Arctish
Centimillionaire
Oh. Sorry about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus
Did you read the one from Yeshiva University?
-
Features
The Palestinians And The Mid East
- Thread starter steve_bank
- Start date
Oh. Sorry about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus
Did you read the one from Yeshiva University?
Wikipedia is not a credible source in this case.
arkirk
Veteran Member
AND YOU ARE? WOW! Wikipedia has its problems but you...well we have seen your problem is just plain prejudice, unjustified and always with a kind of informal "well, I reckon" attitude. Wikipedia does have useful information if you are smart enough to know how to use it.
On politically sensitive issues you can count on Wikipedia to take the leftist position, right or wrong.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
I know that you feel that way, which is why I called a good place to start.
You can google the quoted text to find the original articles and books. You can find out more about the authors. You can do your own research into the incidents and events they describe. You might even consider looking around for that IDF report. Most importantly, you can learn something and that's always good.
Did you read the article from Yeshiva University?
arkirk
Veteran Member
Loren doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. I do speak definitely from the left, but there are many issues in Wikipedia where people are seeking useful information that has no left or right orientation...things that tell us important information like statistics and historic dates and geographical information much of which is NOT CONTROVERSIAL. They are good enough to include controversy when it is warranted. But if you do not research their sources which are frequently quoted, you really have no business criticizing it.
The basic problem with Wikipedia is that it goes with the number of supporters of a position far more than the accuracy of the position.
Things like historic dates are going to be accurate--but they can still be cherry-picked to give a false impression.
Lets take a simple example of how things can be biased while remaining factual. There's a subterfuge commonly used by the Arabs when addressing the Palestinian issue of referring to UN resolution 194 rather than the right of return. I was reading an article that had links behind all the other UN resolutions mentioned but not to 194. It was no big deal to add it, it should have been utterly non-controversial as I wasn't changing a word of the text. It was promptly reverted--it's not supposed to be easy to figure out they're actually calling for the destruction of Israel by demographic means.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Your comments about Wikipedia would probably make for a decent OP in another thread but in this one they look like an attempt to evade the issue under discussion.
Did you read the article from Yeshiva University?
Did you read the article from Yeshiva University?
untermensche
Contributor
His comments about Wikipedia are convenient nonsense when he is cornered by facts his faith will not allow him to accept.
Once one justifies the illegal taking of land, the throwing of people off land and taking it, in violation of UN Resolutions, you have lost the ability to speak on any moral issue.
He only condemn Palestinian crimes. All Israeli crimes are justified. No matter how contorted the justification.
Decades of illegal blockades and oppression don't exist. All the kidnappings and torture and murder does not exist, or it is all justified somehow. All the killing of civilians on the streets is justified.
And when you look world-wide it is a strange phenomena.
Outside of Israel you only find these delusions to any extent in the US.
Israel's partner in crime.