@0bserver,
0bserver wrote:
All I can tell from this post is that you are emotional. I have no idea what information it conveys.
Everyone is emotional in this discussion, Observer...the topic powers emotion like electricity powers light bulbs. Both sides are arguing from strong emotion...rather than from pure reason.
Something I'd like you to comment on if you are willing...in an unemotional way, of course:
Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel in that area...Jews and non-Jews lived in relative peace for millennia. It was not Utopia…and there were problems…but compared with the wars and hatred of Europeans for each other during that time…IT WAS RELATIVELY PEACEFUL THERE…with everyone (relatively) getting along quite nicely.
The state of Israel came into existence there…and the area erupted into hatred, fighting, maiming, and carnage.
Why are solutions that require cooperation and agreement between enemies being considered…while the obvious solution (ending the state of Israel in that area) is never even discussed.
The existence of the state of Israel is the single most important item that must be negotiated…yet it is NEVER on the table. The Arabs must make that concession…and negotiations must start from that point…not from the point before the state of Israel was created.
Your thoughts, Observer?