An Integrated Peace Plan for The Middle East.

This is a continuation of other peace roadmaps.

'Aliens don't exist, although they do.' The same is true in the context of UFO's. The same is true in terms of people not represented properly and fully.?

The issue of 'representation' is such an important inner human craving, need, requirement. It could be considered 'inhumane' to not allow people representation. It shows a lack of reasoning that does not place one human being on par with another human being. The issue of representation or a lack of it has been an underlying cause for most of the worst events in history.?

On the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs people unrepresented never progress beyond the very first most basic requirement and essential need. Therefore, the 'non-representation of people' is in fact much more of a motivating factor for action in people that are 'not represented' than people that are represented are able to cognitively and emotionally function and reason. This factor has again played out in history many times. When there is no bread, 'let them eat cake' is an example of this. Yet, so too is the course of events that resulted in slavery, the resistance to that, the abolition of that and then the implications of that in the USA resulting in the US civil war. The issue of 'representation' and a lack of it related to all of these events that played out in the 17th,18th, 19th Centuries in the context of the 'lack of representation of people and then the reaction, action cycle that then perpetuates from that.??

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (simplypsychology.org)

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, ...

The issue of 'representation and either having that or not? having that has played out and affected more issues in the USA from the first days of colonisation until today than any other factor. Lets just do a quick list of principle events that exemplify this.?

1. Early colonisation. The alliances made between different First Nation tribes representative of European geo-politics of the time. IE some indigenous people aligned to the British, some to the French etc.??

2. Rights of first people's not acknowledged. Rights of those is the colony. 'No taxation without representation' being the rallying cry for what led to The War of Independence.?

3. The lack of rights and representation of various ethnic groups including Blacks in terms of slavery. Irish, Asians.

4. The implications of mill workers in the North of England not having representation, workers rights. Them relating their position to those enslaved in the colonies resulting in their first 'representation' which was the creation of the first ever UK petition to Parliament.?

5. The Act of Abolition. This providing both Freedom and some representation to enslaved people.?

6. The Southern States considering The Northern States were not representing them. This resulting in the Civil War.

7. The Civil Rights Movement caused by the legal system of the time and how this affected people of different ethnicities. not representing them.

8. The Second World war caused by the German's not considering their effective representation after then WW2 Armistice Agreement. This resulting in the persecution of different groups, combined with rhetoric to 'fully represent the German people'.?

9. WW2 concluding with an agreement between UK, USA and Russia.?

10. The difference between Capitalism/Communism/Socialism in theory, could be defined as the levels of emphasis placed on the differing aspects of the pyramid. Ie top down or bottom up financially, yet also in terms of rights, although this is theoretical in practice often with 'animal farm dynamics' sometimes resulting when put into practice.

11. The different paradigm of reasoning and formats of representation of people, either side of the Berlin wall.

12.? The creation of Israel for a people that had until then had so often been represented in a way different from other people given a country.

13. The creation of that country resulting in different types of representation of different ethnic groups.?

14. The West aligning more to one group. The Muslim world to the other and the East to both.

15. The differences in representation resulting in conflict with origins spanning back thousands of years both in terms of agreement, mutual tolerance, amicable and amiable relationships between the groups some of the time contrast and conflict other times.?

16. Where we are today is that the actions of one group representing some people have been the result of actions by other groups representing other people. This caused by actions of one groups actions against another on a continuous cycle where one group considers that the other group does not represent them and their own people's Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. One group in contrast to the other is taking away the entire Hierarchy of needs of the other group. This is resulting in a mirror effect where one groups negative actions play out onto the other group and then this is responded to a similar and yet different way. This then perpetuating the cycle.?

There are protests worldwide based upon people saying, 'what about the representational needs of these people' and 'What about the representational needs of my people'. The protests are happening in many different ways, these ranging from a large group in the Capital building in the USA of mostly Jewish people having a sit down protest calling for a ceasefire and citing that the events happening do not 'represent' them or their values and thinking. To the Minister of Israel criticising the BBC for not? using the term Terrorist to represent the actions of Hamas. Protests on a vast scale in Muslim countries, in South America. Between Israel and Colombia all to do with the issue of 'representation' of people and their needs in alignment with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.?

So in a way, taking away the ethnicities of people. If acting from the principle of all people are people and deserve their rights to be met. The protestors all have one vitally important aspect in common and that is the issue of 'representation of the needs of their people and that being instigated via discussions, agreements, laws in alignment with the needs in the graph. What's also clearly evident is that the same paradigm of reasoning fits within the context of the war between Israel and Hamas and the war between Russia and Ukraine. The issue of 'representation' is the key essential factor in peace making in both contexts.?

If there is due diligence from the perspective of one group to the other to ensure that the Hierarchy of Needs are met for each people as a first consideration and how that can be possibly obtained via policies, then that can form the basis of a peace process. From there it's possible to work back from there, issues of agreement to then get to issues of non agreement and then to be able to effectively 'barter and trade' a strategy of offsets, where there is a gain obtained for one group in exchange for a compromise.?

The issue of representation is central to what it is to be a human being. Any human beings in groups that have not had the representation in society and the wider world that they intrinsically feel they are entitled to like other people in the world resist. In an interconnected world of peoples, people cannot help compare how there way of life is from other groups.? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The issue of representation is not unique to being an issue in any country, it's the same in every country. Where there are people not represented in one country, there will be people in other countries that align their thinking to the needs of these people and respond. The same was true three hundred, two hundred, one hundred years ago and that was with the quality of media then. In the context of today the interconnection between people is immediate. The issue of representation is an issue central to the cause of many or even most of the wars in the world in one way or another today and for the preceding centuries.

The non representation of some people in South Africa, the non representation of Indigenous people within their own countries and forest communities. The non-representation of women, leading to the the vote won for women. This then paving the way to then leadership.?

The non representation of gay and LGBTQ. The perceived non representation of Uk interests in the EU resulting in the Brexit referendum. People either being represented or not being represented is a very, very big issue for all people. It's so much of an issue that it is inhumane to be dismissive of people of not being or worth. The same happened in 1930's Europe where people were not only 'not allowed to be represented' they were exterminated for even existing. In the context of today, there are people being murdered in wars as a direct result of the non truthful and complete representation of peace processes of the recent past.?

Golf and the quest to get a hole in one, settle for a whole in three, five or seven. Golf is widely considered as a great metaphor for business, for many things and yet fits within the context of peace making.

Golf is a bat and ball game played with a thin stick, and tiny ball that traverses the textures of nature.??

Tiny, micro adjustments in trajectory affecting everything. The smooth fabric of the green, the big picture and small picture of nature and our mastery of it.?The balance between big and small thinking, wide brushstroke and detail central to the result.?The mastery, skill and ability to control the exact direction of the ball within this context of the elements of nature determines the result. A game of golf is competing with self, and others and in the context of the elements, the fabric of nature. The middle ground between vison in terms of what's wanted combined with what's obtained due to the conditions of the world. Much like invention, much like business and peace making. Any golfer that expects a hole in one every time is not going to be good at golf. The expectations do not relate accurately to what is obtainable in real life. If a golfer never believes a hole in one is possible, then they may never attempt to play the game.? ?

If I was on the golf course, amongst the conversations I would perhaps consider the golf course. Mostly surrounded by forests. If we are going to help preserve golf courses, we need to be good at preserving forests. Many forests in Europe today have issues with fires. I would consider the elements of water and Earth to put fires out worked for years, yet not today well enough. The conditions of forests have changed and in fact therefore golf. It's the same with peace making in the past this may have been desirable and yet the way the wider world is changing today its ever more required for many more reasons that never existed before. In order to put out fires better we have the chance to try new things.? We could consider how to use Earth, Water, fire and air to put fires out faster, better more efficiently. In terms of peace making there are no new 'elements' to be able to be obtained from the outside world, it's more about how we are able to realign our own thinking to the changes in the world today, and the needs in the world for tomorrow. It's better to love and to have lost than to have never loved at all. It's the same with peace making attempts. If what we are doing currently does not work in any significant way well, it's less of a risk to consider trying anything else than not being prepared to try something new.??

To be the first to invent requires a dissatisfaction of a problem, and what begins as an intuition, a hunch, even a niggling thought that there could perhaps be something better, helps put our minds into action both when we are asleep and awake with the purpose of trying to fill the void with an answer. The answer may not be good, may be laughable. May be just what's required hidden under this disguise of being a stupid idea. Yet even stupid ideas get better as conditions change. It's so good that when driving on motorways we no longer require a man with a flag in front of the car. That's indicative of just how much the world, our thoughts our reality change. Anyone caught talking into a plastic and metal box not connected with wires in 1980 would be considered no sane. Anyone even questioning the idea of not doing that today would be considered out of touch at best and not sane at worse. I have a little box that I can ask any question to and it will produce an answer is what I used to talk about when I was five years old in the early 70's that was my world of make believe. Other people made that make believe world possible. They provided in their own way the component parts to what made talking into little boxes that produce answers the norm.?

The answer I have asked myself is what paradigms of reasoning do we require to produce an answer to the impossible question not of how to produce a answering box, but a world in need of an answer in it's one of it's most holy and sacred of places to the most amount of people in the world today and for thousands of years previously.?

Peace making to be successful in practice requires conversation beyond that of the written word.?

Whilst my work from 2017 until today has been used by many governments around the world. My work is not? 'represented in the media'.?

There has not been full and complete information that in hindsight if there was, then there could be a more productive and better discussion today. This could have originated from a better discussion yesterday. The missing out of peace making considerations has left gaps in thinking in the more reasonable aspects of human nature, in todays diplomats and leaders and that's what we need the most to consider today.? ?

1. It's unknown and unconsidered that China and Russia both played an essential part in the mediation between North, South Korea and the USA. WW3 was postponed in 2017 which would have resulted in the end of West and East relations. This truth is left unconsidered in world diplomacy today which has been an obstruction factor in more recent peace making attempts again by China. The narrative in 2017 in all media went from verbal nuclear button size competitions between President Trump and Chairman Un immediately to 'Love in and kind letters exchanged between the two.'? Whilst this fictitious account is what's considered as 'the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth'. This very much incomplete account of events effectively undermined 10 countries, most notably Russia and China as Russia in fact was the first country to verbally affirm the peace roadmap method that the USA and North and South Korea then later used.

2, In the context of Syria. There was the incomplete representation of the vitally important peace making and mediation that Vice president Pence did with President Erdogan and the mediation that President Putin did with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad. Russia taking a responsible position of saying that to prevent a larger war it would place it's armies between the other countries armies. If that had not have happened then NATO allied countries could have been stuck between the loyalty of Turkey and Israel, two NATO allied countries. However, not only did they make peace they both became mediators between Russia and Ukraine.?

So in the context of these two scenarios there were vitally important peace roadmaps that were published open source and sent to the White House. These provided n over view of the complete situation from a geo-political perspective. This then provided effectively a guild to reduce and prevent war and to exit war. Yet, the non-representation of this in the press resulted in firstly the good diplomacy of many countries not being fully and properly represented. This in fact includes at least fifteen counties. As I have said in many documents failure to properly represent peace making can cause war. However, there is more to this. whilst I have worked effectively keeping the modern world together, with my work having become an essential resource that many countries have used in order to keep you able to read this, the UK does not allow me to represent this work, and that's when I know more than any MP, current prime minister or former prime ministers how countries have positioned for peace making and diplomacy. It never crossed their minds for example that for there to have been the prevention of a war in Asia in 2017 required twelve countries to adapt their foreign policies. This is not the subject of discussion by media or MP's as they are not knowing, not wanting to know, not allowing for the representation of the complete truth in this as their day to day issues do not involve issues from the other side of the world and the appreciation of how good results happened years ago. The immediacy of politics and the consideration of what's relevant today, rather than what was incorrectly interpreted from yesteryear produces an inherent weakness in mediation potential in the present. Revisiting the past can be vital for the hear and now. The best peace making aspects that some leaders made in the past is as important in really appreciating motive today and recently as what's going to happen tomorrow.??

So there have been recent statements made that are not fully representing all the leadership choices or all of the people properly. Russia taking such an active position in seeking to mediate peace in the Middle East may be a surprise to many and yet if Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Armenia, Afghanistan, Korea's and Syria are not considered, then there is only one scenario to consider and that is Ukraine and Russia. I had been unable to produce a peace roadmap for that as I did not have the knowledge or the resources, nor the financial support, nor the representation of my previous work. So the incorrect representation of peace making in this world is the single biggest fundamental error of modern day thinking. When people cite AI as being the biggest risk to man, I laugh. Apportioning blame onto computers in fact is comparable to the way that one country apportions blame onto another. I believe that the use of long range missiles, yet short range thinking in terms of peace roadmap representation is really the greatest risk to mankind. The truth about peace making has been deliberately kept from public knowledge and truths not communicated openly between any countries. If the world is simply run by people that are incapable of tell the truth to themselves, their own policy makers and each other it's a surprise that relations between countries have been as measured as they have been. Peace making during the course of the past thirty years is a vital content resource in maintaining and obtaining peace for the next thirty years. if this group of people think that group of people are bad today, then the only way to be able to get clearer perception of that is to consider what information are we not considering and to do that requires listening to other information than that that we are used too hearing and considering.?

President Biden is correct is his assessment that an incursion into Gaza would by a big mistake. There are from reports cited as many as one hundred and ninety nine hostages. There is not any way to progress that is ethical, viable, logical without there being the paradigm taken of there being a two state solution and working from that perspective back to now. This is most advantageous to Israeli's as well as Palestinians. If something happens repeatedly for almost one hundred years, then commons sense indicates that it will happen for a hundred or a thousand years. What this is in this case is an act of bad will by one side met with and responded to an act of bad will from the other side.?

What came first the chicken or the egg? That's a secondary issue if you are starving.? There are a great many Israeli's and Palestinians traumatised by war and starving for peace.?

A two state solution is the best 'goodwill measure' that Israel can agree too and if that is subject to the release of the hostages then that would be an exchange that works as much for the people of Israel as well as Palestine. Why? The Uk was once an extension of France, Norse countries, the Romans. None of that worked. Hungary was once an extension of Germany, So too was Holland, so too was France, so too was Poland. All of these countries challenged that as best they could at the time.??

?The intention of Prime Minister Netanyahu is to destroy Hamas. The only way that is possible is to move all the Palestinians not south but move them to middle. The biggest ever exodus of Palestinian people to the middle ground. The political middle ground. That is the best way that Israel can 'manipulate the Palestinian people, by being nice to them. Israel has done everything other than actually be as accommodating as possible. By being that, by being truly fair, by creating an even playing field then the opinion of the Palestinian people will be that their world has changed for the better, that Israel is a central part in making that happen. What then happens to the hatred, it gets replaced by the sense things have changed for the better. When there is any type of oppressive situation towards one people by another people the inevitability of that is that there will be people that resist that. These people cannot be defeated by weapons as one killed creates three more, that is more often than not. The only way to defeat terrorism that works consistently is with a special hand gesture. A hand gesture called a hand shake. Hamas is elected in Gaza. They are democratically elected. That is one important consideration. Whilst the acts carried out on the Jewish people are abhorrent and have to be called out as wrong. There has been nothing in particular that has ever been particularly right for the Palestinian people for as long as any of us can remember.?

A Jewish family of Dad and mum and two children were seeking escape from the situation in Israel, seeking to return and I considered housing them. I cannot do this, much as I would like too. The man is a sound engineer for a Uk based band that I used to know one of the musicians in. I spent an entire night thinking can I help these people. If anyone else in the UK sees this and can help them please contact me. If it was a Palestinian family,? I cannot tell the difference they are all people that are in the greatest need today. None of them were the architects of the problem, all are the victims of the problem.?

It's us that can help in our own ways by putting out concepts and hopefully some of them will be heard. People should not live in places where they are scared for their lives. It's the same from Palestinians and for Israelis. They are people's with different histories and yet today similar problems. As I thought of this story of this young family trying to flee the Holy Land to safety, I could not help but think of the story of Christmas, of a small family 2000 years ago having to flee to avoid persecution. Whilst if this Jewish family had entered my life, we may not have agreed on that story, yet it's true to say today, that there are entire people's trying to escape 'persecution' and that is as much on one side as on any of the others. The Muslim, Jewish Christian plight may be different in terms of the details and yet it's the government level agreement that is failing all people. Does this mean that the governments are at fault? Yes, more so than the people, yet the governments are people in their jobs trying to do the best for their people. It's the agreement part that is not working, has not worked. And making an agreement work is best obtained by the first consideration of the 'representation issue'.? People today perceive American's as being reasonable, intelligent people from a democracy that is a model democracy to many of the democracies in the world. Was the cause of an independent from colonial rule America in the 1700's considered in that way by Europe? No and yes. In Britain no in France yes. There are differences in terms of definition that change in time and that change happens due to the 'representation issue'. Having representation is crucial and the first question to ask is if Palestine is not a free independent country today, then it's controlled. Whilst USA and the UK, France and the UK have not always got on, these countries have learned to become best friends and a part of that has required one country progressing beyond the control or the manipulation of the other. The UK is 1067, not a bid word could be said about France. By 1700's, wars that affected the design of the America's and Asia as well. The British in Burma. The French in Cambodia left Thailand in the middle to keep the two powers apart. It's essential to consider how to position in order to be able to bring about and maintain peace. The best result that can happen today is a free and independent Palestine. However, that created based upon goodwill and that goodwill coming firstly from Israel and Israel asking kindly that that goodwill is reciprocated with a good will gesture, unspecified perhaps from Hamas. The best way to defeat Hamas is to position towards the best side of Hamas in my opinion and therefore Hamas will self organise into a completely new more reasonable position as have every other country in the world that has progressed beyond any form of what can be considered a type of colonialism. Anyone that thinks that the Canadians and American's are just the same, have always been friends are wrong. The Brits the Americans, The French the Brits, the German the French, The Spanish the Portuguese, The Dutch the British, the list goes on and on. There is only a way to break the cycle of one country being dominated by another by there being a mutual status of respect created for the newer country. In the context of Palestine, this is a very old country and what has to be considered is if Palestine had already been mediated into a peace process then the action in Israel recently would not have happened. The failure of past peace making I believe happened as the attempt was made to get everything correct before any progress was obtained. Now is the time for a bold move, a move to say, there is Palestine. Let's begin a good will process based upon an existing successful peace process. To make Palestine a country does not even require a meeting. it's clearly evident that there are no Palestinians that would object to this. The new Palestine within Gaza and The West Bank is already an area that has a controlled border. In term of the issues of settlers I don't know. I don't have an answer to this, however if the plan is to create Palestine then there could be an option of relocation or of the area being under the government of Palestine with all rights fully protected of the Israeli people there. This is the same today with French people who chose to live in the UK having their rights protected as well as the people of any other country as well.? ??

The hostages in Gaza. I'm sure they are preying for an answer. Anyone can be the ambassador to an answer if we put our ideas out. They are praying for the best examples of humanity and compassion. Perhaps we can provide in our own small ways some of the answer that can help produce that sort of outcome. The? Jewish community in Israel losing one hundred and ninety nine people that could otherwise be saved is an amount of people, so large that with a population of less than 9 million people in Israel, most people would likely have or know someone that does in some way has a connection to those one hundred and ninety nine people.

?In other words the choice made by Prime Minister Netanyahu will change the political system in Israel no matter what. he does. If there is a good outcome for these 199 people, then this?then increases that reverse influence with every Israeli affected as much as with every Palestinian.?

Effectively there is a double-bind situation going on with any entry into Gaza and that's just from an in Gaza and Israel perspective. Harm to Palestinians going by the past results in harm to Israeli's and the same is true in reverse. There is an action reaction action reaction action reaction problem and the only way to progress beyond that is via a different way, a new way of reasoning. Prime Minister Netanyahu has a crisis situation where he has opinion within the country that is divided and yet global opinion that is united.??

There are protests and actions that are terrible. A 6 year old Palestinian boy and his mother repeatedly stabbed to death.? One pro Israel protestor having to be protected by fifty police in London. Red paint daubed? on the walls of the BBC. Schools having to close, and the same and similar happening in many countries. It can be said that there is the most concern of anti semitic issues since the formation of Israel, yet the Palestinians are also in a similar position. A letter by 55 congressmen asking for the same International standards for Palestinians. The massive protests in Iraq, and throughout much of the world including in South America.?

A system that has any characteristic resembling apartheid is not of the creation of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and yet today a Rubicon has been crossed where this is parallel situation in terms of protest that ended apartheid.? Has this already gone much further? There was a moment in South Africa where the paradigm had to change, what had happened before became untenable.?

If Israel goes into Gaza with force, then it's not even a case of which countries are unable to ally with Israel due to domestic pressure, it's more a case of which countries will ally with those countries. I have written in my previous document that there has got to be 'goodwill'. The bombing of Gaza, the order for people to leave and go South and then being bombed as they followed the instructions by Israel. The United Nations outraged more so in terms of statement than anything else I can recall. There are statements made by many countries and the consensus is that no countries want a larger regional conflict and the two state solution is seemingly the only possible way to stop the cycle of violence. Therefore, a win-win answer that creates a new system in the Holy Land, where the Palestinians have a place in their own country seems like the only obvious answer.??

