WDSmart

If an Israeli told me to do anything right now, I couldn't post on this forum what my exact reply would be, but the gist of it would be what I've been saying all along. My forefathers committed genocide. It was wrong then, but that was over 500 years ago. You, (the Israeli), are committing genocide now. It is wrong now. Stop it!

Nick and you don't make good points; you just search for excuses for Israel's inexcusable devastation of Gaza. The excuse you are now trying to use to justify this merciless killing is, "Well, your forefathers did it, so we can do it now, too." And what I'm saying is that when my forefathers did something similar, it was wrong, and it's still wrong now.

Speaking as someone from the USA, who you have also called a hypocrite, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Who's surprised at this? Israel’s far-right wants to move Palestinians out of Gaza. Its ideas are gaining attention. Israel’s far-right wants to move Palestinians out of Gaza. Its ideas are gaining attention | CNN

"But Israel exists now and isn't going anywhere." I agree, but hopefully, it will not do so at the cost of the genocide of the Palestinian Arabs. I hope this ends up in some kind of two-state agreement in which both groups can agree to live, if not together, at least side-by-side. But, I know there will be bitterness and hate on both sides for a long, long time.

I've never heard that the stated goal of Hamas is "genocide of Jews," but if you define "genocide" as the expulsion of a people from the land on which they are living, then I would agree with that. of course, I would say that is the stated goal of the right-wing, nationalistic faction of the Israelis (whose name I am forbidden to use here.) No, Israel is not supposed to just "cave." I have repeatedly recommended they enter into talks with the Palestinians to work out a deal for either a one-state or two-state solution. And, I agree they should strike back at any attackers, but not to the degree of causing such civilian casualties as they have done and continue to do in Gaza. Israel has been anything but passive during the last 85 years. They have been very active in invading and seizing control of Palestinian land. Many, but not all of these actions, I admit, have been the result of Palestinian attacks on them, but nonetheless, they have not been "passive."

Israel's (the extreme, right-wing, nationalistic faction whose name I'm forbidden to use) goal all along, well before Oct 7, was to completely subdue any Palestinian efforts to stop them from completely dominating this land. I hope they do get their hostages back. I think all they'd have to do is offer a ceasefire, but I know there would be other conditions on which both sides might not agree. I wouldn't mind them "crushing" Hamas, but not to the extent that they are conducting a virtual genocide of the Palestinians.

If that were true, I'd definitely advise Hamas to release/exchange all hostages/prisoners. BUT..., I don't think that would end this conflict. I think after all the hostages were released, Israel would just continue attacking Gaza, killing Palestinians, and maybe then in the West Bank also.

No, sorry. I was responding to several posts and got carried away.

No, I support neither of those versions of a one-state solution.

No, my first choice would be a one-state solution where all citizens, Palestinian/Arab/Muslim and Israelis/Jews/Jew, would live together in peace as equals. But, as I said above, that just doesn't seem like it could happen. So, my second choice would be a two-state solution where each group has its own designated land (as was done by the UN in 1948). My last choice (in fact, it's not even a "choice" but a "nightmare") would be a one-state solution in which either side is dominant and either eliminates or subjugates the other side.

Yes, that is the solution desired by the Israelis-who-want-to-control-all-of-the-land-and-drive-out-or-subdue-the-Palestinians, but not by, I hope, the rest of the world. I am now in favor of a two-state solution.

I think we have only one opinion that is the same: the wish for a peaceful one-state solution.

Yes! I did exactly that to show how our beliefs are opposite.

I've never heard of such a thing! I have heard that before WWII, the Nazis were worried that the Jews were trying to gain economic control over Germany, and that was part of their justification for their treatment of the German Jews. But I certainly haven't heard of anything today like you describe above. As I have said, I think the basis of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis right now is a struggle to control the land. Other Arab states are sympathetic to the Palestinians, and this "war" may indeed widen if it continues.

You are mixing up terms in your statement above. I will respond using what I consider valid terms: I am not anti-Isreali. I am anti-Jews-who-want-to-control-all-of-the-land-and-drive-out-or-subdue-the-Palestinians (I can't use the term I used to use anymore). I also want the Palestinians and Jews to live side-by-side in a one-state solution. If that is not possible (which seems so), I would support a two-state solution. I cannot use the term you use above anymore, but, to repeat myself, I am not anti-Isreali. I am anti-Jews-who-want-to-control-all-of-the-land-and-drive-out-or-subdue-the-Palestinians. Many of the pro-Israeli groups are anti-Arab Palestinian haters who just use the Israeli cause to further their anti-Palestinian opinion . I do not hate Israel. I hate Jews-who-want-to-control-all-of-the-land-and-drive-out-or-subdue-the-Palestinians, and I do disagree with BOTH Palestinian and Israeli violence.

I agree with all the quotes you have cited above...

The reason the posters, like me, say we are "neutral and unbiased and see both sides" mainly post anti-Israeli information is to try to compensate for the almost totally anti-Palestinian information posters, like you, who are solidly pro-Israeli and anti-Palistinian. We know there are two sides to this story and want to make sure readers get to read about both sides.

I don't understand your post above. What are you talking about, and is this something addressed directly to me?

I think that "everybody else of note" wants BOTH a ceasefire and a release of the hostages. I think those "of note" assume that will be done simultaneously. Of course, Hamas and Israel want the other side to comply first. This is where a UN peacekeeping force could help coordinate these kinds of issues. Since you added "of note" to your term, I'll add "virtual" to my term. If the Israeli terrorist activities in Gaza continue for much longer, "virtual annihilation" will be a proper description. And I'm sure it's their goal.

Not "everybody else." If Hamas releases the hostages first, there will be no ceasefire, just a continuing annihilation of virtually all Palestinians in Gaza, and then maybe the West Bank. Of course, that's what the Israeli terrorists have wanted to do for years now.

Palestinians don't want two states either. I agree, but I think that is the only solution that will ever produce a lasting peace. I hope the UN will be able to force these two into a viable two-state solution.

That's a very good question, but I certainly can't answer that until I know how it ends. Does it end with Israel completely wiping out Hamas and taking control of Gaza and all of the West Bank? Does it end with negotiations forced by the UN to develop a two-state solution? Does it end in a manner that is not acceptable to most Palestinians or most Israelis? There are many possibilities for how it ends, but I don't think any of them bodes well for peace in the future.

I reject Trump wholeheartedly, but I've said for a long time that I think no matter who wins the Nov 2024 presidential election, neither side will accept the results, and there will be violence.

I don't think I ever said there was a COUNTRY called "Palestine." I said the LAND IN QUESTION was called Palestine, and it was before 1947 and even while the UN established the state of Israel.