zlacker

Yeah, but since it won't stop otherwise either, it's better for Israel to maintain stronger military position, which occupation provides, rather than making unilateral gestures in the faint hope for peace.

>>oytis+(OP)
What you're saying is that millions of human beings should be subjected to brutal military occupation indefinitely, because their oppressors are afraid for their own safety, should they give up control.

>>Diogen+t4
If you declare war on someone, you should prepare to be occupied if you lose. The fair way out of occupation is a sustainable peace guaranteeing safe existence to Israel. And it requires a lot of good will from Arab population in both Palestine and neighboring countries that has been missing since 1948 (or even earlier if you consider Arab revolts in British Palestine).

>>oytis+U5
That's quite the attitude to have towards a militarily occupied people: that if they resist, they deserve to be crushed.

>>Diogen+rr
That is kind of how occupation works? But that was not my point. My point is that if you wage an aggressive war, you deserve being occupied. Like Germany, Japan, Serbia or Iraq. And the way out of occupation is to convince your neighbours that you are not willing to attack again. Otherwise they will have no other choice than to keep you in a state that you can not attack again. And that is a miserable state indeed.

>>oytis+wv
There is no comparison between aggressive imperialist world powers like Germany and Japan, on the one hand, and an almost powerless people living under foreign military occupation, like the Palestinians.

What you're doing here is just giving a justification for unlimited military repression of the Palestinian people by Israel. It reminds me of the phrase, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The Palestinians will take their beatings until they completely prostrate themselves before their oppressors and accept what they're being offered: nothing.