Sauron

Whoa, wait a minute. You're getting way ahead of yourself here. Go back and read your own source.

This UN press release is just a transcript of a meeting, where the person in question (David Peleg, Israel) was responding to other speakers at that meeting.

That is *not* the same as saying that his comments are:
(1) equal to historical fact, or
(2) that they have UN backing or sanction.

This is like a stenographer's record in a courtroom proceeding: it doesn't necessarily mean that the judge, jury, or other attorneys agreed with what the particular witness said.

Jat

Fix the problem? They are the cause of the problem and are making it far worse all of the time.

The former USSR thought that way in Afghanistan as well.

Dr Rick

I rarely advocate "pulling-out," in part because it often leaves the thing standing, but the ME is one circumstance where an act of interuptus is the only practical preventative for the conception of further violence.

Evangelion

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But it doesn't mean he's wrong by default, does it? I mean, there's a world of difference between saying "That's just a transcript" and proving that Peleg wasn't telling the truth. Sure, you can doubt the veracity of his account. That's your prerogative. But where do you go from here?

Peleg quoted the Palestine Arab High Committee's own address to the Security Council; was this an inaccurate quote? (If so, then it should be pretty easy to falsify.) He also mentioned the history of Palestinian aggression; was this an inaccurate account? (If so, then it should be pretty easy to falsify.)

Come to think of it, was anything he said inaccurate? And if so, where's the proof?

Innocent until proven guilty, Sauron.

Optional

Heh...

One of the reasons this issue is so continscious is that all sides have been trying to make history look like their side was on the side of the angels. There are a million different vertsions of what exactly has happened in Palestine over the past century, all of them with some support from documentation.

In other words... An Israeli giving the Israeli version of history is no more to be trusted than a Palestinian giving the Palestinian version of history. The one thing that is certain is that neither side can claim the side of the angels, so there are certain elements of what actually happened that both sides will tend to suppress and/or minimise. So, trust neither side, because neither side is accurate.

-me

Evangelion

Thankyou for your contribution, Optional.

I refer you to the answer I gave Sauron.

Optional

Why, you're welcome, Evangelion! Always nice to feel appreciated, isn't it?

Unfortunately, I have to entertain a slight doubt that you might not be giving informed appreciation. Since my post was a direct answer to your 'answer' to Sauron, and you're referring me back to it as an answer to my post, I've got to assume that you either (a) are a fan of circularity, or (b) missed the point of my post.

Since (b) would somewhat invalidate your message of appreciation, I am loathe to settle on that as an explanation...

So, your hobby is circularity, eh? Collected many interesting examples?

-me

Loren Pechtel

Note that the resistance forces quit attacking the USSR once they pulled out of Afghanistan. Their objection was the liberation of Afghanistan, not the destruction of the USSR.

The terrorists, however, desire the destruction of all of Israel. Pulling out off the occupied territories would simply be granting them a base next door, it would do nothing to stop the terrrorism.

Loren Pechtel

But what reason is there to think it would cut the violence one bit? It would *TEMPORARILY* stop the Israeli reprisals, but in time Israel would grow tired of the situation and lash out. The conflict would be far more bloody than how it is now.

Evangelion

Always.

Feel free to indulge your preconceptions. Don't let me get in the way.

Try (c): that neither you nor Sauron actually addressed the point of my post.

Well, there's always (c).

I've just collected two from you and Sauron.

Meanwhile, let's take a raincheck on a previous post of mine:

• Peleg quoted the Palestine Arab High Committee's own address to the Security Council; was this an inaccurate quote? (If so, then it should be pretty easy to falsify.) He also mentioned the history of Palestinian aggression; was this an inaccurate account? (If so, then it should be pretty easy to falsify.)
  
  Come to think of it, was anything he said inaccurate? And if so, where's the proof?
  
  Innocent until proven guilty, Sauron.

IOW, your rhetoric doesn't amount to a hill of beans and until somebody proves that Peleg's account is false, you're on a hiding to nowhere.

Do I need to make it any simpler?