response 25 of 66:

May 21 17:50 UTC 2002

When push comes to shove, most Repubs or Dems will toe the party line, under
pressure from their leadership.  That is, after all, the whole point of a
political party.  You're suggesting that's not true of the Likud?

response 27 of 66:

May 21 22:18 UTC 2002

The "official" story from germany during WW2 was that they were
"transfering" jews to newly conquered territory behind the eastern
front.

response 29 of 66:

May 22 13:37 UTC 2002

> So, David, even in the US two-party system, with a Republican as president,
> is the Republican platform opposing abortion synonymous with US Law?

It would be, if the Supreme Court weren't in the way.

Maybe a better example would be the party plank opposing assisted suicide,
which has been given the force of law essentially by one individual
(Ashcroft).

response 31 of 66:

May 23 05:52 UTC 2002

This item presents a perfect example how myhts are recklessly bandied about
and when pointed out are simply replaced with new falsehoods:

David, #10:

> it's sorta hard to have elections when people are forbidden to travel

As I asked in #11, who is forbidden to travel?

David, #12:

> the Israeli government is taking the position that a Palastinian
> state has no right to exist.

Now that I've clarified for you that this position was adopted by one
party, not the government, do you still maintain this falsehood?

> (Isn't this what Israel is always complaining that Arab states say
> about *them*?  So much for the moral high ground....)

Since your premise is false, I guess Israel retains the moral high ground.

David, #20:

> The Likud party is in favor of revoking the citizenship of Arab citizens
> of Israel.

I hadn't heard this. Can you provide us with a link to a western news source?

> It's kind of shocking to hear this from a group that was itself oppressed
> in the past.

Well, let's first establish that this is true, ok? What is shocking is that
you don't seem to have ever met an anti-Israel rumor that you didn't choose
to believe. Shocking, but not surprising, coming from a man who has yet to
see an Israeli government -- left, center or right, to his liking and who
states that there is no difference between Barak and Sharon (akin to saying
that there is no difference between Carter and Reagan because both were
concerned with American security).

Yet when these rumors are shown to be false, David is unphased and simply
asserts that that issue doesn't matter (#12).

David, #25:

> When push comes to shove, most Repubs or Dems will toe the party line,
> under pressure from their leadership. ...that's not true of the Likud?

As was pointed out, Ariel Sharon, the head of the Likud party who currently
serves as Prime Minister of Israel, opposed this plank.  Are you expecting
him to pressure others on something with which he disagrees?

Do you understand that if the government would adopt this position, the
coalition would likely falter -- the government would be out of office?

Are we to understand that your condemnation in #12 of the current Israeli
government is based on something that *might* (even if unlikely) happen
in the future?

response 33 of 66:

May 23 19:17 UTC 2002

David, 

>> As I asked in #11, who is forbidden to travel?

> With checkpoints only grudgingly letting *emergency vehicles* through, you
> don't think ordinary citizens are having a hard time?

So you can't specify who is forbidden travel, or how this would preclude
elections, instead convoluting half-truths from a short-term military
operation and applying it in general.

>>> The Likud party is in favor of revoking the citizenship of Arab citizens
>>> of Israel.

>> I hadn't heard this. Can you provide us with a link to a western news
>> source?

> Since I can't find a source, though, I'll assume you're correct and that's
> not a party position at this time.

How gracious, but why only "at this time"? Has it ever been a plank?
Was it ever proposed? 

>> What is shocking is that you don't seem to have ever met an anti-Israel
>> rumor that you didn't choose to believe.

> You've never seen anything that spoke badly of Israel that you *did*
> believe, or anything that spoke badly of an Arab state that you didn't.

Whereas you seem to accept that you choose to believe any anti-Israel rumor
you chance upon, your counter-accusation is not true.

> You carefully select your sources to make sure only the best is presented,
> then call us anti-Semites when we try to bring up other issues to balance
> things out.

Actually, I've generally responded to myths that have been entered by others,
then repeated a month later. Your false equivalencies aren't "balance", they
are what I'm countering. (I've also used a variety of sources.)

> The Likud party aside, do you deny that nearly half of Israelis are in favor
> of "transfer"?  Do you really feel there's nothing disturbing about that?

Yes, it's disturbing, but the real question is how relevant it is. As I've
pointed out, this is true *now*, after 20 months of incessant violence and
terrorism, after THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks (not one day). That this
followed a peace process of 7 years and was ignited following Arafat's
rejection of not just specifics but of compromise itself has disenchanted
many Israelis with the (political) peace process. How can you make peace
with someone who won't stop trying to kill you even as you try to negotiate?

This is not a long-term trend and just because many say they see this as a
solution in a survey doesn't mean that they actually favor implementation.
It remains true that a majority of the Israeli public supports the peace
process and the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state.  (Hmmm, look who is
trying to focus on one out of context fact -- and who is providing "balance"!)

Doesn't it disturb you that some Grexers are calling for the "transfer" of
Jews out of Judea -- to finish the job begun in 1948 when Arab armies
illegally attacked Israel?

response 35 of 66:

May 24 00:34 UTC 2002

To be clear, Likud actively opposes a Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon
has indicated that he would "support" a statelet on no more than 42% of
the occupied territories, with no control over its borders or natural
resources.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=166604

gull, you may have heard about this:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=154731

response 37 of 66:

May 24 06:17 UTC 2002

Exactly. The irony is that David is resorting to the part of UN Resolution
181 which established Israel's initial boundaries (which were immediately
violated by Arab countries who illegally and in violent contravention of
this UN Resolution attacked Israel in an effort to destroy it), while
rejecting those parts of the resolution that guaranteed Jews the right
to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. David also seems to willfully ignore
that Israel accepted 181 while the Arab world (including the Arab Higher
Committee, which represented the Arabs of Mandate Palestine) rejected it.

As per the currently relevant UN Resolution 242 (incorporated as the basis
of the Oslo Agreement, a treaty), Israel's boundaries need to be negotiated
as part of a comprehensive peace settlement.  (Israel has already achieved
such understandings with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon -- even though Hezbollah
continues to violate this internationally recognized border, as certified
by the UN.)

response 39 of 66:

May 24 13:00 UTC 2002

I suppose that then, when the Arab states launch another attack, Israel 
can just capture the land again, and fight another thirty years of slow 
war?

response 41 of 66:

May 24 15:43 UTC 2002

David, you didn't answer my question: why is it that you harp about
one half on UN 181 while ignoring the other half?

Where did Sharon say that all settlements are non-negotiable?

Brian, one cannot compromise over what they don't have. If the Arabs
want to claim pre-1948 Israel, then Israel can claim transjordanian
Palestine (80% of historic Palestine which was carved out as an exclusive
Arab state). As recognized in UNSCR 242 and the Oslo Accords, the focus
should remain on the disputed territories.

response 43 of 66:

May 25 16:41 UTC 2002

you rock.

response 45 of 66:

May 26 16:33 UTC 2002

I guess I might as well go fish, too, since David isn't answering my
questions in #41.

David, why is it that when it comes to Israel you blindly accept (and
repeat) every anti-Israel rumor you hear? It appears as if you continue
to believe the implications of these rumors even after it turns out that
they are false -- which in turn propels you to believe future rumors
because they ring true to your biased perceptions.  What is the origin
of your bias?

response 47 of 66:

May 27 06:47 UTC 2002

Ain't just a log, more like a forest.

response 49 of 66:

May 28 06:07 UTC 2002

 .. and 48 was brilliant.