Israel

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

You're an intolerable, narrow minded thick cunt mate. 

I'd widen your mind a bit love, otherwise you come across as a bitter and angry individual who can't handle opposing opinions. It might be good for you to gain some insight into others who disagree with you without getting upset and sweary then you might actually learn something. Do a bit of research of your own perhaps. 

Edited May 29 by hypochondriac

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I'd widen your mind a bit poppet, otherwise you come across as a bitter and angry individual who can't handle opposing opinions. 

No anger, no bitterness. I just have no time for people who demonstrate zero understanding of the wider picture or context. You're one of a few. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

No anger, no bitterness. I just have no time for people who demonstrate zero understanding of the wider picture or context. You're one of a few. 

I said that is how you come across and your posts certainly exude a level of anger and bitterness even if you don't feel it in real life. I tried rsther hard to avoid any personal attacks on you earlier in this thread but you have been relentless. Seems we are in agreement. Similarly, I have no time for anyone close-minded who is unable to handle opposing opinions and who thinks that conflicts like this one can be resolved by having a chat, who thinks that Israel are allowed to respond to defend itself but only in a way that you consider acceptable (and in a way that you haven't outlined.) I have little time for people who continually refer to others as thick, cunt, idiot etc and then complain that other posters are getting too personal, it's completely hypocritical.

You also go out of your way to defend awful people like soggy. 

Edited May 29 by hypochondriac

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Jesus I'm not reading that. 

You made the right decision. It was his usual pious bollocks about how he understands the situation better than anyone else, those who agree with him are right, those who don’t are on a wind up and hate Muslims. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I said that is how you come across and your posts certainly exude a level of anger and bitterness even if you don't feel it in real life. I tried rsther hard to avoid any personal attacks on you earlier in this thread but you have been relentless. Seems we are in agreement. Similarly, I have no time for anyone close-minded who is unable to handle opposing opinions and who thinks that conflicts like this one can be resolved by having a chat, who thinks that Israel are allowed to respond to defend itself but only in a way that you consider acceptable (and in a way that you haven't outlined.) I have little time for people who continually refer to others as thick, cunt, idiot etc and then complain that other posters are getting too personal, it's completely hypocritical.

You also go out of your way to defend awful people like soggy. 

You irritate me, that's what comes across. 

As for the wider picture, this situation was almost resolved by dialogue in 2000/01. A change of Israeli government put paid to the talks. That's a fact. If dialogue nearly ended it then, it can end it now.

Please tell me how you can see the relentless Israeli aggression ending this. 

Please don't kid yourself that you have better morals than SoG. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

You irritate me, that's what comes across. 

As for the wider picture, this situation was almost resolved by dialogue in 2000/01. A change of Israeli government put paid to the talks. That's a fact. If dialogue nearly ended it then, it can end it now.

Please tell me how you can see the relentless Israeli aggression ending this. 

Please don't kid yourself that you have better morals than SoG. 

You annoy me just as much but I don't have poor impulse control so don't feel the need to throw around words like thick and cunt. Regardless we are just going in circles now. You seem to think that had dialogue from 24 years ago been successful that would have been the end of it and murderous death cults would have simply disappeared whereas I consider that view to be naive and fantastical. You display basically zero understanding of the position that Israelis are in and the level of hostility and threat they face yet lecture others on being unable to see another side. 

 

Edited May 29 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

You irritate me, that's what comes across. 

As for the wider picture, this situation was almost resolved by dialogue in 2000/01. A change of Israeli government put paid to the talks. That's a fact. If dialogue nearly ended it then, it can end it now.

Please tell me how you can see the relentless Israeli aggression ending this. 

Please don't kid yourself that you have better morals than SoG. 

You know that Hamas came to power in 2007 though?

The same Hamas that you've said 'need to be got rid of', but have also said 'will never be bombed or negotiated away'.

But you insist that dialogue will solve the problems.

I disagree.  The problems go away if Hamas goes away or Israel goes away (or the current regime is replaced) or both religions go away.  I can't see any of those options happening.

 

[egg]

30 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You know that Hamas came to power in 2007 though?

The same Hamas that you've said 'need to be got rid of', but have also said 'will never be bombed or negotiated away'.

But you insist that dialogue will solve the problems.

I disagree.  The problems go away if Hamas goes away or Israel goes away (or the current regime is replaced) or both religions go away.  I can't see any of those options happening.

 

Hamas came into power on the back of what happened in 2000/01 and the aftermath. 

On the remainder, we're largely in agreement, I think. 

Gaza cannot be ruled by Hamas. There'll never be a prospect of peace, and Israel cannot live safely alongside Palestine, with the attitude of it's current government.

Both sides need a fundamental change of attitude and direction, and what we've seen over recent years and from 7/10 will not be changed by aggression. No chance. Despite what some feel, there must be dialogue, a willingness for mutual change, and then change. We've almost been there, and day by day, that prospect is getting further away. 

 

Edited May 29 by egg

[sadoldgit]

59 minutes ago, egg said:

You're an intolerable, narrow minded thick cunt mate. Do a bit of research on the subject, if you can, and you may gain some actual understanding. 

You are wasting your time. He clearly is happier wallowing in his preconceived prejudices and firing off silly laughing emojis on a thread about a conflict in which tens of thousands of people have already died, even more maimed and even more displaced and starved. Why anyone would be proud of saying that they aren’t prepared to educate themselves about a complex issue and keep repeating the same mantra that people are supporting the Hamas attack when no one here has and that anyone criticising the Israeli actions is anti-Semitic,  God only knows. If I am an awful person, what does that make him?

There is a reason hundreds of thousands of people all around the world are protesting about what is  happening in Gaza. You would think that at least would make him understand that there is more going on than he currently comprehends.

Anyway, I am happy being in the company of all of these “awful” people. He can carry on wallowing in his ignorance.

[AlexLaw76]

What is it about that part of the world that makes people lose their shit?!

[badgerx16]

An Israeli spokesman says that the expectation is that the fighting will continue until at least the end of the year. Regardless of how you view the 2 sides, how much more grinding is necessary to have completely converted Gaza to dust ?

[badgerx16]

37 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What is it about that part of the world that makes people lose their shit?!

Disagreement over who's version of God's word is correct, and an unwillingness to accept that their God is the same one.

Edited May 29 by badgerx16

[egg]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

An Israeli spokesman says that the expectation is that the fighting will continue until at least the end of the year. Regardless of how you view the 2 sides, how much more grinding is necessary to have completely converted Gaza to dust ?

It'll take a while longer yet to get Egypt to open it's border. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, egg said:

As for the wider picture, this situation was almost resolved by dialogue in 2000/01. A change of Israeli government put paid to the talks. That's a fact.

Fact?
 

Not according to Bill Clinton, still what does he know?

From the Guardian (just for Soggy)

 

Clinton had "slowly" - to avoid misunderstanding - read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement. The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

 

 

Edited May 29 by Lord Duckhunter

[hypochondriac]

Worth a watch for those with a more open mind: 

 

[badgerx16]

Watch with an open mind, unfortunately Shapiro's is not so 'open';

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-ben-shapiro/

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Watch with an open mind, unfortunately Shapiro's is not so 'open';

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-ben-shapiro/

Guessing you didn't watch it? Might be better to actually see what is said rather than dismissing it with an Internet link. I listened to his interview and previously one from Norman finkelstein who gave the opposing view and found both to be interesting and worthy of consideration. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Watch with an open mind, unfortunately Shapiro's is not so 'open';

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-ben-shapiro/

Just had a closer look at your link. Other than some phrasing that some may object to, most of that is fairly uncontroversial conservative opinion. Struggling to see why that would prevent you from listening to an interview of his. I disagreed with Norman Finkelstein but I listened to what he had to say regardless. 

 

 

Edited May 30 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

Zero surprise that hypo doesn’t have an issue with Ben Shapiro’s comments as he clearly shares his opinions.

[egg]

16 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fact?
 

Not according to Bill Clinton, still what does he know?

