Always good to hear from Gershom, and thanks to David for giving him space to answer in detail. I'm troubled by what I heard as a tone that the two-state solution seems to be viewed as less possible, and that time to achieve it, ever, is running out.

David, Gershom speaks the truth. YOUR EFFORTS TO SILENCE HIM WILL NOT SUCCEED!

I'm all for Frum's project to remake the Republican party/conservative movement. A good place to start would be to get out of the Israel business. It's been bad for Republicans and it's been bad for Israel.

Quoting Stapler Malone: David, Gershom speaks the truth. YOUR EFFORTS TO SILENCE HIM WILL NOT SUCCEED!

LOL! Nice. I gotta do more watching instead of just listening.

Seriously: "The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag" It's weird. Give it up.

Where else can you witness an Iraq War supporter who wrote a book called An End to Evil wag his finger at Obama for being "recklessly ambitious"?

Gershom whups some bootay

Gershom says that last year, in Arabic to a Palestinian paper, Khaled Mashal expressed a willingness to join a government that will negotiate with Israel toward a two-state solution. Well, hard to know what to make of that, given that all Hamas ever offers Israel is their familiar Hudna deal according to which Israel gets out of the West Bank in exchange for a ten-year ceasefire, but Hamas won't recognize Israel as a legitimate state (although Israel would retain the ontological category "entity"!) and Hamas won't promise anything about what steps it will or won't take against Israel at the end of the ten-year period (wink wink...ROCKETS AWAY!). Gershom of course knows this perfectly well, but says nothing about it. In any event, here's an English translation of something else Mashal said last year in Arabic (in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV on April 25, 2008):

People should not assume that in the management of this conflict, we are moving from a phase of resistance and battles to a phase of calm. No. According to our concept of the management of this conflict, the tahdiah [lull] is a tactical means. It

Quoting mvantony: Gershom says that last year, in Arabic to a Palestinian paper, Khaled Mashal expressed a willingness to join a government that will negotiate with Israel toward a two-state solution. Well, hard to know what to make of that, given that all Hamas ever offers Israel is their familiar Hudna deal according to which Israel gets out of the West Bank in exchange for a ten-year ceasefire, but Hamas won't recognize Israel as a legitimate state (although Israel would retain the ontological category "entity"!) and Hamas won't promise anything about what steps it will or won't take against Israel at the end of the ten-year period (wink wink...ROCKETS AWAY!). Gershom of course knows this perfectly well, but says nothing about it.

In any event, here's an English translation of something else Mashal said last year in Arabic (in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV on April 25, 2008):

The material added in the square brackets seems pretty significant. Are there quotes without such editorial additions that also make your point?

Secret taped negotiations between Israel (in white) and Hamas (in black) - posted to Youtube!

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: The material added in the square brackets seems pretty significant. Are there quotes without such editorial additions that also make your point?

I guess you're not very familiar with Hamas. Their construal of "occupation" and "resistance" is well known. You might start with these highlights from the Hamas covenant:

The Covenant of the Hamas: Main Points
18 Aug 1988

Goals of the HAMAS:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement [literal translation of the Hamas' full name] is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." (Article 6)

On the destruction of Israel:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (Preamble)

The exclusive Moslem nature of the area:

"The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it." (Article 11)

"Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be." (Article 13)

The call to jihad:

"The day the enemies usurp

Quoting mvantony: I guess you're not very familiar with Hamas. Their construal of "occupation" and "resistance" is well known. You might start with these highlights from the Hamas covenant:

And here are some more recent quotations:

You are missing the point that Gershom was making if you believe that any of your quotes reveal any omission on his part. Is that your belief? If not, then I don't think that we have any disagreement here.

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: You are missing the point that Gershom was making if you believe that any of your quotes reveal any omission on his part. Is that your belief? If not, then I don't think that we have any disagreement here.

