hypochondriac

I absolutely think that seriously degrading Hamas and then creating a wider buffer zone around Israel will make Israel safer. It won't prevent all attacks or make them completely safe but that was never possible. Soggy used that same argument when the US were destroying IS. He might have had a point if they hadn't been decimated and destroyed.

There have always been two objectives-get back the hostages and make Hamas and their other enemies less of a threat to Israel. Getting the hostages back but leaving Hamas in power and next to Israel is just asking for another similar attack in the near future.

I don't agree. Without the hostages back in that scenario not a chance would they just retreat and stop trying to retrieve them. Not a chance would they not put up a resistance to Hamas massing on their border and threatening them.

You think if the US stopped supporting Israel tomorrow that they would just roll over and allow Hamas and their surrounding enemies to do what they liked? Do you think Israel would believe they had any choice but to fight?

In both cases, you’ve got a state engaged in war, civilians tragically being killed and Western governments materially supporting one side. If your argument is that the moral thing to do is to stop funding and arms supplies to reduce civilian casualties, that principle should logically apply to all conflicts, not just the one where you happen to find the state’s actions more objectionable. The situations are, of course, different in their causes and politics, but the underlying moral question — “does continued support prolong the killing?” — is the same. If you think it’s justified to continue backing Ukraine despite the inevitable civilian toll, then surely you can see why others think that the consequences of cutting Israel off overnight would be far more complicated than it sounds. Maybe I'm being too charitable. You did after all believe I was talking about a literal nuke.

They would if they had no means to defend themselves and would be forced to. Similarly, are you imagining that Israel would have stopped attempting to retrieve the hostages if their support was cut ?

Why are not using the same logic to cut off all support for Ukraine? It should quickly lead to a Ukrainian surrender and less dead children than would otherwise be the case.

You must know I wasn't literally calling for the US to use a tactical nuke right? When I compared any president being able to stop a war (or cut support), I used the Ukraine / nuke example as a provocative illustration of “in theory, war can be ended quickly.” The fact you seriously thought I was equating nuclear warfare with withdrawing military or material support is mindboggling. That was a rhetorical exaggeration, not a literal claim.

Right so if ending the war by cutting all support for Israel doesn't cause any sort of larger war who gives a fuck about any consequences beyond that as long as we aren't directly affected? At least you're honest.

Yep. That war could be over very quickly and anyone could end it.

FFS. I swear you do it deliberately. Nowhere did I suggest that using a nuke in Ukraine was the same as removing support from Israel. The point I was making was obvious. Of course any president could have stopped Israel at any point but how the war is ended is an important consideration. Cutting off all support for Israel would have not been a satisfactory conclusion for anyone other than Hamas.

Any president could stop the war in Ukraine at any time too. All you'd need is a tactical nuke. Obviously how you end a conflict is an important consideration as much as just ending it.

Could any US president have stopped the war at any time by getting all the hostages released and by securing agreements from both sides?

They were probably worried he'd burn it.

Obviously not. I do find that an interesting phenomenon though. Clearly loads of people disagree with Starmer but if he helps end the war in Ukraine everyone in the UK should be celebrating. There are some people who would rather Britain or America did badly simply because they don't like the leader or have ideological differences with him. You can hate Trump or Starmer and still celebrate when a win for them is a win for your country.

I believe he was. I'm not sure if that's still the case. Pretty shameful that he was charged in the first place given that the justification for doing so was the alarm and distress caused to the man who attempted to murder him.

Imagine thinking that was a serious suggestion.

As I've said a million times, you continually demonstrate bad faith interpretations of what I've posted and then tell me what I meant by what I posted rather than what I've said and what I'm telling you I meant. It's not my fault if you and a few like-minded posters choose to wrongly interpret what I posted. If you're having trouble then the best thing to do is to ask for clarification or at the very least accept the explanation once it's been given. All I said was that freeing the hostages would be an achievement and that Trump will rightly receive plaudits for his part in that if it comes off. I'm assuming you don't disagree with that so you'd be better off trying not to pull me into a tiresome argument about something unrelated to that.

Perhaps the thing to do would be for the UN to create the 'greatest person in the world - much better than Obama or Biden award 2027' and say that Trump can only win it if he keeps peace in the Middle East and Ukraine for a year. Sounds mad I genuinely think he would consider that a good incentive.

At last some positive news coming out of our courts. The man convicted for burning a Qaran has won on appeal: "There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb. "We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us." Well said whoever those judges were.

You said I was suggesting that "we don't need more than that". I wasn't. You made that up. I was saying that getting the hostages released would be an achievement which it would be. I accused you of making stuff up because you did.

I've literally credited Blair above if he has some part in it. The clear implication from not saying that Trump is solely responsible and that he is an important part of this is that others have some share of credit too. Odd as usual that you think otherwise.

In that case I agree. I don't think anyone on this forum has lauded Trump in that manner, maybe some of the maga lot have. I tend to agree that the chance of this being a long term success is small. Things are definitely a lot better than they were even a few weeks ago though and we should celebrate the victories when we get them.

Please quote anywhere where I have said he deserves all the credit. It seems you're having an argument with yourself.

You're making things up now. The hostages being released is an achievement if it happens which Trump will deserve some credit for securing. If everything goes to shit after that happens it doesn't make the release of the hostages not an achievement. I've never once said "we don't need more than that."