Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?

Yet more substantiation for the above:

http://books.google.com/books?id=y7...m kippur sadat political breakthrough&f=false

A free preview to boot!

 

I rarely attack the messenger (that was not me who declared BBC lying and wiki biased in this very thread) but the fact that you had to resort to the opinion of one the most biased, one-sided and dishonest anti-Israel "historians" on the planet to "prove" your point speaks for itself.

PS I read one of his book, his intellectual dishonesty, double standard and propensity to manipulate facts are staggering.

 

Did you ask more than that? My apologies I thought id covered most of it.

Indeed Im against Israels attack. It had no need, and did so in order to gain land.

Im not just as against egypts attack, because egypt had no choice but to force Israel off its land. Israel had already proven ots determination to gain and keep any land it was alble to take.

The 73 war, started by Israel of course, was entirely not the arabs fault.

 

Assume for the sake of argument that what you have posted is true. In that case it doesn't make sense to establish a second terrorist entity.

 

I did not resort to his 'opinion'; as I said, what he wrote his corroborated in other works (which I provided). It is possible that he may have conveyed and espoused falsehoods and misinformation elsewhere, but that is totally irrelevant here (given the fact that what I posted is, again, well known and corroborated in other works). You are simply upset with the facts; that is wholly understandable, for it happens to all of us.

 

Well I will assume it as it is true.

 

My god Borat, thats really low.

Avi Shlaim is an Oxford historian who actually served in the IDF and retains his israeli identity.

Sorry you dont like arguments and conclusions, but hes a credible scholar and by no means a rabid israel hater.

Further I intend to quote him extensively because his work is well respected and whats more he examines and respects the opinions of many of Israel's earliest historians, choosing not to paint them as rabidly for israel.

 

Balderdash.

But Im all ears, ive read his works and know his opinions too.

And anyone who thinks Avi Shlaim is anti israel doesnt know Avi Shlaim, his opinions put him on the left of israels political spectrum - not out of israeli politics altogether.

 

You post an article that says "No to Palestine Yes to Kurdistan", yet just after a pro-Palestinian poster comments to it you turn "Oh dear I'm not against Palestine blah blah". Look who's lecturing people about "hypocrisy". lol how pathetic

 

Avi Shlaim has not lived in Israel since 1966 and I provided the opinion of another Oxford person on Avi Shlaim's bias. He is just not a credible person clearly belonging to the "Israel can do no right, Israel's enemies can do no wrong" camp.

Here it is once again:

 

Harris is a bona fide Israeli activist, not a historian, and 1966 is when he was a young man the same age as when most men serve their country. As far as I can tell harris's never even served in the IDF.

Further if you knew anything about Shlaims work, youd know that Harris's claims about Israel can do no right is patent nonsense..

 

That does not change the point he is making that Shlaim is a bona fide anti-Israel activist, masquerading as a historian. That Israel can do no right in Shlaim's eyes is well known and well documented, I am not sure why you are denying this established fact. I read one of Shlaim's book, they are not just inaccurate, they are deliberately dishonest and manipulative.

I am not quite sure what happened to Shlaim during his brief life in Israel half a century ago but he clearly has a grudge and is not even trying to be objective.

 

So, the Yom Kippur War - the one where Egypt and it's allies launched a surprise attack against Israel - was 'entirely not the arabs fault'?!?

Ummm...okaaaaaay.

I think I see where this is going.

Well...nice talking to you.


Have a nice day.

 

I'm greatly disappointed in you Dan; you've completely ignored my (and Creations) arguments.

 

You'll get over it...and my name is not Dan.


Bye for now.

 

I hope so.

A thousand apologies!

 

No Shlaim is not an activist. Hes a historian, an activists does things like Mr Harris does. Like be an advocate rather than a historian and actually do activism on current political matters - Shlaim examines the past, bug difference.