The only thing Gershom omitted -- which he wasn't obliged to provide, of course, but it would have been nice -- was the source of Mashal's quotation and an English translation of it along with some of the context in which Mashal's claim was made. Gershom can still do that here in the comments if he wishes. Gershom's point -- that Mashal, and by extension Hamas potentially, is open to a two-state solution -- was too simple to miss. So, no, I didn't miss it. And the Mashal quote I provided from April 25, 2008 suggests (when "occupation" and "resistance" are understood in their proper senses for Hamas) that at best Mashal had the Hudna (i.e., temporary) two-state "solution" in mind in whatever quotation Gershom weas referring to -- which is radically different from what everyone else in the world means by 'the two-state solution'. (So I guess Gershom did omit something else: he should have provided some defense for his prima facie outrageous

Quoting mvantony: Gershom's point -- that Mashal, and by extension Hamas potentially, is open to a two-state solution -- was too simple to miss. So, no, I didn't miss it. And the Mashal quote I provided from April 25, 2008 suggests (when "occupation" and "resistance" are understood in their proper senses for Hamas) that at best Mashal has the Hudna (i.e., temporary) two-state "solution" in mind in whatever quotation Gershom weas referring to -- which is radically different from what everyone else in the world means by 'the two-state solution'. Then you asked for support for my glosses on Mashal's use of "occupation" and "resistance" which I had included in square brackets, and I provided lots and lots of it. So what's the problem?

The problem is this: Gershom's point, as you say, is that some elements within Hamas show signs that they are trying to adjust Hamas's acceptable "end-state" to include a state of Israel. Now, it is obvious that, even if this adjustment is possible, it will require some pretty clever reinterpretations of prior language produced by Hamas. Therefore, we should expect that people trying to accomplish this (perhaps impossible) re-adjustment will use old language (e.g., "occupation", "resistance") with subtly new shades of meaning, with the hope that they can gradually shade

Quoting Tyrrell McAllister: Therefore, we should expect that people trying to accomplish this (perhaps impossible) re-adjustment will use old language (e.g., "occupation", "resistance") with subtly new shades of meaning, with the hope that they can gradually shade the meanings into something consistent with a two state solution.

There's no need for "subtly new shades of meaning": most people refer only to Gaza and the West Bank when they speak of the occupation. Hamas could too if they wanted to, but they don't. They mean all of what was Mandatory Palestine -- as the numerous current quotations I provided make clear (including those that refer to a current unwillingness to deviate from the 1988 charter).

So, when you go in and pin their words to the old interpretations, you are assuming that they aren't trying to accomplish this re-adjustment, which, in this case, is begging the question.

I pinned their words to interpretations from last year (and a year or two earlier), which is when Gershom's quote was from too. I don't deny that it's possible that some Hamas members might be becoming open to a real two-state solution and not just a Hudna, but I don't think there's any evidence

At 46:55 What the Isl**am**ophobe%&$& was THAT supposed to mean?
Also, thanks to Gershom for calling Frum on the insinuation that anyone not sharing his right-wing views was "anti-Israel" and for reaffirming that a more legitimate "pro-Israel" position is pro-peace, anti-occupation and anti-Settlements.

good catch! unfortunately, it was still one of the least offensive things Frum said. have a good day, PK

Great one. Kudos to Frum for doing this.

Wow, I was STUNNED by David Frum’s dismissive “people move around” comment with regards to the deadly serious militant settlers. Though he has fashioned himself as a sort of spokesman for matters Israel I have to question (and I’m serious here) his true understanding of the region if he doesn’t get the fact that the settler issue is just as much an intractable obstacle to peace as the Hamas and Hezbollah militants. But this once again crystallizes my main problem with the pro Israel hawks which was also voiced by Gershom Gorenberg – the Israelis project all the violence and roadblocks to the Palestinians while dismissing as insignificant the many, many things Israel does to inflame the situation. When you are in a life and death dispute over a piece of land where EVERYTHING is on the line, is there anyone amongst us who would stand even a single settler putting a stake in the ground upon the disputed land? Is there any doubt that this would be considered a slap in the face and disparagement of both you and the negotiations? What aspect of

A great monologue by Gershom Gorenberg. I say monologue because the insufferably complacent and comically ignorant David Frum did little to make it a dialogue.