A 'uni-polar' paradigm of reasoning is causing chaos. There is no legal justification to bomb Gaza, this is not the actions of a normal government.?

The bombing of fleeing refugees has only one precedent in modern history and these were the policies of Nazi Germany.?

What Hamas did to Israel is a massacre of innocent people in the country they live and yet what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people today is the same.?

The bombed out shelters with Israelis in there was a revisiting of similar actions in WW2. Yet, the bombed out buildings of Gaza are also reminiscent of the same.??

?Israel one week ago had the moral high ground. Jewish people had the moral high ground Internationally from the 1930's until today. Yet, the actions now are doing exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews and what Hamas did to Israeli's. The actions of all are equally wrong. Yet, the way in which the Muslim world is seeing this could unfold out into a regional war. That will be the most likely progression unless there is an answer that's presented. The reality is that the capacity of Muslim countries combined is a super power. Yet, the UK and the USA, China and Russia are united in wanting an answer. What's more there are a great many Jewish people that are protesting against the possible incursion into Gaza including people who have relatives that are hostages. There is a government that is carrying out an action of revenge not justice.

There is a cognitive conundrum in even thinking of what's happening.? How can you be against terrorists killing innocent young people and children and be in support of any government killing innocent young people and children? This entire situation is more than enough to trouble the entire heart felt thinking of the world.?

The incongruency of the messaging from a country that is less than one hundred years old simply does not make sense. People simply cannot align their thinking towards sympathy for one group of people, yet not the other. People do not think in that way. Thinking in that way is the same way that Hitler tried and failed to train Germany in. Have the Palestinians today become like the oppressed minorities of yester year in Europe. The refugee Gaza a part of a refugee Israel. What a paradoxical dichotomy and reversal, a change a paradox upon paradox that creates an ethical labyrinth in terms of even attempting to understand the situation today, an incursion into Gaza is enough to create not only protests and depression but quite literally mental illness to much of humanity. People always asked to have compassion for the Jewish people have that. Yet, having that requires having compassion for other people as well. There is no off button in most people where they can think of some peoples rights and protection yet not another. The compassion that extends to compassion for Jewish people also extends to Palestinians as well.??

To connect to the rights and securities of one people and not the other. To do so would require a form of prejudice, a form of? racist. There is no valid debate that one 'ethnic group is more in need of representation? than the other. When there is that way of thinking, then there is always another ethnic group to climb upon the top of the belief pile and clamber on top of the others. Isn't all this a repeat of the 1930s? The events in Israel were genocide. The events in Gaza today are genocide.

?

What Hamas did in Israel was an act of war and/or terrorism. Was it a provocation or a reaction? These questions are not going to find agreement between different people, there is no chance of that. Yet what there is a chance of is to very respectfully not have that conversation, yet have the where from now conversation.?

Yet what goes on in Gaza cannot be called anything other than war and terrorism. Seemingly,? only way that Israel is able to take the power away from the radical aspects of Hama's is to take away the reasoning for radicalism and that is obtained by enough agreement. By representation and not by more of the same.?

?What has to be considered is that the world wanted to help the Jewish people who were persecuted from the second world war, and yet the entire situation has gone full circle with the Palestinian people being in what can be likened to being too similar position to the Israeli's that the Jews were to the Nazi's. If that is stated as true some people would find that of offence in that being written. If that is not written then others would find that of offense. So here I explore concepts based upon the vast way in which such traumatic experiences experienced by both sides get contextualised, verbalised and yet to say that any one definition?of the experience is the only way that what has happened can be presented as results in the actionreaction paradigm coming into play. So in a way if defining what has happened further perpetuates these types of actions happening again. There is a requirement for a re-think and the answer to that re-think can only really be taking a course of action that enables agreement enough that then takes away the motivation for people to take these types of courses of action. Both terrorism and wars usually have somewhere the issue of 'representation' connected in some significant way. If we frame the conversation around 'representation of people' then we obtain a better place of reasoning that keeping the debate in the realms of the definition of 'the actual event'. In the context of what happened in Israel this was linked to the 'non representation of the needs of Palestinians' and in response to that what happened in Gaza was due to the 'non representation of the needs of Israeli people'. The issue of 'representation' is what's there centrally. If I sat in a cafe in Israel and said what happened was not terrorism people would be offended. If I cat in a cafe in Gaza and said what happened was terrorism then people would be also offended.? If I said in Israel that the 'representation of the security issues of the Israeli people is very important people would agree, if I said the same in Gaza in the context of Palestinians people would agree. So trust produces a sense of security. There is very little trust between the two people's. Yet, we can trust that unless there is a change to the situation then the situation continues. So putting trust in a peace process that gets very fast results and yet is not of risk to people seems to make sense. If staying in the same position is a guaranteed?lose-lose, better to try moving to another position. There has always been a 'cautious approach to peace making. A peace process that considers the issue of representation as central for both people is a good potential position to picot too, though do so ensuring there is the minimum or risks.? ?

Whilst it's tit for tat on both sides that's caused this as well as International policy that has for decades not been balanced for both peoples, in the same way that the policies in 1930's Europe were not balanced for the rights of all people. What has to be said is that this was not started by anyone here today, we can do better today and the best way is to consider the paradigm of reasoning created by those previously has created the injustice, has created the war. How many stone throwing children have died? The world has had the horror film of what has been an endless war in their consciousnesses for all the time that the vast majority of all people have been in this world. This can only stop by there being an immediate end to the actions by both sides perpetuating this situation that is oppressive to the 100%. This issue is not just an Israeli issue, it's not just a Palestinian issue, this is hurting the entire consciousness of man kind. It's turning mankind into man angry, man unreasonable, man unkind and there has got to be a massive act of kindness by at least one side to break this cycle and hopefully be responded to by the other side. It's time for both sides to apologise, shake hands and get the world out of this never ending cycle of abuse that is a part of this world born out of an International gesture to help people.?

The good intentions of then have to be revisited. What the underlying problem of today is that the worlds Muslim population is absolutely vast and that the issues between Israel and Palestinians has reached a level of complexity where all countries want a viable peace. Some are more vocal, some are producing more pressure and yet there is a situation where finding the right line of reasoning is incredibly difficult even for even the media to be fully and properly representing what's happening without causing offence. What's clearly evident is there has never been a situation on planet Earth quite like what there is today, to get out of this it's better to consider something that's never been tried than to remain in the same position.?

?The statement made by President Biden of a two state solution is a line of reasoning that I consider here. I believe from my interpretation of the different wants, demands of different countries and groups that this makes sense. Without a two state solution there is always going to be a disparity in the way in which both peoples live. Yet, with their being The West Bank and Gaza and then other areas where Palestinian's live. There are areas with refugee camps etc. I provide a theoretical answer that could possible work for Gaza and The West Bank and yet I do not know this as I have very limited information and resources in terms of the geography of Israel, so this proposal may not be realistic and yet it's one concept that could perhaps be considered and perhaps improved upon in ways that make the concept practical in terms of it's instigation.? The question is how can there be two autonomous states on Israel and one Palestine? If the West Bank and Gaza become considered as being one countries are there other areas of land that can be feasibly included to provide territory from other countries. With there being methods ways and technologies to regenerate dessert, can these be incorporated in and areas of other countries of this area be designated also as being a new Palestine State? Is it possible to instigate this and to also answer the issues of the settlers? these are questions I do not have the answer for. My hope is that this is not an unrealistic plan. However, whether it is or not I don't have the resources or the time to fully consider and research. However, where the position is in the context of this Internationally, globally even an unrealistic plan is better than no plan at all. Even an unrealistic plan can be made more realistic, more practice. So I provide this work to all as a possible way to be able to create a two state solution, with the awareness that there may be something much more obtained by voicing this rather than there being no other quickly produced answer.??

Facts, real facts. Interpretation misinterpretation.??

I read an article by?Vernon Bogdanor is a professor of government at King’s College London, The title of the article is Hamma's attack motivated only by hate.?

Hamas’s attack was motivated only by hate (msn.com)

MSN

In that article it says, I quote:? ''The activities of Hamas have nothing whatsoever to do with Israeli “occupation”, since Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005; nor with the failure of the two-state solution, which it opposes. Indeed, the Charter explicitly states that “so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences” are “in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement”.

'Hamas, which controls Gaza, has committed itself to the destruction of Israel. However, in a revised charter published in 2017, it said it would accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders'. Sky News This contradicts what Victor Bogdanor states.?

The Sky News Article also say's.?

'Israel's official position endorses a two-state solution, but on the condition the Palestinian side demilitarises - as it sees Hamas and other militant groups, as an existential threat.'

The Sky News Article also states;?

'Fatah and the governing Palestinian Authority in the West Bank support the solution, providing they are allowed to police themselves.'

The Sky News Article also states;?

The lack of consensus on the Palestinian side makes the solution difficult - and an increasing number of Israeli politicians now reject the idea too.

Indeed, Israel's current president, Benjamin Netanyahu, was quoted by the country's national broadcaster in June as saying Palestinian hopes of a sovereign state "must be eliminated".

So, the article by Professor Bogdanor if true contradicts Sky News. However, what the real truth is I do not know. Yet, the attack by Hamma's happening four months after the statement allegedly said by Prime Minister Netanyahu could be significant if the Sky News report is accurate. There is a thesis to be said, whether true or not, I do not know. Yet, going on these published words that 'Hamma's are prepared to settle for a two state solution. That this attack in Israel has happened as a result of the dismissal of the two state solution. Certainly, in recent days President Biden speaking out for the 'two state solution'? either puts for the first time ever the USA and Israel in contrast. Or that statement was made in the first place as only 'one possible paradigm' and yet Hammas considers the entire notion of the dismissal of a Palestinian State to be totally unacceptable, effectively a declaration of war. This again, I speculate on and do so via media sources that I would usually seek to cross reference as I do with all media, if time and resources permit.

I believe it's important for Hamma's to consider that the last Prime Minister of Israel that did agree a two state solution resulted in what could be considered the early deaths of both the Palestinian and Israeli Leaders. The Camp David meetings brokered by Bill Clinton had a remit where nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. Yet. the complexity of the issues that needed to be agreed upon were vast, in my opinion too vast. In hindsight there needed to be some significant progress made early on, benefits to both sides. What has to be considered is the action reaction dynamic. For example President Trump's 'Deal of the Century' may have been what was popular to the Israeli's and yet three years later, there has been a massive backlash which may not have happened had there been a position taken of progress for both the main sides in this. Having a one sided deal to Israel produces a short term answer that may work within the political optics of an immediate situation and yet the reaction to that then can force a more heightened response, then the reaction to that, and eventually lead to what can be considered potentially an existential risk to Israel as a country. There is a whole lot to be said that a not particular good deal for either side is in fact the perfect deal and a perfect deal for either side is in fact the most risky of any type of deals not through the 'action, nor even the reaction, yet the action required in response to the reaction. What's essential now to realise is that both the 'perfect' mutually considering everything type of peace process of 2000 did not work medium to long term and yet also a more one sided approach also did not work medium term either. If the 'deal of the Century' would have been overly in favour of the Palestinian side, the same would have happened where there is an immediate celebration by the Palestinians, then a reaction to that as there was in the context of 'deal of the century' and then that dissatisfaction, the sense of frustration then grows medium term and then there would be an overly negative response afterwards. It's pretty clearly evident to observe that a 'perfect' peace process for both sides over the course of time is not perfect, a perfect peace process for one side is just as not perfect and the action, reaction, action, reaction dynamic of either are potentially an existential risk in fact to either side and therefore to both sides.

