billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
falxori 0
QuoteHave I ever denied "the Jewish existance in this land"? There is a massive difference, however — which you seem unable to grasp — between saying "There were always Jews here" and saying "the Jews own Israel".
so let me rephrase:
the jewish existance as a sovereign entity before there was anything resembling palestinians in this region.
and please, dont tell me what i am able or unable to grasp because i don't see things the way you do.
QuoteIs that what I said? No, it is not. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Deal with the ones I write. I was simply saying that I know what people say was there. I'm not old enough to have witnessed it with my own eyes.
thats funny...
it didnt seem to stop you from naming numerous events in your eralier posts, have you been there to witness all of them?
Quoteplease deal with facts. It's unfair to do anything otherwise
I am. claiming that everything i say is not true will not make it so.
and no, the example i had in mind was of Joseph's tomb that was given to the PA and was pretty much destroyed within hours, but i guess yours is also a good example.
and no, i never said there are no deserted and destroyed mosques.
the difference between us is that i accept that the only solution is compromise while you (pretty much like the palestinian leadership until now) go with "its all mine and i will not settle for any less".
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
QuoteHe is. They are just facts you happen to dislike. The old cry of "can't handle facts, eh?" is the sign of someone who has run out of them himself and cannot continue the discussion without resorting to semantic arguments.
That is very unfair if you have read the entirety of this exchange and know more than the layperson does about this issue.
Your suggestion seems to be that my own argumentation is slanted. Perhaps you can point specifically to evidence of this and indicate refutations. Or: 1) Are the facts I "don't like" more truthful than those exhaustively documented by those who refute Zionist revisionist history? Or: 2) Is it just a rhetorical point you are making?
By way of reply to your "old cry" comment, I am nowhere near running out of facts — the politics of the Middle East is what I research for a living. I am weary, however, of debating with persons who use facts selectively, or flip and flop in their arguments, just as I am weary of others referring to an entire people as "damn Palestinians". And to be clear: I wouldn't let anyone get away with the phrase "damn Jews" either.
"where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'
falxori 0
QuoteI am nowhere near running out of facts
its not your facts which are the problem. its the analysis and conclusions you derrive from them (in my opinion...)
QuoteI am weary, however, of debating with persons who use facts selectively, or flip and flop in their arguments
a) no one is forcing you.
b) let me borrow your own words: "Perhaps you can point specifically to evidence of this and indicate flip floping? "
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
Quoteso let me rephrase: the jewish existance as a sovereign entity before there was anything resembling palestinians in this region.
So for the sake of clarity you're saying that this means Jews had prior claim and own Israel? Or you are simply saying that Jews have claims to residing in what is now called Israel? If the latter, we're in complete agreement. I believe, passionately, in a one-state solution with equal and human rights for all. If the former, we can't agree: this is the claim of those who wish to establish a Jewish only state. I oppose this kind of racism, in all of its forms.
Quotethats funny...it didnt seem to stop you from naming numerous events in your eralier posts, have you been there to witness all of them?
No, but in my research on Al-Nakba I spoke to scores of Palestinians who did. In my capacity as a visiting professor at An-Najah National University in Nablus I was fortunate enough to engage personally in documenting the testimony of several 1948 refugees.Quotethe example i had in mind was of Joseph's tomb
Point well taken. Nablus is a city I know well. I deplore the destruction of Joseph's Tomb just as I deplore the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taleban. There was no excuse for it. It was shameful. As was the murder of Rabbi Hillel Lieberman who went to investigate the desecration. We are in complete agreement on this point.Quotethe difference between us is that i accept that the only solution is compromise while you (pretty much like the palestinian leadership until now) go with "its all mine and i will not settle for any less"
Please see my point above about a one-state solution. I do not think it is all theirs. Some land (a moderate percentage of the total, however) was bought legally. I do believe that concessions on both sides must be made. What I cannot accept is the notion, through revisionist historiography, that Israel is somehow the property of the Jews and those pesky Palestinians want some of it (those greedy people, those "damn Palestinians"). I do not assign this argument to you. You have not said this. But it is often an underlying thread to such debates as the one we are having. It is because I heard this as a subtext that I intervened in this thread. As I said, I do this for a living. I come to these forums to read about a sport I love with a passion, skydiving, not to debate these things and get into a row about it. Genuinely I have sought to engage in this discussion in a spirit of mutual learning.
"where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'
billvon 3,120
>Perhaps you can point specifically to evidence of this and indicate
>refutations.
He posted facts he liked. You posted facts you like. Then you said "please deal with facts." It's a debating trick, one that generally indicates you're running low on points.
>Are the facts I "don't like" more truthful than those exhaustively
>documented by those who refute Zionist revisionist history?
No.
>By way of reply to your "old cry" comment, I am nowhere near running out
>of facts — the politics of the Middle East is what I research for a living.
That's great, but it sounds like you are starting to take disagreements with that research very personally. Which isn't unusual here.
You've clearly read a lot about this stuff, Darius has lived a lot of it. You both have valid points. It's silly to bash someone else just because you have a different viewpoint.
>I am weary, however, of debating with persons who use facts selectively . . .
As you are doing. As we all do. I cannot write a post about global warming and include every bit of research done by every university, oil company, government and environmental group; the post would require more memory than this server has. So I post selectively - as do we all.
>refutations.
He posted facts he liked. You posted facts you like. Then you said "please deal with facts." It's a debating trick, one that generally indicates you're running low on points.
>Are the facts I "don't like" more truthful than those exhaustively
>documented by those who refute Zionist revisionist history?
