Dear Bazz,

«Those views are unacceptable. That is it no room for compromise.
Either the Jews leave the Middle East or there will be war.»

What has my views to do with compromise?

The reason why Israel must withdraw from the cursed territories that it took in 1967 is in order to save itself from itself, not in order to have some compromise with those silly so-called "Palestinians", which as you state, may well never happen.

It is likely for wars to continue in the Middle East, so what? The Arabs will again attack Israel and again be defeated, again attack and again be defeated, who knows how many times and over how many centuries?

But if Israel continues on its path of corruption, on which it embarked in 1967, then it will disintegrate on its own, then Jews will leave it on their own without a single Palestinian shot.

Israel has won all its wars because it was morally superior to the Arabs that attacked it. Not a high bar I must say, but should Israel continue to deteriorate morally and fall even beneath that low bar, to become less moral than its attacking Arabs, then indeed it would deserve to lose everything and indeed it would. I adamantly want to prevent this, I adamantly want Israel to come back to its lost senses because I want my family in Israel to live and prosper.

Israel believes their people were ejected from Israel first by
Neberkaneza, then the Romans then the Arabs and they just want a place
of their own.
Everywhere else is not where they come from except after a long stay.
The Arabs are the occupiers, the whole UN advocacy is inverted.
Compromise seems to be the desire of the unrealistic supporters.

Yuyutsu "Israel has won all its wars because it was morally superior to the Arabs that attacked it."

Huh?

Dear David,

«Huh?»

They call it, "a race to the bottom", the Arabs won that race, not by much apparently.

Dear Yuyutsu,

If morality determined the outcome of armed conflict there would be no European settlements in North America, South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

Dear David,

The colonial Europeans did not know any better.
They had no better examples to follow, the whole human existence was so brutal at the time (including the brutality of those they conquered, such as the Mayans and the Zulu).
It probably never occurred to them that the natives were human and had feelings.
Without discerning, they were closer to animals, not only in their colonial conquests but also in their whole way of life, as we read of their period by Dickens and others.
(yes, they were individual exceptions, but they were far between and had no influence)

It would be silly to call lions and crocodiles "immoral" for the way they treat their "food". In the animal kingdom, animal law applies.

But Jews were learned, highly educated.
They studied and discussed morality for millennia.
And after going through all the pogroms and the holocaust, it would be inconceivable for them to not be aware that others also feel pain.
From them, who also call themselves "light unto the nations", I would expect much higher standards, human rather than animal standards.
And a higher law applies to them too, not the law of the jungle but a moral law, according to which nobody will allow themselves to succeed who knowingly does the wrong thing.
Animals are not affected by guilt-feelings, but guilt jeopardizes all human efforts.