Here's a two-step we've probably discussed before (after 2+ years I can't remember everything we've talked about), but it's an important one that cuts to the heart of the I/P conflict.
On the Rachel Corrie thread, once the HPers were finished ranting about the facts of the case (or the "facts" that they pushed), they started moving onto more general topics. And their complaints fit two general categories.
#1: It's Israel's fault there's no peace
You know this talking point. Israel's a warmonger, Israel is to blame for the lack of peace, blah blah blah.
But watch out, here comes the second (and completely contradictory) complaint:
#2: Israel should be destroyed
So there's the two complaints, which completely contradict each other.
If the Palestinians and their supporters want to destroy Israel, as we all know and as they admit above, then how could any rational person blame Israel for the lack of peace? Should we blame the Poles for the lack of peace between them and Germany in the 1940s?
This is the kind of cognitive dissonance required to be a Palestinian apologist. You know in your heart that your fellow travelers want to destroy Israel, but you need to ignore that so that you can point fingers at Israel in blame. Insanity.