deejai33

When was the election ? 17 years ago I believe. I doubt the election was free and fair, but maybe it was. Democracy is probably fledgling at best in the middle east. And even so 17 years is a long time ago. Israel probably has valid elections where the civilians can be held account to some extent. But even then leaders become elected without full support of a country. Leaders once elected may take actions those electing them don't agree with. I've seen a few posts on here that try to increase the blame on, culpability of, the civilian population by referring to elections. Its worth examining this issue in another post. Your question about asking Hamas, queen of Jordan, for essential supplies seems odd. Those people do not have supplies for 2m people.

OK, sorry I thought you meant you disagreed about cutting of life essentials being inhuman. i.e. the important part of my post. So do you agree with me its inhumane to cut off 2m people's essential supplies for 2 weeks+. Focus on the main question please. I'm sure you do agree with me.

I'm not sure which is more humane. Bombing civilians or deliberately starving them. How do we decide which is more humane ? You say Hamas has plenty of essential supplies. They are unaffected by the cutting off of life essentials. Sounds possibly accurate, they have guns and power over the civilians, so they grab what they want. OK I agree hamas is not affected by the israeli cutting off. In that case why does israel continue to do it ? Answer that ? Not to deprive hamas operatives as you agree.

Glad its not true. Maybe you are correct and gazans are not lacking water, food, electricity. I do not know those stats you ask about. I did see gaza has some water desalination plants. But the fuel has run out. Water comes from Israel and West bank supplies in the main. I don't know for sure however. But everyday, most news sources report gaza has run out, or is about to run out of essentials. Do you read that, and say 'no, not true'.

I can believe Hamas care little about the 2m civilians they have assumed control over. Yes. I agree with you. But my question is not about how Hamas treats gazans. Its about how Isreal is denying life's essentials. No need to talk about Hamas.

Interesting that you do disagree with my 2 statements. Truly interesting. I can believe people might argue about it being solely israels choice that water, food, electricity has been cut off. But really and truly I cannot believe anyone would think cutting life's essentials from 2m diverse people ( women, children, hamas supporters, non-hamas supporters etc) is OK. I cannot believe you really think that. You state you disagree with me, but give no reason beyond reference to recent Hamas attrocities, which almost everyone condemns. You read what the queen of Lebanon says about the denial of life essentials to gazans. You read what UN boss (SG) says. What EU leaders say ?

Call it virtue signalling if you like. Do you disagree with my statements ? Actually 2 statements. Both seem accurate. Maybe you disagree with the accuracy of the 2nd statement and that actually Isreal has not cut off supplies for 20 days.

I do not think I have read a post here that explicitly and in simple terms says the following statement: "It is clearly unjust and inhumane to intentionally cut off the water, electricity, food supplies from 2m civilians. Women, children, men." Gaza has been cut off by the deliberate choice of Israeli government from these essentials of life for 2+ weeks. Is there anyone on the planet who would disagree with my statement ? If there are people who disagree with my statement, please list your reasons.

I didn't mean opposed. Articles refer to left-wing israelis being interested at different points in the conflict in a one-state solution. Probably as you say, not too popular. I some googling, and found this account of one state-two state-federation options. It by a jewish feminist group. Bit of diversity helps. https://www.heyalma.com/israel-guide/what-are-the-proposed-solutions-to-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ It states that a 2019 poll shows 33% of Israelis support a 2-state option. 19% a one-state and 9% a federation. Leaving 40% don't know, which is worrying. Don't they have a view ? Anyway, the article lists the issues. Your list are the main items. I'm still puzzled about how Israeli politicians plan to allow Palestians self-direction, political rights and a viable future. A zero-state solution for palestinians where they lack land and voting rights and are ruled over by Israelis isn't going to end conflict.

Yes, the low hanging cables need to be watched out for. 555. And open electricity boxes on electric poles. Last night I closed one. A bit worried about getting a shock.

Coincidentely I tripped over a road stud too yesterday night. Was tipsy, yes. Didn't fall over. They stick out from the road surface by 2 or 3 cm. I had to move from the pavement, sidewalk, to the road as there was a rubbish, garbage, bin blocking the path. I am familiar with dangers of walking in thai streets. Just have to accept it.

Yes, I also think its East Jerusalem that the Palestinians want as the capital of their state. In the most recent major US initiative a few years ago, the plan proposed by Mr Trumps son-in-law did not have East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital. And gave israel many settlements within the Palestinian state. Ignored refugee right of return issue. A bit of a non-starter, but at least it was in the right direction of a Palestinian state. Need to make it a viable state however.

Thanks for your reply. I see another reply saying: "Let them do whatever they want to do , just accept Israel's existence and stop waging war and get on with their own lives ". Both of these replies are good as overall principles. I can imagine that almost all civilians (Israeli, Palestinian) want peace, safety, and to get on with their lives. However more details are needed. Such as one-state, or two state solutions. So Palestinians have control over their lives and a place to live which is not a refugee camp dependant on foreign aid. The arab states proposed a 10 point plan 20 years ago, revived later by saudi arabia. Mr Trump proposed a 2 state plan. A single state plan seems a bit hopeful if it means palestinians get to vote and have equal rights in a joint Israeli-Palestinian state. But apparently it is proposed by some Israeli politicians. You ask what I want for Israel, as a pro-palestinian. Israel seems to be flourishing and prospering. That's good. But the Palestinians need to cease being the underdog and under occupation. So by having a Palestinian state, both Israel and Palestinians can prosper. (All parties loosing their ingrained animosity as time passes).

I agree, that would be a way to start to defuse the situation. Hamas should release the hostages, Israel should stop violence against Palestinians, and restore water, food, electicity supplies. Once the bombing of Gaza stops and the death counts on both sides can be established, maybe it will be seen that more than enough palestians, hamas operatives, and israeli citizens have died. Approx 4 to 1 currently. Enough to satisfy claims for revenge, retribution. Israel can improve its defenses in Gaza region with 2-3 km no-go area. Hamas has pickup trucks, poor quality rockets. No aircraft, no tanks, no $4bn a year in military aid. Should be not too difficult to prevent a repeat of the Hamas attrocity. But a proper, long term solution is needed: The UN, Arab league, US, and all relevant parties can then work on a fair long term solution probably based on a 2 state solution. Israel has a state. It is only when the Palestinians also have a viable state that the conflict has a chance of ending. If a viable 2 state plan gets backing of the Palestinian civilians, a political party could emerge and replace Hamas administration. The Palestinians need hope and a way forward, so they can reject Hamas ideology. No need for more bloodshed.

Me trolling ? Clearly I do not. Again you want me to answer the question which I posed to pro-israeli contributers. I am not pro-israeli, so I cannot answer the question. Seems sensible to me. I asked the question sincerely. I am interested to know, in detail, how the pro-israeli folk see the future for the palestinians. Seems important to have a detailed view as its the israeli's, with unwavering US backing, that call the shots, make the decisions. These Israel-Palestine threads contain so much hostility from the pro-israeli contributors, I am reluctant to make posts.

Thanks for reply, even if it questions my authenticity, my motives, on this forum. I'll change the 'we' to 'I', to help this topic along. As you say maybe no other contributor is interested in the question I posed. You refer to other posts, and I did make an effort with a lengthy reply to state my position. Quite correctly, you identify I do hold a pro-palestinian position on most issues here. Quite common among brits with a university background in the 70's/80's. So does that establish some degree of legitmacy for you. To see I am not trolling or a Hamas supporter. I'll add, I deplore Hamas's recent attrocities, and also support Israel's right to exist and defend itself. (not quite so sure about attacking as a means of defence however). That's easy to say, not a problem. So I've taken my time to hopefully convince you. Ok ? Sufficient. As I replied to another post, I do not have an answer to the question. Its why I asked it. Please answer, what do the pro-israeli guys here want the future of Palestine to be ? Its not a trick question.

Sorry, Can you give a clear and direct answer to my question. Not some very clever joke/attempt at being clever. The question is, what do the pro-israeli contributors here want the future of Palestinians to be ? Clear enough question I think.

By the word 'We', I mean people who read this thread and similar. People who read the posts, take an interest in what is said and use it to help form their views. Participants in these threads about the Palestinian-Israel conflict and current Hamas attrocity and aftermath. I ask the question, because I do not know what the pro-israeli contributors see as the future for Palestinians. Its a question ! You ask me to answer it ? (I think you are implying I am a Hamas fan-boy, but I'll ignore that as a misunderstanding) Answers to what Israeli's want might include things like a one-state solution, a two-state solution, or the migration of palestinians to a different part of the World. I asked a question, do you have an reply ?

That seems quite a gloomy view, with little hope for peace and prosperity. But you could be correct.... Can I follow up this view with a question aimed at the contributors here who stand out, based on their many posts, as definetly pro-Israel. I think we can all list them. Can I ask this: We know you want Hamas wiped out, to be history. We know you probably support the settler movement. And you want Israeli's to live in a peaceful state, free from attacks from religious nut-cases. OK, some variant of that. So what do you want to be the Palestinians future ? There's approx 5m of them in area Israel controls. 2m in Jordan, total 15m worldwide. What do pro-Israel folk want their future to be?

Making this tax avoidance tip explicit: Look at money you had on dec 31st 2022 in your home country accounts. Doesnt matter where it came, if it was pension, taxed or not. Check how you can prove it was money from 2022 or before. Transfer as much you feel comfortable with before end of 2023. Its not currently taxable because of the loophole about to close. Cannot use the loophole after jan 2024. So 2 months left to do this. In 2024, March, voluntarily fill in a tax return, show the transfers of 2022 money. See what RD says and let us all know outcome !

Yes, Iran was not an attendee. Not sure saudi arabia was either. US sent top embassy official, but he did not speak. As you say, the main military forces and funders not attending. Up to them. If you're interested here's UN's press release of outcome. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142642 Mr Guterres speech seemed statesman like to me. Not sure what effect it will have ofcourse.

See reply I made just now. In London protest, police said they would arrest anyone voicing hamas support. 10 arrests were made, probably not hamas related. But surely a tiny proportion of 100,000.

As you say I cannot say what the private thoughts of the majority of protesters was. I was not there, did not speak about it with them, or have access to their diaries etc. And neither can you say what their private thoughts were. So I'll accept that point and focus on your claim that the (majority) of protesters were voicing support for Hamas, and its recent attrocity. Signs and speeches. Perhaps we can agree on this visible indicator. My reading of diverse news articles is that the sentiments being voiced were mainly humanitarian ones, aimed at saving lives in Palestine, Gaza. Trying to influence governments of their countries. People wanted the water, electricity, food and medical supplies to be restored by Israel who cut them off. People wanted the daily bombings to stop. Ceasefires. "Stop war on Gaza", 'free palestine' , 'stop war crimes' were signs. See reuters below. Very few people were saying 'go Hamas, kill another 1,200'. 'Hamas will win'. Those who were would be have been in a small minority, and possibly stopped from voicing that by march organisers or the police. Do you want to rephrase your statement to something like: "The majority of worldwide protesters were expressing concern over the looming humanitarian disaster for the civilians and children of Gaza, and against bombing civilians. Few references to Hamas or its recent attrocity were made." There have been protests too which focus on the Hamas attrocity and plight of the hostages. These would not support Hamas ofcourse. London protest: https://www.reuters.com/world/about-100000-protesters-join-pro-palestinian-march-through-london-2023-10-21/ Reuters states: 'Police warned that anyone supporting Hamas, would be arrested" I read elsewhere fewer than 10 arrests made, no mention of Hamas. Indicating no support for hamas was voiced. Arab countries: Probably countries like Iran would have had pro Hamas protests. I can believe that.

Your statement seems obviously false to me. That you consider it accurate and worth posting, says a lot about your outlook and inability to see all sides of the conflict. You state that the worldwide protests are voicing support for Hamas and in particular the attrocity Hamas just carried out. ( You then provide vivid details of that attricity to gain emotional support). Anyone who has read diverse sources about the worldwide protests will easily see most protesters were in no way supporting Hamas's actions. OK, a very small minority of protesters would have been pleased by Hamas's actions. But the vast majority did not. Do you not see that your statement is clearly very inaccurate ?

As you say correctly, I did not note that Hamas was not on the list of attendees. It did not occur to me to say it as I presumed it was obvious that Hamas would not be invited. They are a proscribed terrorist group in many of the countries who are attending. And as you say, I do want to be critical of countries that chose not to attend. Talking about peace and and trying to come up with viable long term solutions is needed. All my life, and before it, there's been a Palestinian conflict. I want a fair solution, as do most people. I am from the UK, with no religious beliefs. You talk of 'outing me'. A bit aggresive sounding, but up to you. But given this chance to express my overall view of the aftermath of the Hamas attrocity, I'd like to make this point: After 2 weeks, we are given by the UN and others figures such as 1,400 Israelis killed on October 7th by Hamas. 4,000 Palestinians killed since 7th, 30% of housing damaged in Gaza, 1m people moved. Is that enough retribution ? Is it time to stop ? Seems to me thats enough killing for anyone. A 3 to 1 rate of Palestinian deaths to Israeli deaths should satisfy even the most upset. Perhaps thats 500 Hamas operatives dead, my guess. Some will say they want all current Hamas operatives killed. But that's not achievable without much larger palestinian deaths. For me, enough is enough. Israel will loose any moral high ground it had and the situation will be worse for Israel, not better. Israel should strengthen its southern border with a larger no-go area and work towards a fair settlement of the Palestinian issue. That's my view - outed for sure now. This forum and reading diverse sources has helped me form this view. Thanks.