2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You went there. So Israel is Nazi. DISGUSTING.

You're deeper down than I thought.

Advocating changing the government is VERY DIFFERENT than saying a nation doesn't deserve to exist.

It took a long time to get reunified but Germany still exists and it's a good thing that they do.

I hate the Z fascist Putin government but I would never say the nation of Russia doesn't deserve to exist.

I stated my position, Israel in its current form and leadership does not deserve to exist, it must change and share its land with those it evicted.

I draw a direct comparison between Israel as it is today and NAZI Germany.

There is one big difference which makes it worse in many regards. Most German people did not hate Jews. But most Israeli people hate the Palestinians in Gaza.

You can’t deny this, I have deep ties and many friends in Israel as I ran their companies overseas for many years. They view Palestinians as sub human and worse than dogs.

Edited May 11May 11 by JBChiangRai

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

I stated my position, Israel in its current form and leadership does not deserve to exist, it must change and share its land with those it evicted.

I draw a direct comparison between Israel as it is today and NAZI Germany.

There is one big difference which makes it worse in many regards. The German people mostly did not hate Jews. But most Israeli people hate the Palestinians in Gaza.

You can’t deny this, I have deep ties and many friends in Israel as I ran their companies overseas for many years. They view Palestinians as sub human and worse than dogs.

We have nothing further to say to each other. You're into Israel demonization on steroids and think there is only one side to the narrative. You ignore the actual history.

Disgusting hate speech and not worthy of more of my time.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You ignore the actual history.

You are the one doing that. The history is the entire reason there is conflict.

Give them their land back, you can start with the settlers in the West Bank and the innocents made homeless in Lebanon.

Give the Palestinians their land back and the conflict evaporates.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

You are the one doing that. The history is the entire reason there is conflict.

Give them their land back, you can start with the settlers in the West Bank and the innocents made homeless in Lebanon.

Give the Palestinians their land back and the conflict evaporates.

What land? What borders?

I could see a carefully negotiated return to 1967 borders, for example.

But anything instant unilateral would mean massacre of Jews, which I'm starting to think would be fine by you.

In any case you're clearly an EXTREMIST with a very poor understanding of the history and the conflict.

Extremists are not going to ever solve this.

The only real hope and I admit it is faint is for good leaders to emerge on both sides who have the political will to come to a reasonable negotiated two state solution.

Both sides will need to give up a lot as the Palestinian side clearly wants all of Israel and Israelis obviously want to keep the west bank settlements.

Edited May 11May 11 by Jingthing

To add about racist Jew hatred in Germany before Hitler.

Antisemitism in Germany before Hitler was marked by a long history of discrimination and violence against Jews, including expulsions, massacres during the Crusades, and scapegoating during events like the Black Death. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, antisemitic sentiments were further fueled by nationalist movements and social tensions, laying the groundwork for the rise of the Nazi Party.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What land? What borders?

I would prefer 1948.

To say Germany had antisemitism prior to the NAZI party is to overstate that antisemitism, I don’t believe it was any different to (say) in France or the UK.

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

I would prefer 1948.

To say Germany had antisemitism prior to the NAZI party is to overstate that antisemitism, I don’t believe it was any different to (say) in France or the UK.

Yeah look what France did to their Jews under Nazi oocupation.

Racist Jew hatred is deeply ingrained in Europe, that's for sure.

I think the UK was historically better than the continent.

1948 borders are impossible. You're an EXTREMIST.

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah look what France did to their Jews under Nazi oocupation.

Racist Jew hatred is deeply ingrained in Europe, that's for sure.

I think the UK was historically better than the continent.

1948 borders are impossible. You're an EXTREMIST.

1948 is what was agreed. Taking more by conflict is against international law.

Just like settlers in the West Bank and taking part of Lebanon making innocents homeless.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

1948 is what was agreed. Taking more by conflict is against international law.

Just like settlers in the West Bank and taking part of Lebanon making innocents homeless.

That's insane.

When the state of Israel was established the entire Arab world attacked Israel.

They lost and this was before U.S. help.

Sorry, the Arabs had their chance for 1948.

That is over.

Again, you're an extremist and you clearly don't care at all about Jews in Israel trying to keep from being massacred. Your rhetoric really disgusts me, It's hateful.

Also this is kind of stupid.

The Arabs don't want 1948 or 1967.

They want river to the sea, all of so called "Palestine" and even you know that.

Edited May 11May 11 by Jingthing

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's insane.

