WDSmart

In my previous post, I was not "deflecting." I was trying to get the discussions on this Forum back on Topic. My list above is becoming more and more the talking points being discussed on CNN, my primary source of news. It is true that both sides want the same thing - total control of the land now called the State of Israel. I agree there are various factions on both sides, but I was referring to the faction now in charge on each side. I now see what I believed was the "equivalency" of the Oct 7 attack and the subsequent Israeli bombing of Gaza. Now, it's clear that the bombing has become much more egregious, with, now, almost 30,000 killed and nearly 70,000 wounded. Gaza health ministry: 27,708 Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza since Oct 7 (alkhaleejtoday.co) It is true that when Hamas releases all the hostages after a ceasefire that Israel could then just renew their military operations. You mention above there would be "constraints involved." Who would enforce the constraints? I suggested that in every one of my suggested proposals, and wanted a UN peacekeeping force to do that. You said a UN peacekeeping force could not, so who is it that YOU think (excuse me, "know for a fact") could enforce any constraints? I don't see the use of hostages as a bargaining point any worse than I see the bombing of civilians. But that's what is happening right now, so, IMO, we need to figure out how to weave these into any agreement. I know a two-state solution has been proposed many times before. But now, IMO and in a lot of other's opinions, it must be discussed again because I see no other way this horrible situation will ever be solved. I am able to "grasp the details and facts involved." I do agree, however, that I am unable to "meaningfully 'discuss' anything"...with you. But I'm sure we'd disagree on just why.

No, I only agreed with half of your previous post. I disagree that I was proposing a "total win for Hamas." What I had proposed was a two-state solution, not totally what Hamas wants. But, yes, I agree with your comment above that "Hamas wants all the Land for themselves; until that stance changes, then there can be no peace. " Of course, I could say the same about Israel unless Netanyahu has his way, and he kills all of Hamas (and others along with them) and completely controls Gaza and the West Bank.

I agree with half of your post. Netanyahu wants total victory for Israel. Hamas wants a total victory for Palestine. I'd like to see some agreement that would give each of them all of the other things I think they want - except complete control of the land now called Israel. I'd like to see that split up somehow.

@Morch, Okay, here is my take on the salient points that are On Topic here in this Forum: 1. Both sides want the same thing: complete control of the land that makes up the state now called Israel. 2. Although this conflict has been going on for a long, long time, recently, since the terrorist attacks on Oct 7 and the follow-on, indiscriminate bombing, the two sides are now at a kind of a stalemate as far as reaching any kind of agreement as to how to stop all this carnage. 3. One side has taken hostages and is using their release as leverage in the negotiations, and the other side has a greatly superior military force and is using the prospects of a ceasefire as leverage in the negotiations. 4. If the side with the hostages agrees to a temporary solution, they will release the hostages, and then their leverage will be gone. The other side can institute a temporary ceasefire but can renew their military operations at any time. 5. Any permanent solution should include the return of all hostages, a permanent ceasefire, rebuilding the damaged areas, and a two-state solution. I'll discuss all or any of these with you if you wish.

Morch, I've already addressed the issues between us that are On Topic many, many times. Most of the issues you've addressed lately have been , and are concerning me personally. I'd love to discuss all these with you, but not on this particular Forum. We need to stay On Topic, or at least I know I do.

"You know nothing." And I know enough to disagree with almost everything you post.

"...who are effected." This should be "affected."

Again, this is a post that I consider . Also, other than the first link to CNN, the three other links are to Israeli-associated news media. If you discount any information reported by Al Jazeera, you should reconsider putting your trust in these.

I disagree with everything you have posted above. I won't bother going through them one by one as I usually do. Most of them are insults aimed directly at me and therefore are . The one "on-topic" area you did remark about was the limited, temporary "deal" which only focuses on the current situation, vs. a comprehensive, permanent deal, which would encompass the whole horrible situation. I encourage the latter since a temporary deal will be just that, temporary, and the violence coming from both sides will just keep repeating.

A limited deal is a limited deal. It will not solve this ongoing tragedy, which is costing the lives of many on both sides. I see little value in a limited deal if, when it has been completed, Israel will just renew its killing of virtually all Palestinians within its state's boundaries, and Hama will continue to terrorize Israelis. I believe a complete deal, which includes at least the agreement to establish two separate states, is necessary to stop all this killing. What I believe is of the utmost importance to me. I don't disregard "facts." I treat them with skepticism sometimes. After all, we've all discovered that "facts" reported in the news sometimes change after more scrutiny. I also don't necessarily perceive the same "reality" you do. That, IMO, is based on what I believe is your biases. Hamas is using the hostages as leverage. I don't advocate taking hostages. I'm only suggesting how Hamas, after taking them, should consider using them to augment their position in negotiations. Israel is doing the same thing with their threat of continuing to kill Palestinians, both fighters and civilians and, yes, children.

My suggestions are for a complete deal since any limited deal will not put a stop to this continuing disaster. I don't disregard any of your comments, but I certainly disagree with them, so they don't affect my new posts. I agree that a new map of the two territories will be problematic. That will have to be left up to the parties involve, including the UN. I still believe the goals of two separate states with contiguous territories is very, very important. I would prioritize the release of the hostages in the reverse order as has been suggested because I believe Israel values them in the order that has previously been suggested. I think that in order to ensure Israel's completion of each phase of an agreement, the hostages that are considered the most valuable should be released last. I've made an exception for those needing medical care and the elderly. I'm not a troll. You, IMO, are just unable to appropriately conduct a discussion with someone with whom you disagree.

