placeholder

You sure about that? (1) Final Borders and Territorial Exchange Among Palestinians 63% support or strongly support and 35% oppose or strongly oppose an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the exception of some settlement areas in less than 3% of the West Bank that would be swapped with an equal amount of territory from Israel in accordance with a map that was presented to respondents. The map was identical to that presented to respondents in December 2003. At that time, support for this compromise, with its map, stood at 57% and opposition at 41%. Among Israelis 55% support and 43% oppose a Palestinian state in the entirety of Judea Samaria and the Gaza Strip except for several large blocks of settlements in 3% of the West Bank which will be annexed to Israel. The Palestinians will receive in return territory of similar size along the Gaza Strip. In December 2003, 47% of the Israelis supported this component while 50% opposed it. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/445

Rather interesting poll sheds new (to me) light on the Palestinian vote for Hamas. (2) The Peace Process in the Post Hamas’ Victory 75% want Hamas to negotiate peace with Israel Majority supports the implementation of the Road Map and a majority supports a mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people under conditions of peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state in a two-state solution Sharp divisions over collection of arms from armed groups but an overwhelming majority supports the integration of armed groups into PA security services About three quarters welcome a negotiated Israeli disengagement from the West Bank while only 23% would support the disengagement if it was unilateral 80% would support a declaration of Palestinian statehood if it comes as an outcome of negotiations with Israel and 59% would support it if it was unilaterally declared by the PA https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/236

Really? There was the time you inferred that a member was Jewish because only a Jew could voice such sentiments. Give it a rest.

Clearly what you think that statement said and what it really said are two different things. But by all means, if you can, point out the lies that you're referring to.

Here's a brief introductory link. https://archive.ph/2vSbE And you should believe it because virtually all science and major businesses depends on statistics. Here's a better explanation: https://www.checkmarket.com/kb/calculate-optimal-sample-size-survey/

There's a big difference between not doing anything and not doing enough.

The topic is israel is at war. A claim was made by Amnesty International that phosphorous bombs were used in this war. The legitimacy of the claims from Amnesty international was questioned by Morch. So if you got a problem, it's with him. Or, you can report this to the moderators.

Clearly you want to lump all human rights organizations into one discredited pile. I'm not referring to human rights organizations. I'm referring to one particular organization. Given their track record, and the fact that they openly share their methodology, the odds are overwhelmingly strong that they've got it right. And I guess there's stopping you from referring to alleged past disagreements. I'm just going to ignore them since there's no point in disputing such claims.

Well, at least you're not claiming any longer that the absence of evidence is evidence that the Bidens committed crimes.

"You can go on about Amnesty being pure as snow, and all that" And I'm the one trying to put words in someone else's mouth? So, for the record, Amnesty is not as pure as snow. Who is? The Wall Street Journal recently got it wrong about the hospital bombing. At least I'm satisfied that they did. Perhaps you're confusing what you might see as Amnesty's naive denunciations of all acts of violence regardless of the circumstances. But that has nothing to do with the way they gather evidence. They shared their methodology openly. I have no doubt that Amnesty, just like any other investigative body, can come to the wrong conclusions. But their body of work speaks for itself.

Your faculty for posting nonsense is undiminished.

Yes with me and all those left wing socialists at the BMA.

The relevant comparison is to what it was compared to what it is now.

In fact, given the general tenor of your comments, I suspect the tories would be grateful to you for not defending them. But keep bottling.

You think they're bad. What about those alarmsts at the BMA? https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/nhs-backlog-data-analysis

Including your irrelevant invocation of members' nationality. When the facts are against you, you try to make it personal. You've got nothing.

Actually you're the one doing the bottling. Got no defense for the Tories' dreadful management? And I do wonder how many people in the UK seek medical care because of exposure to the UK's newly polluted waters.

That's your justification? That it's still free? Not if you want timely care. Record number of Brits paying for medical treatment amid NHS backlog crisis Around 227,000 people sought private treatment in the first 3 months of 2023 The NHS waiting list is now the highest since records began in August 2007 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12509757/Record-number-Brits-paying-medical-treatment-amid-NHS-backlog-crisis.html

Might be better if some other country recolonized the UK and got to work on the NH for starters.

It looks like you're just generating insults at random without reference to anything posted.

You start out with a falsehood " You attack GB", and then for some reason you think my nationality is relevant. Once again, I have little use for the Tories or Brexit. But the policies of the Tories or Brexit are not GB.

BINGO!

It's amusing because you've given me such an abundance of clueless material to work with. Thanks for that.

You made a claim that I'm ashamed of my nationality. Where's your evidence? That I refuse to disclose it? As you well know, there's a reason why the moderators disapprove of such stupidity as making a member's nationality grounds for criticism.

More name callling. Your claim to be a source of pride to England because of the deeds of your forebears is patently ridiculous. Did they leave their virtue to you in their wills?