Collounsbury:
This is, as far as I know, the first thread in which you and I have co-posted on this issue. You are, in my opinion, a reasonable, erudite poster with a long and obvious history of clear-headedly and emotionlessly driving to the central core of a wide range of issues. I appreciate that.
Because of that impression of you, I’m (frankly) shocked at the abusive language you’ve heaped upon me.
It’s been my hope since these threads have begun to appear that I might find a poster or two who posess a comprehensive understanding of the history of this conflict. It’s obvious that I’ve found that in you, and I hope that we might help one another show others through these debates… You know? Fight Ignorance, as it were? Your tone and language are at odds with that purpose and I don’t think I’ve done much to deserve them. I might yet… but please give me time and the benefit of the doubt.
I am away from my texts now and can’t do much to answer your specific assertions regarding the history of the region… please give me some time to do some reading. You recommend Bickerton and Klausner… what do you think of Gilbert’s Israel: A History, which a friend recently gave me? I’m also reading the Near East Report’s “Myths and Facts” which, while obviously biased, is endlessly well-documented.
Regarding the use of quotation marks around “Palestinians,” let me offer this explanation: There has never been - to my knowledge, and if I’m wrong, please correct me - an independent state called Palestine. Thus calling those indiginous people “Palestinians” lends credence to a National unity which is, at best, uncertain. In places like the SDMB, where people unfamiliar with the historical detail are sure to be reading, I like to offset the term with quotation marks, to make sure the reader understands that there is not now, nor was there ever before, an independent “Palestinian” people. Not doing so allows a distortion of truth to perpetuate.