Palestine (continuation)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:03 PM

Keith,

The only reason we are talking is because you questioned my rebuttal of Teribus' assertion that Palestinians can't be trusted.

If you have finished sticking up for him then there is nothing more to say.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:06 PM

I also could mean you could be tolerating abuse in some cases, or you prefer to not correspond with someone who is rude or overbearing. Do as you prefer. mg

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:18 PM

No Lox.
You posted this, (30 Oct 11 - 07:22 AM )
"Actually it is prettyt well established by now that the Gaza Massacre of the end of 2008 beginning of 2009 was not the result of a breach of the ceasefire by Hamas, but in fact it was the Israelis who broke it."

I then asked you how you could justify your assertion that it is "pretty well established"

A perfectly reasonable response.
Just normal debate.
What is wrong with you?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:34 PM

What is wrong with you?

Now that is a question which might challenge anyone who has promised to ask any question...

I'm not quite sure how it would ever be possible to prove that anything is "pretty well established" to the satisfaction of anyone who firmly disagrees. Look at climate change, after all.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM

I agree your second para Kevin.

Re first part, in the context of why he was in such a stew about my contributions.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM

With the most recent announcement that Canada has also cancelled its contribution to UNESCO, I assume that one can now insert 'Canada' everywhere "the US' is mentioned above?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:48 PM

"I then asked you how you could justify your assertion that it is "pretty well established""

And I answered by providing you with expert testimony from norman finkelstein who in turn quoted the Israeli foreign ministry.

... here we go round the mulberry bush ... tra-la-la-la-laaa ... or should I say the vortex into keiths ego ...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:51 PM

PS - I'm not in a stew - I'm laughing at your vain attempt to wrestle yourself out of a straightforward situation by way of distraction, obfuscation and your usual disingenuous posturing as a neutral party.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:58 PM

Artbrooks,

Disappointing as it may be that Canada should have such contempt for democracy and international institutions, you are completely right.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:00 PM

McGrath,

Or Evolution.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:09 PM

"UNESCO will miss its cash more than US will miss its "influence." "

mm hmmm?

It seems to me that that influence was worth regular payments, the next of which was meant to be about $60,000,000.

Obviously UNESCO thinks that that level of influence can't be bought.

Obviously they are sticking to their own constitution in which member votes count more than bribes.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:32 PM

Lox, I am baffled by your wild posting.

Whatever did this mean?

"I responded to Teribus.

You questioned my response to him.

The only reason we are talking is because you questioned my rebuttal of Teribus' assertion that Palestinians can't be trusted.

If you have finished sticking up for him then there is nothing more to say."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:38 PM

I'm very happy they were recognized by *somebody*, and I think it's about time the US learned that money can't buy everything.

Anybody who wants to talk about what someone said about the Palesteins should be said in this thread.

Anybody who wants to talk about what someone already said about *them* should say, I'm rebutting in the other thread, and then do so. Please. That is why there are two threads.

And anybody who wants to be the first to say something about somebody rather than about what they have said should say, I have a personal comment in the other thread, and then put it there. Please and ditto.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:14 PM

Those sound like good ground rules, Mrrzy. However the other thread has been closed for posting purposes...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:27 PM

Perhaps we need a PermaThread entitled "Ad Hominem insults and snarky responses".

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:50 PM

Let me take you by the hand Keith.

Why did i post to this thread?

I posted to rebutt Teribus' implied assertion that Palestinians cannot be trusted.

So once I did that why did I keep posting?

Because you questioned the soundness of my rebuttal and I had to justify it, which I did with an expert witness.

So why am I still in discussion with you now?

Good question - you have said nothing to add to our discussion since you failed to find fault with my rebuttal.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:24 PM

To clarify,

my comments at 5.48PM and 5.51PM on 1/11/11 re not Aimed at Artbrooks, but at Keith.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:12 AM

"From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM
With the most recent announcement that Canada has also cancelled its contribution to UNESCO, I assume that one can now insert 'Canada' everywhere "the US' is mentioned above?"


Most certainly!

