The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.II

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Firstly: Wow. Calm down brah :nothing:

I am calm.

Secondly: Benny Morris is just another Zionist that has made outward claims that "Palestinian Arabs have no respect for democratic values". I'm not implying that a historian is not allowed to have views, just that it's very easy to make a book about the parts of history that very conveniently correlate with your particular political leanings.

Then you haven't read his books. There is a reason why Chomsky and Finkelstein and their friends quote his books. It's because he's the leading historian. Forgot his politics. We're talking about his history, and in fact we're not even talking about that: we're talking about Righteous Victims. A book that is quoted by your "historian." A book that you called a polemic. Do you not realise how ridiculous that sounds when you actually look at Finkelstein's footnotes?

My point being : Zionist drivel.

That isn't a point. Bottom line: you called a book a polemic, that same book which is used in a book you classify as history - as a source for its claims. You can't get around it.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5701

Original post by Folderol

That isn't a point. Bottom line: you called a book a polemic, that same book which is used in a book you classify as history - as a source for its claims. You can't get around it.

It is possible to be both. It is called subjective history, in that it is subjective about the history in which is speaks. Irrespective of that fact, both polemic histories and objective textual histories must not stray from the truth - they can pick certain truths or hide certain truths, but it can not lie - and that is why it is possible to quote a Polemic.

Reply 5702

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

It is possible to be both. It is called subjective history, in that it is subjective about the history in which is speaks. Irrespective of that fact, both polemic histories and objective textual histories must not stray from the truth - they can pick certain truths or hide certain truths, but it can not lie - and that is why it is possible to quote a Polemic.

Don't you understand? His book is not a polemic in any sense of the word. It has no point or argument to make. The distinction was not made by me; it was made by you: you called one a history book and another a polemic. Now, this is stupid for many reasons - leaving aside I gave you all the times that Finkelstein actually used that book - you are comparing a Finkelstein polemic to a Morris history book as though they are on equal plane. They are not. No matter how you try to justify what you said, it's utterly ridiculous.

Reply 5703

Original post by Folderol

Don't you understand? His book is not a polemic in any sense of the word. It has no point or argument to make. The distinction was not made by me; it was made by you: you called one a history book and another a polemic. Now, this is stupid for many reasons - leaving aside I gave you all the times that Finkelstein actually used that book - you are comparing a Finkelstein polemic to a Morris history book as though they are on equal plane. They are not. No matter how you try to justify what you said, it's utterly ridiculous.

As you have failed to grasp from my previous post, I claimed that they are both Polemics. Subjective history is just as much a form of a one-sided campaign. In addition, he is a known racist, that frequently makes outrageous claims about both Arabs and Muslims that do not correlate with 21st Century liberal society.

God you Zionists get antsy the minute one feather touches you. Calm down, people disagree with you, get over it :nothing:

This is an objective history book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Palestine-Arab-Israeli-Conflict-History-Documents/dp/0230521290

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5704

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

As you have failed to grasp from my previous post, I claimed that they are both Polemics. Subjective history is just as much a form of a one-sided campaign. In addition, he is a known racist, that frequently makes outrageous claims about both Arabs and Muslims that do not correlate with 21st Century liberal society.

Oh the irony, let me quote myself: "Then you haven't read his books. There is a reason why Chomsky and Finkelstein and their friends quote his books. It's because he's the leading historian. Forgot his politics. We're talking about his history, and in fact we're not even talking about that: we're talking about Righteous Victims." and in the last post: " His book is not a polemic in any sense of the word. It has no point or argument to make."

His books do not advocate ethnic cleansing or genocide or racism. It's why people - like the person who wrote your "history book" - use him as an authoratative source. The fact that you keep talking about his politics (which is entirely outside of the book we're talking about) leads me to think you actually haven't read any of his stuff. And, if you had read Finkelstein, he makes this point as well: he dislikes his politics but quotes his history. We are talking about history. So, again I'll quote myself: "Forgot his politics" - just like Finkelstein does.

God you Zionists get antsy the minute one feather touches you. Calm down, people disagree with you, get over it :nothing:

It's a shame you don't read because I told you I'm perfectly calm. And I accept people disagree with me - I've been debating this for long enough to accept it. I've also been debating thing long enough to know that you can't compare Finkelstein's books to Morris'.

I'm sorry but I really have to ask, why do you incessantly talk about me when it has nothing to do with the debate? This isn't the first time. Just look here; we're talking about Benny Morris and you start talking about "Zionists" getting "antsy."

Reply 5705

Original post by Folderol

I'm sorry but I really have to ask, why do you incessantly talk about me when it has nothing to do with the debate? This isn't the first time. Just look here; we're talking about Benny Morris and you start talking about "Zionists" getting "antsy."

In all honesty, as I said to Pearson earlier, I would continue posting, but I've really got to get on with other stuff. As I said earlier, his material is quotable, just as Finkelstein's is because it is more than possible to use a Polemic as a historical source, and I regard a matter of subjective history as just as much a form of one sides campaigning as writing from one particular perspective. But oh well, you don't seem to be able to understand that.

