Follow-up of the back-and-forth blogging with “DD” has spilled [after having exceeded 50-entries] from the prior page to a second page of comments on a PoliticsPa website [“Kathleen Kane Tells CNN Pornographic Emails Included Pictures of Children”] and onto a newer one [“Reader Poll: Do You Approve of Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s Job Performance?”]; the “perp” finally admitted he considers Israel to be illegitimate [reflecting, sadly, what can underlie much of the behavior of BHO’s Dems] while desperately trying to walk-back his strident condemnations, to wit:

DD:Wow. You wasted a lot of time writing all that crap that I’m not even going to bother reading, since you didn’t answer the % question about what % of the responsibility does Israel bear.

Me:Now that I’m going to answer your question, you will be obligated to attempt to reply to what I typed.

Israel, assuredly, accepts 100% of the responsibility for its actions – including bombings of Gaza – although, as previously documented, they have not targeted civilians.

Take note, also, of the fact that Israel takes full responsibility for razing the homes of terrorists.

DD:So, if Israel takes 100% of the responsibility for killing children and other innocent civilians, then Hamas as 0%. That’s rather surprising from you.

However, the policy of razing the homes of terrorists is counter-productive (unless you intention is to inflame hostilities with collective punishment).

The fact that Netanyahu has resumed the policy is further proof that he wants to keep the cycle of violence going.

Me:You falsely assumed this was a “zero-sum” game; Israel is responsible for what it did, but Hamas is responsible for placing civilians in harm’s way.

I’m not surprised that you have avoided – again – replying to the extensive debunking of your five claims; they are restated for convenience:“As of this moment, you

“[1]–support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts [per its Covenant] to destroy Israel and to kill its citizenry;

“[2]–claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the Founders/Framers – disregarding the Enlightenment – was not as great as that of the Magna Carta; and

“[3]–charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily] those who would try to kill them.”

Through it all, you have yet [yourself] to have confirmed that you feel Israel can justifiably claim to be a “Jewish State.”

DD:It is a zero-sum game when assigning % of responsibility

As of this moment, you

1) support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by Israel against civilians

2) The “Ethic” is different from the “supernatural/deity” aspects. The Founding Fathers were clear to separate church and state and declare that the state should not show a preference for one religion (or religious group) over another. Israel is still centuries behind the US in that regard. Their policy is more like “Animal Farm”… some are more equal than others.

3) The kids are TAUGHT that Arabs are “those who would try to kill them”. The adults are identifying to the children that the Arabs are their enemies.

Me:I dispute your characterization of my views, and certainly cannot concur with your reinvention of yours:

You write “It is a zero-sum game when assigning % of responsibility.”

Nope. Hamas is responsible for purposefully placing Gazans in harm’s way.

You write that, “As of this moment,”

1) It is UNTRUE that I support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by Israel against civilians; to the contrary, not only have you failed to document this assertion, but proposing it represents a transparent effort to counterpoint your having admitted that you are supporting Hamas in this regard.

2a) It is UNTRUE THAT the “Ethic” is different from the “supernatural/deity” aspects [in your usage because] the “Founding Fathers were clear to separate church and state and declare that the state should not show a preference for one religion (or religious group) over another”; to the contrary, there was no “church/state separation” [read the 1st Amendment], for that phrase was derived from a letter by Jefferson, years later [specifically neither precluding “establishment” nor “expression”].

2b) It is UNTRUE that “Israel is still centuries behind the US in that regard, [because] their policy is more like “Animal Farm”… some are more equal than others”; to the contrary, the activist courts are easily portrayed as “liberal” [as manifest, for example, by how the separation-fence was altered by the Supreme Court].

3) It is UNTRUE that “The kids are TAUGHT that Arabs are ‘those who would try to kill them’ [because] adults are identifying to the children that the Arabs are their enemies; to the contrary, any sentient being can listen to the hyperbole emanating from the Arabs and recognize the degree to which they represent existential threats.

Therefore, notwithstanding your lame effort to “place the shoe on the other foot,” whereas I have denied your assertions, you have acknowledged mine [e.g., admitting Hamas used human shields and sent missiles into civilian regions of Israel].

THEREFORE, the prior conclusion holds:

“As of this moment, you support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its citizenry; you claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the Founders/Framers–disregarding the Enlightenment–was not as great as that of the Magna Carta, and you charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily] those who would try to kill them.”

*

This is an amalgamated commentary from a childhood friend, for your edification and enjoyment:

“DD’s source is an LA-T op-ed written by a Palestinian proponent. I have heard black South African distinguish Israel from SA (Prager U). Besides Arab members of the Knesset and Supreme Court, Miss Israel was an Arab. Druze are in the military. Twenty percent is Arab and THEY vote (in a higher percentage then Dem’s voted in midterm –using his logic, America is an apartheid state). How many Jews live with Area A? Why were Jews forcibly removed from Gaza? Judeinrein by definition is apartheid. There was a Nightline (Ted Koppel’s show) show with PM Shamir that interviewed Jewish and Arab children. The Jews talked of peace and the Arabs talked of killing Jews. Let him read the Federalist papers to determine the influence of the Bible and the Enlightenment. I do not remember the Magna Carta even being mentioned.”

He also remitted this hyperlink:

PA and Fatah continue promoting violence

So, DD, perhaps you should finally admit the errors of your ways!

DD:You wrote:

“1) It is UNTRUE that I support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by Israel against civilians; ”

I’m glad to hear that you’ve decided to stop supporting and justifying Israel’s terrorism.I didn’t bother reading the rest of what you wrote.

I’ll just assume that it was a long apology.

Me:Your assumptions were in-error; first, my having accepted Israel’s ability to assume responsibility for its actions did not serve as an indictment of what transpired in Gaza and, second, I have been unapologetic throughout.

THEREFORE, the prior conclusion holds:

“As of this moment, you support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its citizenry; you charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily] those who would try to kill them; and you claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the Founders/Framers–disregarding the Enlightenment–was not as great as that of the Magna Carta.”

DD:An Israeli, Peled-Elhanan, a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has studied the content of Israeli school books for five years and wrote a book about what she found: “Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education.”

Here is a news article about her findings:

“She describes what she found as racism– but, more than that, a racism that prepares young Israelis for their compulsory military service… Children, she says, grow up to serve in the army and internalise the message that Palestinians are “people whose life is dispensable with impunity. And not only that, but people whose number has to be diminished.” ”

A review of her book ends with: “Peled-Elhanan’s book is the definitive account of just how Israeli schoolchildren are brainwashed by the state and society into hatred and contempt of Palestinians and Arabs, immediately before the time they are due to enter the army as young conscripts.”

Here is the Amazon listing, so you can buy yourself a copy.

Me:We should no more support reflexly the judgments of a Jewish anti-Semite than we should accept blindly the writings in Howard Zinn’s “History” textbooks.

*

She is a “radical” [as per repeated descriptions in an article that was published by lefties.

You have evaded answering the fundamental query as to whether Israel should be able to define herself as a “Jewish State.”

DD:1) She is an academic. A professor.

2) She read and researched the books, then presented her analysis.

3) She is clearly not anti-Semitic, and advocates for peace as a long term solution, declaring her belief that the current policy are ruining Israel.

4) Radical doesn’t mean wrong. Those that stand up to institutionalized injustice are often called radicals.

From the article: “Anybody who challenges the dominant narrative in today’s Israel, she says, is similarly accused.”

Galileo’s ideas about a heliocentric solar system were “radical” as well.

5) If you want to condemn radicals, then you should condemn all the pro-Israeli, pro-Zionist expansion radicals.

Anyway, I have sourced a well researched book to support my claim about Israeli children taught to hate. The research was from an Israeli, not an Arab (who you would have dismissed immediately). The research was from a professor, not a used car salesman, or a blogger, or op-ed writer or a video.

“The fundamental query”? This is the first time you are asking me this. My answer is that unless all citizens have equal rights, regardless of their religion or ethnic background, then a state that defines itself otherwise should receive no support from the US.

If by “Jewish state” it merely means that it supports and promotes Jewish culture/people, but not at the expense of the rights of non-Jews, then that would be acceptable. If it means that it plans to engage in ethnic cleansing of non-Jews, then it should be opposed by the US.

Me:

First, you have inserted a qualifier that you didn’t quite choose to answer; do you believe that Israel “plans to engage in eth[n]ic cleansing of non-Jews, then it should be opposed by the US”?

Second, your favored-author is a self-proclaimed “human rights activist” and, curiously, the article draws upon a value-judgment [“Nurit Peled-Elhanan of Hebrew University says textbooks depict Palestinians as ‘terrorists, refugees and primitive farmers’ “] without supplying detailed quotations. Indeed, her goal [“books might be seen to marginalize Palestinians, legitimize Israeli military action and reinforce Jewish-Israeli territorial identity”] is itself qualified.

Again, this differs from the absolute pronouncements from Hamas to UNRWA [documented earlier] that the Shoah be expunged and that Jews be targeted.

Thus, you have failed to cite a truly disinterested reference to justify your anti-Israeli claim.

Therefore, in addition to replying to the new clarification [removing a bit of wiggle-room from your view of Israel], you must again recognize the mire into which you have sunk yourself, to wit:

“As of this moment, you support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its citizenry; you charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily] those who would try to kill them;; and you claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the Founders/Framers–disregarding the Enlightenment–was not as great as that of the Magna Carta.”

Ken from Conshohocken:Mr. Diano, As Arabs applaud the senseless murder of Jews at prayer, please remember during Gulf War 1, American soldiers could not wear a cross or have Bibles; then ask yourself which culture is xenophobic? Which culture engages of acts of genocide? If you still believe it to be Israel, then ask yourself why you do not want to move to live in Islamic State? People are being slaughtered/sacrificed not for what they do (reporters or human rights workers), but for who they are [Christians, Americans, British, French, Italians or not the right type of Muslim]. Then note why The Jewish state’s newest hero wasn’t Jewish.

Me:In conjunction with what “Ken” wrote, you may wish to deepen your appreciation for the forces-at-play regarding the Arab War on Israel by reading Sunni Political Islam: Engine of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Jonathan Spyer

You will learn that “Fatah” is, in Arabic, a term literally meaning to “open,” but is used in context to mean “to conquer a land for Islam.” [It has no relationship with Palestine.]

You will also learn that the current argument being used by the Arabs is reminiscent of what had been invoked previously; in 1929, it was precisely an attempt by Jews to assert Jewish prayer rights at the Western Wall that led to a furious Arab and Muslim counter-reaction and this reaction, in turn, led to the slaughter of over one hundred Jews and the destruction of an ancient Jewish community (in Hebron).

Finally, you will learn from a Palestinian columnist [Dr. Issam Shawer] that the War against Israel is fundamentally religious [and not political].

You may not care that CAIR has been labeled a “terrorist” organization [by the UAE] or that the entity “Palestine” has never had any type of recognized legal status; we do, however, because we feel Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State.

DD:If Israel wishes to redefine itself as a Jewish state, rather than a Jewish/democratic state, then it should be able to do so. However, if it does do, the U.S. should cease to support it.

So, “yes” to should Israel be able to define itself. But, “no” to should they receive further U.S. support if the definition matches the one described in the NYT article condemning the recent bill in Israel.

“Not supporting” is different than “opposing”, so PLEASE do not conflate the two.

Opposing would mean for the U.S. to try to overthrow, dismantle, disband Israel.

Not supporting means that the U.S. not encourage bad anti-democratic, racist policies by sending them military aid or giving them preferred status.

The bill in question would be a bad definition for Israel, and further isolate it from the 21st century progress on democracy.

It would be lending support to Isis wanting an Islamic state.

This new definition of Israel, if finalized, would be another disaster by Israel’s right-wing fanatics.

Me:You are again trying to be evasive; my “double-syllogism” analysis was not predicated on whatever the Knesset might do regarding Basic Law; you need to be reminded of the first half thereof.

“I asked: ‘Do you believe that Israel “plans to engage in ethnic cleansing of non-Jews, then it should be opposed by the US”?’

“You replied: ‘Not only do I believe that Israel (under people like Netanyahu) plans to engage in ethnic cleansing, I believe they are currently engaged in the practice, and have been for years’.”

Thus, you feel Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing and continues to do so, and plans to do so; therefore, you “oppose” Israel already [“at of this moment”].

*

It is desirable to restate your posture [at this moment in time], based upon the aggregate of your language:

You “oppose” Israel and, thus, the U.S. should try to “overthrow, dismantle, disband Israel.”

You support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its citizenry.

You base your charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents and/or teachers by citing the perceptions of a radical human-rights activist that “might” yield this conclusion; you have acknowledged that Hamas has ordered UNRWA both to remove references to the Shoah and to promote anti-Semitism.

You claim that the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the Founders/Framers – disregarding the Enlightenment – was not as great as that of the Magna Carta.

DD:I’ve made it quite clear that my opposition is to the right wing policies of the Likud party.

I conditioned my opposition to “Israel” itself IF it passes the horrific bill in it’s [sic] current/proposed form.

Such an Israel would be an insult to the founders of modern Israel.

So, stop taking my comments out of context, when I’ve repeatedly made it clear that it’s Netanyahu and the Likud party that are criminally destroying Israel by promoting racism, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes against a civilian population.

Also, Israel’s refusal to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency should disqualify them from U.S. military aid. (Not to mention that they’ve stolen nuclear secrets from the U.S.). Israel should sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty. That alone is sufficient reason to deny them military aid under existing U.S. policy, that is not being followed.

DD:You keep making matters worse, for all I’m doing is preserving your comments; for example, at this moment in time, you oppose providing military aid to Israel [due to what you claim are aberrations regarding nuclear weapons].

In addition, you can’t undermine prior analyses with specificity [because all I did was to cut/paste your postings, even preserving their faulty syntax and spelling]:

“I asked: ‘Do you believe that Israel “plans to engage in ethic cleansing of non-Jews, then it should be opposed by the US”?’

“You replied: ‘Not only do I believe that Israel (under people like Netanyahu) plans to engage in ethic cleansing, I believe they are currently engaged in the practice, and have been for years’.”

Thus, you feel Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing and continues to do so, and plans to do so; therefore, you “oppose” Israel already [“at of this moment”].

*

In addition, when you attacked current Israeli policy because you oppose the forces behind it [“Netanyahu and the Likud party are criminally destroying Israel by promoting racism, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes against a civilian population”], you are again confirming that you “conditioned” your disapproval of Israel’s existence upon factors that you claimed are extant.

This explains why you support the rationale behind the terrorism being promulgated by Hamas [and, presumably, other murderers such as the Islamic State], and why you attempt to justify the fact that Hamas teaches hatred of Jews [even invoking the “academic” musings of an avowed “radical” opponent of Israel whose interpretations “might” be correct].

As bad as BHO has proven to be, placing America’s leadership into the hands of a mainstream-Dem such as yourself would doom Israel to being overrun immediately [yielding the beheadings of millions of Jews]; as I wrote earlier, you are a Shanda!

DD:1) I disapprove of Israel’s behavior, not it’s existence [sic]

2) I disapprove of Israel’s right-wing leaders/policy.

3) Israel is being destroyed from within by these right-wing Jewish extremists.

4) People like you are doing Hamas’s work for them.

Me:Typical of the confirmed-leftie, you are even stooping to engage in “historical revisionism” with regard to your own postings of extremely recent vintage; damage accrued from your retreat is compounded by how you would unabashedly treat Israel “at this moment in time.”

You stated unequivocally: “Israel’s refusal to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency should disqualify them from U.S. military aid.”

Therefore, you wouldn’t have sustained any support for the IDF [for decades], you wouldn’t have collaborated in the creation of the Iron Dome [nor would you have rearmed it], and you wouldn’t be employing intelligence-coordination between D.C./Jerusalem while the rest of the Middle East is in turmoil.

Once the gravitational-force of anti-Zionism has enveloped you, there is no escape from being drawn into the block-hole of anti-Semitism; Jewish lives are so cheap [recalling, for example, your “disproportionate” lament regarding the need for more Israeli civilian casualties to match those in Gaza] that you would apply a “cost-effective” criterion to justify a conclusion that condemns the Iron Dome [that every other sentient being has praised].

There appears to be no end to your venom directed @ Israel, and you even had the gall to claim Israel’s leaders in ’48 would recoil @ characterizing Israel as a “Jewish State”; you would perhaps benefit from noting a quote from her Declaration of Independence [“…DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL”].

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp