egg

Who was the fella who typed all his posts in a weird colour, yellow I think. As said above, Bearsy was brilliant. Some of his stuff had me properly laughing. His partner in crime Tokyo Saint was decent too.

That's a real over simplification of why the Clinton parameters fell down. The details are out there if you want to look, including Yarafats letter to Clinton. The plans were flawed - no map detailing who had what, most of east jerusalem to Israel, and a suggestion that the Palestinian west bank would be a series of islands. Throw in no Palestinian army being allowed, an Israeli military presence in Palestine, an Israeli tunnel (possibly more) under and possibly through Palestinian land (essentially dissecting it), it's pretty obvious that Palestine weren't being offered what the article suggests they rejected. In any event, the Palestinians did not reject the deal. That's a fallacy. Israel demanded concessions beyond those in Clinton's parameters. The position has been misrepresented. This article explains. If you don't read it all, the summary in the last 4 sentences explains very clearly. https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/45169 Since then, the Israeli's have behaved in a way which we've all seen. Within a year they put the Gaza airport out of action, ploughing up the runway. They then continued eating into West Bank with more settlements, generally tightening the screw on the Palestinians ability to live, increasing the barrier, making it all but impossible to travel between communities, generally harassing them, arming settlers and supporting them in attacks an Arabs, etc, etc. I cannot believe that anyone can say with a straight face that the Israeli behaviour since the collapse of the Clinton attempts is consistent with a wish to allow Palestinians to live peacefully alongside them.

Indeed. The idea that Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah could wipe out Israel, even if they wanted to, is nonsense. That Israel could decimate them is a factor as to why it's not even a vague possibility. Israel do not want to live peacefully alongside a Palestinian state. That is demonstrated by their behaviour in West Bank. They don't want Gaza, and have been given a gilt edged opportunity to make it uninhabitable, and are taking it.

No, but Israel are doing it with their weapons. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah haven't got the capacity to wipe anyone off the face of the earth, even if they actually wanted to. Israel, with US support have. And they are.

If you want to play poke the supporters, how much harm have Hamas caused the US?

It's not deflection. It's the reality. Sure, the peace process ain't straightforward, but it shouldn't be hard to comprehend that destroying Gaza, it's infrastructure, it's people's hope and future, and killing thousands of people might just cause problems down the road for the Israeli people.

It's inconceivable that intelligent people seem to think that this Israeli action and the ongoing treatment of Palestinians in the west bank/east Jerusalem will bring peace to Israel. It'll bring generations of violence. I saw a young lad in a clip the other day distraught by the bombing of his home, and vowing vengeance. He was about 11 or 12. There'll be tens of thousands of survivors of this episode that will vow to do the same, and seek to do so. They'll seek it in accordance with what's available to them. Whilst many won't want to accept it, the Israeli's do the same. The difference is the scale of the damage that each side can inflict on the other. Back to the main point, the root cause for Palestinians is oppression and occupation. Addressing that is the starting point for any chance of peace from the Palestinian side. Having destroyed at least half of Gaza, and satisfied themselves that they've eradicated Hamas as a viable threat, you'd hope that the Israeli's would then be willing to talk.

Lawn

Gaza was a million miles from being an independent/free state. West Bank ditto.

FFS...someone has to.. Toe

Never has opinion of a player fluctuated as much as it does re Che. He was labelled as useless last season, became the Messiah in the transfer window, and is now useless again. I didn't watch yesterday, but I share your view. Move him on, and move on.

I'm surprised that you haven't packed and left mate. Credit to you for giving her another chance.

Pies without a bottom. That's not a pie. It's a casserole with lid.

We sure can't. It's inevitable that the last kick goal will go against us sooner rather than later.

This won't keep Israel safe. Safadi hit the nail on the head yesterday in the press conference. Obama said something quite interesting yesterday about everyone in the debate (social media mentioned) understanding nuances and listening to all perspectives. It's a shame he couldn't do more to solve the issue when he had a chance. https://x.com/YonahLieberman/status/1720816170792562947?s=20

Seeing the way that those idiots have behaved today, and knowing about the counter, the risk has definitely increased. If I was the organiser, I'd be reflecting on my decision.

If a million people are turning up, it seems like they've got a lot of people on their side. They won't get the government on side as those million people aren't going with their flow.

You've shifted your position Del. If you're saying that the organisers knew that the protests may cause disruption, of course they did. That much is obvious. That's a world away from your original point that the purpose of the protests "is simply an attempt to cause mass disruption". The possible counter protest has been mentioned after the protest was announced. I'd hazard a guess that the motivation for that is almost entirely to cause disruption.

Nope, that's not how it went. My original point was that there's nothing disrespectful about protesting. Your point was "this is simply and attempt to cause mass disruption" on remembrance day. I've never said that there may not be issues. I've said that there'll likely be idiots. What I've also said is that the purpose of the protest is not an "attempt to cause mass disruption" as you claimed. This rhetoric that the protestors are setting out primarily to disrupt remembrance day is nonsense. Sure, there may some disruption from those in attendance, but there's a world of difference between that and the actual objective of the event.

Answers above Del. I'm not sure if your questions suggest that you've moved away from your initial point that the protest has been organised to cause disruption, but that there is scope for disruption. If that's now your position, we are agreed.

They're doing them lots of days. Today included. Ditto tomorrow. What's essentially being suggested is that they shouldn't do it that day. In an ideal world they would have a day off, but they don't have to, and shouldn't be made to.

So it's an assumption that they want to disrupt. If it's in another area (which they want) , starting later (which they want) and properly policed (which it should be) the 2 events will not interfere with each other. What we cannot do as a democratic society is clamp down on protests on a gut feeling it'll go wrong. #slippery slope

I'm not naive, but the suggestions that the purpose of the protest is to disrupt remembrance is nonsense. Yes, an element will be idiots, but that doesn't make the intention of the protest to disrupt remembrance or desecrate the cenotaph. The subject is completely unrelated. The counter protest will be interesting, and the government have thrown fuel on that by calling the protests "hate marches", and a few right wing commentators haven't helped by labelling supporters as "hamas supporters". All of that will make people more determined to protest.

Didn't see a minute of that so can't comment on the performance, but delighted with the win, and a much needed clean sheet. Our goal difference is no longer in the minus either, which is nice.

If some idiots want to make it something else, then the police have a job to do. But idiots being idiots doesn't make the organisers/protesters want to disrupt the remembrance stuff, which is the suggestion that people including Sunak are making.