🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr13112338@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr13.054206.5584@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <JIME.92Apr13001541@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # An interesting opinion.  In 1989 Israeli IDF Chief of Staff Shomron
# >   # said "People ask why we don't end the intifada.  Anyone who wants to
# >   # end the intifada must remember that there are only three ways to
# >   # achieve this:  transfer of the Arab population of the areas,
# >   # starvation, or physical elimination - that is genocide."

# >	   So you agree with everything Shomron says?
 
# I doubt it.
 
	Then why do you agree here?

# >   # Which of
# >   # these or any other less wimpy policies would you support?

# >	   The policy I support is transfer.  Without it there will be a
# >   massive civil war that will make the intifada look like a sunday
# >   school picnic (I know that transfer will lead to some violence, but
# >   this violence will also look like a sunday school picnic when compared
# >   with what will happen without transfer).  However, this is a long term
# >   solution.  In the short term I support whatever policy will end the
# >   intifada with the least amount of violence.  This may or may not
# >   include one of Shomron's solutions.
 
# Transfer to where?  You support the uprooting of a people from their
# homes, and deportation to a land foreign to them?

	It is not a pleasant situation.  However transfer is much better
than everyone LITERALLY killing each other.  Do not give me any of
this nonsense about peace.  Anyone who takes a reasoned, rational
approach to this situation will see that peace is impossible without
divine intervention, and eventually there will be a ful scale civil
war.

# When that happens
# to the Jews, it is usually decried.

	The Jews were not in conflict with those that deported them.
However, deportations certainly would have been preferable to pogroms
and massacres.

# When it happens to the Arabs, you
# support it.  Why?

	There have been several of these types of things done this century
to save lives.  The world accepted it because it was the lessor of two
evils.  But when it involves Jews, you reject it.  Why?

# It is against the Geneva Convention, anyway.

	It may be against the Geneva Convention.  However, if it is
necessary to violate the Geneva Convention to protect lives, then so
be it and we ought to change the Geneva COnvention.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu