IAP Political Forum
January 08, 2009, 09:19:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the new "IAP 2.0" -- please re-register before continuing to post.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What would you do?  (Read 1678 times)
yilmaz101
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-67
Posts: 278



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2008, 01:43:55 PM »

First off you were trying to base the legitamacy of Israel on the Mandate and I have shown you that the wording of the mandate does not in any way state what you claim it states. Instead of illustrating how the mandate actually does serve the basis for the legitimacy of the state of Israel you are off challenging me to show where you have posted untruths. Well I'm waiting for your response on the mandate and I'll be sure to bring up a few other points.



Just read the previous pages, especially the British mandate of Palestine

and also this is interesting reading that more or less describes realitymans method
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
Quote
What realityman posts is not hacts by a long shot. At best they are stretches of the facts and half truths, at the worst some are outright lies.
Please, do tell. What quotes were lies? What excerpts from the media were lies? What leader quotes were lies? You can disagree with his conclusions -- I'm no friend of Israel nor do I believe Realityman presented the full story, but what did he lie about with his quotes?


Now it's my "method" Yilmaz??  lol... Should I, or anyone else be surprised at this point "Yilmaz"... that you've yet to back up your accusations against me,??

And you give us:
Quote from: yilmaz101
If you read the working paper I previously quoted from and gave the link for you'll see how and why he lies.....

...as if this somehow proves something??  But I guess that's to be expected from you at this point.

Maybe (like you Yilmaz)... I should just make some slanderous comments about you or others I might dissagree with...then run away from backing them up (like you)...??  It wouldn't be very mature or say very much for the validity of my arguments...now would it "Yilmaz"?

YOU were quick to throw up the accusations, but seemingly not so quick to back them up with anything of substance.

Surely, Yilmaz", you didn't just accuse me of "stretches of the facts and half truths, at the worst some are outright lies." simply because you didn't like the facts and quotes I presented....

I don't pretend to have the only opinions, or to know all the facts about the conflict, BUT I DO BASE MY OPINIONS AROUND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS at my disposal... And more importantly, I don't purposely ignor facts, simply because they might not be viewed favorably one way or another... Can you say the same Yilmaz??

I'll anxiously await you backing up your accusations.  If not, maybe you'd like to take those accusations back... And then possibly you'd care to get back onto the topic at hand and backup/support to implications made by Callum..which he apparently can't now defend.
Logged
realityman
Full Member
***

Karma: +29/-16
Posts: 243


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2008, 02:58:22 PM »

First off you were trying to base the legitamacy of Israel on the Mandate and I have shown you that the wording of the mandate does not in any way state what you claim it states. Instead of illustrating how the mandate actually does serve the basis for the legitimacy of the state of Israel you are off challenging me to show where you have posted untruths. Well I'm waiting for your response on the mandate and I'll be sure to bring up a few other points.

LOL>>>> ... And more smokescreens Yilmaz??   lol ... I'm happy to address any issues related to the subject... But first things first... YOU made an accusation "stretches of the facts and half truths, at the worst some are outright lies"...... BACK IT UP as an adult ... I'm particularly interested in seeing you show where I've made "outright lies"......

THEN, why don't you point out exactly where I was.. (according to you):
Quote from: yilmaz101
...trying to base the legitamacy of Israel on the Mandate"

... (You keep digging deeper..don't ya)... But instead of using that as an excuse to change the topic... address and BACK UP your accusations first.

THEN I'd be happy to address any other related issues you'd like to "divert" the topic too Smiley.

WHO do you think you're fooling yilmaz??  Have any more accusations you want to throw out then run away from backing up??  Grin
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 03:13:04 PM by realityman » Logged
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2008, 03:30:21 PM »

Quote
My point was to ask he (or anyone) would do in a particular situation.  He did not address the point.

No that wasn't your point. Now you're pretending. Since you can't "man up" and discuss this with any adult sincerity I decided to ignore the rest of your post. If that sincerely was your only point with no hidden meaning like you're pretending now, then one would wonder why post it at all. Alone by itself it isnt' a point at all.

Now, lets just take a breath.  I know that any attempt to show that people, wherever they are, are not all evil flies in the face of your black and white simplicities.  However, I simply point to the fact (and this is a verifiable, uncontestable fact) that I started this thread in the Middle East section.  I was obviously, even to the minimal intelligece that passses for 'intellect' in your narrow mind, that the analogy was with the Israel/palestine business.  And you decide that I wasn't being 'sincere'.    

