Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression. — Tzeentch

That is not really true as I see it. The radicalism was there from the beginning.. Where is the starting point? In 1967 when Israel gained the West Bank and Gaza and tried to give it back for a lasting peace and were rebuffed by the "3 no's"? Or the 90s-2000s era suicide bombings? Rather, the radicalism was always there, and Israel moved rightward politically as they saw that the negotiating partner couldn't compromise to save their people's lives (literally).

Also, the two sides have already put the moral arguments aside. As I said, and I'll say it again now:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power... — schopenauer1

And its really more like this:

.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

Yes, I agree, but it’s not happening any time soon. Unless it’s imposed from outside, that is.

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from.

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security.


Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what?

Once again: understand what an analogy is. Everybody understands beating a dog just makes it aggressive; this is no different than people. Why abused kids often become abusers, why dangerous neighbourhoods raise dangerous people.

And you have it reversed. Their actions result in who's better or worse. It's because Israel had no rights to the occupied territory, so armed resistance is just. It's Israel having collectively punished Gazans for decades. It's a matter of applying legal and moral principles as a result of which Israel is much worse than Hamas. Any tragedy visited in Israeli citizens is by their own making, Jews sacrificed on the Zionist altar.

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from. — Tzeentch

You stated:

it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression. — Tzeentch

So clearly YOU do. I was responding to YOUR comment on precisely that.

Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what? — Tzeentch

I am not sure what you are trying to say, so I can't answer unless you clarify.

If you mean, why do I not support terrorism, I think it goes without saying that Hamas, and people who don't mind their methods should not be rewarded. And so, as I stated, Israel not rewarding it, will simply become part of the system of co-option (to responding with power to over power their power) because this seems the only language of the political leadership of Palestinians in Gaza.

Well, I disagree, obviously.

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line argues.

But ultimately where it comes from doesn't matter. The fact is that it's there, and somehow, with that as a given, you will have to find a solution for Israel's fundamental security problem, which is what I'm asking you about.

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept.

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line ↪Benkei argues. — Tzeentch

Ok, so you DO care about where it comes from and this is false:

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from. — Tzeentch

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept. — Tzeentch

As I stated here:

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn. — schopenhauer1

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn. — schopenhauer1

Right.

Hamas has to stop its resistance, and then the US has to impose an ultimatum to force Israel to adopt the two-state solutoin?

First, Hamas isn't going to stop its resistance until Israel shows willingness. Until then, resistance is the only leverage Hamas has.

Second, the US can't impose anything on Israel, let alone a decision so large as the two-state solution. Even if the US managed it politically, Israel would simply refuse to carry it out, just as Israel refused to carry out the long list of UNSC resolutions.

Third, Israel made a two-state solution utterly impossible through its settlement policy, probably intentionally so.


Bottomline, this isn't dealing with reality. This is a blueprint for never solving the conflict, which is exactly what Israel has foolishly done for the past 60-or-so years.

How long can Israel continue to ignore reality? Ten, twenty years maybe? Some time in the near future Israel will no longer be the dominant force in the Middle-East, and conditions will be imposed upon Israel which it can only hope are a little more merciful than its own methods.

First, Hamas isn't going to stop its resistance — Tzeentch

Resistance to its own policies which had made Israel react to its terrorism after firing rockets? Funny how that works.

Until then, resistance is the only leverage Hamas has. — Tzeentch

I don’t want to play a sport with you, if raping, cutting heads off people and ransoming it back to relatives, praising children for butchering x nimber of Jews and burning people is resistance, I’ll pass on your idea of competition.

I’ll keep saying it cause it’s just my stance:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

Second, the US can't impose anything on Israel, let alone a decision so large as the two-state solution. Even if the US managed it politically, Israel would simply refuse to carry it out, just as Israel refused to carry out the long list of UNSC resolutions. — Tzeentch

Honestly, the UN can f_ck itself.. It has countries voting in there with horrible human rights records. And it's Europe's whining ground because they can't do anything unilaterally. The UN is irrelevant and is used as whatever X person's cudgel is against the US/Israel.

However, the US does have huge sway over Israel if it really wanted to. There is a lot that could happen. It just chooses not to at the moment as it doesn't want to pull that just yet. Also, I am showing you what I want, not necessarily what will happen. I'd want Hamas destroyed, the region de-radicalized over time, the PA reformed as well, and a peace where two people's can live side-by-side without revenge or violence being the only language.. otherwise Mad Max.

Bottomline, this isn't dealing with reality. This is a blueprint for never solving the conflict, which is exactly what Israel has foolishly done for the past 60-or-so years. — Tzeentch

You will just continually complain about everything. You are not living in reality because as I told your partner, Benkei:

As it's been pointed out over and over, Israel's move to the right has been due to repeated history of Palestinians or their Arab neighbors in the form of States, trying to wipe Israel out, or (in the very beginning) not let them even become a state, so yeah. Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

The real issue is you don't mind the terrorism as you think it is justified. — schopenhauer1

I don’t want to play a sport with you, if raping, cutting heads off people and ransoming it back to relatives, praising children for butchering x nimber of Jews and burning people is resistance, I’ll pass on your idea of competition. — schopenhauer1

Of course that's resistance. It's hardly anything new in terms of what resistance movements have gotten up to historically.

You can argue for a moral high ground, but it won't make any difference. The reality is that Hamas and the Palestinian problem exists, and that it is not going away through any of Israel's current actions.

The UN is irrelevant and is used as whatever X person's cudgel is against the US/Israel. — schopenhauer1

Even if you truly believe that, UN votings clearly show opinion on Israel is shifting, and that it and the US are increasingly more isolated. That is not irrelevant. That is the writing on the wall.

Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position? — schopenhauer1

Nothing Israel is doing and has been doing is changing its strategic position. In fact, it's actually worsening its position in the region significantly.

Israel should hedge its bets while the West is still relatively in control.

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point.

Of course that's resistance. It's hardly anything new in terms of what resistance movements have gotten up to historically. — Tzeentch

Ok, so back to nihilism. There is nothing then to be said about Israel's campaign as it is power vs. power and Mad Max Superdome. So fuck it.

Even if you truly believe that, UN votings clearly show opinion on Israel is shifting, and that it and the US are increasingly more isolated. That is not irrelevant. That is the writing on the wall. — Tzeentch

Not really. The "UN" is nothing. It's US, Britain (and Anglo-sphere), NATO, Russia, China. The rest don't mean much really except in relation to them. NATO also is pretty weak as they cannot even provide enough money to defend Ukraine against Russia, but we don't have to touch upon that. Certainly I don't see Netherlands (or individual European countries) taking up arms with Palestinians, their ole buddies any time soon. If they do, maybe you can have a point. The Middle Eastern countries that want stability just want this to end. The one's that don't never want this to end, so doesn't matter.

Nothing Israel is doing and has been doing is changing its strategic position. In fact, it's actually worsening its position in the region significantly. — Tzeentch

Again, Hamas et al. wants Mad Max. Israel is now part of it Mad Max Superdome. Hamas wanted some apocalyptic shit, and it's getting it.

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point. — Tzeentch

Then Mad Max was always there and now it's coming to the surface. Either you want peace or you don't.

I don't think its a reasonable argument to blame anyone but the actor for their actions, whether it's a state or not. And that goes for both sides (in relation to the two of you trying to vie for each).

When I point out the realities of a situation, that doesn't mean nihilism, that means realism.

You can believe Hamas should not do what it does, but it will. We have thousands of years of history that is full with situations like these, and they all transpire in the same way.

The problem for Israel is that the majority of the world (as evidenced by not-so irrelevant UNGA resolutions) is no longer on its side, and that Israel - not Hamas - stands to lose most.

If Israel wants to use Hamas' behavior to excuse its own brutality it can, but it is missing the forest for the trees. It will end up alienating the rest of the region, perhaps even the rest of the world, and allow an endless breeding ground for extremism.

I'll ask again, what happens when the US retreats to its island, and another regional power takes over the dominant role in the Middle-East? You think they will be impressed by a meek "tu quoque" when Israel will be finally held to account for its decades-long oppression?

That's an unjustified appeal to moral equivalence that ignores context. These actors are not operating in a vacuum.

no it’s not.

Every actor is responsible for their own acts.

That's not how criminal law works though. So I see no reason it would here. Unless you mean "reaponsible" as something else as layman's version of "guilty". In which case you should explain what you mean.

Edit; how I understand it now: if I kill someone in self-defence, then I'm not "responsible" for his death but my attacker was.

Oh, for Hamas? I have no doubt, the numbers of their own people they don't mind being used as fodder is hundreds of thousands or more. — schopenhauer1

For Gazans. Palestinians know there's no coming back, if they "voluntarily" move, or are moved outside.

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security. — Tzeentch

And fundamentally creates and unsolvable problem for Zionism, because the idea of the Jewish homeland doesn't take into consideration Palestinians.

Hamas wanted some apocalyptic shit, and it's getting it. — schopenhauer1

Hamas wanted that the Palestinian question and their cause isn't forgotten and doesn't affect the overall situation in the Middle East. They had the warplan for quite some time, but likely the potential Israeli-Saudi deal launched this. Hamas leaders referred to this in their statements on October 7th, even if not mentioning Saudi-Arabia, but referring to "some Arab states".

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point. — Tzeentch

This might be a possibility, actually. If we extrapolate how things have been going, perhaps in the end the US really needs airbases in Israel and Cyprus and that's it.

Iraq wants a "quick and orderly" withdrawal of US forces out of Iraq, of the 2500 that are still there. Now those US forces are often under attack from Shiite armed groups in Iraq.

(ABC, 21st Jan 2024) In the latest escalation against U.S. forces in the Middle East, Iranian-backed militias launched a barrage of ballistic missiles and rockets at Al-Assad airbase in western Iraq on Saturday that left several U.S. personnel being evaluated for traumatic brain injuries, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

Most of the incoming missiles and rockets were intercepted by the air defense systems at the base, which is used by both the Iraq and U.S. militaries, but some impacted the base, officials said.

"At approximately 6:30 p.m. (Baghdad time) on January 20, multiple ballistic missiles and rockets were launched by Iranian-backed militants in Western Iraq targeting al-Assad Airbase," CENTCOM said in a statement.

"Most of the missiles were intercepted by the base’s air defense systems while others impacted on the base. Damage assessments are ongoing," it added. "A number of U.S. personnel are undergoing evaluation for traumatic brain injuries. At least one Iraqi service member was wounded."

Actually it's quite good luck that just two Navy Seals have died during the current fighting. A lot worse could have already happened, which would have forced the US to engage even more. Yet the fact is that the US Middle East policy is a train wreck. Likely sooner or later US is forced out of Iraq, perhaps as with low media coverage like France left the Sahel. If nobody makes a big issue about it in the media, perhaps people won't notice.

Yet the fact is that the US Middle East policy is a train wreck. Likely sooner or later US is forced out of Iraq, perhaps as with low media coverage like France left the Sahel. If nobody makes a big issue about it in the media, perhaps people won't notice. — ssu

Yep, and unlike the US, Israel cannot retreat across an ocean and pretend nothing ever happened. It will be stuck in the middle of said trainwreck.

I think people grossly underestimate how dire this situation can become.

Yep, and unlike the US, Israel cannot retreat across an ocean and pretend nothing ever happened. It will be stuck in the middle of said trainwreck.

I think people grossly underestimate how dire this situation can become. — Tzeentch

First peace with Egypt, then with Jordan and then Trumps Abraham records. Who remembers anymore the Oslo peace process? Everything is going fine, isn't it? Until now, Israel has thought it can very well handle everything, build settlements and simply do fine with the status quo. Hasn't that been the biggest job of Mr Security, Bibi Netanyahu?

Or then Israel could apply to the UN Security Council decisions. (Which it won't: there's no reason it would.)

Then if we somehow WOULD get that two-state solution, then issue is if the newly formed Palestine would have a peaceful border (like Jordan and Egypt) or if Israel would treat it like Lebanon. Hence likely you would have to have Arab states not only protecting the new Palestine, but also keeping the border peaceful. Which would mean an awful lot of coordination from the Arab states.

Not only would in the two nation state solution both countries need recognition from each other, but also that they would be left alone.

Ruling starts around 1 hour into the video.

So going back to my main point, if one was to be indifferent or "that's what Israel gets" regarding this latest round of killings/barbarism, then especially when it comes to this war, we can no longer really discuss in terms of morality, but in terms of power. So you no longer have to couch your arguments in terms of "Well, it was as bad or they're worse! because at that point, it's just counting various nihilistic barbarisms against each other. At that point, it's purely about power and ends ALONE (no longer means). In that case, whatever the leaders of the Palestinians and Israel do become JUST about ends in themselves. If that sounds scary, well, that is where YOUR logic has gotten you. But, all is not lost, because, even if one ditches morality of the means, and only looks at morality of the ends, one can still talk it just changes the subject. It is the morality of the Thunderdome and no longer of the Enlightenment.

