(06-25-2024, 05:13 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote: 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?
His mind was not for rent to any god or government, always hopeful yet discontent. Knows changes aren't permanent, but change is ....
Professor Neil Ellwood Peart
Professor Neil Ellwood Peart
