No one is reacting to you. In spite of your sophistry and superficial mea culpas, you remain oblivious to the degree that you have exposed yourself througout your presence on this blog.

The reason no one is engaging in identifying areas of common understanding with you is your blatant dishonesty. Your insistence that the only way to achieve results with respect to the settlements is not only to treat Israel with kid gloves, but to cotinue rewarding Israel, reveals your true agenda. As I pointed out, you andcountless Israellis leaders had paid lip service to political settlement, while harboring no intent of allowing it to happen. You know very well that unless very real and tangiable pressure is put on Israel nothing wil change. Thus advocating a 2 state solution, whicle insisting that the status quo be maintained is a win win for you.

You’d reeive more respect if you weren’t so dishonest about your true beliefs.

I think that the word ‘Israel’ is an inaccurate abstraction for the set of people holding the views you describe. I would not disagree with:

Israelis have never given much thought to American soliders being killed. After all, the Israeli government murdered 30 of them in 1967 with the attack on the USS Liberty and they were only to happy to murder Rachel Corrie.

The latter claim about Rachel Corrie is excessive. The IDF must have rules of engagement for house demolition operations, but given the increasing level of indiscipline it has displayed over at least the last twenty years it would certainly not be surprising if her killing resulted from unlawful excesses, not that the legal qualifier means a damn thing given the complete lack of accountability of those who have been ‘caught’. I think it obvious to anyone with a shred of integrity that the IDF soldier who killed her would have been held legally liable for at least manslaughter in any civilized country, but is there any evidence to support the assertion that “[he was] only to happy to murder [her]“?

I suspect that most Israelis and American colonial, as opposed to moderate, Zionists aren’t bothered by her killing except insofar as it has resulted in negative PR, and that many support it, perhaps with regret and secret shame, as a necessary (as they see it) deterrent to other internationals interested in observing, documenting, or obstructing their campaign of ethnic cleansing and colonization in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that “they (all Israelis) were only to happy to murder Rachel Corrie”. Don’t hold culpable the entire nation of Israel for the actions of its government or the views of a subset of its citizens, and don’t forget Americans whose vindictive moral bankruptcy regarding this incident also merit recognition and contempt.

The first sentence has some truth to it and it’s also true that his style invites the dismissal of the rest of his statements. I wish he’d lay off the Nazi comparisons (and everyone else too, on both sides) and he does enjoy namecalling too much.

That said, aside from some of the unnecessarily heated rhetoric, the substance of his criticism is generally accurate, in my opinion. Your opinion of who a liberal humanist is and my opinion may be quite different–for instance, I think Thomas Friedman wants peace, but he is also an apologist for Israeli war crimes, a man with a double standard, someone who constantly lectures the Arab world on all of its many flaws and demands that they be honest about them, who then turns around and says Israel can be persuaded to reach a fair deal so long as they aren’t criticized too harshly. A lot of liberal humanists in the US are of this stripe.

The antisemitism to which Mr. Franklin refers may or may not exist. However, a man who was caught with 37 secret and 38 top secret documents hidden in his house, all clearly marked and jacketed, pled guilty to counts one and five of his indictment for carrying out espionage activities against the United States on behalf of Israel, and whose 12 1/2 year sentence was ‘miraculously’ reduced to zero days in prison an unseemly short time after his co-defendants charges were dropped in one of the more brazen displays of judicial corruption this decade, has zero credibility to criticize government conduct, especially with charges of antisemitism. If an unbiased observer comes forward with such accusations, I’ll listen. Until then I’ll file Franklin’s in section ‘cover-my-ass-by-blaming-it-on-everyone-but-me’.

Finkelstein calls a liberal humanist a racist. That’s calling a spoon a spade. (Not the racist use of calling a “spade” a “spade”.)

Who is this humanist? I am assuming it isn’t Dershowitz. David Aaron Miller?

We’ve been here before. Considering your pose as concerned sublimely ethical person you are spreading rumors pretty lightly. Some dirt will stick? This doesn’t fit a humanist but much more a political partisan. Or is this justified once one has chosen one’s aim? Apart from the fact that your target is pretty neocon/hawkish Jewish mainstream. You seem to have met and communicated with Norman only to confirm your prejudices about him, or the wisdom of the above group. …

Please stop these dirty tricks, they fit much more a Machiavellian than what you pretend you are.

**********************************************************************

Concerning the comment section this software sucks. At least a preview option wouldn’t harm.

Finkelstein calls a liberal humanist a racist. That’s calling a spoon a spade. (Not the racist use of calling a “spade” a “spade”.)

Who is this humanist? I am assuming it isn’t Dershowitz. David Aaron Miller?

We’ve been here before. Considering your pose as concerned sublimely ethical person you are spreading rumors pretty lightly. Some dirt will stick? This doesn’t fit a humanist but much more a political partisan. Or is this justified once one has chosen one’s aim? Apart from the fact that your target is pretty neocon/hawkish Jewish mainstream. You seem to have met and communicated with Norman only to confirm your prejudices about him, or the wisdom of the above group. …

Please stop these dirty tricks, they fit much more a Machiavellian than what you pretend you are.

Don’t you mean he called a particular humanist a racist? There’s a big difference.

I don’t need any imagination to knwo your psychology Richard. Anyone who has observed your rason d’etre would come to the obvious conclusion.

Obama’s approach has yielded no results thus far, therefore it is rediculous to suggest it has been effective. The obstacles not only remain, but unless he is willing to play hard ball, his rhettoric is largely empty. All the skill in the world is useless unless it is applied and includes a contingency. The Netyahu government have responded to Obama’s skill with contempt and are learning that there are no consequences to this approah.

To deny that power is created by force it to deny reality. From the day it was founded, Israel has used force to create it’s reality and it has worked. There has been little need for skill and knowledge.

Like I said, you like Obama because Obama has shown no fortitude against Israel. It’s like the Mafia Don who applauds the chief of Police who he has on his payroll.

On Obama’s approach, he is effective because his objective is to eliminate obstacles. The left imagines that power is created by force rather than skill that force amplifies.

And, in imagining that power is created by force, itself seeks to gather and use force, rather than skill and knowledge.

Finkelstein has never been afraid to call a space a spade. Those he criticizes are not deserving of respect. Isrelis applogists like yourself hate Finkelstein because he is fearless in his convictions and does not sugar coat his attacks.