Reply #6: Question -

[Englander]

The argument, & 'facts' being presented here, would suggest that anyone using such arguments,
most likely, finds postive aspects in the policy of 'transfer'. The argument presented states, that
the official poilicy of Palestinian nationalist parties is a refusal to accept the existance of Israel,
& an intent to wage war & terrorwistic outrages, & any claims to the contrary are falsehoods. If
anyone were to follow that line, that any Palestinian nationalistic groups are not to be trusted, &
have never ended the terrrwor campaign, then why should the GoI accept such groups, or the
population that votes for them, as neighbours? The argument presented suggests that anyone who
believes that, would also believe that the policy of 'transfer' is the next logical step, since why
should any country tolerate a population that's intent on having as political leaders, terrowists, &
parties who's ultimate aim is the destruction of said country? I don't know if you've realised this,
but if anyone tries to portray the Palestinian parties as devoid of any redeeming features, then
the next logical step is 'transfer', imo. If anyone tries to push the line that negotiations are futile, &
the only policy that's being followed despite any claims to the contrary, is war/terrorism, then
I would suggest that the next logical step to that argument, is 'transfer'. There are political
parties in Israel that have 'transfer' as their official platform.