Figleaf

Then you need to stop excusing Israel's efforts to thwart peace, and the transparent pretenses it uses to sustain the occupation. Bull shiite. The Palestinians live in camps, or in hemmed in villages without services. They must wait hours at checkpoints to travel even in 'their' territory. Their farms and lands are expropriated, their homes demolished, their water supplies confiscated. For you to say Israelis and Palestinians suffer 'equally' is a disgusting mischaracterization.

Bonam, in reply to your question: The reason is that the actions of the states of Jordan or Egypt are not attachable to the Palestinian people. If we start at the end of Ottoman rule and the begining of the British protectorate, it is difficult to see exactly what ethical premise allowed for the establishment of Israel on Palestinian lands at all. But if you accept that the world community had the authority to permit the establishment of Israel, then you must logically accept that it's proposed disposition of the remaining lands is authoritative too.

Umm.. that soldier didn't just randomly become captured by thin air you know. There was a chain of events: First: Israel pulls out of Lebanon Next: Hezbollah, no longer kept in check by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, gains more recruits and obtains more weapons, and increases in confidence Next: Hezbollah does a raid inside Israel, killing several soldiers and capturing two Next: Israel retaliates, seeking to dismantle or at least damage Hezbollah, which has demonstrated itself as a violent threat, and to hopefully find its missing soldiers Saying that the conflict was "because of Israel's incursion" is an extreme fallacy. Well, by your own description here, it appears it was not the cause you first cited -- arms buildup by hezbollah. So then, was it the capture of the Israeli soldier? That doesn't really track, since the tragedy of the conflict were the deaths caused by bombs, rockets and bullets. Presumably, it is those who flung those bombs rockets and bullets that caused the tragic conflict. So, I disagree with your characterization. It seems to me that it is correct to say that the tragic conflict was caused by Israel's over-reaction to the capture of a soldier. However, I will say that these questions of 'who started it' are often pure exercises in arbitrary line drawing and selective characterizations of events. Well, since: 1) international law as it stand is the creation of the states of the world; and 2) the only state on whose part there appears to be any purpose for making the change is Israel, it certainly seems that such a change must be quite accurately described as 'for Israel'. Considering point 1) above, does it occur to you that the rule against conquest might be a good and effective one?

Every decrease in the extent of occupation so far has resulted in more rocket attacks, not less. That's not true. First, in general terms, the rocket attacks have been more or less stable since the Wall was more or less finished. Also, specifically, at least at the the initial establishment of the PA there was a substantial decrease in conflict for a while. Anyway, the problem is that partial easing of Occupation from time to time is not a solution or a redress for the grievances. Ummm, wasn't it rather Israel's incursion into Lebanon in search of their captured soldier that led to that tragic conflict? That's the sequence of events I observed in the media. Glady, provided you will respond to this issue: SO then, are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel should be exempt from the law?

You're bogging down in detail about how he describes the scenarios. Leave out the description and you'll note that they are not arbitrary, he defines them as worst-case. The argument will be sound as long as he is correct that the Warming is True condition includes the same costs as the Warming is not True. Regarding Pascal's Wager, you are misapplying it. Pascal's Wager is not fallacious in regards to whether it's a better bet to bet on God, it is only fallacious to the extent it is put forward to prove God exists. The argument made in the video is not attempting to prove global warming exists.

Just because something is a "law" doesn't mean it is right, or realistic. There are many examples of unjust or non-functional laws. If a law is either unjust or unrealistic, then it should be changed. This situation is not specific to Israel. SO then, are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel should be exempt from the law? They aren't "due" anything from Israel, so they are being offered much more than they are due, thus generosity. They surely are 'due' something from Israel. At the very least they are 'due' that Israel should cease preventing them from exercising self-determination in the lands set aside for them in 1947-48. Right within a historical context of what has happened in countless prior confrontaints, many of which resulted in more stable borders. Defining something as "right" or "wrong" based on unrealistic, arbitrary international law is a flawed way of defining morality. Ah, your normative stance on what their 'rights' ought to be. I see. Because, as you well know, they get rockets launched at them and suicide bombers coming in across the border. I fail to see how that makes it necessary to continue doing the very thing that is prompting the attacks i.e. occupy Palestine.

