Tuesday, October 09, 2007

The Oxford Union Stacks Both Ends Of The Israel Debate!



Amazing, really....to us Yanks across the pond, the Oxford Union has a reputation as being a debating society par excellence. Boy, are we mistaken.

As this post at Harry's Place reveals, the Oxford Union's idea of a `debate' on Israel is to make sure that the very existence of Israel as a Jewish nation is indefensible!

On October October 23, 2007 its Middle East Debate will examine the motion: “This House Believes that One State is the Only Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”

Just take a peek at who's `debating'...speaking in favor are Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi. Opposing them will be Peter Tatchell, Lord Trimble and Norman Finkelstein.

-Avi Shlaim is a career Leftist and a Holocaust denier, who contributes to the website of fellow Jew hater and holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.

- Ilan Pappe is another secular Leftist who hates the country he was born in and is a self-admitted Hamas supporter, who's scribblings are much in demand among the `anti-Zionist' crowd, where he makes his living. A self-described `historian' his works have been debunked countless times to the point where he could be classified as a writer of fiction.

- Ghada Karmi is a `Palestinian' academic who settled in the UK back in the 1970's and is quite open about hating Israel and Jews in general.

A pretty rotten group, but then that's the `pro' side of the argument against Israel's existence.

Look at who the Oxford Union dredged up to defend Israel's right to exist!

First we start with the hysterical `anti-Zionist' Norman Finkelstein, a Noam Chomsky disciple who was recently denied tenure and forced to resign from his professorship at DePaul for what amounted to academic fraud. He's the author of a spittle soaked missive entitled`The Holocaust Industry' in which he essentially denied the existence of the Holocaust and referred to Nobel Prize winner and Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel as the “resident clown of the Holocaust circus.” And he's also a major Hezbollah groupie.

Then, we go to Lord Trimble , who's a bit more reasonable but believes in Israeli `restraint and withdrawal'.

And finally, we get to Peter Tatchell , a member of the Green Party and a gay activist with OutRage..neither group which, I suspect has much feeling for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. As for Tatchell, here's a quote from him while marching in the `al-Quds' anti-Israel parade October 7th...."I am against Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and its divisive Berlin-style wall." Objective sort of guy,right?

Nothing like stacking the debate at both ends! Since the two sides substantially agree, I'm surprised the Oxford Union bothered with the fiction of a `debate.'

The little exercise is a fine example of how `anti-Zionism' frequently morphs into simple Jew hatred, even when it's practiced by secular leftists with no connection to Jews or Israel other than an accident of birth. Attempting to deny the right of Jews exclusively to self-determination in their homeland fits the definition of Jew hatred exactly.

As for the Oxford Union, this resolution reminds me, curiously enough, of another resolution they debated and passed back in the 1930's....`Resolved, that this house will under no circumstances fight for their King and country.' Then as now, they were prepared to ignore the mortal peril staring them in the face and engage in the swamp of intellectual and moral dishonesty.

20 comments:

Soccer Dad said...

You had me scared when I first read the title. I thought it said "Orthodox Union."

BTW, I first saw this item at Contentions and later today stumbled across this. (Don't follow the link unless you really want to. It's by one of those arguing against Israel at Oxford.)

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi SD,
How's the team?

Yeah, Gahda Karmi's a real lying sack of manure, isn't she?

I'd simply love to have a real debate with her and the rest of the cretins named in this piece...I'd only use half of my brain, to make it fair.

If this is what passes for an 'academic' in Britain nowadays, they're in more trouble than I thought.

Justin said...

Hi,
I would like for you to present any quote from Finkelstein denying the Holocaust. Just one that is all. If you are going to make a claim of that magnitude you need to back it up with proof. One might find it odd that virtually his whole family was wiped out by something he doesn't believe in and his parents were in concentration camps which you are implying he doesn't believe in.
This crying of wolf is getting old. What happens when Dershowitz and FOxman really do find some dangerous anti-semitism somewhere relevant, and no one listens to them because they have called everyone from Jimmy Carter to Noam Chomsky, and if Bertrand Russell was still alive, anti-semites. This fact alone shows that you truly are not worried about the "crying wolf" factor because you know that it is nonsense, this "new antisemitism". Just ask Shlomo Ben AMi, or maybe he too is a self hating Jew and a Holocaust denier.
Also, I would much prefer to be known as a disciple of Prof. Chomsky as opposed to Prof. Dershowitz. One will be remembered, a hundred years from now, as the guy who revolutionized linguistics and Dersh will be remembered as that guy who got the murderous football player off. Well at least Dersho showed that class is more important than race.

Freedom Fighter said...

Oh, Finklestein is much more subtle than say, David Irving who actually denied that the gas chambers existed and whom Finklestein called `a good historian'.

What Finklestein says is that Jews were killed, but that the survivors and the EVIL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY created a `holocaust industry' to create a `fascist state called Israel'. As a matter of fact, that's what his silly book is called, `The Holocaust Industry' a notion in itself that's deeply offensive and racist.

Not only that, but Finklestein was listed on the agenda as a speaker at the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran.

He's a failed academic who was fired from Depaul because of what can best be termed as academic fraud. And that has nothing to do with Alan Dershowitz or Abe Foxman.

You appear to agree with Finklestein and people like Jimmy Carter about Israel, which as far as I'm concerned is not only an example of Jew hatred but an example of ignorance of the past.

If that's truly the case, I'd be happy to enlighten you.

I would also point out that at least Carter and Finklestein are making a living off of peddling this nonsense, and you're being severely shortchanged if you have like beliefs and haven't cashed in.

ff

Justin said...

Again,
Please provide me with a quote showing that Finkelstein denies the Holocaust. You can't because he never has. How could someone not believe in something that his parents were victims of, luckily for them they weren't murdered by the frickin Nazis.
Also what did DePaul say of Finkelstein when he was forced to resign? No really what did they say? Did they called him a failed academic and fraudster?
But seriously, can you enlighten me to why it is in Israel's best interest to choose expanding their borders? You claim that I am ignorant to the past and you claim that you can enlighten me so please do so. Please, without the use of logical fallacies, explain how collective punishment is moral. Please explain how capital punishment without trial is moral. Again no logical fallacies. Please enlighten me to why Israel has separate laws for Arabs and Jews who live in virtually the same geographic location. Explain how torture is moral or how bulldozing a home of an already dead homocide bomber is moral, especially when the family is still inside.
You have to realize that due to the internets many of can and do read Haaretz, or the JPost. We are not as ignorant as you like to believe. Of course, it is American ignorance that allows us to send F-16 to be used in heavily populated civilian areas without protest. The veneer is beginning to crack and guess what, the anti-semite wolf cry didn't work on Carter and it shows that the race card can't be used anymore.
I understand you will delete this from your site because you can not respond to it. Oh well.

Justin said...

I find it humorous that the link to Finkelstein shows Norman calling Irving a Nazi. Which is weird because Norm doesn't believe that the Holocaust happened and therefore why would he use Nazi as a derogative.

Ian said...

I'd like to thank you for making it clear to me that:
1) Finkelstein is a consummate academic worthy of praise; and,
2) That, despite your seeming ability to write, you have no ability to read.

Here is a direct quote supporting Finkelstein's affirmation of the horrors of the Holocaust:
"And that's exatly what the Holocaust deniers said: 'it wasn't that bad.' But you know what? I'm pretty old fashioned about this. I think it was that bad. I think it was horrible. I think it was a colossal crime and that's why I think very few people survived."

At least from your one link, I can pull twenty or more citations of Finkelstein's affirmation of both the Holocaust and the right of Israel to exist as any other state. I probably won't bother, since you didn't even have the decency to read them the first time.

Moreover, you inaccurately cited your source. Finkelstein does not call Irving a "good historian." It was in quotes in the transcript because Finkelstein was paraphrasing another military historian's perception of Irving. You must have learned how to cite from Derschowitz.

Freedom Fighter said...

Justin, Back again? I don't usually delete stuff from my site unless it's deliberately violent or offensive, by a major troll or it's an ad for travel, porn or viagra.

I like to have my readers see what's out there passing for intelligent discourse.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote, so I'll reiterate. VERY briefly.

Finklestein is a bit more subtle than the average Holocaust denier.While he acknowledges that some Jews were killed, his main thrust is the evil ZIONIST conspiracy hatched by the survivors to mulct money and create a fascist state called Israel.If you lack the subtlety to understand that a denial of the legitimacy of the victim's search for justice and casting aspersions on their motivation is Jew hatred and if you don't consider writing a book filled with blatent lies called `The Holocaust Conspiracy' and calling Elie Wiesel a `clown' and part of the 'conspiracy' racist gibberish, then I really have nothing further to say to you on the subject.

Except that all you need do is look at who touts Finklestein. He wasn't listed at a Holocaust Denial conference in Teheran for nothing.As for Irving, since he also called that idiot a good historian, I doubt that `nazi' was meant as a derogative

And again, try to read my reply. DePaul didn't call him a failed academic and a fraud, I did, although it's the opinion of a number of others. DePaul fired him for plagiarism and academic fraud used in his research. Although of course I'm sure you'll blame it on the `Jewish Lobby'.

Let's talk about Israel for a second, since you've obviously swallowed a lot of Leftist swill on the subject.

Israel never sought to `expand its borders'. If you'll remember, the Jews accepted the 1948 partition plan, which gave them a mere fraction of the land they had been originally promised after WWI - it was the Arabs who rejected it, and seven separate Arab nations, all armed with modern weapons who attacked. And 90% of the land given to the Jews had legally been purchased for them through the Jewish National Fund, although some of that land was also given to the Arabs.

Is it Israel's fault that the Arabs atacked and then were such crappy fighters, even with modern weapons and in the case of Jordan, British officers? What's more, since the Arabs never accepted what amounted to ceasefire lines there never WERE any real borders until the treaties Israel made with Egypt and Jordan back in the 1970's.

Same thing happened in 1967, when Jordan's King Hussein swallowed Nasser's horse manure that Egypt was winning the war and attacked Israel...and lost. Again, the post `67 lines were not borders,because the Arabs still didn't recognize Israel's existence.

The areas of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were never `given ' to anyone until Oslo, by the Israelis. And since that was a real estate deal that the `Palestinians' never fulfilled any of their condiotions of ownership on, Israel claim to ALL of it has always been as good as anyones.

So how is that `expanding borders?'

The Arab countries and the Palestinians are like losers in Vegas, who tried to get rich by bankrupting the casino and are now whining not only for the money theyu lost betting on jihad but for the deed to the casino as well.

And you support this crap?

It's also obvious that you have never been to Israel, know very little about it and have never seen the degree to which the majority of Israeli Arabs are integrated into Israeli society. As for `separate laws' it's almost entirely hogwash, except that Arabs are exempt from cumpulsory military service...although many if the Druse and Bedouin serve by choice.

( Please don' tell me your talking about the `Palestinians', who are not Israeli citizens an dhave been actively involved in a terrorist war against Israel's civilians)

By the way..Israeli Arabs are allowed to live, work and vote in Israel, and are present in all walks of life. Do Jews likewise have the same freedom in Arab countries? You KNOW they don't.

As for `collective punisment' I rather think that unleashing a homicide bomber to blow up women and kids fits that description much more nicely than anything the Israelis have ever done.

What we have from you , Justin, is not simple criticism, but a whole seperate bunch of rules or Israel that apply to no other nation.

There's a name for that.

Odd that you would vent your spleen on the only country inthe Middle east that has ever given the `Palestinians' any land whatsoever...but then there's an obviously good explanation for that, isn't there?

At least Jimmy Carter's getting paid to be a Jew hater.

Ian ,
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote earlier. Finklestein definitely is very subtle but no less a Holocaust denier for all that...because he's using fraudulent research in an attempt to justify denying the experience of the Holocaust and the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.

That's his main theme,whatever odd quotes you might come up with to the contrary.

You might wonder (if you were open minded) exactly why Finklestein is held in such repute by the sort of people who freely admit to being Holocaust deniers an dwhom demonize Israel at every turn or speaking at a Holocaust denial conference in Iran,of all places.

As for his academic repute, there are some very good and substantial reasonsDePaul fired him.

You can't blame everything on the `Jewish Lobby'. Well, perhaps you can.

And you also prove the central point of my article...there's not one person on either side of this Oxford Union debate who could remotely be considered pro-Israel.

Obviously you share their views, and you're cetainly entitled to your opinions...just not your own facts.

Quod Erat Demonstradum.

You're the guests..you get the last word.

Ian said...

Your arguments are as ignorant as they are inane. When you are ready to have a real debate, which does involve the reading and factual representation of Finkelstein's transcript, I would welcome that.

Here's some evidence that you are not.

1) You continue to falsely quote Finkelstein as calling Irving a good historian. In the transcript provided, he paraphrases what some other historian testified to in court as to Irving's professional merit.

