Doesn anybody think that this argument is actually going to end up with one side convincing the other that they are right, and that the other side is wrong? I mean, I think it's been proven that both sides in these arguments that have cropped up are fairly set int heir ways - I am all for constructive argument if it is going to help but with both sides disputing evidence/quoting fairly dubious statistics that roll off the top of the head, etc. nothing is really helping.
At the same time, does anybody here think that a) Palestinians are wrong and Israel is blameless or b) vice versa? If you do, then perhaps some self examination might help. John Stuart Mill had a way of proving his theories that might be useful. He would go out of his way to find all of the evidence that would contradict his theory and his papers would follow a patternw hereby he would write one argument against his theory, then one to counter that. He would do this over and over, until he had run out of opposing ideas. This is an old form of argument that has unfortunately died out, but perhaps everyone here should give it a go. This is how I see it: most people here have come into this argument convinced that they are right, then set out to prove this, while ignoring whatever has been said by anyone else that may dispute their ideas. Is this likely to solve anything?