When the state of Israel was established the entire Arab world attacked Israel.

They lost and this was before U.S. help.

Sorry, the Arabs had their chance for 1948.

That is over.

Again, you're an extremist and you clearly don't care at all about Jews in Israel trying to keep from being massacred. Your rhetoric really disgusts me, It's hateful.

Also this is kind of stupid.

The Arabs don't want 1948 or 1967.

They want river to the sea, all of so called "Palestine" and even you know that.

Times and demands change.

Why do you always turn an argument into a personal attack? You may have noticed I don’t do that.

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

There are better definitions of antisemitism, there is JDA (Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism) supported by around 370 scholars on the Holocaust and Antisemitism. This originates around 2021.

There is also Nexus from American Scholars which attempts to define antisemitism whilst protecting free speech on criticism of Israel.

IMHO, antisemitism has nothing to do with Israel or the right of Israel to exist. It simply means (irrational) hatred of Jews.

Thank you, JB, for pointing me to Jerusalem! In fact, I'm printed it as a reminder to me. I am particularly satisfied that opposition to Zionism is not be be considered antisemitic.

I now have a giant stack of more books on antisemitism than I have time to read. I really want to understand why Jews in all their shades feel so oppressed by antisemitism. It may well be that Jews feel that ignoring antisemitism reflects possible Jews docility in the Holocaust. It may be part of the concept 'Never again'.

I find the IHRA definition of antisemitism to be far less inclusive. I was not able to locate the Nexus definition. Will you point me to a URL, please?

It is egregious to compare Israel to the Nazi state or to compare the Holocaust, in particular, to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from (as far as I can tell) 1909 by HaShoMer to the current genocide.

Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would want to live in such a hypermilitarised society where everybody has to join the army and COs get repeated sentences to military prisons. I should point out that many of these are only COs to wars on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran rather than COs who believe that Judaism is fundamentally a religion of peace. There are some of those, too.

I feel, Israel included, that unilateral disarmament, for instance, in the case of nukes, to be the right moral approach. Nobody's tried it yet.

I don't believe that all the shouted Death to Israel means its neighbours would invade and take over. I think other Arab states would step in and prevent that happening. This is why I support the Right of Return for Palestinians.

Now I'm going to step out onto the quicksand to say that many Jews and non-Jews believe that Jews acquiesced, were docile before the Nazis and did not fight back against the Holocaust.

None of us know what we would have done. Would it be better to be shot down on the street rather than go to the camps?

Edited May 11May 11 by unblocktheplanet
add

The address is nexusproject.us

In summary it says…

Antisemitism consists of anti-Jewish beliefs, attitudes, actions or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews (because they are Jews), and conditions that discriminate against Jews and significantly impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life.

55 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I stated my position, Israel in its current form and leadership does not deserve to exist, it must change and share its land with those it evicted.

I draw a direct comparison between Israel as it is today and NAZI Germany.

There is one big difference which makes it worse in many regards. Most German people did not hate Jews. But most Israeli people hate the Palestinians in Gaza.

You can’t deny this, I have deep ties and many friends in Israel as I ran their companies overseas for many years. They view Palestinians as sub human and worse than dogs.

Which is why the colonists feel the impunity to kill them with the tacit support of IDF and police.

47 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

To add about racist Jew hatred in Germany before Hitler.

Antisemitism in Germany before Hitler was marked by a long history of discrimination and violence against Jews, including expulsions, massacres during the Crusades, and scapegoating during events like the Black Death. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, antisemitic sentiments were further fueled by nationalist movements and social tensions, laying the groundwork for the rise of the Nazi Party.

I think it's a bit much to go back to the Crusades or the plague! I agree with your assessment of the late 19th and first third of the 20th century throughout Europe, including Eastern Europe and Russia.

Even so, I'm not sure Jews were treated worse pre-Holocaust that Israel is treating Arabs today.

Edited May 11May 11 by unblocktheplanet
add

Just now, unblocktheplanet said:

I think it's a bit much to go back to the Crusades or the plague! I agree with your assessment of the late 19th and first third of the 20th century throughout Europe, including Eastern Europe and Russia.

45 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah look what France did to their Jews under Nazi oocupation.

Racist Jew hatred is deeply ingrained in Europe, that's for sure.

I think the UK was historically better than the continent.

1948 borders are impossible. You're an EXTREMIST.

