Morch

@Brickleberry You misrepresent facts, that's for sure. The Channel 4 report did not provide any 'proof' of the sort you claim. And no, I don't think you have the slightest knowledge of international law, not when posting such nonsense. Or maybe you think that all of them governments are clueless about this as well? Did any of them air worries about legal issues? Did the UN raise this issue? I think it's mostly you either making up stuff, or echoing something you picked from this or that biased website. There is no 'we', other than in your mind. You do not speak for 'we', or 'us' or whatever. And the Church got zero to do with this - just another deflection. I wonder where you got the idea that Western Nations 'supported the original Nakba' form. Or that they support the Israeli occupation. But again - your issues are not with Israel's policies, but with Israel's very existence. As evident in your closing remarks. And you expect to be taken seriously....

The guy tracking her says he does so in order to raise environmental awareness.

@thaibeachlovers I doubt you have any insight as to the considerations and motivations of 'the oil industry'. What you try to paint as 'the simple solution' is not actually simple. What you're after is double appeasement - of both the Hamas and the Houthis.

@Neeranam Reality, it's a thing. The subject matter of this topic is negotiations. There were previous rounds of negotiations during this war, some bearing fruit, others not. I don't know what percentage of Hamas fighting men they killed. Some reports suggest about a third, Israeli leaders claimed half (which I think is either an exaggeration, or includes estimated on wounded/out of circulation men). This was discussed or mentioned on these topics, and news reports many times. Guess you missed it. Like you missed the fact that there are (and were) negotiations. You originally claimed all Gaza was 'flattened'. Now you backtrack to 'majority'. I know many things very well, like the fact that there are negotiations. Also, always amusing to see some posters hyping what Netanyahu says on some posts, then on others vehemently claim his words cannot be trusted.

Trump fans on here say there will be a civil war if he's sent to prison or barred (no pun intended) from running for President. Scaremongering as well?

@thaibeachlovers Last time you tried the corruption angle you crushed and burned, sure you wanna go there again?

@thaibeachlovers Do you have the same issues with Russians not thrilled fighting for the leader you support?

I think you're quite at home with some groups being 'genocided'.

How about the Houthis let other people live as they want?

I'm not responsible for what others post. I'm also not responsible for you trying to foist your argument (such as it is) on my posts. As said, the USA will probably continue with such actions, gradually increasing their scope/means employed/targets chosen. I'm not under obligation to frame my comments according to your wishes. The rest of your comment is the usual waffle with extra nothing topping.

@thaibeachlovers And a day or two onward, you'll berate another poster for 'crystal ball' posts, or something.

@Neeranam Back to reality: - there are negotiations going on, these are almost always a series of back and forth offers/statements. - 'flattened the whole of Gaza' - is an exaggeration, not fact. Same goes for 'indiscriminate bombing'. Apparently no issues with Hamas, as usual.

@thaibeachlovers Anything to support either comment?

@billd766 You do not seem to know much about either side. Netanyahu is hardly the hardliner you paint him as. He's more self-serving, opportunist first, ideologue second. His political position is compormised, and he's doing whatever he can to bolster his position, still hoping to pull through - or be able to cut some deal which gets him off the hook (regarding his legal issues), while saving face. As it is, he is dependent on the more extreme elements in his coalition. Painting him as the 'main and possibly' only problem is nonsense. It wouldn't be easier or smoother with other potential leaders - just a different set of difficulties. Regarding Hamas (which you seem to mention as an afterthought) - which Hamas leader would that be? Are you even aware how Hamas leadership operates? There is no single leader, and the balance of power between Hamas leaders is a rather intricate game, like most political systems. Right now, it is not even clear who are the hardliners and on what issues. You think if you took Netanyahu and the fabled 'Hamas leader' out of the equation it would imply 'moderates' stepping up? Based on what? Who are these moderates and what are their positions? What political alliances would they be beholden to? Not quite as simple as you present. What would be Iran's motivation to stop funding and arming Hamas? Who would pressure them to do so? Again, fantasies. Retribution? From whom? Against whom? You're all over the place.

@Brickleberry You keep repeating the same things on loop, treating things as facts when it suits. There are claims it is the same report. And, there's also a claim that the evidence (or lack of) does not support Israel's allegations. As far as I'm aware, the news channel did not make the entire document public, nor did they reveal much details about the content. You make your assertions based on this - not a very solid foundation, in my opinion. That you treat the claims as proven, factual and correct does not make them so. When you state governments made their decisions without evidence, that's your opinion, not fact. Most of your argument is based on your 'opinion'.....and trusting your 'opinion' is a matter of choice. Given your posting history, and the number of times you had to backtrack..... Donor countries withholding funding is not a legal issue, and the ICJ ruling does not 'bind all nations'. It does not even mandate that aid will be channeled through this agency or another. I kinda doubt you're much of a legal expert, or that any of them countries feel legally threatened by such nonsense. You have blamed Israel for things that Israel did not to. Some of these things you had to backtrack from, some you just glossed over. So no, your most definitely do not have 'evidence' for everything you blame Israel for. Then again, your grasp of what is 'evidence' seems shaky. The channel 4 report, for example, is not 'proof' - it's a report, a claim, it's not verified, and there's no rush by said governments to change their position. No one denied that there were such comments by Israeli politicians, not sure what you're on about. For all them many words you pour on this, you still can't account for the decision by governments of donor countries to withhold their donations and funding of UNRWA. It does not seem plausible that all of the would be 'duped' so easily and in such a short span of time - plus this resulting in strong action.

Once people are cult-members, they'll go to great lengths in order to validate their views.

As far as I'm aware, Netanyahu did not say anything about conquering and holding on to the Gaza Strip etc.

You are obviously still not aware of Hamas's agenda.

You're just deflecting, as usual. I was not referring to all issues discussed on these topics, but to specific things raised in your recent posts from this morning. You neither mention them, nor address them. How (un)surprising. As for your list above, it's the same old nonsense. You have very little knowledge on sides' composition, agendas and so on - but somehow manage to imagine what these are. If this is your 'take', then you have not read much that was posted or linked on these topics, and you've obviously lacking much by way or prior knowledge regarding much of this (your 'opinions' notwithstanding). It is not true that both sides want the same thing. There are various factions on either side, each with its own agenda, ideas and wishes. It's a whole lot more nuanced and complicated than that. Treating things in the crude, simplistic way you favor does not help understand things, or promote a solution. Quite the opposite. There is on equivalency between the Hamas 7/10 attack and Israel's response. That's your opinion, maybe. It's not something agreed upon. Just another one of the lame 'same same' efforts. Same goes for pitting hostage taking vs. the response. Try harder. It is not true that Israel could renew it's military operation at any time. There will be constraints involved, and Hamas would be able to improve it's positions during the ceasefire. Other than broadcasting a Hamas talking point (again), this has very little to do with reality. It also broadcasts that you see the use of hostages by Hamas as legitimate. Shame on you. Talks about a two-state solution were carried out for decades. That you somehow imagine this could be sorted out in a timely manner is ridiculous. Also, your talking point does not address Hamas's role in things, which is a major issue. In short, it's another nonsense list. You cannot even grasp the details and facts involved, so how can you meaningfully 'discuss' anything?

Yeah, because that's what really important - pissing off people.

No. You made specific claims just this morning. They were addressed, commented on. You continue deflecting. Claiming you have addressed whereas you did no such thing. The usual from you.

@Brickleberry I don't need to 'prove' anything. I don't claim to have seen the evidence. I'm commenting on them governments of donor countries' reaction. As far as I understand the report you cited did not 'prove' things, but claimed. It's not like the entire report was shared with the public, not is it clear what it did contain. The channel did not actually say much about that. So more a case of your assuming things, rather than knowing. Treating things as facts whereas they are not proven to be so. And before your start jumping up and down - read the first line, again. Unlike you, I do not pretend to speak for any 'we'. I also did not assert Israel's information was 'lies'. Same goes for 'proven'. All of these are things you injected to the 'discussion' (such as it is...) and try to paint as agreed upon. They are not. You misrepresent what I said, and no surprise - you can't address the actual view. The proposition that the report presenting no evidence, and all these governments, previously regularly donating to UNRWA doing an about face based on nothing, doesn't strike me as very convincing, or reasonable. You do not provide any insight whatsoever into that - other than asserting they are all stupid, uninformed, or somehow controlled by Israel. Again, rather weak arguments. As for 'innocent until proven guilty' - that's kinda rich coming from someone who routinely blames Israel for things he's got no evidence of, or just using some version of 'I-heard-that'. Further, how is this a legal issue? Countries are not obligated to donate funds to UNRWA, it's a voluntary thing. As far as I'm aware, there are no courts involved in this (unless UNRWA decided to sue Israel and the donor countries for defamation, or something). What you are doing is injecting more and more of your agenda into posts, regardless of the flimsy basis or even lack of basic logic involved. There is no 'genocide', even the ICJ did not say that. And those very same countries were providing UNRWA with funds for years now. Claiming that they are somehow into 'genocide' is bizarre. I don't think UNRWA made such allegations, even, or denied things as hotly as you.

@Brickleberry What I 'get' is that you guys have a habit of chopping parts of posts you can't deal with. So, according to the conspiracy theory you push Israel provided all them Western government with essentially nothing, and then all them countries who for years, donated to UNRWA, decided to suspend funding because of....what? You can't get around this point no matter how much you wiggle and make up things. Moreover, I actually provided you with an account (links and all) of how things happened. You, on the other hand....not so much.

And that major point scored, you must feel really good about yourself. Now try and read (and understand) what's on that sign in the emoticon you like so much. That probably makes a great argument in your mind. Notice you didn't actually address things, though.