Israel is at War - General discussion (pt3)

[Bkk Brian]

No wonder UK streets have become "no-go zone for Jews" amid pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

 

"106 years after he wrote a letter that the pro-Hamas mob don't like, one of their mobsters vandalized a painting of Lord Balfour at the University of Cambridge."

 

 

UK pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activist spray-paints, slashes historic portrait of Balfour

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-pro-palestinian-activists-slash-spray-paint-historic-portrait-of-balfour/

[Nick Carter icp]

In the preceding thread, there was a poster (I forget his name, but he had a Rabbit friend) personally offered all the Palestinians in Gaza an opportunity to vacate to Scotland just after Oct 7 th .

   Humza Yousaf the Scottish first minister donated 250 000 Pounds of Scottish tax payers money to a U.N agency in Gaza on the day he met with UNRWA in Edinburgh , on the very next day Humza Yousafs ......................actually, you may as well read the story here 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/humza-yousaf-scottish-first-minister-denies-conflict-of-interest-over-250k-gaza-donation-13090590

 

 

 

 

[WDSmart]

The deadline for making a deal before Ramadan has passed. Here's what needs to be done as soon as possible.

• Get representatives from the two sides to meet under the supervision and influence of the UN and their allies;
• Forge out an agreement, under duress from their allies if need be, to do the following:
  • Permanent ceasefire enforced by a third-party (UN?) peacekeeping force;
  • Exchange of all hostages and prisoners;
  • Humanitarian and rebuilding assistance for Gaza;
  • Continuing negotiations on how to establish a two-state solution.

The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above.

 

[Nick Carter icp]

55 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The deadline for making a deal before Ramadan has passed. Here's what needs to be done as soon as possible.

• Get representatives from the two sides to meet under the supervision and influence of the UN and their allies;
• Forge out an agreement, under duress from their allies if need be, to do the following:
  • Permanent ceasefire enforced by a third-party (UN?) peacekeeping force;
  • Exchange of all hostages and prisoners;
  • Humanitarian and rebuilding assistance for Gaza;
  • Continuing negotiations on how to establish a two-state solution.

The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above.

 

 

   I have been reading general Israel forums , forums about general Israel life by regular Israelis and the topic did come up and none of the posters would vote for an Israeli Political party that would agree to a two state solution .

   Posters stated that prior to October 7 th , they were willing to proceed with a 2SS , but since Oct 7 th , none of them would agree to a 2SS , stating security concerns and untrusting Palestinians to behave themselves .

   Seems like since Oct 7 th  , the Israeli public will not agree to a 2 SS and would not vote for a Israeli political party that would proceed with one .

   So, that idea is off the cards 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have been reading general Israel forums , forums about general Israel life by regular Israelis and the topic did come up and none of the posters would vote for an Israeli Political party that would agree to a two state solution .

   Posters stated that prior to October 7 th , they were willing to proceed with a 2SS , but since Oct 7 th , none of them would agree to a 2SS , stating security concerns and untrusting Palestinians to behave themselves .

   Seems like since Oct 7 th  , the Israeli public will not agree to a 2 SS and would not vote for a Israeli political party that would proceed with one .

   So, that idea is off the cards 

 

Was that the Zionism Today website?

 

W admits that Israel is opposed to a 2 state solution and therefore not serious about ending the conflict. This is why he used the word "enforced".

 

Israel may win the battle but the war will rage on without a 2 state solution. The big issue for Israelis is settlements and a religious belief that Israel rightfully owns the entire region. Military force begat Israel and military force will begat Palestine. There is no alternative dues to the zealotry of zion.

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have been reading general Israel forums , forums about general Israel life by regular Israelis and the topic did come up and none of the posters would vote for an Israeli Political party that would agree to a two state solution .

   Posters stated that prior to October 7 th , they were willing to proceed with a 2SS , but since Oct 7 th , none of them would agree to a 2SS , stating security concerns and untrusting Palestinians to behave themselves .

   Seems like since Oct 7 th  , the Israeli public will not agree to a 2 SS and would not vote for a Israeli political party that would proceed with one .

   So, that idea is off the cards 

I believe what you say above and agree that Oct 7 has altered the perspective of Israelis on this conflict a lot. But it has also brought global attention to what has been happening: the slow but unrelenting encroachment of Palestinian land by the government-backed Israeli settlers. I do believe that now, most Israelis would not support a two-state solution, but I also believe a large number of Palestinians would not support that either. They both want total victory - a one-state solution that puts them in complete control of all of the land in question. That one-state solution is, for me, "off the cards."

That is why I suggested in my previous post that "The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above," which includes a two-state solution.

[Nick Carter icp]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I believe what you say above and agree that Oct 7 has altered the perspective of Israelis on this conflict a lot. But it has also brought global attention to what has been happening: the slow but unrelenting encroachment of Palestinian land by the government-backed Israeli settlers. I do believe that now, most Israelis would not support a two-state solution, but I also believe a large number of Palestinians would not support that either. They both want total victory - a one-state solution that puts them in complete control of all of the land in question. That one-state solution is, for me, "off the cards."

That is why I suggested in my previous post that "The UN and all the allies of both sides need to put as much social and economic pressure on them as possible to force them to comply with all of the above," which includes a two-state solution.

 

   You can keep saying that as many times as you like, but it will not make it to be true .

There are some Israeli extremist who want all the land , but they are in a small minority and its the Palestinians who want all the land .

   This is the last time that I will tell you this , as we seem to have this exchange frequently .

In future I will not bother replying to your point , which I am sure that you will make again 

[quake]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

UK pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activist spray-paints, slashes historic portrait of Balfour

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-pro-palestinian-activists-slash-spray-paint-historic-portrait-of-balfour/

 

I hope that person gets jail time for that.

When caught.

 

 

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   You can keep saying that as many times as you like, but it will not make it to be true .

There are some Israeli extremist who want all the land , but they are in a small minority and its the Palestinians who want all the land .

   This is the last time that I will tell you this , as we seem to have this exchange frequently .

In future I will not bother replying to your point , which I am sure that you will make again 

I understand why you will not keep replying to this point but I have never thought we totally disagree.

My position has been and still is that the right-wing, nationalistic, fascist factions of both sides (Hamas/Zionists) are unfortunately in control right now. They will only consider a one-state solution. I do believe that many, maybe even most, of the rest of the citizens on both sides would accept a two-state solution. I certainly hope that is so, and I also encourage all who are involved in the actual negotiations to believe that, too, and to work towards that goal.
 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I understand why you will not keep replying to this point but I have never thought we totally disagree.

My position has been and still is that the right-wing, nationalistic, fascist factions of both sides (Hamas/Zionists) are unfortunately in control right now. They will only consider a one-state solution. I do believe that many, maybe even most, of the rest of the citizens on both sides would accept a two-state solution. I certainly hope that is so, and I also encourage all who are involved in the actual negotiations to believe that, too, and to work towards that goal.
 

 

   The only reason why Israel doesn't want a full Palestinian state is because a Palestine will attack Israel .

   Israel wants some control over the borders to stop Palestine building up an army . Iran would arm Palestine to the teeth and Israel's survival would be in jeopardy .

   If the Palestinians would have been willing to live together peacefully , they would have had their own Country by now

[WDSmart]

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The only reason why Israel doesn't want a full Palestinian state is because a Palestine will attack Israel .

   Israel wants some control over the borders to stop Palestine building up an army . Iran would arm Palestine to the teeth and Israel's survival would be in jeopardy .

   If the Palestinians would have been willing to live together peacefully , they would have had their own Country by now

I agree with you, but that's why I suggest installing a UN or other third-party peacekeeping force to enforce the agreements. This force may have to be in place for years or even be considered "permanent."

 

And again, to try to show you how this is viewed from the other side, I believe Palestinians are wary of a full Israeli state because they see how Israel has slowly but steadily invaded their land and claimed it as their own. They are preparing to do that again in the West Bank right now.

So, both sides have good reasons not to trust each other and fear how a two-state solution would work. But, IMO, that is the only solution. The one-state solution will, again, IMO, cause a much wider spread of this conflict no matter which side is the "one side."

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have been reading general Israel forums , forums about general Israel life by regular Israelis and the topic did come up and none of the posters would vote for an Israeli Political party that would agree to a two state solution .

