Provisional Decision Today: ICJ Weighs Emergency Measures Amid Allegations of Genocide in Gaza

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

My reasoning behind that I believe as soon as Hamas releases all the hostages, the IDF forces would resume their destruction of Gaza and intensify their militant actions in the West Bank. Without hostages, Hamas/Palestine has no bargaining power.

Nothing changes

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm neither ignorant nor trolling. 

 

I disagree, a proposal that keeps Hamas in place, does not release the last hostages until there is a 2 state solution and UN peacekeeping force in place with all IDF out of Gaza as well is about as ignorant, bias and Hamas apologist as is possible. Its a total farce. No discussion needed further. Its about the most ridiculous thing I've read. In fact quite disgusting to even suggest.

 

Its a Hamas waving piece of ...........

 

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

Imagining that Hamas would release the last hostages until there is a permanent deal in place is unimaginably ignorant.

Yes I know......

But do you think that the Zionists/Israelis would continue the ceasefire if all the hostages were released?

And, in my proposal, before all the hostages were released, a UN Peacekeeping Force would be in place. I would expect they would make sure both sides lived up to their agreement: Hamas/Palestinians releasing the last of the hostages and Zionists/Israelis upholding the ceasefire. If these two sides trusted each other to fulfill their promises, they wouldn't be in this catastrophe in the first place.
 

Edited February 3 by WDSmart

[Bkk Brian]

24 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

But do you think that the Zionists/Israelis would continue the ceasefire if all the hostages were released?

And, in my proposal, before all the hostages were released, a UN Peacekeeping Force would be in place. I would expect they would make sure both sides lived up to their agreement: Hamas/Palestinians releasing the last of the hostages and Zionists/Israelis upholding the ceasefire. If these two sides trusted each other to fulfill their promises, they wouldn't be in this catastrophe in the first place.
 

What is it that you fail to understand that I read your proposal and left my views, which have not changed. The same response. We are a million miles away. As far as I am away from Hamas terrorists. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

The solution I suggested is not "magic." It comes from my understanding of the situation and of people in general.

I believe I do have a clear idea of what the sides are, and there are not just two distinct sides. There is a mix of people with different ideas and goals on each side. My proposal would not be agreeable to all, but I've tried to construct it so it would be at least acceptable, even if only reluctantly, to most.

The maps are from MSNBC, which I would think you'd accept as a "reliable source."

I'm neither ignorant nor trolling. And I suspect the reason you don't care to seriously consider my proposal is you are arrogant and don't have one of your own. 

 

 

The 'solution' you suggested is nonsense. It relies on misunderstanding a whole lot of the facts relating to the conflict. Never mind the 'people' which you really have no clue about.

 

What you 'believe' is immaterial, so long as your views are at a disconnect from reality, and so long as you cannot address simple questions regarding your  various assertions. I have no idea why you imagine that you 'proposal' would be acceptable to 'most', or how you reached that conclusion. Given that you most obviously do not know who the groups, people, leaders etc involved, nor are you familiar with their political positions - these are just preposterous claims.

 

I seriously doubt the 'maps' are 'from MSNBC' - given that they are a rather old propaganda meme that's been around for years, and that the credit appearing on the picture says otherwise.They have been posted, reported and taken down numerous times on this forum alone. You have not bothered providing a link to support this, naturally.

 

You are most definitely ignorant. Your 'proposal' would basically mandate that residents of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and a whole lot of other cities and towns (Israelis) would switch places with Gazans. It would also leave Jerusalem under sole Palestinian control. Acceptable to most, how?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

Imagining that Hamas would release the last hostages until there is a permanent deal in place is unimaginably ignorant.

 

@ozimoron

 

Imagining you'd post something that is not a Hamas talking point is informed.

[Wobblybob]

18 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

But do you think that the Zionists/Israelis would continue the ceasefire if all the hostages were released?

And, in my proposal, before all the hostages were released, a UN Peacekeeping Force would be in place. I would expect they would make sure both sides lived up to their agreement: Hamas/Palestinians releasing the last of the hostages and Zionists/Israelis upholding the ceasefire. If these two sides trusted each other to fulfill their promises, they wouldn't be in this catastrophe in the first place.
 

Do you think that these terrorists will release the hostages if the Israeli's just lay down their arms and decide to let the vile crimes of Oct 7th go unpunished, we are talking about deranged evil excuses for human beings here.. The hostages are in a no win situation, continue fighting or stop fighting will make very little difference to the outcome of the hostages. Israel has little or no choice but to carry on with eliminating the Palestinian terrorists and that sees the only viable option at this juncture in time for saving some, hopefully all of the hostages.

It was mentioned earlier that Hamas doesn't even know where some of the hostages are as they have been passed from pillar to post, it is a tragic situation that Hamas as started and will try to carry out more of these evil incursions if not nipped in the bud now. 

 

If these two sides trusted each other to fulfill their promises, they wouldn't be in this catastrophe in the first place.

Stop being disingenuous, the first place is when Hamas and some of their hangers-on attacked Israel.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

My reasoning behind that I believe as soon as Hamas releases all the hostages, the IDF forces would resume their destruction of Gaza and intensify their militant actions in the West Bank. Without hostages, Hamas/Palestine has no bargaining power.

 

So basically, you legitimize Hamas's actions, and holding of the hostages. Nice.

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

But do you think that the Zionists/Israelis would continue the ceasefire if all the hostages were released?

And, in my proposal, before all the hostages were released, a UN Peacekeeping Force would be in place. I would expect they would make sure both sides lived up to their agreement: Hamas/Palestinians releasing the last of the hostages and Zionists/Israelis upholding the ceasefire. If these two sides trusted each other to fulfill their promises, they wouldn't be in this catastrophe in the first place.
 

 

I'd do some reading about UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, Syria, before building up expectations. Also, you do not seem to understand that the role of such forces does not include forcing sides to do anything. They are more like observers.

[WDSmart]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The 'solution' you suggested is nonsense. It relies on misunderstanding a whole lot of the facts relating to the conflict. Never mind the 'people' which you really have no clue about.

 

What you 'believe' is immaterial, so long as your views are at a disconnect from reality, and so long as you cannot address simple questions regarding your  various assertions. I have no idea why you imagine that you 'proposal' would be acceptable to 'most', or how you reached that conclusion. Given that you most obviously do not know who the groups, people, leaders etc involved, nor are you familiar with their political positions - these are just preposterous claims.

 

I seriously doubt the 'maps' are 'from MSNBC' - given that they are a rather old propaganda meme that's been around for years, and that the credit appearing on the picture says otherwise.They have been posted, reported and taken down numerous times on this forum alone. You have not bothered providing a link to support this, naturally.

 

You are most definitely ignorant. Your 'proposal' would basically mandate that residents of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and a whole lot of other cities and towns (Israelis) would switch places with Gazans. It would also leave Jerusalem under sole Palestinian control. Acceptable to most, how?

I will address questions directed to me. Please ask them. I will respond, even if my response is, "I  do not know."

These maps show up online many, many times. The one's I took are from MSNBC. If you think the entire set is not reliable, I remind you, all my proposal is relying on is the one labeled 1947 UN Proposal. Here's a link to Wikipedia, which essentially uses the same map. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia. I assume you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source.
 

My proposal is just that - a proposal. The most difficult part of my or any proposal will be how to divide the territory up in a way that is both fair and satisfactory to each side. I chose a very simple method of splitting the territory in half so each half represents the area in the 1947 plan. That could be changed to areas better representing the population percentages at this time. The best information I can find online is that Israel has just under 10 million and Palestine (Gaza/West Bank) a little over 5 million. So that could suggest that a dividing of the land of about 60/40 might be in order. Whatever the proportion, I believe the states would have to be separate, but each one would have to be made up of contiguous regions (not being separated). This could be accomplished on the map I made in my proposal by curving the border upward, reducing the area of Palestine while still leaving Palestine with Gaza and the West Bank, but doing this would make a journey from Gaza to the West Bank much longer.

