Middle East Armistice, why it's necessary & can be possible.

The time now is 3.03 Am on the West Coast of the USA.

One minute after the anniversary of the two minutes of silence for 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, the moment that World War 1 ended.

?November 11 commemorates the signing of the a peace deal between Britain, its allies and Germany during the First World War.

An armistice — is a specific time, day, month when a war ends. The Armistice in Europe was signed in a train carriage in northern France, bringing an end to four years of terrible fighting on the Western Front. The agreement was signed in the early hours of the morning of November 11, 1918.

An Armistice could be called today once again one hundred and five years later, to prevent the types of conditions that happened in that time where one instance resulted in a cascade event that brought the world into war. We are at a moment today, far too similar to the conditions of the start of WW1, yet this time there are far more countries now asking what do we do next?

?In terms of the Armistice day commemoration and protests in London.?The UK's Conservative and Labour Party's both at odds to how to position within their own parties on issues involving a protest for a ceasefire, a protest for peace in Gaza. Concerns over the Day of Remembrance not being respected have resulted in calls to protect monuments in London. Have resulted in public debates involving the Police, Mayor and Ministers.?

?A message by President Macron calling for the safety of women and children in Gaza. A statement about the prospect of a two state solution from the USA. A call for an immediate end to the violence in Gaza by Iran.??Around?1,400 Israelis?and foreigners have been?killed?since 7 October, including 308 IDF soldiers, 10 Shin Bet agents and 58 police officers and at least 5,132 wounded.?Around?12,000 Palestinians killed. Hospitals destroyed, baby's being kept alive on respirators by doctors by hand.? ?

The Crown Prince Mouhamed Bin Salmon hosting Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was welcomed back into the Arab League earlier this year, attended a meeting in Riyadh.?

Protests in many in the USA by a Jewish group calling for a ceasefire, in New York and some of the biggest protests ever seen in Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, South America. A substantial increase in reported religious persecution. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi is calling for not words but actions. The only logical choice from all perspectives is an immediate ceasefire that leads immediately into the creation of a Palestinian State. There has never been a bigger protest in the history of democracy, in the history of capitalism, communism, consumerism any ism that has ever existed more widely demanded by more people for there to be an immediate end to this war. Without that then the issues of today are going to affect the next generations, hundreds of years. Relations today between the Jewish, Muslim and Christian worlds are reparable.?

This is a humanity issue. People did not fight for freedom in wars to then live in a world where the bombing of children and innocent people is permitted to continue. This is not about one group of people or another, it's about how the entirety of humanity relate. There many Muslim, Jewish and Christians calling for a ceasefire. There are many not of these religions calling for a ceasefire.?

What needs to be considered is this. Anything other than taking a geo-political observation of where this situation is today is totally flawed. This is beyond a countries issue or five, ten thirty countries issue. This is a religious issue, yet this is beyond a religious issue, this is more like a humanity issue. What needs to be considered is that there is a very strong opposition to what's happening in Gaza from so many perspectives and simultaneously. This is a NATO issue and yet more complicated than that as there is one of the NATO countries also calling for an immediate ceasefire. France a principle European country is also calling for an end to the bombing of women and children. There is the first scenario there has ever been where the unity of NATO is already shifting diplomatically over this. NATO from the time of the ending of WW2 has always had a united voice, always. That was until the war between Russia and Ukraine's increase in 2021 where there was for the first time one country Turkey standing as neutral and seen to be a key mediator, there was a second country at that moment and that was Israel. All countries of The United Nations including the two countries at war stood behind the Grain Deal that Turkey successfully brokered. Whilst that was one of various peace making attempts made. The attack on Israel and what has been cited as a disproportionate response to that not resulting in a ceasefire has changed the situation where the very vast majority of people want and demand a ceasefire. The vast majority of the world is on the side of peace making.

A peace protest described as an action of hatred in the UK by The Home Secretary has resulted in condemnation from various parties including her own party. The complexity of the Uk's Prime Minister/First Minister issue, the pressure off the urgency of that partly due to the fact The first Ministers family have exited Gaza.? ?

The events that have happened in recent weeks there was so much condemnation to the attack on Israel by Hama's, and yet the destruction of Gaza without a ceasefire being made, with few concessions made towards the civilian? Palestinian's many of which are too young to even begin to understand what has even happened or why has resulted increasingly in opposition to the war. A Jewish and Palestinian protest is at The Statue of Liberty again as I write this.

There has been the condition cited that there will be four hour gaps. Yet, there will not be a ceasefire until the hostages are released. However, as cited in my previous peace roadmaps the most likely way for that to happen is to go straight into a peace deal. In other words for there to be a ceasefire, release of hostages and the re-creation of an independent Palestinian state simultaneously in part. That also effectively gives all an exit strategy from this, which makes sense. This shows at least a level of forgiveness and yet the demonstration by Israel is clear that it takes it's national security as seriously as it has. To take the foot off the gas and to go into a peace process now via the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza, turns conflict between peoples that is unresolvable in a tit for tat way into a type of relief, a celebration. If there is revenge being sought at the same time a demand for hostages to be released, then effectively what is being said by Israel is can you give us what we want and weaken your position so that we can then continue avenging what has previously happened. There will be narratives within the hostage takers that if they give in, then anything is possible and yet it's impossible for them in there position. If they are going to die anyway, then why not go down fighting will be what they are saying. That effectively amounts to a death sentence for the hostages. Better to say, nobody can mess with Israel, we have proven that and to go immediately into the Palestinian State, say that Israel has acted and yet listened.?

What has happened to the Jewish people throughout history is incomparable, yet where the position is today if it perpetuates then it is comparable in some ways for some people. If there is a ceasefire, release of hostages and creation of a Palestinian State then it's much more likely that this will satisfy The Arab League and Muslim countries. There cannot be an opposition to that. If Israel offers that and yet the hostages are not released, then the moral ground again flips sides. There has to be a measure of good faith from one side to enable to be able to respond, as things are now it's logistically much, much more difficult for Hamas to provide that initial good deed measure, although there has been some release of some hostages which proves that they are not in opposition to some sort of deal. My principle concern though is a 'discussed peace deal' simply adds to the tit for tat problem. If there was a release of hostages without the peace process resulting in the creation of a Palestinian state then the Palestinian territories would be considered by the Muslim world to still be under the occupation of Israel. On CNN. There was a very learned American Jewish Scholar citing that there could be an International force managing Gaza after this. In my opinion, and it's only an opinion that type of concept is repeating where this all began with the League of Nations and so whether there was a British, Multi-national or any other form of group managing Gaza other than Palestinian's there will still be those within the Palestinians calling for freedom.? The only way to stop the narrative of Palestine will be free, is to make some of the land free and Independent to put full faith in the leadership to be able to do that and then progressive steps to further peace making.? A divorce and a border is the best plan, having the mother in law stay on with the other partner in a divorce case is never going to work.? The relationship between Israel and Palestine is toxic, it's got ethical narratives on both sides, it's got sympathy from many, for most for both sides, not either side.? In my opinion, the stability of the long term relationship between the Jewish people, the Muslims and the Christians is an issue that is more important than any country. The reason is that most countries have an inter-relationship between all of these religions. An ongoing conflict between these religions is far too worrisome for half the countries in the world. Yet, it's important for the Jewish people to have their own state, it's even more important for Jewish people to have their own state of mind. A state of mind that is not looking over your shoulder at the risk of the actions of other people, who all think in different ways and have got any type of paradigm of reasoning that turns people against people.?

What the issue is that there are only three representations to the Jewish people. 1. The Embassy of Israel. 2. Synagogues. 3. The people themselves. The easiest of these to protect is an Embassy.? Another issue is that people can be educated enough to have a strong opinion and not educated enough to have a truly educated opinion. The truth is that the situation in Israel and Palestine could influence some people against many other peoples. This is what happened when some Sikh's were affected by Islamophobia in the early 00's.?

If we are to fast forward from here three months, just two months from where things are today. It seems highly unlikely that the situation confused and pressured as it is? will be better without there being some major shift in policy. Any policy of more fighting is almost certainly going to bring a response that then requires a counter response and so on. The only way to de-escalate the situation from the perspective of a Jewish/Muslim person living in South America for example that may have never even had a direct connection to The Middle East is to not only de-escalate, but to stop the situation completely. The only way to actually stop the situation is to create a completely new situation.? The outer ring effect of what's going on is so vast. It's relevant to significant amounts of people in most countries in the world.?

The ambassador of Palestine speaking at a Sein Feign said “political and moral failure” has led to the conflict in Gaza.

She said: “Almost 11,000 people and 500 children, including members of my own family, have been killed in the past five weeks.”

Dr Wahba Abdalmajid described Gaza as “hell on earth” as she criticised the targeting of hospitals, schools and bakeries.

“This is beyond rage and revenge. Now, there is no safe place in Gaza. There is hardly shelter, food, water or fuel.

? ''Javed Ali, a counterterrorism ?professor at the University of Michigan believes that the attack "took an enormous amount of deliberate and careful planning,". He suggests that the complex structure of Israel's intelligence services, which are as capable as the US' FBI, CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency but aren't unified, might have led to crucial details being overlooked in the bureaucratic rush to share information between agencies.''

I would add to this that the same has been true not only in terms of warnings between agencies or between countries or between Presidencies within any one government or between them. It's due to the fact I have been the single most consistent person writing peace roadmaps, observing each step by each country full time from 2017 until today that I have a good perception of the differences between both internal and geo-political policy and can see and consider ways to put the whole global crisis back together in a way that is viable. Certainly the disconnect based upon selective facts and perceptions as a result by Republican candidates that I heard in the third debate made me realise that there are such vast paradigm gaps missing it's truly concerning of what the future could bring.

?

Yet, there is so much more to say on this with 190 shifts in position for every significant choice by one country and then selective or incomplete reporting by all others. So perceptions today in so many ways are out of kilter with all the facts.? Few people consider that Prime Minister Netanyahu did so much in Syria, few consider that Prime Minister Bennet did so much to try and mediate between Ukraine and Russia. If there has ever been a time to review how we got here, how we can progress without allowing for there to be more tit for tat now is that time. Where the world is today is in contrast and yet the differences of information and knowledge in the USA is relevant to this as well.?

Whilst there are many cases against the former President Trump, whilst there is? disbelief in some of what he says, the world was in a very tight position in 2017, he did help prevent and mediate the world out of a major war, world war three and that has not been fully considered.

?Whilst this is a separate issue to the trials he has. The truth is that there are issues that are larger in the world to who wins the next US election as well, from the position of where the world is today. If there continues to be such a contrast in the Middle East and if other countries, or blocks of countries got involved in Gaza, then there is no really knowing of what could happen. Ukraine is not holding an election due to the war, when it comes to democracy protecting a country, consistency of rule frequently come first, Internationally the speaking needs to become very clear, coherent and concise to step back from where we are today. In fact the position of President Putin and Prime minister Netanyahu is today similar with some calling for human rights trials and yet the world needing them to do the right thing and go into peace making. The same absurdly being true with Hamas with prime minister Netanyahu continuing what he is doing and yet there needing to be a let up in this to create a position where the hostages are freed.?

The Arab League so connected to the Palestinians put the Arab League into a very difficult position.??The USA politically being so connected to Israel puts the USA in a difficult position without an answer. Yet, potentially, at worse being put into the position of having to decide what to do if anything from 4 to 50 Muslim majority countries decide to go against Israel.?

What has to be considered is that some European countries and if not certainly their populations are more in contrast to what's happened and is happening than ever before, thinking is being affected by the day, by the hour. There would be something much more wrong in the world if people did not object to what has been happening. To try and put this into the category of choosing sides, most people cannot consider sides related to countries and religions when it's the side of the youngest and also the most vulnerable people being affected by the choices of the older generations. Most people cannot see the differences in religion to value of person, they simply value all people.? ?

