The USA and Israel

[phyllo]

The Palestinians would have accepted the 1947 proposal, and would now still own most of the territory, and all of Jerusalem; and Israel would be a tiny dot of land in the middle of that.

Ah, this.

We don't even have to argue any of this prattle: all it proves is this: that the Palestinians have been determined, since at least 1947, that Israel can never be a nation, and they are not interested in any two-state solution at all. Period. So all the earlier peace efforts have been in vain.

Avoiding dealing with two main points of the article :

1. That the Palestinians were being asked to give up a significant amount of their land to a small number of newly arrived "colonists"

2. That the Israelis never intended to stay within the 1947 borders. It was just the first step to seizing more territory.

Israel has repeatedly offered a two-state solution.

The majority of Israelis don't want a two-state solution. That was true before Oct 7 and it's definitely true now. Polls consistently show it.

The majority of Israelis don't want a one-state solution. Polls show that as well.

I wonder what people imagine the post war situation will look like.

I have my own ideas and it's not pretty.

[bahman]

Their lives.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/k_0L_nhEwtg

So if you love peace, then don't just nag...make it possible for them to say "yes." If you don't, then you are just perpetuating genocide.

But how do they know that accepting a ceasefire leads to losing their lives?

When a group of terrorists, who have already massacred your people, tells you that they want you all dead "from the river to the sea," and has refused any two-state solution, starting in 1947 and then several times since, and has recently broken the latest ceasefire after only 15 minutes, and continues to shoot rockets at your civillians, and builds terrorist tunnels, and uses their own people as human shields, says they want "peace," you can be quite sure that any sensible person is going to ask quite a few questions.

Then let Israel murder even more civilians until no one is left. That is your solution!

[Immanuel Can]

So your thought is that they never actually intended genocide at all? For you write, "...you presented it as if genocide is on the table. It's not." It was never "on the table," right?

Not as real threat, as you presented it, no. Israel's military alone makes this impossible. And the US immediately sent ships to support Israel. Not a chance. Just as in every single conflict going back decades, more Palestinians die than Israelis, and nothing remotely even when 6 or however many Arab nations joined together to attack Israel.

So, making it seem like anyone being for the ceasefire is accepting genocide is a lie and hysteria.

I think that's naive, honestly. I agree that the effort was foolish and obviously ineffective, at the end of the day; but its intention was very clear. And Hamas's subsequent actions and defiant claims have only reinforced the obvious fact that, however misguided, the purpose was clearly eradication of the entirety of Israel "from the river to the sea," meaning genocide.

So Israel is not in a safe position to put any trust in these people. Given their own territory and bundles of international aid, they used it for nothing but preparing guns, terrorist tunnels and other supplies for attacking Israel -- and, most telling of all, thousands and thousands of rockets that can only be used indescriminately and against civilian targets, and have neither the precision nor the power to destroy military targets. And these, they have not ceased to fire, even while under seige themselves, and at the cost of their own destruction.

The intention is clear: kill all the Jews, and take all the territory Israel now has. It's nothing less than that. And when such intentions are what one's enemy has, one would only be foolish to give them time and means to summon the rest of the force necessary for them to achieve their intention. So they may have failed today; but Hamas has not given up, and will not give up. So I understand very well Israel's belief that this enemy must be removed.

Now, I'm not saying they were being realistic.

But you presented it as a realistic threat before.

It IS a realistic "threat." That threat simply went unfulfilled -- for now. But one cannot allow Hamas time and space to act on its expressed desires any further, obviously. So yes, the "threat" as you call it, is very real, and obviously so, their current failure notwithstanding.

Hamas are clearly homicidal maniacs who have passed the point where conscience even functions for them. You can see that in their slaughter in southern Israel: no women, children or elderly persons are so helpless that they will not torture, rape and murder them with impunity. That they are presently-failed maniacs doesn't make them any less dangerous. They have not just present efforts, but clearly-expressed intentions going forward, as well.

[Immanuel Can]

The majority of Israelis don't want a two-state solution. That was true before Oct 7 and it's definitely true now. Polls consistently show it.

And yet, that is exactly what they've repeatedly been willing to give. Sure, it's not their ideal: naturally, they would prefer to have all of their homeland, as would you, in their place. I assume you don't want to give Ukraine back to Russia, do you?

But whereas Israel is willing to negotiate, Hamas, by its own declaration, is utterly unwilling to accept any such solution under any conditions, even for its own survival. So there's no bargaining position from which to move on that.

