NO! Why can't you read??! I expressed my opinion that it was not a sincere attempt AT COEXISTENCE. Because you made the claim that the Palestinians wanted to kill Israelis despite Israel's attempts to coexist and claimed that the Israeli disengagement for Gaza was an example of those attempts. I then presented you with evidence, from one of Ariel Sharon's senior advisors no less, that refuted this.
A state under blockade by land, air and sea, a state that does not have control of its water and power supply, a state that cannot import or export anything without approval from the neighbouring, hostile state, is not being given an opportunity for self-rule. How is this not painfully obvious to you???
Yes, governments tend to operate in a way that is in their self-interest and hopefully (but sadly often not) in the interests of their people. I understand that. But the Israeli government's refusal to operate in good faith regarding the Palestinians is not even in Israel's interests except from an extremely myopic view of the world. That refusal led directly and pretty much inevitably to October 7th, it has led to the current, potentailly apocalyptic tensions in the region with Iran and Lebanon, and it has led to Israel increasingly becoming a pariah state around the world.
All this because Zionist extremists refuse to simply follow international law and recognise that the sky fairy doesn't get to decide who is allowed to live on which piece of land.
Hamas changed their charter in 2017. You appear to be unaware of this. You might be skeptical of their sincerity, which is fair enough. But their current charter makes it clear that their fight is not with Jews in general, but with the Zionist project. And opposition to the Zionist project is perfectly reasonable for anybody who is willing to empathise.
The Zionist project, as several Jews and Israelis have also been noting for decades, is pretty much 100% responsible for the turmoil in that region today.
Also, as Israel's unconditional defenders never seem to acknowledge, Likud's charter (and Netanyahu himself) is EXACTLY as obstinate in its refusal to acknowledge or allow a Palestinian state. And even describes the settler terrorism that has been taking place since before Israel even existed (and ever since its establishment) as "a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel."
I don't think I've been any more discourteous than you have. You're the one claiming that I don't deserve to be taken seriously on this issue (despite my having researched and thought about it far more deeply that you appear to have done. Or how about describing having the humility to admit that I can't read people's minds as ignorance. Is this arguing like an adult? Actually, I'm wondering whether the issue here is simply that you've failed to follow a very obvious logical thread in your rush to try and score cheap gotchas. Here's the relevant quote from your reply:
"In the following paragraph, you admit you don't know how much of what you refer to as "nonsense" the current leaders of either party believe, and I accept your ignorance at face value."
Yes, I admit that I don't know how much of (what I consider to be nonsense from) their holy books these leaders believe. You describe this as "ignorance." But how could I claim to know unless I can read their minds? How could you "logically infer" what they believe about the return of God to turn the goyim into slaves? Or a tree calling out to Muslims to kill the Jew hiding behind it? Do you see the problem here? The ignorant thing to do is claim certainty about what people think about these things.
If you’re going to try being a smartass, at least try to keep track of what we’re saying. Alternatively, don't try to be a smartass and neither will I. I would mark the final two paragraphs of this reply as the point where the temperature started to rise. I will never stop marvelling at people who lead with rudeness and then whine when people match their energy.
So no, this isn't a matter of not sharing my point of view. There's lots of room for simple, good-faith disagreement about his conflict. But there are also concrete facts. So if you're unaware of those facts, if you haven’t genuinely tried to inform yourself about what’s going on, what happened in the past, and especially about the full nature of the Palestinian people’s grievance, and yet still feel the need to condescendingly opine on this topic, especially in a world where all the information you could hope for is at your fingertips, I will point out that this is a matter of intellectual incuriosity and ignorance. In this case, intellectual incuriosity and ignorance that provides cover for the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people and the oppression of millions.
p.s. I said I think you're being deliberately disingenuous. I presume you're aware of the uncertainty that the words "I think" introduce into a sentence, yes? If so, then you’ll understand that no mind reading is necessary.
I came to that conclusion simply because I believe you're smart enough to understand that European Jews who were the descendants of Jews who’d been living in Europe for generations are not, by definition, indigenous to Palestine. And that the Palestinians who have lived in Palestine uninterrupted for generations have, at the very least, a far stronger claim to indigeneity.
I believe you’re smart enough to understand that if you’re arguing for the right of those Jews to return to Israel anyway, because their ancestors may have lived in that land thousands of years ago, you must also recongise that the Palestinians whose ancestors lived in that land, and in some cases in existing houses, until they were violently displaced 76 years ago, have a right to return to their homes.
If you don't understand that, I stand by my alternative assertion.
