This is a waste of time. You criticized me for using the UN definition of Palestinian- but the only reason I did so is because this is the definition used by the world, and since the UN has been administering the refugee camps since 1948, their definition is the used by the Palestinians themselves and the rest of the world.
You took my link to the ZOA out of context- I was referring you to a video that was hosted on that site of a lynching in Ramallah. I wasn't trying to get you to check ou the site itself because I know you wouldn't take it seriosuly. However, my purpose in posting it was the video- which is the same video regardless of where it is hosted. That was why it "didn't matter" that the host was
www.zoa.org. Apparently, you didn't watch the video, since you never commented on it.
You still have not given facts to invalidate my points. I have not said that the sources from Jews that want to make more concessions or blame their own country for the terror against is illegitimate- but you post as if that perspective was the truth, and I am saying that such views only represent a very small minority (stockholm syndrome comes to mind). When was the last time you heard such internal criticism coming from the Palestinians? Do you know why you haven't? It is because if a Palestinian publicly protests against the actions of Yasser Arafat or the Palestinian authority, they are labelled a "collaborator with Israel" and killed publicly. Israel is a democracy, people have free speech, people can disagree with the government, even if their doing so is misguided or stupid. Everyone is allowed their opinion. Posting links to groups with such viewpoints doesn't convince me, or anyone, of anything. I am aware that some people feel that way. So what?
As for you de-legitimizing my statements about the history about the region, I can back up everything I say with sources, statistics, etc. I am not saying anything here that isn't based on historical fact. What is your point in bringing up these random individuals? Nahum Goldmann? I think I recall you mentioning him before, but I don't know much about him. What does this have to do with what I'm saying? If you think what I have said regarding the origins and roots of the conflict are wrong, then go ahead and prove me wrong. You haven't thus far, you have only attempted to delegitize my opinions. That is not appropriate.
If you think the terrorism is Israel's fault, and that Israel should withdraw to the post 1948 borders, (as I am assuming you do). then there are certain questions you have to answer. How do you deal with terrorism? How do you make concessions without legitimizing such methods? How do you know that such concessions will lead to peace, and not more war, when PLO and Palestinian leaders have made public statements, especially to their own people, that their real goal is destroying Israel? How do you know that they want a state in order to live in peace, and not merely as a stepping stone towards destroying Israel, as they have established in principle with the PLO's 1974 plan that Pop referenced above? Do people that want peace condone the mass murder of innocent people? Is it ok to kill Jews? Should there be no consequences for murder? Is there anything wrong with rewarding terrorism? What about worldwide terrorism, don't you think that rewarding in one place encourages it in other places? Why should Israel make concessions when the Palestinians have never let up on killing for more than 55 years, and when they have in no way proven or demonstrated any sincerity about any "peace"(indeed, it is just the opposite). Why should Israel let them even closer to her population centers, when they refuse to control the terrorists in their midst? All these questions are ones you have to answer for your position to be legitimate.
Also, I don't advocate the sudden expulsion of the Palestinians. I think that there should be penalties if the terror and incitement in schools and media doesn't stop. I think perhaps ultimatums are necessary- stop the terror and clean up the schools by X date, or Israel annexes, say, 10% of the territories (this is just a general principle, I don't know about details). And this should continue until terror and incitement stop. If they would live in peace I would have no objection to them staying where they are. I just don't think that any concessions should be made if they will only increase violence, which at this time they will, and I think that in addition to not rewarding hatred and terror, there should in fact be consequences for such behavior and actions. There has not been in the recent past. For example, even though the Palestinians did not live up to a single one of their agreements in Oslo, there was no consequence, and after the bloodiest 10 years of terrorism in ISrael's history, now the world is pushing to offer them even more than was offered then. That sends a dangerous message. Both sides of the conflict need to be held accountable to human standards, and to agreements that are made, not just Israel. What you are advocating, Sun-Tzu, is the consequence-free murder of Jews and the rewarding, and ultimate triumph of, terrorism against the West. Which position is more nazi-like?