WDSmart

I don't think I've ever used the term "war crimes" in any of my posts until today. I may have, but that is not a phrase I usually use. IMO, both Israel and Palestine in the past, and now Hamas and the IDF, have committed heinous acts against each other in the horrible conflict.

What do you think the rules are? That someone cannot disagree with you? You stated the percentages first. I disagreed since you only referred to it as "before the state of Israel" or something like that. The percentages of the population changed over time. If you want to specify a specific date, I could probably find the percentages at that date. And, you could too. My point was there were more non-Jews living in Palestine than Jews when the UN created the state of Israel.

Both of which, IMO, are war crimes.

At the risk of irritating our moderator, I'll post a table that I copied from Wikipedia that shows the population of Palestine since 1922. I won't post the whole table or the link, (I'll provide that in a Mail if you'd like), to keep from posting links to "history lessons." The population figures are in "thousands" Year Jews Christians Muslims Total 1922 84 71 589 752 1931 175 89 760 1,033 1947 630 143 1,181 1,970

My remark was in response to your previous remark when you stated what you stated above. When do you believe some fact from the past qualifies as a "history lesson"? How far back do you think you could go without breaking the rules? Also, even if the Jewish population was 32% in whatever timeframe you're referencing, that means 65% of the population was non-Jewish, undoubtedly mostly Palestinians (Arab Muslims). There would have been some Christians, too, but not many. In any event, why would the UN create the state of Israel and give this land to the Jews? I know part of the answer to that is they wanted to somehow make up for the horrible events involving Jews in WW2, but giving them a state in which they make up only about 1/3 of the population doesn't make sense to me. And then, of course, there are all the events that happened since then which have resulted in the native people, Palestinians, pushed into two small areas, and the rest of the state filled up with Jewish immigrants from all over the world. Can you really blame the Palestinians for being angry?

My remark was in response to your previous remark when you stated what you stated above. When do you believe some fact from the past qualifies as a "history lesson"? How far back do you think you could go without breaking the rules?

I'm not deflecting. I'm helping everyone understand what "perfidy" means. If they would, they would then know why it could be classified as a war crime.

Here, let me help in this complex situation... Perfidy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

He doesn't have to "demonstrate" anything. You don't "demonstrate" anything. All you do is (sometimes) cite other people's descriptions you've read on the Internet. He is drawing conclusions, and I see nothing wrong with that, even if I disagree with them, which in this case, I don't.

Yes, when I say "the state now called Israel," I am referring to the land that used to be called Palestine, and before Isreal was made a state, the Jewish population was only about 10%. There are not lies. They are things I post and will continue to post. They are not unhinged ramblings, not from someone who is ignorant, and not from someone who is a hater. These are from someone who can see both sides of this horrible situation, instead of only one.

I also believe acts like this are war crimes. I believe the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza is a war crime. And, just in case you think I'm overly biased, I also believe the Oct 7 by Hamas was a war crime. The history of the state of Israel is raft with war crimes on both sides. And now, it's just continuing... 🥹

That is HORRIBLE! 😞

I don't think so. I think the Zionists in Isreal and several of you posting on this issue want to at least punish the Palestinians as much as possible and, at most, eradicate them from the state that is now called Israel. 😟

It is my understanding that the ICJ did ask the IDF to try to make sure its strikes against Hamas did not kill, injure, or create unlivable conditions for Gaza's civilian population. I hope they will start doing that.

I would LIKE to see both sides abide by the ICJ's ruling unconditionally, if by that you mean a ceasefire and release of the hostages. But I don't think they will, and I definitely don't think either side believes the other would. So I will repeat now what I think should happen. (The following is a repeat of what I posted above.) I think now, after what the IDF has done and continues to do in Gaza, that Hamas should try to negotiate a ceasefire in conjunction with the release of hostages. Right now, the hostages are the only bargaining chip Hamas has. The problem with that, of course, is even if a ceasefire were to happen, after the release of the hostages, the IDF could just resume its bombardments. Israel's only deterrence then would be a fear that they would lose some of the support of their allies and other Middle Eastern countries could become actively involved. It's a real mess, and I don't know how even this initial part of it will be solved, much less a long-term arrangement.

So, all this below is just IMO. I have no "links" or "facts" to back any of this up. I think now, after what the IDF has done and continues to do in Gaza, that Hamas should try to negotiate a ceasefire in conjunction with the release of hostages. Right now, the hostages are the only bargaining chip Hamas has. The problem with that, of course, is even if a ceasefire were to happen, after the release of the hostages, the IDF could just resume its bombardments. Israel's only deterrence then would be a fear that they would lose some of the support of their allies and other Middle Eastern countries could become actively involved. It's a real mess, and I don't know how even this initial part of it will be solved, much less a long-term arrangement.

All I can say is if Israel goes into these negotiations with anything like the attitude of @BrianBkk and @Yellowtail when responding to my very neutral post about the ongoing negotiations, I'd say goodbye to all the hostages right now.

And Israel was told to try and limit the civilian casualties and suffering of Palestinian civilians while the IDF continued to pursue Hamas. Whether or not they will do that, we'll just have to wait and see.

If the Israelis and Hamas are NEVER going to be able to sit down in a room to talk, how do you ever expect them to reach an agreement about how they can live together in the same land? Of course, I know the answer to that question; you don't. I understand that, but as of now, I am still not willing to resign myself to that. That would, IMO and as I have posted above, mean it will be only one side or the other that will survive this war. The losing side will be effectively annihilated. And that would not go over well with the allies of either side.

My remarks above expressed my concern that BOTH Israel and Hamas representatives were not there. A deal struck with only one side being present during the negotiations is not as good as one struck directly between both parties, IMO. I know Hamas is being represented by Qatar and is one of their key financial backers, just as the US is one of Israel's, but I still would like to see direct talks. Of course, if everyone agrees with you that Hamas "lies through their teeth," then I'm not sure what good any agreement would do. Bombs away!

It looks like talks on the hostage front are taking place. No word on any talks about a ceasefire, although that might be part of the discussions regarding the release of the hostages. One thing I noticed in this article was that these talks were being conducted and brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar. I'd rather see Hamas and Israel more actively involved in the negotiations, but I guess that's just not possible yet. Hostage-deal gaps remain, Israeli prime minister's office says | Reuters

Israel has the mightiest military by far and is the occupying force. Hamas has the hostages and the threat of more terrorist attacks. All the rest of this post is IMO... The first agreement that must be reached is a ceasefire and return of the hostages. The second is an arrangement of how the Israelis and Palestinians can continue living in the land that used to be called Palestine. There are three options, and I'll list them in the order of my preference: 1. Jews and Palestinians can live together as equals in a one-state solution. 2. Jews and Palestinians can divide the land up and live in separate places in a two-state solution. 3. Jews and Palestinians can continue fighting until there is only one left in a one-state solution.

I agree with all of your post above except for the phrase "warped opinions." You should have written "opinions that are different than mine."

Yes, sadly, both the ICJ and Biden (my president) have not called for a complete ceasefire. No, to my knowledge, Hamas has not released any hostages lately. I don't know if talks are underway to do that. Israel should comply unconditionally with all of ICJ's findings. So should Hamas.

I agree, and the Zionists should quit trying to eradicate all the Palestinians.