From the Guardian (just for Soggy)

 

Clinton had "slowly" - to avoid misunderstanding - read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement. The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

 

 

Israel conceded ground after that. Read the Taba summit details and Mortinos non papers that I mentioned. Israel refused to talk after a change of government. That's the reality. 

[AlexLaw76]

17 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Disagreement over who's version of God's word is correct, and an unwillingness to accept that their God is the same one.

Is that why people get so wound up on here?

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Guessing you didn't watch it? Might be better to actually see what is said rather than dismissing it with an Internet link. I listened to his interview and previously one from Norman finkelstein who gave the opposing view and found both to be interesting and worthy of consideration. 

Muslims are polluting western culture, the native Americsns were savsges snd cannibals, Derek Chauvin should not have been prosecuted for the death of George Floyd, against abortion even in the case of rape and incest.

Yep, a true renaissance man.

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Muslims are polluting western culture, the native Americsns were savsges snd cannibals, Derek Chauvin should not have been prosecuted for the death of George Floyd, against abortion even in the case of rape and incest.

Yep, a true renaissance man.

I haven’t watched clip but view him like Jordan Peterson. Some mad stuff but also speaks a lot of sense but people keen to dismiss everything about him as they see him as right wing. Clinical psychology isn’t overly subjective.

[hypochondriac]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Muslims are polluting western culture, There is an element that is doing that clearly. I don't want radical Islamists in the UK and Europe spouting hateful ideology. Not all Muslims of course but that surely isn't a controversial thing to discuss at this point. the native Americsns were savsges snd cannibals, That is obviously the case.  Derek Chauvin should not have been prosecuted for the death of George Floyd, I would have to see his line of reasoning behind this statement but I would imagine it would be because some reading of the evidence suggested that Floyd died due to the Fentanyl in his system rather than being knelt on. Not sure I am agree with him there but if the evidence is as he suggests then maybe there is a point there. I don't know enough about the details of the case.  against abortion even in the case of rape and incest. Again not sure I agree, but hardly an unusual opinion for someone who is devoutly religious. 

Yep, a true renaissance man.

Still struggling to see what is so heinous about him that you'd disregard anything he ever says. As whelk says, my guess is you'd be keen to disregard everything he says because he doesn't align with you politically. I'd prefer to listen to educated people I disagree with on subjects like Israel and Palestine so I have a better understanding of their perspective but everyone is different.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Zero surprise that hypo doesn’t have an issue with Ben Shapiro’s comments as he clearly shares his opinions.

In your black and white world yes. I entirely share all of his opinions. Simpleton.

[egg]

27 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Still struggling to see what is so heinous about him that you'd disregard anything he ever says. As whelk says, my guess is you'd be keen to disregard everything he says because he doesn't align with you politically. I'd prefer to listen to educated people I disagree with on subjects like Israel and Palestine so I have a better understanding of their perspective but everyone is different.

You disregard/laugh at/get confused by anything that doesn't align with you politically. Have some consistency.

[hypochondriac]

26 minutes ago, egg said:

You disregard/laugh at/get confused by anything that doesn't align with you politically. Have some consistency.

Nothing inconsistent at all. I react to ill-informed or nonsense posts or posters on this internet web forum. That has little if anything to do with listening to opposing viewpoints from people who actually know what they are talking about or have real knowledge of the subject they are talking about.  Therefore I'm much more likely to listen to what Bassem Youssef has to say for example even if I disagree with him almost entirely compared to what ever sweary rant someone scrawls on this forum. Occasionally you'll get a few decent opinions and arguments on here but much of it only deserves derision and mockery and consequently that's what it will receive.  

Edited May 30 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Nothing inconsistent at all. I react to ill-informed or nonsense posts or posters on this internet web forum. That has little if anything to do with listening to opposing viewpoints from people who actually know what they are talking about or have real knowledge of the subject they are talking about.  Therefore I'm much more likely to listen to what Bassem Youssef has to say for example even if I disagree with him almost entirely compared to what ever sweary rant someone scrawls on this forum. Occasionally you'll get a few decent opinions and arguments on here but much of it only deserves derision and mockery and consequently that's what it will receive.  

That's good to hear.

You might want to change your password though, it appears that some troll has been logging into your account and posting inflammatory bollocks for the past few years.

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, aintforever said:

That's good to hear.

You might want to change your password though, it appears that some troll has been logging into your account and posting inflammatory bollocks for the past few years.

You're hardly in a position to criticise the posting quality of others on here. You're nicknamed ain'tclever for a reason... 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

You're hardly in a position to criticise the posting quality of others on here. You're nicknamed ain'tclever for a reason... 

…the reason being, my resident stalker has little imagination.

[egg]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Nothing inconsistent at all. I react to ill-informed or nonsense posts or posters on this internet web forum. That has little if anything to do with listening to opposing viewpoints from people who actually know what they are talking about or have real knowledge of the subject they are talking about.  Therefore I'm much more likely to listen to what Bassem Youssef has to say for example even if I disagree with him almost entirely compared to what ever sweary rant someone scrawls on this forum. Occasionally you'll get a few decent opinions and arguments on here but much of it only deserves derision and mockery and consequently that's what it will receive.  

Ha!! You're as ill informed and close minded as anyone on here, despite your best efforts to persuade yourself otherwise. 

[hypochondriac]

46 minutes ago, egg said:

Ha!! You're as ill informed and close minded as anyone on here, despite your best efforts to persuade yourself otherwise. 

At this point I consider criticism from you to be a badge of honour which is unfortunate because you weren't always this insufferable. You left you objectivity and notions of balance behind long ago. 

Edited May 30 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

There is an element that is doing that clearly. I don't want radical Islamists in the UK and Europe spouting hateful ideology. Not all Muslims of course but that surely isn't a controversial thing to discuss at this point

Shapiro wrote about the "radical Muslim majority", that Muslim civilisation and culture are inferior to the West, and the need to 'religiously profile' all Muslim immigrants coming to the west. Shapiro also said that reducing civilian casualties in conflicts such as Afghanistan was not as important as protecting the lives of the US military personnel operating there.

He also suggested that mass deportation of the Gaza population was not a bad thing as it had also happened after WW2 when the population of Eastern Germany were forced westwards by the Russians. ( For instance Kaliningrad was, up to 1946, Konigsberg before the entire population was moved on ).

 

I do not see how this makes his opinions on this subject 'open minded'.

 

( Just to be clear, I have also pulled up SOGgy over his 'unbiased' sources ).

Edited May 30 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Shapiro wrote about the "radical Muslim majority", that Muslim civilisation and culture are inferior to the West, and the need to 'religiously profile' all Muslim immigrants coming to the west. Shapiro also said that reducing civilian casualties in conflicts such as Afghanistan was not as important as protecting the lives of the US military personnel operating there.

He also suggested that mass deportation of the Gaza population was not a bad thing as it had also happened after WW2 when the population of Eastern Germany were forced westwards by the Russians. ( For instance Kaliningrad was, up to 1946, Konigsberg before the entire population was moved on ).

I don't agree with him on that point but he is using support for Sharia Law to class a majority as radical. I certainly consider Sharia Law to be regressive and in many cases extremist and barbaric. Even the politifact website debunking his claim accepts that there are potentially millions of radicals just not the hundreds of millions that he claims. 

I agree that immigration should be more rigorous in vetting people who enter western countries. I certainly wouldn't restrict it solely to Islam but there are clearly Islamists entering the country who don't subscribe to liberal Western values and may potentially present a danger (look at the terrorist attacks perpetrated in some cases by radicalised immigrants.) 

I'd have to hear his reasoning for the final point but on the face of it I don't agree with him regarding mass deportation. Regardless, I wouldn't close myself off from opposing viewpoints from the likes of Shapiro due to not agreeing with some of his opinions. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't agree with him on that point but he is using support for Sharia Law to class a majority as radical. I certainly consider Sharia Law to be regressive and in many cases extremist and barbaric. Even the politifact website debunking his claim accepts that there are potentially millions of radicals just not the hundreds of millions that he claims. 

I agree that immigration should be more rigorous in vetting people who enter western countries. I certainly wouldn't restrict it solely to Islam but there are clearly Islamists entering the country who don't subscribe to liberal Western values and may potentially present a danger (look at the terrorist attacks perpetrated in some cases by radicalised immigrants.) 

