WDSmart

I am not suggesting a "...World Army be formed to fight against the Jews." I'm suggesting a multi-lateral peacekeeping force (you can call that a "World Army" if you wish) be put in place to enforce a ceasefire/hostage-return/two-state solution to this conflict. This "World Army" would take whatever actions that were necessary against either side that violates the agreement, not just "Jews" (Israel/IDF) only. And, I ask again, what would be your suggested solution?

My previous points have not been shown to be invalid. I have read here that UN Peacekeepers have not enforced their peacekeeping duties by force in the past. What I am suggesting is that this time, they do. I've also said they might not be UN Peacekeepers but some other third-party peacekeepers. I see no other way this will end, or at least will be halted for now. Neither side will voluntarily give up their claim to this land. What I see is you continuing to insist that this conflict is unresolvable. Maybe that's so, but there are still things that could be done to try to, if not "resolve" it, at least end the military nature of it. Since we're "discussing" this, what are your suggestions on how to deal with this situation as it exists right now?

I don't know all the details of the orders. I'm not a military specialist. But I assume they would search through the territory that the violations had emmenated from and engage with any militants they find there. Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd assume the UN Peacekeepers would not fire on anyone, even in a situation like this, who did not fire on them first. The UN Peacekeeping force would not have the objective of conquering the entire territory and all the population or take revenge. They would only be after any militants who violated the treaty, and they would accept individual militant's or groups of militants' surrender. Their objective would not be to kill them all. Also, everything I said above would be applied to actions against the IDF if individuals or groups of them renewed their attacks.

Yes, but only against the Hamas militants, not the general Palestinian population, as the IDF is doing now. Just as if Isreal broke the ceasefire agreement and continued to bomb Gaza, The UN Peacekeeping forces would realitate against the IDF. But, both of those are extremely unlikely if both parties have reached and agreed to a resolution, even if that negotiation was forced upon them.

No, I've thought about this a lot, and I've come to this conclusion months ago: a two-state solution with multiple layers of conditions for both sides enforced by a group of third-party peacekeepers. The UN could assign these or be a mixed group decided upon during the negotiations. And, yes, they would have to have a military presence.

But they don't want a two state solution. Yes, I know. Neither does Israel. That's what "negotiations" are all about. And, for this one, the bargaining chips are a mutual, permanent ceasefire and a release of the hostages, but both will have to be done conditionally, and those conditions must be enforced by some third-party, like the UN.

Yes, I've also included a stop to the terrorist attacks in all my recommendations for negotiations. And Palestine needs more than just a ceasefire. They need immediate assistance, rebuilding, and a two-state solution enforced by third-parties.

Yes, negotiate a stop to the devastation depicted above for 130+ hostages.

I just want to clarify my remark on the post above. I meant I agreed "They believed...," not that the land actually was "given to them by God," whomever they think that is.

"The Romans invaded the land of Palestine in 63BC." If you believe the accounts in the Torah, the Jews took that land from the Canaanites in about 2,000 BCE. My point in citing this is not to establish some point in time to assign the land to the Jews or not, but it is to show that this land has been inhabited by and under the control of different peoples at different times in history. This control and even the percentage of the population of any certain people has fluctuated throughout history. So, to say this land "belongs" to a certain people is not a claim that can legitimately be made. "They believed Palestine was their land, given to them by God" I agree with this, your last statement.

"...Jews inhabited the holy land for thousands of years, well before Islam and 'Palestinians'..." According to the the Torah, the Jews' "Holy Book", they took Canaan (the "Holy Land") from the Canaanites, from whom the Palestinians are descended, by force after their "Exodus" from Egypt.

"What is Israel to do when an utter mayhem and madness is going on in Gaza at the moment?" Negotiate and carry out a treaty with the Palestinians that is something like this: 1. Israel completely withdraws and commits to a PERMANENT ceasefire, which third-party (UN?) peacekeepers enforce. Palestine returns most (75%) of the hostages. 2. The peacekeepers (UN?) also organize the immediate assistance to and the eventual rebuilding of Gaza. 3. Israel and Palestine negotiate a two-state solution. When complete, Palestine returns the rest of the hostages. 4. The peacekeepers (UN?) enforce the administration of the two-state solution and will probably have to do this for many years.

An "...‘abusive Christian cult’ said to engage in mind control." Sounds awful, but could you name any other religion that could be described any differently?

Yes. I do it mainly to practice my Thai. It could also incentivize the Farang to learn Thai, but neither of them is my main concern. Learning to speak Thai well is my main concern.

What is it about the word "negotiations" that you don't understand?

Not supporting Zionism is not "antisemitism." "Zionism" is defined as "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel." I do not support the "..re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel." I support negotiations with the native people of that land, the Palestinians, to come up with an agreement on how to share that land. A two-state solution seems the most likely. I am not an antisemite, whether you go with the narrow definition (anti-Jew) or the broader one (anti-Semite - Jew and Arab).

"Crystal Ball"! (Which could also be referred to as "intelligent, informed, speculation.")

Yes, I predicted the hostages would be exchanged for a ceasefire weeks ago. But I specified a PERMANENT ceasefire, with a peacekeeping force put into place to enforce it. So, Hamas and Israel are not quite there yet, but there are still about two weeks left until Ramadan, the date Israel threatens to go into Rafha if the hostages are not released.

What does it show about you............? Probably......................... It shows this... US says ‘understanding’ reached at Gaza hostage talks but negotiations continue | CNN

You must have forgotten about my "crystal ball." I predict many things, and most of them come true. Just watch and see.

The Israeli hostages are being held by the Hamas militants to be used as bargaining chips. The indiscriminate bombing and barbaric invasion of Gaza by the Zionist-led IDF militants is also now a bargaining chip. I have predicted and expect these two chips to be exchanged, with conditions, in a release/return and a ceasefire agreement. I hope all the hostages are released unharmed, and the ceasefire will be permanent and enforced by some neutral peacekeeping force. And, yes, this whole episode is disgusting, but it's what's happening, and I hope it ends, or at least quiets down some, soon.

That's what "hostage" means according to the online Oxford Language Dictionary: A neutral term would be "prisoner."

"Militant" is defined by the online Oxford Language Dictionary as: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause" I think that is appropriate to use in this case, and in the case of the IDF. I think the term you'd most object to would be just a neutral one, like "soldier." I did not use that term to describe the armed forces of Hamas.

Israel's claim to the land began when they arrived in Caanan, somewhere before 1000 BCE, 3,000 years ago. When they arrived in a series of bloody wars, they took the land from the native people living there, the Canaanites, who are the forefathers of the current-day Palestinians. The Occupation of Canaan (1250-1050 BCE) (jewishvirtuallibrary.org) So, the "truth of the matter," if you believe the Torah or Old Testament1 is the people who are now called "Palestinians" were natives of that land before the Jews, now called "Israelites," came and took it from them. There have been fighting and wars there ever since. So, Oct 7 is just one (small) chapter in the entire story of this horrific dispute over what each side considers their "god-given" land. So, don't push your biased SJ on me! 1 I don't believe the accounts in the Bible, Torah, Quoran, or any book claimed to be written by or "revealed" by some "diety." But, I cite this above because I know the Jews and the Muslims do believe what is written there.

He's a unilateralist, pure and simple...