|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 75 of 269:
| 
Apr 25 20:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #72: Stop twisting my words around. I said it's easier to bring down
one 10-story building with a blast than it is to take down several
blocks of houses. This seems patently obvious to me; buildings just
across the street from the bomb that took down the federal building on
Oklahoma City were relatively undamaged. It's hard to make a blast
spread out over a wide area.
Israel is continuing to expand their settlements. From today's Free Press:
SETTLEMENTS GROW: The first stages of construction work have begun to
connect the Elkana and Shaarei Tikva settlements in the West Bank
settlements by building housing for 480 Jewish families, an Israeli
official said.
Marcel Ganz, mayor of the Elkana Council, which is responsible for the
development, said Wednesday that the Israeli government approved the
construction more than two years ago.
Throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, about 200,000 Jews live in 150
settlements among 3 million Palestinians, who seek the land for a new
nation.
|
russ
|
|
response 76 of 269:
|
Apr 26 02:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #67: Yet, Scott, when it comes down to it I don't see you
taking a firm position that Israel has a right to exist in peace
and that the Palestinian acts against Israel are crimes against
humanity. Instead you're arguing with Leeron whether or not a
few Palestinians are living in tents for a while because they
put up a building in violation of the permit process.
Somehow your concentration on such trivialities doesn't lead me
to believe that you're holding the parties to the same standard.
Neither does your implication that too many lines of reference
material amounts to unjustified use of deadly force in an
argument, or whatever you're trying to say.
Re #75: So what if settlements are expanding? Settlements have
been removed, as in the Sinai.
|
scott
|
|
response 77 of 269:
|
Apr 26 04:06 UTC 2002 |
Russ, you need to blame Leeron for harping on trivialities, not me. The
patented Leeron style is to ignore big points while attempting to derail the
argument into ludicrously small issues. The tents argument is a perfect
example.
Say, that reminds me: Leeron, when were you in the IDF?
|
gull
|
|
response 78 of 269:
|
Apr 26 12:58 UTC 2002 |
Re #76: Expansion of settlements proves Israel isn't just acting in the
interest of peace and its own security. Expanding settlements *reduces*
Israel's national security, because it provokes the Palastinians and
puts civilians out where they're harder to defend.
|
lk
|
|
response 79 of 269:
|
Apr 26 13:56 UTC 2002 |
I'm glad we have Scott around to tell us that the "big points" are my
personal history, not dicussions of Camp David, etc. I'm sure the humor
of this following "blame Leeron for harping on trivialities, not me"
was not lost on many.
The Sudetenland obviously reduced not just the Czech Republic's security,
but also Europes. Clearly the US should have withdrawn from Hawaii prior
to provoking the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Again, settlements were not the sticking point at Camp David nor Taba.
(See item #125)
Nor is there any reason that just as Arab villages will continue to exist
in Israel some Jewish villages can't exist in a Palestinian Arab state.
(Odd that David repeatedly ignores these critical points.)
Marcus, you're confusing many different issues:
If Egypt's rule of Gaza, and Jordan's "unification" of Judea and Samaria
(ergo *Jordan's* "West Bank") were legitimate, then shouldn't Israel "return"
these territories to those countries? Yet Egypt and Jordan have renounced
their claims to these territories (illegally siezed in the 1948 attack on
Israel).
If you were referring to my point that these lands weren't ruled by Arabs
for about 1000 years, I was talking about 1075-1948. Are you saying that
this is legitimately "Arab land" because the Jews were ethnically cleansed
from the area in 1948, in violent contravention of UN Resolution 181?
So if these lands are not Jordanian/Egyptian, and Israel hasn't annexed
them, are they not "stateless"?
Nor does "stateless" mean "wild west" or "no rule". In the "West Bank"
there are still Turkish, British, Jordanian and Israeli laws at work.
However, in the areas which Israel has already granted to the PA (the
42% where 98% of the Arab population lives), it is up to the PA to
establish the law. If only Arafat were focused on building his proto-state
rather than on destroying Israel....
|
gull
|
|
response 80 of 269:
|
Apr 26 14:45 UTC 2002 |
Arab villages may exist in Israel, but they're under Israeli control.
