http://blueherald.com/uploads/Batocchio/2009/godwincat.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Jeez, how hard it is to start talking about Nazis when Jewish state is on the table.

Baskineli: "Israel exists so when people like you switch from "Israel shouldn't exist." to "Jews shouldn't exist.", it will be there to protect them." That's funny. What of the Jews who think Israel shouldn't exist? Same same I guess...

I didn't get your point. What about them?

Putin: "That's a remarkable statement. 'I'd rather be dead than Israeli' is your line on the whole thing? Nobody's suffering is more exaggerated than the Palestinians. Their living standards went up and up after 1967, yet the world thinks they're the most oppressed people on earth. What a great PR job. No propaganda effort has ever been more effective than Arab propaganda."
And yet it is my take on it. Rather like living with and enjoying the fruits of apartheid. It ain't kosher. The only way one could feel comfortable about living under those conditions is if one were permanently and actively seeking a regime change, effectively an end of the Zionist state. As for the standard of living of the Palestinians, I'd say you've highly exaggerated it in the opposite direction. An improvement going from a temporary ghettoized refugee camp to a permanent one? Who could complain? The creation of Israel was nothing more and nothing less than the simple and direct imposition of one group's religious prophecies upon another.
"should the United States exist?"_____Seriously? this is a line of argument? The existence of the US somehow justifies the existence of a Zionist fantasy made reality? No, I don't think Manifest Destiny is a cogent political philosophy either, though it's a small leap from there to the American Exceptionalism doctrines of the Tea Party. Do you feel you've gained something in that admission?

"That's apparently not persuasive enough for you to create a Jewish state. What should have been done with the survivors of the Holocaust? Returned to the states that tried to exterminate them? We have worthless mini-states like Qatar and Kuwait, but a Jewish state the size of New Jersey in malaria-infested wasteland is too much to ask?"_______
-no, not convincing, yes too much to ask. The refugees should have been dealt with as any other refugees. No it doesn't make sense to deal with one group of refugees by creating another. Duh.

"And this bit about Zionist 'terrorists'. It's as if the Safed and Hebron massacres never happened, nor the scores of other unprovoked attacks of the old Yishuv, which was never a Zionist community. It was the Jewish community who had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years prior to any Zionist aliyah"______The old Yishuv had little to do with the creation of the state of Israel. It was the Zionist terrorists that put Israel on the map, not the Jewish communities which existed as you say for hundreds of years without any pretensions of a State of their own. I don't need to defend anti-Jewish terrorism in order to condemn pro-Israel terrorism. I've already said I defend neither side, see below.

"Which is why you claimed you'd be a suicide bomber and said you'd rather be dead than Israeli. I call shenanigans on your attempt to cleanse your hands of this matter. " You can stick your "I call shenanigans" up your ass, what I'm saying has nothing to do with washing my hands, as if I might have a guilty conscience with respect. I know what we humans are capable of, I merely suggested how I would respond to finding myself more directly involved on one side or the other. It's perfectly coherent to recognize that neither side in this particular case has a defensible position, the fact remains that Israelis are Israelis generally by choice whereas Palestinians are Palestinians at gunpoint. There are many guilty parties, none innocent.

"This idea that Arafat was a KGB agent is a first though"________not by a long shot. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/arafatkgb.html It maybe just so much pro-Israeli propaganda, but it certainly isn't of my invention.

"I don't get what this has to do with the official versions of the Cold War. The Arab-Israeli conflict pre-dates and post-dates the Cold War." It's all part of the same dialectic. The creation of Israel was practically simultaneous with the start of the Cold War, the events of one are inextricably related to the other. The Arab-Israeli conflict could not have pre-dated the Cold War because there was no Israeli state prior to the Cold War but rather a British protectorate with various groups / cultures represented. The Arabs are of little interest to me, except inasmuch as far from palliating the condition of the Palestenians, they have exacerbated it; nor is the question of Jewishness except insofar as the State of Israel is precisely a Zionist fantasy made reality. I'm discussing the plight of the Palestinians who are the pawns of both the Arabs and the State of Israel.

"'Are you Jewish?'

No, do I have to be?"________ Well, generally speaking, the concept of a non-Jewish Zionist doesn't make a boatload of sense, but whatever.

"Why do people think appeasing radical Muslims by destroying Israel will somehow make the Muslim world love us?"________It certainly is an oft-referred to flashpoint in Islamist propaganda isn't it? Noone really takes their claims to Al Andaluz seriously...

"What have we gotten out of funding the Saudis to the hilt?"______Where did I say that was a good idea?

Bask: "I didn't get your point. What about them?"

OK, I'll spell it out for you. People like me are people like those Jews who are against the Zionist state. You said: "Israel exists so when people like you switch from "Israel shouldn't exist." to "Jews shouldn't exist.", it will be there to protect them." But it's not easy to imagine those anti-Zionist Jews suddenly deciding Jews shouldn't exist, and the idea that Jews somehow need Israel to protect themselves from the Jews is, well, funny. I am not Jewish, but I have the highest respect for and agree fundamentally with those Jews who have argued against the Zionist State. Interesting that the very best and most scathing critics of the Israeli State are themselves Jewish.

Thank you for the spelling.

The Jews who argue against Israel are mostly Neturei Karta, which argue against it on a religious basis. I strongly dislike religious fanatics on both sides. Besides, they are a very tiny minority among the Jews. I suggest you read about them in their own website, especially here: http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/index.cfm

To quote these people, just a little taste: "Guided by the rabbis of our time and under the inspiring leadership of the late Reb Amram Blau, the Neturei Karta refuse to recognize the right of anyone to establish a "Jewish" state during the present period of exile." and "Neturei Karta oppose the so-called "State of Israel" not because it operates secularly, but because the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to Jewish Law."

To make a long story short, they are waiting for a Mashiah (Messiah) to come and salvage them.

"I am not Jewish, but I have the highest respect for and agree fundamentally with those Jews who have argued against the Zionist State."

This is amusing, because the Neturei Karta argue against Israel based on their religious views. I wonder how you share their religious views, without being a Jews. May I remind you, they are not against a Jewish state, they are against Israel as it is now, and would like to have Israel as it was 2000+ years ago (with a king, a messenger of God and other nonsense).

"But it's not easy to imagine those anti-Zionist Jews suddenly deciding Jews shouldn't exist, and the idea that Jews somehow need Israel to protect themselves from the Jews is, well, funny."

When Jews will take over a country and put other Jews in gas chambers, I will get back to you and we will laugh at it together.

Besides, what exactly do you offer? If Israel should not exist, what do you think the 6 million Jews in Israel should do the day after Israel ceases to exist?

" Rather like living with and enjoying the fruits of apartheid. It ain't kosher."

Your position isn't any less disgusting and hypocritical by invoking 'apartheid' to justify it. But yeah, sure, throw around words like apartheid. Why not. Nazi comparisons have already been used up, so you have to move to something else. Even though Arabs can vote, sit in government, sin in the cabinet, buy land, there are official laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, and there is no system of minority rule. But go ahead, make your asinine comparisons while ignoring the actual apartheid (minority of Arabs ruling over a South Asian majority) that exists in the Persian Gulf states. "But I'm not defending them" you'll cry, yes but once again the 'apartheid' insult loses any damn meaning whatsoever when you use it to describe a government with a minority policy as benevolent as Israel's. And we'll all wait with bated breath until you come out and say these Arab states shouldn't exist and they should rather kill themselves than enjoy the fruits of apartheid.

" I'd say you've highly exaggerated it in the opposite direction."

7% annual growth from 1968 to 1980. Rising life expectancy from 56 years to 66 years from 1970 to 1990. Infant mortality dropped from 95 to 42. The percentage of households with electricity rose from 30% to 85%, the percentage of households with safe water rose from 15% to 90%, the percentage of households with a refrigerator rose from 11% to 85%, and the percentage of households with a washing machine rose from 23% in 1980 to 61% in 1991.

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1993/09/01/000009265_3970311123238/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

"An improvement going from a temporary ghettoized refugee camp to a permanent one?"

No they went from a situation in which Jordan invested nothing in their infrastructure under their occupation to a situation where Israel went of their way to improve the lives of people living in the territories. The statistics speak for themselves. Your rhetoric about 'ghettos' and 'apartheid' is just more phrase-mongering. I'm not impressed by empty rhetoric.

" The creation of Israel was nothing more and nothing less than the simple and direct imposition of one group's religious prophecies upon another. "

Except Israel's creation had nothing to do with 'religious prophecies'. It was a secular nationalist movement. A proposed solution to the problem that Jews had in being able to peacefully assimilate in countries which were hostile to Jews. The religious Jews, as Baskinelli already ably pointed out, were generally anti-Zionist.

"Seriously? this is a line of argument? The existence of the US somehow justifies the existence of a Zionist fantasy made reality?"

I'm wondering what your criteria are for what countries 'should exist'. It's a simple question. There are lots of people here, including myself, who have enjoyed the fruits of apartheid and displacement (more actual than the case of Israel, where these things are made up), shouldn't we all kill ourselves? You never bothered to answer the question. Should Qatar exist? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Does anybody else have no right to exist, in your view? Or, as I suspect, is it just Israel.

"No, I don't think Manifest Destiny is a cogent political philosophy either, though it's a small leap from there to the American Exceptionalism doctrines of the Tea Party."

I don't even understand what this means. America is a country set up by settlers from Europe in land inhabited by sparsely populated indigenous tribes. America implemented an overt racial caste system of first slavery, then government-enforced segregation. After a series of battles, ended up conquering indigenous land and putting the survivors on reservations. So I ask again, should the US exist? What is your criteria for a country having a right to exist? I'm sure I won't get an answer.

"no, not convincing, yes too much to ask. The refugees should have been dealt with as any other refugees."

So people being exterminated while much of the rest of the world refuses to help = "any other refugees". The Holocaust was just 'any other case'. "Any other refugees" would be settled in a third country - or ,like ethnic Germans living outside Germany, were repatriated to country's with ethnic ties. What third country should Jews have gone to that would have protected them from the anti-Semitism and extermination campaigns they just experienced? What Jewish state already existed which could have repatriated them? Should these refugees have just taken these third countries word for it that they'd be protected, even though they didn't even let them in before?

It's amazing that some people can act so self-righteous when it comes to the suffering of most groups of people, but have the capacity for total callousness when it comes to the Jewish question in the 1930s and 1940s.

"No it doesn't make sense to deal with one group of refugees by creating another. Duh."

There wouldn't have been any refugees had the Arab states not waged war and the Arab population of Palestine fled the war. The refugee problem was not created by Israel. You offered no solution to the post-war Jewish refugee problem, except to leave them at the mercy of those who never gave a damn about their protection.

"The old Yishuv had little to do with the creation of the state of Israel."

Correct, and yet the Arabs attacked them, supposedly out of vengeance for the Zionist settlers. Thanks for buttressing my point. You lay everything at the feet of so-called Zionist 'terrorists', and say not a word about Arab terrorism. On the contrary, you claim you'd be an Arab terrorist, their cause is so just.

"I don't need to defend anti-Jewish terrorism in order to condemn pro-Israel terrorism. I've already said I defend neither side, see below. "

Yes, I've read your bullshit attempt to claim that you're opposed to both sides. It's still bullshit and doesn't make a shred of sense. You give a completely one-sided version of this conflict, rambling on about 'apartheid', 'ghettoes', how Israel shouldn't exist, and how you'd be a suicide bomber, but expect me to buy your ridiculous claim that you have no sympathy for either side. Total horseshit.

" the fact remains that Israelis are Israelis generally by choice whereas Palestinians are Palestinians at gunpoint. There are many guilty parties, none innocent. "

So you can lay everything at the feet of the Israelis and invoke every rhetorical flourish of the Arab propaganda machine while simultaneously making the ludicrous claim that you believe neither side has a defensible position. Thus you keep your political moral purity, at least in your eyes, because heaven forbid you openly say you support something/someone, or offer a concrete and workable proposal for a problem.

"It's all part of the same dialectic. The creation of Israel was practically simultaneous with the start of the Cold War, the events of one are inextricably related to the other."

Riddle me this, then. If this is so tied with the Cold War, why did the Soviets emphatically endorse Israeli statehood (the first to do so) provide arms to the Israelis in the 1948 war, and generally oppose Arab policy until the Suez war? Why did the Americans not see the "obvious" (according to you) fact that Israel would be such a helpful partner in the anti-Communist crusade until 1967? Could it be that the Middle East wasn't seen as a particularly relevant area of the Cold War struggle until the 1970s? Could it be that neither the Soviets or the Americans were particularly smitten with either side during these early years - the height of the Cold War?

"The Arab-Israeli conflict could not have pre-dated the Cold War because there was no Israeli state prior to the Cold War but rather a British protectorate with various groups / cultures represented."

Yes, Israel just popped up out of nowhere. There had been no Zionist movement since the late 1800s. There was no Balfour Declaration, no Hussein-McMahon correspondence. It was all just part of the great Cold War game.

"The Arabs are of little interest to me, except inasmuch as far from palliating the condition of the Palestenians, they have exacerbated it; nor is the question of Jewishness except insofar as the State of Israel is precisely a Zionist fantasy made reality. I'm discussing the plight of the Palestinians who are the pawns of both the Arabs and the State of Israel. "

Yes, I'm aware that only the so-called plight of the Palestinians interests you. The plight of the Jews is a but a footnote of history, the Palestinians are all that matter. And Palestinians can never be held responsible for their own actions, they're always the victims of somebody else's evil doings.

"Well, generally speaking, the concept of a non-Jewish Zionist doesn't make a boatload of sense, but whatever."

Well good thing I'm not a Zionist then. A non-Palestinian Palestinian nationalist doesn't make much sense either, but yet I don't see supporters of Israel's right to exist making the dumb argument that the pro-Palestinian crowd are Palestinian nationalists. Yet maybe they should because it appears that many so-called Palestinian sympathizers are more Catholic than the Pope when it comes to this issue.

"It certainly is an oft-referred to flashpoint in Islamist propaganda isn't it? Noone really takes their claims to Al Andaluz seriously..."

If they didn't have this to bitch about it'd be something else. Western support for the Arabs has never won us any friends. Religious fanatics are pretty late in the game when it comes to this issue anyway. Hamas only arrived on the scene in the 1980s. Arab nationalists had been at work for decades before that. This conflict is falsely portrayed as a religious one. But it is interesting that people think we should do everything the radical Islamists want us to do so as not to upset them.

"Where did I say that was a good idea?"

Well you're claiming that if we backed the Muslims over Israel and conceded to all their demands, we'd be better off. So I'm pointing out that no amount of giving in to Muslim demands has counted for much. We'll always be 'imperialists' and 'Crusaders' in the eyes of radical Islamists.

Putin: "sin in the cabinet,"

XD that's what all politicians do. You couldn't be more correct.

As for the argument. Thanks for the additional information on white phosphorous. I appreciate it.

"I am not Jewish, but I have the highest respect for and agree fundamentally with those Jews who have argued against the Zionist State."

They certainly give those hostile to Jews convenient cover. It's similar to how every bad writer was hailed as a hero and awarded a Nobel prize, no matter how insufferable the writing, simply because they were Soviet dissidents or in some way anti-Soviet.
It's always hailed as 'courageous' when some useful idiot turns against their own group and provides their enemies with talking points.

I don't have an answer to your question, Bask. It shouldn't exist but it does. I don't have much to offer beyond deep pessimism. If you want to get into the technicalities of actual prospects for a resolution, I would say the building of settlements needs to stop and existing settlements need to be destroyed. Palestinians must be given a contiguous and otherwise viable unified territory, not the disjointed system of ghettoes completely controlled by Israeli security forces they exist in currently. And of course any step forward would require good-faith negotiators from both parties with the power to actually enforce the agreements they arrive at, something which to date has been lacking or their efforts have been successfully sabotaged. Evidently, there are significant forces on both sides that do not want a peaceable solution, but as things stand now, there is no question that Palestinian resistance is justified. Finally, I'm doubtful that any resolution can be found. The creation of the State of Israel was the creation of an unsolvable riddle. But we still haven't figured out what to do with the Palestinians that were displaced, what is one to say about the Jews if the state of Israel suddenly ceased to exist? The influx of immigrants into Israel has been essentially a game of creating a critical mass, but no quantity of immigrants wanting to call Israel home erases the initial crime.

I wasn't referring to the Neturei Karta, which is something new to me, thanks for enlightening me on their ideas. The question of Jewishness is not one I really want to get into, but I was referring to Jewish intellectuals (or intellectuals who are the children of Jewish parents) who from a humanist POV simply don't feel Zionism and the Zionist State is justifiable. Their critiques (at least the ones which have informed me) are fundamentally non-religious, though it's certainly true that a religious person can offer non-religious justifications for their POVs. In fact most of the intellectuals who have informed my view are/were Jewish. Albert Einstein was one, though he was a Zionist in some sense, he warned against the formation of a Zionist State (I'm sure you know the quote but I'll provide it anyway): "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain—especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. ... If external necessity should after all compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it with tact and patience." Noam Chomsky is another prominent voice and certainly more openly and directly critical. (Here's an op-ed he published recently which I thought was insightful: http://www.truth-out.org/breaking-israel-palestine-deadlock66511 ) There are many different organizations representing different points of view, obviously, my preference is for criticism that does not base itself on some religious conception. But the only POV to defend the State of Israel's existence is that of Zionism's embodiment in the state, for much the Israeli "moderates" pretend otherwise.

Tolstoy had asked for some kind of evidence of US and Iran working together to support Islamism in Afghanistan. US-Iranian cooperation is even more blatant in Iraq, but I'll go over Afghanistan here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/10/iran-primer-iran-and-afghanistan.html

"Iran was the recipient of an unintended strategic gift from Washington. The Taliban, who had developed a symbiotic relationship with al Qaeda, were forcefully removed from power after the United States provided air power and intelligence for the Northern Alliance, Iran's ally. Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers.

Iran also participated in the U.S.-sponsored Bonn Conference in December 2001. U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Iran favored the return of President Rabbani, but it agreed to support U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai."

General Petraeus says the US and Iran have common interests in Afghanistan and can cooperate.

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-2204414/aHR0cDovL3d3dy56YXd5YS5jb20vc3RvcnkuY2ZtL3NpZFpBV1lBMjAwOTAxMTAwNjIxMzQ=

Hamid Karzai was hand-picked by the US and repeatedly expressed his great appreciation and support for Iran. Indeed, Karzai gets cash from Iran by the bagful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/asia/24afghan.html
The US and Iran both attended conferences in Bonn and Rome which helped plan the writing and implementation of the Afghan constitution - a constitution which is explicitly Islamist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/texts/bonnagreement.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/structure.html

Furthermore, the US has shipped violent jihadist and Islamist schoolbooks to Afghanistan.

https://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/usa-printed-textbooks-support-jihad-in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/

"Yes, I've read your bullshit attempt to claim that you're opposed to both sides. It's still bullshit and doesn't make a shred of sense. You give a completely one-sided version of this conflict, rambling on about 'apartheid', 'ghettoes', how Israel shouldn't exist, and how you'd be a suicide bomber, but expect me to buy your ridiculous claim that you have no sympathy for either side. Total horseshit. "

________You, sir, are unfamiliar with the grammatical structure neither / nor? I am not under any obligation to take sides on this issue, but evidently since I seem to be engaged in a conversation with an apologist for the Zionist State, my rhetoric has been rather one sided. So what? You don't like it? Go fuck yourself.

No amount of having suffered entitles anyone to cause suffering. Jewish settlers systematically removed the Palestinians from their houses using threats, intimidation and violence well before any military response from the Arab countries materialized. There was a massive Exodus well under way before there was any military action. The policy of the Jewish settlers from the first moment was to take as much territory as they possibly could. Israel is a state with expansionist and racist policies that fundamentally treats Jews differently from all other groups. Is that justified by the existence of equally racist Islamist governments or a racist and expansionist American history? no, but I have no intention of making pronouncements about other states that should or should not exist just because you rant and rave. Again, sir, go fuck yourself.

If you can't make sense of my comments regarding manifest destiny, I'm not particularly inclined to help you at this point. But you're a big boy, I'm sure you can figure it out if you put your mind to it.

Zionism in it's broadest sense is support for the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. You don't want to be referred to as a Zionist, that's fine. We'll leave it as a supporter of Zionism. Why do you suppose they chose that geographical location to make a gift of to expiate our collective gentile conscience? So the world decided that this was OK to create a Jewish country there without regard for the inhabitants of the region, creating an Exodus and converting those who fled into permanent refugees for generations and the foreseeable future. I say it was a historically stupid and outrageous mistake which only the Brits seemed to have had enough foresight to realize in the moment.

So here's a solution, how about we leave the Palestinians exactly as they are completely at the mercy and under the thumb of the Israeli overlords for water, electricity, trade and free movement. Or how about we just wipe the Palestinians out. Or how about we tell the Jews to get bent and look for somewhere else to live. What's your grand fucking solution you bitchy little hypocrite? Come on, then, solve the problem. Don't bother to answer me, I expect to read about it in the news papers tomorrow.

"They certainly give those hostile to Jews convenient cover." I see. A Jew who is critical of Israel is nothing but a useful idiot, a traitor to his group. What's that make you when you went out on a limb to make criticisms of US policy? You know the word, but I've covered that already.

Also, Iran has been negotiating with NATO to use its Herat rail line to carry supplies needed for the operations there.

http://www.andrewgrantham.co.uk/afghanistan/tag/nato/

"You, sir, are unfamiliar with the grammatical structure neither / nor? I am not under any obligation to take sides on this issue, but evidently since I seem to be engaged in a conversation with an apologist for the Zionist State, my rhetoric has been rather one sided. So what? You don't like it? Go fuck yourself."

This conversation has involved people with all sorts of points of view, including those who support Hamas and call for Israel's destruction. Yet you only debate against the Israeli side. You insist on claiming some fake neutrality, insulting the intelligence of everyone involved in this thread.

"No amount of having suffered entitles anyone to cause suffering. Jewish settlers systematically removed the Palestinians from their houses using threats, intimidation and violence well before any military response from the Arab countries materialized."

No they did not. This has already been addressed at length. Even Benny Morris, who originally led the charge for this claim that there was a systematic campaign of expulsion, has written that this did not in fact occur. Prior to 1948, massacres occurred on both sides, some of the worst occurred against Jews in 1929. The idea that this was one-sided aggression by Jewish settlers isn't supported by the facts.

"There was a massive Exodus well under way before there was any military action."

There was a massive exodus (I enjoy your capitalization there, nice reference to the OT) prior to military action. Correct. Meaning the Palestinians left voluntarily, they were not driven out. Arabs commenced attacks on Jews as soon as the partition was approved by the UN (which occurred on November 29, 1947). If you're implying that Zionist "terrorism" drove people out prior to 1947, it was a wonder then that the Arab population kept increasing exponentially in the 1930s and 1940s, with no restrictions from the British (while heavy restrictions were placed on Jewish immigration) So much for the 'exodus'.

"The policy of the Jewish settlers from the first moment was to take as much territory as they possibly could."

And this amounted to 463,000 acres out of a total of 6,674,560 total acres by 1947 (5.6% of total land area). Usually you people's argument is that it was "unfair" to have a 50/50 partition because Jews owned so little land. Make up your mind.

"Israel is a state with expansionist and racist policies that fundamentally treats Jews differently from all other groups. Is that justified by the existence of equally racist Islamist governments or a racist and expansionist American history?"

Which is why they gave up any claims to the Jordanian part of the Mandate of Palestine, returned the Suez, withdrew from Gaza, and withdrew from Lebanon - because they're so 'expansionist'. Meanwhile Palestinians routinely sing about claiming every inch of 'historic' Palestine.

"Equally racist". Nice try. So allowing minorities to vote, form parties, and hold high offices is "equally racist" to countries who don't allow any of these things? Whatever. Your excuses are pathetic.

"Again, sir, go fuck yourself. "

Why so angry? Especially if this is supposedly an issue you don't care about.

"If you can't make sense of my comments regarding manifest destiny, I'm not particularly inclined to help you at this point. But you're a big boy, I'm sure you can figure it out if you put your mind to it."

Like I said, I didn't expect you to answer the question about what states 'should' exist. That would expose the hypocrisy of your attacks on Israel. Instead we get sideshows about Manifest Destiny and nonsensical references to teabaggers.

"Zionism in it's broadest sense is support for the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. You don't want to be referred to as a Zionist, that's fine. We'll leave it as a supporter of Zionism."

Are you a Palestinian nationalist? You evaded my question again. Why doesn't the same logic apply. Why isn't "Palestinian nationalism" as broad a concept as your absurd definition of Zionism. Why isn't Indian nationalism, or any other form of nationalism, equally broad. It appears that you and your friends just like using Zionist as a buzzword for your opponents on this issue.

"Why do you suppose they chose that geographical location to make a gift of to expiate our collective gentile conscience? "

It wasn't chosen out of thin air by the all-powerful and nameless "they". It was chosen at the request of the Zionist movement, because it was the site of a previously existing state called Israel. It was chosen well prior to the Holocaust. Naturally, it makes sense to choose this area as the historic homeland of the Jews. Many Jews can trace their ancestry to this location.

" So the world decided that this was OK to create a Jewish country there without regard for the inhabitants of the region, creating an Exodus and converting those who fled into permanent refugees for generations and the foreseeable future."

The "inhabitants of the region" largely flocked to this area after Zionist settlers arrived. At the time the Zionist settlers first arrived it was a sparsely populated wasteland. As it was, the "inhabitants of the region" received 90% of the British mandate. So no, I don't think it was too much to ask for a small bit of uninhabited land, when the inhabitants were getting everything else, considering the predicament the Jews throughout history, and especially in the mid-1940s.

And I notice you said fled. They fled, hoping the conquering Arab armies would destroy the Jewish state in its infancy, and then they'd be allowed to return. Sorry if I'm not weeping crocodile tears for them, who had no interest in a Palestinian state until well after the Zionists came. They simply wanted Palestine to be carved up between the Arab states, or become part of Syria.

By the way, the definition of 'refugee' for Palestinians is different than refugee for any other group of people. Only for Palestinians do we define 'refugee' as being any and all descendants of the actual refugees from 1948. This is deliberately done to inflate the perception of Palestinian 'suffering'.

"So here's a solution, how about we leave the Palestinians exactly as they are completely at the mercy and under the thumb of the Israeli overlords for water, electricity, trade and free movement. Or how about we just wipe the Palestinians out. Or how about we tell the Jews to get bent and look for somewhere else to live. What's your grand fucking solution you bitchy little hypocrite? Come on, then, solve the problem. Don't bother to answer me, I expect to read about it in the news papers tomorrow. "

I already stated, repeatedly, my idea for a solution - the Barak/Clinton plan of 2000 which the Palestinians rejected. I'm guessing the veins popping out of your head have impaired your ability to read. Ironically despite your tirade about my lack of solutions, you haven't bothered to offer one. Instead you decide to project your own (lack of) solution - the annihilation of Israel, onto your opponents, claiming they want to annihilate the Arabs.

In short - go fuck yourself.

