Hugo

Correct.

Major invasive surgery is never "discomfort free." A c-section takes a much longer period of recovery than a natural birth and leaves a large scar. Now, addressing Sweal's original question: About 1% of abortions are carried out because of rape or incest. It is a fact that an abortion rarely, if ever, excises or relieves the pain and stress of these situations and usually compounds it. However, if a victim has been fully advised of these facts and still fervently desires an abortion it is hard to refuse one. That leaves women who voluntarily got themselves pregnant. What this means is that a woman who made herself pregnant but does not want to be pregnant simply does not want to face the inevitable consequences of her actions. If you play Russian Roulette, you may blow your head off. If you steal car stereos, you may go to jail. You can't reasonably complain about those consequences either. If a court found that a woman was guilty of conspiracy to abort, it could take action beforehand. This is much like being charged with conspiracy to commit murder, the crime has not yet been done but sufficient planning of it has been demonstrated to warrant punishment. In this case, a judge could rule that the woman should be imprisoned until she delivers. And let's not cry a river over these women, either. What we are dealing with is a woman so uncaring and so selfish that she would rather kill an innocent and defenseless human being than be inconvenienced for 9 months because of something she was directly responsible for. This is on the same level as people who murder their spouses for life insurance. It's hard to have much sympathy.

Mulroney signed it and Chretien boycotted it, costing the taxpayer $500m in penalties. It also arguably cost 10 Canadian Forces personnel their lives. This was a Liberal foul-up, plain and simple.

American embargoes specifically exclude medicines and medical supplies. And as I already said, they contribute more in humanitarian aid than the rest of the world combined. Either that, or he wants to arrest and shoot/torture more dissidents. Given his track record I think the latter more likely. You can ask Sweden or Great Britain, who have been privatising elements of their healthcare and introducing two-tier care and finding that healthcare provision has become better across the board. On the other hand, waiting lists (for instance) in Canada have risen year on year. Modifications to Canada's healthcare system don't necessarily have to be along US lines. There are many systems out there, and almost all provide better service than what we have. But, for some reason, Canadians have blinders on to all of it. Now, do you have any proof for anything you've said? Or is this just more Michael-Moore-style emotional, factually void hand-wringing?

Before Castro, Cuba had 1 physician per 960 patients and ranked 10th on the WHO's list of world's medical systems. It had Latin America's lowest infant mortality rate. Not any more. Cuba now ranks lowest, or near lowest, in Latin American countries. The Washington Post condemned Cuba's dirty and unlit hospitals, reporting that in 1995, contaminated water supplies in Cuban hospitals caused 60 deaths and 289 serious infections. Cuba is now a major "exporter" of healthcare. It's an industry with an annual growth rate of 20%. Tourists report being asked by Cubans to refill their prescriptions for them, as tourists are given medical care unavailable to native Cubans. Entire hospitals are built exclusively for the use of foreigners and Communist Party officials under the auspices of "health tourism" agenices such as MEDICUBA and SERVIMED. Cuban exiles have called this system a "medical apartheid." Castro has made his priorities clear after the collapse of the USSR and the consequent end to his $5bn per year payoff. He cut social programmes, such as healthcare, and increased the military budget. Cuba trades with every country except the USA and Israel, so are you seriously telling me that the USA has all of the world's money and goods? Furthermore, since the Cuban Democracy Act, the US government has given $150m in humanitarian aid to Cuba. That's more than all the other countries in the world put together.

Yes, they probably are. 141,000 Cubans who were not happy with Castro were all shot. If I was Cuban, after that I'd quickly plaster a stupid grin on my face and wax on about the greatness of Castro. I have no wish to die for a madman's ego. Name one.

That doesn't work in paternity lawsuits, does it?

Absolutely. Regardless of what Chen may or may not have done, until a jury finds him guilty it is grossly irresponsible for any judicial or law enforcement official to refer to him as though he were. At this point he is still a suspect. If I were arrested for a heinous crime I'd like to think that the police wouldn't prejudice the jury against me before I'd even had a chance to defend myself.

