response 51 of 66:

May 28 18:17 UTC 2002

Please share with us which "anti-Arab rumor" I've repeated and why it
was wrong. As I've done with your rumors (perhaps you want to tell us
again how "gravity" makes it easier to destroy a well-built 10-story
structure than 1000-2000 bombs -- some as large as 250 KG -- would be
to reduce part of a neighborhood to rubble? Or to regurgitate that
Israel has unique immigration laws that just happen to be similar to
the laws of many countries? Need I go on?)

Which brings us back to travel restrictions. There are no such restrictions
within cities (i.e. between home and where voting would be conducted).
And you are willfully ignoring that elections were held while the area
was under Israeli administration -- they just haven't been held since the
end of the "occupation". Sorry, your "pick and choose who can travel to
get to the polls" is just the latest contortion of your falsehood, a
sorry rationalization to try and make it true. It isn't.

response 53 of 66:

May 29 03:12 UTC 2002

David:

> I still contend it's easier to bring down a small building....

Your contention at the time was that it was easier to bring down a tall
building because of gravity than a short building. If this sounds ridiculous,
well, then you're starting to catch on.

> Name "many countries" where religion is a factor in immigration status.

There you go again, being ridiculous. Religion is NOT the factor, ethnicity
is. A Jew who is secular or even an avowed atheist qualifies under Israel's
law of return. (Though if you want two examples, that's easy: Armenia and
Germany -- which I've previously discussed.)

Of course, the nonsensical point of your argument becomes clear when you point
to the (rare) cases of conversion. Yes, it's and oddity in the modern world
that by accepting the Jewish religion (Judaism) you are considered a fully
equal member of the ethnic group and are thus also entitled to preferential
immigration. So what's nonsensical? That you'd presumably be happy if Israeli
immigration law were MORE strict (like other nations) and forbade such
immigration. What you are really arguing is that Israel's immigration law is
too liberal -- just in a way you don't happen to like.

Talk about distractions, can we now return to your latest ridiculous comment?
Or rather, several different contortions on the same theme regarding
non-existent "travel restrictions" that could hamper an election that Arafat
had suspended and is now using as a political football? It's mind-boggling
that you care so little about the Palestinian Arab people that when Arafat
holds their political process hostage you look past that in an effort to
find a way to fault Israel.

If George Bush were to cancel the elections, announcing that it's not safe
to hold elections while Bin Laden is on the loose, would you be similarly be
snookered into arguing that Bin Laden must surrender because while he's out
there and we have border checkpoints people can't vote anyhow?

How long will you ignore the fact that elections were last held in the
disputed territories while they were entirely under Israeli administration
("occupation")? Why doesn't it speak to you that since the end of the Israeli
administration Arafat has not seen fit to hold scheduled elections?

response 55 of 66:

May 29 16:03 UTC 2002

> elections in a population that's essentially being held at gunpoint
> isn't ideal.

So what do you propose we do about Arafat and his thugs, that permit Arab
death squads to run around and brutally murder alleged "collaborators" and
people who dare to oppose the strategy of terrorism and violence?

What should we do about the beating and jailing of Palestinian journalists
for the "crime" of relegating an article that was supposed to be published
on the front page to page 3?

Do you expect that Arafat will have any serious competition in an election?

>  checkpoints around neighborhoods in the U.S. to make sure people of
> 'undesirable' ethnicities don't move around.

You mean like security check-points at airports? Or those that were
established in NYC (near bridges) and in Washington after 9/11?

But there you go again, twisting the truth beyond recognition. One might
similarly claim that airport security checks are in place to prevent Arabs
from flying.  The purpose of Israeli checkpoints isn't to prevent
"people of 'undesirable' ethnicities" from travelling, it is to ensure that
when they do travel they aren't packing weapons or explosives.

> "if you want to get in, you can either a) be descended from certain
> ancestors, or b) convert to our religion."

1. Your "or" is redundant. Jews consider religious converts to be equal
in all ways to someone with ancestral heritage. It's a strange tradition,
but one that goes back at least 3000 years.

2. If Israeli immigration laws were MORE RESTRICTIVE and did not provide
fast-track citizenship to converts, would you then be happy?

response 57 of 66:

May 30 00:50 UTC 2002

Is it "ideal" for elections to be held in Israel when there is the real
danger that a suicide bomber might explode in the polling place while the
Israeli is in there voting?

re:  "It's exactly like if
 the U.S. said "if you want to get in, you can either a) be a white
 anglo-saxon, "  No, actually.  It's as if the US said "if you want to get
in you can either a) have at least one grandparent who is white or . . ."

response 59 of 66:

May 30 06:41 UTC 2002

Previously you requested a citation for 1000 to 2000 bombs (some as large
as 250 LB) being strewn about Jenin's residential area by Arab terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/22/jenin.fighter/index.html 


David, my defense wasn't that "other countries do it". I stated that to
counter your FALSE ACCUSATION that Israel's laws are unique. Yet it's not
that "some" other countries do it, but *most*, including western European
countries that we (usually) consider civilized. So your "correction" to
the false "unique" argument is still false, for you are attempting to
paint the FALSE picture that Israel is in bad company in doing so.

In your second paragraph, you are projecting. I have not played both
sides of a catch-22 -- you have! Just compare your first paragraph to
your prior responses.

Your third paragraph, about "singling out Israel", is similarly disingenuous.
In virtually every Agora cf in the past 5-6 seasons you've found an excuse
to raise the same tired old argument -- Israel is "racist" as can be seen
in its "unique" immigration policies.  Yet I've seen Germany and France
mentioned in other items, and for some reason you don't find a need to share
with us how evil and racists those countries are based on their immigration
laws. Not even once, let alone quarterly. Perhaps this is because you were
not aware of their laws since you claimed that Israel's laws were unique.
This excuse could only have worked the first time, but it proves the point.
You don't really care about immigration laws, and you don't really care
about Germany or France in this regard. You only care about Israel's
immigration laws as a useful (if erroneous) bat by which to beat Israel.

response 61 of 66:

May 30 12:54 UTC 2002

News I'll mention just because Leeron will never mention it.  (Though if the
roles had been reversed, he'd have been sure to.)

NPR reported this morning that Israeli soldiers shot a woman and a
12-year-old girl when they wandered too close to a border fence.  The
soldiers described them as "suspicious characters."


Israel's immigration laws are only relevent because you claimed Israel does
not discriminate by ethnicity, and because Israel has repeatedly tried to
portray itself as being morally superior to other nations.  I think that
makes it open to criticism.

response 63 of 66:

May 30 17:33 UTC 2002

I've never commented on Israeli relations with South Africa.  I'm not sure
where you got the idea I had.

My criticism of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's
a Jewish state.  I realize you'll never believe me when I say that, because
it makes life easier when you can take the role of an oppressed minority,
though.  Since you can't seem to get past that, I'm going to let you have
this item to yourself.  Have fun.

response 65 of 66:

May 31 03:23 UTC 2002

Can't resist getting the last word in, can you?