Abbas demands final status talks or nothing as he heads to Egypt summit
Well, well, well.
It seems Abbas has not learned the rules. Bush and Rice have lauded him as "the President of all the Palestinians" and Olmert has let it be known that he is anxious to have talks with him. Of course, this is a dreadful nonsense, Olmert has no intention of holding talks about anything more meaningful than "Palestinian terrorism", he certainly doesn't have any plans to talk about borders or of Israel handing back land.
Indeed, he stated recently that he wanted to see Abbas form a "credible and serious administration", which I certainly took to be an administration that knew it's place. And now Abbas makes his first demand:
It's like no-one has told Abbas that he has just performed a US/Israeli backed coup against the democratically elected government chosen by the people of Palestine. I doubt his new masters will appreciate this biting of the hand that feeds him, especially as they are backing him at a time when the UN refuses to accept this US/Israeli version of events thanks to the objections of Russia, South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar.Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, is demanding that next Monday's scheduled summit with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, contains a discussion over "final status" talks on a future Palestinian state, Palestinian officials said yesterday.
The two leaders are scheduled to meet in Sharm el Sheikh on Monday at an Arab-Israel summit designed to boost the Western-backed strategy of shoring-up Mr Abbas in the West Bank while isolating Hamas in Gaza.
Mr Abbas is reportedly insisting that the summit, hosted by Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, will be fruitless if it does not set in train a process aimed at a final resolution of the key issues in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said: "We need to deliver the end of occupation, a Palestinian state. If we don't have hope, Hamas will export despair to the people."
UN sources in New York said that these countries' governments object to the anti-Hamas policy and to American and European efforts to isolate the group as a terror organization. They said that Russia and South Africa have questioned the legitimacy of the Palestinian emergency government and argued that a Palestinian unity government is not only still possible, but would be preferable to the emergency government headed by Fayad, which has authority in the West Bank only.
The South African ambassador argued that the international community, especially the U.S., Israel and the Quartet, are to blame for the situation in the Gaza Strip.
So the USraelis are backing Abbas against international opposition... and he chooses this as the moment to make his demands?
Frankly, despite my misgivings towards his administration's legitimacy, I happen to think Abbas has a point. Why, with events in Palestine in such flux, would there be any point in holding yet another useless meeting where nothing of any import is decided? But I hardly think that this point is going to go down well in either Washington or Tel Aviv.
The Israelis are prepared to release the tax funds that they have been illegally withholding from the PA in "a gesture of goodwill" towards him, but I rather suspect that's as far as they are prepared to go. They certainly have no intentions of holding final status negotiations with him. Israel and the US would much rather hold talks about whether to hold talks. They certainly don't want to decide anything or do something as rash as establishing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.Where the Hell did Abbas get that idea?
No, no, no. Israel would much rather ask Abbas to carry out a number of unachievable tasks before any such talks can usefully take place.
The implication is that Israel might be prepared to curb raids aimed at hunting militants in the West Bank and pull back its troops if Mr Abbas and his Fatah-dominated forces - perhaps augmented by Fatah-linked al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades militants - are prepared to maintain what Israel would consider a sufficiently high level of security.Now this might sound like a difficult task, but one only has to look towards Iraq to see how easily the US have managed to curb militants in that country to witness the example which Abbas should follow. And if he doesn't manage to cut down the militant attacks with the same level of precision as the Americans have achieved in Iraq he should be deemed to be a failure.
Of course, Olmert's option is unachievable, which is the very reason that he is proffering it. It is yet another hoop that Olmert wants Abbas to jump through before talks can begin. It's a giant fucking red herring, laid out to prevent final status talks from ever happening.
But Abbas is cutting to the chase. He has to, for he must surely know that his administration lacks legitimacy and that it's only a matter of time before Hamas and the international community insist on further elections. Elections that Abbas knows he might, yet again, lose.
So the USraelis have a problem. Their puppet administrator is already getting ideas above his station, demanding things that they have no intention of giving him. I mean, to listen to Abbas talking, you would swear that George Bush had called for a state of Palestine within five years or something.