2) You claim that Finkelstein's thesis is that Holocaust survivors are profiting from the 'Holocaust industry.'
This is factually incorrect, sir. Finkelstein views the Holocaust as such a grave atrocity that, by virtue of academic work done on the subject, there were in fact very few survivors from the camps. He cites academic work that estimates under 100,000 Jewish people survived the concentration camps, and of them only about 15,000 would be alive today.
Your representation of his claim is at best inaccurate and at worst dishonest of you.

3) Your allusion that I or Finkelstein would blame what you call the 'Jewish Lobby' for some sort of alleged malicious and conspiratorial activity, is entirely inaccurate and defaming of both his and my character.
In the transcript of Finkelstein's responses, he disavows the notion of an omnipotent lobby, instead accepting a more moderate position that US foreign policy in the Middle East and with Israel results from a "confluence of interests" between lobbying efforts for Israel, US strategic interests, and possible the peripheral interests of the fundamentalist Christian lobby.
To deny that lobbies hold some degree of power in the US is ignorant. To suggest that they hold all power with respect to their policies of interest is equally as ignorant.

4) You phrase your objection to the validity of the debate in such a way as to reveal your motives. You say, "...there's not one person on either side of this Oxford Union debate who could remotely be considered pro-Israel."
The debate was about a two-state solution. One need not be "pro-Israel" nor "pro-Palestine" to acknowledge and argue for a two-state solution.
It seems to me that you wanted on the other side not someone who would argue for a two-state solution, but someone who would argue for a single, Israeli state.

5) You make erroneous, ad hominem claims about myself. You state that I "obviously share their views," which is factually incorrect and a statement with which you have no evidence to make.

6) Although I have provided specific quotes, you have not backed up any of your claims with citations or quotations, and as per point 1, some citations you do make are inaccurate. Here is a requested list of citations:
a) The block of text in which Finkelstein allegedly calls Irving a good historian;
b) Some official document expressing that Finkelstein committed plagiarism or other academic dishonesty;
c) Documentation that shows Finkelstein's denial of tenure was based upon the claims in (b);
d) Proof that Raul Hilberg, Henry Freelander, and/or Simon Wisenthal are fraudulent in their accounts of the Holocaust.

Until you can methodically respond to these points, backing your claims up by some evidence, I cannot take any sort of debate with you more seriously than talking to a brick wall. Unlike you (I assume, and with all evidence available to me, I think correctly), I am an academic and I do have an appreciation for both sides of an argument if they are supported by facts. Moreover, I appreciate when facts can be cited.

Freedom Fighter said...

Ian, I can well believe that you are an academic, with all that implies nowadays.

I would question your `appreciation of both sides of an argument supported by facts' especially if you consider someone like Norman Finklestein and his notion of a `Holocaust Industry' factual, but you're certainly entitled. I likewise agree that a `debate' on this notion is pointless.

Oh, and by the way, the motion was not on a two state solution as you mention, but on a single `Palestine', and thus a debate on self-determination for Jews in their homeland....and conducted without a single supporter of that quaint notion in the debate, something it appears you approve of.

Again, you're certainly entitled, but it appears to weigh against your purported love of fair debate based on facts.

FF

Justin said...

Dear FF
The late Bertrand Russell once asked, “Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man can doubt it?” You have answered this question with a big fat “yes”.
You state, “While he [Finkelstein] acknowledges that some Jews (I believe the number for those “some Jews” he cites is 5.1 million) were killed, his main thrust is the evil ZIONIST conspiracy hatched by the survivors to mulct money and create a fascist state called Israel.” While I doubt that he has ever stated that the main thrust was the evil Zionist conspiracy (of which I believe he doesn’t think exists) he does argue that some Jews have used the pain and suffering of other victims to line their own pockets. Also if one looks into history they might find that Israel was already a state before the Swiss Banks were sued.
You later go on to say this, “If you lack the subtlety to understand that a denial of the legitimacy of the victim's search for justice…. then I really have nothing further to say to you on the subject.” If someone was truly a survivor of the Holocaust then they deserve compensation, hell I say give them Bavaria since it was the Germans who were guilty of this horrendous crime. Do you deny the possibility that a person here or there might lie to gain financial compensation? Or is that knowledge so certain? Also do the Palestinians have a legitimate search for justice or must they just take whatever Israel gives them whether they like it or not?
You continue to make this weird claim that since horrible people like Finkelstein then therefore he must be a Holocaust denier. I wonder too then if you feel this way about any of the so-called Prophets over the ages. DO you instantly discount the messages of Jesus Christ because some of his followers were Nazi’s? Is Moses to be denigrated because of the Irgun?
I believe Ian had said enough about your quality of citations about the “good historian” crap so it is unnecessary to rehash it.
You then go on to state this, “And again, try to read my reply. DePaul didn't call him a failed academic and a fraud, I did, although it's the opinion of a number of others.” Though previously you claimed this “He's a failed academic who was fired from Depaul because of what can best be termed as academic fraud.” I believe that actually DePaul said this about him, “Professor Finkelstein is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher.” Sounds a little different than “academic fraud.”

Justin said...

What exactly does “recognize the right to exist” mean? Does the state of Mexico recognize the right of America to exist in parts stolen from them? Should they? To many onlookers the state of Israel exists and it seems very silly to deny its existence. To others it means that Hamas should not call for the destruction of the State of Israel, a country with nuclear weapons being threatened by crude rockets. As usual though these things are not as plain and simple.
What constitutes a state? One of the main parts of any state is their border. If a state has ever-evolving borders then what is to be recognized? Israel has ever changing borders. For instance the borders today are not the same as they were in 2000, 1982, 1966 or 1948. With the addition of the euphemistically called “security fence” more and more land is being confiscated by Israel.
By recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a state with ever encroaching borders, will this then recognize the right for Palestinians to be forcibly removed from their land the next time Israel wants some aquifer?
If Israel, the most powerful state in the region, agrees that there should be a Palestinian state then why don’t they recognize Palestine’s right to exist as a state? I beg any of you to find any Israeli politician who has ever called for a Palestinian state inside the Internationally recognized borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. It just has never been said.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that Israel is making demands of the Palestinians that they refuse to do themselves. No one would accept a neighboring state whose borders are always creeping in stealing land for the state you recognized. No country would accept that. Which means in the end that the Israeli Government has no desire for peace with its neighbors and will continue to steal more and more land from the native population with the hopes that things will become so desperate for the Palestinians that they will just leave. It is a sort of “soft” ethnic cleansing.
Also claiming that my points are illegitimate due to my hatred for an ethnic group plays right into Finkelstein's points about the use of the Holocaust to silence critics.

Justin said...