Small nitpick on Frum. The war in Afghanistan is not being restarted (or whatever) because of Obama is focusing America's attention on it. One only needs to ask the Canadians and they will tell you that
1. The war has always been going on regardless of whether America had it's attention on it or not.
2. It was way more important in "the war against terror" then Iraq ever was.
3. America needs to get it's act in gear and focus on it. Obama is putting America on the right track by making the war in Afghanistan a priority.

Quoting Francoamerican: A great monologue by Gershom Gorenberg. I say monologue because the insufferably complacent and comically ignorant David Frum did little to make it a dialogue.

I couldn't agree more. I cannot tell you what Frum was actually saying.

Obama is putting America on the right track by making the war in Afghanistan a priority.

War is never the right track.

Quoting Wonderment: War is never the right track.

I have to ask, Wonderment. Is allowing nearly all of a nation's women to be subjected to the Taliban's vision of a woman's place any less brutal than trying to support - by violence - an alternative to the Taliban? I, for one, would be sorely disappointed if we abandoned the effort in Afghanistan at this point. I don't see how we could have not retaliated in 2001; and having taken that step, I think it would be a sin against the Afghans to allow that regime to resume a full and free expression of its (brutal, hateful) worldview to be imposed on its citizens. (This is not to be confused with advocacy of a general policy of fixing every regime we don't like. But having started, I think the process should be seen to its conclusion.)

I have to ask, Wonderment. Is allowing nearly all of a nation's women to be subjected to the Taliban's vision of a woman's place any less brutal than trying to support - by violence - an alternative to the Taliban? I, for one, would be sorely disappointed if we abandoned the effort in Afghanistan at this point.

Don't worry. We are far from "abandoning." The Obama administration came up with a spanking new Orwellian euphemism today:

Defense officials said today that war costs still would not be presented as part of the president's overall budget and were being renamed the Overseas Contingency Operations Request.

-- LA Times The problem I was noting in my reply to "Student" is whether violence is "the right track," not whether women should be subjected to the Taliban. Taliban, 9/11, Bush war on Afghanistan, propping up of puppet Afghan government, etc., etc. all are components of a cycle of violence that won't ever end with more violence ("An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," said Gandhi). In other words, we are not on a "right track" toward progress with war; we are chasing our tails in a suicidal/homicidal vicious cycle.

Violence won't end PERIOD. It especially won't end if pacifists come into power and increase the incentives for other countries to be violent, but regardless people will always hold onto some things strongly enough to kill and die for them. Any future where people have so little passion or such uniformity of opinion as to end violence would look very dystopic to most people.

Quoting AemJeff: I think it would be a sin against the Afghans to allow that regime to resume a full and free expression of its (brutal, hateful) worldview to be imposed on its citizens. (This is not to be confused with advocacy of a general policy of fixing every regime we don't like. But having started, I think the process should be seen to its conclusion.)

Noble sentiments but I wonder whether a foreign policy inspired by them can be anything but a delusion. Afghanistan is one of the most xenophobic and inhospitable countries on the planet, ruled by fierce tribes that have little tolerance of outsiders. It has defeated foreign invaders from Alexander the Great to the British in the nineteenth century and the Russians only a little while ago. If military conquest has always been a lure and a snare, changing the Afghan "worldview" is surely a pipedream. In any case, the stated objective of US foreign policy in Afghanistan is to prevent Al Qaida or other terrorist groups from gaining a stronghold there. A more modest goal certainly, but even so a rather formidable one if Henry Kissinger is to be believed: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/...dkissinger.php

Quoting Francoamerican: Noble sentiments but I wonder whether a foreign policy inspired by them can be anything but a delusion. Afghanistan is one of the most xenophobic and inhospitable countries on the planet, ruled by fierce tribes that have little tolerance of outsiders. It has defeated foreign invaders from Alexander the Great to the British in the nineteenth century and the Russians only a little while ago. If military conquest has always been a lure and a snare, changing the Afghan "worldview" is surely a pipedream.

