WHY!!!

Thanks

@statsfun answered it for me.

I don't mind if you answer it or not it was more a statement of fact. Hamas don't stick to treaties now or before and every country that has tried to help the Palestinians has been bitten on the arse by them.

There is a reason no one really wants to get involved and it's not the reason we are being sold.

His name was sir Alexander Galloway I believed

Quite. I’m not sure why some folks are so determined to rewrite the facts here.

@statsfun really enjoying your posts, thank you. Very informative and insightful particularly regarding the way forward in this conflict. Are you some kind of conflict negotiator type? If not, why not?!

With regards to this quote by toothyfruity "Hamas stopped during the last ceasefire. Which is more than Israel did. So I'd be more worried about Israel not sticking to it."

I just want to point out that Hamas broke the ceasefire. People seem to forget that the deal was 10 hostages per day. They then released 8 one day and said "actually, those two extra we released yesterday which were a part of a separate deal? They'll count towards today's hostages". So pretending Hamas were sticking to the ceasefire is incredibly disingenuous and just wrong.

There is a reason why Israel doesn't trust Hamas. Things like this are a big part of that reason.

I dont need the Wikipedia links thanks.

I meant I have no idea why they randomly raised "and what other countries have they caused a problem in". Presumably derailing.

Oh, here's a first couple of links to get you started on the peace treaty with Egtpt too, and the process of having a demilitarized zone (basically the whole Sinai) for 30 years. This is what's worked in the past to build up the trust needed for a lasting peace.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_peace_treaty

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_Sinai_Peninsula (do find some more on the demilitarized zone)

Sorry, no time to find you better links about any of this! But if you start looking up different things in the initial descriptions, you'll find loads.

I'm certainly no expert on this conflict, @Toothyfruity, so when I see something I don't understand in these discussions, I look it up. It's broadened my understanding of why people are making the decisions they do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September - this is where Palestinian militant groups assassinated Jordanian prime minister Wasfi Tal and tried to take over Jordan. Before this, Jordan accepted Palestinian refugees to become Jordanian (since they are effectively one group of people).

When they were expelled from Jordan, they destabilise Lebanon and basically caused the devastating civil war there https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

The Muslim brotherhood created huge issues in Egypt, which is why they won't allow Palestinian refugees in. It isn't Israel keeping that border crossing with Egypt closed! https://bitterwinter.org/the-origins-of-hamas-2-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-the-question-of-palestine/

Just a few links to get you started on reading up about it. I find that I need a few key terms in order to learn about a whole new area I need to understand.

You're eager for me to reply to this. I'm kind of scratching my head to be honest.

Well obviously the peace agreements haven't worked out so there's nothing to stick to. I said in the past the Palestinians have been willing to make concessions for peace.

I'm not sure what you're talking about re Jordan and Egypt.

I'm also not sure why you quoted someone unnamed who apparently made that statement in 1958? Or so Google tells me anyway.

Yeah sorry no idea what you're talking about to be honest so it's hard to respond.

My money is that the spin from some will be the classic "of course they're going to say that, they're terrorists! What do you expect?" and then the next sentence will be something about how Israel needs to stop the violence as it's all their fault.

@Mushroomsouptonight can't wait to hear what the spin on this news is?
@Toothyfruity any thoughts?

Watching Al Jazerra news tonight senior Hamas leader announced that they have no intention of stopping. So more of the same then. They are quite happy to have their children die/martyred as they call it.

I know that we in the west care more about their children dying that they do. They just don't care, their aim of destroying Israel is much more important to them 🤔

Palestine has shown it is willing to sign up to peace agreements over the years.

Where have they stuck to it? And what other countries have they caused a problem in? Jordan? Egypt?

The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore … as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Former head of unwra.

Israel occupied the Sinai from 1967-1979, in order to protect themselves following Egypt's aggression. When I say that they exchanged it for peace with Egypt, it's a quick way of saying that they made a peace treaty with Egypt where Egypt agreed to respect Israel's borders and no longer attack them in exchange for Israel ending their occupation of the Sinai.

The same wording is used for the Palestinian territories.

Again, Israel are the ones not respecting borders, not Palestine.

No idea what you're talking about "exchanging" Palestine with the Palestinians for peace. That makes no sense. Israel is occupying the land and feel it's rightfully part of Israel. And they're behaving accordingly. Palestinians just want control of their own territory.

Palestine has shown it is willing to sign up to peace agreements over the years. Israel has not.

My point all along is that Israel has to make concessions as a starting point. You obviously disagree with that. I'm not interested in going around in circles here so let's leave it at that.

Like I say, I mean stop attacking permanently, not just in order to rebuild weapons.

Hamas wanted a temporary ceasefire, to take control within 67 borders, but without any agreement that they would respect those borders or that they would stop trying to destroy Israel completely from their new, strategically improved position. How can you possibly think that would be OK?

What is it about anything they've done that makes you think they want to make concessions to Palestine
Israel have very clearly shown through their successful treaties with Egypt and Jordan that security is their main concern and that they're willing to give up land in return for peace.

It's a land grab.
Of course. So they were willing to exchange the 23,500 square mile Sinai for peace with Egypt, but they're not willing to exchange 2278 square miles (West Bank and Gaza) - a tenth of that - with the Palestinians for peace?!? The Gaza strip is 141 square miles!! Hardly worth a land grab.

They don't want a peaceful 2 state solution
Netanyahu thinks that 7th October proves that he was right all along that the Palestinians couldn't be trusted not to attack. And that it would have been much, much worse from a militarized Palestinian state made up of both the West Bank and Gaza.

On your last point I do think most of the violence would stop if the Palestinians got what they want, which is an end to occupation and their own state
What basis do you have for believing that? They attacked Israel in 1948, when it was set up as a 2-state solution. They attacked Israel in 1967, when it was Jordan - not Israel - who occupied the West bank and Egypt - not Israel - who occupied Gaza. What has changed? How have the Palestinians ever shown that they are willing to give Israel security?

By a Palestinian state I mean alongside an Israeli state by the way.

@statsfun On your first point- Hamas stopped during the last ceasefire. Which is more than Israel did. So I'd be more worried about Israel not sticking to it.

"Why did you jump to yeah I didn't think they would make concessions. instead of what kind of rock-solid reason ?"

I mean are you watching what they are doing and saying? What is it about anything they've done that makes you think they want to make concessions to Palestine? They're flattening the place, have killed tens of thousands of civilians, they're starving the population who are trapped and they are talking about sending them abroad. It's a land grab. They don't want a peaceful 2 state solution. Netanyahu made this clear at the UN long before this latest conflict even started.

On your last point I do think most of the violence would stop if the Palestinians got what they want, which is an end to occupation and their own state. This isn't the extent of what all Palestinians want of course but I can't comment on that. I know people around here claim that Hamas want to end Israel and take over the world and whatnot but I think a return to 1967 borders and their own state would solve a lot of the Palestinians grievances. It seemed to be what Hamas wanted in 2016/2017 anyway, if my understanding of that process is correct.

Presumably that's why Israel are determined to take Hamas out: because they don't believe they will ever genuinely stop attacking.

With Hamas gone, I don't know. Maybe? After a long time of no attacks?

Israel reached the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 with some pretty substantial demilitarized zones in the Sinai. In 2011, Israel and Egyot agreed that Egypt could move troops into the Sinai. Ie after 30 years of Egypt not attacking Israel.

Gaza and the West Bank are too small for demilitarized zones, so presumably would need to remain entirely demilitarized. That's been a huge sticking point - but again, how does it harm Palestinians to remain demilitarized, even for a whole generation? I do understand that self-determination is really important to Palestinians.

How realistic is this, though? I have a horrible feeling that Hamas have their eyes firmly on the prize... 😟

Oh, and I mean permanently stop. Not just stop for long enough for Hamas to rebuild their arsenal.

@Toothyfruity: Secondly obviously attacks from Hamas and others in Palestine would have to stop as part of a peace deal. They'd also stop if there was a genuine ceasefire. I thought that went without saying so I didn't say it before now.

But that's exactly the problem. There's no reason at all for Israel to think they would stop.

I said earlier After October 7th, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Israel to accept 67 borders without rock-solid reason to believe that it's a permanent peace

Why did you jump to yeah I didn't think they would make concessions. instead of what kind of rock-solid reason ?

That's the key to peace. Don't you think it's worth the Palestinians doing something which causes them no harm to achieve that?

Well there's been no war since 1999 so I think that's a positive. The importance of children growing up in peace cannot be overstated, in my opinion.

The issue in Stormont is that DUP politicians won't sit in a parliament with Michelle O'Neill as First Minister because they are bigoted supremacists. And anti-democratic. Ultimately they're probably just hastening the border poll.

Still better than war though.

@Toothyfruity how's that working out in Stormont at the moment?

So first of all it's not in the past. It's happening now and Netanyahu has said it will go on for some time.

Secondly obviously attacks from Hamas and others in Palestine would have to stop as part of a peace deal. They'd also stop if there was a genuine ceasefire. I thought that went without saying so I didn't say it before now.

My point is that for a peaceful solution after a ceasefire both sides will have to do things they don't want to. For Israel this means ending the occupation and handing back land they stole and I can't see them doing that.

In Ireland it meant releasing IRA/UVF etc prisoners who had committed heinous crimes. It also meant the Republic renouncing its claim to the North and the unionists had to agree to a border poll on reunification once the demographics in the North suggested it might pass.

None of these things were palatable to the various sides but that's what happens when you genuinely want peace. You make concessions.

Nothing says ' we would like a ceasefire' more