Ta da! You see, John, on this we agree.

As for the rest of it and your comments about what I’ve read and haven’t read, I did provide you with source material, I have researched 242 and how it came to be extensively (in the past, anyway), and I have a different reading than you. You know, some people read Morris and see one thing and some people read Shlaim and see one thing and some people read Karsh or Shapira and see one thing. With all due respect, none of this history is all that clear but there is enough on the table that sometimes broad strokes are enough. Your new tack is to say “That is why there is such an armamentarium of lies, fabrication, misdirection, deception, edited quotations and half-truths, so easily available to people like Mike/Middle, who lap them up without ever checking primary and alternate sources, which sometimes can be very obscure” which again posits that I know little or just enough to be dangerous while you are a wise consumer of all information and terribly clever at knowing the truth.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that, good for you.

It’s just that they drive me to distraction because, as you said, just about anyone–when it comes to the Mideast–seems to be able to argue just about anything when it comes to parsing these documents. It’s almost like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

Immediately after saying things like that quoted in the SC 242 page, Rostow 1975 says that the resolution basically meant the Rogers Plan - minor and mutual adjustments along the Green Line. In the real world, the Arabs have been fine with this for decades. Israel refuses. The Arabs have the world’s crappiest propaganda, while Israel has just about the world’s best, so the general picture seen in the USA reverses the truth.

Your statements about the charter are incomprehensible, everything you say you want to see IS IN THE ARTICLE. I left the flaky fringe arguments from both sides against the fact of acceptance because I’m a very conciliatory guy; what is important is what IS now in the article :

“I’m sorry that you and I do not view the issue of the Charter in the same way. Just count me among the obstinate fools who want to see the both the recorded vote and the document which was supposedly agreed to by the Palestinians in some session that never took place. Sorry, but things intended for public consumption in the West are not always the same as what happens behind closed doors and the wikipedia article only confirmed my hesitation.”

The recorded votes, the document, the sessions which DID take place etc are all linked to there. Often to Israeli and Palestinian government websites. For the umpteenth time, who the **** are you to disagree with the government of Israel? ISRAEL SAYS THE PLO CHARTER WAS AMENDED. ISRAEL SAYS THE VOTES, THE DOCUMENTS, THE SESSIONS HAPPENED AND WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR ISRAEL. Sure, if you want, you can argue about how the evil Arabs didn’t follow their own procedure perfectly. Crazy southrons refighting the civil war say the same about the Civil War Amendments, with similarly “reasonable”, similarly moot arguments. So what? Smart lawyers can have fun showing how every law ever passed anywhere is void because it wasn’t done exactly right. Big deal. God alone can do things right, can do things to the satisfaction of netloons.

Sorry, Richard, if your eyes glaze over. Mine often do too. It’s just that the “case for Israel” is weakest and easiest to defeat on precisely these political/legal/diplomatic points. Often enough the “pro-Israel” position is the exact opposite of the very obscure, never mentioned official Israeli position! That is why there is such an armamentarium of lies, fabrication, misdirection, deception, edited quotations and half-truths, so easily available to people like Mike/Middle, who lap them up without ever checking primary and alternate sources, which sometimes can be very obscure. Fictional, nonexistent events like, say, the 1921 partition of the Mandate into Palestine and Transjordan (one of my favorite examples of successful propaganda fabrications) have become the standard story in even reputable reference works. You aren’t going to find out what really happened prepared for you on the web. So Mike/Middle, I think that if you wanted to argue with me about the facts, you would lose, it’s a lot harder to know what happened in this corner of the world than just reciting predigested propaganda. You have to read tons of books and papers from all sides, and examine them critically. I do not believe you have.

Right now I am pretty weak and tired, though recovering thanks to some expensive, made in Israel, Azithromycin, which I took as a divine sign to an atheist to write some stuff about Israel. :-)

But either way, we agree that openness of mind is important here for both sides.

I can see why in a couple of instances there may be enough ambiguity that you could choose either side of the debate, but I don’t see enough to come on with the kind of certitude he displays.

Actually, you came on pretty strong regarding the certitude of yr position too. And your admission that there may be ambiguity in the UN resolution text is the first time I’ve heard you admit this. I commend you for being willing to change or amend your views.

Now, if we could just get to the point where we acknowledge that while we may have our own opinions about the I-P conflict, the views of our opponents might, just might, have some validity as well. I’m not saying this directed at you alone. This is meant as a general statement about the many hundreds of such arguments I’ve participated in regarding the conflict.

I too have a degree of certitude or firmness in my opinions, but I always try to understand the Israeli pt. of view in its basic elements. That doesn’t mean that I find it ultimately compelling. But one must acknowledge a certain level of validity to Israeli fears or else one is not being intellectually honest.

