Israel

[Turkish]

39 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If someone writes a post specifically mentioning me then I'm obviously going to respond. It takes literal seconds to fire something off mocking, laughing at or highlighting his hypocrisy. If he gets some sort of special thrill from responses like that then he's a proper weirdo which isn't a complete surprise but I'm not sure why you think getting some written responses on a messageboard is some sort of win for soggy. I can tell you now if he keeps making the same posts he has done for years insulting others and then playing the victim then he's going to attract plenty of responses laughing at him and calling him out. If that's winning then congratulations soggy has won and will continue to win. What a guy.  

Quite. If constantly making yourself look like a bellend, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being all sorts of things, preaching to a forum of people who don't know who he is and if they were to ever meet him would no doubt think he was a cock anyway across multiple forums for years if winning then he is one of lifes winners.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Quite. If constantly making yourself look like a bellend, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being all sorts of things, preaching to a forum of people who don't know who he is and if they were to ever meet him would no doubt think he was a cock anyway across multiple forums for years if winning then he is one of lifes winners.

If that's the criteria then I'd say he's one of the biggest winners I've ever interacted with. 

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Quite. If constantly making yourself look like a bellend, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being all sorts of things, preaching to a forum of people who don't know who he is and if they were to ever meet him would no doubt think he was a cock anyway across multiple forums for years if winning then he is one of lifes winners.

Well despite you lot constantly denigrating him and jumping on everything he posts he continues to post. He likes being at the centre of attention and if he isn't at the centre, as I pointed out, he will post something that gets you lot jumping. You fall for his game every time. 

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

If someone writes a post specifically mentioning me then I'm obviously going to respond. It takes literal seconds to fire something off mocking, laughing at or highlighting his hypocrisy. If he gets some sort of special thrill from responses like that then he's a proper weirdo which isn't a complete surprise but I'm not sure why you think getting some written responses on a messageboard is some sort of win for soggy. I can tell you now if he keeps making the same posts he has done for years insulting others and then playing the victim then he's going to attract plenty of responses laughing at him and calling him out. If that's winning then congratulations soggy has won and will continue to win. What a guy.  

Of course you will reply to somebody specifically attacking you. That is the reaction that he is wanting from you. That is why he named you. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

do wagon wheels class as a biscuit or a chocolate bar?

This effects my top 3

Good question. Probably a biscuit. 

Top 3. 

Chocolate hob nob

Garibaldi 

Bourbon 

[sadoldgit]

30 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Well despite you lot constantly denigrating him and jumping on everything he posts he continues to post. He likes being at the centre of attention and if he isn't at the centre, as I pointed out, he will post something that gets you lot jumping. You fall for his game every time. 

If I wanted to be the centre of attention I would post daily on the main board about how wonderful SR, RM, GB and WS are. That would bring me a lot more attention! I would rather they found themselves a proper grown up hobby like fishing or stamp collecting rather than trolling, but as I have said before, they are like herpes, once you have them there is no getting rid of them.

They have been at it for years, in fact one used to stalk me. Every time I posted something there would be an immediate reply. Fortunately the Baby Reindeer stuff has stopped now but he still feels the need to have a dig. 
I am not going to be hounded off the forum as others have been so I give as good as I get. I also post what I think, not what I think will provoke the anti wokes. If they aren’t doing it to me they are doing it to someone else.

Perhaps those of you paying a fiver should demand some decent moderation to keep everyone in line?

So back on topic, it doesn’t look like the IDF are still prepared to take any moral high ground. Do they really think that the situation needs to be stoked any more than it already is?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69020237.amp

Edited May 17 by sadoldgit
Add text

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If I wanted to be the centre of attention I would post daily on the main board about how wonderful SR, RM, GB and WS are. That would bring me a lot more attention! I would rather they found themselves a proper grown up hobby like fishing or stamp collecting rather than trolling, but as I have said before, they are like herpes, once you have them there is no getting rid of them.

They have been at it for years, in fact one used to stalk me. Every time I posted something there would be an immediate reply. Fortunately the Baby Reindeer stuff has stopped now but he still feels the need to have a dig. 
I am not going to be hounded off the forum as others have been so I give as good as I get. I also post what I think, not what I think will provoke the anti wokes. If they aren’t doing it to me they are doing it to someone else.

Perhaps those of you paying a fiver should demand some decent moderation to keep everyone in line?

So back on topic, it doesn’t look like the IDF are still prepared to take any moral high ground. Do they really think that the situation needs to be stoked any more than it already is?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69020237.amp

🤣 Lost it. You got all angry with me about a post that was absolutely nothing to do with you. No mention of you on the discussion, not quoting you, you were nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever yet arrogantly thought i was talking about you. that's fucking hilarious considering you've kept up this bullshit you've got me on ignore. Despite your attacks on others about being arrogant you've got the biggest ego on here displaying all the narcissitic traits you regularly proclaim others have.

