[chimineycricket]

Do you really believe Israel wants to stop occupying the West Bank?

Just this month Israel killed 2 brothers (children), because they were identified as a threat. They continue to expand settlements, and they bomb during ceasefires. Can you give me any example of Israel really attempting peace? 2005 disengagement, but they have the levers to keep Gazans on the brink of death, by bottlenecking food, water, etc. Just because it's called disengagement, doesn't mean it really is. Don't accept their propaganda at face value, or anyone's, obviously.

"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."

[jameshilliard]

> Do you really believe Israel wants to stop occupying the West Bank?

In the past there has been some desire to do so, although that's faded quite a bit as it has become clear there is at the moment no real partner for peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians need a leader who is truly interested in peace, sort of like Sadat was in Egypt who was critical to normalizing relations with Israel. Ultimately what many in Israel want is a real peace deal, but without a party on the other side that's going to be pretty difficult.

> Just this month Israel killed 2 brothers (children), because they were identified as a threat.

I'm not sure what specific incident this is in reference to but there are plenty of security threats in both the West Bank and Gaza, and it's pretty well known that Hamas uses child soldiers as well as human shields.

> They continue to expand settlements

I agree this is problematic, but terrorism is likely only going to encourage settlement expansion as settlements are seen by some in Israel as providing a security barrier. Israel is a country lacking in strategic depth[0] and the West Bank is especially problematic due to its proximity cities like Tel Aviv. After the previous failed unilateral disengagements in Gaza and Lebanon I think it's extremely unlikely for Israel to continue with that strategy.

> they bomb during ceasefires

Often in retaliation for ceasefire violations on the part of terrorists.

> Can you give me any example of Israel really attempting peace?

For example the 2000 Camp David Summit, where Israel made a number of offers that Palestinian leadership rejected without making any concrete counteroffers, this peace attempt immediately preceded the Second Intifada. Part of the reason Israel is often wary of peace attempts like this is due to Palestinian leadership not negotiating in good faith.

> 2005 disengagement, but they have the levers to keep Gazans on the brink of death, by bottlenecking food, water, etc.

What do you expect Israel to do when Hamas starts attacking Israel and stockpiling weapons. If Israel hadn't been attacked I think it would have been pretty unlikely for them to have blockaded Gaza.

> Just because it's called disengagement, doesn't mean it really is. Don't accept their propaganda at face value, or anyone's, obviously.

They evicted every Israeli from Gaza and gave it a try, clearly unilateral disengagement just doesn't work, and in the case of Lebanon with Hezbollah Israel had a similar issue and there wasn't even a blockade there.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_depth#In_Israel

[chimineycricket]

Israel came to Palestine, not the other way around. If someone took over your home, and offered even 90% of it to you, and invader keeps 10%, you would reject it. But alas we are here. Hopefully we can get rid of the evil parts of both governments, and make a new single state for everyone. Call it something new. All peace interested parties can be a part of the new government, ridding Netanyahu/Hamas types from the process.

Also by any chance if you have a response to the Netanyahu quote I gave.

[jameshilliard]

> Israel came to Palestine, not the other way around.

Palestine wasn't ever an independent state. Israel was formed by the division of a British Mandate.

> If someone took over your home, and offered even 90% of it to you, and invader keeps 10%, you would reject it.

Jews immigrated often by purchasing land in the region from landowners(often absentee) and then sometimes evicting the tenants, so it's a bit more complex. Characterizing it as a foreign invasion is somewhat misleading, Palestinians also rejected the UN partition plan and started a war to try and remove all the Jews as well, with many Jews subsequently being driven from their homes throughout the middle east, so it's not like they have any other homes to go back to either. Being on the losing side of a war also tends to result in people losing land/homes in any case, I have grandparents that lost their home due to living in country that was on the losing side of a war as well and they made no attempts to get their homes/land back at all, sometimes you just have to move on.

> Hopefully we can get rid of the evil parts of both governments, and make a new single state for everyone.

This is basically unworkable from both sides for various reasons. Israel will essentially never give up their Jewish majority by giving citizenship to all Palestinians, especially given the security threats to Jews historically. That's one reason a two state solution is widely considered the only viable option.

> All peace interested parties can be a part of the new government, ridding Netanyahu/Hamas types from the process.

This seems pretty unlikely to ever work in practice, at least not without massive changes in opinions amongst both Palestinians and Israelis.

> Also by any chance if you have a response to the Netanyahu quote I gave.

What about it? I'm not much of a fan of Netanyahu in general for various reasons, but Israel is a democracy so he can be replaced.

[Saline9515]

Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

[jameshilliard]

> Israel was formed also because Zionists were doing terrorist actions against the British forces and the Arabs. It wasn't just a legal process and Israel was a terrorist state from the start of its existence.

There were also a number of of Pogroms as well as back and forth retaliation/attacks, organizations like the Irgun did not just pop up randomly out of nowhere.

You seen to have a very one-sided view of history when the reality of the situation has a lot more nuance. That's the thing with this conflict, you can somewhat easily create a narrative that any particular side is at fault depending on how far back you go in history(Jews lived in the region well before Muhammad was even born which certainly makes any notion of one side being more native highly problematic) as well as by cherry-picking facts. It's basically a sort of endless back and forth retaliation.

[Saline9515]

The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before.

The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? The Irgun was a political organization at its core, which also heavily targeted the British administration, including assassinations and bombings.

I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Which is simply an application of the international law.