I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.
I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.
Under what terms do you think Iran would accept terms that didn't include the utter destruction of Israel and replacement with an Islamic theocracy? "From the river to the sea"?I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.
Despite their cleric's public posturing, Iran has been amenable to pragmatic deals. Since Iran is supporting its proxies "sub rosa", any deal would mean a public climb down from their public persona of the destruction of Israel. So, I think it is premature to write off Iran. I also think Netanhyu has worn out his welcome with the current administration. If Biden is re-elected, Bibi will have no friends in the administration. And if the House republicans keep holding up the aid package to Ukraine and Israel, Bibi might be more willing to make some sort of deal,Under what terms do you think Iran would accept terms that didn't include the utter destruction of Israel and replacement with an Islamic theocracy? "From the river to the sea"?I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.
Frankly, I don't think they will. And even they did, other islamicists would step in to support the Islamic terrorists amongst the Palestinians.
Tom
ETA ~ I am trying to imagine a deal under which the US government would agree to stop supporting Israeli Zionists. "For Peace" Nope, I can't imagine it. ~
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics. Iran's issue is they want the big bad wolf / windmill to the west to rail on against.Under what terms do you think Iran would accept terms that didn't include the utter destruction of Israel and replacement with an Islamic theocracy? "From the river to the sea"?I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.
But those groups wouldn't be funded nearly as well. It would make a HUGE difference. The goal isn't utopia. But it'll be a very tough sell because the Iranian power structure wouldn't exactly want to cede to Western authority over Israel. That and they don't actually care about the Palestinians, so it isn't like a concession to the Palestinians does Iran anything.Frankly, I don't think they will. And even they did, other islamicists would step in to support the Islamic terrorists amongst the Palestinians.
The US has made deals in the past. How much has the US spent to pay for Jordanian and Egyptian peace with Israel?ETA ~ I am trying to imagine a deal under which the US government would agree to stop supporting Israeli Zionists. "For Peace" Nope, I can't imagine it. ~
Well, Iran has been screwed, more than once, by the USA. Google "Obama peace deal with Iran".Despite their cleric's public posturing, Iran has been amenable to pragmatic deals.
Iran was not screwed. When Trump reneged on the plan, it became defunct.Well, Iran has been screwed, more than once, by the USA. Google "Obama peace deal with Iran".Despite their cleric's public posturing, Iran has been amenable to pragmatic deals.
In your view, who is going to step in to Iran's role in the "money for Islamic terrorists game" if Iran steps out with Hamas?But still, you're ignoring my main point. Iran isn't the only player in the "money for Islamic terrorists game".
Hamas controls Gaza. If Iran stopped supplying money, someone else will do it. Hamas remains in control. Nothing gets better for Gazan civilians or Israelis.
Hoping for peace deals with violent theocratic terrorists is pissing into the wind.
Tom
Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.Why would it be important that they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites?Go for it, if they're quantitative and they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites. "The Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites" is a dog-bites-man story. Everybody in the Middle East is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites.There have been many other genetic studies which support the current consensus that the Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Do you want links to them?
If you say so. So what conclusion do you propose that we should derive from somebody being a descendant?A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.
How would you apply it? What follows from indigeneity? If being a descendant makes you indigenous then the Ashkenazi and Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who immigrated in the 30s and 40s were indigenous too. A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.(The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the rights and wrongs of the modern conflict aren't determined by genetics. Politesse had it right: "But I don't think the concept of indigeneity applies to the situation at all." Everybody born there has the same right not to be kicked out, just like an anchor baby born in America to illegal immigrants has the same right to stay here as a full-blooded Sioux.)
I do think the concept applies.
That's anachronistic. Cite?Golda Meir once called Palestine "a land without a people for a people without a land".
First show she said it; then we can consider whether you're imputing the right purpose.She was explicitly denying the existence of an indigenous population in order to obfuscate the ethnic cleansing that Israel was founded on.
"such a thing as an"? "People" is plural for "person". Using it in the singular is always an exercise in propaganda, whether you're claiming the Palestinians aren't "a people", or are. There exists no "truth-maker", no objective criterion, for one group of people having "a people"-hood and another group not. Whether "there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people" is irreducibly a matter of subjective opinion.The denial that there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people has direct bearing on the current conflict.
That is a start. Tenuous but a start.And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.By all means. Lead on MacDuff.Well, since no one posting in this thread appears to want Hamas to win, or believes Hamas could possibly win, can we move on to discussing the kind of State the PA wants, and the kind of State the Zionist hardliners Netanyahu leads want?That was me a lot of posts ago.An error was made somewhere, possibly by me, that caused other people's words to appear to be mine. I am not the author of the paragraph that begins with the comparison of Hamas to Bin Laden.
I believe. too, that Hamas want a single Palestinian state. It is the composition of said state that is the question. It would be Palestinian but I fear with no Jews at least and perhaps no non-PalestiniansAlso, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.
I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism. I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might), or that they think Jews are their only enemies. I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.
I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.
It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.
Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.
Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.
No argument from me on that scoreAlso, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference. Israel's chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.
If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.
Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.
Perhaps Hamas could stop raining rockets on Israel, not slaughter and kidnap Jews, start looking after their own people? That would be a good start to a deal.
It will be very messy.My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.
Should have been a bit clearer. Yes the Nazis were there but they were told this is what is going to happen. Their opinion, views, wishes were neither sought nor needed.That is a start. Tenuous but a start.And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?
It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.
Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.
Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.
They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.
When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.
Like the Nazis they should be told where to sign and shut up.If Hamas has no role in the peace negotiations it will be easy for them to disavow any peace agreement reached between Israel and the PA. There's no good reason to provide them with such an easy out. IMO they must be signatories in order for the agreement to have any legitimacy or enforceability.
Out of bounds on the full (Aust, footy analogy)Tigers thought he scored a point.
Really? Please cite your sources for this.Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.
Being a descendant does not imply indigeneity. It only implies some degree of ancestry.Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.Why would it be important that they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites?Go for it, if they're quantitative and they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites. "The Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites" is a dog-bites-man story. Everybody in the Middle East is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites.There have been many other genetic studies which support the current consensus that the Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Do you want links to them?
If you say so. So what conclusion do you propose that we should derive from somebody being a descendant?A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.
How would you apply it? What follows from indigeneity? If being a descendant makes you indigenous then the Ashkenazi and Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who immigrated in the 30s and 40s were indigenous too. A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.(The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the rights and wrongs of the modern conflict aren't determined by genetics. Politesse had it right: "But I don't think the concept of indigeneity applies to the situation at all." Everybody born there has the same right not to be kicked out, just like an anchor baby born in America to illegal immigrants has the same right to stay here as a full-blooded Sioux.)
I do think the concept applies.
That's anachronistic. Cite?Golda Meir once called Palestine "a land without a people for a people without a land".
The saying was made up by British evangelical Christians in the 19th century. A few Jewish Zionists repeated it before they realized how many Arabs were there. It's unlikely Golda Meir ever said it; if she did it would have been when she was a teenager.
First show she said it; then we can consider whether you're imputing the right purpose.She was explicitly denying the existence of an indigenous population in order to obfuscate the ethnic cleansing that Israel was founded on.
"such a thing as an"? "People" is plural for "person". Using it in the singular is always an exercise in propaganda,The denial that there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people has direct bearing on the current conflict.
Ah, semantics.whether you're claiming the Palestinians aren't "a people", or are. There exists no "truth-maker", no objective criterion, for one group of people having "a people"-hood and another group not. Whether "there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people" is irreducibly a matter of subjective opinion.
That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.
The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.
Yup. I consider the Palestinians victims--it's just I think the victimizer is the Muslim radicals (currently Iran but the problem goes back farther), not Israel.I can only take your response to indicate you don't think the Gazans are culpable, but are quite irrelevant, as you hit on the main cause... and quite unintentionally indicate how peace actually starts... and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians, but the Iranian radical extremists funding the chaos exclusively for chaos' sake. Turning off the tap there is a major step in stopping the killing.The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.
Peace only comes after the funding stops.
Which was both intentional and no secret.That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.
Look for your keys under the streetlight! Why do you think it's possible to find them in the dark?!And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal? Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.
I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.
Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.
Israel perfectly well knows it can't stop the attacks. This is about minimizing it.Then the IDF's operations will not accomplish all of their goals. If you actually thought about it, you are undermining your defense of the IDF's destruction of Gaza and their killing of thousands of civilians.The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.
Repeat this ad nauseum won't make it true.
It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.
Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.
No peace that Iran doesn't agree to is worth the paper it's printed on.I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.
Falling for Hamas propaganda doesn't help things.Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference. Israel's chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.
The lid is called Hamas.If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.
Iran is absent.It seems to me that as a general rule excluding a principal combatant from peace negotiations makes no sense. If a principal combatant us excluded, they have no chance to agree to peace.
I mean Gaza, not some house in Gaza.That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.
The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.