I'd have to hear his reasoning for the final point but on the face of it I don't agree with him regarding mass deportation. Regardless, I wouldn't close myself off from opposing viewpoints from the likes of Shapiro due to not agreeing with some of his opinions. 

I'm not closing myself off from him, but broadly disagree with him. As I have said, in my opinion he does not qualify as 'open minded' as he clearly demonstrates an anti-Muslim bias.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

I'm not closing myself off from him, but broadly disagree with him. As I have said, in my opinion he does not qualify as 'open minded' as he clearly demonstrates an anti-Muslim bias.

If you're not closing yourself off then I'd give the link I posted a watch. He's challenged on his views with some of the talking points from here and imo counters them quite effectively. 

[egg]

10 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

If you're not closing yourself off then I'd give the link I posted a watch. He's challenged on his views with some of the talking points from here and imo counters them quite effectively. 

So basically you've scoured the web and found a video of a semi plausible sounding bloke who thinks like you do. Bravo Hypo, you've managed to justify you to you. 

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

So basically you've scoured the web and found a video of a semi plausible sounding bloke who thinks like you do. Bravo Hypo, you've managed to justify you to you. 

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't scour anything, it popped up as the latest triggernometry video on YouTube - a channel I am subscribed to and just like I listened to Norman finkelstein on there and others with views I largely disagree with I gave it a watch and thought he raised some interesting points. You've been banging on about other people being closed minded and not looking at a range of opinions yet when I demonstrate examples of doing just that - you mischaracterise it and suggest I'm doing the opposite of what I'm actually doing. Why not practice what you preach and seek to engage sensibly with views opposed to your own? You never know, with a sufficiently open mind you might actually learn something for a change. 

Edited May 31 by hypochondriac

[egg]

23 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't scour anything, it popped up as the latest triggernometry video on YouTube - a channel I am subscribed to and just like I listened to Norman finkelstein on there and others with views I largely disagree with I gave it a watch and thought he raised some interesting points. You've been banging on about other people being closed minded and not looking at a range of opinions yet when I demonstrate examples of doing just that - you mischaracterise it and suggest I'm doing the opposite of what I'm actually doing. Why not practice what you preach and seek to engage sensibly with views opposed to your own? You never know, with a sufficiently open mind you might actually learn something for a change. 

Blimey Hypo, you'll give yourself an ulcer at this rate mate. It's only a forum. Being "right" honestly doesn't matter.

Call me old fashioned, but I focus on facts, not opinion. You've plastered a video on here of one man's opinion which just happens to align with yours. You keep doing that poppet if it helps you justify your views to yourself. 

Perhaps try checking some facts and history, you'll learn plenty. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Blimey Hypo, you'll give yourself an ulcer at this rate mate. It's only a forum. Being "right" honestly doesn't matter.

Call me old fashioned, but I focus on facts, not opinion. You've plastered a video on here of one man's opinion which just happens to align with yours. You keep doing that poppet if it helps you justify your views to yourself. 

Perhaps try checking some facts and history, you'll learn plenty. 

I typed a quick reply to you whilst doing other things, bizarre you think it takes me much time at all or that I'm particularly bothered by your mischaracterisations. Pointing it out is like shooting fish in a barrel love. 

You've ignored the other video I posted with views totally opposed to my own so you're wrong. As usual you've demonstrated an inability to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's why you freak out if someone challenges your narrative of "facts." It's a shame but I can't see that changing unless your approach does. 

[Weston Super Saint]

I take it all back!

Looks like having a cozy chat has come up with a plan for peace : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw8860gn1nwo

Quote

US President Joe Biden has urged Hamas to accept a new Israeli proposal to end the conflict in Gaza, saying that "it's time for this war to end".

The three-part proposal would begin with a six-week ceasefire in which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza.

There would also be a "surge" of humanitarian aid, as well as an exchange of some hostages for Palestinian prisoners.

The deal would eventually lead to a permanent "cessation of hostilities" and a major reconstruction plan for Gaza.

Hamas said it views the proposal "positively".

 

Will it be accepted by Hamas?  Are there any living hostages left that can be exchanged?  Will it last?

[egg]

40 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I take it all back!

Looks like having a cozy chat has come up with a plan for peace : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw8860gn1nwo

 

Will it be accepted by Hamas?  Are there any living hostages left that can be exchanged?  Will it last?

Whether Israel can accept a deal which essentially sees Hamas remain in some form is doubtful. Hamas can't accept a deal without an agreement to a full and permanent ceasefire, full withdrawal from Gaza, and an exchange of all the Palestinian 'prisoners' taken since 7/20 for all the remaining hostages taken on 7/10. Ideally you'd have a proper plan for a 2 state solution too. Hopefully this is a platform for a deal though. 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Whether Israel can accept a deal which essentially sees Hamas remain in some form is doubtful. Hamas can't accept a deal without an agreement to a full and permanent ceasefire, full withdrawal from Gaza, and an exchange of all the Palestinian 'prisoners' taken since 7/20 for all the remaining hostages taken on 7/10. Ideally you'd have a proper plan for a 2 state solution too. Hopefully this is a platform for a deal though. 

 

Israel have offered the deal....

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Israel have offered the deal....

No. A deal. Not a deal including what I've mentioned. They've taken loads of 'prisoners' since 7/10 and unless they're giving them back, pulling out completely, and agreeing to a 'permanent' ceasefire, they're can't be an agreement. Ditto, Hamas must cease fire, and return hostages. 

If I were the Palestinians, I'd also want a commitment in principle to a 2 state solution, and if I were Israel I'd want a commitment to the recognition of Israel as a state. That aspect is probably a future stage 4, but they're the elephants in the room and plainly the launchpad for future conflict if just parked. 

[rallyboy]

You can barely see the room for elephants.

[Weston Super Saint]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

No. A deal. Not a deal including what I've mentioned. They've taken loads of 'prisoners' since 7/10 and unless they're giving them back, pulling out completely, and agreeing to a 'permanent' ceasefire, they're can't be an agreement. Ditto, Hamas must cease fire, and return hostages. 

If I were the Palestinians, I'd also want a commitment in principle to a 2 state solution, and if I were Israel I'd want a commitment to the recognition of Israel as a state. That aspect is probably a future stage 4, but they're the elephants in the room and plainly the launchpad for future conflict if just parked. 

They made the deal that I linked to in the article.

What you mention is irrelevant in this context.  They've put a deal on the table, the ball is now in Hamas's court to either accept the deal or carry on as we are.

 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They made the deal that I linked to in the article.

What you mention is irrelevant in this context.  They've put a deal on the table, the ball is now in Hamas's court to either accept the deal or carry on as we are.

 

The Israel proposal cannot reasonably be treated as a fait accompli. Hamas cannot be expected to accept a poor deal in the same way as a 'deal' from Palestine to, for example, give over all of the west bank with the settlements in situ for the Palestinians, all of Jerusalem, etc, shouldn't be presented to Israel as a fait accompli. That's not how these things work. 

What we have is a statement of Israel's position with Biden's endorsement. Nothing more. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The Israel proposal cannot reasonably be treated as a fait accompli. Hamas cannot be expected to accept a poor deal in the same way as a 'deal' from Palestine to, for example, give over all of the west bank with the settlements in situ for the Palestinians, all of Jerusalem, etc, shouldn't be presented to Israel as a fait accompli. That's not how these things work. 

What we have is a statement of Israel's position with Biden's endorsement. Nothing more. 

We also have :

Quote

Hamas said it views the proposal "positively".

I'd have thought anything that stops people being killed as soon as possible would be regarded as a good thing.

Apparently not!

[egg]

31 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We also have :

I'd have thought anything that stops people being killed as soon as possible would be regarded as a good thing.

Apparently not!

Anything that stops what's happening is great, but to be sustainable there has to be a compromise that both sides accept. Let's see where it goes. 

[badgerx16]

Netanyahu has said there will be no ceasefire until 'Israel's war aims are achieved', so presumably once Gaza has been reduced to his previously mentioned pile of rubble.