WDSmart

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.

My understanding is the ICJ did call for a more discriminatory military action in Gaza, with the aim of limiting civilian casualties and suffering. But, yes, the ICJ did not call for a total ceasefire.

Well, we'll see about that. If the countries that comprise the UN start halting their support and funding of Isreal, things could change.

Forced by the UN, that's hilarious. Okay, how about "pressured," then?

Or, what's less likely is Israel will either have to offer the Palestinians a co-existence plan of which they approve, or be eliminated or at least forced into some agreement by the UN. I hope some agreement can be reached.

The "re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel" can only be done by either having the approval of the resident Palestinians or eliminating them one way or the other.

Not according to the recent ruling by the ICJ...

This post references activities that took place before the year 2000.

I use the term "Zionist" as many do to describe a characteristic of certain people. I'm not ignoring reality or blaming all Jews. I'm just blaming Zionists, according to the definition noted above.

I don't fully understand your question. I don't know any of the names of people who I would classify as "Zionists" any more than I know the names of those who would be considered "Hamas." If I had to pick one as an example, I would say Netanyahu would be a good choice. "Zionist" is more of a label than a group. It's a "movement," as the dictionary definition in my previous quote indicated.

I'm speaking of the extreme, right-wing, nationalistic, militant group whose goal is to drive all Palestinians out of what is now called Israel. Here is the definition of Zionist 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. I consider it the Israeli equivalent of Hamas.

...and militant Zionists.

I never knew that, or at least saw it that way. If you think that is the case, why do you think it is? In my home country, the USA, Israel is certainly favored over the Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank - by both our government and the public. Now, of course, there is some pushback because of the bombings in Gaza, but still, primarily, any group would have support over any other group who are Arab/Muslim.