"What's that make you when you went out on a limb to make criticisms of US policy? You know the word, but I've covered that already. "

Except there's no Soviet Union around to hail me as a hero and award me goodies. Meanwhile any Jewish critic of Israel is automatically given 'credibility' by raving lunatics on Stormfront, Freerepublic, and the von Mises institute/Rockwell forums, or given an audience with Hizballah and Ahmadinejad.

Still mad about having to be spoon fed simple details like the Arafat-KGB connection I see. Any scholar with even an ounce of credibility would acknowledge that a very significant number of Palestinians left their homes under duress and the vast majority weren't allowed to go back. It's as simple as that. According to an IDF report cited by Benny Morris (1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians. 1994.) 70% of the exodus leading up to the Arab-Israeli War was caused by Israeli forces and Jewish dissidents. The IDF report lists: 'the factors that precipitated the exodus in order of importance - 1) direct, hostile Jewish [Haganah/IDF] operations against Arab settlements. 2) the effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements. 3) Operations of the Jewish dissidents [the Irgun Z'va'i Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael' So why do you suppose the IDF would write a report like that? Just inflating their stats?

Let me be clear in case there are any others following this thread with attention spans as short as yours: You are a pathetic charlatan posing as a scholar who is asserting gross inaccuracies and trying to pass them off as facts by browbeating your interlocutors in the face of clear and documented evidence to the contrary. Your whole story is for shit. Israel was built upon a crime. It doesn't matter if there were two or more criminals competing to see who could get the job done first. It doesn't matter what crimes had been committed before or if the Palestinians or the enemies of their enemies or those who speak for them have not always acted in good faith or if they have never acted in good faith. Israel was built on a crime, that crime has not been officially acknowledged and the victims of that crime have not been properly compensated.

"This conversation has involved people with all sorts of points of view, including those who support Hamas and call for Israel's destruction. Yet you only debate against the Israeli side. You insist on claiming some fake neutrality, insulting the intelligence of everyone involved in this thread."_________ What other people have argued is for them to defend. If someone wants to put Hitler on a pedestal and worship him, it's still up to me to decide what I care to respond to and what not and no amount of huffing and puffing is going to change that. You can bluster about fake neutrality all you want, but the fact remains that I don't have a horse in this race, and if I seem a little caught up in the shortcomings of your favourite horse, you'll either have to just forgive me or go fuck yourself, you aren't going to get any more satisfaction than that.

"The idea that this was one-sided aggression by Jewish settlers isn't supported by the facts." ________Who are you talking to? Oh yes, putting words in my mouth again. How very thorough of you.

"There was a massive exodus (I enjoy your capitalization there, nice reference to the OT) prior to military action. Correct. Meaning the Palestinians left voluntarily, they were not driven out." _______By what fucking lunatic leap of logic does that exodus become voluntary? Ah yes, Putin says it's so and anyone who offers evidence to the contrary will be harangued into submission or absolute boredom, whichever comes first.

"If you're implying that Zionist "terrorism" drove people out prior to 1947..."_________I'm not implying anything, I'm talking about the exodus. If you want to imply that there was no forced exodus because Arab population grew in the two decades prior to the exodus, I am happy to point my finger at you and laugh. Ha, ha.

"And this amounted to 463,000 acres out of a total of 6,674,560 total acres by 1947 (5.6% of total land area). Usually you people's argument is that it was "unfair" to have a 50/50 partition because Jews owned so little land. Make up your mind." ________This bit about "you people" and then "make up your mind", is just awesome. How do you get out of bed in the morning?

"Which is why they gave up any claims to the Jordanian part of the Mandate of Palestine, returned the Suez, withdrew from Gaza, and withdrew from Lebanon - because they're so 'expansionist'. Meanwhile Palestinians routinely sing about claiming every inch of 'historic' Palestine." Which is why they can't seem to keep their settlers out of Palestinian land.

"Equally racist". Nice try. So allowing minorities to vote, form parties, and hold high offices is "equally racist" to countries who don't allow any of these things?"_________You can substitute the word "more" or even "Much more" for "equal" and my point still stands. Two wrongs do not make a right, not even when one wrong is worse than the other.

"Why so angry? Especially if this is supposedly an issue you don't care about."_________I'm not angry, I'm indignant because you are a poseur. I didn't say I didn't care about it (I've never seen such a propensity for putting words in people's mouths) I said I couldn't pick a side. The devil is in the details.

"Like I said, I didn't expect you to answer the question about what states 'should' exist. That would expose the hypocrisy of your attacks on Israel. Instead we get sideshows about Manifest Destiny and nonsensical references to teabaggers." Like I said, go fuck yourself. My comment on Manifest Destiny was clearly a statement of what should not have been. You still haven't picked up on it I see.

"It wasn't chosen out of thin air by the all-powerful and nameless "they". It was chosen at the request of the Zionist movement, because it was the site of a previously existing state called Israel. It was chosen well prior to the Holocaust. Naturally, it makes sense to choose this area as the historic homeland of the Jews. Many Jews can trace their ancestry to this location."_____Thank you for demonstrating your grasp of the obvious. Israel is therefore a Zionist state and you are a supporter of Zionism and of the Zionist State (not to say a Zionist, apparently)

"The "inhabitants of the region" largely flocked to this area after Zionist settlers arrived. At the time the Zionist settlers first arrived it was a sparsely populated wasteland. As it was, the "inhabitants of the region" received 90% of the British mandate. So no, I don't think it was too much to ask for a small bit of uninhabited land, when the inhabitants were getting everything else, considering the predicament the Jews throughout history, and especially in the mid-1940s."___________ Er, you do see the egregious mixing of time-frames there do you not? Do Jews get to show up and demand a bit of Holy land before, during or after the Holocaust?

"And I notice you said fled. They fled, hoping the conquering Arab armies would destroy the Jewish state in its infancy, and then they'd be allowed to return. "_______And I notice you said I said fled, but that doesn't have any implications for the reasons for the fleeing, and on that point you still have got nothing.

"I already stated, repeatedly, my idea for a solution - the Barak/Clinton plan of 2000 which the Palestinians rejected. I'm guessing the veins popping out of your head have impaired your ability to read. Ironically despite your tirade about my lack of solutions, you haven't bothered to offer one. Instead you decide to project your own (lack of) solution - the annihilation of Israel, onto your opponents, claiming they want to annihilate the Arabs."__________You're pride at identifying the 2000 Camp David talks as the solution to the problem is touching, but Gush-Shalom made mince-meat of Barak's offer, and I haven't seen anything that refutes Gush-Shalom's version. Evidently, it wasn't the solution, and offering that historical moment as the solution is tantamount to my belief that the Zionist state shouldn't exist at all. And, for the last time, stop putting words in my mouth. I never suggested you wanted to annihilate the Palestinians or that I wanted to annihilate Israel. I said it shouldn't exist, meaning that it should never have come into existence. As for what to do with it now that it does exist, I'm sure I don't know, but I did suggest (you who have suggested I have some reading impairment) that it would involve removing their illegal settlements from Palestinian territory.