I hate to be left out! I'm not an extremist. I'm a lifelong RADICAL. I think radical change is necessary in almost every case and certainly in the case of Israel.

It's that fear that defeats Jews. You mention the fear that all Israel's neighbours will swoop in and massacre all the Jews there.

That's fear talking and it's nonsensical. Death to Israel is nothing more than a slogan.

1948, that was the agreement. Israel should fix that and force the colonists back to their homeland.

There needs to be some honesty here, face facts, the idea of giving the European Jews a homeland in the Middle East was a mistake, there was no meaningful consultation with the indigenous occupants of the land, no thoughts other than "we need to get rid of the Jewish problem" by the British and their allies.

The Zionists had done a lot of lobbying prior to the end of WW1 and WW2, on both sides of the Atlantic, this is where the problems started, they had been allowed to operate in the area, but choose to fight all and sundry to further their aims, when they thought they might not achieve their goals.

The British were between a rock and a hard place, after 6 years of total War, the last thing they needed was a fight between themselves and the Jews who were seen as a devastated people after the treatment netted out to them by the Nazi's and other people in Europe. Be honest here not all people of Europe helped the Jews during this time.

After the Allies set up the UN in June 1945 things got worse, there needed to be a force capable of keeping the peace, sadly that never happened, and we are where we are.

35 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I hate to be left out! I'm not an extremist. I'm a lifelong RADICAL. I think radical change is necessary in almost every case and certainly in the case of Israel.

It's that fear that defeats Jews. You mention the fear that all Israel's neighbours will swoop in and massacre all the Jews there.

That's fear talking and it's nonsensical. Death to Israel is nothing more than a slogan.

1948, that was the agreement. Israel should fix that and force the colonists back to their homeland.

Nothing about the Arab colonists.

You think this is whites against oppressed brown people.

Jews aren't whites

Jews weren't colonists of any country.

They were working on a liberation movement.

Edited May 11May 11 by Jingthing

43 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I hate to be left out! I'm not an extremist. I'm a lifelong RADICAL. I think radical change is necessary in almost every case and certainly in the case of Israel.

It's that fear that defeats Jews. You mention the fear that all Israel's neighbours will swoop in and massacre all the Jews there.

That's fear talking and it's nonsensical. Death to Israel is nothing more than a slogan.

Dont you know that all of Israel's neighbours have attempted to Invade Israel and remove Jews from the land ?

Its really not nonsensicial .

52 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I think it's a bit much to go back to the Crusades or the plague! I agree with your assessment of the late 19th and first third of the 20th century throughout Europe, including Eastern Europe and Russia.

Even so, I'm not sure Jews were treated worse pre-Holocaust that Israel is treating Arabs today.

I'm sure and if you're not your ignorance of the holocaust is scandalous for someone like you who claims to be an expert on Jew stuff. You lack basic education.

As far as the thousands of years of persecution being relevant of course it was. That's the reason that the political ideology of Zionism.was developed. Duh.

28 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

There needs to be some honesty here, face facts, the idea of giving the European Jews a homeland in the Middle East was a mistake […]

Where, then, were the surviving European Jews to go in 1945? It was pretty darn clear at that time that they weren’t welcome in Europe. Jews remaining in Poland were even being slaughtered in the immediate aftermath of the war, by ethnic Poles. There is absolutely no reason under the sun why Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs can’t fruitfully coexist in the same neighborhood.

 

It’s just unfortunate that, in 2026, terrorist Arab organizations in Gaza and southern Lebanon (and Yemen) are being fueled by a radical regime in Iran, while a hardline administration in Israel seeks to prolong the current conflict with the aim of expanding Israeli territory (by annexing the West Bank and who knows what in Gaza). This fatal confluence of bad actors won’t last forever, and one can hope that more progressive leadership will eventually take power in all quarters (also in Washington!) and move back to negotiation and peaceful settlement.

 

Maybe I’m naïve, but it happened in Ireland and elsewhere.

On 5/11/2026 at 12:52 AM, Jingthing said:

I haven't noticed you posting about other countries accused of wrongdoing.

If its only the one Jewish country that gets you excited, then that's suspicious

Like when Syria was a bloodbath Arab on Arab with Russian help, did you post even once about that?

I doubt it.

No Jews no news.

No law says that anyone must like anything, Jews included.

