Israel Under Attack: Does Anyone Care?

I see you also lack comprehension of the English language. Knew it, but you continue to enforce it.

Under international law, Israel has no right to designate any part of the West Bank as a military zone because this, like settlement building, is not permitted on occupied land, despite the inventive efforts of government-appointed Israeli legal experts to argue away the existence of the occupation and frame it as little more than a Palestinian preoccupation. link to www.haaretz.com

Try this, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story416.html

Here's the crux of that offer,
Quote:

. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

It is so funny that you would write such utter rubbish based on a highly-biased Pal website that doesn't make good sense.

Why should I challenge? It is just a baseless assertion.

The website's origin notwithstanding, the details presented about the 'deal' are absolutely correct: it was carefully constructed to be perfectly unacceptable to the other side.

Cycloptichorn

Article/book #: 109256
Title: The Palestinian Exodus in 1948
By: Steven A. Glazer
Published in: Journal of Palestine Studies (JPS), volume 9, issue 4, pages 96 to 118
Date of issue: 1980


Cross-reference(s):
Refers to this book, by Rony Gabbay
Refers to this article, by Erskine Childers in The Spectator
Commentary

Abstract:


I am inclined to prefer Childers [research] because the sources he cites would have reached the masses, who would then react accordingly. Radio was the most widely used form of communication, and the "horror recordings" were broadcast on the scene. Gabbay's evidence, newspapers and UN documents, were designed for outside consumption, by diplomats and politicians abroad and by the educated and influential Arab decision makers. This is not the kind of material which would necessarily have been in the hands of the common Palestinian. Thus I believe that Childers' contention, claiming that Zionist provocation had more to do with causing the exodus than backfiring atrocity propaganda, is borne out.

You call that a "negative?" LOL, you really are dumb!