German Hostage Found Dead

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2023, 11:02 AM)Dill Wrote: No. You don't. 

No one in this forum is more disrespectful and verbally abusive of people "with very different points of view."

Kindly keep things to the topic at hand rather than boring personal attacks.  Between that and defending terrorism via false equivalency your posts are basically unreadable at this point.  Millhouse had it right, enjoy your holidays and consider this the end of this discussion with you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Let's take a break from the far left gaslighting and return to the topic at hand. Biden finds the moral conviction to call out what many Dems seemingly refuse to do, the use of gang rape as a weapon by the Hamas terrorists.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/biden-calls-reports-hamas-sexual-violence-israeli-women/story?id=105401641


"President Joe Biden has blamed Hamas' refusal to release civilian female hostages for the end of a temporary cease-fire, and he called reports of women allegedly sexually assaulted by Hamas "appalling."


"Let me be crystal clear: Hamas' refusal to release the remaining young women is what broke this deal and ended the pause in the fighting," he said.

Kindly remember this the next time a Hamas defender bemoans the civilian casualties in Gaza. Hamas had a chance to extend a ceasefire that would save Palestinian lives. But they chose not to do so because releasing these woman would allow them to detail the acts of horrific sexual violence committed against them.

[basballguy]

(12-07-2023, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's take a break from the far left gaslighting and return to the topic at hand. Biden finds the moral conviction to call out what many Dems seemingly refuse to do, the use of gang rape as a weapon by the Hamas terrorists.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/biden-calls-reports-hamas-sexual-violence-israeli-women/story?id=105401641


"President Joe Biden has blamed Hamas' refusal to release civilian female hostages for the end of a temporary cease-fire, and he called reports of women allegedly sexually assaulted by Hamas "appalling."


"Let me be crystal clear: Hamas' refusal to release the remaining young women is what broke this deal and ended the pause in the fighting," he said.

Kindly remember this the next time a Hamas defender bemoans the civilian casualties in Gaza. Hamas had a chance to extend a ceasefire that would save Palestinian lives. But they chose not to do so because releasing these woman would allow them to detail the acts of horrific sexual violence committed against them.

No sir….Hamas won’t release them because they’re the right age to enlist in the IDF….at least that’s what some members of this board believe.

If you ask me, those unfortunate souls are already deceased.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2023, 01:55 PM)basballguy Wrote: No sir….Hamas won’t release them because they’re the right age to enlist in the IDF….at least that’s what some members of this board believe.  

If you ask me, those unfortunate souls are already deceased.

That's actually unfair to Bel, who cited that as another possible reason, not THE reason.  Bel, unlike others, has not engaged in excusing terrorism or engaged in false equivalencies between the IDF and Hamas.  As to them already being dead, I don't think so.  If they were they'd have released photos of their corpses and claimed they were killed by an Israeli airstrike or something similar.  It is certainly possible though, we are dealing with people without an ounce of human morality or decency.    Good showing in FF btw, I cannot catch a break and you stomped a mudhole in me.  

[basballguy]

(12-07-2023, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's actually unfair to Bel, who cited that as another possible reason, not THE reason. 

It’s also possible Hamas doesn’t even have them and they all ran away and joined the circus…but I’m not suggesting incredibly unlikely scenarios for the sake of playing devils advocate. :)

I’m not keeping a tally on hostages but I doubt there are many left to release…if any….because they are all dead. If they aren’t dead yet, they eventually will be so Hamas won’t have to turn over hostages (like you said) to validate what we all already believe they are doing or have done.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2023, 05:14 PM)basballguy Wrote: It’s also possible Hamas doesn’t even have them and they all ran away and joined the circus…but I’m not suggesting incredibly unlikely scenarios for the sake of playing devils advocate.  :)

I’m not keeping a tally on hostages but I doubt there are many left to release…if any….because they are all dead.  If they aren’t dead yet, they eventually will be so Hamas won’t have to turn over hostages (like you said) to validate what we all already believe they are doing or have done.

Yes, the longer this goes on the less likely anymore will be released.  There are effing toddlers and infants among the kidnapped as well.  Hamas are animal savages.

[Belsnickel]

(12-07-2023, 05:14 PM)basballguy Wrote: It’s also possible Hamas doesn’t even have them and they all ran away and joined the circus…but I’m not suggesting incredibly unlikely scenarios for the sake of playing devils advocate. :)

I was not suggesting it to play devil's advocate. The suggestion was sincere and has a lot of merit to it. The reason for fighting-age men are the last to be released isn't about chivalry, it's because of their potential role fighting against them. In Israel men and women are conscripted into mandatory service, so everyone of fighting age can be a fighter. SSF is right that I am not saying it is the reason, but when it comes to these things it is a well known and widely understood situation.

That being said, my suggestion was made in the early days of things and as more has been revealed the likelihood of that has become less and less.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-07-2023, 10:29 AM)Dill Wrote: No. Not if statehood means what means everywhere else--autonomy and sovereign control of one's own territory.


PS I doubt if Hamas is able to "stock up" on missiles at the moment, though they may certainly re-organize their defenses. 

Which of the 3 have you not covered?
1936 with the Jews only getting 20% of the land. Jews accepted, Arabs rejected and kept on fighting.

1946 UN tried, Jews accepted, Arabs launched an all out war with Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon. The Arab land that was set aside by the UN did indeed become occupied, by Jordan (West Bank and East Jerusalem).

Those are the two you are most likely talking about as statehood was offered to the Arabs, not Palestinians?

Palestinians were offered in the 3 below.

1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan joined up again and attacked Israel, and got their butts kicked in what is known as the 6 day war. This time Israel took those lands from them. At this point, Israel was divided with what to do with that land. Give it back to Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) in exchange for peace or give it to the LOCAL Arabs that live there known as the Palestinians with the hopes that they would ultimately build their own state. Didn't really matter what they wanted to do with it, Arabs said NO Peace, NO Recognition, NO negotiations with Israel. 

2000 Palestinians were offered all of Gaza, 94% of the West Bank (with East Jerusalem as the capital), Arafat said NO to everything and launched a wave of suicide bombers. 

2008 Expanded previous offer to include MORE Land from the previous offer in exchange for peace, Abbas turned it down.


So i'm not sure how you can say the way to peace it to offer them Statehood or a path to Statehood when they've rejected it 5 times so far? Is like the 6th time going to be the charm or something?? To me it's very clear that they'd rather stick needles in their eyes than accept a 2 statehood situation. It's pretty much all or nothing for them. 

PS Yes he will stock up on missiles same as he did before.
PPS i just read today that the ceasefire was over. Didn't think it would last. Sucks, guess Hamas got the answer he needed to resume bombing

[Dill]

(12-07-2023, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Kindly keep things to the topic at hand rather than boring personal attacks.  Between that and defending terrorism via false equivalency your posts are basically unreadable at this point.  Millhouse had it right, enjoy your holidays and consider this the end of this discussion with you.

Sure, let's drop the "boring personal attacks" and get back to leveraging Hamas war crimes into some "leftist" defense of "terrorism." 

[Dill]

(12-07-2023, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Which of the 3 have you not covered?
1936 with the Jews only getting 20% of the land. Jews accepted, Arabs rejected and kept on fighting.

I have to wonder what your source is for some of your information. Jewish Virtual Library maybe? 

I'm guessing the 1936 reference is too the Peel Commission's proposal, in 1937, to partition Mandatory Palestine. 
That proposal was rejected by the 20th World Zionist Congress, in part because it restricted Jewish immigration. 
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Partition_of_Palestine/-22kHkqPvscC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA208&printsec=frontcover.
Palestinians also rejected this offer from a colonial occupier, coordinating with European Jews, to give their land to Jews newly arrived from Europe.

Arabs/Palestinians did not find this offer as reasonable as you apparently do.

(12-07-2023, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1946 UN tried, Jews accepted, Arabs launched an all out war with Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon. The Arab land that was set aside by the UN did indeed become occupied, by Jordan (West Bank and East Jerusalem).

Those are the two you are most likely talking about as statehood was offered to the Arabs, not Palestinians?

No. I wasn't talking about any of that. My original post to you was only referring to the most recent peace process; I had no idea you were counting all these previous plans for taking Palestinian land as "offers of statehood" and expecting "coverage" thereof.

Quite a bit missing here, really. You refer to a UN partition in which Palestinians had no say, and which would have, again, simply given a huge chunk of their land to immigrants from Europe. Jews owned less than 6% of the land in Mandatory Palestine, but the partition would have given them 56%. So of course "Jews accepted." Free land. Why not? But the hundreds of thousands of "unreasonable" Palestinians who would be giving up their homes did not. 

It was all moot anyway, as within a week of the 1947 vote, the Hagenah, Irgun and Stern Gang were engaged in violent ethnic cleansing of the Jewish partition, eventually driving 700,000 Palestinians from their land. It was that cleansing which then prompted the invasion of unprepared Arab armies in 1948, which resulted in Israel's possession of 70% of the Mandate.

(12-07-2023, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Palestinians were offered in the 3 below.

1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan joined up again and attacked Israel, and got their butts kicked in what is known as the 6 day war. This time Israel took those lands from them. At this point, Israel was divided with what to do with that land. Give it back to Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) in exchange for peace or give it to the LOCAL Arabs that live there known as the Palestinians with the hopes that they would ultimately build their own state. Didn't really matter what they wanted to do with it, Arabs said NO Peace, NO Recognition, NO negotiations with Israel. 
2000 Palestinians were offered all of Gaza, 94% of the West Bank (with East Jerusalem as the capital), Arafat said NO to everything and launched a wave of suicide bombers. 
2008 Expanded previous offer to include MORE Land from the previous offer in exchange for peace, Abbas turned it down.
So i'm not sure how you can say the way to peace it to offer them Statehood or a path to Statehood when they've rejected it 5 times so far? Is like the 6th time going to be the charm or something?? To me it's very clear that they'd rather stick needles in their eyes than accept a 2 statehood situation. It's pretty much all or nothing for them. 

Your "3 below" are simply not historically accurate. Israel was not "divided' about what to do with the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, or at least government and military were not divided. The goal was always to absorb them into "Greater Israel." Hence the continued addition of settlements and displacement of Palestinians.

Palestinians were not offered "all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank" in 2000. You are referring to the Oslo peace process which I discussed above, which as of 2000 would have left 74% of the West Bank under complete Israeli control.  Here is a map illustrating the divisions: Area A (dark blue) under Palestinian Authority control. Area B (light blue) under joint control, and Area C (brown), by far the largest, under complete Israeli control. Have you ever been on the West Bank? The Palestinian enclaves are separated from the growing Israeli settlements with by a maze of walls and fences. So that is the "state" that Arafat rejected. A second point of rejection was the Israeli refusal of a "right of return" for Palestinians driven from their homes in '48 and '67. 

https://www.anera.org/what-are-area-a-area-b-and-area-c-in-the-west-bank/

Seriously, I'd really like to know what your sources are. What you are calling "offers of statehood" were simply plans to transfer Palestinian land to Jews in Palestine. You've accepted Israeli framing of this dispossession/theft as Palestinian intransigence, blaming the victim.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-08-2023, 11:09 AM)Dill Wrote: I have to wonder what your source is for some of your information. Jewish Virtual Library maybe? 

I'm guessing the 1936 reference is too the Peel Commission's proposal, in 1937, to partition Mandatory Palestine. 
That proposal was rejected by the 20th World Zionist Congress, in part because it restricted Jewish immigration. 
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Partition_of_Palestine/-22kHkqPvscC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA208&printsec=frontcover.
Palestinians also rejected this offer from a colonial occupier, coordinating with European Jews, to give their land to Jews newly arrived from Europe.

Arabs/Palestinians did not find this offer as reasonable as you apparently do.


No. I wasn't talking about any of that. My original post to you was only referring to the most recent peace process; I had no idea you were counting all these previous plans for taking Palestinian land as "offers of statehood" and expecting "coverage" thereof.

Quite a bit missing here, really. You refer to a UN partition in which Palestinians had no say, and which would have, again, simply given a huge chunk of their land to immigrants from Europe. Jews owned less than 6% of the land in Mandatory Palestine, but the partition would have given them 56%. So of course "Jews accepted." Free land. Why not? But the hundreds of thousands of "unreasonable" Palestinians who would be giving up their homes did not. 

It was all moot anyway, as within a week of the 1947 vote, the Hagenah, Irgun and Stern Gang were engaged in violent ethnic cleansing of the Jewish partition, eventually driving 700,000 Palestinians from their land. It was that cleansing which then prompted the invasion of unprepared Arab armies in 1948, which resulted in Israel's possession of 70% of the Mandate.


Your "3 below" are simply not historically accurate. Israel was not "divided' about what to do with the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, or at least government and military were not divided. The goal was always to absorb them into "Greater Israel." Hence the continued addition of settlements and displacement of Palestinians.

Palestinians were not offered "all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank" in 2000. You are referring to the Oslo peace process which I discussed above, which as of 2000 would have left 74% of the West Bank under complete Israeli control.  Here is a map illustrating the divisions: Area A (dark) under Palestinian Authority control. Area B (grey)under joint control, and Area C (brown), by far the largest, under complete Israeli control. Have you ever been on the West Bank? The Palestinian enclaves are separated from the growing Israeli settlements with by a maze of walls and fences. So that is the "state" that Arafat rejected. A second point of rejection was the Israeli refusal of a "right of return" for Palestinians driven from their homes in '48 and '67. 


Seriously, I'd really like to know what your sources are. What you are calling "offers of statehood" were simply plans to transfer Palestinian land to Jews in Palestine. You've accepted Israeli framing of this dispossession/theft as Palestinian intransigence, blaming the victim.

LOL argue all you want about the details, offers for Statehood have come and gone and been rejected, again and again and again and .....
Starting a new country isn't always going to be fair nor is it going to be handed to you on a silver spoon. 

Every dam country was created has had hoops to get thru before being 100% on their own. Need to prove you want peace, work for it and strive to be independent. that is if it's your true goal, you would work for it and once you prove yourself you will have a better chance at getting more of what you want. 

First step is accepting the opportunity when it comes.


The way i see it, rejecting every offer cause it's not "good" enough, and then constantly throwing rocks at your neighbor for years on end is not exactly a recipe for peace. All it is going to do is make the neighbor take more extreme measures to get your to stop until eventually there is no one left to throw rocks. Common sense Dill, so tell us, how many years would you put up with this neighbor if they lived next door to you? How many of your grand kids do they have to hit with rocks before you do something about it?

[GMDino]

(12-08-2023, 06:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL argue all you want about the details, offers for Statehood have come and gone and been rejected, again and again and again and .....
Starting a new country isn't always going to be fair nor is it going to be handed to you on a silver spoon. 

Every dam country was created has had hoops to get thru before being 100% on their own. Need to prove you want peace, work for it and strive to be independent. that is if it's your true goal, you would work for it and once you prove yourself you will have a better chance at getting more of what you want. 

First step is accepting the opportunity when it comes.


The way i see it, rejecting every offer cause it's not "good" enough, and then constantly throwing rocks at your neighbor for years on end is not exactly a recipe for peace. All it is going to do is make the neighbor take more extreme measures to get your to stop until eventually there is no one left to throw rocks. Common sense Dill, so tell us, how many years would you put up with this neighbor if they lived next door to you? How many of your grand kids do they have to hit with rocks before you do something about it?

So what were your sources? As Dill asked.

It seems your opinions differ with the actual circumstances as cited in Dill's post.

That aside if someone came in and took your house and told you to go live in the yard what kind of deal would you take to get your house back?

You can live in the basement? You can put a tent near the house?

I'm no expert on ME history but I can tell you these battles have gone on forever and many of the deals in my lifetime have been rejected not because the people didn't want it but because the fringe elements didn't.  Netanyahu is a fringe element, btw.

[Dill]

(12-08-2023, 06:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL argue all you want about the details, offers for Statehood have come and gone and been rejected, again and again and again and .....
The way i see it, rejecting every offer cause it's not "good" enough, and then constantly throwing rocks at your neighbor for years on end is not exactly a recipe for peace. All it is going to do is make the neighbor take more extreme measures to get your to stop until eventually there is no one left to throw rocks. Common sense Dill, so tell us, how many years would you put up with this neighbor if they lived next door to you? How many of your grand kids do they have to hit with rocks before you do something about it?

One of your "details" was that Palestinians were offered 94% of the West Bank. No source. That's more than just "false." 
It is targeted disinformation.

Same for your "offers of statehood" in '37, '47, '67, and 2008, in which Palestinians rejected the "opportunity" to give their land to someone else,
offers made by people with no right to give away Palestinian land.

But you are sure the details don't matter? That's really just saying the facts don't matter.

One neighbor takes another neighbor's land, bulldozing their family home in the process.

But if dispossessed children throw rocks at the bulldozer, you see THAT as the threat to peace. 

Common sense OtherMike, how long would you put up with a neighbor bulldozing your property? 

[Dill]

(12-08-2023, 06:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL argue all you want about the details, offers for Statehood have come and gone and been rejected, again and again and again and .....
Starting a new country isn't always going to be fair nor is it going to be handed to you on a silver spoon. 

Every dam country was created has had hoops to get thru before being 100% on their own. Need to prove you want peace, work for it and strive to be independent. that is if it's your true goal, you would work for it and once you prove yourself you will have a better chance at getting more of what you want. 

First step is accepting the opportunity when it comes.

The way i see it, rejecting every offer cause it's not "good" enough, and then constantly throwing rocks at your neighbor for years on end is not exactly a recipe for peace. All it is going to do is make the neighbor take more extreme measures to get your to stop until eventually there is no one left to throw rocks. Common sense Dill, so tell us, how many years would you put up with this neighbor if they lived next door to you? How many of your grand kids do they have to hit with rocks before you do something about it?

I like the neighbor analogy. Seems Dino does too. Let's continue it. Do you live in Ohio? 

Imagine some administrators in Los Angeles awarded me half your property because I wanted to live in your neighborhood.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I think you'd accept the opportunity to gain half what you already owned.

But Palestinians are not like that. I don't know if it is culture or religion or what, but if I were awarded half a Palestinian family's
property, they would insist on keeping ALL of it. I'd need police force to get my share, probably pushing them out of their house 
and into the back yard.

And yeah, I admit a rock throwing problem could follow from that, exactly as you say. Again, I could offer them another settlement--
recognize my right to your house and I'll give you part of the yard--though I'll retain control of access to the property. 

Would they take that chance to prove themselves?

Based on their past behavior, we can assume the offer would not be "good enough." They'd demand a "right of return" to their
house. Some might even want to kill me and my family. How can you deal with people like that, who expect everything to be
handed to them on a silver spoon?  I'd need a constant police presence to keep them in line. 

That's the problem of the occupation right now. Palestinians keep throwing rocks at Israelis bulldozing their homes. Most Americans
understand that makes them difficult neighbors and a security problem. But the international community tends to side with the 
rock throwers, because of universal human rights or something. Or maybe it's anti-semitism. 

Anyway, you've identified the pattern--Palestinians keep rejecting opportunities to give up their land willingly. At some point you just
have to take the land by force, move them off it, and contain them. 

[GMDino]

(12-09-2023, 10:45 AM)Dill Wrote: I like the neighbor analogy. Seems Dino does too. Let's continue it. Do you live in Ohio? 

Imagine some administrators in Los Angeles awarded me half your property because I wanted to live in your neighborhood.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I think you'd accept the opportunity to gain half what you already owned.

But Palestinians are not like that. I don't know if it is culture or religion or what, but if I were awarded half a Palestinian family's
property, they would insist on keeping ALL of it. I'd need police force to get my share, probably pushing them out of their house 
and into the back yard.

And yeah, I admit a rock throwing problem could follow from that, exactly as you say. Again, I could offer them another settlement--
recognize my right to your house and I'll give you part of the yard--though I'll retain control of access to the property. 

Would they take that chance to prove themselves?

Based on their past behavior, we can assume the offer would not be "good enough." They'd demand a "right of return" to their
house. Some might even want to kill me and my family. How can you deal with people like that, who expect everything to be
handed to them on a silver spoon?  I'd need a constant police presence to keep them in line. 

That's the problem of the occupation right now. Palestinians keep throwing rocks at Israelis bulldozing their homes. Most Americans
understand that makes them difficult neighbors and a security problem. But the international community tends to side with the 
rock throwers, because of universal human rights or something. Or maybe it's anti-semitism. 

Anyway, you've identified the pattern--Palestinians keep rejecting opportunities to give up their land willingly. At some point you just
have to take the land by force, move them off it, and contain them. 

And before the usual suspects come along and say we are condoning terrorism:

This isn't a defense of Hamas or any other group that is killing and raping Israelis.  That should not even need to be said but some will anyway.

This is saying that the entirety of the circumstances surrounding Israel and Palestine cannot simply be looked at by what happened last.

I certainly don't want a war with more innocent people killed, their homes destroyed.  I'd wager that most citizens of those two countries do not either. 

But we can't look at this in a vacuum and say the people of Palestine should just stop wanting to live where they did and shut up about it.  Especially when you has Israeli leadership more than fine with killing anyone who might be a "human shield"...as if they chose to do that.

Diplomacy made inroads.  That is the only proper way.  The fringes will always be there wanting it all though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2023, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: And before the usual suspects come along and say we are condoning terrorism:

Not only have you not been accused of that, I did the exact opposite in this very thread.

Quote:This isn't a defense of Hamas or any other group that is killing and raping Israelis.  That should not even need to be said but some will anyway.

This is saying that the entirety of the circumstances surrounding Israel and Palestine cannot simply be looked at by what happened last.

No one is saying look at this in a vacuum, quite the opposite.  What is being said, and is correct, is that attempts to create an equivalency between a terrorist organization that engages in rape, torture murder and kidnapping and the IDF is absolutely a defense of Hamas.  Referring to them as "militants" or "freedom fighters" is absolutely a defense of Hamas.  You don't do this, others do.  Maybe you should actually examine that.

Quote:I certainly don't want a war with more innocent people killed, their homes destroyed.  I'd wager that most citizens of those two countries do not either. 

But we can't look at this in a vacuum and say the people of Palestine should just stop wanting to live where they did and shut up about it.  Especially when you has Israeli leadership more than fine with killing anyone who might be a "human shield"...as if they chose to do that.

Diplomacy made inroads.  That is the only proper way.  The fringes will always be there wanting it all though.

You cannot have diplomacy when the elected government of one side has publicly proclaimed that their goal is the eradication of the other state and the genocide of their people.  Maybe such a solution can be reached once Hamas is gone, but it will never, ever happen as long as Hamas is one of the factions involved.

[Dill]

(12-09-2023, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: And before the usual suspects come along and say we are condoning terrorism:
This isn't a defense of Hamas or any other group that is killing and raping Israelis.  That should not even need to be said but some will anyway.
This is saying that the entirety of the circumstances surrounding Israel and Palestine cannot simply be looked at by what happened last.
I certainly don't want a war with more innocent people killed, their homes destroyed.  I'd wager that most citizens of those two countries do not either. 
But we can't look at this in a vacuum and say the people of Palestine should just stop wanting to live where they did and shut up about it.  Especially when you has Israeli leadership more than fine with killing anyone who might be a "human shield"...as if they chose to do that.
Diplomacy made inroads.  That is the only proper way.  The fringes will always be there wanting it all though.

Well said.  

I'm curious which way Israeli politics will break after this war. 

Will they continue to create opponents who "cannot be negotiated with" 

or will they finally work for a settlement that takes Palestinian rights seriously? 

I'm curious to see which trend the US will support as well. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2023, 01:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Well said.  

