I'm not loking at this from a moral perspective, I'm looking at it from the perespective of a negotiation. Taking the stance "no matter what you do, we're going to try to kill you" isn't going to get you anywhere at the negotiation table.
But that isn't the stance the Palestinians, or I, have taken in the past, Steve. The Palestinians have agreed to enter peace talks, Hamas have agreed to enter peace talks, if Israel stop expanding into the illegally occupied Palestinian territory and lift the aforementioned senseless blockade.
Israel refused to stop expanding into said territory even after President Obama and Joe Biden demanded them to stop. The Israelis then went onto announce a huge expansion of new homes to be built on Palestinian territory coinciding to when Joe Biden was visiting Israel in an attempt to kick-start peace talks.
It's not a matter of 'no matter what, we're going to kill you'. It's a matter of stop the senseless blockade (that doesn't halt weapons entering Gaza anyway), and stop expanding into illegally held territory. That's all. They're not asking for Israel to pick up and leave - all they're asking is to stop expanding and to lift the blockade. Or am I wrong?
I mean, that's what I've been led to believe by the international media, but maybe I shouldn't trust them, right, Gillie?
Again, this is another silly, hysterical argument.... to go along with your other silly, hysterical arguments.
If you need to make stuff up - because, let's be honest, we both know I never said that - it's a sign of desperation.
But you did say that Steve - that Palestinians shouldn't attack Israel and that Israel should not retreat from the 1967-war occupied land. You said that it won't help the advance of peace if Israel retreat - despite everyone on the ground working towards peace saying that it will. Strange, that, isn't it: how you seem to have contrary opinions - on how the two sides will come to an agreement and peace - with that of everyone else (on the ground)?
You said yourself that the Palestinians need to stop attacking Israel before peace can begin. They have stopped, and all they have asked to begin the peace process is to stop building new homes in Palestine. The Israelis refused. Am I really that silly, hysterical, bigoted and whatever else you want to call me for sticking with my guns when those are the facts? That Israel is the nation opposed to peace here, not as you suggest, Palestine (and in reality form of government and religious belief have nothing to do with peace, so don't use the democracy card here, pretty please).
The Israel-palestine conflict isn't a conflict revolving around the 1967 borders. And, if Israel agreed to go back to those borders, the conflict wouldn't disappear.
It's not a step towards peace, instead, the Palestinians would see it as a step towards removing Israel altogether.
Unsurprisingly, the Israelis aren't falling for it.
I suspect it's because, when someone points out that the Jews have a right to life and, therefore, need to live somewhere, any solution you're proposing no longer makes sense.
When have I ever argued against the existence of Israel or Jews in this entire thread? All I am arguing for is the end of the blockade, and to stop expanding into illegally held territory, and if I want to push it: a two-state plan with Jerusalem the (shared) capital of Palestine. Heck I'm even inclined to favour that Israel should keep hold of a fair amount of the captured 1967 territory and restart expansion - but only after peace and the Palestinian state and her borders have been agreed upon by all parties.
What do you think I am proposing, Steve? I am certainly not proposing the existence of Israel to cease. What made you think that, may I humbly and politely, ask?
Yes, I'm on the side that doesn't want to see millions of Jews wiped off the face off the planet. You must be the other guy.
Sign of desperation is it, Steve?
