|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 125 of 269:
| 
May 1 23:39 UTC 2002 |
scottie- your new pseudo is aptly chosen: "Child"
|
oval
|
|
response 126 of 269:
|
May 1 23:54 UTC 2002 |
very mature klg.
|
klg
|
|
response 127 of 269:
|
May 2 00:00 UTC 2002 |
Q.E.D.
|
oval
|
|
response 128 of 269:
|
May 2 00:04 UTC 2002 |
doesn;t that mean "That's what we set out to prove". ?
|
scott
|
|
response 129 of 269:
|
May 2 01:07 UTC 2002 |
Cool, I'm glad klg gave me a nickname. It means he's reduced to that instead
being able to counter my arguments.
|
lk
|
|
response 130 of 269:
|
May 2 14:46 UTC 2002 |
Thank you, Lynne, for acknowledging my point. (It's unfortunate that Scott
is not honest enough to do so, again failing to address the question raised
by his own comments, instead rephrasing and twisting it).
Scott: I have not advocated the removal of Israel's Arab population.
You seem to be advocating the removal of Jews from the disputed areas.
Should a nascent Arab state in the disputed territories be judenrien,
entirely devoid of Jews?
As for the population figures, I notice that instead of defending your
previous propaganda (posted from electronicintifadah.com) you are saying
that I didn't challenge that data when you initially presented it. That's
not true. See Spring Agora item 20, response 347. (You never were able to
muster a response to #344-346, either; perhaps if you didn't spend so much
time beating around the bush you'd be able to discuss the issues?)
Other than what I said above, here's another point I mentioned at the time:
| While your figures are of 40,000 Jews in 1912, the Iraqi scholar
| Dr. Hala Fattah estimates the Jewish population at 80,000 by 1908.
Another falsehood is the lumping of the non-Jewish population as if they were
one unit, the "Palestinians". Here's what the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
had to say:
Population: The inhabitants of Palestine are composed of a large
number of elements, differing widely in ethnological affinities,
language and religion. It may be interesting to mention, as an
illustration of their heterogeneousness, that early in the 20th
century a list of no less than fifty languages, spoken in Jerusalem
as vernaculars, was there drawn up by a party of men whose various
official positions enabled them to possess accurate information on
the subject.
There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries,
especially Armenia, Greece and Italy, principally engaged in trade.
...There are few residents in the country from the more eastern
parts of Asia -- if we except the Turkoman settlements in the Jaulan,
a number of Persians, and a fairly large Afghan colony that since
1905 has established itself in Jaffa. The Mutgwileh (Motawila), who
form the majority of the inhabitants of the villages north-west of
Galilee, are probably long-settled immigrants from Persia. Some
tribes of Kurds live in tents and huts near Lake Huleh. If the
inmates of the countless monastic establishments be excluded,
comparatively few from northern or western Europe will remain: the
German Templar colonies being perhaps the most important. There must
also be mentioned a Bosnian colony established at Caesarea Palestina,
and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres of Eastern
Palestine by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on
the Bedouin: the latter are also found in Galilee. There was formerly
a large Sudanese and Algerian element in the population of some of
the large towns, but these have been much reduced in numbers since
the beginning of the 20th century: the Algerians however still
maintain themselves in parts of Galilee.
In the I9th century the short-lived Egyptian government introduced
into the population an element from that country which still persists
in the villages. These newcomers have not been completely assimilated.
Seems as if it was OK for everyone -- but the Jews -- to "colonize" the area
known as "Palestine", the very area defined by the Jewish homeland.
|
scott
|
|
response 131 of 269:
|
May 2 16:08 UTC 2002 |
I believe the settlers should realize that their illegal settlements are a
major part of the conflict between Israeli and Palestine, and voluntarily
remove themselves. Failing that maybe they could try to get along with their
neighbors a bit better?
The Israeli government did in fact try to remove a settlement. Major
problems, and the end result was unchanged.
|
gull
|
|
response 132 of 269:
|
May 2 16:11 UTC 2002 |
Re #131: A lot of them *do* realize it's a major part of the conflict, and
that's why they're doing it. I can remember hearing an interview where a
settler explained he felt this was a patriotic act, helping Israel win more
land for itself.
|
slynne
|
|
response 133 of 269:
|
May 2 16:14 UTC 2002 |
I would bet that if the settlers were given the option of staying but
under Palestinian control or leaving with compensation, most would
leave. Those that would stay hopefully would be able to live peacefully
with the Palestinians. Maybe I am an optimist but I dont think this is
impossible.
|
lk
|
|
response 134 of 269:
|
May 2 22:59 UTC 2002 |
So, Scott, if Israelis cried that Arab villages in Israel were a major
problem, you'd advocate having them dismantled and the Arabs "transferred"
so that there could be peace? Why don't you just come out and say that
in your view of a "two state solution" the Israeli state should include
Arabs but that Jews should not be allowed to stay in the Arab state?