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

Good question. Probably a biscuit. 

Top 3. 

Chocolate hob nob

Garibaldi 

Bourbon 

tough call between a plain hob nob and a chocolate one. I find the plain ones are great with a cup of tea but chocolate ones better on their own. Either way they've nailed it 

[hypochondriac]

36 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Of course you will reply to somebody specifically attacking you. That is the reaction that he is wanting from you. That is why he named you. 

Good for him. If it makes him happy to get laughed at and mocked on here then he must feel happy most of the time. 

[Turkish]

41 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Well despite you lot constantly denigrating him and jumping on everything he posts he continues to post. He likes being at the centre of attention and if he isn't at the centre, as I pointed out, he will post something that gets you lot jumping. You fall for his game every time. 

So you agree with me he's a bit of a narcissist then. Good to hear.

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

do wagon wheels class as a biscuit or a chocolate bar?

This effects my top 3

I don't think they identify as either, sweet snacks are spectrum afterall and Wagon Wheels and the like are non-binary. All I care is, they all go in the same hole.

[egg]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

tough call between a plain hob nob and a chocolate one. I find the plain ones are great with a cup of tea but chocolate ones better on their own. Either way they've nailed it 

The fake Aldi chocolate ones are amazing. Recommended. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

38 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I also post what I think

Unfortunately that’s true. Your anti semitism has been obvious since page one of this thread. 

[AlexLaw76]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I also post what I think,

I remember when you thought Geoff Boycott was a good guy!

Edited May 17 by AlexLaw76

[Lord Duckhunter]

“There’s not a lot of deep thought happening”. Hear bloody hear.

 

https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1792272654755586219
 

 

 

 

Edited May 19 by Lord Duckhunter

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“There’s not a lot of deep thought happening”. Hear bloody hear.

 

https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1792272654755586219
 

 

 

 

You can’t use such complex line of debate with the sixth formers. They need to hang on to phrases like ‘colonial apartheid state’ as only one bad guy in their world

Edited May 19 by whelk

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“There’s not a lot of deep thought happening”. Hear bloody hear.

 

https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1792272654755586219
 

 

 

 

He's not wrong. 

[inspectorfrost]

ICC have applied for arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership, Netanyahu and Gallant

[Lighthouse]

16 minutes ago, inspectorfrost said:

ICC have applied for arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership, Netanyahu and Gallant

Have they been deliberately bowling no balls again?

[egg]

20 hours ago, whelk said:

You can’t use such complex line of debate with the sixth formers. They need to hang on to phrases like ‘colonial apartheid state’ as only one bad guy in their world

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. 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

Complex was probably poor choice of word. That is what he is saying but Hamas are there now so that is what they have to deal with. Maybe if more moderate there would be a chance of two states if also amore moderate Israeli govt? 

Edited May 20 by whelk

[egg]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Complex was probably poor choice of word. That is what he is saying but Hamas are there now so that is what they have to deal with. Maybe if more moderate there would be a chance of two states if also amore moderate Israeli govt? 

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!

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, egg said:

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!

I don't see why Israel would even think about allowing a state run by Hamas on their doorstep. They've already got iran to deal with and at the moment they would just be an Iranian proxy and a direct threat to their existence right next door. If there is ever to be any sort of resolution there would need to be the end of Hamas as a force in Palestine and a willingness from the the public to embrace a more moderate regime. Hopefully this would then lead to a deescalation and a more moderate leader in Israel. 

[Tamesaint]

10 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Have they been deliberately bowling no balls again?

I thought something similar when I heard that the International Cricket Conference had got involved. 😁😁😁

[egg]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't see why Israel would even think about allowing a state run by Hamas on their doorstep. They've already got iran to deal with and at the moment they would just be an Iranian proxy and a direct threat to their existence right next door. If there is ever to be any sort of resolution there would need to be the end of Hamas as a force in Palestine and a willingness from the the public to embrace a more moderate regime. Hopefully this would then lead to a deescalation and a more moderate leader in Israel. 

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. 

 

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

 

I struggle with you trying to create a false equivalence between the two and failing to understand how illogical it would be to require Israel to entirely change their attitude on Palestine prior to Hamas being removed. Israel will not budge on allowing an entirely hostile regime who are a proxy for Iran directly next door to them and in my opinion any country in that situation woiuld do the same. 

[badgerx16]

33 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I struggle with you trying to create a false equivalence between the two and failing to understand how illogical it would be to require Israel to entirely change their attitude on Palestine prior to Hamas being removed. Israel will not budge on allowing an entirely hostile regime who are a proxy for Iran directly next door to them and in my opinion any country in that situation woiuld do the same. 

