"Since Israel began making `goodwill gestures` to the Palestinian Authority last year, it has arrested more than four times the number of Palestinians it released from prison, former Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouthi said on Monday."
Your debate tactic to NOT quote me is not as clever as you think it is. I understand you don't want to show that you're ignoring 75% of my post, but it doesn't help your case at all.
Hi Outlaw.
Its not a tactic, its just that I do not have time to respond to so many accusations against Israel in one go. I suggest that posting such ridiculously huge wall of text does not help your case (it makes your post sound like rants). Perhaps if you were to stick to 2 or 3 points at a time this would be a much more interesting thread.
I apologise for inferring that since you regard Edward Said as a ‘great scholar’, you must have read his books, did it come to you in a revelation of his greatness? Or, more likely through the worship given to him by your friend Noam Chomsky? By the way, your attempt to discredit me by accusing me of contradiction is so lame that I must quote it:
I'd also like to point out a hilarious contradiction in your post. You claim that:
"Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre."
however you then try to argue that Deir Yassin was a 'battle' and NOT a massacre...
so... which is it? in the above quote, you claim it was a massacre, just not 'pre-mediated'... but then you claim it wasn't a massacre, just a 'battle'...
You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’???? I think you need to take some lessons in linguistics (pref not from Chomsky)
Out of your many recent allegations, I have chosen to focus on the many misquotes of Zionist leaders that you employ as evidence of Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians. The last two of these were quotes from BenGurion and Moshe dayan:
David Ben-Gurion: We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal. (1937)
At first glance your quote appears to support your allegation that the Jews sought to expel the Arabs as a matter of policy, however if we remove the additions and add back in the deleted parts of the quote, we see that it is quite the opposite:
“We do not wish, and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity in the land [of Israel] that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. But if we have to use force, not to disposess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal.”
Moshe Dayan: Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. (1969)
This is a deceptive and dishonest misquote commonly used by anti-Zionists. It is deceptive because it also omits a key sentence and thereby reverses its meaning. You can see how this is done on this link:
Regarding the British Anti-Zionism, please check your facts. Of course the Balfour declaration was not anti-Zionist, but it was reversed by the anti-Zionist Mcdonald white paper in 1939.
The British military administration during this period was anti-Zionist, that is why they appointed al husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and why they did not intervene to stop the Arab slaughter of Jews across the land. British anti-Zionism is also the reason why thousand of Jews fleeing the death camps were prevented from entering Palestine and were sent back to die in Auschwitz.
Wow guys~ my brain is fried after reading all your posts! OK~ yes~It was fried before that, but you'al just did it in for the day! (My boss will not be happy~ but she never is)
DANG~ I have a lot of researching to do before I really comment. I just want to say that I apprieciate you all and please dont slam Outlaw~ he is intence but has great info as you do too! You are all intelligent amazing souls~no need to point fingers and call names etc....debate yes~please~ cuz I am listening~learning~ and find you all so informative! Thank YOU Have a good one!
Its not a tactic, its just that I do not have time to respond to so many accusations against Israel in one go.
No, of course you don't. You're too busy trying to make apologies for Israel's crimes.
I suggest that posting such ridiculously huge wall of text does not help your case (it makes your post sound like rants). Perhaps if you were to stick to 2 or 3 points at a time this would be a much more interesting thread.
1. These aren't 'walls of text' they are quotes from sources, something you should try to use more often.
2. sticking to 2 or 3 points is what you have done to try to ignore many important issues that show your lies.
I apologise for inferring that since you regard Edward Said as a ‘great scholar’, you must have read his books, did it come to you in a revelation of his greatness?
disregarding the fact that I said I haven't read 1 of his many books, and that I shouldn't even waste my time answering this question, I've also had many discussions with him.
Let me guess, your mentor Alan Dershowitz says that Said is a bad bad man, so it must be true, right?
You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’????
yes.
I think you need to take some lessons in linguistics (pref not from Chomsky)
Right, because Chomsky isn't considered to be the foremost linguist in the world?
It's not a key sentence at all, and it no way reverses the meaning of the passage.
"In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages."
The fact that the Zionists with the help of the JNF bought some of the land from wealthy, absent Ottoman landowners, doesn't excuse the Zionists overall plan for dispossession of the Palestinians and the following ethnic cleansing campaigns of 1948 and beyond, up to the present day.
some more quotes by your beloved leader:
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
- David Ben-Gurion
“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”
- David Ben-Gurion
"I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it".
