The Toll of War in Gaza

...and so do I:

 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/02/assault_on_gaza/

Sometimes the best defense is to go on offense.  Shame on every single Palestinian individual who lives in Gaza and gives aid and support to Hamas.

Why not try to get to a general cease-fire and multi-national force without the intervening bloodbath? Hamas, as it happens, has been asking for exactly this.

 If I remember correctly, the multi-national forces from EU withdrew from Gaza, because they were afraid to serve there. This begs a few questions - for one, where exactly would these forces come from? Secondly, what is the guarantee that those troops will make sure that Israel is not bombed by Hamas? Moreover, Hamas declares that it's goal is destruction of Israel. Once we all agree that this is their goal, and add the fact that it would be against Hamas interests to be seen as simply a bunch bearded guys, who are fixing the roads and sanitation - then it's fair to ask - what does Hamas mean by "seize fire", and what is the probability that they simply need it to get military supplies to restart the war at the earliest time possible?

Until Bernard tries to answer all these questions - he is not sincerely engaging in a debate.

You shall reap what you sow.

 Do a bit of research;  we've had a few cease-fires in Gaza of late, and let's put it this way: Israel hasn't initially violated them.  As usual, we responded to attacks.

Israel is capable of uprooting and overthrowing Hamas, preferably with a multi-national force, though I don't believe it to be necessary.  I support this, though I do, however, agree that vague promises of a "large-scale operation in Gaza" don't exactly breed optimism as far as I'm concerned.  In March, there were "large-scale operations in Gaza" and in reality, they were medium sized.  They were just large enough to lose some 18-23 year old soldiers, arrest/kill only a few key terrorists, and make the IDF and the Palestinians a bit more weary from the fight in general.  

If we are going to get rid of Hamas, which we must do, our operations must be thorough; I'm not so sure if the current gov't has this in mind or considers it to be a possibility.  It's true that the EU and the UNSC will criticize us for it, but I'm pretty sure that Israel now has another security violation against it due to the hill of ants that I stepped on last week at the bus stop.  If the gov't would stop catering to these bodies, ridding Gaza of Hamas would be possible.  Surely, the fighting wouldn't be confined to Gaza for long enough, but if either state/potential state would like hope for a future, blood will have to be shed.  Diplomacy alone has failed.  

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

Another filthy performance from the brave Cori, crusader from America who decided to move to the Mideast and now loftily tells the indigenes what's good for them (extermination, apparently), who tells us that she's convinced that some blood must be shed. 

How disgusting. A halfwit ninny who earns her keep shilling for an army responsible for the longest-running occupation on earth calmly advising us re the necessity of slaughtering yet more Palestinian children.

I've never been much for throwing "Nazi" around to label my adversaries. I know its de rigueur among some critics of Israel to do so, but I've always felt that it's imprecise and historically inaccurate. But presented with the blood-chilling viciousness contained in the jejune pronouncements of this twerp, witnessing this callow little ghoul impatiently counselling the further destruction of a people-well, I'm rethinking my position.

I hope that Ms C will someday achieve the wisdom and the ethical insight to be deeply ashamed of her loathesome remarks, but I'm not holding my breath. Her cowboys and Indians fantasies seem too deeply entrenched, and too refractory to the leavening influences of historical knowledge, political wisdom and simple human decency.

 
You're so predictable. I've stopped responding to you for reasons that don't speak to your merit.  Enjoy unintelligently antagonizing people. You're not teaching anyone anything, and so you're useless and easy to ignore.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

Why are you trashing Cori instead of debating her on the merits? You are some gentleman.

"You're so predictable. I've stopped responding to you for reasons that don't speak to your merit.  Enjoy unintelligently antagonizing people. You're not teaching anyone anything, and so you're useless and easy to ignore."

Well, yes, I'm happy to predictably denounce the calls for carnage you and your compatriots issue on an unhappily regular basis.

