WDSmart

That's the core of our disagreement, the cause for the start of this war. The "cause" goes way back before Oct 7. That is just the second-most recent attack in this at least 80-year-old conflict. I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire. The longer the ceasefire, the more hostages I believe Hamas would be willing to release. A PERMANENT ceasefire (guaranteed by the UN) would be necessary for the release of ALL the hostages - again, IMO. The hostages are Hamas' only bargaining chip. If Hamas released the hostages, they would have no leverage on Israel, and Israel could then just continue to freely bombard and invade Gaza and even the West Bank. The return of the hostages has to have some reciprocal concessions by Israel.

Both sides have committed atrocities and war crimes. If Israel hasn't forgotten about the hostages, why aren't they negotiating more earnestly for their return? All they have to do for that is to agree to a ceasefire.

I only read a few of these, but as I said, I agree that Oct 7 must have certainly changed a lot of minds in Israel about a two-state solution. I just hope that does not represent the majority and will soften over time. But, if it doesn't, I assume the Israelis would only support a one-state solution as it seems you do now. Is that correct? Would you and they support a one-state solution that creates the state of Palestine with the Palestinians in control and reducing the status of Jews to that of second- or third-class citizens? Would they then put up with the Palestinians encroaching on their neighborhoods, removing the homeowners, and building homes of their own? I don't think so. So, really, you shouldn't say you or Israelis support a one-state solution. You should say you and Israelis only support an Israeli-state solution. I, the UN, and I hope a majority of the citizens of both states involved do now, or soon will, support a two-state solution.

I agree with you, but that's why I suggest installing a UN or other third-party peacekeeping force to enforce the agreements. This force may have to be in place for years or even be considered "permanent." And again, to try to show you how this is viewed from the other side, I believe Palestinians are wary of a full Israeli state because they see how Israel has slowly but steadily invaded their land and claimed it as their own. They are preparing to do that again in the West Bank right now. So, both sides have good reasons not to trust each other and fear how a two-state solution would work. But, IMO, that is the only solution. The one-state solution will, again, IMO, cause a much wider spread of this conflict no matter which side is the "one side."

I understand why you will not keep replying to this point but I have never thought we totally disagree. My position has been and still is that the right-wing, nationalistic, fascist factions of both sides (Hamas/Zionists) are unfortunately in control right now. They will only consider a one-state solution. I do believe that many, maybe even most, of the rest of the citizens on both sides would accept a two-state solution. I certainly hope that is so, and I also encourage all who are involved in the actual negotiations to believe that, too, and to work towards that goal.

I believe what you say above and agree that Oct 7 has altered the perspective of Israelis on this conflict a lot. But it has also brought global attention to what has been happening: the slow but unrelenting encroachment of Palestinian land by the government-backed Israeli settlers. I do believe that now, most Israelis would not support a two-state solution, but I also believe a large number of Palestinians would not support that either. They both want total victory - a one-state solution that puts them in complete control of all of the land in question. That one-state solution is, for me, "off the cards." That is why I suggested in my previous post that "The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above," which includes a two-state solution.

The deadline for making a deal before Ramadan has passed. Here's what needs to be done as soon as possible. Get representatives from the two sides to meet under the supervision and influence of the UN and their allies; Forge out an agreement, under duress from their allies if need be, to do the following: Permanent ceasefire enforced by a third-party (UN?) peacekeeping force; Exchange of all hostages and prisoners; Humanitarian and rebuilding assistance for Gaza; Continuing negotiations on how to establish a two-state solution. The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above.

Let's start by doing things right now. Are you suggesting we just keep on making the same mistakes and devastating actions over and over again and then just say it's okay because it was done in the past? That's the "He hit me first!" excuse I've posted about before. And all that's needed here, IMO, is a two-state solution. (And, by the way, I'm living in Thailand now...)

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. Why don't you seem to understand that?

Okay, I agree with that...at least some of it...

I agree with your general point, but the UK did offer up the land. It was under their control then.

I agree with this. Both have committed war crimes, and both have likely committed abuse of hostages, civilians, and prisoners.

If you know its shameful why have you been one of those taking part. Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron says "there is the chance of a ceasefire" but it "requires" Hamas signing the deal Israel has agreed, and insists they should do this "today". I have not been "one of those taking part." Why would you say that? I would never take part in such activities as rape or sexual abuse. The only activity associated with this that I would even consider "taking part" in would be the negotiations, and I've posted my recommendations for those. So, Lord Cameron says, "there is the chance of a ceasefire" but it "requires" Hamas signing the deal Israel has agreed, and insists they should do this "today". That's not a negotiation; that's an ultimatum. There has to be a negotiation so each side can declare what it wants, and then "negotiations" have to be done to whittle those down into a set that both will accept. I don't know the details of the proposed deal. I've heard it was a six-week ceasefire in exchange for 30 or so hostages and 300 or so prisoners. It was said to have required Hamas to give a written account of the status of their hostages, and that, from what I gathered, was the sticking point. But I don't know why and don't even know that for sure.

Yes, that's despicable and shameful. That's all the more reason Israel should make whatever deal they can to assure the return of the hostages as soon as possible. The last I heard on CNN was that the ceasefire deal will not likely happen soon. Talks for Gaza ceasefire at a standstill, no deal likely by Ramadan | CNN

I'm sorry you characterize at least some of my postings as "a rapid fire of toxic extremist Israel demonization." I did not intend them to be so. I did intend them to be a counterbalance to what I consider "a rapid-fire of toxic extremist Israel rationalization." Like I've said before, I'm really not on one side or the other and hope both sides will soon come together with an agreement of a ceasefire, exchange of hostages/prisoners, and a beginning of serious negotiations on a two-state solution.

Yes, I agree. I am an "American" (born and raised in the USA). Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I saw lots of racism practiced - and sexism and homophobia, etc. I never really participated in any of that, and now, I believe I am generally free of it.

I'm not a racist. I judge and classify people based on their actions.

Why idiocy? I said it was primarily about race. Here is an interesting article on how the Nazis determined if someone was "Jewish." Mischling Test - Wikipedia

I don't think there were many "Jews" living in Germany in that era that did not practice Judaism. My "level of ignorance" on this subject is the belief that the Nazis believed the Jews were both an inferior race and one which accumulated wealth and used it to enslave others.

"If Zionism is racism as you think then Palestinian nationalism is racist too." Yes! I do. I think both sides in this conflict are racists and anti- the other's religion.

Racism is racism despite any attempt to rationalize it.

Thanks. I was wondering whether you viewed it as racism or something against Judaism, the religion. The term "Jew" is used both to describe someone who is Hebrew and someone who practices Judaism. The term "antisemite" has been reduced it its definition over the years to only mean "anti-Hebrew/Jewish." Originally, it meant anti-Semite, and "Semite" refers to both Arabs and Hebrews.

I've never heard that before. I have heard that those classed as US Residents who are not citizens can receive SS benefits. But in any event, I don't intend to abandon my US citizenship.

Why are there racists? Why are there homophobes? So, you won't answer my question but ask two of your own? I will answer them. - There are racists because some people believe their race is superior to all others. - There are homophobes because some people believe in religions that vilify homosexuality, and some, I think, are homophobic because they are afraid of their own homosexual feelings. Now, will you answer my original question? "Why do you think there are such people as those you describe as "antisemite"?

I'm not back in the USA because I enjoy living here in Thailand. All other US citizens can do what they want to do - stay or go. I won't revoke my US citizenship because I would lose my Social Security retirement benefits. I'm posting my opinions on current events on this Forum. And I generally do what I "should" be doing to the best of my ability.