Where we are today is unchartered territory, more so than ever before, there has never been a series of events within such a short time that has created such vast protests in so many parts of the world. The multi-complexity of all this is unique in these times, there have not been such strong feelings towards the desire to protect vulnerable people on both sides in the living memory of most people. Yet, to say that every person on a 400,000 people protest or more is going to remain peaceful if their voice is not heard together with all of the others would be optimistic?to consider. So the injustices happening today, sow the seeds for the reverse injustices tomorrow. With this consideration in mind prime minister Netanyahu could do more to reopen the worst thinking of the last century, this century if there is not an end to this. I write this to urgently say that the actions of one leader today some people will consider this the fault of a people, in the same way that happened during world war two. Some German's blamed 'all the Jews' some people 'blamed then all the Germans'. The Americans new that there was vast amounts of ignorance within understanding even at the end of the war and that's why took German people to see the concentration camps. I have been there, to Auschwitz, the blaming of a people for politics is as wrong as it gets.

The British people have a right to their own country. So do the French, so too the American's. If Israel's position perpetuates this and Muslim countries respond, Israel could find itself in a position that it did not expect. IE some of the countries that are it's closest allies may not be able to help or risk an ethical divide within their own countries. A continuation of the current situation could change countries, many countries in a way that makes so many so divided that this results in indecision as there is not a good decision that can possibly be made politically. What Israel needs to consider is that the UK helped create Israel, has always stood by Israel, will always stand by Israel, yet the consideration of having to go into a war that today is unstoppable and where there are calls from so many directions to stop the war creates a set of circumstances that are simply unique and the world is in an ethical maze and could be unable to act, just in the same way that for some years of World War two the concentration camps were known of by intelligence and yet there was no conceivable way to be able to help until there was unity amongst many countries which in fact took years to organise. The policy today is pushing a situation that could result in a united response in contrast to what Israel is doing and yet there is not a coalition of the willing, just a coalition of the morally challenged.?

The plight of the Jewish people is such a central part to the Western narrative, and yet it's true to say that there have been times when it has been impossible for the West to help. The protestors that have relations that are the hostages have the priority of getting their relations released. I do not have any experience in attempts to release hostages, however, looking at this from the perspectives of all sides the path to mediation is in my opinion the only way. Whilst this may be wrong, I present my case here as there may be considerations I have that others have not thought about and I care about these people.??

?If there is not a change in the entire situation, the larger the more substantial the shift the better, then if Muslim countries do lose patience and they do engage in a war then firstly this could be unstoppable, secondly if that happens then any harsh, desperate actions on any country as a result of that could result in other countries joining. Yet, what's more the only possible exit strategy that Israel could possibly have if that happened would be to offer there to be a Palestine and hope then that would appease the situation enough. Yet, that would not be guaranteed then as the implications of one or more other countries engaging could then escalate so quickly and with various countries then being able to mediate out could be as complicated as it was in WW1. Yet, the dynamics today is that territorially Israel is effectively surrounded by various countries that could make it very difficult for any military to be able to effectively defend on so many fronts. So the position today an act of 'giving the best to the situation' of saying. lets start all over again, different deal. We make the deal now not outside groups, not the League of Nations there then is the chance for all sides to navigate towards the middle ground. Then any rhetoric 'calling for the end of Israel' remains only on the very outer fringes and what the middle ground becomes is actually Israel doing a reasonable deal for the Palestinians. All the time there is bombing of innocent civilians there is proof and evidence for Israel's opponents to use against Israel to justify the more outlandish comments made over the years and decades. The past years has proven that there has never been a more united voice of Muslims, that is good for all Muslim countries and I believe that is only really not good for Israel if Israel is perceived to be victimising any Muslims. The issues today are unlike anything before, where they go from here could be unlike anything before. There is only one good approach and that is the approach to saying, enough of the past, enough of deals done by other countries in the context to this. Here is a proposal by Israel to the Palestinians.? ?

Introduction.?

I have travelled to the USA as a result of an invitation from a friend and hoping in some ways to try and set the record straight in terms of how my peace processes have been used from 2017. I have had a few interesting conversations being here. American's and interesting, interested and friendly from my experiences here past and present. My conversations recently have been insightful whilst socialising. One highly educated, insightful, cultured bar tender when speaking with him about the USA and where it is today, what his thoughts on this were he used a phrase i have never heard in politics, the whole thing is bewildering.?

