Replies

I am neither gay nor anti-semitic--though I could be the latter after the treatment I received on this thread--which prompts this final response. Fortunately I have enough sense not to blame the many for the stupidities and insults of the few.

The claim by Alouette--and check her original comment--was that Benny Morris was a self-admitted falsifier of data. He was not. He only repudiated his feelings of sympathy for the Palestinians, but he never repudiated the authenticity of the studies he has published. He now simply reinterprets the same data, claiming Ben Gurion did not go far enough in his purge of the Arabs. But the data stands. The Palestinians were purged, they did not leave voluntarily. And they were robbed of their possessions illegally, their homes and property confiscated or destroyed. Many believe this original crime has yet to be faced squarely by Israel.

I agree that the NYTimes is not always an unbiased source--but an unbiased source is impossible to find when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. EVERYBODY has an ax to grind. The NYTimes is more and more reliable the further back one goes, however, especially as one gets closer to 1948. Nor are the historical revisionists socialist wackos--they are scholars who used the archives opened to their scrutiny for the first time. Previous access had been impossible, so the accepted version of the founding of the state of Israel was based on self-glorifying myths. The hard data included in more recent studies contributes vastly to a clearer understanding of the what really happened back then. In other words, these recent studies come closer to the truth.

But the data stands. The Palestinians were purged, they did not leave voluntarily

Allow me to explain the baseline rudiments of simple debate to you, here. You appear to be rather muddled as to how this sort of thing works, really.

1.) Multiple contemporaneous A-r-a-b sources, of high position and authority, have been repeatedly cited, effecitvely and absolutely demolishing your cockeyed contention.

You have, to date, publicly (and inelegantly) dodged responding in any way to said evidence no fewer than four times, now.

Everyone here, I assure you -- your evident belief to the contrary -- can see you fleeing from said evidence, shrieking, with your arms windmilling; and has drawn the inevitable conclusion that such persistent and damning failure presents, upon sober reflection.

It is not the sort of conclusion, I might point out, that flatters your position (or you) overmuch.

3.) Pay close attention, now... because this is absolutely key, all right?

Whenever grownups debate: when one side has cited hard, verifiable evidence effectively atomizing the other side's argument: said other side is intellectually required either to rebut said evidence, or -- failing any adequate and convincing rebuttal -- to graciously accept having been out-argued... and bloody move on with his/her life.

No one here has "treated" you badly; quite the opposite, in fact, given the relentless dull provocation of your unwillingness to quite drumming your heels over this matter. That sympathy card won't "play," I'm afraid.

Re: Morris: you know as well as I do -- indeed, as well as everyone here knows -- that Alouette provided you with a link to Morris publicly and unequivocally his previous writings on this subject. Your bizarre insistence upon repeatedly citing work whose own frickin' author has long since renounced it as being wholly without merit on the particulars, is -- quite frankly -- freakish. If Morris' "word" is good enough for you to cite; then it should, likewise, be good enough for you to accept once he has unequivocally withdrawn said statements, in multiple public fora.

Finally, as to whether or not you are, in fact, an anti-Semite: I invite any interested readers, at this point, to pop your screen ID into the "search" function, and see just how many postings, over the last few days, deal with your clear and manifest dislike of Jews... and to draw their own considered conclusions, thereupon.