egg

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I prefer Biden's approach though. Both sides will need assurances as a prerequisite to a deal. That there's been threats, posturing, charters, rockets, wars, etc, is only a barrier to talks if you want it to be. Biden seemingly takes the view that no dispute is incapable of resolution, and that this dispute needs a resolution. He's right on both fronts.

Interesting, and it shows the imbalance in the discussion. I saw a piece on itv news last night. It showed armed Israeli's in the west bank evicting Palestinians from their land. They followed up with an interview with a settler and the journalist put to him that natives were being evicted. His response was that they are not, that it is Israeli land, and that the Israeli's are merely helping the Palestinians to emigrate. That attitude underpins this. We're told that the Palestinians want from the river to the sea, but it gets ignored that the Israeli's want so much more than they have, and are taking it in the name of holy land.

Is it Israel or Hamas/PA that you are implying are akin to 1938 Nazi Germany? Although they're both (well, not PA) cruel and murderous machines, that feels a bit of a stretch.

From Biden: "We believe the time is now to start the conversation for the future. Not tomorrow, not after the war, today." Some sense at last, and addresses the notion that people can't negotiate with people who have harmed them, or want to. His wishes in summary: a. the need for both sides to accept a 2 state solution b. Israel to accept no reduction in the Gaza land, no reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends, no attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza c. Palestine not to allow the use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or violent attacks, and to ensure "no terrorist threats can emanate from the West Bank" Easier said than done, and the devil is in the detail, but it's hard to disagree with those objectives.

If you accept that Hundreds of kids are dying daily, then thousands have died. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The UN have said that Gaza is becoming a graveyard for hundreds of children a day. Are you disputing that?

According to the BBC text Tino is playing right wing. Interesting. A lot of fans thought he'd be decent there.

I'm pleased for the lad. The BBC shows him lining up in a front 3. Looking at the 11, that's probably right. Will be interesting to see how he gets on.

Iron

Yep. There are a few that I suspect have more than one log in, and there's definitely many re brands.

Who was the poster on one of the earlier forums who fessed up to having an imaginary girlfriend? All a bit odd.

That was one of my posts that didn't confuse you Hypo. You even liked it. Do keep up.

Forgot about those. Didn't DSM buy the cat from Gill Saint or similar? She disappeared too.

Easy to negotiate, no. Necessary, yes. Both sides have been a disgrace. Unless people think that the fairies will find a solution, and that fighting can carry in until they do, something needs to happen. One difficulty we have is that the Israeli's are still angry, and have this belief that they can bomb their way to peace.

Nuisance

Edit. Answered above.

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