Lev

Oh my god. I’ll leave Danielle to reply to your incredible arrogance, although the idea of you imagining yourself influencing public policy has me rolling on the floor laughing.

I’m not going to argue about Hamas’s formation. But the idea that Hamas future can be charted merely by recourse to its formation is a fundamentally flawed proposition. How is it you can’t grasp something so basic. It is childish and naïve to suggest that Hamas was born of the occupation and therefore will die in its absence.

>>I have specifically said that Hamas will disappear with the ending of the Israeli occupation.

Well I’m sure Hamas are quaking in their boots now that Leviathan Lev has passed this pronouncement on their fate.

Merry Christmas Danielle.
Paul

Danielle,

You quoted me: “there is no evidence that a secular state would require a ‘draconian, totalitarian government and much bloodshed’ for implementation.” This is different to your claim that I that I "deny that there would be bloodshed in establishing a Palestinian secular state!". Do you understand the difference? "Much bloodshed" and no bloodshed are very different.

Now you claim that I "You don’t give credit to the many dissidents, intellectuals and writers who are exposing the horrors of their regimes, and seeking change." Which is another a falsehood. I first joined Amnesty International twenty-five years ago and was very active against the governments of South Africa and Indonesia over human rights abuses.

What you call bullying (wipe your tears, princess) I call making a person justify their claims when shown to be demonstrably untrue. I am quite accepting of people who make mistakes but I don't like those who persist in presenting a falsehood as truth when it is pointed out to them.

Let's have a look at some of your comments.

"Israel, a Jewish state, is secular."

You can't work out the contradiction there, can you?

"The sole legal distinction between Arabs and other Israelis is that they are not required to serve in the army."

Apart from the differing rights to land, differing rights under the law of entry, differing citizenship acquisition rights, and different marriage laws - all of which you actually acknowledged and but claimed that they weren't really different legal distinctions.

"Their [Israel's] press/media ranks among #1 in the world for freedom of speech (Freedom House)".

When it actually ranked equal 59th in equal place with Greece, Fiji and Ghana, which you could never bring yourself to admit.

I'm only part-way through your posts in October, but this is enough for now.

Doubtless you can respond with countless links which do not address simply statements of fact in a pathetic attempt to cover up your own incompetence. Rather than address a proposition, you have continiously condemn the source, or the individual, or their membership to creeds or organisations.

Lev,

Freedom House have three categories of Freedom of the Press : “free”, “partly free”, and “not free”. Freedom House categorise Israel as having a “free” press - not “partly free”. See:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362

How do you categorise “free”? ... Do you say a woman is xth pregnant.

Israel is a Jewish state, Western Europe is Christian ... etc. Australia identifies itself as a Christian country, as does the US. This application has been explained ad nauseum.

Legal distinctions between Arabs and other Israelis.

Apart from equal voting rights, equal rights to public welfare and services, equal rights to education at all levels, representation in the Knesset, both Hebrew and Arabic official languages, etc, etc, the rights to land are the same for both. The land leased by the Israeli government to all citizens is that owned by the government; and which was purchased from Arab landholders many years ago. Israel was administered on the Kibbutzim principle in its formation.

I still can’t understand your problem regarding marriage. Religious marriages, whatever the religion, are recognised in Israel; as we do in Australia. Israel has civil divorce for those who wish it, irrespective of religion. Admittedly, there is no civil marriage for anyone, not even for Jews. If a couple wish to get a civil marriage, they go offshore; however, this marriage is then recognised in Israel.

The law regarding entry rights are periodically evaluated according to the current threats to Israel. No person would expect their country to do otherwise. When Australia was at war, we had internment camps and very strict laws regarding entry; indeed what about our current asylum seekers? Israel has offered asylum to others; they were the first country to offer asylum to Muslims in the Balkan war. Palestinians who left their territories due to the current bloodshed occurring there have been accepted into Israel.

cont ...

I correct my the previous message, I intended to write:

“Legal distinctions between Jews and non-Jews”.

If mainstream Arabs want to be called up en bloc, they can request this, like other groups. Individually, they can volunteer for military service; have increasingly done so - and are accepted.

A member of Amnesty? You are aware an outsider can’t accuse a country of human rights abuses; you have to tread carefully. Other organisations spell this out, perhaps, more clearly, such as International PEN; IFEX COMMUNIQUE. Free Iran is administered by Iranians.

You really believe that ideologies can be imposed on a country from without ... or should be? History discredits this viewpoint.

You are computer literate - use this skill to research facts. It is odd you don’t want links. Everything I have stated is either online or in university archival material.

You state: “you have continiously (sic) condemn the source, or the individual, or their membership to creeds or organisations.”

I don’t condemn members of creeds. However, sources, individuals and/or organisations/creeds have to be open and accountable. To adopt whatever statement an individual or organisation makes, without checking their credibility, integrity, analysis of their background and history, their platform and agenda, is a recipe for disaster. In simplist terms, it could mean supporting dracula when calls are made for blood donations to the blood bank.

It is also academic research 101.

I am sure everyone here OLO (whether they agree with me or not) would agree on this principle. You don’t blindly follow “catch-cries” however appealing they seem, without investigation.

The one wise statement you made, was:

“What OLO writers approve or disapprove is irrelevant in this matter. They do not dictate the behaviour of the State of Israel. I am not caught up in this cause at all ...”

Paul,
A Happy Christmas to you and yours, and a great 2008. Thank you very much for your kind wishes and support. Trying to explain simple details to Lev is like trying to push a peanut up-hill with one’s nose ..

Paul,

Just for the record, I have irregular correspondence and a personal reference from a President and a Nobel Prize winner. The last time I wrote to said President, I recommended sweeping changes to their tax policy; within six months it was implemented in entirety, unique in the world. I also am in regular more correspondence with Federal and State Ministers and have worked for a large number of members of parliament and needless to say have engaged in the various appropriate policy committees.

Thus, it is true that I have a modicum of influence in these matters.

Hamas' existence is predicated on the situation that Palestinians find themselves in. Change the situation and Hamas' political support will likewise change. This stands in stark contradiction to Israel who, as we engage in this discussion, are engaging in military strikes in occupied Gaza. Do you think these actions will increase or reduce Hamas' support (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2231974,00.html)

Danielle,

This might help you; "pregnancy" is a binary condition. When judging press freedom, Freedom House aggregates a number of propositions into a continuum. Temperature also uses a contiuum, but is analogue state.

When you claim that Freedom House says that Israel is #1 in the world for press freedom and it is actually equal 59th, that it an errror on your part. When you refuse to admit that error, that is a lie.

Western Europe is not a state entity and Australia is a Christian state. It has a majority Christian population, but that does not make it a Christian state. Do you understand the difference? Israel, according do Basic Law, is a Jewish state and candidates cannot even stand for Parliament if they seek to change this.

I don't know how many times it must be pointed out to you but the rights to land are not the same. Both the prohibitions on the JNF, their land acquisition mthods, and the control they have over the ILA are surely evidence. The practical effects are well known (http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2005-12/08mouammar.cfm - I do like links - when they're relevant to a proposition!)

You are almost there with marriage, perhaps you will eventually admit that there are legal distinctions! Try it Danielle: write it down, heck say it to a mirror: "There are legal distinctions between Jews and non-Jews in Israel and the Occupied Territories" - it will be your first step in becoming a better person.

"You are aware an outsider can’t accuse a country of human rights abuses; you have to tread carefully."

WTF? One can certainly accuse and 'read carefully'!

"I don’t condemn members of creeds."

How did you write off Uzi Ornan's excellent on article, "The Art of Obfuscatory Formulation"? "it was written in 1991 by Uzi Ornan, supporter of the Cannanite movement.." As if that mattered!

Why do you persist with these lies?