Don't say you've "stopped responding" as you respond to my post, or that I'm "easy to ignore" as you clearly...don't ignore me. This makes you sound even more like a dim sorority girl than usual.   

Your second sentence is massively clumsy; leave it off your resume if you wish to get a real writing job someday. 

And just for the sake of historical accuracy, let's review our recent interchange. The subject was the trashing of Debbie Almontaser. Inter alia, I made some disparaging remarks about the IOF. You promised swift and decisive rebuttals of my points re Almontaser and IOF-couldn't wait to rebut me, I believe you said.  

Since then, silence.  

I don't believe we've corresponded since then, so I'm not sure why I still await your tutelage. My guess? You're full of hot air and know even less than your silly posts suggest.

That is all. You may now resume drafting your spittle-flecked calls for even more brutality against innocents.

weaver-

Some uninformed little twit casually calls for spilling blood and I'm supposed to "debate her on the merits"? What merits?

She puts herself clearly on the side of squandering more Palestinian and Israeli lives, but I'm not being a "gentleman"?

Very chivalrous of you, but she still sounds to me like a war-mongering ogre who shows the casual indifference to human life that one often observes in the young and untested.  

the casual indifference to human life that one often observes in the young and untested. 

Ismail, I think you're confusing two things here. Young people, arguably (presumably there's research to confirm or disprove this), are more frequently reckless with their own lives than older people. Casual indifference to other people's lives is not an especially youthful trait; what's the median age of Bush administration members?  

...anyone other than Ismail misunderstood my alleged "call for carnage, " I want to clarify that unlike he suggests, I'm not excited for bloodshed, rather I'm not deluded to the extent that I support "diplomacy" with terror organizations such as Hamas, and thus, realistically (as most people seem to understand) it is impossible for me to accept the notion of more dead end ceasefires. Before a ceasefire can actually bring some semblance of peace to the region, we need a government that we can work with. Hamas doesn't count.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

Someone that believes that Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim had the right to steal Palestine from the native population on the basis of an etymological relationship between the word "Jew" and the word "Judea" would by the same reasoning argue that the Irish have the right to ethnically cleanse and steal Rome because the Irish mostly practice the Roman Catholic religion, which contains the word "Roman" in its name. Zionist ideology is so extreme that it is practically psychotic, and any Zionist or supporter of Zionism should be denaturalized and treated as a dangerous psychopath.

I live a little more than one block from a John Brown memorial. By American standards, history, and precedent, terrorism against state sponsored violent racism and those, who support it, is completely acceptable and justified.

I have no doubt that John Brown would have had Zionist invaders and interlopers in Stolen and Occupied Palestine hacked to pieces with as much gusto as he had slavers.

 
Probably a symbol of both, and all of their counterparts.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

"Probably a symbol of both, and all of their counterparts."

Interesting comment, in a clinical sense. Perfectly illustrative of the phenomenon of projection, the favorite defense mechanism of right-Zionists.

I propose a secular state in Palestine with full and equal rights guaranteed to all citizens, and have never suggested violent solutions.

You, on the other hand, explicitly whistle for the Dogs of War.

Look again. Whose bloody hands do see in that picture? 

Daniel-

You are of course correct, and I didn't mean to exculpate the vermin in the White House on the basis of their near-dotage. I will further grant that Bush & Co. are actually worse than the powerless and inept Cori, who may swoon at her reveries of smiting the Amalekites but who is unlikely to actually mobilize armies to reify her pathological fantasies.

I'll be more attentive in my future efforts to expose the warmonger Cori for the ethically dwarfed simpleton that she is to do so without resorting to her tender years (except when her proximity to infancy is salient). 

Can you name one government in the region that offers a type of government you are proposing in your Palestine? Just an example of were this works with an Islamic state?

"Can you name one government in the region that offers a type of government you are proposing in your Palestine? Just an example of were this works with an Islamic state?" 