And, yes, there will be areas where both Palestinians and Israelis will be uprooted.That will be unacceptable to some on both sides, but I don't see how that can be avoided in an equitable and fair two-state solution.  

As I said, dividing up the territory will be the hardest issue and will have to be done by Israelis and Palestinians (not Zionists and Hamas) themselves, with the help of their allies and the UN.

Thanks for your remarks.

[WDSmart]

50 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Do you think that these terrorists will release the hostages if the Israeli's just lay down their arms and decide to let the vile crimes of Oct 7th go unpunished, we are talking about deranged evil excuses for human beings here.. The hostages are in a no win situation, continue fighting or stop fighting will make very little difference to the outcome of the hostages. Israel has little or no choice but to carry on with eliminating the Palestinian terrorists and that sees the only viable option at this juncture in time for saving some, hopefully all of the hostages.

It was mentioned earlier that Hamas doesn't even know where some of the hostages are as they have been passed from pillar to post, it is a tragic situation that Hamas as started and will try to carry out more of these evil incursions if not nipped in the bud now. 

 

If these two sides trusted each other to fulfill their promises, they wouldn't be in this catastrophe in the first place.

Stop being disingenuous, the first place is when Hamas and some of their hangers-on attacked Israel.

The IDF has already punished the Palestinians of Gaza for the Oct 7 Hamas attack. Now, they are starting to punish Palestinians in the West Bank. When will they think they've punished Hamas and the Palestinians enough?

This "in the first place" is the root of most of our disagreements. Oct 7 was not the "first place." I won't list all the terrorist and military attacks from both sides that have gone on over the years for fear of giving a "history lesson." I'll just say Oct 7 was not the first incident, but hopefully, the IDF accused/alledged genocide in Gaza will be the last. But that. IMO, will take an agreement similar to the one I have proposed.

[WDSmart]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So basically, you legitimize Hamas's actions, and holding of the hostages. Nice.

I don't legitimize Hamas' taking and holding hostages any more than I legitimize the IDF's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. One side is using hostages and leverage, and the other side is using military might. It's a sad, sad situation and needs to be resolved. I've proposed a solution, that's all. 

[WDSmart]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd do some reading about UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, Syria, before building up expectations. Also, you do not seem to understand that the role of such forces does not include forcing sides to do anything. They are more like observers.

If that's the case, then these "Peacekeepers" need to have the military power to enforce the agreement. Otherwise, what good are they? 

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I will address questions directed to me. Please ask them. I will respond, even if my response is, "I  do not know."

These maps show up online many, many times. The one's I took are from MSNBC. If you think the entire set is not reliable, I remind you, all my proposal is relying on is the one labeled 1947 UN Proposal. Here's a link to Wikipedia, which essentially uses the same map. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia. I assume you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source.
 

My proposal is just that - a proposal. The most difficult part of my or any proposal will be how to divide the territory up in a way that is both fair and satisfactory to each side. I chose a very simple method of splitting the territory in half so each half represents the area in the 1947 plan. That could be changed to areas better representing the population percentages at this time. The best information I can find online is that Israel has just under 10 million and Palestine (Gaza/West Bank) a little over 5 million. So that could suggest that a dividing of the land of about 60/40 might be in order. Whatever the proportion, I believe the states would have to be separate, but each one would have to be made up of contiguous regions (not being separated). This could be accomplished on the map I made in my proposal by curving the border upward, reducing the area of Palestine while still leaving Palestine with Gaza and the West Bank, but doing this would make a journey from Gaza to the West Bank much longer.

And, yes, there will be areas where both Palestinians and Israelis will be uprooted.That will be unacceptable to some on both sides, but I don't see how that can be avoided in an equitable and fair two-state solution.  

As I said, dividing up the territory will be the hardest issue and will have to be done by Israelis and Palestinians (not Zionists and Hamas) themselves, with the help of their allies and the UN.

Thanks for your remarks.

 

You do not 'address' anything. You just spew more nonsense, lies and misinformation.

 

These 'maps' often showing online doesn't imply that they are credible. Such is the nature of propaganda memes. You still fail to provide a link, and I kinda doubt they are from MSNBC proper, without any comment on them being made. You saying so is not enough. And no, the this is not 'essentially the same' map as appearing in Wikipedia.

 

For starters, the 1946 'map' refers to 'Palestinian owned land' - Palestinians was not even much in use back then as reference to the Arabs. And a whole lot of the land was owned by outsider, Arab as well, from neighboring countries. That 'map' sets the tone for the rest, especially with misleading color scheme - never mind the label 'Palestinian loss of land' - can't lose something you did not own, or did not even agree to (as per the post-1948 'maps').

 

Your 'map' got nothing to do with the 1947 Partition Plan 'map'. The latter takes into account population centers, demographics and natural resources. Yours does not. If you were anywhere near informed, you'd be aware that the southern part is mostly arid desert, which was sparsely populated at the time (and relatively, still is). So the land being divided 'equally' was not really so when considering the 'quality' of the land involved. Just an example - other comments made earlier stand as well.

 

Moving on, the 1949-1967 'map' is misleading as well - the land was not 'Palestinian' (the Partition Plan was still rejected), and both  areas (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) were controlled by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Jordan even went so far as to annex the territory. Not much effort by the Palestinians to resist that etc.

 

The 2007 'map' is similarly nonsense. In fact, there was no Palestinian land, or Palestinian control of land up to then. So it's not that it 'shrank', but rather the opposite - from nothing, to what's depicted. Note that all the references to the 'green' areas are 'Palestinian land', whereas the 'white' areas are convincingly  labeled 'Jewish military and civil control). If all that doesn't get to you, try noticing the credits appearing on the bottom right hand.

 

This has been done to death on this topics.

 

You have zero understanding of what's involved if you think whole populations, cities and whatnot could simply be moved about. Why you imagine anyone would see this as acceptable is neither interesting nor relevant - it's just nonsense. It maximizes the displacement of civilians, compared to all other existing plans. Your 'proposal' does not offer any improvement whatsoever on existing patterns and suggestions commonly discussed. In that it is akin to your idiosyncratic usage of definitions, labels and terms regardless of whether their application means much in the real world.

 

Your ongoing nonsense differentiating Israelis and Zionists does not help either. You persist in this despite being unable to either explain or support what you're on about. Being your 'opinion' doesn't matter much, given it doesn't apply in reality.

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don't legitimize Hamas' taking and holding hostages any more than I legitimize the IDF's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. One side is using hostages and leverage, and the other side is using military might. It's a sad, sad situation and needs to be resolved. I've proposed a solution, that's all. 

 

Israel was not bombing the Gaza Strip on 6/10. Any other Hamas talking points you'd like to share?

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nothing changes

 

So your proposal is total anhilation or a complete Hamas surrender without conditions?

 

How hard would it be for Israel to sign up to a peace deal knowing that international forces would enforce it. Forces that would have the complete cooperation of ALL Palestinians? The simple answer is that the Israels government want neither peace nor a 2 state solution. What's happening now is just fine for them. The one month ICJ report come come soon enough.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

If that's the case, then these "Peacekeepers" need to have the military power to enforce the agreement. Otherwise, what good are they? 

 

I suggest you familiarize yourself with related concepts before tossing them about. Peacekeeping forces are not about enforcing anything. And I seriously doubt countries would mandate a more widely mandated operation, against the will of either side or both. May I suggest (again) you familiarize yourself with the subject matter, before spewing more nonsense?

 

This exact point was addressed at least twice in the past, in response to similar nonsense posts you made.

Edited February 3 by Morch

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

So your proposal is total anhilation or a complete Hamas surrender without conditions?

 

How hard would it be for Israel to sign up to a peace deal knowing that international forces would enforce it. Forces that would have the complete cooperation of ALL Palestinians? The simple answer is that the Israels government want neither peace nor a 2 state solution. What's happening now is just fine for them. The one month ICJ report come come soon enough.

 

@ozimoron

 

You've made this 'point' before.

 

How would international forces 'enforce' things? Why would Israel trust them to? Did they do a great job in Lebanon? Syria? What makes you think that all the Palestinians would cooperate? You're making things up, and then treating them as facts. Over and over again. Delusional? Dishonest? Who cares.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

So your proposal is total anhilation or a complete Hamas surrender without conditions?

 

How hard would it be for Israel to sign up to a peace deal knowing that international forces would enforce it. Forces that would have the complete cooperation of ALL Palestinians? The simple answer is that the Israels government want neither peace nor a 2 state solution. What's happening now is just fine for them. The one month ICJ report come come soon enough.

I don't have a proposal, I never offered one up for scrutiny. Do you have one? If so go ahead and post. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I don't have a proposal, I never offered one up for scrutiny. Do you have one? If so go ahead and post. 

 

I like the British proposal. It would be somewhat ironic if Israel was forced to take it.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I like the British proposal. It would be somewhat ironic if Israel was forced to take it.

 

 

@ozimoron

 

Did Hamas accept it? Why would you expect Israel to? What would be the point? How would things be guaranteed?

 

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I like the British proposal. It would be somewhat ironic if Israel was forced to take it.

Why? 

 

"We have to see the key Hamas leaders leave Gaza. Israel has permitted safe passage for terrorists in the past – and the people responsible for October 7 have to go.

We have to see the instruments of terrorism still in Gaza being dismantled. In the carnage of the past 100-plus days of conflict, it often goes unreported that Hamas rocket attacks against Israel have continued. And Hamas still wants to launch terrorist atrocities again. It must be put beyond doubt that this cannot happen."

 

You could always go to the topic on the British proposal.

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1318495-foreign-secretary-david-cameron-writes-on-how-to-solve-the-gaza-crisis

 

[WDSmart]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You do not 'address' anything. You just spew more nonsense, lies and misinformation.

 

These 'maps' often showing online doesn't imply that they are credible. Such is the nature of propaganda memes. You still fail to provide a link, and I kinda doubt they are from MSNBC proper, without any comment on them being made. You saying so is not enough. And no, the this is not 'essentially the same' map as appearing in Wikipedia.

 

For starters, the 1946 'map' refers to 'Palestinian owned land' - Palestinians was not even much in use back then as reference to the Arabs. And a whole lot of the land was owned by outsider, Arab as well, from neighboring countries. That 'map' sets the tone for the rest, especially with misleading color scheme - never mind the label 'Palestinian loss of land' - can't lose something you did not own, or did not even agree to (as per the post-1948 'maps').

 

Your 'map' got nothing to do with the 1947 Partition Plan 'map'. The latter takes into account population centers, demographics and natural resources. Yours does not. If you were anywhere near informed, you'd be aware that the southern part is mostly arid desert, which was sparsely populated at the time (and relatively, still is). So the land being divided 'equally' was not really so when considering the 'quality' of the land involved. Just an example - other comments made earlier stand as well.

 

Moving on, the 1949-1967 'map' is misleading as well - the land was not 'Palestinian' (the Partition Plan was still rejected), and both  areas (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) were controlled by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Jordan even went so far as to annex the territory. Not much effort by the Palestinians to resist that etc.

 

The 2007 'map' is similarly nonsense. In fact, there was no Palestinian land, or Palestinian control of land up to then. So it's not that it 'shrank', but rather the opposite - from nothing, to what's depicted. Note that all the references to the 'green' areas are 'Palestinian land', whereas the 'white' areas are convincingly  labeled 'Jewish military and civil control). If all that doesn't get to you, try noticing the credits appearing on the bottom right hand.

 

This has been done to death on this topics.

 

You have zero understanding of what's involved if you think whole populations, cities and whatnot could simply be moved about. Why you imagine anyone would see this as acceptable is neither interesting nor relevant - it's just nonsense. It maximizes the displacement of civilians, compared to all other existing plans. Your 'proposal' does not offer any improvement whatsoever on existing patterns and suggestions commonly discussed. In that it is akin to your idiosyncratic usage of definitions, labels and terms regardless of whether their application means much in the real world.

 

Your ongoing nonsense differentiating Israelis and Zionists does not help either. You persist in this despite being unable to either explain or support what you're on about. Being your 'opinion' doesn't matter much, given it doesn't apply in reality.

I've said in a previous response that the only map that counts is the one labeled US 1947 Plan, and that looks like the one in the Wikipedia link I provided to me.

You can disregard all the rest of the maps EXCEPT the one I drew, the proposed two-state solution map.

 

Again, I've already said in a previous response that my proposed two-state map is just a PROPOSAL! The two parties, in conjunction with their allies and the UN, will have to draw up the final map.

However they do it, a fair, equitable map must be made up that can accomplish the two most important (IMO) things:
- The split should be equitable;
- The regions in the two states should be contiguous, but they should be separate from each other.

And I don't see how that can be done without some displacement of people from both sides. 

I differentiate "Zionists" from "Israelis" using the same criteria I differentiate "Hamas" from "Palestinians." Each are a sub-group of the whole who are willing to use extreme force to accomplish their goal, which, in both cases, is the TOTAL control of the land in question. 

And please don't go on and on about me not explaining anything. Read what I've written above. Also, don't accuse me of not answering any questions. You didn't, and usually don't, ask any.

[WDSmart]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Israel was not bombing the Gaza Strip on 6/10. Any other Hamas talking points you'd like to share?

I never accused Israel of bombing Gaza on 6/10 (Oct 6, 2023?), nor did I know Hamas claimed they did.

Edited February 3 by WDSmart
Changed Jun 10 to Oct 6

[Morch]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I've said in a previous response that the only map that counts is the one labeled US 1947 Plan, and that looks like the one in the Wikipedia link I provided to me.

You can disregard all the rest of the maps EXCEPT the one I drew, the proposed two-state solution map.

 

Again, I've already said in a previous response that my proposed two-state map is just a PROPOSAL! The two parties, in conjunction with their allies and the UN, will have to draw up the final map.

However they do it, a fair, equitable map must be made up that can accomplish the two most important (IMO) things:
- The split should be equitable;
- The regions in the two states should be contiguous, but they should be separate from each other.

And I don't see how that can be done without some displacement of people from both sides. 

I differentiate "Zionists" from "Israelis" using the same criteria I differentiate "Hamas" from "Palestinians." Each are a sub-group of the whole who are willing to use extreme force to accomplish their goal, which, in both cases, is the TOTAL control of the land in question. 

And please don't go on and on about me not explaining anything. Read what I've written above. Also, don't accuse me of not answering any questions. You didn't, and usually don't, ask any.

 

You could have used any other source for that map. You chose one that's a clear Palestinian propaganda meme. Hard to take your claims seriously when you act like that. So no, I do not 'disregard' the other 'maps' - you put it up, it's on you. Could have used any other resource - chose that. 

 

The map you drew is utter nonsense. No other way to define it. It does not relate to demographics, geography, economy or history. It's got nothing to do with anything. It's a display of ignorance. Considering that there are plenty of more streamlined offers, yours doesn't improve on any of them, just creates more issues.

 

Your nonsense 'differentiation' were addressed. You wish to remain ignorant - that's up to you. You've no idea what you're talking about. Zionists are not of one mettle, and do not share the same unified vision/goal/policy as Hamas does. You are misrepresenting views and positions, and doing so repeatedly.

 

What you write above is not an 'explanation' it's a host of nonsense statements that do not relate to facts and reality. I have raised plenty of issues with regard to your views and posts, you do not need to be spoon-fed them, they are quite obvious.

 

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I never accused Israel of bombing Gaza on 6/10 (Oct 6, 2023?), nor did I know Hamas claimed they did.