On 5/11/2026 at 7:20 PM, Cory1848 said:

Where, then, were the surviving European Jews to go in 1945? It was pretty darn clear at that time that they weren’t welcome in Europe. Jews remaining in Poland were even being slaughtered in the immediate aftermath of the war, by ethnic Poles. There is absolutely no reason under the sun why Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs can’t fruitfully coexist in the same neighborhood.

 

It’s just unfortunate that, in 2026, terrorist Arab organizations in Gaza and southern Lebanon (and Yemen) are being fueled by a radical regime in Iran, while a hardline administration in Israel seeks to prolong the current conflict with the aim of expanding Israeli territory (by annexing the West Bank and who knows what in Gaza). This fatal confluence of bad actors won’t last forever, and one can hope that more progressive leadership will eventually take power in all quarters (also in Washington!) and move back to negotiation and peaceful settlement.

 

Maybe I’m naïve, but it happened in Ireland and elsewhere.

If Jews defended their 1948 borders ONLY, there would not be this conflict today. Yes, maybe the neighbours invade and are repelled but Israel had no right to take that land as spoils of war. 1948 partition. Everybody would be used to it by now.

54 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

If Jews defended their 1948 borders ONLY, there would not be this conflict today. Yes, maybe the neighbours invade and are repelled but Israel had no right to take that land as spoils of war. 1948 partition. Everybody would be used to it by now.

Palestine crossed the 1948 border into Isreal when they invaded Israel to start this current war .

So, you claim is wrong .

How can you guys be so wrong about everything ?

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

If Jews defended their 1948 borders ONLY, there would not be this conflict today. Yes, maybe the neighbours invade and are repelled but Israel had no right to take that land as spoils of war. 1948 partition. Everybody would be used to it by now.

While I can understand the sentiment (and perhaps legality) behind your thinking, I think it’s flawed for a few reasons.

 

1. The Jewish state as laid out by the UN in 1947 was entirely indefensible. Looking at a map, it consisted of three separate parcels of land: a very thin strip along the coastline, some land around the Sea of Galilee, and the Negev Desert. Given that ALL of Israel’s neighbors objected not to an “enlarged” Israel, but to the very idea of any Jewish state at all, the Israeli government at the time I believe were compelled to absorb the land they had conquered, if for nothing else to ensure the security of the citizens for whom it was responsible.

 

(2. On the Palestinian refugees who had to leave these conquered lands: there were about 800,000, and they were accepted as refugees in several Arab states. Most, and their descendants, retain refugee status, unable to assimilate into their new Arab states because the governments of those states hold them as pawns, promising a “right of return” that will never happen. At the same time, after the creation of the Israeli state, about the same number of Jewish people felt compelled to leave Arab cities they had lived in for generations, from Casablanca in the west to Basra in the east; most ended up in Israel, which immediately accepted them and gave them Israeli citizenship -- thus limiting their trauma to a single generation, rather than extending that trauma indefinitely for three generations and counting.)

 

3. While the annexation of conquered territory is in violation of the UN charter, realistically, it seems to happen in a great many wars. After WWII, should the Russians and Poles have restored East Prussia, Silesia, and Pomerania to the Germans; and the French, Alsace-Lorraine? Today there is no quarrel over these territories, forcibly taken from Germany only three years prior to Israel’s forcible annexation of land in 1948. Nowadays, German tourism in fact is quite active in Kaliningrad, with tours of Immanuel Kant sites and German exchange programs at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (formerly the University of Königsberg, where the great philosopher was rector).

 

4. Nobody except anti-Israel extremists advocate for the 1947 borders. I think the issue remains vague with the UN, but Israel, with its enlarged borders, was admitted to the UN as a member, and nearly all UN member countries accept those borders. (Israeli settlements in and proposed annexation of the West Bank, of course, are an entirely different matter.)

3 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

While I can understand the sentiment (and perhaps legality) behind your thinking, I think it’s flawed for a few reasons.

 

1. The Jewish state as laid out by the UN in 1947 was entirely indefensible. Looking at a map, it consisted of three separate parcels of land: a very thin strip along the coastline, some land around the Sea of Galilee, and the Negev Desert. Given that ALL of Israel’s neighbors objected not to an “enlarged” Israel, but to the very idea of any Jewish state at all, the Israeli government at the time I believe were compelled to absorb the land they had conquered, if for nothing else to ensure the security of the citizens for whom it was responsible.

