be dealt with separately.

The issue between the Palestinians and the Israelis must be negotiated between them. Those are the parties concerned with that issue.

Issues of Syria and Iraq have to be also dealt with separately. An interesting aside is that Kerry negotiated the removal of chemical weapons from Syria, and succeeded, and it was hardly mentioned in the MSM. In fact it was a significant achievement.

Which only goes to demonstrate the problem with the MSM

exception of the weather reports.

Liberman is just going back to the "there's no such thing as a Palestinian/The other Arab countries never cared about the Palestinians and we have the right expect them to ditch the Pals on our demand" canards.

It's as if he thinks the last forty-six years never happened.

...that has morphed into an Islamist/Israel conflict. It's basically unsolvable, b/c it's not about reversing the effects of 1967 as much as getting revenge (in the biggest most horrific way possible) for 1948. A combined 7 Arab armies lost to a lowly hated remnant of holocaust surviving Jews, after boasting that they would absolutely massacre & butcher these Jews. They lost, big time. Reversing 1967 does nothing to avenge the humiliation of 1948. Reversing 1967 & making peace based on that only grants Israel victory in 1948. Giving citizenship to refugees in Arab nations grants Israel victory in 1948. A 2 state solution still gives victory to the Jews from 1948. A 1-state BDS secular democratic liberal state is a humiliation of the highest order b/c it should be a sharia state like all others in the region. Nothing less than an Arab sharia state in place of Israel will work b/c 1948 must be blotted from memory. Anything less is intolerable and humiliating for Israel's many enemies in that region (not just Palestinians).

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their many friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and ISIS across the mideast will never quit. Kinda like the Terminator. It's very depressing b/c it doesn't leave Israel many options at all.

Don't believe me? Then believe Israel's enemies, as this is all they've talked about and all they've ever been about and acted upon since 1948. They still crow about their up and coming total victory over the Jews. All refugees to return home. Israel destroyed. Jews to pay big time. They will not accept 1948. Ever.

Understand now? I believe what they say. I hear them well....

But of course, you know their motivations better than they do. What do they know?

If you have a solution, please present it...

accusations. You're afraid of the boogey man you created who you believe is out to get you.

But I'll throw you a bone and ask that you consider WHY it is that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah militants, Hezbollah, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria, etc.. will not be satisfied by Israel merely retreating to the '67 lines and allowing some nice arrangement for refugees.

Why isn't that good enuff for them?

by groups...not reality based.

Your narrative is based on people like Landes, it is a compulsion of yours, from what I have read.

Maybe PMW fabricated the whole video?

Here's a recent video put out by Fatah calling for Jewish deaths. Remember, they're the moderates...?

How do you convince 6 million Jews in Israel that this is rightwing zionist propaganda and not at all what Israel's opponents are all about?

to post this shit to support Israel's annexation of land from the Palestinians.

That is the goal, cede not one inch of land.

Wake up, Jeff.

These videos are mainstream within Palestinian and Arab societies surrounding Israel.

But for some reason, it's impossible for you to acknowledge this.

What's that reason?

I acknowledge it for what it is, propaganda used to help Israel retain all the land
and resources they are not legally entitled to.

The agenda is clear, cede not one inch of land to the Palestinians.

...the content on those videos.

Is the content on those videos mainstream throughout the mideast in your view?

Yes or No?

So assume Israel agrees to give up all land beyond the '67 lines & is generous WRT a refugee solution.

How does that solve 1948?

Why persist in the same nonsense over and over again?

to portray every Palestinian as murderer?

...have no problem with an Israel that keeps itself within the '48-'67 lines?

Is that what you're saying?

questions seriously.

running away. They are based on stereotypes and broad brushing to enable Israel
to keep land that does not belong to them.

syria and Iran don't really want Israel to go anywhere. It gives them a good boogeyman to distract their populace from their regimes.

Hamas, islamic Jihad, Hezbollah on the other hand would love to destroy Israel, but are not powerful enough to do so and they would not combine forces because they each want control and each have their own agendas. (ISIS wants to establish a new caliphate based out of Baghdad stretching in to Syria. Hamas/IJ each want to control the river to the sea but don't want the other to have any part of it. Hezbollah wants to have a greater syria (combining syria, Lebanon, the old Palestine mandate lands as they see them as all one continuous area)).

Israel should withdraw from the West Bank (outside of the old city of Jerusalem), including all their settlements, which would give the PA their continuous land and nation that they want. and this includes a barrier/wall/fence along the former green line. After that if attacks continue, Israel would have every right to declare formal war on Palestine, take any measures necessary to protect itself.

….on a newly formed Palestine that attacks Israel.

Really? Because I don't.

Israel's enemies would be crying "disproportionate response" before one finger is lifted in response.

There are legal justifications supporting both groups' claims to land in those areas. Certainly there's no reason to believe that all the WB and EJ belongs exclusively to either of them at this point. A legal border defining Israel versus the West Bank hasn't even been established yet. We do know that the green line itself is specifically NOT a border as per international agreements made decades ago.

That seems unlikely. Mainly because:

Israel is not a person.

The question of land/border disputes is neither genocide nor a crime against humanity.

Israel isn't even a signatory to the ICC, thus it's citizens are outside of the ICC's jurisdiction anyway.

But other than these small details you seem to have a really solid grasp on this legal stuff. Really, impressive work.

I would say..I hope you offer your services to Israel.

But considering that you have no idea what the ICC does at all, you may want to hold off on proclaiming the outcomes of any of their trials. Even the imaginary ones.

Seriously, could you make it any more obvious that you don't even bother to look up a topic before declaring supposed facts about it?

and their legal obligations as the occupying power.

But please do continue to bluster your way and pump yourself up.
Tell me more about your advanced knowledge base about the legalities of torture too,
it has been illuminating thus far.

On edit, I was remiss to add that Israel does not need to be a signer to the ICC,
the UNSC can forward the case for the Palestinians.

I've never said anything about the legalities of torture.
Making false accusations against me isn't going to give your absurd claims any validity you know.

But please do continue to bluster your way and pump yourself up.

No false accusations have been made by me.

You might want to check on the legality the next time you excuse torture.

This is the third time in this thread that you posted something anyone could easily look up and peg as nonsense.
I understand how desperate you are to change the topic, but making up lies about me really isn't going to impress anyone here.

And if I were you I'd ease back on making so many declarations about any topic remotely related to law. It's become painfully obvious you're just making it up as you go.

24. Excuse me?

Also, your presumption that Israel has no legal obligations as to how they conduct
investigations is amazing.


When did I suggest any such thing? I said they have no right to due process or legal counsel. The rules for holding tribunals for citizens under occupation are set forth under the Geneva conventions.

Regarding Israel's ability to obtain useful intelligence, I won't speak to the ethical aspects of their methodology, but no one can deny that they are good at what they do.

There are plenty of examples where coerced intelligence is just as accurate as any other. Needing a pass code for a locked phone for example.

Regarding torture, every country on earth does it. The shin bet is more commonly known for using more sophisticated forms of coercion to turn informants though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=65435

Where are the other two times? You are claiming the UNSC does not have the authority to
forward the case to the ICC?

Your bluster is pathetic.

Hey, look, my words ARE right there! You should try reading them.
Where exactly do you think I declared that torture was legal?

You are claiming the UNSC does not have the authority to
forward the case to the ICC?

Where are the other two times?

Your bluster is pathetic.

I did not say you said torture was legal, stop misrepresenting. Your words AND sentiments made
clear how you believe under the Geneva convention, Israel had limited legal obligations for due
process as well as your statements regarding the efficacy of torture.

Still going to stick with your horse shit that Israel can't be brought to the ICC?

The UNSC absolutely has the authority to forward the case to the ICC, Israel
does not need to be a signer. Google it.

The case against Israel would be on several levels. Once the case is heard and they would
likely be successful due to numerous years of barbaric treatment. They would be in a
solid negotiating position outside of the ICC arena to retain back their land that legally
belongs to them. (2004 ICJ advisory ruling sets legal precedent )


Palestine: Go to International Criminal Court

(Jerusalem) – Palestine should urgently seek access to the International Criminal Court (ICC), a group of 17 Palestinian and international human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, said today.

In a letter to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the groups said that providing the ICC with jurisdiction could give victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by any party on or from Palestinian territory access to international justice and send a message that such crimes cannot be committed with impunity. Abbas is under pressure not to do so primarily from Israel and the United States. Some ICC member states, including the UK and France, have opposed such a move because, they say, it would undermine Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations.

“The argument that Palestine should forego the ICC because it would harm peace talks rings hollow when 20 years of talks have brought neither peace nor justice to victims of war crimes,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “People who want to end the lack of accountability in Palestine and deter future abuse should urge President Abbas to seek access to the ICC.”

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/08/palestine-go-international-criminal-court


One thing that really stood out about your statement where you laughed and said, how can
a country go to the ICC..that was pretty funny. Not in a flattering way to you, but it was
funny.


Oh on edit, here is more specific means as to how that would occur:

http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/palestines-israeli-squatters.html

Facts about the ICC.

It can only prosecute individuals.

It only has jurisdiction over three types of crime: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It only has jurisdiction over crimes committed after July 1, 2012.

Do you see why Israel can't be brought before it yet? It's not a person, that's why. The ICC doesn't rule on border disputes. It prosecutes criminals.

about was explained to you throughout this thread and within those links.

That you imagine you're above the pay grade of HRW and Juan Cole is silly on your part.
In addition you were adamant that the UNSC did not have the authority to forward
the case to the ICC....that is not correct.

Shaktimaan (4,819 posts)
45. Well, it's both really.

There are legal justifications supporting both groups' claims to land in those areas. Certainly there's no reason to believe that all the WB and EJ belongs exclusively to either of them at this point. A legal border defining Israel versus the West Bank hasn't even been established yet. We do know that the green line itself is specifically NOT a border as per international agreements made decades ago.


Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #45)

snip* Jefferson23 (17,233 posts)
46. No, it's not. Israel will not have a legal leg to stand on if Abbas goes to the ICC. n/t


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #46)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:49 PM

Shaktimaan (4,819 posts)
47. You think?

That seems unlikely. Mainly because:

Israel is not a person.

The question of land/border disputes is neither genocide nor a crime against humanity.

Israel isn't even a signatory to the ICC, thus it's citizens are outside of the ICC's jurisdiction anyway.

But other than these small details you seem to have a really solid grasp on this legal stuff. Really, impressive work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:04 PM

Jefferson23 (17,233 posts)
48. Yes, you know, when I consider your legal proficiency on torture and the Geneva Convention,

I would say..I hope you offer your services to Israel.


57. The UNSC absolutely has the authority to forward the case to the ICC, Israel
does not need to be a signer. Google it.

The case against Israel would be on several levels. Once the case is heard and they would
likely be successful due to numerous years of barbaric treatment. They would be in a
solid negotiating position outside of the ICC arena to retain back their land that legally
belongs to them. (2004 ICJ advisory ruling sets legal precedent )


Palestine: Go to International Criminal Court

(Jerusalem) – Palestine should urgently seek access to the International Criminal Court (ICC), a group of 17 Palestinian and international human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, said today.

In a letter to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the groups said that providing the ICC with jurisdiction could give victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by any party on or from Palestinian territory access to international justice and send a message that such crimes cannot be committed with impunity. Abbas is under pressure not to do so primarily from Israel and the United States. Some ICC member states, including the UK and France, have opposed such a move because, they say, it would undermine Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations.

“The argument that Palestine should forego the ICC because it would harm peace talks rings hollow when 20 years of talks have brought neither peace nor justice to victims of war crimes,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “People who want to end the lack of accountability in Palestine and deter future abuse should urge President Abbas to seek access to the ICC.”

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/08/palestine-go-international-criminal-court


One thing that really stood out about your statement where you laughed and said, how can
a country go to the ICC..that was pretty funny. Not in a flattering way to you, but it was
funny.


Oh on edit, here is more specific means as to how that would occur:

http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/palestines-israeli-squatters.html

It is impossible for me to change the sequence of what I said and when in a thread.
Unfortunately, I cannot respond to your post#96 as it demonstrates a computer glitch I have
had and have needed administration to fix before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12596174

I am NOT responsible for your presumptions and errors. I would not have stated in post#48
about torture and the Geneva Convention if I did not know my own intent for the ICC.

What you're relying on is completely dishonest.

I have no interest in whether or not you agree that Israel taken to the ICC for their
crimes would then allow the Palestinians political leverage on negotiating their land.
If you cannot fathom the kind of damage it would bring to Israel on the world stage,
I can't help you.


The rest of your post and questions are so off the wall, it is worthless to communicate
with you. You were given two links and you still seem to think your capacity to
understand why and how this would occur is beyond you. You conveniently
did not respond earlier to this post so as to avoid addressing those links, that
much seems clear.

Why you're so confused might be what you rely on for sources, and I will remind
you, you have provided none. Other than what you pull out of thin air.

If this is any indication of the merit of your sources, you might want to rethink
things:


*Listen dude,

You should be aware that shira and many others here have been studying this conflict for many years. It's doubtful you have anything to teach them about Israel or Palestine that's been plucked from whatever anti-Zionist propaganda site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113421860#post93

you think no good for the Palestinians would come from the ICC. My point is that
Israel can be brought to the ICC and those links established how that can occur.
That you attempted numerous times to portray your own false presumptions and errors
about by intent for the purpose of taking Israel to the ICC is what this conversation
is primarily about. You were adamant about the UNSC not having the authority to
forward the case to the ICC, that was also not correct...they can.

Why anyone has to tell you WHO goes to the ICC is pretty funny. If you notice, when
you read articles on this subject, it is generally understood what I am saying to you.
You will see the language,i.e; Israel and Palestine come to the International Court.

Why this has to be spelled out for you is beyond me. When I state Israel can be prosecuted,
what do you think that means? That I believe every citizen of Israel will be served a subpoena?
Those responsible for policies that violate the rights of the Palestinians and any other violent acts,
generally,those in leadership roles who were aware of violations and or gave the orders, etc.

I notice you present yourself as having answers that you in the end can't back up. Paired with
an ego attitude that does not serve you. I am skeptical of any poster who refers to themselves
this way: I'll enjoy evicerating the rest of your pathetic argument later. First try and answer this question honestly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=65574

I find it hard to take your opinions and attitude seriously.

I have had more productive conversations with shira.

Have realized your plan is nonsense. I can tell because you suddenly changed key aspects of it. What was once your linchpin has become all but unrelated. It's only real job at this point is to mask your prior ignorance. Which means it's crucial to your plan; whose focus seems keeping you from looking dumb. (It's not likely to help the Palestinians end the occupation or reclaim any land, at any rate.)

Why not just admit right now that you were mistaken, the articles you read we're unclear and could be easily misinterpreted.

you can't slander me like that! I'll bring you to the Intergalactic Court on a charge of first degree illiterate douchebaggery!
You don't have a legal leg to stand on.

No idea what the ICC does "'.


Because I think he got you there.


Be a big boy and admit it....

Ok time to reformulate a better argument ?

would likely succeed is also pretty easy to see would occur.

He claimed otherwise. His problem is he presumed Israel does not have
legal transgressions and violations of war that can be held in account.

And he is right. You were wrong.

Jefferson23 (17,217 posts)
48. Yes, you know, when I consider your legal proficiency on torture and the Geneva Convention,

I would say..I hope you offer your services to Israel.

But admittedly with Shaktimaan you guys are out of your league _ especially the Robot dude .

Your friend was definitely in a jam..he was also incorrect about his claim the UNSC could
not forward the case to the ICC. The links back that up too.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Originally a Greek transliteration for "land of the Philistines", the Romans used it as a euphemism for the Kingdom of Judea to deny its legitimacy after they sacked the temple and burned Jerusalem.

Yes, you really showed me..showed me your contempt.

My remarks were addressed specifically at you, but I don't see how I could possibly diminish you more than you've already diminished yourself. Feel free to keep the contempt though, you've earned it, not least of all by your usual attempt to distort my words into something other than what I actually said.

Palestinians. That was just another one of your snide statements.

You make claims that human rights groups are nothing but propaganda aimed at hurting
Israel. I don't give a shit what you think about me, Fozzledick.

That's why you keep crying for attention.

that makes sense.

Say or when they talking about YOU or YOUR posts that they talking to or about the Palestinians.

So I asked you : are you the Palestinians now?

word was from another thread. I reminded him of it, he did not appreciate it.

Representative on this forum.

Are you?

BTW it should be noted the Hebrew word is Peleshet

The term Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c.1150 BCE during the Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt. The first mention is thought to be in texts of the temple at Medinet Habu, which record a people called the Peleset among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign,[4] followed later by an inscription on Padiiset's Statue. The Assyrians called the same region Palashtu or Pilistu, beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c.800 BCE through to emperor Sargon II, in his Annals approximately a century later.[5][6][7]

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.[8] Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judaean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.[9][10][11][12] and formed part of the 5th Persian satrapy (???ό? .[13] Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake (?ί??? in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.[14] Later writers such as Polemon, and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region. This usage was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder,[15] Statius, as well as Roman-era Greek writers such as Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom and Roman-era Judean writers such as Philo of Alexandria[16] and Josephus.[17] Other writers, such as Strabo, a prominent Roman-era Greek geographer, referred to the region as Coele-Syria around 10–20 CE,[18][19] and the Gospel of Matthew's description of the Flight into Egypt refers to the region as "the land of Israel" [?ἰ? ?ῆ? Ἰ?????], the only time in the New Testament such a reference is made.[20] The term was first used to denote an official province of the Roman Empire in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), There is circumstantial evidence linking Hadrian with the name change,[21] although the precise date is not certain,[21] and the interpretation of some scholars that the name change may have been intended "to complete the dissociation with Judaea"[22][23] is disputed.[24]

...have been seeing since before 1948. This is reality to the Jews of Israel, who are well aware of what's going on around them.

This stuff isn't censored in Israel. It's reality.

I want to know the reason you're so committed to wanting all this information censored. Why the desire to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the situation as is?

THIS is the reason the vast majority of Israel's Jews cannot possibly see things your way. They know the reality and they must deal with it on a daily basis.

see what you believe, and why.

I'm not blind, your sources tell a story..I get that.

...spend a little time discussing mainstream anti-Israel ideology around the mideast?

Why do u fear talking about it?

without holes.

All you have are pro settler sympathies.

...if you don't fear discussing it.

Let's start first with my question to you.... is the destruction of Israel mainstream thought throughout the mideast?

In fact, mainstream mideast thought outside Israel is centered around a peaceful 2 state solution, recognition of a Jewish state, end of conflict....

Is that correct?

It's demagogic to use the terms interchangeably.

"The Jews&quot a phrase I dislike, because Jewish people are deeply UN-homogenous and less prone to group-think than any other people I've ever met, thank goodness)are the world's Jewish communities, some of whom live in Israel, some of whom do not, and some of whom want nothing whatsoever to do with Israel or Zionism.

Some are right-wing. Some(a larger group)are left-wing. Some are centrist.

Some are anarchists. Some are authoritarians.

They not one single group.

And it's presumptuous for you to claim to speak for them.

That would be a generalization about Jewish people and a presumption that we all have a homogenous characteristic of being " less prone to group-think than any other people "

There's no slur in it at all.

It's as far away from a generalization as possible to say that a particular group can't be generalized about in terms of their opinions.

On Fri Jun 27, 2014, 06:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Incorrect. It is and always has been an Arab/Israel conflict....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=65382

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Shira is engaging in some typical anti-Arab BS here, by equating "Arabs" with a series of trror organizations (and iran, of course) and then basically proclaiming they're all genocidal crazies "out for revenge."

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 27, 2014, 06:28 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let me see now. . Who cares? I serve on these juries for one purpose, and that is to NEVER vote to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The facts are essentially accurate here, and I see nothing improper in their delivery.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: All are punished. All of them.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: On topic for this group.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't read this post the way the alerter does, and I don't think she can be "engaging in" on her first post on the thread. It's a contentious subject in its own forum, with longtime posters who can handle it through discussion.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

There would be no point in trying to get ANY sort of "regional agreement". The other countries in the region would always reject ANY such agreement, no matter what. No situation would ever lead them to accepting Israel's existence without also getting the acceptance of a Palestinian state.

There's no deal the U.S. could EVER make that would ever lead to an all-out pan-Islamic war against other Muslims-OR to an agreement by Arab and Muslim countries to let Western troops invade all their countries to go after "Islamists".

And seriously, shira, you can't STILL believe that Palestinians, by themselves, would never have been at odds with Israel if only it hadn't been for those other Arab countries putting them up to it.

There had been a Jewish population in Palestine the whole time between the destruction of the Temple and 1948-if it was all about hatred of Jews, that would never have been permitted-that continuing Jewish population would have been exterminated centuries earlier, as would have the long-standing Jewish communities of North Africa and Iran.

You're STILL pretending that Palestinians have no major legitimate grievances about how the Israeli government has treated them, and still pretending that the I/P conflict isn't based on anything real, other than Arab antisemitism for Arab antisemitism's sake.

The only case that rant made was a case for the supposed unavoidability perpetual bloodsoaked nihilism in the Middle East.

You're just not listening to what Israel's enemies throughout the region are saying, repeatedly, since 1948.

Either you don't know what they're saying or you don't care what they say, do, and keep doing. You don't take them at their word. Why don't you believe what they say, and by what they've done via their actions?

Most Jews just want the conflict over with. They've had enough. They're exhausted. So why not just pull out of the W.Bank? Easy enough, right? Because what would Israel be leaving behind? What would come of the W.Bank? Another Gaza with Hamas taking over and allowing Iran and Syria in? Maybe the W.Bank becomes another Iraq or Afghanistan? But this time it's not in Gaza, it's at their doorstep, as the W.Bank is right on top of Israel's major population centers. It's right across the street for those living in Jerusalem.

Have you ever really thought about this?

How do you answer?

If what you're saying is true, STAYING in the West Bank(and continuing to illegally expand settlements)isn't going to change the direction of Palestinian political thought in the way that either of us will like. Staying will only make the extremists there MORE extreme, will only make it harder for those who want democratic reform of Palestinian politics(something getting rid of the PA, as hawks like yourself now demand, and wiping out every remaining vestige of Oslo and going back to square one can't change either. NOTHING, in fact, that you advocate can ever lead to any positive results in this situation).

And staying in the West Bank and giving up on an I/P peace accord ultimately won't change the objectives of other Arab countries and wouldn't prevent the destruction of Israel if the other Arab countries really wanted to inflict it. They could destroy Israel right now. They could destroy Israel even if Israel permanently annexed the West Bank(as you probably secretly want Netanyahu to do, since you have this insanely romanticized view of the settlers and the effects of the settlements).

And staying in the West Bank couldn't ever force the other Arab countries to change their attitudes about Israel. If they actually felt the way you say they felt, keeping the IDF where it is wouldn't turn them into lovers of Zionism.

And a "regional agreement" wouldn't be worth trying to achieve either, since, if the other Arab countries DID feel as you insist they feel, if the conflict is totally rooted(as you insist it to be)in Arab hatred of Jews. A diplomatic accord wouldn't erase pathological hatred. It's not possible to take atavistically homicidal bigots(which is what you appear to think all Arabs and/or Muslims are)and get them to just let go of such feelings by having some sort of a regional conference. Hatred doesn't vanish in exchange for a defense and trade pact. It can't be insane hatred and a bargaining chip at the same time. The only way the "regional agreement" position makes any sense is if you actually believe that the Arab and Muslim countries don't actually hate "the Jews" but simply pretend to do so because they think it's in their political interest to SOUND like they do. Do you believe that?

Which is it, then? Maniacal hatred that can only be defeated by force...or a political pose that can be bought off at a conferene table? It can't be both, shira. And that's where the logic of your argument totally collapses.

BTW, why do you assume that everybody in Israel(remember, "Israel" and "Jews" are not synonymous concepts, and it's wrong to use the terms interchangeably) actually does want the war to be over? The Likud Party, and much of the rest of the Israeli far right, would lose virtually all public support and vanish off the electoral map if a true peace deal were to be made. The career path from IDF officer to political leader would go away as well. And the settlers would pretty much all have to leave their settlements, go back home to Israel proper, and get nothing but well-deserved derision from their neighbors for all the massive amount of public funding that went to support them in their illegal project, as well as rage for causing all the deaths of the IDF personnel who had to fight to protect them against people like the Palestinian olive growers whose trees they stole. A significant minority of Israelis actually depend on the continuation of perpetual conflict to keep up the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. Naftali Bennett is a prime example of this.

And finally, answer me this, you who are so certain what this is all about(and that it's all about nothing but the OTHER side being evil for evil's sake)if the Arabs and Muslims were that obsessed with creating a Judenrein region, wouldn't they have driven out or exterminated every Jew in every Arab or Muslim country prior to 1948?