i think if we hold more talks and meetings for at least another 10-20 years then we will be able to achieve peace in the next 40-55,000 years. now that's just a ball-park estimate but it'll definitely happen before the sun engulfs the earth...that i can guarantee you.

As I have argued for decades, Europe is the key missing piece of the puzzle, and one too much neglected. After all the European powers started the conflict, but have yet to accept historical responsibility for it. If the EU had stepped up to the plate in 2000 with a generous proposal to compensate the Palestinian people with an ongoing program of aid and investment, the Oslo talks might not have collapsed. As it was, there was nothing in it for the average Palestinian man in the street. At this point -- ironically -- only Germany has the moral standing to shame the EU into accepting its responsibility.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: As I have argued for decades, Europe is the key missing piece of the puzzle, and one too much neglected. After all the European powers started the conflict, but have yet to accept historical responsibility for it. If the EU had stepped up to the plate in 2000 with a generous proposal to compensate the Palestinian people with an ongoing program of aid and investment, the Oslo talks might not have collapsed. As it was, there was nothing in it for the average Palestinian man in the street.

At this point -- ironically -- only Germany has the moral standing to shame the EU into accepting its responsibility.

Interesting angle. I want to know if people would consider peace possible if the National Union party were in direct control of the strongest part of the Israeli millitary, a ministate within Israel and 1.5 million Israelis; and refused to form a govenment with elected Israeli leaders or honor any past Israeli government agreements. This is essentially the problem the Palestinian government has with Hamas and I can't see any peace succeeding no matter what Israeli gives up until that situation is resolved.

Avital: "Israel has nuclear capabilities but not nuclear weapons. " Bullshit.

"Demographic reasons"? As in: Regardless of whether Israel is one-state or becomes two-states, Israel demographically becomes majority Muslim by the end of this century. If one-state, Isreal becomes majority Muslim within eight years, by 2017. If two-states, Israel becomes majority Muslim within eighty years, around 2090-91. And with the steady thirty year rise of religious nationalism (theofascism) in Israel, Iran, India and in the Arab Middle East, what do our interlocutors believe will happen when Jews are, once again, in the minority in their own land? If there is going to be a two-state solution, it will have to include re-locating Israel away from nuclear-armed theofascism. Demographics don't simply count: they predict.

The latest from the Foreign Minister of Israel:

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's party wants to ban Israeli Arabs from marking the anniversary of what they term "the Catastrophe" or Nakba, when in 1948 some 700,000 Arabs lost their homes in the war that led to the establishment of the state of Israel.

The ultranationalist Yisrael Beitenu party said it would propose legislation next week for a ban on the practice and a jail term of up to three years for violators.

At least he's not asking teenagers to strap explosives to their youthful bodies and then blow themselves up for virgins. Haha. Nationalism and bigotry can suck though, I agree. Not the position I'd take if I was an Israeli.

The New York Times is completely unfair in the choice of Colette Avital as representative of the Israeli position. She fails totally in her explanation of the whole settlement movement. After all it is in good part driven by a religious and historical idealism to return and live in the Biblical land of Israel. She also misrepresents how and where settlements are built. Most Israeli settlements are not built on 'Palestinian' land. Most of it is build on land whose status is disputed, state lands, not the lands of individuals. Why not engage in a real debate and bring people from Israel who do represent the majority of the population.
I will say that to her credit Avital does explain the obvious and clear difference in regard to nuclear weapons between an Israel which is trying to defend itself and an aggressive fundamentalist Iran.

She is shilling for the Israeli perspective and is even spouting the usual Israeli lies about the nukes, you should be happy! If she were to take your advice, she would be less credible to an audience not made up completely of zionist jews. In that sense, I too wish she had told the truth - but i don't think it would have the result you would want, it would make the israeli position less supportable to most people.

Agree with Wonderment on the nukes. I don't know if the lady is sincere about the rest of it. The fellow asked good questions. This diavlog was both boring and unsettling, but not as unsettling (pun intended) as one might have hoped. Every serious article about Israel-Palestine begins and ends with the settlement problem, and the US seems to do less than nothing about it.