|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 100 of 269:
| 
Apr 28 18:43 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, nice evasion from my question. However, I really doubt all those
Russian and European Jewish immigrants had owned houses to move back
into. Poking around the web it looks like there are roughly 200,000
Israelis living in settlements, perhaps 100,000 having settled in the
last ten years (very rough figures).
|
russ
|
|
response 101 of 269:
|
Apr 28 21:41 UTC 2002 |
Re #97: Sorry, Marcus, but you have a defect in your vision. What
Leeron has been saying is that the Palestinians have an obligation
to arrest (and extradite?) the murderers who commit crimes against
people in neighboring nations, such as Israel. So long as the
Palestinians harbor such criminals, Israelis have every right to go
where the criminals are, take them into custody and shut down their
operations.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the Palestinian police
were doing their job (translation: if Arafat was anything resembling
a leader of a legitimate government), there would never have been any
Hamas or Islamic Jihad activists or bomb factories for Israel to clean
out of Jenin. Their mere existence proves Arafat's bad faith.
And I'll go further: Your position, Marcus, amounts to "Israelis have
no right to bring murderers to justice if a neighboring regime decides
to give them safe harbor. They should just let themselves be killed."
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after watching your
position for some time I can't see how you can wiggle out of that.
|
mdw
|
|
response 102 of 269:
|
Apr 29 02:10 UTC 2002 |
Um. Yes, Leeron isn't arguing that Israel is doing those bad things,
because he's actually arguing the place doesn't exist. It's just
"unoccupied" terrority, and there aren't 10 million palestinians that
nobody cares about.
The problem with concentrating on the "wrongs" is that *both* sides have
done innumerable "wrongs". By the time you get through executing all
the guilty, there will be no innocents left, on either side.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 103 of 269:
|
Apr 29 06:27 UTC 2002 |
Works for me.
|
lk
|
|
response 104 of 269:
|
Apr 29 07:00 UTC 2002 |
Scott, nothing you just said addresses my previous point:
In the last 35 years, Jews have moved into territory under Israeli control,
INITIALLY back to their own homes from which they had been illegally evicted.
I think the appropriate analogy would be to the number of Arabs who moved
into Israel in the 35 years prior to its creation (1912-1947).
Marcus, there's another fine false equivalence: Everyone has done wrongs so
let's fault Israel.
That there is not (yet) a state called Palestine is a fact. I'm not sure why
you want to tarnish me for stating such -- especially when I'm on record as
saying that I support the establishment of such a state AS PART OF THE PEACE
PROCESS. Not by circumventing it. Not by violence, blood and murder.
In 1993 a peace process began. Arafat's only concrete obligation was to
police his side of the border. In good faith, Israel agreed to a 30,000
man "police" force. Israel and the US even provided them arms. Yet as Israel
withdrew from territories, they became bases for terrorist operations.
That Arafat has failed is clear. The question is only if he "can't" or
"won't". Is the distinction even relevant?
As evidence has emerged that Arafat ordered violence in September 2000 and
more recently that he has funded some terrorists I think the answer is
clear: Arafat supports the violence and wants to use it as a political tool.
The civilized world should not tolerate this as it only invites greater
Arab intransigence and more terrorism.
If Arafat is truly a man of peace, if he seeks accomodation with Israel,
why won't he call for an end to the violence -- as he committed to do in
the Sharem Agreement (10/2000) & Tenet Plan (5/2001)? Why does he play
games with Zinni, in his 3rd and latest mission saying he'd accept a
bridging proposal only to then reject it after Israel agreed?
Why hasn't Arafat amended the PLO Charter as he promised to do (deleting
those sections calling for Israel's destruction)? Why hasn't the PNC
rescinded the "two phase plan" (calling on Arafat to accept what he can
get by peaceful means and then fight for the rest)?. Why doesn't he
rebuke his top aids when they state that the Oslo peace process was a
"Trojan Horse" designed to get Arab fighters into the disputed territories?
Why is Arafat still calling for a million "martyrs" but not for an end of
the violence and a return to peace negotiations?
|
russ
|
|
response 105 of 269:
|
Apr 29 12:44 UTC 2002 |
Re #102: Nice way to avoid addressing the issue, Marcus, but I'm
not going to let you go so easily.
Do you think that Israel has a right to exercise police authority
against murderers in the territories if the PA will not, or should
the murderers be allowed to operate with complete freedom (as they
have under the PA)?
Second question: If the PA shelters and even promotes the murderers,
does it have any legitimacy?
|
scott
|
|
response 106 of 269:
|
Apr 29 13:18 UTC 2002 |
Re 104:
No, Leeron, I addressed that point, or rather that evasion. Are you claiming
that all the Russian, European, and even American Jews who emigrated to
Israeli all had lived there before and still had homes? Or are you trying
to confuse the 100,000 increase in population in the illegal settlements with
a relatively small number of Jews who had lived in the area before?
|
lk
|
|
response 107 of 269:
|
Apr 29 15:46 UTC 2002 |
Scott, look up the meaning of the word "initially" and then try again,
without getting hung-up on an irrelevant point.
Are you claiming that the Arabs of Egypt, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon who streamed into Israel between the world wars had lived in the
area before? (Recall that Mandate Palestine's Arab population increased
at 3x the rate of surrounding countries and that in 1948 an Arab refugee
was defined as an Arab who had lived in the Mandate for a minimum of a
mere 2 years -- had the threshhold been set at 5 or 10 years, as initially
intended but opposed by the Arabs, many of the "refugees" would not have
qualified for international assistance. (Alas, the joke was on those who
did, for unlike their brothers who were free to return to their countries
of origin, they were herded by Arab leaders into camps, deprived of
education, work, freedom of movement and the right of naturalization and
resettlement. Rights that are guaranteed to all other refugee populations.)
Are you claiming that in a "two states for two people" solution, one state
should be exclusively Arab and the other Jewish and Arab? That the one state
should be Judenrein because in 1948, in violent contravention of the UN
compromise, all Jews in the area were ethnically cleansed?
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 269:
|
Apr 29 18:35 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, let's not get into your ludicrous premise that Palestine was somehow
uninhabited before Israel was created.
|
lk
|
|
response 109 of 269:
|
Apr 29 21:54 UTC 2002 |
Where have I ever claimed that? Yet there is little doubt that it was
sparesly populated and that there was no such entity called "Palestine"
in the Arab world -- ever. Not politically, culturally, linguistically,
religiously or socially. There were no such divisions during Arab rule
1000 years earlier, nor during the 400 years of Ottoman Turkish rule
ending in 1917. To the contrary, "Palestine" was defined by 19th century
Europeans based on the Jewish homeland.
So now how about answering the questions?
Are you claiming that the Arabs of Egypt, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon who streamed into Israel between the world wars had lived in the
area before?
Are you claiming that in a "two states for two people" solution, one state
should be exclusively Arab and the other Jewish and Arab? That the one state
should be Judenrein because in 1948, in violent contravention of the UN
compromise, all Jews in the area were ethnically cleansed?
|
scott
|
|
response 110 of 269:
|
Apr 29 23:47 UTC 2002 |
You've claimed it several times, Leeron, even quoting Mark Twain to "prove"
your point.
|
lk
|
|
response 111 of 269:
|
Apr 30 06:18 UTC 2002 |
Scott brings up another distraction (the Twain quotes prove something
entirely different), but nonetheless we see that Scott simply can't
bring himself to answer the questions. Do I need to repeat them a
4th time? Or is this the latest iteration of Scott's usual behavior:
saying something idiotic, and rather than defending or retracting it
beating around the bush?
Scott, did you have a (valid) point to make, something to contribute
to this discussion?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 112 of 269:
|
Apr 30 06:38 UTC 2002 |
I vote we kick all the jews out of the state of palestine. Let
it be arab only. Then the arabs in Israel will out breed the
jews (as they already are) and then because Israel is a democracy
in a couple decades the 'majority' will vote on arab leadership
which will merge the two states into one which they both will live
happily ever after.
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 269:
|
Apr 30 13:17 UTC 2002 |
>Scott, nothing you just said addresses my previous point:
>
> In the last 35 years, Jews have moved into territory under Israeli control,
> INITIALLY back to their own homes from which they had been illegally
> evicted.
> I think the appropriate analogy would be to the number of Arabs who moved
> into Israel in the 35 years prior to its creation (1912-1947).
I'll certainly agree that there must have been Jews moving back into their
own homes. But you keep trying to ignore my original point: Those people
would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the Russian/European/American
Jews who have emigrated to Israel and live in settlements.
|
drew
|
|
response 114 of 269:
|
Apr 30 20:57 UTC 2002 |
Re #112:
Hey, they could then form the United Heeb-Rab Republic!
|
lk
|
|
response 115 of 269:
|
Apr 30 23:05 UTC 2002 |
Scott, for now the 5th time, so what? ALL of the Arab immigrants into
what is now Israel (between the world wars) were not "moving back to
their own homes". Should they also be evicted -- or just the Jewish
"settlers"?
|
mdw
|
|
response 116 of 269:
|
May 1 00:14 UTC 2002 |
Either Leeron has said a lot of things, or he's said nothing. Not clear
to me if he thinks
Palestinian people are:
(1) less worthwhile than cockroaches,
(2) more worthwhile than cockroaches, but only as house-maids
and farm workers
(3) deserve equal rights with jews
(4) don't exist
or
Israel people are:
(1) noble people who can do no wrong
(2) rulers of the earth, so who cares if they do wrong?
(3) did wrong, but it doesn't count because all the witnesses are dead.
or
Arab Palestine:
(1) never existed
(2) is just a bunch of thugs
(3) must give up their land, because they committed crimes
against the nobel and blessed people of Israel
(4) deserve the right of self determination and democracy
or
Israel settlements in the west bank and gaza strip:
(1) don't exist
(2) do exist, but were created in vacant land fairly acquired
(3) do exist, and were created by israeli law which discriminated
unfairly against palestinians.
(4) do exist, and don't threaten the territorial integrity of a
potential
independent and sovereign arab palestine.
(5) do exist, and have every right to expand and conquer additional
palestinian terrority through whatever means necessary.
So far, I've seen him post items that seem to me to argue many of more
blatantly pro-israeli claims here, but whenever pinned down, he says "I
never said that". Just what *is* he saying then? If he doesn't agree
with the assertions of those items, how does he differ from their
interpretations? Where does the propaganda end, and what opinions does
Leeron care to claim as his own?
|
scott
|
|
response 117 of 269:
|
May 1 01:34 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, I've already posted stuff refuting your claim that Arabs never
occupied those territories.
|
russ
|
|
response 118 of 269:
|
May 1 13:22 UTC 2002 |
Re #116: I don't know what your problem is, Marcus. Leeron never said
any of the things you're accusing him of saying. At worst, he's been
saying that people who behave like murderous bigots should be treated
like.... criminals! You know, the way we treat the KKK when they kill
someone for being the wrong color?
Re #117: Leeron never said that either, Scott (either you are extremely
stupid or just plain dishonest). A thinly-populated area isn't
uninhabited (Leeron claimed the former), though such areas have lots of
empty land. Pieces of land which have been parts of empires for many
centuries don't have a national identity. What's so hard for you to
acknowledge?
|
scott
|
|
response 119 of 269:
|
May 1 19:35 UTC 2002 |
Hell, Russ. I posted population numbers and everything. How come you're such
a bear for hard facts *except* in the Israel/Palestine debate?
|
lk
|
|
response 120 of 269:
|
May 1 20:17 UTC 2002 |
Hell, Scott, when I pointed out what was wrong with your numbers, you
weren't able to defend them. (To recap, since there was no Turkish entity
such as "Palestine", there couldn't be population figures for the
district. The figures you used inflate the Arab population by including
the Arab population of Transjordanian Palestine and of southern Lebanon,
then part of the Turkish Sanjak of Nablus. At the other end, many Jews
who were living in the area were not considered "citizens" and thus
were not included in the Turkish census. But most dishonest of all,
your numbers start only after the beginning of Jewish development,
when Arabs started migrating TO Ottoman "Palestine" instead of deserting it.)
But why are you discussing your old red herring instead of answering the
questions that you just raised? For the 6th time, should the Arabs who
settled in what was to become Israel from 1913-1948 be forced to leave
Israel, just as Jews living in settlements (from 1967-2002) should be
forced out? Or should both stay where they are?
|
slynne
|
|
response 121 of 269:
|
May 1 21:01 UTC 2002 |
Personally, I think that the Israelis who are living in the settlements
should be allowed to stay but they should have to live under
Palestinian control rather than Israeli control. I think a negotiating
point would have to be a guarantee for their safety. I also believe
that what resources such as water they settlements would be allowed to
use would also have to be a negotiating point. I also think that any
settlers should be allowed to leave if they want to *with* compensation
(which, of course, would come from the United States and not Israel
because Israel would never agree to it and the U.S. would probably
think it money well spend to end the conflict).
|
scott
|
|
response 122 of 269:
|
May 1 21:46 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, as I recall you didn't contest my numbers at all, but instead tried
to claim that some massive population shift had occurred in the few years
before the first decade shown.
|
scott
|
|
response 123 of 269:
|
May 1 21:57 UTC 2002 |
Anyway, Leeron asks:
should the Arabs who
settled in what was to become Israel from 1913-1948 be forced to leave
Israel, just as Jews living in settlements (from 1967-2002) should be
forced out? Or should both stay where they are?
So let me get this straight. Arabs move into a region which, in 35 years,
will become Israel. Their claim to land is somehow less legitimate than
the Jews who knowingly move into illegal settlements today?
|
keesan
|
|
response 124 of 269:
|
May 1 23:28 UTC 2002 |
Jim's simple view of the peace process is that it will never happen because
everyone wants to keep the same land in Jerusalem because it is holy. Also
there would be a major problem finding space for around 10 million refugees
on land that used to have only 500,000 Arabs on it as they have multiplied
while in the refugee camps.
|