slap on the wrist. The Israeli officer who ordered the Kafr Kassem massacre, for instance (48 dead, all civilians), was considered a national hero and was pardoned by the president less than two years into his 16 year sentence.

"You evidently didn't bother to read the link."

I obviously did read the link. That's how I knew 90% of it was about Pius XII. "Holocaust Denial" is a term used to describe the thought that the Holocaust never happened. The author obviously believes that Nazis killed Jews in concentration camps. The question is over how many. Since anything remotely resembling a definitive number is impossible to obtain for a variety of reasons, all we have are estimates. Disagreeing over estimates of the exact number of Jews killed by the Nazis is not the same as claiming that Nazis didn't kill Jews.

"It goes on to minimize the Holocaust in lieu of supposed Soviet crimes"

I seem to recall you both acknowledging and making excuses for 'supposed' Soviet crimes in a past thread. Am I misremembering?

"last we debated you claimed that Soviet victims of German einsatzgruppen got what they deserved"

You're a lying sack of shit. I never said that.

"eastern European collaboration with Hitler was understandable because the USSR was more aggressive, and denied Polish pogroms even occurred."

First of all, your example of East European 'collaboration' with Hitler consisted of taking back a few very minor scraps of land that were populated primarily by people of the same ethnicity that were separated from their home countries by Versailles. And the USSR obviously was territorially aggressive - even more than Hitler was. Ask the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, East Poles, Bessarabians, and Finns. I didn't deny that anti-Jewish violence occurred in Poland after the war, I questioned how widespread it was, put it in perspective of the massive sacrifices by Polish Catholic to save Jews during the war, and refuted your claim that they were the work of "anti-Communists". Get it right, please.

"AIPAC gets whatever it wants, like that spectacular arms deal with the Saudis, AIPAC just loved that."

AIPAC also claimed to have no opinion on the Iraq War; AIPAC often does one thing in public and another in private. And For a number of years, AIPAC declared itself the country's most powerful political lobby on the front page of its website. But I guess they were just making that up.

"Many? You claimed the Germans sold the Israelis two submarines."

There were obviously plenty more arms sales from Europe to Israel throughout history, as I'm sure you discovered. Hell, the arms sales by Czechoslovakia in the lead-up to the 1948 War (before Stalin put a stop to it, anyway) are part of the founding mytholygy of Israel. You claimed there were none. Do I really need to dig out invoices for every single sale to prove there were 'many' instead of just the two you're admitting to?

"By "2nd Nakba" I assume you mean the 1967 war, in which no Palestinians fought and thus they weren't participants."

They didn't fight, but they were certainly participants.

" In 1948 the Palestinians fled as the invading Arab armies came in, but let's be generous to your 'argument' and say 3,000 were killed (as wikipedia does). Either way, it doesn't justify the term "10s of thousands", especially since these casualties would never had occurred if the multiple Arab armies hadn't invaded."

Ah, so now wikipedia is suddenly a definitive source? I thought you didn't like wikipedia? The fact is that Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles on wikipedia are so heavily contested by the partisans of both sides (there are even seminars for Rightists in Israel on how to manipulate the wikipedia process) that I wouldn't rely on it as far as this subject is concerned.

A more realistic number is certainly in the tens of thousands for the 1st Nakba alone, although like the Holocaust a definitive number is impossible to obtain due to the dispersion of the survivors and the failure of the Israelis to keep any kind of statistics. Benny Morris says that 348 Palestinian villages were depopulated; others put the number over 500. Considering just the well-known massacres and deaths from the refugees' journeys, I would consider an average figure of 10 deaths per village to be both extremely conservative and already exceeding the figure you grabbed from Wikipedia.

As for the Palestinians "fleeing as the invading Arab armies came in", that claim is complete and utter bullshit. The Civil War in the Mandate started in 1947. Massacres and expulsions of Palestinians started in early 1948 (Deir Yassin, which happened in April, was merely the most infamous of a string of massacres, and not the largest by a long shot). The "Arab armies" (which were for the most part untrained, unmotivated, and poorly armed (many Arab soldiers didn't even have rifles)) didn't 'invade' (safeguarding the lives and property of people who are being deprived of it by a foreign invader is hardly an invasion, but whatever) until Israel declared its independence in May of 1948 (which was five months prior to the date the Israelis had agreed upon in the partition agreement). Even the IDF admits that 70% of the Palestinian exodus was caused by Israeli forces, not mysterious radio messages from the diabolical Arab overlords.

"So this isn't about your supposed concern for poor oppressed Arabs, good to know"

Actually I do care. Believe it or not, I also care about Jewish life, too. I just didn't bother to bring it up because it's fairly obvious that you don't care.

"Is that the best you can do? Don't look at your single minded attacks on Israeli "Nazism", because the Soviets supported Syria? Let me guess this means that no rightwing American can criticize the Pakistani butchery of the Bengalis in 1971, because the US government supported that 'effort' to the hilt. Syria responded to Soviet 'support' by slaughtering Syrian Communists at their whim for being 'Soviet agents'. Syria hated the United States so much they were members of the US-led coalition to destroy Iraq in 1990-1991. And the Arab states in general were apoplectic about the Soviet defense of Afghanistan from the CIA-backed Mujahadeen."

We're talking about Israel, because YOU BROUGHT IT UP. You started a thread dedicated to the subject, for Christ's sake. You didn't bring up Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf War, or the Bermuda Triangle. You brought up Israel. Now you're bitching that I'm not railing against countries and situations that YOU HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. If you want to talk about those situations, by all means start a thread for each of them and dazzle us with your bizarre simultaneous defenses of Israel and Soviet Union. I'd be very amused to see which one you side with on some issues.

"If we could not or would not agree to share, then the possession was taken away from us both & given to someone who would appreciate it."

A valid point. However, the problem is this, one side already has 20+ toys (sovereign states). The other side only makes claim to 1 toy. Isn't it fairer to give the side with no toys a toy then to give the other side yet another toy? (That's convoluted, but the point is - Arabs have 20+ states. Jews have but 1. It wouldn't be fair to take away the one state from the Jews that is roughly the size of New Jersey when the other side has 8.6 million square miles of land?

"The easiest road by far is to be in favour of the poor Palistinians fighting for freedom against the evil Isreali/American hordes, as this is the road that tends to attract larger numbers of the more good looking girls to its ranks :)"

I wish that were true, but sadly, it has not been my experience. I find that good looking girls (here in the States at least) are completely disinterested in politics and in fact find it a huge turnoff.

You know, this argument demonstrates the exact problem with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More people are trying to prove they are right, than people who are trying to think how to solve it.

"Isreal is a far right country abusing the rights of people of a far left country. How can you support them? (I don't support them for other reasons. )"

Well, for a number of reasons.
1 - Israel was founded by Communists, and in fact the countries which advocated for the creation of Israel with the most force were the USSR and the socialist bloc, while the US was reluctant (and the UK even abstained!). The USSR and the socialist bloc were also the first or recognize Israel. Israel initially promised the Soviets that it'd have a neutral foreign policy, but sadly that soon changed in the 1950s as it became increasingly clear that Israel was forming alliances with western powers in the Middle East that were seen as anti-Soviet. In addition there was a change in power from Molotov, who was pro-Israel, to Khrushchov, who decided he would support any 'third world' struggle that appeared anti-western, that meant trying to curry favor with the rising Arab nationalists in order to curb western influence in the region. For example, the Soviets signed an arms deal with Egypt in the mid 1950s and this made Israel nervous and they drifted towards making a strong security pact with the US that the USSR felt was anti-Soviet. The war in 1956 was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back. The Soviets felt Israel had let itself be used by the western powers and was clear-cut evidence that their previous suspicions of Israel being locked into a security bloc with the West were confirmed. Prior to the Suez war, relations had been steadily improving. Israel followed that up with their support of the Eisenhower Doctrine, which was explicitly anti-Soviet.

So my point in saying all this is that Communists initially were very supportive of Israel, and there high hopes that Israel would be pro-Soviet. It is not inevitable that leftists would oppose Israel, but unfortunately this has occurred.

2- Now, on the other hand the Arab nationalists have attacked and killed Communists in large numbers. Arab-Soviet relations have been completely one-sided, with the Soviets giving them aid and the Arabs turning around and refusing to cooperate on key issues, or conniving with the West on other issues. The biggest betrayal was probably the conflict that bogged the Soviets down until its collapse, the Afghan conflict. The point is the Arab countries who the Soviets supported for so long have never been reliable allies.

3-Most importantly, for me, is the fact of the historic and heroic role of Communist Jews during World War II, and Arab support for Bosnian butchers and mujahadeen in the 1990s. The Arab leadership at the time, people who are today lionized as 'heroes' by the Palestinians, openly allied with the Nazis and even helped organize divisions of the SS. These actions are unforgivable to me.

4 - There is also the fact that on the principle of basic fairness, Israel should be allowed to exist and be secure and safe. The Arabs have almost two dozen states. It's unjust to deprive a people who have been oppressed throughout time to not have one of their own.

W/o reading thread, quick run down of views.

I meant not to post in here but this thread has been at the top for a while.

Israel breaks international law in several ways, settlements chief among them. The sooner both sides accept a two-state solution the better.

Anytime Israel talks like Palestine will never be anything more than occupied, they are no better or worse than Hamas nutjobs who refuse to recognize Israel as a state.

I mean come on.

So yeah, land swaps are in order, and East Jerusalem, you better believe, will be the Palestinian capital.

It's about time, imho, that the international community imposed this solution on the two sides since both of them are too damned extreme to accept it themselves. Hold it in place for a decade or so and it should sort itself out.

Or, at least, it will be a regular state-to-state war instead of a civil war. Making Palestine independent will stop a lot of the Islamist violence since it is their rallying cry.

And with no excuse to level Palestinian houses, Israeli guns may well fall silent too.

Btw it doesn't help that Israel is similar to Sri Lanka in its marginalization of its national minorities. Those or Arab descent and Muslim religion who live in Israel for good should be treated as equal citizens under the law.

Israel needs better anti-discrimination laws and needs to do a better job of enforcing them.

But that's a secondary matter to getting the state of Palestine to actually, finally, exist.

It's hard to imagine Hamas not joining in on the process if it actually looks like West Bank will get independence.

"The PA was given total control of all the major urban centers and surrounding areas of the West Bank in 1995 , so this excuse doesn't hold. Most of the population of the West Bank was/is under "Area A" (full Palestinian civil and security control, no Israelis allowed)."

As I said, the Palestinian areas were chopped up into over 200 pieces. It's a little difficult to maintain control of an area with over 200 non-contiguous portions.

"Israel did not stop negotiations. The PLO did. They made the end to 'settlements' a pre-condition for continued talks, while Israel has continued to call for talks. The problem for them is Jerusalem is not a 'settlement', so it's a spurious demand."

The non-settlements of Jerusalem meander over 30 kilometers into the West Bank, all the way to Jericho, effectively cutting the WB in half, in conjunction with the settlements surrounding Jericho. See:

http://www.btselem.org/download/settlements_map_eng.pdf
(This map is apparently from 2002 - I'm sure the situation is much worse now).

Yes, Israel 'continued the call for talks', while simultaneously publicizing the tunnel under al-Aqsa - a provocation which Netanyahu knew would end negotiations. Just like Israel offers to have peace negotiations with Syria, then the next day announces a new round of settlement construction in the Golan. Israel has perfected the art of making peaceful and provocative gestures at the same time, and then denouncing their opponent for a lack of willingness to participate in the fraudulent peace 'process'.

"Saying both sides are bad and washing your hands of it doesn't require much deeper analysis, so yeah it's kind of the easy road."

On this, we are in agreement.

"Who invaded whom in 1948?" - who invaded whom between 1880-1948?

"Who rejected partition in 1948?" - So if the United Nations declares that half of your house now belongs to someone else, you are obligated to acceed? Ben Gurion himself said that acceptance of the partition was a temporary ruse that would lead to the end goal of all of Palestine. And anyways, the Israelis did not abide by the partition agreement.

"Who fought to take over the rest of Israel from 1948-1982 with their fedayeen terrorists?" - The idea that the "fedayeen terrorists" could've taken over Israel is absurd. And a lot of those "fedayeen terrorists" were unarmed people just people trying to get back to their homes after being driven out who were shot by Israeli border guards.

"Whose main political movement (Fatah) has as its emblem which shows all of Israel as Palestine?" - Which country is the only one on earth that absolutely refuses to specify its borders?

"Whose other main political movement (Hamas) claims all of Palestine as an Islamic trust land in which no part can ever be 'surrendered' to non-Muslims?" - Whose country's foreign and domestic occupation policies are being run by nutjobs who think a 5,000 year old religious tale constitutes a land grant which justifies running off or killing those who aren't part of the tribe?

"Settlers legally bought the land, often at an inflated price, and efforts were made to compensate any landless Arabs. The Peel Commission concluded that claims about Arab 'displacement' were baseless, and that Jewish settlers had bought swampy and uncultivated land (in order to avoid displacing people) from large absentee landowners that wasn't being used."

Yet there were so many displaced Palestinians that the Ottomans frequently had to call in the army to arrest the evicted peasants and put down the occasional riot.

"Israelis only ended up getting 6% of all arable land in the whole of the mandate of Palestine. But even that was too much for some..."

And clearly, not enough for others.

Thank you all for the "discussion". Unfortunately, I decide to retire from it because it is based on conspiracies and not facts, and it is not really a discussion since none of the sides is actually considering to change their views and beliefs, rendering the "discussion" useless at best.

The goal of this discussion is to prove to the other side who is right or wrong, and even if by some incredible coincidence one of the sides will decide that he was wrong all the time, the most important question ("How to solve this conflict?") remains not only unanswered, but even un-asked.

I'm open to discussing solutions. I think the Camp David proposal of 2000 by Ehud Barak was a great solution. Why can't we go back to that? Barak offered an independent state with East Jerusalem, 94% of the West Bank, and all of Gaza. In addition he offered to set up an international refugee compensation fund.

Because sensible people are punished by radical electorates.

"Well, for a number of reasons.
1 - Israel was founded by Communists, and in fact the countries which advocated for the creation of Israel with the most force were the USSR and the socialist bloc, while the US was reluctant (and the UK even abstained!). The USSR and the socialist bloc were also the first or recognize Israel. Israel initially promised the Soviets that it'd have a neutral foreign policy, but sadly that soon changed in the 1950s as it became increasingly clear that Israel was forming alliances with western powers in the Middle East that were seen as anti-Soviet. In addition there was a change in power from Molotov, who was pro-Israel, to Khrushchov, who decided he would support any 'third world' struggle that appeared anti-western, that meant trying to curry favor with the rising Arab nationalists in order to curb western influence in the region. For example, the Soviets signed an arms deal with Egypt in the mid 1950s and this made Israel nervous and they drifted towards making a strong security pact with the US that the USSR felt was anti-Soviet. The war in 1956 was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back. The Soviets felt Israel had let itself be used by the western powers and was clear-cut evidence that their previous suspicions of Israel being locked into a security bloc with the West were confirmed. Prior to the Suez war, relations had been steadily improving. Israel followed that up with their support of the Eisenhower Doctrine, which was explicitly anti-Sovie"
BULLSHIT! Britain was the main advocator, meanwhile the USSR funded the arabs who initially invaded Isreal, that shows excellent support.

"2- Now, on the other hand the Arab nationalists have attacked and killed Communists in large numbers. Arab-Soviet relations have been completely one-sided, with the Soviets giving them aid and the Arabs turning around and refusing to cooperate on key issues, or conniving with the West on other issues. The biggest betrayal was probably the conflict that bogged the Soviets down until its collapse, the Afghan conflict. The point is the Arab countries who the Soviets supported for so long have never been reliable allies. "
Afghan wasn't one of their allies. Sure Egypt betrayed the USSR, but Iran never did.

"BULLSHIT! Britain was the main advocator, meanwhile the USSR funded the arabs who initially invaded Isreal, that shows excellent support."

Britain didn't even vote for partition. The Communist bloc sent arms to Israel during the '48 war through Czechoslovakia. The USSR was the first country to recognize Israeli independence (Gromyko made a stirring speech on behalf of Israeli statehood at the UN), and supported Israel politically against the Arab states until the mid 1950s, not coincidentally the same time that Stalin died and leadership was passing over to Khrushchov.

"but Iran never did"

Iran is not Arab but they absolutely supported the Mujahideen and were initially as hostile to the USSR as they were the West, despite friendly overtures from Moscow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1162108.stm

Notice this section

"Soviet intervention
1980 - Babrak Karmal, leader of the People's Democratic Party Parcham faction, is installed as ruler, backed by Soviet troops. But anti-regime resistance intensifies with various mujahideen groups fighting Soviet forces. US, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia supply money and arms."

@Baskineli

Yes, I agree with the "I was here first" argument falls flat on its face, but I must disagree with the idea that a 2000 year old loss of land is just as painful and poignant as an 80 year one, where it is still in the memory of the people and the current culture.

@ Tolstoy

"As I said, the Palestinian areas were chopped up into over 200 pieces. It's a little difficult to maintain control of an area with over 200 non-contiguous portions."

So, this begs the question, if Arafat - with his 50,000 strong PA police force (which itself was 67% larger than the 30,000 that Oslo called for), was totally incapable of doing anything about terrorism, why on earth did he promise to do so by agreeing to the Oslo accords? His promise to clap down on terrorism was a crucial basis for any agreement. If the contiguity issue would have made it 'impossible', as you claim, (and this contiguity issue was resolved in 2000, but Arafat refused the offer of a contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital), then why would he agree to an impossible task?

Was he powerless to stop the constant revolving door that was the PA prison system, in which Arafat made a big show of arresting militants responsible for killing dozens of Israelis only to release them within months? If he was so powerless, how was he even able to arrest these militants to begin with?

And was he also powerless to stop his own security forces, even his own personal bodyguard unit, from openly participating in terrorist plots and attacks? In September 1996 PA forces opened fire on Israeli forces killing 15 soldiers. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Peace+Process/1996/MAJOR+PLO+VIOLATIONS+OF+THE+OSLO+ACCORDS+-+25-Oct-.htm

I suppose he could also not control his own words of constant incitement to violence against Israel (including praising terrorists), nor could abide by his promise to confiscate the arms of illegal militias and disband them, nor nor could he have extradited wanted terrorists to Israel, nor could he have prevented the hiring of known terrorists in the PA security forces, who do lovely things like plan bombings of school busses (in 2000, a year of 'peace').
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6704/b-Israel-missile-raids-school-bus-bomb.html

He was also powerless over his own Fatah organization. He had no control over the fact Fatah signed a six-point agreement on military cooperation with Hamas in 1994 in Gaza, in which they promised not to fight each other. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B6FF9E3B04ED3E56852560EE0050D2C6
Nor could he control the fact that he met with Hamas leaders in March 1997 to propose a united front against Israel and (immediately released top level Hamas operatives responsible for masterminding attacks)

The truth is, when Arafat felt like it and when he wanted to make a big show, he was capable of disrupting the operations of Hamas and other terrorist groups. And when he collaborated with them, attacks commenced.

"(This map is apparently from 2002 - I'm sure the situation is much worse now)."

What does 2002 have to do with the building of apartment blocks in so-called East Jerusalem today, which are within Jerusalem municipal limits and are exactly what the Palestinians are breaking off negotiations for? The apartment blocks are actually in the north and south of the city (including Har Homa, which is not adjacent to any Arab neighborhood), not in the east. These apartments are being built in existing Jewish neighborhoods, so how is that 'building settlements'? What if Israel decided that construction of new apartments for Arabs would be prohibited in so-called west Jerusalem. You and the fanged anti-Israeli crowd would be screaming about 'apartheid'. It's clear which side wants total ethnic separation, by the fact that any Jews living over the Green Line are "settlers", deemed obstacles to peace who must be removed. According to the logic of the Palestinians, the historic Jewish Quarter near the Old City is a "settlement" since its east of the green line.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Jerusalem_is_Not_a_Settlement.asp

"Yes, Israel 'continued the call for talks', while simultaneously publicizing the tunnel under al-Aqsa - a provocation which Netanyahu knew would end negotiations."

I don't know what time period you're referring to here, but at any rate this business about the tunnel is hypocritical garbage. It's a 'negotiations-ending' provocation if the Israelis dig, but the Palestinians can dig and build mosques all over the Temple Mount. I haven't seen any article claiming a tunnel is the reason why Palestinians refuse to even talk. It's all about supposed Jerusalem 'settlements'.

"Israel has perfected the art of making peaceful and provocative gestures at the same time, and then denouncing their opponent for a lack of willingness to participate in the fraudulent peace 'process'."

And the Arab states will look for any possible excuse for claiming Israel is being 'provocative' so as to break off negotiations, while conveniently overlooking their own actions and repeated violations of agreements. Settlements never blocked peace agreements before, but now suddenly some great sticking point. If it's not settlements, or imagined 'settlements', it's something else. Ongoing activities (like archaeological digs) that never bothered Palestinians for decades are now cause for much teeth gnashing and angst. It's one new thing after another. But yet Palestinian attacks are never provocations, and Palestinian refusal to even amend the charter of their political bodies which call for the elimination of Israel is too much to ask. Yet we're expended to believe that groups that prior to 1967 wanted all of Palestine suddenly have abandoned their maximalist aims and are 'partners for peace'.

"So if the United Nations declares that half of your house now belongs to someone else, you are obligated to acceed?"

