Europeans annihilated native Americans and very nearly completed genocide against them. It’s arguable that the genocide was completed, in that native Americans no longer exist in anywhere near numbers large enough to form a competing ethnic group, let alone a nation.

It is telling, and rather obviously unwitting, that you chose to cast the Palestinians in that same role for comparison, knowing surely that Palestinians do exist in numbers large enough to form a competing nation . In fact, they are the MAJORITY in Palestine.

If native Americans were a majority, America would “belong” to them in exactly the same sense it now belongs to the caucasian majority.

If I were around in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the genocide was getting going, I would hope that I would have opposed it, for exactly the same reasons I now oppose Israeli steps aimed at annihilating Palestine.

How about you, Lee? Were you around back then, would you have opposed the genocide, or have counseled pacifism as the only acceptable response from Native Americans.

Have we returned to Germany the land it lost in the last two World Wars? Has the PRC returned control of the mainland to Taiwan?
Are you not saying Israel shouldn’t return Palestinian land it has occupied? And if they don’t return the land, how can not represent the destruction of Palestine as a nation?

Only a fool dressed in Israeli clothing would want to have such a neighbor. …the Israelis are correct in denying “right of return.”

You say that the dialogue is pointless. I say there never was a dialog, as you repeatedly ignored a very simple, direct, relevant question I asked.

You have misrepresented what I have stated. Here is what I previously stated.

“The issue is that while the Israelis have expressed their willingness to live with a Palestinian state, both by statements and by their act of withdrawing from Gaza, the Palestinians see the creation of a Palestinian state as an interim solution, until the borders of Palestine go from ‘the river to the sea.’ Such as: the Palestine map in Abbas’s office and Hamas.”

(Such as the mission statement of Hamas.)

If you want argue that Palestinians must compromise shouldn’t you ease off the claims that Israel has every right to annihilate them?

Again, you have misrepresented what I have stated. Nowhere did I state “that Israel has every right to annihilate them,” nor anything close to that.

I see no further point in “dialogue” with someone who misrepresents what I say. I am reminded of the integrity of Arafat, who to US and European audiences would say that a Palestinian state would respect the existence of the State of Israel and live in peace with it, and to Arab/Muslim audiences would say that the creation of a Palestinian state was the precursor to the destruction of the State of Israel.

Why do you expect Palestinians to embrace pacifism?

Sorry Gringo, I haven’t ignored that. In fact, it’s my main point.

According to you Israel not only seeks the destruction of Palestine, it has already achieved it and the Palestinians are to blame merely for trying to prevent the forgone conclusion.

Again, I applaud your unwitting honesty, but not your logic.

You assert that there can be no compromise with the Palestinians, because they seek Israel’s destruction. Yet at the same time, you rationalize Israel’s pursuit of Palestine’s annihilation (and even claim they’ve already achieved it!), while at the same time arguing that compromise is the ONLY course for Palestinians. Why are you unable to see the contradiction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Apartheid_Week&limit=500&action=history