newcomer has established that facts only make the real world, which is very simple and all one or the other other thing, seem instead pseudocomplex. This rhetorical device of yours of citing facts is just a tool of the oppressor used to prevent taking action based on simplistic understandings, which is all anyone really needs. (S)he is on to that and will not be distracted or acknowledge any information that does not fit into his or her current beliefs. You and your cabel of oppressors will have to try some other sly trick.
Well, why not? We’ve already had a quality wikicite detailing how accusations of people hating Jews cause people to hate Jews, and are in fact, probably the prime cause of people hating Jews these days. Along the same lines, I can see how the nasty Factistas are conspiring to keep a good narrative down by pointing out that it shares no similarities with reality.
Is your position that – based on the leaked docs – it is not true that Israeli side rejected (repeatedly) the most favorable peace offer in a long time?
Is your position also that – based on the leaked docs – it is not true that Israeli side rejected (repeatedly) the most favorable peace offer in a long time?
Just to remind you (again), you’re the one who was caught in a massive factual error whereby you actually accused the facts of being somehow false and still will not admit that it was Abbas who suspended negotiations, on three separate occasions: before the (alleged and denied by PA negotiators) offer was made, after the (alleged and denied by PA negotiators) offer was made, and almost immediately after negotiations resumed roughly two years after he suspended talks.
The (alleged and denied by PA negotiators) “most favorable” offer that you’re referring to was before Abbas suspended negotiations in December of 2008. Assuming it was still on the table when negotiations resumed, those negotiations were again suspended by Abbas. This has all been cited for you, and you’ve provided no retraction, at all, and haven’t modified your position, at all.
The facts seem to have no effect on your narrative, at all.
This has nothing to do with the question asked and you are just skewing and using one of the ways I described earlier to sabotage discussion. Colloquially referred to as trolling.
Don’t get hung up playing “rules” games.
I was addressing this thread and the posts in the day preceding my intervention in which the two posters I called out had submitted the most posts regarding other posters’ persons rather than arguments.
All threads regarding Israel and Palestine are inherently contentious. I tend to discourage that contentiousness from erupting into feuds before they involve rules violations or cause the threads to jump the tracks.
[ /Modding ]
You are out of line. You are not to claim another poster is trolling outside The BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
*Unsurprisingly, whether or not your basic factual claims have any connection to reality or not is, indeed, relevant to whether or not your argument is the least bit factual. *
Specifically, whether or not it was Abbas who suspended negotiations would seem, for any rational analysis, to support or falsify your claim that it was someone other than Abbas who stopped negotiations and said “no”. (Your claim is falsified)
In point of fact, you’re shown to be wildly wrong on the facts. Abbas suspended negotiations both before and after the alleged-and-denied-by-the-PA offer was made, and then suspended negotiations pretty much immediately upon their resumption two years after that. It is rather obvious that one cannot say “no” to an offer if they’re beaten to the punch by someone else saying “I’m suspending negotiations themselves.”
But your narrative cannot stand with that facts, which is why you still have not addressed your error nor modified your position once it was pointed out, and cited.
This may not be complex enough for you, and you may get a feeling that all the books you read are to waste because you simply are not correct.
Most commentators summarize the Papers as showing Palestinians weak because they kept giving more than the common agreement on what they might give up is (among commentators) and any time they offered, Israelis kept rejecting as not enough.
Now, for your Googling pleasure - I haven’t read any commentary ANYWHERE that says Papers reveals how peace was almost agreed upon if only Abbas did not suspend the talks. Anywhere but here and only from you, that is. Therefore, I call BS on your proposition that talks in 2008 failed because Abbas kept suspending.
And, a little gem from Tzipi Livni:
“I am a lawyer… But I am against law —international law in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.”
:o
Ah. The “well most if the commentators I’ve read” gambit. They’re not in this thread, and I couldn’t question them about any views you claim they hold, even if thy were relevant. But, yet again, facts show that the reason negotiations stopped was not any “refusal” on specific issues, but a suspension of negotiating.itself by Abbas, on multiple occasions.
Yet again, would you care to address this fact and change your argument since its very supporting facts have been shown to be in error? Or, more likely, regardless of who stopped negotiations, are you going to keep the sane narrative that is completely unconcerned with and disconnected from the necessities of factual support?
With respect to OP, I can point to a number of people saying what I say. You cannot point to a single one. EOD!
Keeping the same narrative it is, then.
(and same, not “sane”. Typing on an iPod can suck)
Yes. Because it is the correct one.
This exchange goes to show exactly what I’ve been saying for years; some narratives, no matter how thoroughly falsified by facts, will be repeated. No matter if all of their support is knocked out from under them, they’ll endure. Or thrive.
Damuri tells us that somehow he came to the exact conclusion even when he was shown to be wrong in the facts, since the facts were meanly being used as a scalpel to allow lying (A GD legal accusation, it seems). They must be lying scalpel facts, after all, since of course facts which showed that his reflexive anti-Israel narrative, which is someone else’s fault anyways, was wrong… simply must be improper.
Newcomer proclaims that his narrative is correct, despite being proven to be wrong on the relevant facts, and that facts only distort his narrative with pseudocomexity and, plus, there’s a bandwagon fallacy that can be used in support if required.
Against some beliefs, the Gods themselves contend in vain.
It is my understanding that the Israeli side rejected the most favorable peace offer in a long time and that the Palestinian side the rejected the most favorable peace offer in a long time. Abbas ended up being the one to leave the table (not the focus for commentators this week as it is already an established bit of history). Neither side’s most favorable was enough for the other side. They got close, very close, but this is not hand grenades - close isn’t good enough.
I am both impressed and saddened that, according to this JPost version of the events, they seriously considered one of my past proposed solutions … but that Livni couldn’t agree to it.
The solution was there: they could stay as citizens of the new Palestinian state or leave, their choice, but if they stayed they would be as deserving of protection as any other citizen of the new country.
It should have happened. Olmert and Livni should have gone that extra inch.
Maybe it will happen yet.
But even that is not saying “no” to an offer, in toto. Any negotiated settlement in Final Status issues will have to deal with proposals and counter proposals. And there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that everything else was agreed to but that one sticking point scuttled negotiations.
No doubt that there were more arabs in Palestine in 1946 than there in the 1890’s but I’m not sure how that makes it different than Germany in any way that matters. Are you saying Palestine was effectively unclaimed land so it was better to take Palestine than already inhabited land in Germany?
If only those obstinate Palestinians would have gone along with the UN partition plan, none of this would have been necessary. There’s really no other way to look at it. :rolleyes:
Yes I think that is exactly what I am proposing. Were the ancestral homes of Jews in Germany treated with the same level of deference you want to treat German homes? Were the Palestinian ancestral homes treated with the same level of respect?
Yep, I think thats pretty much what I’m saying, you can move the displaced German to refugee camps and I presume the “righteous Gentiles” would still be offered whatever you want to give people who risked their lives to save Jews during the holocaust, perhaps even citizenship.
Yeah, I recognize the historical connection between Judaism and Palestine. The three major monotheistic religions in the world all have that connection. How does that justify a Jewish Israel any more than it justifies a Christian or Muslim Israel? The justification for Israel as far as I can tell is that a Jewish state is desirable for a whole host of reasons. Nothing about that makes it desirable in Palestine as opposed to anywhere else.
Well, I think that exhibit A in why a Jewish state is necessary is the holocaust. So I think that we can carve that state out of Germany rather than Palestine.
Listen to yourself. With that theory firmly in place, why the heck would Israel ever support a Palestinian state? One that could act as a state sponsor of terrorism in Israel. What is the plan to get people in the area to stop hating Jews enough to want to kill them?
Yeah thats a situation that couldn’t possibly deteriorate.
And your alternative is?
Ten years is a long time. A lot can happen in ten years.
And do you think Israel’s behaviour is making the deaths of thousands more likely or less likely?
Maybe the whole booklist thing is hyperbole. After all only two books were identified by name http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13404070&postcount=139
But it has been suggested that I really need to read half a dozen books or visit Israel
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13404757&postcount=143
Sorry but wikipedia should be enough to get started on any debate, it should be enough to at least get involved and if I’m wrong then show me and I’ll change my tune. I’ve done so many times but its never been because wikipedia was incomplete or incorrect.
I read that history of Israel link you posted upthread. (http://mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#Modern%20History)
I read it because I wasn’t able to identify significant spin as I was reading it so I kept reading but I don’t see why this is the ONE topic in all of Great Debates where a wikipedia level of knowledge on a topic isn’t enough to participate in a debate.
So tell me where I’m wrong and back it up with cites but stop complaining that I don’t belong in the debate because I have a wikipedia level of knowledge because there are at least three times in this thread where I have used wikipedia to counter claims made by others.
To put it simply:
cite?
I think one of my problems with Israel threads is that I am not hung up ENOUGH on rules games. I have not developed the skill of calling someone a liar without actually saying the word liar or accusing someone of trolling without actually saying “you’re a troll”
Really? Which posters’ person did I submit posts about? I don’t recall identifying any poster.
I’m just pointing out that over time I have noticed a marked tolerance for the “cumulative effect” of some posters posts.
How useful is it to criticize my knowledge level without providing cites that anything I say is incorrect or arguing against what I say, they are arguing against where I get my information? We’ve had a few pages of that pointless argument but I can’t ignore it because it is an attempt to undercut everything I say.
Like you changed your tune when it was pointed out to you that land ownership among Palestinians was actually rare and most did not own the land they lived on. Oh, no, wait, you kept the exact same view and accused the facts of being used to mislead you since you were just sure you were correct. Also, you blamed other people for the situation that despite what new facts you were exposed to, your first instinct was to squeeze them into an anti-Israel narrative, somehow.
Or when you changed your tune on how the UN created Israel when it was pointed out that they never actually did anything other than voice some powerless words that were never enforced. Oh, no, wait, you kept the same exact view there too, including making the same error, again and again and again, where you thought that the Arab armies declared war once Partition was voted on or once it was supposed to go into effect, and not once Israel declared independence. That was probably my fault, too.
Hopefully folks reading along will notice that for all the talk of how malleable the argument is, Damuri has provided precisely zero examples (let alone cites) of how his position has changed. In fact, his position has not. His admitted style of debate, of taking any new information and trying to shoehorn it into an anti-Israel narrative was one that he used since the first thread he was posting in on the subject, but he still blames his habitual anti-Israel narrative on someone other than himself. Naturally.
Posters should note the same error here. The wikicites did not counter any claims, they simply showed Damuri’s lack of knowledge and how he misuses Wiki to hold onto that lack of knowledge. Faced with the fact that, for instance, there was substantial criticism of Israel, especially during the hugely publicized peace process of the 1990’s, his response was that since it didn’t talk much about it in his wikicite, that he couldn’t credit it as having happened.
But it’s okay. Surely, Damuri has stayed at a Holiday Inn recently, too.
And just because this complaint is somewhat amusing, considering that Damuri is evidently allowed to accuse people of lying and trolling: