Myth #1... Israel is "Stolen Land"

[mbig]

If Demon is as you say a hater and agent provocateur, etc., all the more reason to talk directly to him in conciliatory tones. You stick to the Big Bad Boy shtick I will stick to the Moonbeam shtik.
[.........]

Incorrect.
1. I already presented facts documenting my take
2. You can't change bias.

Now in regards to this comment:

"and for the record on a specific issue.. you keep making the statement "as a zionist I was taught xxyyzzx" which usually has NOTHING to do with zionism per se, but rather your Liberal take."

You want to label me with personal names and descriptions and not address the issues I say, knock yourself out Big Boy. The fact I do not buy much of your comments does not make me a Liberal or Conservative or anything else. In fact I am proud of the kind of Zionism I was taught by Israelis I worked and lived with including many soldiers and holocaust survivors so back off Big Boy,
I am proud to be a Zionist and proud I was taught as a Zionist not to hate Palestinians or label Arabs or Palestinians or anyone else as you do.

Lol. Liberal. If you mean I want to have sex with Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver or Tzipi Levni, sure why not. I like women with big teeth.

nighty night.

This board Has a definition of Zionist/ism IN THE RULES.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/78853-middle-east-forum-rules.html

Zionism: According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Zionism is:
an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.

Zionist: A person who supported the establishment of Israel and supports the survival of modern Israel.

Which does NOT include any of your goofy extranea on whether they like arabs/Palestinians or don't.

And have you noticed, say, your/Mika-el's short 'friends list.' (6)

Conspicuously, there's NOT another 'Zionist' or Israeli on it!!
In fact, just two notable/Thousand-post+ ANTI-Zionists/Israel-Bashers and a banned poster whose second-to-last post called Israel 'apartheid.'

So Mika-el's version of 'zionism', is apparently limited in recognizability Only to him and people who Bash Israel/are in fact.. Anti-zionists.

additionally:

I believe this thread shows vividly the absurdity of trying to go back in time and slant history to justify current day political positions of intolerance.

How does arguing someone is not legitimate make either Israelis or Palestinians go poof and vanish?

That's because your politics/Tikkun/Woodstock have destroyed/preclude your comprehension.

The OP in FACT was meant to debunk those who feel Israel was stolen or has no right to exist. IOW, Those who are "intolerant".
It doesn't address the issue of a palestinian state per se, except to mention it was rejected.
It never suggest someone "go poof".
Subsequent discussion may have wandered, but that was not the string purpose.

I have, however, many times expressed my support for a two-state solution and tried to stimulate discussion of Solutions.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/72245-israel-palestine-solutions-poll.html

And Many times voiced my criticism (too many times to count) of the Current Israeli leadership/Netanyahu.
Just two string-starters I can remember
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/95251-cnn-piers-morgan-challenges-netanyahu.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/88036-netanyahu-has-rejected-one-u-s-package-too-many.html
along with probably a score of posts.

So as usual, you're incoherent and completely wrong as to who is on the extremist/Fringer here.

 

[shanners]

Again, only according according to the infamous paid-by-Turkey Justin McCarthy's "corrected" census numbers-- 'corrected Up' that is.

You keep claiming he falsified those figures so where's the proof? The Columbia University Press obviously doesn't think so.

And They weren't "Murdered" or "Driven off their land" , that's your Slander.

I'm not saying that all half a million of them were murdered. I don't think anybody knows the correct figure. But the number is certainly huge: "Although Begin and other Israelis denied it at the time of my article, the facts about this and other examples of ethnic cleansing in 1948 have now been validated by several Israeli historians from military archives opened in the past decade or so."

This is still going on today:

Ethnic Cleansing: Past, Present and Future, by Ran HaCohen

UN investigator: Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing with settlement expansion - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The populations of BOTH Peoples increased from 1850 Onwards.
The Arab population, in FACT increasing more than Twice as fast where the zionists came to settle.
(Already posted and linked be me).

So please give that link again - as I said there's little time for me to read all 50 pages.

Just as they flocked to Israel before the Intifada by the Thousands for jobs..,.and do even now.

