placnx

What's the point in your gratuitous sniping? Ethnic cleansing is not funny.

Each must have an office with its own bathroom, so don't worry.

Mentioning the Ten Point Program is an obfuscation. It dates from 1974 according to the Wikipedia entry which you cite. At the top of this entry are the following warnings: "This article has multiple issues." "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." The Saudi proposal dates from 2002. It is about peace, not rejection. It was rejected immediately by Israel, but at times US presidents have supported it "on paper". Israel has never made a counter offer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative There were some negotiations regarding the Bush Roadmap for Peace end with the Annapolis Conference in 2007, but this went no where since Israel was unwilling to give up control over West Bank borders, vacate settlements, or agree to genuine Palestinian sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Conference Among the comments by Rabbi Dov Lior of the Yesha Rabbis Council: "Lior further stated that peace would only be achieved by "[cleansing] the country of Arabs and [resettling] them in the countries where they came from."[29]" At present the question is whether Israel will end up digging itself a hole so deep that the world will find ways to force it to end the Greater Israel project.

At least he does a very good explanation of how we got here, which helps in the understanding of some way out of this mess. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-bottom-line/2023/10/21/why-does-the-us-not-support-a-ceasefire-in-gaza

You can deny all you want. I hope that in the end Israelis will come to a realization that they must have a constitution that embodies the aspirations of their Declaration of Independence.

Hope springs eternal.

Before saying I'm being absurd, please read the Amnesty report. The housing discrimination is pervasive and state policy rather than lower level discrimination such as 'red lining' in the US. I can't put links from Haaretz etc since I'm away from home now.

You can read the Amnesty report to find out why Israel proper is also judged to be practicing apartheid against its Arab citizens. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ There are reports on housing discrimination, for example, in various newspaper reports. If you want to know about this, try googling.

Daniel Levy certainly thinks that a two state solution is possible, but then he is not one of those craven ones called "politicians".

To your last point, up to now, Israelis have disregarded the situation of the Palestinians, so settlement activity and apartheid could continue, until the Palestinians disappeared, perhaps? Now Hamas has gotten the attention of not only Israelis, but the world. Perhaps the consensus will arrive at a viable two state solution sooner rather than later.

Please provide a reliable link concerning PLO rejection of the Saudi peace proposal. The Palestinians would definitely like a two state solution if the horrific settlers would be sent back to Israel and be banned from the Haram al-Sharif. No problem for settlers who have no animus to remain in the West Bank subject to local law. Since Israel effectively controls all access to Gaza, even through Egypt, Gaza is called the world's largest open air prison. It is why Israel will (if the US comes to its senses) hopefully be held fully to account for the ongoing collective punishment on over 2 million largely innocent people.

Saudi Arabia and others have long been opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood from which Hamas sprung. So it's likely that they don't want an Hamas offspring.

Who could get Hamas to relinquish political control? Principally the countries which would finance reconstruction, mainly the GCC countries. There was a very good monologue by Daniel Levy which covers his idea of how to getfrom here to there. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-bottom-line/2023/10/21/why-does-the-us-not-support-a-ceasefire-in-gaza

The Google Chrome browser has Google Translate to switch it all to English.

You can file the TM 47 90-day report by mail.

Which province do you live?

As others suggested, in Israel the mood could change for various reasons and the generals could not follow through with their (and Netanyahu's) plan to eradicate Hamas. So I suggested that Hamas could be made to give up power by external actors who would see that a political alternative replaced Hamas. There would still remain the question of a security force so that remnants of Hamas could not stage a coup.

If you use the physical card in Thailand, someone can copy the CVV on the back of the card. So getting cash from an ATM is usually better (unless there is a skimming device in the slot).

If after a while a ceasefire happened leaving Hamas in place, various countries in concert might force a transition to a new Gaza government, perhaps through elections, as a counterpart to their providing big reconstruction aid. The alternative where Israel finds itself in control of Gaza might be problematical for handing off to a third party. No local actor(s) would like to be seen as collaborating and dealing with what would likely be much more damage than we see currently. Media reaction reflects local attitudes, so in some countries there may be red lines in different places in regard to humanitarian issues, for example. In the US Fox News can certainly manipulate opinion of a significant share of the population, but again those people have their general preconceptions, so Fox just works to concentrate the mind to react regarding the news item 'du jour' they choose to headline. Last week Sean Hannity was telling viewers to harass congressmen who were resisting the selection of Jim Jordan as Speaker of the House. It backfired. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/pressure-campaign-by-jim-jordan-supporters-backfires-in-house-speaker-race-92779873

My first link, WSJ/ipsos poll has some interesting figures: "About half of Americans agree that America has a responsibility to “support Israel in its war with Hamas” (52%), “push parties in the Israel-Gaza conflict to negotiate” (53%), and “protect Israeli civilians” (54%). Two in five (41%) say the U.S. has a responsibility to “protect Palestinian civilians” and one in four (28%) say the U.S. has a responsibility to “work towards Palestinian statehood." BTW, the poll you cited has some remarkable breakdown figures, such as: "Broken down by age, 52 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds said they sided more with Israel, while 48 percent said they sided more with Hamas. In contrast, 95 percent of respondents 65 years and older said they sided with Israel while 5 percent sided with Hamas."

Here again: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/wall-street-journal-ipsos-poll-israel-hamas https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/prior-attack-israel-majority-americans-supported-talks-hamas https://today.yougov.com/international/articles/47606-israel-hamas-war-americans-support-israel-have-doubts-about-biden-poll https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/16/americans-want-us-to-help-get-gaza-civilians-out-of-harms-way-survey https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hamas-attack-us-attitudes-israel-palestinians-shifted-party/story?id=103892349

A number of polls discuss some previous time when view of Israel was higher or view of Palestinians lower.

I see a lot of different sources. Wherever it was, I found 60% to be quite remarkable. A number of the polls frame the question as to whether people have a favorable attitude about Palestinians.

I was talking about before the conflict, but some polls may also cover afterwards, and some links have a series of polls reported. There are various questions asked. So there are various percentages depending on the question.

Deny, deny!