40 ms·

These trite replies also worked 20 years ago, but not today. People that have read history know your assertion - vaguely suggesting it was the Palestinians tha

• starik36 1mo ago
  > vaguely suggesting it was the Palestinians that rejected many peace deal I am not vaguely suggesting it. I am firmly suggesting it. This is not false, it's completely true. 1936 Peel Commission. 1947 UN Partition. Post 1967 countless attempts to do land for peace deals. 1999 Camp David attempts, 2000 Taba. 2008 negotiations between Abbas and Olmert. If not a 2 state solution, what exactly are you advocating?
  • deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  • watutalkinbout 1mo ago
    If you genuinely mean this, at least somewhat naive. I believe Russia and Ukraine have had many peace talks, and Putin really wants peace. It's just those peaky Ukrainians not agreeing.
    • starik36 1mo ago
      That’s a nonsense statement. Ukraine got invaded. Similarly to Im Israel being invaded on Oct 7, 2023. What exactly is your solution to this conflict. Other than making snide comments.
      • Parae 1mo ago
        Israel has colonized Palestine for over 70 years. Israel invaded Gaza after they flattened it. Palestinians accepted almost all peace deals, they freed the hostages, yet, Israel kept on bombing Gaza, targeting journalists and civilians. It seems that the biggest problem is that Israel doesn't want a palestinian state and if they need to commit a genocide, they'll be glad to do it.
        • starik36 1mo ago
          Practically every word you uttered is a lie. It's the opposite of the truth. No one's asking you to read books but at least skim the Wikipedia so you don't make a fool of yourself with every one of your posts.
          • ebbi 1mo ago
            Where's the lie?
      • watutalkinbout 1mo ago
        I guess your viewpoint on that varies entirely based on your preferred time period, and my responses vary based on how realistic or honest I believe the response is. I'm not sure there is a win-win solution, and I think there are sizeable elements on both sides that don't want one, but the current approach absolutely won't lead to one. My preference is for minimising the suffering of children. At present the long run situation seems to be that one group of people (who - whether you like it or not - were displaced from their land) suffer continuous stress and roughly 50 times the death and injury rates than the other group of people who live mostly normal lives with the threat of terror attacks. Entertaining the idea that those people are going become less extreme under these conditions seems rather unlikely. In Northern Ireland the numbers killed on both sides (including IRA terror attacks within Britain) were a dramatically closer ratio. I think it is pretty much impossible to achieve anything politically when the side without power is asked to trust the side with power when it sees little restraint.
  • ebbi 1mo ago
    If someone stole your food, and then offered to give you crumbs as a peace deal, would you accept it? You can quantify the number of peace deals as much as you want. But when you don't present the facts and context behind it, you're being purposely deceptive.
    • starik36 1mo ago
      [dead]