egg

It's very relevant. States that don't recognise the existence and legitimacy of Israel are seen as pariah states. Israel are already being seen for what they are on many quarters, and major international support at this level for one of their protagonists will doubtless apply pressure. Also, it's a victory for commonsense.

That'll cut both ways then.

Shameful, but unsurprising.

Institution

In the final camp david proposals, Israel offered all but 10% ish of the West Bank to the Palestinians. That was only 23 years ago. They then accepted the Clinton Parameters which would have given 95% ish of the west bank. If Israel felt it was viable then, it's viable now.

False equivalence is a lazy term used to detract from sensible dialogue. There can be a need for mutual change, and be mutual fault error, without there being what same may see as equivalence.

I haven't suggested otherwise. I've agreed with Whelk on that point. However, you cannot expect the Palestinian people to tolerate Israel after all that's happened, and nobody can expect Israel and it's people to trust Hamas and other Palestinian leaning extremists. Where I struggle with discussion with you on this issue is your tunnel vision on just the Palestinians needing to change. Change of Palestinian attitude and behaviour alone is pointless. That must happen alongside an alteration of Israeli attitudes, both government and settler. Without all of that there is no hope for peace.

Yep. There needs to be a change of ethos from both of them, and a mutual willngness to see the other have a free state, before there's even a sniff of a sustained peace. Sadly I can't see any of that happening, and it's what can happen in the reality of the situation which is the perpetual problem. It's a tad fucked!

There's nothing complex about what he's said, and it rather ignores that there wasn't a Palestinian state pre Hamas, hence we got Hamas. It also ignores that Israel have said no Palestinian state at all, but that Hamas need to go regardless. A 5th form depth of thought and debate.

Yep, irritating. I let it go once, address it if it happens again, and have never experienced a 3rd.

Mission

Never in doubt. Roll on Wembley, and the return to the promised land. COYR.

Agreed. We can't cut spending any more. We can't borrow any more. We can't stay as we are. Slight tax rises, and some more effective use of the money, feels like the only credible way forward.

The fake Aldi chocolate ones are amazing. Recommended.

Good question. Probably a biscuit. Top 3. Chocolate hob nob Garibaldi Bourbon

We'll be fine tonight. Nervy first half, but a comfortable 3-1 win. My only concern is left back, Manning scares me against their right winger, so probably Stephens is the lesser of those 2 evils. Our biggest risk is vital players getting kicked out of the game, or being injured ahead of Leeds. COYR.

Vintage

Patrick

Button

Cheese

Deliberate, no, but they seem to have a shoot first think later policy which makes it inevitable that some of their own will kop some friendly fire.

Ha!! You've lost it mate.

Whereas your moral compass points in the opposite direction.

We don't, but assuming that some are, it's a valid point that they need aid.

Indeed. I'm staggered by the criticism of the lad for taking the money. No youngster will turn that down, and Chelsea will want a return on their investment so will use their loan system to give him exposure and experience.