Its very simple Akh - you and your sick crew WILL (i.e. have prejudged) you ill not consider what suffering the palestinians undergo, and WILL not countenance that your 'side' have done anything wrong.   Not because of 'facts' - the facts are there and blatant - but because you have decided that ANY action by the invadng oppressors is 'justifable.  That is the basis and content of everything that Lala-man spews out: it is not that these things don't happen, but that they are in some way justified.  And both you and he realise that if people were actually to think about what has been done to the palestinians over the  last 40 years then they would doubt the whole 'justification'.

Quote
Quote
I apologise for 'sounding smart'.  Here's an alternative... 'Israel is right, the pals are all murdering bastards, they got be thrown into the desrt and starved.  Israel can do anything to protect itself.  Shit like morals and codes is for dummies and smartasses like Callum.  Who the F wants facts - give me my daily dose of the JP - facts is what Israel says an if they don't say it it aint so'
See? Now you go running off foaming at the mouth with pouty assumptions.

It is interesting that when I precis the arguments of you and Lala, they become foaming at the mouth etc...  

Quote
You assume the frivolous imaginary positions you bark out like a know-it-all child apply to me when they don't and there's no good reason to think they would. Obviously the world is far too complicated for you to navigate without first dividing it all into "us" and "them". Talk about closed minds, (not to mention over zealous assumptions).

This was termed by someone I knew well 'the Israeli gambit'.   In essence you ask yourself where your actions/words are the most vulnerable to censure - and then accuse your opponent of them.  Whats my whole point?  Where was my analogy leading?  To show that there is a whole point of view that you are ignoring - intentionally.  So, since I am effectively asking you to take a more open informed approach... accuse me of having a closed mind.  Good diversionary tactic.

Quote
Quote
Can I join your club now???

Yep...just as soon as you grow up. I could've addressed Realitymans points because thats what intellectual debaters do, as opposed to intellectual masturbators who dance around and skirt the issues like you do. I can keep my point, accept another, demonstrate why I don't think it's valid or why I think my point still trumps, but I don;t just ignore points and pretend they're not there.

The 'Israeli gambit'  again - I am accused of not replying like an 'intellectual debater' should (to irrelevant points).  You claim as authority for this judgement that you could answer them - and then do not.  You could be a wonderful debater - but chose not to.  You wouldn't 'ignore points and pretend they're not there - but you have ignored them, you have chosen not to give your 'trumping' arguments. You claim that like me you believe that Lala's points are incorrect - yet instead of refuting them, you attack me.   You are as disingenuous and insincere as Lala (Oh, there's the gambit again - you accuse me of insincerity, don't you?).



I'll sum up for you Akh, since I'm sure you'll miss the point.  Lala did not answer the question - nor did you. He attacked the scenario with spurious and incorrect interpretations of history.  You attacked me for refusing to be drawn into his spittle-flecked irrelevancies.     Its always the same: never respond, always repeat your mantra.  Don't think, attack attack attack.   Alternatively you might consider answering the question.... if your land, home, family were being threatened by an implacable enemy, what would you do? 
Logged
realityman
Full Member
***

Karma: +29/-16
Posts: 243


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2008, 04:18:24 PM »

....  Whats my whole point?  Where was my analogy leading? 

The point that you're CLEARLY NOT GETTING is that your "analogy" is not an "analogy" at all...

ANALOGY: "a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based"

Need I remind you of the points I raised exposing substantive differences between the "exercise" you proposed, and the "analogy" you were attempting to make??  That you failed to directly answer for these issues only shows how flawed your "analogy" is... This being the case, what your "point was" or where your "analogy" was leading becomes meaningless as the situation proposed and the situation to which you're attempting for get others to form a conclusion about are not analogous... GET IT?

Allow me to remind you of the flaws I directly pointed out in your "analogy" you've yet to answer forIf you'd care to answer for them now with facts and basic logic backing up your "assumptions", we can proceed with your "analogy"... IF NOT, it's not an "analogy" at all.

....  The UN decides against the wishes of all  Americans that half of Florida should be given over to the Cuban/Latino population.  Not just any half.  The best half.  And they drive the American population out into the swamps and scrublands...

lol  Grin Grin

Nice "exercise"... lol.... If you're trying to equate your above ridiculous "exercise" to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, you're only exposing your ignorance to the FACTS of the history involved...

Some basic flaws in your equation

Quote from: Callum
The UN decides against the wishes of all  Americans

Florida (your "exercise") is part of/under the rule/control of America (USA) as has been since 1845.

"Palestine", prior to being under the League of Nations "Palestine Mandate", was under the rule/control of yet another entity...the Ottoman/Turkish Empire (who are/were not Arab) who's rule dated back to 1517.  The Ottoman/Turks originally welcomed Jewish settlement as they brought economic development to the otherwise stagnent malaria infested region (AND HENCE MORE TAXES TO THE OTTOMANS).

When the Ottoman's lost those lands to the British in WWI.  The British soon after turned those lands over to League of Nation's authority...who inturn put the British in charge of administering those lands toward the clear goal of establishing a "national home for the Jewish people".  To reiterate this point... this was approved by the authority who then controlled/ruled the territory (as the Ottoman/Turks did before them.... unlike your example of "against the wishes of all American"... The Palestine Mandate was approved and represented the wishes of those who ruled/controlled the territory.  KEEP IN MIND, this was long before even the concept of a unique "Palestinian People" (different from other Arabs) existed.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm

Back to your example... if "Americans" wanted (for some reason) to turn control of parts of Florida over to the Cuban/Latino population (as with your example), they would have every right to as the territory is currently under their rule/control.... So as to your example pertaining to Arab Palestinians, who never ruled or controlled (or even existed as a "unique peoples") the region (Huh?)... Your example or "exercise" have little correlation.

And more:
Quote
And they drive the American population out ...

Again...if you're trying to equate that example to Palestinian Arabs... you have a long way to go... as there are countless accounts of Arabs leaving on their own accord...being urged by their own to affectively "get out of the way" of the invading Arab Armies... And while certainly SOME Arabs were pushed out by Israel (as with any war), note that it was the ARABS who stated this war...defying the wishes of the UN (who ruled/controlled the region) forcing Israel to defend itself.   

While I've yet to see Arab quotes and/or newspaper articles FROM THAT TIME attesting to or "rallying the troops" about the Palestinian Arabs being pushed out (Maybe you'd like to supply some??...I'd be anxious to see your sources  Wink)... THERE ARE NUMEROUS QUOTES AND REFERENCES from the Arabs and Arab leaders themselves attesting to Arab leaders encouraging Arabs in Palestine to leave... and some even taking some responsibility for their plight after they lost the war.. (We also shouldn't ignor the FACT that Jews were being pushed out of neighboring Arab lands in those same times.. their property confiscated, and lands stolen... but I don't suppose we'll hear you "Callum" taking up the cause of rightful return of their land and property...will we  Wink..lol)

(April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, Chairman - Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."

The U.S. Consul­General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, that "local mufti­dominated Arab leaders" were urging "all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so."

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948:
Quote
"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."


Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said,
Quote
"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."


The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, The Arabs:
Quote
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country."


Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave: 
Quote
"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."


I could go on, but I think you get the idea... So if you're going to accuse Israel of wholesale "driving" the Arab population out (as your "exercise" attempts to  imply)... Why don't you offer some substantive proof of that first Wink

And back to your "exercise"... The British via the UN ruled/controlled the region... if it was "against "all"their wishes" to establish a "national home for the Jewish people",they wouldn't have written the Palestine Mandate as such... If it was against "all" their wishes, they wouldn't have voted for the partition to establish Israel....

Facts you "Callum" might want to ponder.... hmmm... (especially when attempting to correlate such a ridiculous exercise to the situation in Palestine)

The first government of the "Palestinian People" was the PLO.  Was the PLO an organization born out of "the Palestinian People" and/or a desire for state/nationhood??  The answer is clearly NO.

The PLO Charter:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm

The PLO was founded by the Arab League in May 1964 (Not by the "Palestinian People")... It's first Chairman was born in Lebanon... and Arafat (the long time leader) was born in Egypt.

The PLO was not founded to govern a state, it was founded to destroy one.

Quote
Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase...
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm

« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 04:20:20 PM by realityman » Logged
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2008, 04:47:21 PM »

....  Whats my whole point?  Where was my analogy leading? 