Think, Jeffrey. How could my proposal work in an Islamic state, when the proposal calls for a secular state?

And the fact that such a state may not exist at the moment means nothing. An argument of this form could be used to pooh-pooh any novel development. For example, if you suggested in, say, 1938 that there would soon be an exclusivist Jewish state in the Middle East and I rejoined that no such being existed in the region and so your prediction was nonsense, would you take that as a compelling argument?  

And no such state exists today. Israel is a multi-ethnic, multi-language, multi-religion state. There are plenty of Muslim states in the region, yet none provide the freedoms to other faiths that Israel does. What do you believe will happen if Israel were tomorrow to lay down all of its arms and agreed to your dream state?

Ismail: You're so cute with your self righteous indignation and all. You want to know what's funny? What's funny is that if we were to remove you from whatever cushy Western city/country you live in now, and place you in the territories administered by the Palestine Authority or Gaza, you would actually be considered an extremely moderate Palestinian.

Yes, that's right folks. Ismail is a moderate dove. Sadly, if he were to publicly and openly advocate for the adoption of his position in Gaza, he'd probably be subject to an unpleasant visit by the Hamas boys. If he were to seriously advocate such a position in the West Bank, along with calls for things that are the hallmarks of secular democratic society like say, gay rights, abortion rights, women's equality etc., he'd probably be subject to an unpleasant visit by the Fatah boys.

I visit the territories often. In unguarded conversations, even people aligned with moderate parties talk only of one solution - they want it all. All of Israel. All of it. and the man on the street? Unabashedly in love with Hamas, even in Ramallah. So yeah Ismail. Your words are meaningless. Don't talk to me about your pie in the sky concepts. Be honest about the reality of the situation, acknowledge the reactionary elements in your midst, engage us in productive discourse - if you are even capable of such a thing - or just piss off.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

"For example, if you suggested in, say, 1938 that there would soon be an exclusivist Jewish state in the Middle East and I rejoined that no such being existed in the region and so your prediction was nonsense, would you take that as a compelling argument?"  

I wouldn't. But the difference would be that the Jews of Palestine in 1938 were part of a political community that had convincingly demonstrated its ability to organize toward such an end, whereas nowhere has the ability to successfully organize toward the end of a secular, democratic state been demonstrated anywhere in the Arab world. And oftentimes, not even among the Arab communities situated in the European world. 

Jewlicious-

Are there still simpletons who think that pointing out the flaws of an assaulted society vitiates the argument of those who protest the assault?

No-necked knuckle-draggers have for decades bleated out some variant of, "Oh yeah? Well, if you like it so much, why don't you live there?", confident in their decorticate fashion that they've landed a decisive blow to their opponent. Only other chimps applaud.

By the way, think seriously about switching out your picture. You look like you're sitting at the dinner table with your extended family while your mom proudly informs them that you passed your driving test.

Please stop personal attacks and answer the question. What do you believe will happen if Israel were tomorrow to lay down all of its arms and agreed to your dream state?

Ismail's thinks his disinterest in ever focusing on the reality of a situation, or in answering a question of a side he doesn't like or agree with, can persuade others to corroborate his own need to maintain an idealized, argumentatively hermeneutic dialectic. Much like the country he never has an uncritical word for, his mind has closed down its own borders to anything but, in his case, a romanticized vision of innocently martyred Palestinians and overweeningly powerful Israelis. And any arguments, ideas, or facts on the ground that challenge that narrative are assaulted as viciously and as fatuously as a Katyusha out of Gaza.

So, Ismail, indeed, "(w)hat do you believe will happen if Israel were tomorrow to lay down all of its arms and agreed to your dream state?" And if you're going to dodge that question, as everyone fully expects you will, at least have the balls to tell us why you are so afraid to answer it.

It's just a question. We're not like the Palestinians. We don't lynch or bludgeon people for voicing opinions or answering questions in ways we don't like. But maybe we're not the ones who you're afraid will hear your answer.