That Israel can do no riight in Shlaims eyes is not well known and documented. Its not an established fact. Whats establlished is his credibility, his scholarship and Harris's activism. Harris, being an admitted activist, has little credibility to criticise Shlaim whatsoever.

Shlaim does not have a grudge whatsoever, if youd read his work youd know that. Should I explain his work and views further?

 

Well of course not, the Israelis were actually settling on the land - thus making their intention to keep it clear.

They were commiting an offensive action by moving their population onto Egypt, and whats more they spurned repeated attempts at diplomacy.

As such, Israel was already on the offensive in 73, both occupying and settling the land.

Hopefully you do indeed see where this going. Please respond if you have any counter argument youd like to make. If youve no actual counter then please do not respond any futher to my posts. Me and Goomba, dont have the time to waste on non - arguments any further.

Have a really really nice day.

 

To summarize this debate:

-In 1948 Israel accepted the partition, the arab world did not and Israel was invaded by multiple arab armies - you have bogus excuses (i.e. non existent ethnic cleansing when in fact Jews were slaughtered en-masse by Arab terrorists in 1948 ) to justify the arab rejection of the partition and invasion of Israel

-In 1967 Israel was surrounded by multiple arab armies that violated the armistice agreement, committed acts of war against Israel, kicked out UN peace keepers, started a naval blockade of Israel (the closing of the Straits), massed an enormous amount of troops, tanks, artillery etc on Israel's borders and were openly threatening to attack Israel and wipe it off the map. You have lame excuses to justify these actions and equally lame excuses to condemn Israel's preemptive strike, that was not even condemned by the UN

- In 1967 Israel accepted the land for peace resolution, the Arab world's response to the legally binding UNSC resolution was resounding NO - 'no peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel'. Yet you blame Israel for the lack of progress in the peace process between 1967 and 1973.

-In 1973 Israel was invaded again, and again you have bogus excuses to justify the Arab invasion.

You and Goomba are wasting your time indeed if you think your spin can fool anyone.

 

I suppose it's another case of 'do not feed the trolls.'

 

Everything I said are easily verifiable historical facts, all you and creation have are endless theories, baseless speculations, double standards and lots and lots of spin.

 

No thats a summary of an argument you wish to make, not of the entire debate. Youve pointedly and deliberately ignored any point I wished to make. Youve not even bothered to tell me if what ive sais is or is not true.
In fact no matter what I say, unless of course I was to agree with you, your response is likely to ignore and refuse to even counter anything I tell you.
But ok Ill help give a full summation of the debate with you by putting the other side.

The real story is this;
Throughout the early 20th century the arabs had fought for and demanded independence, only the land to be promises as a home for Jewish immigrants by Great Britain, who took to hold Palestine in trust.
The Arabs, like anyone would do, rejected this. They rebelled against the british and were crushed in 36. The British armed and trained the new Jewish immigrants who were intent on taking as much land as they could.
By the mid 40s, the British, tired of war, handed over responsbility to the UN, who divided it the land into two states. The Arabs again, just as anyone would do, rejected this. By now hundreds of thousands of immigrants had been let in and they were now the best armed and trained force in the entire region.
As trouble flared between both groups, both sides took to terrorism and war, but the Jewish forces, decided to clear the land of problematic natives for their new state. That was ethnic cleansing as it fits every definition of the term, it did exist and is well documented by the Israelis themselves.
Arab powers, knowing of these events, undertook to save Palestinians, and prevent the division of the lands of most people who lived there. They then moved into the arab state, just as NATO would do. Yet having ample opportunity to invade into the Jewish state, they did not do so. Instead they tried to take arab ground and hold it - in some cases they succeeded. Like Jerusalem where a British trained force was able to equal the British trained Jewish force.
But of course for the most part the better manned, British trained and armed Jewish force invaded every bit of the arab state it could despite having agreed to the partition plan. Despite there being nothing in the plan that made it null and void if the other side did not agree. Ever since theyve kept and settled all the bits of the arab state they took then.

In 67, and before, Israel had attacked in force on every surrounding nation. Sometimes in response to Palestinian raids who wanted their farms back, sometimes to provoke escalations. In the Golan it forayed into the DMZ with tractors due to land pressure from local Israeli farmers, in the east it invaded into Jordan held land territory against a Jordanian army that had already been losing soldiers trying to stop palestinians, in the south it had taken gaza and invaded Egypt in response to palestinians raids, - requiring thus the UNEF to protect Egpyt. All these were acts of war, and yet still the arabs had not counter attacked. Why? Because they couldnt.

There was no naval blockade of israel, no ship was ever stopped, and israelis hadnt used the strait for some time - however, the announcement proved a useful pretext for an attack. Indeed they decided to attack before diplomacy agreed to by Nasser over the straits could proceed.

In 67, in response to Israeli attacks, Arab armies were massed to defend their lands. Israelis again used this massing of defensive forces as another pretext for an attack.

The open threats were regarding what would happen if Israel attacked, again proving useful to israel as, since israel was indeed going to attack, it could then claim it was going to be attacked.
These facts are not lame excuses - they are simple undisputable facts. If anyone has any way in which to describe why they are 'lame excuses' then do so instead of just stating that they are lame excuses.
The UN could not condemn the Israeli attack, because, of course, Israel had allies on its security council with a veto. The general assembly of course, consisting of and representing far more people, has always been on the right side.

In fact Israel did not accept the land for peace resolution, in fact it incorporated east jerusalem into itself immediately.

It has continued this policy ever since. This policy was even confirmed by Israels own supreme court.

As for the Khartoum Nos. Read about the Jarring intiative.

In 73 Israel was not invaded. In fact Israel was continuing its original invasion, except by now it was settling the lands it had taken. These landss were not israel. In fact the possible lands that can be thought of as Israel are the lands that israel agreed to with the UN in 1947.

If you think this is a bogus excuse then youv had ample opportunity to explain why. You havent because you cannot. Please demonstrate otherwise.


Your comments to summarize the debate are of course is the Israeli spin, its not even real history, its the spin the Israeli government and Americans have put on the story from day one. Its not even backed up by Israels actual historians. Why? Because real history has context, and detail, and doesn’t ignore the others halfs narrative.. Its only activists, and governments thereby that choose to take certain parts they like and ignore other narratives.

Like your interpretations for example, you happily go along with the Israeli narrative, and tell us that that is established fact. On what basis you do not say. Yet you keep repeating it.
Well Im telling you that your summary is not established fact, its the Israeli spin. Established facts at least contain the narratives of all sides.

I dont expect me and Goomba can ever persuade or even fool you or anyone. What we can do is answer everyone of your points. Which we have, you cannot answer ours - thats the telling difference.

 

Lets clear this thing up once and for all. If you have a counter I expect to hear it.

The idea that; the fact that israel accepted the 47 partition, and the arabs accepted it, is a good thing morally for israelis to have done and a bad thing for arabs to have done - IS PURE HIGH GRADE ISRAELI SPIN.

In fact the arabs, in rejecting the division of their lands with an immigrant minority were exactly in accordance with the principles of the League of Nations and the UN charter.

When israelis tell you that they accepted it, and the arabs rejected it, thats not a good thing its a bad thing.

Please counter this, no personal invective.

 

LOL what exactly am I supposed to counter? Your claim that accepting a UN resolution (passed overwhelmingly by the entire world) is a bad thing and rejecting it and invading a neighbor with the stated objective to wipe it off the map is the right thing to do is so absurd that needs no rebuttal whatsoever.

 

You could simply start with what exactly is wrong with thee native majority rejecting a division of their lands?

Or why both the Balfour declaration and this division wasnt contrary to the UN charter?

Isnt that an easy place for you to start?

Indeed my positions are probably so absurd that countering them should be a trifling matter should it not?