 

(2. On the Palestinian refugees who had to leave these conquered lands: there were about 800,000, and they were accepted as refugees in several Arab states. Most, and their descendants, retain refugee status, unable to assimilate into their new Arab states because the governments of those states hold them as pawns, promising a “right of return” that will never happen. At the same time, after the creation of the Israeli state, about the same number of Jewish people felt compelled to leave Arab cities they had lived in for generations, from Casablanca in the west to Basra in the east; most ended up in Israel, which immediately accepted them and gave them Israeli citizenship -- thus limiting their trauma to a single generation, rather than extending that trauma indefinitely for three generations and counting.)

 

3. While the annexation of conquered territory is in violation of the UN charter, realistically, it seems to happen in a great many wars. After WWII, should the Russians and Poles have restored East Prussia, Silesia, and Pomerania to the Germans; and the French, Alsace-Lorraine? Today there is no quarrel over these territories, forcibly taken from Germany only three years prior to Israel’s forcible annexation of land in 1948. Nowadays, German tourism in fact is quite active in Kaliningrad, with tours of Immanuel Kant sites and German exchange programs at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (formerly the University of Königsberg, where the great philosopher was rector).

 

4. Nobody except anti-Israel extremists advocate for the 1947 borders. I think the issue remains vague with the UN, but Israel, with its enlarged borders, was admitted to the UN as a member, and nearly all UN member countries accept those borders. (Israeli settlements in and proposed annexation of the West Bank, of course, are an entirely different matter.)

Thank you for this thorough explanation. And I hope I am not an extremist, radical, yes.

What you are saying is that we will have to wait 80 years before people accept the fact that Palesinians have no home? Gaza is decimated. The West Bank is overrun.

What happens to the Palesinians? Somaliland?

Yes, of course, Israel's duty is to defend its citizens but also, if only on a humanitarian and moral basis, to defend the Palestinians from harm from their citizens.

That's not how it's shaping up. Colonists, army and govt are acting with impunity.

I'd like to hear more of your views on what you think other Arab state stand to gain by holding Palestinian refugees as, basically, hostages? It is hard to imagine that they will ever return to their homeland, particularly in light of Israeli colonisation. Perhaps these 800k's grandchildren will eventually secure citizenship in these states.

UN members accept these borders maybe, but were they ever really asked? I know of no such resolution. And many states have recognised Palestine.

Unfortunately, it all comes back to the Zionist agenda, to have as few Arabs as possible.

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Thank you for this thorough explanation. And I hope I am not an extremist, radical, yes.

What you are saying is that we will have to wait 80 years before people accept the fact that Palesinians have no home? Gaza is decimated. The West Bank is overrun.

What happens to the Palesinians? Somaliland?

Yes, of course, Israel's duty is to defend its citizens but also, if only on a humanitarian and moral basis, to defend the Palestinians from harm from their citizens.

That's not how it's shaping up. Colonists, army and govt are acting with impunity.

I'd like to hear more of your views on what you think other Arab state stand to gain by holding Palestinian refugees as, basically, hostages? It is hard to imagine that they will ever return to their homeland, particularly in light of Israeli colonisation. Perhaps these 800k's grandchildren will eventually secure citizenship in these states.

UN members accept these borders maybe, but were they ever really asked? I know of no such resolution. And many states have recognised Palestine.

Unfortunately, it all comes back to the Zionist agenda, to have as few Arabs as possible.

Unfortunately, Israeli governments have for the most part been hardline (expanding settlements into the West Bank); and equally unfortunate, Iran has been hardline since 1979, unaccepting of a Jewish state and funding terrorist organizations in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen. Nothing good will happen until both sides soften -- the Netanyahu government has to go, and the Iranian leadership, whether eventually Islamist or secular, has to be more accommodating. This of course is easier said than done.

 

Any agreement would have to involve full recognition of independent Palestine (in the West Bank and Gaza, under moderate leadership and with security guarantees given by Israel), and the dissolution of Hamas and Hezbollah under joint Israeli and Iranian direction. Again, easier said than done. But this would seem to be an equitable “swap” to create a basis for lasting peace.

 

As for why Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) keep generations of Palestinians in refugee camps rather than granting them citizenship, some (e.g., Lebanon) have sectarian concerns (which are perhaps to some degree legitimate); but mostly, they provide Arab leaders with political leverage and prevent them from having to de facto recognize Israel. Emphasizing refugees’ “right of return,” however unrealistic, allows these leaders to maintain the myth that “Israel” is only a temporary structure. My primary care would be for the plight of the refugees themselves, now numbering several million, locked into second-class status in their respective countries of residence.

