So much for the vacation in Bali ...!

no, read my question again. i'm not asking you to say that the state is secular or not. would you say that it is or is not comprised of a largely secular POPULATION?

incidentally, is the Palestinian Arab people a secular people, either?

i'm not looking for any sort of anti-Likud rant. all i want to know is what you think:

is the israeli people secular?

is the palestinian?

RE: driving in Yerushalayim on Shabbat

>so, that civilian population is right to target infants and

>unarmed people in that sacrosanct resistance of occupation?

International law as far as I see it is silent as to tactics. The right to resist occupation is as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance derived from natural law, ant it is absolute. But if you don't like their choice of weapons, then arm them equally and let the best man win. What I will not accept is an argument that says that the Palestinians have effectively no choice but to accept the occupation because of the asymmetry of conventional and non-conventional military tools at their disposal.

i haven't addressed any possible israeli support for such organisations. i asked if islamic jihad was or is in any way connected with the egyptian islamic jihad and/or hassan al-banna's society of muslim brothers.

>no, read my question again. i'm not asking you to say that

>the state is secular or not. would you say that it is or is

>not comprised of a largely secular POPULATION?

I read it, and I told you that I don't think that distinction works if the population chooses to live in that state, and abide by its racist rules.

RE: driving in Yerushalayim on Shabbat

it is my responsibility to arm the man who seeks my ouster?

>i haven't addressed any possible israeli support for such

>organisations.

Well, why haven't you addressed that question since that is the tool that has been used to marginalize the Palestinian secularists and undercut their authority. What are you afraid of? Go ahead, answer that, if you can!

so then the israeli people is not a secular people, for you. okay, care to answer whether the palestinian people is?

answer the question already posed and i'll address your concern. you share ann coulter's annoying habit of avoidance and deflection. surely that's not intentional.

>so then the israeli people is not a secular people, for you.

>okay, care to answer whether the palestinian people is?

I answered it above, and I am waiting for you to defend the Israeli facilitation of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. I am listening...!

>you share ann coulter's annoying habit of avoidance

>and deflection. surely that's not intentional.

I have answered several of your questions. Now, answer one of mine, if you can.

you did not answer the question.

is the PALESTINIAN people a secular people?

it really is a yes or no question. your previous answer indicated some connexion between a state and the people who choose to live within it. since there is no palestinian state to reference, i can't look to such a state for your answer to the question. if you don't want to answer, that's fine. i'm not setting some trap; i just want to know your opinion of the secular nature (or not) of the palestinian populace.

is there or has there ever been any connexion between the palestian islamic jihad and any of the two organisations i referenced?

>is there or has there ever been any connexion between the

>palestian islamic jihad and any of the two organisations i

>referenced?

forgive the typographical error:

Palestinian.

RE: driving in Yerushalayim on Shabbat

so that i can accurately answer you, i have a few questions of my own.

to which Universal Declaration do you refer? i'm assuming you are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, but i just want to be sure.

are you saying that WMD have been used against the Palestinian people by Israel?

the short answer is that no, i do not find the military assymetry to be morally ambiguous. however, i reserve the right to extend or amend that statement until i know what exactly you're charging.

>you did not answer the question.

>is the PALESTINIAN people a secular people?

>it really is a yes or no question.

I have answered that above. My answer is dependent on your answer to my pending question on Israeli support for Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. For the reasons given above, when you answer that question, you will also be able to answer your own question. I am listening...!

RE: driving in Yerushalayim on Shabbat

>to which Universal Declaration do you refer? i'm assuming you

>are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

>Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A

>(III) of 10 December 1948, but i just want to be sure.

that's the one.

>are you saying that WMD have been used against the Palestinian

>people by Israel?

I am saying they have the weapons, and produced them along with apartheid South Africa as I have discussed here before. Go read the Truth and Reconciliation Report, if you are in doubt.

>the short answer is that no, i do not find the military

>assymetry to be morally ambiguous.

alas, we agree on something!:-)

yes or no?

why are you so afraid of answering?

clearly you're not interested in dialogue, but rather in setting snares. all i am asking is if you think the palestinian people (population, not its appointed or elected representatives) is a secular people.

>yes or no?

>why are you so afraid of answering?

>clearly you're not interested in dialogue, but rather in

>setting snares. all i am asking is if you think the

>palestinian people (population, not its appointed or elected

>representatives) is a secular people.

Darling, I have answered your question already above. Re-read the posts, and then answer the question that I have posed to you, and you will have your answer to the question you have posed to me? I must say your form of argumentation shares a trait or two with that of Woodlawn, is their perhaps an ancestral connection between you two?

>yes or no?

>why are you so afraid of answering?

>clearly you're not interested in dialogue, but rather in

>setting snares. all i am asking is if you think the

>palestinian people (population, not its appointed or elected

>representatives) is a secular people.

Darling, I have answered your question already above. Re-read the posts, and then answer the question that I have posed to you, and you will have your answer to the question you have posed to me? I must say your form of argumentation shares a trait or two with that of Woodlawn, is their perhaps an ancestral connection between you two?

>Darling, I have answered your question already above.

no, you never said yes or no. you're afraid to do so. when you're done with your tantrum we can procede.

i'll infer from your previous arguments that you think the palestinian people is NOT secular. the reason (for you) is because the Israelis have either invented or at least propped up radical islamists. were it not for the Israelis (who are, by proxy, responsible for absolutely everything that is now or has ever been wrong with the world) the palestinian arabs would be an idyllic, peace-loving, secular people.

i disagree with you, but is that the basic thrust of your argument?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

axe, the UD is SILENT on the issue of occupation. the words "resistance" and "occupation" are both not to be found in the document--anywhere. in the preamble to the declaration, "rebellion against tyranny and oppression" is mentioned. however, there is no indication that this is referring to any occupation. in fact, it clearly points to a domestic insurrection because it goes on to indicate that such rebllion is only ever to be a "last resort" and only then when human rights are not "protected by the rule of law".

the declaration is not a binding document, but rather was promulgated as a "common standard" and goal for all peoples, nations, and states. (see eleanor roosevelt's remarks for further elucidation.)

article 29, paragraph 2 of the declaration indicates that the exercise of any rights mentioned in the declaration is limited by the "respect for the rights and freedoms of others" AND BY "requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare". so, even if resistance to occupation were encompassed by the declaration (which is not the case), your claim to a defence of such right by any means necessary, is specious. the declaration SPECIFICALLY and CLEARLY limits the measures that may be taken in the exercise of rights--in fact, such limitations are the ONLY limitations imposed.

if you're going to continue to rely on the Universal Declaration, then you'll need to change your tactics. islamikaze bombings obviously do not hold any due regard to the rights and freedoms of the victims, nor are they within the bounds of morality, public order, or general welfare.

i'm happy to discuss other texts with you, but the Universal Declaration you stipulated that you referred to does NOT mention occupation, nor any presumed right of resistance thereto. it DOES, however, impose restrictions upon ANYONE's exercise of any of his rights and freedoms--whether mentioned in the declaration or not.