> Failing that maybe they could try to get along with their neighbors.
Actually, many "settlers" get along very well with their neighbors.
For example, it's not the Christian Arabs of Beit Jala who are shooting
at their Jewish neighbors at Gilo, but Islamic militants from elsewhere.
Nor am I sure what a 5 year old Jewish girl did that made a Hamas member
from Hebron chase her under her bed and murder her. You think she wasn't
being neighborly and was playing her music too loud...?
Absent a ruling by the international court of justice the settlements are not
"illegal". Article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention clearly does not define
stateless territory as "occupied" territory. (If the Arabs had a legal case,
they'd have long ago pursued this in a legal forum -- the world court, rather
than in political forums -- such as the UN.)
David, you can state that you think the settlements preclude a peaceful
agreement but as I demonstrated in response 86, in the aftermath of Camp
David and Taba "saying that they were NOT an impedement (let alone the
impedement) to peace is now a statement of fact."
Much more problematic was Arafat's refusal to compromise and his insistance
that there be no Jewish presence at the Western/Wailing Wall -- Judaism's
holiest site, that there must be the so-called "right of return" (subverting
the "two-state solution" into two Arab states) and Arafat's inability to
take the last step necessary to end the conflict (see item 125).
|
gull
|
|
response 135 of 269:
|
May 3 00:01 UTC 2002 |
Leeron talks about how the Palastinians accuse people who side with
Israel of being "collaborators", as if Israel would never do such a
thing. But NPR's show "The World" had a report today about how the
Israeli police are rounding up large numbers of Arabs living inside
Israel. They don't call them "collaborators", though, they accuse them
of "aiding terrorism." Apparently pictures of them holding banners in
non-violent demonstrations are considered 'proof' that they're
dangerous.
A member of the Israeli cabinet has referred to the Arabs as a "cancer
in society", and nearly a third of Israelis support forcing the Arabs
out of the country. (I thought only Arabs would think of engaging in
in "ethnic cleansing", Leeron?) 60% feel the Israeli Arabs are a "threat".
Maybe they'll start requiring them to wear red crescent pendants, next?
|
scott
|
|
response 136 of 269:
|
May 3 01:10 UTC 2002 |
klg, if both Israelis *and* the bulk of the international community were
declaring the Arab villages illegal, then probably yes. But that's not what
is happening, is it?
|
keesan
|
|
response 137 of 269:
|
May 3 01:59 UTC 2002 |
I hope if there is a split, things don't get as bad for the minorities left
in the two halves as they have in Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Georgia. I just did
a translation for a guy who fled the country because both his parents were
killed and he was beaten up, lost his job, and was thrown in prison. His
crime was that his father was Georgian and his mother Abkhazian so there was
no place he could live and the Georgians could not even trade him for a
prisoner. Under central rule people sort of managed to get along, probably
with the Russians as the common enemy.
|
klg
|
|
response 138 of 269:
|
May 3 02:24 UTC 2002 |
re: (gull) "A member of the Israeli cabinet has referred to the Arabs as
a "cancer
in society"" Which cabinet member?? From which party?? When & where did
he say that?? In what context was it said?? How about the whole quote??
Was he referring to all arabs or certain arabs?? If only certain arabs, than
which ones??
|
lk
|
|
response 139 of 269:
|
May 3 13:53 UTC 2002 |
Interesting that rather than defend prior statements or respond to questions,
a new flurry of anti-Israel accusations is made.
Scott: Why are the "settlements" illegal? Have you looked at Article 2 of
the Fourth Geneva Conventions? Does it not state that only territories
belonging to another state (HCP) can be considered "occupied"? If it's
not "occupied" territory, then the "settlements" are not illegal.
The more interesting question, though, is why the Arab states have been
pursuing this in POLITICAL forums for the past 35 years, yet have never
turned to the World Court for a LEGAL ruling. Why do you think that is?
So while it may be politically expedient and convenient for some people
to presume that Israel is guilty, it's not very convincing.
Now please answer the question about your understanding of the "two-state
solution": does it mean 2 Arab states? A Jewish state with an Arab minority
and an exclusively Arab (Judenrein) state?
David: If the settlements weren't a sticking point at Camp David and at
Taba (see item 125), why do you think that they are the obstacle to peace?
|
scott
|
|
response 140 of 269:
|
May 3 19:16 UTC 2002 |
Gee, I must have been confused by watching the evening news on broadcast
television, where the anchor referred to "illegal settlements" as a sticking
point in peace negotiations.
|
lk
|
|
response 141 of 269:
|
May 3 19:51 UTC 2002 |
Is that your best argument -- a biased news report by an unknown/un-named
news reporter? Is that truly the extent of the depth to which you can explore
and discuss issues?
Did it confuse you so much that you were unable to address any of the questions
posed in #139?
Have you looked up Article 2 of the 4th Geneva Conventions?
Why do you think the Arab states have pursued this in a POLITICAL forum
rather than seeking redress in a LEGAL venue?
And what's your vision of the implementation of the "two-state solution"?
2 Arab states? A Jewish state with an Arab minority and an Arab state
from which all Jews will be expelled?
|
gull
|
|
response 142 of 269:
|
May 3 19:56 UTC 2002 |
Colin Powell seems to think the settlements are an issue. He was quoted
today as saying that "something had to be done" about them.
|
mdw
|
|
response 143 of 269:
|
May 4 01:39 UTC 2002 |
So Leeron is saying the Israeli settlements in the west bank & gaza
strip are perfectly OK?
|
other
|
|
response 144 of 269:
|
May 4 02:01 UTC 2002 |
re#128: Quod Erat Demonstrandum -- Thus it is shown (or proven, or
demonstrated) -- also, "See? I told you so!"
|
oval
|
|
response 145 of 269:
|
May 4 09:26 UTC 2002 |
right, so then he/she 's saying that they are, in fact, immature.
|
lk
|
|
response 146 of 269:
|
May 4 17:07 UTC 2002 |
David, "something has to be done" about many things. The FACT of the
matter is that "settlements" was not an issue at Camp David nor at Taba.
The FACT is that Jewish villages in a Palestinian Arab state should be
no more of a problem than Arab villages in the Jewish state.
How can it be that the very people who decry the "transfer" of Arabs out of
Israel as racist are the ones calling for the transfer of Jews out of
Arab Palestine to be?
Marcus, do you have a problem with Jews living in Jerusalem's Jewish
quarter (near the Wailing/Western wall), from which they were illegally
evicted in 1948? Or in Hebron, where Jews lived for 3000+ years until they
were massacred by Arabs in 1929? Or in Gush Etzion, first settled in the
1920s by Yemenite Jews and terminated by a "take no survivors" policy in 1948?
I think part of the objection to "settlements" is based on the misunder-
standing that they infringe upon "Arab land". Many settlements are based
on what was Jewish land (prior to the 1948 war), and few infringe upon
neighboring Arab villages. Recall that 98% of the Arab population of the
territories already lives under PA rule on only 42% of the area. The
"settlements" are in the other 58% (the majority on about 5%) of the land.
|
mdw
|
|
response 147 of 269:
|
May 5 00:40 UTC 2002 |
I think *all* of that land has been claimed by multiple different
ethnicities since antiquity. This is true of nearly all of Europe, and
certainly true here in the US. So yes, I do have a problem with Jews
living in Jeursalem's Jewish quarter, *especially* if they weren't the
blood relative descendents of those evicted. Hebron sounds pretty clear
cut - if they were massacred in 1929, there can't be very many blood
relatives left, can there? Sounds like Gush Etzion might have had many
generations of claimants -- which group can legitimately claim primacy?
If we really want to dig this all up -- shouldn't we be busy finding
some Neanderthals to give the land back to? How far back should a statue
of limitations extend, and why should the Jews have any special rights?
A look at those maps of Gaza strip and "Palestine" shows something that
looks much like raisin bread, with jewish settlements more or less
randomly mixed up with arab settlements all the way through. Talking
about 42% or 58% or whatever is besides the point; there are no
geographical barriers here, no concept of a viable independent state
here. One might as well argue that we should give most of Michigan back
to the indians except for detroit, because most of the whites live in
detroit. Does detroit have the farmland necessary to grow food for the
people in detroit? Do the urban "arab" areas of palestine grow
sufficient food for the arabs?
|
gull
|
|
response 148 of 269:
|
May 5 02:06 UTC 2002 |
Re #146:
> The FACT is that Jewish villages in a Palestinian Arab state should be
> no more of a problem than Arab villages in the Jewish state.
Are you suggesting that the Arab villages in Israel would be under
Palastinian control, just like the Jewish settlements are under Israeli
control?
|
lk
|
|
response 149 of 269:
|
May 5 07:40 UTC 2002 |
David, what part of "Jewish villages IN A PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE" don't
you understand?
Why are you confusing an interim arrangement with what would be established
after final status negotiations?
This intent was also obvious from my next paragraph, a question you avoided:
How can it be that the very people who decry the "transfer" of Arabs out of
Israel as racist are the ones calling for the transfer of Jews out of
*Arab Palestine to be*?
Similarly, you avoided this point:
The FACT of the matter is that "settlements" was not an issue at Camp
David nor at Taba.
(Which I should clarify: it was an issue, but one that could be resolved.)
Is the real obstacle to peace the resolved issue of settlements or
Arafat's rejection of compromise and inability to end the conflict?
|