*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, January 29th, 2015 5:04am PST - promote requested by kulpims.

Summed up nicely with, each refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other's claim.

And so nothing can be resolved and each side makes absurd moves designed to appeal to their current supporters.

We're living in an intellectual environment where people only view information sources that support their current position. In this atmosphere, what hope can there ever be for change?

So basically, in a completely new and not at all replicated in every other part of the world way......

it's the fault of British imperialism.

Who could've seen that coming?

...without a flame war

Maybe he needs to take a course on human history, ain't happening I'm afraid.

So the British dicked around and gave the Jews a new home that wasn't theirs to really give.

The Jews were attacked and won and won again and go tall the land.

Palestine people lost big time. I'd say they lost fair and square.

They could have had 1/2 but decided to lose it all.

At this point, Israel are basically holding a midget at arm's length, kicking him in the balls with steel toe caps whilst Palestine slap ineffectually at their hand.

Israel has the capability to deal with the attacks on "their" land (let's not forget the UN recognise much of their occupation as illegal) without indiscriminate shelling of areas populated by MOSTLY innocent civilians. They are basically investing in future terrorism by choosing not to do so, giving themselves an excuse to elaborate on their prison camp which we refer to as Palestine.

You don't have to be FOR hamas to be AGAINST the killing of innocents, and i'm afraid Israel does the lion's (and the lioness', and the cubs') share of that. They can and should be better than retaliation.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

Oh, World War I, you're the gift that just keeps giving!

I'm surprised he glosses over Israel's supposed right to expand land through military conquest. That's what perpetuates this conflict, civilian settlement in West Bank land with evictions of current Palestians using dodgy means.

The argument that the occupation is about security concerns is clearly hollow, it's been a process of gradual civilian settlement with the intent of the West Bank becoming part of Israel de facto for decades.

The trouble is, Arab population growth in both Israel and the West Bank will continue to outpace that of Jews and instead it will soon become an apartheid regime increasingly at conflict with itself.

If the Palestinian attacks weren't fully funded proxy attacks from larger nations like Iran And Syria you'd be dead right. As it is though, groups like HeZbollah are just an arm of the Iranian state launching attacks on Israel and testing it's resolve. It's horrible, but the reality is that if Hezbollahs attacks do more damage than is done in return, the attacks from them will continue to escalate as Iran throws more resources behind it. Regrettably we live in a world were restraint and being the better man are just signs of weakness encouraging the militaristic parties to push even harder to take advantage.

If Israeli attacks weren't fully funded proxy attacks from larger nations like the USA, you might have a point.
If Iran and Syria had not 'supported' Hezbollah, there would be no Palestinian area today, only Israel.
The reality is that if "Palestine" could defend itself like any other nation, Israel would be 1/2 it's size and not constantly expanding, and there would be hundreds of thousands more Palestinians who had not been killed by Israel and the isolation/starvation they caused.

It seems you're saying that any nation not busy expanding into it's neighbors is 'weak' and should be invaded? Maybe I read wrong?

I never said weak nations 'should' be invaded, but instead that they would, it's a distinct difference. I very much disagree with what human nature leads to more often than not, but I won't deny it is as it is. If a nation has anything valuable and isn't willing and able to fight to keep it, any nation that is willing and able to fight to take it will take it the moment they judge that the taking will gain them more than they lose fighting for it.

I think it is important also to note that the original fighting in 1948 was not Israel vs. Palestinians, but instead a civil war between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians. It was a war over land and rights. It was a war both sides thought they could win. When the UN proposed a two state solution, the Jewish side declared it's independence and accepted the borders. The Arab side though gained the backing of every neighboring Arab state who all jointly committed to driving the Jews into the sea. This was in 1948, just after the holocaust, and each Arab country badly outnumbered the newly declared state of Israel. Israel none the less triumphed in the war. Some of it through straight up fighting, but most of it was simply agreement with the neighbouring states of Syria, Jordan and Egypt to simply not try and fight to protect large portions of Palestinian territory along their borders. As in, Syria, Jordan and Egypt happily seized and picked up portions of land for themselves at the expense of the Arab Palestinians too.

The relationship between Israel and it's neighbours is layered beyond belief. I still stand by the observation that they absolutely do face a life/death decision in maintaining military superiority. They must walk the line of having enough ability and will to fight to make it simply not worthwhile for it's enemies and neighbours to try and attack it. To suggest or claim otherwise is simply absurd and in contradiction to all of human history.