The point that you're CLEARLY NOT GETTING is that your "analogy" is not an "analogy" at all...

ANALOGY: "a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based"

Need I remind you of the points I raised exposing substantive differences between the "exercise" you proposed, and the "analogy" you were attempting to make??  That you failed to directly answer for these issues only shows how flawed your "analogy" is... This being the case, what your "point was" or where your "analogy" was leading becomes meaningless as the situation proposed and the situation to which you're attempting for get others to form a conclusion about are not analogous... GET IT?

Allow me to remind you of the flaws I directly pointed out in your "analogy" you've yet to answer forIf you'd care to answer for them now with facts and basic logic backing up your "assumptions", we can proceed with your "analogy"... IF NOT, it's not an "analogy" at all.


Lala, much as I appreciate your deep need to fill acres of screen with your received opinions, I will try to talk to you as a rational being.   An analogy is indeed a way of understanding one thing (situation, argument, physical process, whatever) by examining something similar... but leaving out issues, events, causes etc that cloud the original problem. (Thanks for the dictionary definition, but I do understand the words I use)  So here, now, I am simply asking what you (or anyone else) would do if their home, land, family were under threat from an implacable enemy.   


The disanalogies you point out (and which I do dispute) are irrelevant to the question being asked.   It doesn't matter whether the enemy is the Cubans, Israelis or men from Mars.   It doesn't matter if the invasion was sanctioned by the UN, god or the President of China.  It doesn't matter if the people affected are a nation state, a political entity, or a cultural grouping.  It does matter that they are a simple family trying to live a normal life - not fighters, politicians or diplomats,  just ordinary people as 95% of ANY nation is.

I tried to expand on the  scenario to help people make the imaginitive connection.   I don't deny it.   But, as I said, there are some who cannot exercise their imagination, and who rather than try to understand will instead try to undermine any attempt at understanding.

You may be trying to prevent that understanding because you have some notion that understanding equates to approval:  nothing could be further from the truth.  But understanding can help resolve a situation where understanding is the one huge casualty of entrenchment and polarisation.  Both the relaxation of hostilities in Northern Ireland, and the prevention of them in RSA came from this principle.  Why don't you want to give it a chance?

(PS Sorry to use big words. The situation in Palestine is NOT simple despite your certainties: the words reflect the complexity)
Logged
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +138/-141
Posts: 1,743


Professor of Angular Mil and Applied Narcotics


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2008, 08:27:27 PM »

Quote
Lala, much as I appreciate your deep need to fill acres of screen with your received opinions, I will try to talk to you as a rational being.


....a rational being who cant write one sentence pontificating about being a rational being without using school yard name-mocking. My you're such an adult.


How about another jaw of an ass reference from an ass? Man I hate pretenders.



Ahk
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 08:30:21 PM by Ahkenaten » Logged
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2008, 11:37:29 PM »

Quote
Lala, much as I appreciate your deep need to fill acres of screen with your received opinions, I will try to talk to you as a rational being.


....a rational being who cant write one sentence pontificating about being a rational being without using school yard name-mocking. My you're such an adult.


How about another jaw of an ass reference from an ass? Man I hate pretenders.



Ahk

LMAO
Go look up ad hominem arguments.  So far not a single attempt to come to terms with what was asked.  And this from someone who accuses another of 'intellectual masturbation'!!!!   Ho Ho Ho.

See previous posts concerning 'the Israeli gambit'.
Logged
yilmaz101
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-67
Posts: 278



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2008, 11:38:11 PM »

From:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

When political Zionism began in earnest in the late 19th century, there were only about 15,000 Jews in Palestine.(1) In 1893, for example, the Arabs comprised roughly 95 percent of the population, and though under Ottoman control, they had been in continuous possession of this territory for 1300 years.(2) Even when Israel was founded, Jews were only about 35 percent of Palestine’s population and owned 7 percent of the land.(3)

The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi‐national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben‐Gurion put it in the late 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”(4)

To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben‐Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.”(5) Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.”(6)
This opportunity came in 1947‐48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile.(7) Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee.( 8 ) After the war, Israel barred the return of the Palestinian exiles.

