RayC

Yes exactly QED. You have failed to produce any evidence that I said that surrender could not be voluntary for the simple reason that no such evidence exists. QED. You have also failed to produce any statement of mine where it could (realistically) be inferred or implied that I believe surrender could not be voluntary. QED. Even allowing for that, I have informed you that you are mistaken if your interpretation (opinion) is that I believe surrender can be voluntary. QED. And yet, despite all that you remain defiant and cling to your belief based, presumably, on the knowledge that you (somehow) know better than me what I actually mean!!!!!! It's nothing to do with being left or right and everything to do with being rational, an attribute that you sadly seem to lack. Then you shouldn't have any trouble reproducing the relevant missing part(s) of the exchange. What do you think that proves? And? I assume that it is meant to mean that 'Most Palestinians support Hamas'? If so, where is your evidence? Valid objections. In the previous paragraph, you produce valid reasons to treat this survey with skepticism, but in the very next breathe you cite the results of this survey as evidence in support of your proposition. Don't you see a problem there?

I have not denied that the majority of Palestinians supported the October 7 attacks. You introduced this information into the discussion to deflect attention away from the fact that your assertion that Hamas has majority support in Palestine isn't supported by the latest opinion poll. Wrt Fatah: Please stop making these ridiculous claims (as much for your own sake as mine). If you really believe that, "Fatah is even more extreme than Hamas", I can only suggest that you do some more research.

To prove your point, not that you can. You stated that I implied that surrender could not be voluntary. I did not. QED Here is our full exchange of that topic: You: I've been to jail a number of times. When they opened the door and said I could go, I left. Me: And presumably upon release, you then had the same rights and responsibilities as any other American? That is not the case for Palestinians: Their rights are curtailed. If they leave - assuming that they can do so - they become refugees. They are not free in many senses of the word. You: No, upon release I did not have the same rights and responsibilities as any other American Me: OK. Not that it has any relevance to a discussion on the Middle East. You: Then why did you ask? Me: I didn't. You introduced your time spent inside into the discussion. You: After which you asked about it, and when you did not like the response you discounted it. _---++++++-++ I am completely indifferent to your response and discounted it because it has no relevance to a discussion about Israel and Palestine. If you think that it does have some relevance, please explain how, and what your point is? No, I did not but that, in itself, is not directly relevant to your assertion that the majority of Palestinians support Hamas. However, you clearly missed the following which is directly relevant: The survey found that, "When asked which political party or movement they support, the largest percentage (32%) said they prefer Hamas, followed by Fatah (21%), 12% selected third parties, and 34% said they do not support any of them or do not know".

That is not the same as your original statement which was, "Hamas is made up of Palestinians, and the majority of Palestinians continue to support Hamas" The survey found that, "When asked which political party or movement they support, the largest percentage (32%) said they prefer Hamas, followed by Fatah (21%), 12% selected third parties, and 34% said they do not support any of them or do not know". In other words, according to this survey a majority of Palestinians do not support Hamas.

No I did not. Show me the post where I did. I didn't. You introduced your time spent inside into the discussion. Fine. You start the ball rolling.

I think that the irony is lost on many

No you are mistaken. I did not say, imply or infer that surrender could not be voluntary. OK. Not that it has any relevance to a discussion on the Middle East. Debatable https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/997 Very debatable Then we disagree yet again. It seems like a very illogical conclusion to me.

For someone who doesn't care about emojis you do seem to mention them quite a lot

No. What gives you that impression? And presumably upon release, you then had the same rights and responsibilities as any other American? That is not the case for Palestinians: Their rights are curtailed. If they leave - assuming that they can do so - they become refugees. They are not free in many senses of the word. Hamas - not the wider Palestinian people - are responsible for that. The war is - or should be - against the Palestinian state and not the Palestinian people. It might be argued that the Palestinian people elected Hamas, so that makes them a legitimate target. Not a view that I ascribe to, but even if that is the case, I fail to see how that justifies many (most?) of the Israeli actions against the Palestinian people. I don't understand how you reach that conclusion?

Hamas refusing to recognise Israel's right to exist and attacking Israel may well justify attacking Hamas personnel Palestinian infrastructure and military targets. Additionally, the deaths of civilians in such attacks might also be viewed as unfortunate "collateral damage". However, that is a lot different from (apparently deliberately) "creating open air prison, concentration camp , Apartheid , and starvation" among the civilian population.

A post which in no way addresses my question about who helped create those conditions in the first place.

You are once again changing the topic of discussion.

If the choice is between staying in a place & being imprisoned, starving, etc and leaving and having a chance of survival, I don't think 'voluntarily' enters into the discussion.

"Could you retract your claim that I believe in genocide?" "Please could you retract your claim that I was lying?" No. Because that is what you said. The contents of your latest post are completely different to your original response which - to avoid it being 'lost' - I will reproduce once again. Are you now retracting this view? Me: "So that's the answer? You both support genocide? Please, none of the 'Israel has been - attacked by Hamas; etc' rhetoric." You: "There's no other solution to the problem" Regarding your latest post, maybe ask yourself who has created the conditions where an ".. open air prison, concentration camp , Apartheid , starvation ..." exists, and then ask yourself, how can any decision to escape such conditions then be called voluntary?

These are my and your exact words: Me: "So that's the answer? You both support genocide? Please, none of the 'Israel has been - attacked by Hamas; etc' rhetoric." You: "There's no other solution to the problem" I asked a question and your answer was unequivocal. If you have now thought better of what you said then withdraw your comment, but don't try to make out that I am the one lying when you are.

I support the right of the Palestinian people to exist but do not support Hamas. I also do not believe in the existence - never mind the literal truth - of the "'Protocols ..of Zion". None of these beliefs are mutually exclusive although I don't know what this is meant to prove.

Maybe you should take that up with @Nick Carter icp and not me because genocide is exactly what he thinks that Israel's war is about and/or is proposing what it should be.

So that's the answer? You both support genocide? Please, none of the 'Israel has been - attacked by Hamas; etc' rhetoric.

I think that it's conclusive proof that Arsenal will win the FA Cup this season.

It's so good to see that the desire to understand the opposing point of view and the spirit of reconciliation is alive and thriving on AN.

Why?

https://www.planningaid.co.uk/hc/en-us/articles/203153632-Altering-a-listed-building Call me cynical but I doubt that Banksy followed this process.

Your sense of victimhood - unfortunate term in the circumstances - and need to demonise anyone who doesn't share your political views knows no bounds does it, Jonny? There has been an axe attack on Pelousi's husband and a thwarted attempted kidnapping of a Democrat senator in the last couple of years. There have been assassinations of left-wing politicians in Ecuador and Mexico. Closer to home in the recent past, Labour politician Jo Cox was murdered, as was David Amess, a Conservative politician. The fact that the former two events fortunately didn't result in death, and the others happened outside of the US makes it alright, does it? You - and others, both left and right - would have been better off reflecting on the effect that Charlie Kirk's murder will have on his family and how we might avoid a repeat of this tragic event, rather than trying to make political capital out of it.

Equally true if you replace "left" with "right"

I can help you out re episode 3. It was filmed mainly on Ko Pha Ngan (and also on Phuket) and contained the shattering revelations that if 10,000 (mainly young) people have a party, then some will have sex, some will take drugs, some will drink too much alcohol and there will be some opportunistic thieves amongst the 10,000. I believe that similar things happen in Cyprus, Greece, Spain, etc.