Nah Marley, you know me well enough to know that I’m many things, but seldom subtle. 
It was just a comment about how my actual positions are deliberately being ignored in order for folks to demonize me. I suppose that I could’ve said “Finn eats babies!” instead.
It wasn’t meant to further the debate, it was a bit of annoyance that despite what I’m on record as saying about the resolution of the conflict, the status of US aid and settlements, the legitimate desires of the PA and the need for a viable two state solution, etc… there are some who will always, even in threads where the information has been posted so that they know they’re wrong, accuse me of supporting whatever Israel does, or wanting to bomb Iran, or whatever the current fiction is. I’ve been in threads where I posted that it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran, and people have said that I’m advocating bombing Iran. I’ve been in threads where I’ve said that we shout cut off all aid to Israel if they keep expanding settlements in the West Bank, and people have posted saying that I slavishly agree with everything Israel does and can find no fault with them ever. To be honest, it’s more than a bit frustrating.
So no, when I do respond to stuff of that sort I’m not so much trying to further debate as I am trying to point out that the claims are fictional in as strong a manner as I am allowed to go in GD.
“What do you think of all of Israel’s actions ever and which do you support and which do you oppose and why” is rather obviously not within the scope of talking about Israeli housing in East Jerusalem or US aid.
*
However*, the question of why 3 bil to Israel is singled out as a massive problem and a ‘destabilizing factor’ (and as pointed out, our military adventurism in Iraq is ignored or actually blamed on Israel) while Israel doesn’t need to be propped up, while 3 bil to South Korea earns nary a peep… is quite relevant in a thread about us aid to Israel and why it should be stopped. It directly goes to a question of which metrics we are using and, more importantly, why.
And when issues of “security risk” come up, it then pays to ask why if terrorists claim certain actions as justifications, why for instance we don’t say that terrorists’ demands must be met in other cases. What, for example, do you think is the venn diagram overlap of those who say “this is a security risk because terrorists might attack us, so we must stop it” and “abortion is a security risk because of abortion clinic bombers and doctor-killers, so we must stop it.”
The metrics we use are important.