>If you are going to make an argument that Israel should be treated
>differently from other nation-states in the same category, then you >must show
>how it is different from those other nation-states. My argument is not >that
>there is nothing wrong with what nation-states in general, and settler
>nation-states in particular, do, but an argument that whatever their >wrongs,
>a consistent approach to them is required. To single out for the most >extreme
>punishment the one settler nation-state which, if anything, has the >most
>mitigating factors for doing the wrong it has done, which was founded >out of
>a desire to escape oppression, is not simply illogical, but >extraordinarily
>suspect.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Inconsistency can be inconsistent for it's own reasons.
I was a touch disappointed, Leo, that you threw in those last three words: "but extraordinarily suspect". One could argue that it is extraordinarily suspect that you harp so much on consistency in treatment for nation states: it makes any sort of critique of Israel more difficult (not that truth shouldn't do this, but the Devil can quote scripture for His own purposes). One would hope that you're not crassly in someone's pocket; it would be even more disappointing to those who respect you.
I think it was Yoshie herself who said something previously about trust and secret police informants and sowing dissent in Leftie ranks (not that the cops need help).
Todd