[Dan Halberstein]

Kevin, thanks for stopping by to posture and apologize.

You capture a soldier, you abduct a civilian, you kidnap a child. I'm not certain what you do with child soldiers, but it doesn't seem germane in any case.

I suppose those "capturing" were regular Lebanese army, wearing uniforms, carrying their weapons in the open -- as opposed to a street gang with a flag? It makes a difference, if you are claiming that the soldiers were not kidnapped. Won't argue this one further, because I think it's splitting hairs. It's also probably your strongest point, one on which you're say, 10% right.

Now, on with the rest... On judging Israel more harshly than other countries, it depends on what you're judging. Zionism? Resurrecting a dead country and turning a scholarly language into a modern spoken tongue? That's fairly wacky. Doing it in a neighborhood where you're distinctly unpopular also seems a recipe for disaster.

Thanks for popping in fifty-eight years after the fact to provide guidance on the founding of the state of Israel. Or did you mean to help out Hertzl and company a century late? Two points for your consideration: the "scholarly language" of Hebrew was a liturgical language prior to its modernization by Ahad Ha'am, no argument there. It was, however, known by close to the entirety of the Jewish people. Would you prefer they spoke Yiddish? Many Sephardic Jews would not. As to the "neighborhood where you're distinctly unpopular": There was much less anti-Jewish violence in the middle east than in Europe, at the time. Putting such a country where there was no historical Jewish population was not an option, nor putting such a country where there was thick settlement (there was not such settlement in Palestine.) The "model" refugee haven of the U.S. could not see its way clear to absorbing more than a handful of refugees during the Holocaust, and the same was true of the other liberal democracies. It is not a "fairly wacky" idea or a "shaky premise". It is the logical concommitant of the behavior of the West toward its Jewish population since the time of Rome: A non-Jewish country cannot be trusted to act as "guardian" of Jewish rights in the macrocosm. This has been proven again and again.

Worse, if you start your country with "Never forget" as a slogan, that's kind of a double-edged sword, since it's intellectually dishonest to expect anyone to forget anything else that's happened since, no matter how politically embarrassing.

Sure Kevin. All historical events are of equal weight. Of course. Call me when the number of lives taken by Israel over fifty-eight years' fighting is equal to a bad day in Europe, and I'll give this some credence.

Another double-edged sword is continually redrawing borders. The current mess with Lebanon looks an awful lot like Israel carving off the bottom third as new territory.

I have a novel idea: When you want Israel out of an area, make an agreement and abide by it, and see what happens. Seriously, just for Schlitz and giggles, just to see if it can be done. Like, when you sign an agreement -- as Lebanon has -- to disband Hezbollah along with other militias. In any event, the plan -- at least as announced -- is not to occupy as in the 1982-2000 timeframe. They're talking about a mile-wide strip. We shall see. Your root problem, Kevin, is that Israel's borders are not respected. Until they are, Israel has the obligation to cross them in hot pursuit of those who would do her harm.

The quasi-theocracy nature of Israel is hardly a good thing either, at least as a democracy....Also, putting a racial/religious symbol smack dab in the middle of your flag doesn't make you very credible if you have pretentions to being an inclusive secular democracy.

We've been through this one before, Kevin. While I'm absolutely certain that none in this country insist on religious displays, precepts, or terminology on their money, in their courtrooms, in their definitions of marriage, in the state's attitude toward abortion, or in any other public or secular pursuit, I am less certain of your point regarding the flag. Are you speaking of crosses, which would have to be removed from a couple dozen European flags, or crescents, which would have to be removed from virtually every Middle-Eastern flag (along with some southeast asian ones as well?) or are you only aghast at a Jewish religious symbol being on a flag??? Sorry Kev, but by the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" standard, you're getting really close to looking like a duck here. If you are so okay with Islamic and Christian symbols you don't even see them, and laugh at the parallel application Jewish symbols... how is that not Antisemitism?

Time to get to work... it's been interesting. I am kind of tickled by that navy blue expanse of emptiness England uses as her emblem in Kevin Andrew Murphyland... still chuckling.

Dan