
[ stuff deleted ]
   |> Are you calling names, or giving me a title? If the first, read your 
   |> paragraph above, if not I accept the title, in order to let you get into the
   |> um, well, debate again.

   Hasan replies:
   I didnot know that "Master of wisdom" can be "name clling" too,
   unless you consider yourself deserve-less !

Unless you are referring to someone else, you have in fact given me a name 
I did not ask for, hence the term 'name calling'.

   |>    So what do you expect me to tell you to tell you, Master of Wsidom, 
   |> 							       ^^^
   |> ------------------------------------------------------------------
   I replied:
   |> If you insist on giving me names/titles I did not ask for you could at
   |> least spell them correctly. /sigh.

   Hasan gloats:
   That was only to confuse you! (ha ha ha hey )

Hell-bent on retarding into childhood, no? 

   |>when you are intentionally neglecting the MOST important fact that 
   |>the whole israeli presence in the occupied territories is ILLEGITIMATE, 
   |>and hence ALL their actions, their courts, their laws are illegitimate on 
   |>the ground of occupied territories.
   |> 
   >No, I am _not_ neglecting that, I'm merely asking you whether the existance
   >of Israeli citicens in the WB or in Gaza invalidates those individuals 
   >right
               ^^^^^^^ are you trying to retaliate and confuse me here.

No, I really do try to spell correctly, and I apologize if I did confuse you.
I will try not to repeat that.

   |> to live, a (as you so eloquently put it) human right. We can get back to the 
   |> question of which law should be used in the territories later. Also, you have 
   |> not adressed my question if the israelis also have human rights.


   First, my above statement doesnot say that "the existence of israeli citizens
   in the WB revoke their right of life" but it says "the israeli occupation
   of the WB revoke the right of life for some/most its citizens - basically
   revokes the right of for its military men". Clearly, occupation is an
   undeclared war; during war, attacks against military targets are fully legitimate. 

Ok, let me re-phrase the question. I have repeatedly asked you if the 
Israelis have less human rights than the palestinians, and if so, why.
From your posting (where you did not directly adress my question) I inferred
that you thought so. Together with the above statement I then assumed that the
reason was the actions of the state of Israel. Re: your statement of 
occupation: I'd like you to define the term, so I don't have to repeat this
'drag the answer out of hasan' procedure more than neccesary.

   Secondly, surely israeli have human rights, but they ask their goverment to
   protect it by withdrawing from the occupied terretories, not by further oppressing
   Palestinean human rights.

I'm sorry, but the above sentence does not make sense. Please rephrase it.


   |> If a state can deprive all it's citizens of human rights by its actions, then 
   |> tell me why _any_ human living today should have any rights at all?


   Because not all states are like Israel, as oppressive, as ignorant, or as tyrant.

Oh, ok. So how about the human rights of the Syrians, Iraqis and others?
Does the name of Hama sound familiar? Or how about the kurds in Iraq and
Turkey? 
How about the Same in Sweden (Ok, maybe a bit farfetched..) the Russians in
the Baltic states or the Moslem in the old USSR and Yugoslavia?
Do the serbs have any human rights remainaing, according to you?


   |>    |> And which system do you propose we use to solve the ME problem?
   |> 
   |>    The question is NOT which system would solve the ME problem. Why ? because
   |>    any system can solve it. 
   |>    The laws of minister Sharon says kick Palestineans out of here (all palestine). 
   |> 
   |> I asked for which system should be used, that will preserve human rights for 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |> all people involved. I assumed that was obvious, but I won't repeat that 
   |> mistake. Now that I have straightened that out, I'm eagerly awaiting your 
   |> reply.

   So you agree that that an israeli solution wouldnot preserve human rights.
   (i am understanding this from your first statement in this paragraph).

No, I'm agreeing that to just kick all the Palestinians out of Israel proper 
would probably lead to disaster for both parties. If that's what you refer 
to as the 'Israeli solution' then so be it.

   |>    Joseph Weitz (administrator responsible for Jewish colonization) 
   |>    said it best when writing in his diary in 1940:
   |> 	   "Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both
   |> 	   peoples together in this country.... We shall not achieve our goal
   |> 						^^^                  ^^^
   |> 	   of being an independent people with the Arabs in this small country.
   |> 	   The only solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine (west of
   |> 	   the Jordan river) without Arabs.... And there is no other way than
   |> 	   to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to
   |> 	   transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be 
   |> 	   left.... Only after this transfer will the country be able to
   |> 	   absorb the millions of our own brethren. There is no other way out."
   |> 				   DAVAR, 29 September, 1967
   |> 				   ("Courtesy" of Marc Afifi)
   |> 


Oh? Have you met with them personally, to read their diaries? Fascinating.
What do you _do_ for a living?


   Above you wrote that you understood what i meant (underlined by ^ ): 
   any system can be used to solve the conflict , but not any system would 
   resolve it JUSTLY.

An unjust solution would be a non-solution, per definition, no?
You said the following:

For all A it holds that A have property B.
There exists an A such that property B does not hold.

Thus, either or both statements must be false.

   |> Guess where that takes your logic? To never-never land. 


I was merely pointing out a not so small flaw in your reasoning.
Since you claim to be logical I felt it best to point this out
before you started using your statements to prove a point or so.
Am I then to assume you are  not logical?



Any quote can be misused, especially when used to stereotype all 
individuals by a statement of an individual. If you use the same
methods that you credit 'Zionists' with, then where does that place you?

Oh, by the way, I'd advice you not to assume anything about my 'loyalties'.
I will and am condemning acts I find vile and inhuman, but I'll try as 
long as I can not to assume those acts are by a whole people.
By zionist above do you mean the state of Israel, the government of Israel, 
the leaders of Israel (political and/or religious) or the jews in
general? If you feel the need to condemn, condemn those responsible
instead. How would you feel if we started condemning you personally
based on the bombings in Egypt? 

--