 

Read your previous post, which I was replying to. Them figure out the context. Tiresome troll.

[Wobblybob]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

The IDF has already punished the Palestinians of Gaza for the Oct 7 Hamas attack. Now, they are starting to punish Palestinians in the West Bank. When will they think they've punished Hamas and the Palestinians enough?

This "in the first place" is the root of most of our disagreements. Oct 7 was not the "first place." I won't list all the terrorist and military attacks from both sides that have gone on over the years for fear of giving a "history lesson." I'll just say Oct 7 was not the first incident, but hopefully, the IDF accused/alledged genocide in Gaza will be the last. But that. IMO, will take an agreement similar to the one I have proposed.

It is not about punishment, it is about ensuring that the Palestinian terrorists never ever engage in another Oct 7th, Israel has a duty to its citizens to protect them from these barbaric incursions. Hamas has publicly announced that it will carry on murdering Israelis, if you want someone to hate, try the perpetrators and not the victims!

[WDSmart]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You could have used any other source for that map. You chose one that's a clear Palestinian propaganda meme. Hard to take your claims seriously when you act like that. So no, I do not 'disregard' the other 'maps' - you put it up, it's on you. Could have used any other resource - chose that. 

 

The map you drew is utter nonsense. No other way to define it. It does not relate to demographics, geography, economy or history. It's got nothing to do with anything. It's a display of ignorance. Considering that there are plenty of more streamlined offers, yours doesn't improve on any of them, just creates more issues.

 

Your nonsense 'differentiation' were addressed. You wish to remain ignorant - that's up to you. You've no idea what you're talking about. Zionists are not of one mettle, and do not share the same unified vision/goal/policy as Hamas does. You are misrepresenting views and positions, and doing so repeatedly.

 

What you write above is not an 'explanation' it's a host of nonsense statements that do not relate to facts and reality. I have raised plenty of issues with regard to your views and posts, you do not need to be spoon-fed them, they are quite obvious.

 

 

I'll only remark that I've gone over and over and over and over and over and over and over all this with you. Why do you keep objecting to the same things you've objected to before and I have addressed? I know you don't like or accept my explanations, but that's your problem, not mine. Quit this harassment and try to come up with some items we can discuss, not only those you feel you can lecture me on.

And I still didn't see any questions that you will later accuse me of not answering.

 

[WDSmart]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Read your previous post, which I was replying to. Them figure out the context. Tiresome troll.

If you're referring to my "in the first place" post, I only said there have been many, many attacks by both sides over the years (and decades and centuries). Oct 7 and the SUBSEQUENT bombing of Gaza are only the last two. 

[WDSmart]

20 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

It is not about punishment, it is about ensuring that the Palestinian terrorists never ever engage in another Oct 7th, Israel has a duty to its citizens to protect them from these barbaric incursions. Hamas has publicly announced that it will carry on murdering Israelis, if you want someone to hate, try the perpetrators and not the victims!

On Oct 7, Hamas were the perpetrators, and Israelis the victims. Ever since, with the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, the Israeli IDF has been the perpetrators and the Palestinians the victims. It just goes on and on and on. 😔

Edited February 3 by WDSmart

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I'll only remark that I've gone over and over and over and over and over and over and over all this with you. Why do you keep objecting to the same things you've objected to before and I have addressed? I know you don't like or accept my explanations, but that's your problem, not mine. Quit this harassment and try to come up with some items we can discuss, not only those you feel you can lecture me on.

And I still didn't see any questions that you will later accuse me of not answering.

 

 

You can post whatever nonsense you like, and I will keep pointing out it's nonsense. I do not feel you have addressed anything, that's just you saying you have. You have not explained anything, you claim you have. It's not 'harassment' to address you false comments, notions and statements. Other than in your mind, there is no requirement that I come up with items we could discuss. Given that you deny basic facts, or hold unto false ones, there's little to 'discuss' with you.

 

I have pointed out to several issues in your 'proposal'. You wish to ignore them? Up to you. Was not really expecting you'd address things in any coherent or reasonable manner.