Historical note.. One of the most famous US victories in the war of 1812 against the UK took place after peace had been agreed (New Orleans).

It workd the other way too. Fort Mackinac was taken in 1812 because the American defenders hadn't heard that war had been declared...
Mackinac was a reason so many Indian tribes decided to support the British/Canadian side.

How many "accidental" artillery barrages or aircraft strikes did Israel perform after the cease fire (accidentally, of course)?

So, the Palestinians get a marginal upgrade in UN recognition, and Israel's response? Increase settlement building, particularly in the sensitive E1 area (which would reduce the contact between East Jerusalem and the West Bank).

I agree that the E1 settlement is an overreach.

me too

Overreach? That's all? It's preposterous on their part! It's illegal, it's wrong and the whole world knows it! And yet, Israel will not stop with their illegal settlements. In fact, this has been their pattern since the early 80's, instigate the Palestinian supporters to violence, cry foul for the all the world to hear after their militant morans take the bait and lob bombs but all the while, continue building settlements in territories that they know will only provoke more hatred. It's no wonder it's an armed conflict

"instigate the Palestinian supporters to violence" ... every victim of domestic abuse knows exactly what you mean.

RJ, yeah, because it's usually the victims of domestic violence who have the superior strength and weaponry.

settlements do provoke violence. So would most neighbours appropriating someone else's property and refusing to budge. The settlers themselves are prone to instigating violence. The infrastructure used to support the settlements and the presence of soldiers to defend them are impositions at the very least.

'Overreach' is a bit of an understatement. Which is why every ally of Israel's seems to be annoyed about it, not just the usual critics.

Dag's statement is that since the 80's the Israelis have been instigating the Palestinians towards violence. That seems like overreach to me.

Exactly why we need a Palestinian State that is responsible for the acts of it's people.

Ray Jay wrote:Dag's statement is that since the 80's the Israelis have been instigating the Palestinians towards violence. That seems like overreach to me.

Were the Israelis still funding Hamas in the 80s?

Per Wikipedia, Hamas was founded in 1987. Their first attack against Israel was in 1989. Their military branch was created in 1991. The PLO was responsible for much terrorism before that including Munich. I'm not getting your point.

Israel was funding Yasin and the precursor of Hamas, as a means of weakening the PLO. I just wasn't sure when their assistence ended.

Per Wikipedia, Hamas was focused on its charitable, cultural, religious, educational, and health activities back then too. In previous discussions you have forgiven Palestinians for voting for Hamas for that reason.

We don't have to re-discuss the entire Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My only point is that even if the Israelis have done something that most of us disagree with, it's not right to recast the entire historical conflict as Israel's faul. The Palestinians have to take responsibility for their terrorism and their violence. They are responsible for their own murders.

Ray Jay wrote:Per Wikipedia, Hamas was focused on its charitable, cultural, religious, educational, and health activities back then too. In previous discussions you have forgiven Palestinians for voting for Hamas for that reason.

No, that's not what I've done. I've pointed out that most Palestinians did not vote for Hamas, and that many of those who did were more motivated by frustration at the corruption of Fatah. It's not about 'forgiveness', it's about observation.

We don't have to re-discuss the entire Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My only point is that even if the Israelis have done something that most of us disagree with, it's not right to recast the entire historical conflict as Israel's faul. The Palestinians have to take responsibility for their terrorism and their violence. They are responsible for their own murders.

Both sides have to take responsibility for escalating the conflict from time to time. Encouraging illegal settlements (those not even legal under Israeli law) does provoke a reaction. Using force of arms to do it is violence.

Here's what Israel were doing with that charmer Sheik Yasin into the 1980s:

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

I'm not sure, what with the rest of what was going on in the 80s (assisting the Lebanese massacre of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila in 1982; backing the Shi'Ite faction in Lebanon in the subsequent 'War of the Camps' against Palestinians; massively increasing settlement activity - the greatest jump in numbers was in the early 1980s; Responding to the First Intafada with far greater aggression in 1987), that it is simply a case of blaming one side and absolving the other.

Put it this way, would you be calm and peaceful if you were living under occupation? The US hasn't really got that as a history.