"Except there's no Soviet Union around to hail me as a hero and award me goodies. Meanwhile any Jewish critic of Israel is automatically given 'credibility' by raving lunatics on Stormfront, Freerepublic, and the von Mises institute/Rockwell forums, or given an audience with Hizballah and Ahmadinejad." This is such a funny statement, really, so revealing about your personal resentments and disappointments in life. But no, the word I was referring to wasn't hero or credibility, it was hypocrite. And...

"In short - go fuck yourself."

;)

My god, you're such a nasty little man. At least Tolstoy comes to this thread with arguments, and is generally a smart debater, bringing up new points I hadn't thought of before. You're nothing but an insult machine, shouting 'go fuck yourself' every other paragraph like a petulant 13 year old. To the extent that you bother to argue at all, you repeat trite points that have already been rehearsed by other people who are much better at making them.

The really annoying part for me was there were points in Putins arguments that you decided to skip over completely just to insult him needlessly. Kind of destroys any validity your arguments might hold when you decide to skip real points and go for attacks.

"Still mad about having to be spoon fed simple details like the Arafat-KGB connection I see."

You're hanging your hat on this "Arafat was a Marxist" from a Romanian defector who has a penchant for making shit up, I guess. I suppose that's the best you can do. Obviously Soviet bloc traitors never have axes to grind, especially this jackass who claims the KGB was responsible for the JFK assassination and tried to kill over a dozen other leaders. Pacepa never even worked for the damned KGB. He also claims that Moscow was behind the anti-war protests re: Iraq in 2002-2003 and the Soviets had this super magic plan to transfer Saddam's weapons prior to the war! There's barely a conspiracy theory that he doesn't believe in. But please believe anything he writes and trot it out like you're 'spoonfeeding' obvious points.

And please don't bother to address the fact that Arafat has made it explicitly clear he was anti-communist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KwfvvbnEh-IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Arafat+a+political+biography&source=bl&ots=m2LGxwgCoI&sig=NmwzwthZsJMJSLE1BaK5LYtSNhg&hl=en&ei=enkqTd-oNsm-nAejnfSKAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=communism&f=false

The extent to which Arafat ever considered himself a "Soviet agent" is thoroughly addressed. But you seem hung up on this 'point' and quite proud of yourself. Oh well.

"Any scholar with even an ounce of credibility would acknowledge that a very significant number of Palestinians left their homes under duress and the vast majority weren't allowed to go back. It's as simple as that."

Heh, talk about asserting facts as self-evidently true simply because you say so. The only scholar you and others who prattle on about forced evictions ever cite is Benny Morris, who has contradicted everything he wrote in 1994 in his latest book, written in 2008 - which says the IDF did not need to expel people in almost all cases. Anybody who has ever bothered to read anything written by Morris knows that the guy contradicts himself throughout all of his books. Read Righteous Victims, Read the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. You guys can continue to act like Morris is the sole authority on this question, when he was a fringe figure whose credibility is seriously in doubt because he changes his story from paragraph to paragraph and book to book.

On page 410-411 in his new book, he says most Arabs fled to get out of harm's way. They were not forcibly evicted.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+first+arab-israeli+war+morris&hl=en&ei=Ln8qTaTROdGmnQeYovzoAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=refugee&f=false

There's a book which eviscerates Morris and his crew of revisionist historians - here, for totally making shit up and taking quotes and information out of context, misleading the public. But please continue to claim that nobody with an 'ounce of credibility' denies your ridiculous assertions.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nvgat25ddU4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=fabricating+israeli+history+karsh&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=en4qTZ2zG5Pungeyt7DZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is the third time I've heard about his IDF report and I still can't get a citation. Probably because you're getting it from some anti-Israel hate site and can't be bothered to check the actual book.

"You are a pathetic charlatan posing as a scholar who is asserting gross inaccuracies and trying to pass them off as facts by browbeating your interlocutors in the face of clear and documented evidence to the contrary. Your whole story is for shit. Israel was built upon a crime. It doesn't matter if there were two or more criminals competing to see who could get the job done first. It doesn't matter what crimes had been committed before or if the Palestinians or the enemies of their enemies or those who speak for them have not always acted in good faith or if they have never acted in good faith. Israel was built on a crime, that crime has not been officially acknowledged and the victims of that crime have not been properly compensated. "

This rant is humorous. For one, you complain that I'm "browbeating" my "interlocutors", when you've done nothing but come in here and launch into a fit of insults. You offer very little evidence of anything, and just assert things to be self-evidently true, while hilariously claiming that I'm not providing any evidential support for my arguments. I don't think I've seen a more classic case of projection.

Israel was not 'built on a crime', no matter how much you hyperventilate trying to claim that it was. Few if any states were built with as much care and forethought as Israel. Most state building processes (virtually all of them) were bloody, violent processes where those involved care little for anyone who gets in the way. In Israel's case, the only reason there was any displacement or refugee issue was because 1-the Arabs insisted on fighting a war 2-they refused to settle these refugees in other Arab countries, because it's much better to let your own people suffer and stoking their anger than try to deal with their problems.

" It doesn't matter what crimes had been committed before or if the Palestinians or the enemies of their enemies or those who speak for them have not always acted in good faith or if they have never acted in good faith."

No crimes matter except the supposed 'crimes' against Palestinians. Only Palestinian suffering counts, make-believe or not. There were more Jews who were made into refugees, their property confiscated, thanks to the Arab states than Arabs who were turned into refugees by the 1948 war. There's no acknowledgment or apology for this crime and there has been no compensation. But nevermind, it's not your precious Palestinians so they can go "get bent", as you like to say.

"but the fact remains that I don't have a horse in this race, and if I seem a little caught up in the shortcomings of your favourite horse, you'll either have to just forgive me or go fuck yourself, you aren't going to get any more satisfaction than that."

I've never seen anyone foam at the mouth so much about an issue they didn't have a partisan interest in. But whatever you say.

"Who are you talking to? Oh yes, putting words in my mouth again. How very thorough of you."

You claimed that Israel was founded on 'Zionist terror', genius. You of course don't think it's worth noting that the situation was militarized on both sides. Your single minded need to blame everything on Zionist terror, supposedly doesn't mean you're ignoring Palestinian terror. You're willfully presenting a distorted picture and then feigning indignation when anybody points it out. But I'm the charlatan....right.

"By what fucking lunatic leap of logic does that exodus become voluntary? Ah yes, Putin says it's so and anyone who offers evidence to the contrary will be harangued into submission or absolute boredom, whichever comes first."

The logic that is demonstrated by the research of your own Benny Morris, among others. Do you know what fled means? Do you know what expelled means? They aren't the same thing. But I love your witty one-liners and your refusal to address any points made. And I'd love to know what your definition of 'harangue' is, and how you have this magic capacity for cognitive dissonance.

