Danielle,

It is quite clear that you are not prepared to discuss this matter on the basis of facts. My academic training does alert me to contextual biases but unlike the postmodernists I adopt propositions on their content alone. It is the facts that matter. Not their religious afffiliations, their skin colour, or their voting habits.

Evidentally you prefer to discriminate. We see this throughout your comments; rather than address a proposition, you condemn the source, or the individual, or their membership. A shameful array of argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad populum is all you are capable of - along with a heap of "Well if Israel is bad then country X is bad too", to whit the aphorism "Two wrongs don't make a right" is the appropriate response.

Yes, a case has been made for Australian apartheid. Saudi Arabia and Iran certainly fall into the category as well with the dhimmi status. But that is not the topic here, and nor does it excuse Israel when it also engages in comparable evil which you never condemn, only condone.

Lev,

Religion and race do influence reasearch by providing new insights either unknown before, or having been interpreted wrongly. These facts, too, have to be verified where-ever possible from as many sources as possible.

Validity of a person’s scholarship is supremely important; their findings are always open to challenge - but a challenge must be worthy and supportable. Chomsky was held in high regard in academia, but is increasingly being challenged and found wanting. His linguistics particularly are proving to be badly flawed.

Veracity of evidence is vital and always needs forensic analysis. Because an opinion appeals to a person’s views, it cannot be accepted as fact. Many scholars have held a strong opinion which has been destroyed by rigorous research - and they acknowledge it.

Doesn’t thesis, antithesis, synthesis ring a bell?

It doesn’t matter to you if your information comes from shonky places such as sensationalist media , poor scholarship (even no scholarship), hidden agendas, or prejudice. As long as the information fits your viewpoint, then it must be right ...

When you go rabbiting on about “marriage laws” being prejudicial in Israel, or benefits for returned soldiers, it is justifiable to point out that the same protocols are practiced in modern democracies elsewhere - and no-one gives a damn - let alone protests. Exacty then, what is your point?

Jewish Land: Prior to WWI, land was purchased from absentee landlords living in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. 80% of Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouin. Jews avoided where fellahin, working for rich Arab landlords, might be displaced. From prior WWI and 1944 onwards, land purchased was largely uncultivated, malarial swamps, or arid, or semi-arid, and without tenants - and often at inflated prices $1000 - $1,100 per acre ( rich black soil in Iowa, $110 per acre).

A few refs:

John Hope Simpson Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development (1930)

Report on Agricultural Development and Land Settlement in Palestine by Lewis French (1931), Supplementary Report, 1932, and further material submitted to the Palestinian Royal Çommission.

Palestinian Royal Commission Report (the Peel Report) (1937)

cont ...

“Land ownership in Palestine 1880-1948” (Jerusalem: Academic Committee on the Middle East), (1976).

Transjordan’s King Abdallah in his “My Memoirs Completed” (London, Longman, 1978), pp.88-89:

“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping”.

OLO writers have provided details of UN resolutions, international law, and other solid, verifyable facts from informed, disinterested sources. But, these don’t mean a thing do they? Just ignore them. What exact facts have you cited to support your claims?

No-one has said Israel is perfect. There are problems, especially social ones, and there will continue to be problems as long as Israel is under siege, and in danger of having to fight a war. Being under constant threat, NECESSSARILY creates a different climate. I witnessed 7 years ot it during the communist emergency in Malaya. It wasn’t fun, fair, or even equitable, for anyone - including Europeans. At least give the Israeli government credit for what it has achieved and provides under such difficult circumstances and with the need for national security.

Others and myself support the idea that settlers be removed from Palestinian territory ... A survey taken in the Palestinian territory found that the majority wanted a separate state and peace with Israel. Both sides long for it ... Palestinians are under daily fear from warring factions. The latter is what needs to be addressed.

A one state solution would mean expansion of what is occurring in the Palestinian territory now.

My opinion was that whilst you are strong on hyerbole, ignore facts, and reality - (the current humanitarian disaster above) -your heart was in the right place, and you had passion. But after your last OLO, it is obvious that you will be vunerable to any charlatan, petty dictator, or other social calamity, that says the right words in the right sequence. Never mind what his/her hidden agenda may be. It is the words that count. Right ... ?!

Danielle,

Once again your comments suggest parody. Are you a troll?

Chomsky's theories of generative and transformative grammar and automata theory have largely stood the test of time. There is an interesting possible counter-example of the Pirahã, however current indications is that the difference is conceptual rather grammatical which accords to Chomsky's theories.

I am not sure what you are trying to illustrate with Jewish purchase of land of Palestine. From the very start of this discussion I made it quite clear that the region of Palestine is a Jewish homeland (as it is also for Muslims and Christians), which would mean that Jews are fully entitled to purchase land and live in Palestine.

Paul claimed in an earlier discussion that Hamas, Fatah and the PA were in breach of a "large number of UN resolution". When I asked him to cite them, he could not. Here is the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

As pointed out previously:

"It is a demonstrable falsehood to claim that all Israeli's have the same legal rights. They do not have the same rights to land. They do not have the same rights under the law of entry. They do not have the same rights to acquire citizenship. They do not even have the same marriage laws. As you correctly recognise, yes there is also discrimination in the military service law. So any claim of equality is either through ignorance or a deliberate lie; I certainly hope you are engaging in the former."

Everything mentioned above is a confirmed fact, which even you have agreed with - however you don't seem to consider these facts to be evidence of discrimination. Which leads to ...

Having read your posts in detail, I am convinced of a third option to either ignorance or wilful lying; that you look at discrimination and sincerely believe that it is fair. You seem to suffer from neurological cognitive dissonance. It is quite possible that you cannot even recognise discrimination. In which case, discussing the matter with you is quite pointless.

Poor, poor Lev,

Regarding Chomsky, seek an academic linguist about current research before you rush into print. Peter Gordon’s Pirahã research...! Way, way down on the scale of dismantling Chomsky’s theories. TGG (or is it now ML), whilst not entirely a fraud is definitely inept linguistics - a kind of Dr Feel-Good approach - yet Chomsky has been said to write in ways “"to create a kind of pseudo-academic smog" - hardly expected from any linguist. MT are having problems with his theories.

Chomsky, made the following comment - undoubtedly heartening to those studying languages.

“I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible --- he speaking French, me English)”
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

Multilingual speakers, especially those who speak traditional Asian languages,
find him flawed. By his hypothesis, the Chinese would not comply with the attributes of being human.

Chomsky ignores language physiolology, culture, linguistic history, even language teachers - indeed the physicality that accompanies some languages. He is the ultimate minimalist.

Chomsky’s “UG” is hardly new. Roger Bacon:

`Grammatica una et eadem est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter varietur.'

[Grammar is one and the same following substance in all languages, although it may vary in its specifics]

... even further back, Aristotle:

As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily signs, are the same for the whole of mankind....With these points, however, I have dealt in my treatise concerning the soul...—On Interpretation, I (Peri Hermeneias, translated by Harold P. Cooke)

Chomsky compares with medieval churchmen, whose logic was based on their faith and superstition ... and who condemned Galileo.

cont ...

Widen your research to advances in cognitive psychology. anthropological linguistics, and neuroscience. Visit Lakoff, Saussure, Hjelmslev, Uldall, Bloomfield, and Mounin. Check journals such as ATA Chronicle, LACUS papers, and definitely science.

The hypothesis underlying Kenneth E Iverson’s, (APL programming language) Turing award lecture, "Notation as a tool of thought”, was based on that of Sapir-Whorf.

The uproar about Chomsky’s support of Faurisson, the Holocaust denier, was less about freedom of speech, than writing the preface for one of his books. I don’t think it is his linguist theories that attract you - it is about Chomsky being anti-Israel, nicely fitting your agenda.

The composition of the UN. Where are the UN resolutions about the Darfur conflict or Somalia ... or constant rocket attacks into Israel? Doubtless you won’t see the significance.

You determinedly resist the current issue of Palestinian problems. These would be central to any proposal of dismantling Israel and making the whole area one.

You comment: “I am theologically closest to Judiasm than any other mainstream religion.” Surely this isn’t meant to be a tentative aside to add credibility to your views? I am neither a Zionist, an Israeli, nor even a Jew.

Don’t delve into neurscience without understanding it. I think you were scratching for the term “confirmation bias”. It has been repeatedly confirmed I don’t suffer from it at all. But do become familiar with this pathology, as many, many are going to identify you as a classic study.

Paul’s scholarship is formidable, with his “steel-trap” mind, and relentless logic, you wouldn’t win any debate against him. He wouldn’t hesitate to bounce me ...

I sincerely hope your postgrad work involves technology; you certainly would be pushing it to pass on any studies involving humanities.

You have identified me as an emotional, lying, amoral troll, with neurological problems, and given to parody. Obviously I am too dotty and deluded to enter into any debate ... even with those of the meanest intelligence. It must make you feel so kind as to have deigned to respond to my OLO at all ...

Our discussion ends.