The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people was well understood by Israel’s leaders. As Ben‐Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti‐Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”(9)

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions.(10) Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that “there was no such thing as a Palestinian,” and even Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the 1993 Oslo Accords, nonetheless opposed creating a full‐fledged Palestinian state.(11) Pressure from extremist violence and the growing Palestinian population has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from some of the occupied territories and to explore territorial compromise, but no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of “Bantustans” under de facto Israeli control.(12)

_____________________________________________________________
1. The first wave of European Jews to come to Palestine is known as the First Aliyah, and it covers the years from 1882 to 1903. There were slightly more than 15,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882. Justin McCarthy, The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (NY: Columbia University Press, 1990), p.11, which has excellent data for the years from 1850 to 1915. Also see Mark Tessler, A History of the Israeli‐Palestinian Conflict (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994), p. 124.

2. The total population of Palestine in 1893 was roughly 530,000, of whom about 19,000 were Jewish (3.6 percent). Arabs comprised the vast majority of the remaining population. McCarthy, Population of Palestine, p. 11. 49

3.  Flapan, Birth of Israel, p. 44; Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 186.
 
4 . Flapan, Birth of Israel, p 22. Similarly, Ben‐Gurion told his son, “I am certain we will be able to settle in all the other parts of the country, whether through agreement and mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or in another way.” He went on to say, “Erect a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole of the land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.” Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (NY: Norton, 2000), p. 21. Also see Flapan, Birth of Israel, pp. 13‐53; Nur Masalah, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of Transfer in Zionist Political Thought, 1882‐1948 (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992), chapter 2; Morris, Righteous Victims, pp. 138‐139; Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists, and Palestine, 1921‐1951 (NY: Oxford University Press, 1999).

5.  Masalah, Expulsion of the Palestinians, p. 128. Also see Morris, Righteous Victims, pp. 140, 142, 168‐169.

6.  Benny Morris, “A New Exodus for the Middle East?” Guardian, October 3, 2002. On the pervasiveness of transfer thinking among Zionists before Israel was established in 1948, see Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Morris, “Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948,” in Rogan and Shlaim, War for Palestine, pp. 39‐48; Morris, Birth Revisited, chapter 2; Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest,” Ha’aretz, January 9, 2004.

7.  Morris, Birth Revisited, provides a detailed account of this event. Also see Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, trans. Maxine Kaufman‐Lacusta (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), chapters 3‐4. The only remaining debate of real significance regarding the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland is whether it was “born of war,” as Morris argues, or by design, as Norman Finkelstein argues in Image and Reality of the Israel‐Palestine Conflict (London: Verso, 1995), chapter 3.

8.  Erskine Childers, “The Other Exodus,” Spectator, May 12, 1961; Flapan, Birth of Israel, pp. 81‐118; Walid Khalidi, “Why Did the Palestinians Leave Revisited,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 ( Winter 2005), pp. 42‐54; Idem, “The Fall of Haifa,” Middle East Forum, Vol. 35, No. 10 (December, 1959), pp. 22‐32; Morris, Birth Revisited.

9.  Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, trans. Steve Cox (NY: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978), p. 99. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founding father of the Israeli right, made essentially the same point when he wrote, “Colonization is self‐explanatory and what it implies is fully understood by every sensible Jew and Arab. There can only be one purpose in colonization. For the country’s Arabs that purpose is essentially unacceptable. This is a natural reaction and nothing will change it.” Quoted in Ian Lustick, “To Build and To 50
Be Built By: Israel and the Hidden Logic of the Iron Wall,” Israel Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1996), p. 200.

10.  See Geoffrey Aronson, Israel, Palestinians, and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank (London: Kegan Paul International, 1990); Amnon Barzilai, “A Brief History of the Missed Opportunity,” Ha’aretz, June 5, 2002; Idem, “Some Saw the Refugees as the Key to Peace,” Ha’aretz, June 11, 2002; Moshe Behar, “The Peace Process and Israeli Domestic Politics in the 1990s,” Socialism and Democracy, Current Issue Number 32, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer‐Fall 2002), pp. 34‐47; Adam Hanieh and Catherine Cook, “A Road Map to the Oslo Cul‐de‐Sac,” Middle East Report Online, May 15, 2003; “Israel’s Interests Take Primacy: An Interview with Dore Gold,” in bitterlemons.org, “What Constitutes a Viable Palestinian State?” March 15, 2004, Edition 10; Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion (London: Pluto Press, 2000); Sara Roy, “Erasing the ‘Optics’ of Gaza,” The Daily Star On Line, February 14, 2004; “36 Years, and Still Counting,” Ha’aretz, September 26, 2003.

11.  Rahid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (NY: Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 147. Meir also said, “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.” Masalha, Imperial Israel, p. 47. Rabin said in 1995, two years after signing the Oslo accords, “I seek peaceful coexistence between Israel as a Jewish state, not all over the land of Israel, or most of it; its capital, the united Jerusalem; its security border with Jordan rebuilt; next to it, a Palestinian entity, less than a state, that runs the life of Palestinians …. This is my goal, not to return to the pre‐Six Day War lines but to create two entities, a separation between Israel and the Palestinians who reside in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” Hanieh and Cook, “Road Map.” Also see Akiva Eldar, “On the Same Page, Ten Years On,” Ha’aretz, November 5, 2005; David Grossman, “The Night Our Hope for Peace Died,” Guardian, November 4, 2005; Michael Jansen, “A Practice that Prevents the Emergence of a Palestinian State,” Jordan Times, November 10, 2005. It is worth noting that in the spring of 1998, Israel and its American supporters sharply criticized First Lady Hillary Clinton for saying that, “It would be in the long‐term interests of peace in the Middle East for there to be a state of Palestine, a functioning modern state that is on the same footing as other states.” Tom Rhodes and Christopher Walker, “Congress Tells Israel to Reject Clinton’s Pullout Plan,” New York Times, May 8, 1998; James Bennet, “Aides Disavow Mrs. Clinton on Mideast,” New York Times, May 8, 1998.

12. Charles Enderlein, Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995‐2002, trans. Susan Fairfield (NY: Other Press, 2003), pp. 201, 207‐208; Jeremy Pressman, “Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba? International Security, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2003), p. 17; Deborah Sontag, “Quest for Mideast Peace:
How and Why It Failed,” New York Times, July 26, 2001; Clayton E. Swisher, The Truth about Camp David: The Untold Story about the Collapse of the Peace Process (NY: Nation Books, 2004), pp. 284, 318, 325. Barak himself said after Camp David that “the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor‐thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from Maale Adumim to the Jordan River,” which effectively would have been under Israel’s control. Benny Morris, “Camp David and After: An Exchange (1. An Interview with Ehud Barak)”, New York Review of Books, Vol. 49, No. 10 (June 13, 2002), p. 44. Also see the map Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians at Camp David, a copy of which can be found in Roane Carey, ed., The New Intifada: Resisting Israel’s Apartheid (London: Verso, 2001), p. 36.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 11:40:41 PM by yilmaz101 » Logged
realityman
Full Member
***

Karma: +29/-16
Posts: 243


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 20, 2008, 04:20:32 AM »


Not too "with it"... are you yilmiz... AS IS anyone else here can't repost a sourced one sided piece such as yours??  And there have NEVER BEEN research papers finding different opinions...right Yilmaz??  lol... Exactly which "points" were you trying to prove with the above?  Why don't you present your premise, or your point directly, so that we can examine them as to their validity (with other sources)... (Didn't think so Yilmaz)...lol

Apparently you're not able to deal with the FACTS one by one.  Because one source states something and sources it, there must be no other reputable sources finding different facts and coming to different conclusions....right yilmaz?  lol

How old are you anyway??  Does your mother know what you're doing on her computer??  lol
« Last Edit: March 20, 2008, 04:38:31 AM by realityman » Logged
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +57/-93
Posts: 1,249


Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2008, 04:49:02 AM »



Realityman, yilmaz is in his very early 20's, doing his Masters and two research projects (or so he says). He is a very defensive Muslim from Turkey and is patriotic for his country. He does flip flop some and shows arrogance as a general rule. He is easy to catch off balance, especially when he is not on solid ground. He can speak well of events in Turkey but is overly defensive about Islam and the Mid-East.

So much for my psychoanalysing his profile.  Grin
Logged

Quote
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does !
- Will Rogers
Quote
So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman
yilmaz101
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-67
Posts: 278



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 20, 2008, 05:15:00 AM »

All you are doing here is posting zionist propaganda verbatim. All of that has ben debunked long ago. I am merely presenting a source that more or less neatly sums it up. Yet you are still braying like the ass you are and insisting on presenting facts, when it has time and time again been proven (adameically I might add, not just in a forum with a couple of idiots like you and me) that the zionist propaganda is a bunch of horse shit. That is why I quoted the working paper in full, including its references. Nind you this is not the Palestinian side of the story (I really have no wish to start posting that here, although I might add it is as convincing and as "factual" as the zionist bullshit).

If you are not familiar with the issue (I highly doubt that) there is a new stream that is called "New Historians" whose research into Israeli archives (most of which still is closed to reserchers) during the 80's and 90's have exposed more or less every single point you make to be fairytales told to children in kibbutzes. I can start posting their research if you wish and have the time and the energy (not to mention access to academic journals) to try and sift through that.

The fact remains though your so called "facts" are, I must insist on this once again, a bunch of streches, half truths and outright lies. You may be able to pass that bs by some to be facts but hey I'm not buying any of that.


Logged
yilmaz101
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-67
Posts: 278



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2008, 05:22:17 AM »

Yup, so much for your reading skills and memory too Terry, what's the matter getting senile?

First off I'm in my early 30's. I have already done my masters (almost twice). I wonder how many times you have cought me off balance when I wasn't on solid ground. Also I prefer to see my self as not being overly defensive about ME and Islam but rather having a realistic outlook and take on events. By the way if I ever felt the need for psycho analysis I'll make sure to go to a professional rather than someone who claims to know all about the Middle East and still thinks that some Persians are Arabs........



Realityman, yilmaz is in his very early 20's, doing his Masters and two research projects (or so he says). He is a very defensive Muslim from Turkey and is patriotic for his country. He does flip flop some and shows arrogance as a general rule. He is easy to catch off balance, especially when he is not on solid ground. He can speak well of events in Turkey but is overly defensive about Islam and the Mid-East.

So much for my psychoanalysing his profile.  Grin
Logged
realityman
Full Member
***

Karma: +29/-16
Posts: 243


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2008, 05:24:12 AM »

All you are doing here is posting zionist propaganda verbatim. All of that has ben debunked long ago.

LOL... Then I'm sure you'll have no problem "debunking" all the "zionist propaganda" with relevant facts... If it's "all" been debunked long ago... It shouldn't be a problem for you...right Yilmaz??

So start debunking the "Palestinian Charter"... The "Covanant of Hamas"... If organization's OWN WORDS detailing THEIR OWN AGENDAS is "zionist propaganda" to you, I wonder then what you consider legitimate sources (wait...let me guess... ANYTHING that agrees with your views??  lol)...

 Shocked
Logged
yilmaz101
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-67
Posts: 278



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2008, 05:26:51 AM »

No my mom thinks I'm looking at porn, she has no idea I'm trying to show some sense to a bigott.


Not too "with it"... are you yilmiz... AS IS anyone else here can't repost a sourced one sided piece such as yours??  And there have NEVER BEEN research papers finding different opinions...right Yilmaz??  lol... Exactly which "points" were you trying to prove with the above?  Why don't you present your premise, or your point directly, so that we can examine them as to their validity (with other sources)... (Didn't think so Yilmaz)...lol

Apparently you're not able to deal with the FACTS one by one.  Because one source states something and sources it, there must be no other reputable sources finding different facts and coming to different conclusions....right yilmaz?  lol

How old are you anyway??  Does your mother know what you're doing on her computer??  lol
Logged
yilmaz101
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +11/-67
Posts: 278



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 20, 2008, 05:29:33 AM »

I have not, and will not ever condone the Hamas charter or the PLO charter in their present forms that calls for the destruction of another national entity. Trying to rest your case on my "supposed" acceptance of those two documents (I really have no idea where you got such an idea in the first place) is pathetic, even for you.

All you are doing here is posting zionist propaganda verbatim. All of that has ben debunked long ago.

LOL... Then I'm sure you'll have no problem "debunking" all the "zionist propaganda" with relevant facts... If it's "all" been debunked long ago... It shouldn't be a problem for you...right Yilmaz??

So start debunking the "Palestinian Charter"... The "Covanant of Hamas"... If organization's OWN WORDS detailing THEIR OWN AGENDAS is "zionist propaganda" to you, I wonder then what you consider legitimate sources (wait...let me guess... ANYTHING that agrees with your views??  lol)...

 Shocked
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.208 seconds with 25 queries.