Is the agreement about being slaughtered in your homes like the Fogel family? Or is it more agreeable to be slaughtered in a bomb shelter? You geniuses should make up your minds, so everyone can relax. The suspense...

Yes there were resolutions without compromise: just a few: defeat of Nazis; Japan, S. Vietnam and the US Confederacy. Y never comprehended Machiavelli's axioms. There can never be a Judeo-Islamist ethic. They are opposites. As Kirshen pointed out: "When wolves and bunny rabbits are together they don't play by bunny rabbit rules." To believe otherwise is to be a fool.

You couldn't be more wrong. All the examples you cite involved compromises e.g. the Nazis were defeated but Germany was re-born, hence its post-war economic success - similarly with Japan. The notion of utter victory and defeat is a right-wing fantasy based on 'might is right'.

Every time leftists pursue "peace with Palestinians", Israel end up being maimed and murdered in huge numbers. Rockets end up falling on Israeli cities and towns by the thousands. Israel is fed up with the deadly leftist "peace process". Real peace is always obtained through victory and strength. Such as the long term peace which followed the resounding Allies' victory in WW II.

Tsipi Livni brought this up, like it was a bad thing. It totally showed Netanyahou in a different light, but unfortunately, also Tsipi Livni. I understood the campaigns would be brutal, but you are right, let us not lose sight of what is really important to us. I wouldn't vote for Netanyahou, mostly, because I don't think any prime minister should be allowed to serve more than 2 terms; it is too much power for one person, and I don't understand why there isn't a law against it. But let us not forget this article: it was a small hope.

i don't live in israel, but yes, it may be good because it says that a non binational state solution is available, but no, its also bad because abbas is clearly not a peace partner. in my opinion, the best way forward is to downgrade the conflict from an existential one to a territorial one. the israeli government should commit to a potential future palestinian state in most of the west bank, and should try to remove or stop settlement growth in those areas (excluding blocks outside jerusalem, western samaria and etzion block). however, there should not be any concessions to the palestinian authority which continues to incite against israel both locally and internationally until such time as they dedicate themselves to a peace pathway only.

If the reports are true, they prove three things. First, Netanyahu is honestly trying to get an agreement with PLO, and is willing to lose his political base to achieve it. Second, Abbas rejected this very generous offer proving that the Leftists are wrong that Abbas is moderate and the Zionists are right that Abbas does not want peace. Third, the fact that Herzog attacks Netanyahu instead of supporting him means that Herzog does not want peace, he only wants the perks of the office.

Yes there were resolutions without compromise: just a few: defeat of Nazis; Japan, S. Vietnam and the US Confederacy. Y never comprehended Machiavelli's axioms. There can never be a Judeo-Islamist ethic. They are opposites. As Kirshen pointed out: "When wolves and bunny rabbits are together they don't play by bunny rabbit rules." To believe otherwise is to be a fool.

You prove my point exactly. So, whoever is the stronger - whether the Israelis or the Palestinians - will achieve peace according to your 'logic'.

Germany and Japan surrendered totally without any conditions to the Allies in WW2. They were reborn and are flourishing economically today because the victorious states, particularly US, wanted it and helped them (read for instance of Marshal Plan).