Africans flocked to South Africa during apartheid seeking jobs but that didn't excuse the apartheid regime.

Right! Dozens of people reporting "empty" "tomb-like" "Desolate", were all misquoted. Twain, (1867) British Consul, (1857), Historians, Geographers.

Highly plausible considering the deceit Israel has engaged in over the years.

You link Oxymoron cite palestineremembered posting Maybe HALF a Page of a book and then complain about being quoted out of context?

That's ridiculous.

And even if true (12% in cherry-picked-just-pre-WW1-1914) wouldn't preclude an 'Israel', who without the Empty Negev (which doubled) it's 27% to 54%... in 1948 (or even in 1920 after WWI) when there was an even higher Jewish population.
They may have even gotten too little of the Arable land.

And Again, 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land passing from the Ottomans to the British to the Jews, and owned by NO Arab.

Source please.

One notes you rely on population more than ownership-- as if tenant farmers/Migrant workers of wealthy arab owners have property rights. (Maybe immigrant fruit pickers are entitled to alot of the USA.)

They still were permitted to live on and tend that land. Unless you're saying they were squatters?

who cares about Shlomo ben Ami

He's a former Israeli Foreign Minister so he should know what he's talking about. Besides he quotes Zangwill.

or Finkelfuhrer

I wonder if I called a right wing Israeli academic whatshisname - fuhrer if I'd get away with it???

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Keep Nazi references/innuendo out of this forum.

 

[mbig]

Big your comments to me were absurd. You simply engaged in subjective name calling. For you to suggest there can only be one definition of what Zionism means in itself was ludicrous. To then suggest with the definition you quoted I have demonstrated I am against the existence of Israel was even more illogical.

When you engage in comments such as:

"..hat's because your politics/Tikkun/Woodstock have destroyed/preclude your comprehension." what you do is lower yourself to sticking out your tongue out at me and calling me names.

If you want to have a debate on what I think Zionism means or how I think Israel can best protect its existence I can do that. Engaging in such ridiculous name calling no.

Lol, knock yourself out though. Tikkun-Woodstock? Lol, whatever.

I will repeat it one more time for you. The fact that I disagree with Demon or others on certain issues as to this conflict does not mean I can not hear them out and be civil and acknowledge certain comments.

If you are suggesting a Zionist must hate Palestinians and must dehumanize them as a people or denying they exist as a people I would suggest you again show nothing but your bias. The difference between us is I openly admit my comments are subjective opinions-you present yours as absolute truths. That is the huge difference between us.

That and I lived, worked, volunteered and went to school in Israel and I don't make any apology for following the Zionism as envisioned by Moishe Dayan,Yitzhak Rabin, Abba Eban, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Levni.

I doubt you could understand why someone like Dayan or Rabin who had to fight Palestinians and other Arabs did not hate them. I doubt you could understand what Dayan taught me and other young Zionists when we went to Israel about Arab culture.

I doubt you could understand the mentality of the IDF soldiers I lived and worked with or what it is to be a Sabra and travel in other parts of the world and face rigid stereotypes of what an Israeli is supposed to think and be.

I know many like you. They assume a lot. I assume nothing. I treat people as I want to be treated. Yes that is a basic principle of Judaism and Teekam Olem. It is also the basic precept of Christianity and Islam and virtually every other religion.

You are so caught up in wanting to label me and others who don't agree with your opinions you miss the obvious and that is we bleed the same blood and we want the same things-it makes neither of us the enemy and you bet I challenge people like you. Your comments in my opinion try reduce the conflict like you do me, to simplistic, rigid terms you can handle because the idea things could be shades of grey not black and white just can't make it in your universe now can they?

This is completely Incoherent.
Your inability to use the quote feature- just another way for you to escape reality and not quote my relevant sections.

1. It's YOU who are the 'labeler'.
2. I pointed out whatever you THINK 'zionism' means-- your friends here Are in fact ANTI-Zionists, with NO zionists on the list.
3. Your inability to quote, shouldn't preclude an honest reading and response.
4. You keep tryng to paint me "Hating Palestinians" and further... adding that into a definition of Zionism.
Neither Love nor Contempt for Palestinians is in the definition of Zionism.

