Very sad if true (translated) @AkeemTheDreem86 can you verify that the article is alleging what google translate is showing? That Hamas proposed to release all the hostages to avoid a ground invasion, but Bibi said no. “Former spokesperson for families of Israeli hostages in Gaza says they learned that after October 7, Hamas offered to release all civilian hostages to prevent a ground offensive. “No doubt that Netanyahu is preventing a deal to release the hostage.”” https://www-zman-co-il.translate.go..._x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true Chaim Rubinstein, until recently the spokesman for the families of the abductees, reveals details about the meetings with Netanyahu, about the pressure exerted by the Prime Minister's Office and the reasons for which he resigned from his life project ● In an interview with Gideon Alon, he reveals: "In retrospect, we learned that Hamas offered to immediately release all the abducted citizens If the IDF does not enter the Strip, but the government rejected the proposal"
You didn't quote the posts they were responding to, nor did you seem to read the posts you were quoting which quite specifically stated they were talking about the possibility of contiguous states along the 1967 borders. You ignored both the context in which they were posted and the internal context created by the language to try (unsuccessfully) for some weird gotcha point. This is also not the first time you have done this. It is intellectually dishonest. I only elaborated further because you didn't bother to either read Mathloom's post (which I quoted) or the full text of my post (or you didn't understand them or you pretended that you didn't read or didn't understand them). You even bolded the part where I said contiguous states and then somehow pretended it didn't exist. I have never argued against the hypothetical possibility of a Palestinian state in the areas known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (which is what I assume you mean by "within the 1967 borders" even though there was no Palestinian state with those borders in 1967). Any state is hypothetically possible in any location. To even raise the issue is a meaningless exercise. The Holy Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, or Carthage could exist "within the 1967 borders".
I mentioned I'm not interested in this discussion even though I appreciate your passion for it. Out of personal courtesy to you: Despite the information you've brought to the table I still know there's a contiguous two state solution based on the 1967 borders discussed - in addition to the things you've mentioned - at camp David. There's nothing really ingenuous about how to make it contiguous, I think any teenager or adult can figure it out if they want to overcome challenges rather than dramatize them. Anyone can open the map and think about it. It's not a real obstacle to peace. You'll excuse me if if I don't reply to your next post. Nothing personal, I can hear foresee that the type of discussion you're interested in is not the one I'm interested in. Feel free to get the last word in. Thanks.
The wokes can not fathom that Hamas is anything but unreproachable in integrity and complete and unquestioned truthfulness
I quoted your post verbatim. In one of my post I didn’t even add any of my own content but just quoted your post. I always find this an interesting tactic when people claim they didn’t say or write what they did. I further acknowledged you elaborated and have asked you a question to explain your position. If you feel that is intellectually dishonest then I don’t know what to say. So the bottom line is that you do agree that a Palestinian state could exist in the 1967 borders and that whether there was one or not before isn’t material. Is that correct? Now whether you think one should exist is a different matter but you do acknowledge that one could.
Yes, it is easy to say there is an easy answer, I won't explain what it is (imagine what a teenager would do ), I don't want to engage with everything you said that clearly disproves that assertion. The easiest thing in the world to prove this so simple a teenager could do it solution is just post a map that shows the two contiguous states. The obstacle to peace has nothing to do with the ability to create contiguous states, it has everything to do with the negotiating positions being far apart and the unwillingness of the Palestinians to recognize that they have lost. Thank you, I will. I never claimed otherwise, I even pointed out that you bolded the language that refuted your assertion. It isn't that I didn't write what you quoted, it is that: "you didn't bother to either read Mathloom's post (which I quoted) or the full text of my post (or you didn't understand them or you pretended that you didn't read or didn't understand them)." Given that you quoted that exact sentence, I don't understand how you could possibly come to the conclusion that my criticism was that you were misquoting me. You said I elaborated subsequently as though my position had changed, and that I had contradicted myself. I elaborated to point out that you were ignoring the context and content of the passages you were quoting and I didn't contradict myself. Any state can exist in any borders. As I said, raising the issue is a meaningless exercise. The Zulu nation could exist as a state in the West Bank and Gaza. The only prerequisite for the existence of a state is people agreeing it is a state. The only prerequisites for the state's borders are that people agree on the borders or the state can defend the borders.
