WDSmart

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.

Yes, I see that all the time. But that seems to be the tone of this topic, unfortunately.

No you are making things up about what I said What you said was, "Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood since 1987. Nothing to do with this war started on the 7th Oct." Sounds like you were saying the original group had nothing to do with Oct 7 to me.

And And, that's interesting information to know. I myself have thought that Hamas did not represent the will of the majority of the Palestinians. That poll I posted would say that was incorrect.

Nice alliteration, but otherwise, incorrect.

So, are you saying the Hamas that was created in 1987 has nothing to do with the Hamas that terrorized Israel on Oct 7?

I guess the UN mistakenly called it "Palestine" then. You think? 😄 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

If you actually think about it, a poll of the Palestinians shortly after Oct 7 shows you their actual support of Hamas. A more recent poll would show you their support now, which would have been affected a lot by the revenge bombings by Israel. They would now start to regret Oct 7. Before that, however, they were in solid support of Hamas and the Oct 7 attack.

I was referring to the link I posted. That poll was taken in Dec of 2023.

Accuse the other side of which you yourself are extremely guilty! No, I can see the pro-Israeli side of this conflict. It is, IMO, based on the fervent belief that Jews have been "promised" that land by "God," so they are entitled to it. And, again, IMO, Palestinians believe that since their forefathers lived there, they too are entitled to it. And then on and on it goes.

No, because that is exactly the goal of Netanyahu and his right-wing, nationalistic cronies (I can't use a certain word I normally use here anymore - I've been warned about that). They want total control of what they believe to be the "Promised Land." That's the entire argument. Both sides want full control of the land that used to be called "Palestine."

I asked a question, and all you did was try to run around it. My answer would be If a publisher believes their Arab journalists who show pro-Hamas/anti-Israeli sentiments on social media can't be trusted, then they should also use that same scrutiny on their Jewish journalists who have shown to be pro-Israel/anti-Hamas on social media.

I don't think you're all "daft," but I do think you are all biased and blinded by that. I don't live in the past, but I don't discount what was done in the past as being a large part of what is causing this current, ongoing conflict. I have never made any excuses for the terrorist activities of Hamas on Oct 7. I've only tried to put it in perspective for those who think that attack came suddenly out of nowhere. I also don't make any excuses for the indiscriminate revenge bombing of Gaza that has occurred since.

Bad faith comparison. Seeks to establish a false equivalence between disparate entities using a binary view of something with a great degree of variability. Kind of like did you ever lie? So your as bad as Putin. Common tactic in support of hard line terrorists. So, your answer would be "yes." And, no, it's not the same as you noted above. That's a false equivalency. The equivilency would depend on the ramifications of the lies.

This was in Dec 2023, but after the Israeli terrorists had started bombing Gaza. Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises | Reuters

Incoherent statement. Okay, how about... "IMO, I think it is really dumb and simple-minded to think that this entire conflict started on Oct 7. There is a lot more history behind the conflict than the horrible events that occurred on just that day." And most of the Israeli-supporters on this topic do just that.

IMO, a REALLY "dumbed down and simple minded terms" would be Oct 7!

Tens of thousands protest Netanyahu government, call for elections Tens of thousands protest Netanyahu government, call for elections (msn.com)

Just another example of how much we differ. If I'm asked a direct question, especially on social media, I ALWAYS answer it. I might answer, "I don't know," but most times, I will answer first with a simple "yes" or "no" and then, if necessary, explain my answer in more detail. Just sayin'...

So Bkk Brian, please answer me just one question: No, got better things to do with my time. It won't take much of your time. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.