Israel and Civilian Kills

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FinnAgain

You’re changing the subject again. It was not if it was a good negotiating position, but whether it was a viable peace plan. As it is, it’s a bad negotiating position and judging from the UN’s history in Lebanon, UN peacekeepers aren’t exactly a silver bullet.

I didin’t realize that approaching a problem from a different perspective from you was “changing the subject”
In your view is there any workable solution other than the status quo?

Arab Peace Initiative

The arab peace initiative is seen as the foundation of a workable solution by a lot fo people (most of Hamas still doesn’t like it and Likud has rejected it). The arab world makes an unprecedented overture to Israel, offering to normalize relations in exchange for a two state deal with something much less than the right of return but still laying much of the burden of the Palestinian refugee problem on Israel and Israel’s response has been much like yours.

There may come a time when israel will sorely wish it engaged reasonable offers when there were reasonable offers to be engaged.

Just as you can point to the words of Prince Bandar criticizing Arafat for not accepting the deal in 2000, we may one day be pointing to the words of President Obama when he said:“The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco”

At Obama’s request, the arab league is modifying the plan to make it more attractive to Israel. The new plan includes a demilitarization of the future Palestinian state as well as a forfeiture of the Palestinian right of return to Israel proper. According to the revisions, a portion of the refugees would be relocated to the future Palestinian state, and the rest would be naturalized in other Arab countries.

so I’ll stop trying to challenge your belief.

I have no skin in this game, no reason to be irrational about it. I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, Arab or Persian I have no reason to distort reality to justify my view of the world. If you used facts and reason, you could convince me of anythign that facts and reason would support.

Your insistence that the UN did nothing to create the state of Israel just means that we will never find common ground because you insist on a version of reality that says that millions of Jews coinicidentally congregated in Palestine, formed a government and fought a war to create itself out of whole cloth without any help or support from anyone else.

The only purpose of arguing about this issue is to determine whether Israel is required as a condition of its creation to permit the right of return. You will obviously believe whatever version of reality that will not require this.

Again, if your argument is that even Palestinians who didn’t own property in Israel (and their children, and their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren, and…) deserve to be granted land there to live on and that it’s a "right, it’s obvious that your argument isn’t objective but supports one side’s claims.

The right of return has never been tied to land ownership (its not the right of return for landowners, or the right of return and 40 acres and a mule), it is simply the right of return, I don’t recall the right of return requiring Israel to grant land to all (or even any) who exercise the right of return.

No, I don’t ignore the fact that you are strawmanning my argument. I’ve asked you to stop several times.

How is it straw man? You said:

"Your argument isn’t exactly objective when it privileges the claims of those who didn’t own land on which they were living to a “right” to return to it, especially since all the other people at the same time period who were part of population transfers, from Europe to India, have no such “right”. "

You don’t think tehre is a difference between the creation of Pakistan/India and the creation of Israel/Palestinian refugee camps?

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Your insistence that the UN did nothing to create the state of Israel just means that we will never find common ground because you insist on a version of reality that says that millions of Jews coinicidentally congregated in Palestine, formed a government and fought a war to create itself out of whole cloth without any help or support from anyone else.

Are you contending that the UN inspired or encouraged the Jews to create their state?

Seems to me that, at its highest, they recognized and attempted to give legitimacy to a process that had been going on for some time before the UN even existed.

Surprisingly enough, the creation of Israel was more or less the spontaneous creation of Jews - at first, quite small numbers of Jews.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

By the time of the War of Independance (and for about a decade before), the Brits were actively discouraging Jewish immigration to Palestine - even in face of the German persecution, and in face of the survivors attempting to flee Europe after the war.

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia

And in the twenty of so years before that?

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

And in the twenty of so years before that?

If you reach back to the very beginning of Zionism, it is all the Turk’s “fault”. It was they who originally allowed Jews to buy land there.

Certainly, the Balfour declaration encouraged Zionists. However, it was by no means obvious what exactly the Brits meant by it and it has been controversial ever since.

What is not controversial is that, in the critical decade immediately preceding the creation of the state, the official British policy was to strongly discourage all Jewish immigration - even though this meant, in effect, leaving the Jews of Europe to the tender mercies of the Nazis.

This policy continued after the war, resulting in the disgraceful sight of Brits creating their own concentration camps full of Jews after the end of WW2 (arousing opposition around the world, or more exactly, in North America). This continued right up to the day the war of 1948 broke out, when the Brits washed their hands of the matter.

