badgerx16

Here he is arriving :

Just listened on I-Player to an adaptation of 'On the Beach' by Nevil Shute. Very poignant, and the end of the world kicks off with war in the Middle East :-(

What right do a load of Germans, Hungarians, and Russians have to land that has been settled by the Palestinians for hundreds, if not thousands, of years ?

This

The best way to avoid an argument is to not go looking for one.

Alan Hansen : "Southampton were absolutely brilliant".

I know it's pedantic but that's twice I've tried to make the same points. Again, if you read the BBC story from earlier this week it states that the 1993 proposal for a 2-state solution in the West Bank is what the Israelis are currently wanting to put back on the table in exchange for the Palestinians withdrawing their application for 'non-member' status at the UN. The image I cut and pasted was directly from the BBC news report.

There you go again : Point 1 : an allusion to a possible historical perspective, harking back to possible Israeli motives for their 'aggression' towards their neighbours. A point discussed by several posters on this thread. Point 2: A query regarding CURRENT israeli political motives, potential aggressive acts to interfere directly in the government of a neighbour, and the viabiity of what the Israelis are CURRENTLY proposing as a 2-state solution. ( I get the feeling I'm beginning to repeat myself ).

How is a news story from the BBC. dated 14th November 2012, irrelevant to today ?

You have conflated 2 things, but neither is 'random' nor 'dredged off Wiki', ( it is dredged off the BBC news site ) : (1) the lebensraum comment was a reflection on earlier allusions to the Holocaust, and prompted by your line "The Israelis think they can steal the homes and land of others because you need a bit more space." (2) the 1993 idea, the Oslo accord for a 2-party state, is exactly what the Israelis are proposing NOW ! ( From the linked BBC report : "The Palestinian state would be based in Area A of the West Bank, where Palestinians would have control over security and civilian matters, and Area B, where Palestinians would have control over civilian issues alone." )

Go ahead.

No - the lebensraum comment was ironic. It refers back to the point raised earlier concerning the possibility that the Israelis may have learned a thing or two from the Holocaust.

Does a state have the right to publicly declare that should one of it's neighbours be granted 'non-member' status at the UN it will take action to remove the leader of that neighbour and destabilise it's government ? ( "However, Mr Lieberman was quoted last week by Israeli Channel 10 TV as saying he would ensure that the Palestinian Authority "collapses" if its unilateral UN bid went ahead." Avigdor Lieberman is the Israei Foreign Minister http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20322405 ) As for the two-party state, how manageable does the West Bank look under the proposals on the table ?

Lebensraum ?

So explain the bombing of the King David Hotel.

Sort of reverse TARDIS then ?

Which one ? The Jewish incarnation, the Christian one ( be that Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox ), or the Islamic ?

How many tanks do they need to crush a couple of hundred houses ?

I thought this thread was going to be about this lot :

Or as happened after WW2 - one man's Palestine is another man's Israel.

Why should the threat of a club going into liquidation and having to be expunged from the league cause the FL a problem ? They've done it before.

In terms of UK Law a lot of it only existed in Common Law rather than primary legislation. The 1950 European Convention enabled people to go to Strasbourg to appeal against judgements in the UK, and quite often get them overturned as the European Court was viewed as being the higher authority. The HRAct put in place the framework to enable UK courts to become the principal, and also put the 'Rights' into primary statute. http://www.lawobserver.co.uk/human_rights_2_32.html

Not at all, all we need is legislation that permits us to do it. Assuming, that is, that you wish to continue to operate under British Law ? The Legal Eagles get rich interpreting the rules that Parliament lays down - if there is a loophole it is Parliament's job to close it.

If Teresa May hadn't miscalculated the date of the expiry of his European appeal period in April, he'd have been long gone.