Yes, it does, and you just proved yourself wrong because paragraph 1, which you quoted, specifies that "the parties" (plural) must refer the case to it. Israel did not, therefore the court was in violation of its own Statute because only one party (singular) brought the case before it. This issue is just a smokescreen by the Palestinians to try and draw attention away from the fact that they have violated virtually every treaty and agreement they have signed and are acting in flagrant disregard for the roadmap they agreed to. No, I'm assuming that the Israeli, US, British, Canadian, Australian, South African and Russian UN delegates, besides 23 others, know as much about international law and the workings of the ICJ as the people running it do, and they have a serious dispute with the ICJ over this. Those delegations all submitted affidavits to the ICJ arguing that the issue does not belong in the court. They were not all "US lackeys", either, as they included all 15 member-states of the European Union and 10 waiting to join. Oh, and as an amusing aside, Cuba's delegate to the ICJ said that Israel was committing "an act of genocide." Takes one to know one. And it was. Israel submitted a 131-page affidavit arguing that the court had no right to rule on a political dispute, that the judges were not impartial (one was an Egyptian who had previously expressed great bias against Israel) and prepared a three-page security brief arguing that the wall is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Or they could just go to a private school.

This was, in fact, the goal of the pre-1948 Zionist movement: to buy up land in what would become Israel for Jewish settlement. However, the fact remains that Jerusalem is the historic Jewish capital, and the only reason they have not remained there throughout history is foreign aggression and invasion, by Babylonians, Crusaders, Arabs and so forth. To argue that this means that Israel no longer has any special claim to Jerusalem is arguing that might makes right, that the robbed have no right to redress. And English Common Law holds that, as the original owners of Jerusalem, the Jews are the true owners of the city (ownership is relative, not absolute). Because Arafat is unwilling to accept any compromise on Jerusalem and will reject out-of-hand any offer that does not give him complete control of the city. So, we are in agreement that Israel has fully complied with Resolution 242 and that if Israel is breaking any international laws, it isn't that one. Oh, and it's pretty laughable that you find territory the Israelis won defending themselves in a war which the Arabs began with the stated goal of annihiliating Israel "ill-gotten gains." No, I am not. Article 36 of the Statute of the ICJ categorically states that a contentious matter may only be brought before the court (not judged, or that the judgement be binding) with the consent of both sides. Israel did not consent, so it was in violation of the ICJ statute for them to even convene on the matter. No, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. You are right, Israel is seeking to promote Jewish settlement in areas of heavy fighting such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. It is their belief that Jewish settlement in this area will stabilise it and bring peace to the area, for both sides. Please note that no Arab settlements have been displaced and no Arabs forced to move. The Israeli settlements have all been constructed on uninhabited land. Here is a statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry from May 2001: What the Israelis have said is that they have legitimate claims on the area, as do the Palestinians. For that reason they will allow Palestinian settlement too. They see no reason why any Israeli who wished to live in the West Bank in an independent Palestinian state could not do so, just as Arabs and Jews live as neighbours in Israel itself. The intolerance here comes from the Palestinians, who insist that the West Bank must be purged of Jews before it is acceptable to them. It's unlikely that Jewish settlement would skew a Palestinian state politically, Jews make up 17% of the population right now and it is for certain that many of those would return to Israel in the event of Palestinian independence. Lastly, this is not forced settlement. Israel acquired this land fairly and is there legally. It has been offered back to the party they won it from, that offer was rejected. Because Israel is a free society, they do not believe in stopping free citizens who wish to return to settle the historically Jewish area of the West Bank. Jews who settle there are invited to go, but not forced. Well, then I look forward to hearing your responses in the fullness of time.

No, because by being in Canada they are supporting the military forces. If they do not support the military, let them go somewhere outside of its protection.

Yes. Public institutions should be for the citizenry as a whole and should not be politically, culturally or religiously charged. If such an institution exists perhaps it has no business being a public institution, therefore, not just those who don't agree but nobody should be made to support it. Those who do, may do so voluntarily.

Once again, Israel is not interested in having an independent state on her border who hates Israel with a ferocious intensity and wants her destroyed and her people dead. This is common sense. Once again, Israel is not interested in adding the West Bank to her territory on any permanent basis so it does not make sense for her to commit an act of annexation, does it? No more so than any other military occupation, for instance, the occupation of Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan. Those are comparable. With Germany, for instance, you have a people whose sworn goal was to destroy you and who cannot be trusted with their own state again until we can safely say that that goal has been changed and the leadership changed - like Palestine. Israeli intelligence attempts to find out which homes are being used as bases of terrorist operation or as the outlets for tunnels used to supply terrorists. They then take that information before a judge or the military equivalent, who alone can order the demolition. It's like the way the Canadian police obtain a search warrant. Before they can violate a citizen's rights, they have to have good evidence and prove their case to a judge who will empower them to break and enter a private citizen's dwelling. Who was rounded up and detained without trial and when? The Israeli judicial system is modeled on the British and subscribes to habeas corpus, so if any such arrests and detentions have taken place it is against Israeli law. The only exception is the same as the British system where the state can request a closed trial because evidence presented in that trial might, if made public, endanger the source of that evidence. As in the British system, the accused has the right to appeal against a closed trial to a judge. Any examples of these military actions? Any evidence that no inquiries were held into them, if they existed? Who was tortured, when, and where? Please also prove that no investigation of the torturers took place. No, it is wrong. When the Palestinians have ceased the violence in the past they have been given more powers. The Israelis armed their independent security forces, granted them elections and so forth. When they start committing acts of terror again, unsurprisingly the IDF clamps down. It's very logical. No, I said that was what you were intimating and invited you to examine your own position more closely because you vehemently denied any anti-semitic position in the past. In light of that I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain yourself before I labelled you as anything. Hence my comment took the form of a warning about what your statements said about you and the advice that you should think about it. If you seriously wish to continue this debate and the only thing stopping you is my attitude, then I will wholeheartedly recant every aspersion I have cast upon your character. I hereby state categorically that I do not believe you are an evil person, that you harbor any hatred or animosity towards Jews or that you hold any bias against them. I apologise for any slander directed against you, real or perceived, and I can only say that any such comments were motivated by a bigotry I thought I perceived behind your words but which was not, in fact, there. Do you accept my apology, and consent to continue this debate?

No, it is not. It actually speaks to the rabid anti-Semitism held by the Palestinian people. You see, Jordan illegally occupied them for 19 years and they never said a peep. Israel then took over and actually granted them more rights, freedoms and autonomy than they ever had under Jordanian rule, and suddenly it is an outrage. The only plausible explanation is that the Palestinians are violently anti-Semitic, and that says to me that withdrawing from the West Bank alone will solve nothing for Israel. Don't you make me laugh. Their "resistance" started three years before they were occupied. No, because that would mean Israel is annexing the West Bank, and Israel is not interested in adding that to her territory. If the war stopped, Israel would take it as a sign of good faith and move towards greater Palestinian autonomy and an eventual Palestinian state. Palestine was occupied by Jordan who was the aggressor in a war. But it is true that the UN has never said anything about the Chinese occupation in Tibet. I suppose you think, then, they have every right to be there, throwing priests in jail and committing acts of violence against the populace? You should add to the end of that sentence, "after the end of hostilities." After fighting stopped, it took a good few years for occupation to end. Fighting has not stopped in the West Bank and Gaza, but if it did, you'd expect Israeli occupation to end in a similar period of time. I keep asking you to be specific and you keep ducking the issue. Tell me what you are talking about and I'll address that. You could say, with all truth, that the Canadian government was committing "substantial violations of other human rights" but the fact is that without examples you cannot tell whether these are unfortunate exceptions or policy. Once again, you need to be specific, and you are not. You are blustering. Statements like this, combined with your near-total lack of factual knowledge, do nothing more than showcase your own ignorance. Your example is not fitting. It's would be more like saying, "I'll let you go once you stop trying to hit me." What you are basically saying is that for there to be peace, the West Bank must be judenrein. That says volumes about the Palestinian sentiments, for they are basically stating that they will not live in peace beside Jews, ever. I won't even state what it says about you, as you've found such comments offensive in the past. But think about it. Be specific. What were the conditions and why were they a problem? The UN made a partition plan in 1947 in which the West Bank was to have formed part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. The Jews accepted this plan, the Arabs did not. Jordan invaded the territory in 1948 and formally annexed it in 1950. The owning entity never came into existence because of the actions of the surrounding Arab nations. If the arbiter is truly impartial, very probably yes. Do you know of one? (hint: it's not the UN) No, it has not. Arafat is still in command. I suppose you could say that a majority of factions were acquiescent, most people are when you are slitting their throats. Something that contains a process by which Palestine can acquire the organs of a modern and democratic state: democratic institutions, a proper police force, an independent and unpoliticised army, a judicial system, etc. to the point where they can successfully rule themselves. A sovereign state with the attributes described above, and more. I wouldn't have thought I'd have had to define "state" to you. What about them? Where are the Arab concessions for the 1 million Jews who fled their countries for Israel? Where are their reparations for the wars they have started with Israel, and the damage that terrorism has caused? No, I expect Israel's neighbours to abide by the peace treaties they signed. There were no terms because the Arabs never began any dialogue with Israel. Israel intimated that she wanted peace and would trade the land she had gained to get it. The Arabs hid behind the sofa and pretended not to be home. Then in August, they met in Khartoum and signed the "Three Noes": "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel." And that pretty much put an end to any Israeli delusions that the Arabs might be willing to accept an offer.

The Jews have the longest period of ownership and were founders of the city. That makes it theirs, in English Common Law. The Palestinians have never attached any special significance to Jerusalem before now. The Palestinian Authority was offered jurisdiction over the Muslim holy sites on Temple Mount and rejected that offer. Alright, I can see I'm not getting through to you with that logic. Let's try another avenue. If the inclusion of the word "all" is irrelevant and does not matter, as you claim, why did the Soviet and Arab delegates try so hard to have the word "all" included, and why do international lawyers agree that that word is of crucial importance? We are dealing with documents of law here. They are worded very specifically so as to leave no doubt. What you are telling me is that you know more of international law than the Soviet delegation to the UN, which I find extremely hard to believe. So what we have is a non-binding opinion offered in complete contradiction of the statute of the very body that offered it. Good case. I think Israel's reaction was perfectly sound, basically, "Yeah, whatever." I'll double-check my source. However, it wouldn't matter if it was unanimous barring Israel, according to the Statute of the ICJ it was none of the Court's business in the first place. What you said was: Altering the electoral rules would change the character of the territory, would it not? Especially for such sweeping reforms as allowing women (roughly 50% of the population) and non-landowners the vote where they had never had it before? Essentially it changes the land from an aristocracy to a democracy. That changes the character, I'm sure you can agree, and the legal status. You don't seem to have noticed that you included multiple points in one sentence and so I split it up to better address those points. I shall be careful not to do that again, lest you accuse me of similar errors in the future. Now, do you have any response to the many, many points you have just allowed to fall by the wayside? I did put a lot of time and effort researching and making these posts and I think it rude that you won't even respond.

Rachel Corrie (if that's who you mean, I doubt you even knew her name) was in Israel despite a US State Department travel warning. She was in an area designated by the IDF as being the scene of a military operation and Israel had already issued countless warnings that civilians in the area of a counter-terror operation are at unnecessary risk. The Associated Press showed a picture of her shouting at the bulldozer with a megaphone "at the time of her death." This was, in fact, taken hours earlier. When she died she was sitting down and waving, and the Israeli Judge Advocate's Office found that the bulldozer driver's view was obstructed by debris and he could not possibly have seen her. The IDF had already warned Corrie and her fellow protesters that they were in danger and to move out of the way. The leader of their movement, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), admitted later that “it’s possible they were not as disciplined as we would have liked.” The reason why this got so much press coverage was that it was the first incident of its kind. To use it as an example of Israeli aggression is ridiculous.

Wrong, conjecture. See above for why. Wrong, conjecture. See above for why. "Palestinian extremists" (the PLO) began bombing Israel in 1964, when the West Bank was still under Jordanian control. Arafat retains control and has been very ruthless in suppressing opposition. In the first Intifada, more Palestinians were killed by him than by the Israelis. The British Government petitioned the International Court of Justice that their ruling on Israel was invalid and unjust. I think people have leapt into this thread without reading it first. All these points were already addressed. If you have a valid response to the facts I have quoted, post them, but I won't accept hearsay and repetition of empty rhetoric as an argument.

They did not rebound. Just last year, the CIA held a conference on how Japanese economic weakness would affect the future prospects of the USA. Japan has reduced her interest rate virtually to 0% and still cannot get any investment and growth started.

Israel has granted them far more human rights than they ever had. Their rights are less than other Israelis because where they live is in a war zone and there are enemies in their midst. This has been the same for democracies throughout history. Look at the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan for examples. I don't see you decrying them. Because, as I said, the fact is that they are waiting for some signs that such a Palestinian state would be something other than a training and supply camp for terrorists. Israel has repeatedly offered to give them up in exchange for peace. You did not make that clear. International law. The pre-1967 occupation was regarded as illegal by every country except Britain and Pakistan. Jordan. In the sense that Jordan began a war against Israel and lost the territory in the course of that war. Because not being the rightful owner of something does not mean you don't have it or that it cannot be taken away. It doesn't, which is why Israel has granted the Palestinian Authority jurisdiction over 98% of the West Bank, which is why Israel has instituted free votes, and which is why Israel has repeatedly offered to cede territory and has openly intimated that it would accept an independent Palestinian state if a reasonable roadmap for one was drawn up and adhered to. No. I'm pointing out that Tibetans have killed neither civilian nor soldier in their protest. That's your opinion. It isn't law and it isn't practical. Arafat has demonstrated that he can easily silence dissent by arresting and executing dissidents. He has arrested many terrorists and then released them immediately. The leader of Hamas is not only allowed to walk free within Arafat's jurisdiction, he is allowed to hold rallies. When did Israeli forces target PA security forces? What are your examples? As I said, the creation of a feasible roadmap towards a Palestinian state along with an agreement to cease all violence and terrorism. The failure of Arafat to charge or detain any terrorists he arrests, for a start. Yes. Buildings on the Gaza Strip are the exits from tunnels that lead from buildings in Egypt. Terrorists smuggle in arms and supplies through these tunnels from Egypt. It would not take much for the Egyptian security forces to locate and close these tunnel entrances, but they make no such effort. I gave you the first offer they made. As I said, if you are this truly ignorant on the issues (for example, not knowing one iota of the pre-1967 history of Palestine) you are not qualified to hold an opinion. I suggest you educate yourself. You can start with The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict, 2nd Edition, by Mitchell G. Bard, NY, 2003. It will give you the basics.

Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital since King David founded it around 1000BC. Please tell me what gives the Palestinians "just as much claim" to Jerusalem. English Common Law establishes ownership as relative, and the Jews founded and built the original city and have always lived there. Therefore, the Jews have the right to Jerusalem. Even still, they've been willing to compromise with the Palestinians, to no avail. Exactly, and your interpretation of 242 says, "Go ahead and start a war! You can't lose!" which is ridiculous. Furthermore, 242 also states that Israel and the other nations have to make peace (paragraph 3). Since Israel has made peace with all the 1967 opponents except Syria in which they accepted the territorial boundaries settled in those negotiations, that complaint is invalid. Note, too, that Syria has been offered the return of the land she lost in 1967 in exchange for peace and has rejected it. But neither word was in 242. Why don't you understand this? Yes, I was right. You don't know a thing about it. The ruling is illegal becuse it violates Article 36 of the ICJ's Statute, which states that contentious issues can only be brought before the court with the consent of all sides. In this case, Israel (as well as the USA, Great Britain, Russia and many other countries) did not consent so the ruling is invalid. Furthermore, by boycotting the case or voting against it, 101 member-states - a majority in the UN - expressed disagreement that this was any of the court's business in the first place. I have loads more on this ruling and if you're genuinely interested in learning about it I'll post it but I'm aware that these posts are getting rather long-winded, so I haven't as of yet. You don't know what non-sequitur means. Explain how what I said is a non-sequitur. I don't see how this contradicts anything I just said. So you advocate throwing all the Palestinians out too? Palestine was illegally occupied from 1948. It is a legal policy. In war, command and control structures and personnel are legitimate targets. Furthermore, it's a good idea. It sends the message to terrorist leaders that not just the suckers they strap bombs to but they themselves are at risk. It might make them think twice before ordering terror strikes from the comfort of their mansions. No, you can't argue that yet because you have not successfully proven that these "killings" are illegal. Oh? When did you do that? You've said off-hand comments like "neither side has the monopoly on humanity" but you make it pretty clear that you're backing one side over another and you're not willing to discuss any idea of Palestinian responsibility for some or all of these problems. Is that so? Between my "hubris" and "blowhard... giant ego" you'd think you'd have no problem blowing my arguments out of the water. But instead you're ducking my arguments, conjecturing and avoiding my points as fast as you possibly can.

Palestine could have asked for an independent state at anytime between 1948 and 1967. They did not. In 1979 the Palestinians were offered full autonomy, which, it is widely agreed, would have shortly led to full independence. The Oslo process was acknowledged to be the start of a road to an independent Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated the agreements. Such offers are transitional. As I've said, no Israeli government has ruled out a Palestinian state and even the most right-wing of Israelis generally believe that a Palestinian state is inevitable. The fact is that they are waiting for some signs that such a Palestinian state would be something other than a training and supply camp for terrorists, or for the Palestinians to start down the road to an independent state rather than returning to violence and terrorism after each accord. Palestine is not and was not a state. It was an illegally occupied territory which was won in a war of aggression launched by the Arab states including the state that the West Bank was won from. Most Tibetans do too, however, the Tibetans have not slaughtered thousands of Chinese civilians and soldiers in their refusal. The reason for military rule in Palestine is because the Palestinians are carrying out a policy of violence and terrorism towards their neighbours. Order an end to the infitada, reign in the terrorists and offer some reasonable proposals for peace. I'm not, but I heard it from Walid Shoebat, who was a former PLO bomber and Palestinian Muslim who states that not only was it not restricted to Arafat's table, it was a common topic amongst the entire Palestinian Muslim community. The actions of the PA speak otherwise. No, it isn't. The states that have signed peace treaties continue to allow terrorist attacks against Israel. Your allegation that they are in full compliance is that which is factually unfounded. Then you aren't aware of an awful lot. Immediately after the 1967 war, Israel signalled to all participants that it was willing to trade land for peace (Walter Lacquer, The Road to War, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), p. 297). And that was just the first offer. Do you seriously need me to educate you on all the rest of the offers? If you're that ignorant, perhaps you should just bow out of this discussion now.

Jerusalem was never an Arab capital and Palestinians have no special claim to the city. Jerusalem is, however, the historical and cultural capital of Israel. Furthermore, Israel has granted full freedom of religion and Muslims, Christians and Druze are all allowed to view Jerusalem as a holy city and worship freely within it. Yasser Arafat himself said in Voice of Palestine, Algiers, (September 2, 1993): "Anyone who relinquishes a single inch of Jerusalem is neither an Arab nor a Muslim.” Yitzhak Rabin offered a compromise solution that allowed Palestinians to claim Jerusalem as their capital without relinquishing legitimate Jewish claims on the capital. Ehrud Barak offered to allow the Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem to be made the capital of a Palestinian state and extend Palestinian control to the Muslim holy sites on Temple Mount. Arafat rejected these proposals. On the issue of Jerusalem it's fair to say that the ball is in the Palestinian court. Many concessions have been offered to them and rejected, and if they come up with a compromise Israel will discuss it. But they have not, and they will not. To expect Israel to give up her cultural and historical capital is totally unreasonable, it is as though Quebec were to demand that the Canadian government move from Ottawa as part of a secession deal. How do you expect they absorb and deal with 3.9 million Palestinian refugees, for one? How would Canada - with around 5 times the population - do it? The Palestinians already live in historic Palestine. When they mean "right of return" they mean to the homes they had before 1948. Those homes are gone or occupied. Furthermore, to absorb all the refugees would quickly make Jews a minority in their own country, which was something that the UN and the international community explicitly sought to avoid in their creation of the state of Israel. Israel has repeatedly offered to repatriate some refugees in exchange for peace talks. Arab nations have rejected this and made complete repatriation (impossible on practical grounds alone) a prerequisite to talks, let alone peace. The UN passed Resolution 194 stating that Israel should repatriate any refugees who were prepared to live at peace with their neighbours. So far, there's no indication they are prepared to do so so Israel is under no legal obligation to repatriate them. As regarding the creation of the refugee problem, this is the direct result of wars of aggression waged by the Arab nations. They bear the responsibility for the problem, not Israel. What others? You are not an international lawyer or a student of international law. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. The fact is that was your claim true, the UN would be encouraging wars of aggression and conquest. The resolution would state that any aggressor nation that lost territory in a war it initiated would have the right to have it returned. This insures warmongers against the primary risk of initiating war and is an encouragement to aggression and violence. Hardly fitting with the mission of the UN. There's no missing "the". There's a missing "all." When? Despite the fact that Israel repeatedly offered to return virtually all of the territory in that 35 years... Yes, they gave women and non-landowners the vote. Shame on them. No evidence again, Blackdog. Almost 90% of Israeli settlers live in suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (Jerusalem Post, October 1991). There are 175,000 Jews settled in the West Bank in 150 communities, most of which have less than 1,000 inhabitants. This was an effort to stabilise the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor which has been a near-constant area of heavy fighting. 70-80% of these settlers could be brought within Israel with very minor modifications to the Green Line. Land is not confiscated and no Arab settlements or landowners have been displaced. Israeli state policy is that private land cannot be requisitioned for settlement. Housing construction on private land is permitted only after it has been established that no private rights have been violated. If you know any different, report it to the Israeli police because it's against Israeli law. You're saying Jews have no right to live in the West Bank. Where else don't Jews have the right to live? How about Toronto or Vancouver? No source again. This is just ridiculous. Israel established laws that are perfectly acceptable given that the West Bank is disputed territory and a war zone. Equal laws with the rest of Israel would be tantamount to annexation, and Israel is not interested in that. What part? What resources? Wrong. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. It's not forcible so no contravention has occurred. You're blustering. I use the term "occupation" because it is easier and generally accepted. It's hard to talk to people when you're not using the same terminology. Given your incredibly poor understanding of international law it's probably a given that you are misinterpreting this. I note you don't cite the ICJ, so we can't verify anything you've said. No, they do care. Firing on unarmed people without very good cause is grounds for severe punishment because it's illegal in Israeli law, the same as for American, Canadian, or British servicemen or the servicemen of any other democracy. The sad fact is that Palestinian terrorists give them no choice by hiding in the civilian population in direct contravention of the Geneva protocols. Women do have a diminished role in Palestinian society. That's why they are not out carrying guns and causing trouble and it's why their casualties are less. No, Blackdog, I think the key difference between us is that you are arguing based on pure conjecture and in absolute disregard for fact, whereas I am not.

No, that is what rights and freedoms are for. When government itself abrogates rights and freedoms, in this case economic freedoms, it becomes an enemy of the principles you describe above. And everything else you have said is pure partisan speculation without evidence or logical argument. As such it doesn't warrant a response.

Your statement is pure conjecture. Not only do you cite nothing to back it up, you don't even explain why. I already gave an answer to this. Just to repeat it, the problem is that while Israel is perfectly prepared to accept a separate Palestinian state the simple fact is that such a state would be a grave danger to Israel. That is why they will not do it at this time. They would have to be complete idiots. It would be like France in 1945 agreeing to a new German government headed up by Hermann Goering and the remnants of the Nazi Party. Great work. Now ask the follow-on question: why are they doing that? And what are the Palestinians doing to dispel the reasons Israel has for doing that? It's under discussion in Yasser Arafat's clique. The Arabs have never come to terms with the existence of Israel. Their peace treaties are a joke because they all continue to support and sponsor terrorism against Israel, and note that Syria and Lebanon do not even recognise Israel and have no peace accord with her. Israeli offers of territory in exchange for peace have all been rejected. Why would that be, do you think? This was a really pathetic reply from you, Sweal. I expect you to do better next time. Try and have a few facts at the ready or some credible sources to back up your hearsay.