And if you don’t think it’s petty and insecure to keep saying to somebody that they don’t know what they’re talking about, then…you don’t know what you’re talking about.

How did that sound to you, like I’m cocky and right or like I’m petty and insecure?

Oh, as for revisiting things, John came on so strong with his attacks on my ignorance that I actually had to revisit all of my claims as well as his. I can see why in a couple of instances there may be enough ambiguity that you could choose either side of the debate, but I don’t see enough to come on with the kind of certitude he displays.

Instead of the blustery overconfidence which instead makes you seem petty and insecure, why not revisit these topics you are so confident about and simply approach them from the point of view that you may be wrong.

The Middle: First, John R seems “petty & insecure” to you alone. Not to me. And as for asking him to revisit topics with the understanding that he might be wrong about his view of them–have you ever thought of doing that yourself?

Ah, yes you wouldn’t need to do that now would you because you are supremely confident in the rightness of your views? I’m not going to get into the minutiae of you guys’ debate about the contents of UN resolutions because they make my eyes glaze over for reasons I’ve stated here. But I see nothing in what John’s written and or that you’ve attempted to rebut which merits his reconsidering his views because they are wrong.

As for being a “saint,” I realize you said that jocularly and somewhat facetiously but I appreciate the sentiment.

I’m sorry that you and I do not view the issue of the Charter in the same way. Just count me among the obstinate fools who want to see the both the recorded vote and the document which was supposedly agreed to by the Palestinians in some session that never took place. Sorry, but things intended for public consumption in the West are not always the same as what happens behind closed doors and the wikipedia article only confirmed my hesitation.

As for wikipedia and 242, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242 I believe that once again you tell me with great confidence one thing but then when I incredulously go to look, I see something else. Read the segment debating the exclusion of all from the pro-it-wasn’t-supposed-to-be-there-intentionally side. And yes, Caradon is quoted in that section…probably because he’s been quoted on both sides, so maybe he’s become an Arab shill? I mean, you feel free to accuse Rostow of dishonesty. Anyway, whether you like it or not, the language in this instance is precise and was debated. With that knowledge alone, we know that the Council intended there to be some give and take in any negotiations that lead to the fulfillment of this Resolution.

Now here’s my suggestion to you, John. Instead of the blustery overconfidence which instead makes you seem petty and insecure, why not revisit these topics you are so confident about and simply approach them from the point of view that you may be wrong. I mean, I can continue to type from here to tomorrow about Oslo, Wye, Camp David, 1948, 242 and 338, 1917, 1920, 1929, 1937, 1947, 181, 194, 1397, disputed territories versus occupied territories, Judea and Samaria, 1973, Oslo, Taba, Abbas’s lovely dissertation, etc. without looking up a single source. When Richard wants me to, I can find him the sources as well because they are there. So why not cut it out with the crap about how I don’t know anything and deal with the sad fact that I do know something but disagree with you.

Gotta tell you, Richard, compared to some of your guests, you’re a saint. ;)

You seem to think GA 194 is a big problem. Don’t you know that Israel voted for GA 194, basically written by the USA, 50+ years ago? (The Arabs voted against it, but thought better of it in a few months, and voted for GA 302 (or 03) forget the exact number, which passed unanimously, repeating the key paragraphs of 194.) Israel kept voting for such recapitulated versions of 194 for a long time. (I think there was one restatement it voted for or abstained on as late as the 90s!) If you’re talking about recognizing Israel, well, the Letters of Mutual Recognition (Oslo) of 1993 are what sane people point to. (after many years of PLO and Arab offers of recognition and peace in return for the 2 state solution, all refused by Israel. You could go to Wiki if you wanted some education on say, Oslo.

The actual author of the resolution was Hugh Foote, Lord Caradon. He said many times what he meant. As I said, you can find edited quotations from him in any of Bard’s propaganda crap books. Look up the references and see what he actually said!
This will have the effect to you of proving that these books are consciously deceitful propaganda crap, very useful, but only as a compendium of the usual lies. I have not come across a single non-blank page of Myths and Facts without an error.

Wikipedia articles are created by a long process of negotiation and checking by many editors. The ones I have contributed to are no exception.
If you take a look at the Wiki article you linked to, you will see that Israel officially accepted that the PLO changed its charter a long time ago, shown by copious, exhaustive links to Israeli government sites.
You will see a link to the new, modified text of the charter at a PA site - modified exactly as the US constitution is modified, by presenting the “original” , actually the modified 1968 version, and then the amendments anulling the offensive clauses.
What on earth more do you want?
Again I ask you - why do you think you have a right to disagree with the official position of the State of Israel?