Whilst Americans cite themselves about the problems in the USA today. They do not fully realise the worldwide implications of the vast amount of select, incorrect information there has been within the press from 2017 until today in the context of peace processes, roadmaps and how and why this was vital, playing a pivotal role in maintaining International peace and diplomacy from 2017 until 2021. The reason for that is mostly due to the way in which the media programs news and also for reasons cited in other documents that head nods and what's not said does affect mediation and diplomacy and yet never gets reported. It's what is said, that does and yet the holding back of words can be and usually is saying much more than is ever considered.?

The truth is a vast amount of knowledge and information has been withheld due to political reasons between Republicans and Democrats. Whilst this is known about and information released by The FBI to confirm this. When the world is mostly at peace this is not as much of a consideration as to when the world is so close to wars or already engaged in them, then the study of peace making and past mediation is essential and can be the key to releasing us all from downward trajectorary geo-political scenarios playing out in the world.??

The implications of the different information from what was said by politicians, in the press, in social media and what the actual truth is however is different. The principle difference is that good choices have been made in terms of peace making by many countries and this has not always been considered properly, therefore there has been more of a rivalry between countries than has been really the case. The fact that many countries want to work towards peace sometimes or quite consistently gets considered in a limited way. The same sort of limited way that slavery was considered. 'If we don't do this to them, then they will do this to us.' That myth took hundreds of years to become proven as being only a myth. So what the problem is, when a population believe that the only way to have kept peace was by pressuring other countries, rather than cooperating with them, the narrative then becomes who will compete more and harder in policy.??

To try and provide an overtly simple analogy to what's happened in US politics on a decision making level. I provide this example.?

It's like someone is saying to you that your car has been stolen with your mobile phone in and you saying, 'yeah I get that, however I'm just going to drive around and see if I can find my mobile phone. There are 'filtering of information issues happening'. Paradigm gaps in thinking simply due to even one or two facts not known, that alter perception.?

Whilst a person could have a second chance by having another car to use. The situation with policy and peace roadmaps is more complicated as once any choice, statement decision is made about anything geo-politically that then immediately affects the thinking, choices and decisions of multiples of other people within each and every government. Therefore, a single lie or even incorrect representation of the truth made by any one leader of any own country can and does literally 'change the world'. It changes the thinking of leaders of other countries and this results in them thinking more in the direction of one way or another with anything and everything within their spectrum of reasoning.?

So with this consideration in mind. I have written this document in a different way to other peace roadmap documents.?

We just had the third Republican Party debate, plus former President Trump speech, and in addition to that an evolving policy by the US government, which I say here and now I'm in support of. The calling for a two state solution is the answer, given the situation today. How to get from here to there is a process, the simpler the path the better and I have explained that in brief in previous peace roadmaps.

Reverting back to the considerations of the previous paragraph. 190 countries in the world will have been listening to 1. Democrat policy. 2. What the Republican candidates are saying. 3. What the former President Trump is saying. That is a lot of information and the implications of how the policies cited by one leader or another are vastly different. If I was to do what I have done in former International Peace Roadmaps, yet never something relating specifically to a country. I would say that none of them in my opinion have the optimal line of reasoning and in fact some of what was said in the Republican Debate made me want to go and hide under the bed. The reason is that some of what was said is in my opinion provocative firstly and secondly not balanced reasoning when there is a full and complete picture presented in terms of how some countries have been responding to International crisis'.?

In terms of the 'buying up of farms' issue in Florida by China, near military bases. I would say that this is an issue for consideration and yet to believe that China has 'malign intent towards the USA'. Would the USA buy up farms in China?? China has related to 'Universal Interests' of all countries and a Multi-polar' approach to geo-politics. This is the vital crux of the matter. For there to have been a viable peace process even to begin between the USA and North and South Korea required some 11 countries shift position to enable that. The situation in terms of the situation is the Middle East cannot be denied as being anything other than Multi-polar. There is an interest in an outcome by most of all of the countries in the world.? ?

I will give examples of what could have happened, though didn't happen due to 'Universally wise diplomacy' by many countries. North Korea had fired a test Missile over Japan. China had then Maritime issues with various countries. For these two reasons alone. Any one of some ten countries could have said when President Trump was meeting with North and South Korea, that does not specifically help our issue. However, they did not. They aligned behind 'the good intention' of the USA to throw out history, to have a shared cultural experience at the Olympics, to not talk shop. To simply spend time together, two of the most senior of diplomats and to 'break in one single chop' 70 years of dysfunctional relations and to step beyond what could otherwise have been more finger pointing than there is at a birthday party around a last of the Birthday cake. The fact is that all countries took a higher diplomatic position in the present, to the issues of the past. This is some extraordinary levels of diplomacy, unseen and unknown ever previously and the icing on the cake was the fact that two leaders, the first two leaders in history to have been in an unresolved war scenario for seventy years, first met with the highest diplomatic gesture possible and that was a hug. That was a message to the world that both sides want peace. Both sides in their intention want peace. The technical details of how exactly a peace process from there on can be produced was then and continues to be a work in progress.?

So the reason I highlight this example is to consider the real situation of what happened, forget the media nonsense of this situation, forget they hype in politics or how this was considered at all. Consider this from a peace making/diplomacy perspective logistically.?

USA and North Korea Summary.?

Korean War. Two sides at war, effectively a proxy war that ends with a ceasefire and the creation of the DMZ.? I'm not going into these here, however if you do not fully know of this. I recommend a search on the internet and reading the statements made at that time and the reports.?

11 Presidencies and the issues not resolved. The two times two term Presidencies of President George W Bush and President Obama. The situation regressed. President Obama leaving Office citing that this would be the most complicated of all geo-political issues of the Trump administration.?

The Trump administration taking office with there being issues between President Trump and Chairman Un before president Trump took office, within a few months the situation regressing into the first ever nuclear threats between the leaders of two nuclear weapons holding countries.?

At the time there being other issues between various other countries in the region either issues with the North or South Korea situation or with Fisheries and Territorial water disputes.?

The two step method of diplomacy being promoted by China and Russia. This not being in agreement with the West. As the rhetoric increased Prime Minister Theresa may was readying a Royal Navy aircraft carrier to go to the region.?

The integrated Peace Roadmap written citing that a diplomatic answer via negotiation is not the best place to begin but to look towards 'a shared cultural event' so that there is some common ground that can be considered between North ad South Korea.?

Ivanka Trump and Kim Yo Jong meeting at the event, the first ever meeting of two senior US and North Korean diplomats.?

The aligning in policy of all countries behind that peace process and diplomacy.?

Two rounds of inconclusive talks, however the first ever good relations between the three leaders of the USA, North and South Korea.?

The later official ending of the Korean War.?

So, that was effectively a temporary fix between the West and the East in terms of North and South Korea. The media reported that all from a US perspective mostly. Whilst this then at that moment reinforces the fact that the USA is the leader of the free world. What it failed to represent was that both Russia and China had played a part. In fact Russia had been the first to cite the fact that Russia and China had changed their position. Yet, in addition to that in real terms many countries changed their positions in a good way afterwards. A part of the theory of that peace roadmap is the fact that when there is a vested interest created in terms of keeping and maintaining peace, when there is progress moving forward for both sides there is effectively a form of 'management from within' that helps distance differences of thinking. In the context of North Korea the fact that there was attention given towards a potential new and more productive relationship with the USA, a resolving of past issues was a significant motivating factor for cooperating. In the documents written I cited the answer that we don't sit down for a meal with friends or Sunday Lunch with guns in our pockets. The reason is that we have trust and we feel safe. Countries do not go to war with their friends, so the question that could have been answered by a more fully comprehensive peace process, actual measures within the peace process is how can there be more solid incentives for peace making? The conditions of nuclear disarmament that President Trump sought to obtain. I do not believe that this was the best choice of reasoning once the talks began. The best choice would have been for creating a completely new focus for North Korea, a new way to progress and that being tourism, that being listening to what Chairman Un said and that is he wants to progress his country and be more like other socialist countries. Whilst that terms can so often cause reaction in itself ie socialist must mean communist and the commies are trying to take over the world, Neither Fenland nor other Scandinavian countries which have much more of a social remit than most other countries.?

