woolfe: You should "expect," especially from people on the left, that they are interested in addressing the deplorable treatment of gays, women, and non-Muslims in the Arab world, regardless of what is or isn't going on between Israel and the Palestinians. They are, after all, liberals, right? We're supposed to oppose sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism. In this country, you can be labeled "racist" for having a hula girl doll on your dashboard, but when they're executing people for sodomy in a Muslim country, it's barely a footnote on the left.
M: What you expect is based on the assumptions you make. I just covered that point. My assumptions, my insight into human nature tells me to expect this irrationality. Whose ox is gored, remember..
w: You casting it as "some group of 'others' was forcibly injected onto some say, Arab land to solve the guilt complex of other world powers" suggests that you are arguing that Israel is a special case which somehow justifies this double standard? If so, nonsense.
M: please don't make the mistake of assuming that a rationalization some group actually uses to justify violence and my ability to lay it out means that I buy that justification myself. I am against any Jew or Arab who can rationalize violence against the other, but not as a justification for similar violence.
w: The origins of western support for a Jewish state are complex and predate the Holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
M: its turtles all the way down. Every rationalization for violence starts with the notion that one is personally innocent and that excuses violent reprisal.
w: Neither Israel nor any nation should be immune from criticism. I have numerous criticisms of Israel, starting with their settlement policy. But an interest in so-called "perfection" should never be an excuse for ignoring or downplaying problems elsewhere. This kind of double standard suggests a bias, does it not?
M: I am the one who has been saying some liberals are nuts.
w: There is a tendency on the left to exaggerate misdeeds of Israel. For example, by using a racially charged term such as "apartheid" or by comparing Israel to the Nazis, or by claiming they are engaging in "genocide." Those claims are absurd to anyone who has actually studied history. The fact that some of the people making these claims are Jews does not bolster the credibility of said claims one bit. I would think being "morally evolved" means, among other things, levelling criticisms which are fair and reasonable, and being willing to criticize both sides in a dispute when warranted. It doesn't just mean being a Jew who is willing to criticize Israel.
M: Do you realize that when some belief is sacred to a person's sense of self and identity, one can become hyper vigilant and over-defensive. Those moral Jews I was referring to would include those willing to ree the faults in Israel's seddlement policy, in other words people like yourself.
w: None of which explains why those of a particular ideological bent are apt to criticize one country incessantly while barely addressing the problems in others. This explanation is too universal to address the particulars of this double standard.
M: All about whose thousand tons of garbage got gored.
w: Not "pointing fingers" suggests tacit approval for bad and immoral behavior. No one should refrain from criticizing Israel, or anyone for that matter, out of a desire to avoid "finger pointing." I understand what you say about the need for self-examination, but as a practical matter, a lot of "finger pointing" is 100% justified by the facts, while some of it is bullshit. I am focused on separating fact from bullshit, not on "finger pointing" per se.
M: As with the word apartheid, fingerpointing implies blame. Bigots sleep and are beyond blame. They are a mechanical reality, a conditioned response as guilty iof sin as a knee jerk. Now if one of those knee jerks proves to be fatal to others and the conditioning remains unchanged, leaving a potential repeatoffences predictably likely, the threat will need cutting off at the knees. Only a logical and dispassionate answer is required, not one full of a lust for revenge. One can only grieve that some are so sick that their freedom to act out that sickness must be prevented by the most compassionate means available, regardless of just how limited that might be.