In any case, the stated objective of US foreign policy in Afghanistan is to prevent Al Qaida or other terrorist groups from gaining a stronghold there. A more modest goal certainly, but even so a rather formidable one if Henry Kissinger is to be believed:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/...dkissinger.php

You're quite probably right. But abandoning them to their fate seems unconscionable. It's a dilemma we seem to face over and over again. Kissinger seems to point toward a strategy that makes sense, although in terms of domestic politics, the prospects are ugly.

Reform is a moral necessity. But the timescale for reform is out of phase with the imperatives of anti-guerrilla

Without now getting into the legal or moral issues related to the settlements (which are controversial, at least where non-privately-owned land is concerned), some basic facts should be kept in mind when thinking about the settlements (e.g., the new Carter/Simon/Walt/etc. "argument" that the time for a two-state solution is passing us by "because of the settlements"). The first thing to keep in mind is that according to virtually everyone that has been thinking seriously about, or negotiating terms for, a two-state solution, the major settlement blocks on Israel's side (i.e., west side) of the separation barrier (around 9.8% of the West Bank) will go to Israel in exchange for a comparable amount of land from Israel proper going to the Palestinian state. Now, according to 2007 numbers, the population of the West Bank settlements on Israel's side (i.e., west side) of the barrier was 201,784, and the population of the settlements east of the barrier was 65,246. That mean that around 76% of all settlers will remain in Israel in any realistic two-state deal. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that almost all of the large settlements are on Israel's side of the

I'm not sure what's more shameful. Frum's characterisation of the settlements as trailer parks, or your apparent defense of it. To call Gershom's rebuttal disingenuous all the while shuffling the pack seems poor form to me.

This video is jus so much foolishness. Hamas insists today that it will not recognize Israel under any circumstances. Meanwhile, conservative Kinesset member, Avigdor Lieberman, agrees to evacuate his home if arabs agree to peace. Arabs will never agree to peace -- and the Saudi King doesn't have the courage to even speak with the Israelis. Ergo, this dialogue fails to deal with the real world. Period.

Gershom giving a lecture followed by a short Q&A: http://fora.tv/2009/02/03/What_We_Ta...ael#chapter_01

10 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza on Saturday, and Olmert says there will be a painful response. Since I'm sure most people haven't been paying attention to Hamas' continued indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli population centers, and are instead saving their outrage for any Israeli response, I just wanted to suggest that, if the response comes, one at least keep in mind that in February alone rockets or mortars have been fired into Israel on 22 out 28 days.

There's little to suggest this is the work of Hamas. It's more likely to be the work of a smaller group.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: There's little to suggest this is the work of Hamas. It's more likely to be the work of a smaller group.

I'm sure you haven't a shred of evidence for your claim, but in any event Hamas is in charge in Gaza and so is responsible. Also, if it's other groups doing the actual firing of the rockets and mortars, it's with Hamas' approval (at least tacit). It Hamas didn't like it they'd just start throwing members of Islamic Jihad, etc. off roofs (text, video), or shooting them in the knees, etc., just like they did with Fatah members around the time of their barbaric coup in Gaza.

You seem to be interested more in heat than light, so I'll leave you to tend your own fires. Of course I don't have evidence for this claim either, but I hope in future discussions I am proven wrong.

Puzzled in Gaza
Mar. 2, 2009
YVONNE GREEN , THE JERUSALEM POST I'm a poet, an English Jew and a frequent visitor to Israel. Deeply disturbed by the reports of wanton slaughter and destruction during Operation Cast Lead, I felt I had to see for myself. I flew to Tel Aviv and on Wednesday, January 28, using my press card to cross the Erez checkpoint, I walked across the border into Gaza where I was met by my guide, a Palestinian journalist. He asked if I wanted to meet with Hamas officials. I explained that I'd come to bear witness to the damage and civilian suffering, not to talk politics. What I saw was that there had been precision attacks made on all of Hamas' infrastructure. Does UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticize the surgical destruction of the explosives cache in the Imad Akhel Mosque, of the National Forces compound, of the Shi Jaya police station, of the Ministry of Prisoners? The Gazans I met weren't mourning the police state. Neither were they radicalized. As Hamas blackshirts menaced the street corners, I witnessed how passersby ignored them. THERE WERE empty beds at Shifa Hospital and a threatening atmosphere. Hamas is reduced to wielding its unchallengeable authority from extensive air raid shelters which, together with the hospital, were built by

