Ah. Well. There's me not knowing about that. LOL

Honestly, this whole quibble over the use of the word 'genocide' is a colossal and immature waste of everyone's time. There are a multitude of different languages and cultures that all have different ideas of what this word means. Use whatever words are necessary for a given sentence and get on with it. You don't need the world's global consent as to their meaning, and I assure you, you will never get it. A comparison with genocide is is not the same of attributing universality, and the English language is not a five-year old's playground. End of ten-week-long discussion.

Your argument reads like the following; someone is diagnosed with lung cancer and you point out that that cough can just be a cold. It doesn't work looking at every symptom separately and then conclude it doesn't amount to genocide. But every action taken together does. And it's important to realise this is the actual plan of the current administration and has been for decades. There is no exit strategy, no strategic conception towards peace. Even Hamas has set out terms along which they were prepared to accept peace. But not Likud and other Israeli right wing parties.

The colonisation movement, the refusal to accept a right of return, the continual destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and heritage - they all result in the above. Evictions of Palestinians, bulldozing and bombing of homes and agricultural land, outright theft of occupied territories, IDF support for colonist's violence to terrorise Palestinian civilians to make them leave. It's all aimed at "get out of our promised land". It's slow yes but it's real.

Hamas is not in control in West Bank, but is still used as an excuse to amp up the restrictions making life worse for Palestinians there (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/world/middleeast/west-bank-palestine-israel.html). Money to support colonists increased and was sped up even before 7 October. It's happening right under everybody's noses. (https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15337.doc.htm)

Even before the current bombing of Gaza, there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It wasn't referred to the largest open air prison for nothing.

It's all aimed at making their living conditions impossible. And their excuse is, it's not a genocide because they can leave. Or, well, there are more of them than before. Well no shit, if that's case, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide either because Jews could just leave to the US or should've had more kids!

I think I just need to leave you in your box.

Prussia was abolished in 1947, deemed a "bearer of militarism and reaction" by the Allies. Could this be genocide? Genocide of the focal point of German militarism? — BitconnectCarlos

German militarism didn't end by a decree by the Allies. It died because of a persistent drive by West German officials to create a new Citizen-soldier army (Bundeswehr) and simply because the people saw what an epic fail it all had been. In fact the East German army represented far more the older Wehrmacht because they simply declared that they hadn't anything to do with Nazism.

Actually now days the US would want that Germany wasn't so passive and anti-military!

I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. — neomac

They naturally wanted independence, like was promised to them, but that came then after some lost uprisings and WW2. Needless to say they weren't consulted.

was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? — neomac

Of course! Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place, but simply let the prior Ottoman provinces be independent. Like ummm.... Finland and the Baltic States and Poland after Russia lost them. Finland hadn't been independent prior. But you think we would have liked to be then under the Mandate of some other country or Sweden?

And likely they would have squabbled it out just like the former colonies of Spain and Portugal did. Like, well, they actually have sometimes done. Or then they could have surprised everybody and made Pan-Arabism really to work.

I think I just need to leave you in your box.

Take a look at this tweet about a farmer being told to leave his land.

https://x.com/amwogakhalwale/status/1741842955059523653?s=20

Can you tell me what is going on here?

I’m not going to pretend I have a clue - but at face value, colonialism.

As far as I’m concerned, the primary worry for us is not Palestinians or Jews getting their nation-states (neither are perceived as necessary to people other than them themselves) because we can’t write their history for them, it’s about keeping us as far as possible from WW3. And the dilemma for the US as global hegemonic power remains: how is it possible to deter rivals without escalating or risking an overstretch?

I don’t see much likelihood of this conflict leading to WW3. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion. Primarily that there isn’t a powerful army ready to march and overcome any other significant territory. The likely candidate is presumably Russia, but Russia is struggling to hold onto a small area of land in southern Ukraine. While its fighting age population is being decimated and economically Russia is near collapse.
The U.S. and China will steer well clear of any large scale war. For the U.S. there is a move towards isolationism and focusing on internal problems. Plus they remember how all their previous campaigns, especially in the Middle East, have not gone well. For China, why would they take such a risk when they are going to surpass the U.S. economically and they see the U.S. in decline. Basically, they will inevitably achieve world domination through commerce soon enough.

Who else would agitate for a world war. Or be capable of conducting a large scale war?

What may happen though, is a wider regional war with power brokers conducting proxy wars and more of the Middle East left in ruin and failed states.

I’m not going to pretend I have a clue - but at face value, colonialism.

I don’t think colonialism is appropriate to describe what’s going on here. It’s forced displacement, sanctioned and funded by the state with no concern, or provision for where the displaced people are to go, or how they are to feed themselves. Not only this, but the entire mentality of the oppressors (again state sanctioned) dehumanises the victims and is actively hostile to their human dignity. Their rights as citizens of Palestine, under Israeli control as an apartheid state are disregarded, ignored denied (again state sanctioned).

The story depicted in that tweet is happening all over the West Bank and wholesale in Gaza. It’s accelerating and the oppressors are becoming more vocal and bold in their actions. A humanitarian catastrophe could happen at any time.

This is clearly ethnic cleansing and is open to the charge of genocide. Genocide is a specific charge which must be ruled on by the ICJ before it can be established definitively whether the bar has been reached.

So what do people think what happens next, besides Palestinians die in Gaza?

I think Israel will attack Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah... at some time, but soon. And it hopes to get the US fully entangled in this war.

Yes, I see Israel pulling the U.S. into the region. They will not feel secure until there are more U.S. airbases around them. Their control over the U.S. can be seen in the response to the ICJ acceptance of the plausibility of South Africa’s charge of genocide. Within a few hours the world’s media was flooded with revelations of UNWRA employees being involved in 7th October attack with the response being that the Western power coalition stated that they will withdraw funding of UNWRA.

Israel calls the shots and we follow like a dog on a lead.

The UNWRA case seems to have worked as you describe. For instance my country was among those who decided this, unlike other Nordic countries. Seems that after bowing to the Soviet Union (which is called Finlandization), this administration feels the urge to bow to the US. And there's hardly any media coverage in the mainstream media than a few recounts of October 7th.

October 7th was the first realistic chance they had to go full-on genocide. They couldn't have done that under the gaze of the rest of the world without a really good bit of provocation. And they got it. — bert1

This is actually the real tragedy here. Because if it would have been another administration, then yes, naturally we would have had the war... but perhaps no ICJ ruling. No Israeli Cabinet members celebrating on a conference how they will put up new settlements in Gaza and no talk of 'voluntary' moving of Palestinians from Gaza. That would be just the "ordinary" political rhetoric going around in Israel which we wouldn't have to take seriously.

And in truth, less Palestinians killed, even if it likely would be many thousands. These body counts are really and end effect of political leadership. Prior IDF used to alarm people when they bombed some building. Tha'ts ancient history now. And that is a political decision.

Naturally the discourse would be similar. And actually THIS THREAD ITSELF is very telling. It was started three years ago and until page 74 everything is three years old. Until page 83 it was two years old, but I resurrected this thread then as I'm fond of long threads of same subject matters. Then it was just happening, so in the first comments there was no information on just how large the breach had been and only later it started dripping in that the billion dollar wall had been so effectively breached.

But notice the numbers from previous operations compared to this (from @Maw's post on page 74):


As one can note from the above figure, there were diffirent ways to fight this war.

I said back then, when this round of the conflict had just started in early October:

Bibi and the Israeli leadership understands that for now they will have the support of those that will support them, but that can change if some "final solution" type razing to the ground is implemented. One thing is rhetoric, another thing is implementin strategies that the Roman Army or the Soviet Army in Afghanistan implemented. They do understand that in the prison camp called Gaza, people don't have anywhere to go in the end. Yet you have a 300 000 strong force, which the majority is land forces. Gaza is small: it's 40 kilometers wide and only 6 kilometers deep. Yes, even 100 000 troops are a large force on that kind of area.

You can go literally check every building and shed there and then have the forces quite close. With a force of 100 000 you have basically one soldier watching over 20 Palestinians. Naturally it doesn't go like this, but it just shows the contrast here. (For example to Ukraine).

Because at some death toll that support that people have for Israelis will turn if the death toll of Palestinians goes very much up. — ssu

Now I think the worst fears are indeed coming out. Joe Biden warned Bibi of not making the same mistakes that Americans did on 9/11. Yet Bibi is exactly making them, just like a Dick Cheney, he sees this as an opportunity. And thus it will escalate to fighting Hezbollah. Perhaps in a month, perhaps sooner or later. The Biden administration has opposed this, but as it finds itself making strikes here and there, it's pleas are becoming very hollow. Thus it is unlikely that we won't see a war against Hezbollah too and an attempt to destroy those over 100 000 rockets they have. Hopefully I'm wrong here.