I am certain that Palestinians would be more than happy to recognize an Israeli Jewish state inside the 1948 borders, is that enough? Or must they recognize Israel's right to determine their borders on a whim when they choose? ANd before you bring up the "generous offer" made by Barack remember what Ben Ami said about Camp David. TO paraphrase, he said, that had he been a Palestinian he too would have rejected the deal.
Also how do you feel about the praise given to Finkelsteins work, on the Holocaust Industry, by Raul Hilberg? Is Hilberg a self-hating Jew? SHould Hilberg's great work on the destruction of the European Jew deserve to be discounted because Finkelstein, an avid Holocaust denier, was obsessed with the work or is it still a tremendous piece of research?
SO many questions, so few direct answers.

Justin said...

If Israel is not concerned more with expanding their borders than why are they moving more and more settlers into the West Bank or as the Eratz Israel people like to say Judea and Samaria.
I never once claimed that Israel was at fault for Egypt’s amassing of troops on the border in 1967. Hell I might even grant Israel the right of pre-emption, which also means that I must grant that right to every state, even Iran. What is good for the goose…..
In 2002 the Arab League offered Israel full recognition and normal relations if they pull back to the Green Line in accordance with UN 242, which states that countries can not acquire land by force.
It seems that there is no poker being played in Israel because otherwise they might call the Arab Leagues bluff. SO here they have a chance to, call their bluff and, finally show the entire world that the Arabs have no desire to seek normal relations with Israel but they don’t. Or maybe it is that they do play poker and worry that the Arab League is not bluffing? Could it be that Israel is really concerned more with the aquifers in the West Bank than security? Why do they hold on to the Jordan Valley? A security buffer from those wily Jordanians?
I admit that I have never been to Israel nor do I see that as any prerequisite. For instance, I have never been to Saudi Arabia but I am pretty sure they treat their women like garbage. Maybe I am wrong. Is it possible for an Arab Israeli to marry anyone they want and move them into Israel?
I know that there are an estimated 40,000 Jews in Iran and they have yet to be “wiped off the face of the map”.
At the end of your reply you employ the logical fallacy of To Quoque. You claim that I hold Israel to a higher standard then other nations and maybe I do. Maybe I think that they are a First World Western Liberal Democracy that should act like one. This same reasoning can be used on anything. For instance, just because the Saudi’s chop of heads means that I can’t criticize the US for Abu Ghraib? Really is that what you are trying to claim. Basically, I have to criticize all the nations in the world that may have worse human rights violation before I can criticize a nation receiving billions in US tax dollars?

Freedom Fighter said...

Hmmm, Justin..
I think we have a slight failure to communicate here.

If you don't understand that writing a book entitled `The Holocaust Industry' and alleging that Israel was essentially a scam by Jews to make money is fraudulent, then I guess you just don't. And if Finklestein was such an eminent scholar, why did DePaul deny him tenure and fire him? Usually, as you know it takes something pretty serious for a leftist to get fired from academia.

Now as to your other points..part of the US was `stolen from Mexico?'
And you actually equate Israel with Iran?

Hooo-boy.

And I don't consider the Nazis `followers of Christ', BTW. What The National Socialist German Worker's Party really was is a secular mutation of the Left. Give you a hint...the red Nazi flag is a tipoff.

I think I've already dealt with the issue of Israel's `expanding borders'. It's hogwash, plain and simple. And your remark about `settlers' betrays a fascinating tolerance for the racist notion that Jews should somehow be restricted to where they can live in peace and safety..although I'm certain you never thought of it in quite that way.

You may not think of yourself as a hater of Jews, but your remarks reveal a fair amount of racism that you may or may not be aware of.

Likewise, your interesting notion that Israel should accept gratis the Saudi `peace plan' is something I don't think you've ever thought through.

Lessee...in exchange for Arab guarantees of `normal relations',with no clear definition of what that means, Israel places itself in strategic jeopardy, gives up a fair amount of its territory including a lot of land legally purchased by the Jewish National Fund, makes thousands of its own citizens homeless, redivides Jerusalem and gives up the holiest sites in its religion and allows what's left of Israel to be flooded with genocidal `refugees'.

Has any nation in history,victorious in war ever done that? So why are you so insistent that Israel commit what amounts to national suicide?

And why the fixation on the Green Line (and I wonder if you know why it's called that)?

And yes, it would be helpful if you'd actually been to Israel, seen the terrain and seen the kind of jeopardy the country would be in if the Arabs attacked again with the country only nine miles wide at its narrowest point.

Why SHOULD Israel put itself in that kind of peril?

If you think that's a great deal, I'd love to play poker with you sometime. Giving the `Palestinians' land worked well with Oslo and in Gaza, didn't it?

And then there's that awful fence. Ever seen it? Do you have any idea how many innocent lives it's saved?
Do you even care?

And speaking of human rights violations, have you EVER publicly criticized the Palestinians, Egypt or Jordan for anything? They get a fair amount of US aid too...without providing any of the `value added' for the US as an ally that Israel does. ( and by the way, collectively the Arab nations get much more aid from the US than Israel does, and 80% of Israel's aid is spent right here in the US, on arms purchases and joint venture projects with the US)

As for Resolution 242, it doesn't even mention a 2nd Arab Palestinian state..all it does is lay out a framework of Israel exchanging `territories' in exchange for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Since Israel has already given back over 80% of the land conquered in the Six Day War. they've more than fulfilled it admirably.

Here's another couple of questions for you to ponder while you're at it:

*After 1948, there were over 800,000 Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world. The Jews took them in and integrated them into their country. Why didn't the Arabs do the same?

*If the Arabs are so hell-bent on `justice for the `Palestinians', why didn't THEY give the `Palestinians' some of their land for a state? They have lots of it.

* Why was there no big push for a `Palestinian' state when the Arabs occupied Gaza, Judea and Samaria, prior to 1967? Could it be that the `Palestinians' only became a nation once the Jews were in the picture?

*If you make a deal with someone to let them purchase real estate from you and they renege on the terms, don't you get your property back?

*Why should the `Palestinian' refugees be allowed compensation and the right to return, but not the Jews?

Tough questions, I know.

If you simply don't like the idea of Israel, because it's Jews, or because you consider them a surrogate of `US imperialism', fine with me.

Just own it, instead of claiming to be a fair minded person or some great proponent of freedom and progressive ideals.

Thanks for dropping by.

FF

Ian said...

FF,

Again. Your posts are devoid of reason and factual support, yet you claim that I'm entitled to an opinion (which, I might add, I have never stated to be my own) that "appears to weigh against your purported love of fair debate based on facts."

