Gaz-a-Lago

@wallstreetcappers

 My contention is this does not mean peace, your contention is that it does.

No sir. 

That is not my position; that has never been my position; that would never be my position.  That is nonsense and absurd. 

You are attempting to strawman my position in order to attack that position.

You cannot juxtapose two vastly different viewpoints by attempting an univocal usage of the word ‘peace’.

As someone who has traversed the globe their entire life and career and been in multiple war zones and conflicted areas, I fully understand the depth of the destruction and devastation there.  I know, by necessity, the history of lots of these areas, including this one.  I fully acknowledge the issues there, including the Old Testament part of it.

No one disputes that this is the case.  In fact, I would wager 99+% feel that way.  That is not what is being referred to with this peace deal.  This is to quell this enough to get the hostages back and to halt the current war that is going on.

That is the point in the quote: “Peace is not only better than war, but infinitely more arduous.”

No one doubts that there will have to be future endeavors to try to have a longer timeframe of peace.

You, for sure, would hope and pray for peace long enough for the next generation to come into leadership with, hopefully, a more peaceful mindset.  It will indeed be hard when school kids are taught math based on how many hypotheticals of the enemy they have killed.  No one questions the efforts that it would take for a longer peaceful solution.

This deal is to get the hostages back and stop some of the devastation while one side is being depleted of weapons.  The hope is that they will not continue to pursue them for the sole purpose of restarting this.  This deal is that there might be hope for a leadership change that would not oppress its own people by pilfering funds that would feed them to pursue weapons and recruit soldiers.  This deal is to at least calm one side down by giving back the remainder of their people.

No one doubts that then one side will go back to planning and stockpiling to do this again, while the other side can simply try to play defense as best as it can with what some think was questionable intelligence.

As they say, “Hope for the best; plan for the worst.”

But when you come into a thread and start by pooh-poohing the premise, then back it up with a sense of victim-blaming, then belittle the folks commenting in the thread, then tether it all together with a dismissive and despondent attitude by saying, ‘…oh well, there will never be longterm peace in that area for all eternity…’ — that is simply too deep of self-dug hole to climb out of.

Simply repositioning the original premise to another of your liking is not good enough to justify not wanting to agree that this should be a cause for celebration.

It is bewildering how you cannot think that this is good and at least give Trump some credit for attempting something when no one else has.

“The future depends on what we do in the present” — Gandhi

@wallstreetcappers

Error 500 

I don't disagree with anything you said there. The ideology of that region with Israel was created as opposed to earned. This, of course, in terms of wars fought to obtain land and balance through forceful lives lost and domination through brute power, which is how most of the world's boundaries were drawn. I can agree that handing the land over and religion is part of the tumultuous stake in that region. The religious beliefs in that region are something else and create just about all of the extreme division. 

The problem is that Israel believes the land was given to them for very different reasons relating to religion and to escape persecution from WWII. They also feel the land was taken from them. The land was divided by the UN, fairly, that is obviously the debate and has been for all these years. Because of what happened to the Jewish people it was a form of retribution or guilt, so to speak, similar to the US and the Indians. The actions of the Holocaust put the area in extreme turmoil and the Jewish people in the area felt that the land was entitled to them for various purposes. The boundaries that were drawn never sat well with many in the region which is why the conflict still exists today. I mean, as soon as Israel was declared Israel they were invaded with bombs dropping and it has been that way ever since. It's the most bizarre area in the entire world with its endless tension and wars. I don't think the British division of land was meant to be permanent, but rather a temporary solution, however as soon as the British left Israel was bombed...basically the Arab nations and Palestines  rejected any such dividing from the get go. The British did not wish to entertain the conflict of the region so they essentially abandoned it. The issue is, even to this day, is that the Palestines were not and are not a nation. Israel was created, but technically the majority Palestinian land is in Jordan not in Israel. 

The British may have yucked this up...getting involved thinking they were helping with the League of Nations, but this backfired tremendously and is still an ongoing issue today. I'd say that's a lousy fuckup...intentions may have been good, but the execution not...the British had no plans on staying and bringing prevailing peace, nor did they quite understand what that may have meant, but once the shit hit the fan they were out or it could be viewed the other way around..I'm sure someone knew something...the intricacies and nuances in this region are one of the most fascinating in the entire world that is for sure...on one hand the Jewish people were forced out of the region and then given the land back...guilt trip for what happened to them or was it the right thing to do? That's the question...

But, your assessment is not ho hum, it does hold merit

@ABooksNightmare

 The ideology of that region with Israel was created as opposed to earned. This, of course, in terms of wars fought to obtain land and balance through forceful lives lost and domination through brute power, which is how most of the world's boundaries were drawn. I can agree that handing the land over and religion is part of the tumultuous stake in that region. The religious beliefs in that region are something else and create just about all of the extreme division. 

Depending on how much emphasis you put into the study of it you will find that this is only part of it.  This part of it is simply the proximity of them to each other in this instance.

To fully understand why there is not an easy solution there or anywhere else, you have to be able to answer exactly why this has been the case for them in any, and every other, part of the world forever.  

It is a largely superficial view to lay it all at the feet of the geography.  It is simply the low-hanging fruit, as they say.

@unplucked_gem

 Yessir.  The play on words in the title was the main reason I clicked on the thread to start with.

Nicely done.

@packersbackers 

Post 17 deserves a standing ovation.

You owe him nothing, no response, and certainly no retraction.

He is full of black hate, just like the leaders of Palestine. He is the epitome of the problem, not the solution. 

Having ate up the last two years of Palestinian propaganda, there is absolutely no chance he will ever accept undeniable truth with evidence.

I repeat, any form of interaction with these type of people should be avoided. 

The left doesn't celebrate the remaining hostages back alive, this is part of their mental sickness when it comes to true humanitarian issues.

Regarding the release of hostages, the disgusting silence from the left, and from every global leader other than USA has been deafening over the past 2 years.

Only Trump stood up and denounced the October 7 attack. Only Trump worked endlessly to find a peace deal. TDS suffers will never allow themselves to be happy for this war to come to an end. 

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree a tad.

I much prefer to discuss, argue, debate with someone with an opposing view.  I prefer more than a cheerleader discussion to reinforce my views.

There are many times where someone from the other side can bring up things that matter to them, or that they see differently, that I may not have fully considered.

Even in-person debates, or even the podcast debates of today are better when that is the case.  Especially, when there is civility and substance and not a lot of yelling back and forth -- which a lot of them are.  The ones that are all one-sided just are not that interesting to me.  Sure, some folks can present the point(s) in better and more articulate ways.  But it is still the same point(s).

On here, he is about the only one from the Left side that will even attempt discourse.  There are a few exceptions.  There are other political forums where this can be done more effectively.  

But this is mainly a sports forum and the politics is just here to pass the time during, or in between, games, etc.

In this instance peace is like health in that it's a direction and not a destination.

Did yesterday's announcement move them in a direction closer or further from peace.