• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,355
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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.
That is precisely what historians do. That is their job. They take evidence, sketchy as it will be the further back in history they delve, and place an interpretation on it, for the consumption of contemporaries. That's what Virgil did, what Gibbons did, and what historians have always done.
In true historic research, the historian tries to remain as neutral as possible as to what he or she reports.
That is what 'objectivists' have done. It's not universally accepted that it is possible to remain 'neutral' in analysing historical data. We are all constrained by context.

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.

Then you must point to a historian who has been able to overcome their socio-political perspective and present empirically 'pure' data and not engage in subjective analysis of it. I don't believe such purity exists.

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.

Then why attack Pappé and Morris and not those who interpret historical data in an opposite direction? Are you saying that because a certain academic wave of opinion disagrees with them, they are not objective and the conflicting academic wave IS objective?

I'm hoping that I am arguing, not against or in favour of one particular strand of thought, but in favour of a sense of pluralistic rather than 'objectivist' perspectives. There are many interpretations to be placed on historical 'fact', and few of them approach an objective 'truth'.
 

Che

Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
105
Reaction score
20
Location
UK
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That is precisely what historians do. That is their job. They take evidence, sketchy as it will be the further back in history they delve, and place an interpretation on it, for the consumption of contemporaries. That's what Virgil did, what Gibbons did, and what historians have always done.

And that is why many history books say A history of as opposed to the history of.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That is precisely what historians do. That is their job. They take evidence, sketchy as it will be the further back in history they delve, and place an interpretation on it, for the consumption of contemporaries. That's what Virgil did, what Gibbons did, and what historians have always done.
Historians do Not however Falisfy quotes (Sound familiar a-blue?), intentionally withhold documents, and completley warp history in favor of a pre-conceived objective.
As I showed above and on the last page and this one.
As well as:

http://www.meforum.org/466/benny-morris-and-the-reign-of-error

I MISREPRESENTATION
[......]
II. PARTIAL QUOTES
[......]
III. WITHHOLDING VITAL EVIDENCE
[......]
IV. MAKING FALSE ASSERTIONS
[......]
V. REWRITING ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
[......]
andalublue said:
Then you must point to a historian who has been able to overcome their socio-political perspective and present empirically 'pure' data and not engage in subjective analysis of it. I don't believe such purity exists.
What I have shown was done by Morris is not mere "subjectivism" it's crooked and Intenionally deceptive.
And it's disingenuous, at best, to minimize intentional Fraud/Falsification as 'subjectivism.'


andalublue said:
Then why attack Pappé and Morris and not those who interpret historical data in an opposite direction? Are you saying that because a certain academic wave of opinion disagrees with them, they are not objective and the conflicting academic wave IS objective?
Already shown above.
Outrageous dishonesty throughout the works of Morris, Fabricating (as you have done), altering, Inverting quotes and documents.

andalublue said:
I'm hoping that I am arguing, not against or in favour of one particular strand of thought, but in favour of a sense of pluralistic rather than 'objectivist' perspectives. There are many interpretations to be placed on historical 'fact', and few of them approach an objective 'truth'.
If anyone's take is closest to the palestinian-sympathetic narrative of the Revisionist historians, it's Mika-el.
But he Knows the truth about these Fraudulent Clowns who make a living, and are indeed famous, being quoted by those who hate Israel; using "even Jews" as cover.

You know Not the history nor the authors here, nor anything else, just enter this string partisanly with nebulous posts, likes, but have Nothing of substance to contribute.
And in the last page or so, It is only I who have presented any History, facts, or refutations of such, with you and 'Che' presenting Nothing whatsoever but general ...subjectivism...Lacking the knowledge to debate/verify/refute any claim or fact within.
 
Last edited:

Che

Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
105
Reaction score
20
Location
UK
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
And in the last page or so, It is only I who have presented any History, facts, or refutations of such, with you and 'Che' presenting Nothing whatsoever but general ...subjectivism...Lacking the knowledge to debate/verify/refute any claim or fact within.

I find it funny that you are posting up the same link that you have now used 4 or 5 times in trying to put down Benny Morris when the guy who wrote all that stuff has already been proven to be

1.A rightwing member of the zionist movement .

2.Discredited by many of his peers.

Looks like that is all your argument consists of and you cannot find anything else to back up your claims although you have been asked before.

