"I am an atheist Jew. We have our lot of problems with the orthodox Jews, but they are mostly internal problems"

I acknowledge that both Israel and Palestine are not monolithic bodies.

I guess when it comes to negoiations, it depends on what their leadership (the PLO or Hamas, and the current Israeli government) have a political will and capital to push through - no agreement is going to please everyone (the orthodox jews and the secular ones - i can't even begin to describe the differences between left and right among Israeli Jewish thoughts, i believe it is rather wide...) Nevermind the differences between Palestinians.

That said, i don't think Jews have any special claim to the land of Israel by virtue of the language (which completely died out, and is one of the only ancient languages to be brought back as a living language EVER)

The fact if statehood does go back to 20th century Nationalism.

The Arabs also wanted a state in the Arabian penninsula in 1917 (when the British promised them one, but they were excluded from peace negotiations, as they had also made seperate secret deals with the French)

The 1967 war also changed opinion across the Arab world of Israel; suddenly it was not an irritation to be removed, it became a fact that Israel was there to stay.

And that is far more important than resolution 181, reality comforms to who can prove their claim. (For example i could claim to be the King of Jordan, but if i can't prove it, by force or following, or any other means, then my claim is meaningless)

So the UN can claim that Palestine and Israel are both states and anything else it wants to claim. But until the security council allows force to create a state for Palestinians any other claims the UN wishes to make are rather pointless.

They may make good propoganda points. But i think I agree with you on this issue.

Don't mistake me, i am not saying might makes right. I am saying might makes real. (Which means that Israel will cease to exist if and when it can't stop other from destabilising the state.)

Now there are Zionists who believed in the Bi-national solution (Noam Chomsky for one) and part of me believes this is a good alternative. But Chinsky doesn't advocate for this position - ie he doesn't expend effort trying to make it happen, because he doesn't think that effort will be fruitful.

I believe that your PM has not been sufficiently genuine in his calls for negotiations. I believe that he has to make these calls to save face; but even if he was serious the Palestinians don't have the same unity they once did under previous leaders, and can't make a deal with their current level of organisation (even a good deal for them would entail some hard-core believers in Hamas' stance on Israel feeling betrayed)

Oh, i think i have spoken of feeling and might well enough, but i have bot made the connection between propoganda and geelings particularily clear.

The Israeli PM must offer to negotiate in order to make his people feel like they are right. The UN must push for their resolutions to be respected, and Hamas must make claims about wipin out Israel (however unrealistic they may be) or their followers will feel betrayed.

Feelings and propoganda do play a vitally important part of this situation and understanding it. (And i don't claim to understand it with any particular depth, i fully admit there are subtleties in the positions of Israel and Palestinians that i don't understand)

Ok, so far i've avoided the question me and Bask seem to disagree on.

The occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

So first, i don't believe propaganda, except that it is useful, and even necessary for people to exercise power, and the feelings it causes are real. And second right makes reality.

Thus when i'm talking about the reality of Gaza and the West Bank, i'm not talking about the legal framework established by the UN (though that is something you could use to base negotiations on, the UN can't press it's claims without the use of force.)

The reality of living in these non-state places is really challenging. I have compared it to an occupation and open air prison - because i think they are the closest comparisons. (i'm not talking about the Arab Israeli citizens, who if you support a Bi-national solution are actual living proof that it can work... though if you asked them they may merely say it is better than living West Bank/Gaza, but that they do not feel like equal citizens; this would not be surprising to me.)

The reality is Palestinians who are living in the West Bank and Gaza do not have a state; thus they are stateless, right? But the requirements to qualify as a state are thus: "a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states".

They are right there on all along to the point where they have not got one government and that one government thus can't enter relations (ie legally binding treaty negotiations) with other sovereign states) - and the reason for this is largely due to Israeli military actions, which resulted in the election of Hamas; i don't know that this was the intent of Israeli policy, perhaps you can read up on it. But the effect of war with Palestinians was much greater than any propaganda.

Hamas was a disaster for the Palestinian cause. And it is not beyond the pale to suggest Israeli planner knew this, but even if they didn't plan it, they have taken advantage of it for the past 9 years.

If they actually wanted peace, then i think they would have acted differently. (by the way, i don't think Hamas want peace either, i think they want to destroy Israel, but they also realise they can't do that and will accept peace...)

Anyway, getting back to the reality of the situation. You can occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and act like occupiers even if the Jews have lived there since the Iron age. You can still oppress people who live there today; and that is not to say that Jordan couldn't have done a better job pre-1967. But they are not doing that job today, and the reality is Israel runs the place - like a prison.

Thus both the Israeli government and the Palestinian authorities share responsibility for the welfare of Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank. And typically self-governed peoples tend to look after themselves, while those governed by foreigners tend to get screwed over - so it is no surprise that Israel takes a lot of criticism for their role in the internal running of the Palestinian territories.

The 'Occupation' as i call it (of the West Bank and Gaza) is comparable to any other example of an indigenous population being oppressed by a foreign force - the difference of Jewish 'right' to live there is irrelevant; they have demonstrated their right to be there be force. And nobody would have handed them some magic right if they hadn't been able to hold on to it themselves, it matters not at all where your ancestors came from, it matter what you do with your own lives. How you act, and how you allow your leaders to act.

I call it an occupation because that it the closest thing to describing this unique situation as it exists on the ground. And no amount of logical rhetoric will change those on the ground realities.

The reality of a Jewish population living in that area for thousands of years would mean literally nothing if the Germans had won world war 2.

Hypothetically, Allied held trans-jordan would have fallen, and i have no doubt that nazi control of the oil regions of the Arabian peninsula would have resulted in the deaths of any Jews who happened to be there, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

More to the point. The reason the Arab nationalism failed after world war 1 and that Jewish nationalism succeeded after world war 2, did have a large amount to do with the Jews who fought Nazi-ism in the Soviet armies, (the Polish armies before fleeing to the safety of the Soviet Union and signing up to join the army) and across allied nations.

And especially to those Jews who choose to fight for Israel following their experience in world war 2. The existence of Israel may come down to the idea of establishing a state in their ancient homeland; but the success of that idea came down to men and women who fought for it in 1948 Arab-Israeli war. (And the UN mandates will continue to mean nothing beyond propaganda unless someone is willing to enforce them)

@ Bask "No Palestinians tried to create a Palestinian state in the West bank in these 20 years.[refering to 1950-1970] To quote Wikipedia, "The idea of an independent Palestinian state was not raised by the Arab populations there at the time. King Abdullah of Jordan was crowned King of Jerusalem and granted Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem Jordanian citizenship."

That does not mean there was no Palestinian nationalism.

to quote wikipedia: "Under the control of a British administration since 1920, the area of Palestine found itself the object of a battle between Jewish Zionist nationalists and Palestinian Arab nationalists, who opposed one another just as much as they both opposed the British mandate....

the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine..Directed by Palestinian Arab nationalists, the rebels opposed Zionism, the British presence in Palestine and Palestinian Arab politicians who called for pan-Arabic nationalism at the same time. "

Ok, this was before the British mandate of Palestine ended. But there were both Zionists nationalists and Palestinian nationalists living in the area competing with the occupying British forces at the same time.

There are also calls for a pan-Arabic state - which obviously never happened.

"So, to get back to my original question, why does the media covers it so unilaterally? Why when a Palestinian attacks a Jew with a knife and gets killed, like what you see in the link in my original post, the video is ignored by the media? "

Who is the media serving? Where do you get the idea that everything is anti-Israel. I have given a clear indication of why some things do not agree with your interpretation (ie why many people believe Israel is an occupying state)

But some media i have seen (in the irish national press) has been criticised for refering to these knife attacks as murders of Israelis while Palestinians are killed. The implied bias being that Israeli lives are more valuable.

So i would question the basis for you original claim. And justify the existence of an narrative which doesn't view Israel as a force for good in the world. (being anti-Israeli policy, while having no issue with the existence of Israel itself - i think it is a great state - i have had someone tell me how safe they felt in Israel.. admittedly this person was from South Africa; likewise, i know that Israel recently let Irish peacekeepers fleeing shelling in Syria to cross the border. And i appreciate this inherently good act) )

The spate of knife attacks is not being ignored in my usual source of news (the Guardian website). Two items from the international edition front page today:

- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/18/knife-intifada-palestinian-israel-west-bank
- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/17/palestinian-teenager-shot-after-alleged-attempt-to-stab-israeli-police-officer

To me these are fairly balanced articles. From the related content sections I can see 8 more articles on this topic so far this month.

First, about occupation of Gaza and West Bank. These are two very different types of "occupation". In fact, we do not occupy Gaza. There is not a single Israeli soldier or settler inside the Gaza strip.

Gaza is a Palestinian territory, ruled by Hamas - an elected government those official goal is the destruction of Israel, and they act upon it. I have already talked about it in one of my previous comments. Gaza is not being occupied - Gaza is being blockaded by Israel, forbidding entry of goods that will later be used to attack Israel.

Furthermore, Gaza is NOT an open-air prison. Gaza has an additional border - with Egypt. The border with Egypt is not closed, but since Hamas in Gaza is part of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, a movement which undermines the stability of Egypt, Egypt also imposes checks on whatever enters or leaves Gaza. This is all under international law, and Israel does not violate any international laws by closing a border with a hostile entity. If Mexico was to attack USA, I am sure USA would hermetically close the border with Mexico. I am 100% sure that when Hamas will openly state that they will stop attacking Israel, the blockade will be removed. I have already mentioned that the blockade was imposed two years after Hamas took over Gaza, after everything else has failed.

West Bank is a more complex situation, which should be resolved in negotiations - very much like happened in Oslo or Camp David, but we have already discussed it in length.

"Gaza is being blockaded by Israel, forbidding entry of goods that will later be used to attack Israel.

Furthermore, Gaza is NOT an open-air prison."

Well it turns out that this blockade is illegal under international law*. You are controlling Gaza by preventing them from building anything. Deciding what goes in or out (apart from smuggling) just like a prison.

When the inmates get rowdy and riot Israel send in troops to quell the problem areas, just like a prison.

The Egyptian border is irrelevant as Egypt is cooperating with Israel on this issue. (they were the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty and basically end the war which started in 1948 between Arabs and Jews that established the state of Israel... they were in effect the first nation from the Arab league to recognise Israel's right to exist)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913

*Sorry, i've done some more research, and it turns out that this is widely disputed, (see my reuters link above) but my understanding was that it is illegal from all the sources i had read before.

The legality doesn't particularly matter to my claims that Israel is controlling the Gaza strip. Hamas, in my description, are internal bullies who decide on inter-inmate violence, but they have no ability to get Gaza out of poverty, build homes, or other infrastructure, or even support it's own population with food production - which is why it largely relies on aid.

Gaza can't function on its own, and thus Israel is controlling a large part of this - with the argueably illegal blockade. Now I have stated previously that the blockade is understandable**; but likewise the feelings of Palestinians in Gaza are also understandable.

Israel doesn't have to take responsibility for Gaza, but if you are going to say the Palestinians need to take care of their own affairs, then you can look at why that hasn't happened - in the same way the Israelis have since 1948.

If you want to pass responsibility to the UN/international community, then there are UN resolutions which have been ignored for decades...

**That is, i'm not saying Israel is 'wrong' for this, but i am say Israel IS doing it - whether it is legal or not, the impact of it, and the reality on the ground are more important. The rules for naval conflict were not written imagining situations like we see in Gaza today (which is also the principle whereby i acknowledge the differences between UN resolutions from decades ago, and today's reality)

And regarding the media bias... I wondered how to reply to it, but life unfortunately provided with good example right now. Half an hour ago two terrorists attacked Israelis in a central bus station in Be'er Sheva, seriously wounding three, and moderately wounding two. One of the terrorists was killed, the other was captured alive, but still unknown in what condition he is.

