Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd

[jefferiah]

The importance of there not being a Palestine is not something I am using as an argument in the whole issue. I am using it against the assertion that the land was stolen. The land was not stolen. There is a Palestine and an Israel. But there was no Palestine when the land was supposedly stolen from the "Palestinians".

You're not paying close attention. "Stolen" in this context is a rhetorical description for the imposition of an unwanted state over the objections of the region's inhabitants.

BTW, do you have any respones to the original questions of this topic? (See Post #1, above.)

The regions inhabitants were Jews as well. And they made up a lesser part of the population but they also got a lesser part of the land. The Jews themselves did not make the land division, they agreed to it. A small section of Palestine for a Jewish homeland. This was too much for the Muslims who have land everywhere.

The Jews are fair. Don't attack the Jews. Don't teach kids that Jews are all pigs. Don't bomb them and then cry poor me when they fight back. And there's your answer.

[Figleaf]

The importance of there not being a Palestine is not something I am using as an argument in the whole issue. I am using it against the assertion that the land was stolen. The land was not stolen. There is a Palestine and an Israel. But there was no Palestine when the land was supposedly stolen from the "Palestinians".

You're not paying close attention. "Stolen" in this context is a rhetorical description for the imposition of an unwanted state over the objections of the region's inhabitants.

BTW, do you have any respones to the original questions of this topic? (See Post #1, above.)

The regions inhabitants were Jews as well. And they made up a lesser part of the population but they also got a lesser part of the land.

1. Yes, there were Jews living in the region. A minority. The majority of residents were Arab, and opposed the division in principle.

2. The fact is that the Palestinians got NO land from the events of 1948.

Don't attack the Jews. Don't teach kids that Jews are all pigs. Don't bomb them and then cry poor me when they fight back. And there's your answer.

And what is your reply to the second question in my original post?

[jbg]

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd:

In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict --

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

Exactly what China and India are doing now. Accepting some boundaries of some kind as permanent boundaries, finding something they're economically good at and use the potent mixture of their intellectual potential and abundant UN and Arab money to become a tiger of the developing world. They should allow their people to become educated and prosperous.

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

Borders with Israel and other Arab countries as well-functioning as the US-Canadian border, and borders within the EU. That would give unfettered access to work opportunities in Israel as well as to holy sites. The US's "capitulation" to the Brits in not expanding their boundaries into southern Ontario to Fort York (now Toronto) has not done the US measurable damage.

To respond to a post below this top one, yes, this means capitulation, as far as surrendering dreams for explusion of Israelis.

[Catchme]

Scholars from Israel at the university of Haifa results from studying historical documents

The end of Palestinian presence in Palestine began not because few Jews fought against many Arabs, as the official Zionist version would have it, nor was it a miracle, as the mainstream Israeli historians tend to describe it. It was simply the outcome of a military advantage.

There also was the diplomatic battle over Palestine. In the official Israeli history this was another miraculous victory against all odds. The battlefield was the United Nations, to which the Palestine Mandate had been referred. The Zionist diplomats skillfully put forward the Jewish Holocaust in Europe in order to minimize the moral and political claims made by the Palestinian national movement or, as was more often the case, by the Arab states on behalf of the Palestinians.5

...Israel’s siege mentality fostered and perpetuated the myth of annihilation and is central to Israel’s collective memory of 1948. Yet it is clear that the international community was attuned to Israel’s point of view and prepared to act in its favor. One need only look at the pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian position of the two superpowers to conclude that at least diplomatically the Palestinians lost the battle over Palestine before one shot had been fired.

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=5

[jbg]

It's true. Back then nobody identified themselves as Palestinian.

Use of a particular word is not the issue.

The goal of "Palestinian liberation" took root after the "Arab refugees" generated sympathy but not support. They cashed in on the "indigenous" craze.

[Argus]

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd:

In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict --

1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do?

2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

Since you went to the trouble of specifically emailing me to ask my opinion:

You cannot have any kind of legitimate peace agreement or progress on statehood negotiations without some trust between the two parties.

There currently is NO trust between the two parties, with good reason on both sides.

Perhaps you would be better off asking what would entice Israel to into allowing an independent, untrustworthy, and extremely hostile state to set up next door. Or why they would negotiate with a government which says in its charter that even if Israel agreed to everything there would still be war until the Jews are gone from "ALL" of Palestine.

The only way to start is for the Palestinians to stop launching terrorist attacks on Israel. That's it. That's all. They have to stop killing and trying to kill Israelis. This will not lead to instant nirvana. There is too much hate in place. But Israel IS a free and democratic state. Absent the continual security threat, the injustices which the Palestinians live under will be brought to the fore again and again, by a very independent media, and the government will, over time, be forced to address them. Will that happen immediately? No. But the life of the Palestinians will get no better until it does happen.

It would also help, as others have mentioned, if the Palestinian government did not continue to preach hate against Jews and Israels through their official media, through schoolbooks, and through religious edicts. It would help if they did not teach their children from the time they were out of the cradle, that Jews are the great Satan and that so long as God is with the Palestinian people they will one day evict all Jews from greater Palestine.

[scribblet]

So, it seems like you recommend capitulation by the Palestinians, and the submersion and eradication of their cultural identity.

I recommend as I stated earlier (and as others have said) that they recognize Israel and its right to exist without living under threat of genocide; that they quit turning their kids into human bombs and generally quit murdering innocent Israelis; that they quit teaching that Israelis are 'apes and pigs' etc. etc. If by this, it means the submersion and eradication of their cultural identity (which actually is what?) then that would be a good thing, and maybe give their young people a chance at a decent life and a new and improved cultural identity.

It is very simple, if they do these things there would be peace and a good chance of statehood.

Personally I wonder if a Palestinian state could ever be anything other than the same old same same old, recent polls have shown that 80% of Palestinians approve of suicide bombings. Just think what that mind set would do with additional funding which could give them new and improved lethal powers. One thing that needs to happen is a better education system minus the teaching of hate and intolerance.

[Figleaf]

Thank you Argus, JBG and scriblett for your recent replies, but I must confess to a bit of frustration with them, in that they don't seem to address the main element I was hoping for. I asked, as you know, two questions: what should the Palestinian side do, and what should they expect to acheive from that course of action. Your answers to the first part of the question are more or less on point, but perhaps I have failed to pose the second question clearly.

I am asking, presuming Palestinians do as you suggest, what would that lead to for them in the context of their conflict with Israel? In this regard, I am hoping for a fairly specific response on various points, such as: Would they get a sovereign state of their own? Fully sovereign, or something less (e.g. security restraints)? How soon? What territory would it occupy? Would the right of return be recognized or some other redress substituted (or none)? What about water? Etc.

The reason I am asking this, particularly of Israel's boosters, is to investigate whether there is really anything in it for the Palestinians to give up their struggle. Some have already suggested that they should be rolled into existing Arab countries, or that Israel should be granted the entire territory, and it strikes me that those variations (apart from being contrary to the expressed intentions of the international community and the spirit of international law) are impractical in terms of inducing Palestinians to consider peace an option. That is to say, why should they stop their struggle if the envisioned outcome is purely negative or inadequately beneficial for them? Or put another way, do the Palestinians have a real 'partner for peace'?

[Black Dog]

Jeffieraiah:

The importance of there not being a Palestine is not something I am using as an argument in the whole issue. I am using it against the assertion that the land was stolen. The land was not stolen. There is a Palestine and an Israel. But there was no Palestine when the land was supposedly stolen from the "Palestinians".

Uh...whuh? First: the area was called Palestine before there was an Israel, so I wonder whhat you'd call the people living there during that period. Second, and more important: your argument makes no sense. Land was taken, occupied and expropriated without compensation (read: stolen) by individual Israelis (with the support of the Israeli state) from individual Arab residents. The non-existence of a Palestinian national identity at the time of these events does not mean these events did not transpire. At best, you're white-washing history. At worst, you're aplogizing for ethnic cleansing by denying the existence of victims.

Given how so many Israel apologists bang on and on about the need for Israel to be recognized, this dehumanizing denial carries with it the stench of hypocricy. And don't get me started on the numerous other logical errors you make, such as assigning responsibility for the actions of neighbouring Arab states to those individual Arabs residing in the Mandate at the time of partition.

Now to speak to the "well they left freely, so they aren't entitled to anything" nonsense. Looking at the second- and third-hand accounts you supply (where, btw, is the documentary evidence of the orders calling on all Arabs to leave?), the picture that emerges is very different from the one you are trying to paint. For example this:

“We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the “Catastrophe” [The establishment of Israel and the expulsion from the land in 1948]. They told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours.”

belies the allegation that the Arab exodus was conducted freely and willingly. Rather (and Morris's research supports this) the exodus was conducted under duress as a result of the fighting. IOW: the Arab population behaved exactly like any population caught in harm's way during an outbreak of heavy fighting: they got the hell out. The notion, then, that this not only absolves the conquerers from blame when it comes to looting the palce, but is also tantamount to giving consent to the looting, is simply ridiculous.

Scribblett:

Give the damn land back to Jordan and let them and the rest of the Arab states look after them, that is if they'll take it, and we know they are passing on that one.

So you acknowledge that Jordan (and presumably the other Arab states) doesn't want them, so why pout that forward at all?

You know, it's kinda funny/weird that the same people who howled like dogs when Canada spent money to bail out 7,000 Canadian citizens in Lebanon can turn around and expect other contries to throw open their borders to over a million people soley on the basis of ethnicity. The stench grows stronger.

jbg:

Exactly what China and India are doing now. Accepting some boundaries of some kind as permanent boundaries, finding something they're economically good at and use the potent mixture of their intellectual potential and abundant UN and Arab money to become a tiger of the developing world.

Question: has Israel ever agreed to any permanant definition of its boundaries?

[M.Dancer]

Morris is a revisionist historian along the lines of David Irving. Morris denies Israel's right to exists and shapes his analysis of events along those lines.

Interestingly, eye witnesses often disagree with Morris, he simply ignores them.

[Catchme]

Morris is a revisionist historian along the lines of David Irving. Morris denies Israel's right to exists and shapes his analysis of events along those lines.

Interestingly, eye witnesses often disagree with Morris, he simply ignores them.

Eye witnesses almost always disagree with each other.

Maybe history needs to be revised from the false Zionist account too?

The University of Haifa, in Israel, and a bunch of Israeli historians, after studying a huge amount of historical evidence think so.

To convey the nature of what these revisionist Israeli historians have done, I will sketch the historical picture as it emerges from their work and juxtapose it with the official version—a version still taught in Israeli schools and still rooted deeply in the collective memory of Jewish society in Israel.

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=4

[Black Dog]

Morris is a revisionist historian along the lines of David Irving. Morris denies Israel's right to exists and shapes his analysis of events along those lines.

Cite? I've heard Morris called a "self-hating anti-Zionist" without citation before. I know his views are in often in conflict with those of the Israeli academic establishment (which would, of course, have a vested interest in perpetuating a certain narrative). But given his support of "population transfer", I find it very difficult to believe that he is what you say he is. If anything, his biggest crime would seem to be that he challenges the official narrative and shows that , yes, bad things hapen in war time and that somethimes, even the "good guys" do bad things. If anything, Morris is, as far as I can tyell, a perfect example of what happens to those who threaten the "Israel good/Arabs bad" paradigm.

Also, maybe you can tell me: where is the documentary evidence showing that the Arab exodus was the result of orders issued by some nameless, shadowy Arab overlords, and not a localized reaction to the conflict itself (as the first-hand accounts sugest). Again: in war, people not involved in the conflict tend to get out of the conflict zone. Responsible authorities would encourage that as a way of mitigating the danger to civilian lives. Every war creates refugees. The fact that people leave their homes in war time is not news, nor should it be considered an excercise of free will. Frankly, the idea that almost 1 million people would pack up and leave their homes (some apparently without even turning the kettle off) en masse as a result of a preconcieved plan is completely perposterous.

Subquestion: why does Israel, alone among states, have a "right to exist". See, maybe I'm just naive, or maybe I'm corrupted by the taint of Diet Caffeine-Free Clear New AntiSemitism, but my undertsanding has always been that individuals have rights and that state's rights are merely extensions of individual rights (for example: a nations right of self-defence is merely an extension of the principle of the individual's right to security of the person). Shit, even people don't have the inherent right to existence. So what is up with that?

[Argus]

I am asking, presuming Palestinians do as you suggest, what would that lead to for them in the context of their conflict with Israel? In this regard, I am hoping for a fairly specific response on various points, such as: Would they get a sovereign state of their own? Fully sovereign, or something less (e.g. security restraints)? How soon? What territory would it occupy? Would the right of return be recognized or some other redress substituted (or none)? What about water? Etc.

I think the Israelis would love to be rid of the Palestinians. I think they're even more sick of them than the British were of the Northern Ireland folks in the eighties. Much more. Worse, demographics are against them, both inside and outside Israel. What they should be pulling for is a really successful Arab state right next door to which, perhaps, their own Arab population might be drawn as an alternative to living in a Jewish state. I think if their security considerations could be realized the Israelis would be doing their best to make Lebanon and Palestine into paradise on earth for Muslims.

Would it happen overnight? Hell, no. It's taken generations to get to this point of hatred and mistrust. You're not going to see the Israelis giving up on their suspicion and legitimate fear of what the Palestinians would do overnight. It will take many years. Martin Luther King, in his most famous speech, said "I may not get their with you, but we, as a people, will get to the promised land". Yes, I think the Palestinians will get their own state, but if it's going to be with Israel's cooperation they need to stop fighting Israel and enlisting it on their side. It IS, after all, in Israel's interest to have a stable state there, as opposed to another shit-hole full of suicidal religious wackos. The fact that when Israel pulled back and gave them limited autonomy they continued to rain rockets across the border certainly did little to produce enthusiasm for more autonomy in Israel. That would just allow the Palestinians to have bigger rockets.

But then, the Palestinians have never really acted in their own interests before. A peaceful struggle for dignity and human rights would have produced far better results than the Intifada. As it is, all they've wrought is death, hatred, and distrust. You tell me how continuing along that line is going to get them closer to their objective.

[Argus]

Give the damn land back to Jordan and let them and the rest of the Arab states look after them, that is if they'll take it, and we know they are passing on that one.

So you acknowledge that Jordan (and presumably the other Arab states) doesn't want them, so why pout that forward at all?

You know, it's kinda funny/weird that the same people who howled like dogs when Canada spent money to bail out 7,000 Canadian citizens in Lebanon can turn around and expect other contries to throw open their borders to over a million people soley on the basis of ethnicity. The stench grows stronger.

Why would you find it odd that Canadians questioned spending money to bail out faux Canadians who have demonstrated that they had no love for this country by abandoning it? What do we owe such people? Nothing.

On the other hand, the Jordanians and Palestinians are one people. They are the same people who have lived in the same area for many years prior to the establishment of the state called Jordan (the previous name for that area btw, was "Palestine". Why would they not want to unite with their brothers in present day Palestine, enlarge their state, and solve the middle east crisis all in one go? Haven't they been crying for decades about their tremendous sympathy for Palestinians and their anguish and anger at their mistreatment? Why would you think they would want nothing to do with this idea?

Let me put it another way. Can you imagine Canada keeping all those people in refugee camps on our border for generations even if they weren't as Canadian as we are?

[jbg]

I am asking, presuming Palestinians do as you suggest, what would that lead to for them in the context of their conflict with Israel?

The general answer I gave above still stands. For the convenience of the reader, I said:

Borders with Israel and other Arab countries as well-functioning as the US-Canadian border, and borders within the EU. That would give unfettered access to work opportunities in Israel as well as to holy sites. The US's "capitulation" to the Brits in not expanding their boundaries into southern Ontario to Fort York (now Toronto) has not done the US measurable damage.

In this regard, I am hoping for a fairly specific response on various points, such as:

Would they get a sovereign state of their own? Fully sovereign, or something less (e.g. security restraints)? How soon? What territory would it occupy?

The question of "full sovereignty" in the modern world is somewhat irrelevant. The US doesn't govern Canada, for example, but given the geography we each have more than opinions about what happens in the neignborhood. Unquestionably, for a time, there wuold be major security restraints. Unless the continued attempt to destroy Israel is legitimized, I cannot, for the life of me, see why they'd need an Army or any significant amount of weaponry. Newly "independent" African and Asian countries often quickly squandered their resources on arms, and now they're client states of the UN. I don't see why that should be permitted to recur. Since Israel would presumably be the victim, especially so.