I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. — neomac

They naturally wanted independence, like was promised to them, but that came then after some lost uprisings and WW2. Needless to say they weren't consulted. — ssu

The promise wasn't to the Palestinians nor explicitly/specifically about Palestine, if you are referring to the Hussein-McMahon agreements (whose actual content is still disputed given its critical textual ambiguities). What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. So I would still question if it makes sense to frame the genesis of this conflict on an alleged past broken promise and then assess it based on our current concerns for the humanitarian crisis in Palestine.

was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? — neomac

Of course! Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place, but simply let the prior Ottoman provinces be independent. Like ummm.... Finland and the Baltic States and Poland after Russia lost them. Finland hadn't been independent prior. But you think we would have liked to be then under the Mandate of some other country or Sweden? — ssu

“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state (cause there is no doubt that Arabs/Palestinians would be happier if there was an Arab empire in the region and the jews were living UNDER the Arab rule).

Who else would agitate for a world war. Or be capable of conducting a large scale war?
What may happen though, is a wider regional war with power brokers conducting proxy wars and more of the Middle East left in ruin and failed states. — Punshhh

Even if direct and conventional confrontation between major powers as in WW2 must be avoided (for the reasons you suggest and also because the nuclear threat is still there like during the Cold War), interlinked and worldwide instabilities due to regional asymmetric or conventional conflicts (like in Ukraine and Palestiane) involving major powers and/or proxies of major powers make less predictable the extent to which such conflicts can be contained. So maybe WW3 is arguably unlikely in the foreseeable future, still we may be getting closer to an international situation that could be more uncertain and hotter than Cold War in that there are no 2 military and economic blocks with their respective solid leadership to guide/assure our dealing with our economic and security concerns.

The promise wasn't to the Palestinians nor explicitly/specifically about Palestine, if you are referring to the Hussein-McMahon agreements (whose actual content is still disputed given its critical textual ambiguities). — neomac

That's true. And you can see from the example of Iraq how difficult these countries are to manage, when borders are drawn by actually thinking about the people living there.

What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. — neomac

With the UN we are already talking about post-WW2 era. Then the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinians was already in full swing.

“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. — neomac

Of course it's an counterfactual, but your question was already a counterfactual!

But similar "control" didn't happen when Austro-Hungary and the Russian Empire collapsed. Yes, that got us wars in and after WW1, but there was no incentive to create Mandate control. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, the West had even more grand ideas how to partition the Empire, but the Turks simply fought back. And perpetrated a genocide, actually.

My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state — neomac

But that's totally counterfactual. There hasn't been such time. Or there may have been, but it's on the counterfactual. That possible time ended when Yigal Amir killed Yitzhak Rabin. Then it was over. And then you got the vicious circle of attacks and counterattacks which the hawks enjoyed on both sides. The hawks enjoyed each other so much, that actually Bibi supported Hamas by funding them! It makes perfect sense for Bibi.

And it seems that you totally forget or ignore that PLO actually stopped it's fight against Israel and did recognize it. Or that isn't enough of "show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state"? Oh but they didn't finalize the peace process... well, because those who celebrated that Rabin was dead came to power.

So let's assume that we would have gotten a peace deal with Labor party and the PLO. Would Bibi have been OK with it? Would it have made the settlements not to grow? I think it could easily have been a piece of paper, which time would have passed. That's my point about you talking about a counterfactual.

The Oslo peace process is dead and a note in history. And it's dead because the US is totally fine with the present government doing what it is doing. Israel doesn't need anything else than the backing of the US. They worried about this backing when the Cold War ended, but not anymore. Why?

I've over and over again: the religious zealots are now in control. And it's not only those in Hamas who see dead Palestinians as martyrs that go to heaven and those Ultra-Zionists who dream of larger Israel without Palestinians, it's also those totally insane Evangelists in the US, for whom supporting Israel hasn't anything to do with foreign policy. For them supporting Israel is for them an issue of faith. Because Israel is the Holy Land. And when those Evangelists outnumber Jewish-Americans (of whom many are critical to the actions of the Netanyahu administration), it's a slam dunk. To win votes in the US, you have to favor Israel. Doesn't matter if few "leftist hippies" are angry about it, it's the culture war, baby! The US will support Israel no matter what.

This war will likely escalate.

Turkey is a very important country in this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/10/dozens-killed-in-rafah-airstrikes-as-full-scale-israeli-ground-offensive-looms

It's started. The last place the Palestinians were relatively safe is being attacked.

What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. — neomac

With the UN we are already talking about post-WW2 era. Then the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinians was already in full swing.

“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. — neomac

Of course it's an counterfactual, but your question was already a counterfactual! — ssu

But I was not arguing based on a counterfactual: namely, a fact that didn’t happen, but could have happened. I limited myself to argue for a possibility that the Palestinians had back then, when the list of Palestinians/Israelis’ grievances weren’t AS LONG AS they are now (in that sense it was the best opportunity up until now), and they had the chance to get their States: Israel said OK, Palestinians said KO.

My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state — neomac

But that's totally counterfactual. There hasn't been such time. — ssu

It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled.

And it seems that you totally forget or ignore that PLO actually stopped it's fight against Israel and did recognize it. Or that isn't enough of "show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state"? Oh but they didn't finalize the peace process... well, because those who celebrated that Rabin was dead came to power. — ssu

No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations.
As I pointed out elsewhere the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially about conflicting demands for self-determination, which both sides perceive as a zero-sum game, evoking feelings of existential threat and profound insecurity. It’s a deadlock. It’s not just a historical-emotional impasse but an ideological impasse: that may not only be due to the idea of nation-state but also to the the idea of just retaliation for blood of relatives which both Islam and Judaism support (secularism may have overcome this in Israel, in the Arab world the alternative is less secularism than tribalism which still supports blood feud). That’s why I think there is little hope for a peaceful coexistence and credible expression of good will, at least on their own initiative.

when those Evangelists outnumber Jewish-Americans (of whom many are critical to the actions of the Netanyahu administration), it's a slam dunk. To win votes in the US, you have to favor Israel. Doesn't matter if few "leftist hippies" are angry about it, it's the culture war, baby! The US will support Israel no matter what. — ssu

As I said, I deeply doubt that Evangelicals would vote for Biden if Biden supported more Israel.
Besides many American Jews may be critical toward Netanyahu administration overall, yet they may still be more supportive of his measures after the massacre of October 7 than you seem to believe https://jewishinsider.com/2023/12/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-american-jews-support-israels-fight-against-hamas/
Finally, don’t overlook the possibility that those Americans who are against supporting Israel, especially among the younger generations, may very much be against supporting Ukraine as well (so Biden might not get enough political support from them either):
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/how-young-americans-view-wars-world-right-now

It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled. — neomac

If you are talking about 1948, isn't it obvious that it wasn't just an issue of the Palestinians somehow being here the culprits? Don't forget that when the British left, it was the neighboring Arab nations going on the attack NOT to liberate the Palestinians and create a Palestinian country, but simply to take land for themselves. It was free land for them to take...and perhaps kick back the Jewish Europeans, right? Palestinians came to be the focus when they couldn't get that land.

And then don't forget the other side also. Ask yourself, who killed Folke Bernadotte? As you should notice, at that time also the Israeli side wasn't some unified actor benevolently hoping to share the land with the Palestinians. So your alternative reasoning simply doesn't add up.

There's simply too much of a lure to use violence as the answer to the underlying problem.

No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations. — neomac

Exactly, now those political leaders could have prevailed if it genuinely would have brought peace. The real question is if really even with a written peace deal on paper celebrated on the White House lawn, would it have been carried through by the "River-to-the-Sea" Likud party and the "River-to-the-Sea" Palestine militant factions? Because all it takes is a small cabal of terrorists blowing up something... or one ultra-zionist assassin to shoot an Israeli prime minister.

Too many people are delighted that the conflict endures and too easily the fear, anger and will for revenge can be instilled.

Especially when you kill the Israeli prime minister, the settlements expanding (as you said) and the terrorist attacks happen. And then you have the intifada. As I've stated again, on both sides there have been those against a peace process. And they now hold de facto power. Just look at what has come of the Israeli Labor party and how weak the PLO that laid down it's arms and is acts as the PA (when the original idea was that the authority would be for a short time and end in 1999).

I wouldn't be too surprised if some Israeli administration in the future decides to demolish the Dome of the Rock (built by Muslims over the holy site) and Al-Aqsa mosque and built a new Jewish temple there. As the spokesmen for an organization hoping this would done said in an interview of former Knesset member Yehuda Glick admitted earlier those purposing this were considered zealots, lunatics, fringe and now they are mainstream.

No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations. — neomac

The Oslo Accords were a joke. They were intended as an interim agreement but with no final state defined it was a recipe for failure. The open-ended nature of it meant PLO just wrote away indefinitely the Palestinians' right to self-determination. And while they tried to negotiate a permanent agreement, they failed several times. This interim process was in itself undermined by continued terrorist attacks and settler colonisation, finally culminating in Rabin's murder.

It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled. — neomac

If you are talking about 1948, isn't it obvious that it wasn't just an issue of the Palestinians somehow being here the culprits? Don't forget that when the British left, it was the neighboring Arab nations going on the attack NOT to liberate the Palestinians and create a Palestinian country, but simply to take land for themselves. It was free land for them to take...and perhaps kick back the Jewish Europeans, right? Palestinians came to be the focus when they couldn't get that land.

And then don't forget the other side also. Ask yourself, who killed Folke Bernadotte? As you should notice, at that time also the Israeli side wasn't some unified actor benevolently hoping to share the land with the Palestinians. So your alternative reasoning simply doesn't add up. — ssu

I’ve lost you. What is the alternative reasoning that doesn’t add up? You didn’t bring anything that questions my views. My reasoning goes beyond the issue of who is the culprit. As I said, I don’t need to question the Palestinian historical grievances against Israel to make my point. The reason why I focused on the Palestinians is just because you seemed to question my views and suggest that Palestinians would opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck. I questioned the latter because it seemed to me out of historical circumstances, to begin with, like the ones at the end of the British mandate which weren’t amenable to a peaceful resolution. It is a fact that historical grievances on the Arab/Palestinian part prevailed against the UN resolution which Israel accepted. I’m not judging responsibilities, I’ll claim it as a fact to stress the importance of historical grievances. If historical grievances are the premise for refusing peaceful resolutions, I expect things to be worse when the list of historical grievances has increased and deepened over time on both sides. If one adds to such historical grievances the ideological dimension, namely nation-state aspirations and certain worrisome cultural dispositions (like the support for blood revenge, but not only… BTW have you ever noticed how nicely Muslims kill Christian minorities in the Arab world?), then there is little to be surprised if this conflict looks so genocidal. We should be surprised if it didn’t. (And I didn't consider yet how external actors can instrumentalize this polarization). That’s why I’m reluctant to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily in terms of humanitarian concerns.

Another interesting video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-1wXx2-skM

he reason why I focused on the Palestinians is just because you seemed to question my views and suggest that Palestinians would opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck. — neomac

I think the misunderstandings are mutual: my point is that ordinary people would opt for peace, stability and prosperity if that chance would exist. It doesn't.

It is a fact that historical grievances on the Arab/Palestinian part prevailed against the UN resolution which Israel accepted. — neomac

It is a fact that Israel doesn't accept a huge number of UN resolutions, even Security Council resolutions, so what is your point?

A South African could have said quite the same things about white South Africa. They had a democracy too... for whites. And I mean, just look at South Africa's neighbors! How many democracies do you find in black Africa? And didn't the white Afrikaners fear that the blacks would take them out? Isn't Rhodesia a good example of this?

Of course the guy doesn't take the example of Jordania. And gives a typical bullshit lie that "all their Palestinian leaders have said they want it all". It simply isn't true. But who cares, all the Arabs want is to kill all the Jews is perfect for the current state of mind of the Israelis. And Pan-arabism of course means that Palestinians don't exist! Great logic there. Yet many Israelis think as this guy and there is nothing, absolutely nothing that will change their minds.

Thus you have a war where both sides are adamant in their view that all the other side has these genocidal aspirations and thus no negotiation is simply impossible with these awful people. And one side is far more powerful than the other.

And gives a typical bullshit lie that "all their Palestinian leaders have said they want it all". It simply isn't true. — ssu

Educate! Counterexamples? And I am not as generous as the fellow in the video who calls for just one; rather I would prefer to see a representative voice. Do I correctly infer that you perceive no significant distinction between Israelis and their neighbors? That they are in moral terms no different than two crocodiles duking it out in a small pond?

And should I understand by "Jordania" the country of Jordan? Far as I know about Jordan is that Hussein of Jordan was not an enthusiastic jew-killer, and when politically able got his country as far as he could out of that business - more power to him.

To my way of thinking if a person wants to call himself a Palestinian, he can. But if he invokes a questionable history and wishes to claim certain real entitlements based on that history, then that is a problem. Bottom line for me is that the Israelis (so I think) would prefer to live in peace, and the Arabs, whatever called, wherever found, do not share that interest and work to confound it. And as to the current violence, are the hostages returned?

