I can see where you're coming from Stonecutter, but I have to disagree for several reasons:
1) Who started the chain of violence? It wasn't Israel.
Israel's creation started the chain of violence[/i]
2) Israel targets their opponents, while the terrorists just attack civilians, dogs, children. It doesn't matter to them.
Israel doesn't "target" much of anything,They'd rather just launch a flechette round into a densely packed civilian area. You want to argue about whether or not the areas are "densely packed" go ahead, but you cannot justify the use of flechettes in any civilian area (nor can you justify the use of cluster bombs)
3) Palestine is a fictional state and there are no such thing as Palestinians. Look it up, its true.
1)Who said anything about Palestine?
2)Why does that hold any weight?
3)They call themselves Palestinians, therefore, that is what they are.
4) Israel has made large land concessions in the past, which the "Palestinians" used to continue their terror attacks.
5) The "Palestinian" terrorists want the total destruction of Israel, not land concessions. This has been evident when cease fire after cease fire was broken by the terrorists that the PLO is either unable or unwilling (I'm betting the latter) to control. Do you think this is a realistic goal in ending the violence?
In the end peace lies in the hands of the "Palestinians". They have to make and KEEP an agreement if they want peace. Israel is not going anywhere and no one should expect it to, whether or not you agree or disagree with the circumstances surrounding Israel's creation. Once the terrorists come to realize this, then we may see an end to the violence.
Now I can see how Middle Easterners can dislike the West for their support of Israel, but I do not agree with you calling them terrorists. Israel does not qualify on any level.
This quote is from an essay written by a Jew and published by a group called Jews for justice, you can find the link to the entire essay at the bottom of this post
""An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins.""