No.
>By way of reply to your "old cry" comment, I am nowhere near running out
>of facts — the politics of the Middle East is what I research for a living.
That's great, but it sounds like you are starting to take disagreements with that research very personally. Which isn't unusual here.
You've clearly read a lot about this stuff, Darius has lived a lot of it. You both have valid points. It's silly to bash someone else just because you have a different viewpoint.
>I am weary, however, of debating with persons who use facts selectively . . .
As you are doing. As we all do. I cannot write a post about global warming and include every bit of research done by every university, oil company, government and environmental group; the post would require more memory than this server has. So I post selectively - as do we all.
falxori 0
QuoteSo for the sake of clarity you're saying that this means Jews had prior claim and own Israel? Or you are simply saying that Jews have claims to residing in what is now called Israel? If the latter, we're in complete agreement. I believe, passionately, in a one-state solution with equal and human rights for all. If the former, we can't agree: this is the claim of those who wish to establish a Jewish only state. I oppose this kind of racism, in all of its forms.
that depends on your definition of "ownership". if it is indeed set by who was here as a nation or even as a people, so yes. but that wasn't the point i was trying to make. the only point i was making is that the jews have as much claim in this lands as the palestinians if not more. people can say jews "own" this land as much as they want and in some context they might have a valid point. but in the current situation "owning" a piece of land which is populated 99% by palestinians doesn't mean much. and the same goes for palestinian claim over other parts.
QuoteNo, but in my research on Al-Nakba I spoke to scores of Palestinians who did. In my capacity as a visiting professor at An-Najah National University in Nablus I was fortunate enough to engage personally in documenting the testimony of several 1948 refugees.
exactly my point. one sided research based on one sided testimonies.
you'll be amazed how different the other side of this coin sounds.
but i doubt you'll be very popular and welcomed as a visiting proffesor again, you actually do.
QuotePlease see my point above about a one-state solution.
a one state solution is a terrible idea that is doomed to fail. artificially creating a state for two completely different cultures is not a good idea. and there are many many examples with even less drastic differences in recent years (czechoslovakia, Yoguslavia, and even the french and flems in belgium hate eachother.)
the only solution is two seperated states with economical cooperation.
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
falxori 0
QuoteYou've clearly read a lot about this stuff, Darius has lived a lot of it.
Darius?
i think you've mixed an Iranian with an Israeli...
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
billvon 3,120
>i think you've mixed an Iranian with an Israeli...
Sorry, I did indeed. You and Darius have both seen a lot of this firsthand (from different viewpoints of course.)
Sorry, I did indeed. You and Darius have both seen a lot of this firsthand (from different viewpoints of course.)
falxori 0
QuoteSorry, I did indeed.
thats ok, there are worse people to be mixed with...
i kinda like the guy
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
QuoteHe posted facts he liked. You posted facts you like. Then you said "please deal with facts." It's a debating trick, one that generally indicates you're running low on points.
It was actually a little more nuanced than that. When I said "please deal with facts" I meant, "please don't make blanket statements about what Palestinians do or don't do." I even helped him along by referencing the synagogues in Gaza. FalXori responded by referencing Joseph's Tomb in Nablus: a point we completely agree on. He said, while responding, "I never said there are no deserted and destroyed mosques." But this was my point: hence, "deal with facts"; both those you like and those you don't like. I'm in agreement with you on this, Billvon.
I heard something different in your post and you heard something different in mine. Thanks for the clarification.
Quoteit sounds like you are starting to take disagreements with that research very personally. Which isn't unusual here.
True. I tend to take unfairness and (what I see as) bigotry personally. It offends me, offends all of us, and I feel a duty to respond. FalXori, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Chuteless, whose posts drew me into this, and which were, in my honest view, distasteful.
QuoteAs you are doing. As we all do ... I post selectively - as do we all.
You're right. But I while I don't think "objective" history is accessible by anyone (I'm happy with the subjective contestation of ideas anyway), I don't believe that everything is relative and that anything goes. Rightly or wrongly, I perceived a general bias against Palestinians expressed by more than one contributor to this thread. I tried to correct this in the name of balance, not in the name of a truth I have decided as final before starting. It was my fault if it came across as anything otherwise.
"where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'
He most certainly is a personal friend. I talk to Him every day.
Your blasphemous and ridiculous comments are noted...by me, by everyone, and by God.
Your blasphemous and ridiculous comments are noted...by me, by everyone, and by God.
QuoteHe most certainly is a personal friend. I talk to Him every day. Your blasphemous and ridiculous comments are noted...by me, by everyone, and by God. As I live, saith the lord, EVERY knee shall bow to me, and EVERY tongue shall confess to God (Romans 14:11)....even those of disbelieving skydivers
If God's is love, you clearly need more lessons in His kindness than I do
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Your clumsy, bombastic bullying tactics don't and will never touch me. The moral high-horse you ride is the mire; lost in the dirt with the dignity of freedom and choice. I'm so glad I don't live, and will never live, in your fanatical closed circle."where danger is appears also that which saves ..." Friedrich Holderlin, 'Patmos'
billvon 3,120
>Your blasphemous and ridiculous comments are noted...
>I'm so glad I don't live, and will never live, in your fanatical closed circle.
Fair warning; both of you please cut it out.
>I'm so glad I don't live, and will never live, in your fanatical closed circle.
Fair warning; both of you please cut it out.
He is. They are just facts you happen to dislike. The old cry of "can't handle facts, eh?" is the sign of someone who has run out of them himself and cannot continue the discussion without resorting to semantic arguments.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites