egg

There are some reports today that Hamas offered to return them previously (albeit on an exchange for Palestinian detainees basis) but were knocked back. That all said, yep, they should never have been taken. Fortunately the last 20 are now out, and can hopefully rebuild their lives.

Everyone has acknowledged that he deserves credit. Others note that it's not him who has made concessions on behalf of his people, or got his hands dirty in the negotiations. In a mediation, the people who deserve the most credit are the protagonists and the mediators, not the bloke who tells them that they need to sort it out or things will get worse.

He was on a programme on (I think) channel 4 where celebs were engaging with youngsters with neuro divergence and learning issues. He was kind, open, genuine and warm. Seems a very decent bloke, but he still doesn't convince me as a hard man.

None of that's possible today. Right now it's Hamas in charge, so Hamas appointed people doing the policing. I'm not sure why you were/are surprised that's what's happening. Medium and longer term is a different issue and has yet to be worked out.

That's nonsense. It's entirely credible, and frankly normal, to highlight the excessiveness of the Israeli actions, and to have the opinion that long term it exposes Israel, Israeli's, Israel's supporters, and alas Jews everywhere, to more risk. The issue with discussing with you is your focus exclusively on what you want it to be. That's 7/10 and preventing a recurrence. Your q's and comments don't go much beyond that, whereas the wider issue does.

That's not possible right now, today. If not Hamas today, who?

Ha!! I want to hear Hypo's answer as he doesn't think it can be Hamas.

I like films that are so crap they're actually good, of that makes sense. I can't take Danny Dyer seriously as a hard man though. He's just a scrawny bloke with an exaggerated accent, and walks like he's lugging rolls of carpet under his arms.

I don't know, but the question isn't just about making Israel safer. It's about a solution to the wider issue. Despite the sense of Whelks post, I remain of the view that Israel, it's people, it's supporters, and sadly Jewish people everywhere, are now more exposed. Choking Iran doesn't reduce the capability of crackpots doing what we saw on 9/11, Manchester recently, on the streets in Israel, etc. Part of the solution is 2 states. Both autonomous. Removal of oppression removes the need for resistance. People can't keep banging on about Palestinians not wanting Israel as a reason for Palestinians not having a state. Neither of them want the other, and indoctrinate their kids accordingly. The reality is that Israel is here to stay but that's no reason not to have a Palestine. Who governs it is also a factor to address, and we all agree it can't be Hamas. Israel can also establish an exclusion zone inside Israel, and properly police it to keep their people safe. Back to unanswered questions. What was your answer to who should "police" Gaza now if it's not to be Hamas?

Probably, yes. Back to the issue, does anyone genuinely believe that Israeli behaviour over the past 2 years has made them, its people, and supporters safer? I don't just mean right now, and against large scale terror attacks.

It's exactly that, and where do you start. Some would argue that the cause was Israel. Others will point to Iranian support of terror groups. Others to the US for it's part in Iran. There's so many intertwined issues. For me, fundamentally, we need to address a 2 state solution, quickly.

If you mean Islamist extremism, yes, but it's more nuanced than that. There's the behaviour of Israel since creation. Do you agree the behaviour of Israel post 1948, and 1967, has fuelled extremism?

You're being obtuse. Bin Laden said that the siege of Beirut was a reason for 9/11. That's a fact. It's relevance is that the Gaza episode is that with bells on. If that was avenged years later, the chances are that Gaza will. It was not avenged by an immediate neighbour. Or a protagonist. The notion that Israel has, or can, bomb it's way to safety is as misguided as many of it's apparently well targeted bombs. I highly doubt that extreme Islamist behaviour against Jewish people and the supporters of Israeli wars and oppression would be as much of an issue if the Israeli state did not conduct itself as it does, and that the Palestinians had a free and independent state.

That's an Iranian thing, post revolution, as I understand it. Is not the US support if Israel a factor in that?

I think the answer was obvious. Bin Laden said that the siege of Beirut was a reason. I don't dispute that, so I have no idea whether it would have happened if it were not for that.

Islam/Islam extremism is well established. That's not disputed. This is a thread about Israel. In that context, discussion of modern Islamist extremism (against non Muslims) must surely be in the context of Israel and it's supporters...

I'm intrigued to know what you know to make you doubt what Bin Laden said in 2004. Do you think that Islamists were grateful for the siege of Beirut, or perhaps a tad unhappy about the treatment of their brethren?

I haven't said Israeli behaviour was a reason for 9/11. Bin Laden did. That's a fact, not my opinion. Was that not Islamist extremism? Do you not think there's a prospect of history repeating itself? If it does, is it likely to come in the form of Islamist extremism? Do you think that the chances of Israel, it's people, and it's supporters, being the victims of Islamist extremism has increased or reduced as a consequence of the past 2 years? And I've said nothing about Jews, don't play that card.

They got all their targets mate. Hospitals, schools, infrastructure, homes, etc, and anyone in and around them. They were never getting rid of Hamas.

Nope. I've never hinted at that. I've just focused on reality. The point that started the exchange was that Israel are now safer. They're not. Short term they're safer from their immediate neighbours, but history tells us that treating it's neighbours as they do, whether that be Lebanon or Palestine or Yemen or Syria or Iraq etc, only invites trouble from further afield. Modern Islamic extremism is a post Israel phenomenon. Israel is here to stay, thus Islamic extremism is here to stay. Israel trying to bomb it away only increases it's risk. The West's ongoing support of Israel's puts the West increasingly in the firing line. If the Islamic extremists are financially and logistically choked, the extremism will be crude, as per Manchester recently. Israel and it's supporters are not safer.

Sure, there were a multitude of reasons, and the degree does not take away the fact that the siege of Beirut was avenged almost 20 years later by a people who were not directly impacted by it, and against a country who had no direct part in it. Various points flow from that, including. Israel can neuter it's direct neighbours all it likes, but states and groups further afield will still be there. Israel has developed more opposition, I think that's a given. The desire for revenge/punishment will be at least as strong as it was post Siege of Beirut. New terrorist or other rogue groups could crop up at any time. The siege of Beirut was stated as seeking to get rid of the PLO. It went. Up popped Hamas and Hezbollah, and vengeance was taken by Al Qaeda.

Now that's a crazy conspiracy theory that's got more support than it should have. Israel doing 9/11 - nuts.

That's why I think it sums the US up nicely. There's a way to tell people that the they reap what they sow. Then there's a divided, I don't give a shit about the other lot, US way. Sadly, that's a cold we're catching.

Slow Horses new season. Excellent so far.

Of course, but none of that alters the fact that Bin Laden said “As I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and destroy towers in America so that they taste some of what we tasted". Odd that people argue so hard against fact.