- David Ben-Gurion
Also, why did you ignore my posting of the details of Plan Dalet, which show clearly the pre-meditated nature of the ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948?
And why did you ignore my mention of the fact that Alan Dershowitz's book - which you obviously love dearly - has been successfully exposed as a fraud, consisting largely of plagiarism? Harvard University even upheld Norman Finkelstein's accusation of plagiarism regarding this book.
Also, why did you ignore my mention of the fact the radio broadcasts never happened? Seems to me like you choose to be blinkered.
Regarding the British Anti-Zionism, please check your facts. Of course the Balfour declaration was not anti-Zionist, but it was reversed by the anti-Zionist Mcdonald white paper in 1939.
anti-Zionist?
All that happened was that Britain realized the mistake it made in supporting a Zionist state and the implications it would have... they knew the increasing immigration to Palestine was not a good idea, but I don't even see why you're complaining about this. Your people still got there alright with all the illegal immigration and weapons smuggling that took place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
'In the liberal Western world, opposition to Zionism has often focused on the United Kingdom since it was the UK's decision to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The decision was controversial from the start as some British people believed the Balfour declaration undermined Britain's relationship with Muslims in the Middle East and India. Between 1919 and 1939 the British government steadily reduced its support for Zionism. In 1939 Britain formally announced its intention to create an Arab state in the whole of Palestine, ending its support for the Balfour declaration.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
'British public and government opinion became increasingly less favorable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In Feb 1922 Winston Churchill, a fervent Zionist himself, telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:
'In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles. I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.'
The British military administration during this period was anti-Zionist, that is why they appointed al husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and why they did not intervene to stop the Arab slaughter of Jews across the land.
how do you justify the British standing by in 1948 when a quarter of a million Palestinians were being ethnically cleansed?
Ilan Pappe:
'Palestinian sources show clearly how months before the entry of Arab forces into Palestine, and while the British were still responsible for law and order in the country - namely before 15th May - the Jewish forces had already succeeded in forcibly expelling almost a quarter of a million Palestinians'.
British anti-Zionism is also the reason why thousand of Jews fleeing the death camps were prevented from entering Palestine and were sent back to die in Auschwitz.
Don't play that pathetic card with me, it won't work.
You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’????
So you still insist on denying that a massacre took place, despite all of the available evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that all mainstream historians admit that a massacre took place?
And you try to justify the massacre on the grounds that, according to Menachem Begin the Arabs tried defending themselves with what he described as 'murderous' fire from the old Mausers and muskets had cost them [the attackers] four dead"?
Regarding Dier Yassin. You are incorrect, I do accept Benny Morris's description of the horrors and injustices there. Many Arab civilians there were shot by the Jews. However, although some of the Jewish fighters lost control, Dier Yassin was NOT a pre-meditated massacre.
You have an unfortunate tendency to indulge in personal fantasies at the expense of the facts.
Plan Dalet:
'These operations can be divided into the following categories:
Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.
The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary.'
Ilan Pappe - The ethnic cleansing of Palestine:
'The plan decided upon upon on 10th March 1948, and above all it's systematic implementation in the following months, was a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law as a crime against humanity'.
It's a shame that the Palestinians are now suffering the same fate the Jews did at the hands of the religious fantasies of the Zionists. Can you not see the double standards at play here? You are attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Israel is an international pariah in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions, and stands accused by many international human rights body's, and the U.N of war crimes and crimes against humanity. So why are you defending these actions? World opinion, including many of the world's Jewish communities, is slowly but surely beginning to learn the truth about the Middle East conflict, and Israel's criminal conduct. So why can't you see it, tim?
Tell me, have you ever read the book? And if you have studied it, why would you go to wikipedia for your information and why did you avoid providing links?
I await the day you chime in with something that is atleast related to the topic, something that can be discussed... until then, your childish 2-word remarks will only hurt you...
sticking to 2 or 3 points is what you have done to try to ignore many important issues that show your lies
I hope you have some grounds for calling me a liar Outlaw because you havn't offered any yet. It is YOUR credibility that is on the line here. I have just demonstrated how your last two quotes have been deliberately altered to show that the Zionist leadership called for 'expulsion' and 'ethnic cleansing' of the Palestinian arabs. Regarding your quote of Moshe Dayan, you say that your deletion of the sentence:"In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages." is not important since
It's not a key sentence at all, and it no way reverses the meaning of the passage.
