Your opinion that the Palestinians would accept nothing short of the elimination of Isreal is belied by the fact that they have accepted the “road-map”, while Isreal has refused to do so.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/world/main551771.shtml
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the road-map the Palestinians have accepted does not call for the elimination of the state of Isreal, does it?
The view that the exodus was done voluntarily and not under duress has been virtually completely debunked, especilaly with the opening of the archives and has only ever been excepted in Israel.
I mean Israel - sorry about my spelling.:smack:
They said they accepted the Road Map. The question for debate is whether the Palestinian acceptance is sincere or not.
I believe the Road Map calls for an end to anti-Israel propaganda, but the Palestinians haven’t complied. More importantly, the Palestinians haven’t opposed terrorism, as required by the Road Map. In fact, they appear to be working with the terrorist group Hizbullah.
For the PA to import such weapons violates earlier agreements that they formally entered into.
**december, ** even assuming arguendo vociferously that Edward Said is a liar, as with the somewhat analogous case of Rigoberta Menchú, this would still not detract from any suffering other Palestinians have experienced. Even if a single representative of an oppressed group distorts the facts, this does not make the remaining members of the group any less deserving of sympathy and/or recompense.
In any case, I’m certainly no Middle East historian, but before I could even consider assuming your cites are 100% fair and accurate in their assessments of Said’s bio, I’d want to see something from a less biased source. A piece published in a mainstream publication (one that isn’t specifically Jewish might be a good start) might provide greater objectivity. And if Said is such a liar about basic facts of his biography, how come he still has his job?
(This post is probably enough of a hijack of this thread is it is, but somewhere in my packed-up boxes of books I have a copy of Rigoberta Menchú’s apparently false autobiography, signed by the author. She spoke at my univ. while I was an undergrad. I always thought her Spanish was a little too good, and that she was a little too articulate, to be what she said she was – a poor, semi-literate Quiché mountain peasant.)
Hey December, I’ll sell you my car - you give me $10,000, and then I’ll decide if I want to sell the car to you.
I don’t think you understand what an “agreement” is. An “agreement” is not the Palestinians unilaterally upholding their part of the bargain in it’s entirety before Israel even agrees in PRINCIPAL. You are trying to lay all the blame on the Palestinians, while at the same time suggesting that it’s reasonable for Isreal to demand nothing short of unconditional surrender from the Palestinians. Sorry, but BOTH sides are going to have to compromise if they ever want peace.
I also find it amusing that you claim the Palestinians want nothing short of the whole state of Israel; but then when their leader publicly states that he will agree to less, you say he’s lying. I guess you know what they want better than they do, huh?
Because the other 5% was pretty damn important. You can have 95% of Texas, but if that other 5% is Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin, you’d be quite correct to conclude that you were getting ripped off.
Why is this in the Pit?
If you’re so sure you’re right, why not put it in the GD?
I just broke my very own vow to not even open threads that december writes about the ME. But since this is in the Pit, let me just say give you a big:
:rolleyes:
It goes beyond that. I’ve heard this claim (that the PLO was offered everything they asked for and rejected it) debunked many times before. The other side of the story is that they weren’t actually offered autonomy, which was their main concern.
Of course. But, it makes him a poor source.
What evidence do you have that my cites are biased?
Jews are presumed to be less accurate than non-Jews? I’d characterize that as bias on your part.
Here’s a cite from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. The New York Post ran an editorial about Commentary’s take on Said, calling him the “Palestinian Tawana Brawley.”
That question is worthy of a thread in itself. My guesses would be:
– It’s hard to dump a tenured professor.
– His anti-Israel POV is supported by a majority of his colleagues
– His anti-Israel POV is supported by a lot of the liberal media
– Academia cares less about integrity than they ought to (in the liberal arts, not the sciences.)
Good example of my fourth point. Now that her deception has come to light, is she banished and vilified? Was her Nobel Prize taken back? No. AFAIK she is still defended and respected.
Because december figures we’ll probably drag him back here anyway.
shrugs
yojimbo-I always think of Israel and Palestine as similiar to Ireland and England. Am I wrong?
(In many of their circumstances)
I think it is because Menchu’s book was rather accurate about what the Quiche were suffering. She just should have called it a “fictional biography”.
So are you saying that the Clinton/Barak plan put Nablus, Ramallah, and Jenin under Israeli control? IIRC, not only were the Palestinians offered first civil, then total jurisdiction over all their major cities, they were also offered partial control of Jerusalem - I hope you have an idea what a hard pill that was for the Israelis to swallow at the outset.
