Michael-
I thought that the context of my remarks made it clear that by "anyone, under any circumstances" I was referring to nations. I'm happy to make this explicit and thereby render your point...beside the point.

Are you really committed to "collective punishment is ...deplorable"? You then must have opposed the South African boycott.

What about strikes? Surely many of the people adversely affected by a strike are many times removed from the immediate target. Do you therefore suggest a blanket rejection of strikes?

First the ghost of Stalin, now Ward Churchill. When may I expect to be compared to Ahmadinejad? Do you have a particular order in which to trot out the Eustonian Pandemonium of Infamy to tar your opponents, or do you just let the spirit move you and select a devil at random?

I will ignore your question regarding which other universities I deem worthy of boycott. As I've said before, this question never comes up in any political discussion that does not involve Israel, and is diversionary and scurrilous. It functions to change the subject from Israel's actual shortcomings to my imaginary ones.

Regarding my imaginary smirk, I really have no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall saying anything whatsoever about the source of medical breakthroughs. My point was simply that it's a preposterous stretch to forego a boycott against a misbehaving nation because that nation may someday contribute something we'd all value.

Happily, your post finally included a correct assertion-I meant nothing underhanded or sneaky by "Arabrein". As you undoubtedly know, many elements in the yishuv, both Zionist and non-Zionist, favored a more intimate sharing of Palestine with the Palestinians than did the Zionists who ultimately prevailed. We have a fantastically rich historical record revealing the latter's plans to rid Palestine of Arabs, not as a regrettable contingency of war, etc., but as a absolute necessity for the founding of a Jewish state. This mindset has enjoyed an historical through-line since 1948, and now flourishes with the geographical shattering of the West Bank, the Jews-only roads, the wall and the rest of the sorry crimes we're all familiar with. Add to this the ascendance of Lieberman (Avigdor, that is) and his cognates, the psychological commonplace about victims identifying with their victimizers, the Zionist obsession with race (really, a modern democracy which apportions the state's largesse not based just on citizenship but also on nationality-very regressive)....so yeah, I think "Arabrein" captures very well both the behavior of Israel towards the Arabs and suggests a psychological mechanism to explain what would otherwise look like simple moral imbecility. I'm sure you disagree, but you're right that there's nothing sneaky or underhanded about my comments.

Finally, you need to lighten up on the prissy, Mrs. Grundy stuff. Yes, "subjunctive" refers to a grammatical mood. But language has this really neat aspect-you can use it suggestively, allusively, metaphorically. It's really quite thrilling to stretch yourself creatively in this manner-I strongly encourage your having a go at it. Look up "literary flair" sometime.

Adam-
Did your post just peter out at the end there because you realized you didn't have much to say?

Your post suggests you took the "pinhead" remark personally. Let me assure you that's not what I meant at all. I was saying only that one may oppose a party despite that party's having some laudable aspects, that we needn't be Manichean about our politics, and that anyone who insisted otherwise was a pinhead. I was not referring to you.

I didn't feel particularly angry while posting, but who knows...you may have picked up on something. I certainly have felt angry about this and allied issues in the past.

I am the poster with whom you've conversed on the other boycott thread. I thought I'd dealt with the "why only Israel?" issue in numerous posts, but briefly:

1. Your assertion that there are no actions, planned or in effect, against other bad actors is, of course, pure fantasy.
You may have heard of efforts against China for its behavior towards Tibet and, more recently, actions proposed against it's collaboration with African malefactors so as to insure a steady flow of oil. Regarding Sudan, are you seriously suggesting that no organized efforts to challenge the outrages there are underway?

2. I bypass the double standard issue simply because it's a red herring. I don't need to run my activism through some imagined Engine of Appropriateness to convince you of my good faith. As the aforementioned George Bisharat correctly notes, no one opposed the South Africa boycott on the grounds that the crimes of the Pol Pot
regime were worse (which they were), and if anyone had, they'd rightly be laughed at or ignored, as the truly clueless are. Israeli apologists adore this nonsense, however.
I don't need to prove my bona fides by militating against female genital mutilation before I'm allowed to fight for gender equality in pay in the US, despite the infinitely greater horror of the former. These are simple truths, obvious to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with political activism, until the subject of Israel arises, and clouds of mystification darken the cerebra of the otherwise intelligent.