WDSmart

Australia is calling and says "Hello" Heard you mention White European settlers stealing homes of the indigenous people and Australia asks what you want and can they be of any assistance Yes! My home country, the USA, did just that same. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now. How could you think any differently?

You just own goaled. No Zionism. No Israel. You want to kill Zionism means you want to end Israel. Yes we all can and should despise Netanyahu but any Israeli leader from left to right is going to be a Zionist. Edited 1 hour ago by Jingthing My definition of a Zionist is as above, with the addition of one word - "only." That would make it "a movement for the development and protection of only a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."

Par for the course. Not just here. @Jingthing and @300sd, Although I don't claim to be one myself, I'd like to ask you both, why do you think there are such people as those you describe as "antisemite"?

That list of countries was not meant to be "examples of Democracy and unfettered freedom of press and human rights." It was a list of countries that have accused Isreal of abuse, including rape, of Palestinian women.

According to the online Oxford Language dictionary, Zionism is: "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel." Do you have a different definition of it?

What astounds me is people like you who appear to believe this is such a one-sided, black-and-white issue. I often speak out in support of Palestine because there are so many on this Forum who ONLY support Israel. I end up having to support Palestine to make sure there is some balance. In truth, I support neither. I would just like to see them settle their differences and set up some system where they could live in peace, but I don't see one side as "evil" and the other as "good." Let me quote you two things you said above, which, to me, are examples of this one-sided thinking. First, you say, "IMO only a person who also holds the belief of Hamas, being the total destruction and remnoval of all Jews, can state things in their favour." Then, you say, "Israel will not stop the war until they have destroyed all of Hamas and their supporters." Isn't this just saying the same thing, saying that both sides are being led by ultra-right-wing, nationalistic fanatics (Hamas and Zionists) who will not stop until the other side is completely wiped out - a one-state solution? That's what it looks like to me, and if this is what you meant, then I agree with you. But, the solution will involve overthrowing the leadership of those radical factions so a ceasefire, exchange of hostages/prisoners, and negotiations on a two-state solution can begin in earnest.

Wrong. Read my post again and stop making things up. I reread your post. I think my response was appropriate. If by "making things up," you mean "expressing my opinion" or "drawing my own conclusions," I will have to warn you that I will not stop doing that.

I edited my post. This is off topic. I don't know how Zionism and Hamas could be "off topic" in any discussion concerning atrocities committed during the war in Gaza. The goals and tactics of both Zionism and Hamas have led to the commission of these.

No, Zionism is alive and well. One of the most prominent examples of this is Israel's PM, Netanyahu.

Silly post. No Zionism means no Israel. Duh. "No Zionism" means the possibility of a permanent ceasefire, a return of all hostages, a release of all prisoners, and, most importantly, negotiations to establish a two-state solution. That would not mean "no Israel." That would also not mean "no Palestine." That would mean each group could live in and control their own state. It would also have to include "No Hamas" also.

You only deal with the "facts" that support your alternative reality... "Countries that have condemned Israel's role as a perpetrator of state-sponsored terrorism or state terrorism include Bolivia, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen." Israel and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia Which list of states do you think is more in the position to know because of their own worry about the topic and their geographical location to the conflict?

Actually, I think it is you that is in an "alternative reality." For some reason, you think all this is black and white, and you think Israel is always on the right side, doing the right thing, and never, ever doing anything wrong. That is DEFINITELY an "alternative reality." 😞 Israel and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

I refer to Hamas as a "militant organization." They do use terrorist tactics. So does Israel from time to time, but I don't refer to the IDF as "terrorists." Period.

Again, I agree that Hamas wants to continue to rule Palestine, but their motive is not just to "terrorize Israel." They do that as one of their tactics to drive Israelis out of what they consider to be their land. And I agree that this is not a totally acceptable tactic now, but one that has been used worldwide countless times. It's what a small group can do to a larger group that has more military might to cause chaos in their opponent's ranks. Here are two links with the information you asked for. Both sides' "provocation" is the goal of possessing the entire territory for themselves — a one-state solution. The first details a history of the conflict: History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia The second speaks specifically about rape and sexual abuse by the IDF during the current events: UN experts speak out about sexual assault and mistreatment of Palestinian women and girls by IDF | The Independent

This happened to me when I was working in India. They have a lot of monkeys everywhere. Like this woman, I was walking back to my apartment from a local open-aid market carrying a small bag of produce. A monkey snatched my bag and tore it open. I immediately turned around and moved toward him, stamping my foot on the ground. He looked up at me and snarled, bearing his teeth, so I just backed off and let him have the produce. 😦

I agree that referring to Hamas militants as "freedom fighters" is controversial, but there is a thread of truth in that. They are fighting for the freedom of the Palestinian people to live in and control their own state. I now refer to them as "militants," which is defined in the online Oxford Language Dictionary as: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause." That definition, by the way, also should apply to Zionists in Israel but not to all of the IDF. There are plenty of instances of Israeli militants torturing, killing, "raping and sexually abusing Palestinians." This has happened countless times over the past 80 years. However, I've never read about a single instance as directed and horrific as the Hamas Oct 7 terrorist attack.

I agree with that, and also hope the same happens with Zionists governing Isrealis.

That's a good question, and, of course, I don't have the answer, but I do have three possibilities: 1. They might not be able to do that since some/many of the hostages are being held by factions that Hamas does not directly control. Compiling a list like that might be very difficult for them to do without a ceasefire to allow them better communication. 2. They might know that many of the supposed 130+ hostages are now dead, and that would be a very distressing thing to have to reveal to Israel and increase the value of the 30 hostages proposed in the ceasefire. By that, I mean if there were 130 hostages, releasing 30 would still give them 110 left. If they only had 60 live hostages, releasing 30 now would only give them 30 left. 3. They might not want to reveal all the hostages' names, ages, genders, etc., to prevent Israel from demanding the release of 30 specific hostages, like 30 women and children. Hamas might want to keep some hostages like these because they know they are valued more by Israel. That's the only three reasons I can think of...

Okay, here's what I heard on CNN this morning: Hamas has returned a counterproposal that eliminates the demand they release the 30 hostages' names before the ceasefire. That's the only condition I remember being reported, but I'm sure there are more. My point is this is still a negotiation and still has about three days left before the "deadline.". I just found a CNN link... Hamas responds to ceasefire proposal but accuses Israel of ‘stalling’ (msn.com)

I generally agree with you, but IMO, a two-state solution is the only solution that will even come close to creating an environment for a lasting "peace." I've said repeatedly that as long as the extreme, right-wing, nationalistic factions on both sides are in the leadership, this will be virtually impossible. However, if the Palestinians abandon Hamas and Israelis abandon the ZIonits, AND the UN and other third parties put pressure on them, just MAYBE a two-state solution can be negotiated.

Okay, how about this one then? Israel-Hamas war: Agreement on ceasefire, release of hostages in Gaza edges closer | Newshub

I've assumed Rafah is a city in the "state" of Gaza, so I just used "Gaza." But, yes, I agree, the Israelis are threatening a ground invasion of Rafah

No, I don't think it was unreasonable..., but this is a negotiation, and I realize Hamas may have concerns and other items they'd like to see addressed. But, the supposed deadline for an agreement is not until the start of Taylor Swift's Eras Tour concert in France, which is only three days away now. Also, even though the deal offered was only for 30 or so hostages in exchange for 400 prisoners and a six-week ceasefire, as soon as Hamas releases hostages, they are gone. Israel can agree to a ceasefire but start operations again whenever they want. that will, IMO, mean Hamas will have to make sure that any FINAL release of ALL hostages will have to include a PERMANENT ceasefire that some third party, like the UN, enforces.

The last report I saw on CNN said Hamas did respond with a counterproposal and is now waiting for a response. Here is a link to another source that gives more details on the counterproposal. US, Israel responsible for any ceasefire deal failure: Hamas - IRNA English

I also think the Oct 7 attack was "barbarism," but such attacks and raids, although smaller, have been conducted by both sides for at least the last 75 years. And, yes, Hamas will "milk" their hostages because that, right now, is their most valuable bargaining chip. Israel's most valuable chip is its military might. I, too, would like to see Hamas "out of the picture." I would like to see the Zionist faction in Israel "out of the picture" also. Unfortunately, right now, both sides are led by these ultra-right-wing, nationalistic factions, and that doesn't bode well for any long-term agreement that would include a two-state solution. But, for now, we'll have to wait and see what happens with this current proposal, which involves a trade of 40 or so hostages for 400 prisoners Israel has and a six-week ceasefire. We shouldn't have to wait too long to find out if this will happen since Israel has said it must be agreed to before the next Taylor Swift Eras Tour concert in France, or they will start a ground invasion of Gaza.