Investigate Israeli war crimes !

[ScottyT]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

I'm assuming your shifted the topic because you had no good rebuttal to MG's post. That about sum it up?

Basic leftist libtarb tactics: Bounce around from talking point to talking point until your opponent's head explodes due to the overwhelming lack of logic.

[AK_User]

Originally Posted by ScottyT

Basic leftist libtarb tactics: Bounce around from talking point to talking point until your opponent's head explodes due to the overwhelming lack of logic.

like right wingers are any different...... neocons are no better.

Anyway It seems you're changing the talking point here, to a fake left/right argument.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by AK_User

like right wingers are any different...... neocons are no better.

Anyway It seems you're changing the talking point here, to a fake left/right argument.

Then why don't you bring it back and rebut MG's post above? Let's see what ya got hotshot.

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
Ignorant, huh? I don't think he was challenging that the area has been called Palestine -- only that the group of Arabs who currently inhabit it have any unique claim to that land as "Palestinians". There's ZERO historical evidence to support their claim to that land, other than the fact that they have taken up residence there and won't leave.

It's like Mexicans crossing the border and calling themselves "Californians". It doesn't change who they are.

While we're at it, hows about this one?

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm
Neither you nor Etta has chosen to respond to the points made about Hamas hiding beneath the skirts of civilians as related to the reason for so many civilian casualties. Why is that?

This should be good, if any kind of direct rebuttal comes at all. Doubtful, but we'll see.

[mgeoffriau]

Benny Morris's revisionist accounts of Israeli/Palestinian history are controversial at best. If you want, we can trade quotes and references from each side of the debate. I have plenty of scholarly references that describe the massive influx of Arabs during the first half of the 20th century during the British management of Palestine.

[ScottyT]

Originally Posted by AK_User

like right wingers are any different...... neocons are no better.

I couldn't agree more. I hate Repubs and Neo-cons only slightly less than Demos and socialists. All of them want bigger government and fewer freedoms for their subjects.... err, citizens.

[mgeoffriau]

Actually, while we're waiting on a response from Etta or AK User, I'd like to bring up another point:

Etta and AK, you claim that the Palestinians fight because of the way Israel treats them. You seem to indicate that if only Israel would give them free passage of resources and supplies, they would be happy to leave Israel alone.

Considering this view, would it be fair to say that the Arabs are still paying for their short-sighted decision to reject the partitioning of Palestine in 1947? You claim their violence is in response to the poor living conditions caused by Israel. But they had the option to have a portion of Palestine all their own, to manage and grow and cultivate. They rejected that option, and since then have pursued a vision of an Israeli-free Palestine.

So, which is it? Do they really just want decent living conditions and to be left alone? If this is true, why didn't they accept the partitioning in 1947, and why don't they attack Egypt now? If it isn't true, and their goals actually include non-negotiables like the eradication of Jews in Palestine, then why do you defend their cause? Why shouldn't Israel respond with overwhelming force?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

Benny Morris's revisionist accounts of Israeli/Palestinian history are controversial at best. If you want, we can trade quotes and references from each side of the debate. I have plenty of scholarly references that describe the massive influx of Arabs during the first half of the 20th century during the British management of Palestine.

If you read the entire article, you might change your opinion of Morris' "revisionism." He's actually become a more balanced writer on the subject. His latest editorial in the New York Times would attest to that.

And, the "massive influx of Arabs" during this time would signify what?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

Actually, while we're waiting on a response from Etta or AK User, I'd like to bring up another point:

Etta and AK, you claim that the Palestinians fight because of the way Israel treats them. You seem to indicate that if only Israel would give them free passage of resources and supplies, they would be happy to leave Israel alone.

Considering this view, would it be fair to say that the Arabs are still paying for their short-sighted decision to reject the partitioning of Palestine in 1947? You claim their violence is in response to the poor living conditions caused by Israel. But they had the option to have a portion of Palestine all their own, to manage and grow and cultivate. They rejected that option, and since then have pursued a vision of an Israeli-free Palestine.

So, which is it? Do they really just want decent living conditions and to be left alone? If this is true, why didn't they accept the partitioning in 1947, and why don't they attack Egypt now? If it isn't true, and their goals actually include non-negotiables like the eradication of Jews in Palestine, then why do you defend their cause? Why shouldn't Israel respond with overwhelming force?

It is my opinion that the majority of Arabs - Muslims and otherwise - would accept a situation where Israel would return to the pre-1967 borders and give up all claim to the disputed territories, and share Jerusalem.

Of course, there always will be radicals that will not be satisfied with this arrangement, but I think they would be isolated with no or very little support from the people if they chose to continue fighting.

[AwPhuch]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

If you read the entire article, you might change your opinion of Morris' "revisionism." He's actually become a more balanced writer on the subject. His latest editorial in the New York Times would attest to that.

And, the "massive influx of Arabs" during this time would signify what?

He writes for the New York Slimes...balanced my ass!

[billbrasky]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

If you read the entire article, you might change your opinion of Morris' "revisionism." He's actually become a more balanced writer on the subject. His latest editorial in the New York Times would attest to that.

And, the "massive influx of Arabs" during this time would signify what?

since when is there a mandate for balance to right and wrong.

Is there balance to global warming (something you think you understand) somehow i have a feeling you are all or none when it comes to the quasi facts of GW, but the arab israeli conflict is in need of some sanitizing to make it not so mean or harsh. Odd because the conflict is all facts, its all happened already for everyone to see, and you seek out a watered down version to be your gospel.