WDSmart

Because Zionism doesn't actually mean a homeland just for Jewish people , that is just your imagination as to what the word means Definition of Zionism from the online Oxford Language dictionary: "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."

"One of the problems is trying to mask antisemitism by using the term Zionist. We all know how often its used that way and the Jews do not like it used as a form of hate speech directed that them." I liken the term "Zionist" to the term "Hamas." Neither represents the entirely, or probably even the majority, of the peoples they represent. But, they do have the leadership roles in both societies right now.

The order of events is unclear, but the 100 people mentioned above were either shot or run over by trucks or the mob -- or all three. The gunshots were a crucial factor, as they not only took lives but also triggered the panic that made the trucks drive away and the crowds stampede, running over and trampling people in the process.

Why do you think my opinion could not be an actual fact? The majority of them are, or they eventually become so.

Again, another "one word makes all the difference" modification to your declaration above to make it correct (IMO): "...if you agree that Israel should be a homeland ONLY for Jewish people , then you are a Zionist."

I generally agree with you, but I'd change the phrase in the first sentence of the last paragraph from "...give any land away..." to "give back any land...".

This prospective agreement has some of the features I suggested months ago: a partial exchange of hostages/prisoners for a temporary ceasefire. The sticking point right now is just who will be included in the hostages/prisoners exchanged. My suggestion then goes on to include a full exchange of hostages/prisoners for a permanent ceasefire. And, I've suggested a third-party (like the UN) peacekeeping force be put into place to prevent or deal with agreement violations, a rebuilding of Gaza, and ongoing negotiations to establish a two-state solution. As this moves forward, which we all hope it will, I believe it will happen pretty much as I've predicted.

To avoid confusion, here is how I usually use these terms, although, here on AeanNow, I sometimes don't follow these completely: - Ethnicity: Hebrews/Arabs - Religion: Judaism/Islam - Practitioners of Religions: Jews/Muslims - States: Israel/Palestine - Citizens/Occupants of States: Israelis/Palestinians - Radical Group Intent on a One-State Solution: Zionists/Hamas.

When you use the term "Jew" to refer to someone, are you referring to their religion or their ethnicity? You certainly couldn't be referring to the country they live in, could you?

...and by "squatters," do you mean Palenstians or Isrealis?

"The US leadership may change as will the Israeli leadership in the not too distant future." I certainly hope not, and for reasons more important to me than Israel or Palestine. "Its going to be a hard enough task to bring some sort of peace now and that cannot start till all hostages are released." I don't see ALL hostages being released until after a PERMANENT ceasefire, which, of course, will have to be enforced by some third party.

So I ask AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, what would be your suggested solution?

I am not suggesting a "...World Army be formed to fight against the Jews." I'm suggesting a multi-lateral peacekeeping force (you can call that a "World Army" if you wish) be put in place to enforce a ceasefire/hostage-return/two-state solution to this conflict. This "World Army" would take whatever actions that were necessary against either side that violates the agreement, not just "Jews" (Israel/IDF) only. And, I ask again, what would be your suggested solution?

My previous points have not been shown to be invalid. I have read here that UN Peacekeepers have not enforced their peacekeeping duties by force in the past. What I am suggesting is that this time, they do. I've also said they might not be UN Peacekeepers but some other third-party peacekeepers. I see no other way this will end, or at least will be halted for now. Neither side will voluntarily give up their claim to this land. What I see is you continuing to insist that this conflict is unresolvable. Maybe that's so, but there are still things that could be done to try to, if not "resolve" it, at least end the military nature of it. Since we're "discussing" this, what are your suggestions on how to deal with this situation as it exists right now?

I don't know all the details of the orders. I'm not a military specialist. But I assume they would search through the territory that the violations had emmenated from and engage with any militants they find there. Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd assume the UN Peacekeepers would not fire on anyone, even in a situation like this, who did not fire on them first. The UN Peacekeeping force would not have the objective of conquering the entire territory and all the population or take revenge. They would only be after any militants who violated the treaty, and they would accept individual militant's or groups of militants' surrender. Their objective would not be to kill them all. Also, everything I said above would be applied to actions against the IDF if individuals or groups of them renewed their attacks.

Yes, but only against the Hamas militants, not the general Palestinian population, as the IDF is doing now. Just as if Isreal broke the ceasefire agreement and continued to bomb Gaza, The UN Peacekeeping forces would realitate against the IDF. But, both of those are extremely unlikely if both parties have reached and agreed to a resolution, even if that negotiation was forced upon them.

No, I've thought about this a lot, and I've come to this conclusion months ago: a two-state solution with multiple layers of conditions for both sides enforced by a group of third-party peacekeepers. The UN could assign these or be a mixed group decided upon during the negotiations. And, yes, they would have to have a military presence.

But they don't want a two state solution. Yes, I know. Neither does Israel. That's what "negotiations" are all about. And, for this one, the bargaining chips are a mutual, permanent ceasefire and a release of the hostages, but both will have to be done conditionally, and those conditions must be enforced by some third-party, like the UN.

Yes, I've also included a stop to the terrorist attacks in all my recommendations for negotiations. And Palestine needs more than just a ceasefire. They need immediate assistance, rebuilding, and a two-state solution enforced by third-parties.

Yes, negotiate a stop to the devastation depicted above for 130+ hostages.

I just want to clarify my remark on the post above. I meant I agreed "They believed...," not that the land actually was "given to them by God," whomever they think that is.

"The Romans invaded the land of Palestine in 63BC." If you believe the accounts in the Torah, the Jews took that land from the Canaanites in about 2,000 BCE. My point in citing this is not to establish some point in time to assign the land to the Jews or not, but it is to show that this land has been inhabited by and under the control of different peoples at different times in history. This control and even the percentage of the population of any certain people has fluctuated throughout history. So, to say this land "belongs" to a certain people is not a claim that can legitimately be made. "They believed Palestine was their land, given to them by God" I agree with this, your last statement.

"...Jews inhabited the holy land for thousands of years, well before Islam and 'Palestinians'..." According to the the Torah, the Jews' "Holy Book", they took Canaan (the "Holy Land") from the Canaanites, from whom the Palestinians are descended, by force after their "Exodus" from Egypt.

"What is Israel to do when an utter mayhem and madness is going on in Gaza at the moment?" Negotiate and carry out a treaty with the Palestinians that is something like this: 1. Israel completely withdraws and commits to a PERMANENT ceasefire, which third-party (UN?) peacekeepers enforce. Palestine returns most (75%) of the hostages. 2. The peacekeepers (UN?) also organize the immediate assistance to and the eventual rebuilding of Gaza. 3. Israel and Palestine negotiate a two-state solution. When complete, Palestine returns the rest of the hostages. 4. The peacekeepers (UN?) enforce the administration of the two-state solution and will probably have to do this for many years.

An "...‘abusive Christian cult’ said to engage in mind control." Sounds awful, but could you name any other religion that could be described any differently?