From the summary of the details in this proposal, I think it has several problems. Here are my suggestions: The immediate but intermediary objective should be a permanent ceasefire enforced by a UN Peacekeeping Force that would be stationed in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of Israel. The long-term objective should be a division of Israel into two states, Israel and Palestine. I'd suggest starting with the 1947 UN proposed map that divided the area up about 50:50 but making adjustments for conditions like the current mix of population, which is (I think) about 60:40 in favor of Israelites. The final map should have the two territories separate, but all the regions inside of each territory are contiguous, which is not the case with the 1947 UN proposed map. The hostages should be released in phases corresponding to the agreement's stages of completion. I'd recommend that any hostages needing medical attention and the elderly be released during the first phase, but the rest of the hostages should be released during the next two or three phases in the reverse order suggested above. The next group would be single men, and the last group would be women with children and lone children. Of course, now, it is reported that Israel has rejected the offer, but as a new one is being negotiated, I think my suggestions above should be considered.

It is my understanding that the bank account you use for your immigration visa purposes has to ONLY be in your name. I have a savings account for that. However, at least at my bank, Ayudyha (Krungsri), I can authorize my wife to have the authority to make transactions (like withdrawals) on that account using the passbook and her signature and IDs. This is how I have set up my account to give her access to the account in case of my incapacitation or death without having to go through some legal process.

Or very, very drunk or high...

What I "think" is very relevant to me. And yes, what I "think" is based on my opinions, which are derived from a combination of facts (from a variety of sources), my own experience (in life, not specifically in Israel/Palestine), my reasoning ability, and my intuition. This is the way I've conducted myself throughout my entire life. "Same same" is something we all might say. It means, to me, that the items being compared might not be exactly the same, but they have at least one important, relevant aspect that is the same as the other. In this case, that aspect is killing civilians who weren't activity involved in any terrorist or military activities. That was done horrifically on Oct 7 by Hamas and then for months afterward by the IDF. I am not trying to "normalize" or "justify" Hamas' actions on Oct 7. I am also not trying to "normalize" and "justify" the IDF's actions of their indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, which immediately followed. I call that looking at things from both perspectives and then describing what I have seen from a higher level. That's what I try to do in my posts here and in most of the rest of my life.

I do think especially all the recent "detainees" (no legal process) and "prisoners" (legally charged) taken by Israel were done with at least the possible intent of using them as bargaining chips for the hostages taken by Hamas on Oct 7. This conflict started long before Oct 7. I do agree, however, that Hamas "upped the ante significantly with regard to atrocities" by their Oct 7 terrorist attack. And yes, the subsequent bombing atrocities in Gaza by the Israelis were definitely "same same." I'm not a Hamas apologist.

All that sounds very poetic to me. I wish you luck in your efforts.

I don't "support" either side, but both sides hold hostages. On one side, they are called "hostages," and on the other side, they are called "detainees" or "prisoners." And both sides have committed atrocities, which include the killing and terrorizing of regular citizens.

IMO, no matter WHAT type of settlement is reached, and especially if NO settlement is ever reached, there will be unbelievable "discomfort, problems and hardship for both sides."

I'm not a Hamas fan, but I'm not an extremist, right-wing Israeli (I call these "Zionists") either. I can, I believe, see and sympathize with both sides. I hope their negotiations yield some kind of equitable settlement, but, like you, I doubt it.

I have published a Version 2 of my Proposed Solution, which incorporates changes suggested here in this Issue and other places. It eliminates the three-map image, which shows how the population of this area has changed over time, and only shows the UN's 1947 map. It also restructured my proposed map to give Palestinians the lower half and Israelis the upper half. Also, I've added some more explanation as to just what my proposed map does and does not mean. I've posted a link to this revised version below. Thanks for the suggestions I received here. Rung & Bill: Israel/Palestine Proposed Resolution (billsmart.com)

There only need be two parties that agree. By "larger" agreement, I meant an agreement that encompasses more issues than just the hostage returns. The "taking of hostages" and then using them as a bargaining chip seems the same to me as indiscriminately bombing Gaza and then using the possibility of a ceasefire as a bargaining chip. The much bigger issue, IMO, than either of these, is how the land in dispute will be divided up.

I agree, that's the same argument. But, just because the USA (my country) and the Aussies did it doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it something that should be justified today.

I agree and have expressed this by using the quote below as the ending of my book, Jihadi: Path to Heaven: "Religious war at its simplest is killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend." - Richard Jeni

I think Palestine is spending more money on defensive and offensive military items than domestic assistance projects because those in charge of the government, and most of the general public, are more concerned with defending themselves while trying to hold on to what land they still have than improving their living conditions. I never thought about how many Jews (or women or non-Whites, etc.) are in the Biden administration. I don't know what "too many" would be. Would that be more than the mean percentage? And if so, how much above that would be "too many"? My thoughts on "too many" Arab- and Muslim-haters post-9/11 are the same as above.