I will refer people to my previous post on your link
.http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/48220-myth-1-israel-stolen-land-57.html#post1059506499
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I find it funny that you are posting up the same link that you have now used 4 or 5 times in trying to put down Benny Morris when the guy who wrote all that stuff has already been proven to be 1.A rightwing member of the zionist movement and 2.Discredited by many of his peers.Looks like that is all your argument consists of and you cannot find anything else to back up your claims.
You probably find it Disturbing/annoying/unhandleable, not funny.
So disturbing, the sun is rising soon in the isles!
Since Morris has been outed and ADMITTED it.. besides my link alleging it.
Anything to say then to Morris' Admission of the Karsh refutation? (Inverted quote for one) Which I also posted.

Or will you Fallaciously try and keep bashing Karsh DESPITE that admission... AND your own Inability to tackle a single one of scores of facts within the Karsh link.
Have you Anything to say about Any FACT/ISSUE.. or will you Shallowly hang on to a few critics/movie reviews, unable to speak on Anything of substance.
Undoubtedly more of the same
NOTHING.
 
Last edited:

Che

Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
105
Reaction score
20
Location
UK
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You probably find it disturbing, not funny.
Since Morris has been outed and ADMITTED it.. besides my link alleging it.
Anything to say then to Morris' Admission of the Karsh refutation?

Or will you Fallaciously try and keep bashing Karsh DESPITE that admission... AND your own Inability to tackle a single one of score of facts withing the Karsh link.
Anything to say about anty FACT/ISSUE.. or will you Shallowly hang on to a few critics, unable to speak on Anything.

I have not seen an admission from Morris,the only source you could put up was from CAMERA a well known Israel propaganda site set up by an ex member of the IDF to push the Israeli agenda which says nothing about it.If that is the best you can come up with then you are not going to convince anyone of anything.See even in your post above you are still clinging on to the same guy Karsh to back up your claims when he has already been discredited.You have nothing else to post up.Does not add up to much of an argument by you.

Just reading through your CAMERA article it does not say anything about Morris admitting he was wrong so I do not know where you get that from.Funny.

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

But the links you provided do not back that claim up at all.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I gave you TWO on the last page
Efraim Karsh
The Unbearable Lightness of My Critics :: Middle East Quarterly
And that Admission, as cited above, was in the NY Times!

In addition (since you cannot use google either):

Efraim_karsh encyclopedia topics | Reference.com
and
Efraim Karsh - Citizendia
(which was the former Wiki entry before recent updates)

What's still truly amazing is your complete LACK of any facts or refutations.
NO knowledge or even quotations of such. (but you do have alotta posts!)
Just link bashing-innuendo (and some cherry-picked negative "movie-reviews" instead of good ones) as some sort of 'debate'. It isn't.
Sun up soon eh?
 
Last edited:

Che

Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
105
Reaction score
20
Location
UK
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I gave you TWO on the last page
Efraim Karsh
The Unbearable Lightness of My Critics :: Middle East Quarterly
And that Admission, as cited above, was in the NY Times!

In addition (since you cannot user google either):

Efraim_karsh encyclopedia topics | Reference.com
and
Efraim Karsh - Citizendia
(which was the former Wiki entry before recent updates)

What's still truly amazing is your complete LACK of any facts or refutations.
NO knowledge or even quotations of such.
Just link bashing-innuendo (and some cherry-picked negative "movie-reviews" instead of good ones) as some sort of 'debate'. It isn't.
Sun up yet?

You are just reposting the same stuff about Karsh.I have already dealt with this guy.You have nothing else in your arsenal.Just posting up the same thing again and again is not going to help your argument but I can see that is all you can do because you have nothing else to post.I am now starting to find this very funny as it is clear you cannot debate this subject properly.I think you should go and find some other stuff to post.
I have already shown that Karsh has been discredited by his peers, what more do I have to do to show that the guy whose links you have now posted up 6-7 times is not going to work for you? I suggest you just give up as you cannot show anything else apart from some discredited rightwing zionist guy.

I am also still waiting for a link to your claim:
But since I also provided working Links to Morris' ADMISSION of his errors, it's hardly necessary.

That has not shown up either.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You are just reposting the same stuff about Karsh.I have already dealt with this guy.You have nothing else in your arsenal.Just posting up the same thing again and again is not going to help your argument but I can see that is all you can do because you have nothing else to post.I am now starting to find this very funny as it is clear you cannot debate this subject properly.I think you should go and find some other stuff to post.
I have already shown that Karsh has been discredited by his peers, what more do I have to do to show that the guy whose links you have now posted up 6-7 times is not going to work for you? I suggest you just give up as you cannot show anything else apart from some discredited rightwing zionist guy.
You haven't "dealt" with anything.
LOL
That's why you just asked for more links.
IOW, in ALL those links, Morris admitted [quoted] in the NY Times book review Karsh was correct and he was wrong re 1948. (and BG-quote]

Now that you have them, you SAY you "dealt" with it already!
at least Make up your mind.

What a Joke this is.
bye 'Che'.
enjoy sunrise.
 
Last edited:

Che

Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
105
Reaction score
20
Location
UK
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You haven't "dealt" with anything.
LOL
That's why you just asked for more links.
IOW, in ALL those links, Morris admitted in the NY Times book review Karsh was correct and he was wrong re 1948. (and BG-quote]

Now that you have them, you SAY you "dealt" with it already!

at least Make up your mind.

What a Joke this is.

bye 'Che'.

In none of your links does Morris admit that Karsh was correct, none of them because if he did you could have copied and pasted it in reply but you have not.He concedes one point and that is it.He does not say he was wrong though and it does not even have a source you can check to see if it is even correct so again a fail on your part.All you have done is post up 4 links of which two are the same article and another one covers the same stuff as the first two and one which has Karsh giving his version of events.Now if actually have Morris himself saying he was wrong as you claim then post it up with a link.Otherwise all you have is Karsh's opinion that you have posted now 10 times or so and being that I have posted up peers of Karsh discrediting him then that is not good enough.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's a pure Lie: Yet again..

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." Re fabricating 1948 p 83
 
Last edited:

makmugens

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
271
Reaction score
58
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Further...
No Land Changed Hands when the UN created Israel AND Palestine.. Resolution 181.

It entailed Not a Single Arab having to move.
Displacement/refugees was the Result of the ARAB-started War/rejection of the partition.
Had they not started that war, they would probably be a majority in Israel now instead of the fully enfranchised 20% they are now.
-

I thought the Arab-started war was the result of Jewish treatment to Palestinians within their borders and outside of it.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,928
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, you seriously did waste time posting a one word question with no purpose whatsoever. I'm astounded as well.

Actually, his post had a definite purpose, since it exposed your ignorance and bigotry on the subject. Your falsehood was quite childish and simplistic.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, his post had a definite purpose, since it exposed your ignorance and bigotry on the subject. Your falsehood was quite childish and simplistic.

exactly (and rather obviously).

What Makemugins said was perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever seen on this forum. It illustrates absolutely zero historical knowledge about the conflict or any of the protagonists involved.

And it highlights how ridiculous views on the conflict translate into an utter impossibility to craft a coherent, effective policy to advance any sort of peace and reconcilliation.
 

makmugens

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
271
Reaction score
58
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
exactly (and rather obviously).

What Makemugins said was perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever seen on this forum. It illustrates absolutely zero historical knowledge about the conflict or any of the protagonists involved.

And it highlights how ridiculous views on the conflict translate into an utter impossibility to craft a coherent, effective policy to advance any sort of peace and reconcilliation.

We'll see. Go on and rant. I'll bury you in your words soon enough.
 
Last edited:

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We'll see. Go on and rant. I'll bury you in your words soon enough.

ok. Just let me know when you are unbanned and we can re-engage (though banned seems kind of ... permanent).
 

cynicide

Banned
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
ok. Just let me know when you are unbanned and we can re-engage (though banned seems kind of ... permanent).

An interesting thing to say to a banned person, but I also found the entire thread interesting in itself- namely from the person who made the thread. I generally agree that the original poster is not very accurate or informative in his assessment. But I want to read the entire thread to gain a better understanding of his and everyone's views on the subject. Sixty pages worth is more than I could have asked for as a background to the opinions people share about the subject on this site.

Why was the person banned? Was it because he was argumentative about Israel or something? I've noticed a tendency of moderators on other sites to strong-arm the subject of Israel...
 

cynicide

Banned
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
To be clear, Israel is definitely, obviously stolen land. What i even more obvious outside of American media is that Israel continues to steal more land. This is just a fraction of it's crimes against the Palestinians. I can show you some general reports for those who don't want to pour over legal details or you can go directly to the UN/Geneva archives themselves and read the thousands over thousands of reports filed by both private and collective groups making charges.

I actually will post a general statement about an annual assessment of the human rights condition in Israel but it can only be viewed if the moderators agree to let it be shown on the site. That's the message I got anyway when I posted.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
An interesting thing to say to a banned person, but I also found the entire thread interesting in itself- namely from the person who made the thread. I generally agree that the original poster is not very accurate or informative in his assessment. ...
Well step right up and Factually attack the OP and my subsequent posts.
Just voicing a contrarian opinion is woefully inadequate.

cynicide said:
Why was the person banned? Was it because he was argumentative about Israel or something? I've noticed a tendency of moderators on other sites to strong-arm the subject of Israel...
We don't discuss moderation within strings here. And you seem unduly concerned with somone's banning. The intelligent thing to do, however, would be to look at that poster's last few posts or string starts and not assume this string was the cause.
But I can tell already, research is not what we're going to get.