But Israel could de-colonise the West Bank.

[Sheaf Saint]

38 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I struggle with you trying to create a false equivalence between the two and failing to understand how illogical it would be to require Israel to entirely change their attitude on Palestine prior to Hamas being removed. Israel will not budge on allowing an entirely hostile regime who are a proxy for Iran directly next door to them and in my opinion any country in that situation woiuld do the same. 

I get what you're saying Hypo, but you're still putting all the onus on the Palestinians to change their ways first. 

Like it or not, Hamas exists as a response to Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and their oppression of the people of Gaza. If Israel are successful in completely eliminating Hamas with their current campaign (they won't be), then as long as the Netenyahu regime is still operating in the same way it is and engaging in its Zionist expansion, something else will just inevitably pop up in its place. 

What do you think would happen if the Palestinians did overthrow Hamas, renounce terrorism and declare an end to their struggle? do you honestly believe Netenyahu would reciprocate and end their illegal occupation of the West Bank? Of course not - it's ridiculous to even suggest that.

So the whole situation is like a massive chicken and egg scenario. Neither side is going to deescalate until the other one does first, so it's just a perpetual stalemate. And frankly, suggesting that one side has more responsibility than the other to do so is just false.

[hypochondriac]

38 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I get what you're saying Hypo, but you're still putting all the onus on the Palestinians to change their ways first. 

Like it or not, Hamas exists as a response to Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and their oppression of the people of Gaza. If Israel are successful in completely eliminating Hamas with their current campaign (they won't be), then as long as the Netenyahu regime is still operating in the same way it is and engaging in its Zionist expansion, something else will just inevitably pop up in its place. 

What do you think would happen if the Palestinians did overthrow Hamas, renounce terrorism and declare an end to their struggle? do you honestly believe Netenyahu would reciprocate and end their illegal occupation of the West Bank? Of course not - it's ridiculous to even suggest that.

So the whole situation is like a massive chicken and egg scenario. Neither side is going to deescalate until the other one does first, so it's just a perpetual stalemate. And frankly, suggesting that one side has more responsibility than the other to do so is just false.

I disagree. Asking the Israelis to put themselves at greater risk of a repeat from an attack just isn't going to happen. Personally I would like to see Hamas destroyed for a generationx the hostages returned, the citizens of Gaza going down the route of removing Hamas and renouncing them (no chance of that happening I've seen no evidence that a majority did support them and their actions) and then I'd like to see international pressure from all sides on Israel to come to an arrangement which protects their security but which is humanitarian to the people who live in Gaza. If that's refused or ignored then Israel are clearly culpable and will have no reason not to come to the table so at that point culpability will be obvious.

Too much of the current situation is muddied by tragedies and mistakes that happen during every war in history but after the fighting ends, Israel weren't going to soften their stance on allowing a Hamas led Gaza next door to them unless there is a confidence that they have been dealt with to the extent that they don't pose an immediate threat to the lives of their citizens. Personally If an equivalent amount of innocent  people had been killed in my country that's what I'd be expecting my government to do to ensure my safety - that's not a comment on Israeli tactics, I'm just saying I can absolutely understand the reasoning behind the end goal they are looking for. 

[rallyboy]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Personally If an equivalent amount of innocent  people had been killed in my country that's what I'd be expecting my government to do to ensure my safety 

Which side of the conflict are you referencing?

 

[egg]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I struggle with you trying to create a false equivalence between the two and failing to understand how illogical it would be to require Israel to entirely change their attitude on Palestine prior to Hamas being removed. Israel will not budge on allowing an entirely hostile regime who are a proxy for Iran directly next door to them and in my opinion any country in that situation woiuld do the same. 

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. 

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

Which side of the conflict are you referencing?

 

The clue is in the word 'country'.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

But Israel could de-colonise the West Bank.

You only have to look at a map to see this will never ever happen. 
 

When Isreal was created the West Bank was designated a part of an Arab/Palestinian state, but Jordan occupied it following the 1948 Arab attack on Isreal. 
 

militarily & because of the shape of Isreal, it would be madness to allow a hostile enemy that footprint, which is why Israel went in during the 6 day war.

That’s even before you take into account the importance of Jerusalem to Israeli’s from a cultural & religious point of view. 

You could have a new isreali government committed to a 2 state solution, but I can’t believe that would include The West Bank, never ever going to happen. 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You only have to look at a map to see this will never ever happen. 
 

When Isreal was created the West Bank was designated a part of an Arab/Palestinian state, but Jordan occupied it following the 1948 Arab attack on Isreal. 
 

militarily & because of the shape of Isreal, it would be madness to allow a hostile enemy that footprint, which is why Israel went in during the 6 day war.

That’s even before you take into account the importance of Jerusalem to Israeli’s from a cultural & religious point of view. 

