You have repeatedly argued that it was Hamas' illegal attacks on civilians which started this conflict. Will you agree that it was Israel's illegal arrests of Hamas members that started it?
I have argued that Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel started the airstrikes and resulting ground incursion into Gaza - which they did. I had not previously commented on what started the whole affair, aside from alluding to the kidnap and murder of the Israeli teens, which are traceable as the first spark in the recent conflict. The Israeli incursion into the West bank came after.
As I've repeatedly said, there is a difference between giving them concessions and talking to them. Israel is committed to the whole "We don't talk to terrorists" ideal which you also seem to be committed to. This ideal very rarely works. In the cases I mentioned previously (South Africa and Northern Ireland) peace was eventually secured precisely because people talked. Now I'm sure you're going to make some claim about how the situation there was different, fine. Find me a situation which was the same where ignoring the terrorists did result in a lasting peace.
The UK did not negotiate with and give concessions to the IRA while they were actively in the middle of a civilian bombing campaign.
I had originally started and intended to do a line-by-line response to the rest of your post, but I honestly I don't think it serves the discussion of the point I keep droning on about (and simply perpetuates the devolving spiral into detailed nitpicking). I'd rather focus on the steps to the endgame, which is what I've been doing all along:
I acknowledge that Israel is not "the good guys." Similarly, the residents of Gaza and the West Bank aren't "the bad guys." Neither is the PA. Israel has done a lot of really ****ty things to the residents of Gaza and the West Bank which the world at large has largely let them get away with for a multitude of reasons, both pragmatic and political. It's not right, it's not acceptable, and a shift in the West in particular is going to be necessary to force a long term peace agreement into place. Unless both sides leave the negotiating table with equal grumbling, there is going to be a winner and a loser, and that means that peace is not going to last.
It doesn't actually matter who started it. It doesn't actually matter how many civilians, legitimate troops (both sides), or terrorists die in this conflict. It doesn't matter that three Israeli teens were kidnapped and murdered; it doesn't matter that one Palestinian kid had the same done to him; it doesn't matter that Israel walked into the West Bank (yet again), that Hamas shoots at Israel, that Israel shoots back, or that either side breaks ceasefires. It's a callous thing to say, but it's ultimately true. I happen to think that there is enough blame to go around for everyone, but that Hamas is truly a bunch of evil individuals in a league all to their own in this conflict. But it doesn't matter.
What DOES matter, and matters immensely, is the long-term calculus. If Israel negotiates with people who are actively and *intentionally* shooting at civilians
while those attacks are still going on or as a direct consequence of them stopping the peace process is ****ed. Long-term. Possibly irreparably. The conflict over the region of Palestine (of which Israel is a part) has been going on for as long as we have recorded human history, and that is because we have only rarely managed to have the three primary religions in the region all led by people who want to have peace and share power. And finally - finally! - we almost have the conditions to make it lasting. Like Northern Ireland, the majority populations on both sides (or, more accurately in this case, all three sides) are prepared to accept a power-sharing arrangement to ensure a lasting peace, if only their governments would catch up.
Except now, we have two more radical elements with agendas who benefit from a lack of peace. In Israel, we have the governing party, who are happy to use security excuses to further expand their territorial borders and dominate the region. In Gaza (and to a lesser extent, the West Bank), we have Hamas, who still vow to destroy the state of Israel. One is a democratic government that must at least pay heed to international law or risk alienating the entire world. One is a terrorist organization who simply doesn't care about anything but their agenda. The first becomes unacceptable and unsupportable if the second vanishes.
If Israel allows concessions to be a condition of a halt on attacks on civilians, the peace process loses. Hamas' goal is to establish a theocratic, non-democratic state over the entirety of the former Palestinian Mandate. If they gain concessions as a direct result of attacks on civilians, they will not stop. That goal will continue, and they will have the means to do it. It'll be slow and incremental, but everytime Hamas wants further concessions, the shots will start and the rockets will take flight until they gain them... until Israel says 'no more' and the real killing starts.
Terrorist attacks on civilians cannot be the basis for a peace settlement. It's far worse in the long run. That doesn't preclude a settlement in the West Bank, but Abbas is historically unwilling to settle the West Bank negotiations independently of Gaza's participation. If he's changed his tune (which I'm not aware of), then Israel certainly does deserve condemnation for its failure to seek an agreement there.