I hate to say it, but considering Yvonne Green works with words for a living, she is a pretty terrible writer. She also seems confused, as this longer piece by her, also titled Puzzled in Gaza, contradicts some of the clumsy and blunt points her piece posted here tries to make. http://www.theglobeopinion.com/article/puzzled-gaza I hope she decides to sharpen her journalistic skills by returning to Gaza for longer than a few hours. Why wouldn't she, as life in Gaza seems postively rosey according to her? And if her pieces are to held up by supporters of current Israeli policy, then it just makes it easier for the rest of us.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'll leave you to tend your own fires.

Good try.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I hate to say it, but considering Yvonne Green works with words for a living, she is a pretty terrible writer.

Irrelevant.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: She also seems confused, as this longer piece by her, also titled Puzzled in Gaza, contradicts some of the clumsy and blunt points her piece posted here tries to make.

http://www.theglobeopinion.com/article/puzzled-gaza

Examples?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I hope she decides to sharpen her journalistic skills by returning to Gaza for longer than a few hours.

According to the article you linked to, she was there for 7 or 8 hours (on that day). Why is that inadequate? Also, has it ever occurred to you to worry about how long people reporting on Israel's "atrocities" spent in Gaza before filing their reports? Of course not.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: life in Gaza seems postively rosey according to her

I didn't catch that. Her point was that the facts differ significantly from how they've been reported in the international media and gobbled up uncritically by people like yourself. As with the Jenin "massacre" and the "Pallywood" phenomenon generally, when the true picture eventually emerges, it's too late to interest anyone and impossible to reverse the damage done to Israel's reputation. I realize

I disagree, I think if a writer is trying to impart some information or opinion it is important that the author is somewhat skilled, especially if they want to be taken seriously - it's why we have journalism schools after all. To answer your 'evidence problem', Yvonne documents her arrival and departure from her Gaza day-trip at between 7:15 and 2:30 on the 28th of January, this is according to her longer piece. As for Yvonne's confusion, she writes "There were no homeless, walking wounded, hungry or underdressed people." then goes on to document her interactions with the homeless, walking wounded and underdressed people of Gaza. There are other instances which stick out, but I'm happy for readers of either article to judge for themselves. Her longer piece makes particular schizophrenic reading as it veers from telling us of an infalliable army action to meeting the innocent victims of that action. If you want to make Yvonne Green your spokesman, I support you 100% percent. http://www.theglobeopinion.com/article/puzzled-gaza

Actually, Opposable, no one was hurt in Gaza. Not one hair on the head of one Gazan child. Anything to the contrary is anti-Semitic propaganda. True, a couple of IDF soldiers were treated for minor burns when, in order to save Palestinian babies, they rushed into a hospital set afire by Hamas arsonists, but the idea of civilian casualties in the Humanitarian Operation Cast Lead is a Big Nazi/Iranian Lie. I want to make it clear on behalf of all the children of Gaza that we welcomed our Zionist liberators with flowers and victory parades. Whenever Israel locks us in without food, water or electricity, we are grateful. We know it's for our own good. It's like the Jewish ghettos in Europe. They built character and strength. Thank you, IDF. We love you!

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Surely it's not that either everything is precisely as Hamas, UNRWA, etc. say it is or the IDF is flawless and Gaza is a paradise, right? You and crumbs really should aim a bit higher.