Yeah, right. I think it could be done with as few a fifty of the right people.

wrt the passport story: Also CNN reports: "In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center, a passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers was discovered a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik." (Bernard Kerik, dirty side-kick of Guliani) How the passport survived, when it was in the passengers possession, on the plane?? But the black boxes didn't survive. wrt to blackboxes at wtc :U.S. Lawmakers Push Plan to Upgrade 'Black Boxes' Air Safety Week, July 28, 2003 Disaster: World Trade Center attacks. American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175. Sept. 11, 2001. FDR Re-covered: No CVR Re-covered: No Notes: Never found in subsequent removal of towers' wreckage. Wow. Just ... wow. They really expect people to believe that! Incredibly, simply incredible. Even more incredible, probably some poor fools do believe it. (While others are content to let their leaders get away with the pretense.)

They very manner in which you pose the question provides your opinion and answer. I''m not sure how I could have posed the question differently to canvass the subject I am directed toward here. Of course you have already read some of my views. The reason I am asking is that by examining opposing views I can assist people to understand that my view is the correct one.

But the law is inanimate and doesn't care about whether it has a problem. So the problem is for people to deal with the law. Are you saying international law should be changed for Israel, or that Israel is exempt from the law? The problem with that is that it isn't really generous to give people back less than what they are due. Since it would be against international law, I don't understand what you mean there by the word 'right'. You think so? I don't. Anyway what would stop Egypt and Jordan from just setting up Palestinian states there after the handover? Well then, why don't they? Why should they take less than their due?

What rule?

Curious ... which statements do you suggest were personal attacks? Noting ... Again, it would be helpful now for you to be specific about what particular comments you allege are insults.

Doing a bit of that yourself aren't you, ... Not that I'm aware of.

So is that passport story really part of the official version? Are we seriously asked to believe that a passport survived being engulfed in flames sufficiently hot to melt steel and embroiled in the forces of collapse that are said to have completely pulverized every fragment of human bone involved? Seriously?!? Did the flight's black box survive even?

Comeon figleaf, its not one sided here, don't these comments p!ss you off too... or is there a double standard here.... its against the rules too. "Get off your high horse of BS. Can YOU answer that with anything other than your usual dribble and lies? "Since the majority of your above post is simply BS... Horse shit. So, again you are full of absolute bigotted horse hooey!! " and so on I wouldn't want to be getting earfuls like that, no. But neither would I like to be provoked to them. Anyway, I have no idea what rule you think is being broken there. In any event, I decidedly think it is worse to make up things about what posters said. Aggressive language is one thing, but bearing false witness is something else. [Edit: Sharkman!] were you going to enlighten me as to how you came to suggest you were 'called' an asshole, when that in fact did not occur?

I wanted to get a bead on something I heard ... I heard that the terrorists who were said to have flown the planes were identified by documents found in the wreckage. Is that correct?

Actually, this is a very notable propensity shared by many of our Israel-supporting interlocutors on this forum -- a characteristic avoidance of straightforward responses to simple and direct interogatories. Any basic question whose answer might shed real light on the issue is quickly buried in non-sequiturs, imputations, and emotive outbursts.

Falsely and maliciously impugning the motivation of any and every critique.

Myself, I called for Chretien's resignation when he brutally attacked, choked, and broke the teeth of that little guy in the funny hat, before flinging him to the feet of his attendant pack of loyal RCMP hounds. But alas, many rightwing Canadians and Liberal footsoldiers rallied to Chretien's defence at the time, so moderate centrists like myself were drowned out.

What support would you offer for that assertion? Logic. I was hoping for something more in the lines of citations of treaty provisions, court interpretations, etc. Logic often has little to do with international law, and your logic is rarely convincing. You're WAAAAY off topic. Please refer to the Original Post and get back to me. What about the Chinese example in Tibet, where the Tibetans posed no threat to China (other than having an unsuppressed religions)? ? ? What about it? (That seems sort of off topic too, frankly.)

Aw shucks, t'weren't nothin'. (To be honest, I can't claim it was pure chivalry. That kind of thing just p!sses me off.) Well said.

Okay, but let's put a little flesh on the bones of 'respect each others beliefs'. Does respect mean we should allow religious beliefs to put children in a religious setting at risk, as say Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions? Does it mean we need to spend resources accomodating religious philosophies in what should be science classes? Does it mean needed social change must attend on traditions based on Beliefs? Does it mean we must sit mute in the face of prosletizers -- that their right to expression trumps ours?

O

The conditions proposed were utterly unjust to the Palestinians and rightly unacceptable.