Apart from the personal stuff you insist on using, your argument doesn't cut it.
Just because someone says that both are to blame doesn't make it so.

besides, the Israelis starting these wars are acting extremely short-sighted, while the Palestinians are in for the long run.
The Israelis are digging their own graves. Withing 20-30 years, the Jewish population within israel will lose their majority status and the entire Zionist plan of a Jewish State will have become a moot issue.
And since this process will be taking place inside their own borders, they can't even nuke their way out of it.

Meanwhile, many thousands of smart Israelis are leaving the country for safer grounds.

That "blame them both" cop-out reminds me of a doggie incident a few months ago. Walking my miniature Schnauzer Spookie, who is a lamb, we met a young lady with some terrier, whom she clearly wasn't able to control. he came toward Spookie like a dervish, and for the first time ever, I was concerned that she would get seriously hurt. As I shouted to the lady, to reel in that dog of her's, she answered "Takes two to Tango!"

Yeah.

The British and South African governments agreed to talks with the IRA and ANC respectively while those groups reserved the right to revert to violence. As it happens there was a ceasefire in those cases which, since they were successfully resolved, should be taken as the required model for the commencement of talks in the Middle East.


I believe this where you're going wrong - it's Israel that's refusing talks with Hamas not the other way around.


Well, an attitudinal shift may be desirable but international law should still be enforced against those who believe they have some kind of choice about breaking it. Strangely enough, if that happened, you could then expect to see the attitudinal shift.

km

The two things go together of course... Steve invariably resorts to personal abuse WHEN his arguments don't cut it - which is quite often.

km

It does take two to Tango — or tangle, if you prefer. I stand by my premise that Hamas has gone out of it's way to provoke, And it's no secret that, like any cookie-cutter terrorist organization, they nestle themselves in amongst civilian populations, deliberately putting innocent non-combatants in harms' way.

I do blame them both. You label it a cop-out because you only want to know from your own POV and because it's much simpler to attribute a white hat to one party and a black hat to the other. And I guess you see terrorists — you know, bus-bombers, suicide bombers, rocket lobbers, your-non-existence-is-our-charter devotees — as wearing the white hat. Hey, good luck with that.

Really how so ? your terribly misguided maybe because of those bias links ?

1 - Israeli forces ""thwarts" 6 Hamas Gunmen planing on kidnapping Israeli solders , during the treaty , in a preemptive raid

2 - Hamas responds with a week long rocket attack <-- Israel warns to stop the attacks

3 - Israel responds after a week with a attack on Hamas rocket launching sites and Hamas leader homes

I said before that I too don't agree with Israel heavy hand , but even so it still did not stop Hamas rocket attacks . So now it leds into a ground invasion what else can they do ? ?

You mean the genocide? Does your disapproval extend to wanting prosecutions?


Vacate the illegal settlements?

km

And how is this at odds with the narrative I described? The key is the attitudinal shift from victory through force as their primary goals to ones of negotiated peaceful coexistence. Although they reserved the right to revert to violence, the important change was the shift to concentrate on peaceful settlements rather than continue to focus on armed resistance ...



The last I had read, Hamas' conditions for talking with Israel were that Israel had to basically cave to all of Hamas' demands before Hamas would even consider sitting down at the table -- not exactly attractive preconditions for the Israelis to accept I would think ... and I believe Hamas' ultimate goal remains the removal of Israel completely, no? Not exactly a "love thy neighbor" position ...

Of course, the hard-line Israeli insistence on further settlement expansion and heavy-handed military tactics is equally intractable, hence my proposition that movement from both current positions will have to happen before any serious peace can realistically be considered ...



I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive, although since I maintain a sustainable peace is impossible if neither side really wants it, I'll say the attitude shifts would be more of a requirement than a desire ;-)

So how do you explain the success story of South Africa when Nelson Mandela didn't move?

km

Only if it includes all terrorist leaders as well.



You mean vacate the land Israel won during the conquest of defending themselves in the 67 Egypt , Syrian and Jordan invasion ? ? Like the American Indians who fought bravely also lost their war but now they have a "State with in a State" to do what they want with it but must live peaceful and not lobb rockets or commit terrorist acts. Palestinians could learn something from them

Give back the land ? I think not or at-lease with some conditions that Israel needs for security which Palestine would never agree to and the security that Israel wants is something that Palestine could never give to begin with. Remember its just not Hamas or the PLO there are many many splinter factions that they have no control over that commit terrorist acts against Israel even when they are in peace talks <-- some groups simply don't want peace of any kind

Heres what I think.

a - Hamas must have control over terrorist factions <-- otherwise Israel will never give back any land.

b - Hamas must allow joint Israeli Intelligence to work together to curd rival terrorist factions

c - Hamas must agree that Israel does have the right to exist

d - Israel should reconsider "Jordan's" offer of donated land <-- If I remember correctly some 20 years ago , Jordan made an offer to Israel for some 5,000 square miles of land in exchange for Palestinian land .

Bottom Line;
Israel is keeping the Palestinian Land "won during the war" to have some sort of control - since Hamas and the then PLO seems not have had any or can even guarantee some sort of security as a good neighbor to Israel. Like having Osama living next door but if he is renting that home from you , you can do spot inspections for weapons and bombs

Hamas played a big role in this current conflict, but the over aggression is likely a result of the Israeli PM fearing a loss in the upcoming elections.