Why does Iran hate Isreal?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why does Iran hate Israel? Probably for the same reason Israel hates Iran.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're talking out of both sides of their mouth.

That's just another way of saying that YOU don't believe them. You personal bigotry is not a compelling argument.

Yes, they want a "peace" agreement on the 67 borders and with the right of return.

At this point, they don't even want that much. Just to address the right of return (and then primarily in the context of East Jerusalem, which DEFINITELY doesn't belong to Israel).

Even if they get it (and the right of return is a non-starter) they simply regard it as a step towards the conquest of Israel.

So what? Israel said the same thing about Palestine in 1947. Peace means that NEITHER of them will ever get all of what they want, and they'll just have to settle for peace.

1) Yeah, "address", as in grant. They're careful to make the true meaning as obscure as possible so you won't see it's a non-starter.

2) East Jerusalem is land that was originally granted to Israel. Why do you say it definitely does not belong to Israel?

3) While neither will get all they want the issue is what they'll do about it. The Palestinians have repeatedly said they want to continue the war.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1) Yeah, "address", as in grant.

Not as far as Abbas is concerned. Hell, even Arafat proposed that the right of return could at least be negotiated at the Camp David accords. It was Israel who rejected that concept alltogether and threatened to walk out of talks if the subject was even discussed.

2) East Jerusalem is land that was originally granted to Israel.

Not according to every reputable historian, no. That's part of the reason they had to CAPTURE it during the Six Day War.

3) While neither will get all they want the issue is what they'll do about it. The Palestinians have repeatedly said they want to continue the war.

Yes. They will continue the current shooting match until Israel lifts the restrictions on the Gaza Border. Primarily because NOT shooting rockets for over two years hasn't accomplished this, and at this point the only thing Israel can really do to stop them is to massacre a bunch of innocent civilians in a self-defeating military temper tantrum.

As for the BROADER context, it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that even Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders as a condition for peace. THAT is what they have gone on record to say, and is their official position in negotiations. Whether you trust them to abide by that peace for ten years or twenty years or fifty years is irrelevant; peace can be established NOW if Israel chooses to abide by international law, and WHEN that has been established, future wars can be prevented as well using non-military solutions.

It makes no sense to worry about what your enemy might do in the next war when you haven't even defeated him in the current one. It makes even less sense to consider the enemy's future war when the current conflict was triggered in the first place by your own transgressions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not as far as Abbas is concerned. Hell, even Arafat proposed that the right of return could at least be negotiated at the Camp David accords. It was Israel who rejected that concept alltogether and threatened to walk out of talks if the subject was even discussed.

The right of return is something all the Arabs have been adamant about.

2) East Jerusalem is land that was originally granted to Israel.

Not according to every reputable historian, no. That's part of the reason they had to CAPTURE it during the Six Day War.

No. It was granted to Israel, they lost it in the war in 48. They recaptured it in 67.

3) While neither will get all they want the issue is what they'll do about it. The Palestinians have repeatedly said they want to continue the war.

Yes. They will continue the current shooting match until Israel lifts the restrictions on the Gaza Border. Primarily because NOT shooting rockets for over two years hasn't accomplished this, and at this point the only thing Israel can really do to stop them is to massacre a bunch of innocent civilians in a self-defeating military temper tantrum.

And so we should weaken Israel because Hamas likes getting Gazans killed???

The only thing that's blockaded is military stuff. Lifting the blockade will make things worse, not better.

As for the BROADER context, it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that even Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders as a condition for peace.

It has been pointed out to you many times that at least part of Hamas is willing to make a temporary truce in exchange for the 67 borders. That's not the same thing as peace. Look at their track record on keeping truces--abysmal.

It makes no sense to worry about what your enemy might do in the next war when you haven't even defeated him in the current one. It makes even less sense to consider the enemy's future war when the current conflict was triggered in the first place by your own transgressions.

It most certainly makes sense to look to the future, although I admit an awful lot of people don't do so.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The right of return is something all the Arabs have been adamant about.

Yeah, there's no way that's a totally uninformed broad-brush generalization based on nothing at all but your own prejudice.

No. It was granted to Israel, they lost it in the war in 48. They recaptured it in 67.

Incorrect. The original partition plan named Jerusalem as an international city. The Zionists rejected that proposal out of hand -- among other things -- which is part of what lead them to declare independence and take matters into their own hands instead of waiting for the actual plan to take effect.

And so we should weaken Israel because Hamas likes getting Gazans killed???

Lifting the blockade of Gaza would not make Israel any weaker. Quite the contrary, it would actually undermine Hamas significantly, since the lifting of the region's siege status would make it that much easier for Palestinians to support moderate factions that oppose them.

As for the BROADER context, it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that even Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders as a condition for peace.

It has been pointed out to you many times that at least part of Hamas is willing to make a temporary truce in exchange for the 67 borders.

Pointed out by YOU, based on nothing whatsoever except <edit>.

I don't expect the temporary peace between Palestine and Israel to last any longer than Israel's temporary occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Fifty years of temporary peace is preferable to five more years of Israeli massacres.

 

[Jayjay]

2) East Jerusalem is land that was originally granted to Israel. Why do you say it definitely does not belong to Israel?

Granted by whom? Jerusalem was part of neither the Jewish nor the Arab state envisioned in the UN partition plan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, there's no way that's a totally uninformed broad-brush generalization based on nothing at all but your own prejudice.

No. It was granted to Israel, they lost it in the war in 48. They recaptured it in 67.

Incorrect. The original partition plan named Jerusalem as an international city. The Zionists rejected that proposal out of hand -- among other things -- which is part of what lead them to declare independence and take matters into their own hands instead of waiting for the actual plan to take effect.

But it wasn't given to the Palestinians. The Jews were intended to be able to live there.

And so we should weaken Israel because Hamas likes getting Gazans killed???

Lifting the blockade of Gaza would not make Israel any weaker. Quite the contrary, it would actually undermine Hamas significantly, since the lifting of the region's siege status would make it that much easier for Palestinians to support moderate factions that oppose them.

How? All it would do is increase the weapons imports and thus increase the bloodshed next time around.

As for the BROADER context, it has been pointed out to you a dozen times that even Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders as a condition for peace.

It has been pointed out to you many times that at least part of Hamas is willing to make a temporary truce in exchange for the 67 borders.

Pointed out by YOU, based on nothing whatsoever except <edit>

What part of "10 year" do you not understand?

Here's roughly what it contains: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/report-israel-conditions.html

I don't expect the temporary peace between Palestine and Israel to last any longer than Israel's temporary occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Fifty years of temporary peace is preferable to five more years of Israeli massacres.

Hamas always breaks the truces within a few years.

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah, there's no way that's a totally uninformed broad-brush generalization based on nothing at all but your own prejudice.


Incorrect. The original partition plan named Jerusalem as an international city. The Zionists rejected that proposal out of hand -- among other things -- which is part of what lead them to declare independence and take matters into their own hands instead of waiting for the actual plan to take effect.

But it wasn't given to the Palestinians. The Jews were intended to be able to live there.

That in no way translates to "it was granted to the Jews". In 1948, Israel captured West Jerusalem, the Arabs captured East Jerusalem. The latter was never part of the state of Israel, so it is ludicruous to say that in 1967 Israel "recaptured" Jerusalem or that it is somehow different from any other occupied territory. Only reason why Israel is saying so is ideological and religious, they consider it a holy city (just like Muslims) so they'd rather not give it up, but legally and morally, just because you really want something, it doesn't mean you have a right to take it by force.

Anyway the context here was right of return. Do you see the irony of using the argument "Jews were intended to be able to live in East Jerusalem" to defend Israel's right to deny Arabs who were evicted from East Jerusalem to return there?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it wasn't given to the Palestinians. The Jews were intended to be able to live there.

That in no way translates to "it was granted to the Jews". In 1948, Israel captured West Jerusalem, the Arabs captured East Jerusalem. The latter was never part of the state of Israel, so it is ludicruous to say that in 1967 Israel "recaptured" Jerusalem or that it is somehow different from any other occupied territory. Only reason why Israel is saying so is ideological and religious, they consider it a holy city (just like Muslims) so they'd rather not give it up, but legally and morally, just because you really want something, it doesn't mean you have a right to take it by force.

Anyway the context here was right of return. Do you see the irony of using the argument "Jews were intended to be able to live in East Jerusalem" to defend Israel's right to deny Arabs who were evicted from East Jerusalem to return there?

Jerusalem was supposed to be international rather than just Jewish in an attempt to make the Arabs agree. The fact remains that it had a large Jewish population and if it weren't for the holy sites it would have been part of the Jewish area.

"East Jerusalem" is an imaginary division based on where the battle lines ended up in 48, it has no reality in the geography or demographics. (Other than it was ethnically cleansed by Jordan.)

 

[Jayjay]

That in no way translates to "it was granted to the Jews". In 1948, Israel captured West Jerusalem, the Arabs captured East Jerusalem. The latter was never part of the state of Israel, so it is ludicruous to say that in 1967 Israel "recaptured" Jerusalem or that it is somehow different from any other occupied territory. Only reason why Israel is saying so is ideological and religious, they consider it a holy city (just like Muslims) so they'd rather not give it up, but legally and morally, just because you really want something, it doesn't mean you have a right to take it by force.

Anyway the context here was right of return. Do you see the irony of using the argument "Jews were intended to be able to live in East Jerusalem" to defend Israel's right to deny Arabs who were evicted from East Jerusalem to return there?

Jerusalem was supposed to be international rather than just Jewish in an attempt to make the Arabs agree. The fact remains that it had a large Jewish population and if it weren't for the holy sites it would have been part of the Jewish area.

"East Jerusalem" is an imaginary division based on where the battle lines ended up in 48, it has no reality in the geography or demographics. (Other than it was ethnically cleansed by Jordan.)

I think my irony meter just broke. The borders of 1948 armistice agreement, which are also the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel, are likewise based on where battle lines ended up in 1948 and have no reality based on pre-1948 demographics. Are you now saying that they are imaginary?

You are again using a different standard for Arabs and Jews. When Jews conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews because that's where the battle lines ended and that the prior demographics were imaginary. But when Arabs conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews anyway because of prior demographics and that the battle lines are imaginary. When UN partition plan grants some land to Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. the negev desert), you think it belongs to the Jews. But when the partition plan does not grant some land to the Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. Jerusalem) you think it belongs to the Jews anyway. No matter what, in your mind the Jews can do no wrong, and the Arabs can do no right, due to convenient moving of goal posts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jerusalem was supposed to be international rather than just Jewish in an attempt to make the Arabs agree. The fact remains that it had a large Jewish population and if it weren't for the holy sites it would have been part of the Jewish area.

"East Jerusalem" is an imaginary division based on where the battle lines ended up in 48, it has no reality in the geography or demographics. (Other than it was ethnically cleansed by Jordan.)

I think my irony meter just broke. The borders of 1948 armistice agreement, which are also the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel, are likewise based on where battle lines ended up in 1948 and have no reality based on pre-1948 demographics. Are you now saying that they are imaginary?

You are again using a different standard for Arabs and Jews. When Jews conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews because that's where the battle lines ended and that the prior demographics were imaginary. But when Arabs conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews anyway because of prior demographics and that the battle lines are imaginary. When UN partition plan grants some land to Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. the negev desert), you think it belongs to the Jews. But when the partition plan does not grant some land to the Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. Jerusalem) you think it belongs to the Jews anyway. No matter what, in your mind the Jews can do no wrong, and the Arabs can do no right, due to convenient moving of goal posts.

You're assuming they ethnically cleansed. They didn't.

 

[Underseer]

I think my irony meter just broke. The borders of 1948 armistice agreement, which are also the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel, are likewise based on where battle lines ended up in 1948 and have no reality based on pre-1948 demographics. Are you now saying that they are imaginary?

You are again using a different standard for Arabs and Jews. When Jews conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews because that's where the battle lines ended and that the prior demographics were imaginary. But when Arabs conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews anyway because of prior demographics and that the battle lines are imaginary. When UN partition plan grants some land to Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. the negev desert), you think it belongs to the Jews. But when the partition plan does not grant some land to the Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. Jerusalem) you think it belongs to the Jews anyway. No matter what, in your mind the Jews can do no wrong, and the Arabs can do no right, due to convenient moving of goal posts.

You're assuming they ethnically cleansed. They didn't.

Also, Palestinians shoot rockets! Don't forget to mention the rockets!

 

[Jayjay]

I think my irony meter just broke. The borders of 1948 armistice agreement, which are also the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel, are likewise based on where battle lines ended up in 1948 and have no reality based on pre-1948 demographics. Are you now saying that they are imaginary?

You are again using a different standard for Arabs and Jews. When Jews conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews because that's where the battle lines ended and that the prior demographics were imaginary. But when Arabs conquer and ethnically cleanse land, you think it belongs to Jews anyway because of prior demographics and that the battle lines are imaginary. When UN partition plan grants some land to Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. the negev desert), you think it belongs to the Jews. But when the partition plan does not grant some land to the Jewish state regardless of demographics (i.e. Jerusalem) you think it belongs to the Jews anyway. No matter what, in your mind the Jews can do no wrong, and the Arabs can do no right, due to convenient moving of goal posts.

You're assuming they ethnically cleansed. They didn't.

700,000 refugees who fled the war would disagree with that. They did not leave voluntarily (after all, there were bands of Jewish terrorists who were executing men and raping women, you can't blame people for fleeing under those conditions), and they were not allowed back after the war. This is no different from Jews fleeing from Jordan-controlled East Jerusalem.

Your argument is basically that ethnic cleansing is fine, when Jews do it, but bad when Arabs do it. And in the latter case it gives jews the right to wage war to conquer more land, and do more ethnic cleansing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But it wasn't given to the Palestinians.

Nor was it granted to Israel.

How? All it would do is increase the weapons imports and thus increase the bloodshed next time around.

There won't BE a next round if Hamas joins a stable unity government in control of a self-sufficient nation. The same thing, by the way, happened in Lebanon with Hezbollah; despite their ongoing antipathy for Israel, it turns out they're too busy GOVERNING to loose themselves in some half-cocked anti-zionist campaign.

Hamas, right now, has nothing to loose by attacking Israel. Give them a place in stable and prosperous Palestine, they will learn to cling to their stability much more closely than their impossible fantasies of conquest.

What part of "10 year" do you not understand?

What part of "based on nothing" do YOU not understand? Especially considering the original Israeli report goes on to say that Hamas didn't actually endorse this proposal?

Hamas always breaks the truces within a few years.

Considering that NOT breaking the truce never brings them any closer to having their own country, this again goes back to their not having anything to loose by attacking again. When you leave people in a position where violence is actually more productive than passivity, you should not act surprised when they resort to violence.

OTOH, if Israel's reaction to the murder of those teenagers is any indication, they are JUST as likely to resort to violence, especially since now, with the Iron Dome in place and the U.S. reliably blocking any political fallout from the U.N., Israel believes it is untouchable and immune to the consequences of its jingoistic policy. They have grown so comfortable with their invicibility that they can now casually speak about their desire for a Final Solution for Palestine:

Writing last week after the reported abduction of an Israeli soldier Hadar Goldin, he called on the Prime Minister to vastly increase the aggression of Operation Protective Edge, which has already killed more than 1,800 Palestinians and destroyed thousands of homes.

Demanding the end to the two-state solution, Mr Feiglin called for the “annihilation” of Hamas and its supporters and the creation of camps where civilians from Gaza will be “concentrated” until they can be deported to other countries.

He wrote: “What is required now is that we internalise the fact that the Oslo [accord] is finished, that this is our country – our country exclusively, including Gaza.

“There are no two states, and there are no two peoples. There is only one state for one people.”

His vision for the Gaza Strip is to rebuild it into a “true Israeli tourist site” like Jaffa, described by Mr Feiglin as a “flourishing Israeli city with a minimum number of hostile civilians”.

Or this one:

The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

Or how about this one. Almost looks like something you would right, LP.

Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it’s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them. Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve – they have to be believed.

[...]

I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming they ethnically cleansed. They didn't.

700,000 refugees who fled the war would disagree with that. They did not leave voluntarily (after all, there were bands of Jewish terrorists who were executing men and raping women, you can't blame people for fleeing under those conditions), and they were not allowed back after the war. This is no different from Jews fleeing from Jordan-controlled East Jerusalem.

Your argument is basically that ethnic cleansing is fine, when Jews do it, but bad when Arabs do it. And in the latter case it gives jews the right to wage war to conquer more land, and do more ethnic cleansing.

Most of them left before the conflict started.

And while there were atrocities they were in places that attacked the Israelis, not places staying out of the fight. Attack out of uniform enough and sometimes you'll see atrocities in response.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

700,000 refugees who fled the war would disagree with that. They did not leave voluntarily (after all, there were bands of Jewish terrorists who were executing men and raping women, you can't blame people for fleeing under those conditions), and they were not allowed back after the war. This is no different from Jews fleeing from Jordan-controlled East Jerusalem.

Your argument is basically that ethnic cleansing is fine, when Jews do it, but bad when Arabs do it. And in the latter case it gives jews the right to wage war to conquer more land, and do more ethnic cleansing.

Most of them left before the conflict started.

That would be a lie.

And while there were atrocities they were in places that attacked the Israelis, not places staying out of the fight.

ALSO a lie. Unless, of course, you mean to imply that HAMAS blew up the King David Hotel, or that the Palmach were fighting against Palestinian militants at Balad al-Shakh.

The Palestinian population at that time had no real leadership and no organization, no armed paramilitary bands that could even claim to represent them. The Israelis did. For all intents and purposes, Israeli terrorist groups did to the Palestinians EXACTLY what you've always claimed the Palestinians want to do to Israel. The only difference is, the Palestinians were in no way prepared to fight back.

Attack out of uniform enough and sometimes you'll see atrocities in response.

Then I guess it's a good thing the Haganah finally started wearing uniforms in 1947.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There won't BE a next round if Hamas joins a stable unity government in control of a self-sufficient nation. The same thing, by the way, happened in Lebanon with Hezbollah; despite their ongoing antipathy for Israel, it turns out they're too busy GOVERNING to loose themselves in some half-cocked anti-zionist campaign.

The Gazans are 2:1 in favor of continuing the war even if they get a peace treaty. There will be another round.

Hamas, right now, has nothing to loose by attacking Israel. Give them a place in stable and prosperous Palestine, they will learn to cling to their stability much more closely than their impossible fantasies of conquest.

They get their leaders and area smashed up every time they do it. If they actually cared about their people that would be a lot to lose.

What part of "10 year" do you not understand?

What part of "based on nothing" do YOU not understand? Especially considering the original Israeli report goes on to say that Hamas didn't actually endorse this proposal?

I do agree Hamas wouldn't have agreed--the point is that even if they had agreed it wouldn't have worked.

Hamas always breaks the truces within a few years.

Considering that NOT breaking the truce never brings them any closer to having their own country, this again goes back to their not having anything to loose by attacking again. When you leave people in a position where violence is actually more productive than passivity, you should not act surprised when they resort to violence.

Hamas bends over backwards to ensure that there is no peaceful option.

OTOH, if Israel's reaction to the murder of those teenagers is any indication, they are JUST as likely to resort to violence, especially since now, with the Iron Dome in place and the U.S. reliably blocking any political fallout from the U.N., Israel believes it is untouchable and immune to the consequences of its jingoistic policy. They have grown so comfortable with their invicibility that they can now casually speak about their desire for a Final Solution for Palestine:

They react with violence because experience has shown them that when Hamas wants war the only way to stop the rockets is to pound Hamas.


As for your various quotes--there are radicals in Israel. They're tired of the continual wars and want peace even if it means atrocities. What's different is they aren't the ones in control.

 

[Jayjay]

700,000 refugees who fled the war would disagree with that. They did not leave voluntarily (after all, there were bands of Jewish terrorists who were executing men and raping women, you can't blame people for fleeing under those conditions), and they were not allowed back after the war. This is no different from Jews fleeing from Jordan-controlled East Jerusalem.

Your argument is basically that ethnic cleansing is fine, when Jews do it, but bad when Arabs do it. And in the latter case it gives jews the right to wage war to conquer more land, and do more ethnic cleansing.

Most of them left before the conflict started.

And the conflict did not start when Arab armies attacked. Israeli terrorist groups were engaged in their campaign of ridding their promised land of Arabs long before that.

And while there were atrocities they were in places that attacked the Israelis, not places staying out of the fight. Attack out of uniform enough and sometimes you'll see atrocities in response.

So both sides committed some atrocities. But the end result was that the Arabs were the ones who ended up being ethnically cleansed from the land the Jews conquered, by virtue of military might. If the Arab armies had been that stronger, Israel would not exist and nobody would give two shits about it, which would be far better for the world than the current clusterfuck.

Jordan evicting a few Jews during the same conflict is hardly a reason for Israel to claim east Jerusalem, otherwise you'd have to agree that the 700,000 refugees that Israel evicted are grounds for Arabs to take back entire Israel.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Gazans are 2:1 in favor of continuing the war even if they get a peace treaty.

Says your two-year-old poll asking nonspecific ideological questions. Meanwhile, Israelis are 10:1 in favor of continuing war in Gaza until the Palestinians completely capitulate all of their demands.

If there was another round, it's far from certain the Palestinians would be the ones to start it.

They get their leaders and area smashed up every time they do it. If they actually cared about their people that would be a lot to lose.

It's really never occurred to you that they value freedom and self determination more than they value their own lives? I mean, these ARE the same people who used to be famous for suicide bombings...

Hamas bends over backwards to ensure that there is no peaceful option.

And yet they managed to go almost two years without having attempted a rocket launch into Israel.

You're clearly missing something.

They react with violence because experience has shown them that when Hamas wants war the only way to stop the rockets is to pound Hamas.

But pounding Hamas does not and has never done anything to stop the rockets. NEGOTIATING with them has. In fact, EVERY time Israel decides to "mow the lawn" in Gaza the ceasefire agreement that finally ends the rocket attacks usually results in Israel bitterly making some kind of concessions it never actually keeps and Hamas making significantly larger concessions as a gesture of good faith.

Realize this: it wasn't the application of Israeli military superiority "crushing" the PLO that lead to the end of the Second Intafada. It was the Palestinians' willingness to look the other way at repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement and refrain from retaliating against them. You may or may not recall that the end of settlement construction and expansion was actually one of the major Palestinian demands for the ceasefire; after nine years of Fatah acquiescence, the Israelis continue to ignore that demand, and the Palestinians have nothing to show for it.

You continue to claim that Hamas cannot be trusted because they use any ceasefire agreement to clandestinely continue the war anyway. When you consider that this is factually and demonstrably true of Israel as well, is there any specific reason to expect Hamas to behave differently from Israel?

As for your various quotes--there are radicals in Israel.

I don't see the Israeli public going out of their way to denounce those radicals. More to the point: would Hamas be justified in firing rockets at the homes of Israeli radicals?

What's different is they aren't the ones in control.

ROFL!

Moshe Feiglein is deputy speaker of the Knesset! And Ayelet Shaked is a former Likud coordinator who founded an increasingly popular Zionist social media website.

They're about as in control of the Israeli government as Hamas is of Gaza.