I put it here by mistake. It didn’t seem important enough to ask a mod to move it. However, if a mod happens to see this and it isn’t too much trouble, could you please put this thread into GD. Thanks.
Guinastasia, you have a point. No doubt there’s a lot of truth in Menchu’s book. Still, the standards are laxer than they once were.
Have you ever read Gaudy Night, by Dorothy Sayers? It’s a classic British mystery. It gives a vivid picture of the harsh treatment that was meted out to academic deception in England 65 years ago.
Ummmm, nope. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that Jews who are writing for most Jewish publications might have a pro-Jewish bias. Jews who are writing, say, for the * New York Times*? Probably to a lesser extent. (I find it interesting that you’re accusing me of exactly the opposite bias, even though I’m Jewish.)
Thanks for your other cites. I will take the matter under advisement, as promised.
You are accusing Columbia University (or their English Department, at the very least) of a lack of academic integrity, and/or of bowing to the liberal media? That’s a pretty hefty accusation. I find it hard to believe that they would be unable to fire even a tenured professor if they judged that he had committed fraud, especially of the type which would impinge on his credibility as an intellectual.
I think you are misremembering how old I am, and therefore when I was an undergrad. I graduated college in 1989, and Menchú’s lecture at NYU was during the spring semester of 1987, when I was enrolled in a course, *Development of Latin American Culture, * for which her book was required reading. She was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1992, and her fabrications were discovered in 1998 (here’s a link: http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9812/15/menchu.cnn/)
And another link, with her side of the story:
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/99news18.html
When her fraud came to light, there was much debate in the Latin American academic and immigrant/refugee rights community, at least among the people I knew (I kept in touch with quite a few professors from the Spanish Dept. at NYU, plus many of my friends in colleagues work/have worked in the fields of immigrant rights, social services, and human rights law. One of my current co-workers was working at the time for the Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul U., and she went on human rights fact-finding missions to Central America and supported the Director’s work on reconciliation efforts between combatants in El Salvador and Guatemala. My ex-boyfriend spent several years working to obtain medical and psychological treatment for torture survivors, including many Central Americans on all sides of the struggle. So I’m pretty familiar with the real-life debate about the significance of Menchú’s fabrications and exaggerations.
We were all quite upset and disappointed to discover the fraud that had been perpetrated, upon the Nobel Committee and otherwise. Yes, there are those who defend her and discount the importance of her fraud; I’m not one of them, because it detracts focus from the actual suffering of the people she claims to represent. I still think, though, that one should give her credit for drawing world attention to the suffering of the indigenous peoples of Guatemala, and for doing something about it when hardly anyone else gave a damn.
>> Jews are presumed to be less accurate than non-Jews? I’d characterize that as bias on your part.
So, december, you also give equal credit to Palestinian sources? I don’t think so. In fact, even if they say the right thing you then question if they really mean it. If there is someone biased around here it is you.
But seriously, can’t someone create a bot or something to automate this debate?
I didn’t say all Palestinians were liars. I gave a reason to doubt the word of the Arafat regime. They had previously agreed not to import weapons. As you will recall, the PA was caught importing a whole shipload a year ago.
IIRC Arafat lied to President Bush about it. Now, it appears they another of the PA’s weapons ships has been caught. So, the PA has so far shown itself to be a dishonest negotiator.
It is to be hoped that the PA will negotiate honorably, because of new leadership (or partial leadership) of Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas ( Abu Mazin ).
Given the closed nature of important links involved, perhaps MC, particularly with his access to (and concentrated reading of) the Journal of Palestine Studies, might give us a run-down on the nature of the arguments of historians such as Shlaim, Segev and Morris; together with an appreciation of those critiques of their work that lead him to use the double emphasis ‘virtually completely’ before the wonderfully academic term ‘debunked’?
I am sure that he would not try to mislead us with copy and paste links from some Palestine propaganda/spin site.
Cites from specifically Jewish-oriented media sources are typically biased towards Israel, don’t use them to support arguments in a debate about Israel. You’ve done it before, you’ll do it again, and you’ll never realize your error. You’ll just toss out accusations of anti-Semitism to anyone who dares to question the impartiality of these sources.
You seem to have no problems criticizing Palestinian media, and their textbooks, and you find bias and lies there (or at least your links do so on occasion.) You’d rightly reject a clearly pro-Palestinian biased source on the subject. Why can’t you do the same with pro-Israel sources?
And why does december get to toss around these veiled accusations of anti-Semitism all the time? This has been the GOP and pro-Israel talking point response for years, it’s so transparent and such a weak argument that I’m surprised it’s lasted this long.