Again, your replies are incoherent, sprawling messes. That is to what you even choose to reply to.
Your convenient inability to use the quote feature, not excusing you dropping important/Bolded portions of my posts, while mischaracterizing other parts.

Your are incapable of (and to the degree you even comprehend, unwilling to) carrying on a linear discussion. Let's not even venture why. Tho you posted a spouse diagnosis.

-
EDIT to the below.
He 'erased' a post I already quoted! And after he saw me quote it.
Perhaps he's getting the embarrassing picture.
bye.

 

[Mika-El]

This is completely Incoherent.
Your inability to use the quote feature- just another way for you to escape reality and not quote my relevant sections.

1. It's YOU who are the 'labeler'.
2. I pointed out whatever you THINK 'zionism' means-- your friends here Are in fact ANTI-Zionists, with NO zionists on the list.
3. Your inability to quote, shouldn't preclude an honest reading and response.
4. You keep tryng to paint me "Hating Palestinians" and further... adding that into a definition of Zionism.
Neither Love nor Contempt for Palestinians is in the definition of Zionism.

Again, your replies are incoherent, sprawling messes. That is to what you even choose to reply to.
Your convenient inability to use the quote feature, not excusing you dropping important/Bolded portions of my posts, while mischaracterizing other parts.

Your are incapable of (and to the degree you even comprehend, unwilling to) carrying on a linear discussion. Let's not even venture why. Tho you posted your wife's diagnosis.

I erased my response. Its clear I should not be engaging in any responses to you at this point in time. Lol. Your name calling speaks for itself not just with me but with others.

Biggy when people have no clue how to debate, they revert to name calling. You can do that but people like me will just wait for you to get back to discussing the issues.

The more you name call the more it reflects poorly on you, and no you don't get to lecture me on what it is to be a Zionist or Jew. You are way out of line Biggy with that arrogant, patronizing assumption.

More to the point Biggy, your ridiculing of the principle of Teekam Olem shows only one thing-your disrespect of Judaism and Zionism which should be no surprise to anyone. The fact you aren't even aware how ridiculing Teekam Olem shows you are ridiculing Zionism and Judaism also speaks for itself and your ignorance of both topics. I doubt you have the insight to understand what I just said either. I say that not to insult you but to suggest it is pointless to debate you until you present to me a position as to what you think Zionism means and then explain how you think Teekam Olem as a principle contradicts it or what I have said that contradicts it. To date you have not. You have just thrown out some name calling with no explanations for your positions or reasons for throwing labels of simplification at me.


By the way Biggy suggesting your subjective opinions are the only acceptable ones and are to be referred to as absolute truths is silly. So is suggesting your opinions are the only acceptable ones. This is a forum Biggy. We all have differing opinions. That is why we all come here to listen and learn from each other. You are so busy lecturing others, and labelling us, you can't hear what we say.

By the way your reference to l:2wave:inear thinking? Is that what you demonstrate? Lol.

Carry on Big with the name calling. I have been called far worse things than what you have thrown out. Lol.

 

[Mika-El]

....Your inability to use the quote feature- just another way for you to escape reality and not quote my relevant sections.
....your friends here Are in fact ANTI-Zionists, with NO zionists on the list.
....Your inability to quote, shouldn't preclude an honest reading and response.
.... You keep tryng to paint me "Hating Palestinians" and further... adding that into a definition of Zionism.
... your replies are incoherent, sprawling messes.
... you dropping important/Bolded portions of my posts, while mischaracterizing other parts
..... your are incapable of (and to the degree you even comprehend, unwilling to) carrying on a linear discussion
......you posted a spouse diagnosis.

Lol. The above name calling speaks for itself.

The comment about my "friends" is childish Biggy. I have no "friends". That is you labelling people and me in a category you think exists. Stop. Try discuss the issues and refrain from the above. At least try discuss the issues.