I've resigned myself to the notion that you will never provide support for your claims.

Since it is the most readily available source to both of us at this juncture, I suggest you read what Finkelstein had to say about Mill's On Liberty; it is in the paragraph where you incorrectly cited his opinion on Irving.

To summarize, it illuminates the importance of the devil's advocate. My sorrow for you is that you can't understand how discussion might be furthered and greater understanding might be gained if both sides of an argument, to use a cliche, bring their A game.

Regardless of your point of view, the discourse is enhanced when valid arguments are posited by both sides from a grounding in factual premises. You can throw around any Latin phrases you want about the validity of an argument, however, but unless one ensures with some degree of certainty that their premises are true, one's argument is fallacious.

I honestly hope for your sake that you can improve your skills with regard to argumentation. I think there are many valid arguments that can be made about the security of Israel, but you do none of them service.

Good luck.

p.s. Feel free to answer my request for documentation at any time.

Justin said...

Okay I will respond to your points and I will show you what it is like to answer directly the questions posed to you.

“Now as to your other points..part of the US was `stolen from Mexico?'”
Most of the Southwest was Mexico at one time. (See James K. Polk)

“And you actually equate Israel with Iran?”
I said this, “Hell I might even grant Israel the right of pre-emption, which also means that I must grant that right to every state, even Iran.” I did not equate Israel with Iran and you know it. I simply said that if it is okay for one person to do than they have no right criticizing another. For instance, since my country, the US has nuclear weapons it is wrong to claim that no one else can. It is called hypocrisy.

“And I don't consider the Nazis `followers of Christ', BTW. What The National Socialist German Worker's Party really was is a secular mutation of the Left. Give you a hint...the red Nazi flag is a tipoff.”
In case you are unaware, most of the Nazi’s were Lutheran and the founder Martin Luther was a rabid anti-Semite.

Lessee...in exchange for Arab guarantees of `normal relations',with no clear definition of what that means, Israel places itself in strategic jeopardy, gives up a fair amount of its territory….and allows what's left of Israel to be flooded with genocidal `refugees'.
This is funny because the Israel’s have said they favor a Palestinian state with no clear definitions. Israel would only give up a “fair amount” of its territory if you believe that everything between the Jordan and The Mediterranean is Greater Israel. Plus every single person on the planet knows that no refugees will be moving to Haifa and Tel Aviv.

“Has any nation in history,victorious in war ever done that?”
TO be perfectly honest I am not sure, off the top of my head, if there is precedence but I have the balls to answer your question, which you seem unwilling to do.

“So why are you so insistent that Israel commit what amounts to national suicide?”
Israel is the most powerful nation in the region with the full force of the US backing it and you really think that they are in jeopardy of committing suicide. I personally think not giving up the West Bank, in accordance with the Geneva Accords, is Israel committing suicide. If you haven’t noticed there is a lot more talk today of having Israel go the way of South Africa. Really what happens when everyone starts boycotting Israel and its staunchest ally is unable to keep their people in line and they begin to demand a boycott also?
And why the fixation on the Green Line (and I wonder if you know why it's called that)?
People focus on the green line because that is the armistice line and the internationally recognized border, since Israel has refused to ever set its borders. As far as the name, ever heard of Google.

“And yes, it would be helpful if you'd actually been to Israel, seen the terrain and seen the kind of jeopardy the country would be in if the Arabs attacked again with the country only nine miles wide at its narrowest point.__Why SHOULD Israel put itself in that kind of peril?”
Again do you really believe that Israel is militarily that weak? They have nuclear bombs for Christ’s sake and you really believe that some Palestinians are going to eliminate the state through force? The only way the Palestinians are going to eliminate the state of Israel, something I am against, is due to the Israelis refusing to make a deal and the world forces a South African solution on them.

“If you think that's a great deal, I'd love to play poker with you sometime. Giving the `Palestinians' land worked well with Oslo and in Gaza, didn't it?”
One, Oslo gave the Palestinians control over one third of the West Bank and only the surface, they had no control over the aquifers or the air space, great deal and as far as Gaza goes, what do you think would happen is all the prison guards just left the prison with the prisoners inside, without water, power, …….
Also, what is with the quotes around Palestinians? If I did something similar wouldn’t I be a Jew Hater, even though you have already painted me one. Personally I believe every single human being is racist at some levels and you prove my thesis to be true.

“And then there's that awful fence. Ever seen it? Do you have any idea how many innocent lives it's saved? _Do you even care?”
How many fences are made with 15 ft. concrete walls? I have absolutely no problem at all with Israel building a security wall. If they fell that it is necessary to build a wall that is totally legitimate. It is just when that wall dips into the West Bank and separates farmers from their land, which of course you believe they have no right to own anyway. Plus you are using post hoc ergo propter hoc.

“And speaking of human rights violations, have you EVER publicly criticized the Palestinians, Egypt or Jordan for anything? They get a fair amount of US aid too...without providing any of the `value added' for the US as an ally that Israel does. ( and by the way, collectively the Arab nations get much more aid from the US than Israel does, and 80% of Israel's aid is spent right here in the US, on arms purchases and joint venture projects with the US)”
As far as criticizing the Egyptians and the Jordanians in concerned, that is irrelevant because they don’t live in the West Bank or Gaza, unless you view all Arabs as the same, which I believe you must. Plus how hard is it to criticize either of those states? As far as criticizing the Palestinians, where do you want me to start? Palestinians should not deliberately attack innocent civilians because it is a war crime! The leadership is totally corrupt and has been one of the major obstacles to a deal. I hate religious fanatics no matter what religion.
When it comes to Arab states receiving more aid from the US, what’s wrong with that? One would think that if you added the aid received by numerous states it should dwarf that of just one state’s aid. This shows your thinking that all Arabs are the same. It would be like arguing that Anglo Saxons already have a state so why do we need Canada.

“As for Resolution 242, it doesn't even mention a 2nd Arab Palestinian state..all it does is lay out a framework of Israel exchanging `territories' in exchange for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Since Israel has already given back over 80% of the land conquered in the Six Day War. they've more than fulfilled it admirably.”
Resolution 242 says it is illegal to acquire land by force and that seems pretty plain. 80% seems like a great number unless you think about your doctor doing 80% of the surgery and then stopping.

And now for the real questions.

“*After 1948, there were over 800,000 Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world. The Jews took them in and integrated them into their country. Why didn't the Arabs do the same?”
How does what Yemen did 1948 have any bearing on the conflict today? Why should any country be forced to take refugees? Should Turkey be forced to take in a million Iraqi refugees because they have similar skin color?

“If the Arabs are so hell-bent on `justice for the `Palestinians', why didn't THEY give the `Palestinians' some of their land for a state? They have lots of it.”
Because they didn’t expel the Arabs from Israel. This seems a lot like the racist shit about putting Israel in Europe. I guess if it coming from you it is not racist.

“Why was there no big push for a `Palestinian' state when the Arabs occupied Gaza, Judea and Samaria, prior to 1967? Could it be that the `Palestinians' only became a nation once the Jews were in the picture?”
For one, we are talking about the situation today and not what shitty Egyptian or Jordanian regimes in the ‘60s thought. Also Palestinians are not a nation that seems to be the whole problem.

“*If you make a deal with someone to let them purchase real estate from you and they renege on the terms, don't you get your property back?”
Not if you are a Native. Look at what the Americans did to the natives in this country. Plus we don’t know the nature of the deals. Maybe they weren’t legitimate or maybe they were coerced.

And finally,
“Why should the `Palestinian' refugees be allowed compensation and the right to return, but not the Jews?”
The whole discussion began about the Holocaust Industry, which was about Holocaust survivors being compensated so that is kind of a weird question. Where do the Jews want the right to return to? Eastern Europe? Russia?
Plus, like I said, everyone knows that the Palestinians will never have the right to settle, there is that word again, in Israel. The right of return was put into international law, that is that law that doesn’t apply to Israel or the US, for the Jewish people who couldn’t escape Soviet Russia. Ahh the Irony.

So now that I have actually answered you questions, I have a simple one for you, because I know you won’t answer any of my previous ones.
What is your solution?
Do you support the forced transfer of, I’ll call them Arabs since you don’t believe in Palestinians, to “that other Palestinian” state Jordan?
Do you support the Bantustan system and the apartheid that is currently being followed?
Or do you support the future where there are far more Palestinians, oops Arabs, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River Valley?
Or is it that you support the status quo, which will only lead to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State?
Or is there a third way?
Thank you
Justin

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Justin,
Your overall tone seems to have changed a bit...perhaps you're just shocked that I actually allow freedom of speech and dissent on this site, as opposed to the Kos echo chamber!

I'm afraid I don't agree with you that I haven't answered questions directly..perhaps you just dislike the answers, and their implications.

Enough of that, however..now we get into some interesting stuff:

“Now as to your other points..part of the US was `stolen from Mexico?"

Most of the Southwest was Mexico at one time. (See James K. Polk)"

I don't dispute that the southwest was part of Mexico in the least. What I dispute is the verb `stolen'. Mexico lost that territory because they lost a war with the US and legally ceded these areas to the US in exchange for peace with the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago.

Another example of using inaccurate language in service of a political agenda.

And here I thought you were in favor of countries giving up land for peace!


“And you actually equate Israel with Iran?”

I said this, “Hell I might even grant Israel the right of pre-emption, which also means that I must grant that right to every state, even Iran.” I did not equate Israel with Iran and you know it. I simply said that if it is okay for one person to do than they have no right criticizing another. For instance, since my country, the US has nuclear weapons it is wrong to claim that no one else can. It is called hypocrisy.

Well, yes Justin, I think you are equating Israel with Iran, just as you are similarly equating the US with Iran. Do you really seriously believe that the motivations of the US and Israel are as evil as the mullahcracy?

“And I don't consider the Nazis `followers of Christ', BTW. What The National Socialist German Worker's Party really was is a secular mutation of the Left. Give you a hint...the red Nazi flag is a tipoff.”

In case you are unaware, most of the Nazi’s were Lutheran and the founder Martin Luther was a rabid anti-Semite.

I'm aware of Martin Luther's background. Are you, by extension saying that therefore all Lutherans are Nazis and anti-Semites?

In fact, I feel you're a bit incorrect on two counts. The majority of Nazis, especially the rank and file of groups like the SA came from a lapsed Catholic background, as did Hitler. And in any event, the Nazis, like the Soviets were rabid secularists. See `Mein Kampf' and the relevant parts of Shirer's `Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich' for details.


"Lessee...in exchange for Arab guarantees of `normal relations',with no clear definition of what that means, Israel places itself in strategic jeopardy, gives up a fair amount of its territory….and allows what's left of Israel to be flooded with genocidal `refugees'."

This is funny because the Israel’s have said they favor a Palestinian state with no clear definitions. Israel would only give up a “fair amount” of its territory if you believe that everything between the Jordan and The Mediterranean is Greater Israel. Plus every single person on the planet knows that no refugees will be moving to Haifa and Tel Aviv.

First of all, not all Israelis (and as a matter of fact, not even a majority) favor a 2nd Arab Palestinian state, according to polls in Ma'ariv and Yediot ( the papers most Israelis actually read as opposed to a minor paper like Ha'aretz). That didn't used to be the case, but Olso, Gaza and Arafat's duplicity changed things.

And when I said that Israel has already given up a fair amount of territory captured in the `67 war, that is simply an historical fact. The exact figure is around 80%. I think I've already explained that because the Arabs consistently rejected Israel's existence, the areas you mention never `belonged' to anyone and thus were up for grabs. Certainly I didn't hear you or those with your beliefs or the `Palestinians' complaining when the Arabs occupied Gaza, Judea and Samaria and killed or drove out every Jew living there after the 1948 war!

Rejection as a choice has consequences.

The flooding of Israel with genocidal `refugees' is an integral part of the Saudi `peace' ultimatum , by the way and both the Saudis, the Arab League and the `Palestinians' have said many times that it's non-negotiable..which says a lot about how serious they actually are about peaceful coexistence with Israel.

That's why it's national suicide for Israel to accept it.


“Has any nation in history,victorious in war ever done that?”

TO be perfectly honest I am not sure, off the top of my head, if there is precedence but I have the balls to answer your question, which you seem unwilling to do.

Pray answer it then. OK, I'll do it for you..the answer is
N E V E R..yet another example of the `special rules' that apply to israel and no one else.


“So why are you so insistent that Israel commit what amounts to national suicide?”

Israel is the most powerful nation in the region with the full force of the US backing it and you really think that they are in jeopardy of committing suicide. I personally think not giving up the West Bank, in accordance with the Geneva Accords, is Israel committing suicide. If you haven’t noticed there is a lot more talk today of having Israel go the way of South Africa. Really what happens when everyone starts boycotting Israel and its staunchest ally is unable to keep their people in line and they begin to demand a boycott also?

"And why the fixation on the Green Line (and I wonder if you know why it's called that)?"

People focus on the green line because that is the armistice line and the internationally recognized border, since Israel has refused to ever set its borders. As far as the name, ever heard of Google.