To be clear, Israel is definitely, obviously stolen land. ...
"To be clear" again, you haven't made your case or touched mine.

cynicide said:
I actually will post a general statement about an annual assessment of the human rights condition in Israel but it can only be viewed if the moderators agree to let it be shown on the site. That's the message I got anyway when I posted.
Please post whatever you feel is within the rules here.
We await something/anything of substance.
 
Last edited:

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To be clear, Israel is definitely, obviously stolen land. What i even more obvious outside of American media is that Israel continues to steal more land. This is just a fraction of it's crimes against the Palestinians. I can show you some general reports for those who don't want to pour over legal details or you can go directly to the UN/Geneva archives themselves and read the thousands over thousands of reports filed by both private and collective groups making charges.

I actually will post a general statement about an annual assessment of the human rights condition in Israel but it can only be viewed if the moderators agree to let it be shown on the site. That's the message I got anyway when I posted.

Moderator's Warning:
Sock puppets are fun to ban.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
New Poster Multi-Factoid alert.
Also tackling the "4 maps".

post #466 said:
As I pointed out immediately after those maps were posted.... they are false.
That you cannot debate.. thus this cheap propaganda bump instead.
Hope you learned something while getting to that post.
Clearly you have no refutation to any of the string.

The maps are BS and I believe originate at some Palestinian/Arab site. An internet affectation. (like your youtube which thankfully doesn't work for me)
The first I saw them was on Oxymoron site 'palestineremembered' but even they have apparently taken them down.

Here's what happened when someone tried to post them in the Real World.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat.../andrew-sullivan-revises-history-again/37401/


Andrew Sullivan should be thankful that The Atlantic's fact-checking department has no purview over the magazine's website. The magazine's fact-checkers vet each word that appears in the print magazine for accuracy and context, but because they have no authority over blogs (or anything else produced for the web), Andrew is free to publish malicious nonsense, such as the series of maps he published yesterday, maps which Purport to show how Jews stole Palestinian land. Andrew does not tell us the source of these maps (in a magazine with standards, the source would be identified), but they were drawn to cast Jews in the most terrible light possible.

The first map in the series of four is most egregious.
It suggests that, in 1946, nearly all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was "Palestinian." Land designated as "Jewish" in this map constitutes maybe five percent of the total. This map is ridiculous, not only because the term "Palestinian" in 1946 referred, generally speaking, to the Jews who lived in Palestine, not the Arabs, but because there was no Palestine in 1946 (nor was there an Israel.) There was only the British Mandate. Jews lived throughout the territory then occupied by the British, including, by the way, on land that today constitutes the West Bank (though in 1946 Jews did not live in Hebron; they were expelled in 1929, after an Arab massacre of Jewish religious scholars). The intent of this propaganda map is to suggest that an Arab country called "Palestine" existed in 1946 and was driven from existence by Jewish imperialists. Not only was there no such country as "Palestine" in 1946, there has never been a country called Palestine. Before the British conquered Jerusalem, Palestine was a sub-province of the Ottoman Empire. (And after the British left, of course, Jordan and Egypt moved in to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.)

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews. But Andrew neglects to mention that the Jews accepted this partition of Palestine, and that the Arabs rejected it. When Israel declared independence, the Arabs sought to physically eliminate the U.N.-supported Jewish state, but, to their chagrin, they failed. All that happens today flows from the original Arab decision to reject totally the idea that Jews are deserving of a state in part of their historic homeland.[....]​

Further:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=291

.."Mattar's clear, and false, implication is that if Jews owned only some small percentage of the land, then Arabs must have owned the rest, in this case more than 93% of the country.

But this is nonsense – in Mandate Palestine the Arabs owned little more land than did the Jews. Indeed, going back to Ottoman times, most of the country was state-owned land, not under any individual ownership. Thus, under the Ottoman code one of the main land categories was miri, meaning land belonging to the Emir. During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the 'British Survey of Palestine' (republished and endorsed by Mattar's Institute for Palestine Studies), at least 65% of the country was state land, and probably much more than that.[.....]​
(also see earlier in the string answer to Another posters use of the same '4 maps': http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/48220-myth-1-israel-stolen-land-2.html#post1058033793)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom