05-08-2024, 12:38 AM
(05-07-2024, 10:10 PM)Dill Wrote: You are offering me the very general assessment of an anonymous Clinton White House historian, one which apparently was not maintained/revised after 2000, since it makes no mention of which features of Oslo remained in place nor how the peace process continued after the Second Intifada, limping along for another 15 years, producing at least one more agreement between Israel and the PA, the 2005 Agreement on Movement an Access.
Your source does not reflect the consensus of most Israeli, European, and US PROEFSSIONAL historians at the moment. I can establish that, if you are interested.
Nor does it reflect the historical record, as currently understood. The first bolded offers the primary clue as to why your WH assessment was already outdated, or steadfastly myopic.
Absent from this also are the devilish details, which were available in 2000, like
1) the massive imbalance of power between the sides,
2) the causes of the "string of terror attacks" which supposedly undermined Labour elections, and
3) the details of Barak's "concessions" and Arafat's grounds for rejection.
Finally, this does not refute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu tanked the peace process. To understand what happened, you need to set aside the rush to blame for a moment and understand, first, what was/is at stake for each side in the Oslo in the first five "permanent status" issues. And then how each side exercised what power it had during and after the five year implementation phase in a progression of verifiable causes and effects. Only then does the arc of failure and its primary causes become clear.
That's a lot of words to say "I don't like your source." You'll have to take it up with the US government. You know, that entity that you quote when it suits you and disregard when it suits you.
(05-07-2024, 11:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Palestinians were violently displaced by hundreds of thousands of European and Russian Jews who traveled to Palestine
to take the land of those already living there by violence.
You talking about United Nations Resolution 181? So now you're using the United Nations as a source, but only when it agrees with you as well. You're double standards are incredibly one sided.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war
Quote:But the "war of aggression" only begins AFTER that? That's an incredible double standard.
Yup. As illustrated in the above source.
Quote:What were the "actions" for which loss of East Prussia was a "consequence"?
We've only got an analogy here if the Germans get to keep the land they took by violence.
No, we don't. The analogy works perfectly as the Arab nations were the aggressors and got their asses kicked, hence losing territory, exactly as it occurred to Germany.
Quote:So, a non answer.
It's a cogent answer to anyone who's read your posts.
Quote:I'm trying to see if there is an argument here that doesn't rely on adjectives.
As noted in my last post, I've not posited a "false narrative on the Oslo Accords." You just jumped on the first account that fit your conclusion and called THAT the historical record. And a month before Hamas started the current war, you were repeating your simplified claim about "aggressors" in the face of contravening evidence from how many Israeli historians? Three? I'd have to go back and check.
You spelled the official record of the United States Office of the Historian wrong.
Quote:"Your disdain for Israel oozes from every post" seems rather a subjective impression. A closer look reveals my posts ooze with information that you don't like and don't wish discussed--hence the highly subjective reaction--but which is critical to understanding the factual and legal issues raised by the current war and US support. Many of them are very careful, fact based expositions and anlyses. NOT a lot of adjectives, reactive quips, condemnation and telling everyone what is "really" going on in other people's heads. Yet you've peremptorily dismissed those posts. And called me a lying supporter of terrorism. That doesn't indicate interest in "fair discussion."
Well, you have lied in this thread, and you consistently mitigate the actions of terrorists. Seems you've earned both rather fairly.
Quote:I don't see how you've added to the common store of knowledge or furthered understanding by constantly demanding everyone condemn Hamas and give Israel a pass. All our debates turn quickly into me arguing for standards of accuracy and logical consistency, and you dogmatically repeating refuted arguments and calling me names--all the things I don't do.
Is consistently making excuses for Hamas and condemning Israel in nearly every post expanding on anyone's knowledge? Again, you're not a sage, you're a pontificator with an agenda.
Quote:And now you just know that I, who never use the term "objective," holding it for an impossible and improper ideal of historical analysis which historians moved past back in the 30s and 40s, suddenly believe I'm an "objective sage." But everyone else can see through my disguise. I'm sorry but that just seems a very private and paranoic take, veering far from any possible verification, even outside my "sycophantic circle."
Like I said, pontificating. I'm going to move on to posting more news about Hamas atrocities and pro-Hamas demonstrations in the west if you don't mind. Someone's got to counter balance you.
