Integrated Strategy for Ukraine, Russia & Holy land Part 26.

Peace Roadmap reintroduction.?

This is picking up from the past twenty five other documents plus various Middle East Peace Roadmaps reached. The other documents can be found on my LinkedIn page in articles and Facebook.

It's been exactly a year and ten days since my last document in this series. I found myself saying the same and that is the concept of getting into a pre-no conditions meeting, ideally in person but even a zoom meeting. The progress in peace making since then has been slim to none, the Swiss Peace Proposal of a peace meeting with one side only I could not see a benefit to that. In the context of EU President Viktor Orban. His style of diplomacy in my opinion was exactly what was needed to get into face to face meeting, you cannot read between enough lines in Newspapers, face to face meetings are the best form of communication that people can have, whatever they are talking about. Press conference monologue statements broadcast to the world with every listening to a carefully constructed theatrical performance are just not real, this type of communication never existed a hundred years ago, face to face communication has been with since we were living in caves and leaving cave art on walls. The new invention of the continent of Europe, the media that centuries later gave us the town crier. That eventually invented the printing press and then a mere few decades ago an EU and then a few moments ago the idea of press conferences with monologues broadcast to the world to try to answer and solve some of the most complicated and potentially furthest reaching of issues for the G 8.1 would be only illogical if the implications were not so inescapably of the highest risk. The only saving grace is if there is a nuclear war then at least it could be over in a flash.?

Viktor Orban who went to Ukraine to meet with President Zelensky, then to Moscow to meet with President Putin and then to Beijing to meet with President Xi did the right thing in my opinion, he is the one man in the entire world that has actually got the best perception from the leaders themselves of the intricacies of what the positions of the different leaders and to have done these meetings within such a short time frame was exactly the best way to do this. If all of this had been done in a slow quango type passing documents, and preparational meeting next sort of way, then not only would the momentum of the moment have been lost, the inability to be able to interpret read the body language, the capacity to be able to tap into intuition, Morphic Field Resonance lets say all of that would have been lost. The EU were not happy with what he did, any yet to have a man who is trained as a solicitor, experienced in politics and with having had a recent meeting with all three, what the EU would have best done rather than criticise and and question the logic of him doing that question for content.??

I have many good things to say about the EU. I consider myself to be a friend of the EU and yet in practical terms its not always possible or practical to make choices in groups, it can be easier just to get in and find out what the real positions are to take the initiative especially in the context of peace making, especially when the actions of Viktor Orban were undebatable in terms of them being well intended and in the very same breath, the fact that he is not only an experienced arbitrator. He is very much respected by all the leaders on all sides of this quarrel, conflict, war, territorial dispute, peace process, misrepresentation dispute. It's all of these things in a way. If the EU makes it all of these things and fully and properly considers this from all of these perspectives then we get to the position of knowing that this in enough ways for our Universal benefit being half a dozen of one and six of the other. It's from that mixed position that we begin to be able to track the best viability to progress that benefits all. If we are in a world of any side being 'extremely right in everything, we are then also in the same place as the other side being 'extremely wrong' in everything and that is an obstruction to peace making or even level playing field conversation. War is bad for everyone, it's bad for the widows and the children. The men in the field, the officers that want to do more from their perspective, the politicians that want to do more from their perspective, it's bad for the victims of the implications, it's bad for the shared, very, very sensitive psyche of mankind. War is bad for us and for them whichever way we want to place us and them.?An EU that 'undeniably has a way of thinking that what Voktor Orban did was wrong is in fact very different from an EU that states that what Viktor Orban did is wrong, and yet behind the scenes there is a wink. If there is that wink and complete denial of that or even the consideration of that then the Eu is on the right side today. If there is a real inner belief that the flexible approach taken by Viktor Orban was really wrong, then I have got to be rude here. The EU is suffering from the same type of 'proper and correct', I'm right, he is wrong, inflexible and reductionist ways of thinking and channels that brought down The Third Reich. Most people will have told Hitler until the moment the Bunker fell that everything would be alright, 'things are being done ''''properly''''. It was the flexibility and rounded thinking of Churchill, the adding onto an 'imperfect plan' for an overtly opposite to perfect scenario that the Americans could relate with and aligned with. They supported the whatever it takes mindset, the I will have a better answer tomorrow thinking. The ''it has to be done in this particular way, this is the only proper way'. Mindset was in fact blasted out of the water. So what I really hope is that there really is a secret admiration in the EU for what Viktor Orban did. If there is not that then they need to think more in terms of the idea of multiple paths of mediation. Of what I hope PThe former President Trump taught the world, that is that personal relationships between leaders do very much mean a lot. That quality alone, forget all the quango's that way of thinking alone can convert conflict, impasse to at least talks, if not diplomacy.?

So it's important here to consider '?de cabeza cuadrada', It's also important to consider here 'tonto malo'. I'm sorry if you don't immediately understand these concepts. They are from a language that English drew upon that never found their way into the conscious rational of English. They are however very much a part of the thinking that was very much a part of the thinking that led English to being English and yet perhaps something was lost in translation. Something that is the past was not so important, yet today it most certainly is. Firstly, Cabeza Cuadrada' translates as Square Head. This represents thinking that can be so black and white it misses out the grey. Being square headed relates to thinking that is so robotic that it is technically correct, and yet not really truly workable. This type of thinking can produce technical excellence in engineering and yet not in terms of the optimal innovations to engineer. 'Cabeza Cuadrada' in terms of the interface between politics and military decisions puts us almost only into the position of war or not. Yet, to have the not requires a whole bunch of grey areas in actual fact. Those grey areas if properly used give us the best chance of peace making to begin. The yes, or no, right or wrong, black or white, goodies or baddies mindset takes Europe into a place of its own folly if we are not a bit more learned. We can look to the most grey areas flexibility of thinking of the USA. Or we can go the other way entirely and look to the East, the Yin and the Yang. Chinese philosophy figuring this all out long ago. Significantly before the Romans. There is balance in the world, in everything, there is a bit of the black in the white and a bit of the white in the black. Dualism on thinking makes EU/Orban position right/wrong. A less quadra perspective makes what happened very good indeed for all.? Trumpian paradigm of putting personal relations between leaders high up in terms of priority, not bad, not bad at all. In the context of today an EU officially saying one thing, and yet being appreciative of the initiative taken by Orban produces much more of the content we need here today for one side to not only be one sided in its thinking but to be a bit more amiable.?

The Tonto Malo aspect is something that Spanish farmers linked in their thinking to hundreds of years before Columbus get. Malo translates as bad. Tonto as stupid. Bad stupid make up a whole lot of problems the world has and has been having. In order to get beyond the bad/stupid results we need to support good/wise choices. There are many people on the planet 8.1 billion. There are of these a few, very few European leaders of countries. Of all of these there is only one that in the most recent of times is both European an yet has also been a part of mediation, That is respected by all sides, met recently all sides, that is thinking in the interests of you, me, us. To stop wars there is not a perfect formular yet known. The best we can achieve and get to that in the immediate is to fully consider value and appreciate all of those leaders that have thought within the context of looking for enough of the ok is all sides to have meetings.? To much square headed and bad stupid thinking is going to take us the wrong way. Enough I can see this from your perspective, that of your country produces what we all need and that is a peace process. One that works.?

??? ? ?

The most sensible next step before would in fact to have had a series of meetings for him to present to a team of potential mediators and peace roadmap authors his full experience, his insights, his opinion. However, what got heard instead was not full reporting on the actual meeting it was reporting that questioned the logic of him going. The people's who's opinions were in the press were the people that did not go, did not listen, and the one person that did there was seemingly no information gain, however there was a gain of goodwill. Is there any court in the world that tries to resolve disputes by speaking out against speaking? Of course not. Even a scrap on a playground between school kids gets better mediation from school teachers than a war that may have killed up to one and a half million Europeans.?

The statement made that 'China has produced the only peace proposal', yes that in a way is true. They have produced the best one.?

The African proposal based upon that with the inclusion of setting the record of the past straight could be considered to be important or not or even better.?

In my opinion it is more whole,? as this shows and proves and presents the most concerted efforts made by the most countries in the world ever before to be on the side of the multi-polar world paradigm. This is not only of benefit to the war in Ukraine and now Russia. This is important background knowledge in fact for the Indian Sub-Continent at this time as well. There is also good reasoning for this in the context of The Middle East and in obtaining clarity and insights into the real peace making that was done there and also of course to optimally represent the changes in geo-political positioning that occurred when more that a dozen countries in Asia aligned to the North and South Korean Peace Process and fully representing them within the actual context of the fact that both Russia and China and of course the USA as well all played a part in that. The first ever successful peace process taken by the three superpowers and their allies to prevent a war and exit from the first ever public nuclear debate between the leaders of two countries. So there is also something else crucial to mention here and that is The Middle East.?

The reasons that Turkyie and Israel were in 2021 the most obvious mediating countries between Russia and Ukraine was due to the fact that Russia had been a country that helped NATO in the context of Turkyie in ways that even NATO probably do not know fully. Vice President Mike Pence travelled out to meet President Erdogan the day after I sent a very urgent peace roadmap to the White House. That same peace roadmap published on LinkedIn mapped out why there could not be an engagement at the time of Operation Olive Branch at the time that Israel was advancing through the Golan Heights and Syria was defending it's position as well from Damascus. Syria, a country 3/4 of the size of the UK at the time had the most complicated war in history due to the amount of countries and groups in the war and then as the West pulled out there was the very real risk of the vacuum being filled with two more countries Turkyie and Israel. It was a combined effort of Vice President Mike Pence, Prime Minister Erdogan meeting. Yet, in addition to that President Putin saying that he would put Russian troops between the advancing armies to stop them engaging which in fact saved the EU in 2017. During that exact time, this is what was happening in the EU. The Uk had its Brexit narrative as a principle priority. Spain and Italy had very differing positions in terms of the migration issue. Germany had divisions for the first time significantly in terms of the migration issue, Greece was coping with many boats arriving on its islands. The Eastern Block EU countries had a different view on migration that the Western countries in the EU. The EU that has NATO countries would have been legally obliged to join Turkyie if Turkyie and Israel came into contact. Yet, would Germany have done that then? Germany a real allied country of Israel? Would the USA have gone with it's NATO allied country Turkyie? Or would it have gone with Israel? If the USA had gone with Israel and the EU wanted to stay aligned with the USA then that would have resulted in a migration situation where the far more refugees in the Middle East going into Europe.?

13 Million in Europe, there could have been 3.6Million more from Turkyie alone, that happening at the exact moment there was the very least agreement in the EU in terms of the refugee migration issue. So the truth is that there really is an inherent selective thinking narrative in the middle of the European Union and within NATO. There is a massive lie happening and the 'common sense of the EU' IE that Viktor Orban was wrong to meet with the same man that actually may have saved NATO and the EU is exactly the reasoning why such a wrong narrative is taking EU citizens into potentially very high risk situation which is already derived from a very dishonest situation of half truths, politicians narratives, here say and in fact make believe. The truth about past peace making in the world has been very, very dangerously distorted, so dangerously that this is creating global division and yet that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem in fact is that there is an information famine that's resulted in so much distortion of truth that even having diplomatic meetings and talking is considered to be more controversial than simply sending more weapons to add to the stockpile of up to one ang a half million bodies and International relations in tatters. And nuclear threats becoming the 'new norm'. IE threats to incinerate the entire populations of countries due to the mishandling of information by their leaders. We today are in the midst of the greatest ever abomination of news. We are in an Orwellian trap where 'war is peace' and 'Peace is not even allowed to be discussed, fully, properly, openly.?

The reason that the EU got so deluded is that they and other governments did not take peace making seriously enough when there was in fact the most serious peace making the world has ever had. I have always been very pro EU. I believe that the only way to maintain borders is by unity between countries and the only way to be able to retain unity is for the truth to be known, no matter how inconvenient the truth is. The truth is always less inconvenient than a world war. To think that I'm living in a time where the truth of peace making and diplomacy is so directed by wanting to appease past wrong media narratives rather than wanting to relate to those leaders of countries both allied and not that stood up and stood out for peace making actually makes a mockery of the slogan 'Lest We Forget'. We are better at remembering a war of 90 years ago than a peace process of eight years ago. Our advanced communications are not that advanced at all if they fail to get the facts and truth straight. What the biggest concern of all this in fact is that what I'm writing here may not be admitted by the EU and yet believe me, it's known about by a great many countries leaders in the world. What the risk of that in fact is, becomes much more insidious than realised by most. What this is doing is in fact undermining the credibility of the West as being a force for good in the world. That is what I really do not like about this. I believe Western values are important and if the West is perceived or known to be only peddling a partial truth, and the implications of that are obstructing peace making efforts by some countries then that does bring into question credibility in mediation.?

I finished the last peace roadmap talking about the currency of diplomacy and of peace making. We are in the first four years of a five thousand year at least change. The first time in human history where entire continents have got together with up to 54 countries. IE More than 25% of all the countries in the world and they have agreed a specific peace making position between them all. If entire continents can take a position on peace making then they can take a combined position on anything. What the good news is from this is that peace makers have more influence in the world than any time previously. What the downside to this is that if there is a case of dragging feet with peace making by any side, then a substantial proportion of the worlds countries can shift position like swifts change direction in flight, as a group of countries, as a unit. So there are many things I've predicted that have come true and been later proven. What I predict here is that unless the narrative of past peace making is straightened out then the countries least inclined for whatever reason to not do that in the medium term results in their loss much more than any other countries. The reason for this is that 'ambiguity' of truth may function okay in domestic politics and keep things going as they are. However, in terms of International relationships keeping up a lie or aligning to a lie and yet knowing there is in fact a whole different underlying other truth is actually not only causing countries to have to do more hard work in their thinking than would otherwise be necessary. The actual food security of many of these countries together with economic stability are affected by war. So the towing of a party line or even the line of a country or group of countries has a tiring affect on leaders in other countries that do really know there is more going on than is being openly discussed. Add to that the differences in potential outcome of the next Presidential election in the USA. We need to stop for a moment here, take a helicopter view on all of this.?

We had a two country nuke threat that went from that to a 'love-in'. We had a Syrian war that was the most complicated war in history seemingly resolved by magic. We had the first conflict ever between two nuclear powers India and Pakistan that was magically solved and fifty percent of the leadership that mediated out of that is now in prison. We had a Venezuela situation where troops landed on a beach, and then that just magically stopped. We had the most chaotic peace process and exit from Afghanistan that resulted in people holding onto the outside of planes to leave and and many billions wasted in terms of resources left there, then all of a sudden after that the Taliban agreeing to be more moderate and yet still not invited back to world diplomacy properly. We had a complete reversal of the Love In in the Korea's, even though the goals of what North Korea wanted ie to be like other socialist countries, to reform and to have tourism, yet never mind that lets just keep up the media claiming the country is unpredictable. Then there were dud weapons sent to Russia from North Korea? Why? There had been a dud peace process, that's why. After reading that quick summary of a few things without mentioning the fact that Iran, Saudi, Yemen went in to peace making brokered by China and yet never a mention of the fact that Multi-polar thinking would have been a part of that, no analysis of the peace making of any of the above. This is the problem, the West can be and has been good at peace making and yet that is 'not what sells newspapers, who's trade is of course completely dependent upon what? Yes, world peace, or at least enough of it to keep the West and East friends enough.?

So there are very obviously giant information gaps, yet this gets a bit more complicated. If you relate to the motoring world only from the perspective of being only a very enthused white van driver or even a very enthused back seat driver of a white van, then when you are trying to explain and present the entire plethora of different motoring experiences then you are going to have pre-programed interpretation filters that then present your perception of how you see motoring. So you say anything and everything you want to say. Then there is another writer that speaks another language that then interprets what you have said and then translates that into their language and publishes that, yet that happens multiples of times in very language and so what we have is a very inherently subjective, highly influenced, one sided perception of what 'the driving experience is' yet that will be from a perceptual position that to begin with was completely non representative at all of the full spectrum of insight and interpretation of what really the entire motoring experience is which of course will vary significantly if you are the driver of a Tesla, 2CV, Ferrari, Mercedes, Trabant or a Reliant Robin traders van. The difference in location in terms of perspective will be vast. The truth maybe the truth subjectively and yet objectively the actual truth would inevitably be a whole series of vast paradigms different. Yet, if the only perspective people got of the motoring experience came from the filter of such a narrow bandwidth then that is what would be known and believed as being real, true and 'how it really is'.?

?So the above is of course a metaphor, the context really is not anything to do with cars at all in fact in my opinion we should really focus more on types of collective transport options where possible so that people have more time to relax and to talk and by doing so opportunities, chance encounters happen that then can help progress, people, planet, and economy. However, not wishing to get into a monologue. What I'm really saying in this is that the world has actually had far too limited interpretation of past peace processes in 100% of published media. The reason for this is processes, ie the media reporting the information they are given via standard sources that are 'credible' anything that is a bit too different, a bit too 'incredible' becomes interpreted by them as being 'non-credible', therefore not worth of the paper it's not ever printed on.?

Whilst this have been a bit of an invisible issue from 2015 from each year since then the disparity between what really happened and what actually got reported grew and grew. Not only did our white van change drivers and journalists the driver before and after were everything other than the best of friends and there was enough paperwork in terms of the strategy, tactics, method of keeping the world more or less as normal as its been kept in boxes, more than enough to fill up the van. So not only was there White Van Man logic in terms of the most sensitive of mediations between the three most influential powers in the world happening, there was a double confusion factor by never mind the official documents being shared, not even the back of the envelope notes got shared. So where does this leave the USA? Well the USA election season etc. etc and all of that. Yet, where does this leave Europe, Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkyie and everyone else? Hold on we got an election coming up, you'll find out in less than half a year. This is written not to challenge anyone, yet to say clearly we are in unchartered waters here. Peace making is not a luxury for the liberal elites, it's a pre-requisite to keeping the world more or less as normal as it's been. Yes, it's going to be complicated being on an interdependent planet that co-exists due to effective enough peace processes, Yes US elections are important and yet knowing how we kept the world as more or less normal as it is, required effort, required mediating between different cultures, required that countries leaders would meet diplomacy in the middle.?

That is never how the real truth was communicated, yet that is really how it was. So from here I believe that a more full and complete representation of the past, the recent past is important I believe that it is an essential component in terms of keeping the world as peaceful as its been and yet not only that a part of the components the composition to the best version of the future that the entire human race can accomplish.?

So some of the best, most important peace process written work ever written in your lifetime or the life time of a hundred of your ancestors lifetimes before you was written in Spain. You did not get to hear about that as the source was considered credible enough to influence White House policy, yet not 'credible enough' to obtain media coverage, therefore only the White van version of events got published, that put the backs up of various to many countries, from here the very best way back to effective diplomacy is in fact the explanation that things in fact were under reported and in fact this is the truth.?

The Tri relationship of the USA, Russia and China is something that the USA likes to have a position of being in alignment with at least one other of the three tri's. Of course they all carry diplomatic influence with many, most all of the other countries.?

So at the moment, irrespective of what you read in the papers two of these three feel inadequately represented. To get out of this position requires some thinking that there may have been some mistakes made.

?Russia and Ukraine need to find peace . This is possible via fully informed choices or from one side defeating the other. The path towards wanting defeat comes at a loss of world wide relations.? lower cost to all comes more from the place of well actually, we all messed up a bit. Humble Pie does not taste so bad, when it's eaten by everyone and the result of that is a Universal benefit to all, incudling you.??

We live in a time of unpredictability, the crowd affects the singular that then affects the whole, that then affects the crowd and the singular. It's better for all to be wrong about something than any side to be right about everything, if the inevitable result of being right comes as a cost of an irreparable repair of relations that we cannot bridge, that nobody can bridge. It's better to all be wrong about different somethings and then the result of that is progress for all than to be right about everything and the inevitable result of that is contrast remaining and failure. That brings fanaticism in thinking of one sides whilst that side thinking the fanaticism is the other. In the context of WW2, the Third Reich was functioning by the paradigm of reasoning that their sides was 'in the right about everything', 'they were the correct side' and in fact were manipulated into thinking that by their own leaders of purpose who believed they were 'right about everything' and manipulating their own people was the only way to get done 'what was right'. It was the Americans that realised that the people were so brainwashed that they needed to go to see the concentration camps for themselves. The false flag of the radio station in Poland being the manipulation that put the England and Germany into war. So there were many 'fantasies of thinking', that were perpetuated for many years that have kept together various systems until there has been a revision of thought. Romania with Ceausescu, Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge etc. It's rare that a people ask are we being manipulated and are in a position to change that, it's more usual that the politicians or protestors, bloggers, fill in the information and knowledge gaps to have free speech enough to prevent systems at risk of their being a type of 'unconsidered fanaticism happening within the thought in the politics that in fact goes un properly known, unchecked, un-noticed.? The tendency of mankind is to look to faults out there in the world than to consider faults of thought in our own thinking enough.?

Middle East Hostage mediations.?

When this whole situation is considered this is everything other than simply a negotiation between two or even three sides. The perception is that the mediation is between Israel, Hamas and the USA. There are factions within the West which are affecting Western politics, there are factions within Israel. The arab world standing behind mediation as patiently as any peoples ever have wanting an end to Israeli occupation, whilst the hostage protestors want the hostages returned and have a position of whatever it takes, whilst the Netanyahu perception is of maintaining occupation of parts of Gaza for the security of Israel, to 'prevent' another future attack on Israel. However, with the Hamas leadership assassinated there has been the opposite position taken than my peace roadmap documents have sought to achieve, (A parallel to this being in the war between Russia and Ukraine, still no talks even though my work put this as the optimal path forward for years.) Not allowing for talks or encouraging them in my opinion is a type of fanaticism. It's making war the answer that began by failed talking and communications in the first instance mostly. However, in the context of the USA, UK and Israel there are such vast groups calling for peace, not obtaining peace is not an option. However, the proposals Israel have offered Hamas rejected. The whole paradigm of thinking by the 'Netanyahu coalition government being to continue occupation and border controls to prevent a future attack, yet the logic jump is not made that it's by being a controlling force over the Palestinians that is what's causing the reason for the attacks in the first place. The 'deal of the Century deal' was one sided, the proposals for Israel to stay in parts of Palestine is orientated around the 'fear' of further attacks in response to a problem that would have already been resolved and that is the Palestinians not being within an occupied land. If there is Israeli control of borders between Egypt then there is going to be issues that happen between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians inevitably. This then is perpetuating the problem.?

Whilst I believe that the US proposal is very good, ie that if and only if there are attacks on Israel then Israel can go back in. This enables there to be 'an option' that is 'theoretically good' for all sides. If the 'theoretically good' concept does not work in practice then Israel has as part of this the chance to be able to respond by going back into Gaza.?

So the projected 'fear of the good plan not working' in order to try and obtain what the Netanyahu government considers to be a 'better and safer plan' for Israel is resulting in the 'hope of peace making being lost' as the Arab world, not only Hamas want a Palestine that is not occupied at all. The attitude of Israeli protestors that there is no progress in negotiations until their is a deal done to release the hostages is obviously causing a rift within Israeli thinking. When it's also considered that there have just been attacks with settlers on Palestinians and some of Israel's primary allies speaking out very much against this. There is of course a narrative in Israel to keep the Palestinians oppressed, controlled and fearful of Israeli's and yet in Tel Aviv the night of massive protests calling for the release of hostages and in contrast to the Netanyahu position in mediations there was a bomb that went off. So there is an underlying logic and position forming in Israel of Israeli's wanting the Hamas, the Arab mediated positions to work and are more in support of that than the position of their own coalition government. A type of mindset of 'why on Earth do we want Occupied territories when the result of that is only so much harm to so many people on both sides of the fences?? ?

The consideration by the Netanyahu government is that if he 'gives in' to 'the others which in the context of this mediation and where it is currently I put the US as well. Then this could cause a split in the coalition and result in the collapse of his government which is in fact what many Israeli protestors including the families of the hostages want. This they see as the only possible way that there can be a viable mediation to release the hostages if there is not success obtained from the mediations taking place. So there are videos I have seen where it's implied that Israelis are considering resorting to violence to assassinations as a possible path to enabling there to be viable talks. The whole situation as if its not complicated enough already is more complicated by the fact there is a US election and the two parties in that election do not represent a very substantial amount of people that would always otherwise be Democrat voters, and yet whilst the war is continuing would not be able to bring themselves to vote for the Democrats and yet would never vote for trump either.?

So in a situation like there is today, is there a possible pivot of the current position which does produce a different perspective at least theoretically that enables all on all sides to be able to step out of war completely? Out of contrast? I believe there is that yet what that requires is cautious optimism rather than un-cautious pessimism, that is disguised as 'realism'.?

There has never been a day of their not being occupied Palestinian lands since the start of this. If there was 'a peace enabled' IE the Palestinians controlling their own borders then would there not be pressure by the Arab world for that peace to be maintained? Would the whole motive for the war be as much removed as it was in other conflicts such as in Northern Ireland? Are the Irish more wise, clever, ethical, intelligent than those in conflict in The Middle East? No, they wanted peace on the face of it and behind the scenes as well, there were enough influences and levers to maintain that peace.

So the non believing in peace making is the problem, the Netanyahu position being to not 'really trust the Palestinians' enough to say, you want your own country, have it just leave my country alone. If you don't, then x. There can be an 'over complicating of peace making' too much reading between the lines than on the lines. In the context of where things are today there is a 'positive' way to progress, it may be considered a naiive or even gullible way to progress, ie if we don't 'protect the border crossing areas' there is more risk, yet there is only really that risk if the problems between the Israeli's and the Palestinians continue. After so much destruction there is a pitiful mess left of so much land and so many innocent people's lives. There will be the desire by all to keep the peace if the peace that is produced is properly allowing and representative of both sides. If the policy is to try to be so suspicious that nothing is agreed, then the implications of that as much or even more for Israel within Israeli society I very much worry about. If there is not a good outcome for the hostages then there will be forever more an unresolvable civil chasm within Israel as a country. By Israel not 'being reasonable enough with the Palestinians, the result of that could be in terms of implication that there are gulfs in Israel so great between those that are considered to be 'loyal to the hostages' and those 'loyal to the current way of thinking in mediations' to be as much or even more in terms of polar opposite directions to each other that the Israelis and Palestinians are. From here chaps, I hate to say this, but politics and geo-politics play out over the course of decades, Hitlers revenge from the grave could end up being 'the failure of the state of Israel' this caused by nothing more that 'an inflexibility of thinking'. 'A type of we are right they are wrong', a type of thinking that does not allow for the grey areas to be noticed, a type of thinking that causes an irreversible change and fragmentation not only in Israel and the Middle East but further afield. The consideration that there could be 'an external risk to Israel's existence has been the fear of Israel and yet if we are to learn from the most recent four years of our world history anything, it's that the information in the world and how this is responded and reacted to by large groups of people, how injustices are dealt with and coped with can have vastly massive implications. If there is one single word that is a common denominator between 1/6,9/10,BLM, Rwanda, rioting etc. If there is one single word that has been a key component, a common denominator to all of that its the word 'injustice'. Injustice or perceived injustice converts normal calm, rational people into at worst very unpredictable crowds. The term 'fanatics' is a very strong word, however people destroying their own countries as a result of injustice or perceived injustice is something that needs to be very cleverly prevented from happening, in so many contexts there needs to be more thinking, more discussion, more sensible conversation, more open society, more truth, more trust in other people and more real belief in the best of others or there is not only a bit less of that, there can be vast, vast flips in the other direction as we have seen.?

In the context of the Uk 'the not releasing of information in terms of the suspect was normal standard process. However, with enough thinking around corners of that situation as it played out, the realisation that that could relate in peoples minds to other events that they had lived through, that had traumatised them previously via the reporting of events could cause such a negative response. This is why effective strategists in politics is essential, crisis management strategy work is critical to be able to pre-empt events, and sometimes in fact break the rules in order to preserve the rules if necessary. The event that happened in the UK was a massive shock to the people and the only way that some people could even process that event was to perceive it in a similar way to other events. There could have been the 'crisis management thinking and authority in place' that could actually have said, no make a clear statement as to the demographic in society that the suspect is from. That could have happened without actually naming him. Yet, there was a state of fear that did play out from mourning into protest and then riot and then counter protest within a very short time frame. So it's better to at least be able to observe how the 'injustice' issue is in fact a major factor in everything keeping the world normal, and being able to have a six of one half a dozen of the other perspective on issues so that people know they are being heard, that there opinions and the opinions of others are valid is really important. So yes, mistakes get made and yet the key to preventing future mistakes is to look for common themes and the concept of 'injustice' can in fact be in opposite ways, the protest and counter protests in the Uk could in fact be representative of hypothetical protests and counter protests in other countries including Israel and yet things are different there and yet the issue of 'injustice' is there again. How to prevent the 'injustice' to the 'more right thinking Israelis' being in contrast to the 'more left thinking Israelis' is as much a possible future problem as anything else within all of this if those hostages do not get released.

If I'm going to take this to another perspective I have to say that in actual fact today the position of Netanyahu is a 'strong position' to be taking to the content that is on the negotiating table. However, if we are going to look at 'everything and pre-empt' in Israel what was not as effectively as it could have been perhaps at least in theory today the way in which events played out in the UK. If there is not a hostage release scenario obtained then there will obviously be a chasm in Israeli culture, within the country which will never heal. This has gone on too long, there are such entrenched beliefs by some Israelis that the way in which the war has been handled has been completely wrong. The reality is that those 100 hostages, combined with the hostages that have been killed and the ones that have been released form a massive network of people that know them, who know people who know them, people who live in the same road or town as them, or who met them once or know their friends, or who went to school, work, University on a night out with one of them. The reality is that it's not one hundred Israeli's that are 'being held captive' it's the entire state of Israel. Any result other than the successful release of those hostages is a disaster or unequalled proportions ever in Israel. The blame will be too much for the recovery from this. So the idea of trying to mediate a bit of extra security in this part of Palestinian territories or that is in fact futile when the implications of not having a great wonderful plan for all Israelis and all Palestinians is in fact the biggest of risks there has ever been. Whilst Palestine is crumbling on the outside, Israel will hve crumbled from within due to the implications of the non release of hostages if that happens causing a moral chasm that will never leave the country.? The dream of their ever being 'a holy land at peace' would have been successfully stopped by Hitler, in the end. I do not say this in the context of who that man was, but the 'type of inflexible thinking' of 'our people, over your people' that in the context of where Israel is today is potentially the most dangerous of implications there can be to this situation.?

Am I writing anything here that would not already have been considered by all sides? Perhaps a bit yes, but certainly the thoughts within this would have been considered by some and perhaps I'm just finishing off a few paradigms of tit for tat that once considered properly are actually completely obvious.

My priority in writing this is not to try and protect this version of Israel in the thinking of some of that version of Israel in the thinking of others, it's not to try and say look at todays news and worry, it's more about mapping out the vulnerabilities of the entire situation to all. To then try to present a way out of this complete inter-jumbled 'injustice' situation enough so that there is an overtly big enough 'justice' to enough people embarked upon that enables there to be a good way forward in all of this for all as much as possible.

In short being penny wise trying to control one part of Gaza is false thinking, as that is like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. The horse that would have bolted will be the implications of where the hostage scenario not having a good answer would have taken Israel. What could be the scenario is that Israel has perfect control over a border in the Palestinian territories and yet no control within its own country of a blame game that could result in a civil war and two or more different sides of reasoning in Israel which in themselves are of such influence that they could even undermine the viability of the country putting Israelis in contrast to each other in a way that actually makes the differences between some Israelis and Palestinians be considered even less that the differences there are between some Israelis and others. Then on top of that when there are other issues which are incredibly contentious in Israel such as the attempted recruitment of some Jews into the army which their religious beliefs are in contrast to this, then there soon becomes multiples of levels of division that creates a scenario of what I consider to be a 'Brexit/ULEZ' type cognitive positioning scenario. In the context of Brexit and ULEZ you had a singular issue resulting in the usual left and right demographics in society changing.?

There were both pro and anti Brexit paradigms of reasoning by people that in almost every other issue have always had differing positions from differing demographics, however in the context of Brexit there were both what are termed the far right and far left, then the electorate of other parties all equally taking one side or another on the issue. The same was true in terms of ULEZ.?

In the context of the war in Gaza this has resulted in people protesting on both sides that have never protested previously in many countries. The issue of Gaza has been the second issue where there were vast demonstrations in many countries simultaneously. The first were the Black Lives Matter protests. So there is without a doubt a global implication to the fate of Gaza whatever happens there. This has really got to be considered in terms of mediations, therefore taking any position at all, with anything that is being said that is not 'defensive of world stability and security' is a risk to not only that region but many surrounding countries and yet even in terms of the functioning of systems the other side of the world. For one moment, never mind the interests of one three, five ten countries. The implications of what happen in Gaza affect the future of every country in the world where there is a dependency upon Muslims, Jews and Christians to get along. That is not only an issue about countries, that's an issue about companies and communities. So taking anything other than a very full, a very complete assessment of this entire situation and mediating an effective result for all is not in fact really with the full complexity of this considered in the interests of any people, group or country. That is how things are at this present moment in reality in terms of potential implications. Yet, if there is anything other than the successful release of the hostages then those dynamics play out and become so much more complicated than I can even map thorough. However, it's easiest for me from here to just give what I believe is the best possible answer to where the situation is at this very moment in time. At this moment in time where there is a way to be able to heal the rifts there already are in Israel and by doing so heal the rifts in many other places as well.?

Use the 'like a best friend' paradigm for mediation.?

Let the conversation that's been had as it is. That being unresolved. Let's call that plan a.?

Take a pivot point to 'like a best friend' paradigm. Whilst at first glance this seems 'crazy'. How can such a concept even be considered when there has been so much tragedy and loss to all? Even saying this is wrong, isn't it? No. The reality is that the people of Gaza and the people of Israel have many 'best friends' that will help both sides if there is real peace obtained. If there is only a 'stifled and controlled, out of non trust derived peace process then that is then a breeding ground for tit to tat to begin again when even one Palestinian or even one Israeli goes in any way too far with the other. The whole peace process in fact without enough trust in the other is unworkable. This is why I do today 100% support the perspective of Anthony Blinken on this. Yet, there needs to be a bit more and that is best obtained by the Netanyahu and Hamas negotiators effectively changing position and considering what there side can do to help the other side towards peace rather than being in the position of not trusting the other side as they in fact have reservations in the belief that peace making is not really obtainable. It has to be obtainable. The reason it has to be obtainable as that is the best, the only way to really be able to protect Israel or Palestinian territory.?

Prime Minister Netanyahu's best option is the release of the hostages. He is only going to get that with the other side saying yes to that. The only way they are going to say yes to that with absolute certainty, no matter what the release of the hostages will be their first, second, third priority is when they know for certain that there is no risk of an 'existential risk' to the Palestinian people and the only way to that is by not having a mixed management situation of any of that territory. If there is not that then the 'fragile peace' obtained is about as fragile as a border guard touching a woman in an inappropriate way. It's as fragile as a Palestinian looking at an Israeli guard in a way in which he subjectively does not like. An ineffective peace process not produced from the 'like a best friend' perspective of building in many layers of help and cooperation to help the other side is deemed to produce a problem, then a response then a response to the response and the whole tit for tat process continues as it has done. In my opinion the strongest possible position for Israel is to be as nice as possible. To see the benefits of no more conflict between the countries being possible and this achieved due to mutual respect. That is of course not easy to do when there has never been ever an equal level of respect between the two peoples or even within the groups of peoples, there has always been external pressures on all individuals to 'have to think in this way or that way' or face social exclusion or worse. The inner dynamics of being with us or against us is a mentality that is caused by 'injustice', 'perceived injustice' reasoning that perceives things more from 'our position than from there position'.?

The best possible outcome would be Prime Minister Netanyahu saying we have obtained the strongest possible peace deal. We have done that not for one group of people or another. We have obtained the greatest most strongest possible peace deal by putting the interests of everyone first and by doing that this then factors in our best interests whoever we are. A war in Gaza can end and will end and on my watch will end forever by us stopping trying to win a war and putting a much higher interest into winning a peace, a lasting peace. A divided Israel is as much of a risk to Israel as a divided holy land is. Therefore, the first priority is to get the hostages released and what we demand in return is that this never happens again and what we offer in return to that is an arrangement so that there is no mixing of the management of peoples. People are either in Israel or they are in Palestine. This being the only viable way to prevent issues within Israel from affecting more and more Israelis. It was the inflexible and unethical narratives of one regime that resulted in the formation of Israel. If we have to do the exact opposite of that way of thinking in order to finally bring peace to the entire region then the benefits are for the future mostly and these beginning today.?

The issue of Israel of the Palestinians has always been an issue affecting the world from the perspective of the issue is over there, and yet the issue is today in the thinking of the world. There is no way to maintain any 'strong position' in any way militarily to this crisis as the problem is that as one side fights against the other it produces more conflict within the thought of peoples in countries worldwide. The interest of all the countries that have ever helped Israel today is of peace making. All the countries that have helped and therefore the priority has to be helping these countries as much as helping Israel and the best way, the only way to be able to accomplish that is by thinking for the first time in a new way.?

The deal is we give them what they want a good future and they give us what we want and that is a good future. It's a win-win, it's something that removes the risk of there being any 'existential risks' to Israel or any other country. It makes unresolvable past differences potentially workable in a future and therefore present context.?

In my opinion Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu can emerge from all of this either as the winners of peace or as the person and country that did not make peace possible either externally or internally within the country. Giving a free Palestine a chance may be considered to be a risk and that I do not for a moment not deny. Prime Minister Netanyahu may be correct about this. At the moment its impossible to say. However, what is completely obvious is that the difference between the hostages released or not is the biggest of issues affecting Israel not or in future. So the question is giving the Palestinians what they want, is that 'giving in to terrorism?' It's giving into country making. That is what Bill Clinton did for Northern Ireland, that is what South Africa did. South Africa brought its country to a middle ground by taking on board the issues of all sides and creating a dialogue at the top that then filtered down throughout the country. I believe that could be possible today. I believe that not properly fully trying for that, putting faith in the other side is in fact the biggest risk that Israel as a country can make. The people of Israel want the hostages back. The country will only be in my opinion ever fully at peace if that happens.?

Anthony Blinken today is the middle ground position. I believe that both sides should go to that position. I believe it's in the interests as much of the Israelis as it is the Palestinians. The reality of the situation in South Africa was no matter how many guns, or police FW D Klerk and all of his police, army, allies around the world etc could never keep and maintain control over the people, the tribes of South Africa. He was smart to realise that potentially Nelson Mandela could and he did. Prime Minister Netanyahu would benefit from considering the wisdom and logic of Sir Robert Peel when he former the UK police force. The use of the community to manage the community. That model of thinking is a model of thinking that can work in my opinion in the Holy land. The best way to achieve that is for the Israelis to believe that the Palestinians do hve influence over their own people enough to be able to produce a true and viable lasting result to managing the situation and solving differences within the Palestinian territories. If that is possible or to be achieved it can in my opinion only possibly be achieved in the same way that the later D Klerk began to think than the previous D Klerk thought.? ??

?An interconnected answer that brings in other players can help this situation as well. The rapid improvement to Palestine can produce a new narrative of a good new future, in a similar way that happened in Northern Ireland.? ? ??

? The Celtic Tiger economy resulted from peace making in Ireland. The same can be possible in the Holy Land. The new found peace making bringing in investment and trust. The improvements to Ireland being a starting position to their being more Irish influence in the world that ever before in Europe and in the USA. The capacity of Ireland, the success story is something extraordinary to see, the peace making accomplishments of Ireland as well as South Africa are references to what can and has been possible in other part of the world.?

However, one of the important, most important components in terms of peace making is actually to search out potential helpers and these helpers may in some ways need help themselves.? Noble Prize winner Muhammad Yunus has the experience, knowledge of how to build economy from the bottom up, this is as much what is required in parts of the Middle East as is required in the most deprived areas of the most developed countries. By Israel healing Palestine it could be helping to build bridges that help Israel as well. Israel is a wealthy country and yet has also a very high poverty rate. The model of Micro finance instigated in Israel and Palestine can help revive both countries economically. A 'Holy Tiger' economy is possible by drawing upon both the wisdom of the Celtic Tiger. Yet, also considering Bangladesh leadership, the qualities and yet also the problems. Answering the issues in one country can help answer the issues in another. This is especially the case when there are issues requiring effective peace making in both.? ? ?

The Bengal Tiger.

The Bengal Tiger would not be the same without the black lines, the orange coat, the white shades and the white spots behind the ears. The white spots behind there ears, why are they there? This question has puzzled researchers for years. Whilst they are used as a way to communicate, there is another curious bit of information which we can bring into this and the social characteristics of tigers. When doing comparative analysis of Tigers and leopards, leopards are more likely to attack if they have been seen, they like to remain hidden, out of sight and mysterious. however, paradoxically a Tiger is the opposite if it is seen then it tends to behave. The difference between being seen or not being seen is a crucial factor in the progress of the lives of Tigers and Leopards though in opposite ways. Previously, I have related to this planet we are on the I call Earth, that we call Earth. Sorry, that sentence seems a bit eccentric, off balance. The idea that I could relate to the name of the planet and not consider the planet in the automatic context of we and us simply seems odd. The truth is we always consider the planet as being 'our planet' in the plural rather than the singular for very good reason, not only does the word Ear factor in but what we have within our ears is our balance, Ears, Earth intrinsically have the concept of pluralism and balance within them. Can I prove this? Well I can try, I've searched on the internet from one eared creatures that we share the planet with and I can't find any. There a big eared, pointy eared and even mythical multi-eared creatures and yet a one eared creature seemingly cannot be found.?

