1 new of 70 responses total.
> You ask for proof of illegal settlements, I gave it to you No. I asked for the International Law based upon which these "settlements" are illegal. Just as I cited from the Geneva Conventions to show that Israel's "orders" were within the law (not to mention that the "refuseniks" aren't refusing any specific order but to serve in a particular region, in territories that according to the UN are under legal Israeli administration.) This law must be so obscure that for decades the Arab states have pursued this matter at the UN, a POLITICAL forum, rather than in the International Court of Justice, for a LEGAL ruling based on LAW. > If the Israeli minister of defense admitted some of the settlements are > illegal, I'll believe 'em. You seem to think I shouldn't. Well, as Joe pointed out, only SOME. So we have two types of Jewish villages. "Outposts" which are illegal under Israeli law and "settlements" which are allegedly illegal under some unknown international law. Your argument is akin to saying that if the minister of health said that abortion in the 3rd trimester are illegal then that's proof that all abortions are illegal.... > You want to believe those who disagree with you are anti-semetic From comments elsewhere, I think that's abundantly clear. But actually, I didn't say so. I said that given the hypocritical way in which some people selective apply international law to what at worst is a gray area, while always ignoring scores of other egregious violations, makes other people think that this is due to anti-semitism. Didn't you validate that? > You ask why the Arabs hate the US, like even back in the 40's? No, like even back in 1966 and 1972, before the US gave any significant aid to Israel. > You mean besides our pure white political alliances? Racism at home? > Distaste for all religions non-Christian? Incredible culture clashes? > And on and on... Haven't a clue. ;-) But you previously alleged it was because the US supported Israel! That the US had turned its back on the Arabs. Now you're saying that it was the reverse? That the Arabs turned their back on the US? OK. While what you say is true to some degree, it didn't prevent the Iraqis or the Egyptians from liking the US -- until such time that the Baath party overthrew the Iraqi government and until the Egyptians chose to side with the USSR (who had many of the same faults you cite). In fact, I think one could successfully argue that the US didn't turn to Israel until after it had been dumped by the Arabs in favor of the USSR. > I'm pretty sure the window for anyone to return and co-occupy is past. Does this mean you oppose the so-called "right of return" or that you agree that it doesn't exist? (Rather than what some people evidently believe, that it exists for Arabs but not for Jews.) If so then this is progress for it supports a two-state solution. > It's just a matter of time before the Palestinians get some respected > leadership. May that day come soon. > That's when the negotiations will get interesting. Not really. The Palestinian Arab negotiators at Camp David / Taba wanted Arafat to accept the compromise. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a pretty good deal. Probably more than they had hoped for. Ostensibly Arafat refused it because he wanted an extra 77 square miles of territory. The more reasonable explanation is that he wouldn't have been happy even with that because his primary objection was ending the conflict without "liberating" Haifa and Tel Aviv. (Recall that after walking out of Camp David without as much as a counter-offer, Arafat sought to gain support for a unilateral declaration of independence: establishing a state on less than half the territory of the Clinton compromise -- but without the terrible price of having to make peace with Israel and foregoing its destruction.) So when the time of enlightened Palestinian Arab leadership arrives, it will enable such negotiations from merely being items of discussion. They might actually be implemented. But the compromise will be based on those parameters as they were discussed in 2000.
You have several choices: