LOL... Keep thinking that Peisi... if it makes you feel better.

Meanwhile... Your "objectivity" (or lack there of) has been clearly exposed:




Your "objectivity" is entertaining.... lol

Again... I've stated or implied no such thing


And once again, I've stated or implied no such thing... But keep going... You're on a roll now 


Of course I do.. I don't like suffering of any kind.  But I'm also not going to turn a blind eye to the reasons why... Many German citizens suffered because of their leadership in WWII... But that doesn't mean it would have been right for those who opposed Hitler to put down their arms and stop fighting him and his agenda.

Your ideals and purposeful ignorance to that which you don't want to recognize make your perspective on many issues, in my opinion, radically biased.  As you, Peisi, continue to expose your ideals and oversimplified, unrealistic solutions to complex problems, it becomes easy to see why they're so, in my opinion, out of touch the real world.

Find me a person who's able to deal rationally and logically with ALL the available and relevant facts of a situation...  AND FORM OPINIONS based on all of those facts... and THAT PERSON I would consider to be un-biased in my eyes... I'm unaware of anyone currently on this forum who's "pro-Pal" (your words) who I would apply that to, but there have other in the past on various forums who I dissagreed with, but respected their opinions as coming from a well-rounded acceptance and recognition of the facts....

.
And there again, an over-simplification... jumping to a ridiculous conclusion.... This forum has an extremely limited number of posters... As I stated, there have been others in the past who's opinions differed from mine, but who's opinions I respected as coming from being fully informed, and no hiding dodging and weaving from the facts they don't want to see to form their opinions.

Your bias is clear... Your own words clearly expose this:




Based on these statements (among others), I'll continue to point out and ask you to defend statements you make which run counter to what many would consider to be basic logic based on "real world" facts.... as I'm sure you'll continue to do when you disagree with something I state.

There are numerous "intellectuals" on both sides of the issues... Some "deluded", some "biased"... some of there conclusions based on rational deductions from ALL the relevant facts, and others clearly not...

I don't endorse everything ANYONE says... Do you??

I prefer to form my own opinions... based on ALL the relevant factually based information I'm aware of.  Try it sometime. 


It's quite simple... Different weightings of importance applied to facts can produce different conclusions... HOWEVER, relevant conclusions should be able to be logically defended against ALL relevant facts and applicable logic... In other words, while a different conclusion may be drawn from the same facts, those conclusions should be able to be logically and factually defended when relevant facts to the contrary are presented... If a certain "conclusion"/perspective has to purposely turn a blind eye, avoid, hide, or change the topic" rather than deal logically and rationally with facts which appear to present contrary evidence to that stated opinion, then that conclusion is clearly biased and certainly weak at best.

(An Example): I could/can conclude that gravity is "broken"... I could/can present evidence... FACTUAL evidence showing that not all objects, currently under the influence of gravity, are falling to earth... a plane, a rocket, the space station, birds, etc... I could cite numerous factual examples... BUT, could I defend my "conclusion" against other generally accepted factual evidence others with a different conclusion would want to present??  Of course not... To keep my "conclusion" (as many in the Anti-Israel camp resort to), I'd have to change the topic, divert, or blatantly ignore other relevant facts..... THIS IS A BASIC OF DEBATE... Everyone has FACTS... but SOME have to hide from certain facts to keep their positions/conclusions alive... THINK ABOUT IT.


The point is that it clearly exposes your preconceived bias... (should be pretty obvious to anyone reading your posts and conclusions at this point)




These statements and others where you excuse Palestinian terror:


...clearly explain where your radical ideals... and seemingly oversimplified solutions to complex problems come from... AND why you, in my opinion, can't logically and rationally defend many of them against basic "real world" facts and logic...


Do I think it "betrays" your bias??  NO... I think it EXPOSES it... And that why I will continue to point it out when you make what I consider to be radical or ridiculous conclusions.

Some of their opinions are objectively reached, others not... I wouldn't call anyone on either side of the argument (including you Peisi) totally objective or not... As I said,   There are numerous "intellectuals" on both sides  of the issues... Some "deluded", some "biased"... some of there conclusions based on rational deductions from ALL the relevant facts, and others clearly not...  On some issues these authors rationally examine all the relevant facts, on others they clearly avoid or gloss over topics...

Are you somehow trying to excuse your "ideals" as if they're someone like that of these "pro-Palestinian commentators"??... If you have a valid argument or position Peisi... it should be able to deal logically and rationally with ALL the relevant facts... A simple concept... or it should be at least 


Is this somehow your way of excusing your "speculation" about what you desire as future behavior VERSUS FACTUAL History and direct statements to the contrary from those involved?? lol

You're apparently failing to grasp even the basics.... When I don't support my positions with facts and logic... YOU are going to point it out... and put up facts to the contrary... Right Peisi??  I do, and will continue to do the same to you... When you make what I consider to be a unwarranted assumption and/or jump to what I consider to be an illogical conclusion... I point it out... AND BACK UP my reasons as to why I think so... If you (or anyone else) can't give a logical and reasonable answer (with support) to the facts to the contrary, than your position is WEAK at best... Get it??


