@
room101 You seem to be ascribing two points of view to me that I have not articulated:
1) That Israel should not exist as a state.
2) That Palestinian people are innocent bystanders.
On the first point, I support the two-state solution. By this I mean a genuine two-state solution which complies with international law and the Oslo accords. The Palestinians also have a right to be there and also have a solid claim on the territory. In fact, the whole territory was called Palestine until 1948. Arab people have lived there for almost 2,000 years, which surely counts as a historical right.
Both people's have a historic right, through different periods and different times. The Palestinian right is arguably more central because the modern state of Israel and Zionism itself are a relatively new phenomenon. A largely twentieth-century movement, harking back to biblical times. However, the state of Israel exists and has a right to exist under the Balfour declaration, Oslo accords and international law. For everything that Jews have suffered in Europe, I would never begrudge them the right to a state.
Jerusalem is a place of religious significance to both Jews and Muslims. Therefore any two-state solution which aims at equality must consider Jerusalem the property of both people's. Moving the US embassy there was a provocative act and will only entrench both Israeli domination and Palestinian grievance.
https://www.history.com/news/why-jews-and-muslims-both-have-religious-claims-on-jerusalem
Are Palestinians innocent bystanders in wars and conflicts perpetrated by their leaders? No, they vote for their leaders and they support them. They are citizens of what is recognised by law as occupied territory. Hamas should not reject Israel's right to exist though it has softened its stance recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders
Hamas is also wrong to target Israeli citizens and I condemn their terrorism. However, the effect of this is far far less than the violence carried out by the Israeli state. Both in terms of action and in body count and in terms of action. This is not self-defense but brutal domination:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fire-at-every-person-you-see-israeli-soldiers-reveal-they-were-ordered-to-shoot-to-kill-in-gaza-even-10223427.html
My issue in this conflict is not to denote moral superiority to one side over another but to look for a way of reconciling this conflict on equal terms. In times gone by, Israel needed international protection from its regional enemies and perhaps did not receive enough. Now it has more power than all its enemies combined, Uncritical support from the US and even Saudi Arabia as a tacit ally. The state of Israel is under no threat. The very prospect of a Palestinian state is under threat from Israel.
A solution would need to involve the US and EU to restrict arms sales and threaten to remove the aid which is used to buy them. That would force Israel to the negotiating table and provide at least a very rocky road map to a peaceful solution.
We strongly disagree on this but I do respect you as a person and thank you for debating respectfully.