You didn't reply because you couldn't and still can't. (see below)

There are no 'gotchas', your position the same throughout
Actually they're all quite consistent as I pointed out.
Left/Anti-Israel, as outlined by me.
Ahh the "moderate who speaks of Ethnic cleansing, agrees/doesn't challenge fellow 'moderate' Foolosophy on Jewish Dualies, and helps his point! 'Moderate' who quotes known acknowledged Leftist/Anti-Israel NYRB as 'Centrist'.
That "Moderate"?
Ahhh delusion.

I debate with pinpoint specifics on the I-P conflict or with documentating Your previous posts.

You have now twice taken a powder, once even hollowly claimed victory! because you have NO choice - you have no debate nor rebuttal as to my facts on your positions.
Such as this post .. and the "Centr!st!" state of mind that's lets you go along with Foolo and much else.

This post in particular completely gutted your position both factually and your personal MO here:


EDIT:
Note her posts ... now defeated as above and Below as they dwindle..
unable to challenge any point/matter of fact I posted on the conflict or her style/Use of 'half-Jewishness', etc.
She is now down to merely 'Dissing' and characterizing.

__________________
Domestic Terror in Iran

Iran has just carried out the largest wave of executions since 1984.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010434

THE "CHOSEN PEOPLE" CAN KILL WHOEVER THEY LIKE

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

Now I know I'm a moderate.

Understand foolosophy that i am required to say something here, as my silence would be construed by bele as proof of me not being jewish. It's a rock and a hard place to be stuck between both of your worlds.



You know that statement you made is not true, so why make it?

I criticise Israeli violence and aggression in the Occupied territories.

I support the Palestinian right to exist - as I do for the Israeli rihght to exist in peace in the region..

I dont support the expansionist theft of Palestinian land by the Israeli government - especially since 1967.

Now Israel was given its boundaries in the 1940's when it was created.

Everybody agreed with those boundaries.

No body agreed to the Occupation of land and people outside these recognised boundaries.
\

It has nothingto do with anti-semitism or holocaustian denial stances NOR has it anything to do with being a self-loathing jew.

These are the techniques of marginalisation of dessenting voices and preventing the truth being told.

OR AREN'T WE ALLOWED TO CRITICISE THE ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL FASCIST ACTIONS OF THE IDF ON LANDS THEY HAVE ACTUALLY STOLEN?

Why would that be?

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

But it is true - the Jewish people believe that they are the CHOSEN PEOPLE

and of course this would make GOD a very strange entity indeed - it would make GOD a biased, bigoted racist.

and we know that this cannot be true! DONT WE AKIRA?

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

Everybody is free to criticise the acts of organisations, states and individuals but to single out a race is a step too far IMO. It's the same problem I have with the people who come on and make grand statements about Muslims or remain curiously silent as others do. It just doesn't hold water to make such a sweeping statement about a race.

It has been argued that Judaism isn't a race, but for all practical purposes it is, and everybody knows it.

I will criticise Hamas for their idiocy, and I will criticise the IDF for their wanton destruction, and this is my right as a free thinking individual, in spite of the extremists, but there's no way i can criticise a race. it is a fallacy.
so take your anger at the IDF and I can debate that.

well seeing as you are on the topic of HAMAS - can you explain why the ISraeli government funded and intitially set up the HAMAS organisation in the occupied territories? (I will give you a hint, as a political alternative to the PLO - and to divide the resistance to the Israeli occupation)

This is not a novel method of destabilising an enermy - it goes back to the Ancient Roman and Hellenic empires.

BUT when HAMAS eventually got enough support and won an election in Palestine, the Israelis and the USA were Appauled - so much for reaping what you sowe and so much for supporting the democratic process.


What a mess the US/Israeli web of lies has created in the region

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

Your honourable Judge, Jury and Executioner, permit me to disagree with your credentials. You are not any of these. So let's clear this very mudied slate. I have time now and I will repond to your postulations.