This is how BBC describes it:
Major headline: "Waves of stabbings confounds Israelis"
Minor headline: "2 Palestinians shot dead in new attempted knifings, Israeli authorities say"

Clicking on the story leads to the following headline:
"More die as violence and finger-pointing plague Israel, Palestinians"

I rest my case.

Bah, my mistake, this was CNN. BBC have not reported it yet. Wanna bet that the headline will be "Two Palestinians shot dead by Israeli forces, knife"?

Baskineli is quite right. I have on a couple of occasions over the past few weeks head the headline "Palestinians shot dead by Israeli security forces", with the detail that they happened to be trying to murder Israelis at the time only mentioned later on. It has been somewhat puzzling.

Is that it? What is actually wrong with those headlines? They are completely accurate and provide a reasonable summary of the story.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1017/735464-palestinian-shot-jerusalem/

Well this seems to be giving a 'balanced' account by telling two version of this story. (RTE is the Irish national news station) I don't know what to tell you; im not there to verify either story.

News update: one of the Israelis has died.

@diplomat61 The headline should be 'An Israeli has been killed by two armed Palestinians, one of the attackers shot dead'.

Not '2 Palestinians shot dead in new attempted knifings, Israeli authorities say'.

You play Diplomacy. You know the difference between these two sentences.

@orathaic The link you have brought is news from yesterday. I am talking about today, 30 minutes ago:

http://edition.cnn.com/middle-east

Screenshot:
http://prntscr.com/8snzmg

Yeah, sorry, nothing new from today, apart from talk about the US trying to negotiate with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Now that one of the Israelis has died (which I regret) I expect that the headline will be updated.

BBC News website, front page:

Israeli killed in bis station attack
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34567988

Israeli killed? Whom did he kill? And if he was killed, by whom? No. It should be:

"Israeli was killed by a Palestinian in a bus station attack".

Instead of choosing the sides of either Israeli vs Palestinian, we should abandon that national favoritism entirely and choose sides of innocence vs murder, because innocent lives are taken from both sides, and that must end.

Baskinell, the headline is perfectly clear, I can only assume that English is not your first language.

@Baskinelli: If the thing you want to see reflected in the news is the fact that the attacker is 'Palestinian', you might want to rethink what you said earlier about the distinction between Gazans, West-Bank Palestinians and Israeli muslims (!). You can't sweep a whole group with the same brush in one sentence, then cherry-pick locational ethnicity in another.

@diplomat61

It has been more than 12 hours after the event. Meanwhile, we have learnt that it was one Palestinian terrorist who was shot dead, and one Israeli was killed.

Was does the headline says in CNN, 12 hours after the event? Exactly the same:
'2 Palestinians shot dead in new attempted knifings, Israeli authorities say'

@TrPrado Nice words. Maybe this is what will happen in a millennium.

@TheMinisterOfWar - I wish it would say 'Palestinian from West Bank' or 'Israeli Arab', but it does not fit the media narrative of 'bad Israelis' vs 'poor Palestinians', or people might actually start asking, 'Hey, what's the difference between Israeli Arab and West Bank Palestinian?', and then realize that Israeli Arabs are full Israeli citizens with full rights, and West Bank Palestinians have Palestinian citizenship, and not Israeli one.

P.S. Now it became clear that the attacker was a Bedouin, an Israeli citizen.

One website being slow to update a headline (on a Sunday night) is not proof that "Israeli lives are worth less than Palestinian ones in the eyes of the world". Of course, "one Israeli kills another" wouldn't suit your narrative of victim-hood so perhaps you should be grateful that CNN is slow.

It's not one website. It's not just a 'Sunday night' - this is CNN. They have 24/7/365 coverage of the world.

You are welcome to read this for more examples. Just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it does not exist:

http://honestreporting.com/palestinian-terror-wave-horrible-headlines/

Thanks for that link but the interpretation of those headlines is as flawed as your overall premise. Take the first: should every headline include the nationality and religion of the attacker rather than the method of attack? The method of the attack and the location gives us the religion and nationality of the victims & attackers.

What about this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34569304

Hamas and the PA calling on their citizens to attack and kill Jews in Israel has made it unsafe for all Israelis, not just the Jewish ones.