This is the second time Xanthro where you have left the reader with the incorrect the impression that my response to you:

"former Israeli Foreign Minister and U.N. Ambassador Abba Eban and I shared a bemused chuckle over your attempt to equate the Israeli occupation with US citizens living in Germany"

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/07/11/gaza/permalink/06d694afe97a3b56407725df38daf53f.html

could have been meant literally by me. You are smart enough to understand that I meant the "Abba Eban and I shared a bemused chuckle" part rhetorically, and not literally, don't you?

------------------------------------

You cannot share a bemused chuckle with someone who is dead, even rhetorically. Not only are you not certain of the person's thoughts, you cannot speak to the person's actions.

Whether Abba Eban argees or disagrees with my statement is inmaterial, you have no means to know whether we would or would not "chuckle" over it. The only way to have such knowledge is to personally witness such an action. Since he died before my post, you cannot have witnessed this.

You have the habit of attributing actions to people you only know by their writings, and it is dishonest of you to imply how they would react to others.

Poor choice of language or your part if you are simply trying to link your position with Abba Eban's. You didn't write, it appears that Eban disagrees with you. No, instead, you implied a personal relationship with his knowledge, because you felt this made your point stronger, but in doing so you implied something that is untrue.

Perhaps this dishonesty was unintentional, but it was still dishonest.

"In response to your misleading conflation of Americans currently in Germany to the Israeli occupation - meant the "Abba Eban and I shared a bemused chuckle" part rhetorically, and not literally."

No, you questioned why Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank can't vote, you also claimed this is true of the Golden Heights.

My point is clear, since the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel then why should they be able to vote in Israeli elections. Since the Golden Heights was annexed, Syrians, and Palestinians living there can vote.

Then you questioned why Jews who live in the West Bank and Gaza can vote. I replied it's not Jews, it's Israelis and they can vote while in non-Israeli territory the same as Americans living in Germany can vote, while Germans living in Germany cannot.

It's very clear.

That's when you presented your both outdated, and frankly silly arguement. What Eban wrote in 1986 is meaningless because it is before the Oslo accords, and Palestinians have voted numerous times since then, they just voted under PA controlled areas.

You keep bringing up 1986 data before Israel was commited to a two-State solution.

Eban does not agree with you and would be appalled that you are taking his outdated quotes and pretending they are valid for today.

"Israel is in the process of ruining a country and killing hundreds of innocent people who are not in Hezbollah."

If Israel wanted to destroy Lebanon, there would be no Lebanon. Hence, your statement is incorrect.

"They are killing innocent people, they know they are killing innocent people, and they don't care."

Do you doubt Israel could simply carpet bomb every major city without warning and thus kills tens of thousands? Instead, Israel drops leaflets telling people to vacate the area. The latter hardly supports your point that Israel doesn't care, and that the former hasn't happen shows that Israel is showing restraint.

"You are in effect saying that what they are doing is right because they could do so much worse. So as long as they only killed 70 people today, they're okay? If it was 700, well, that would be wrong. But 70! No big deal! Especially when they could kill so many more."

That's not what he said, and your argument is nothing but a straw man you've built up.

His point is that because there are not thousands to tens of thousands of dead in Lebanon, that Israel is not deliberately targetting civilians.

"Israel is knowlingly and intentionally killing civilians. Read this article, or any of the hundreds of others out there describing the bloodshed. You are rationalizing the murder of hundreds of people who have never fired a rocket or shot a gun or launched a bomb. And something is wrong with my moral compass?"

Something is wrong with your moral compass, because you lack the ability to distingush between intent and consequence. When a suicide bomber picks a crowded supermarket full of civilians, the intent is to kill civilians. When a missile hits a car full of those planning suicide bombings and civilians in the area get killed, the civilians were not targetted.

The two acts are not morally equal.

-- Freddie deBoer

kcrcarnold: I would have worked as hard as I could have to do so. I have no idea if it would have succeeded, but by not ever telling me there were problems, she froze me out from fixing them. That remains in my heart as the biggest betrayal she foisted on me.

---------------------------

The your ex-wife didn't tell you anything was wrong is because it would have given you the chance to fix it.

Some people never learn to value committment, they look for excuses to leave rather than reasons to stay.

These people aren't even honest with themselves, so it's hard for them to be honest with others.

I'm sorry for your loss.