[Immanuel Can]

Then let Israel murder even more civilians until no one is left. That is your solution!

No, I've repeatedly said what my solution is: Hamas needs to be arrested by an international coalition, and brought to justice accordingly. Why are you determined to misrepresent me in that way?

[promethean75]

"Then let Israel murder even more civilians until no one is left. That is your solution!"

I think it's very clear what IC wants the IDF to do, bahman.

[bahman]

Then let Israel murder even more civilians until no one is left. That is your solution!

No, I've repeatedly said what my solution is: Hamas needs to be arrested by an international coalition, and brought to justice accordingly. Why are you determined to misrepresent me in that way?

OK, until then.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, I've repeatedly said what my solution is: Hamas needs to be arrested by an international coalition, and brought to justice accordingly.

That will not happen. It is not realistic to imagine or hope that it happens. It is an absurd unreal phantasy of no value in this or any conversation.

FYI.

In that sense you’ve been wasting everyone’s time and energy.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I've repeatedly said what my solution is: Hamas needs to be arrested by an international coalition, and brought to justice accordingly.

That will not happen.

Do you know whose fault that is? It's the fault of those who are afraid to intervene, or who don't like Israel and would rather see Hamas kill Jews -- even if that would also mean that Hamas ends up causing the total destruction of Gaza. In fact, for Hamas, that's their "second best outcome": that if they cannot defeat the Jews themselves, they succeed in distracting from their own corruption, homicidal mania and ineptitude, and garner sympathy from a morally-confused Leftist-propagandized world. Then they get something for their strategy...not the first thing they want, but maybe they think they can get the international community to turn on Israel. At any rate, they're preventing further extension of the Abraham Accords.

The very WORST moral position for an onlooker in this situation is to sympathize at all with Hamas. That's to side with demonstrated homicidal maniacs.

Is that you, siding with Hamas?

[phyllo]

The worst moral position is kill and wound dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innocent Palestinians every day.

The second worst moral position is to stand by and allow it to happen, and to make excuses for the perpetrators.

And that's your moral position.

[bahman]

The worst moral position is kill and wound dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innocent Palestinians every day.

The second worst moral position is to stand by and allow it to happen, and to make excuses for the perpetrators.

And that's your moral position.

He is not in favor of war as far as I understood. He is in favor of an international coalition that brings justice by arresting Hamas.

[phyllo]

The worst moral position is kill and wound dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innocent Palestinians every day.

The second worst moral position is to stand by and allow it to happen, and to make excuses for the perpetrators.

And that's your moral position.

He is not in favor of war as far as I understood. He is in favor of an international coalition that brings justice by arresting Hamas.

Every day that he makes excuses for Israel, the war, the killing and the destruction goes on.

IC is an enabler.

[bahman]

The worst moral position is kill and wound dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innocent Palestinians every day.

The second worst moral position is to stand by and allow it to happen, and to make excuses for the perpetrators.

And that's your moral position.

He is not in favor of war as far as I understood. He is in favor of an international coalition that brings justice by arresting Hamas.

Every day that he makes excuses for Israel, the war, the killing and the destruction goes on.

IC is an enabler.

Perhaps he is confused. When I asked why Israel does not accept a ceasefire he said they would be killed if they accept it. When I said that the solution is to allow Israel to kill more he said no and added that he is in favor of an international coalition.

[phyllo]

When I asked why Israel does not accept a ceasefire he said they would be killed if they accept it.

He distorts the danger to Israelis. Intentionally or because he is confused? I don't know. I'm not a mind reader.

When I said that the solution is to allow Israel to kill more he said no and added that he is in favor of an international coalition.

It's basically impossible to form such a coalition.

When has it happened in the past?

How long would it take to do it?

The UN can't even make an enforced ceasefire. They certainly can't go hunting for Hamas. The vetoes in the Security Council will block any initiative.

[bahman]

When I asked why Israel does not accept a ceasefire he said they would be killed if they accept it.

He distorts the danger to Israelis. Intentionally or because he is confused? I don't know. I'm not a mind reader.

When I said that the solution is to allow Israel to kill more he said no and added that he is in favor of an international coalition.

It's basically impossible to form such a coalition.

When has it happened in the past?

How long would it take to do it?

The UN can't even make an enforced ceasefire. They certainly can't go hunting for Hamas. The vetoes in the Security Council will block any initiative.

I agree with what you said.