Jerry_Atrick

I ended our family netfix subscription about 6 months ago or more.. A lot of the movies I wanted to watch aren't on it, and it was numbing the kids minds. Well, one has flown the coup and the other doesn't seem to miss it.

Both Montague Street and York street are iconic. Wouldn't have either any other way.. you can see the water under York street and the height and warnings under Montague street. Shows up human numpties..

These types of laws are already in place over here.. can still get rentals

Aye, it will

The "You hear?" in my poultry (intended) attempt at humour was meant to be interpreted as urea... Should have said you're ear.. but that would have been worse!

Reconstituting it, you hear?

I have tried to stick with the facts.. I may have missed some - I'm not perfect. You're correct about the 8 or 10 Palestinians that were killed as corroborators..and just because others do it does not make it right.. what basis was their information? However, that wasn't the only Palestinians that were killed. There were something like 27 others.. However, it was a fight between Hamas and some other clan/power broking family. This isn't the original article I read, but makes cleat that it is a fight for power: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5e551j593o The other article merely mentioned a family. I also believe I wrote what is the threshold that takes what has happened from trying to neutralise the threat to unjustified. And I stated that 60,000 people is too high.. Ahh.. there it was.. I am not saying Israel is without fault and never had.. My question had been what else were they to do? I wasn't aware of the retaliation nor the two IDF soldiers shot when I wrote my last response. Yes, I would suggest, especially given the stages of the conflict and delicate ceasefire, it was a step too far and not in good faith. I still maintain, looking at the history of the place, it wasn't a sign they want to indiscriminately kill Palestinians, unless a) they didn't issue their warnings as they previously had done, or (not and) they were targeting a site not known to be a Hamas hideout or whatever. Israel has for years responded similarly to similar events.. presumably as a sho of strength to dissuade Hamas - but we know how that ends. So yes, I agree Israel was reckless at best, but probably trying to make a statement. As for Netanyahu being a war criminal - currently it is alleged. No trial has taken place. There has been a committal proceeding. I haven't read the report to determine if the probable case is really justified... And to be honest, who am I to say against a collaboration of senior international legal experts. But, on reading an article, both Hamas leaders and Netanyahu and another Israeli minister are indicted (doesn't make it right); but it is not genocide they are indicted on, but intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2exvx944o Very different crimes. Yet, unless you can contribute additional facts, intention is going to be a very grey area in this case. Not so, for Hamas

What are the facts that I have missed? That 60k Palestinians are dead? I haven't missed that. What about the other facts surrounding that fact? I haven't seen anyone here proffer corrections or rebuked except that I am biased. Sorry doesn't hold water with me because, well, it should be obvious.

Genocide is defined by the UN and a summary of it is here: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf The key wording being: "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide”." Yes - there is an ICC warrant for Netanyahu, but that does not mean guilty. I doubt they intend to wip out the Palestinian population - they have the means to do it already without riskng their troops and their actions would surely be less discriminate? However, by Hamas perpetrating acts knowing that Israel would have to respond, and by Hamas hiding behind their citizens in readiness for the response - well - exactly where does the intent lay? Oh, get real. All thorugh the war, Israel stated they would stop if Hamas return the hostages and lay down their arms. No one pressured Hamas to do that, well, except for Chump. Certainly the public opinion wasn't that. Now, imagine if Hamas did return the hostages and lay down their weapons? Oh, hang on, Hamas is stil killing Palestinians.. Go figure with that conspiracy theory.

Despite my jimmied knee, I went to collect some gum boots (they are called wellies, here) my partner and I lent her for some horse race meet. She asked if we could go for a drive and started to talk to me about a personal boy issue she was having. Our conversation was direct and I really was appreciative of the fact that I have manage to carve ou5 a relationship with her wher she feels comfortable she can talk to me about issues daughters likely don't raise with their dad often. We went to this pub https://butterleighinn.co.uk/ out of town and shared a cheesey chips for lunch, for her washed down with a lemonade and me washed down with orange juice and soda. The waitress, from OME's neck of the woods (Warren, west of Gilgandra) was fantastic. My daughter and I found the pub a couple of weeks ago and the waitress remembered our orders, drinks (I had a beer last time) and even the condiments we preferred. How is that for service!! Great day in the end despite this knee

https://youtube.com/shorts/JGaHA2tO7f8?si=a_qSJVQNYbnvjOog

Rather than a cull, how about dingos (livestock farms will need better fencing, though)

If it weren't so serious it would be funny

I have never said there wasn't evil on either side.. In fact, I have said that Israel too has blood on its hands.. In every conflict, there is going to be evil on both sides. But, from what I can see, the evidence is that Hamas as an entity perpetuates evil and Israel as en entity tries to contain it - although admittedly in the current conflict, I expect more of it to surface. I mean in the Afghan war, therre was Aussie evilness, but that doesn't mean the ADF is evil, despite no one being held to account for what in public seems a fairly cut and dry case. On the first sentence, ditto... And believe it or not, I am really not biased one way or another. In fact, until these forums, I had no interest the area whatsoever (especially after 2 weeks working in Abh Dhabi). But the facts seem to spout a different story to what people are saying. On the second, the West Bank was lost from the Palewtinians after the 1967 war. In a war you wage, you may win, or you may lose.. .and that includes territory. In 2000, 96% of it was offered back. Arafat/PLO were showing their readiness to accept the deal until the last moment, when they pulled out wanting all of it. And I think that is the crux... The Israelis are (or were) happy to compromise all the way.. The chant, ,"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." doesn't mean just the original partition plan. It means the lot. And, yes, the Palestinian territory has been getting smaller. But why is that? If you continually wage wars against your neighbour and you lose, chances are each time, your neighbour is likely to increase the buffer between you and them. I don't agree with Israel settling the West Bank; it is hotly disputed terriroty and the UN have, as mentioned before, in defiance with ways they have addressed other conflicts, stated it is Palestinian land. Maybe they were sick of being bombarded and decided it would be better in permanent hands? Again, the Palestininians were offered it back bar 4%, but didn't take it because it wasn't it all. I am also interested in why if Palestinians in the Hamas/PLO/PLA context keep waging wars and keep losing them, should Israel hand back the land to the 1947 delcaration? I don't see it as polarisation, but a chance to learn. However, at least until the current war, the facts again don't correlate to the assertion. 1.9m Palestinians in Israel will the same rights as anyone else (there goes the apartheid argument). Israel supplies electricity and water to Gaza and provided necessary medical services in Israel for those who could not be treated in Gaza. Does that sound like hate to you? Israel allowed Gazans to work freely in Israel and have lives with family in Israel before the war.. Does that sound like hate to you? In Israel, Arabs and Jews roam the streets together with little issues (outside of the West Bank); does that sound like hate to you? It may be, because It doesn't to me, at least institutionally or as an entity. At worst, they may hate the Palestinians, but are prepared to live with them. Yeah, there may be sectors of Israeli society that hated Palesitnians for a very long time... Now let's ask the question the other way? Any Jews freely going into Gaza (or any other Arabic nation ex Bahrain and Oman), the latter until very recently? Can't answer any of the other questions, because the opportunity to see has simply not been there. No doubt after tis war, the hate has increased. Sorry - out of sequence.. Inevitibale, or designed? We can only draw our own conclusions. Buit the interesting question is proprotionality? Is it of the objective or the outcome. The objective is to nuetralise Hamas - not necessarily elimiate all of Hamas members. Is that proprtional to the events on October 7 (and all events leading up to it)? Or is proportionality of consequences - in this case excessive civilian deaths? Which one overrides the other? And what is the threshold that say the pursuit of the objective is outweighed by the consequence? This is a messy conflict and utlimately will depend on one's viewpoint. For me, personally, it seems a toll too high, but it is in our faces. There have been many recent wars in the region that have taken c. 100,000 civilian lives per year - over 300% more than the current Israel Palestinian conflict, but as jounalists don't go there, no one talks about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also be concerned with the Israel/Palestine conflict, but, again, is Israel to stop at its objective purely because Hamas is using its population as a shield? Does that mean Hamas basically is given free reign to continue? This is the question.. which is the original question of what else is Israel supposed to do? I agree - these are violations of human rights, and constructively driving Palestinians from the land. Israel should be held accountable for it. In some cases - not all - Israel prosecutes such actions.. Not enouogh in my opinion, and maybe its an olvie brqansh to say, hey we do hold our people accountable. And yes, Palestinian kids will grow up hating Isarelis.. Just like now Israeli kids will grow up hating Palestinians.