Its amazing that the comments are an empty wilderness without any serious Jewish responses. Even the the defender’s of Israel seem just to be apologists!

The fact is that there is a real war about the land of Israel going on. These scuffles are just symptoms. The question is whose land is it? Is it Jewish land given by our G-d to us or is it Arab land?

The ‘picnicers’ are intend on having Israel, our land, given to our enemies the same enemies with nazi carricatures of Jews in their schoolbooks who cheer Ahmadinejad.

The Jewish army should protect Jews in Israel and support our rights to Israel. They should not support these ‘picnicers’ and their agenda of taking our country away from us.

That is the way to look at it – don’t ignore the fundamental fight and focus on irrelevant details.

- led with ad-hominem attacks of those who disagree with them

-boldly claimed that there’s “lots” of evidence from impartial sources like court cases – and then not produced anything but agenda-driven reports by biased NGOs

-ruffled their self-righteous feathers when this is pointed out

-derailed the discussion with a distraction about what constitutes a “reliable source” – as if there ever was any doubt that Peace Now has a clear agenda, and has been caught bending facts before.

-covered their retreat with more ad-hominem attacks.

In other words – the same old pattern of PC pseudo-fact and self-righteous umbrage.

We could be discussing Obama or global warming. It’s always the same moves:

Narcissistic condescension
Leading to
verbal violence against “apostates”
Covered by
misdirection and personalization of the issue.

HEY YOAV YOU FATHEAD – we’re still waiting for all those court cases. The Justice Ministry archive is online.

Don’t worry, mameleh – I can read Hebrew.

jewlicious.com...

jewlicious.com...

Here’s one with a bias:

jewlicious.com...

What about you David S., what have you written lately and where do you get your information?

I don’t know why you expect me to name names. I generally go to original sources and try to learn from them whatever I can. I try to find sections of history books and glean what I can from several sources so that I can build my own theory of what happened. Likewise with international law, UN resolutions, etc. When it’s things like the number of dead Palestinians who are combatants, I trust nobody and often find my number in the center of the two sides’ difference.

If I’m reading a historian, I try to figure out why he’s saying what he’s saying. Is it conjecture, is it bias, is it well sourced, etc. I try to read what others say about this issue and form my opinion. Do I want Avi Shlaim to define Jabotinsky for me or can I find Jabotinsky’s own writing somewhere to shed light on the question. What do other researchers read into Jabotinsky in contrast with Shlaim? What actually happened, regardless of how Jabotinsky is defined?

I really like Michael Oren. I like the Jerusalem Post. I like Haaretz when it’s not Gideon Levy or Amira Hass. I like MEMRI videos because I can see the person say what he says. I like Khalil Shikaki and his surveys. I like MEForum because they often have accurate rporting or access to original documents.

As for my own biases and agenda, I battle with myself all the time not to let them get in the way of my information gathering. I’m sure they influence my conclusions to some degree but I always try to be accurate or at least have integrity in my reporting and in the views I express. I also try to be consistent and fight with myself when my opinions change to understand why.

Unlike CAMERA or B’Tzelem, I am not out there raising funds or drumming up support. I don’t get influenced by Palestinian or Jewish advocates who make up my “supporters,” etc. So I have nobody to answer to and I believe my writing reflects that. I DO read both B’Tzelem and CAMERA, however, believing that each is important in its own way and understanding how they view a topic may be educational or useful for me.

Frankly, no. You didn’t answer the question. At all.

Now, I’m not going to presume as much as Xisnotx does – i.e., that you regard CAMERA as lacking in either bias or an agenda – but that does, indeed, go to the crux of the matter. Do you, in fact, regard CAMERA as being any less biased or agenda-driven then Peace Now or B’Tselem? Do you, for that matter, regard yourself as being any less biased and agenda-driven?

The point, once again, is that every single time you reject the views of those you categorize as “extreme leftists” in some form or other, it rests on the assertion of “bias” (or even, as here, “inherent bias”) on their part, or the part of the sources they cite. Accordingly, let me ask you once again: which are the sources of information about Israel – (in other words, NAME THEM) – that someone can rely upon to form an opinion about the Arab-Israeli dispute that are free from the biases and agendas you consistently attribute to those you characterize as extremists?

By the way, I have not repeatedly “denounced” Peace Now in the past, that statement would apply to B’Tselem. With Peace Now, I tend to advocate some caution with their reports unless they are targeting issues related to the territories where I do believe their agenda blinds them.

I suspect that the only time I trust a report that comes out about that region is either when it comes from an independent commission appointed WITHOUT wheeling and dealing by Israel itself (in other words, the commission that investigated Sabra and Shatila passes and the commission that investigated Lebanon II does not) or its judiciary and when the report that I am reading or academic article provides the primary sources I require to double-check their assertions and their context. Thus, for example, I trust Michael Oren almost implicitly because I find that it is hard for me to find ways to challenge the information he provides, but I shake my head at some of the sourcing and context, not to mention conclusions of Walt & Mearsheimer.

Is that substantial enough for you, David?

In addressing Yoav, you made a couple of statements I’m extremely curious about. Specifically, you state that,

“You can provide us with all the links you want in any language but please try not to provide only links to groups with an inherent bias.”

First, which are the groups you suggest linking to that have no “inherent bias,” as opposed to Peace Now, B’Tzelem, and the many other comparable groups whose bias you’ve denounced repeatedly in the past?

Also, what distinguishes the groups that are “biased” from those that aren’t? (And, likewise, those that have an “agenda” from those that don’t.) Does the distinction rest on something more substantial than the difference between those groups you agree with and those you reject?

Why are we enhancing his credibility after that fiasco?

Joseph and his cohort Max Blumenthal only create more hatred from a group of ppl (Mondolies reader type) who already think we are savages for loving the State of Israel. There is no balanced debate amongst there crowd.

I know of your dedication to the IDF/Israel I wasn’t questioning any of that, or even letting Dana guest post. I was simply stating that I don’t think he is good for Jews.

they are doing their jobs and it looks like he is attacking the state for having him do that job.

CK you are a few days behind Mondolies on both these posts.

Yoav, instead of calling people names you will find that we have an educated, sophisticated group of skeptical people here. You can provide us with all the links you want in any language but please try not to provide only links to groups with an inherent bias. Just as I wouldn’t blindly trust a source from Yesha, I also don’t blindly trust B’Tzelem or Peace Now. Agendas have a way of misdirecting facts to suit their objectives.

1. I hadn’t had a chance to look at your link before you decided that I was debating Peace Now or the PMO.

2. You claimed you had supreme court decisions – this is the 343 page interim Sasson Report, not a Supreme Court decision.

3. The Sasson report is about outposts overall – yet, I did not say anything about outposts in general, only about the process in which land becomes “state land.”

I did not read it word for word, of course, but here is what is relevant, and does not contradict what I said:

קרקעות שהן אדמות מדינה – הכוונה לקרקעות שהן רכוש ממשלתי הידועות בשם אדמות מדינה.
מדובר בקרקעות שנרשמו על שם ירדן או רשות מרשויותיה בתקופת השלטון הירדני באיו”ש. בנוסף
לקרקעות אלה יש להכליל במינוח “קרקעות מדינה” גם את אלה:
קרקע שהוכרזה כאדמות מדינה בתקופת השליטה הישראלית באיו”ש; וכן קרקעות שנוהלו על ידי
האפוטרופוס הירדני לנכסי אוייב, כמו אדמות יהודים.
“אדמות יהודים” – קרקעות שנרכשו לפני שנת 1948 על ידי מי שהפכו לישראלים לאחר הקמת
המדינה, ובשנים 1948 עד 1967 הן נוהלו על ידי האפוטרופוס הירדני לנכסי אוייב. בשנת 1967 הן
עברו לניהול הממונה על הרכוש הנטוש. מבחינת תחיקת הביטחון הן נחשבות כרכוש ממשלתי. קרי – הן
נחשבות אדמות מדינה.
קרקעות נוספות שלצורך ההתיישבות הישראלית באיו”ש מתייחסים אליהן כקרקע שניתן להקים עליה
התיישבות ישראלית, בדומה לקרקעות מדינה:
קרקעות שבעליהן ביקש מהממונה על הרכוש הממשלתי והנטוש לנהלן, והוא הסכים לעשות כן;

Does it say anything there about abandoned land “grabbed” by the state? No. If the report does – find that quote, and don’t link to another few hundred pages.

So you sent me to read a 343pp report on something other than what I commented on. Nice. Find a Supreme Court case, like you said you had – and I’ll look it. Continue to enjoy your seeping hatred.