So, the land was uninhabited?

Nice to see that in order for me to be "wrong", people have to lie. And I mean that in the plural, of course.

Do produce a quote from me saying any of this - I defy anyone, & everyone, to do so.

And again, you lie. I never said you quoted me. In fact, I demanded that you do so, knowing full well that you could not. It is the fact that you lied about what I said instead of quoting me that is the problem - yours. All the rest of your pathetic attempt to bully me with inane insults only proves your utter lack of facts and even a point.

Let's see how much I can dumb this down. When you state implicitly that someone said something, it is a quote whether you pretend it is or not. And for you to then pretend that words you put in my mouth have "an implication" beyond what you infer is just plain sick, as well as pretending that I'm the one "playing word games.
You obviously need attention - psychiatric attention.
I only came back after I got word that someone had shown up to "fight my battles for me". No one has to do that for me - i can stomp cockroaches with the best of them.

Your desperation is showing.
You put words in my mouth and you know it.
Your denial of this is why you need help -
I am glad you are getting it.

Having trouble expressing yourself?
How many times are you going to repeat yourself?

You might want to mention to your therapist just how many times you insist you get to pretend you can tell other people what they are saying, in defiance of recorded facts.

Incidentally, it's none of your business how I find out anything.

Yes, cockroaches. The lies you tell need stomping.

All right, enough's enough. It's been 10 days since my initial post and _all_ of you have gone into "No, _you're_ a stupidhead!" level of comments that don't even bother to mention the topic of the post except in vaguest passing.

Yes, I know someone is wrong on the Internet (http://xkcd.com/386/) but it's time to walk away.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to police these replies but all of you are straining my patience.

Yes. I've always had trouble expressing myself. That's why I edit. Why do you ask?

Because if you just told the truth, you wouldn’t have to think about what you were saying.

I mean, do you only read unedited books?

When was the last time you read more than 1 version of the same book? “Edit” does not mean “re-publish every time you change your mind when you say something.” You might want to think first before you post. That would clear up a lot of your problems. And a great many of your posts.

You might want to mention to your therapist just how many times you insist you get to pretend you can tell other people what they are saying, in defiance of recorded facts.

Funnily enough, I showed my therapist a transcript of this conversation, and she asked me why I thought this conversation, or even your validation whatsoever, was supposed to be a material concern for me at all.

But what did she have to say about your insistence on putting words into my mouth? Or your lies? If you seriously have a therapist and this was all she said, I’d get a new one, if I were you.

Which is a good point: why do I need your validation? You're an ideologue from the internet and my only acquaintance with you has been this conversation.

Funnily enough, my friends say almost the same about you – but the word “ideologue” never entered into it on your behalf, & they all understand how important truth is to me.

Pound for pound, lies are the most dangerous weapon in the world. Anyone can make one up – and, if allowed to progress far enough, they can get people killed. In this case, people that you say you care about.

Which is important, because I don't actually want your validation.

Really? And here I thought you were trying so hard to earn it with your lies and sad word games!

I've only re-engaged you since you jump-started your indignant act

I understand your need to pretend that I am the false one here, that I’m “acting” – after all, for it to be otherwise means that you did, indeed, give me a reason to be indignant – such as lying about what I had to say. Or, previously, acting as tho’ you knew what was going on in the ME when you clearly do not.

because your statements are hilariously absurd and make for convenient amusement on my part; for the lulz, in other words.

My, my. I do hope you’ve managed to convince yourself with all that protestation. All you’ve done on this end is show that, again, you can’t back up your statements (because you provide no proof or refutation, which you would if you could), and that you admit to trolling. This last certainly makes sense, and would explain the ridiculous nature of your lies & the ludicrous attempts you to which you go to sidestep those lies.

Incidentally, it's none of your business how I find out anything.

Yes, how dare I ask for corroboration of statements you've made.

Yes, considering you refuse to do anything of the sort, how dared you indeed? And, given the way you make viciously false statements about people who dare to point out your falsehoods, the last thing I am going to do is point someone out as the source of my information.

Or, to put it another way, when anything I say actually has anything to do with you – such as if & when I lie about you, as you did me - then you can demand to know who said what. But the information I received did not concern you at all – it concerned me & the person to whom it referred. You might also want to mention this overweening self-centeredness to your therapist as well.

I didn't call you a liar, now, did I?

It would be beyond hypocrisy for you to do so, yes.

Yes, cockroaches. The lies you tell need stomping.

Yup yup. I'm totally sure you didn't have genocidal intentions with that statement.

Good, I am glad that you finally admit what a liar you are when you pretend that I ever had any sort of those thoughts. Thank you.

I mean, indigenous Arabs (and God forbid I refer to them by the region they collectively inhabit)

No, they would be very upset for you to call them Israelis. That’s the heart of the problem: had they accepted the government the administrators of the land had given it, or, better yet accepted the part they were given (after the bulk of it had been given to King Abdullah), instead of abandoning the land & then stepping aside for their brethren top kill all the Jews, & then whining when the whole plan failed & resorting to terrorism instead of just getting on with their lives –we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

seem pretty disposable to you,

Which comment brings us back to the other problem you have: that of putting words (thoughts/ideas) into other people’s mouths.

If you still want to insist that you didn’t quote me because your way of doing so didn’t fit a narrow definition of the word, then I suggest that you never work for a newspaper. Had you tried that stunt in print, you would be legally liable. Even in so informal a setting as LJ, had anyone who actually mattered found your mis-quote of me, and my life subsequently suffered accordingly, you would also be liable, as if you had followed to the letter your narrow specifications of quoting.

As it is, to address your previous question as to why you would want to quote me - no, I guess you wouldn’t want to do just that – because that would expose you for the liar you are. You know that I said nothing like what you wish (for sick reasons known only to you), and for you to have had to find a quote to bolster that lie would force even you to acknowledge it.

As to your subsequent contention that anything I said implied what you put in my mouth, I have to say that this is an even more dangerous road for you to go down, as it therefore more than gives me leave to say that you support terrorists and seek the destruction of Jews everywhere. You wanna play the game of “implication?” Fine.

why not everybody else?

It is everyone else who considers them disposable. That is why they refuse to live up to the obligations they incurred when the Arab Higher Committee invited the Arabs out of Israel so they could kill all the Jews for them. It’s preferable to them to portray these people as victims of Jews rather than victims of Arab nationalism.

Lack of refutation noted.

Again.

The fact is that giving them even the littlest bit of what they say they want only results in more terrorism. After Oslo, more Israelis were killed than in the five years preceding. After they were given Gaza for nothing, the first thing they did was dismantle the greenhouse they were also given & use the scrap to construct rockets which they continually send over into Jewish cities. The only thing that has worked to lower terrorism has been the security fence.

I do see it from the other side – but not in the same way you do. You see them as innocents put upon by evil invaders. I see the bulk of them as the victims of their own leaders – or, more cruelly, the victims of their own hatred. They have, from the very beginning, thrown away the chance to get what they say they want, all because they really just want to kill Jews (not just Israelis – they have killed over 2 dozen Americans in the past few years). They had more chances than any group in history to have what they say they want – and their leaders have rejected it every time, either outright, or by their actions. And the people have let them get away with it. Why do they, of all people, get to be the ones the rest of the world has to protect from their own actions?

What will end the conflict is what I have said before that you have ignored. But I’ll expand on it to make sure you do not miss it: everyone had to look past the propaganda and those directly responsible have to stop the terrorism. If they got on with their lives, there would never be any trouble whatsoever.

And you have the nerve to call ME a riot?
POWER is what makes Israel wrong? Being stronger than her neighbors?
And you're absolutely serious, aren't you?
I guess this makes the US the most evil nation on the planet, then!

Also, my points were NOT as you said.
Yes, there was never a country called "Palestine."
But no, it was never a British Colony.
It was being administered by the British.
it was never administered by the Turks - it was owned by them. It was the fall of the Ottoman Empire that put the territory - which no one wanted - in the hands of the British.

I know what the crucial difference between Mexicans now & Spaniards long ago. It's rather irrelevent, since neither are in the position the Jews were in '48. And when you admit what that precise position was, you will rebut the false notion you raise, all by yourself.