I mean, at the end of the day if you don't think means matter, Genghis Khan was just as right to brutally conquer and torture people as not. A generation later, you had a Pax Mongolia of sorts, that can be said to be relatively peaceful! Same with Cyrus the Great from Persia.. Not a terrible policy of tolerance from a conqueror, AFTER he conquered of course. As this discussion has brought up over and over, the Allies had to do some pretty grizzly stuff to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, often to citizens of those countries, and now they enjoy some of the best economies in the world. Each of those countries thought they had a mandate of sorts to do what they did. They thought their ends were justified- at least the ones who supported their cause, and the ones who didn't, like today, were at the whims of the outcomes of their co-patriots' support.

So in this morality of the Thunderdome, where power is the language, and anything goes to get what one wants from the enemy, we can start talking about how the two power dynamics are to play out and how they operate. It could be seen instead of "two sides", as a system that is in a tightly wound knot. When they tug the knot gets tighter, not looser. So to untie the knot, there needs to be a set of actions by both sides in this particular round. The Israelis have to allow for an exit ramp on the other side. Hamas has to figure out if its armed struggle is more important than the lives of its people. And there's the kicker. This is where, whatever you think its failings are, Israel will always win. Israel actually CARES about its OWN people, Hamas does not. Hamas cares about getting a token prize (prisoner exchange or ANYTHING that will allow it to not look like it lost with its tail between its legs). They care not one iota about suffering of their people, just about how the war is carried out.. Whether the media is portraying it their way, whether they get European and American Leftists on board, etc. But basically, they don't care about what is BEST (in terms of actual lives lost and suffering) of their people. The Israelis, DO care about its people to the extent that they don't really consider as much how badly the bombings will affect the Palestinians when they send rockets, because when the more targeted army rushes in, they will have less to deal with in terms of urban combat. They think about things in terms of PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. Hamas could go on indefinitely and lose millions of people. But they don't care. They DON'T CARE about their people. They care ONLY ABOUT THEIR CAUSE.

That makes a huge difference in how the knot is undone. Hamas would have to CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE by letting go of the hostages and even giving themselves in. Odd that they are suicidal, yet can't make the big boy decision that giving up would be best for their own people. They have to turn the key on their end to untie the knot.

BUT then here is another kicker. IF people on the sideline say, "Hamas should not have to give up", then they also don't care about the people that Hamas supposedly is there to represent and protect. Even if Israel supposedly doesn't care about the Palestinian casualties, Hamas and their supporters sure don't either. So who is left to care about the casualties? If Israel doesn't, but it still cares about its side. Hamas doesn't and that's the only one that represents its side (and the Leftist supporters of course). So apparently, all around everyone seems to care only about THEIR CAUSE and not SUFFERING, which negates cries against calling "foul", because they have the key, they just don't want it turned.

Just finished listening. The ruling is relatively weak. Most of the things the court told Israel to do, they are already supposed to do under the Genocide Convention. Only the report in a month is beyond existing legal obligations.

Despite the weakness of the ruling, I do believe the negative inference is interesting. The fact Israel is ordered to comply with the law seems to underline the fact they are in fact not doing that at this time. Combined with the plausibility of SA's claim genocide is happening, I think it's likely years from now Israel will indeed be convicted of at least genocidal intent and possibly genocide, unless it radically improves the humanitarian aid to Gaza.

My 0.02 USD.

Israel-Hamas war live updates: ICJ stops short of ordering cease-fire, tells Israel to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna135801

They didn't even call for a cease-fire. A win for Israel. Keep up the good work.

You fail to understand this court case is also about international opinion. The plausability assessment by the court will affect the political position of allies vis-a-vis Israel.

For instance, this ruling will affect the court case in the Netherlands that Oxfam Novib started against the government, increasing the likelihood the court will order the government to stop providing material support (parts for planes in particular).

Edit: plus, such an interim judgment was unlikely to go that far too begin with.

I'd say the significance of this ruling lies in the fact that the ICJ has not dismissed the case and is essentially acknowledging there is a present risk of genocide being committed by Israel.

Thank you!

I think the main problem is that some people think there's a moral equivalence between the violence of Palestinians and Israel. — Benkei

Which, if I understand, you deny. And I agree. But I think you use "moral equivalence" here as a Trojan horse to gain entry for your own peculiar moral outrage.

I think the 7 October actions of Hamas were amoral/immoral in the worst sense, and an offense (imo) calculated by Hamas to require a substantial Israeli response, Perhaps even as great as that response has been in fact, for what else could reasonably be expected? Hamas arguably made their decision with a comprehensive understanding of what would happen in Gaza to Gazans - they knew.

Is the Israeli response moral or immoral? Or is morality even an appropriate metric? Is war ever moral? Moral or not, sometimes necessary. I hold the Israelis to be under necessity, a necessity imposed by Hamas now and its predecessors in the past, ultimately powered by an immoral, irrational, fanatical hatred of Israel and Jews, being expressly committed to their death and destruction.

Are some actions of Israel and some actions of some Israelis immoral? Maybe - probably: but the difficulty here is in the categorical nature of any labelling, and as well laying out and making clear what antecedent events may have been causative. Israel bombs an apartment building, a terrible thing, unless they have good reason to believe their enemy is there - which they do! And so it comes back to Hamas and their ilk, and their essential, categorical immorality of hate. As such they deny their own humanity, and in their actions force their own destruction.

And in a way, in your categorical condemnation of Israel and defense of the Palestinians, you yourself deny the humanity of the Palestinians, rendering them pure victim as to their circumstance and pure rat as to their actions. I myself reject that stance and thus your arguments, the Palestinians being human and retaining all of their humanity. But in the hubris of their hate they bring upon themselves their own continuing destruction, which makes all of this a real tragedy. The moment at Colonus to be written, which no reasonable person should think will be easy.
---------------
No need to either read or reply to the following. We disagree on some details.

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel — Benkei

1 &10) Reconcile? Reconcilable? Or are you agreeing with me that both should be in the same place?
5) And will you guarantee bad people and weapons are not brought in?
6) Why don't you redraft this to make it more sensible.
7) See 5.
8) And for this, policed by a robust UN force of peacekeepers - not the IDF.
9) Palestinians, and Israelis, to commit to the causes of peace.
_______________

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

1) Hamas? Why?
2) In my opinion, this does not work. Fate has brought Israeli and Palestinian together; let them figure out how to live together.
3) No.
4) No. Let them hire freely.
5) No. Let it be a free zone, to the degree anyone thinks it important.
7) Perhaps with a blue-helmet force, Palestinians involved from the beginning - and necessarily, imo.
8) A kind of truth commission? I would opine that the terrorist crimes against Israel are countless, but can you list one terrorist crime by Israel against Palestine?
9) And who, exactly, declares? And under what obligation that whom shall take on and satisfy?

There is a case against US administration in the US courts as well. Sunak, Biden and AIPAC people are saying that the suit does not make sense, but I do think that the judges may find the Leahy Law applicable against US military support for Israel.

Let's see what will happen with this case:

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/11/16/ccr_genocide


Now, a few days ago I was seeing with a friend a PBS documentary about German American Bund rally in Madison Square in 1939, where these "good Americans" could bring their swastikas and totally ignore the Jewish protesters. However weird it might sound, I recalled what is going on right now in the USA, where the protesters are not the Jews, but the Palestinians.

My friend asked me: how was it possible that back then NY authorities allowed a Nazi rally in Madison Square and they disregarded the Jewish protesters?

Well, I answered, this is American capitalism. Back in the 30ies in this country lived millions of Germans and the Jews were hundred thousands, but less in numbers than Pro-Hitler Americans (BUND Germans included). Hence, I guess Jewish protests were not enough to outlaw BUND rallies. Now, we have more pro-Israel people than pro-Palestine people in this country, and numbers (and money) are more important than justice for the US democracy.

Maybe numbers (not justice) are important in EU countries as well, where 25 million of Muslim residents have made Europe more sensitive towards the Palestinian Cause (in stark contrast with the US, where we have only 3 million Muslim residents).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden

What do you mean "disregarded the Jewish protesters"? Did the nazis at the event harm the Jewish protesters physically, and the police allowed that to happen?

I have no interest in discussing this with you other than pointing out the obvious that once again is a stupid post.

We were just surprised how such an event was allowed to take place in Manhattan (when many Jews, US leftists and anti-Hitler Germans had opposed it and had warned authorities against BUND).

In 2014, when all people in EU and UK were rallying in support of Palestine, Hillary Clinton was organizing a rally in support of Netanyahu and against the Intifada.

It seems that in this country none really cares about international causes, but just for money and voters.