response 26 of 50:

Sep 4 16:02 UTC 2003

Where?  By thinking that Jews ought to have the same rights as Arabs?

response 28 of 50:

Sep 7 01:10 UTC 2003

lk's an example of how encyclopaedic knowledge of something doesn't mean a
guy'll obtain any sort of logic.

response 30 of 50:

Sep 7 21:19 UTC 2003

Yes.  We're waiting.

response 32 of 50:

Sep 8 15:26 UTC 2003

Re #27:
> (Another fact you've ignored is that the Clinton compromise called for
> the dismantling and evacuation of most of the "settlements".)

So did the road map, but while some were dismantled an equal number were
built during the same time period.  This appears to be a non-negotiable
issue for Israel, but it's hard to see how a viable Palastinian state
can be constructed when it's broken up by Israeli settlements.

response 34 of 50:

Sep 9 01:46 UTC 2003

Oval's about face:
-----------------

> #31 cs [oval] (3) (Mon, Sep  8, 2003 (10:48)):
>
> [We're waiting] for lk to show some logic.

Oval claimed to ignore (filter) me, yet rather than respond to questions I
pose all she can do is harrass? Is that her "logic"? To attack me because
she can't address a thing I say?

I am pleased that someone as illogical as oval, who attempted to silence
me (because she couldn't counter what I said) by threatening me with the
racist "logic" that my comments would make her prejudiced against all
Jews/Israelis, considers me illogical. It's a compliment, really.


Gull's logic-go-round:
---------------------

First gull seemed to say (#18) that it was OK to transfer Jews because of
what some (a few) of them *say*.

By that "logic", it should be OK for Israel to transfer all Arabs for what
some of them *do*.

Then gull asserted (#20) that it's ok to advocate the transfer of Jews
because it wouldn't happen.

Now gull admits (#32) that Jewish "settlements" have already been dismantled.

So while gull decries "transfer" as evil, he nonetheless hypocritically
advocates the transfer of Jews.  Orwell could write a book about this.
Oh, he did. Something like:

It's bad to transfer people unless they are Jews.

Or maybe:

Transfer of Arabs bad.
Transfer of Jews good.


> while some were dismantled an equal number were built....

Really?  Please document that. It's simply not true.

What gull is trying to spin here is that "settlements" in areas that Israel
will retain have been expanded. But what does this have to do with the
dismantling of "settlements" in areas from which Israel would withdraw as
part of a peace deal?  Nothing.  It's just another false pretense to justify
violence against innocent Israeli civilians. And like any good anti-Israel
propaganda, gull has willingly swallowed it.


> Tell me, why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only"
> "settlements" while ignoring the fact that the reason these exist
> in the first place is that all other communities are *Arab only*,
> no Jews allowed under penalty of death?

Well?


And why are you trying to make permanent the 1948 ethnic cleansing of all
Jews from the disputed territories (in contravention of UN Resolution 181)?

Funny, isn't it, that in 1948 Arabs who had lived in Mandate Palestine for
as little as *2* years were considered "refugees" (to later become the
"Palestinian people") while Jews who have lived in Judea, Samaria and Gaza
for 36 years (since 1967, and for thousands of years prior to 1948) can
be evicted.

response 36 of 50:

Sep 9 13:41 UTC 2003

Re #34:
> Really?  Please document that. It's simply not true.

Every recent newspaper article I've seen about the road map, as well as
many radio reports, has said it is.  I guess you're smarter than all of
them?  (Yes, I know.  You only read Israeli papers because the others
are full of lies.)


Essentially the problem with all these agreements is that neither side
has any reason to believe the other side will honor its part of the
agreement.  It's hard to see any way around this except outside
supervision, which Israel is not prepared to accept.

response 38 of 50:

Sep 10 02:22 UTC 2003

> Every recent newspaper article I've seen... has said it is.
> I guess you're smarter...

As klg said, if what you say is true then you should have a very easy time
supporting it rather than playing such games and entering personal attacks
as a distraction.

Recall that the last time you made this "argument" you later admitted that
your claim was false, a result of you misunderstnading or misremembering
what you read/heard from "every" news source.

>  You only read Israeli papers because the others are full of lies.

David, if you could address what I say you wouldn't have to waste time with
such pitiful straw men. I don't "only" read Israeli papers nor have I ever
claimed that US papers "are full of lies". What I have said is that terrorist
attacks against Israelis have become so common that they are "dog bites man"
stories and minor attacks (the bulk of them) don't even get reported. It is
for this reason that I enter the headlines from Israel item, quoting from
the award-winning (and left-of-center) Israeli paper Ha'aretz. (It was
honored by the Missouri Journalism School, the nation's oldest, with the
2002 annual award for its reporting under difficult circumstnaces.)

Why do you beat around the bush like this? To divert from questions I posed
which you cannot answer.

1. Are you opposed to "transfer" or do you support it, but only the "transfer"
of Jews but not Arabs?

Recall that first you argued that it doesn't matter if you support it or not
because it won't happen (a defense I doubt you'd extend to Rabbi Kahane's Kach
movement).

Then you admitted that it has already happened.

So can you clarify what your position is regarding "transfer"?

2. Let's assume that you are right and that as many new "settlements" have
been built in areas that Israel would retain as there have been "settlements"
dismantled in areas from which Israel would withdraw.  So what?

3. Why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" "settlements" while
ignoring the fact that the reason these exist in the first place is that all
other communities are *Arab only*, no Jews allowed under penalty of death?

4. Why are you trying to make permanent the 1948 ethnic cleansing of all Jews
from the disputed territories (in contravention of UN Resolution 181)?

In 1948 Arabs who had lived in Mandate Palestine for as little as *2* years
(immigrants from surrounding Arab countries) were considered "refugees" (to
later become the "Palestinian people") while Jews who have lived in Judea,
Samaria and Gaza for 36 years (since 1967, and for thousands of years prior
to 1948) can be evicted?

response 40 of 50:

Sep 10 14:20 UTC 2003

What settlements have in fact been dismantled. First, we're talking about
two different creatues - Israel's settlements, illegal under international
law, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis live at considerable state
subsidy as part of an express plan to make it difficult for Israel to ever
end its occupation of Palestinian lands. (In Ariel Sharon's own words,
describing his pioneering efforts in this illegal settlement moveement in
the early 1970's, "Standing with the cabinet ministers on a high hill, I
pointed out exactly what I thought was needed. If in the future we wanted
in any way to  control this area, I told them, we would need to establish
a Jewish presence now. Otherwise we would have no motivation to be there
during difficult times later on.") This illegal settlement movement has
resulted in Israel's assumption of more than 40% of the occupied territories
for the exclusive use of its settlers.

Second, there are the "illegal outpost settlements" - illegal even under
Israeli law - which Sharon has permitted to be constructed by the score
during his tenure. Many are unoccupied, consisting of little more than
a trailer or structure  meant to  symbolically reflect the seizure of even
more Palestinian land - and settlers post armed guards to shoot at
Palestinians who try to reclaim their lands. When occupied, even if by one
or two people, rather than sending the lawbreakers home, Israel dispatches
soliders to guard them. There has been a symbolic dismanting of a few of
these "outpost" settlements in the "road map" period, all of which were
uninhambited, and some of which were reconstructed as soon as the soldiers
left. There has been absolutely no movement to dismantle any bona fide
settlement, or even an occupied "outpost", nor can one be expected under
Sharon's "leadership". In fact, Sharon continues to advance the expansion
of illegal settlements throughout the occupied territories, and continues
to swear that he will never allow more than about 42% of the occupied
territories to be returned to their Palestinian owners.

I am surprised that Leeron doesn't know the distinction between these two
types of "settlement". I have to assume, though, that he doesn't because
otherwise his lies by omission completely undermine his credibility.

response 42 of 50:

Sep 11 03:38 UTC 2003

Re #38:
> As klg said, if what you say is true then you should have a very easy time
> supporting it

"Israel, which remains in military control of most West Bank towns, has
ignored a requirement that it freeze construction in Jewish settlements and
dismantle settlement outposts established since 2001. Israeli leaders in
turn point to the Palestinian Authority's failure to dismantle militant
groups as required by the peace plan."
(http://www.freep.com/news/nw/mid9_20030909.htm)

"Some [settlements] have been removed, only to be rebuilt and to multiply
within days, while building work has intensified at other sites to turn the
odd water tower or cluster of flimsy caravans into permanent structures in a
race to scuttle the roadmap before it is too late."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3144791.stm)

"Israel has announced plans to build new homes at a Jewish settlement in the
Gaza Strip in defiance of a US-backed peace plan, just a day after President
George Bush said the initiative was on track."
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/01/1059480550471.html)

"Israel, too, ignored key road map clauses, failing to freeze construction
of
Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and dismantle scores of
settlement outposts established in the past two years."
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-07-abbas-analysis_x.htm)

"Israel said Thursday it will build 102 new apartments in a West Bank
settlement, even though a now stalled U.S.-backed peace plan requires an
eventual construction freeze."
(http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-israel-settlemen
ts,0

> 3. Why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" "settlements"

Because of the purpose of those settlements -- to set aside pieces of land
that are off limits in negotiations over any future Palastinian state.

Incidentally, you constantly bring up both Oslo and the 1948 agreement, but
looking back at the past doesn't say anything about how to move forward from
the state things are in now.  I'd be more interested in hearing your
suggestions for how things should proceed now than in hearing rants about
past opportunities that were lost.

response 44 of 50:

Sep 11 07:45 UTC 2003

tldr.

response 46 of 50:

Sep 11 16:21 UTC 2003

Mr. gull

Having reviewed the sources you cited (with the exception of the final 
one, for which the link did not work), it appears that nowhere do any 
of them state (or even come close to stating) that today there are x 
settlements whereas previously there were y.  In the absence of such, 
how is one able to make a definitive determination as to the alleged 
increase?

Perhaps you can try again to locate some actual evidence to 
substantiate your claim.

Regards,

klg

response 48 of 50:

Sep 11 17:09 UTC 2003

Discussion? You notice that once again gull avoided the questions I posed?

Instead we get new falsehoods:

> And this, of course, is why settlements continue to be built and
> expanded.  Eventually so much of the land will have "mostly Jews" that
> there will be no possible way to create a contiguous Palastinian state.

Many of the settlements exist where Jews lived prior to their ethnic
cleansing by invading Arab armies in 1948. Most all of them (at least
population wise) are where there are no Arabs living and adjacent to
the 1949 Armistice line.

Can you deal with this reality rather than trying to change the facts
to fit your model?!

> I think that the only way a two-state solution will stick is if, after
> the borders are defined, an international peacekeeping force moves in to
> force the two sides to "play nice" for a while.

How will an international peacekeeping force stop suicide bombers and
other terrorist attacks?

All they can do is prevent Israel from responding to such attacks.
Allowing the terrorists to operate with complete impunity and go on
murdering innocent Israelis.

Is that really what you want?

A two state solution will not end terrorism.
The terrorists oppose a two-state solution.
Just as the Arab rejectionists have violently opposed the UN partition (1947),
Carter's Camp David process (late 1970s) and the 2000 Clinton compromise.

The cessation of terrorism will lead to a two-state solution.
What will lead to the cessation of terrorism?
See my previous response.