Holocaust, Apartheid and Colonies

Adamsson · April 22, 2007, 11:19am

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
When it comes to “reading the same texts”… well, when Alan explicitly, in his “a case for peace”-book outlines a two-state solution with half of Jerusalem to the palestinian state among other things… with maps and plans… how can you interpret that to “status quo”? how can you, in a honest way… DO that?! Care to elaborate?

Sure. In the book he relays the disingenous offer of a state composed of scattered bits and pieces. That is by no mean a viable solution and claiming otherwise is dishonest by nature. There’s a lot more to discuss in his book than that, but I don’t see how we could possibly do it in any constructive way in a few posts.

Going down that road is tantamount to rehashing the arguments that have already been presented by both sides of the debate for years. I have no interest nor will to go there. Let’s focus this thread on the new concept introduced by the article; that is, the whole “settler’s mentality”.

Thanks in advance,[/quote]

Ah, so when Dershowitz writes about how the scattered solution is not viable and that a homogenous palestine state, even with a right of way without Israeli checkpoints is important… he really means: I WANT A SCATTERED PALESTINE STATE…

It is good to see that the swedish school keeps going strong.

You lose more crediblity each time you reiterate this lie lixy… You were wrong, you tried a blatant lie. Admit it, and I’ll move on.

lixy · April 22, 2007, 2:36pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Ah, so when Dershowitz writes about how the scattered solution is not viable and that a homogenous palestine state, even with a right of way without Israeli checkpoints is important… he really means: I WANT A SCATTERED PALESTINE STATE…[/quote]

Sigh.

I did my best to not get drawn into yet-another-endless argument about generalities but you simply wouldn’t let it go, now did you? For heaven’s sake, I said it about four times clearly stating I BACK OFF!

You asked for it. You only have yourself to blame!

Listen here buddy, Alan has a whole chapter on the book on the issue and its contenders even more than that. After reading the chapter titled ?Is a Noncontiguous Palestinian State a Barrier to Peace??, you came to a different conclusion than me. I’ll quote the strongly pro-Zionist Jewish Virtual Library’s review of the book:

“Another excellent passage is from the chapter titled ?Is a Noncontiguous Palestinian State a Barrier to Peace?? This chapter effectively refutes the false claim that Israel is giving the Palestinians a series of ?Bantustans? for a state, similar to the mini-homelands given to black Africans in apartheid-era South Africa. Dershowitz goes further by saying that in today’s world of high-speed internet and cheap air and rail travel, states do not require continguity to be viable and sustainable. He casually reminds the reader that many nations, including the United States, have areas that are noncontiguous (i.e., Alaska and Hawaii). This claim is nothing more than an attempt to pressure Israel into giving up more territory while it is already making painful concessions for peace.”

http://jsource/reviews/CaseforPeace.html

Now, your interpretation clearly clashes with that of even the regular Zionist crew. There’s also an interview where Alan gets all tangled up defending the scattered bits solution (dated from 2004 if I’m not mistaken).

What’s Swedish schools have to do with the subject? Gee…

Since when is calling somebody a liar an argument? I understand that it’s a practice popularized by Dershowitz and to which he resorts to everytime he’s out of arguments. I’m afraid I misevaluated the level of your bigotry.

Adamsson · April 22, 2007, 2:47pm

Naturally, the palestinians can’t get all the land between the western bank and gaza… I guess you understand why? Don’t you? Or are you so busy lying about Alan that understanding simple, simple concepts are… too timeconsuming? So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected, and even there Alan suggests a right-of-passage between those areas…

So again: what about you read the book, instead of trying to interpret mariuhana-induced dreams about the book, since that does not really work too well.

lixy · April 22, 2007, 3:45pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Naturally, the palestinians can’t get all the land between the western bank and gaza… I guess you understand why? Don’t you? Or are you so busy lying about Alan that understanding simple, simple concepts are… too timeconsuming? So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected, and even there Alan suggests a right-of-passage between those areas… [/quote]

Look who’s backing off…

First you said:

Ah, so when Dershowitz writes about how the scattered solution is not viable and that a homogenous palestine state, even with a right of way without Israeli checkpoints is important… he really means: I WANT A SCATTERED PALESTINE STATE…

Then you said:

So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected

And Webster says:

Scattered \Scat"tered, a. Dispersed; dissipated; sprinkled, or loosely spread.
[1913 Webster]

You got pegged!

Adamsson · April 22, 2007, 3:56pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Naturally, the palestinians can’t get all the land between the western bank and gaza… I guess you understand why? Don’t you? Or are you so busy lying about Alan that understanding simple, simple concepts are… too timeconsuming? So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected, and even there Alan suggests a right-of-passage between those areas…

Look who’s backing off…

First you said:

Ah, so when Dershowitz writes about how the scattered solution is not viable and that a homogenous palestine state, even with a right of way without Israeli checkpoints is important… he really means: I WANT A SCATTERED PALESTINE STATE…

Then you said:

So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected

And Webster says:

Scattered \Scat"tered, a. Dispersed; dissipated; sprinkled, or loosely spread.
[1913 Webster]

You got pegged![/quote]

EErhhhm… No?

Let me try this again:

The anti-scatterers are talking about small islands of land, very much alike the sowetos in southern africa when they critizise that kind of solution. Ofcourse the western bank and gaza has to be apart… you can’t just magically make them appear beside each other. The problems with this Dershowitz adresses with a right-of-passage/right-of-way solution. So… Again, you try a very dishonest tactic combined with lies.

a) You claim that Dershowitz support status quo.

b) I explain that he actually does not, and tell you why.

c) You come with specific examples of how he support a scattered Palestine.

b) I say, quite explicitly that the apartheid kind of scattering is exactly what Dershowitz oppose, but that you can’t make gaza and the western bank to magically appear next to each other…

and now I’m “pegged”…? Grow up please, you base your entire rethoric in every discussion on strawmen, lies and half truths, you again and again fall for logical fallacies as majority/authority…

could you, for once, try to make a serious, mature and logical sound argument? AFTER reading books you claim to have read? Please?

hedo · April 22, 2007, 10:50pm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Naturally, the palestinians can’t get all the land between the western bank and gaza… I guess you understand why? Don’t you? Or are you so busy lying about Alan that understanding simple, simple concepts are… too timeconsuming? So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected, and even there Alan suggests a right-of-passage between those areas…

Look who’s backing off…

First you said:

Ah, so when Dershowitz writes about how the scattered solution is not viable and that a homogenous palestine state, even with a right of way without Israeli checkpoints is important… he really means: I WANT A SCATTERED PALESTINE STATE…

Then you said:

So yes, ofcourse there will be parts that aren’t connected

And Webster says:

Scattered \Scat"tered, a. Dispersed; dissipated; sprinkled, or loosely spread.
[1913 Webster]

You got pegged!

EErhhhm… No?

Let me try this again:

The anti-scatterers are talking about small islands of land, very much alike the sowetos in southern africa when they critizise that kind of solution. Ofcourse the western bank and gaza has to be apart… you can’t just magically make them appear beside each other. The problems with this Dershowitz adresses with a right-of-passage/right-of-way solution. So… Again, you try a very dishonest tactic combined with lies.

a) You claim that Dershowitz support status quo.

b) I explain that he actually does not, and tell you why.

c) You come with specific examples of how he support a scattered Palestine.

b) I say, quite explicitly that the apartheid kind of scattering is exactly what Dershowitz oppose, but that you can’t make gaza and the western bank to magically appear next to each other…

and now I’m “pegged”…? Grow up please, you base your entire rethoric in every discussion on strawmen, lies and half truths, you again and again fall for logical fallacies as majority/authority…

could you, for once, try to make a serious, mature and logical sound argument? AFTER reading books you claim to have read? Please?
[/quote]

Adamsson,

He is best ignored. He uses this site to spread his lies and Islamist Facist agenda. He is part of a group of English speaking Arabs who do pretty much the same thing on this and other sites. A cursory reading of his posts will tell you all you need to know.

Fortunately he only pollutes the political forum and is easily dismissed.

Adamsson · April 23, 2007, 10:00am

The fun part is that lixy interprets this to be status quo:

"The Arab-Israeli conflict should end with a two-state solution under which all the Arab and Muslim states - indeed the entire world - acknowledge Israel’s right to continue to exist as an independent, democratic, Jwish state with secure and defensible boundaries and free of terrorism. In exchange, Israel should recognize the right of Palestinians to establish an independent, democratic Palestinian state with politically and economically viable boundaries.

…

It would follow from Israel’s renouncing all claims to remain on Palestinian land that the military occupation would end and the Palestinian government would exercise political control over its land and the movement of its people.

…

The precise borders would, of course, have to be negotiated, but there is already in existence an agreed-upon international formula for resolving this divisive issue. Resolution 242, enacted by the UN Security Counsil in 1967 …

"

I don’t understand how someone in good faith can interpret that to be “a shattered solution” or a “status quo”…

When the same “someone” uses people like Cockburn and Finkelstein as backup for his claims, well… Cockburn is known for claiming that the 9/11 is a jewish conspiracy… both of them has accused Dershowitz for plagiarism and has lost in court… They do not have much credibility in the middle-east issue lixy, you have to understand this… neither do you. I have now proven you wrong. Dershowitz does clearly NOT stand for a status quo, so… your lie is exposed, now find some other thread to spread propaganda in, please. (Or maybe you should join Cockburn in throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers, it is a little hobby of his…)

lixy · April 23, 2007, 10:12am

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
a) You claim that Dershowitz support status quo.

b) I explain that he actually does not, and tell you why.[/quote]

Proposing disingenuous and dishonest half-assed proposals IS supporting the status quo.

[quote]c) You come with specific examples of how he support a scattered Palestine.

b) I say, quite explicitly that the apartheid kind of scattering is exactly what Dershowitz oppose, but that you can’t make gaza and the western bank to magically appear next to each other…[/quote]

Let it slide, will you? I made it clear that none of us will move from the current position.

Your only argument is that Dershowitz’s proposal is not as bad as South African Bantustans. You can’t possibly convince rational people with the “it’s better than what was in instaured in Apartheid South Africa”.

Dershowitz argues in his book that a scattered Palestine is not as bad as it sounds. And you just repeat that fallacy. I’ll re-quote the Jewish Virtual Library’s review of the book:

“Dershowitz goes further by saying that in today’s world of high-speed internet and cheap air and rail travel, states do not require continguity to be viable and sustainable.”

This is nonsense! He wouldn’t even grant the Palestinians sovereignty over the roads connecting the bits and pieces.

A quote by Carter to finish off;

“I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,” Carter said in Friday’s [December 15, 2006] Boston Globe. “There is no need . . . to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”

Coming from a Nobel peace prize laureate, it speaks volumes about our Zionist friend.

Adamsson · April 23, 2007, 10:40am

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
a) You claim that Dershowitz support status quo.