Did you ever ask a question that you sincerely wanted an answer to, but that people thought was rhetorical? Or that people just didn't react to, and you wonder why?
I have asked a question in three different Israel/Palestine diaries because I really wanted to find out what the answer was, and I haven't gotten a straight answer yet. In two cases, people who previously had been arguing volubly became silent; in one, I was attacked with a "You're only asking that because..." statement, but no answer was provided. They went on to other minutiae about the whole Israel/Palestine question.
So I am asking the question all by itself, so there are no side issues to clutter things up. It is a question for those who say that a Palestinian State can only happen through a process of negotiation.
If that is true, and Israel must agree with all particulars of any treaty, why shouldn't Israel assign a junior diplomat to show up to negotiate every day and never, ever agree with anything?
You out there who believe that the Israelis should have a veto over the whole peace process - tell me, what is the penalty the Israelis should pay for negotiating in bad faith? If there is no deadline, no penalty for failure, then Israel should appoint a Minister In Charge Of Agreeing To Nothing, and let him sit at a table and argue for another twenty years while Israel takes more land, more water, and establishes more "facts on the ground" for settlers who swear they will never leave no matter what.
So tell me already if I am missing something, and according to your view the Israeli's smartest strategy isn't to stall forever while insisting that "the only valid basis for the establishment of a state is through negotiation."
I am listening.