Strawman? It seems you changed the very questions in the post I answered. You orginally asked me how I knew how long Yvonne spent in Gaza, or whether I was suffering from an 'evidence problem'. Now the post has been altered to defend the brievity of Yvonne's visit. I'll assume this was a innocent edit in order to progress the dialogue. Seeing as you're Israeli, can I ask how ordinary Israelis (as opposed to the hawks or eteraz Israel groups) view the settlement project. Is it seen as a neccasary evil?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I'll assume this was a innocent edit in order to progress the dialogue.

You needn't "assume" innocence. My edit was posted more than an hour before your reply to my post.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Seeing as you're Israeli, can I ask how ordinary Israelis (as opposed to the hawks or eteraz Israel groups) view the settlement project. Is it seen as a neccasary evil?

No doubt there's a very wide range of opinions on this among Israelis, like on most things, and I'm not sure what they all are. Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by "the settlement project." Assuming you're talking about the West bank (and, unlike Hamas, aren't referring to Haifa, Jaffa, Tel-Aviv, etc. when you speak of "settlements"), do you mean from the very beginning, after the six-day war? Do you mean the existence of the current settlements? Do you mean the continued expansion of settlements? I ask because what people were thinking back in '67 is different from what they think now; and what some think about the existence of the current settlements, so long as a peace agreement isn't in the offing, may be different from how they feel about continuing to expand them. For example, some who

It's interesting that the arguments for the settlements, and by settlements I mean those over the green line, don't mention security. I would have thought that would be factor. When you mention 'Palestinians [who] live in Israel', does this mean Arab Israelis, or Palestinians in Jeursalem? This language I do find uncomfortable, particularly if Arab Israeli villages are to be used as bargining chips during land swap talks. Will Israel give villages away against the villagers wishes, how will Israeli Arab objections be viewed by the Israeli public? Finally, does Israeli not have all the pieces in place, at least in the in the West Bank, to make consessions to the PA. It has Abbas and Fatah and a relativley quiet palestinian population?

Mvantony, I think the posts you are putting up presumably to defend/justify Isreals’ actions are more likely having the opposite affect. That is, for anyone that is still on the fence or can see both sides of the issue, astounding articles such as this one, the gist of which is - See? It was no big deal. Everyone made a lot of fuss over not much – really makes Israel look astoundingly obtuse and divorced from morality. The fact is, an overwhelming number of independent agencies, and the head of the U.N. himself, who has said much pro-Israel things in the past, have given first hand account of the tragedy in Gaza. The fact that one biased writer is claiming otherwise, and that many Israelis like yourself are holding that up as evidence of minimal-ness of human suffering, is quite horrifying. The days when pro Israel right wingers could market and propagandize their efforts as on the side of the good are long gone - done in by factors such as: clear results we are now able to see from failed policies, illegal and militant settlers whose fervor matches that of terrorist groups, Iraq war, and

Quoting opposable_crumbs: It's interesting that the arguments for the settlements, and by settlements I mean those over the green line, don't mention security. I would have thought that would be factor.

I'm not especially well-informed on the issue of settlements, and so I wasn't trying to provide all the arguments out there, just illustrate that there is a range of opinions. You're right, though, that some people clearly do appeal to security, especially regarding settlements near the border with Jordan.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: When you mention 'Palestinians [who] live in Israel', does this mean Arab Israelis, or Palestinians in Jeursalem?

I meant Israeli Arabs.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: This language I do find uncomfortable, particularly if Arab Israeli villages are to be used as bargining chips during land swap talks. Will Israel give villages away against the villagers wishes, how will Israeli Arab objections be viewed by the Israeli public?

Most talk of land swaps doesn't involve populated areas, although Lieberman has discussed including Arab villages. I can't imagine Israel forcing Israeli Arabs to go along with such a deal against their will.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Finally, does Israeli not have all the pieces in place, at least in the in the West Bank, to make consessions to the PA. It has Abbas and Fatah

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: The fact that one biased writer is claiming otherwise, and that many Israelis like yourself are holding that up as evidence of minimal-ness of human suffering, is quite horrifying.

