The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.III

No, what about Nazi Germany?

..and where did I say Israel was a terrorist organisation? You will find that each individual defines terrorism differently, there is no One vs Everyone, only in your fantasies.

Defining terrorism as to exclude states is purely arbitrary.

Displaying an image is hardly convincing, explain why not.

They'll just get them via the Egyptian border.

I don't think Hamas actually want an offer. They might gain in popularity originally, but in a stable situation they'd lose it quickly. And breaking a good offer wouldn't do their image a lot of good. And Israel could always make the offer to the PLO instead.

I didn't say "any difference", I said "any material significance" (and "no difference" legally). I'm not going to speak for the Palestinians, because I'm not one. I don't know if they'd rather live under a colonial-settler system or under a blockade and humanitarian crisis. And, you know what, I wouldn't have the hubris to ask such a thing. Unlike you who's making the conceited assumption that that the current state of affairs is a concession.

I did not mean it's a GROUP, it was supposed to mean like Hamas, Israel has also commited terrorist acts, but there's a difference between the acts of the two, Israel has killed MUCH MORE civilians than Hamas did. As I stated before, a state can engage in terrorism if in the course of the war it targets civilians, Israel did so.

There's many definitions of 'terrorism', what is yours? Terrorism has never been defined in international law. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/PublicInternationalLaw/InternationalCriminalandHumanita/?view=usa&ci=9780199295975

Israel cannot guarantee that Hamas get no weapons, they can only make it harder.

Simple question - what can Israel do that is an actual concession?

Let's just ask, who attacked who? By the way, you have not defined 'terrorism'.

http://youtu.be/_kPe5zcTjH4

Are you serious? If Israel targets civilians instead of Hamas IT IS. This is not a kill 1 - kill 10 - this is kill 7 civilians - kill 1000-1200 civilians, there's a DIFFERENCE.

There is no difference between Hamas and Likud, the political parties who govern their states, borth parties represent their country.

Exactly. And since Hamas' funding and weapons are largely coming from the Saudis and other groups within the Arab world, cutting off their coastline was never going to achieve much except irritate Palestinians.

'Containing' Hamas is never going to be a solution.

Legitimate or not, what's the best practical option is the question we need to answer.

It's offered to make it a vassal state, a protectorate. That's not quite the same thing.

It would exhaust all diplomatic avenues before resorting to violence and aggression. It would take the lead, and make its own proposals, in an attempt to bring its occupation to an end. It would not act as an obstacle to Palestinian reconciliation. It would take seriously alternative peace plans that don't fall within the framework of the Quartet (e.g. the Arab Peace Plan - which, upon implementation, would ensure mutual peace between Israel and all signatory Arab states - or the Geneva Accord). It would stop building settlements and fences within occupied territory, deemed illegal under international law. It wouldn't violate the territory of Gaza unless it was completely necessary to do so (now that the Iron Dome and other rocket shields exist, there is no excuse). Hell, it would propose an international conference on Middle East peace, with a stated purpose to bring an end to the conflict. These are material concessions that would overshadow any of the verbal PR shows that have defined the Israeli position hitherto.

So stopping building settlements is a concession but removing existing ones you said was not. That's slightly odd.

Personally, I think Israel has made peace offers in the past and made concessions. Consider that in the period prior to 1994 the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza was under direct Israeli military control. Since then Israel has granted self-rule to Palestinians over a significant portion. The process was on going when Palestinians launched their intifada which stalled further progress and reversed some of what had been achieved. And then Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza. It has not established a new settlement since the late 90s and has halted expansion of existing ones for periods (though I agree here that they should stop expansion completely. I find it unjustified and stupid).

During this period of time when Israel has made these concessions (and I do consider them concessions even if you don't) I do not see any concessions from Palestinians. Incitement continues. Terrorism continues. They have not dropped the claim to the so-called "Right" of return that applies to only them and no other group in the history of the world. They have not renounced violence nor apparently have they taken final peace deals seriously. Many, including Hamas, make it clear that their end game is the destruction of Israel.

If you ask for Israel to make the first move I say that it has done so. If you ask Israel to take the risks of granting sovereignty to the Palestinians with nothing in return I say that this is not a risk Israel ought to take.

A settlement freeze in the West Bank is obligatory under the Road Map. I didn't say that "stopping building settlements is a concession", so much as totally conforming to past treaties and, most importantly, international law is the only thing that can amount to full concession. That would necessitate far more than just a settlement freeze. It would require total and utter commitment to ending the conflict, and neither party is fulfilling its requirements. You seemingly can't view this conflict through any prism other than the U.S.-Israeli dogmatism that provably runs counter to international law. A settlement freeze isn't a concession. It's simply an essential requirement before serious peace talks can resume. You're just spouting rhetoric against Hamas without proposing any serious solution. You know what? It's easy to throw all the blame onto the other guy. It's a cop-out and certainly not original. If you really want to defend Israel then you ask of it only that it be responsible and acts according to the standard required of it under international law. Surrendering "direct Israeli military control" (which, remember, came after a mutual agreement between two parties that had previously mistrusted each other), and the other token actions that you allude to, are not concessions in the true sense of the term. A concession would be total and utter commitment to the principles of UNSC Resolution 242, which calls, because of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security", for:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

In other words, the only full concession would be an end to the occupation. The "withdrawal" from Gaza did not conform to principle (ii), and scarcely conformed to principle (i), considering that Gaza's air and water routes are still controlled by the Israeli military. And, sure, let's call for the Palestinians to act according to the same principle. But don't use their violation of the resolution as an excuse to permit Israel to do the same.

Israel certainly hasn't "made peace offers", and, you will see, that because the Palestinians (or at least an element or two among the Palestinians) hasn't ceased terrorism it does not absolve Israel from the requirement of entering into negotiations or pursuing every means to end the conflict. You seem to forget that Israel is the occupying force. It has all the cards in its hands, and all the power needed to either act for better or for worse.

As for preconditions. The PA doesn't refrain from negotiations because the first principle of Resolution 242 hasn't been adhered to by Israel, and neither should Israel refrain from negotiating with Hamas because they haven't adhered to the second principle. After negotiation, Hamas will be required to terminate "all...states of belligerency...and acknowledg[e]...the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel. However, nowhere in international law is that deemed a precondition for negotiations.

On the right of return. (Which is rejected in the Geneva Accords; a proposal Israel have just dismissed, probably because it's not orchestrated by its benefactors in the Quartet). Again, the Palestinians should not be required to renounce this as a precondition for negotiation. Do you think Israel should be required to withdraw all of its settlements from the West Bank as a precondition for negotiation? Obviously not. If the Palestinians believe in a right of return, which is a major issue (and I disagree with your claim that it "applies to only them and no other group in the history of the world"; every displaced group has a right of return, even if that right isn't realized), then you acknowledge the grievance and try to resolve it on a mutual basis. You don't just reject it and say that they have no right. You apologize for the injustice like a grown up, and come to a mutual compromise. It's like when Israel says that it wants it to be a precondition that the Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state (for which there's far less support in international law than there is for the right of return). The Palestinians shouldn't reject it out of hand, but should acknowledge that Israel can define itself however it wants as long as it doesn't violate basic Palestinian rights. Your position is nothing but a sure recipe for further antagonism, and that's the last thing the region needs. I ask you: do you support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination within a viable and contiguous state?