DonnyTJS

Paul: "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved ... For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Still waiting for you to explain how this fits into your concept of 'right division'...

I'm not defending Scotty (he neither needs it, nor would appreciate it). I'm pointing out that you've made a false claim, again, regarding Romans 10, and you've failed to answer it, again. I'll put that down as a white flag.

No it's not, as shown below. You never did answer this ....

The thinking man's search engine of choice.

You'd have to throw in the Balfour Declaration too, coming before the British League of Nations mandate. And the treatment of European Jews for the past thousand years or so.

A problem with going down that route might be the length of the existence of Palestine as a country/state ...

All becomes clear! Ta.

Sorry, you've lost me - doesn't take much. I probably posted Hedi's Head by Kleenex on a Music thread at some point, but that's a close as I can get to Eiseger Wind (I'd insert a confused face emoji here but the emoji bank has become utterly teenage and shite).

Great that the archive's back. I imagine you mean this post: I don't think you are JPM, for what's that's worth.

The anger and the hatred have continued to grow. Oh, and the US government has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel ...

I don't think Phart's said anything about the chances or otherwise of a successfully negotiated settlement, and I haven't said that it will be anything other than extremely difficult. What I've been saying is that the role of the US is key, and the Zionist lobby appears to hold such sway there that the pressure which the US could apply on Israel - nominally a client state of the US - will not be applied. However, I don't see any other alternative to a negotiated two-state solution at some point, even if it takes generations. On Iran, what are you asking people to address? Of course they support various armed groups, just as every other player in the region supports various armed groups. And of course they have called for the destruction of Israel - that's the type of discourse in which theocratic states indulge. They're not in a position to destroy Israel, and they are an anathema to most of the Sunni Arab world (an important point, but one that seems to confuse you), so unless they achieve nuclear capability - which Israel will ensure they don't, despite the blunderings of the current US president - it's the most predictable rhetoric. So why you're balancing precariously on a stool clutching your petticoats about it is beyond me. Your question "Instead of Iranians would you prefer Persians or Muslims...?" just highlights once again that you really don't get the Muslim thing. It's up there with your claim a few months ago that 1970s groups like Black September and the PFLP were Islamic terrorists.

That actually makes my point.

Yup. Now Ally has reverted to his usual MO of searching for links to documents he either hasn't read or hasn't understood, but that he thinks (from a cursory glance at the headline presumably) support his prejudices. Not forgetting the enlightening comment that sources aren't important, after he counters the suggestion that the Zionist lobby in the US is an obstacle to peace by pasting an entire uncited article by a powerful member of the Zionist lobby. I've lost track of the original point ... something about the Ayatollahs being Arabs because they wear towels on their heads ...

Do you never do any fact-checking or research of any form? Look at what I said above about peace negotiations based on the 1947 partition boundaries, and then look into what lies behind that shite you just posted with that in mind.

And because it's the Zionist lobby in the US that is preventing negotiations on a two-state solution based on 1947 partition boundaries, that makes your first sentence simply wrong. Zionism is central to the problem of Israel. Your second point is probably correct (though it wouldn't have been in 1947), which makes a two-state solution all the more viable, were it not for the ideology of Zionism.

[Sorry for delay - time zones ...] You write as if this were an immutable, inevitable state of affairs. As I said - look at Egypt. Since 1967 Israel has occupied, and built settlements on, lands that were not part of its territory as defined by the UN at its formation. Egypt made peace and recognized Israel at Camp David in return for the Sinai. They may not like each other, but they coexist peacefully (as opposed to the sporadic all out warfare that had occurred from 1947 to 1974). Israel still occupies the Golan Heights and the West Bank and it works against the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, all with American backing that was initially excused as being an element of the Cold War and then was effectively tacit (complicated by Saddam's colonial ventures and their ramifications following the lifting of superpower pressure after 1989) until Trump makes the huge symbolic gesture of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. So, to return to your original claim that 'the Arab World' would destroy Israel given half a chance - no, and it's moot anyway because it's not possible. Peace on the other hand is possible, as was shown by the Camp David Accords. The reason that it now seems as far away as it did before then is in large part due to Israel's policy of occupation and US support for that policy. A peace conference, with the aim of establishing Palestinian state and the de-settlement and return of the occupied territories would be achievable. That it has not happened since the Cold War (before which it wasn't viable due to the region's proxy status between the superpowers) is largely because of the clout of the Zionist lobby in the US.

No. But if you're going to make statements about the Middle East, it does little for your argument if you fall at the first 'this-guy-knows-fuck-all-about-the-Middle-East' hurdle. Most countries in the region would be happy to coexist with Israel, if Israel (and the US) would respect the country's internationally recognized borders and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. Just look at Egypt's position before and after Camp David.

No. Just curious that you'd lumped Iran in with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and 'Palestine', then immediately gone on to haver about 'the Arab world' and the chance that they'd have a nuclear pop at Israel given half the chance because they are countries 'where state and religion are not separate', when in point of fact the only Arab country in that list which does not have a secular government is Saudi Arabia, which wouldn't do anything regionally without US approval. The governments of almost all Arab countries are secular. The only theocratic country in your list, which doesn't toe the US policy line, is Iran, and its not Arab. I'm not deflecting. I'm just pointing out that you don't know much about the region, its governance or its religious make up.

You do know that Iran isn't Arab, right?

I believe that's the case, certainly in the first half of the '70s, though I bow to Toepoke in all things Beatle-related. 'You're Sixteen' was pretty big (couldn't release it now ...), and 'Photograph' was actually rather good.

No. It must have had the most Radio 1 airplay of any of his solo work for years before his death. I see the thread has moved on from 'classic status' now though ...

Indeed I do. If you recall (though there's no reason why you should) the main reason I was in favour of a Yes vote was for the sake of the English constitution. It worked for a few centuries of union despite Scotland's anomalous Presbyterian context because most people felt that the 'absolute violation' of democratic principles that it represented wasn't actually all that big a deal in the grand scheme of things (which, for many Scots, included the barring of Roman Catholics from the throne, and, when that became less of an issue, folk just tended to live with it), but it wasn't designed to cope with devolved powers being added to the mix.

Sadly that's probably also true (though to be honest, a handful of bishops voting amongst hundreds of other unelected peers, on matters that have to have elected parliamentary approval to reach the statute book, is one of the less pressing reasons for Scottish independence, imho). If only William had fallen for a Catholic - this would all've been sorted by now ...

Ah, true, but once the C of E is disestablished, they won't.

Yup - needs sorting and that means disestablishing the Church of England. I don't see how doing that would affect the structural integrity of a constitutional monarchy. It's an historical anomaly (so is the monarchy as well, of course). I don't see how it affects the Scottish context at all, since the Church of Scotland has no episcopal element, does it? Ironically, when it happens, those kicking up the biggest stooshie will likely be Scottish ...