Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(05-08-2024, 12:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Israel-Hamas-War-Superthread?pid=1480605#pid1480605][/url]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 The first bolded offers the primary clue as to why your WH assessment was already outdated, or steadfastly myopic.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.

Hmmm. You raise a the essential methodological question here: what should "suit" ANYONE by way of historical sources?
 
When deciding who, if anyone, undermined the Oslo peace talks, I'd like primary evidence (documents, memos, agreements, intel reports, Barak's "concessions" and Arafat's grounds of rejection). Also material that covers the process well past 2000 (later agreements and demands like Olmert's "Recognize Israel as a 'Jewish' state" in 2007.) Then I want to know how the best historians assess causes and effect from different angles, drawing on their vast background knowledge. Hence "a lot of words" to articulate those requirements, which are not "ideological" but involve the usual comparative method, respect for chronology and professional consensus, etc. From there I'll make my own decision, which would have to be consistent with the historical record.

Thus a WH page for Clinton administration public relations in 2000--very far from primary sources--does not "suit" me because it cannot meet these non-ideological criteria (unless modern historical method is "ideological").

But it didn't take you a lot of words to say this source suited you just fine. No comparative method needed.
But you implied your choice was "objective," not mine.