He's probably busy cherry-picking facts and finding dirt on Finkelstein.

Well, his surname does sound kinda evil.

Dr Finklestein *flash of lightning* Bwahahhahhah!

Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.

My experience is when you can really pin them down to where they have to come up with facts, they disappear. When I put David Pakman, of The David Pakman Show, in such positions, first 2 or 3 times, he simply ignored the post, the last response I got from him was that he refused to argue anymore with anyone that would in any way defend the terrorism of the rocket-firing Hamas. This was on the shows subreddit, subsequent posts pointing out egregious statements he made went unchallenged except by other brain dead apologists.

Chamber seeking echoes - non-harmonious ones need not apply!

crank wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.

My experience is when you can really pin them down to where they have to come up with facts, they disappear. When I put David Pakman, of The David Pakman Show, in such positions, first 2 or 3 times, he simply ignored the post, the last response I got from him was that he refused to argue anymore with anyone that would in any way defend the terrorism of the rocket-firing Hamas. This was on the shows subreddit, subsequent posts pointing out egregious statements he made went unchallenged except by other brain dead apologists.

Pakman is a real twat on the Israel issue.

HughMcB wrote:

crank wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Either way I'm sure we can expect another tu quoque and gish galop post soon.

My experience is when you can really pin them down to where they have to come up with facts, they disappear. When I put David Pakman, of The David Pakman Show, in such positions, first 2 or 3 times, he simply ignored the post, the last response I got from him was that he refused to argue anymore with anyone that would in any way defend the terrorism of the rocket-firing Hamas. This was on the shows subreddit, subsequent posts pointing out egregious statements he made went unchallenged except by other brain dead apologists.

Pakman is a real twat on the Israel issue.

I was damn near shocked at how disingenuous and ultimately dishonest he got, especially if you hear what he proffers as the best solution to the problem, which is pretty much in line with the prevailing view of the world, the UN, the objective experts etc.

crank wrote:I was damn near shocked at how disingenuous and ultimately dishonest he got, especially if you hear what he proffers as the best solution to the problem, which is pretty much in line with the prevailing view of the world, the UN, the objective experts etc.

Two State?

Nicko wrote:

crank wrote:I was damn near shocked at how disingenuous and ultimately dishonest he got, especially if you hear what he proffers as the best solution to the problem, which is pretty much in line with the prevailing view of the world, the UN, the objective experts etc.

Two State?

Yes, it's the one generally supported by most folk, Pakman was pretty close, the details have gotten hazy in memory and I'll likely mangle the details but it's two states, back to '67 borders, some small areas still to decide, and I think no right of return to lands inside Israel but compensation to be paid. Basically, the 'Oslo Accords', I think is what most everyone supports. The Palestinians have agreed to this for years, but the US and Israel keep blocking any kind of deal actually getting made.

crank wrote:

Nicko wrote:

crank wrote:I was damn near shocked at how disingenuous and ultimately dishonest he got, especially if you hear what he proffers as the best solution to the problem, which is pretty much in line with the prevailing view of the world, the UN, the objective experts etc.

Two State?

Yes, it's the one generally supported by most folk, Pakman was pretty close, the details have gotten hazy in memory and I'll likely mangle the details but it's two states, back to '67 borders, some small areas still to decide, and I think no right of return to lands inside Israel but compensation to be paid. Basically, the 'Oslo Accords', I think is what most everyone supports. The Palestinians have agreed to this for years, but the US and Israel keep blocking any kind of deal actually getting made.

It's astonishing to me that so many people are unaware that the start point for any such negotiations is the '67 borders and are under the misapprehension that Israel's war victories or - even more amazingly - its settlement of Israelis in the Occupied Territories have somehow given it any claim whatsoever to a better bargaining position.

After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border? It's not Israel that doesn't want peace, it's the Palestinians who flatly refuse to recognise the Jewish state.

Angelo, Israel wants peace under its OWN selfish, expansionist terms of ethnic superiority and even cleansing. The Palestinians have every right to have their grievances addressed. Unfortunately Zionists are politically paranoid and narcissistic, which makes the situation much worse.

Who was it that walked away from the offer put on the table by Israel of 90% of Palestinian demands? It wasn't Barak, it was Arafat. The Palestinian hierarchy, including the terrorist org of Hamas don't want to live next door to the Jews. They will not accept anything less than the complete genocide of every single Jew in the Middle east.

angelo wrote:After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

If they won a war defending that border, didn't they disprove their argument that the 1967 borders are indefensible?

I'm all for Israel's right to defend themselves however they have to, but I don't think this border shifting stuff should be condoned. Using the self defense argument just seems like a cynical excuse to grab some land.

The Palestinians definitely have a right to defend themselves. They don't want to end up like the Indians who were accused of not accepting the generous terms of the Great White Father. The Zionists are even more selfish, paranoid, neurotic and narcissistic.

duvduv wrote:The Palestinians definitely have a right to defend themselves. They don't want to end up like the Indians who were accused of not accepting the generous terms of the Great White Father. The Zionists are even more selfish, paranoid, neurotic and narcissistic.

What, and the Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves? Every single war there has been started by the terrorist.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

angelo wrote:After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

If they won a war defending that border, didn't they disprove their argument that the 1967 borders are indefensible?

I'm all for Israel's right to defend themselves however they have to, but I don't think this border shifting stuff should be condoned. Using the self defense argument just seems like a cynical excuse to grab some land.

Every single conquest by every single power in the word throughout history has never conceded the land conquered back to the vanquished! Why should Israel be expected to?

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

angelo wrote:After WW2, a large chunk of East Germany, inhabited by 12 million Germans was annexed and given to Poland. Most of the German population left what had been their homes for generations and went to live in Germany proper. The spoils of war of the victorious allies. Plus, to forever weaken Germany's ability to make war on her neighbours, and give Poland a much better defensible border. Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

If they won a war defending that border, didn't they disprove their argument that the 1967 borders are indefensible?

I'm all for Israel's right to defend themselves however they have to, but I don't think this border shifting stuff should be condoned. Using the self defense argument just seems like a cynical excuse to grab some land.

plus: they didn't defend that border, they preeptively attacked. So by the 'indefensible" argument, all of it's neighbours should be given a chunk of Israel.

The Zionists started a war of conquest to expel the Palestinians and steal the country. The Palestinians don't have to end up on the reservation of your Great Zionist Father...

angelo wrote:Now, why should Israel have to go back to the 1967 indefensible border?

Because that's what they agreed to when they joined the UN.

But keep in mind that what I said was those borders were where the negotiation starts.