Anon 6/13 11:53am-

First, learn to write. "Disinterest" means impartiality; you mean "lack of interest", in the sense of not giving a shit. "Argumentatively hermeneutic dialectic" doesn't even mean anything to a comp lit grad student from Paris, much less to the average lucid adult. And how exactly are Katyushas "fatuous"? While nothing delights me like pointing out the grammatical and semantic solecisms of my adversaries, there's more to my remarks than simple sadistic glee. I believe that inaccurate and imprecise prose reflects innacurate and imprecise thinking.

I say this for your own good; someone who may make a fine employee won't even be considered if his resume sports coffee stains. Similarly, you are practicing advocacy journalism, of a sort. Your potential converts are less likely to take you seriously if you write like a baboon. 

Now, on to your question. First, it's not reflective of what I said. I did not propose that Israel "lay down its arms". Israel/Palestine will have an army, like all states. It will be composed of Jews, Muslims, Christians and whatever other religious groups compose the democratic and secular state.

I don't pretend to have laid out every particular of how such a state would look. My point is that, for forty-one years, there has effectively been one state in the region. One entity has exercised all the governmental prerogatives that we associate with statehood. It has done so with insufficient regard to the civil rights of all under its control.

And before you apologists for Israel go on sucking each others' dicks about how democratic Israel is, ask yourselves how democratic it is to keep another polity under strict control for decades without giving its members a voice in their governance.  

Finally, let me address Craig and the other Jewcy potentates and ask whether you can institute a "no anonymous" policy re comments. I'm not suggesting that everyone be required to register, only that they choose a name under which to post their remarks. This leaves no one out, since it costs nothing to simply pick a nom de keyboard, and it facilitates discussion since one can address one's particular interlocutor without resorting to the clumsy "are you the same anon who said that...?" or "anon 3:17 pm, here's what I think, and anon 4:20am, unless you're the same anon...." constructions we're all sick of.

So, no pressure to register, no cost, no extra time and increased ease of communication. All benefits, no downside. Unless I'm missing something, sounds like a no-brainer. 

Ismail wrote: "Are there still simpletons who think that pointing out the flaws of an
assaulted society vitiates the argument of those who protest the
assault?"

Well Ismail, the thing is that in this particular context, all relevant societies are "assaulted." I remember asking a Syrian diplomat about the uh... human rights abuses that took place against the residents of Hama in 1982. The Syrian government hoping to quell an Islamic Brotherhood insurrection murdered anywhere from 10,000 to 35,000 people during the course of a 3 week campaign that included intensive and indiscriminate artillery shelling and the use of poison gas against its mostly civilian population. And who was to blame for all of this according to the diplomat? Why the Zionists of course! The mere existence of the Zionists forced the Syrians to act in such a monstrous manner against their own people. In fact, all governmental abuses and problems in the Middle East are similarly blamed on the Zionists.

A nd what of the notion of Israel as a similarly "assaulted" society? Couldn't we justify abuses against civil rights in the name of security? Of course Israel is less than perfect and yet the state of governance in Israel is dramatically different than that in other similarly "assaulted" governments in the region. Hmmm...

Way to refashion my comment into something I never said by the way. I simply put into context some of the positions you have advocated. "Oh yeah? Well, if you like it so much, why don't you live there?" is not anything I ever said or suggested. Straw man much? My point was simply that as an advocate for the Palestinians, you represent pretty much no one of any consequence - Not the Palestinian leadership, nor the Palestinian man on the street. You may be representative of certain bourgeois elements of the Palestinian Diaspora as well as their patchouli scented friends, but in the streets of Ramallah, Nablus and Gaza City your Western-tinged ideas are about as welcome as a heaping bowl of geffilte fish - in other words, not welcome at all. You are and continue to be the embodiment of irrelevance.

