Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 74 of 74rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

^. A non aggression pact.

(Sorry for the typo, fat fingers)

blimey Naomi only has to rattle her sabre and the posters scatter

oh well, as webbo says above - - didnt take them long

thousands wounded - presumably the Hospitals have gone  back to Great War principles - triage and amputation.

fender; You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

sandy ; Not only have the Jewish people never in their history been the initiators of unprovoked aggression towards anybody, which you can put alongside the entire history of Arab Muslims, which has been nothing but continual violent aggression since the seventh century. 

I might also add that I recall a judge once saying that in all his years at the bench, he had never had a Jew brought before him for being drunk and disorderly either. 😉

 

sandyRoe, could you answer my question at 14.40 Tuesday please?  And untitled, since you agree with sandyRoe perhaps you could have a bash at it too.

my answer is that i would like the israeli government to be replaced. 

That wouldn't resolve the issue though, untitled, because Hamas et al would still want Israel obliterated.

we disagree about the fundamentals naomi... my opinion is that hamas would be in a much weaker if israel had a government that did not include jewish supremacist parties and was committed to seeing through the Oslo accords to permit the creation of a palestinian state. 

look at what happened with egypt. that country used to be run by people dedicated to israel's destruction... but since israel gave them their occupied territory back, that situation has changed. land for peace works. if israel wants peace with the palestinians then it needs a government that will return the territories that it occupied and stop funding terror movements like hamas. 

How can you disagree on the 'fundamentals' when the obliteration of Israel is Hamas's - and others - stated intention?   Aren't you listening to them?

because you view this in purely religious terms naomi. you are afflicted with tunnel vision on that topic. i think the root causes are far more political than religious. 

It's not about your interpretation of how I regard it, untitled.  I'm listening to what they're saying.  Try it.

-- answer removed --

61 to 74 of 74rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Labours Antisemitism Shows Its Face Again

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.