   Posters stated that prior to October 7 th , they were willing to proceed with a 2SS , but since Oct 7 th , none of them would agree to a 2SS , stating security concerns and untrusting Palestinians to behave themselves .

   Seems like since Oct 7 th  , the Israeli public will not agree to a 2 SS and would not vote for a Israeli political party that would proceed with one .

   So, that idea is off the cards 

 

  Read here :

 

 

 

[WDSmart]

8 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Read here :

 

 

 

I only read a few of these, but as I said, I agree that Oct 7 must have certainly changed a lot of minds in Israel about a two-state solution. I just hope that does not represent the majority and will soften over time. 

But, if it doesn't, I assume the Israelis would only support a one-state solution as it seems you do now. Is that correct?

Would you and they support a one-state solution that creates the state of Palestine with the Palestinians in control and reducing the status of Jews to that of second- or third-class citizens? Would they then put up with the Palestinians encroaching on their neighborhoods, removing the homeowners, and building homes of their own? I don't think so.

So, really, you shouldn't say you or Israelis support a one-state solution. You should say you and Israelis only support an Israeli-state solution. 

I, the UN, and I hope a majority of the citizens of both states involved do now, or soon will, support a two-state solution.

[Neeranam]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with you, but that's why I suggest installing a UN or other third-party peacekeeping force to enforce the agreements. This force may have to be in place for years or even be considered "permanent."

 

And again, to try to show you how this is viewed from the other side, I believe Palestinians are wary of a full Israeli state because they see how Israel has slowly but steadily invaded their land and claimed it as their own. They are preparing to do that again in the West Bank right now.

So, both sides have good reasons not to trust each other and fear how a two-state solution would work. But, IMO, that is the only solution. The one-state solution will, again, IMO, cause a much wider spread of this conflict no matter which side is the "one side."

Comical how that poster blames Palestinians for not wanting peace -  totally biased! 

Palestinians have engaged in numerous peace initiatives, negotiations, and agreements, demonstrating their unwavering commitment to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. From the Oslo Accords in the 1990s to the Camp David Summit in 2000 and subsequent rounds of negotiations, Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to engage in diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a just and sustainable peace.

Despite the earnest efforts of Palestinians to pursue peace, their aspirations have often been met with disappointment and frustration as Israel has, on numerous occasions, failed to uphold its end of the bargain. From the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories to the construction of the separation barrier, Israel's actions have consistently undermined the prospects for peace and perpetuated the cycle of conflict and suffering.

Also, Israel's unilateral actions, such as the annexation of East Jerusalem and the imposition of economic blockades and restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, have further exacerbated tensions and eroded trust between the two sides. These actions not only violate international law but also undermine the fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights that are essential for any genuine and lasting peace.

[Wobblybob]

23 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Comical how that poster blames Palestinians for not wanting peace -  totally biased! 

Palestinians have engaged in numerous peace initiatives, negotiations, and agreements, demonstrating their unwavering commitment to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. From the Oslo Accords in the 1990s to the Camp David Summit in 2000 and subsequent rounds of negotiations, Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to engage in diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a just and sustainable peace.

Despite the earnest efforts of Palestinians to pursue peace, their aspirations have often been met with disappointment and frustration as Israel has, on numerous occasions, failed to uphold its end of the bargain. From the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories to the construction of the separation barrier, Israel's actions have consistently undermined the prospects for peace and perpetuated the cycle of conflict and suffering.

Also, Israel's unilateral actions, such as the annexation of East Jerusalem and the imposition of economic blockades and restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, have further exacerbated tensions and eroded trust between the two sides. These actions not only violate international law but also undermine the fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights that are essential for any genuine and lasting peace.

Comical how that poster blames Palestinians for not wanting peace -  totally biased! 

 

Committing heinous barbaric acts in Israel is hardly a recipe for peace, forgot about the hostages have we, Israel hasn't, nor will they!

[WDSmart]

17 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Comical how that poster blames Palestinians for not wanting peace -  totally biased! 

 

Committing heinous barbaric acts in Israel is hardly a recipe for peace, forgot about the hostages have we, Israel hasn't, nor will they!

Both sides have committed atrocities and war crimes. 

If Israel hasn't forgotten about the hostages, why aren't they negotiating more earnestly for their return? All they have to do for that is to agree to a ceasefire. 

[Wobblybob]

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Both sides have committed atrocities and war crimes. 

If Israel hasn't forgotten about the hostages, why aren't they negotiating more earnestly for their return? All they have to do for that is to agree to a ceasefire. 

One side started this war and it wasn't Israel, start blaming the cause for a change. Hamas has no intention of releasing the hostages and you know it! 

All Hamas has to do is release the hostages!

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Wobblybob said:

One side started this war and it wasn't Israel, start blaming the cause for a change. Hamas has no intention of releasing the hostages and you know it! 

All Hamas has to do is release the hostages!

That's the core of our disagreement, the cause for the start of this war. The "cause" goes way back before Oct 7. That is just the second-most recent attack in this at least 80-year-old conflict.

I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire. The longer the ceasefire, the more hostages I believe Hamas would be willing to release. A PERMANENT ceasefire (guaranteed by the UN) would be necessary for the release of ALL the hostages - again, IMO.

The hostages are Hamas' only bargaining chip. If Hamas released the hostages, they would have no leverage on Israel, and Israel could then just continue to freely bombard and invade Gaza and even the West Bank. The return of the hostages has to have some reciprocal concessions by Israel.

[Wobblybob]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

That's the core of our disagreement, the cause for the start of this war. The "cause" goes way back before Oct 7. That is just the second-most recent attack in this at least 80-year-old conflict.

I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire. The longer the ceasefire, the more hostages I believe Hamas would be willing to release. A PERMANENT ceasefire (guaranteed by the UN) would be necessary for the release of ALL the hostages - again, IMO.

The hostages are Hamas' only bargaining chip. If Hamas released the hostages, they would have no leverage on Israel, and Israel could then just continue to freely bombard and invade Gaza and even the West Bank. The return of the hostages has to have some reciprocal concessions by Israel.

Your 'get out of jail card for free' has been refused, have you got any other method to excuse these terrorists on you. No matter how much you try and make heroes of these barbaric maniacs you will never succeed and

plucking random dates from history will not excuse the acts committed on the real day this war started.

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Your 'get out of jail card for free' has been refused, have you got any other method to excuse these terrorists on you. No matter how much you try and make heroes of these barbaric maniacs you will never succeed and

plucking random dates from history will not excuse the acts committed on the real day this war started.

I have NEVER depicted Hamas as "heroes," especially after their barbaric terror attack on 07 Oct. Their actions then were despicable, just as are the Israeli's continuing bombing and invasion plans of Gaza. And, atrocities like this on both sides have been going on for at least 80 years. 

The dates I pick are not random. It was in 1947, 85 years ago, when the UN divided the land then called Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. This is when, in the modern era, you could refer to as the "day the war started." 

 

Below, I've inserted a link to details about this UN resolution. I'd advise you to read it, and if you don't want to do that, at least look at the map of Palestine's division. You can then compare that to the current map of Israel, of which Gaza and portions of the West Bank are the only remaining Palestinian areas. That will show you geographically what losses the Palestinians have suffered over the years because of the continuing, forceful Israeli occupation of their territories.

Oct 7 is just a continuation of that conflict.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

 

[Nick Carter icp]

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with you, but that's why I suggest installing a UN or other third-party peacekeeping force to enforce the agreements. This force may have to be in place for years or even be considered "permanent."

 

 

   Israel would not agree to a foreign army on its land , neither would Hamas .

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Israel would not agree to a foreign army on its land , neither would Hamas .

Yes, they would not like that, but that's what negotiations are all about. The UN and their allies have influence on them, and they should use it to include a peacekeeping force as part of any ceasefire deal, especially one that includes a two-state solution. I would demand this because I don't trust either one of them to keep their promises in any deal.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

That's the core of our disagreement, the cause for the start of this war. The "cause" goes way back before Oct 7. That is just the second-most recent attack in this at least 80-year-old conflict.

I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire. The longer the ceasefire, the more hostages I believe Hamas would be willing to release. A PERMANENT ceasefire (guaranteed by the UN) would be necessary for the release of ALL the hostages - again, IMO.

The hostages are Hamas' only bargaining chip. If Hamas released the hostages, they would have no leverage on Israel, and Israel could then just continue to freely bombard and invade Gaza and even the West Bank. The return of the hostages has to have some reciprocal concessions by Israel.

I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire.

 

The current agreement already includes a ceasefire, Hamas still will not agree, keep up

[Nick Carter icp]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, they would not like that, but that's what negotiations are all about. The UN and their allies have influence on them, and they should use it to include a peacekeeping force as part of any ceasefire deal, especially one that includes a two-state solution. I would demand this because I don't trust either one of them to keep their promises in any deal.

 

   Israel would point blank refuse your Army to invade Israeli land .

Your U.N Army would have to fight the I.D.F to gain access to Israeli land .

The USA and UK and Germany and a whole host of other Countries would side with Israel

So it would be Israel and NATO in a World War against Palestinian supporting Countries 

 

 

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I believe Hamas will release at least some of the hostages under the right agreement, and that agreement, IMO, would have to include a ceasefire.

 

The current agreement already includes a ceasefire, Hamas still will not agree, keep up

The current agreement was not an agreement. It was a proposal, or really, an ultimatum, authored by Israel. It included more than an exchange of hostages and prisoners and a six-week ceasefire. It included some kind of demand for a list of hostages (all?) and their status - or something like that. I'm not sure about this. Anyway, that demand seems to have been the one that Hamas rejected for some reason. I don't know why, but in an earlier post, I proposed three possible reasons.

Anyway, it was not an agreement and was rejected by Hamas. The two sides and their allies need to continue talks and refine the proposal so it is acceptable to both sides.

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Israel would point blank refuse your Army to invade Israeli land .

Your U.N Army would have to fight the I.D.F to gain access to Israeli land .

The USA and UK and Germany and a whole host of other Countries would side with Israel

So it would be Israel and NATO in a World War against Palestinian supporting Countries 

 

 

Yes, that's what I've been saying is the possible result of these two sides not being able to reach a two-state solution. There needs to be more negotiations, and those negotiations need to be led by both sides' allies, who need to put a lot of social, political, and economic pressure on both sides to help them end these awful conflicts.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The current agreement was not an agreement. It was a proposal, or really, an ultimatum, authored by Israel. It included more than an exchange of hostages and prisoners and a six-week ceasefire. It included some kind of demand for a list of hostages (all?) and their status - or something like that. I'm not sure about this. Anyway, that demand seems to have been the one that Hamas rejected for some reason. I don't know why, but in an earlier post, I proposed three possible reasons.

Anyway, it was not an agreement and was rejected by Hamas. The two sides and their allies need to continue talks and refine the proposal so it is acceptable to both sides.

Nonsense. It been weeks of delicate negotiations between a few mediators including the US, Qatar. Egypt Hamas and Isael. 

 

The Hamas rat from the Gazan tunnels came out of his lair and put a stop to the deal, disagreeing with the other Hamas leaders. He prefers to carry on waging war

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nonsense. It been weeks of delicate negotiations between a few mediators including the US, Qatar. Egypt Hamas and Isael. 

 

The Hamas rat from the Gazan tunnels came out of his lair and put a stop to the deal, disagreeing with the other Hamas leaders. He prefers to carry on waging war

Okay, I've posted my proposal of how to end this conflict probably 50 times. Now, I'd like to see a proposal of how to end all this from each of you three, @Bkk Brian, @Wobblybob, and @Nick Carter icp. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, WDSmart said:

Okay, I've posted my proposal of how to end this conflict probably 50 times. Now, I'd like to see a proposal of how to end all this from each of you three, @Bkk Brian, @Wobblybob, and @Nick Carter icp. 

 

You're going to get an answer similar to "Hamas should surrender unconditionally and give up all the hostages and everything else is up to the Israelis". Like, ultra simples and no nuance or sense of reality at all.

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, that's what I've been saying is the possible result of these two sides not being able to reach a two-state solution. There needs to be more negotiations, and those negotiations need to be led by both sides' allies, who need to put a lot of social, political, and economic pressure on both sides to help them end these awful conflicts.

 

   Hamas attacked Israel and committed atrocities  and Hamas must face justice for those actions .

All Those people holding hostages need to face justice for their actions , they all need to be arrested and face their day in an Israeli Court .

   Releasing their hostages will not make them immune from  prosecution