[Goose]

Zugzwang is a great description of the where the main players are? Like in chess you can sit down and go over a past game an analyze what happened and what the alternatives are. What if Israel had supported a Palestinian State?

Twice in history Israel has at least formally agreed to the existence of a Palestinian state. One can argue they did look at the results of those attempts and concluded that a third such offer would meet the same fate. IMO that is a reasonable conclusion. It may be that neither side was "serious" in the previous two attempts, but the attempts were made.

What if the current Prime Minister of Israel had not given millions to Hamas to try and avoid the creation of a Palestinian State?

Please post a reference to this event (or PM me if that is more appropriate). It may have happened, but I am unfamiliar with the details.

So now we are where we are in the great game of the Middle East In the great game of chess, a mistake in the middle game often results in losing the end game.
 I think it is dangerous for Israel to always assume someone will bail them out

Israel doesn't assume anybody is going to bail them out. They take advantage of what help they can get, but if necessary, they "do their own thing". That is why the US can't control them. Granted, Israel probably figures that "in the end" the US will provide weapons and logistics to aid them. They do realize they can't absolutely count on that, and they also realize the US doesn't do this because we love them, but rather because in the Zugzwang of the situation we regard this action as the least bad choice. They also know we aren't sending troops to save them. Israel has acted in their own interests in ways that directly opposed the US interests. The assault on the Liberty is certainly one. The Suez crisis was another. Jonathan Pollard was yet another big one. Israel did these things for their own reasons, calculating that the US in the end would put up with it. They were correct.

The entire process that created Israel was fraught with probable problems.

You bet it was. The ultimate Zugzwang. It was so bad that after years of trying to get a solution, the UK just threw up their hands and left. The UN then proposed a partition of Palestine. The Zionists accepted it, reluctantly. The Palestinians did not. The rest is history.

If you are in the middle of a bunch of people who don't like you, why piss them off?  

Unfortunately a plurality of those people who "don't like Israel" publicly state the only satisfactory solution is the elimination of Israel. It isn't necessary to "piss off" these people, because they of their own accord simply want Israel to cease to be.

If you want others to keep you in existence, some rational approach to the problem is required, Relying on the USA to always to always come to rescue is dangerous. It is an extremely complex and dangerous situation.

Indeed it is a complex and dangerous situation. The problem is that everybody involved know what their interests are and in many cases these interests are diametrically opposed to other participants. No "rational" approach to a settlement is possible as long as some of the players believe such a solution is not in their interest. That has unfortunately been the case for a very long time.

[Goose]

Zugzwang is a great description of the where the main players are? Like in chess you can sit down and go over a past game an analyze what happened and what the alternatives are. What if Israel had supported a Palestinian State?

Twice in history Israel has at least formally agreed to the existence of a Palestinian state. One can argue they did look at the results of those attempts and concluded that a third such offer would meet the same fate. IMO that is a reasonable conclusion. It may be that neither side was "serious" in the previous two attempts, but the attempts were made.

What if the current Prime Minister of Israel had not given millions to Hamas to try and avoid the creation of a Palestinian State?

Please post a reference to this event (or PM me if that is more appropriate). It may have happened, but I am unfamiliar with the details.

So now we are where we are in the great game of the Middle East In the great game of chess, a mistake in the middle game often results in losing the end game.
 I think it is dangerous for Israel to always assume someone will bail them out

Israel doesn't assume anybody is going to bail them out. They take advantage of what help they can get, but if necessary, they "do their own thing". That is why the US can't control them. Granted, Israel probably figures that "in the end" the US will provide weapons and logistics to aid them. They do realize they can't absolutely count on that, and they also realize the US doesn't do this because we love them, but rather because in the Zugzwang of the situation we regard this action as the least bad choice. They also know we aren't sending troops to save them. Israel has acted in their own interests in ways that directly opposed the US interests. The assault on the Liberty is certainly one. The Suez crisis was another. Jonathan Pollard was yet another big one. Israel did these things for their own reasons, calculating that the US in the end would put up with it. They were correct.

The entire process that created Israel was fraught with probable problems.

You bet it was. The ultimate Zugzwang. It was so bad that after years of trying to get a solution, the UK just threw up their hands and left. The UN then proposed a partition of Palestine. The Zionists accepted it, reluctantly. The Palestinians did not. The rest is history.

If you are in the middle of a bunch of people who don't like you, why piss them off?  

Unfortunately a plurality of those people who "don't like Israel" publicly state the only satisfactory solution is the elimination of Israel. It isn't necessary to "piss off" these people, because they of their own accord simply want Israel to cease to be.

If you want others to keep you in existence, some rational approach to the problem is required, Relying on the USA to always to always come to rescue is dangerous. It is an extremely complex and dangerous situation.

Indeed it is a complex and dangerous situation. The problem is that everybody involved know what their interests are and in many cases these interests are diametrically opposed to other participants. No "rational" approach to a settlement is possible as long as some of the players believe such a solution is not in their interest. That has unfortunately been the case for a very long time.