From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 10:04:56 MDT
[ben 1]Your condescension does not strengthen your case.
[Mermaid 1]I doubt if anything will for you.
[ben 2]So because I disagree with you, you see me as intractable and beyond
the reach of reason? Interesting. Do you take this attitude with everyone
who dares to question your references, or have I somehow earned this dubious
honor?
[ben 1]Also, "as far as you know", none of them are quoted properly.
[Mermaid 1]Why would you say that? Surely, you must have a damn good reason.
[ben 2] Of course I do. It's easy to be impressed by a long list of
distinguished names - impressed enough that further research is deemed
unneccessary by the reader, especially if they are presented as somehow
supporting an emotional decision that has already been made on the part of
the reader.
[Mermaid 1] We ought to make it known to the Jews for Justice folks that
they have been
misquoting published authors and late political figures.
[ben 2]If they are, I'm sure they're aware of it.
[Mermaid 1] Nothing rankles me more than people spreading disinformation and
distorting facts. Whomever it may be...
[ben 2] I commend your dedication to truth. Your intended barb misses its
mark - I never claimed that they were misquoted, I merely raised it as a
possibility. Simultaneously it appears that I have raised your ire. That
speaks more about you than about me I beleive.
[Mermaid 1] I am only defending myself against your spewage
that I am mistakenly attributing more credibility to published authors than
I am taking spam seriously. Do I put them on equal scales? NO. Why? I did
give you the reasons.
[ben 2] I'm getting a pretty clear picture of your reasons... some of which
I can fully agree with, and some of which I cannot. As for your usage of the
words "published authors", I'm not familiar with the actual authors of the
article.
[Mermaid 1]Which quotes are so far out of line with what you know of the
author that you are hesitant to accept it? Who are these authors? I am
willing to hear your side and change my position if your rationalisation is
convincing. Please do tell.
[ben 2]
Example 1:
[quote]"My friend, take care. When you recognize the concept of ‘Palestine’,
you demolish your right to live in Ein Hahoresh. If this is Palestine and
not the Land Of Israel, then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land.
You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who
lived here before you came. Only if it is The Land Of Israel do you have a
right to live in Ein Hahoresh and in Deganiyah B. If it is not your country,
your fatherland, the countries of your ancestors and your sons, then what
are you doing here? You came to another people’s homeland, as they claim,
you expelled them and you have taken their land."[/quote][sub]attributed to
Menachem Begin, sourced from Noam Chomsky's "Peace in the Middle East"[/sub]
[ben 2] Now, the fact that this is from a Noam Chomsky book gives it a
little more credence than the rest of the following quotes, but that is an
example of something I wouldn't expect to come out of Begin. (I should make
it clear that I agree with the sentiment expressed at the end.) However, the
unlikeliness to my mind of that having happened throws a shadow on the
credibility of the whole peice.
Example 2:
[quote]Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would
never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.
Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has
been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should
they accept that?[/quote][sub]attributed to David Ben-Gurion sourced from
Nahum Goldmann's "The Jewish Paradox"[/sub]
[ben 2] Now, David Ben-Gurion is someone that has always struck me as a
rampant Zionist that wouldn't have been caught dead casting doubts on why
anyone should support the state of Israel. The fact that this is the first
I've heard of such sentiments causes me to do as any rational human would do
and withhold acceptance until there is other evidence.
Example 3:
[quote]"Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and
the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived… We are the
generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we
cannot plant a tree and build a home." [/quote][sub]attributed to Moshe
Dayan, sourced from Benjamin Beit Hallahmi's "Original Sins - Reflections on
the History of Zionism and Israel[/sub]
[ben 2] While I do not doubt that Dayan may have said such a thing, I get
the feeling that he was speaking more about his perceived need for the
"steel helmet and the gun barrel" than about the injustice of their presence
there in the first place.
[ben 2] Also, before you jump on it, yes my examples are all from one
section of the article. My limited knowlege of the history of the area is
focused in such a manner that the people quoted in that section are the ones
I am most familiar with. However, if the authors would misquote some, why
not misquote all? Therefore the whole work comes under doubt.
[ben 2] I hope that those are enough to clarify my reasoning. I have
suspicions, but they are not well-grounded enough yet to be accusations, and
never were intended to be so. My main intention was to point out the fact
that suspicions were possible, and that one shouldn't blindly accept
supposed quotations just because they conveniently support your opinion.If I
wrote an article claiming that the Dalai Lama once suggested that China
should have taken Tibet, you would probably (rightly) dismiss my article
immediately. For whatever reason, in this case you are suggesting that since
the quotes came from respectable figures, the article must be true.
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT