05-09-2024, 11:36 AM
(05-08-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
Tell you what, I'm going to pose the same question to you that I did to Bel. You are given ultimate authority to impose a settlement on the situation in question. You can move people freely and without violence and redraw the map as you see fit. The only thing you cannot do is change hearts and minds. Given those criteria, what would be your solution that would end this conflict? I am honestly interested in knowing.