 

Yes, many states have recognized Palestine (as the West Bank and Gaza, acknowledging Israel’s post-1948 borders). And the rest of the world should immediately recognize Palestine as well, to pressure Israel into seeking accommodation with Iran (which would necessitate ousting Netanyahu, among other major adjustments in Israeli internal policy). (On Somaliland: I think they also deserve full recognition, given that they’ve maintained a relatively stable state for 35 years now, especially vis-à-vis the continuing chaos in the rest of Somalia. Oddly, the only country to recognize Somaliland so far has been Israel.)

 

During a recent march by Israeli nationalists through Jerusalem (“Death to the Arabs!” “May your villages burn!”), there were counterprotests by the grassroots group Standing Together, composed of both Jews and Arabs working together to advocate for peaceful cooperation. I don’t know much about Standing Together or how effective they are, but similar organizations run collectively by Catholics and Protestants (mostly women) in Northern Ireland had great effect in reducing violence there (two of the women organizers, one Catholic and one half-Protestant, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976).

 

So it’s possible. But too many people around the world, including in this forum, completely demonize one side or the other, making reconciliation that much more difficult.

2 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Unfortunately, Israeli governments have for the most part been hardline (expanding settlements into the West Bank); and equally unfortunate, Iran has been hardline since 1979, unaccepting of a Jewish state and funding terrorist organizations in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen. Nothing good will happen until both sides soften -- the Netanyahu government has to go, and the Iranian leadership, whether eventually Islamist or secular, has to be more accommodating. This of course is easier said than done.

 

Any agreement would have to involve full recognition of independent Palestine (in the West Bank and Gaza, under moderate leadership and with security guarantees given by Israel), and the dissolution of Hamas and Hezbollah under joint Israeli and Iranian direction. Again, easier said than done. But this would seem to be an equitable “swap” to create a basis for lasting peace.

 

As for why Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) keep generations of Palestinians in refugee camps rather than granting them citizenship, some (e.g., Lebanon) have sectarian concerns (which are perhaps to some degree legitimate); but mostly, they provide Arab leaders with political leverage and prevent them from having to de facto recognize Israel. Emphasizing refugees’ “right of return,” however unrealistic, allows these leaders to maintain the myth that “Israel” is only a temporary structure. My primary care would be for the plight of the refugees themselves, now numbering several million, locked into second-class status in their respective countries of residence.

 

Yes, many states have recognized Palestine (as the West Bank and Gaza, acknowledging Israel’s post-1948 borders). And the rest of the world should immediately recognize Palestine as well, to pressure Israel into seeking accommodation with Iran (which would necessitate ousting Netanyahu, among other major adjustments in Israeli internal policy). (On Somaliland: I think they also deserve full recognition, given that they’ve maintained a relatively stable state for 35 years now, especially vis-à-vis the continuing chaos in the rest of Somalia. Oddly, the only country to recognize Somaliland so far has been Israel.)

 

During a recent march by Israeli nationalists through Jerusalem (“Death to the Arabs!” “May your villages burn!”), there were counterprotests by the grassroots group Standing Together, composed of both Jews and Arabs working together to advocate for peaceful cooperation. I don’t know much about Standing Together or how effective they are, but similar organizations run collectively by Catholics and Protestants (mostly women) in Northern Ireland had great effect in reducing violence there (two of the women organizers, one Catholic and one half-Protestant, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976).

 

So it’s possible. But too many people around the world, including in this forum, completely demonize one side or the other, making reconciliation that much more difficult.

Thank you, Cory, very thoughtful and informative. I think you’re on the right track here.

All three leaderships—Israel, Palestine, Iran—have to dial it down to moderate for any kind of lasting peace. The trouble is ego. None of these states wants to start unilaterally. They don’t call it face in the West but they’re all afraid to lose it. And all three have grown inured to killing people.

Personally, I would like to see all those involved in this debâcle prosecuted by the ICC. It’s unfortunate they only get to try these war criminals when they’re about to die of natural causes.Perhaps that’s too vindictive; as long as they are emasculated of power and influence should be enough.

If Iran’s funding for the terrorist groups dries up, will Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis be able to continue their campaigns, even on a more modest scale?

The problem in the West Bank is the colonists. They seem overwhelmingly to adopt the Ben Gvir approach. IMO, they should be forced back to Israel but, of course, that’s unrealistic. So perhaps the West Bank will become a two-state solution in the end.