As far as what territory it would occupy, presumably, Gaza, and the parts of the West Bank outside the security fence. There would be continued pockets of Israeli settlement.

Would the right of return be recognized or some other redress substituted (or none)? What about water? Etc.

The substitute redress would be some sort of financial settlement, with controls on how the money is spent.

As far as water, I am sure, with a certain amount of goodwill, the technicans can work that out.

[Figleaf]

In this regard, I am hoping for a fairly specific response on various points, such as:

Would they get a sovereign state of their own? Fully sovereign, or something less (e.g. security restraints)? How soon? What territory would it occupy?

The question of "full sovereignty" in the modern world is somewhat irrelevant. The US doesn't govern Canada, for example, but given the geography we each have more than opinions about what happens in the neignborhood.

Is that a 'no' on full sovereingty?

Unquestionably, for a time, there wuold be major security restraints. Unless the continued attempt to destroy Israel is legitimized, I cannot, for the life of me, see why they'd need an Army or any significant amount of weaponry. ...

As far as what territory it would occupy, presumably, Gaza, and the parts of the West Bank outside the security fence. There would be continued pockets of Israeli settlement. ...

The substitute redress [for the right of return] would be some sort of financial settlement, with controls on how the money is spent.

...

Interesting, but I think your formula builds in unavoidable stumbling blocks:

-whether they would 'need' armed forces is something states generally decide for themselves. Since the Palestinians are an injured party, presumably it would stick in their craws to be told they must be the ones to do without self-defence.

-the idea that Israel would get to keep lands it has illegally settled is contrary to the basic principles of international law, and so would be another sticking point, unless something valuable (eg. a Gaza-West Bank corridor) were offered.

-it seems rather presumptuous to propose to place restrictions on how compensation money should be spent.

[Black Dog]

Why would you find it odd that Canadians questioned spending money to bail out faux Canadians who have demonstrated that they had no love for this country by abandoning it? What do we owe such people? Nothing.

On the other hand, the Jordanians and Palestinians are one people.

What do the Jordanians owe the Palestinians? Nothing.

Why would they not want to unite with their brothers in present day Palestine, enlarge their state, and solve the middle east crisis all in one go? Haven't they been crying for decades about their tremendous sympathy for Palestinians and their anguish and anger at their mistreatment? Why would you think they would want nothing to do with this idea?

Yeah, who wouldn't want a million undereducated, underemployed new citizens in their country.

[jbg]

Interesting, but I think your formula builds in unavoidable stumbling blocks:

-whether they would 'need' armed forces is something states generally decide for themselves. Since the Palestinians are an injured party, presumably it would stick in their craws to be told they must be the ones to do without self-defence.

-it seems rather presumptuous to propose to place restrictions on how compensation money should be spent.

Remember, the land was conquered as part of a war started by the Arab side. It is quite common, after a defeat in war, that the conquering party ensures that the defeated party poses no further threat before restoring independence. Sometimes full independence is never restored, in the sense that the conquered countries, think Germany and Japan, are under treaty obligations (backed up by the presence of US and/or NATO bases) to limit the size and/or scope of the military. This is true with even greater force where the defeated country is making quite plain that it is not laying down its arms.

Same story with money. Why would Israel, as part of a financial settlement, consent to its suicide?

-the idea that Israel would get to keep lands it has illegally settled is contrary to the basic principles of international law, and so would be another sticking point, unless something valuable (eg. a Gaza-West Bank corridor) were offered.

Think Russia's holding of Kaliningrad (link) within Poland as an "exclave".

[scribblet]

Good points

"The unity government is also aimed at regaining Western recognition and aid, both of which disappeared when the Hamas-led government assumed power last year. But the West should not be fooled: The deal signed by the two groups in Mecca last week makes no mention of either recognition for Israel or a renunciation of violence against the Jewish state -- both of which properly have been red-line issues for the international community.

The Americans weren't fooled by this latest ploy. They have repeated their position that any Palestinian government that does not recognize Israel will be shunned. Wednesday's decision by Congress to block the transfer of US$86-million to Fatah security forces sends a clear message that should be echoed by Canada and the European Union.

The fundamental problem for Palestinians living in Gaza is not the Israelis, who are long gone, but their own leaders, who put enmity toward Jews ahead of the Palestinians' own welfare. Until that changes, the Palestinians will continue to suffer."

[Catchme]

-it seems rather presumptuous to propose to place restrictions on how compensation money should be spent.

Remember, the land was conquered as part of a war started by the Arab side. It is quite common, after a defeat in war, that the conquering party ensures that the defeated party poses no further threat before restoring independence.

Same story with money. Why would Israel, as part of a financial settlement, consent to its suicide?

-the idea that Israel would get to keep lands it has illegally settled is contrary to the basic principles of international law, and so would be another sticking point, unless something valuable (eg. a Gaza-West Bank corridor) were offered.

Think Russia's holding of Kaliningrad (link) within Poland as an "exclave".

No, please do not remember the land was conquered as a part of war, as records show this is NOT true!

Israel should have no say over compensation money or what Palestinians do, it is extremely arrogant for them, or anyone, to think they should.

So really you are saying Palestine should be an enclave.

[Remiel]

If a new Palestinian state were to have a restricted military, then who should be responsible for their nations security?

[Figleaf]

Interesting, but I think your formula builds in unavoidable stumbling blocks:

-whether they would 'need' armed forces is something states generally decide for themselves. Since the Palestinians are an injured party, presumably it would stick in their craws to be told they must be the ones to do without self-defence.

-it seems rather presumptuous to propose to place restrictions on how compensation money should be spent.

Remember, the land was conquered as part of a war started by the Arab side.

Look, it really does no good to stick to a docudrama script. It's so easily unravelled:

1-'started' by the Arab side presupposes that the declaration of the state of Israel was not a problematic action deemed a cause for war by the Arabs.

2-conquest of land is against international law and in this case specifically disallowed by the UN.

3-You can't lump the 'Arab side' together and use the actions of Arab states to disallow the rights of Palestinians.

It is quite common, after a defeat in war, that the conquering party ensures that the defeated party poses no further threat before restoring independence. Sometimes full independence is never restored, in the sense that the conquered countries, think Germany and Japan, are under treaty obligations (backed up by the presence of US and/or NATO bases) to limit the size and/or scope of the military. This is true with even greater force where the defeated country is making quite plain that it is not laying down its arms.

Okay there's the reasoning you explain to yourself. Now what makes it persuasive to the Palestinians from who peace is being demanded?

Same story with money. Why would Israel, as part of a financial settlement, consent to its suicide?

You've lost me. Suicide

-the idea that Israel would get to keep lands it has illegally settled is contrary to the basic principles of international law, and so would be another sticking point, unless something valuable (eg. a Gaza-West Bank corridor) were offered.

Think Russia's holding of Kaliningrad (link) within Poland as an "exclave".

And what should this tell me?

[M.Dancer]

Morris is a revisionist historian along the lines of David Irving. Morris denies Israel's right to exists and shapes his analysis of events along those lines.

Cite? I've heard Morris called a "self-hating anti-Zionist" without citation before. I know his views are in often in conflict with those of the Israeli academic establishment (which would, of course, have a vested interest in perpetuating a certain narrative). But given his support of "population transfer", I find it very difficult to believe that he is what you say he is.

Sorry, my memory was lacking. Yes Benny has an agenda, and it's palestine that he denies, and he;s trying to show how if it was okay then it's okay now.

Either way, he's no different than Irving

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1167467841906

[Black Dog]

Sorry, my memory was lacking. Yes Benny has an agenda, and it's palestine that he denies, and he;s trying to show how if it was okay then it's okay now.

Either way, he's no different than Irving

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1167467841906

So, basically, you're saying Morris's agenda is the opposite of what you said it was, but that he's still revising history in a way that reflects negatively on the Zionist enterprise? I would counter by saying it is the history which reflects negatively on the Zionist enterprise, not the man interpreting it. Indeed, if Morris is correct, then the real revisionists are those perpetuating the standrard narrative of Israel's immaculate conception.

But then, I really have no idea what you're getting at here.

[M.Dancer]

He is revising history to further his desire that israel become what the anti israel crowd says it already is.