You're badly misunderstanding; and what's horrifying is how taken in you and many others are by Hamas (and UNRWA, etc.) propaganda. Nor am I minimizing anything. I'm simply trying to deflate some of the BS. There's still still plenty of tragedy left resulting from Hamas' despicable war crime of using Gazan civilians as human shields, and some unavoidable IDF error. I'm not holding the article up as my sole piece of evidence. I simply presented it as a perspective of one individual who was there (and who you without argument accuse of bias) which corroborates much other evidence concerning, e.g., UNRWA's corruption and dishonesty (much of which I've provided in other comments, e.g., in this forum), the IDF's list of Palestinian deaths (with names, and which includes a lower overall death count and a much higher Hamas-to-civilian ratio than Hamas/UNRWA has been reporting to international media outlets -- see here and here too), and much else besides. There a well-documented pattern of this "Pallywood" phenomenon -- which doesn't mean that

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: illegal and militant settlers whose fervor matches that of terrorist groups

Your comparison of terrorists with settlers is repugnant. In addition to displaying "fervor," terrorists like Hamas also butcher innocent people. If you're now thinking of Baruch Goldstein, as people frequently do when making these comparisons, he's the exception that proves the rule that settlers, whatever else they may be, aren't terrorists, and are virtually never violent. As to the legality of settlements (not on privately owned land), the fact that everyone likes to call them illegal doesn't make them illegal. Please don't take that as an indication that I think they're legal; I'm unequipped to judge. But is your claim that they're illegal based on legal argumentation? I'd be astonished if it is.

Quoting mvantony: Your comparison of terrorists with settlers is repugnant. In addition to displaying "fervor," terrorists like Hamas also butcher innocent people. If you're now thinking of Baruch Goldstein, as people frequently do when making these comparisons, he's the exception that proves the rule that settlers, whatever else they may be, aren't terrorists, and are virtually never violent.

It didn’t occur to me to make the comparison to Baruch Goldstein. I presume he’s the guy who went on the murderous shooting spree a while back? I’m fully aware that settlers have been the victims of many terrible attacks. But in recent years I’ve come to believe that the kind of zealous fervor that ignites that kind of violence also exists amongst some of the settlers. The difference is that they have options to channel it effectively through military means. Palestinians have no such recourse and are using the only weapon they have (I am in no way condoning or justifying the violence - merely observing what I think is the cause). In my opinion, the “peaceful” nature of the settlers is due only to circumstance and the availability of the military but if

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I’m fully aware that settlers have been the victims of many terrible attacks.

I wasn't referring just to terrorism against settlers, but against all Israeli Jews (and, in the case of Hizballah and other terrorist organizations, non-Israeli Jews too).

But in recent years I’ve come to believe that the kind of zealous fervor that ignites that kind of violence also exists amongst some of the settlers.

There's no basis for thinking it's religious fervor that causes terrorism. There's far too much religious fervor on the planet in the absence of terrorism for that to be remotely plausible.

Palestinians have no such recourse and are using the only weapon they have.

No they're not. The terrorists could renounce terrorism and negotiate like Abbas and the rest of the PA.

In my opinion, the “peaceful” nature of the settlers is due only to circumstance and the availability of the military but if somehow that institutional option was not available to them tomorrow, I think many of these zealots are quite capable of the kind of violence they condemn today, as they seem to be burning with the same type

Quoting mvantony: ...the simplistic Carter/Walt/Simon 2-states-or-1-state-or-ethnic-cleansing-or-apartheid idiocy...

Yglesias has almost jumped on the same bandwagon. He too "argues" that time is running out for a two-state solution (by pointing to people who said that, rather than worrying about finding premises from which the conclusion might follow), and he mentions the one-state option and the apartheid option. For some reason he leaves out the "ethnic cleansing" option, but that's just a matter of time, I guess. Perhaps this explains everything.

Quoting mvantony: Perhaps this explains everything.

Can't see the image you linked to -- access denied. You might save a copy to your computer, and then using the attach feature (paperclip icon), upload it to BH.tv. [Added] Maybe I can save you some work. Is the picture on this post the one you meant?