Embracing illusions is not uncommon on the part of paranoid (on a different planet) froot loops!
Alan B.

There is no two-state solution. There might be a two-state result but it won't be a solution in the sense of solving the enmity between the various peoples in that part of the world.

A solution will only come when the Palestinians and their supporters/overlords realise that they can't win it all; when they truly accept Israel and its continued existence. Until then they will try to nibble away and the Israelis will continue to resist all such nibbles.

When Israel tried some baby steps toward a solution by giving Gaza over to Palestinian rule they found that they'd created an armed camp on their doorstep. That won't be quickly forgotten.

The two-state solution is a political solution to an intractable problem. Its a political compromise that doesn't give the Palestinians what they want nor the Israelis the peace they want. Its the type of solution that the Czechs learnt in 1938 is no solution at all. But its all the politicians can offer since compromise in all things is in their DNA.

Trump isn't a politician. Hence he doesn't see a political solution. He'll back the USA's only real friend in the M-E and keep the UN off their back. In the meantime, Iran grows more powerful (thanks to the Obamessiah) and other M-E powers become more fearful. Its conceivable that at some point the Saudis and the like will see Israel as an ally and at that point the Palestinians will be lost. Then a solution may be achievable.

Until then Israel won't take one backward step.

"Trump is being attacked from just about every corner for his outrageous statements, contradictions, and self-indulgence"

and has a 55% approval rating. But most of those supporters are from the deplorables so they don't count, I guess.

Dear mhaze,

What a concocted narrative.

Try this one. The Israelis left Gaza because they were forced to. The Gazans use rockets and mortars to stop the accelerating carve up of their land. They were bombed, imprisoned, tortured and starved but still they kept fighting until finally the cost was too great for Israel and they decided to pull out. The Gazans have been resisting repeated assaults, cross border incursions, massive bombing and an extremely inhumane blockade.

Fatah on the other hand decided to become a Vichy style government. They overthrew a democratically elected government, assisted in rounding up fellow Palestinians conducting an armed struggle against a brutal occupation and have seen the West Bank carved up by a settler cancer, tightly controlled checkpoints and land theft on a grand scale.

Contrary to your tripe Fatah/PLO recognised the State of Israel in an effort to move toward a peaceful solution to the conflict but when then they were told this was not good enough and instead they were to recognise Israel as a “Jewish State”.

As to Trump having “a 55% approval rating.” you would seem to have pulled that one out of your proverbial mate. Please point to one single reputable poll which has returned these numbers?

SteeleRedux,

I'm not sure what narrative I'm supposed to have concocted since I didn't offer a narrative. I simply observed that Israel pulled out of Gaza. I didn't opine as to the reasons although I would dispute your explanation for that event. I also opined that this experiment with seeking compromise has utterly failed which is proven every time a rocket is launched from Gaza into Israel. A failed experiment that won't quickly be repeated.

I make no moral judgements about whether Israel has a right to this or that bit of the Levant. The issue is national survival and realpolitiks. Israel refuses to allow itself to be extinguished and if that means offending the sensibilities of the western latte class, then so be it.

While ever, Hamas says/believes things like "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it" or "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." While ever Iran threatens nuclear Armageddon against Israel, Israel will resist and demur against surrendering its strategic position. Right or wrong that is the reality.

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan the joke doing the rounds in Moscow was that it was a defensive move since the best way to defend your borders was from both side. Equally the best place to defend Tel Aviv is from on the Jordan River.

So no narrative and no moral judgements. Just an assessment of the strategic reality.

- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"you would seem to have pulled that one out of your proverbial mate. Please point to one single reputable poll which has returned these numbers?"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

It changes daily but you will see my proverbial. Hope you enjoy the view.

SR,

You really are a supporter of Palestinian extremism, what's more you swallow their propaganda without thought. With respect to your drivel:

1 The Gazans forced Israel out? you mean the Oslo peace accord? note that as a result of Gazan violence, there is a 1 km buffer zone established in Gazan territory along the border, so Hamas' terrorist actions have not gained them one inch.
2 Fatah has never recognised Israel's right to exist.
3 Israeli settlements occupy a small portion of the west bank and if Fatah had accepted the terms of the peace deal put together in 2000 they would have far than they have now.
4 The Fatah government was democratically elected in the west bank (at the same time as Hamas was elected in Gaza though both sides terms have expired) and continued to govern for their people unlike Hamas who regularly executes Fatah or any other opposition members, and uses its citizens as human shields.
5 Hamas now sends children to their deaths armed with knives. How cowardly.

Dear mhaze,

I said reputable.

Your proverbial must be pretty low slung to the ground for you to be quoting an avowedly conservative outfit like Rasmussen at me. My goodness, these guys consistently rank outside the top 20 of polling organisations for accuracy.

Just go and Google 'president approval rating' and see what it returns. I just did and this is what I got for Trump's rating over 4 polling organisations;

Polling group - Date - Approval
Gallup Poll - February 23–25 - 41%
Rasmussen Reports - February 20–22 - 52%
NBC/The Wall Street Journal - February 18–22 - 44%
CBS News - February 17–21 – 39%

Would you like to explain to the rest of the listeners why you think Rasmussen consistently returns positive Trump figures which are at least 10 – 20% higher than the other organisations?

Try again mate.

As to you not trying to create an narrative, bollocks! You framed it Israel in such a sanctimonious light you must need a lie-down from all that spin. You made not a single mention of the continual theft of Palestinian land which is lies very much at the heart of this conflict. By ignoring it you showed just how much of a one-sided broker you really are.

SR,

I had a little bet with myself that you'd assert Rasmussen to be not reputable. I could give you the full run down on why you're wrong there but you're not really interested in that. You don't want their result to be true so,in your mind that means they aren't true. Its the same lack of thought which caused so many to get the US election forecasts wrong not to mention Brexit.

Only two polls came out of the election with their reputations intact - Rasmussen and the LA Times poll.

But the others tell you what you want to hear so you'll go on believing them and therefore go on being surprised when reality smacks you in the face. Hope that works for you.

Me? I'd prefer to go with those who have a record of accuracy as opposed to those who get the results that are confirmatory. Which is why I was always confident of a Trump win.

" these guys consistently rank outside the top 20 of polling organisations for accuracy."

What a dill. As per above that's demonstrably rubbish. In fact Rasmussen's final poll was closer than any other. But again you don't want that to be true, so it isn't.

As to Israel, I can see that you are irrationally anti-Israel. that's OK, you're not alone. But you won't get me to make moral judgements about them. Moral outrage is for those who haven't got any skin in the game. When the Arab armies sought to destroy Israel in 1967 and 1973, I'm not sure the morality of either side was paramount in anyone's thinking.

Dear mhaze,

Well that was some self-projection my friend.

Here is a very extensive ranking of pollster companies done by fivethirtyeight;

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

If you go to the far left and click mean-reverted bias you will see Rasmussen is the fourth most bias toward Republicans.

If you have a similar ranking assessment with the same breath of research please link to it and I will have a look. Otherwise you may live in your own bubble.

Sorry that should have been, rather appropriately it would seem, to the far right.

SR,

Really? You're using Nate Silver as a guide. Anyone who'll say what you want to hear, eh? How accurate was Silver/538 in 2016? Perhaps you should check before relying on them. Hint: silver consistent picked Clinton to win BIG and consistently predicted Trump's defeat first by other Republicans and then by Hill herself. Perhaps you should read some of Nate's mea culpas trying to explain why he was so wrong. Still if he tells you what you want to hear, then he's not really wrong, eh?

Did you check the data the list you supplied relies on? Did you notice it relates to 2014? Still it comes up with the right answer so it doesn't matter how out of date it is, does it?

In 2016, the LA times was the only poll that consistently predicted Trump. Rasmussen was next in that they sometimes predicted Trump AND in their final poll they were the closest to the final popular vote percentages. Since all other polls consistently unrated Trump by over 2%, perhaps rather than Rasmussen favouring the GOP the others favoured the Dems. That's definitely so for CBC/Nbc who you now take as the paragons of accuracy.

Its easy to understand why this occurs. Voting Trump (and Brexit for that matter) was unfashionable and some weren't open to telling the truth to pollsters. The way the LA Times and Rasmussen collects the data obviates this problem. Hence they are shown to be more accurate.

But they come up with the wrong answer so some will decide to not learn from history.

Silence came the stern reply.

Dear mhaze,

You do know the difference between predictive polling and assessing the accuracy of polling companies based on historical data?

The contention is that Rasmussen consistently bias' toward the Republican side.

FiveThirtyEight has researched the historical data better than anyone else that I am aware of. He provides a link to his data set and as far as I know there has not been anyone find fault with any of it.

It found Rasmussen is one of the top offenders for Republican bias. Just because they got close in one election does not negate that fact.

Trump does not have an over 50% approval rating. Never has and unlikely to ever have.