perhaps you're right - its an absurdly low offer - but in this case (sticking to your wonderful analogy) - the palestinians know they have a guaranteed 'buyer'.
the premise of walking away from an insulting offer is based on the idea that there is someone else out there that will pay more. these two parties have to come up with a deal that both parties find satisfactory.
israelis are a cancer and a pox on the face of the earth - anyone who disagrees is the same. as i said above - i knew there are people like you who exist out there, but i find it highly troubling that the community save for a couple now have let you get away with this. perhaps if we reverse your comment, others might see what your disdain looks like.
I've really had it with Palestinians.
Palestine is a cancer on the face of the earth, one that isn't content merely to fester, but must of its internal logic spread further and yet further.
With each poll that comes to light showing unanimous support for Hamas, each brutal "victory" for the terrorists, so beautifully equipped thanks to my tax dollars, each rocket launched, each Israeli innocent killed, the Palestinians continue their descent into the pit of inhumanity, degrading themselves as they inflict untold suffering on their fellow men, women and children.
A pox upon them all, and upon those who would defend them.
As for Obama at 6%? Well, that tells you everything you need to know, doesn't it?
your attempt to clarify of "I hate oppression regardless of the "religion" of the oppressor." - which frames this issue about religion makes your comment above even worse im afraid.
your point is taken. however do you think this 'first offer' of sorts (and that's a loose definition) is actually what a final peace plan will look like? this is a starting point, as someone said here the other day, like negotiating a house - one doesn't come in with their top offer right away. also i take issue with this characterization:
Can you name one conflict in history that was resolved when one party was wholly committed to dictating terms to the other and when their entire attitude in this process consisted of dismissing the perpectives, history, and interests of the other?
not that it isn't accurate of course - it just happens to be true for both groups - not one.
i agree that the phrasing in the poll is both murky and loaded. but going from perceived neutrality of 40% to 5% in a month and a half demonstrates that something has gone awry. sadly some right-wing MK's are trying to use its results for some political maneuvering which is both transparent and foolish. much as we are arguing the philosophy and ethics of this poll, this is far from being a positive development either politically or in the hopes of peace.
that said - who is neutral? canada? france? who exactly? the answer is no one. i mean - look at the UN, its pretty much lost most of its credibility on this issue amongst others as a neutral body. the middle east - and particularly the issue of israel in the last century has been part of geopolitcal battleship of third-parties. and even if there were a country that was perceived to be neutral it would not have the muscle to bring the parties together. no - the US - with all its warts is the only answer to bringing about peace.
i take your point - and in hearing it its clear we are talking about two different things.
i am stating that an israeli public that is suddenly and dramatically mistrustful of this process is not helpful nor in any way be appreciated as positive in the goals for peace. and you are talking about going back into history and changing events and politics.
perhaps - it is important also to consider why israel and the US, have had shared interests when reading this polling information rather than why they shouldn't, after all isn't the key to all this understanding?