WDSmart

Yes, there are two sides, and neither side is what it pretends to be. One side is trying to expel those who are forcibly occupying land that they have lived in for centuries and believe is theirs. The other side is trying to occupy land that they believe has been given to them by the most powerful Western states of the world and their "God" by expelling the former occupants I see no end to this conflict.

I will make whatever comments I feel appropriate. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are trolling. As I've noted in detail in a prior post, I refer to the people of Israel as "Israelis" and the right-wing, militant faction there as "Zionists." Just as I refer to the people of Gaza and The West Bank as "Palestinians" and the right-wing, militant faction there as "Hamas." I am not whining. I don't whine. I just call out what I think are your inappropriate comments, like calling my comments "stupid" and my opinions "ridiculous" or "delusions" instead of just disagreeing with them, and calling me names like "troll." You don't own this forum, and I have the right to post my opinions on the topic discussed, even if you disagree with them.

If we on this forum argue over such stupid things and call each other names, how could we ever expect Hamas and Zionists to come to any kind of reasonable agreement?

This is a good example of what Bkk Brian and I were discussing. I only copied the pertinent part - not all of the post (rule, in this case).

I can only read and respond to one post at a time.

"...except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. " That was my purpose, not altering the context.

I would be very happy if I could count on not getting a response from you in the future. I'll check the forum rules, but I didn't know we had to quote everything. They do have give us the capability of only quoting portions of something. Why would they do that if quoting the entire post was a rule? (Of course, I know I can't expect an answer to that question from you since you're not responding to me anymore. Maybe someone else could comment...) @Morch ?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Excuse me. Only YOUR opinions should be considered. Mine are all "delusions" and trolling. I'll try to meet your expectations a little better next time.

I do this often. I only quote the portions of a post to which I want to respond.

Morch, We do agree! We're getting closer and closer together! Above, you're expressing an OPINION! (Not one I necessarily agree with, but...) Good for you!

The ICJ's provisional decision makes it awkward for the US, because if the Zionists in Isreal continue to kill hosts of Palestinians while going after Hamas, the US's financial support of Israel in this matter will become very politically awkward. Especially because the US will be having a presidential election later this year.

...and as reported on CNN and acknowledged by the ICJ...

For a BIG CHANGE, I agree with Morch. I don't think Hamas will release the hostages, at least not all of them, until there is a definite ceasefire.

Thanks, I did check and found the link. And, yes, I did see it and disregarded it. As I said in a number of my recent posts, I don't intend to discuss the details of the ruling, just acknowledge the ruling itself.

Help! I disagree!

I did not know of the other topic, and I did not intend to discuss the details of the ruling here. But I don think a mention of the ruling itself is very relevant to this topic.

I responded to your other post. I'm not a troll. I'm a forum participant engaging in disucssions.

I thought you might mean SA Saudi Arabia. I see now why you included SA in your previous post. I haven't seen the topic on the ICJ's provisional ruling. I'll check that out. Thanks for alerting me. However, I do think the ruling itself is an appropriate item to mention in this topic. I've not tried to discuss it in detail.

I hope those who disagree with me will at least reconsider their views as they get more information. Some of that information is new, but some of it is old and has either been ignored by them or never presented to them. The International Court of Justice did not think South Africa's charges were nonsense, and those charges are compatible with the viewpoint I've had for many years. The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic

I do not care if Hamas and SA (who are they?) are not celebrating with me. How could the International Court of Justice's ruling not be pertinent to the topic of this thread? Isn't it about the Zionist's response to Hamas' Oct attack, just as the court's ruling is? The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic

Yes, I'd agree that the majority in my home country (USA) does not share my views on this crisis, but that's, IMO, is because they have not been presented with all the facts and the viewpoints from both sides. That, however, is changing. CNN, my primary source of news, is now presenting more information about the Palestinian and Arab perspectives. And, of course, yesterday's ruling (provisional) by the International Court of Justice will also cause more people to re-examine their positions on this crisis. I don't think the majority will every come around to my viewpoint, but I do believe the percentage will grow and grow as they learn more facts about this. I do not believe my opinions are delusiions. They are based on the "facts" I know from what I have viewed and read over the past 20 years, and that are being reinforced every day of this tragedy.

And, of course, my home country, the USA, is still funding the Zionist attacks on Gaza and the West Bank. This funding, however, is starting to become a political issue for Presiden Biden in the upcoming presidential election in November.

BINGO! (Provisional and long-overdue Bingo) The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic

A wellness resort on Koh Samui was why I first came to Thailand over 20 years ago. I'm still here - not in Koh Samui, but now living in the mountains of northeast Thailand.

Thanks again for your reply. I won't go through your post line-by-line, but I am impressed with your actual experiences in Israel/Palestine, and I will take all you have said at your word. I noticed you described "Palestinians" as "Arab citizens of Israel." That's a little telling to me. Other than that, the main thing I noticed was you differentiated between the West Bank and Gaza, implying the tensions in the West Bank were much less than those in Gaza. I assumed (there's that naughty word again! ) that was the case, but I don't know why. Maybe it's just because Gaza is more isolated than the West Bank and does not have so many sites that Israelis are interested in visiting. Gaza does seem to me much more of a powder keg, but now CNN () reports the IDF (IMO, should be "IAF" - Israeli Attack Forces ) is striking targets in the West Bank also. One thing I promise you, though, is I will try to remember all you've posted in your last two posts and consider those points when making judgments, forming opinions (yes, I'll still do that ), and posting responses. Thanks again for your recent responses...