Your lack of ability to counter the fact that the very first claim your cite uses is a willful distortion is noted. Your claim that you are unable to address that valid point because I am “rabid” is noted as well. Your claim that recorded and documented historical events are simply a ‘screed’ that doesn’t have to be given weight to is noted. If you don’t like facts, just insult the person presenting them. That’ll work.
I don’t know why you think this bullshit will fly in GD, but hey, you provided this waste-of-electrons-cite.
But I do notice that now you’re citing Wikipedia (!) and implying that the fact that Israel tried to honor its obligation, but the Arab states refused to negotiate is a ‘semantic’ matter. Or perhaps you’re just gnashing your teeth over the fact that the resolution called for certain things, and can’t be said to have called for others. In that case, ‘semantic’ can take on its most useful definition: “meaning”. Sorry if you object to the actual meaning of the resolution.
Your own (wiki) cite rather clearly states:
Being that it’s a wiki cite, I have no idea just how accurate it is, or whether it took statements out of context. And I’m not going to track them down right now, I’ve already choked on enough bullshit provided in your video cite this evening.
Speaking of which, I’ve managed to stomach about six and a half minutes of their willful omissions, distortions, and spin.
Let’s add some more factual counters you’ll ignore by personally insulting me.
It starts with the first guest being Chomsky. Great on linguistics, a total ideologue on international politics. Starting with him destroys any facade of objectivity they might have. As does, I’ll note, their complete lack of any opposing viewpoint, especially notable in terms of a lack of discussion on terrorism and security concerns.
Then we have a Ms. Sversky who claims that there is an “oppressive regime” that is “lording it over the Palestinians.” and “demolishing their homes”. Lo and behold, again the context is totally left out. The fact of underground tunnels and the need for buffer zones due to terrorism is left out. The fact that Israel tried to move Palestinians into decent housing, but was met with acts of murder against the ‘collaborators’ is left out. The fact that Israel tried to negotiate for settlements to the refugee issues, but the conference in Syria in '57 adopted the resolution that any solution to the refugee problem that didn’t end with the annihilation of Israel would be classified as an act of treason. (cites upon request)
The actual context of the situation is ignored, but only a “rabid” person would care about actual history. It is ironic that a willful distortion of real events is called a ‘documentary’, but correctly stating what actually happened is a ‘rabid’ ‘screed’. What funny games we play with language when we’re outgunned and can’t argue the actual issue.
Moving on…
The claim is then made that Palestinians are “lashing back trying to throw off the yolk of oppression of the Israelis”. This, of course, yet again ignores that even during negotiations for peace, there are suicide bombings, terror attacks, and massive support, generally upwards of 70%, for suicide attacks, often including those -within- the green line. But I guess the mark of a ‘non-rabid’ piece is to ignore any inconvenient bits which give context.
Then there’s a Ms. Solomon who talks about the poverty that the Palestinians live in. Of course, yet again, context is totally lacking. Nobody mentions that upwards of 40% of the Palestinian budget was looted, wasted, or misused. Arafat’s own theft of about 1.3 billion that could have been used to help the Palestinian economy is ignored.
As for that money?
[
](http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13325 )
But this little bit of ‘context’ is again ignored. I’m sure the producers of this, erm… non-rabid non-screed simply forgot things like that. An honest mistake.
Then, of course, the checkpoints are brought up. I’m sure everybody will be shocked to learn that yet again, the context of those checkpoints are ignored. Surely it has nothing to do with a long-term terrorist campaign which uses fighters who dress as civilians and carry suicide belts.
Along these lines, the point that getting medical help is difficult. Surprise surprise, this again ignores the fact that part of the reason ambulances aren’t exempt is because they have often been used for purposes of terrorism.
They give us footage of Palestinians having trouble at checkpoints. Yet again, much to my total shock, it seems that this even handed documentary doesn’t focus on the suicide bombers who slip through the checkpoints and blow up pizza parlors or busses. Or the exhibits that are created to celebrate these ghoulish acts of murder. (cite upon request)
Of course, the bit of context that Palestine could’ve agreed to stop terrorism, negotiate for land, and had a fully functioning economy with no checkpoints anywhere? Oddly enough, nobody mentions that in this objective, erm… piece.
Then curfews are brought up. The reason for these curfews, like in places like Jenin, which in a period of about two years produced 28 attempts at suicide bombings, 23 of which were successful, are totally ignored, yet again. You’d think that all the Palestinians were just innocently sipping lemonade when the mean ol’ Israelis decided to impose curfews and checkpoints because they’re just so darn evil.
Then of course we have a bunch of videos of IDF troops beating up people who I suppose are Palestinians. Lo and behold, we never see the start of the incident, just the beating afterwards. What’s that word… oh yeah, context.
We are then told that “When one lives under oppression, and there is no other way out and he is being violated every day by violent means, then sometimes the only way out of that situation is violence.”
This, of course, used to justify the Palestinian response. Including, I assume, a group of them hurling rocks.
So, in this example, when one lives under oppression (say, like having every country around you committed to your genocide), and there is no other way out (say, like the other countries refuse to recognize your right to exist and are committed to your genocide), and you are violated every day by violent means (say, like terrorist attacks, established terrorist networks, and katusha rockets), then sometimes the only response is violence.
Hrmmm… glad they’re so balanced in their fair and balanced coverage.
The statement is then added:
“Particularly if the one violating your rights and taking away your freedoms is ruthless.”
You mean… like an organized terrorist campaign dedicated to genocide that is supported by virtually every neighboring state and refuses any compromise short of your total destruction?
But don’t let such holes get in the way of a good rant.
(~sigh~)
That’s about six and a half minutes into this steaming blob of willful distortion. I take it that I’ve made my point. If there’s really anything else to debate I’d like someone else to suggest it. I’m sure that red will run away some more and claim that he can’t counter any of the points because I’m just so darn rabid what with my reliance on context and facts.
Ah well.
