Consider The Facts

[Coyote]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Facts are not necessarily "well documented" particularly with something as subjective as history. As they say - history is written by the victor, and it's the winner that controls the narrative. One good example is how the conflicts between indiginous Americans and American settlers were portrayed and how that narrative has changed. Or, how about the "happy slave" narrative?

Facts work in mathamatics. In history, where fiction and fact meld depending on who is narrating and interpreting? Not so much.

 

[Boston1]

But the fact remains that the restrictions placed against the Arab Muslims within the mandate area are so because of their own failure to halt the violence even after the war by any measure is lost.

They could have been living free and successful lives had they chosen to but instead they chose to commit one terrorist act after another. In which case Israel is OBLIGATED by international law to do something for the safety and wellbeing of its citizens, even if that means walling off some communities.

One must keep the cart behind the horse.

 

[MJB12741]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Facts are not necessarily "well documented" particularly with something as subjective as history. As they say - history is written by the victor, and it's the winner that controls the narrative. One good example is how the conflicts between indiginous Americans and American settlers were portrayed and how that narrative has changed. Or, how about the "happy slave" narrative?

Facts work in mathamatics. In history, where fiction and fact meld depending on who is narrating and interpreting? Not so much.

Truth cannot be verified as facts. Facts can be verified as truth.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Facts are not necessarily "well documented" particularly with something as subjective as history. As they say - history is written by the victor, and it's the winner that controls the narrative. One good example is how the conflicts between indiginous Americans and American settlers were portrayed and how that narrative has changed. Or, how about the "happy slave" narrative?

Facts work in mathamatics. In history, where fiction and fact meld depending on who is narrating and interpreting? Not so much.

Truth cannot be verified as facts. Facts can be verified as truth.

Could you verify when Israel legally acquired any land?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Right wingers tell their children you need to move the wealth of the nation to the rich because they will create jobs.

Right wingers tell their children education is for snobs. Or worse, it will make you vote Democrat.

Right wingers tell their children the president was born in Kenya.

Right wingers tell their children science is a faith.

Right wingers tell their children the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Right wingers tell their children vaccines are bad for you.

Right wingers tell their children Mexicans are rapists and black people are lazy.

Right wingers tell their children money comes from trickling rich people.

Right wingers believe all these things are true so they must be.

and intelligent people realize that they don't need to resort to such childish and stupid framing mechanisms.

The day you free yourself from this need to divide the world into left vs right will be the day you learn to understand it.

 

[Coyote]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Facts are not necessarily "well documented" particularly with something as subjective as history. As they say - history is written by the victor, and it's the winner that controls the narrative. One good example is how the conflicts between indiginous Americans and American settlers were portrayed and how that narrative has changed. Or, how about the "happy slave" narrative?

Facts work in mathamatics. In history, where fiction and fact meld depending on who is narrating and interpreting? Not so much.

Truth cannot be verified as facts. Facts can be verified as truth.

Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.

 

[Indeependent]

"Truth" is an enigma in the eye of the beholder. If a young child is taught that a square is round & you ask the child to tell the truth & the child replies a square is round, is he or she not telling the truth?

Facts however are documented. Let us consider the facts regarding the truth as to the Palestinians.

The Truth about the Palestinian People

Facts are not necessarily "well documented" particularly with something as subjective as history. As they say - history is written by the victor, and it's the winner that controls the narrative. One good example is how the conflicts between indiginous Americans and American settlers were portrayed and how that narrative has changed. Or, how about the "happy slave" narrative?

Facts work in mathamatics. In history, where fiction and fact meld depending on who is narrating and interpreting? Not so much.

Truth cannot be verified as facts. Facts can be verified as truth.

Could you verify when Israel legally acquired any land?

I believe you tore up that document.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.

Truth is truth. You only want it to be subjective when acknowledging it undermines your agenda.

 

[Coyote]

Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.

Truth is truth. You only want it to be subjective when acknowledging it undermines your agenda.

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

Truth is truth.

It may be common for the profoundly illiberal portion of the hard left to embrace relativism when out-debated, but that is merely a crutch used to avoid the truth.

The truth is is that Arabs began their campaigns of terrorism against Jews before the establishment of Israel, the truth is that they only identified as Arabs at that time, the truth is that many moved into the area as a result of the economic development Jews created, the truth is that approximately 700,000 left for various reasons when they attacked the fledgling State, and the truth is that soon thereafter, 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.

You simply select what you call truth and ignore anything that is true according to your extreme pro-Arab agenda.

 

[Coyote]

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

Truth is truth.

It may be common for the profoundly illiberal portion of the hard left to embrace relativism when out-debated, but that is merely a crutch used to avoid the truth.

The truth is is that Arabs began their campaigns of terrorism against Jews before the establishment of Israel, the truth is that they only identified as Arabs at that time, the truth is that many moved into the area as a result of the economic development Jews created, the truth is that approximately 700,000 left for various reasons when they attacked the fledgling State, and the truth is that soon thereafter, 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.

You simply select what you call truth and ignore anything that is true according to your extreme pro-Arab agenda.

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

 

[MJB12741]

Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.

Truth is truth. You only want it to be subjective when acknowledging it undermines your agenda.

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

There lies the problem. No claims can be verified by "truth" because as you yourself say, "truth is subjective." An enigmna in the eye of the beholder as stated in the OP.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

Truth is truth.

It may be common for the profoundly illiberal portion of the hard left to embrace relativism when out-debated, but that is merely a crutch used to avoid the truth.

The truth is is that Arabs began their campaigns of terrorism against Jews before the establishment of Israel, the truth is that they only identified as Arabs at that time, the truth is that many moved into the area as a result of the economic development Jews created, the truth is that approximately 700,000 left for various reasons when they attacked the fledgling State, and the truth is that soon thereafter, 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.

You simply select what you call truth and ignore anything that is true according to your extreme pro-Arab agenda.

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

I think it was all 3.

 

[MJB12741]

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

Truth is truth.

It may be common for the profoundly illiberal portion of the hard left to embrace relativism when out-debated, but that is merely a crutch used to avoid the truth.

The truth is is that Arabs began their campaigns of terrorism against Jews before the establishment of Israel, the truth is that they only identified as Arabs at that time, the truth is that many moved into the area as a result of the economic development Jews created, the truth is that approximately 700,000 left for various reasons when they attacked the fledgling State, and the truth is that soon thereafter, 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.

You simply select what you call truth and ignore anything that is true according to your extreme pro-Arab agenda.

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

Truth is truth.

It may be common for the profoundly illiberal portion of the hard left to embrace relativism when out-debated, but that is merely a crutch used to avoid the truth.

The truth is is that Arabs began their campaigns of terrorism against Jews before the establishment of Israel, the truth is that they only identified as Arabs at that time, the truth is that many moved into the area as a result of the economic development Jews created, the truth is that approximately 700,000 left for various reasons when they attacked the fledgling State, and the truth is that soon thereafter, 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands.

You simply select what you call truth and ignore anything that is true according to your extreme pro-Arab agenda.

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Truth can be fact only if it can be documented by verification. Here is an example? Anyone care to deny it?

In all of the Middle East, Israel is the only nation to protect the holy sites of all faiths & the rights of all to worship in them as they wish, even in Jerusalem.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented. Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.

 

[Boston1]

Sort of...but not when truth is subjective, such as who is occupying what or who has a right to where.

Truth is truth. You only want it to be subjective when acknowledging it undermines your agenda.

What is the truth when you have two people's claiming rights to the same territory? Who has a greater right - the one inhabiting it or the one who owns it?

And thats the funny part, thats not even remotely a truth or a fact.

You ask "who has the greater right - the one who ( is ) inhabiting it or the one who owns it".

We've seen a thousand times how Israel is well within its rights to everything west of the Jordan and we've seen how the Arab League declared war and attacked. We also know that the Zionists were peacefully buying land when they were attacked. So the elements of armed conflict come into play. In which case ownership is decided by force of arms. By 1967 that principal is still in effect. It wasn't until AFTER the war of 67 that the Arab dominated UN RETROACTIVELY made land acquisition in warfare illegal. Odd coincidence ?

Your assumption that the person inhabiting the land doesn't also own it is highly subjective as was the implication that there are rights involved.

When the Arabs declared war, all rights went out the window and ownership fell to the victor. Now while the international community didn't recognize Jordans claim the resident Arabs didn't complain. Yet when Jordan lost the area in 67 now all of a sudden the Arabs there are freaking out.

Rights, ownership or habitation really don't have anything to do with it. Clearly its racism and bigotry. The Arabs just can't handle Jewish neighbors.

 

[wrathbone]

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented. Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.

You enjoy splitting hairs with a sledgehammer, Dog?

 

[MJB12741]

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented. Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.

You enjoy splitting hairs with a sledgehammer, Dog?

There are no hairs being split with a sledgehammer here. You can only know what is truth through documented verifyable facts. I repeat ---. Here is an example? Anyone care to deny it?

In all of the Middle East, Israel is the only nation to protect the holy sites of all faiths & the rights of all to worship in them as they wish, even in Jerusalem.

 

[wrathbone]

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented. Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.

You enjoy splitting hairs with a sledgehammer, Dog?

There are no hairs being split with a sledgehammer here. You can only know what is truth through documented verifyable facts. I repeat ---. Here is an example? Anyone care to deny it?

In all of the Middle East, Israel is the only nation to protect the holy sites of all faiths & the rights of all to worship in them as they wish, even in Jerusalem.

I am a full supporter of Israel and their policies.

 

[wrathbone]

The extreme Islamic initiative is to destroy Western culture and infra-structure, bottom line. At some point we'll have to unleash the full might of our military in conjunction with Israel and a coalition super-army to combat and exterminate Islamic oppressors in the entire mid-east region. One million man standing army and complete annihilation of this Islamic extremist perspective... Anyone have a problem with that point of view?