Several points, for the (clearly) historically challenged amongst us:
1.) Rewarding terrorists with land has never, historically, proven a terribly efficacious means of reducing further terrorist actions.
2.) Israel is not illegally "occupying" anydamnthing. The (so-called) "disputed territories" are solely and wholly israeli land. Said land was rightfully won by Israek, in defebding itself from an unannounced and unprovoked attack, by an aggressor nation.
3.) Anyone residing within this country who isn't a full-blooded Native American has absolutely diddley-squat in the way of moral or intellectual firepower to level versus Israel, insofar as "illegally occupied territories" are concerned. Surrender your own homes and lands to some nice Choctaw family, before bloviating further on the topic.
4.) Your argument is turned inwards on itself: it is, if anything, the savage and bloody-minded actions of the Palestinians which "haven't worked up to this point," and continue not to work; and thus, need to be changed, in order for any lasting, genuine Mideast peace to occur.
Here's an idea: maybe -- just maybe, min d -- it's the Palis who need to "understand" the Israelis a little better... by "understanding," first and foremost, that Israel is NEVER going to go away.
Then, they can continue practicing their newly-attempted skills at "understanding" by "understanding" that suicide bombings are not, nor ever will be, a legitimate means of diplomacy.
Finally, they (as well as the rest of their pro-terrorist apologia choir, both online and off, here and abroad) can make a wild stab at "understanding" that -- here in the real world -- actions have consequences; and, thus, the Palis have, now and forevermore, squandered away any faint hopes at a so-called "right of return," or the reinstatement of 1967-era borders.
Just because there are a misguided (purported) "conservatives," hereabouts, with a Buchananist distaste for Jews and/or Israel; neither of these are in any way obligated, therefore, to sign said nation's death warrant... all in the name of some counterfeit notion of "fairness," or "understandinng."
If Israel doesn't end the occupation, its options are limited. It can expell the Palestinians, which wouldn't solve anything, and most likely make things much worse. It could grant them citizenship, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Or it can continue what its doing now, letting the Palestinians bleed them to death, cripple the economy, and make them a pariah in the world community.
Interesting how the entire onus for bringing about peace, ultimately, just happen to fall upon Israel. One might easily be misled into believing that the Palis are blameless, holy creatures; whey-faced innocents who only just happen to trip and stumble their respective ways into Semtex belts, and waking up each morning horrified to find Molotov cocktails mysteriously clutched in their hands. Oh, the poor, poor dears.
Again: overlooking the faux notion of Israel illgally "occupying" their own rightful territories... you somehow manage to overlook the simplest, most straightforward and (long-range) effective means by which peace may finally come to the Middle East.
Big Concept Time: The Palis can actually decide to stop butchering blameless, non-combatant Jewish infants; teenage girls; and Holocausr survivors... and resolve, once and for all, that they'd actually rather have their own country, rather than simply see how many dead Jews they can stack up per Pali, per annum.
Naaaaaaaaaaahhhh. < /sarcasm >
Personally, I don't care what you call it--rewarding, isolating, whatever. My point is the same. The current status quo for Israel isn't tenable, and expelling the Palestinians would make the security situation for Israel worse.
2.) Israel is not illegally "occupying" anydamnthing. The (so-called) "disputed territories" are solely and wholly israeli land. Said land was rightfully won by Israek, in defebding itself from an unannounced and unprovoked attack, by an aggressor nation.
Again, I don't care how the situation came to be, as I'm not arguing from the perspective of 'fairness'. In fact, my ideas are rather unfair to segments of both Israel and the Palestinians. That doesn't mean that they aren't in their best interests, though. But understanding how they tick is important, as you can't begin to solve the problem that is Palestinian society without understanding it.
3.) Anyone residing within this country who isn't a full-blooded Native American has absolutely diddley-squat in the way of moral or intellectual firepower to level versus Israel, insofar as "illegally occupied territories" are concerned. Surrender your own homes and lands to some nice Choctaw family, before bloviating further on the topic.
The Native Americans have been compensated (fairly or not) throught government funding and special perks like legalized gambling. Yes, what the U.S. did to them sucked. But if the moral high ground was a prerequisite for making any kind of argument, then no one could critize any other country. Do you really think what the U.S. did to the Indians justifies China's invasion of Tibet?
And by the way, I don't live in the U.S. Which I have already mentioned on this thread.
4.) Your argument is turned inwards on itself: it is, if anything, the savage and bloody-minded actions of the Palestinians which "haven't worked up to this point," and continue not to work; and thus, need to be changed, in order for any lasting, genuine Mideast peace to occur.
Yeah, and you expect the Palestinians to change? Who is being naive? Israel has the initiative militarily and security wise, so indeed what they do in the long run is more important than what the Palestinians do.
Just because there are a misguided (purported) "conservatives," hereabouts, with a Buchananist distaste for Jews and/or Israel; neither of these are in any way obligated, therefore, to sign said nation's death warrant... all in the name of some counterfeit notion of "fairness," or "understandinng."
My view is neither anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, or racist as you're implying. Neither is it based on 'fairness' for either side. Its based on the prospect that neither side will change signifigantly in their attitudes. Try re-reading my posts.
Big Concept Time: The Palis can actually decide to stop butchering blameless, non-combatant Jewish infants; teenage girls; and Holocausr survivors... and resolve, once and for all, that they'd actually rather have their own country, rather than simply see how many dead Jews they can stack up per Pali, per annum.
And how are you going to do this? Get them all together and sing Kumbaya? Clamp down harder? That's worked splendidly so far. As long as the occupation continues, they're not going to stop. Hell, even after the occupation ends, they might not stop. But at least Israel would be in a better position than the untenable situation that is the occupation. For the security situation in Israel to improve, they need to isolate themselves from the Palestinians. And that cannot happen with the number and distributions of settlements.