In the event, the Brits were by no means impartial. They in all ways favoured the Arabs. British officers in fact trained the army of Jordan; whenever possible, in the months leading up to the war, the Brits raided Jewish arms caches and as they left, they handed over key instilations to the Arabs.

In short, they did all they could to avoid the creation of an Israeli state (and in return, were often the target of proto-Israeli attacks leading up to '48).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

There was nothing organic or inevitable about the creation of Israel. Had they lost the war, there would be no Israel. Had they won the war, but not been recognized by the UN, there would be an Israel.

I agree that UN approval is not required for nationhood. can we also agree that there were several necessary step in the creation of israel and that at least a few of the necessary steps included the support of the UK and the UN. If the Balfour declaration had never occurred and the Un had never dreamed up teh aprtition plan and was happy to let Palestine remain a wild west, do you think that events would still have unfolded largely as they did, when they did?

The issue is why there is an “Anti-Zionism” but not (so much) an “Anti-Frenchism” or “Anti-Germanism”. That is, why the very existence of ethno-nationalism of this particular nation is so resented as to have its own terminology.

I think its those other things you point to. Perhaps it is the manifestation of the guilt over colonialism that they see shadowed in the middle east. Perhaps it is the fact that so much of the fight in the middle east is over maintaining the Jewish nature of Israel. I don’t doubt that much of the anti-zionism in Europe is actually anti-semitism. having worked almsot everywhere in Europe, its hard to say that anti-semitism does not exist in Europe (it is waaay out in the open), if that’s your point then OK I agree. Oddly enough Germany is the only european country where anti-semitism is not rampant (wierd huh?).

I also think that a lot (not all) of the anti-semetism in the Middle east didn’t develop until Jews started agitating for their own state in Palestine.

No, read the article you cite. The term “Dhimmi” means a second-class sort of citizenship offered to people of the book, like Jews and Christians. And yes, certainly the Islamic world resents the success of the “Chistian” West. But even more humiliating is the success of the Jews.

My point was taht Dhimmi is not second calss citizenship based on “anti-semitism” so much as it is second class citizenship based on “anti-anyone that isn’t muslimism” I don’t know that this is necessarily any better in efect but the motives seem different.

Throughout history, the Islamic world has fought on more or less equal terms with “Christiandom” - sometimes winning, sometimes losing. This is not true of their realions with the Jews, who were a dispised minority in “Christendom” and the dar-al-Islam alike.

I still don’t see where Jews were any more despised than Christians but I hear what youa re saying.

If you are a boxer and get beaten by another boxer, it’s bad but understandable. If you are a boxer and get beaten by a 98 pound weakling, who used to be the recipient of pity and who is famous in popular stereotype for cowardice and weakness, it’s humiliating.

Yeah… I think we can safely say that Jews (or at least Israelis) have shed any sort of reputation for cowardice and weakness, they can put it back in their pants now… seriously.

This is why, for example, Egypt was (uniquely) able to make peace with Israel after 1973. The Egyptians had been thoroughly humilated in 1948, 1956 and especially in 1967 - when their entire army was sent packing, famously, in less than a week. In 1973, the Egyptians were able to surprise and deeply shock the Israeli army, which had grown complascent and sure of its superiority (in 1967, the Israelis had been concerned they would be wiped out). Israel still won the war, but it was a tough fight. Egyptian honour restored, peace became a possibility.

What made the arab peace plan possible?

It’s a staple of the left-wing political critique of Israel. The main reason it’s a non-starter is that Israelis are not exemplars of anyone’s “colonialism”. They are not a colony, they have no relationship with a metropolitan entity.

I hear you but Israel is a military occupier and exercising some colonialist attitudes towards the palestinians.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

If you reach back to the very beginning of Zionism, it is all the Turk’s “fault”. It was they who originally allowed Jews to buy land there.

Certainly, the Balfour declaration encouraged Zionists. However, it was by no means obvious what exactly the Brits meant by it and it has been controversial ever since.

What is not controversial is that, in the critical decade immediately preceding the creation of the state, the official British policy was to strongly discourage all Jewish immigration - even though this meant, in effect, leaving the Jews of Europe to the tender mercies of the Nazis.

In short, they did all they could to avoid the creation of an Israeli state (and in return, were often the target of proto-Israeli attacks leading up to '48).

So the way I hear you, you are saying that while the Brits might have been helpful to the creation of the state of Israel at one point, they changed their minds (why did they cahnge their minds?). Do you think that Israel would exist where it is today if not for the Balfour declaration?

Do you think that Israel would have had its baptism by fire if not for the UN partition plan or is it possible that things would have dragged on for a while at which point tehre would have been one palestinian state with a large Jewish minority?

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I agree that UN approval is not required for nationhood. can we also agree that there were several necessary step in the creation of israel and that at least a few of the necessary steps included the support of the UK and the UN. If the Balfour declaration had never occurred and the Un had never dreamed up teh aprtition plan and was happy to let Palestine remain a wild west, do you think that events would still have unfolded largely as they did, when they did?

Of the two the Balfour declaration is far the more significant. The UN partition plan was an attempt to direct events already underway. It failed.

Had the UN not tried, it would have made little difference.

I think its those other things you point to. Perhaps it is the manifestation of the guilt over colonialism that they see shadowed in the middle east. Perhaps it is the fact that so much of the fight in the middle east is over maintaining the Jewish nature of Israel. I don’t doubt that much of the anti-zionism in Europe is actually anti-semitism. having worked almsot everywhere in Europe, its hard to say that anti-semitism does not exist in Europe (it is waaay out in the open), if that’s your point then OK I agree. Oddly enough Germany is the only european country where anti-semitism is not rampant (wierd huh?).

I also think that a lot (not all) of the anti-semetism in the Middle east didn’t develop until Jews started agitating for their own state in Palestine.

I can agree with all that.

My point was taht Dhimmi is not second calss citizenship based on “anti-semitism” so much as it is second class citizenship based on “anti-anyone that isn’t muslimism” I don’t know that this is necessarily any better in efect but the motives seem different.

I still don’t see where Jews were any more despised than Christians but I hear what youa re saying.

It isn’t that Muslims had any greater love for Christians. It is that Christians were more to be feared. They controled powerful states and abuse of Christians carried with it the possibility that these states would get pissed off and attack (the Crusades being an example, originally inspired by Fatimid abuse of pilgrims in Jerusalem).

Abuse of Jews carried with it no such consequence - until now.

Yeah… I think we can safely say that Jews (or at least Israelis) have shed any sort of reputation for cowardice and weakness, they can put it back in their pants now… seriously.

The problem here is not that Israelis can’t put it back in their pants - it is that Arab sensibilities are offended, making peace difficult.

What made the arab peace plan possible?

For one, it originates with the Saudis, who among all Arabs is least concerned with this notion. The Saudis have never been in the fight with Israel directly, so have no rep to bolster.

I hear you but Israel is a military occupier and exercising some colonialist attitudes towards the palestinians.

The Palestinians were treated no better by any of Israel’s neighbours. In fact, they were treated worse. See “Black September”.

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So the way I hear you, you are saying that while the Brits might have been helpful to the creation of the state of Israel at one point, they changed their minds (why did they cahnge their minds?). Do you think that Israel would exist where it is today if not for the Balfour declaration?

What changed the brit’s minds was a series of riots, and in particular, the so-called “Arab Revolt”.

1929 Palestine riots

1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

This convinced the Brit policy makers that Jewish immigration was having a seriously destablizing effect on their imperial holdings.

Their solution was to, in effect, appease the rioters by removing the immigration.

This was the era when the Brits went in for appeasement as a policy. The appeasement represented by the White Paper worked exactly as well as the appeasement at Munich.

Do you think that Israel would have had its baptism by fire if not for the UN partition plan or is it possible that things would have dragged on for a while at which point tehre would have been one palestinian state with a large Jewish minority?

The conflict between Arabs and Jews was, at that point, inevitable and nothing that the Brits or UN could do, aside from massive intervention no-one had the stomach for, was going to stop it. One or the other was going to “win”. If the Arabs had won, given the rhetoric of the day, I doubt any Jews at all would be living in what is now Israel.

A Palestinian state with a “large Jewish minority” was not a possibility.

[FinnAgain]

@Malthus

This policy continued after the war, resulting in the disgraceful sight of Brits creating their own concentration camps full of Jews after the end of WW2 (arousing opposition around the world, or more exactly, in North America). This continued right up to the day the war of 1948 broke out, when the Brits washed their hands of the matter.