Again do you really believe that Israel is militarily that weak? They have nuclear bombs for Christ’s sake and you really believe that some Palestinians are going to eliminate the state through force? The only way the Palestinians are going to eliminate the state of Israel, something I am against, is due to the Israelis refusing to make a deal and the world forces a South African solution on them.

I don't think you quite understand. Perhaps you might want to take a look at this to understand exactly why `land for peace' is suicidal and why Israel having a strong military, or US backing doesn't change that fact.

As for Israel having a strong military or nuclear weapons...are you advocating that Israel use the IDF full force against their enemies to protect their country? Somehow I don't think so.

`Internationally recognized borders'...by whom? And why should Israel be pressured to do something no other nation in history has ever had to do by an international body that doesn't even accord it full rights as a sovereign nation? In any event,the only recognition that counts is by the Arab countries, and the only ones that have established borders with
Israel are Egypt and Jordan.

That includes the `Palestinians', BTW. Both Hamas and Fatah explicitly endorse war against Israel until ALL of it has been conquered in their charters, over 70% of the `Palestinians' voted for Hamas and its genocidal agenda which shows the fallacy of your belief that most Palestinians want peaceful coexistence with Israel in a two state solution,no matter what the borders. And here's another example of the Palestinian version of peaceful coexistence.

I also am not worried about the `South Africa ' option, frankly, simply because aside from most of the Arabs and their leftard allies, most reasonable people know it's horse manure to compare Israel to South Africa and apartheid.

The last Gallup poll showed that almost 68% of the American people had a favorable view of our ally Israel, as opposed to only 22% with a favorable view of the `Palestinians'. And that's in spite of Israel's ineptness at public relations, the literally millions of dollars spent by the Saudis to purchase the Middle East Studies departments of academia, influence public opinion and buy paid shills like Jimmy Carter, the leftist tilt of the dinosaur media, and having Saudi allies like Dubbyah and Condi in charge at the White House.


“If you think that's a great deal, I'd love to play poker with you sometime. Giving the `Palestinians' land worked well with Oslo and in Gaza, didn't it?”

One, Oslo gave the Palestinians control over one third of the West Bank and only the surface, they had no control over the aquifers or the air space, great deal and as far as Gaza goes, what do you think would happen is all the prison guards just left the prison with the prisoners inside, without water, power, …….
Also, what is with the quotes around Palestinians? If I did something similar wouldn’t I be a Jew Hater, even though you have already painted me one. Personally I believe every single human being is racist at some levels and you prove my thesis to be true.

That's more than any other Arab state has EVER given the `Palestinians'. I've already explained why it was an outright gift,and unique in history. And, as I'm sure you don't know, the Oslo formula was designed to award the e`Palestinians' even more land if they had complied with their part of the agreement - which they did ot. They're fortunate Israel didn't treat them the way King Hussein treated Arafat and the `palestinians' when the PLO started tried to take over Jordan in 1970.

And did it ever occur to you that the controls Israel put on the `Palestinians' had a lot to do with the terrorist war Arafat unleashed on Israel's civilians?


“And then there's that awful fence. Ever seen it? Do you have any idea how many innocent lives it's saved? _Do you even care?”

How many fences are made with 15 ft. concrete walls? I have absolutely no problem at all with Israel building a security wall. If they fell that it is necessary to build a wall that is totally legitimate. It is just when that wall dips into the West Bank and separates farmers from their land, which of course you believe they have no right to own anyway. Plus you are using post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Those concrete walls in places like the Israel suburb of Gilo are designed to prevent snipers from firing on civilian homes and on highways, something that regularly occurred before that part of the wall was built. There's a lot of documented evidence that many of the `palestinians' freely allowed people like the al-Aksa Brigades and Islamic Jihad use of their homes to shoot at Jews and store weaponry.

If they had to lose a little land as a consequence, that's how the pita crumbles. They're lucky they didn't lose it ALL.



“And speaking of human rights violations, have you EVER publicly criticized the Palestinians, Egypt or Jordan for anything? They get a fair amount of US aid too...without providing any of the `value added' for the US as an ally that Israel does. ( and by the way, collectively the Arab nations get much more aid from the US than Israel does, and 80% of Israel's aid is spent right here in the US, on arms purchases and joint venture projects with the US)”
As far as criticizing the Egyptians and the Jordanians in concerned, that is irrelevant because they don’t live in the West Bank or Gaza, unless you view all Arabs as the same, which I believe you must. Plus how hard is it to criticize either of those states? As far as criticizing the Palestinians, where do you want me to start? Palestinians should not deliberately attack innocent civilians because it is a war crime! The leadership is totally corrupt and has been one of the major obstacles to a deal. I hate religious fanatics no matter what religion.

When it comes to Arab states receiving more aid from the US, what’s wrong with that? One would think that if you added the aid received by numerous states it should dwarf that of just one state’s aid. This shows your thinking that all Arabs are the same. It would be like arguing that Anglo Saxons already have a state so why do we need Canada.

yeah, but I bey you don't do it publicly..on Kos, for instance!

You also need to learn that the nation-state is largely a western concept, and must Muslims regard themselves as part of the ummah first and as say, Syrians or Iraqis second.


“As for Resolution 242, it doesn't even mention a 2nd Arab Palestinian state..all it does is lay out a framework of Israel exchanging `territories' in exchange for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Since Israel has already given back over 80% of the land conquered in the Six Day War. they've more than fulfilled it admirably.”

Resolution 242 says it is illegal to acquire land by force and that seems pretty plain. 80% seems like a great number unless you think about your doctor doing 80% of the surgery and then stopping.

Thanks for conceding that, as I said, you haven't read the resolution. If you do, you'll be able to verify that I was correct in what I said.

And now for the real questions.

“*After 1948, there were over 800,000 Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world. The Jews took them in and integrated them into their country. Why didn't the Arabs do the same?”

How does what Yemen did 1948 have any bearing on the conflict today? Why should any country be forced to take refugees? Should Turkey be forced to take in a million Iraqi refugees because they have similar skin color?

Fine. Let's turn it around. So why does what Israel may or may not have done in 1948 have a bearing on the conflict today? Why should Israel have to take in `Palestinian' refugees?

“If the Arabs are so hell-bent on `justice for the `Palestinians', why didn't THEY give the `Palestinians' some of their land for a state? They have lots of it.”

Because they didn’t expel the Arabs from Israel. This seems a lot like the racist shit about putting Israel in Europe. I guess if it coming from you it is not racist.

Neither did the Jews, for the most part, except in isolated incidents that can easily be justified by the exigencies of a war for survival.