Well I dont think anyone will buy that Outlaw. The sentence you removed shows that Dayan was talking about BUYING land from Arabs, not expelling, or exterminating them. More worrying though is the FACT that you removed the sentence at all. Regarding the quote you provided from Israeli Prime Minister David ben Gurion, the situation is even more damning for you since you completely reversed the meaning of one sentence
Origional Quote: ‘We do not wish, and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place’
Outlaw’s version: ‘We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places’
Before I take the time to investigate your latest barrage of alleged quotations from Zionists, I think you need to either admit that you have dishonestly manipulated these quotes, or at least that you have cut and pasted them from some website without checking their authenticity. If you do not have the honesty or humility to do this then I think your credibility is lost.
it seems everything you've pointed out about Edward Said has been lifted from wikipedia...Tell me, have you ever read the book? And if you have studied it, why would you go to wikipedia for your information and why did you avoid providing links?
I am utterly astonished by this. Please check all my previous posts and you will see that I have not used wikepedia once, however you have used it as your main source – providing many links to wikepedia pages. My criticisms of Edward Said come largely from a book called ‘Defending the West’ by Ibn Warraq, which I have in my possession and, along with Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’, I recently read when researching a piece of work for my degree. If you are going to have an informed view about these subjects, I suggest that you drop wikepedia and read Said’s ‘Orientalism’, which is by far the most important of his books since it is his main thesis.
Orientalism has become the paradigm through which people of your persuasion view the whole conflict, any historical evidence that the land was empty is viewed as the 'racist' propaganda of Imperialist orientalists, however this is false. Edward Said is not a neutral observer in this fight, he was a leading menber of the PLO council until he fell out with Yasser Arafat because Arafat signed the olso peace accords with Israel. Like Arafat claimed to be Palestinian but was in fact Egyptian, for Said the guilt of Zionism is not a conclusion, it is his premise, as he himself admits:
‘My premise is that Israel developed as a social polity out of the Zionist thesis that Palestine’s colonization was to be accomplished for and by Jews by the displacement of the Palestinians; that in its conscious and declared idea about Palestine, Zionism attempted first to minimize, then to eliminate, then, all else failing, finally to subjugate the natives.’
I think that it would be beneficial for you, if you want to gain a more balanced view, if you also read Ibn Warraq’s ‘Defending the West’ since it is the best available critique of Said. Neither of these books are specifically about the Israeli-Palestinian issue but they deal with the paradigms through which we view the conflict.
I suggest that before you continue throwing your endless barrage of quotations, insults, and accusations at me, you answer the issues I have raised in this post.
I await the day you chime in with something that is atleast related to the topic, something that can be discussed... until then, your childish 2-word remarks will only hurt you...
If you remember, I use to try and discuss things with you...but I quickly found out it was impossible...I have now dedicated my life to warning others of wasting this time with you...
To waste time is to waste life.
Anytime anyone points out the possible "otherside" of the argument (although there are really far more than 2 sides to this story) you call them Israeli-apologists and dismiss everything. You want to preach and be heard without taking the time to listen.
The problem is you make some very valid points, and I do appreciate your passion on the issue to a point. And perhaps without individuals like you standing so far to one side, maybe others would never alter their positions...I hope that's the case, but to pretend that you want a discussion and asking questions that you know you never will except any answers for is a joke. So, when you chastise pthers for not listening and for not thinking...I find it very ironic.
I hope you have some grounds for calling me a liar Outlaw because you havn't offered any yet.
Oh no, I have. It's painfully obvious, too. You've just ignored it all.
It is YOUR credibility that is on the line here. I have just demonstrated how your last two quotes have been deliberately altered to show that the Zionist leadership called for 'expulsion' and 'ethnic cleansing' of the Palestinian arabs. Regarding your quote of Moshe Dayan, you say that your deletion of the sentence:"In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages." is not important since
Well I dont think anyone will buy that Outlaw. The sentence you removed shows that Dayan was talking about BUYING land from Arabs, not expelling, or exterminating them.
No, he said a 'considerable amount' was bought. Obviously, this does not mean all of it, and if you take a look at your history, you'd know the amount of 'bought' land was only a small percentage. I thought you were so skilled at linguistics?
Regarding the quote you provided from Israeli Prime Minister David ben Gurion, the situation is even more damning for you since you completely reversed the meaning of one sentence
Origional Quote: ‘We do not wish, and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place’
Outlaw’s version: ‘We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places’
Before I take the time to investigate your latest barrage of alleged quotations from Zionists, I think you need to either admit that you have dishonestly manipulated these quotes, or at least that you have cut and pasted them from some website without checking their authenticity. If you do not have the honesty or humility to do this then I think your credibility is lost.
Ben-Gurion's quote, as I put it, has been documented in several biographies about him. If all those authors are incorrect, then fine, it's possible seeing as how so many people can inaccurately document what Ahmadinejad said about Israel (funny how it works both ways, huh). Either way, saying my 'credibility is lost' is laughable seeing as how throughout this entire post (and all others) you've ignored most of the main issues raised.
I suggest that before you continue throwing your endless barrage of quotations, insults, and accusations at me, you answer the issues I have raised in this post.
this is completely irrelevant. in fact, your entire post ignored pretty much everything I wrote, or anything I was trying to prove. I was nice enough to address points raised in this post, but the rest of it is just pointless. come back when you want to discuss (and, in your case, defend apartheid) the actual issue.
If you remember, I use to try and discuss things with you...but I quickly found out it was impossible...I have now dedicated my life to warning others of wasting this time with you...
To waste time is to waste life.
actually, there was no discussion between you and I because all you said was 'both sides are wrong in this, the only way to end violence is to drop the weapons', which is so incredibly cliche, and you never bothered to go further than that.
Anytime anyone points out the possible "otherside" of the argument (although there are really far more than 2 sides to this story) you call them Israeli-apologists and dismiss everything. You want to preach and be heard without taking the time to listen.
No. Anytime anyone bothers to ignore the fact that Israel is currently occupying and oppressing the Palestinians, and instead defend them by saying they are 'retaliating', then yes, of course they are being apologists, however I don't 'dismiss' everything, I address most points raised in their post, which is something others can't say.
The problem is you make some very valid points, and I do appreciate your passion on the issue to a point. And perhaps without individuals like you standing so far to one side, maybe others would never alter their positions...I hope that's the case, but to pretend that you want a discussion and asking questions that you know you never will except any answers for is a joke. So, when you chastise pthers for not listening and for not thinking...I find it very ironic.
Ask questions that I don't expect answers to? which questions have I raised that don't need answers? I'm curious, what was the last book you read about this particular subject?
and you still haven't provided anything useful to this thread.
right, which is why I haven't been debating in this thread at all.
you know, I liked it better when I was on your ignore list.
you think what you are doing here is debate? any counter point that is made to yours you follow it up with insults. the problem is you are not willing to accept any ideas or suggestions that is contrary to your beliefs. a debate with you is impossible and pointless.
you think what you are doing here is debate? any counter point that is made to yours you follow it up with insults. the problem is you are not willing to accept any ideas or suggestions that is contrary to your beliefs. a debate with you is impossible and pointless.
first they're '3000 word rants', now they're 'insults'...
my posts will be whatever you want it to be just so you can ignore the issues that are raised. keep doing that, it's worked out well for you so far. I, on the other hand, don't have anything else to say to you in this thread unless you address the topic (more specifically, post #69)...
my posts will be whatever you want it to be just so you can ignore the issues that are raised. keep doing that, it's worked out well for you so far. I, on the other hand, don't have anything else to say to you in this thread unless you address the topic (more specifically, post #69)...
you still dont get it. you dismiss anything said to you that doesnt fit your opinion. you will never accept that their are problems with the Hamas ideology. you clearly do not thinking Israel has a right to exist. I mean really there is no point in debating with you. I'll be happy to not come back to this pointless thread.
actually, there was no discussion between you and I because all you said was 'both sides are wrong in this, the only way to end violence is to drop the weapons', which is so incredibly cliche, and you never bothered to go further than that.
No. Anytime anyone bothers to ignore the fact that Israel is currently occupying and oppressing the Palestinians, and instead defend them by saying they are 'retaliating', then yes, of course they are being apologists, however I don't 'dismiss' everything, I address most points raised in their post, which is something others can't say.
Ask questions that I don't expect answers to? which questions have I raised that don't need answers? I'm curious, what was the last book you read about this particular subject?
and you still haven't provided anything useful to this thread.
Yep, that's all I said...nice work again.
You address their points? Nope, you call them names "Isreali apologist"...not a good discussion tactic by the way, but it's obvious you haven't learned that yet.
No answer to any of your questions will satisfy you. Hell, I agreed with you abotu Israel neeing to make the first move and then to have the stomach to withstand some potential attacks from fringe groups without going back on the peace process and you found fault in that as well.
Hell, I agreed with you abotu Israel neeing to make the first move and then to have the stomach to withstand some potential attacks from fringe groups without going back on the peace process and you found fault in that as well.
I'm not going to go back and find it, it's in 1 of the 1000's of threads about Israel and Israel-Apologist that you've started.
Anyhow, I will apologize for 1 thing, I haven;t really added to the debate in this thread and only am debating you about your tactics, which is wrong, I should have pm'd. I think the reason I did was this was another thread about the same topic where I did try and debate with you.
Comments
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=28596
Hi Outlaw.
Its not a tactic, its just that I do not have time to respond to so many accusations against Israel in one go. I suggest that posting such ridiculously huge wall of text does not help your case (it makes your post sound like rants). Perhaps if you were to stick to 2 or 3 points at a time this would be a much more interesting thread.
I apologise for inferring that since you regard Edward Said as a ‘great scholar’, you must have read his books, did it come to you in a revelation of his greatness? Or, more likely through the worship given to him by your friend Noam Chomsky? By the way, your attempt to discredit me by accusing me of contradiction is so lame that I must quote it:
You think that because I said that Dier Yassin was ‘not a premeditated massacre’, I have admitted that it was a ‘massacre’???? I think you need to take some lessons in linguistics (pref not from Chomsky)
Out of your many recent allegations, I have chosen to focus on the many misquotes of Zionist leaders that you employ as evidence of Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Palestinians. The last two of these were quotes from BenGurion and Moshe dayan:
At first glance your quote appears to support your allegation that the Jews sought to expel the Arabs as a matter of policy, however if we remove the additions and add back in the deleted parts of the quote, we see that it is quite the opposite:
“We do not wish, and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity in the land [of Israel] that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. But if we have to use force, not to disposess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal.”
This is a deceptive and dishonest misquote commonly used by anti-Zionists. It is deceptive because it also omits a key sentence and thereby reverses its meaning. You can see how this is done on this link:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=371
Regarding the British Anti-Zionism, please check your facts. Of course the Balfour declaration was not anti-Zionist, but it was reversed by the anti-Zionist Mcdonald white paper in 1939.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_whitepaper_1939.php
The British military administration during this period was anti-Zionist, that is why they appointed al husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and why they did not intervene to stop the Arab slaughter of Jews across the land. British anti-Zionism is also the reason why thousand of Jews fleeing the death camps were prevented from entering Palestine and were sent back to die in Auschwitz.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_oppose_immigration.php
Peace.
DANG~ I have a lot of researching to do before I really comment. I just want to say that I apprieciate you all and please dont slam Outlaw~ he is intence but has great info as you do too! You are all intelligent amazing souls~no need to point fingers and call names etc....debate yes~please~ cuz I am listening~learning~ and find you all so informative! Thank YOU Have a good one!
2. sticking to 2 or 3 points is what you have done to try to ignore many important issues that show your lies. disregarding the fact that I said I haven't read 1 of his many books, and that I shouldn't even waste my time answering this question, I've also had many discussions with him.
Let me guess, your mentor Alan Dershowitz says that Said is a bad bad man, so it must be true, right? yes. Right, because Chomsky isn't considered to be the foremost linguist in the world? It's not a key sentence at all, and it no way reverses the meaning of the passage.
"In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages."
The fact that the Zionists with the help of the JNF bought some of the land from wealthy, absent Ottoman landowners, doesn't excuse the Zionists overall plan for dispossession of the Palestinians and the following ethnic cleansing campaigns of 1948 and beyond, up to the present day.
some more quotes by your beloved leader:
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
- David Ben-Gurion
“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”
- David Ben-Gurion
"I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it".
- David Ben-Gurion
Also, why did you ignore my posting of the details of Plan Dalet, which show clearly the pre-meditated nature of the ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948?
And why did you ignore my mention of the fact that Alan Dershowitz's book - which you obviously love dearly - has been successfully exposed as a fraud, consisting largely of plagiarism? Harvard University even upheld Norman Finkelstein's accusation of plagiarism regarding this book.
Also, why did you ignore my mention of the fact the radio broadcasts never happened? Seems to me like you choose to be blinkered. anti-Zionist?
All that happened was that Britain realized the mistake it made in supporting a Zionist state and the implications it would have... they knew the increasing immigration to Palestine was not a good idea, but I don't even see why you're complaining about this. Your people still got there alright with all the illegal immigration and weapons smuggling that took place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
'In the liberal Western world, opposition to Zionism has often focused on the United Kingdom since it was the UK's decision to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The decision was controversial from the start as some British people believed the Balfour declaration undermined Britain's relationship with Muslims in the Middle East and India. Between 1919 and 1939 the British government steadily reduced its support for Zionism. In 1939 Britain formally announced its intention to create an Arab state in the whole of Palestine, ending its support for the Balfour declaration.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
'British public and government opinion became increasingly less favorable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In Feb 1922 Winston Churchill, a fervent Zionist himself, telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:
'In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles. I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.' how do you justify the British standing by in 1948 when a quarter of a million Palestinians were being ethnically cleansed?
Ilan Pappe:
'Palestinian sources show clearly how months before the entry of Arab forces into Palestine, and while the British were still responsible for law and order in the country - namely before 15th May - the Jewish forces had already succeeded in forcibly expelling almost a quarter of a million Palestinians'. Don't play that pathetic card with me, it won't work. So you still insist on denying that a massacre took place, despite all of the available evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that all mainstream historians admit that a massacre took place?
And you try to justify the massacre on the grounds that, according to Menachem Begin the Arabs tried defending themselves with what he described as 'murderous' fire from the old Mausers and muskets had cost them [the attackers] four dead"? You have an unfortunate tendency to indulge in personal fantasies at the expense of the facts.
Plan Dalet:
'These operations can be divided into the following categories:
Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.
The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary.'
Ilan Pappe - The ethnic cleansing of Palestine:
'The plan decided upon upon on 10th March 1948, and above all it's systematic implementation in the following months, was a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law as a crime against humanity'. Hardly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)
Tell me, have you ever read the book? And if you have studied it, why would you go to wikipedia for your information and why did you avoid providing links?
Pure irony.
I hope you have some grounds for calling me a liar Outlaw because you havn't offered any yet. It is YOUR credibility that is on the line here. I have just demonstrated how your last two quotes have been deliberately altered to show that the Zionist leadership called for 'expulsion' and 'ethnic cleansing' of the Palestinian arabs. Regarding your quote of Moshe Dayan, you say that your deletion of the sentence:"In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages." is not important since
Well I dont think anyone will buy that Outlaw. The sentence you removed shows that Dayan was talking about BUYING land from Arabs, not expelling, or exterminating them. More worrying though is the FACT that you removed the sentence at all. Regarding the quote you provided from Israeli Prime Minister David ben Gurion, the situation is even more damning for you since you completely reversed the meaning of one sentence
Origional Quote: ‘We do not wish, and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place’
Outlaw’s version: ‘We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places’
Before I take the time to investigate your latest barrage of alleged quotations from Zionists, I think you need to either admit that you have dishonestly manipulated these quotes, or at least that you have cut and pasted them from some website without checking their authenticity. If you do not have the honesty or humility to do this then I think your credibility is lost.
I am utterly astonished by this. Please check all my previous posts and you will see that I have not used wikepedia once, however you have used it as your main source – providing many links to wikepedia pages. My criticisms of Edward Said come largely from a book called ‘Defending the West’ by Ibn Warraq, which I have in my possession and, along with Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’, I recently read when researching a piece of work for my degree. If you are going to have an informed view about these subjects, I suggest that you drop wikepedia and read Said’s ‘Orientalism’, which is by far the most important of his books since it is his main thesis.
Orientalism has become the paradigm through which people of your persuasion view the whole conflict, any historical evidence that the land was empty is viewed as the 'racist' propaganda of Imperialist orientalists, however this is false. Edward Said is not a neutral observer in this fight, he was a leading menber of the PLO council until he fell out with Yasser Arafat because Arafat signed the olso peace accords with Israel. Like Arafat claimed to be Palestinian but was in fact Egyptian, for Said the guilt of Zionism is not a conclusion, it is his premise, as he himself admits:
‘My premise is that Israel developed as a social polity out of the Zionist thesis that Palestine’s colonization was to be accomplished for and by Jews by the displacement of the Palestinians; that in its conscious and declared idea about Palestine, Zionism attempted first to minimize, then to eliminate, then, all else failing, finally to subjugate the natives.’
I think that it would be beneficial for you, if you want to gain a more balanced view, if you also read Ibn Warraq’s ‘Defending the West’ since it is the best available critique of Said. Neither of these books are specifically about the Israeli-Palestinian issue but they deal with the paradigms through which we view the conflict.
I suggest that before you continue throwing your endless barrage of quotations, insults, and accusations at me, you answer the issues I have raised in this post.
not everyone has the time to painstakingly go through every single sentence of your 3000 word rants
If you remember, I use to try and discuss things with you...but I quickly found out it was impossible...I have now dedicated my life to warning others of wasting this time with you...
To waste time is to waste life.
Anytime anyone points out the possible "otherside" of the argument (although there are really far more than 2 sides to this story) you call them Israeli-apologists and dismiss everything. You want to preach and be heard without taking the time to listen.
The problem is you make some very valid points, and I do appreciate your passion on the issue to a point. And perhaps without individuals like you standing so far to one side, maybe others would never alter their positions...I hope that's the case, but to pretend that you want a discussion and asking questions that you know you never will except any answers for is a joke. So, when you chastise pthers for not listening and for not thinking...I find it very ironic.
No, he said a 'considerable amount' was bought. Obviously, this does not mean all of it, and if you take a look at your history, you'd know the amount of 'bought' land was only a small percentage. I thought you were so skilled at linguistics? Ben-Gurion's quote, as I put it, has been documented in several biographies about him. If all those authors are incorrect, then fine, it's possible seeing as how so many people can inaccurately document what Ahmadinejad said about Israel (funny how it works both ways, huh). Either way, saying my 'credibility is lost' is laughable seeing as how throughout this entire post (and all others) you've ignored most of the main issues raised. this is completely irrelevant. in fact, your entire post ignored pretty much everything I wrote, or anything I was trying to prove. I was nice enough to address points raised in this post, but the rest of it is just pointless. come back when you want to discuss (and, in your case, defend apartheid) the actual issue.
that doesn't look like 3000 words to me, and seeing as how you average 31.7 posts a day (all of which are in AMT), I'd say you have plenty of time.
#107 sums it up. you arent interested in debate
and you still haven't provided anything useful to this thread.
you know, I liked it better when I was on your ignore list.
you think what you are doing here is debate? any counter point that is made to yours you follow it up with insults. the problem is you are not willing to accept any ideas or suggestions that is contrary to your beliefs. a debate with you is impossible and pointless.
my posts will be whatever you want it to be just so you can ignore the issues that are raised. keep doing that, it's worked out well for you so far. I, on the other hand, don't have anything else to say to you in this thread unless you address the topic (more specifically, post #69)...
yes. 3000 word rants usually beginning with insults.
you still dont get it. you dismiss anything said to you that doesnt fit your opinion. you will never accept that their are problems with the Hamas ideology. you clearly do not thinking Israel has a right to exist. I mean really there is no point in debating with you. I'll be happy to not come back to this pointless thread.
Yep, that's all I said...nice work again.
You address their points? Nope, you call them names "Isreali apologist"...not a good discussion tactic by the way, but it's obvious you haven't learned that yet.
No answer to any of your questions will satisfy you. Hell, I agreed with you abotu Israel neeing to make the first move and then to have the stomach to withstand some potential attacks from fringe groups without going back on the peace process and you found fault in that as well.
I'm not going to go back and find it, it's in 1 of the 1000's of threads about Israel and Israel-Apologist that you've started.
Anyhow, I will apologize for 1 thing, I haven;t really added to the debate in this thread and only am debating you about your tactics, which is wrong, I should have pm'd. I think the reason I did was this was another thread about the same topic where I did try and debate with you.
Have a great day.
YAY what did I win? what am I being hypocritical about?