WDSmart

Yes, and that's the way it should be. But, ever since the UN declared the state of Israel, the percentage of non-Jews has been reduced by restrictions, relocation into specific areas, and force.

@ezzra, I am willing to agree to this. But, just like the discussions between Hamas and the Zionists, "it takes two to tango." So, I won't agree to this "unconditionally," but I will stop if the other "gentlemen" who engage with me in this stop.

Yawn. The definition doesn't imply all Zionists belong to the group depicted in the news clip. You keep ignoring facts. Are you going to deny that there are Zionists who oppose this group, now? @Morch, How about this? I admit that this definition does not specify HOW the Zionists want to achieve their goal. Some might not approve of using force to do this. Some might prefer buying the land or relying on the UN or their "God" to make this magically happen. But some, you'll have to admit, are more than willing to use force to accomplish this goal. I think that is the majority of Zionists, and I think most Zionists approve of force when they deem it necessary. Those, that sub-group of Zionists that are willing to use force, are the ones I refer to when I use the term "Zionists."

Yes, it is my "nonsense" definition and the definition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine,..." Zionism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

I'm always happy to see people, mostly Thais, who either call someone for help or capture the animal without harming it. 😊 The usual reaction of most Farangs I know would be to just kill it. 😔

This is the type of people to whom I am referring when I use the term "Zionists." 😞

Did you look at the link to see the facts so you could know this is not just my opinion? I do agree with you that most people only interpret it one way, But that is like believing "racism" only applies to some prejudice by Whites and doesn't apply to prejudice demonstrated by any other race. And, as you probably have figured out, I stay away from the word "antisemitism" because of its dual meaning, which, on this issue, could be confusing.

I agree. Of course, "antisemitism" also refers to remarks anti-Arab. If you disagree, look up the word "Semite." Here is a link for that: semite noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

I agree with you say above, but I would change "deaf minds and ears" to "those who see this entire situation from a different perspective." Hopefully, my perspective is more balanced and not as one-sided as yours.

I've explained my postion many times, and usually, you just dismiss it as nonsense, unfounded, trolling, etc. In fact, I'm doing that again right now. So, the NEXT TIME (after this series of posts), I post something you think is "nonsense," let me know, and I'll address it..

Sadly, I agree...

I disagree. I ask you that the next time you read an opinion of mine that you think is not reasonable, let me know and I'll explain how I came to that opinion.

Meanwhile, back on topic, it looks like the talks pertaining to an agreement on a ceasefire/releast of hostages MIGHT be progressing... Qatar PM: 'Good progress' in Israel, Hamas negotiations | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News

I don't mind you labeling parts of my posts as "opinions," but I can assure you they are sensical and do have a basis and bearing when it comes to reality.

I consider your 'question' a loaded one. Does "loaded" mean you can't or don't want to answer it? Yes, it's "loaded." It's "loaded" with the expectation of an answer that you either can't or don't want to give.

I consider your 'question' a loaded one. Does "loaded" mean you can't or don't want to answer it?

Yes, I agree whole-, but brokenheartedly... 🥹

If I want to bring up "facts," I do usually post a link. If, however, I'm just expressing my opinion based on what I've read online, heard on CNN, or read here in the posts of others, I just express my opinion on that.

Good question. I do find it difficult to follow all these posts. When I log on, which sometimes is many hours after I've logged off, I try to find the last post I've read and then start reading them in order. If, however, I post a reply to them, my window jumps to the end of the Issue, and then I have to go back again and look for where I was. If you have a suggestion of how I could do this better, I'd appreciate it.

I see both your "facts" and my "fantasies" as just our opinions.

If the "why" question had already been answered, what is the purpose of the "period" at the end of your statement, because your statement did not include the "why" the Palestinians were fighting.

You've hit upon the argument that is probably the entire basis for all our (and many others on an off this Issue) differing point of view on this issue. And that is your statement above, "Palestian starting this war." This "war" over the rights to the land that is now called Israel has been going on for at least ever since the UN created the state of Israel. It actually has gone on way before that, but I won't go any farther back than that. Don't you understand or accept that fact? So, I could agree that the Palestinian militant faction Hamas did start this most recent flare-up of the "war" with their horrible, terroristic attack on Israeli civilians on Oct 7. And now, the IDF are continuing the horrible, terroristic killings by their actions in Gaza and the West Bank. I understand these are retaliatory actions, but they will, IMO, not "solve" this "war", but only intensify it, and maybe enlarge it to include other parties (on both sides).

Yes! Yes! Yes! 👍

Yes, many things I post are my opinion. That's what discussions are SUPPOSED to be about. These Forums are discussion groups, aren't they?

I've gone so far as to define, in detail, the terms I use, how I use them, and why. We obviously didn't have an "agreed upon common ground, so I have clearly defined the terms I use that you object to. Your main problem is, IMO, that you are extremely arrogant. You think EVERYONE must think the same way you do, accept the same facts, and then draw the same conclusions. If that were the case, there would never be any need for a discussion. It would always just be, yes, yes, yes. That's not how discussion, especially on volatile subjects such as this one, works. They are an exchange of differing ideas, opinions, and, yes, references to "facts" (which I define as just other people's opinions - even if those other people are on the ICJ.)