@ CK MacLeod:
Speaking of one's approach, what about yours?

@ CK MacLeod:

"To refrain from doing the right thing"? You know from reading me over the past few years that I am in favor of a compromise and a Palestinian state.
I referred to Said et al because it is important to recognize the unique nature of anti-Israel sentiment, which is the reason that there is no Palestine today. If you ignore the intensity of the Israel haters, you are making it harder to reach a solution.

@ miguel cervantes:
You are right to bring up the "Zionism is racism" resolution--an illustration of how Israel has been singled out.

@ miguel cervantes:
You are correct that fedayeen attacks led to the 1956 war.

@ fuster:
The Israelis are trying. They've dealt with the settlements before. They would do it again if they could have recognition, peace, and reasonable boundaries.

@ CK MacLeod:
You're being silly. When it seemed that there could never be an agreement, after the Three No's of Khartoum, it was natural for Israel to allow setlements.
It was Israel that ended the settlements in Gaza. It was Israel that dismantled a few settlements on the West Bank in 2005, as a possible beginning to a second withdrawal. It was Hamas that began launching rockets, thus warning the Israelis that putting major population centers within easy reach of rockets would be a mistake.
Your irony is a method that you use to protect yourself from noticing reality.

@ CK MacLeod:
It's the Palestinians who have been fighting against the creation of an independent state. They could have had one many times, starting in 1947.

@ fuster:
The settlements wouldn't have become a gangrenous mess if the Palestinians had accepted independence.

@ fuster:
They may have occurred and been recorded, but they were not the obsession of everybody in the world, as they are today.

@ fuster:
During ther War of Independence and the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel was significantly less restrained than it is now. The world was partially pro-Israel during those years.
Israel's big victories during the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War hardly changed attitudes towards Israel. When the first settlements appeared in 1967, and when the government allowed them in response to the Three No's of Khartoum, nobody complained.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, mothers were cited as saying they looked forward to the day when their sons would die in a jihad against Israel. That was the first time I remember reading anything like that.
Nothing, nothing, nothing made Israel look more like a bully than unilaterally leaving Gaza.

@ fuster:
I agree it seems mathematically impossible, but that's just what's happening.

The authors write:
"And imagine what would happen if Benjamin Netanyahu were to visit Ramallah, acknowledge Palestinian suffering and also Palestinian national and historical rights, particularly to a country of their own, on their native land."

The answer to their implicit question was given by Edward Said, among others, when Israel left Lebanon in 2000. According to Wikipedia:
"A photograph taken on July 3, 2000, of Said in South Lebanon throwing a stone across the Lebanon-Israel border drew criticism from some political and media commentators, some of whom decried the act as 'terrorist sympathizing.'.[97] Said explained the act as a stone-throwing contest with his son, and called it a symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. 'It was a pebble. There was nobody there. The guardhouse was at least half a mile away.'[98] Although he denied aiming the rock at anyone, an eyewitness account in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir asserted that Said had been less than 30 feet (9.1 m) from Israeli soldiers manning a two-story watchtower when he aimed the rock over the border fence, though it instead hit barbed-wire.[99]"

Whenever Israel makes any sort of concession, as happened in Lebanon in 2000, in Gaza in 2005, etc, anti-Israel hatred zooms up.