Keith>> How rabid would be Loewenstein's reaction if I suggested a surgical counter strike by ... Arab terrorists to take out Israel's leadership?

Here is an example of your implication that the author is supporting the pre emptive strike on Israel. You hypothetically ask the question ‘how would the author react if the roles were reversed’ suggesting the author had a positive opinion on the original scenario

Keith>> Why do these Israeli apologists and warmongers continue to bother?

You are implying Lowenstein is an Israeli apologist and a warmonger,

Keith>> I don't believe for onr(sic) minute he wasn't aware of his omission in criticising a proposed Israeli pre-emptive strike.

You suggest he deliberately avoided criticizing Israeli pre emption

Keith>> In the context of the article which is criticism of the proposed US strike it means the author hasn't criticised the exact same proposal by Israel. That's unequal and indicates, if not error or oversight, then a deliberate bias. The original statement and subsequent omission is exactly how many Israeli propagandists put forward and promote Israeli positions.

1) Here you are implying that Lowenstein is an Israeli propagandist who deliberately omits criticisms to promote Israeli positions.
2) The context of the article isn’t the “criticism of the proposed US strike” its Rudds response to such a hypothetical event.

Keith>> It's about softening us up to accept an invasive …strike by Israel on Iran is a legimate(sic) way to conduct international affairs.

So to sum up. You argue that Lowenstein would react rabidly if the roles were reversed and Arabs mounted a surgical strike on Israeli leadership. You have also suggested that Lowenstein is an Israeli warmonger who deliberately refuses to criticize a hypothetical Israeli pre emptive strike, whilst criticising the same act by the Americans. Finally you suggest the whole exercise has been to soften up the public for an attack, BUT you weren’t actually accusing Lowenstein of supporting this attack .

Keith can you actually see the hair you are trying to split?

Do YOU read what YOU write?

'So to sum up. You argue that Lowenstein would react rabidly if the roles were reversed and Arabs mounted a surgical strike on Israeli leadership. You have also suggested that Lowenstein is an Israeli warmonger who deliberately refuses to criticize a hypothetical Israeli pre emptive strike, whilst criticising the same act by the Americans. Finally you suggest the whole exercise has been to soften up the public for an attack, BUT you weren’t actually accusing Lowenstein of supporting this attack .'

Thankyou. So the upshot of your post and all your personal abuse is that you've finally agree I haven't said or implied Loewenstein suported an attack on Iran.

I've not seen such contortionism since I last saw cirque-du-soleil.

Most entertaining, keith.

Beyond all your words, at the simplest level:

You've managed to take commentary critical of middle-eastern intervention from someone who has consistently been a harsh critic of Israeli policy and turn it into an exercise of Israeli apologism.

The real icing on the cake was claiming the author is softening people up for a strike... but backing away from claims he supports it.

Bravo. I'm quite impressed.

Keith

apologist - a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

warmonger - a person or agency that advocates war or tries to bring about a war

So you're accusing the author of softening the public up for an attack because he's an Israeli APOLOGIST and WARMONGER but you weren't suggesting he supports the attack.

OK > Do you really expect anyone to believe that.

Nop

What Ive said is that Loewenstein's article is softening us up not to be critical of an Israeli attack.

It is you who has assumed he's an apologist and a warmonger. All I've added was the way his article was constructed is typical of the Israeli apologists and warmongers who employ such tactics.

sheessssssssh.

Keith >> How rabid would be Loewenstein's reaction if I suggested a surgical counter strike by a few Arab terrorists to take out Israel's leadership would be an appropriate way to solve the occupation and repression of millions of people in Palestine? Why do these Israeli apologists and warmongers continue to bother? Didn't they learn anything from their debacle in Lebanon. That solved zilch and has simply lead to further destabilisation in the region. Exactly the same result as their intrusion into Palestinian politics in Gaza.

Keith YOU use the phrase “these Israeli apologists and warmongers”. They aren’t my words. ‘these’ is used to indicate a person just mentioned or pointed out. The only person mentioned in your post is Lowenstein. You could have used many words if you wanted to suggest that you weren’t including Lowenstein in your ‘warmonger and apologist’ attack. ‘the’ would have been the easiest choice. But that’s not what you wrote.

So to sum up your position again.

1) You weren’t suggesting Lowenstein is an apologist for Israel
2) But you are suggesting that Lowenstein is deliberately biased towards Israel
3) You weren’t suggesting that Lowenstein a war monger and supports the pre emptive strike
4) But you do argue that he is softening us up to support the pre emptive stike

Are you serious