@ fuster:
pffft

@ fuster:
Of course, I have to ask. I have no idea what George is referring to specifically in this context - what precisely he perceives my view, or my problem, to be.

@ George Jochnowitz:
Well, what about it?

fuster wrote:

that doesn’t mean you should discount George’s intentions.

No offense to George personally, but his approach discounts his intentions for me. What difference does it make what you support in the abstract, or think you support, if everything you say and do undermines it?

George Jochnowitz wrote:

You know from reading me over the past few years that I am in favor of a compromise and a Palestinian state.

Actually, I don't know that at all. One might like to assume that, but one's assumptions often turn out to be wrong. The vast majority of your comments emphasize your apparent belief in the counter-productiveness and absurdity of all Israeli concessions, compromises, gestures, or withdrawals in face of the implacable and irrational, ever-escalating lethal hostility of the entire world.

@ fuster:
I was an iddy-biddy baby, so I don't trust myself on the dates: I could be thinking of things I heard in the early '80s, that were then re-affirmed by some Eretzish types - one in particular whom I used to work with in the same office. The more widely asked question, as I recall, was whether or not that really was the Israeli intention - whether the government would look the other way because secretly it shared or at least sympathized with the aim.

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.

So, now it's "natural"? No one actually had to make any decisions, or take responsibility for decisions - the settlements just grew up out of the ground naturally and sprouted settlers?

I think Israelis made decisions of various types, and are responsible for them and the results - for their share, no more and no less, in creating the current predicament. I also recall that many Israelis back in the '70s especially really did believe in "Greater Israel" and went about seeking to establish the "facts on the ground," as the phrase went, that would make it irreversible.

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.

Barring an invasion from the mass of 6 billion obsessed Israel-haters, who else was going to remove them?

What diverted this discussion into the realm of absurdities was your reaction to the suggestion that Netanyahu's government or any Israeli government removed all ambiguity from its intentions, and acknowledged in a humane and civilized manner the Palestinian side. Your response was to bring up that irrelevant Said incident and start playing the "Nobody loves us, everybody hates us" tune. Right action is right action regardless of what the world's real or theoretical obsessives say about it. To refrain from doing the right thing because the mad and the evil might disapprove is to yield control to evil and madness.

@ George Jochnowitz:
Right, because the Palestinians, working hand in hand with visiting Israel-haters, built the settlements themselves, then forced unwilling Israelis to settle in them. You've got to feel sorry for those settlers, who are constantly putting down their machine guns and trying to sneak back into Israel, only to be forced by cruel Palestinians and the Israel-hating volunteers of the world back into the land they really don't want to occupy at all.

George Jochnowitz wrote:

they were not the obsession of everybody in the world, as they are today.

You take your theory to absurd extremes. It seems to be a strategy for minimizing all possible Israeli faults.

Why should Israel consult the opinion of non-Israelis anyway before doing what's right? It's not right to occupy other people's land. It's not good to take on the role of oppressor and thief. That should be reason enough, unless you can show how dealing with it somehow leads to even worse things. How some implacably hostile obsessive "feels" about it should be the very last thing anyone takes note of.