Columbia University has fallen

[putnam6]

Let's put it another way and this might get convoluted it's early in the morning and Ive been up all night.

If 10/7 is Israel's 9/11 the US set the precedent for allowable and semi-understandable hostile action after a horrific terrorist attack, misguided as we now know. Still, it would be like the US going full bore, remembering shock and awe, on Iraq and Afghanistan, and giving Bin Laden construction the contracts to rebuild the Twin Towers and both countries.

Lastly don't forget the hostages... the Israelis are agonizing over this. Just like they have done every time hostages are taken I can remember 3 distinct times Israel has had this occur and I probably became a late-night news junkie watching Ted Koeppel talk about the Iranian hostage crisis.

This is why I can look at the news now and know they are full of shit. Of course, different people ran ABC and the news division had more power and autonomy back then, but there was still a hint of a liberal left slant. But the had integrity too, and any falsehood or misrepresentation would get called out by the other networks, newspapers and magazines. Now they all seem to be in cahoots. 

I recall the 1st Gulf War, LOL we Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL boards there was quite a bit of discussion and even opposition to going to war, especially when we started to have soldiers captured and beaten 

The point being thats my life experience 40 years of every few years or so horrible news from the Middle East, my Dad always believed the big war would start in the holy land. Dad wasn't ultra-religious but he was a believer, but the reason was both sides relied on their religion as their identification as who they were. Since America was born partially from religious persecution, we have mellowed a bit since the Salem Witch trials. We have so much more tolerance specifically religious tolerance than we are given credit for, as such when we see religious intolerance it's disturbing





Trey Yingst

@TreyYingst
Israeli Defense Minister
@YoavGallant
signed the State Department guest book with a message about the hostages and fallen soldiers. “I sign this book for 120 hostages whom we must bring home. For our troops on the frontline and for our heroes who fell. Together we will prevail.”

[Notran]

This whole conflict goes way back .

29 November, 1947 UN General Assembly voted on Resolution 181, adopting a plan to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Jewish, one Arab.

Resolution 181 was emphatically rejected by the local Arab population and the Arab States.

Meanwhile, some 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries after things started heating up.

Resolution 181 confirmed the 1922 recognition by the international community that the Jewish people deserve their own state, a Jewish state, in their historical homeland.

The refusal by the Arab population of the mandate territory to accept Resolution 181 demonstrated that they were not interested in establishing their own state if it meant allowing the existence of a Jewish state. This opposition to acknowledging the right of a Jewish state to exist still lies at the core of the conflict.


It`s the Arab/Palestinian side that has been against the peacefull deal from day 1 .....Sadly no outsiders can turn their head in this, if they are only decicated to be terrorist and destroy Jewish state and kill Jews , it means they will stay in the self-hurting buble as long they want.....it`s the " causality"  of this....action---reaction /  cause and effect.

That's a very biased and one sided coverage of history.

You ve missed the part in which the Israeli State increased in a size out of nothing and expelled over 700,000 from their land.

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

The great man nakba as it's called. Of courses the Arabs will reject such unfair partition and plan. You need to get some perspective on this part of history.

Israel has grown as a result of the Zionist project in which there are first and second/third class citizens.

It is now an apartheid state.

It's not true the Palestinian population was against peace.
The Israelis engaged into ethnic cleansing and the people who were driven out of their homes were never allowed back. What do you think the Gaza strip of?
Mainly descendants of this expulsion in 1948.

[putnam6]

[Notran]

Very well put ... 

It would be irresponsible as hell to install a Palestinian state without complete security guarantees for Israel, a security no one can declare or guarantee in the 21st century, because after 10/7 one side still lives in the 17th century in a lot of ways.

It's not much different than how Japan went from fanatical enemies of the US to our strongest ally in the Pacific if not the world. They paid the price and the extremism was tempered tremendously, it took a couple of decades.  Of course every time a leader in the middle east softens their stance on Israel, there is such a blowback in the hyper-religious GP they put thier lives in jeopardy. see Anwar Sadat.

He didn't put it well.

He completely disregard history

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

This version of history is coming from the Zionist project and has nothing to do with the real events.

Nakba, ethnic cleansing, persecution, apartheid.

The rest of the world knows history and more and more countries recognising now Palestinian Statehood. Symbolic at the moment but important in th future.

The establishment of a Palestinian State is inevitable no mattet what the Zionists try to do. It has the support of many Jews who are accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide.

Perhaps a thread discussing the Jews who are on the side of Palestinians it will be an eye opener.

---

[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQ6OqGNWMAA5...name=large]

IDF has no credibility.

You should believe nothing they claim even if it turns out to be true.

[Kenzo]

Very well put ... 

It would be irresponsible as hell to install a Palestinian state without complete security guarantees for Israel, a security no one can declare or guarantee in the 21st century, because after 10/7 one side still lives in the 17th century in a lot of ways.

It's not much different than how Japan went from fanatical enemies of the US to our strongest ally in the Pacific if not the world. They paid the price and the extremism was tempered tremendously, it took a couple of decades.  Of course every time a leader in the middle east softens their stance on Israel, there is such a blowback in the hyper-religious GP they put thier lives in jeopardy. see Anwar Sadat.

Yes the Israelis have every right to demand security , and any countrys/state duty is to give security to citizens. The proble is Palestinians in Gaza and their crooked leadership wants only war and terrorism .

---

That's a very biased and one sided coverage of history.

You ve missed the part in which the Israeli State increased in a size out of nothing and expelled over 700,000 from their land.

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

The great man nakba as it's called. Of courses the Arabs will reject such unfair partition and plan. You need to get some perspective on this part of history.

Israel has grown as a result of the Zionist project in which there are first and second/third class citizens.

It is now an apartheid state.

It's not true the Palestinian population was against peace.
The Israelis engaged into ethnic cleansing and the people who were driven out of their homes were never allowed back. What do you think the Gaza strip of?
Mainly descendants of this expulsion in 1948.

No, not biased . If we would go even further in history , arabs set up attacks against Jews there .

It`s telling how the Israelis Arabs wants to identify themselves , most clearly want to choose to live under Israel than Palestinian rule . Yet you are barking here genocide genocide . The opinions of Israeli Arabs in this matter clearly contradict your claims .

If Israel is so terrible, why do so many Arabs prefer to live under Israeli rule?

Report: 93% of Polled Arab Residents of Jerusalem Prefer Israeli Rule to Palestinian Authority

Survey: 60% of Arab Israelis have positive view of state


It does seems as , Hamas/Palestinians choosed to rather play the all or nothing card from start, meaning they wont allow jews living there, and when that is not to be concretized , they play victim .

[putnam6]

He didn't put it well.

He completely disregard history

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

This version of history is coming from the Zionist project and has nothing to do with the real events.

Nakba, ethnic cleansing, persecution, apartheid.

The rest of the world knows history and more and more countries recognising now Palestinian Statehood. Symbolic at the moment but important in th future.

The establishment of a Palestinian State is inevitable no mattet what the Zionists try to do. It has the support of many Jews who are accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide.

Perhaps a thread discussing the Jews who are on the side of Palestinians it will be an eye opener.

---

IDF has no credibility.

You should believe nothing they claim even if it turns out to be true.

Yeah Im not interested in the back-and-forth, blanket statements or the rest of the world, everybody lives in thier bubble of experiences and influences, you included. Nor Im I interested in being told what to read, how authoritarian of you, BTW. I read, listen to, and discuss the wider topic on Discord and X/Twitter all the time. I got links and book recommendations of the conflict's history months ago and Ive already read two of them because I want to have a wider viewpoint and learn all sides. Ive included the opening statement from the article, as it is germane to the discussion and highlights its complexities and variables not seen in other conflicts.

Highly recommend Benny Morris — author of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949,” “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War” and “One State, Two States"

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-ar...very-start

 
When Hamas invaded Israel on Oct. 7, the scale and savagery shocked the world. But the attack, as well as Israel’s ruthless response in Gaza, is less surprising in historical context: the intifadas of the 1980s and early 2000s, the 1967 war and ultimately the events surrounding Israel’s founding in 1948.
The Israel-Hamas war has created a vast divide — each side with its own set of arguments and sometimes impossible-to-prove facts. That isn’t just true of keyboard warriors or politicians; even historians within the same small movement can develop vastly different perspectives. If sorting out an objective truth feels hopeless, it’s still worth seeking points of convergence or, at the very least, stable terms of debate.

 
The Palestinians remember 1948 as a vast tragedy, the Nakba — their memory is filled with that but they’re not told or don’t care that they started the war. What they remember is that they’re refugees. I can certainly understand these descendants of refugees looking across the border and seeing these green fields and Israelis living in prosperity by comparison and feeling resentment and hatred.
The hatred essentially comes from the history of refugee-dom and Israeli occupation. But also when the Israeli government withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 it ended up being administered by Hamas, this extremist, fanatical Islamist organization, which inculcates in its children hatred of Jews and Israel and the idea that everything must be solved by the sword. So the hatred also comes from an education system which brought up everybody believing that Jews must die and Israel must die. And one of the results of this is what happened on Oct. 7.

 
I’m not a supporter of Netanyahu — he’s a hateful, corrupt leader. But this thought about going back to 1948 really goes to the basics: the Zionist view is that the Arabs want to destroy the Jewish state. It’s not just the Gaza Strip, there’s constant shooting by the Lebanese Hezbollah and now the Houthis in Yemen are firing rockets into Israel and seized a[n Israel-linked] ship.
We’re surrounded by states and groups basically run by the Iranians, who are behind much of this. I’m not saying the Gaza Arabs don’t have their own native antagonism, but they’re also acting as agents, as the Hezbollah are, of Iran, which wants to destroy Israel.

MY EXPERIENCE in matters such as these is both sides have their propaganda, falsehoods, and outright lies, however, in this instance and MY VIEWPOINT, the flashpoint ALWAYS comes back to 10/7. Ive always looked at Israel with a sideways glance, as an American I don't trust either side completely. I have no problem with Palestinian statehood as long as it's peaceful and doesn't attack Israel or anybody else. In the socio-political climate following 10/7 and the Israeli response, it seems much further down the road than it would have been previous to 10/7. 

If the Palestinians wanted to try and negotiate Palestinian statehood, they needed a better opening statement than the attacks on an October Saturday morning in Israel. Since 2000 Gaza had more financial and material aid per square mile than any location in the world. Instead of building a peaceful, prosperous community, from the huge financial windfall and get ready to live in the 21st-century world, they built tunnels and rockets. They plotted against Israel, with a brutally barbaric raid like you would see in the 17th century. All the while using financial aid to enrich thier leaders and indoctrinate less fortunate Gazans to hate the Jews and live for nothing but the destruction of the Israeli state.

[Maxmars]

Respectfully,

Of late, this conversation has taken a tone that can be better expressed as a one-on-one conversation.  While dialogue, as I understand it, can be thought of as a conversation, it should exclude continuous references to the posters themselves.  I suppose that I should add, that this is not meant as an admonishment, this is a natural consequence of conversation.

I would request, as an interested observer, that we each not refer to each other directly, unless there is a point of order to be addressed. I'm just trying to encourage the 'on-topic' nature of the practice of thread-making... in my humble opinion.

Each side has exceedingly valid components, it is not consequential how you are affected by the utterances you encounter (I mean it can be, but that's not the point of the thread, is it?)  Wanting to 'go there' is a "muddy proposition," which I would hope we aim to avoid.  Again, not meant as some kind of 'policy,' I'm just offering it up as a meager contribution to the proceedings here.

MM

[FlyingClayDisk]

I know it is easy to zero in on a topic and focus (with blinders on) only on that topic and that topic only, and sometimes it can seem hard to "zoom out" from the topic and take a larger, more high level, view of the same.  I very much think this happens on the subject of the fighting in the region in and around the region known as Mandatory Palestine (or call it whatever region you want, arguing about these semantics is not my point).  There is clearly a lot of 'emotion' in all of these discussions, and much of this is steeped in personal ideology, culture and other personal beliefs.  I don't mean to diminish any of these things (on either side)
, but rather to call people's attention to a higher level view, a view not from one participant's viewpoint or another's, but rather a larger World view.  Consequently, I would like to point out several important 'bigger picture' items.

1. It is completely unreasonable to expect that Israel OR the Palestinians, in the end, are "entitled" to ALL the territory defined under the 1948 UN Resolution 1801.  In other words, nowhere in any historical charter, resolution or decree has one or the other been granted sole and/or exclusive right to occupy and rule the territory.  Anyone who believes this needs to either go back and study their history books, or recuse themselves from the debate due to conflict of interest, or ignorance.  All due respect, but what I say here is irrefutable FACT. 

2. Because of item #1, and regardless of any desires for retribution and/or revenge for the events of Oct.7th, or any other events in history...no matter what...the end-solution can never be one party occupies and rules the territory exclusively.  This is NOT an option.  It never was an option, it never will be an option, and it is not an option now.  So, people who believe anything of the sort IS an option need to excuse themselves from the debate; they are misinformed and biased.

3. Because the larger world both inside and outside of the conflicted region is not going to be exclusively occupied, nor permitted to be exclusively occupied by one party ONLY, (because of items #1 and #2 above), then the only (and I mean "only") solution is a negotiated solution.  Anyone who is unable to accept this needs to excuse themselves from the discussion, and the reason is because of what follows.  Before we explore what this negotiated solution is, we first have to explore what happens if this solution doesn't happen.  Answer: Simply put...World War 3.  Armageddon.  Yes, this is THAT serious, and it is THAT real.  So, if you reject a negotiated solution, then you accept WW3 and Armageddon.  It's one side or the other, no living on the razor's edge.

I am not proposing a solution here.  I have some in mind, but I am not proposing them here, or now.  The reason is, because first people have to understand and accept this 'larger picture world view'.  If they are unable, or unwilling, to accept this larger world view then they are simply unable to accept any reasonable solution and only wish for destruction and their own peril.  The conquests of the Roman empire are over.  The conquests of the Huns are over.  The conquests of the Crusades are over.  Regardless of any of our ideologies, nuclear weapons prevent these things from ever occurring again in the future.

The bottom line here is, both sides, and all the rest of the people on the sidelines, need to accept the notion that war and killing will continue unless a negotiated solution is found.  A "negotiated" solution.  Period.  There is NO other answer.  None.

Anyone who believes anything less than this is excused from the larger, and overruling, World discussion, AND they will just be told the solution in the end.

Please consider these points.

[putnam6]

I know it is easy to zero in on a topic and focus (with blinders on) only on that topic and that topic only, and sometimes it can seem hard to "zoom out" from the topic and take a larger, more high level, view of the same.  I very much think this happens on the subject of the fighting in the region in and around the region known as Mandatory Palestine (or call it whatever region you want, arguing about these semantics is not my point).  There is clearly a lot of 'emotion' in all of these discussions, and much of this is steeped in personal ideology, culture and other personal beliefs.  I don't mean to diminish any of these things (on either side)
, but rather to call people's attention to a higher level view, a view not from one participant's viewpoint or another's, but rather a larger World view.  Consequently, I would like to point out several important 'bigger picture' items.

1. It is completely unreasonable to expect that Israel OR the Palestinians, in the end, are "entitled" to ALL the territory defined under the 1948 UN Resolution 1801.  In other words, nowhere in any historical charter, resolution or decree has one or the other been granted sole and/or exclusive right to occupy and rule the territory.  Anyone who believes this needs to either go back and study their history books, or recuse themselves from the debate due to conflict of interest, or ignorance.  All due respect, but what I say here is irrefutable FACT. 

2. Because of item #1, and regardless of any desires for retribution and/or revenge for the events of Oct.7th, or any other events in history...no matter what...the end-solution can never be one party occupies and rules the territory exclusively.  This is NOT an option.  It never was an option, it never will be an option, and it is not an option now.  So, people who believe anything of the sort IS an option need to excuse themselves from the debate; they are misinformed and biased.

3. Because the larger world both inside and outside of the conflicted region is not going to be exclusively occupied, nor permitted to be exclusively occupied by one party ONLY, (because of items #1 and #2 above), then the only (and I mean "only") solution is a negotiated solution.  Anyone who is unable to accept this needs to excuse themselves from the discussion, and the reason is because of what follows.  Before we explore what this negotiated solution is, we first have to explore what happens if this solution doesn't happen.  Answer: Simply put...World War 3.  Armageddon.  Yes, this is THAT serious, and it is THAT real.  So, if you reject a negotiated solution, then you accept WW3 and Armageddon.  It's one side or the other, no living on the razor's edge.

I am not proposing a solution here.  I have some in mind, but I am not proposing them here, or now.  The reason is, because first people have to understand and accept this 'larger picture world view'.  If they are unable, or unwilling, to accept this larger world view then they are simply unable to accept any reasonable solution and only wish for destruction and their own peril.  The conquests of the Roman empire are over.  The conquests of the Huns are over.  The conquests of the Crusades are over.  Regardless of any of our ideologies, nuclear weapons prevent these things from ever occurring again in the future.

The bottom line here is, both sides, and all the rest of the people on the sidelines, need to accept the notion that war and killing will continue unless a negotiated solution is found.  A "negotiated" solution.  Period.  There is NO other answer.  None.

Anyone who believes anything less than this is excused from the larger, and overruling, World discussion, AND they will just be told the solution in the end.

Please consider these points.

So in that vein FCD if Im permitted I would like to clarify my point even further.

Yes, negotiations and security guarantees are needed, but should they start without the hostage situation being resolved? 

And what of Sinwar? the head of Hamas, does he get to sit back and count his billions in Qatar? 

These are 2 issues where Israel's opening statements for negotiations for Palestine, when they are met perhaps Israel will be more likely to negotiate.  

What keeps any other aggrieved and aggravated group, from using the same tactics to negotiate? 

What would have happened, if 2000-3000 of the Mexican cartel had pushed across our unsecured border in the southwest early one Saturday morning, killing raping, and taking over 200 Americans hostage back across the border and hidden in Mexico with the help of worldwide financed organizations. 

What would the American response be?

[FlyingClayDisk]

So in that vein FCD if Im permitted I would like to clarify my point even further.

Yes, negotiations and security guarantees are needed, but should they start without the hostage situation being resolved? 

No, they should not.  My posture is, the hostage issue needs to be largely resolved first.  If there's some independent outstanding individuals (like 1-2) then perhaps there's some leeway, but short of this, no, there should be no outstanding hostages.

 

And what of Sinwar? the head of Hamas, does he get to sit back and count his billions in Qatar? 

Not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to respond.  Reading between the lines of your question, I interpret it as..."Should Sinwar be allowed to live?".  So, I'll answer accordingly.  If this was not your question, then please clarify.  Answer is as follows:

Sinwar is a terrorist, and Hamas are terrorists.  He should be hunted down like any other known terrorist.  Hamas cannot be part of the negotiations, so what Sinwar does and where he does it, as unfortunate as this is, is a separate matter.

 

These are 2 issues where Israel's opening statements for negotiations for Palestine, when they are met perhaps Israel will be more likely to negotiate.  

Israel can have the 1st one; it is not an unreasonable demand.  Israel cannot have the 2nd one unless they do it themselves (alone) and stand to bear the consequences of it (again, alone).  This would be akin to Canada asking the US to go assassinate Putin.  It is not the World's responsibility to clean up the entire planet to Israel's satisfaction before they will agree to come to the bargaining table.  That is unreasonable.  Israel has a really bad habit of throwing one or two impossible prerequisites into anything they don't 'want' to negotiate about.  Sorry, but they can require the first demand, but not the second.  If they want that, then they'll need to go do it themselves and suffer the consequences (all on their own).
 

What keeps any other aggrieved and aggravated group, from using the same tactics to negotiate? 

Negotiate for what?  Both Israel and the Palestinians have legal standing for territory in Mandatory Palestine.  I am not aware of any other group in the region who have this standing.  Therefore, there's nothing for them to negotiate for.  They either become Israelis or Palestinians, or they leave.
 

What would have happened, if 2000-3000 of the Mexican cartel had pushed across our unsecured border in the southwest early one Saturday morning, killing raping, and taking over 200 Americans hostage back across the border and hidden in Mexico with the help of worldwide financed organizations. 

What would the American response be?

Excellent question.  Well, this has happened, more than once actually, not exactly like that, but the Iran hostage crisis was one example, and the Grenada incident was another.  But in direct answer to your question, the response would likely be a surgical rescue operation to free the hostages and kill as many of their directly involved captors as possible.  More directly, the answer would NOT be to invade Mexico and take over the country (which is effectively what Netanyahu is doing).  BTW...this was a great question!  Well thought up and constructed.  It provides an excellent platform to not only answer your question, but to also draw parallels to current situation.