I point out Zionist-tribalism because it seems a heavy theme with all your posts. It's as if you have no sense of personal direction - that you'd been brain washed by Netanyahu himself, but that's just my opinion.

Reply 5706

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

In all honesty, as I said to Pearson earlier, I would continue posting, but I've really got to get on with other stuff.

If you don't want to reply, don't.

As I said earlier, his material is quotable, just as Finkelstein's is because it is more than possible to use a Polemic as a historical source, and I regard a matter of subjective history as just as much a form of one sides campaigning as writing from one particular perspective. But oh well, you don't seem to be able to understand that.

You haven't read my responses, seriously what don't you understand: Morris' book is no way a polemic. For you to compare him to Finkelstein is laughable. For you to make a distinction (and then dilute it) when the latter is laughable. The point is you shouldn't be making any distinction or any comparison between an authoratative historian (used by your source) and someone like Finkelstein.

I could go into Finkelstein's politicial biases (as if you can't tell from actually reading his books, I could tell you how he compares Nasrallah to Ghandi, how he thinks Mao is some sort of virtuous figure, how he implies that the BBC is doing the bidding of the United Nations and how he distorts a lot of facts etc. etc. ad nauseium, but in relation to the point your making, it's not relevant.

I point out Zionist-tribalism because it seems a heavy theme with all your posts. It's as if you have no sense of personal direction - that you'd been brain washed by Netanyahu himself, but that's just my opinion.

You use personal attacks which have nothing else to do with the debate at hand but the "theme." I would give you my "opinion" of you but its irrelevant and we're in a debate and discussion forum. A place where I don't think ad hominem should be.

Good day, enjoy your essay.

Reply 5707

Rhadamanthus

17

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

As is yours.

Are you mad? Obviously we can put the word "polemic" on the long list of words you don't know the meaning of.

I refer you to Folderol's statements.

Reply 5708

and I refer you to mine.

Reply 5709

Rhadamanthus

17

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

and I refer you to mine.

Well they're not really of any use.

Reply 5710

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

As you have failed to grasp from my previous post, I claimed that they are both Polemics. Subjective history is just as much a form of a one-sided campaign. In addition, he is a known racist, that frequently makes outrageous claims about both Arabs and Muslims that do not correlate with 21st Century liberal society.

He is a supporter of the peace process and the two state solution.

Now, Norman Finkelstein is a war monger which travels around the middle east and incites Arabs to go to war with Israel.

He also frequently makes outrageous claims and generalization about Israeli's and the Israeli society, which makes him quite a bigot as well.

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

God you Zionists get antsy the minute one feather touches you. Calm down, people disagree with you, get over it :nothing:

Huh, that's really funny coming from someone who's incapable of debating without using insults.

Most of your posts are written with a very hysterical and sentimental tone, pot calling kettle black.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5711

Original post by borismor

He is a supporter of the peace process and the two state solution.

Now, Norman Finkelstein is a war monger which travels around the middle east and incites Arabs to go to war with Israel.

He also frequently makes outrageous claims and generalization about Israeli's and the Israeli society, which makes him quite a bigot as well.

Huh, that's really funny coming from someone who's incapable of debating without using insults.

Most of your posts are written with a very hysterical and sentimental tone, pot calling kettle black.

Zionism is racism, and the dismantling of the apartheid state under the Zionist regime is nigh.

Reply 5712

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Zionism is racism, and the dismantling of the apartheid state under the Zionist regime is nigh.

You have no idea what Zionism is, but it's nice to have something to focus your hate and aggression on, isn't it?

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

and I refer you to mine.

You mean the ones I responded to? Great.

Reply 5715

Original post by Folderol

You mean the ones I responded to? Great.

As I said, I am currently doing an essay, and don't have the time to offer responses.

Reply 5716

Original post by borismor

You have no idea what Zionism is, but it's nice to have something to focus your hate and aggression on, isn't it?

You endorse oppression, apartheid, racism, violence, occupation and torture and I'm the one filled with hatred and aggression? Yeah right :rolleyes:

Everyday, people are waking up to Israel's crimes against humanity and it won't be long until the State of Israel is dismantled and consigned to the pages of history.

Reply 5717

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

You endorse oppression, apartheid, racism, violence, occupation and torture and I'm the one filled with hatred and aggression? Yeah right :rolleyes:

I do not endorse any of these things, but it doesn't really matter to you. Like I said, it's quite obvious you have no idea what Zionism is, but as long as you can hate you're satisfied.

Just know that all this hate will end up having a bad effect on your health.

Everyday, people are waking up to Israel's crimes against humanity and it won't be long until the State of Israel is dismantled and consigned to the pages of history.

And how exactly will that happen?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 5718

Original post by borismor

I do not endorse any of these things, but it doesn't really matter to you. Like I said, it's quite obvious you have no idea what Zionism is, but as long as you can hate you're satisfied.

Zionsim stands for the racist dogma of placing the rights of Jews in occupied Palestine, above those who have lived there for hundreds upon hundreds of years. An absolutely sickening reality, that shows just how similar the Zionists are to Nazis.

Reply 5719