The Israeli settlements are not analogous; Israel is annexing the land
and putting it under their own control. It's as if a group of people in
Texas could decide to move across the Mexican border, and have the U.S.
declare that part of Mexico to be U.S.-owned land for them.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 81 of 269:
|
Apr 26 14:59 UTC 2002 |
No, because unlike the Palestinian territories Mexico has a sovereign
government.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 82 of 269:
|
Apr 26 17:04 UTC 2002 |
re 80: Yep, that's how we did it. US citizens moved into Mexico, then got
the US government to battle the Mexican government for sovereignity. We
walked away from that tactic with the whole state of Texas.
|
jp2
|
|
response 83 of 269:
|
Apr 26 17:07 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 84 of 269:
|
Apr 26 17:17 UTC 2002 |
Re #83: By that logic, shouldn't we own Germany and most of Japan now?
|
jp2
|
|
response 85 of 269:
|
Apr 26 17:21 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 86 of 269:
|
Apr 26 23:58 UTC 2002 |
David, my comments were directed as part of a solution, not to the
current status. And (as seen at Camp David and Taba), settlements
were not the problem. Saying that they were not an impedement (let
alone the impedement) to peace is now a statement of fact.
Though I suppose you can argue that the fact that some people
misperceive the settlements as an impedement makes them so.
(I don't think so because the players involved in the process know better.)
|
klg
|
|
response 87 of 269:
|
Apr 27 01:00 UTC 2002 |
Thanks to WSJ Online, we can all enjoy the lyrics of the "National" anthem
of those great peace-loving people, the Palestinians. Who would not wish to
live next door to such a kind and warm-hearted country?
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
With the resolve of the winds and the fire of the guns
And the determination of my nation in the land of struggle
Palestine is my home, Palestine is my fire,
Palestine is my revenge and the land of eternal
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
I swear under the shade of the flag
To my land and nation, and the fire of pain
I will live as a guerrilla, I will go on as guerrilla,
I will expire as guerrilla until I will be back
|
russ
|
|
response 88 of 269:
|
Apr 27 02:29 UTC 2002 |
Re #83: No, the land was part of an empire (Ottoman) that was of a
completely different ethnicity. That empire folded, leaving the area
stateless to this day.
Re #84: Owning Germany and Japan means having to deal with the Germans
and Japanese. I don't think the downside is worth it. ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 89 of 269:
|
Apr 27 02:37 UTC 2002 |
The settlements are a big problem between Israel and Palestine. At the very
least, it's a population which requires an excessive force to protect.
Former prime minister Barak was on CBC news several times, talking about
building a big fence to protect Israelis. He didn't say whether the fence
would somehow protect the settlements or not. Presumably the Israelis
wouldn't just leave their people out there in hostile territory, right?
|
pthomas
|
|
response 90 of 269:
|
Apr 27 06:17 UTC 2002 |
Presumably the settlements already have big fences.
|
lk
|
|
response 91 of 269:
|
Apr 27 07:01 UTC 2002 |
It sounds to me as if the real problem is that Jewish civilians are
threatened by Arab terrorists. And that this reality makes it impossible
for anyone to fathom that, just as there are Arab villages in Israel,
Jewish villages could exist in areas that will become a Palestinian
Arab state.
It's not just Jews who are worried about living under such a dictatorship.
Arabs in eastern Jerusalem began applying for Israeli citizenship lest
they should have to remain in their homes and come under PA rule.
Arabs living in villages bordering the PA have voted 5:1 against a land
swap that would put them under PA rule (without leaving their homes).
Isn't it odd that for all the complaints about the "brutality" of
Israeli "occupation", given the choice these Arabs prefer Israeli rule
to that of the PA!? (And millions more want to "return" to Israel.
Contrast this to the real plight of Jews living in Syria, Iran or
Yemen -- who are not permitted to leave).
|
scott
|
|
response 92 of 269:
|
Apr 27 14:11 UTC 2002 |
Re 91 paragraph 1: Ah right, the Arab villages. I bet they weren't built
in the last few years, like the settlements were.
|
jp2
|
|
response 93 of 269:
|
Apr 27 16:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 94 of 269:
|
Apr 27 20:02 UTC 2002 |
Scott: are you saying that Jewish "settlement" in Hebron is recent?
It's now in its 5th millennium, but perhaps will soon be terminated.
Are you unaware that prior to the Arab ethnic cleansing in 1948, there
were Jewish communities in what would become the disputed territories?
But how could you be? I've already discussed the massacres of these
communities by invading Arab armies -- and that the Israeli "settlement"
movement was initiated by survivors and their children.
Nor is your assumption about the longevity of Arab villages in Israel
correct. For example, many of the Arab communities in eastern Jerusalem
didn't exist before the 20th century (and it was the Jews who first
pioneered settlement beyond the old city walls). Certainly in 1948 many
of these villages (and certainly their expansion to accomodate Arab
immigrants) was very recent.
Odd that you make a false argument over longevity, as if it even matters.
What you are really saying is that you advocate a different vision of the
"two states for two people" solution: an exclusively Arab state (no Jews
allowed) and an Israeli (Jewish) State -- with a large Arab minority.
jp2: You are right that in 1948 Egypt illegally seized Gaza (but did not annex
it) and that Transjordan (as it was known at the time) illegally seized Judea
and Samaria ("unifying" them with eastern Palestine and renaming the area its
"West Bank"). However, it's unification was recognized by 2 other countries.
Egypt did not extend its laws into Gaza, so it was neither a state nor part
of a state from 1948-1967 -- just as it isn't now.
Jordan did annex and extend its laws into the area (many of which are still
in effect, as well as older British and Turkish laws). So in this sense it
was not "stateless" (at least in the eyes of 3 countries) for this brief
period of time. However, Jordan has since renounced its claims to the area
and it is stateless territory.
|
jp2
|
|
response 95 of 269:
|
Apr 27 20:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 269:
|
Apr 27 21:18 UTC 2002 |
False argument, Leeron. How many Jews have moved into settlements in
Palistine in the last 40 years, vs. how many Arabs have moved into Arab
villages within Israel?
|
mdw
|
|
response 97 of 269:
|
Apr 28 05:21 UTC 2002 |
I believe Egypt and Jordan gave up claims as a result of military
action, and I rather doubt anybody bothered to consult the wishes of the
palestinian arabs living in the affected areas before ceding those
territories to Israel's control. Leeron seems to be arguing that Israel
has every right to treat palestinians in any way it so pleases, can
enforce its will through force of arms, and can completely ignore any
right of self-determination on the part of the inhabitants. That is not
a true democracy. That is either tyranny, slavery, and/or piracy.
I'm not even sure Egypt and Jordan had Israel's best interests in mind
when they gave up their claims. Seems to me they decided it was
relatively worthless land, had a bunch of poor strangers on it, and it
would serve Israel right to have to deal with those people. So far at
least, it would seem they were right -- Israel had managed to acquire a
lot of facial egg in its dealings in those territories, and I think it's
lost a lot of international support as a consequence.
Historically, the process in palestine is not new. The British tried
something very like it in Scotland (with fair success, after a lot of
blood was spilled), in Ireland (an almost complete failure), and the US
(hard to say if that counts as either a success or a failure for
England, although the indians certainly lost big time.)
|
lk
|
|
response 98 of 269:
|
Apr 28 17:39 UTC 2002 |
jp2, re#95:
> Conquered lands are part of the conquerer's territory, unless
> the[y] specifically reliquish control.
By that logic the territories are Israel's and there is no need for
discussion.
Alas, the UN Charter forbids the conquest of territory by offensive use of
force. Thus Egypt and Jordan's 1948 acquisitions were ill-gained. And, as I've
pointed out twice (and mdw has repeated), both Egypt and Jordan have since
renounced their claims.
Scott, re#96:
> False argument, Leeron. How many Jews have moved into settlements in
> Palistine in the last 40 years, vs. how many Arabs have moved into Arab
> villages within Israel?
No Jews have moved into "Palestine" -- it does not [yet?] exist.
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, re#97:
> Leeron seems to be arguing....
I've said much in these items, but don't recall making a single one of the
arguments you are putting in my mouth (fingers). Perhaps you could be so
kind as to provide anything I've said that supports your claim?
To the contrary, I've supported the Oslo and Camp David process wherein
an independent Palestinian Arab state would have been created in all of
Gaza and 97% of what was previously Transjordan's "West Bank". Where the
majority of Israeli settlements in these areas would be dismantled (a
practical matter since there could be no real guarantee of the safety
of Jews living in a nascent Palestine). See Item 125 for all the details.
But remember that it was Arafat who chose violence over the above settlement.
|
jp2
|
|
response 99 of 269:
|
Apr 28 17:54 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|