How will Washington and Tel Aviv get him to toe the line? "Oh wait! He says if we don't give him what he wants then he'll refuse to attend any meetings. We don't want any meetings anyway. Result! Let him walk away and we can condemn him as making demands that were neither serious nor credible. And then Israel's long, lonely search for a partner in peace can begin anew."
Phew! For a moment that was worrying.
Click title for full article.
8 comments:
It's like no-one has told Abbas that he has just performed a US/Israeli backed coup against the democratically elected government chosen by the people of Palestine.
Still further indication (along with the rest of the post) that you really have no idea what is going on and lack complete credibility on this issue. You obviously don't know what the Palestinian form of government is, what the elections even were, or really anything else on the subject at hand.
Let me help you. Last year the Palestinians held parliamentary elections. Hamas won 76 of 132 seats, Fatah won 43, and the rest went to various other parties. The parliamentary win gave Hamas the right to form the next cabinet (including the position of prime minister) under the PA president Abbas, who continues to serve out his four year term that he won in a previous election. The president (that's Abbas if you've been playing along at home) retains duties such as making national policy and controlling the national security forces. Parliament (which I'll remind you is now a Hamas majority of 76-56) approves budgetary and legislative proposals.
Hamas now being an official part of the PA brought about some problems. With Hamas being designated a terrorist group by the US, EU, Canada, and Australia among others, these governments could now no longer legally fund or deal much with the PA. This issue, along with several others, led to an agreement on forming a national unity government. Abbas, per his legal rights, dissolved the then current government and the so-called national unity government was formed in its place.
Fast-forward, and Hamas decides they've had enough of dealing with Fatah and Abbas, so they decide to undertake a bloody coup d'etat in Gaza. Hamas, far from being the "democratically elected government" as I believe you like to call them, were just one part of the legal government (as a result of winning 76 of 132 parliamentary seats in a previous election), which was the Palistinian Authority. Abbas, as he had done earlier (with an agreement from Hamas at that time) and was apparently his legal right under their form of government, responded to the coup by dissolving the cabinet and forming a new "emergency" government.
The PA is the legal government, made up of several factions of which Hamas was one (holding a majority of parliamentary seats and therefore making up the cabinet). Abbas is the legally elected President of the PA. One party in the Palestinian system perpetrating a coup against the PA, whether or not that party holds a majority of seats in parliament, is still a coup.
Jason,
You never reveal yourself to be more of an ass than when you attempt to patronise.
Let me help you. Last year the Palestinians held parliamentary elections. Hamas won 76 of 132 seats, Fatah won 43, and the rest went to various other parties
Are you seriously suggesting that I don't know this? And I'm assuming that you can do the maths and work out the parliamentary majority goes to Hamas who are then the majority in the government.
Hamas now being an official part of the PA brought about some problems. With Hamas being designated a terrorist group by the US, EU, Canada, and Australia among others, these governments could now no longer legally fund or deal much with the PA.
What nonsense. It was not illegal to fund a government dominated by Hamas and, indeed, if Hamas had been prepared to recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept past peace agreements then the implications were that funding would have gone ahead. You're simply talking bollocks now. And doing so whilst attempting to patronise which makes you look ridiculous.
As a result of Hamas refusing to recognise Israel - which actually wasn't as unreasonable as the Quartet were pretending - after all which Israel were they being asked to recognise? The Israel of 1967? Israel with the Occupied Territories? Israel with the Sha’aba Farms? The Golan Heights? How does one recognise the only country in the world that refuses to define it's own borders? And even recognition wasn't enough. The Israelis were actually asking that Hamas recognise Israel's "right to exist". It is not only Hamas who would not agree to recognising Israel's "right to exist" but a recent survey has found that more Palestinians agreed with Hamas' stance on this than voted for Hamas at the election.
John Whitbeck explains why the Palestinians feel this way in an article I published here.
"There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
To demand that Palestinians recognize "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians' acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them."
As Hamas refused to agree to this humiliation that the Israelis were demanding - again knowing that Hamas could never agree to such a thing and that Americans like yourself wouldn't even appreciate what the Israelis were asking Hamas to do - a decision was taken to starve the Palestinians into submission. The rationale to all this was explained by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, last year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.'
So it's bollocks to say that they were denied funding because it is illegal to fund them, they were denied funding because they refused to allow Israel to force them into saying that they deserved the fate that befell them in 1967. It would be like asking a Jew to say they deserved the Holocaust. No Palestinian could agree to that formulation and Israel knew this. She also knew that, to astonishingly naive Americans like yourself, what she was asking would sound "Oh, so reasonable".
This issue, along with several others, led to an agreement on forming a national unity government.
Dear God, you simply know nothing about this. After watching the Palestinians starve in Gaza and the West Bank - and the outbreak of armed warfare between both parties brought about by the hideous circumstances they now found themselves in - Hamas and Fatah finally agreed in Mecca to share power in the hope that this would end the sanctions brought about by Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel's "right to exist". Although no explicit recognition of this right was contained in the Hamas/Fatah power sharing deal, it did state that it would "respect" past peace agreements, which had, of course, recognised Israel and offered peace with her even if it did not explicitly recognise "her right to exist".
The Israelis immediately dismissed the legitimacy of the coalition government and rounded on Abbas saying it didn't know if it could trust him anymore for forming a government with Hamas - a Hamas government which had been democratically elected and was now agreeing to share power in the hope of ending the deliberate starving of it's people, or it's "diet" as Weisglass coyly put it. Israel held her ground, refusing to give an inch. The "diet" was to continue.
In taking this stance Israel managed to isolate herself from the EU and Russia who all felt, at this point, that Israel was simply being unreasonable. For the first time, breaks in the coalition were appearing.
Fast-forward, and Hamas decides they've had enough of dealing with Fatah and Abbas, so they decide to undertake a bloody coup d'etat in Gaza.
Your fast forwarding is cutting out an awful lot of history. Long before the formation of the coalition government there had been factional infighting, mostly because Hamas feared that Fatah, who were refusing to accept the election result, would use their political influence and military power to maintain predominance. Remember, the PA's 70,000 police and security forces are mainly Fatah loyalists.
It didn't then help to discover that Israel were arming these Fatah loyalists through Egypt. This was blatantly Israel and the US building Fatah up to take on Hamas militarily.
So let’s recap on what led to Hamas finally snapping. After performing a ceasefire for sixteen months, a ceasefire which Israel totally ignored, maintaining her right to kill Hamas members even whilst Hamas continued to observe this ceasefire. Indeed Hamas, despite being attacked whilst maintaining this ceasefire, only called the ceasefire off when Israel shelled a Palestinian beach killing civilians.
Despite this outrage, Hamas then, for the first time, did what big boys do and joined the political process. They won the subsequent election and Israel, the US and the Quartet refused to accept their legitimate victory and started to starve the Palestinians.
They then, and again this was a very generous attempt to end the stalemate with Israel considering the fact that they had won the election, agreed to form a coalition government. Israel again ignores this new government and insists that the starvation must continue, a point of such blatant inhumanity that, at this point, both Russia and the EU break ranks with the Israelis.
When Israel then starts arming the PA they are, in effect, arming Abbas' private Fatah militia in the hope that Fatah will then militarily take on Hamas. At this point the shit hit the fan and warfare between the two again broke out. A war which Hamas won. But to try and falsely portray those events, as you have done, as Hamas deciding that "they've had enough of dealing with Fatah and Abbas" and deciding to launch a "coup" is as dishonest as it is deluded.
Nor is that only my reading of events. In the post above the South African ambassador argued that the international community, especially the U.S., Israel and the Quartet, are to blame for the situation in the Gaza Strip. Indeed, even ex-US President Carter goes against your reading that it would be illegal to have funded a Hamas government arguing that the illegality was actually on the other side, going as far as to label Bush's actions as "criminal".
Far from encouraging Hamas' move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the U.S. and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, "sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power."
"That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech.
"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.
Carter said the U.S. and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" - but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its "superior skills and discipline."
So Israel - with US connivance - was arming Abbas for the very reason that it wanted Fatah to take on Hamas. This was an attempt to have Abbas, "conquer Hamas in Gaza" as Carter puts it. I am hoping that you were unaware of all this, for if you were aware of it and still think the factional infighting between Hamas and Fatah came out of nowhere - almost like a Hamas stealth attack in Gaza - then you are beyond help.
You might also remember, whilst you flail about swallowing every bit of pro-Israeli rhetoric that you can find, that Hamas found its beginnings in the misguided Israeli effort to encourage the rise of a religious alternative that would undermine the popularity of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasir Arafat.
It's almost a Likud baby for God's sake. So it's ironic that, forty years after the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza, people like yourself are still pretending that everything that happens over there are events that can be viewed in isolation with Israel and the US floating harmlessly above, innocent as wallflowers.
Actions cause reactions. Arming Fatah - whilst starving the Palestinian people because you didn't like who won the democratic majority - has caused just such a reaction.
To say that the linkage is "too funny" as you recently did, says more about your ignorance than anything else ever could.
Are you seriously suggesting that I don't know this?
Your posts might lead one to reasonably conclude this, yes.
And I'm assuming that you can do the maths and work out the parliamentary majority goes to Hamas who are then the majority in the government.
Since I stated exactly this, there should be no need for assumption.
As Hamas refused to agree to this humiliation that the Israelis were demanding
There is no way to spin refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist as anything other than an affirmation of perpetual warfare and a complete refusal to negotiate any kind of lasting peace. Of course, if you've actually read Hamas' charter, you would know that negotiations aren't on their agenda.
It is not only Hamas who would not agree to recognising Israel's "right to exist" but a recent survey has found that more Palestinians agreed with Hamas' stance on this than voted for Hamas at the election.
One of many reasons that I quite frankly can't seem to muster much sympathy for them.
to astonishingly naive Americans like yourself,
I'll address the constant personal attacks just this once by pointing out that such attacks are a sign of a weak intellect. Had you been college educated your professors would doubtless look down on such tactics and the complete abandonment of fact and reason.
Dear God, you simply know nothing about this. ... Hamas and Fatah finally agreed in Mecca to share power in the hope that this would end the sanctions
Which is exactly what "this issue" refers to. Hope that they would have their funding unblocked. I said the same thing you did.
The Israelis immediately dismissed the legitimacy of the coalition government
I would tend to agree that a government made up of terrorists is illegitimate, whether those terrorists were elected to anything. But that's just my personal opinion. I can't say thought that I've come across many other political parties whose business attire consists of masks, AK-47's, and spiffy green headbands.
In taking this stance Israel managed to isolate herself from the EU and Russia who all felt, at this point, that Israel was simply being unreasonable. For the first time, breaks in the coalition were appearing.
The EU maintained sanctions. Regarding the link, I notice that most of your links are to either fringe blogs or the Independent. Are these the primary sources for your news and opinions? Just curious.
Your fast forwarding is cutting out an awful lot of history.
Sorry, life calls and I don't have time to recount the entire history. Just the highlights. And in fact, while your reply was quite the opus, I've gotten through about all I'm going to for now.
Okay, here are two comments you made and my response to them:
1. There is no way to spin refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist as anything other than an affirmation of perpetual warfare and a complete refusal to negotiate any kind of lasting peace.
2. Sorry, life calls and I don't have time to recount the entire history. Just the highlights. And in fact, while your reply was quite the opus, I've gotten through about all I'm going to for now.
Okay, I took the time to give a serious response your trolling. In reply number 1 you simply refuse to accept that the Palestinians might have a genuine reason for objecting to Israel's insistence that they admit publicly that they deserve the fate that befell them. You offer no serious argument against the detailed reasoning I gave for why the Palestinians might feel this way and simply dismiss them as being not serious about seeking peace. You are simply a bigot and appear to have chosen here as the place to come to express your bigotry.
In reply number 2 you then have the fucking gall to imply that you don't have the time to take part in arguments that you STARTED. Indeed, you then go and mock the fact that I did take the time to seriously respond by referring to my response as an "opus", the clear inference being that I have the time for such nonsense but that you don't.
I did take the time to sit down and compose a reply to you. Probably the best part of an hour. For you then to treat my reply with such contempt as to suggest that you have better things to do - Sorry, life calls - than to seriously take the time to address my points, is not only insulting, but it puts you in the camp of trolls; people who start flame wars then wander off content that they have caused heat but having no interest in actual discussion.
I no longer have time for you FULL STOP.
I have come to the conclusion that you are a troll. Anything you post on here will be deleted the moment I come across it. Go away, moron.
I wasn't dismissing your comment (labeling it an "opus" was actually a compliment), it was 1am and I simply didn't have the stamina to finish my reply, intending to come back to it today.
The Israelis did not demand that anyone publicly admit they deserved anything, which is why I didn't address it.
Your lack of ability to engage in debate using logic and fact while avoiding emotional hysteria lends me to believe that you have had limited exposure to academic discourse. I find it difficult to avoid having myself drawn down your level and I realize I have not always been successful in doing so.
I find it quite amusing that you label me a bigot when you quite clearly are one yourself. You have proven yourself to be anti-American given your sweeping generalizations and derogatory comments towards us. While most of your blog posts are dedicated towards us, you really don't seem to know much about us, particularly if you haven't read it in the Independent or another fanatic's blog. Even more obvious is the fact that you are clearly antisemitic, and your blog reinforces this nearly every day. Your support for terrorists is also noteworthy, and my guess is that the reason you find them so praiseworthy is that much of the jihad is directed towards Israel and the US.
The typical tact of your ilk is to demonize those whose opinions you do not share. Your constant personal attacks certainly don't do anything to dispel this.
I started my time on this blog as an attempt to see if a fanatic such as yourself could be seriously engaged. While my attempts to seriously engage you (given the timezone difference and a limited amount of available time) have been at times amusing and at other times frustrating, I have come away with the realization that ideological zealots simply cannot be reasoned with. You can call me whatever you want, but I'm not the one with a blog dedicated to anti-American, antisemitic, and extremist rantings. This blog serves as a monument to your fanaticism.
I expect this comment to be deleted and my time here is done. By the way, most blogs have ways of banning people you disagree with so that you don't have to manually delete the comments. You might think about looking into this the next time someone whose opinion you don't share challenges you.
First, let me apologise if I misunderstood your use of the word opus. It was used in a comment by yourself that was dripping in condescension, so I think my mistake was an easy one to make.
Like yourself, I have enjoyed our exchanges finding them amusing and annoying in equal measure. However, in your last two comments I noticed a patronisation that I had not previously been aware of. I found it especially startling as the central theme of your post – that it would be illegal for the US and others to fund a Hamas dominated government – was wrong.
Therefore, when I read your second comment, when you ignored this fact and yet lost none of your dripping tones of sarcasm and patronisation, I will freely admit that I was enraged. I do not get paid to do this. Like you, I take part in blogs because I care about certain things. I am all for arguing with people of all political persuasions – and you might fault me for being at times too emotional, a charge to which I would have to plead guilty – but I did not deserve the dripping patronisation which emanated from both your posts.
It was whilst enraged with you for that, that I used the term “bigot”, a charge which I will now withdraw; whilst continuing to think that your views on the plight of the Palestinians could certainly benefit from a heavy dose of empathy.
I am amused by your claim that I am anti-Semitic, although I notice that your reference on Wikepedia is actually to the “new anti-Semitism”. This is a recent construct of Israel’s more rabid supporters who, having lost the moral argument regarding Israel’s blatant colonialism, now seek to make argument itself on the subject an anti-Semitic act. It’s pathetic and infantile. I also note that this charge of the new anti-Semitism is so vague that it could actually be used against Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu who have both been highly critical of some of Israel's policies and have earned the wrath of the pro-Israeli brigade. And if you are casting your net that wide I would suggest that you are doing great harm to Judaism, making the charge so common as to lose its importance for the times when one comes across genuine anti-Semitism. I also note that you cannot point to a single thing I have ever posted as an example of anti-Semitism, which makes your false charge actually disgraceful. You should be ashamed to have said that.
However, this is not unlike the get out clause you like to allow yourself regarding anyone who criticises your country’s foreign policy, when you instantly label entire continents both “anti-Semitic” and “anti-American”. Both of those tactics are actually ways of ending conversation, they are full stops that prevent any further argument from taking place and they allow the person making the charge to avoid having to formulate any response to any legitimate charge made against either Israel or US Foreign policy. For someone who appears to pride himself on his intellect I am stunned that you allow yourself such a lazy get out clause.
And I thought you were particularly lazy when you appeared to see no difference between a country demanding that it be “recognised” and a country demanding that others recognise their “right to exist”. The latter is quite clearly not a simple recognition of present realities or an acknowledgement of diplomatic formalities; it carries with it a moral judgment. It says the formation of Israel was right. You and I may have whatever thoughts we have on that matter, but it’s impossible to imagine that a people dispossessed would ever agree with such a notion. Refugees never think the people who made them refugees were right to do so. Indeed, it is thought that this was the very reason that Henry Kissinger came up with the phrase. He came up with it as a way of Israel being able to avoid negotiations with Palestinian leaders.
But instead of arguing about whether you could see any difference between the two demands you simply dismissed it as “spin” and used it as a springboard to claim that any Palestinian refusal to say that what happened to them was “right” was an “affirmation of perpetual warfare and a complete refusal to negotiate any kind of lasting peace.” As far as arguments go I would say that placed you on the extremist end of the spectrum, it was certainly a refusal to even countenance that the Palestinians might have a different perspective on some things than we do.
I know you find it hard to believe that I am not anti-American. I also had scant interest in the Middle East allowing myself the get out clause that it was all so confusing and both sides have been at it for years. It was 9-11 which changed that. I was genuinely horrified by what was done to your nation. And I didn’t buy your President’s glib reasoning that they hated you “because of our freedoms”. That only made me wonder why they didn’t attack Sweden or Scandinavia. The more I read on the subject, the more I became convinced that – whilst this is certainly not the only reason – your relationship with Israel and her subsequent treatment of the Palestinians makes recruitment for groups like al-Qaeda easier, and it was certainly one of the reasons given by bin Laden for the attack. The Palestinian issue is the number one issue on the Arab street and even Tony Blair believes, and yesterday I note that Gordon Brown also took up the charge, that sorting out that dispute would do more to drain the swamp from which terrorists recruit than anything else.
And it amuses me that you have come to the conclusion that “ideological zealots simply cannot be reasoned with”. Despite your many slurs regarding my intellect, I have never failed to engage and counter any argument which you have proffered. Although I notice that you often dismiss my arguments as “spin” or “anti-Semitism” or “anti-Americanism”. For someone so proud of his intellect and someone who so often mentions his “exposure to academic discourse”, I would have thought the notion of counter-argument was not a new concept to you, although it’s one you have rarely employed.
Calling someone an anti-Semite or an anti-American is not engaging in argument, it is simply name calling.
In conclusion to my latest tome, I will not delete your posts nor make any attempt to ban you. You can post as you like, although I would hope that you would realise that name calling, especially of the kind you have been engaging in, is really not debating at all.
but I did not deserve the dripping patronisation which emanated from both your posts.
You are right, you didn't and I apologize. I tend to get less-and-less civil the more I am attacked and insulted.
I would hope that you would realise that name calling, especially of the kind you have been engaging in, is really not debating at all.
I usually try quite hard to avoid personal attacks in these discussions, which often leads to me editing my message a few times before posting. I am sometimes less successful than I would like to be. However, just about every response from you towards me has included personal attacks and insults.
Then perhaps we could resume dialogue with an effort from both of us to avoid personal attacks and insults.
I know I have been guilty of that, and I will, in future, attempt to desist.
Post a Comment