As I have said before, truth is not libelous.
Changing the topic is one way to debate; not a way to have a conversation. The topic was (a) whether Barak said it, which I take it you now agree; and (b) what it says about Barak that he makes such statements publicly. I know you don't agree with my inference about Barak. I don't expect you to. We'll just have to, as usual, agree to disagree.
As for the quotes from Arafat, that again is changing the topic. The Barak statement used an objectionable judgment about Arab culture to interpret Arafat. If Arafat does, as you say he does, then why not simply leave it at that. Arafat tells lies. In that case, he would not be the first political leader to do so. In short, you cannot get from the assertion that Arafat lies, to an observation that something called "Arab culture" has no concept of truth. Hard to even type that.
I have listened to nearly everything Barak has said publicly since Camp David, and I have never heard him tell "the right that he gave less than anyone else". Never. He has claimed that he gave Arafat so much he "exposed his true face", just the opposite. I notice A&M don't give a source.I have listened to nearly everything Barak has said publicly since Camp David, and I have never heard him tell "the right that he gave less than anyone else". Never. He has claimed that he gave Arafat so much he "exposed his true face", just the opposite. I notice A&M don't give a source.
Once more, another topic change. You said A&M made no substantive objections to Barak, just nibbled around the corner. Guess what, that last sentence is a substantive objection. Now you complain it lacks a source.
Looks like another, we need to agree to disagree. |