If by "half" you mean 10% of the Mandate of Palestine, much of which was the Negev desert and other uninhabited land, ok. And the territory wasn't the Palestinian's "house". There was never any independent Arab country called Palestine. The Arabs in Palestine themselves didn't think of it as such until late in the game. They referred to it as southern Syria, and all the main Palestinian organizations in 1920s agitated for union with Syria. The General Palestinian Congress of 1920 affirmed this idea in its resolutions. http://books.google.com/books?id=5FwAT5fx03IC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=General+Palestinian+Congress+1920&source=bl&ots=4CP4Iky_LT&sig=YyXaQQZKl98bMOrOpsVK3vD9paA&hl=en&ei=j34lTdb8F4vfnQfQ8KTaAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=General%20Palestinian%20Congress%201920&f=false

This once again, points to constantly changing demands/claims of the Palestinians as it suits their needs.

""Ben Gurion himself said that acceptance of the partition was a temporary ruse that would lead to the end goal of all of Palestine. And anyways, the Israelis did not abide by the partition agreement."

1-Ben Gurion consistently supported partition from 1937 until the partition occurred. He never held maximalist views. In a 1918 book he laid out what his views were on a future Israel's territorial borders, stating that "If we wish to consider the boundaries of Eretz Israel today, we cannot consider only the ideal boundaries - the boundaries promised to us by tradition. For they are too extensive in the present situation." He presented a two-state plan in 1937 to the Mapai Central Committee.

It's laughable that you can sit here and allege maximalist Israeli demands, while apologizing for maximalist Palestinian demands which have never changed.

2-Abide by the partition plan? Palestinians immediately commenced violent attacks after the vote, the first being an attack on a Jewish bus. Partition was approved on November 29. Palestinians began killing Jews on November 30. But yet Israel is supposed to 'abide by a plan' which the Arabs rejected and after Arabs attack them.

"The idea that the "fedayeen terrorists" could've taken over Israel is absurd."

Whether it's achievable is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that was their professed goal and they carried out incessant terrorist attacks for that purpose.

"And a lot of those "fedayeen terrorists" were unarmed people just people trying to get back to their homes after being driven out who were shot by Israeli border guards."

Ah yes, I want to visit this imaginary world where most of these Egyptian trained paramilitaries (which Egypt openly admitted to training and sponsoring to destroy Israel) operating out of Jordan were 'unarmed' and wanted nothing more than to visit their homes, and where the 1300 Israeli victims of fedayeen attacks from 1951-1956 never happened.

"Which country is the only one on earth that absolutely refuses to specify its borders?"

Name another country that was invaded by all of its neighbors upon being recognized as independent, a country which all of its neighbors refused to recognize aimed for its for its destruction. Of course the border question isn't going to be settled until after negotiations between the two sides. The 1949 Armistice Lines were condemned as being unsatisfactory by the international community. Resolution 242 was written with this in mind. It should be quite obvious why borders are not specified. This whole dumb argument also goes out the window when, once again, Israel offered a clearly defined and generous plan for a Palestinian state in 2000 and early 2001 which the Palestinians rejected. But hilariously Palestinians will simultaneously bitch about 'unspecified borders' while rejecting plans for specified borders.

"who invaded whom between 1880-1948?"

LOL. The First Aliyah of 1881 didn't even settle. The second Aliyah didn't occur until 1904. By 1914 there were a total of 60,000 Jewish immigrants in Ottoman controlled Palestine. So the immigration of 60,000 is the moral equivalent of massive joint military invasion, according to you.

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636#chart1

"Whose country's foreign and domestic occupation policies are being run by nutjobs who think a 5,000 year old religious tale constitutes a land grant which justifies running off or killing those who aren't part of the tribe?"

So all Jews are nutjobs eh? Now we're getting somewhere. And how you comments reconcile with the fact that 20% of Israel is Arab, Arabs who have full citizenship, who vote and form political parties? By contrast no Jews were allowed to live in Arab occupied Palestine from 1948-1967, and Jews have been completely driven out of their homes in all of the Arab countries.

"Yet there were so many displaced Palestinians that the Ottomans frequently had to call in the army to arrest the evicted peasants and put down the occasional riot."

I'd love to see the source for this claim.

@ Octavious: "Why anyone gives a damn about either side is beyond me."

Because innocent people are dying. Because innocent people are suffering. Because we're their fellow human beings and we can empathise with their suffering, and want it to stop. That's why we give a damn about it. Ok?