Particularly as Canada has long identified itself as one of the world's staunchest supporters of Israel.

At least Harper (and importantly unlike Obama, considering the supposed US's position as an 'honest broker' in all of this) makes no play or pretense of being in any way neutral or unpartisan however.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:17 AM

Lox, I am sorry if I am keeping you in the thread against your will.
Just go mate.
No-one cares.

Do you believe that "expert witnesses" can never be challenged?
Get over yourself!
There are many "experts" on both sides of this, and yours came with no sources for his assertions.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:44 AM

I have read repeatedly that Israeli feeling is not in tandem with US actions. Indeed does Israel really need an ideologically based confrontation spear-headed by it's supposed allies right now?

Is this really Netanyahu and the Israeli right pulling the strings or to what extent is the US right (and a fully complicit Obama administration) escalating the situation all by itself? Or is it Folie a deux?

Israel now vigorously upgrading its illegal settlements program: the very issue which stalled peace talks in the first place. Considering combined factors of the Arab Spring, a growing international consensus and the US's increasingly weakened position as a leading world democracy, one wonders if Israel & the US are committed to a form of mutual suicide.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:54 AM

"There are many "experts" on both sides of this, and yours came with no sources for his assertions. "

Yes he did - you are genuinely exhibiting signs of dementia - This has been said 3 times at least - his source was the Israeli Foreign Ministry report on the ceasefire.

And as for your experts? I still haven't seen you refer to them.

You can challenge who you like, I urge you to contact him.

So far you haven't challenged him - what you have done is question the authority of his assertion - and you have not provided any grounds for this other than 'the Israeli report might have been sarcastic'.


This is extraordinary - I believe you have a genuine problem, if you are serious then something is causing extraordinary myopia. If you are doing this for fun, then you have extraordinary persistence that indicates a whole other problem.

But one thing is for sure - you are adding nothing to our discussion.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:39 AM

US response to UNESCO's democratically accepted decision to agree to Palestine's membership = attempts to blackmail into submission to the tune of $60m
Israel's decision is to speed up the building of 2,000 houses on The West Bank
A matched pair I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:52 AM

Lox, Israel's position is that it was Hamas who broke the cease fire.
That is why Kevin and I were surprised that such a report might exist and asked to see the comments in context.
Can we please?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:11 AM

No experts then eh?

Didn't think so.

Finkelstein is an impeccable researcher and academic whose accuracy and method have been proven time and time again at the highest and most rigorous level.

I have seen him say in an interview, when asked his opinion, that he did not see his opinion as important. His job as a researcher was to investigate the facts and present them accurately.

So I have no reason to doubt him.

If you doubt him, then it is up to you to go and verify his sources.

That is why he gives them, so that people can check them out if they doubt them.

That is how academic research works.

I don't doubt him, you do. So it is up to you to challenge him yourself if you wish to persist.

Til then, unless you have something else to add (like your alleged expert witnesses), his expert testimony stands as the authoritative view on this thread, not yours or teribus'.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:01 AM

http://www.danielpipes.org/blogPlenty of experts like this.
Here are his credentials.
Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. His bi-weekly column appears regularly in the National Review and in newspapers around the globe, including the Jerusalem Post and Yisrael ha-Yom (Israel), Al-Akhbar (Iraq), Die Welt (Germany), La Razón (Spain), Liberal (Italy), National Post (Canada), and the Australian..

His website, DanielPipes.org, offers an archive of his work and an opportunity to sign up to receive e-mails of his current writings. With 60 million page visits, it is of the Internet's most accessed sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam.

CBS Sunday Morning says Daniel Pipes was "years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam." "Unnoticed by most Westerners," he wrote, for example, in 1995, "war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States." The Boston Globe states that "If Pipes's admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11." The Wall Street Journal calls Mr. Pipes "an authoritative commentator on the Middle East" and the Washington Post deems him "perhaps the most prominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam."

He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history, and spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, the U.S. Naval War College, and Pepperdine University. He served in various capacities in the U.S. government, including two presidentially-appointed positions, vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in 1986-93.

