Probably due to my legal training, I follow a certain process when interpreting documents. Attorneys are taught, and courts are required, to ascertain the meaning of a document (whether a contract, a statute, or whatever) by first looking to its "plain language." If the words in the document have a plain meaning, based on commonly understood usage or established legal definitions (depending on the nature of the document), then that meaning is applied and no further inquiry is necessary or permitted.

If there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the words in the document, and the resolution of the disputed issue depends on which reasonable interpretation is applied, then the document (or the specific provision in question) is deemed "ambiguous." In that event, extrinsic evidence (i.e., evidence beyond the document itself) may be admitted to resolve the ambiguity. If one party wishes to prove the correctness of its preferred interpretation, that party bears to the burden of providing persuasive evidence.

We are also taught that statements contained in a document must be construed together, so that each makes sense in light of the other.

With that background in mind, here are two statements:

1. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement.

2. The Zionist movement must be destroyed.

The plain meaning of those two statements, read together, is that Israel must be destroyed. To suggest otherwise is facially absurd and beneath a person of your intellect.

"Destroyed," of course, has a commonly understood meaning. My edition of Webster's defines it as: "to demolish, to break up or spoil completely, to ruin, to bring to total defeat, to crush, to put an end to, to kill." Webster further comments that the word "implies a tearing down or bringing to an end by wrecking, ruining, killing, eradicating, etc."

If you think there is another reasonable way to interpret sentences 1 and 2 above, you are welcome to offer your alternative interpretation and to point me to persuasive evidence supporting that interpretation. Failing that, I will continue to assume that it means what it so plainly says.

Analogizing the PLO charter to replacing a car's engine makes no sense to me. Perhaps you were being flippant and I missed the joke.

In any event, I didn't ask you for a purportedly clever analogy. I asked for your interpretation of this passage from the PLO charter (as quoted by you):

"Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland.... [T]he liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence...."

I will try this one last time. I think the above passage means that the PLO aimed to destroy Israel.

Now it is your turn.

What. Do. You. Think. It. Means.

>>>"The first step for entering into a reasonable dialogue about Israel is to do away with the idea that Palestinians somehow have more blood on their hands, or are more nefarious than other state actors..."

I don't think that they do, or that they are. I would hope I have made that clear by now.

Where I differ from many here is that I also would not say that Israel has cornered the market on bloody-handed nefariousness. There is plenty to go around.

Speaking for myself only, I thought GG's column today was boring and semi-recycled. Same old, tired story - some criticism of Israel catches Glenn's eye and he breathlessly hails the critic's noble courage, says it's part of a wonderful trend, then vitriolically attacks anyone who criticized the critic, yada yada yada.

The only response I can muster is that Glenn said "permissive debate" when he meant to say "permissible debate."

I did think, again speaking for myself only, that your phrase "bloodthirsty nebbishes" was quite funny.

>>>Speaking for myself only, I thought GG's column today was boring and semi-recycled.

>>>Not to quibble, but I'm kind of curious why you thought the words before the comma were necessary. Did you think anyone would assume you were speaking for them and then rush to the keyboard to protest?

Well, since you're curious (and not quibbling), the answer is that Cocktailhag made a general remark about the "silence" up to that point of commenters who hold a minority view around here regarding Israel, and I wanted to explain that I had found Glenn's column dull, without implying that anyone else's "silence" was likewise due to boredom.

As long as you're not quibbling.

>>>"If he were forced out -- and there's no basis for assuming he was until there's evidence for that..."

Doesn't your headline assume the very thing you say there is no basis for assuming?

Since there's no basis for assuming he was forced out, what is the point of this post?