Jat

Originally posted by 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.

And the goal of the Palestinians is the liberation of Palestine from the Israelis, same thing.

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.

Israel is an illegal state.

Dr Rick

Unlike Canada or the USA, Israel has an internationally mandated specific right to exist.
Some Palestinians, like many others, have other goals than just liberation; for instance, Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. It is the goal of many Palestinians to be free of Israeli control, but other Palestinians and many others have other ideologies beyond just liberation

Optional

*sigh* Descending from the rareified realm of the smart-ass straight down into mundanity for the added benefit of clarity....

My point was not to prove Peleg's account wrong. My point was that I fairly easily *could* prove Peleg's account wrong by doing some research, finding quotes and documentation, etc etc etc. I know I could because I've done it several times, and had it done to me several times. When you descend into the morass that is Palestine/Israel history, what you find is exactly the kind of conflicting/supporting evidence that allows you to justify damn near anything using biblical text.

There simply is no way to take all of the quotes/documents/eyewitness accounts/myths/speculation/whatever about the situation and put it all together into one unified coherant whole. All you can do is make a best-guess-estimate using the facts/quotes/etc that you like the best.

So, keeping that in mind, in a discussion about whether or not Israel was and is historically in the right, an Israeli is NOT the best person to ask. He'll say ya, sure, and he'll have facts and quotes to back him up. Likewise, a Palestinian will say HIS side is the more righter and HE'LL have facts and quotes to back HIM up.

Now, I have absolutely no interest in grubbing around through the various rabidly pro-Israel and rabidly pro-Palestine websites (why o why can't any website NOT be rabidly something??) to refute this Peleg guy. So, you can either ackowledge my actual point and we'll discuss that, or just move on and I'll get my jollies in other threads. Your choice.

-me

Optional

In general, I find the whole argument about Israel's right to exist to be pointless, as Israel undeniably DOES exist, so the question is moot....

BUT...

There was an intention for a nation of some sort to exist in the land that was palestine, and several plans were drawn up to attempt to make that happen, but none of them ever came to anything. Israel never got UN approval to exist, they simply proclaimed that they did. Depending on how you read the documentation and interpret the collective Will of the UN, you could argue that Israel's founding was illegal, or that since nobody specifically said they COULDN'T do what they did, it was NOT illegal... But I don't think you could accurately say that they had an actual mandate.

So, what do you mean by the above?

-me

Buddrow_Wilson

Jat

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Unlike Canada or the USA, Israel has an internationally mandated specific right to exist.

Mandated because of a lie. That the area was a land without a people.

Some Palestinians, like many others, have other goals than just liberation; for instance, Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

Of course. Same thing.

It is the goal of many Palestinians to be free of Israeli control, but other Palestinians and many others have other ideologies beyond just liberation

That not news.

Dr Rick

It is to this guy:

Optional

So, if it's such old news, what exactly was the mandate for Israel to exist?

-me

Sauron

Well, you started your post by a "clearing of the throat", as though you had evidence to present which would contradict previous statements made in the thread. So the expectation was set, that you had evidence to present - not that you were merely going to regurgitate the opinions of someone working for the govt of Israel.

Moreover, you went to the trouble of pointing out that it was from a UN document. Why go to that trouble, unless you meant to imply that it carried the blessing or sanction associated with a UN document? Or, unless you wanted to anticipate and deflect the accusation of pro-Israeli bias?

In either case, the fact we discovered (that this document was merely a transcript of the minutes of a UN meeting) seriously undercuts any claim to these claims having a UN stamp of approval. Nor are the statements you posted (Peleg's response) above the charge of being mere pro-Israeli propaganda, just because they appear in a UN transcript. This was, after all, a record of the minutes of the meeting. The UN doesn't endorse the comments of all the participants at the meeting.

Sauron

I don't even bother with the statements of individuals who receive a paycheck for defending Israel. There are far too many high quality sources available, to fritter away precious time trying to sift truth out of the statements of paid apologists. Would you quote Ari Fleischer as an reputable source on the Bush administration's 'benevolent' foreign policy? The same litmus test applies here.

I would expect you to work from the original Arab High Committee quotation, instead of through a filtered and processed version from Peleg. This is similar to the argument I made on ChristianForums: if you wanted to know about Islam, would you go to a Christian website to find out about it? Or would you go directly to the source (an Islamic website)? I believe you were still on ChristianForums for that exchange. The same principle applies here.

Far too simplistic. Something can be true, and yet be an incomplete account. Telling only half the events is still a lie. For example, the statement

The Palestinians, with the support of all Arab countries, rejected the resolution and launched a war against the State of Israel.

makes the Palestinians out to be the aggressors. Yet the Palestinians were not acting; they were re-acting to a scenario that was being shoved down their throats by the Allied powers, against their will and by pure brute force. Conveniently, Peleg skips all the background and context, in order to paint the Palestinian cause in the worst possible light.

Each of Peleg's other claims is similarly handicapped. But that is what you would expect, from someone who draws a paycheck defending Israel in the United Nations. (Indeed, that fact alone should have steered you clear of using him as a source for any serious research into teh Mideast conflict).


That applies to crimes. It does not apply when a person's past writings, history, or employment indicate that they are most likely speaking from bias or self-interest. Peleg, your source, works for the state of Israel, and is paid to represent their positions. In such a scenario, a prudent researcher would have sought out better sources. If his claims are substantiated in higher-quality sources, then fine. But if they can only be substantiated by quoting Peleg (or others in a similar employment position vis-a-vis the state of Israel), then that should raise a warning flag to any objective investigator.

Quoting Peleg is similar to quoting Henry Morris, a well-known creationist, and then expecting skeptics to provide sources to refute Morris' three ring circus of nonsense. Some skeptics might be sufficiently patient and interested in doing so. Others will just point you to a FAQ about geology, and remind you that anyone wanting to defend Morris needs to roll up their sleeves and learn a little bit about geology from reputable sources first. That's what I'm doing here.