The issue I raised in response to you is that Zionism is very much about respecting Palestinians as a collective people and Arab and Muslim cultures. That is the point I made. Your trying to argue Zionism is a rigid narrow definition and does not also include on-going dialogue as to how continued existence of Jews in a state will be able to continue in the future is silly.

Teh definition of Zionism like Judaism is on-going. It is a work in progress, not a fixed, rigid and simplistic definition as is the one you are trying to suggest is the only one.

Zionism as a definition is a work in progress and part of the on-going dialogue is how the continued existence of we Jews as a national entity will be dependent on finding ways to achieve peace and harmony with the neighbours of Israel and people like you who believe it or not are just as much a danger to the future of Jews and Zionists in that you presume to tell us who we are and how we must think.

 

[Andalublue]

More to the point Biggy, your ridiculing of the principle of Teekam Olem shows only one thing-your disrespect of Judaism and Zionism which should be no surprise to anyone.

Forgive my ignorance, Mika-El, but could you explain Teekam Olem to me? I've never heard the term before and I'd to understand better concepts around Zionism.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mbig]

Forgive my ignorance, Mika-El, but could you explain Teekam Olem to me? I've never heard the term before and I'd to understand better concepts around Zionism.

Thanks in advance.

Easily forgiven, but not as easy to forgive not Googling it.
tikkun olam - Google Search

It's a term that isn't related to Zionism.

 

[Andalublue]

Easily forgiven, but not as easy to forgive not Googling it.
tikkun olam - Google Search

It's a term that isn't related to Zionism.

I did Google it, and Wiki it, but nothing appeared for Teekam Olem. As I'd never heard the term before, how was I meant to know that was the wrong spelling?

 

[mbig]

I did Google it, and Wiki it, but nothing appeared for Teekam Olem. As I'd never heard the term before, how was I meant to know that was the wrong spelling?

That's another 100% andalublue LIE..

I had several times used the correct spelling.
But even If/WHEN one googles Your spelling:
tikkun olam - Google Search
one gets:

Did you mean:
Tikkun Olam, Team Ulm, Takum Olam, Tekamolo

And even reading the first few links of the Wrong spelling one can easily discern it's meaning.

Search Results, Teekam Olem

1. The question the jewish `gods` dont like to answer - Page 9 ...
10 posts - 2 authors
The root essence of Judaism is Teekam Olem, i.e., that active participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-question-jewish-gods-dont-like-answer-9.html - Block all www.alien-ufos.com results
Get more discussion results

2. The question the jewish `gods` dont like to answer - Page 12 ...
10 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Apr 14
For exampe the principle Christians call the golden rule and Jews call ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...question-jewish-gods-dont-like-answer-12.html
Show more results from alien-ufos.com

3. Israel seizes West Bank land - Page 43 - Political Forum
Apr 30, 2009 ... The entire premises of the Jewish identity, Teekam Olem, Healing the world, is the exact opposite of what you preach. .
[.....]

 

[mbig]

And They weren't "Murdered" or "Driven off their land" , that's your Slander.

I'm not saying that all half a million of them were murdered. I don't think anybody knows the correct figure. But the number is certainly huge: "Although Begin and other Israelis denied it at the time of my article, the facts about this and other examples of ethnic cleansing in 1948 have now been validated by several Israeli historians from military archives opened in the past decade or so."

We were talking about the period from 1850 Forward.
I informed you that BOTH populations grew strongly throughout that next 100 years. The Arab population in fact, growing Twice as fast in the areas the Zionist settled. (already posted/Linked)

To this you had/have NO reply. Not even a one-sided link. No "driven off"/"cleansed"/"Murdered" for 100 years even presented by a Biased link.

Instead we get a [disputed] vague article from a Medical Journal/BMJ! http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a2066.full about the '1948'/Begin (and forward period). The time at which the Arabs started a war to eliminate the Jews. (!) As if that proves any cleansing instead of the Genocide attempt AGAINST Jews that it was.

Of course, the most famous of those Revisionist historians, Benny Morris has now had the advantage of more archives and a straightening out by Efraim Karsh.

Irish Times
lettersed@irish-times.ie
February 21, 2008
Israel and the Palestinians
Benny Morris
http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/02/israel-and-palestinians-according-to.html

Madam, - ISRAEL-HATERS are Fond of citing - and more often, Mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some Corrections.

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way"...for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very Direct and simple.
In Defiance of the will of the International community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), They launched Hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps Destroying that community.
But they Lost; and one of the Results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
[........]
Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.
The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as 2/3's of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and NOT from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was Not a "racist crime"... but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was NO Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is Open and Available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.
[.......]
The Demonisation of Israel is largely based on Lies - much as the Demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on Lies. And there is a Connection between the two.
[.......]

 

[shanners]

No "driven off"/"cleansed"/"Murdered" for 100 years even presented by a Biased link.

I'm sure I'll be able to find something, just give me time :mrgreen:

Of course, the most famous of those Revisionist historians, Benny Morris has now had the advantage of more archives and a straightening out by Efraim Karsh.

What about Ilan Pappe?

 

[Gardener]

What about Ilan Pappe?

Still a batshit crazy lunatic last I heard.

 

[shanners]

Still a batshit crazy lunatic last I heard.

Amazing how one can be a respected scholar up to the point where he speaks out on Jewish extremism/fundamentalism then he instantly transforms into a "crazy lunatic".

 

[Mika-El]

Amazing how one can be a respected scholar up to the point where he speaks out on Jewish extremism/fundamentalism then he instantly transforms into a "crazy lunatic".

Gardner true is no diplomat but with due respect the person you refer to as a respected academic is anything but. There's no point trying to take someone who fails the most basic of academic stadards for research and claim they are well respected. Pappe is considered a failed academic. He may be well respected to people like you who agree with his opinions but this does not make him a well respected academic. Hitler was well respected. So was Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Saadam Hussein, Ghaddafi, Reagan, even George W. Bush Jr. So your point?

Many say the Grand Wizard of the KKK is well respected and so?

Being popular with people who hold the same opinion as you might make you popular with them but it certainly doesn't mean academically you are well respected. There is a huge difference.

The person you quote has violated every basic precept of research used by social scientists and so in academic circles is dismissed.

You and I can write subjective opinion pieces and people will tick off they like them, does it make them credible? Maybe, maybe not, it does make them liked by others however.

Come back with someone who uses an objective methodology rather than simply throw out subjective opinions they try pass off as absolute truths or facts and I for one, will take them more seriously.

Gardner may not have a gift for diplomacy but with due respect the person you refer to is questioned by mainstream academia.

 

[Mika-El]

I'm sure I'll be able to find something, just give me time :mrgreen:



What about Ilan Pappe?

Pappe and Morris are criticized because they violate the academic rules of social science and in particular history. They represent their subjective opinions as facts which is the first problem. The second most glaring problem is their inaccurate research and false quotes or incorrect quotes and references to past events. After that is their exercise of removing an historic event from its actual context and time line and giving it a new context removed from the cause and effect time passage its removed from.

People like Pappe and Morris are in fact editorialists. They give subjective opinions for theories as to why they think events happened. They call themselves historians but they are not. Historians do not editorialize as to why they think events happened and then pass that off as history because its not history its political commentary or social commentary.

In true historic research, the historian tries to remain as neutral as possible as to what he or she reports.

A pure historian maintaining such a discipline is no different then atrue journalist. Today both suffer from people who editorialize and selectively intercept and rewrite history to reflect the subjective opinions of the observer. The lack of objectivity in analyis is what renders there work lacking in credibility.Their bias causes them to make an assumption, then simply remove historic events from their actual context to back up these assumptions. That is not how historians work.That is how someone with a subjective bias presents his arguements and justifies his bias.

Its no different then someon who sees the Virgin Mary in a gravy stain. People like Pappe and Morris see the face because that is what they set out to see. An historian would see no face of Mary, just a gravy stain and report it is being interpreted by different people in different ways and how some see it as Mary and others as Mr. Big.

