(06-17-2024, 08:28 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote: I don't think anyone should "surrender", honestly.

Equally, I don't think anyone will ever surrender, on either side.

The expectation of unconditional surrender is not realistic and will only make this conflict drag on longer.

DB, you have said you understand these cultures, but I am beginning to question that.  If you truly understood these two cultures you would know that 'saving face' is right up there with about the most unimaginable loss of honor that a society and culture could ever have.  They will never "surrender"...ever.  They will spill every last drop of their blood before they 'surrender'.  You know this, right?  So, how could you ask me such a question?

The Palestinians, the Israelis, the Muslims, the Jews...they will never, ever, ever...ever...surrender.  

They've been fighting for 2,000 years, 'surrender' is just not in their DNA at this point.

C'mon, man, all due respect, but don't be silly.

(06-17-2024, 08:29 PM)Maxmars Wrote: (I hope this doesn't come off as I haven't intended it.)

Perhaps your assessment of the situation regarding Hamas isn't necessarily "about" Palestinians.  (And "hate" is a strong sentiment, often more than reality accommodates.)

Being born Palestinian can't possibly be "a criminal" thing.   Nor can being born Israeli.

If you can accept that, from this point forward how can we vilify everyone without damaging the innocent?

Israel, and the 'government' of Palestine are not instruments of the people, anymore than our government is.  They are supposed to be... but only a fool would simply assert they are in this day and age.  Their "decision-making" bodies operate according to (in most cases) the "will" of very few.  The actions governments take (today) are not the "will of the people."  Surely we have learned that by now.

"Hamas" and "Israel" both are guilty of playing stupid games, measuring what destruction and loss of life is "acceptable" or "glorious."  But never are the victims consulted... they are for "show."  The disparity here is between those still listening to the "political" show, and those waging war.. a show stopper.  It's like Ukraine... all about "appearances."  

The original sin, if you wish, are those who "make this happen" from the resort where they gather.  Perpetually untouched by the gore and devastation they cause.

Meanwhile, these young students and their ideological mentors pretend that this is about "awareness."  As if they were "changing" someone's mind about things.  Activism doesn't work like that... it never did.

(06-17-2024, 07:45 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote: Fair question.

Me: Netanyahu needs to go (broken record, I know).  Then, in his place, leadership which is at least willing to accept even the "concept" of Palestinian statehood (forget the boundaries for a moment).  Gantz is this person (I believe).  He's not a liberal, and he is a hardliner (former IDF general).  Israel as a culture doesn't respond well to radical change right away (this is not a slight on Israel, many cultures are like this), but Gantz is a man of reason, and he's good at diplomacy.  He's not the final solution, but he's a step in the right direction.  Israel won't get all the way there with him, and Israel should NOT roll over on any of this (that has never been my point).  Israel has the higher moral ground, but only a little bit.  They have the higher moral ground only in that they never let terrorists infiltrate their masses.  Beyond this, Israel is the aggressor.  But Israel can use this higher moral ground as a position of strength in negotiations (not to 'win' but to maintain dignity and sovereign ground).

From there, Hamas will not disappear overnight.  This would be foolish to believe, but their strength will be diminished daily as both sides obey the terms of their agreement.  Again, it won't happen overnight, but in time the Palestinians will see that their greater destiny is in sovereign land, not through terrorist insurgency, and thus Hamas will be increasingly isolated.  Israel can 'save face" by not yielding to terrorism via the internationally accepted rules of engagement over terrorism, and respond (RESPONSIBLY) accordingly. 

Hezbollah will always be a threat to the state of Israel, but they should not be confused with Hamas.  They have different agendas.  Hezbollah is not going away anytime soon, they are too well funded by Iran, but again, they are not Hamas.  Hamas, in time, becomes an outsider.  Palestinians have a homeland (however big or small that is), and they risk losing it in the eyes of the international community by welcoming terrorists into their mix.  In other words, now they have something very valuable to lose, whereas today they have nothing to lose (other than bodies).

This would be my suggested approach based on my fairly thoroughly researched posture on the culture, the people, the religions, the history, and the region.

It will be interesting to hear other viewpoints.  I wonder how they could be anything other than...kill them all.

I try to never complain about something without at least an idea of a reasonable alternative.

I will look forward to other replies.

(06-17-2024, 07:49 PM)DBCowboy Wrote: You win a war by overwhelming force.  By killing more of them than they kill of you.

You don't do it by winning hearts and minds.

You crush the enemy.  You cause them so much pain that they surrender.  That they promise never to do it again.


You kill them all, piss on the corpses, salt the earth and move on.

(06-17-2024, 08:57 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Yes but you are referring to the war, let's assume Israel finishes off Hamas and ends the Gazan operation exactly as you described. Then what happens? 

Gaza gets rebuilt millions if not billions of aid, money supplies flood Gaza. Whoever is in power gets to divvy it up ever how they see fit. Most likely they will do exactly as Hamas did try and build up to harass and fight the IDF, not only is it human nature it has been proven to be part of the indoctrination process for the average Gazan child. 

this approach just seems to kick the can down the road till there is another uprising

(06-17-2024, 08:50 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote: Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, we have presented the facts in this case fairly and honestly.  We believe these facts both answer and satisfy the questions which have been brought before us in this trial.  You have been given many things to consider.  Some of these things are complex and unpleasant.  We ask not that you side with emotion, but rather that you side with reason.  And, we are confident that as you examine these facts in your deliberations, you will find the Defendant...NOT GUILTY.

Thank you.

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

(06-17-2024, 09:15 PM)putnam6 Wrote:

(06-17-2024, 09:15 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Who is the defendant here? Hamas, Palestine, Israel? 

As for the verdict, I'd be more inclined towards Guilty but mentally ill, it seems to fit the region. 

I'll try and end my involvement here with this point.

If we were to snap our fingers and put a Palestinian state the size of the West Bank and Gaza on the border of your current state how would you feel about that? Would the now US Palestinians accept Jewish Americans?

Now instead of doing that with a Palestinian state how about doing the same with Israel, remembering that 2 million Muslims live in Israel now.

You see where Im going with this...

Hamas will never be a defendant in any court I am in.  Hamas are TERRORISTS.  Period.  They are guilty before they set foot in the door.  The only question would be...are they "Hamas"?

Beyond this, I will let you decide. 

Regarding your snap fingers question, you need to remember, these borders go back more than 100 years (to 1917, 1919 and 1948).  It's not like just annexing some land adjacent to a State in the US.  But, just going with your hypothetical for a moment, let's say a Native American land was converted thusly (let's not get into the Native American discussion, it's just an example only to illustrate your point).  Okay, I wouldn't have any problem with immigration of either Palestinian or Israeli to those lands, provided they met the criteria and they legally emigrated/immigrated.  Dearborn, Michigan is a good example of Arab immigration.  As a rule, they are a civilized and taxpaying community who (generally) obey the rules of the society around them.  They can be difficult sometimes, but so can any cluster of foreign nationals in a confined area, but they are by far much better than some of the US national communities which surround them (and they didn't emigrate from anywhere, despite their legacy claims to the contrary).

But back to the topic at hand, and specific to the area formally known as Mandatory Palestine, I would think percentages of the boundaries laid out by UN Resolution 181(II) would be more than acceptable to both sides.  Maybe re-draw the Green Line, or the original Res. 181(II) boundaries and then overlay the new Israeli territory over it.  Calculate the difference and then create a joint "international zone".  Israel is not going to back up, so this would be equally unreasonable to expect (and likely just create more hostility).  A good starting point would be just draw the boundaries today, and start there.  Remember, it's statehood this time...sovereign land.  Maybe it's not the ideal solution in the long haul, but it's a start.  And see, this is key, you just have to start somewhere.  Just something, anything, to show the principles are valid and in force.  Okay, people are going to grumble, but the sign of a good negotiation is when no one leaves the table with a smile.  It's a starting point.  Palestinians have their first taste of sovereign land (regardless of size).  It's theirs, and no one can take it away from them.  UNLESS, they do something stupid, and then all bets are off.  Again, it gives them something to lose, which they don't have now.

As for emigration of Israeli Jews and/or Palestinians to the US, they should be offered the same rules of legal immigration as any other foreign national.  They are more than welcome, but they need to follow the process, not just swim across the Mexican border and then stick their hand out.  Nothing more, noting less.

I believe I have responded to your questions.  Regarding your last question about if I...'see where you are going with this'...honestly, I am not sure I do.  You asked some reasonable questions, and I tried to provide some reasonable answers to those questions.  Beyond that, I don't really see any hidden undertone.

Fair enough?

(06-17-2024, 09:43 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote:  

(06-17-2024, 07:00 PM)DBCowboy Wrote: *sigh*

Let me put it another way then, how can I hate hamas and not hate palestinians (who are hamas)?

(06-17-2024, 03:10 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Your message board opinion says unlikely, but Hamas' remaining leaders, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran, and the Houthis and the college protestors (remember the original premise) have all in some shape or form rallied for the complete and permanent destruction of Israel.

Hezbollah and Iran both will continue to attack Israel, especially when and if Gaza and the West Bank become free and independent. 

From the the river to the sea, does not include a sovereign, safe, and secure Israel. 

I still haven't talked much here about addressing Israel's points for continuing the onslaught, the remaining hostages, and then continuing the influence and control Hamas has over Gaza. Because it's not the point of the thread. 

But
let's just leave Hamas in control write off the hostages, and see how that goes...

thankfully even DC sees now this isn't possible

https://x.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1802759042701635610

 There were reasons Egypt didn't free Gaza when they controlled it for 11 years too

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/GJ5sm4n/Screenshot-2024-06-17-16-07-19-573.jpg]

(06-17-2024, 09:01 PM)DBCowboy Wrote: Then you kill them harder so they never WANT to do it again.

(06-17-2024, 03:03 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote: So, you see, this is bigger than Israel, but Netanyahu doesn't see it this way.  He only sees Israel; he's selfish this way.  He has blinders on because he's not worried about the rest of the world, only Israel.  In his mind, everyone 'else' will deal with the rest of the world.  He just expects the US will be there to back him up no matter what he does.  But if Netanyahu goes and starts WWIII, that's a shit show none of us want to see.  And the first group of people who are going to get 'cancelled' are...the Israelis.  I don't want that; you don't want that, and nobody wants that.  Candidly, the Israeli people definitely don't want that.  So, one of the first steps out of this mess is Netanyahu; he needs to go.  Baby steps, but baby steps "out" of the fire, not into it like Netanyahu is doing.  Netanyahu must go.

That is my point.