Point of fact: the British actually kept Jews imprisoned until, IIRC, some time in 1949 before allowing them into Irasel.

@Damuri_Ajashi

I didin’t realize that approaching a problem from a different perspective from you was “changing the subject”

-You claimed that the Arab peace initiative was something that we might look back on and regret Israel not accepting.
-I pointed out that it had no provisions for actual security and was unilateral and would simply allow Hamas to attack Israel freely.
-You responded by asking if there was any plan that would prevent that.
-I stated “one that had phased withdrawal and was contingent on security and stability being maintained?”
-you then changed the subject from a phased withdrawal contingent on peace and security to “[a] plan [that] took place over a couple of years”

@Damuri_Ajashi

The arab world makes an unprecedented overture to Israel, offering to normalize relations in exchange for a two state deal with something much less than the right of return but still laying much of the burden of the Palestinian refugee problem on Israel and Israel’s response has been much like yours.

It wasn’t “much less” than anything, it was exactly what’s talked about when people talk about the “right” of return. And of course Israel’s response has been much like mine: a “peace” deal that results in Hamas renewing its war against Israel, this time in a sovereign state, merely leads back to war and is a “peace” deal in name only. Although casualties would be a hell of a lot higher.

@Damuri_Ajashi

The new plan includes a demilitarization of the future Palestinian state as well as a forfeiture of the Palestinian right of return to Israel proper. According to the revisions, a portion of the refugees would be relocated to the future Palestinian state, and the rest would be naturalized in other Arab countries.

Considering that there is no such right what you really should be saying is “a stop to the Palestinians; demand to have refugees, the children of refugees, the grandchildren of refugees, and so on, settle in Israel.” Again, your argument doesn’t exactly come across as objective if you privileged Palestinian demands as “rights”.

And yes, assuming security was actually maintained and it wasn’t simply a unilateral decision that couldn’t be modified if violence broke out again, and the boundaries of the states in question would be negotiated rather than the indefensible '67 boundaries, then sure, it’s a reasonable plan.

@Damuri_Ajashi

If you used facts and reason, you could convince me of anythign that facts and reason would support.

Rather obviously not, as you’re still stating that the British, who actively tried to frustrate the creation of the state of Israel and the UN, which did nothing at all except put words on a piece of paper, both created Israel. And you’ve stated that you’ve done so pretty much so that you can argue that Palestinians’ demands, including those who didn’t own land (and their great-grandchildren) can have a “right” to gain Israeli citizenship.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Your insistence that the UN did nothing to create the state of Israel just means that we will never find common ground because you insist on a version of reality that says that millions of Jews coinicidentally congregated in Palestine, formed a government and fought a war to create itself out of whole cloth without any help or support from anyone else.

You’re welcome to show any nation other than Czechoslovakia that actually did anything circa '48, and even then you’re welcome to show that the Czech government was actually behind such actions. I’ve pointed out to you, several times, that the British reneged on their promises and actually worked against Israeli independence in quite a few ways. You’ve ignored that.

To say nothing of your disingenuous claim that I’ve ever even implied that Jews just “coincidentally” moved to the region when I’ve specifically said that they moved there because of the historical connection with the land and also pointed out that they moved there in spite of the British trying to keep them out.. But you still credit the British for creating the state of Israel.

@Damuri_Ajashi

The only purpose of arguing about this issue is to determine whether Israel is required as a condition of its creation to permit the right of return. You will obviously believe whatever version of reality that will not require this.

More disingenuous nonsense. There are no “versions” of reality, but it is clear that you’re’ arguing for a counter-factual narrative because you believe it lets you argue for a “right” of return. Of course, UN General Assembly resolutions aren’t binding. So they don’t create “rights”.

@Damuri_Ajashi

The right of return has never been tied to land ownership

Bull. Rights to live on land come from having legal title to that land or the legal ability to use it. That’s what “right” means when you’re talking about the ability to live somewhere, the fact that you’re using “right” to mean “Palestinian demand” shows just objective your argument is.

@Damuri_Ajashi

How is it straw man? You said:

Cut the disingenuous arguments, seriously. Nowhere can you find me saying “because Europe expelled jews, Jews get to expel Palestinians.” You invented it, just like Paul’s claim about nerve gas.

It is disingenuous to pretend that a correct statement, that those who do not have a legal title to land have no claim that they (or their great-grandchildren) must be guaranteed the right to live on it, with the statement that Jews get to expel people because bad things happened to them in Europe.

[ivan_astikov]

You’ll be telling us that teh Holocaust has nothing to do with your collective outlook on the world, and you are so over that shit, next.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

@FinnAgain

But, actually you are the one who is proposing the ‘nerve gas’ option. I’d have thought it was pretty easy to keep straight which of us actually said something and which of us was strawmanning with a “nerve gas” absurdity.

If, as you say, peace is not possible, war is inevitable. That is to say, a war that will only end when Israel or the Palestinians are destroyed. Since Israel is outnumbered to the nth degree, they will have to do some serious wholesale slaughter to even the odds. Nerve gas seems the best way to do that.

Or, it that is absurd, we have to presume you are postulating a war that will only end when Israel is destroyed.

Israel must make peace or be destroyed. If you do not advocate peace you support the only other option.

[FinnAgain]

And, go figure, you still haven’t addressed the reasons why Hamas isn’t a valid partner for peace. You have just repeated your silly false dichotomy fallacy that if we say that the parties can’t achieve a comprehensible peace right this instant, we must be supporting genocide.

[Honesty]

@FinnAgain

I think we can both ignore your obvious strawman that if Hamas can’t be negotiated with, the only option is genocide, eh? I do like your rhetoric though. “If you are aware of what Hamas itself has said about its own attitudes to the peace process, then you must support genocide!”

I don’t get the Hamas and Hezbellah hatred. These are groups that were democratically elected by the people of their resprective countries. It’s analogous to the people of West Virgnia threatening to declare war on Pennsylvania because an unfavored candidate won an election there. What you people don’t understand is that Israel has successfully unhinged the link between the Palestinian/Lebonese people and their elected leaders. There is no reason, ever, why Palestinian or Lebanese would want to vote. You gave them a taste of democracy and slapped them for taking a spoonful. Congratulations. There is no way those countries will ever want to participate in democracy again. And who would blame them?

If Israel didn’t like the Hamas or Hezbellah to run, why didn’t they say so before the elections? Why feign outrage and surprise after the results? If Israel had a problem with these parties, they should’ve dropped some WWII-style propaganda flyers stating “IF YOU VOTE FOR HAMAS WE WILL TAKE ALL OF YOUR ELECTRICITY!!!11111oneoneone” or “Israel does not approve of Hezbellah, do not vote for them or suffer the consequences”.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

@FinnAgain

And, go figure, you still haven’t addressed the reasons why Hamas isn’t a valid partner for peace. You have just repeated your silly false dichotomy fallacy that if we say that the parties can’t achieve a comprehensible peace right this instant, we must be supporting genocide.

Why does Why matter so much to you? The situation is what it is for the reasons it is. That is unfair, unjust and most likely the other guy’s fault.

But the situation is all we have to work with. Arguing for the sake of argument is great fun, but not useful.

If Israel does not make peace, an imperfect peace with imperfect partners, now, before demographics are fully felt, then Israel will be destroyed.

There is no other possibility. Endless war can only end when one side or the other side is destroyed. In this case, it would be Israel that would be crushed.

If you do not want that to happen, you must push for peace.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Honesty

I don’t get the Hamas and Hezbellah hatred. These are groups that were democratically elected by the people of their resprective countries. It’s analogous to the people of West Virgnia threatening to declare war on Pennsylvania because an unfavored candidate won an election there.

Because Hezbollah and Hamas hate Israel and want to see it destroyed and they’re considered terrorist groups by the US. All this was perfectly clear before the elections. So when Hamas got elected, how did you expect Israel and the US to act? It was a surprise that they did what they did?

[FinnAgain]

Paul, your argument is a rationalization and sophistry. Israel has had the demographic balance against it since before 1948, hasn’t been destroyed yet. I know that alamarist, apocalyptic rhetoric helps you bolster your argument, but it’s empty. Likewise, it’s disingenuous of you to claim that letting Hamas attack every Israeli target they want while importing weaponry directly into their sovereign territory, precipitating an even larger war… is a path to “peace”. You have, rather pointedly, ignored the fact that you are not calling for “peace”, but war.

Ironically, you are actually calling for war so that we may avoid war.
Your argument is the Oroborous of rationalizations

CA: eh, Honesty refuted his argument with his very first words. (He doesn’t understand the opposition to racist, genocidal, rejectionist organizations that explicitly repudiate all past agreements and call for a war of extermination? Honestly?). He then threw in all the standard YouTube-commentary type canards. Being responsible for the elected leaders’ choices is not part of democracy, and anybody who says that is anti-democracy. Nobody could have predicted that electing groups whose platform is war, would lead to something other than peace. Democracy is like pixy-dust and once a group is elected, other nations are not allowed to react to it, at all, unless it’s to support and champion its agenda. And so on. Bonus points for his claim that Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy military force that nearly started a civil war in Lebanon recently trying to dominate it yet again, is analogous to Hamas and just part of Israel’s campaign to stamp out democracy.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Paul_in_Qatar

If Israel does not make peace, an imperfect peace with imperfect partners, now, before demographics are fully felt, then Israel will be destroyed.

Peace isn’t possible with Hamas. It’s not a matter of Israel wanting peace or not wanting peace. Peace isn’t possible with Hamas because Hamas doesn’t want peace.

[FinnAgain]

@Captain_Amazing

Peace isn’t possible with Hamas. It’s not a matter of Israel wanting peace or not wanting peace. Peace isn’t possible with Hamas because Hamas doesn’t want peace.

You have a point (that Paul cannot address let alone answer). But that doesn’t fit into a rationalization.

Paul has decided that Israel must accept an agreement even if it’s a peace agreement in name only. Even if it allows for Hamas to import weaponry and set up rockets within range of every single Israeli citizen, Israel must let Hamas start an even bloodier war for the sake of avoiding war. And anybody who disagrees with him supports genocide.

And yet, tellingly, his argument is only “The Israelis must accept whatever sham peace proposal is offered to them, even if it directly leads to a war fought by those who want to commit genocide against Israel, lest there be genocide!” but, curiously not “The Palestinians must accept whatever peace proposal is offered even if only most of their demands are met… and if you don’t agree you’re calling for the genocide of the Israelis!”

I wonder why.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

OK, hope it works out for you. Don’t come back to the US again when it blows up in your face again. As the man said, “You bet your life.”

[Honesty]

@Captain_Amazing

Because Hezbollah and Hamas hate Israel and want to see it destroyed and they’re considered terrorist groups by the US. All this was perfectly clear before the elections. So when Hamas got elected, how did you expect Israel and the US to act? It was a surprise that they did what they did?

I expect that Israel and U.S would have warned the electorate that Hamas and Hezbollah were unacceptable choices and that there would be consequences for voting for them. I’m still amused when Hamas (or was Hezbellah?) was elected, Israel decided to shut down the power. Why not shut the power during the elections to show the electorate that voting for an unfavored party would be acceptable? Why not warn the electorate before hand? You can’t spread democracy throughout the middle east if you start throwing a temper tantrum everytime a country doesn’t elect who you want to elect. This is precisely why it is Israel’s responsibility to either (a) stop meddling in other countries affairs or (b) absorb these countries and guarantee them equal rights.

@finnagain

Honesty refuted his argument with his very first words. (He doesn’t understand the opposition to racist, genocidal, rejectionist organizations that explicitly repudiate all past agreements and call for a war of extermination? Honestly?). He then threw in all the standard YouTube-commentary type canards. Being responsible for the elected leaders’ choices is not part of democracy, and anybody who says that is anti-democracy. Nobody could have predicted that electing groups whose platform is war, would lead to something other than peace. Democracy is like pixy-dust and once a group is elected, other nations are not allowed to react to it, at all, unless it’s to support and champion its agenda. And so on. Bonus points for his claim that Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy military force that nearly started a civil war in Lebanon recently trying to dominate it yet again, is analogous to Hamas and just part of Israel’s campaign to stamp out democracy.

Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? You claim that Hamas/Hazbellah are racist but Israel shows their racism through wonton destruction (e.g. cluster bombs, sending in hit-man squads in a camera-laden hotel in Dubai, white phosphorous, bulldozing women and children’s homes, bombing hospitals, etc etc etc). The Arabs hate Israel because Israel, through its actions, shows that it hates them too. If I were God-King of the U.S, I’d invade Israel and force it to become a U.S territory. If they can’t keep themselves safe, we’ll do it for you.

• Honesty