"If you want to imply that there was no forced exodus because Arab population grew in the two decades prior to the exodus, I am happy to point my finger at you and laugh. Ha, ha."

My god, what wit. I can't keep up with these awesome pithy remarks. Seems like that's much more fun for you than actually adding anything of substance. But yeah, it's hard to have an Exodus (I capitalized it for you) if loads of people are coming IN. That's the opposite of an exodus, you see. So point and laugh all you want.

"This bit about "you people" and then "make up your mind", is just awesome. How do you get out of bed in the morning?"

I don't know. I can't seem to manage without some self-righteous pissant who can't argue for shit telling me to go fuck myself at least 5 times a day.

"Which is why they can't seem to keep their settlers out of Palestinian land."

It's not Palestinian land. These settlements are almost always in uninhabited land which used to be the site of a historic Jewish community, like Hebron. Arabs and their water carriers however want the West Bank and Gaza to be Judenrein. But thanks for ignoring the point about the Palestinians wanting every inch of historic Palestine, while harping on a small percentage of Jews who live in the territories as proof of insatiable 'expansionism'.

"You can substitute the word "more" or even "Much more" for "equal" and my point still stands."

No it doesn't still stand, actually, because it's an entirely different point. You want to exaggerate or manufacture out of thin air certain racism while ignoring more severe racism, rendering any tirades you have about 'racist Zionists' to ring completely hollow. It's quite obvious you're just shouting the word 'racist' and 'apartheid' and whatever other buzzwords you can come up with to demonize Israel in order to see what sticks.

"'m not angry, I'm indignant because you are a poseur."

Right - not angry - indignant, which is by definition angry.
"in·dig·nant/inˈdignənt/
Adjective: Feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment."

You're a sophist who is apparently an expert in doublespeak.

"My comment on Manifest Destiny was clearly a statement of what should not have been. You still haven't picked up on it I see. "

It was clearly nothing but a typical attempt of yours to evade a simple question. What states 'should' exist? Are you capable of answering a simple question? Probably not. Maybe after 23 more f-u's I might get an answer, tough guy that you are.

"Thank you for demonstrating your grasp of the obvious. Israel is therefore a Zionist state and you are a supporter of Zionism and of the Zionist State (not to say a Zionist, apparently)"

Thanks for ignoring the point, again. The point being that the territory was not chosen to 'expiate a guilty conscience' (heaven forbid) but that the territory was chosen well before the Holocaust. You're like a damned brick wall. I don't what your obsession is with the word 'Zionist' or what a 'Zionist state' is supposed to mean (maybe a nicer version of 'Zionist entity'). Zionist state is a nonsensical term. You clearly have no idea what Zionism is. I'm not a 'supporter of Zionism' since the Zionist ship has sailed - Israel has already been established. It's like saying I'm a supporter of American independence.

"Er, you do see the egregious mixing of time-frames there do you not? Do Jews get to show up and demand a bit of Holy land before, during or after the Holocaust? "

There's only a mix-up of time-frames in your head. It was right for Jews to desire a homeland, to be free of pogroms, the Dreyfuss Affair, and systematic repression before the Holocaust, and the Holocaust made the need for a state ever more urgent, as the world could not be trusted to protect to do anything but exterminate Jews or look the other way while others did it. But why trouble you with any discussion of suffering that isn't Palestinian.

"You're pride at identifying the 2000 Camp David talks as the solution to the problem is touching, but Gush-Shalom made mince-meat of Barak's offer"

Right, nobody has an argument except 'Gush Shalom'. Not Dennis Ross, who wrote extensively on the topic and was actually AT the negotiations. Not Bill Clinton, who spoke at length about how the final offer to save negotiations was his own proposal - the Clinton parameters - which Arafat rejected and Barak accepted with minor reservations. Nope, only Gush Shalom. And I love how your only attempt at arguing this point is a vague reference to what a radical peace group that sends aim to Hamas says, and give no specifics on why this argument is so great.

"Evidently, it wasn't the solution, and offering that historical moment as the solution is tantamount to my belief that the Zionist state shouldn't exist at all"

And what bizarre logic allows you to draw this conclusion, may I ask? Should I even bother?

" I never suggested you wanted to annihilate the Palestinians or that I wanted to annihilate Israel. I said it shouldn't exist, meaning that it should never have come into existence. As for what to do with it now that it does exist, I'm sure I don't know"

Ah yes, what nuance. Israel shouldn't exist, but it does [and it was such a 'misinterpretation to conclude that you saying Israel shouldn't exist actually means it shouldn't exist now], and you have no solutions for what to do about it, other than vague demands for removing settlements (which would have occurred had the Barak/Clinton plan gone through, but these details are apparently unimportant).

And as for you supposedly not implying that I wanted to wipe out Arabs, here's a little tirade you had earlier.

"So here's a solution, how about we leave the Palestinians exactly as they are completely at the mercy and under the thumb of the Israeli overlords for water, electricity, trade and free movement. Or how about we just wipe the Palestinians out. Or how about we tell the Jews to get bent and look for somewhere else to live."

I'm sure you'll come up with some doublespeak retort to explain how "wiping Palestinians out" doesn't actually mean that, or some other such bullshit that you're fond of engaging in.

"But no, the word I was referring to wasn't hero or credibility, it was hypocrite. And..."

I'm aware of what you were 'referring to'. My response was explaining how it's not hypocrisy. You insulting me while providing no arguments and claiming I'm haranguing and browbeating people into submission is hypocrisy.

"What 'discrimination'?"

Oh, I don't know. How about Muslims and Christians being banned from joining the IDF, and as a result being shut out of many social programs which require a record of 'national service' to obtain benefits. How about non-Jews not being permitted to use land controled by the JNF. How about non-Jewish tax dollars being used to pay for the salaries of the rabbinate (which then issues religious rulings such as a ban on Jews renting property to non-Jews). How about state funded religious schools burning bibles, and attempts to assassinate a leader of the Messianic Jews. How about Avigdor Lieberman calling for all non-Jews to have to swear an oath to uphold the Jewish-ness of the State. Having the right to vote for Arab MKs is nice and all, but when the other 80% of the Knesset absolutely refuses to work with them and they are excluded from any possible coalition (as in recent years), it really doesn't mean much.

"The 80% was to be immediately given to the Palestinian state with the total coming to 96% within several years, as Israel withdrew from the Jordan valley"

'I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.' Why is it always "You give us what we want now, and in a few years we'll give you what we promise you (and you probably don't want to give us an excuse to go back on our word!)"?

"Socialism-Today, oh the irony of a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist resorting to socialism-today to get anti-Israel talking points. Lew Rockwell must have really gotten to you. "

Unlike you, I don't think a disagreement over political philosphy is proof that someone is a liar. One can be a socialist and still tell the truth, although that is apparently not true in all cases. Interesting that I'm now a 'self-proclaimed' anarcho-capitalist - is that a step up or a step down in your eyes from being a fascist, as you keep calling me?

"No, you did not edit 'due to brevity', since the rest of the passage is only a few sentences long. It goes on to talk about the fact that some soldiers refused to participate in this order. Not surprisingly, this is left out. "

The passage in its entirety is over a page long. Yes, I left out the fact that some soldiers felt bad about participating in the ethnic cleansing of over 50,000 people, because you asked me for proof of forced expulsions - not self-pity from the perpetrators.

"Notice the Rabin memoirs said that the Lod residents were marched to join the Arab Legion, the very people fighting the IDF. Does that sound like a harsh and brutal eviction to you? The other part you left out [I'm sure it was for 'brevity's sake] is that Rabin says the Lod Arabs were armed and hostile, and that the reason for their evacuation was that they couldn't have this armed and hostile group on their rear, which could endanger their supply route. All in all, nice selective editing on your part."

Part of the reason the Palestinian refugees were thrown in the direction of the hostile forces was to slow them down. Wikipedia has an extensive article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramle .

There are plenty of other stories about this and other atrocities during the Nakba - a great deal of information (including thousands of personal testimonies) can be found at http://www.palestineremembered.com/index.html

'Benny Morris is a liar'

Funny. You'd like Benny Morris. He shares your hatred of Islam, Muslims, and Arabs. And while he acknowledges the mass expulsions and other Israeli crimes, he says they were and are entirely justified to secure the Jewish State. I refer to Morris because while I obviously disagree with his beliefs and some of his conclusions, he seems to have a genuine commitment to the truth, unlike many supporters of Israel. I also can't get accused of "anti-Semitism" by quoting him, which you accuse me of just about every time I quote a source that isn't Jewish. And while I don't have 'Palestinian Refugee Problem', I'm staring at 'Righteous Victims' right now. And as for other sources on the subject, I have about a dozen books on my shelves (and have read perhaps a half-dozen more that I don't own) about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, three of which I've already referred to in this thread.

'A one-state solution would be met with cries of "annexation".'

Actually, the one-state solution is openly and seriously debated among Palestinians:
http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/store/548.shtml

"Putting aside the fact that Hirst is notorious for claiming 1-Jewish groups control our foreign policy (sounds like you) and 2-The invasion of Iraq was done completely at the behest of Israel, the source for all of this information about the Turks is interesting because it's all from some book by a guy named Nevill Barbour - about whom I can't find anything. "

'I disagree with his interpretation of current events, and I can't find a copy of the book he cites - he must be making it up!' Instead of resorting to thinly-veiled insinuations of dishonesty, why don't you find your own source(s) to refute the claims? It should be really really easy if the Ottoman Empire was so filled with hatred for Jews, as you claim.

"Massacre of Aleppo"

Sorry, but I'll take my well-researched scholarly article written by an expert on the period and area in question, who actually looked at the court records, chronicles, letters from western consular officers (who give the highest body count - 18; the lowest estimate, by a Maronite bishop, is 7), and statements of government officials over your vague one-sentence encyclopedia/travel accounts by Westerners who don't speak the local lingo and never went to Aleppo but claim "thousands of Christians murdered!" based on God-knows-what information. I'm finding this is pretty typical of all your citations - a little bit of digging, and the claim goes up in a big puff of smoke.

'Jews were expelled from Arab countries!'

The link you provided merely bolsters my claim that the nature of the 'expulsions' varied a great deal from country to country. Lebanon was so full of hatred that the Jewish population actually increased by 20% between 1948 and 1958. Egypt was so eager to get rid of their Jews that it took them eight years, a spate of Israeli-sponsored terrorist attacks, and two wars (both of which included bombings of Cairo and other Egyptian cities by the Israeli air force) for them to get their butts in gear. Even then, not even half left for Israel, which was only a few hours' drive away, by 1958. And there are *still* Jews left in 8 of the 10 Arab countries profiled here according to this page (as of 2004). All of this occuring with a backdrop of Israel giving free land, free houses (complete with all the furnishings even!), free passage, and promises of better economic opportunities to Jewish immigrants from Arab countries. Leaving - especially for folks who didn't have land or a business that they couldn't take with them - was likely an easy decision even without any oppression. In most cases Jews in Arab countries also had a much greater chance of being able to take some of whatever valuables they had than your typical Palestinian, who generally had to carry all their posessions (including small children) on their back for fifteen or twenty miles while fleeing an invading army.

"Not Dennis Ross, who wrote extensively on the topic and was actually AT the negotiations."

You really should've read the Norman Finkelstein piece on the Barak offer I linked to earlier. He rips into Dennis Ross in particular.

****************************************************************

Well, I can't exactly say it's been fun, but I think now is as good a time as any to bow out of this thread. It is pretty obvious at this point that Putin is more interested in feeding his ego by trying to score debate points than having a reasonable discussion, which makes this thread a complete waste of time - and I don't have the endless amount of free time that he seems to. Adieu!

"The really annoying part for me was there were points in Putins arguments that you decided to skip over"

The problem with addressing all of Putin's arguments is that he throws up so much crap it's impossible for anyone with regular employment, hobbies, or webdip games to keep up with knocking them all down. I'll give him this much - he apparently has everyone beat in the free time department.

For anyone with a genuine interest in the subject, I'd recommend mondoweiss.com - it's a simple blog that's usually pretty short and easily digestible. Anyone who has read all one hundred seventy-whatever posts here really ought to give it a look.

I just wanted to note that the comment about not bothering to address his points was not meant as a comment towards you Tolstoy but at MCbry who decided to ignore points and make personal insults instead.

I really enjoyed the points you put forward and the thoroughness of debate that went on between you and Putin.

I kinda wish I had more to offer here but this is one of those topics that while I have a view about it. I feels it's one of those views not backed up so much by facts but by personal opinions which isn't great for a debate

It's a shame about the personal attacks because it has been a good debate. I have enjoyed reading it. I am amazed how much some of you know about this topic. I think Putin has made the strongest case, but perhaps I am biased, as my view is that Israel exists now, and that there is no turning the clock back on that question.
I would like to ask the main debaters, where does your knowledge about this topic come from. Are you Palestinian/Israeli or Muslim/Jewish etc. Or is the interest purely academic? Or indeed literally academic - for example, Putin are you studying this topic at University?

I studied it at length in undergrad. I am currently a graduate student in polisci, my dissertation focuses on the problem of failed states. So yes I have lots of 'free time' I suppose, since this stuff is my work. But I'm as glad as anyone to be done with this discussion.

I was formerly a partisan of the Arab side of this issue. It was really my research on the Balkans that led me to read more about it and I changed my views. The Balkan connection is from the fact that I learned that Arab states (and also Iran) have long engaged in imperialism in the Balkans, eroding any sympathy I had for the Palestinian cause as a national liberation movement.

Nuke Israel- especially after today's deliberate demolition of a hotel for 20 homes inside the proposed Palestinian state- why did we stop hitler?

Oh putin-how apt a name- Israel never existed as a proper state til it's creation, same as Palestine so research some more