Opinion of this quote

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And in the same page TNF:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strange you forget to mention that.

The "two state solution" recognizes and legitimates the state of Israel. That's not exactly a progressive position, if you ask me. You're either on the side of those who forced the Palestinians off their land and into an open air prison, or you're on the side of those demanding their freedom.

That's not the point of my quote.
What I wanted to say is that you're deliberately manipulating the facts in order to paint her as a extreme hawkish person, by intentionnally not revealing she supports the two state solution.

And yet in that quote she castigates the Palestinians for making unilateral actions without mentioning any of the unilateral ones the Israelis have made, especially those concerning the "settlements".  It's clear that Warren has a pro-Israel bias, as do most of our politicians.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  

 
I noticed you didn't answer one question and chose to deflect it with another.  Does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?  Yes, Hamas' strategy hasn't been effective in changing that fact, but nothing seems to change that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that the fact that the settlement construction continues is a pretty big red flag that Israel has no interest in negotiating?

You can't very well negotiate with a government completely divided into ideologically disparate camps.  If you Hamas refuses to keep the Palestinian Authority's promises, that makes things very difficult.  And, yes, the Israeli right wing is increasingly a huge problem and they're terrible people.  I can't argue with that.

But, on the missiles point, if the Palestinians are going to make not attacking civilians a bargaining chip, I don't think there is any reason to negotiate.  And anyway, do you really think Israel is dissuaded from building settlements in the West Bank because of rockets in Gaza?  

 
I noticed you didn't answer one question and chose to deflect it with another.  Does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?  Yes, Hamas' strategy hasn't been effective in changing that fact, but nothing seems to change that.

By the same logic, does the US invasion and occupation of Iraq mean that the insurgency was justified in every horrible thing they did?  If there's a flaw in a country's policy, terrorism is automatically justified?  I'm dismayed at where Israel has gone in the past 20 years.  That doesn't mean that Israel has lost the basic sovereignty of the right to defend itself.  And, let's not forget that some of the West Bank is disputed territory.  It's not agreed on anywhere that we're ever going to return to 1967 borders. 

Those are some lovely strawmen you raised, but they did absolutely nothing to answer the question that was raised by Indy TX. I wanted you to answer one simple question, not have you raise more to avoid giving an answer yet again.  Si I'll repeat, does not the fact that no matter the reason or the season, Israel continues to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land show it's true interests?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

bedstuy, I am not talking at all about the actions currently going on in Gaza.  I am talking only about the settlements and Israel's demonstrated intransigence on that one issue and the degree to which it demonstrates Israel's unwillingness to negotiate on any basis other keeping all the land it wants.

But, if you look at the negotiation as, Hamas gives up the right to launch rockets at Israel and Israel moves back to the 1967 lines, you're nuts.  That's not negotiation, that's hostage trading and nobody would expect any nation to capitulate under those terms. 

I wouldn't call the settlement locations Israel has occupied by the name hostages.  For one thing hostage-taking implies the hostages could be given up.  If an analogy is to human actions is to be used, bride-napping would seems to be a closer parallel, tho even that is too strongly spiced with sage for me to be comfortable with.  Besides, there's no way the father-in-law will ever sanctioned the forced marriage.  Still, I can understand why Israel might be worried it could suffer the same fate as Shechem and his kin when they tried to come to terms with Dinah's brothers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

bedstuy, I am not talking at all about the actions currently going on in Gaza.  I am talking only about the settlements and Israel's demonstrated intransigence on that one issue and the degree to which it demonstrates Israel's unwillingness to negotiate on any basis other keeping all the land it wants.

Israel unilaterally left Gaza.  What have the Palestinians done?  I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

And simultaneously built more settlements in the West Bank to house not only those moved out of Gaza but also additional occupiers.  So basically, Israel engaged in a PR stunt giving in hopes that the fact that their "withdrawal" meant an expansion of its activities and then got upset when the Palestinians saw through their prestidigitation.  So long as Israel remains a democracy, unanimity isn't needed to continue expanding settlements, just a solid majority and there's absolutely no indication that there will not continue to be a solid majority for continued expansion indefinitely.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

I'm sure you have lots of pedantic justifications for why you're allowed to say offensive, borderline anti-Semitic things.  That doesn't make it appropriate discourse.

And equating criticism of Israel to antisemitism is appropriate?  In many ways, Israel continues to act as a late 19th century European power when it comes to how it treats its neighbors.  Which is isn't too surprising since Zionism came of age as a political viewpoint in late 19th century Europe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

I'm sure you have lots of pedantic justifications for why you're allowed to say offensive, borderline anti-Semitic things.  That doesn't make it appropriate discourse.

And equating criticism of Israel to antisemitism is appropriate?  In many ways, Israel continues to act as a late 19th century European power when it comes to how it treats its neighbors.  Which is isn't too surprising since Zionism came of age as a political viewpoint in late 19th century Europe.

I'm not getting into one of your loops of pedantry and being purposefully obtuse.  What I said is appropriate rational discourse, what you said is not.  And, if you actually think Israel is like Nazi Germany, you're an idiot. 

As far as any comparison to Germany is concerned,World War I-era Germany is a closer match to Israel than Nazi Germany. Apartheid-era South Africa would be an even closer match, tho not exact by any means.  Comparison doesn't mean exact equivalence, and if you don't understand that, well ...

Despite its efforts to portray itself as a peace-loving democracy, the State of Israel is controlling territory thru the use of military force, rather than thru the use of the ballot box.  So it's no wonder that comparison to other similar attempts to control territory would be made, even if none of them are exact, nor would anyone other than an idiot expect them to be exact.

That said, Israel is in a tough spot as none of the options currently available to it are desirable.  A two-state solution involving a return to the 1949-1967 cease fire line or a mutually agreed upon alteration thereof, let alone to the 1948 international borders of the partition, and thus an end of the occupation of Palestinian Arabs is fraught with peril, especially under the current circumstances.  However, Israel has done anything of late to make such a return less perilous, and indeed its actions have mainly been to make it more perilous of late.

Similarly, even if Israelis could bring themselves to accept a one-state solution, that would be even more perilous.  Indeed, I don't see how it could possibly work.

There is always the no-state solution, i.e., the end of the Zionist experiment, but while I think that will be the ultimate outcome, it won't happen voluntarily or anytime soon, but when Israel loses the military superiority it depends upon for its survival.

Arguably, Israel could try for an alternative two state solution in which it gives up Gaza and absorbs the West Bank.  But that would require that Gazans and West Bankers not see themselves as part of a common Palestinian identity for it to even work.  Despite the dreams of some Zionists, that's not going to happen.  If ever Palestinian identity is abandoned, it won't be for a further fractured identity but for a pan-Arab identity that would be the Zionists worst nightmare, since a fractured Arab identity is essential to the continued existence of Israel.

So what is left?  Israel as an occupying imperialistic government, denying a large number of people the right to full self-determination because if they had it, such self-determination would imperil the very existence of the State of Israel.  Not a very pleasant option, but it is the one Israel has chosen to embrace rather than undertake steps to make a mutually agreed upon two-state solution possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At this point, there's really no substantive difference between what these two groups of people are doing apart from the fact that one is the official military of a recognized government and the other is a para-military organization affiliated with a political party in an unrecognized state.

Israel kills civilians unintentionally in the process of legal, proportional self-defense.

[...]

The two sides couldn't be more different.

You're both wrong.  There have been far too many of these unintentional incidents in this campaign for Israel to claim the summit of morality.  Higher up the slopes of morality than Hamas, but clearly not the summit, so while they are different, they could be more different, and they ought to be.  Since the fighting in Gaza would not be occurring without the presence of the IDF there, primary responsibility for civilian deaths there belongs to the IDF despite the unjustified actions of Hamas.  The numbers of dead Palestinian civilians compared to the number of dead IDF personnel, let alone the relatively miniscule number of Israeli civilians clearly demonstrates that the Israeli response has not been proportionate by any reasonable definition of the word proportionate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If WWII had only involved the US and Germany, your ludicrous comparison might have some merit.