But as a matter of fact, the Arabs did play some part in the Palestinians leaving Israel.

The transcripts and airchecks still exist of Radio Cairo and Jordanian State Radio telling the `Palestinians' to leave and get out of the way of the Arab armies, after which they would be able to return and help themselves to the Jew's property and their women. And a lot of them simply ducked across the border voluntarily to get out of the way of a war zone. Why do you think they carried those famous house keys with them?

About 450,000 Arabs left Israel either voluntarily or involuntarily
after the 1948 war, and over 100,000 stayed there and became Israeli citizens..as opposed to 800,000 Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the Arab world after 1948, plundered of everything they owned and forced to leave.

Most Pals bet on their Arab `brothers', a few bet on the Jews, or at least were smart enough to stay put. Choices have consequences.


“Why was there no big push for a `Palestinian' state when the Arabs occupied Gaza, Judea and Samaria, prior to 1967? Could it be that the `Palestinians' only became a nation once the Jews were in the picture?”

For one, we are talking about the situation today and not what shitty Egyptian or Jordanian regimes in the ‘60s thought. Also Palestinians are not a nation that seems to be the whole problem.

You're right. They're not a nation and never were. Aside from a hatred of Jews and a shared feeling of victimization, there's absolutely nothing to bind them together as a nation..as recent events have shown.

Here's some food for thought..Israel and the Palestinians are a smokescreen designed by the autocratic Arab regimes to divert their people from their poverty, misery and lack of freedom and if Israel didn't exist, the Arabs would have had to invent it.


“*If you make a deal with someone to let them purchase real estate from you and they renege on the terms, don't you get your property back?”

Not if you are a Native. Look at what the Americans did to the natives in this country. Plus we don’t know the nature of the deals. Maybe they weren’t legitimate or maybe they were coerced.

Actually, the `real estate deal' I was speaking of was Oslo, a real estate deal designed to mimic the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords, except that Arafat wasn't Sadat. The`Palestinians' reneged on every part of that agreement, as they have on all subsequent agreements.

I could also get into how `native' most of the `Palestinians' are, especially since Britain allowed unlimited in migration of Arabs into the Mandate during the , thirties and forties while restricting immigration for Jews.

Yasir Arafat, an Egyptian born and raised is a good example of that,but we can save it for another discussion.


And finally,
“Why should the `Palestinian' refugees be allowed compensation and the right to return, but not the Jews?”

The whole discussion began about the Holocaust Industry, which was about Holocaust survivors being compensated so that is kind of a weird question. Where do the Jews want the right to return to? Eastern Europe? Russia?

Ummmm, no. Almost all of THOSE Jews left voluntarily. I was speaking of the 800,000 Jews thrown out of their homes in the Arab world.

If THEY have no right of return or at least compensation from the Arab nations that performed these actions, why should the `Palestinians' have a `right of return' or compensation from Israel?

Simple question, hard to answer, I know.


So now that I have actually answered you questions, I have a simple one for you, because I know you won’t answer any of my previous ones. LOL!!

What is your solution?

Do you support the forced transfer of, I’ll call them Arabs since you don’t believe in Palestinians, to “that other Palestinian” state Jordan?

That very much depends on how the Palestinians conduct themselves in the future. Although I would point out that this is how every single conflict involving neighboring states and refugees has been settled throughout history.

Do you support the Bantustan system and the apartheid that is currently being followed?

Oh, please, Justin. It's a funny kind of apartheid when Israel has Arabs fully integrated into their population and with full citizenship and legal rights and the Arabs don't have a single Jew in the same position! Did you even know that Arabic is Israel's official second language? jeeez!

Or do you support the future where there are far more Palestinians, oops Arabs, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River Valley?

If you actually look at the statistics, you'll find that the `Palestinian' so-called demographic bomb is a myth. The Pals were caught overestimating their population in an attempt to scam more donor funds and the Jewish birthrate, especially in Judea and Samaria has more than kept pace. in any case, this point begs the question

Or is it that you support the status quo, which will only lead to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State?

Or is there a third way?

Yup. Glad you asked. Here's a real peace proposal for the Middle East, just fair and equitable..which means the Arabs would probably never accept it, but at least we'd know who's serious about peace and who's not. You're welcome.


Thank you
Justin

Justin said...

The ad hominem attacks have been fun but I can only be called an anti-semite so many times until I just turn and walk away. Unfortunately I thought for a second you might actually be civil in a debate but the attacks have been too much. I was going to respond but reading accusation after accusation has just gotten to me. I know what you are trying to do so I am leaving. You have not won the debate or even got me to listen but you were successful in shutting down the debate. THere was much to respond to but it is pointless since I will just be told I haven't read this or that or I hate people I never met or I'm a racist(even though races don't exist, so if one believes in 'races" then it is them who are racist) or whatever attack you choose to use.
In defense of DKos, there are many people there who argue your points much more civil and without the ad hominem and guess what, we can find areas of agreement because we aren't calling each other names. You might be surprised but I was about to start agreeing with some of your points but screw it since I am an atheist who HATES people and you obviously believe my points are without merit so anything I agreed with might make it suspect. Especially since I am an anti-semite. The last thing you want is people claiming that since a Jew hater, me, agrees with your points then you are no better than the Jew hater.
So you win, even though you have yet to provide any proof that Finkelstein lost his job due to academic fraud and plagiarism and will be unable to do so.
ANd, you have yet to cite a source showing that Finkelstein considers Irving a 'good historian".
But hey, you got to call some people Jew hater, way to go. I sure hope my girlfriend doesn't find out I hate Jews, her mom would be pissed.

Freedom Fighter said...

`ad hominum attacks'?

I think there's a major difference between saying that some of your remarks are unconsciously racist and calling you a `Jew Hater'an anti-Semite or an atheist an dI believe apologies on your part are in order. I've gone out of my way to be respectful towards you and not censor you in any way...BECAUSE I WANT MY READERS TO SEE THESE ATTITUDES FOR THEMSELVES.

What you call `accusations', I think are simply questions you're unable to answer and deal with, and I'm disappointed that you were unable to question your preconceived attitudes...so you bailed, which is certainly your right but ultimately self-defeating on your part.

Remember, you came here and accused Israel of being an apartheid state, which is patently false, along with a lot of other things you wrote out of - forgive me - ignorance.

What I hope is that some of the points I raised lead you to reconsider those attitudes and beliefs.

Since your last coment has solittle to do with anything I wrote to you,I can't help but wonder if maybe this was supposed to be a reply to a different message, and you got your signals crossed.