The Bengal Tiger synonymous, a symbol of Bangladesh is an animal that symbolises strength, capacity, speed, agility,? a guardian of the forest and made up of the three different colours including the spots on the ears. The rangers that walk deep into the forests where the Tigers live n protected reserves sometimes where masks on the backs of their heads. This is used to help protect them from the Tiger that tends to not attack when being looked at. The whiteness of the spots of the ears symbolising the ears, this can perhaps be symbolic of the needs for us to look back ourselves sometimes in order to move forward. if you are standing in a clearing with a Tiger present, there is one clear certainty you will have. You will feel a sense of respect towards the Tiger. You may have an element of fear, fright, worry and so many other emotions and yet the one overriding emotion that would be unmistakable is that of respect. You will know that the corner of the Earth that you inhabit in that very moment in time, there is more than one being there beyond you that requires the greatest of respect.?

The being, the Tiger requiring respect at that moment in time there is that automatic realisation of that there nd then, that is when the Tiger is standing there in front of you. If you move back a metre from the Tiger, does the Tiger still require respect? Yes, what about if you move back five metres or even fifteen metres? With us being related more to the primate, ape side of the picture rather than the big cat, cat and dog side of the picture. We know, it's intrinsic to us, pre-programmed down the line of a thousand generations of before and all the rest that no matter what, in the immediate facility of a Tiger our capacity in more closely associated to the differences between a field mouse and a pussy cat than it is to us and that Tiger. So we know that maximum respect is required and that is the norm. If we are a mile, a thousand miles or five thousand miles from that tiger, do we have the same levels of respect? Can our imaginations stretch as far as five thousand miles? The truth is that if we do our calculations properly then the combined territory of all the Tigers in the world is a tiny amount of land to the amount of land us cheeky human beings have requisitioned, named, said this is our patch of territory and said I won't hear anything else. Our explorations into Indigenous communities where the big cats of that area had the levels of respect given to them etched deep into the social fabric of the societies from longer than anyone could know or remember became forgotten as we hid behind our fire sticks and when we through these had finally after so many Millennia finally obtained the advantage we then referred to our new found abilities to be called sport more so than survival.? Yet, we were not good sports, the territory we have taken has diminished and diminished, not only that with our inability to be able to perceive what's physically greater than us in almost every way as even being then anyway close to being equal to us, then that same paradigm of reasoning was placed onto other peoples. The march into discovery and exploitation and domination was as much about the 'conquering of other peoples as it was about lands, animals, resources. We conquered and conquered everything out there, without often having enough consideration in terms of conquering our own thinking enough, fast enough to realise we have to put the breaks on fast enough in terms of our new found strengths in order to prevent the diversity of life that we share the planet with from being lost and lost forever. Lost irreversibly, however to turn the path of human progress around and how we perceive the fellow inhabitants we were newly able to gain capacity over is like trying to turn a great ocean liner around. However, to reverse the way in which we perceive other people's, to put them enough into the I'm ok. your ok thinking department has been like trying to reverse the tide of a sea. We have been perpetually in contrast, struggle against the ideas of yes, but they are different from us because. There have been enough becauses' in thinking that, so many obstructions and objections, so many differences considered it's as if we have been looking at the stripes and yet being unable to see these within the context of the Tiger. We focus of the details of the differences, rather than seeing that it's the differences that make up the Tiger, they make up the country.?

Bangladesh has had an Interim Prime Minister put in place called Muhammad Yunus. In terms of the inspiration he has given to helping the poor,? His ability to get community to function better for more people is unequalled not only in the Indian Subcontinent, not only in Asia, not only in the world but quite possibly in the history of the world and yet that's not what's written on his business card would ever read. Yet, it's the truth. He has inherited though a deeply divided country, rocked by violent protests with the change of leadership, no matter what there needs to be unity regained again. I have written Quora answers on Bangladesh, it obtaining stability is essential for the entire Indian Sub continent region.

Ukraine and Russia. Russia and Ukraine.?

If there is an effective peace plan agreed in Israel, if that uses components of the economic methodologies of Bangladesh, if the new government of Bangladesh is supported in its peace making within the country and yet there is the realisation that there are economic paradigms there which are as relevant to the West as the East and everywhere between. If there is peace making obtained between Israel and Palestine then that starts to solve the issues between Russia and Ukraine. Why? That is a situation of diplomacy won by Russia, which is some affirmation of some good policies, the tone is set to have then more reasonable discussions and the first meeting between Russia and Ukraine of more peace brokering by leaders of other countries. There is the potential possibility that there could be a snowball effect produced which results in more effective peace making today than any other time in recorded history. This seems unlikely only if the position of interdependency of the wellbeing of others as well as all of us is not considered as fully and properly as it needs to be. I have criticised the narratives of the EU, in the context of having written a great many things in support of the EU and the value its offered to the world in the way of in the past being a continent at peace for the first time, one of the best accomplishments of thousands of years. There could be the chance of that being obtained again there and also in the Middle East for the first time ever. What's required for that is a believe that peace can be possible and any other way of thinking that produces more concerns, more losses, more tit for tat is a downward cycle for all. The quality of peace making today is the quality of life in future for all. There are industries that can change and adapt there are answers that can be real and made bigger, there are paths to a world better and more normal than ever considered possible.

All this requires is a few leaders to lose a debate to win the future, the best version of the future. To get in and talk and see what can be possible today rather than what has not been possible in the past. Don't try to convince me there is a way for plastic, wires and bits of metal that enable me to be able to talk to people in the next town in writing. That will always be an unworkable idea so believed most of the common sense thinking that's ever happened on this planet by the smartest of people. We can achieve the impossible, its happened more than a few times before and the first ingredient of that is belief. Believe in self and belief in others, even those that don't agree with what's said also do have a vested interest in a good, the best version of the future.?

''Most people spend more time going around problems than trying to solve them.''

Henry Ford.

'"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein.

“It is easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build.” “Peace is not just the absence of conflict; peace is the creation of an environment where all can flourish, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, gender, class, caste, or any other social markers of difference. Nelson Mandela.