I'm curious which way Israeli politics will break after this war. 

Will they continue to create opponents who "cannot be negotiated with" 

or will they finally work for a settlement that takes Palestinian rights seriously? 

I'm curious to see which trend the US will support as well. 

It has been an interesting conversation over here. I have been listening to a lot of discussions on the topic of this war and how Americans have been viewing it. The Baby Boomers grew up hearing the stories of their parents and the atrocities of the Holocaust. They and Gen X really saw Israel struggling to exist. My generation and younger have seen nothing but a strong Israel that has the ability to hold off just about anything, has nuclear weapons, and has their "big brother" the US standing over their shoulder. We know what happened, but we have only seen Israel in a position where they have really been the bully, not the bullied, and that colors our perception of it all. This can shift the role of US policy going forward.

I hope the people of Israel, though, will make adjustments in light of everything. I just don't see it happening, though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2023, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has been an interesting conversation over here. I have been listening to a lot of discussions on the topic of this war and how Americans have been viewing it. The Baby Boomers grew up hearing the stories of their parents and the atrocities of the Holocaust. They and Gen X really saw Israel struggling to exist. My generation and younger have seen nothing but a strong Israel that has the ability to hold off just about anything, has nuclear weapons, and has their "big brother" the US standing over their shoulder. We know what happened, but we have only seen Israel in a position where they have really been the bully, not the bullied, and that colors our perception of it all. This can shift the role of US policy going forward.

I hope the people of Israel, though, will make adjustments in light of everything. I just don't see it happening, though.

I think understanding historical roots is always a good thing.  I also agree with your assessment of the generational divide on this issue and think with more of a historical understanding the divide would be far less stark.  Where I disagree is the extent to which understanding the history would help resolve the current situation.  While historical context is important, what is far more important is what the situation is right here and now and how do we move forward.  

As I have said, numerous times, I take major issue with some Israeli actions.  The eviction of people from their homes in the west bank and having "settlers" move right in is particularly egregious and there is major room for Israeli concessions/cessations on this issue.  Where there is no room for concession is on the issue of Hamas.  Hamas has publicly stated, time and time again, that they will not stop until Israel no longer exists and all its people are dead or fled.  There can be no negotiated peace of any lasting value that does not involve the utter destruction of Hamas and a repudiation of Hamas by the Palestinians.  Without that foundation all other efforts in this regard are meaningless.   It would be like hoping for improvement in racial relations here in the US while simultaneously having the KKK run the government.

Note I am not saying removing Hamas is a panacea for this issue, but their removal is necessary for the process to even start.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2023, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think understanding historical roots is always a good thing.  I also agree with your assessment of the generational divide on this issue and think with more of a historical understanding the divide would be far less stark.  Where I disagree is the extent to which understanding the history would help resolve the current situation.  While historical context is important, what is far more important is what the situation is right here and now and how do we move forward.  

As I have said, numerous times, I take major issue with some Israeli actions.  The eviction of people from their homes in the west bank and having "settlers" move right in is particularly egregious and there is major room for Israeli concessions/cessations on this issue.  Where there is no room for concession is on the issue of Hamas.  Hamas has publicly stated, time and time again, that they will not stop until Israel no longer exists and all its people are dead or fled.  There can be no negotiated peace of any lasting value that does not involve the utter destruction of Hamas and a repudiation of Hamas by the Palestinians.  Without that foundation all other efforts in this regard are meaningless.   It would be like hoping for improvement in racial relations here in the US while simultaneously having the KKK run the government.

Note I am not saying removing Hamas is a panacea for this issue, but their removal is necessary for the process to even start.

The problem is, though, that the Netanyahu government has worked to ensure Hamas is in power because they have seen it as beneficial to the prevention of the two-state solution. So Israel has propped up Hamas over the years and there needs to be a reconciliation with that in order to make changes moving forward. I am in favor of the destruction of Hamas, but we have been kicking this can down the road for far too long. At this point, once this war is over, I am in favor of bringing everyone to the table and telling them either we come up with an equitable solution or we are officially hands off in the area.