Mr. Pipes discusses current issues on television on such U.S. programs as ABC World News, Crossfire, Good Morning America, News-Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, and The Today Show. He has appeared on leading television networks around the globe, including the BBC and Al-Jazeera, and has lectured in twenty-five countries. He has publicly debated leading figures, including Noam Chomsky and Ken Livingstone.

Mr. Pipes has published in such magazines as the Atlantic Monthly, Commentary, Foreign Affairs, Harper's, National Review, New Republic, Time, and The Weekly Standard. More than a hundred American newspapers have carried his articles, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. His writings have been translated into thirty-six languages and have appeared in such newspapers as ABC, Corriere della Sera, The Daily Telegraph, Le Figaro, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and The Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr. Pipes has written twelve books.

Four deal with Islam: Militant Islam Reaches America (2002), The Rushdie Affair (Birch Lane, 1990), In the Path of God (Basic Books, 1983), and Slave Soldiers and Islam (Yale University Press, 1981).

Three books concern Syria: Syria Beyond the Peace Process (1996), Damascus Courts the West (Washington Institute, 1991), and Greater Syria (Oxford University Press, 1990).

Four deal with other Middle Eastern topics: The Hidden Hand (St. Martin's, 1996) analyzes conspiracy theories among Arabs and Iranians. An Arabist's Guide to Colloquial Egyptian (Foreign Service Institute, 1983) systematizes the grammar of Arabic as spoken in Egypt. The Long Shadow (Transaction, 1989) and Miniatures (2003) contain some of his best essays.

Conspiracy (Free Press 1997) establishes the importance of conspiracy theories in modern Europe and America.

Mr. Pipes edited two collections of essays, Sandstorm (UPA, 1993) and Friendly Tyrants (St. Martin's, 1991). He has edited two journals, Orbis (1986-90) and the Middle East Quarterly (1994-2001).

Mr. Pipes sits on five editorial boards, has testified before many congressional committees, and worked on five presidential campaigns. Universities in the United States and Switzerland have conferred honorary degrees on him.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM

Great he sounds like a serious academic ...

... you've omitted to show any of his expert opinions on who broke the ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli Government in Nov 2008 though ...

Or perhaps we should have a "list famous researchers credentials" competition ...

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 08:43 AM

Follow the link Lox.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 10:26 AM

Jim, "UNESCO's democratically accepted decision" ignores the built in anti-Israel bias in UNESCO and other UN bodies.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-slams-absurd-unesco-decision-on-jerusalem-west-bank-holy-sites-1.321868

l.lass, an ideologically based confrontation spear-headed by it's supposed allies right now?

..is the US right (and a fully complicit Obama administration) escalating the situation all by itself? Or is it Folie a deux?

Remember, this dispute was engineered by the Palestinian movement.
US is only responding to it.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 10:33 AM

Efforts to delegitimize Israel have also been part of the record of the specialized agencies, especially UNESCO, the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In the 1970s, the Arabs in UNESCO raised questions about archaeological excavations in Jerusalem. Director-General A.M. M'Bow sent a specialist, Belgian Professor Raymond Le Maire, to investigate. Le Maire found the digs were carried out in accord with established international standards. Muslim holy places were protected, and archaeological relics from all periods of antiquity were preserved. Le Maire's report was suppressed by M'Bow, and UNESCO voted sanctions against Israel.

UNESCO again displayed its double standard towards Israel when it refused to criticize archeological and other digs conducted by the Muslim Waqf in the Temple Mount area during the early fall of 2000. Despite UNESCOs criticism of Israel, going against the investigation by their own expert, when the Waqf engaged in work which may have destroyed priceless archeological artifacts relating to the Second Temple, the same UN body remained silent.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM

But what on Earth is there "anti-Israel" in supporting membership of UNESCO, which would appear to be in Israel's interests, since it involves accepting being a fellow member with Israel?