So if those conditions are not challenging enough to create a situation where it's so difficult to obtain the right balance, then it also needs to be considered what's being reported in the press today. In the UK there are resignations due to the comments made by the Labour Party leader in the context of statements he made about the justification in the cutting of water, food and electrical supplies to Gaza, people resigning from their jobs citing that this is promoting a 'war crime'. Scotland's First Ministers wife, Nadia El Nakla's family members have been injured in Gaza. The lack of presence of peace process work in Uk politics and yet? comments made by former Human Rights Prosecutor Keir Starmer in terms of the switching off of water, electricity, and food supplies to Gaza, this being 'the opposition' and yet then coupled with the government sending 20,000 troops to Northern Europe, when this is considered with the need for fifty police to protect a protestor for Israel prove that the effects of war are affecting the Uk today as much as the migrations issues due to other wars affecting the Brexit vote. When you have one MP promoting a policy that is taking water, electricity and food from the family of another MP and when one of these is the wife of a leader of a country within the UK and the other the leader of the opposition, it's clearly evident that there are very serious problems within UK politics and the ineffective representation of peace making. If Scotland's first Minister and The Leader of the Opposition met in debate in a Parliament, there could be a political debate like nothing before ever in the UK. The choices made in terms of the position of the UK in representing peace making, is affecting policies more so in the UK than is widely considered. The narrative for war and how much and not peace and how to do in the context of ten days of diplomatic failure, almost quarter of a century of constant war is going a very long way to causing perpetual failure to realistically answer the scale in terms of the complexity of issues that require effective and immediate answers. No statement made by the UK in the context of The Chinese Peace Proposal for the war between Russia and Ukraine. This in the context of telling other countries to help answer the climate issue which obviously won't happen without effective peace making. The reality is that the incomplete representation of peace making in previous years has not fully represented effective mediation and peace brokering of two Israeli Prime Ministers is not fully represented. Ie Prime Minister Netanyahu in the context of Syria, Prime Minister Bennet in the context of Russia and Ukraine. it seems evident that whichever way politics is presented, there is never peace making given an effective chance, nor full and complete representation when it has been effective. This I believe is a major contributing factor to what's preventing better answers from being obtained in various scenarios where they are increasingly required. The approach to diplomacy in 2023 with a distinct lack of representation of peace making could very easily be the foothills of the breakdown in terms of the most essential relations. Peace making is what produces and maintains East and West relations. The cost of ineffective peace making could be the equivalent?? ?

Yet, in Israel. Reuters reported the following.?

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - One Israeli cabinet minister was barred from a hospital visitors' entrance. Another's bodyguards were drenched with coffee thrown by a bereaved man. A third had "traitor" and "imbecile" shouted at her as she came to comfort families evacuated during the horror.??

To then add to this that the incursion into Gaza approach that is endorsed by some Israeli society as being the best answer is resulting in what has also been reported in the press as potentially causing a Hezbollah?incursion into the North of Israel from Lebanon and possibly Syria by 5,000 very highly trained soldiers.?

So in effect, where the situation is in fact today, not only does doing something significant militarily cause greater risks, doing nothing also does, trying the peace process methods of the past as attempted both by a 'mediated approach' that requires time or by a peace process approach that is widely supported by one side and not the other are all ineffective methods in which to consider the best response to the current situation. Yet, in addition to that the current situation is clearly intolerable from as much an Israeli perspective as a Palestinian perspective. As much from a US perspective as a Russian or Chinese or UK, European, Middle Eastern, South American perspective. The world is in fact today in completely unchartered waters with this situation and the implications of this situation are more robustly felt in more diversely different countries with the interests of both peoples considered than any other geo-political issue there has ever been. The world requires an answer and requires that today and yet any answers that have been attempted in the past years or even decades are obviously not viable. To add to this in the already economically complicated time we are in with a worldwide cost of living crisis, there is also concern amongst economists and major International financial institutions that the situation could result in further very significant International economic problems.?

So with all of these considerations in mind, where exactly are we? The world, the Israelis, The Palestinians? The world is in a powder keg situation due to supporters and opponents to all positions in the Middle East by all sides. There is very genuine concern and fear from all perspectives within the Middle East. There are 190 countries many with different considerations of the issue. There is a situation that appears to be as high risk doing something as there is doing nothing. The position the world's in is intolerable, there does not appear to be a very good clear way forward in any direction that does not produce more problems in the days and weeks forward than it seeks to answer today. What to do?? ? ??

My approach is the exact opposite of the two previous mediation, peace process attempts. Consider a deal from both perspectives, produce the biggest leap forward possible to propel the situation forward for the advantage of both sides. Instigate an emergency giant step peace process that defuses the seemingly hopelessness of the situation for all sides. Agree on the single biggest of issues, fast and immediately, any situation is seemingly better than where the situation is today. To reiterate. A significant proportion of the Israeli population consider going into Gaza as and 'destroying Hama's is the answer, the result of that is a campaign that cannot end? quickly, that increases civilian casualties, that then results in more International condemnation, that could also result in incursions into Israel and then the action reaction of this could literally put Israel at risk of a larger regional war with various countries. Not going into Gaza could make to the voters of the Netanyahu government appear ineffective, and weak and yet going into Gaza could make solving the situation militarily seemingly impossible, especially if there is resistance in Gaza which is inevitable and the risk of a ground war. So with all of these factors considered. There is really only one answer that I can think could be workable and that is to do the exact opposite of what's been done before which is to go right back to the original intention that Israel was created in the first place and with that form of reasoning make the humanitarian aspects of the entire situation central to trying to answer this. Produce a totally different paradigm of reasoning between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Then hopefully, the good intentions to consider the needs of all people for the first time in policy will reflect back to helping there be balance and peace. Do what has always been considered to be 'counter intuitive' and actually put trust into the people, the other people. The creation of a Palestinian state is not anything other than what has already historically been. The immediate pay off for the consideration that the state of Palestine simply was emitted from maps and territories for decades is that there is a very reasonable offer instigated immediately and with that there is no justifiable reason for any of the Palestinian side or it's supporters to be against that. If they are, then it's them that are considered to be 'unreasonable' and therefore marginal. The best way to win, perhaps the only way to win the peace is to be not trying to mediate too much from a one sided perspective, but outwardly trying to do the opposite. Don't mediate from a perspective of trying to 'win politically' only to then perpetuate the action, reaction, action, reaction cycle. Be as reasonable as it's possible to be and then put trust and faith in the other side to exert all influence in order to maintain good relations. This approach can be considered by some to be naiive, yet it's the opposite of that. It's na?ve to keep trying to do what's been done before, is to put more and more pressure and to expect a different response. There are two dots on the word na?ve for good reason. The non na?ve way to progress is being imaginative enough to consider the situation from both principle perspectives and to use this rational to find a way to progress that takes the 'hatred' aspect away from the situation. That can only be achieved by making what was never had previously, a good deal for all sides. An immediate new Palestine announced gives reason for the Palestinians to celebrate properly and fully for the first time in the lifetime of almost all Palestinians. Are they likely the following day or month to want to fight against Israel? I think that is much less likely than any other course of action. The easiest way to stop the war is to stop the argument behind the war. The argument behind the war is that the people who once had a country called Palestine no longer have that and want their country back. Why is it really any different the UK wanting it's country back from the EU and Palestine wanting it's country back from the International community, from Israel? Yet, this answer produces more reason for consideration. The Jewish people have longed for a 'promised land for thousands of years, yet never actually had that yet.' How can a promised land, be one that has been in contrast, conflict, war ever since Israel was established? An Israel at peace within it's territory, within it's immediate surroundings has never been achieved before. What's better growing up in a house where the mother and father argue all day, every day or growing up in a house with separated parents? Many who have had that type of experience cite the same. Being in a home without the argument. It must be the same in terms of country. Having a country continuously in conflict both intellectually and physically is, much be a strain on the human psyche of all. The difference between London and the Uk in a state of peace after years of troubles in Ireland was a win-win for the UK, Ireland and the EU. An Israel at peace, that simply treats Palestine in exactly the same way as it treats any other country is the best answer. Should their be conditions of disarmament as cited previously in negotiations. No, and even if there was that's an incredibly na?ve demand there are so many countries and groups that would arm Palestine even is Palestine gave away all of its weapons. The best way to stop weapons being used is by being as reasonable as possible. Being generous with a peace plan and asking in return that the good intentions provided by Israel to Palestine for a new future are fully reciprocated via a peace process that is there for all.? ? ??

?If there is a Palestinian State. That state includes Gaza, The West Bank. There can be as previously proposed a bridge between the two. That can either be an elevated highway for the Palestinians between the two or it can be as cited below Israel having a bridges to cross this road. Either way, Palestine and Israel remain separate countries. in terms of Settlers in the West bank, they can stay and their land is protected, however the New Palestine is their government. That is the basis of the first peace proposal, nice simple and viable.??

This is propped up by two other factors. 1. East Jerusalem. 2. The Golan Heights. These are issues for further mediation. This dependent upon part one of the plan working. IE Gaza and Westbank, immediately considered to be 'the state of Palestine'. If there is peace with that, stage two is the land bridge between the two. If there is success with that then mediation in terms of East Jerusalem and The Golan Heights. Therefore, there is immediate substantial incremental progress. The announcement today of the state of Palestine. If there is a perpetuating peace from that then there is the link between the two, subject to good behaviour. If that is being done then the two other aspects.?

However, the good will nature of this peace proposal is also propped up by the rule that no military attacks happen, there is a complete ceasefire. Without that negotiations stop. 2. Palestinians maintain the right to their own self defence, a right any Sovereign State in the world has. If there is the later free movement of people, a similar arrangement to that of Gibraltar then the crossing from on area to the next could be possible and yet controlled. There is something to say that if people are treated in any way that they are ' culturally persecuted, if any culture is dehumanised creates more of a risk of terrorism, war, freedom fighting or whatever you want to name that than anything else ever has.'? What has to be considered is that the people of the Holy land have always resisted occupation. The Bible explains how 'the zealots' who were of course Jewish were opposed to the occupation by the Romans. To change a culture of thousand of years that is a part of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim story requires something never tried before and yet that is a word that should be central to the inner journey of all people of the Holy land and that is faith. Having faith in the best intentions rather than seeking to perfectly explain the wrong intentions could be the start of a new viable answer.?

This peace proposal is in increments. The first part is delivered immediately ie. tomorrow morning there is a new country in the world again. Palestine. Palestine consists of the whole of Gaza and the West Bank and a road between the two. that is the peace process, start, middle, end. If control and peace making is maintained by all sides then there are further steps of negotiations and a peace process including The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. In order to monitor the peace making increments there could be a combine Israel and Palestinian investigation group that are independent made up of people from peace groups, and yet they are effectively a combined Peace Force, A type of new type of Police Force. Any breaches of the peace making by either side could be put into reports to The United Nations for example. This way The Peace Force can produce independent assessment of any issues that hamper the peace making increments. If there is a Palestine, then there are new economic possibilities, with that more trade, with that more understanding between people, more peace.??

?

?There could be elements either side that do not want to accept this, it's not enough for what they want. The Israeli's and the Palestinian's both need to control their own factions in this regard. If they do not then mediation over the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are on hold. The first part of the mediation needs to be delivered without debate. the reality is that the Palestinian people have the right to complete ownership of some of their original country at least. That in this peace proposal amounts to? Gaza and The West bank and a road between the two.

It's true to say that most of the Muslim countries are in alignment with The Abraham Accord, all Muslim countries cannot abide by the idea that a population of Muslims are under the control of non Muslims. All the time there are such vigorous checkpoints between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, there is crisis and conflict. My proposal here is not a perfect answer to the problem. No what it is though is an answer far better than is considered by most. It progresses due only from control of fighting, being none and future negotiations.? Those negotiations however are started from the position where the Israeli's and the Palestinians? have their own country.??

A two state solution.?

That is the only way that is possible without risking the viability of Israel as a country. The capacity of the Arab and Muslim countries is global. It's vast so vast that the largest Muslim country in the world Indonesia has 231,000,000 people. Israel less than 9,000,000 of those people 75% are Jewish. However, of course there are many Jewish people worldwide with a connection a link to Israel. So whilst the Jewish people have the right to a country, Palestinians not having their own safe protected country is to some extent causing the radicalisation of it's population. This is being responded to by Israelis and so the cycle continues. It's by providing a reasonable situation for the Palestinian's then Israel is able to obtain it's most important medium to long term objective of not having a country which is being pressured both internally and externally. The bombing of civilian areas is doing the opposite, it's radicalising people in the same way that the oppression to Jewish people by the Nazi's resulted in resistance to that. The best way to end terrorism is to take away the narrative. 'there is no other choice'. When groups are in their minds 'oppressed and not allowed to be represented' they resist. This is the same paradigm with most of the previous colonies. It's only when there is a fair situation that there is not a need to seek 'Independence'. A country or territory going from being controlled by an external government to being Independent can produce many more complications than previously considered when put into practice.? The independence of Indian and Pakistan is an example. To be able to design answers that genuinely do provide a realistic way to progress can be fraught with difficulties. Issues can be far more complicated then when first considered Brexit is an example of this. However, having said that when a situation in the world really, really does not work in the format that it's in then change is not only sensible, trying many things, new thinking could just bring considerations to a better more complete, more resourceful situation. I have written into many peace roadmaps that 'a process' of talks mediation through a process can produce answers that were previously not considered. However, in the context of the situation between Israeli's and Palestinians a two state solution that actually enables there to be full and complete autonomy like any other two countries could be the answer.??

?In the context of Ireland one of the most influential of European countries, that was only obtained by all the politics of Ireland being able to be openly discussed through the Good Friday Agreement. What was actually found was that through reconciliation that the issues of one side were very much the same as for the other side. It was Bill Clinton starting that mediation that resulted in peace in the continent of Europe for the first time in history. The 'I will not negotiate with terrorist's way of thinking of Thatcher, would have resulted in their never have been issues resolved enough to have had the well formed and largely very successful European Union as it's been for decades. So this proves that issues between two people, two countries can very evidently go on to affect the economic and social progress of an entire continent. The EU lifestyle and influence in the world is something that Europe in many ways owes to the vision of Bill Clinton opening the door to all and listening to all. If it's not enough to have the example in this case of one continent Europe, then the same is true in terms of Africa with the meeting of Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk. Whilst Nelson Mandela would rightfully be backed and supported to the hilt by leaders all over the world today and during the time of him being president of South Africa, after and before. It's true to also say that the paradigm of reasoning towards Nelson Mandela wasn't always like that when he was in prison there were very strong views in opposition to everything that Nelson Mandela stood for in various countries. So there can be and sometimes needs to be new considerations to enable progress, sometimes it's the only way.? Whilst there will be some that consider what I write to be totally unrealistic for the times today, everything is still happening today and in recent weeks. What I say to that is that there are few other proposals or plans, even if this is the most unrealistic plan, thoughts considerations, it's better that than nothing. Man is generally not good at making peace, there are so many references to wars, and yet to find references to successful peace making, in the modern day context requires considering everything.

To try to 'destroy Hamas' and at the same time bomb innocent people trying to escape after following the instructions of Israel will have actually added credibility and belief to what Hamas has said. Hamas can say, look they are tricking you. With this consideration the airstrikes would have had the opposite intended result, reaction and possible resulted in increased support of Hama's. Yet, what's more if Israel goes into Gaza, then Egypt has already said that the risk of displacement into Egypt is a problem that they cannot economically cope with and so have sent troops to the border. In the North Hezbollah has been carrying out missile attacks. The chances of this escalating into a wider regional war are a concern of many countries.? ?

The Diplomacy between Israel and other countries has never been quite like it is today. There is massive support for peace making. Yet, the scale of protests in Iraq are on a scale never seen before. The notion of a Muslim population under occupation, and missile attacks and an incursion into Gaza? is an issue that Muslim countries are not going to put up with if it goes badly. How it can be controlled without there being very substantial casualties on all three sides ie Israeli, Hamas and civilians is something that is unknowable until it happens, it it does happen then the reactions of 195 countries is everything other than knowable or predictable. There is clearly a very difficult position that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in, he needs to show 'strength of leadership' to people in his own country, many other countries have cited that the response has also been disproportional. There is the argument that the incursion by Hamas into Israel was disproportional. There could be a response that is again disproportional resulting from the actions of Israel. There currently is not a predictable measured well considered estimation even of what could occur. There have been statements made for calm and a ceasefire by Russia and China. Anthony Blinken has just successfully mediated with Prime Minister Netanyahu much needed, desperately needed aid into Gaza. The success of this is being closely monitored by the USA.?

?. If Israel goes into Gaza, then there are countries on all sides and countries linked to those countries that will make statements that could mobilise armies. This is just unknowable, and yet?

What's more in my opinion President Biden has stated the US position and whilst there have been choices that he has made that I did not agree with. His answer in my opinion to this is the perfect answer. No complicated mediation simply two state solution. A two state solution that includes Gaza and The West Bank and a passage to travel between the two. Why the passage between the two. if there is control of one side over the other then that is a source of further reasoning and support of radical groups. The optimal way to win an argument every time is to position in such a way the conversation does not happen that leads into argument.? So in other words by Israel trying to 'control' to prevent terrorism actually provides the reasoning for the Palestinians to inevitably feel repression and therefore to counter that. If Israel is to instigate diplomatic Aikido then each possible reasoning that could be used to present the sense of persecution of the ethnic Palestinians by Israeli's is simply stopped, take away the terrorism by taking away the argument, but taking away the conversation, by taking away the need to communicate. If there is a two state solution with a road between West? Bank and Gaza, that is a corridor between the two then there is no need to even police this area. If there is a breach of a peace deal between Israel and Palestine then one option could be to temporarily block the road and that way there is very good reasoning for all in Palestine to be moderate and to not be aligning to organisations that are opposed to Israel.??

The more policing of Palestinians by Israeli's the more problems, at the moment without having a two state answer in place, there is a reason for opposition to Israel. By removing the reason for their being opposition to Israel, then Israel removes the injustice of the situation, rather than trying to fight those trying to fight the injustice of the situation. Human beings are designed to do their best to survive, by what is a cultural war between one group of people and another being perpetuated the survival instincts are increased. The best possible recruitment advertising practice for Hama's is airstrikes by Israel against Gaza. One petition side called the bombing of Gaza a bombing campaign against the biggest Kindergarten in the world. With so many children that have dies in this. There is complete reason without question of stopping the war immediately, unconditionally. There is a two state solution, there is progress towards access between Gaza and The West Bank. There is the right to travel, there is peace. If the peace is broken then the road between the two areas is temporarily blocked and therefore, there is pressure within Palestine internally to not have any conflict with Israel. There is the same with Israel obtained by a combined Peace Force made up of both Palestinians and Israeli's and possibly other International representatives. These could be from the Christian community in Israel.??

Israel having land that is between the two Palestinian territories is not ideal. Yet, that's how it is. To use the link between these two places is a massive incentive though to getting the first part of the peace making right.?

This corridor in a peace deal increment 2, and then have a bridge that passes over this so that Israel remains in tact. If this happened then this could be the first land in the world where the ground is owned by one country and then the space above that by another country. These are just suggestions, then there are issues of settlers and for all of these matters it's? ? ??

? ? ?Incorrect incomplete narratives of peace making is the biggest risk to humanity.?

I have written 26 x 20 page peace roadmap documents for trying to produce and answer to the war between Russia and Ukraine. Various other wars too. Before that Syria, India and Pakistan, USA, North and South Korea and Syria.

Some of my peace roadmap writing has been of some success, some very significant success, some failure.

There is a common denominator in failing to make peace I believe and that is when there is not an effective enough third party narrative calling for peace making or seeking to broker peace making.

Humanity is much more practiced at making wars than making peace and yet the politician, media narratives and public narratives are not fully enough on peace making. Of the three it’s the public narratives via social media are the most vocal in peace making. There are then International organisations like the United Nations and during this course of this war there has been the first ever peace process achieved during a war on such a scale, The Grain Deal.

On balance there is as much determination by both Ukraine and Russia to win this war. The loss of this war to the West is as politically difficult for the East as the West.

What needs to be considered is that WW2 really began as three different wars that became on war. From a geo-political position, factoring in the way in which all countries move and position diplomatically. One change in one country, can and does then affect the policies of many on an action, reaction, action, reaction basis. Stopping that can be obtained by ‘an interjection’. In the context of the Korea’s, The Winter Olympics, in the context of India and Pakistan the opening of a Pilgrims Path between the two countries for Sikhs. In the context of the here and now with Ukraine and Russia. The best interjection would be a ceasefire, talks and new information presented from a third party organisation that seeks to cover the issues of both sides firstly between these two countries. Yet in addition to that the advantage of getting into mediation is that other issues that are of worldwide significance to either or both sides can also help leverage peace making.

So diplomacy and peace making once talks are entered into may fail, or may succeed. Yet, they increase the chances of stopping a war in ways that cannot even begin to be perceived whilst there is still fighting. For example. WW2 was stopped as much due to diplomacy and mediation as any other factor.

There are three outcomes possible in a war on the scale of the war between Russia and Ukraine. One side loses, both sides lose, the entire world loses. The longer the war goes on the more the chance of the last option. The more represented peace brokering is Internationally the greater the chance of a win-win via peace making being obtained. However, even a win-win is not really that as the loses to both Ukraine and Russia are vast.

Proportionately at least 95% of all media and 100% of discussion by many politicians is orientated around war and not around peace. I have yet to see a single media publication in the world produce as much of a full account on how the past twenty wars were stopped and or how peace making was obtained, mediation obtained. Separate from the issues of Ukraine and of Russia politically or in this war as it is today or as it was pre-2021. There has not been and is not enough of an effective International narrative for peace making.

Yet, peace making is essential even to keep this war going by either side. The computers, the mobile phones, the vehicles, the clothing, the supplies that both sides have are supplied from the fact that there is largely successful West and East diplomacy.

You are reading this today due to a combination of US, Chinese and British technological cooperation. IE Chinese manufacturing, US innovation from Silicon Valley, UK internet invention, Chinese cables in the Oceans. Without there being win-win diplomacy, peace making obtained, Internationally continually over all between all countries the modern world would cease to exist. In 2017 the modern world very nearly did stop. The only reason it did not in fact was due to peace processes in Asia produced by the writing of peace roadmaps. That being one factor, the second being the factor that leaders of eleven countries mediated or adapted their geo-political diplomatic position in alignment with the thinking of the peace roadmap. Yes, that’s right a war in Asia in 2017 would have caused the end of the worlds economy, ie the divorce of West and East, the end of the internet and a war in the busiest of shipping lanes in the world. Therefore, no more trade, therefore no more banking, no more business. This is the most important of truths that’s actually been kept silent.

What really happened was that the realisation really happened very quickly, ‘when all options were considered on the table’ by President Trump 2017. What the public never got to hear about was that one of those options was my peace roadmap work a part of that explained a war between the USA and North Korea results day one in the end of the modern world. All economies, all businesses, all governments completely unable to function in the way in which they progressively have from the time of 500 years ago or more all the way up until then in 2017.

So peace making in Asia was the only option to keep the modern world functioning. There was never any explanation in any media, in any article about the truth of this, Diplomacy simply carried on in 2017 with the fear of God justifiably in the considerations of all the superpowers. Yet, the truth of this was never announced to the public. The truth of just how world geo-politics had gotten that close to simply stopping. So in actual fact Russia as well at the USA and China were all three essential countries in keeping the modern world functioning. The issue today is a deal that works for all.?

So in actual fact, just as there is a geo-political narrative, that’s been excluded from discussion, there is also lets call it a cosmic-political discussion that has also until recently been kept from political discussion. The interference of weapons systems and of nuclear facilities by civilisations not of this world. There is a vast, lifting of the veil happening. There are agendas functioning in the ‘territory’ of this planet that are not even human designed. Again, all the superpowers have vast amounts of information on this. The agenda with all facts considered are aligned to the encouragement of human progress, and not of us in conflicts and wars. There have been entire nuclear facilities that have been affected, switched off taken over. To say that human beings have been in control of nuclear facilities 100% of the time if released documents are to be believed is not actually true. What's clearly evident here is that humanity, all of humanity does have more vested interests than we usually consider to get over our regional and territorial issues. To go on the side of win-win, peace making Universal interest could be the best hope in fact there is for any of us with how the future develops, as the worlds conditions get more complicated, the easiest ride for any of use thorough this century is more cooperation than before, all the landless peoples of the world having better answers than previously to this issue. No whole people's should be refugees in the 21st Century. This issue is not only an issue of the holy land but an issue that is larger than that. The idea of buffer zones, good will between countries and a more amicable politics on a geo-political level is essential for reducing so many pressures. What needs to be considered is that the conversation that led to the issues between Russia and Ukraine in 2021 began with a refugee issue on the border of Belarus. Kurdish people most, people without a clear territory.?

More broadly, there are secrets in this world that are not politically acceptable to be discussed in ‘credible discussion’ in the media, there is other ‘credible information’ dating back 100 years released today that proves that almost all media in the world has been perpetuating a ‘make believe’ world of mans own full capacity to ‘control everything in the world’. There have been ‘national’ and ‘regional’ interests to telling all of us only a part of the real news since before the widescale use of television. That is all it is ‘tel a vision’ and not ‘tel the whole truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth’. To get beyond where we are broader media coverage of the good will intentions of all countries helps calm issues before they increase. Good media can help good governance.?

So from the perspective of ‘media’ all of us have actually been lied to about two potential serious or even potentially? ‘existential threats’ to all countries. 1. The incomplete and correct explanation about peace processes in 2017. It’s as true to say that Russia is in Ukraine as it is to say that Russia together with the USA and China mediated via the North and South Korean peace process to save the entire modern world. Then in addition to that there are the documents that have been getting increasingly released since the 1990’s by some government employees, yet more so recently by information released from the Pentagon that relates to activities in terms of military capacities that have been and are beyond the capability of any humans to have full control over at certain times in the past.?

Does having other beings in this world affect religion? No of course not. What has to be considered is that religion is a code of conduct of man, and the basis of this is to respect each other and the world. It's clearly evident if there are visitors from other planets to our own, they have their own moral codes which must be very similar to this if not then with their greater technology they would have invaded the world. The fact that there has not been this actually affirms that the ancient principle guiding knowledge of our ancestry is as important today as ever.?

Cultural differences, similarities and correlations.?

The Abrahamic religions have lived mostly in peace for most people for many decades, centuries, thousands of years. There are many places where two or three of the above groups do co-exist very well. Many cities represent substantial populations of two or three of these groups of people. However, there are inter religious issues that do clash at times and one of these is the defacing of spiritual texts. This is something that I feel strongly about. There is the need for freedom and taking your freedom at the cost of someone's freedom to be able to worship as they chose is not something that is congruent. Many people obtain their freedom through their spiritual faith and a part of that requires the respect given to that faith and people of that faith. There are cultural norms that exist throughout the world, like being polite to strangers, saying good morning. These are good practices that have got human progress to where it is today. So maintaining a sense of good morning, good morning good will in societies is important in order to keep things as good as they have been. So in fact any people that are spiritual people do not like actions against the holy books of other cultures, especially as anyone that knows the three books of these Abrahamic religions know that they have a direct connection to each other. The destruction of one holy book is an action against all of these holy books as they all have links to each other although this is not usually considered. Anyone that describes themselves as Christian would want to protect a book that relates also to Jesus and one of those books in the Korean. The bible being part the Old Testament links to the Torah's books and so the three of these should be considered with the highest regard by all as they are related in information one to the other. There are differences and yet there are not only similarities there is a part of the same knowledge and information which correlates between the books.? ?

The world as we have it today is incredibly vulnerable to failure. A war the causes a West East divorce puts us all into a position where ‘all modern paradigms’ not even just technologies and processes, ‘all modern paradigms’ are at risk of failing.?

If people question the credibility of UFO related information then just do searches on UFO files released by the USA. What's also clear is that interactions have been nearly all amiable if there have been as many instances as those quoted then there is a 'coming in peace' that is central to interactions that we do not fully understand. Yet considering the concepts of spiritual groups again the message central to almost all philosophies is of peace making. Yet the issue of representation, correct representation of that which is considered important and yet correct representation of people as well are evidently essential factors to lets say the over all successful progress of mankind.?

Paradigms? changing.?

In short even the paradigm of countries is a manmade concept of not much more than five thousand years and that is within a context of a million years in our development. Our oldest writing considered to be no more than 5,000 years old. Structures all over the world that the very best of science cannot explain. A Red Arrows air show display being joined by a UFO. We are in a different world in fact to the world that most people usually consider in our day to day lives. Before countries there were tribes.?

Yes, all countries want a sense of security, stability to have clear agreements with other countries to have the modern day life that almost all of us in the world want. Yet, for that to be maintained, all facts and factors considered mankind as a whole has to get much better at peace making. Leaders not making the choice of peace making, media not perpetuating narratives for peace making. The our bit of the world, more important than that bit of the world mentality is more than enough to make all people in the world losers from war. The West and East have got to find a way to mediation and peace making and whilst both Ukraine and Russian leaders have been at times in the past year and a half close to that, they have been in agreement to meet, in my opinion that is the only way that there is going to be a victory in this war for any side.Win-win via peacemaking is the best answer we have.?

A destabilisation of Russia puts more risk into the world than at any time since the invention of nuclear weapons. At the moment it’s countries that are in charge of nukes, that is good for all people.

What is the most incorrect position to take is to believe that the implications of this war can be contained indefinitely within the territory only of Ukraine, or even Russia and Ukraine. The implications of this war are already a global affect, the cost of living crisis is International. The implications of what’s happening in The Holy Land, is also already International. The wrong done to the Israeli’s, innocent people, that then perpetuating wrongs done to Palestinians, also innocent people. The victims of wars on both sides, on all sides the most are the most vulnerable people, those that had nothing to do with the choices that created the war in the first place. The most capacity we as citizens have is to educate ourselves from all perspectives of a situation and do what we can to be able to encourage talks and peace making. the worlds economy in combined eight years was not disrupted enough to stop in the wars of last century. Currently, there is restraint being proven and demonstrated by both sides in the war in Ukraine. This is essential and this is what’s kept the war as contained as it’s been, yet without peace making efforts renewed, time continues, more harm to both peoples. There has never been a time in human history that we know of where more could change in one day than everyday until today.

To say that Ukraine/Russia will certainly win the war is thinking only in 20th Century logic. If we are going to really be honest with the facts, then it’s true to say that Russia, third biggest army, North Korea, forth biggest, China second biggest and allies to them that can only be guessed at have more than ten million soldiers and NATO countries combined just over three million. There is in fact so much means to there being totally inestimable risk to anything other than peace making. There is enough capacity on either and especially on both sides to destroy everything and not only that achieve this in a single day. With conflict being potentially so fast paced, it's essential that at times peace making can be equally as fast, if not faster when required.?

Anyone that gambles their business with fruit machines is evidently taking an unnecessary and unwise risk. Yet, together humanity is gambling risks to all business by not effectively enough representing peace work. The ineffectively representation of peace processes, and peace roadmaps of the recent past is mans great failure today and it's lining man up for all of the most substantial failures in future. The biggest problems of 2050, 2060, 2070 being answered are dependent upon the quality of thinking there is in 2023, that is individually and society wide.?

1. Not being honest about the risks. The human race has used all the capacity of all media for the purpose of providing ourselves with an incomplete, untruthful explanation of how and why modern day civilisation has been able to progress as effectively as it has from 2017 until today.

How this has happened is not the fault of the media, it was in fact at that time in 2017 not to be so complete in the explanation about peace making. Yet, the implications of a full account of diplomacy and peace making of the recent past can today be seen in a different context. In terms of peace making and diplomacy for the past century, man has only had so much capacity to influence world events. The countless reports in 1930’s of UFO’s when fully considered do actually tell a different story to WW2 than appears in any history book.

In short humanity can deludedly take away all of it’s capacity in the world, to be the advanced species we consider ourselves to be simply by being too dishonest of how we are even here today, our politicians dishonest, our media dishonest in terms of the open discussion on both the full risks and how humanity as a whole has been so lucky to avoid massive disaster via peace making. Divide and rule resulted in progress of some countries in the past, yet in this century, this interconnected century it's unity that gets us to a better place. Unity is this century what? 'divide and rule' was to the past three, five, ten, thirty centuries. It's by unity we can advance others and therefore ourselves, if we only put our selves first then the action reaction of that is that we all come last, as the implications of non cooperation push man a few rungs of the ladder down. We cannot repair nature fast enough being divided, this can only be obtained by more unity and to get to that requires getting over the petty territory issues somehow. The issue between Ukraine and Russia and vice versa is partly an issue over 'representation of people of Russian origin and language'. The issues in the middle east are an issue for Russia and if there is effective peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians in the creation of a new Palestine, there could possibly be progress from the East in terms of Ukraine although this I do not know. What I do know is that a new Palestine is something that all could celebrate and by doing so the worlds on the same side for the first time in a whole lot of many thousands of years.??

The world does not want to live in fear, peace making is vital and sometimes a really seperate issue can help improve the geo-political language of peace making.?

Whilst many newspapers cite the risks of nuclear war, whilst Russia has nuclear drills and has floated nukes capable of destroying entire countries through the channel between the Uk and France. The conversations of peace making, past peace processes, current peace proposals are currently not fully and openly discussed in any Parliament in the world. The simplistic belief that it’s only Ukraine or Russia that can end this war is reductionist, it’s wrong. There is the capability for any country, any International Institution to be able to say. Lets forget the positions of the past, lets have a complete reset on everything that’s been said. Let’s start from the beginning with peace making and to do this with both representatives of Russia and Ukraine present. That is a possibility, so too is the chance for either side to offer to stop the war, go into a ceasefire and to mediate. If the mediations don’t work, then at least there is progress in some way.

The fact we are witnessing globally a war where the losses to this war never were simply within the territory or Ukraine and Russia, these countries are bot far too important for the wellbeing of the rest of the world and yet in addition to this there are incomplete narratives on past peace processes, past successful diplomacy that against all the odds gave all of us the past years of being in a relatively peaceful world in it’s entirety is the most absurd position the world has ever got too. The reality is that narratives have been controlled by sides and for all the comments made here I don’t believe that there is anyone that really appreciates that the ‘us and them’ paradigms as cited in all the press in the world was most certainly not the consideration in 2017 on the very highest levels of government in the context of the super powers. There then was a paradigm of reasoning that the us, was all the superpowers together needing to be able to mediate, needing to make a peace process work enough to obtain talks in Asia. Anyone that is properly well read knows that there is information in the context of the talks and the peace process between West and East in the context of North and South Korea not widely known, not discussed. There is classified information on this and whilst that information may not be released for decades. I wrote the peace roadmap to that. I spent three months without contact with people considering the implications of a major war.

?I studied the most advanced and accurate computer prediction algorithm predictions, the most accurate modern day as well as ancient predictions. I used my knowledge from philosophy, history, culture, etiquette and years spent travelling to really get a grasp on the entire situation with humanity and geo-political rivalries that then can play out as wars, and the potential implications of these. What I found is that no media in the world really even consider 10% of the implications fully and properly of any war. All written media in terms of the full consideration of both peace making especially and yet also the implications of wars are no closer to the full considered truth than comics are. It’s due to this reason that the world is one over reaction by Israel away from three, five, ten, twenty or more armies in the world possibly going against Israel. How many or how few cannot even be accurately guessed. We are too close to world war on four fronts. 1. Russia/Ukraine. 2. Israel/Gaza. 3. North Korea/USA 4. China/Taiwan/USA.

The belief that any Western power can defeat an Eastern power in a war is not aligned to the reality of the 21st Century. A ‘defeat’ of Russia would be considered a ‘defeat’ of West over East and that alone would almost certainly create another war.

What 99% of people also don’t realise is that in 2017 a world war was again very narrowly avoided and it was in fact only the mediation of President Erdogan, Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Putin and Vice president Mike Pence visiting Syria and with a very urgently produced peace roadmap that prevented the exit from Syria by the West leaving a vacuum there only to be filled with a larger war. The reality is that moderate and peace making by USA, Russia, Israel and Turkey as well as North and South Korea and nine other countries in Asia resulted in us having a relatively normal world from 2017 until recently. There is a vast understatement of peace processes, the peace roadmaps written to these and other scenario’s not properly appreciated and valued by any countries and therefore history has come back to repeat itself with the Lest We Forget idea, having been forgotten. Freedom and progress was as much obtained in the 20th Century in mediations and agreements than in any other way. Whilst in the 21st Century there have been some major advances in peace processes and peace roadmap methodology, the incomplete representation of this is today the biggest of risks in the world. The media consistently represented the false notion that peace, world peace was being maintained by a ‘maximum pressure’ put onto the East from the West. Whilst that fits into the paradigm of the late 20th Century, it fits into the post colonial narrative. It’s what gets newspapers sold. The real most important front page headline of 2017 would actually have been this. Modern World Almost Ends. Saved by peace roadmap and urgent mediation by super powers! If any media told the full truth then that would have been one headline in the context of Asia. The second headline in the context of Syria would have been. Modern World Almost ends, yet again. Saved by mediations by five countries!

So the entire worlds geo-politics has been in more of a crisis position than is readily known about or considered by 99% of the people not only on the internet but who have places in Parliaments. They simply do not have full information available as to how and why the world so very closely managed to escape from a world war as to actually even know that requires firstly working full time in diplomacy and secondly having the knowledge to have been able to fully and properly read situations accurately not only in terms of what ‘our country’ thinks and believes, yet in the context of what all other counties, think and believe, then to be able to map ways towards enough agreement in many cases to be able to prevent wars. So not only are decision makers not fully informed in all of this, they don’t themselves have especially good mediation skills as they spend most of their lives trying to win debates rather than agreements and therefore their entire neural chemistry is not even hard wired to being able to habitually relate, consider and communicate from the perspective of seeking to win and obtain agreement.

In actual fact. The entire political landscape from the top decision makers, to the opposition parties, to the media, to most of the public is aligned to paradigms of reason that are? competition based, see the world from our perspective otherwise we will out argue, our blame, out manipulate, out fight our way to proving that our very limited paradigm of reason is truth, no matter what. Well the no matter what in the 19th century was a loss of people, in the 20th century a loss of people and territory, in the 21st century the ‘no matter what’ is actually ‘no matter’ There is simply no 'W hat'. Unless we lift the lid fully, truthfully openly on past peace processes and past peace roadmaps enough to be able to mediate our way out of a situation where yippee, Monday Morning Ukraine wins the war against Russia, Tuesday morning that put’s Western allies conceptually onto the border of China and North Korea, and by Wednesday these two countries say we have no choice, the West did not want to consider peace proposals properly.

We live in a geo-political world today first and foremost. That then affects out countries domestic politics. Do protests by many countries populations affect thinking in all countries, yes. People want peace.? The alliances of other countries affect everything in the context to the security of any or every country. There has been an old fashioned paradigm of reasoning that the West and East rivalry is all about which country or set of countries is top dog in the world. That notion is in fact a Western projection. It’s the same type of projection that resulted in the Vietnam War, The Korean War and in many ways the Ukraine War. The West in it’s thinking of China’s intentions I believe are wrong. China does not want instability in the world but progress. The West being dismissive of the peace proposal presented by China I believe is an error of judgement. The dismissal and not even full consideration of the African peace proposal another error of judgement.

Nelson Mandela when he met with FW De Klerk after he left prison. He did not know how mediation would go or even if it was possible. What he knew though was that if there was not that mediation there would not be progress, there would be chaos. When President Clinton invited all factions in Ireland to the White House to talk, the net result of that was the most effective peace process in hundreds of years. The reality is that the British and the Irish alone needed a mediator. This meeting with President Clinton happened only a few dozen months after Margaret Thatcher said. I quote, ‘I will never negotiate with terrorists.’ Nelson Mandela is considered to be one of the most important peace makers of the 20th and early 21st Century. His statue stands proudly outside The Houses of Parliament. However, in the perception of the South Africa when he first met with FW De Klerk he was considered to be everything other than a peace maker. That peace making required the best leadership skills of two very different sides. It’s the same today in all of the conflicts there is a ‘uni-polar’ approach to the we are right no matter what. ‘There is a bi-polar approach to the ‘us and them’ there is a ‘multi-polar’ approach to realising that the entire world progresses via peace making or the entire world is at risk for each moment the word diplomacy is not being used and if that goes on long enough then there is a chance of one war evolving into two, three or more wars. Before we know where we are we could be having read the last ever comment on the internet or waking up to a world with multiples of countries simply deleted from the world and most of the worlds water and food supplies contaminated.

That scenario did not happen in 2017, due to enough leaders in the world taking the cautious peace making approach. The full truth about this not widely known is what’s put the world into the crisis situation it’s in today. There have been no good victories in any war this century that did not come at a massive cost to all. There have been various peace making victories that do come at a benefit to all. If the world does not represent peace processes, then one day the world may not represent either modern humanity.

Peace making needs to win the war, to prevent the issues that caused the war from not causing ongoing war. If Russia left Ukraine tomorrow then the unresolved issues in the areas continue to perpetuate conflict. There common issue that causes wars is a lack of representation of people, perceived unfairness that cannot get resolved in diplomacy due to the choice of leaders controlling the narrative. Humans are born to talk and to reason. The lack of effective reasoning between people’s that leads to the persecution of peoples, is a lack of effort in wanting to understand other perspectives. In the days of empires, the this is how we see it paradigm was possible, no longer in this world.?

The 20th Century was the century of self, the 21st Century needs to go one step further to self-lessness and do so expediently to maintain anything resembling a world 'as normal' as it's been until today! I do not have all the answers to all the problems in the world, yet I do have an answer of how to adapt systems much more in alignment towards that. My peace roadmap work prevented wars since 2017. My work became a resource for the world that few knew about, too few people of influence really listening then or now. Opportunistic? politicians took my findings, to help their careers. As a consequence, there was incomplete truth in any media. Whilst today people prepare for the busy weekend, Russia prepares nuclear drills, I wonder if anyone of influence in the politics or media in the West will realise the importance of peace roadmaps, and peace processes fast enough, completely enough. There are universal needs in the world, and thinking and resources. We live in an imperfect world, and therefore when there are good answers obtained that help all progress, these need to be known. If the media is not in place to help keep the modern world going then what else is it for.? There are trillions spent of weapons designed to harm people. There has been exactly $0 spent on research, development and funding the most viable and effective, tried, tested, proven diplomatic mediation methods used this century. There is incomplete and incorrect representation of 7 peace processes this century! When obtaining peace has been obtained then how and why this was feasible should be considered a media priority. We best understand the best access point to the best future by best representation of the best choices of all leaders.? The truth is the 'modern world' would have stopped in 2017, had it not been for peace roadmaps and peace processes. These included diplomacy and altering positions by up to ten countries, yet only a few countries were considered. If peace roadmaps, and the peace processes produced are not fully helped then these 'good times' in the world are at risk of fading. Relations between West and East have changed. Contemplation and considering how they can best once again be brought back to more 'normality' is vital. Kindness on a level between ordinary people is consistently greater than the kindness shown by 'successful people'. Success by this Centuries definitions has to consistently represent and connect to 'kindness' on all levels! We need smart discussion on past peace making, and if the media do not discuss peace making more, then it requires philanthropists to buy advertising to tell people the truth. Gestures of kindness are a minimum required in a world of more want, more need. More complete media of peace processes past and present can help influence the narrative of peace making to become clearer. An increased neural pathway with all factors and factions considered, that peace is vital to everything we individually and collectively value. West and East diplomacy and peace making is a pre-requisite to all trade. There are many films and stories that represent the actions of spontaneous kindness by people, by individuals. In the world of the future. These types of actions by leaders of countries and by the wealthy could help shift the world faster to an optimal position in progress for all.?

------------

The most successful peace processes of the Trump administration, that prevented war,? were obtained via the first writing of peace roadmaps.? A narrative of ideas, thinking that help leaders and decision makers streamline their thinking. Yet, it was there great choices that kept the world as safe as it's been. These peace roadmaps are not officially acknowledged by any country in the world, yet have been ‘unofficially’, referenced and drawn upon by all super powers and many countries.

These have helped guide diplomacy, keep the world out of some wars since 2017.? Having written them and worked on peace making and mediation full time from 2017 until today.

My opinion is that the ‘win win for peace making ethos’ that enabled more wars to be effectively ‘decoded’ prevented and exited from from 2017 until 2021 has been lost. Ending a war is like solving a puzzle yet it requires players of different paradigms of reasoning to help work through the answer. The peace making in the world between 2017 and 2021 was obtained in fact via mutual respect and not any one region having ‘dominance’ over the other. The win-win through peace making, universal interest paradigm of reasoning being at play behind the scenes is all that kept the world out of major war, world war in 2017. There is a systemic denial of this fact. The influence of the USA will always be substantial and yet there are other groups of countries also on the side of being a global deputy and the people within these countries are the deputies as well as the leaders represent the people. People vote for peace?

The media presented the false impression of maximum pressure, resulting in diplomacy that fits with the with the next election paradigm of the West, yet is not how it really was. There was diplomacy obtained due to maximum cooperation, that is how the East sees the situation. The East today is more than willing to engage with the West, yet in a mutually respectful way, the West is effectively say, no, no, no, we are in charge and so the East is effectively responding by saying through actions no way? Biden puts nuke submarines into South Korea. North Korean, Russia, China then meet for a meeting. We are in the midst of power shifts and changes and yet mediation is the key. Actions of goodwill are the key, group of people asking for peace are the key, governments taking substantive steps in peace making, are not loss of face actions, they are actions that will be widely welcomed. People care less about a politician changing position than continuing the same decision that keeps the world at risk of anything other than peace, progress and prosperity for people. A diplomatic crisis to a politician is a cost of living crisis to the public, whatever side they are considered to be on. Universally people are on the side of a better future and therefore on the side of peace making mostly A big war is a bigger recession at the least, that's people that then can't afford the basics anywhere. Everywhere is expensive when leaders can't agree on peace making.?

The USA and the West operates via the notion that the East is only following the West and it’s not at all. The East wants to partner and not to dominate, the idea of cooperation is more central in thinking in the East than the West. It's the Wests paradigm of reasoning that its all about competition, it's about cooperation. That is not communism cited with people lining up to eat pickles each day and not allowed to wear brand names. The worlds non democratic countries want progress too and yet in their own way, that they are free to choose. If there is more cooperation in the world, there will be better conditions within all countries benefiting many more people.?

The combined countries in political opposition to the Wests line of reasoning have more than four times the military personnel of all of NATO combined. NATO, Yet neither NATO not the USA allow themselves to say the word Peace often enough. However, major war would certainly destroy both sides, every side. Man makes bombs yet talks more than anything else, talking is the way back to rationality. Yet, talking is only good when there are people listening, otherwise it's not much more than a useful jaw exercise. Whilst that may keep us a bit younger, it's not keeping the world younger by the levels of cooperation that have been prevented. We can keep the planet younger by helping in it's regeneration.?

An ineffective peace making mindset in the world is not an effective operating principle for any country today. A lack of peace making is causing opinion to shift away from thinking that is not conducive to peace making by many countries and if not the countries then certainly the populations within countries.??

There has been a type of invincibility paradigm of reasoning at play in recent decades that does not align to the actual vast distribution of military resources in most countries. I would say there certainly is the risk of world war more so than nuclear war as a result of this type of 'invincibility paradigm' I would not do a parachute jump everyday due to risks. Yet, not mediating as effectively as possible by leaders of countries is actually probably a far greater risk. On the upside NATO is reviewing its position in terms of it being a peace making organisation, it needs to do that in my opinion. There are many people in many countries NATO and non NATO, allied, not allied, and everything else in between that want peace to work in the world. More so than ever before.?

There is actually such a strong call for peace making that a leader that said I completely disagree with myself of before, peace making today is my priority and I will seek to mediate in this way to obtain that would be considered a hero. History is written by the winners and the winners today are on the streets saying we want peace. We want the politicians to make peace work. We need this for there future, and our future. A world in a war scenario is a world with a type of collective illness that results in people trying to find a cure by going onto the streets with banners. To heal the world requires brave actions in peace making. NATO mapping out peace making by leaders and by people is NATO joining the movement for peace.?

The very worst case scenario is that time is lost. If there is ambiguity in agreement then there is impatience, there is then protest, more conflict. The implications of that are impossible to be able to even fully consider. There have not been protests as big as they are today for peace making in as many countries and yet the amount of people calling for peace on the streets is a tiny fraction of the people talking about peace and their concerns for not having peace. I went into a restaurant last night and the waiter who I know, yet not knowing I write peace roadmaps said to me, the world is so close to a major war, lets hope there is a way out of this.? ?

The best hope for Israel with so many contrasting factors Internationally is to go on the side of caution. The voices of the world demand rapid improvement of the entire situation. best way to accomplish this is via good will. Give the Palestinians their own country, their own ways to benefit from all this and the narrative becomes more associated with peace making than war,

An incursion into Gaza by Israel, could result in incursions into embassies, it could result in so much of a worse situation, than a very brave statement made saying. I would like to welcome back into the world a country that has been long gone and it's back again. That country is called Palestine. We are opening our hearts and minds to a new chance, a new hope a new future. We put our goodwill into this, we hope that Palestine does the same. We want peace, war has come at too much of a price to all people. We make the country, we make the peace, we fill in the details later and we ask that the goodwill to this situation we offer today is returned in a new beginning, a new day for Israel, Palestine, the Holy Land, The Middle East.?

A statement like that could be the best US-Israel statement ever made.?

There is no way to change anything of the past. There has never been a perfect situation to the crisis in Israel and Palestinian Territories. A two state solution has never worked previously, as it was only created in attempted 'perfect theory' and never in practice. There are two ways to obtain a really good result in many things. One way is to create a very good from the start plan and then instigate. Another is to create an approximate plan, to instigate and then to improve and refine. My strategy for a two state solution is the second option and this has never been attempted before. To answer is based upon an acceptance by all the past has not worked effectively. The present requires a new approach. That this is obtained by faith. Faith in the best intention of us being met by the best faith in others. If there is any place in the world that promotes faith the most it's the Holy Land.

It's better to try and to fail than to never try at all. What's clearly evident is that the promised land cannot ever be found where there is risk. There is only risk today by not trying for peace.

The French and English they are not the same, they have very different ideas and ways of thinking. Yet the differences compliment each other and they are friends. It's the same with the French and the German's and the Canadians and American's they get on better today than before. The path to peace in so many places has been obtained by disagreements of the past finding a way to be answered. Who would have ever thought that the Europeans would get on well enough to be able to create a united continent from decades or centuries ago. The path to peace making obtained in one place can benefit many places. The quality of peace making in the world in future could be created one day by referencing the peace making today in the middle east.

This document has been written in great haste, without editing, without help and there are almost certainly statements I have written in here that if I looked again I would disagree with myself or write in a completely different way. What I know is that my intentions are good towards all and that if peace making can be obtained in an area that has had so much disagreement, and conflict in the past then perhaps it can be achieved in other places. If there is an atmosphere in the world of peace making winning through then all progress. We are in a position today where the people in the world better at peace making than those of before does provide the best path for all as there are simply too many complicated issues in the world that we know something about that were not previously issues that cooperation produces a better answer for. The ideas in here are a different perspective, hopefully there is something within this document that can be of use to helping bring to Jewish, Muslim and Christians peace-making that has been previously obtained before. The social and economic benefits that France and the UK achieved by being friends is clearly evident, so too in the context of the USA and Canada. A new chance could help provide a snowball effect that helps answer many, most all of the combined issues all countries have today and for the other part of the 21st Century.

What has got to be considered today is that the issues in The Holy Land are affecting cities in many countries world wide. There has never been a more urgent time to produce an answer and to instigate the answer fast. This has been a factor I have considered in the writing of this. There needs to be an answer for the Holy land that works to help much of the world today, it's never been like that before, yet that is the position today.