"The film . . . does not answer the questions about why we are all suffering this terrible attempt at erasing Palestine."

I believe the idea is to destroy Hamas.

"It does show the result of hatred between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

The problem seems to be a 'disagreement' about "who started it".

"It does not show why this colonial act of creating a state of Israel saturates US society or why we are funding this genocide if Israel is an independent state."

Saturates? No idea what you mean. As for "colonial act" and "genocide", those are terms anti-Zionists use.

"It begins to show what peace could look like"

Does it? Cuz reality looks looks like devastating state of war.

", and for the crime of showing the reality on the ground in Palestine and for showing what peace could look like, Israelis beat Academy Award-winning director Hamdan Ballal nearly to death when he arrived back in his homeland yesterday."

I do not condone this act of violence. Your characterization of the attackers as 'Israelis' is probably correct, but implies that Israeli's in general would condone this, and although I can't give stats of course, many would not. As for 'nearly to death', AP reports that the injuries were serious but not life-threatening. Doctors noted bruises and scratches across his body, abrasions under his eye, and a cut on his chin, but no internal injuries. Therefore, characterizing the assault as "nearly to death" is a severe exaggeration on your part.

"Now showing at the Davis Varsity Theater. The people who might be most opposed to this film are the people who most need to see it."

I don't know if I'm 'opposed' to it, but I've not been politically-swayed by the last two pro-Palestine movies, both of which I found to be leaving out anything not pro-Palestine. Which is OK, I'm also critical of much Israeli propaganda as being one-sided. 'the first thing lost in war is the truth' as they say.

"Do we keep paying for the killing, or do we stop?"

Maybe release the hostages and stop firing rockets at Israel, for starters?

No? I didn't think so.

RO, I think you could 'blame' 'both sides' for it being about religion to a degree. As for 'making it part of Israel', a major issue is, even if that were to happen, I don't think you could simply integrate all the Gazans into Israel and screen out all of those faithful to the concepts of Hamas, even if not formally part of Hamas. In other words, there would be a great deal of bombings, both suicide and non-suicide. What do I see as the 'solution' ? I actually don't see one. This will probably go on until someone triggers a nuke and makes the holy land uninhabitable for everyone.

It starts at 6:10, so we were late since I went by what was written here.

I saw 'No Other Land' last night. I would recommend to any/everyone seeing this films which end its run tonight at the Varsity. This isn't about Hamas and Gaza, this is about a Palestinian village near the border of the West Bank and the Settlers Movement in the West Bank. The other two films I saw at the Varsity that were sponsored, I did learn something, but found them lacking key information and would call them closer to Propaganda (not that Israel doesn't do that too - the first thing lost in war is the truth). This, however is more a specific story of a Palestinian village caught up in a part of Israeli policy that -- although I am generally a supporter of Israel, if not its current government -- I too find abhorrent and immoral. For all those willing to hold two conflicting views on a subject with thousands of shades of complexity and willing to witness a very painful situation, I say this is a must see.

I still disagree with much of SS's characterizations in the text of this piece, but we do agree this movie should be seen.

Honestly - I'll repeat that the best outcome would be for Israel to permanently-occupy Gaza. Mostly for the people of Gaza, themselves.

Rebuild it, install a stable, representative government. Infuse it with massive amounts of aid.

I don't see any other way to rebuild that area (financially), and to simultaneously create peace and prosperity for all.

Truth be told, I'm reminded of the idea/plan that Trump floated. But it would have to be through Israel.

I was going to suggest that Israel also "decarcerate" all of its political prisoners, to see what happens.

But I actually am serious - I don't see a reason that Gaza needs to be separate. It's already a failed state (and has been for decades, apparently). And before this conflict, I didn't know how clearly it appears to be a weird "chunk" of land inside of what would appear to be a more-natural alignment for Israel.

World War II resulted in drastic changes in some countries (e.g., Germany and Japan) - and that turned out pretty well. Both of those countries are now among the strongest allies of the U.S., while still maintaining their own identity. (Of course, that's also how Israel came into being, but some seem to resent it ever since.)

I might also suggest that the entire area become "Gaza" (including Israel), but the folks who run Gaza haven't demonstrated any ability to run their own country (territory?) in a civilized manner.

Don't know of any other solution.

Now, if we can only get the "neighbors" to go along with that solution.

Actually, I just learned that Gaza had already been considered to be "occupied by Israel", per Wikipedia. But I'd have to say that Israel apparently wasn't serious about that, if they allowed Hamas to take over.

Maybe we should let Trump have a crack at it, right after we get Canada, Greenland, and the "American" (Panama) canal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

Alan: True that I'm rather new to learning about what's occurring, and I realize that you already know more than I do.

However, when you state this: "One problem from Israel's perspective is the number of new citizens aligned with the extremist Islamists who want Israel destroyed as a Jewish state who would now have easy access to harm civilians."

This seems a lot like saying that Nazis still threatened Germany after they lost the war and allies and Russia took over.

Or that the former leaders of Japan and Italy were "still a threat" after they lost that war.

When you occupy and rebuild a country, you control all aspects of governance.

And if you don't occupy it, the "extremists" are going to have more access to civilians, not less.

RO say: "This seems a lot like saying that Nazis still threatened Germany after they lost the war and allies and Russia took over. Or that the former leaders of Japan and Italy were "still a threat" after they lost that war."

The difference being, once the military machine was destroyed, the individuals making it up stopped fighting. I do not believe this would be the case were the population of Gaza integrated into the country of Israel.

Since Hamas' charter, until several years ago, called for the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews, I rather doubt it would be possible in the same way violence in Northern Ireland dissipated. The charter was changed, but October 7th rather belied any change of heart. While Hamas can be weakened, I doubt the hatred against Jews can be, not any time soon for sure. One of the reasons there was a mass exodus after the war (WWII) from Europe was that the hatred of Jews remained after the war ended. I've seen every Holocaust survivor I could see speak and this was brought up by more than once.

"Thought not having a "military machine" would limit their capability."

Terrorism doesn't need a military machine.

I'm confused. Why do you write so much as a single word about issues you don't care about? Wouldn't naval contemplation be a more productive use of time?

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing your ideas to permanently resolve the problem, since you do seem to have more interest (and knowledge) than I do.

So far, you've only pointed out why my idea wouldn't work. You might be right.

I'm not looking for an "argument".