WDSmart

Yes! Or how my forefathers treated the indigenous American Indians. You seem to think that was wrong. I agree. But now you don't seem to think what Israel is doing is wrong. Why is that?

Guess what? This conflict did not start on Oct 7. That is just the second-most recent atrocity that has occurred in this at least 85-year-long conflict. When will you accept that? I just don't understand your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the history behind this conflict. It's not easy to spot an antisemite. Many are very good at concealing their hatred of some of the Semite people. I have never demanded a ceasefire without also recommending a reciprocal release of hostages. Many of "you" do demand a return of hostages without a ceasefire. But now that you mention it, I believe if Israel did implement a ceasefire, Hamas would return hostages. And if that ceasefire was promised (with assurances of a 3rd party) to be permanent, I believe Hamas would gladly release all of the hostages.

Why, then, do you always blame the Palestinians for everything and never the Israelis? Why, then, do you think Israel is entitled to own and control all the land in question. Why, then, do you support the IDF's bombing and proposed invasion of Gaza? What reason do you have for all of that other than the ones I proposed?

Israel can secure the return of the hostages anytime they want. They just need to negotiate a ceasefire, "permanent" I think is now what Hamas is demanding, and probably some other things, and then the hostages will be returned. What I think we'll find out, however, is that there are not 130+ live hostages, but some number less than that. And that might be a lot less than that. 😞 But that number will do nothing but go down the longer Israel and Hamas do not reach an agreement.

So it was me that caused this war and not Hamas ? Yes. It was certainly people like you who think Israel can do nothing wrong, is the God-given owners of the land in question, and that Palestinian Arabs are like vermin that have to be eliminated. That is indeed the cause of this at least 85-year-long conflict.

Okay, let's keep it to the "present day." In that case, Israel has no justification for what it's doing right now or threatening to do in Gaza. Hamas has done nothing to provoke that today.

Okay, I've posted my proposal of how to end this conflict probably 50 times. Now, I'd like to see a proposal of how to end all this from each of you three, @Bkk Brian, @Wobblybob, and @Nick Carter icp.

Yes, that's what I've been saying is the possible result of these two sides not being able to reach a two-state solution. There needs to be more negotiations, and those negotiations need to be led by both sides' allies, who need to put a lot of social, political, and economic pressure on both sides to help them end these awful conflicts.

The current agreement was not an agreement. It was a proposal, or really, an ultimatum, authored by Israel. It included more than an exchange of hostages and prisoners and a six-week ceasefire. It included some kind of demand for a list of hostages (all?) and their status - or something like that. I'm not sure about this. Anyway, that demand seems to have been the one that Hamas rejected for some reason. I don't know why, but in an earlier post, I proposed three possible reasons. Anyway, it was not an agreement and was rejected by Hamas. The two sides and their allies need to continue talks and refine the proposal so it is acceptable to both sides.

Yes, they would not like that, but that's what negotiations are all about. The UN and their allies have influence on them, and they should use it to include a peacekeeping force as part of any ceasefire deal, especially one that includes a two-state solution. I would demand this because I don't trust either one of them to keep their promises in any deal.

I have NEVER depicted Hamas as "heroes," especially after their barbaric terror attack on 07 Oct. Their actions then were despicable, just as are the Israeli's continuing bombing and invasion plans of Gaza. And, atrocities like this on both sides have been going on for at least 80 years. The dates I pick are not random. It was in 1947, 85 years ago, when the UN divided the land then called Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. This is when, in the modern era, you could refer to as the "day the war started." Below, I've inserted a link to details about this UN resolution. I'd advise you to read it, and if you don't want to do that, at least look at the map of Palestine's division. You can then compare that to the current map of Israel, of which Gaza and portions of the West Bank are the only remaining Palestinian areas. That will show you geographically what losses the Palestinians have suffered over the years because of the continuing, forceful Israeli occupation of their territories. Oct 7 is just a continuation of that conflict. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

That's the core of our disagreement, the cause for the start of this war. The "cause" goes way back before Oct 7. That is just the second-most recent attack in this at least 80-year-old conflict. I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire. The longer the ceasefire, the more hostages I believe Hamas would be willing to release. A PERMANENT ceasefire (guaranteed by the UN) would be necessary for the release of ALL the hostages - again, IMO. The hostages are Hamas' only bargaining chip. If Hamas released the hostages, they would have no leverage on Israel, and Israel could then just continue to freely bombard and invade Gaza and even the West Bank. The return of the hostages has to have some reciprocal concessions by Israel.

Both sides have committed atrocities and war crimes. If Israel hasn't forgotten about the hostages, why aren't they negotiating more earnestly for their return? All they have to do for that is to agree to a ceasefire.

I only read a few of these, but as I said, I agree that Oct 7 must have certainly changed a lot of minds in Israel about a two-state solution. I just hope that does not represent the majority and will soften over time. But, if it doesn't, I assume the Israelis would only support a one-state solution as it seems you do now. Is that correct? Would you and they support a one-state solution that creates the state of Palestine with the Palestinians in control and reducing the status of Jews to that of second- or third-class citizens? Would they then put up with the Palestinians encroaching on their neighborhoods, removing the homeowners, and building homes of their own? I don't think so. So, really, you shouldn't say you or Israelis support a one-state solution. You should say you and Israelis only support an Israeli-state solution. I, the UN, and I hope a majority of the citizens of both states involved do now, or soon will, support a two-state solution.

I agree with you, but that's why I suggest installing a UN or other third-party peacekeeping force to enforce the agreements. This force may have to be in place for years or even be considered "permanent." And again, to try to show you how this is viewed from the other side, I believe Palestinians are wary of a full Israeli state because they see how Israel has slowly but steadily invaded their land and claimed it as their own. They are preparing to do that again in the West Bank right now. So, both sides have good reasons not to trust each other and fear how a two-state solution would work. But, IMO, that is the only solution. The one-state solution will, again, IMO, cause a much wider spread of this conflict no matter which side is the "one side."

I understand why you will not keep replying to this point but I have never thought we totally disagree. My position has been and still is that the right-wing, nationalistic, fascist factions of both sides (Hamas/Zionists) are unfortunately in control right now. They will only consider a one-state solution. I do believe that many, maybe even most, of the rest of the citizens on both sides would accept a two-state solution. I certainly hope that is so, and I also encourage all who are involved in the actual negotiations to believe that, too, and to work towards that goal.

I believe what you say above and agree that Oct 7 has altered the perspective of Israelis on this conflict a lot. But it has also brought global attention to what has been happening: the slow but unrelenting encroachment of Palestinian land by the government-backed Israeli settlers. I do believe that now, most Israelis would not support a two-state solution, but I also believe a large number of Palestinians would not support that either. They both want total victory - a one-state solution that puts them in complete control of all of the land in question. That one-state solution is, for me, "off the cards." That is why I suggested in my previous post that "The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above," which includes a two-state solution.

The deadline for making a deal before Ramadan has passed. Here's what needs to be done as soon as possible. Get representatives from the two sides to meet under the supervision and influence of the UN and their allies; Forge out an agreement, under duress from their allies if need be, to do the following: Permanent ceasefire enforced by a third-party (UN?) peacekeeping force; Exchange of all hostages and prisoners; Humanitarian and rebuilding assistance for Gaza; Continuing negotiations on how to establish a two-state solution. The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above.

Let's start by doing things right now. Are you suggesting we just keep on making the same mistakes and devastating actions over and over again and then just say it's okay because it was done in the past? That's the "He hit me first!" excuse I've posted about before. And all that's needed here, IMO, is a two-state solution. (And, by the way, I'm living in Thailand now...)

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. Why don't you seem to understand that?

Okay, I agree with that...at least some of it...

I agree with your general point, but the UK did offer up the land. It was under their control then.

I agree with this. Both have committed war crimes, and both have likely committed abuse of hostages, civilians, and prisoners.

If you know its shameful why have you been one of those taking part. Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron says "there is the chance of a ceasefire" but it "requires" Hamas signing the deal Israel has agreed, and insists they should do this "today". I have not been "one of those taking part." Why would you say that? I would never take part in such activities as rape or sexual abuse. The only activity associated with this that I would even consider "taking part" in would be the negotiations, and I've posted my recommendations for those. So, Lord Cameron says, "there is the chance of a ceasefire" but it "requires" Hamas signing the deal Israel has agreed, and insists they should do this "today". That's not a negotiation; that's an ultimatum. There has to be a negotiation so each side can declare what it wants, and then "negotiations" have to be done to whittle those down into a set that both will accept. I don't know the details of the proposed deal. I've heard it was a six-week ceasefire in exchange for 30 or so hostages and 300 or so prisoners. It was said to have required Hamas to give a written account of the status of their hostages, and that, from what I gathered, was the sticking point. But I don't know why and don't even know that for sure.

Yes, that's despicable and shameful. That's all the more reason Israel should make whatever deal they can to assure the return of the hostages as soon as possible. The last I heard on CNN was that the ceasefire deal will not likely happen soon. Talks for Gaza ceasefire at a standstill, no deal likely by Ramadan | CNN