Educate! Counterexamples? — tim wood

First of all, when PLO laid down it arms and recognized Israel, that naturally means that there is a state of Israel. Or just what do you think recognizing a sovereign state means?

Ok, let's start with hitting two flies at the same time, the lie that there hasn't been any peace proposals from the Arab side (from the start of this millennium, there has been a second one later):

The Arab Peace initiative

The initiative offers normalisation of relations by the Arab world with Israel, in return for a full withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories (including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Lebanon), with the possibility of comparable and mutual agreed minor swaps of the land between Israel and Palestine, a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Initiative was initially overshadowed by the Passover massacre, a major Palestinian attack that took place on 27 March 2002, the day before the Initiative was published.

The Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat immediately embraced the initiative. His successor Mahmoud Abbas also supported the plan and officially asked U.S. President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy.

but of course...

The Israeli government under Ariel Sharon rejected the initiative as a "non-starter" because it required Israel to withdraw to pre-June 1967 borders.

And do notice that some on the Palestinian side weren't so excited about the peace plan... just what I talked about extremists taking the helm.

And then, to give just one example, Jasser Arafat stated even in 1988:

(LA Times, Dec 12th 1988) PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat will recognize Israel within its pre-1967 borders in his address to the United Nations in Geneva, Arafat’s political adviser Bassam Abu Sharif said in an interview published today.

Sharif told the largest-selling Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, that Arafat will clarify resolutions passed in Algiers last month by the Palestine National Council at the U.N. General Assembly’s debate on Palestine on Tuesday.

And yes, there are many examples, but I guess even one tells the story

So this guy simply is full of bullshit... yet the guy clearly shows what Israelis and especially Zionists think. We can be in our own reality where actual facts don't matter. People simply live in parallel realities.

And furthermore, I think @Benkei already mentioned that even Hamas has changed it's view from the "River to the Sea" objective. But here...not so obviously as the PLO did, so it's easier to put aside.

(The Guardian, May 1st 2017) Hamas has unveiled a new political program softening its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967.

The new document states the Islamist movement it is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only with Zionism that drives the occupation of Palestine.

The new document also insists that Hamas is a not a revolutionary force that seeks to intervene in other countries, a commitment that is likely to be welcomed by other states such as Egypt.

The response from Israel:

Israel rejected the document before its full publication, with a spokesman for the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “Hamas is attempting to fool the world, but it will not succeed.”

It extends even before that actually. From its inception Hamas has regularly offered the hudna, which is the Islamic equivalent of a treaty, effectively a time period in which they would cease all hostilities. Up to 30 years was offered; Israel dismissed all of them, claiming it was a tactical ploy to allow consolidation of their forces (which seems a confusion with a tahdi'ah).

The interesting thing was that they offered recognition of the state of Israel in return for:

1. withdrawal of troops from the West Bank and Gaza
2. evacuation of all illegal settlements from West Bank and Gaza
3. release of all Palestinian prisoners;
4. the recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians

Offered well into 2006 which I think also included the right of return when Rantissi offered it but it was rejected every time.

Now the hudna for centuries has been an instrument in achieving suhl or "resolution" and contrary to the tahdi'ah it is not aimed at recovering to start war again.

So, it's interesting. I think if we insist Hamas are a bunch of religious zealots then this is at the forefront of their thinking: "And be true to your bond with God whenever you bind yourselves by
a pledge, and do not break your oaths after having confirmed them and having called upon
God to be witness to your good faith” (Quran 16:91).

Either they're religious zealots and their word is binding or they're not religious zealots and therefore can be reasoned with. I think it's neither and it's simply more complex than we like to believe or can grasp with the limited information we receive from the other side of the conflict. But in the end I don't think it's a coincidence the IDF has breached more ceasefires than the other way around.

dehumanises the victims and is actively hostile to their human dignity — Punshhh

Hasn't this been the MO of colonialism, historically? It sort of gives hte space to behave in colonial ways. But, you're right that its at least a somewhat shallow call to make.

This is clearly ethnic cleansing and is open to the charge of genocide. — Punshhh

In my, pale, but above-popular legal opinion, it would very, very, VERY hard to collate enough anecdote and journalism to confirm details that would rise to a Genocide charge at hte current moment. But, as i noted, I'm not across all the data and whatnot it just seems obviously wrong for a judicial body to take what seems to constitute evidence among the masses as evidence for a case.