You could have a new isreali government committed to a 2 state solution, but I can’t believe that would include The West Bank, never ever going to happen. 

And so the problem goes on. The Palestinian want land of their own, but wherever they try the Israelis won't tolerate it.

Prior to WW2 the Zionists wanted a Jewish homeland, and they got it, partly by displacing the local Arab population, but ever since they have continued to deny the Palestinians exactly what they themselves had been demanding and fighting for.

Where on Earth would the Palestinians side of a 2 state solution go if not the West Bank ?

Edited May 21 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

45 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

The clue is in the word 'country'.

Indeed. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. 

[Fan The Flames]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Indeed. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. 

I was agreeing with RB, because there is massive hurt on both sides. The point I was making is that one side is a country and the other side isn't.

[Lord Duckhunter]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Where on Earth would the Palestinians side of a 2 state solution go if not the West Bank ?

The West Bank wasn’t occupied by Isreal until the 60’s. It was occupied by Transjordan, who at the time denied Israel should even exist. In Western Europe a country could co exist with a neighbour shaped like Israel is, but it makes invasion pretty easy when there’s hostile nations all around you. In places the original 1948 border is 9 miles from the sea. It would be so easy for a hostile force to split the country in two. 
 

It could be argued that had isreals neighbours lived beside it in peace from 1948 (as most do now), then maybe they would give up the West Bank. But I realise this is crossing into tit for tat territory. 
 

There will never be a Palestinian state acceptable to The Palestinians without the West Bank & they’ll never be a Palestinian state with the West Bank acceptable to the Israelis. That’s the long and short of it. Maybe a few generations from now a Northern Irish type fudge will satisfy both sides, but you & me will be long gone by then. 

[hypochondriac]

26 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I was agreeing with RB, because there is massive hurt on both sides. The point I was making is that one side is a country and the other side isn't.

That's one of the points I was making too. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The West Bank wasn’t occupied by Isreal until the 60’s. It was occupied by Transjordan, who at the time denied Israel should even exist. In Western Europe a country could co exist with a neighbour shaped like Israel is, but it makes invasion pretty easy when there’s hostile nations all around you. In places the original 1948 border is 9 miles from the sea. It would be so easy for a hostile force to split the country in two. 
 

It could be argued that had isreals neighbours lived beside it in peace from 1948 (as most do now), then maybe they would give up the West Bank. But I realise this is crossing into tit for tat territory. 
 

There will never be a Palestinian state acceptable to The Palestinians without the West Bank & they’ll never be a Palestinian state with the West Bank acceptable to the Israelis. That’s the long and short of it. Maybe a few generations from now a Northern Irish type fudge will satisfy both sides, but you & me will be long gone by then. 

I think the Qaran might have something to say about that. Even in a few generations. 

[rallyboy]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Indeed. He knows exactly what I'm talking about. 

Yeah I do.

It's a lonely place.

 

[egg]

5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You only have to look at a map to see this will never ever happen. 
 

When Isreal was created the West Bank was designated a part of an Arab/Palestinian state, but Jordan occupied it following the 1948 Arab attack on Isreal. 
 

militarily & because of the shape of Isreal, it would be madness to allow a hostile enemy that footprint, which is why Israel went in during the 6 day war.

That’s even before you take into account the importance of Jerusalem to Israeli’s from a cultural & religious point of view. 

You could have a new isreali government committed to a 2 state solution, but I can’t believe that would include The West Bank, never ever going to happen. 

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. 

[Sheaf Saint]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/israeli-soldiers-and-police-tipping-off-groups-that-attack-gaza-aid-trucks

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/israeli-soldiers-and-police-tipping-off-groups-that-attack-gaza-aid-trucks

Shameful, but unsurprising. 

[badgerx16]

But, but, but, Israel are entitled to do anything they feel necessary to defend themselves.

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But, but, but, Israel are entitled to do anything they feel necessary to defend themselves.

nearly all other nations do, so.....

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

nearly all other nations do, so.....

Israel are not a TPLAC. They claim to operate to higher standards.

 

( For those  not familiar with Yes Minister, Tin Pot Little African Country ).

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Israel are not a TPLAC. They claim to operate to higher standards.

 

( For those  not familiar with Yes Minister, Tin Pot Little African Country ).

so do (did) we.....but there we go

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

so do (did) we.....but there we go

When did the UK last vandalise an international relief convoy ?

[AlexLaw76]

18 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

When did the UK last vandalise an international relief convoy ?

We have done some very bad things in that part of the world over the last 20 years or so.

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We have done some very bad things in that part of the world over the last 20 years or so.

We have done very bad things in that part of the World since the Crusades. However, this thread is not about the UK, and false equivalence does not provide justification for the actions of the IDF, Israeli Police, Netanyahu's Government, or the illegal settlers.