What you are missing is that there is no offer that Israel can make that they would accept--it's treason for them to accept anything that doesn't give them the full right of return and there's no way Israel can agree. The Palestinians deliberately painted themselves in a corner to ensure there can be no peace.
Irrelevant. To go back to the car-sale analogy, it doesn't matter
why there is no deal. If I don't want to pay you the price you want, then I don't get the car. Period. If you don't want to sell, you could ask $1,000,000 and to have sex with my wife in exchange for your crappy Toyota Corolla to deliberately sabotage the sale, but it would be ridiculous to say that I could take your car anyway just because you are not making a serious offer (or more accurately, any offer I don't like).
As for the second point, the "offer" to remove settlements is just as much a sham. Israel has not made any indication it will withdraw from any of the settlements, in fact they are being continuously expanded. Such an offer may have been done some two decades ago, but that's hardly valid anymore. Palestinians have no more reason to think Israel would remove the settlements, than Israel has a reason to believe Hamas would maintain a ceasefire. Actually even less so.
Note that "expanded" means additional buildings, not additional territory.
A point refuted a thousand times. Israel gets new territory by converting Palestinian land to "state land". Then inevitably illegal outposts pop up, and Israel looks the other way. When outposts get big enough, they get legalized and become settlements. Then they start building more, and the process repeats. In this forum several people have given you multiple example of expansion and yet you stubbornly keep just ignoring the facts, so I don't see a point in arguing about that in a threat that's about proper resistance tactics.
Israel did pull out of Egypt and Gaza.
Israel never negotiated over Gaza as it was a unilateral withdrawal. Those colonies were never used as bargaining chips.
But they did with Egypt. The agreement was peace in exchange for returning their land and removal of settlements on it.
Yes. But Sinai had over ten times more land, and less than 1% of the settlement population compared to West Bank. To use that as proof that Israel is willing to negotiate is like saying that because you bought an apple one time for $1, you are willing to buy one for $1,000 in the future. It's not a very strong argument.
To end the occupation and have a sovereign Palestinian state.
You are assuming that is their objective.
Based on their lackluster performance in working towards that goal, I'm not so sure that has been the goal of Palestinian leadership. But there is no doubt that this is what the Palestinian people want.
Yes, that's what I said. It's perfectly acceptable for Israel to continue the occupation until a peace deal is reached. The problem isn't with the occupation, it's the way it's carried out to conquer land and squash any possibility of a two-state or even one-state solution.
One-state is a non-starter. That's a prescription for genocide.
Two-state is completely unacceptable to the Palestinians other than as a stepping stone to the conquest of Israel.
Pure conjecture. Israel cannot justify its own
actual conquest with the presumption of what Palestinians
might do in the future. And what's the third option? Complete eradication of Palestinians from West Bank?
The only morally acceptable thing for Israel to do if Palestinians don't want to make peace is to continue purely military occupation. It doesn't justify stealing their land and keep the spoils, because if that's acceptable, then it's Israel who has much more to gain from war. You are basically saying that Israel has a free pass to attack its neighbours and conquer more land, but that means you don't have the moral high ground to complain about Arabs wanting to do the same thing.
No, I recognize they are not unrelated. But the underlying motivation has diminished and war has become if not impossible, at least considerably less likely. These big trends change and evolve as the world changes. For example, the Nazi Germany and modern Neo-Nazis are clearly related, the latter take their inspiration from the former. But the former was at a time a valid political power that wrecked the entire world, while the modern day nazis are more of a minor nuisance and a few crackpots. It's only sensible to not get stuck in the past and see that things like nazism or global communism are no longer realistic threats to western way of life, just like the Arab countries around Israel are no longer a realistic existential threat to Israel.
The motivations have not changed and the Muslims now have far more ability to wage war than they did back then. Israel is land the Muslims considered conquered and they lost it. It's not about countries, it's about religion.
You realize this is exactly the same justification that zionists use to colonize "Judea and Samaria"? They consider it as taking back Jewish land that was lost ages ago. It's comical that you bend over backwards to defend Israel and the Zionists for exactly the same thing that you condemn the Arabs for in the next breath.
Realistically, there are two major issues that need to be resolved: Palestinians have to get some country or territory that they can call their own, and something needs to be done with the refugees. The territory they get doesn't have to follow 1967 borders exactly, but it has to be a viable state, not a carved up turkey. As for the refugees, once they have option of Palestinian citizenship they could either immigrate to their homeland, or somewhere else. Israel doesn't have to take them, but it could offer compensation to sweeten the deal. Personally I think the international community, especially western countries should take responsibility for the refugee problem and grant asylum to every Palestinian who wants it (maybe with some per-country quotas lest they all go to US or Canada).
The Palestinians have made it very clear the refugees that are not in Gaza/West Bank now aren't welcome. Furthermore, you are asking for a deal that's treasonous by Palestinian law.
Laws can be changed. I can understand that they don't want refugees, nobody else does either. That's why U.S. and Europe should step in to help out with that. We're rich enough, and populous enough that we could absorb a big chunk of the Palestinian refugees if it came to that, and personally I'd rather take Palestinians because they tend to be fairly well educated thanks to UNRWA.
You do realize that these two points directly contradict each other?
If the population transfer to West Bank is not a "state act", then the people involved are themselves committing an act of war. That cancels any non-combatant status they have. And the absoluteness of the civilian status is not really that absolute. Imagine, for a second, that a country has a nuclear or a chemical weapons program staffed by civilians. Are you saying that such programs would "never be valid targets, period"?
No, they are at most committing an act of trespass. However, the Palestinians did not declare a state, they have no basis to bring a complaint.
Palestine is a member of the ICC, and they actually can complain about it. And Geneva Convention doesn't require there to be a "state" to make claims, it's binding to the occupier regardless.
I have addressed a point of the thread that you evade: the hypocrisy of government of Israel's useful idiots.
Was the targeted murder of those schoolkids appropriate resistance or not?
Unlike you, I think the killing of non-combatant children is wrong regardless of the nationality, ethnicity and religion of the children and regardless of the nationality, ethnicity and religion of the killers.
So the attack in question was wrong.
And what about the government that regards the attackers are heroes?
What about it? Killing children is wrong. The IDF does kill children. The government of Israel and its citizens considers the IDF as heroes.
You have no understanding of war.
At least you acknowledge that what's happening between Israel and Palestine is war. But for some reason you keep referring to what Israel is doing as "immigration" and whining about "civilians" getting killed when they try to set up colonies in a war zone. You never apply the same standards to both sides.
