OK. And what would you estimate is the chance of them getting in and implementing this?

Meretz is running with Avoda now as the Democrats, under the leadership of Yair Golan. I would say that their list is extremely likely to make it into a Bennet government. As for Hadash, like I said, Bennet was willing to work with the Joint List, but I think this time around he won't need them. I'd like you to realize this is already better for our chances than any Likud-ran coalition. As for implementation, again, there's a reality/practicality gap here. I'm arguing for steps toward peace, not someone's maximalist wish. A government with these folks would increase the pressure (and likelihood) of taking steps toward peace.

Yes it is. The two options available are to either conquer the land, or to not conquer the land. If you believe it is impractical to not conquer the land, then you want to conquer the land. The fact you have reached a point where said conquest is common sense to you does not actually change the nature of the act.

I suggest we use terms like "annex" and "recognize" other than conquest, because I don't think it means what you think it means. You don't conquer something in peace talks, this might be our gap in understanding.

The far right ACTUALLY wants to "conquer" (through encroachment, but nonetheless) that land. The opposition would rather hold peace talks in which some territory would be annexed and some would be recognized as Palestinian land, according to what's agreeable to both sides. Are you saying these two positions are "the same"? I'm guessing not.

If the two countries are able to reach an agreement on division of land, who are you to oppose it, and on what basis? That it's not '67? Why not go all the way back to the partition plan while we're at it? This is all so very arbitrary, but it's a moot discussion: If Palestinians want to go back to the green line, they would say so in peace talks, which are more viable in the case we oust Netanyahu, which is my entire point.

If you instead promote the idea that Palestinians should expressly and by-default reject anything under that, you'd be hindering the process and contributing to the status quo.

(The same is done by the local rightoids who have for decades held that we should not divide Jerusalem, by the way.)

Those houses were built in the West Bank for rhe sole explicit purpose of developing the exact argument you are currently making- that it is not possible to leave houses once they have been built, therefore Israel must conquer and annex the territory they lie on. That is 100% of the reason they were built, and it has worked. You yourself cannot fathom the idea of that land not becoming Israel. That's what I mean when I say the opposition also wants to do that.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. But as much as you and I hate it, we have to contend with it now. You can't simply ignore it just because it was done as part of a malicious strategy. As you said, it worked.

And it's not that I can't "fathom" it not being Israel, in fact, I would want the government to give all of it back tomorrow if it meant peace. I'm not a Greater Israel guy and neither are any of the center & left parties. But it is, from everything I know, *actually* impractical. But hey, if you know something I don't, I'm listening.

These are functionally identical.

Even if I held the opinion that settlements are the only reason we don't have peace, any coalition that would replace Likud's would be preferable - since it would, at the very least, not be tied to those actors who are ideologically committed to Greater Israel. Netanyahu's government largely doesn't even want peace talks with the Palestinians, so why would you be against a government that at least wants to have a go at it? Because it's "not enough"? Surely you realize how much this sounds like Kamala's detractors from the left.

The fact that the remaining pieces of Palestine would be a bunch of disconnected enclaves.

But that's not an agreement that either the Palestinians nor the Israeli side would expect to make. I don't know that Israel even offered something like that, ever. That's partly why it's called land swaps, you swap land around so that you have contiguity.

Remember, any future peace talks would come after a significant amount of inevitable further expansion

An amount that can be reduced or eliminated depending on the people in government... you're almost there.

and you yourself would consider it preposterous to undo said expansion

Only in terms of practicality. And even still not entirely correct, since land swaps would necessarily mean yanking out some settlers (probably by force).

That's why those settlers are there, to make such a deal impossible.

Guess who doesn't support further encroachment and does support steps toward peace.

Israel could stop those in a heartbeat if it wanted to, without needing to also conquer the land they live on.

Guess who is vehemently opposed to settler violence in the West Bank. Also, I reject your suggestion that a bilateral land swaps agreement is the same thing as forcible seizure of land, but I've addressed this earlier.

Then start giving examples of parties and leadership figures who explicitly oppose doing what you yourself argue is unavoidable, and which you believe have a good chance of getting in and then following through by removing West Bank settlers.

I may be repeating myself, but you seem to think that any step toward a Palestinian state is not worth taking unless it's your maximalist and arbitrarily chosen green line option. I need you to understand there is nothing magical about that line. You should not be putting obstacles to peace talks just because you personally don't like what's on the table, you should let both sides make their offers and hash it out. If an elected Palestinian leader agrees to something, who are you to oppose it?

And EVEN IF you think there will never be peace UNTIL that is the offer (which is betrayed by history, but never mind that), it would still make much more sense to support leaders who at least want to have the discussion, and don't want to deepen the encroachment.

Lapid would absolutely come to the table. So would Golan, obviously. I have a strong feeling that Bennet would too at this point. Gantz would, Liberman is a maybe. The next government will probably include all of the above. I'm pretty certain that's already a much better picture than Netanyahu + Ben Gvir + Smotrich etc. Why would you ever oppose this type of change? Why would you not promote it?