If it comes up in a conversation I'm involved in, I certainly would...Neither side is perfect... Hey, WE even agree on some things... lol

If it makes you feel better, let me be clear: ... If a "pro-Israeli" author is attempting to argue his/her side using the "God promised" argument... or an "empty land" argument (though the actual numbers are sketchy at best, and there are valid quotes referring to Palestine in such a manor, but clearly there were many people in the region at various times), or the "chosen people" argument...I consider that just as ridiculous as many of the "pro-Palestinian" arguments without factual merit... .  Actually, several years ago on the old forum (I think this one), I criticized a pro-Israeli poster (more than once I believe)for doing just that... telling him that while I shared some of his conclusions, that by attempting to support his case by arguing that "God promised" or that citing bible quotes only weakens his case as these examples prove nothing in a "real world" situation, etc....

There are "lunies" on both sides of the many issues... Some of their conclusions well founded, others radically one sided... I try to discount them from BOTH sides to stick with the FACTS and logical conclusions drawn from those facts...... but we should also keep in mind, simply because a certain author or source is "radical" on one issue, doesn't necessarily mean that all of their conclusions are without merit...Every conclusion is only as valid as the case made for it.


NO, and I never stated that... ACTUALLY I agree with a Limited refugee return as a part of an overall peace solution.. (and I believe I've suggested so in the past).  ... but you have OTHER ideas you've expresses... right?? 


You must be kidding (??)... Lets see... Why EVER could that be Peisi... This is clearly another example of you seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the rest... But allow me to lay it out in basic terms:

FACT: While Jerusalem Law states: "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" ...(yet left the boundries of Jerusalem unspecified)... Israeli leaders have made public statements indicating a willingness to negotiate on this issue...on numerous occasions.

For example... At Taba, Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods (in Jerusalem) and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The Israeli side accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

FACT: "Jerusalem Law" is simply an "ideal"... an "ideal" which Israel has clearly shown a willingness to back away from (as with the example above)  under appropriate conditions and circumstances..

NOW... CONTRAST THAT TO THE COVENANT OF HAMAS:


FACT: The Covenant of Hamas is not an "ideal"... It's a mission statement of a "movement"... It details the agenda of Hamas, who is now, thanks to a Palestinian public vote, the ELECTED REPRESENTATION of the "Palestinian people" (Hamas).  It details their REFUSAL to accept Israel's right to exist... AND objective of destroying Israel and taking "every inch" of Palestine.


FACT: Hamas, to my knowledge, has never even openly hinted at being willing to accept Israel's right to exist... to back off of their main agendas of refusing to accept Israel's right to exist, and continuing to seek Israel's destruction. (If you have evidence to the contrary, as always, I'd be anxious to see it).

AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED... Each time when the (often liberal) media has hinted at Hamas changing their tune... being willing to compromise as to their basic principals and/or agreeing to accept Israel's right to exist, etc... Hamas leadership is only too quick to publicly correct this mis-information...(recall the "Prisoner's Plan", ...the "Unity Government", ...and Carter's recent visit/comments)...time, and time again... Hamas has shown no meaningful hint at being willing to even consider a change to this basic agenda. (and again, if you have any "meaningful" evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it).

And YOU (Peisi) want to compare this Hamas Covenant, (detailing a openly stated desire to violently destroy a nation, and a demostrated refusal to budge or compromise on that agenda)... to Jerusalem Law (a ideal of keeping all of a city, where the writers of such have shown a willingness to compromise)??  Hardly a comparison...

Realityman et al., sorry for late replies. I am now much busier than I used to be.


no. Since you constantly accuse me of bias and twisting and stuff, and obviously consider yourself a complete opposite of all that, I wondered whether it was at all possible to be pro-Palestinian while being objective. So I inquired if it was only my unfortunate case or biased was EVERYONE on my side of the debate.


facts are dwellers of the past. And only past. After all that has happened is agreed upon (which is a very rare case), there is still the question of what is STILL to happen. And as you said, people apply different weightings to same facts. You believe the Hamas Charter will remain relevant, unless certain things are done. I believe it can be rendered irrelevant by certain other things. Our facts don't convince each other. Moreover, I can safely predict which people will consider your facts persuasive, and which people mine. It will appear that those people, EVEN if never familiar with these facts before, are merely sticking to their pre-formed positions. BTW, i don't remember any forum member here radically changing his/her views under the influence of the newly revealed facts or new developments.


Jerusalem boundaries were specified by Israeli government long before, and the Law obviously referred to Jerusalem as officially delimitated by Israel. Jerusalem boundaries were changed in 1967 (not recognised by the int. comm.) and you can find them by a simple internet search.


i will bring ten quotes to the contrary against every one of yours; just don't a reason. Israeli quotes about the "eternal undivided" are so easy to get. Besides, Israel expanded Jerusalem municipal border by tenfold compared to the Jordanian one. Places like Shuafat are considered part of Jer by Isr, but not by the Arabs.


almost all those "neighborhoods" are outside of Jerusalem as it was conquered in 1967. Israeli "concessions" were limited to several villages within and outside the new (illegal) municipal border. Besides, only the Knesset can repeal the Jer Law, not a Prime Min.



what? Since when laws (and this one is actually a "Basic Law") are "simply ideals"? a law is a legal, judicial, political reality, not an "ideal". The Jer Law is nothing less than annexion in the OPTs. Palestinians can justifiably make its repeal a pre-condition of negotiations. Only American pressure prevents that.


Hamas Covenant, Hamas as such, were in part an outcome of the Jer Law. The Covenant is an organization document; the organization has only recently come to power (waaaay after the Jer Law) and might be thrown out of power again. Jer Law is a Basic Law supervening actions of any Isr govrnmt.

mdma wrote:


yes, but we machinegunned a lot of people for no reason. That's our insane culture. Killing people because of ideas is wrong. Besides, why do you call him traitor? He's an American citizen. Do you think that as a Jew, Finkelstein owes loyalty to Israel? You see why I talk about AIPAC so often? The loyalty idea which even you, a very liberal guy, find natural.



I told you, we were on the same side. My grand was in anti-tank artillery and knocked out quite a number of Tigers and other moving things.

 

THANK YOU PEISI... In other words, you're rather IGNORE the FACTS you don't want to see, and focus on your theories of how it should be, and how you'd like it to be, etc....

YET YOU can't bring me even ONE.. JUST ONE of Hamas EVER making a substantive quote or document showing a willingness to ACCEPT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST??  Yet you want to believe it's coming anyway.... right??  lol  THANKS AGAIN!


Yes, YOU believe, yet you can't back it up with anything but seemingly your intuition, and would rather ignore the relevant facts to the contrary... hmmmm

And again... you're accusing me of stating things I never stated:.. I never stated "the Hamas Charter will remain relevant, unless certain things are done"... I believe, and am now clearly stating that I believe the Hamas Covenant has been and is currently relevant (as confirmed by statements of Hamas leadership and ACTIONS of Hamas operatives)... and I believe that until we have substantive evidence leading us to believe otherwise, it will obviously remain so.  ...  Do YOU have meaningful evidence to present which would lead me (or anyone else) to believe differently??  If so, I'd like to see it. (And No, wishing it away, or simply wanting it to be different won't make it so)

At this point, anyone of "reasonable intelligence" who's willing to look objectively at our about discussion can clearly tell who's dealing in "reality" versus theory... as well as who's generally done a good job of backing up his contentions with facts, versus he who's prefer to ignore that which he prefers not to see.... 

lol... So now you bring up a "fact"??  lol

I thought you said:

Ohhh ... But I'm guessing that only applies to facts you DON'T WANT TO SEE OR RECOGNIZE AS RELEVANT. 

Curious how "Occupied Palestinian Territory"... has  NEVER belonged to or been under the control of a group calling themselves "Palestinians"..(another FACT)

Curious also is how "Occupied Palestinian Territory", was NOT captured from Yassir Arafat and his army, or "Palestinians", but from Egypt and Jordan... (I know, more FACTS)... lol

And here's another clear example of you seeing what you want to see, while ignoring the rest...


If my "speculations" of "Israeli mitigations" on East Jerusalem are "theory"..., (when it's well documented that Israel has previously offered parts of East Jerusalem in previous peace negotiations (aka Taba, refer to below))... then WHAT WOULD YOU CALL your "wishful thinking" regarding Hamas changes (accepting Israel's right to exist, etc) when you have NOT ONE piece of meaningful evidence you can present supporting such??  lol


And an example from the very pro-Israel site (joke) Al Jazeera:


Sure, there are hardliners who clearly feel differently, but Israel has clearly hinted and discussed East Jerusalem being "in play" for future negotiations.... And Hamas offering to recognize israel's right to exist Peisi??  And Hamas backing off from their agenda of Israel's eventual destruction Peisi??

So again, If my "speculations" (your word) of "Israeli mitigations" on East Jerusalem are "theory". ... than what does that make your views of Hamas changing their agenda??