Nick, assuming that the person you argue with is not aware of COMMONLY known facts, is a mistake. It is better to assume that, unless otherwise becomes evident, the person is aware of such things. Now, to actual arguments. You should try to formulate your argument as completely as possible. For example: If Israel is holding 11,000 Palestinian prisoners (most of the security prisoners), including women and children, and on the other hand Hamas is holding one soldier in prison, the what should follow? This you should consider as part of your argument. One possible answer: Israel should release ALL of the security prisoners in return for the 1 Hamas prisoner. There might be other possibilities, but you seem to be inclined on that answer. But then you might notice that even Hamas did not ask for this. Why? Why did they ask for only 1,000 prisoners? Their demands appear to be based on "reality" rather than "justice". And once you get to reality, you might realize that "Israeli security" could be a factor. I have gotten to this point, and I see that Hamas' way to continue, after Israel gave in on the 1,000 prisoners, is to negotiate the narrowing down of the number 45 of "most dangerous". Perhaps you don't agree, but an argument from emotions is not good enough.
ISIS claims responsibility for bombing in Baghdad suburb; death toll hits 21 (Reuters)
from the article: Netanyahu urges international community to work to free Gilad Shalit
'The prison walls don't keep out the change underway today in society about breaking the silence of sexual assault victims,' says therapy group leader Tamar Krock-Zamir.16:16 29.04.16 | 0 comments
The answer can be summed up in one word, narcissism, which manifests itself in three principal ways. There are ways to overcome this love of self, however.16:16 28.04.16 | 0 comments