First would come the shouting, but before long fists and feet would fly, ears would get ripped off, noses would get bitten off, throats would get crushed, and non-combatants would be rewarded for their passivity with errant elbows to the face.

And that's without a huge supply of rocks, guns, and bombs nearby.

Now, back to peace in the Middle East...

I just finished up a course in Public International Law, and I remember the professor saying that the right to acquire territory by conquering it no longer exists. So I would also like to see a link. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I want to see something post-WW2 (and hence the formation of the UN) that says a country make take territory from defeated enemies. International law is still rather young, and quite a few of the old norms were done away with after Nuremberg (the principle of non-intervention replaced with infant human rights law, Geneva and such), so I would like to see something from the last 50 years if possible.

No Paul, the sections dealing with the rights and duties of an occupying power. Try looking it up yourself rather than simply being an asshole. And Israel is not an occupying power of land across any international border...vis a vis the Palestianians (they do control Golan and accept the fact that peace with Syria will entail its return). There is no international border between Israel and Palestine since Palestinian Arabs have so far refused to negotiate and sign an peace treaty which would establish that border. There is the 1949 border which was only the result of an Armistice (which has a separate definition in the Geneva Convention--you can look that up too), the 1967 borders which exist today within Palestine and the 1967 and 1973 lands conquered from Egypt which were returned via a peace treaty.

Why is it that it was understood that Egypt obtained its conquered land via a peace treaty, but that is not the case for the Palestinians?

Actually, I think we'd be surprisingly civil to one another IRL. It's just with anonymity that we are free to be as vicious as we sometimes are.

I can see things devolving into a group hug with ElectroRobot, but that's only after Cocktailhag gets everybody wasted...

One important point in your post (but the most important point is that we are witnessing state terrorism):

It's far easier to imagine a population subjected to this treatment becoming increasingly radicalized and belligerent rather than submissive and compliant, as Friedman intends.

Tom Friedman who purportedly advocates the "greening" of the Planet, seems to advocating the "charcoaling" of its most precious inhabitants, innocent human beings.

I think I have made neither of my points clear to you.

2. That you can't be critical of Palestenian before they have a state. OK, I sympathize with that, but the reality is they have lots of proxy states. First it was Egypt, than Iraq, now Iran. While none of them have ever really had the best interest of the Palestinian people at heart, it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians have used them. Also, they have been in fairly autonomous control of Gaza for the last two years (hence the problem). Also, most revolutions require a purge of the radical elements prior to real leadership. Isael did this prior to statehood by the founder of the Likud party. That is the responsibility of leadership. The Palestinians continue to love the revolution and not it's purpose (as do most of Isreal's critics-ironically not Friedman).

That's not quite it. I am saying that until the Palestinians have common resources to control, such as land or taxes---i.e., a state---they cannot have a political process that is anything but, in Bush's use of the term, existential. In other words, they are concerned with their existence; they want to live and be left alone, like you or me. Israel won't let them; Israel breaks every cease-fire, every time.

1. The fact that the US media is ussually unanimously in support of Israel does not make it wrong, or require a contrary view. We can all agree that is slavery wrong, can't we. No need for any contrary views!

Utterly irrelevant point. Debate on Israel in the US is one-sided or does not exist at all. It has nothing to do with what people actually think, or the facts.

If you think the MSM's lockstep is due to the fact that Israeli genocide is the right thing to do, then you are one seriously fucked-up piece of shit.

Actually, my citations were of the Lieber Code (1863) and the Geneva Convention (1907). Maybe you can get out that textbook and show me where a country may not conquer another's territory and hold it until a peace treaty is executed. Note that I am not talking about annexation---that clearly violates international law, including Israel's annexation of Jerusalem (or for that matter, Arab annexation of Jerusalem in 1948). The status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories must be decided in negotiation.

Palestinians will die. It's their "leadership's" fault. What happened to Japan in WW2? Oh right, they surrendered.

Japan was an established political state with a functioning government. Plus which it wasn't threatened with complete genocide in 1945; just a very costly (and likely useless) invasion of its southern islands by the Allies. Thankfully what was left of the government called it quits before it came to that.

The difference here is Gaza no longer has a functioning central government, the Israelis show little sign of slowing down, and if there don't seem to be any cooler heads with the weight to stop this.

Grow up, and stop labeling everything as inhumane.

Except that all that is happening is inhumane. If that disturbs you, I'd advise you join a different species.

Otherwise, take your own advice.

Under the Oslo agreement, there was to be a Gaza West Bank corridor, varying in size depending on the year you asked Israel about it. Gaza, just to note, is only twenty five miles away from the West Bank. It would even make more sense to give back parts of the Negev between the West Bank and Gaza as it is sparsely inhabited (a total of 8% of the population, but 60% of Israel's land mass) and a bit of an eyesore to Israelis. In any case.

It was always clear to myself, and such minds as Noam Chomsky and others, that the Oslo Accord itself was deeply flawed. A two state solution can only be an interim toward a one state solution. A two state solution is completely unworkable. So let's just drop it there, there's no point in arguing. I apologize if I was rude.