Finally, I really LOVED your coup de grace -  did you really just make fun of my photo?? What are you, 12 years old?? That's really demonstrative of the strength of your line of argumentation. I bet your Mother is exceedingly proud of you.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Do you really want to compare salaries and job descriptions, Ismail? Accomplishments both vocational and academic? I mean, I know you think that arguments can be weighed according to how tasteful you find them, but whether one is understood has nothing to do with whether their writing style appeals to you.

Perhaps you think that the Katyushas Gaza fires on Israel are achieving some sort of grand aim. If not, and you don't care for Israel's response to them, then the meaning of the term "fatuous" in this context should be clear.

Any more syntactical edits you'd like to engage before admitting that you have no argument? Perhaps if you had more skill when it came to working with meaningful ideas, then we could move from how an idea is expressed to considering what is actually being expressed - semantics being a higher level of language than the level on which you dwell.   

Oh, and Israel's government is already both democratic and highly secular - in every aspect except family law. And its army includes members of every religion except one which has declared a perpetual state of war against it. But even that one has its discontents, as I'm sure you can imagine.  

Don't you think you've called me (and everyone else) enough names for it to not matter which name I would register under? "Anonymous" just might be as common a name as "Ismail", even if each person named "Anonymous" had some thing more to contribute than all the "Ismail"s combined.

jewlicious-

If you're saying that some Syrians wish to offload blame for their own bad acts, well, sure. I understand the sun rises in the east, too.

What has your stunning observation to do with the obvious culpability Israel has for the assault on Palestine? Because some accusations against Israel are false, they all are? Very tiresome Zionist ploy, that; hauling out some wacky anti-Israel sentiment to color them all. Happily, the world is no longer buying such a stinking mess of fish as readily as it had.  

And I wonder how it is that you've come to think of yourself as an expert on Arab opinion? "All Arabs, despite their public face, admit in secret to wanting it all", says superspy jewlicious, as confident in his opinion as a tinfoil-hat wearer is of the transmissions he eagerly reports. Do you refer to a poll, a sociological study, anything at all informed by objective data, or just your own asshat opinion?

And your silly and envious wrist-flicks at intellectualism; tired and pathetic. "Patchouli-scented"? hey, here's one for you-I drink lattes!! Enjoy yourself, chuckles.

Very happy to know that you've become the arbiter of allowable opinion re Israel/Palestine. I'm relieved to have the burden of relevance lifted from me. Perhaps you can now go on to other issues where a diversity of opinion exists and lessen the labors of others as well, anointing one or two as permissible. The guy who misused "fatuous" above-here's your example. Jewlicious just oozes fatuity.

And yeah, I really did make fun of your picture. You protest? Post a less dopy picture and I'll stop.  

Anon (sigh)-

Salaries and jobs? I think you wandered in from another post. And you need to read more carefully; I said nothing about taste. I pointed out mistakes that make the writer sound kind of oafish, based on objective measures of literacy, not my own tastes (though all would be advised to adopt same-really quite refined).

Sorry, but your explanation leaves your choice of "fatuous" as mysterious as before. You don't understand the word-best to just admit it.

"Higher levels of language"? Haven't studied much linguistics, have you?

Read my comment again. Israel can't call itself democratic when it has exercised control over another people for decades without allowing them corresponding participation in the usual democratic processes.

And I'd say allowing rabbis to determine citizenship (via certifying conversions and providing similar imprimaturs) goes a little beyond family law.

Your comment about names is simply impenetrable. I made the altogether benign and obvious suggestion that conversation would be easier if we all knew who we were addressing. Do you disagree? 

And what in the world did you mean by your last sentence? This is not some supercilious nitpick; you really must learn to be coherent. Then we can disagree about particulars. 

My dictionary says 'fatuous' means 'silly and pointless', which seems like a perfectly term to use for Katyushas, if the poster meant to imply the rockets are pointless (which he apparently did).  You may personally feel that the Katyushas aren't silly and pointless, but that doesn't mean the poster used the word 'fatuous' incorrectly.  It does seem an awkward use of the word, and I would say the Qassams are much more fatuous than Katyushas, but I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the use of the word.