Yes, most of the Palestinians I see here have fled from Jordan or Syria.

Somaliland has been floated as a deportation camp, a new homeland for Palestinians. It looks pretty bleak. Such a plan may well be why Israel is the only country to recognise Somaliland.

Key, for sure, are coalition peace groups. I’m really active against conscription. The COs in Israel are refusing to fight in Gaza but I don’t see a lot of compassion for Palestinians.

Yeah, it really is all about reconciliation, Corry.

21 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Thank you, Cory, very thoughtful and informative. I think you’re on the right track here.

All three leaderships—Israel, Palestine, Iran—have to dial it down to moderate for any kind of lasting peace. The trouble is ego. None of these states wants to start unilaterally. They don’t call it face in the West but they’re all afraid to lose it. And all three have grown inured to killing people.

Personally, I would like to see all those involved in this debâcle prosecuted by the ICC. It’s unfortunate they only get to try these war criminals when they’re about to die of natural causes.Perhaps that’s too vindictive; as long as they are emasculated of power and influence should be enough.

If Iran’s funding for the terrorist groups dries up, will Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis be able to continue their campaigns, even on a more modest scale?

The problem in the West Bank is the colonists. They seem overwhelmingly to adopt the Ben Gvir approach. IMO, they should be forced back to Israel but, of course, that’s unrealistic. So perhaps the West Bank will become a two-state solution in the end.

Yes, most of the Palestinians I see here have fled from Jordan or Syria.

Somaliland has been floated as a deportation camp, a new homeland for Palestinians. It looks pretty bleak. Such a plan may well be why Israel is the only country to recognise Somaliland.

Key, for sure, are coalition peace groups. I’m really active against conscription. The COs in Israel are refusing to fight in Gaza but I don’t see a lot of compassion for Palestinians.

Yeah, it really is all about reconciliation, Corry.

On Iran’s proxies, if Iran is in good-faith negotiations with Israel and as part of that stops funding the proxies, and with pressure from both Israel and Iran, they might start to see that the game is up. Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon and could revert to normal national politics. The others are perhaps more complicated; Gaza is huge mess (I don’t know how much of Hamas is left), and the Houthis control most of Yemen including the national capital, and any ceasefire there would have to involve the Saudis as well.

 

While I normally have sympathy for displaced peoples, in the event of Palestinian independence, I wouldn’t feel too badly for the Israeli settlers (or “colonists,” as you rightly call them) -- given that they are mostly hardline nationalists and have instigated much violence against their Arab neighbors, and gotten away with it. I think the West Bank is currently about 80% Palestinian and 20% Israeli settlers; I suppose the Israelis could be welcome to stay as citizens of the new state, if they are willing to accept majority rule and an end to the apartheid system currently in place. I suspect most would choose to resettle in Israel.

 

I did not know that Somaliland had been mentioned as a possible relocation site for Gaza’s population; I know that some Israeli leaders had mentioned the DRC (Congo) as a possible site. These kinds of ideas are more than disgusting. I don’t know if those in Netanyahu’s coalition who have proposed them remember their history -- Adolf Eichmann and other Nazi leaders in 1940 seriously proposed relocating Europe’s Jewish population to Madagascar (I suppose considering the 4 million Malagasy people who already lived there merely part of the jungle scenery). The irony of the Somaliland/DRC proposals is astonishing, but I don’t think anything will come of them.

 

On compassion for Palestinians -- I would like to think that the majority of Israeli Jews indeed are compassionate and would like to see peaceful settlements all around, while Jewish racists, though in a minority, feel at liberty to express their hatefulness openly under the current administration (much the same as racists in the US feel at liberty to openly express their views, without embarrassment, in the current environment there). But I don’t know; I’ve never visited Israel and don’t know how deeply the anti-Arab sentiment runs. (I am good friends with a great many American Jews, and all are sickened by the Netanyahu government. But they are Americans, not Israelis.)

Perhaps the enormous majority of Israelis who are so gung-ho for Israel's warmongering are not racists. Perhaps they're brainwashed enough to see this as defence. Neither side seems to want to live in peace, they are so conditioned to war on their neighbours.

Seriously, did Hamas ever consider the ramifications and results their killings and kidnappings would cause? Did not really not foresee the unprecedented Israeli responce?

Maybe that was their intention. Proving themselves and having their neighbours slaughtered to garner world public opinion.

Who knows what madness goes through the minds of these people, both Israelis & Arabs.