Actually I did. However, don asked a deceitful question that allows him to claim he is right simply because I cannot answer it the way he phrased it. Naturally, he denied that it was deceitful or that he even phrased it the way he did. Still, I noted one specific incident and I actually mentioned several others to you. If similar incidents had occurred with Israel you can bet your ass the repercussions would have been much more severe.
Oh really? You mean if you acknowledge that this has been going on constantly for 60 years it becomes more serious? Well, we wouldn;t want to do that, would we?
It is about mentioning them all without clarifying when they happened, who committed the acts, whether such acts have continued, and what might have instigated these incidents. When one considers that the suicide bombings inside Israel only began after the largely peaceful First Intifada resulted in a brutal crackdown it creates a different impression. If one also notes that such bombings have essentially ceased a different impression is created. Just like your comment about the Munich Massacre that happened in 1972 and was carried out by Black September, a group which was shut down just a year later and all of its attacks took place far outside of Israel and many did not even involve targeting Israelis. Noting all of that does not create the impression you want.
When you balance all of this out by noting what Israel has done over that same time period you find the rhetoric about Israel as the innocent little victim falls apart. You call me anti-Israeli when all I am doing is saying that things are much less black-and-white as the pro-Israeli side likes to pretend.
I will state this again, just a few attacks across the American border or anybody else's border and "Palestine" would have ceased to be a dream a long time ago.
If that were true Mexico would have been destroyed a long time, as would Canada. Both included a history of cross-border incidents in many cases endorsed or allowed by those governments. You look at India-Pakistan, Korea, Nagorno-Karabakh, and many other conflict lines around the world and you see a lot of restraint even in the face of very serious provocation. What you are saying simply isn't true.
If we can be even a little honest in this pat of the forum.
Why is that people say something like that and proceed to give a bunch of baseless opinions?
Abbas never had an intention of making these talks work and I am not sure Netenyahu wanted them to work either. Both are now trying to deflect the reason for failure on the other side.
I do not think that is true for either of them. However, the gaps between these two are massive and ultimately guided by different perspectives on the conflict. Israel feels like it has little to no obligation towards the Palestinians and portrays itself as the victim. The Palestinians see Israel as an aggressor that they have no reason to accommodate. I would say the Palestinian view is closer to reality than the Israeli view and ultimately when it comes down to how that perspective impacts their plans the Israeli one essentially demands massive concessions from the Palestinians with Israel providing little in exchange and the Palestinian one really only demand a truly independent state on the 1967 borders with some means of military power.
Israel's consistent refusal to accept that as a possibility and continuing military action against Palestinians only strengthens hardliners who are not interested in diplomacy and equally uninterested in a two-state solution.
It seems the split in this forum is between people who believe that the Jewish nation deserves a homeland as the UN said when establishing the State of Israel and those that do not believe that.
I would not phrase it in that manner. Rather there is a difference between people who see the history of the modern state of Israel as one of general victimhood or general aggression.