Disagreeing with a self-defeating and stupid policy of tyhe current Israel government is not the same as being "anti-Israel". Is it "anti-American" to be against the death penalty? Or "anti-Arabia" to be in favour of women being allowed to drive cars?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 12:32 PM

Israel opposed the move.
Votes always go against Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:16 PM

""Lox imagines that by finding one anti-Israel "expert" he has ended the debate.
It would not take many minutes to find a pro-Israel "expert"""

You illustrate my point rather well Keith, when you say ""Don, I do not regard the race of the expert as significant.
My point was that experts on both sides of this dispute are ten a penny.""

You do not find any significance in a Jew objecting to Israel's attitude and actions, and assert that his race is irrelevant and experts who disagree are ten a penny.

Dirt cheap experts, and not one Palestinian among them. Certainly makes Finkelstein's evidence more credible to me, and his integrity likewise since he rises above the old mantra of both US and Israeli governments "My country, right or wrong", and says "NO1 That isn't right.

You could learn something from him, if you opened your mind to the possibility that Israel is neither honourable, nor truthful in this matter.

Don T,

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:19 PM

Mike, thank you.

Rapprochment it is then.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:37 PM

""Israel opposed the move.
Votes always go against Israel.""

If I were in that position, I'd be examining the reasons for my unpopularity with a view to improving matters, not exacerbating the situation by going around kicking shins.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:09 PM

Voting against a policy of Israel counts as "anti-Israel" - then presumably voting with Israel in this case would have counted as being anti almost everyone else...

Still waiting for anyone to suggest some reason why the policy of Israel in regard to UN and UNESCO membership for Palestine makes any sense at all, or why Palestine membership would do anything to harm the interests of Israel.

And while we are about it, is there anyone who thinks that the prospects of peace or the interests of Israel are helped by the extension of illegal settlements in occupied territory?

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:43 PM

Don, a Palestinian who supported Israel might find it more healthy to keep his views to himself.

Don, why Israel is so unpopular, from my last link.
Worth a read, this just an extract.

Since 1948, when a UN resolution set the State of Israel on its way, the UN has has been a part of the on-going evolution of the struggle between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs with binding and non-binding resolutions, peace keeping forces, peace conferences and investigations. Unfortunately, an alliance between Arab states, third-world countries hostile to the developed world, and Cold War politics backed by the former Soviet Union, have created a UN environment that is uniquely hostile to Israel. While Tibet, Cambodia, Rwanda and other world problem areas have come and gone, often without significant comment or action by the UN, Israel has been repeatedly targeted, investigated, denounced, and condemned by one-sided UN agencies or committees with no scintilla of objectivity while at the same time Israel has been denied full participation in UN functions. Meanwhile, nations with horrible human rights violations such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria have escaped criticism from any UN forum.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:56 PM

I note you said you always answer questions, Keith - so take that last post of mine as addressed to you for that purpose.

......................
The regimes in power in all those countries you mentioned there, Keith have indeed been guilty of human rights violations towards their own citizens - however none of them are in occupation of foreign territories, including imposing settlements with hundred of thousands of settlers, and rigidly restricting the freedom of travel of the native inhabitants to move around within their own land.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 03:32 PM

Blimey Kevin.
I was only asking for a yes or no answer.

Why Israel and US are so opposed to Palestine becoming a member of UN, I am ashamed to admit I am not sure.
If no-one else can help I will look it out.

Your list of Israeli abuses.
I think those other states are much worse offenders, and Israel would make a case for why it feels it needs to restrict some movements.

The "occupied territories" were not occupied in any imperialist invasions, but in a desperately fought battle for survival that was nearly lost.
Vast amounts of such have been handed back already.

The settlements are a big issue.
A couple of posts will not cover it.

Not ducking the question, but that is the best I can do.
Happy to discuss in more detail.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:02 PM

"Jim, "UNESCO's democratically accepted decision" ignores the built in anti-Israel bias in UNESCO and other UN bodies."
There is now bias on the part of UNESCO - it does not exist nor act as a single unitary body - it is made up of representatives of various states. The vote was 107 for 14 against, 54 abstentions - that is 107 nations supporting the statehood of Palestine compared to 14 against.
A similar situation exists in the United Nations - neither act as a single unit, but as a representatives of nations opposed to US and Israeli policy
Weaseling out of this opposition by a majority of world representatives by crying "bias" is nonsensical
If there is any 'bias' it is that of the world against the expansionist behaviour of Israel and the blackmailing and political and economic bullying of the United States.
As Livelylass pointed out, the US would do well to recognise this fact.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:24 PM

So no identified reason why membership of the UN and UNESCO for Palestine would be against the interests of Israel, but voting for it counts as being "anti-Israel".

I don't know how oublic opinion breaks down over this in Israel - butr it's interesting to see that in the USA, it appears that it actually runs runs in favour of Palestinian statehood. What Keith might call "anti-Israel. From this Israeli source: "The US and the Philippines showed the highest rates of opposition to UN recognition with 36% each. However, 45% of those surveyed in the US and 56% of those in the Philippines cast their vote in favor."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:25 PM

Should have been "no bias" of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 04:45 PM

Here's what Noam Chomsky had to say about Alan Dershowitz:

Dershowitz is not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights. That is crystal clear from the correspondence, reproduced below. Dershowitz flew into a fury over the exposure, and ever since has produced a series of hysterical tirades and lies concerning some entity in his fantasy world named “Chomsky,â€쳌 who lives on “planet Chomsky.â€쳌

That is his standard style when he is exposed, reaching truly grotesque levels in his efforts to discredit Norman Finkelstein (and even his mother, probably a new low in depravity) after Finkelstein’s meticulous documentation of Dershowitz’s astonishing lies in his vulgar apologetics for Israeli crimes. (From here)

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:03 PM

I followed the link.

I typed 'control+F'

I searched for the words "ceasefire", "november" and "2008".

None of those words appeared anywhere in the article.


I read the article.

It said nothing about the Ceasefire of 2008.


So yet again you have failed to offer anything of any relevance or interest.



When you find some expert testimony or evidence that contradicts the Israeli Foreign ministry report, be sure and let us know.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:25 PM

Lox, you must have missed the first sentence.
Extract-
"..murders and abductions carried out by Palestinians, and as the Israel Defense Forces enter Gaza in response to these acts as well as rockets landing on Israeli towns.."

That describes the most serious possible breaches of the ceasefire Lox, and not by Israel.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:39 AM

Somewhat off-topic but pertaining to Israel and the current Middle-East situation:

Israel test-fires missile capable of reaching Iran

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 04:50 AM

Keith A: "Remember, this dispute was engineered by the Palestinian movement.
US is only responding to it."


That is certainly a perspective.

I'm more inclined to agree with Baskin's assessment in the Jerusalem Post which I previously linked to on this thread - but I'm not here to 'win' any arguments on the matter:


"The Palestinian logic was soundly based on their assessment that there was no possibility of reaching a negotiated agreement with the current government of Israel. Every day, Israeli settlement building progressed, taking away more land from what they believe is part of the future Palestinian state. More than 18 years of failed peace processes convinced them that they need to create a "game changer" so that they could preserve the chances for creating a real Palestinian state in the future."

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 05:18 AM

but I'm not here to 'win' any arguments on the matter:

Just so ll.
What some here can't see is that this is not the enlightened v the ignorant.
There really are two sides to this dispute and there are informed, intelligent people, including "experts" on both sides.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:04 AM

Re the missile, some kind of action against Iran by the West is looking increasingly likely.
See Iran/Korea thread.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM

I see - so which particular dispute is he referring to ...

... none - its a general comment ...

So where is the specific assertion that Hamas broke the ceasefire of 2008?

Where is the Government report supporting this?

You said Finkelstein had given no source ...

You haven't even shown me Pipes saying that Hamas broke the 2008 ceasefire, let alone refer to any documentation official or otherwise.

Teribus was wrong to say that Palestinians can't be trusted, and I was right to call him out on it.

And you have provided no reason or evidence that remotely begins to deal with my response to him.

Your comments are so far beyond farcical that I can only conclude that you are suffering from a compulsive disorder.

Subject: RE: Palestine (continuation)
From: Lox
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 06:34 AM

200