This thread is like arguing with my ex wife . .

. she too found being oblivious to the obvious necessary to bolster her arguments.

{sigh} I guess we suffer from the same definition of "done."

"I will not retract my "final solution" comments because I still think that the burden is on YOU to show that your "opinion" on the Palestinian question in specific and Islam in general does not lead you towards the tendency to make broad, generalized statements that support the "destruction" of all that isn't 100% in support of current Israeli policy."

You could have selected any number of euphemisms from a multitude of options in order to assail, satirize or otherwise sarcastically characterize my position. YOU chose to use phrases singularly associated with the genocide of 6 million+ Jews by Nazi Germany - "fire up the ovens and gas chambers", and final solution. Under any circumstance I would find this inappropriate, but given you were attempting to mock and slap down my suggested course of action for the state of Israel, I find it reprehensible.

So, why do I care? Much like your feelings towards my descriptions of your original post, "idiotic" and the like, I think, nay KNOW, you are better than this ghastly style of mockery. I didn't care one wit that you described me as "elitist and condescending" as anything you've read in 10 years. I'm fair game, that was fair play. Employing Holocaust references in order to condemn or question my position on what Israel should do, is not. And I think you should take the opportunity to retract, or at least express regret, for writing such a thing. My positions are not "holy ground", but using Holocaust references to describe what I'm suggesting Jews do to another race just to knock me back, is ... to me anyway.

And just for the record I plainly demonstrated, or explained, my position in my last (not that it was that unclear to begin with). I stated:

"Furthermore, I wrote that Hamas must be destroyed. I also said the Palestinian voter knew exactly who and what Hamas was when they elected them. I contend both positions can be held without it following that I want a Palestinian genocide."

More than once I conveyed the idea that Hamas needs to be defeated ("destroyed") militarily. I also communicated that Israel need not weigh the PR value of their strategy or policy with a peoples (the Palestinian population) that would willingly select Hamas for their governing body. How you combined the two to assume that I meant to wipe out all of Palestine is a mystery to me. They are separate points in two clearly distinguishable parts of the conversation. And given you can not locate and will not produce where I combined the two, I feel no "burden to show" I am not in favor of something I have never advocated.

Last point ... you wrote:

"When I say I was asking a question, I was trying to start a discussion on the viability of these other options (if they are indeed viable). It is painfully obvious that you resent and take serious objection to the manner in which I phrased my post... I simply do not understand why yet. Yes, I used hyperbole and invectives in my post... but it was a devil's advocate position, and I didn't feel it was out of line."

Look, the Bund at large knows full well that you are our resident contrarian. Either for sport, or pleasure or perhaps it's simply embedded in your DNA, if one person says "up", you say "down." You relish the role of devil's advocate, I get it. However you seem a bit, I don't know, "rusty." What I mean to say is you clearly are having trouble distinguishing the line which separates simply acting as devil's advocate to initiate discussion, and picking a fight. When you attempt to portray the "other side" and you engage phrases like "rubbing the common man's face in the dirt" you do more to shut down discussion then encourage it - at least regarding the Israeli/Hamas-Palestine issue. It's an immediate turn off - were it any other person I would have simply said "moron", and moved on. In other words I'm not going to debate Oberhman, he's going to employ over the top insulting hyperbole, I'm going to respond in kind, and the whole thing will turn into a name calling match - sound similar?

Now were we discussing health care (or a similar issue) and you remarked to an advocate of Obama's plan, "so you want grandma dead, huh?" We would all laugh, and a rationale discussion can still follow. However, in the case of the Israel/Hamas question, it's different. At least it is to me. Here we are discussing a matter of good versus evil, dark versus light. And the good side happens to be a tribe kicked around by history like no other. In addition, the same ideology, fascism and perversion of God's "word' that represents evil in this case is the very evil our own nation is at war with on 2+ fronts and killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In this discussion, where school buses of children are blown up, families eviscerated for the crime of standing in line at a kosher deli, I have no patience for rhetoric which describes the victims as "rubbing" the aggressors "face in the dirt." I hope this makes sense and hopes to clarify my original, visceral post.

Now, seeing as you made clear the rhetoric of your original post (the face in the dirt comment) was mere hyperbole (a mistake, a poor choice in my view, but hyperbole nonetheless) it would seem my personal attacks were unwarranted, thus I apologize. However, there is still no excuse for the ovens, gas chambers, and final solution comments - that is a separate matter entirely which occurred in subsequent posts and this apology is NOT referencing my attack on such a poor decision. You were grossly mistaken in writing such a thing.

At any rate, I would kindly suggest in future attempts at playing a mere devil's advocate that you do reread your posts before publishing and decide if your words will accomplish that goal, or simply start a fight.