You didn't answer my questions.
The answers are all the same. The Palestinians have only one choice since they are subject to Israeli hegemony, they must all leave the West Bank and Gaza and let the Israelis occupy and settle there. The fact that no country wants them is an issue I guess. So long as the US unconditionally supports Israel I see no other path to peace.
That is an unexpected response. Rather extreme.
The Israeli right wants all of the West Bank (I'm not sure about Gaza) and, so long as the US supports them, they will get it. A small piece at a time. What the Palestinians need is not an Arafat but a Gandi.
This doesn't quite answer my question. If the Arabs put down all their weapons and stopped committing terrorist attacks, would Israel continue to attack them?
No, but neither will they make any concessions. They like the status quo, the Palestinians do not.
Great. We agree. There will, then, be some sort of peace if the Arabs of Palestine just stop attacking Israel.
Israel won't make concessions? What makes you think that? Israel has made plenty of concessions over the past century.
I vehemently disagree that Israelis "like" the status quo. They tolerate it. They are stuck in a corner where every action on their part has war as an outcome. So they don't move. Not the same as "liking" the status quo. (And, yes, the status quo also has war as an outcome).
There will also be peace if Israel kills every Palestinian or exiles them.
If Palestinians stopped attacking, what incentive would they to make concessions? Would the conceding party ever get reelected?
I think they like having control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and having peace treaties with most of their neighbors.
Do you actually believe this is a realistic possibility? Or something that Israelis wish?
Um. Lasting peace. Economic prosperity. Regional cooperation.
The Israeli political leader that makes peace with the Arabs in Palestine? They would be celebrated. Without question.
Peace treaties with Syria and Lebanon, and normalization treaties with all of the MENA States would be welcomed, obviously. As would a peace treaty with a future State of Palestine. What is perplexing is why the Arabs in Palestine DON'T seem to want that.
Realistic? No. Killing? No. Exile? Yes.
If the Palestinians stopped attacking, Israel has all that. Why make further concessions?
Only if they made no concessions.
The 2-state solution is not popular with the current Israeli gov't so I doubt Palestinians see that as a possible result of not attacking today.
Voluntary emigration should not be prohibited. Forced exile, though? Unlikely, unworkable, impractical, and illegal.
In my opinion, Israelis have no wish to govern 4 million more Arabs. The loss of some territory in exchange for lasting peace and economic prosperity across MENA with good relations with the other Arab nations.
Strongly disagree. There are some concessions that are just not on the table: Jerusalem and return. But giving up Areas A, B, and some portion of C? Not a problem. Contiguity? Of course. A corridor between Gaza and Palestine? Fine. Border with another State or two? Cautiously, over time, sure. Israelis would jump at that, if it meant they could put their children to bed safely at night.
The more-states solution is not popular with any Israelis right now. But you have to understand WHY that is. The people of Israel do not believe that the people of Gaza and Palestine are capable of peaceful co-existence. They don't see any signs of peace. They don't see any wish for peace. Unilateral or even negotiated "land for peace" is a failure. Show them peace.
Forced exile is very likely, very workable, and very practical. Make life so hard and dangerous that people choose to leave and then refuse them the option to return.
Some but certainly not all Israelis feel that way. Many hold a dream of a greater Israel, it even has a name, Eretz Yisrael Hashlema.
You're asking the Palestinians to give up a lot of what they feel was theirs.
It worked with Egypt.
If you had asked the slaves in the US South before the Civil War what THEY should do for themselves, what do you think they might have said?
Whoa. Hold on. We were having a reasonable discussion. Comparing Arab Palestinians to slaves is offside.
It would depend on how you would draw the borders of "greater Israel". If you mean "biblical borders, Nile-to-Euphrates" it is a teeny tiny minority. If you mean some portion of Judea and Samaria (Area C), it is somewhat different. Still, I stand by my claim that most Israelis would give territory to have peace.
Maybe. Concessions go both ways. Some territory for Israel. Some territory for Palestine. How is that not the fairest outcome?
Would Palestinians agree? They both face severe restrictions on their freedoms.
The Netanyahu government has not shown much interest.
You don't have to convince me and Israel has failed to convince the Palestinians. As they say, the devil is in the details.
No. Just no. There is absolutely no equivalence between slavery and the lives of Arab Palestinians (in any area). This whole trend of stretching the meaning of words in order to demonize Israel is repugnant. Stop it. There are no restrictions on the freedoms of Arab Palestinians, let alone "severe" ones.
That is laughable. You might claim the restrictions are due to Palestinian protests and violence but, in my view, it is just an endless spiral. Israel restricts, Palestinians protest, Israel reacts to the protest, Palestinians react to the Israeli reactions, and so on. It no longer matters which came first, it is an endless circling of the drain and I see both sides as being at fault.
You compared being Arab Palestinian to SLAVERY. That is repugnant and disrespectful to those who have experienced slavery.
I guess you're not going to address the extensive restrictions on their freedoms that Arab Palestinians face. I don't blame you, they are repugnant.
