> Naive. I'm sure they'll find another excuse to restore the Muslim lands.

So it's ok for you to continue, because you're sure they'll find another reason? What if am sure they won't? That's a lousy argument if I ever saw one.

> This is where the 'get fucked' comes in.

So you approve of violating international law? Why should Israel have any extra rights as a state, compared to others, or the Palestinians for that matter?

> What's your point? It's ok if they shoot missiles at me because ours our bigger and fancier?

It's not ok, but so it's acting that your bombardment is a proportional response to their home-made rockets. It mostly kills civilians.

> Noted. Both sides are negotiating in bad faith so some degree here. There is no indication that Palestinians will ever consider one square inch of Israel to not be 'jacking their lands'

The Palestinians have said that they're OK with the '67 borders, that's certainly giving up on some land allocated to them by the UN to Israel.

> any more than there is of settlers giving up hope for 'greater Israel.'

So is this the justification for continuing the status quo of the occupation? That's not a good look if I may say so myself. How are the settlers different then than the extreme Islamic factions of the Palestinians? Because their settlements are protected by Israel and thus make Israel at least partially responsible for them.

> So they can use fishing boats to smuggle weapons and concrete for tunnels? Which IS what would happen. but still..

Am sure there would a percentage used that way, so do inspections or whatever. You don't make an argument like this for anything other. "There should be no cars, because someone may have an accident".