"toxic" site."
My dictionary gives "toxic" as harmful, destructive or deadly poisonous, and that is the is the situation on this site.
The materials on the site become toxic if they get into the water supply, that is a fact recognised by the Israeli authorities and stated as such - you have been given that statement.
They become toxic when coming into contact with some gasses, include those with domestic uses - also a documented fact and given to you.
Those toxins remain in the ground years, possibly decades after the site has been used, especially dangerous to any water supply - also commented on by those involved in the health of the country.
The perimeter fence is insecure, making possible - likely that children and enter the site and come into contact with rotting material which could make them ill and even kill them - this is true of any rubbish dump of this size and is recognised to be the case.
In addition to this, the gasses given off could cause fire and explosion - stated by the Health authorities.
Tell us which of these is not true.
Whether the site is being used to dump specifically recognised toxic material it totally irrelevant; I have never claimed that to be the case.
The site is toxic by its very existence – it contains material that can killand it has been stated as being such - that's in several of your unread links.
Your arguments here are similar to your defence of chemical weapons - if materials capable of burning the faces off children are showered down on occupied area they become weapons, no matter what their other uses are.
A baseball bat in the hands of a thug becomes a deadly weapon, no matter what its intended use was.
Your "Broxbourn" equivalent is laughably immaterial unless you can show that this site is and will continue to be similarly managed in the same way as your "wealthy friends" friendly neighbourhood dump - can you?.
Once the site becomes vacant there is no suggestion anywhere that any steps will be taken to guard against the lingering toxicity.
Apart from anything else, the proposal to evict a people from their traditional centuries-old tribal lands to somewhere where they will be unable to follow either their customary way of life or make their livelihoods, in order to make room for Jewish settlers is an act of racist oppression and your support for it reflects perfectly your fascist (wishes of the state before well-being of the people) outlook on life.
You have continued to ignore the evidence put before you and you continue to provide none of your own.
Moving people about like chess pieces if an open act of state fascism.
"Sabra and Shatilla."
You have been given the evidence of Israel's role in this massacre - it was facilitated by them and could not have happened without their active participation - if this is not true provide your evidence to counteract what you have been given.   So far, your sole defence is "Israel said they didn't do it" even though Israeli soldiers who were there and who were traumatised by the events said they did.
At the very least the Israeli forces provided the transport to the camps, opened up the camps for the killers, provided the illumination so they could go about their work OVER THREE DAYS.
Well-armed Israeli soldiers stood by and watched as the slaughter went on – they witnessed the events over a long period of times and did nothing.
"It was the IDF who stopped it."
They "stopped it" when the killing had run its course.
They helped bury the dead after the three days of slaughter and allowed the killers to leave.
They later built a stadium over the mass graves so that they corpses could not be used as evidence (the reason why the actuat death toll is still unknown)
They were guilty before, during and after the fact - making them mass murderers and war criminals - show us one shred of evidence to show they were not.
Were us your evidence - you've had ours
Jim Carroll