This is all, of course, an entirely pointless exercise, and really has nothing to do with the real discussion. Then again, you seem to enjoy vivisecting minor mistakes and chasing loose strands of poorly formulated posts more than actually discussing the arguments at hand.  Talk about fatuity.

Ismail asked: "What has your stunning observation to do with the obvious culpability Israel has for the assault on Palestine?"

The point, dearest Ismail, is that it's not as obvious as you claim it is. Culpability is not black or white. Not that one would know that from the way you write. In Ismail's romanticized version of Palestine, the Palestinian people are a peace loving nation, driven to desperate acts by the unremittingly evil Zionist usurpers. Left to their own devices they would continue to cultivate oranges and plant olive trees, peacefully and joyfully in their land and the land of their forefathers as they have for millennium upon millennium, from time immemorial. Obvious culpability my ass. You may continue to delude yourself and others with your highly romanticized visions of a Palestine that never existed, but such fabrications don't really help your cause at all.

Ismail added: "Happily, the world is no longer buying such a stinking mess of fish as readily as it had." No. Instead it's buying a bigger, stinkier mess of fish, not unlike the load of bollocks you're trying to pass off here.

Ismail continues: "And I wonder how it is that you've come to think of yourself as an expert on Arab opinion?" Did I ever say I was an expert on anything? All I can talk about are my observations, which, unlike yours, are based on frequent and recent trips to the West Bank. When was the last time you were home Ismail? Next time you go, let me know. I'll send you a complimentary Palestine Is For Lovers - Rainbow Edition t-shirt. You can use that to start conversations about your vision of the democratic, secular society you want for Palestine. That ought to be big fun!

And don't get me wrong Ismail. I would never censor you. of course your opinion is permissible - all opinions are! It's just that your opinion is simply not very relevant or useful or particularly intelligent. You represent no one of any immediate importance in the conflict. Sorry. Please continue to sip your lattes though. You're doing your people a ton of good down there at Starbucks. Or Peets. Or wherever it is you hang out at.

And finally... the dopey photo! Why am I not surprised that you continue to defend your childish and asinine comments? Oh no! You got me there! I look dopey! I better bow out of this conversation before Ismail makes fun of my beer belly or my glasses or the goofy way I dance. Bravo! You sure learned me a thing or two!

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

OK, dopy beer-belly guy, let's talk specifics:

" Culpability is not black or white."

Another stunning jewlicious insight. Of course, even a golden retriever of average intelligence understands that assignment of culpability does not depend on one party's being all good and the other all bad. Your nutty imputation that I imagine all Palestinians to be Rousseauean innocents and all Israelis demonic monsters is a product of your fevered imagination and bears no resemblance to my actual views. More troubling, though, is what this reveals about your understanding of the notion of culpability.

As an example, do you think that every 19th century US slaveholder was a drooling sadist, or can you imagine that some where simply embedded in their times, truly believing that the "lesser races" benefitted from solid Christian influence and treating their enslaved workers humanely? Hope this isn't too much of a stretch for you so far. Now, does the non-demon status of the slaveholder in any way mitigate the infamy of slavery? Nope. So you see that one can-in fact, one nearly always does-condemn states/institutions/systems even though their representatives are not all monsters.

Similarly, one can-in fact, one nearly always does-support the rights of individuals or groups despite their not always being sterling examples of human perfection.

That said, your ideas re the benevolence of Palestinians contain a germ of truth. Until European Zionists decided to dispossess their neighbors in Palestine, relations between the inhabitants were largely cordial. The indigenes were in fact largely content to tend to their trees, etc. That is, the Palestinians were no better and no worse than than the average human group-they reacted to the looming loss of their land, animated by this perfectly understandable fear and not the genetic anti-Semitism of Zionist fantasy.

By the way, are you saying that the Palestinians were not an agrarian people who inhabited that land for millennia? You're not resuscitating Joan Peters, are you? If so, I hereby give notice that you'll be treated exactly like a flat-earther or phlogiston fan, and the abuse from my end will make what's gone before seem like a birthday party. 

My assigning blame to Israel has nothing to do with a romanticized picture of Palestinians nor to a distorted demonizing of Israel. It is-this may come as a shock-exactly like what we all do when we make political judgements: weigh the historical evidence and come to a conclusion. 

Thus I topple your ridiculous straw man. 

"Did I ever say I was an expert on anything? All I can talk about are my observations..."

Well, I can't speak to your expertise in other areas, but I agree you're no expert on the Middle East. But, see, comments like the following 

"In unguarded conversations, even people aligned with moderate parties talk only of one solution - they want it all. All of Israel. All of it. and the man on the street? Unabashedly in love with Hamas, even in Ramallah." 

"...you represent pretty much no one of any consequence - Not the Palestinian leadership, nor the Palestinian man on the street." 

sound like pronouncements about the beliefs of most Palestinians rather than opinions. But I'll accept your correction that they're just your opinions-clownish, risible, ungrounded and preposterous opinions-and commend you on your honesty in acknowledging your lack of expertise.

I make my lattes at home, unwilling, as is anyone with two tastebuds to rub together, to consume the swill at Starbuck's.

"You sure learned me a thing or two!"

That'd be "taught", not "learned". But your pal anon is right, I should pay attention to your meaning and ignore your formal trangressions, so thanks for the acknowledgement, although I know my work is far from done.

And, in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, thanks for sparing us the beer belly photo, or, God forbid, a video of you dancing.

You did the right thing.  

Ismail: Lord, how you must love how clever you think you are! It must be truly awesome living in your little delusional world. I stand by my initial invitation to piss off, but since you insist on obfuscating and dodging, well... it is Sunday, so what the heck.

Thank you for acknowledging that Zionists are not all monsters. That's mighty Christian of you. As to the notion of culpability, recall your brave declaration about the
"obvious culpability Israel has for the assault on Palestine?" - Palestinians have a similarly "obvious" culpability with respect to the continuation of the situation. No one expects "sterling examples of human perfection" but a few less Qassams would be a good start. Your use of the term "obvious" doesn't really help to add the proper nuance one would need in order to have a clearer understanding of the situation.

You are the king of straw men. Having a productive discussion with you is a total exercise in futility - even ignoring your heavy reliance on childish name calling. Your "abuse" is as meaningless as your dishonest analysis and it's as effective as the sort of childish name calling one would come across at a kindergarten birthday party. So please, by all means, if it makes you feel better, do continue to prove "conclusively" what a useless git you are. Or piss off. Either way, I will continue to chuckle at the empty, substance-free and vapid bravado you put on display here.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

"...a few less Qassams would be a good start."

Fine idea. Of course, Hamas has proposed just such an offer-repeatedly-only to be met with indifferent silence from their tormentors. Not silence, exactly-more like increased assault.

I marvel at how creative apologists for Israel become when it comes to producing Procrustean excuses for why the Light Unto Nations refuses to agree to a ceasefire, while simultaneously bemoaning the gall of the Palestinians to actually resist their brutalization. This is insanity; I mean this in the strict clinical sense, not metaphorically.

As for "obfuscating and dodging", please explain. My last post was quite on point and demonstrated, in clear and cogent prose, what I found lacking in your perspective. It's your right to disagree, of course, but there wasn't a particle of obfuscation nor a hint of dodging on my part.  

You're right about one thing, though; I am quite delighted with myself. 

'nuff said. 

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

I am applauding the idea of a one state solution for Jews and Arabs in occupied Palestine. Jews will leave peacefully until we decide we want their property. We will order peaceful resettlement of Jews in Chernobyl or Nevada, places they have real historic claims to