As a therapist I learned that to help a person progress beyond where they were requires positive affirmation. To provide an example of this. if a person see's a therapist to overcome depression and feels better after the session and yet returns to a disfunctional environment where everyone seeks to affirm their depression. IE gosh you look depressed, then the external environment itself becomes a part of the problem. This then make the 'change' the improvement temporary and not permanent.

There is a alot to say about belief, there is much to say that people quite often want to change and improve and yet the external environment, the pressures put onto them, the lack of exit strategy in the wider world effectively keep them trapped where they are. So the peace process between the USA and North and South Korea. The truth is that North and South Korea at the time did make more of that peace process by ending the war. Yet, the environment did not change enough in the wider world to properly accept a 'newly improving country'. This could have been encouraged by the media. There was Michael Palin visiting and yet there could have been many people visiting and giving North Kora a chance, a new perception created, a sense of progress.?

In terms of paradigms of reasoning the actual truth is that there is not one 'communist country in the world by last centuries definition. All have made efforts towards bridging differences, China has Hong Kong now and so it could be debated that there are some aspects of China that are more 'commercial' and 'market force' influenced than more or less any country. To believe that the 20th Century definitions are really such a significant part of geo-politics today, in my opinion is an attitude produced by living in the past. More than that it's actually holding us back as much or more than these other countries as it's causing there to be definitions that don't really fit or work. I was in Vietnam and didn't really consider the fact i was in a Communist country until after being there for around four days. It seemed no different to Thailand which is arguably amongst the most long standing independent and free countries in the world having never been colonised. However, even Thailand has had Chinese influence for more than centuries and so there are more grey lines than are usually considered and this is a good thing if it helps countries to be able to better relate and not be caught in this them and us, goodies and baddies, our system v's your system paradigm of reasoning. The idea that there were twelve countries that aligned their thinking towards peace making is favourable as a concept to all. Today, with the announcement that the USA supports a two state answer to the ongoing crisis of Israel and Palestine, is a statement that will affect positively the considerations without a doubt of 189 countries. This statement would be reason for hope as much for Palestinian as it would be for Jewish people worldwide. More so than that for all people There are no problems in this world anywhere too big for the human mind to be able to work through, this happens the best when people on both, and all sides have a vested interest in peace making. I do not want to live in a world of anti semitic or Islamophobic considerations ever being considered justified, it's never acceptable to punish an ethnic group due to the actions of some within that group. That is bating further racism.?

The three Abrahamic religions are obviously different from each other and yet they share so much of exactly the same philosophy. They have largely co-existed, the situation today has become unlike anything. The scenario has to be considered with fresh thinking each day, yet I do not know how long countries with allow this to continue and the implications of this are more concerning than it's possible to express in writing.? ? ? ??

The USA and it's Western Allies did not enter into wars during the time of the Trump administration as a result of choices made by President Biden nor Trump, nor Obama, there is a taking on of issues created before. In the context of Israel this goes back to the time of Churchill.? ?The content of the media and social media tends to keep most of what happens and happening in the here and now or the past year of two.?

?The bit they do not understand is that the choices to not go to war, to go into a peace process were significantly the result of President Trump reading and considering geo-political documents that I wrote as the scenarios then were incredibly complicated, and yet have got even more complicated.? The question of, Did President Trump have the justification to take classified documents to Mar A Largo is a US legal question that is currently being considered in court cases. So from a USA's perspective that is really important. Yet, from a rest of the world including the USA perspective what's essential also is the knowledge, the information, the content of what was in those un-fully represented documents that many countries in the world were receptive to and enabled there to be more of an effective diplomatic climb down from wars than at any other time in US history. Yes, from 2017 until 2021 The West ended, exited, prevented more wars, brought more troops home than during any other Presidency. Why and how that happened, the full story has never been explained. The lack of disconnect between where the world is and how to be able to hopefully find a way back to a more normal stable situation globally has become more complicated than ever. Yet, being in the Uk or the USA things seem more or less 'how they have always been' and yet there are International issues that are pushing for responses that could change so much so quickly. Choice making for leadership has never been so complicated and therefore this is why I believe a ceasefire and a peace process are essential as it actually helps simplify not only Middle Eastern geo-politics, but politics within many countries. There is a policy of one country not interfering in the internal policies of other countries. Yet, this situation inevitably is having a major effect, so at all stages I urge caution, urgent caution and reconciliation, mediation, peace making.?

I arrived in the USA, within 24 hours I was asked by an American if the UK also uses dollars as the currency. I said no, the UK uses pounds sterling. I had a second conversation in the context of the English language and there is again a disconnect in the person I spoke with that English originates from England. There can be a disconnect in terms of information and knowledge in countries, this happens in many countries I have noticed when I travel. Yet, I have seen it in the UK too where some young people cannot indicate on a map where London is. So what can happen is we tend to think that most people think like us, they don't and that is what makes any issue regarding ethics, religion and conflict much more complicated than it would usually be. Most people are educated and have a good moral compass, yet as soon as there are issues that affect their own countries, there are actions, reactions within countries and as these play out Internationally, and in terms of the escalation in terms of diplomatic impasses, there can be leaps in positioning that occur that make situations impossible to even keep pace with for those most attuned to what's happening, let alone everyone else, wholes implications that can affect the future of people and countries get turned into sound bites that get heard by some, acted upon by others. So there has got to be a slowing down of the situation and the only way to that is a new narrative.?

I do not in any way write this for any other reason other than to further my thesis here that there is an incompleteness in terms of information in context to the rest of the world and the USA? that today this is not only relevant to misinterpretations that are basic, this incorrect interpretation goes to the highest levels in terms of what has actually helped mediate, to help provide vitally important answers when they were required and to help keep the world? with as effective diplomacy as it's had for many years.

I have had to stop writing this document and I believe it's good to post this as soon as possible due to meetings taking place in Doha. I hope that there is a multi-polar perception of all that is happening and that there is a simplifying of the vast complexity of world relations today. Soon President Biden is to be meeting president Xi Jin Ping. It's clear what the agenda will be, a continuation of the war in Gaza is making the world more difficult for all leaders to be able to navigate through a peace process in the way I have explained in these documents in my opinion is the only realistic and good way to have gone to the edge of something much larger than what this has been until now and to be able to walk back to a place of viable and improved geopolitics and therefore politics. I have kept this as fact based as I can given the few resources I have to be able to do this work, this document like all of the documents in this series are written in haste, so please excuse any typos, errors, unedited thoughts. My intention is to help all countries mediate into maintaining peace and answering the issues of today.? I have seen that there have been statements made in the context of the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza, that is crazy and would obviously result in poisoning the middle east, Asia, Europe. There needs to be peace making to ensure that there is the possibility to move beyond where this situation is. I finish this by saying release the hostages, and in the same breadth release the paradigm of thinking that does not believe that there can be two countries Israel and Palestine in the world. II believe there can be and that is the best way to end prejudice and the fear of this for many people. The politics of the world are affected by what's going on and that is what should be the first consideration, there has to be unity enough between countries and peace making is the only way to keep relations as good as they have been Internationally. A continuation of the current situation is forcing the hand of the Muslim countries in a way that nothing else ever has before. The implications of where this is today is either going to result in the most effective, the only effective peace deal there has ever been, and yes that is possible or it's simply going to result in implications that cannot be controlled and where this could go to is anyone's guess. ?

There has never been an issue that more Jews as well as other people of all religions have been united in within a protest, that is an observation. To try to maintain good relations between different religions if this progresses could become more difficult, there has got to be a wise decision in terms of peace making being done or decades of reasonable diplomacy mostly could be lost. So many countries have helped Israel, in my opinion it's essential today that Israel helps the world. Helps the world by ending the never ending cycle of trauma for all people. This war, like all wars is different to other wars, the difference in this war is proportionately most the victims are not terrorists, but children that do not even know what Israel or Palestine even is. The victims have been born into a situation, they have no scape from. Therefore, this makes this the most stupid, unethical and unjustified of wars to continue. Peace Armistice today. ?