 

[Mika-El]

Amazing how one can be a respected scholar up to the point where he speaks out on Jewish extremism/fundamentalism then he instantly transforms into a "crazy lunatic".

Here let me help. I want Mr. Big to accuse you of being my friend,Lol. Try Abba Eban and Moishe Dayan. Both are Zionists and both presen histories of the Palestinian people that acknowledge their existence.

Biggy has never read either so when he comes back making loud accusatory references to them being Liberals or Teekam Olem do gooders, tell him both were tougher warriors then any John Wayne imitation he continues to try present.

There are plenty of good historians on the Middle East. Problem is you will find they are apolitical.l They acknowledge both Jewish ad Arab histories and story lines and don't suggest one existed and the other did not or favour one over the other. Chances are you and Mr. Biggy will both not like them given the fact they may not present theories either of you would politically agree to.

Historians are supposed to try document what happened not reinvent it with a new version that suits a present day political belief.

 

[Che]

The second most glaring problem is their inaccurate research and false quotes or incorrect quotes and references to past events.

Can you provide evidence for your claims? I am concerned with Morris so if you can produce the things that he has written in his books that you believe to be inaccurate research and false or incorrect quotes then I will have a look at your evidence and see if you are actually telling the truth here.

 

[mbig]

The second most glaring problem is their Inaccurate research and False quotes or incorrect quotes and references to past events.

Can you provide evidence for your claims? I am concerned with Morris so if you can produce the things that he has written in his books that you believe to be inaccurate research and false or incorrect quotes then I will have a look at your evidence and see if you are actually telling the truth here.

:^)
If you'll note above, I mention it was Efraim Karsh who "straightened out" Benny.

Benny Morris and the Reign of Error :: Middle East Quarterly

Benny Morris's Reign of Error, Revisited: The Post-Zionist Critique :: Middle East Quarterly

ie,

"...Benny Morris, for example, Claims in his book 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem', that the Israeli leader David Ben Gurion wrote to his son, “We must expel Arabs and take their places,” which fits quite well with the assertion that Israel banished the Palestinians.

But Professor Efraim Karsh, in his book
'Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians', Refutes this, showing that the Ben Gurion letter actually states the Opposite,
“We do NOT wish and do NOT need to expel Arabs and take their places.”
(Karsh, p. 46-51)
And this is just one of the MANY examples of Fraud and Misrepresentation Karsh exposes in the work of Morris, Shlaim, et. al.

http://www.theworld.com/~camera/docs/alert/nprbtf.html

The above just one of the scores of Fraudulent 'Zionist quotes' that litter the internet. Most not even having an ostensible good source.

http://www.usakpedia.com/content/Efraim_Karsh
http://www.meforum.org/207/the-unbearable-lightness-of-my-critics

"..In reviews of 'Fabricating Israeli History', Benny Morris was Forced to Concede certain Refutations made by Karsh:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, Superficial...He is probably right in Rejecting the transfer interpretation I suggested in 'The Birth' to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947]. The Times Literary Supplement, November 28, 1997 "Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point." Refabricating 1948 p 83.

 

[Che]

:^)
If you'll note above, I mention it was Efraim Karsh who "straightened out" Benny.

Benny Morris and the Reign of Error :: Middle East Quarterly

Where to start?

Efraim Karsh is a right wing member of the zionist movement so just from that I am going to say that his opinions are not going to be unbiased to say the least.Now let us move on to what others have said about Efraim's critics of the 'New Historians'.

I will start with what Benny Morris had to say about his work:

Efraim Karsh's article on the new Israeli historiography is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (his piece contains more than fifty footnotes but is based almost entirely on references to and quotations from secondary works, many of them of dubious value) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply.
Undeserving of a Reply :: Middle East Quarterly

Political scientist Ian Lustick described Karsh's writing in Fabricating Israeli History as malevolent, and the nature of his analysis as erratic and sloppy. The book, he wrote, was ripe with 'howlers, contradictions and distortions'. Lustick cites six instances where Karsh, he alleges, presents quotations the originals of which state the very opposite of what Karsh tells his readers they say.

Richard Bulliet, Professor of History at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University, described Empires of the Sand as: "a tendentious and unreliable piece of scholarship that should have been vetted more thoroughly by the publisher" and asserts that the authors failed to "contribute a dimension of sense and scholarship that raises the debate[s in question] to a higher level.

Yezid Sayigh, Professor of Middle East Studies within the Department of War Studies at King's College London, has written of his King's College colleague that, "He is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)
Efraim Karsh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His has also been criticized by many other scholars so I am not going to take his word in the article that you provided as concrete evidence.Thanks.

 

[mbig]

Where to start?
wiki free encyclopedia[/url]

His has also been criticized by many other scholars so I am not going to take his word in the article that you provided as concrete evidence.Thanks.

You could start with Any Actual Facts or quotes such as I did.. instead of Meaningless partisan reviews.

The Reversed quote I provided alone and to which Morris ADMITTED is enough to prove the point... and he could be banished on that alone.

Again, you asked for examples. I gave you Articles Full of Examples along with one Gigantic Fraudulent one.. AND an admission by Morris thereof.

You provide partisan reviews. NO Facts. NO refutations. Nada.

again:

"...Benny Morris, for example, Claims in his book 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem', that the Israeli leader David Ben Gurion wrote to his son, “We must expel Arabs and take their places,” which fits quite well with the assertion that Israel banished the Palestinians.

But Professor Efraim Karsh, in his book
'Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians', Refutes this, showing that the Ben Gurion letter actually states the Opposite,
“We do NOT wish and do NOT need to expel Arabs and take their places.”
(Karsh, p. 46-51)
And this is just one of the MANY examples of Fraud and Misrepresentation Karsh exposes in the work of Morris, Shlaim, et. al.

The above just one of the scores of Fraudulent 'Zionist quotes' that litter the internet. Most not even having an ostensible good source.

http://www.usakpedia.com/content/Efraim_Karsh
http://www.meforum.org/207/the-unbea...-of-my-critics

"..In reviews of 'Fabricating Israeli History', Benny Morris was Forced to Concede certain Refutations made by Karsh:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, Superficial...
He is probably right in Rejecting the transfer interpretation I suggested in 'The Birth' to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947]. The Times Literary Supplement, November 28, 1997 "Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point." Refabricating 1948 p 83

The challenge you made to Mika-el was met.. and met in Spades.

The second most glaring problem is their inaccurate research and false quotes or incorrect quotes and references to past events.

Can you provide evidence for your claims? I am concerned with Morris so if you can produce the things that he has written in his books that you believe to be inaccurate research and false or incorrect quotes then I will have a look at your evidence and see if you are actually telling the truth here.

Apparently you can't handle the truth... or even consider it. (LIED)
Plenty of evidence WAS provided along with an admission.

 

[Che]

You could start with Any Actual Facts or quotes such as I did.. instead of Meaningless partisan reviews.

The Reversed quote I provided alone and to which Morris ADMITTED is enough to prove the point... and he could be banished on that alone.

Again, you asked for examples. I gave you Articles Full of Examples along with one Gigantic Fraudulent one.. AND an admission by Morris thereof.

You provide partisan reviews. NO Facts. NO refutations. Nada.

again:

The above just one of the scores of Fraudulent 'Zionist quotes' that litter the internet. Most not even having an ostensible good source.

Efraim Karsh
http://www.meforum.org/207/the-unbea...-of-my-critics

The challenge you made to Mika-el was met.. and met in Spades.

Well I cannot see a link that works to your posted by CAMERA piece for starters and your other two links are just rehashing what has been posted.I suggest you read the criticism of Karsh's work in your first link as well as that pretty much says that he is not a very good historian and distorts facts.

The fact is that Kash's work has been criticised by many many scholars and Benny Morris work is accepted the world over as a true history.Now have you got anything else or are you going to just rely on this one guy whose credibility has already been questioned by his peers?

 

[Andalublue]

Gardner true is no diplomat but with due respect the person you refer to as a respected academic is anything but. There's no point trying to take someone who fails the most basic of academic stadards for research and claim they are well respected. Pappe is considered a failed academic. He may be well respected to people like you who agree with his opinions but this does not make him a well respected academic. Hitler was well respected. So was Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Saadam Hussein, Ghaddafi, Reagan, even George W. Bush Jr. So your point?

Absolutely. This is completely correct. One person's 'respected' is just about being 'respected' in a certain context. It really means very little.

Being popular with people who hold the same opinion as you might make you popular with them but it certainly doesn't mean academically you are well respected. There is a huge difference.

But does 'respect' only stem from those who disagree with you, but concede the logic of your argument?

The person you quote has violated every basic precept of research used by social scientists and so in academic circles is dismissed.

What are those precepts? Could you go into more detail?

Come back with someone who uses an objective methodology rather than simply throw out subjective opinions they try pass off as absolute truths or facts and I for one, will take them more seriously.

Well, in all honesty, could you provide people and sources whose 'objective methodology' is beyond reproach and demonstrably NOT 'subjective opinions'?

Gardner may not have a gift for diplomacy but with due respect the person you refer to is questioned by mainstream academia.

Please define 'mainstream academia'.

 

[mbig]

Well I cannot see a link that works to your posted by CAMERA piece for starters and your other two links are just rehashing what has been posted.I suggest you read the criticism of Karsh's work in your first link as well as that pretty much says that he is not a very good historian and distorts facts.

The fact is that Kash's work has been criticised by many many scholars and Benny Morris work is accepted the world over as a true history.Now have you got anything else or are you going to just rely on this one guy whose credibility has already been questioned by his peers?

Here's another Link to the/a CAMERA piece and Exposed FRAUDULENT quote of Morris. CAMERA: Back to the Future:

But since I also provided working Links to Morris' ADMISSION of his errors, it's hardly necessary.
Ooops!

I also provided Links to Many More/EXTENSIVE other of his Fraud and Misrepresentation.
ie, just one.

Benny Morris and the Reign of Error :: Middle East Quarterly

I MISREPRESENTATION
[......]
II. PARTIAL QUOTES
[......]
III. WITHHOLDING VITAL EVIDENCE
[......]
IV. MAKING FALSE ASSERTIONS
[......]
V. REWRITING ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
[......]
CONCLUSION

So MUCH material and so much Overwhelming "Evidence" you asked for and LIED about "considering", that you really couldn't even Consider it.
As it blows your position completely.. and your whole view of the conflict history which is based solely on Fraud as the above.
Not that much of the Karsh debunking of Morris is even debatable. It's simply using Real/original documents and showing Beeny didn't or altered them.



EDIT: Last-wording by 'Che' (politics-over-fact obvious) to continue, but he's Cooked by Overwhelming evidence provided.
In fact Benny Morris' own Admission!
Despite that admission he's still trying to vacuously Bash the sites which allege AND prove it!
And Che LIED about "considering evidence" that was provided.
(as if he was able or willing)
I'm not wasting any more time with someone who posts NO facts/no real refutation at all.
Bring back shanners, at least, instead of 'Che'.
bye.

 

[Che]

Here's another Link to the/a CAMERA piece and Exposed FRAUDULENT quote of Morris. CAMERA: Back to the Future:

But since I also provided working Links to Morris' ADMISSION of his errors, it's hardly necessary.

I also provided Links to Many More/EXTENSIVE other of his Fraud and Misrepresentation.
ie, just one.

Benny Morris and the Reign of Error :: Middle East Quarterly
So MUCH material and so much Overwhelming "Evidence" you asked for and LIED about "considering", that you really couldn't even Consider it.
As it blows your position completely.. and your whole view of the conflict history which is based solely on Fraud as the above.

Oh that CAMERA, sorry but I do not accept anything from a propaganda site set up by an ex member of the IDF that has been criticised as biased by many people.Thanks.So I see you have posted up the same link again to what appears to be your only evidence about Morris.So do you have anything else as I have already laid waste to that one? I am thinking being as you have now posted it three times that it is all you have.So this debate seems to be at an end unless you can provide something else.