The misery you refer to is what one experiences when faced with a difficult moral choice. It will continue to weigh heavily on ones conscience as long as one evades it. [...] In contrast the (much larger number of) Jews I know involved in the struggle are obviously unhappy about the situation, but they have an inner peace and a genuine sense of security that is denied to their fellows who choose to remain in denial.

I am not sure it is always the case. People are very good at rationalizing things and bribing their conscience. On the other hand, those that do realize the extent of the injustice and the need to do something to stop it, will always agonize about doing not enough. For example, I wish I could brag about doing anything even approximating what the woman in this video is doing, but even she is tortured about inadequacy of her efforts. In short, from my own experience I believe it is fairly easy to suppress the call of conscience.

There will always be those for whom group solidarity counts more, and those who are just racists or supremacists.

I don’t entirely agree with this. It is a topic for a deeper discussion, but I believe that fear of anti-Semitism plays an enormous role in Jews being too sensitive to criticism of Israel. You’d have to grow within an average Jewish home to appreciate it, maybe. I believe that a lot of Jews, especially of the older generations, still see the world as a very hostile place. For example, one of the first reactions to news like those of Madoff scam is to think of the possible anti-Semitic backlash, of how the news will be perceived by the gentiles. Thus any criticism of Israel is automatically seen as giving fodder to anti-Semites. One has to step over a psychological barrier to free oneself from such a mindset and it is not easy for a lot of people. So, it is not about people considering the Palestinians as inferior or any other racist motivations, but rather a defensive reaction. Again, this is a deep topic, Phil Weiss tackles it very often but even he, I believe, never fully explored it.

Hmmm. Why, then, did I write the following?

“When was Lieberman convicted of assault?”
“Richard – do you have an assault for that?”
“You said he was convicted.”

You then said “The main question for me is not: was he convicted of child beating,” and from that point on the discussion continues on the basis that you aren’t sure that he was convicted, until Amir comes up with the evidence. So I was only sure because you seemed to accept my point. Had you backed up your original writings like you demand all and sundry who question you, none of this dialogue would ever have taken place.

I have looked back over the thread and can’t find any reference to this trusted commenter. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

As for your explanation of the ad hominem, it would have delighted Orwell (if you’ll forgive the cliche). Please will you add to the rules that ad hominems are acceptable when dealing with someone who accuses someone else of being wrong but is in fact wrong themselves.

While we’re on the topic of learning from all this, I think you should look back on what Peter D wrote a few threads ago before you make your reply.

At no stage did I speak with certainty.

That’s bull and you know it. You were certain I was wrong. And you allowed a “cursory internet search” to convince you I was. You wanted me to be wrong. You wanted me to be wrong so much you could practically taste it. And yet I wasn’t and you were.

Maybe next time you’ll research yr position a little better.

BTW, you’re ignoring the fact that I specifically said that a commenter here had posted that he was convicted of child beating. To say I had “no evidence” is false. I had the word of a trusted reader whose been right about many of these issues in the past.

When you accuse me of being wrong about something & you’re wrong then I get to call you all those things. Next time, if you’re more careful then you won’t be wrong & I won’t have to use those terms.

Google in Hebrew

If I was Richard I wouldn’t be sweating about Lieberman suing.

I can always dream, can’t I? Libel can be claimed only when someone KNOWLINGLY says something is false. And if the person is a very contentiouis public figure the standard is even lower. Since I actually believed he’d been convicted, then what I wrote, even were I wrong, could not be libel (according to U.S. law).

As for Hamas, nice try. I said we don’t agree about much (except Lieberman’s conviction) & Hamas is one of those big areas of disagreement.