This is pertinent to our current discussions:
Recognizing Islamophobia, Anti-Palestinian Racism, and Antisemitism
The middle section, How Islamophobia Is Linked to Criticism of Israel as Antisemitism, describes something that happens every time Israel gets mentioned around here. Any criticism of Israeli policies or specific Israeli politicians, no matter how well founded or well documented, is dismissed, glossed over, ignored, or met with Ad Hominems, Tu Quoque fallacies, shifting goalposts, and blatant attempts to shut down conversations.
The final paragraph is a pretty good reflection of my own thoughts:
Defenders of human rights must ground their arguments in law, fundamental legal principles, and verifiable facts so that each person, regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic identity, or national origin, is treated with the same human dignity, rights, and privileges, to which we all are entitled. These issues must be less about power and control; they must be about rule of law and justice.
IMO, the rightness or wrongness of act does not depend on who is doing it to whom; it is inherent in the act itself. Likewise, the human rights of individuals does not depend on their community or their culture; human rights are the inalienable rights of all human beings.
The problem is that pretending it's about the actions of their leaders doesn't change the reality of the situation. You quite understandably want a better answer--but you refuse to recognize there isn't one. If there was something better someone would have proposed it by now.
What have other people proposed?
I already know the answer in part. I'm just checking to see whether you noticed or remembered those proposals.
If you did notice and can remember, we can discuss why IYO those weren't better than what is currently happening.
Instead, we see "answers" that are generalities. We see hearts and minds type answers--which is utterly ignoring the fact that the terror exists because Iran (and others) is funding it.
Quote a few, with links. I'd like to see if there was any ignoring of terrorism going on.
People would prefer to believe the propaganda rather than accept that it's a situation with only horrible answers. That's blasphemy to the left,
Unsupported assertion.
Who or what is "the left"? Show us the statements from "the left" that indicate what things are "blasphemy" to it, or that "the left" does not recognize that there might not be a perfect solution, only better and worse ones.
there must be a better answer and it's the fault of the side with the power if they fail to find it. It's existence is a matter of faith.
Or it's a matter of perspective. If there is more than one possible answer, then it is possible to sort them into 'better' and 'worse' according to any given criteria.
Is the likelihood of more deaths 'better' or 'worse'?
Is cost a factor, with less costly being 'better' and more costly being 'worse'?
Is time a factor, or environmental damage, or social consequences like shunning or a loss of allies?
If your toe turns black and the doctor says it's gangrenous, the only available options might be considered 'bad' when each one is considered alone, but that doesn't mean having your toe amputated is as bad as losing your entire foot, or your life.
I think a big part of the problem here is that some options have been categorically rejected for emotional reasons, rather than being evaluated logically and pragmatically.
The Two State solution can work
IF both States are economically viable and have the usual powers of State such as control of their borders, resource development, immigration, etc. That is unacceptable to both the Zionist factions Netanyahu leads and Islamist factions like PFLP, and from your posting history I surmise you reject it, too. That doesn't mean the Two State solution is as bad as the current situation, with some people empowered and others oppressed according to their religion and ethnicity, with never ending injustice and bloodshed.
