WDSmart

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.

Yes, I've heard about the proposed ceasefire on CNN. The proposal is as you say above, and Hamas' inability or unwillingness to give Israel more information about the hostages is the sticking point right now, or so it has been reported. Hopefully, this can be worked out, and a six-week ceasefire will commence on the start date of Taylor Swift's Eras Tour first concert in France. I hope that during those six weeks, more talks can produce a subsequent, more permanent ceasefire agreement that will include the return of all hostages and, as I keep saying, talks on a two-state solution.

Yes, It's in Hamas' hands now. I suspect they will come back with a counteroffer which will be something like: - a release of ALL hostages and an exchange of prisoners; - a PERMANENT ceasefire; - a UN peacekeeping force on site to enforce the agreement; - a beginning of negotiations on a two-state solution. All to be enacted before the begining of the Taylor Swift concert in Nanterre, France or Ramadan, depending on the calendar you go by.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "surrender." If you mean that Hamas agrees to... - return all the hostages; - commit to a ceasefire also; - engage in talks to establish a two-state solution; ...then, I think Israel might not accept that. If you mean that Hamas agrees to... - return all the hostages; - commit to a ceasefire also; - accepts living in a one-state solution under complete Israeli control; ...then, I think Israel would gladly accept that.

There's a new Topic on this Forum about the recent UN allegation of rape and other mistreatment of Israeli civilians on Oct 7 and now of the hostages that Hamas has. I'm sure it would also be of interest to those on this Topic. Its link is:

I don't doubt that this is true, and this should make these current negotiations that reportedly include a six-week ceasefire for an exchange of about 30 of the suspected 130+ hostages and many prisoners being held by Israel more pressing. I hope the negotiations are expanded to include a PERMANENT ceasefire in exchange for ALL hostages and prisoners.

I could call for that, but Hamas will not listen to me. I could also call for Israel to implement a ceasefire, but they will not listen to me either. The hostages are the only bargaining chip Hamas has. They will not release them without receiving something in return. Military superiority is the main bargaining chip Israel has. They, too, will not cease fire without receiving something in return. I've detailed my suggestions on an agreement many times before, and I hope I am seeing something like what I've been suggesting starting to develop now. We'll have to wait and see what happens, but whatever happens will be in the next week, before Ramadan.

None.

No! Many people here have a flawed logic. They think that because some historical events were violent and unjust, and the victors wrote the history books, we should accept them now. That is wrong. For instance, in the history of my country, our ancestors killed many native Indians. We also dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war faster and claimed that it was a "life-saving" decision. That was a terrible thing to do, and we should never condone it now.

Oh, I agree with that! Both sides, IMO, are to blame. Neither side's right-wing, nationalistic factions want anything but a one-state solution. But now, hopefully, with pressure from the UN (and the US), they will try to come up with some kind of two-state solution that will be, if not "desireable," at least "tolerable" for both.

"Arafat’s war of terror (the so called “al-Aqsa Intifada”) was unparalleled in the scale and relentlessness of its terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. A total of 1,184 Israelis were murdered." I guess that's no longer "unparalleled in the scale and relentlessness of its... attacks on ...civilians." it's now estimated that over 30,000 have been killed in Gaza, or 20,000 civilians if you assume about 1/3 of those were actual Hamas militants.

Do you mean the Yasser Arafat who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994?

Of course, no one can say for sure, even the "experts" on this subject, but I suspect it was because it was just before 1948 (why do some here cite 1947? See the link at the end of this post.), the Palestinians occupied the land and made up about 60% of the population, and the Jews only made up about 30% of the population. The Palestinains considered it there land and did not like some third party (the UN) giving a little over half of it to the Jews. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (www.gov.il)

What about the Zionists that want a 2 state solution? I suppose the Zionists could have various sub-factions that have different ideas as to how to succeed in the "development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel." I've never heard of any that would accept a two-state solution. If there are, I hope they start speaking up more firmly, especially right now when the negotiations for a temporary ceasefire and return of some hostages/prisoners are being discussed.

Because Zionism doesn't actually mean a homeland just for Jewish people , that is just your imagination as to what the word means Definition of Zionism 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."

"One of the problems is trying to mask antisemitism by using the term Zionist. We all know how often its used that way and the Jews do not like it used as a form of hate speech directed that them." I liken the term "Zionist" to the term "Hamas." Neither represents the entirely, or probably even the majority, of the peoples they represent. But, they do have the leadership roles in both societies right now.

The order of events is unclear, but the 100 people mentioned above were either shot or run over by trucks or the mob -- or all three. The gunshots were a crucial factor, as they not only took lives but also triggered the panic that made the trucks drive away and the crowds stampede, running over and trampling people in the process.

Why do you think my opinion could not be an actual fact? The majority of them are, or they eventually become so.

Again, another "one word makes all the difference" modification to your declaration above to make it correct (IMO): "...if you agree that Israel should be a homeland ONLY for Jewish people , then you are a Zionist."

I generally agree with you, but I'd change the phrase in the first sentence of the last paragraph from "...give any land away..." to "give back any land...".

This prospective agreement has some of the features I suggested months ago: a partial exchange of hostages/prisoners for a temporary ceasefire. The sticking point right now is just who will be included in the hostages/prisoners exchanged. My suggestion then goes on to include a full exchange of hostages/prisoners for a permanent ceasefire. And, I've suggested a third-party (like the UN) peacekeeping force be put into place to prevent or deal with agreement violations, a rebuilding of Gaza, and ongoing negotiations to establish a two-state solution. As this moves forward, which we all hope it will, I believe it will happen pretty much as I've predicted.

To avoid confusion, here is how I usually use these terms, although, here on AeanNow, I sometimes don't follow these completely: - Ethnicity: Hebrews/Arabs - Religion: Judaism/Islam - Practitioners of Religions: Jews/Muslims - States: Israel/Palestine - Citizens/Occupants of States: Israelis/Palestinians - Radical Group Intent on a One-State Solution: Zionists/Hamas.

When you use the term "Jew" to refer to someone, are you referring to their religion or their ethnicity? You certainly couldn't be referring to the country they live in, could you?

...and by "squatters," do you mean Palenstians or Isrealis?

"The US leadership may change as will the Israeli leadership in the not too distant future." I certainly hope not, and for reasons more important to me than Israel or Palestine. "Its going to be a hard enough task to bring some sort of peace now and that cannot start till all hostages are released." I don't see ALL hostages being released until after a PERMANENT ceasefire, which, of course, will have to be enforced by some third party.