Your main thesis is that Israel has a valid right to exist because Jews lived in the Ottoman empire at the time of it's demise (with the Armistice of Mudros in 1918 ). Correct?

1) On what precedents of International Law do you base this asssertion, namely that residence gives the right to new statehood?
2) Even if we were to accept your thesis (which I dont due to the total lack of supporting facts, contrary to your mantra that you have supplied them in more than sufficiency to prove your case) in which of the Ottoman administrative units were the Jews in the majority?
3) Why were they given a vast amount of territory greater that their "majority" territory?
4) Where do you get the statistic that the Arabs were given 99% of the Ottoman empire
5) What was the REAL legal basis for Israel's creation - the real source, not some acquired authority?
6) Did this source respect the promises made to the two parties in the current conflict?

Once these questions have been answered, it is quite clear that your thesis of justification for Israel's existence on the basis of residency of a small number of Jews owning some real estate, is completely irrelevant. Do you really want me to provide these answers to show that you "proof" of "validity" of Israel is in fact anything but proof or valid, or can we dispense with such a waste of time?

Instead, let me suggest that we get on with what might yet prove to be the fundmental issue in this conflict, namely justice as opposed dubious legality (of a State's existence based on an apallingly irresponsible execution of its mandatory responsibilities by the British).

For the record, based on the logic of the cause-and-effect principal, I trace this conflict back, not to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as you do, but to the British cock-up from 1916 (when they didnt even hold a mandate) until 1947. But that is something that no-one is likely to be able to unwind, at least not given the current power balance.

And that is why I maintain that the existence of the State of Israel should be acknowledged. Yes, you read correctly, and I have stated this before. We should not try to unravel (pre-)1948. But that does not mean that we should ignore history and start from the Arab-Israeli was onwards, as you do Baletesri. On the contrary!!! That would be a real travesty of justice.

Instead, the creation of the State of Israel was done with extreme prejudice to the rights of the ancestral land users, whether by totally legal processes or not. Now that REALLY IS one of the few indisputable facts.

Which means that, when we say that we cannot turn back the clock and make Israel disappear, the "Palestinians" have been subject to an injustice that has not yet been addresed. And if anyone cannot see the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as a direct Arab response to this injustice, then their sense of reality needs a serious makeover. So I disagree TOTALLY with you B on the reasons for the Palestinian pogrom.

So, here is my summary from what I have read:
1) The creation of the State of Israel followed "due process"
2) This "due process" stands on shaky legal ground since neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the UN, had any right to create international boundaries nor to take land from one people and give it to another group. However, this "shakiness" was not upheld in the International Court during 1948 treatment of the petition of the Arab countires.

[If anyone can find a good reference to this case in the International Court, I would be most grateful]

3) The fact that the creation of the State of Israel has a measure of legal underpinning does not mean that it was JUST. Were an Arab to say to me that the entire drama in the southern Levant from 1908 until the present day could be traced directly to injustices foisted on the Arab ancestral land occupiers, I would have great difficulty in proving them to be incorrect. This is NOT TO SAY that there were not items of justification in granting the Jews a homeland, e.g. the Holocaust, the pogroms througout the ages, and the bigotry that often surfaced when the Jews tried to make a life in someone else's country. But as I have stated before, two wrongs don't make a right, and compensation to the Jews does not detract from the fact that it was done at the expense, not of Jews in Mahanttan or Sydney or Johannesburg or Warsaw, but at the expense of Arabs in the southern Levant.

Given all of the above, where do I stand. Firstly, stop the Myths that try to show that the Zionists are pure law-respecting peace-loving people who only accepted what is rightfully theirs, both in 1948 and in 1967, and that the ancestral occupiers of the disputed territories are without legal backing and are only motivated by unjustified terrorist tendencies, with the Arabs never having made any serious effort to seek peaceful solutions to the conflict. That is simply not true.

So much for 1948. What happened then?

The ancestral owners got screwed yet further. Shall we start there? Or do you really want to go back to the shoddy research of Ms Peters? I am happy with either route.

There is certainly nothing to argue with there. I just don't really think Palestinian fecundity (which continues at extremely high levels to this day) is really the issue. One people's ability to procraete themselves into a position of numerical superiority vis a vis another has no bearing when discussing the morality and ethics of any situation. I realize this particular subthread has to do with matters pertinant to demographics, but this seems an unintentional diversion to me.

At the advent of Zionism, there were more Arabs than Jews living in the area called Palestine. THis is certainly undisputed fact. Since there were no people called Palestinians then, however, the demographic issue is between Jewish and Arab, and this is an important fact to remember. As more Jewish people moved into the area and provided economic stimulus, SOME additional Arabs moved into the region, and as you have stated, they procreated at high levels and as the infant mortality rate dropped, their population increased. This is true for both those who were already there and those who moved in.

Arabs (by culture) and Jews are both native to this region, and todays populations reflect similar characteristics, both to each other and to the amount of non "pure" blood in each population. Even as people like to characterize jews as "European", the amount of European blood in Jewish Israelis is little different than the non "palestinian" (as they have been called for the last several decades) blood is in the local Arabs.

The real issue people should be discussing is the status of Arab vrs Jew in the time frame between the 1880s and 1950s. What happened to the populations? How and why did people move from one area to another? What are the causes for antagonism, and how was this antagonism agitated from beyond the region? How did the major powers affect the outcome? There are so many questions to ask BESIDES the minutia of who was there and who wasn't that to fail to address these other issues is to fail to grasp the situation.

In, say, the 1930s to 1940s, there were close to a million Jews living in Arab lands who aren't there any more. There were also close to 700,000 Arabs living within what is now Israel who aren't there any more. There has been a winnowing of populations, but grievances remain, and until one understands the nature of those grievances, and unless one applies the same moral standards to one group as they do the other, I doubt there can be any really meaningful dialogue.

That and the promise of the British Administrators/conquerors and the World's only Legal body at the Time.. League of Nations.
And not to forget.. there was the 1919 Agreement OF THE Head of The Arabs.
Well gee Klipkap.. there isn't much Intl Law on this at all.
So you intentionally pose a non-sequitor/fallacious/strawman question. Sleazy tactic.
Nonetheless...
Rarely has there been a 30 years promise, agreement of the Leader of the 'other side', Faisal, and finally a vote of the successor and yet a Second Intl Body, the UN!
How many States have that kind of legal underpinning?

Just One as previously documented.
But as also previously documented, 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land, passing from the Ottomans to the British to The Jews.
Taking care, in fact, to give Israel the sparsest most Arid Parts, including the HALF of that country that is the Negev Desert.. again, owned by No Arab.

Not 'Vast' in any sense. Less than promised originally and again- the crappiest parts.



Above? Tel-Aviv founding 1909. Note all the displaced... er.... Scorpions?

I Have already documented the Arabs got 87% of the British Mandate alone:
See my reply to Foolo here doing Just that:

Palestinian loss of Land 1946-2000

Maybe you can do the math for the other few percent now? I hope?

5, already covered above.
Israel was at least as legitimate as Capricious British creations such as Jordan and Iraq, and unlike them and others.. were voted on by a World Body.. the UN. (not to mention it's predecessor again) How many states have more legal underpinning than Israel? How about The USA?

All covered above.. but you of course are going with non-sequitor and Fallacious Logic here- asking for 'Due Process' where virtually no precedent existed, but where in fact it was indeed given, by both sides and a TWO World Bodies over 30 years.
In fact, that's Unprecedented Due Process.

It certainly IS true.. unless you'd like to document Arab attempts at Peace and recognition from 1948 to 2003 the 'Saudi Peace Plan'. LOL

Note despite tons of BS there is Still no rebuttal to my statement (despite quoting it and promising an answer with more time) about where the vast majority of the Refugees came from... and that would be the Arab-Started War in 1948, NOT the partition, Resolution 181 which created Israel.

Will there be anything else?

__________________
Domestic Terror in Iran

Iran has just carried out the largest wave of executions since 1984.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010434