tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post9098603164749465751..comments2023-10-26T06:29:39.824-07:00Comments on The Magnes Zionist: Are West Bank Settlements Illegal? According to Rightwing Zionist Lawyers, No; According to Every Other Legal Expert In the World, YesJerry Haberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-59809355727080877762010-06-17T01:58:02.687-07:002010-06-17T01:58:02.687-07:00Of course you are correct, at the moment. You do ...Of course you are correct, at the moment. You do know that the Zionist clock ticks away at a much different rate than other timepieces.<br /><br />But I was trying to reassert the starting off point. As in space travel, one small degree error will set you off-course a million miles.YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-25018704699154385442010-06-17T00:22:15.211-07:002010-06-17T00:22:15.211-07:00Yisrael, the international community doesn't f...Yisrael, the international community doesn't formally recognize the sovereignty of Israel over West Jerusalem -- and you are talking about the West Bank?<br /><br />I was really surprised by your comment. You of all people know the entire disputes, counter-claims, interpretations and counter-interpretations, and, indeed, the history of the various powers attitude toward the Jewish homeland and a Jewish state (quite obviously not the same thing)Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-25310650537524572012010-06-17T00:04:00.451-07:002010-06-17T00:04:00.451-07:00MZ/JH writes: "Is there a law that says that ...MZ/JH writes: "Is there a law that says that wherever there was a massacre, the communities have to be rebuilt and sovereignty returned to the holder at the time of the massacre?"<br /><br />I don't know. But since the international community had decided in its most supreme body in 1923 to affirm the reconstitution of the Jewish national homeland and, unfortunately, agreed that the Mandate principles be 'suspended' (not voided) as regards the territory of Transjordan which was partitioned from that reconstituted Jewish homeland, surely Judea, Samaria and Gaza still were to become part of the Jewish state. The agressive violence by Arabs can surely permit Jews to reassert their rights once the illegal acts of violence were offset.YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-67162973008021492392010-06-16T23:56:33.273-07:002010-06-16T23:56:33.273-07:00Anonymous,
What do massacres in Gush Etzion or D...Anonymous, <br /><br />What do massacres in Gush Etzion or Deir Yassin have to do with appropriating territory by force? Is there a law that says that wherever there was a massacre, the communities have to be rebuilt and sovereignty returned to the holder at the time of the massacre? <br /><br />By the reasoning of the 4th Geneva Convention, had Germany seized parts of Poland in World War II, those parts would not be recognized as belonging to Germany, and Poland would have the right to use means to recover its lands.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-60613074526022703212010-06-16T19:57:50.252-07:002010-06-16T19:57:50.252-07:00I am no expert in international law, but the resul...I am no expert in international law, but the result reached -- that Jews could be massacred in Hebron and Gush Etzion, for example -- and could not consistently with international law rebuild those communities -- is absurd. By your reasoning, had the German won the Second World War the Poles would be precluded by international law from reclaiming their historic territory. Clearly the intention of 49(6) could not have been to freeze all acts of aggression in place. <br /><br />I am not suggesting that the author of the Commentary article is right, but rather that this issue must be more nuanced than you present it as being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-55901627071096596762010-01-25T19:05:28.660-08:002010-01-25T19:05:28.660-08:00Mr Metternich,
Some clarifications.
1. Old treat...Mr Metternich,<br /><br />Some clarifications.<br /><br />1. Old treaties and laws can be superseded.<br /><br />2. I was not using rightwing dismissively or as a perjorative, merely descriptively.<br /><br />3. A nation can conquer its own territory, but the West Bank is not recognized as Israel's territory, nor was Kuwait recognized to be Iraq, though Iraq claimed sovereignty over it.<br /><br />4. Neither the San Remo Convention nor the Palestine Mandate say anything about a Jewish state. If the Jews had some sort of homeland in a Palestinian state (say autonomous region) both the mandate and the San Remo Convention could be fulfilled. And, of course, both could easily be superseded by an agreed upon solution. I know the Zionists didn't look at it that way, but big deal. Who says that the Zionist interpretation is the only one. Ditto for your rather bizarre interpretation of the national rights granted. You are putting forth interpretations that were rejected sixty years ago. If things were so clear and obvious, there would have been no need for the Peel Commission, the Biltmore Program, the Partition (accepted by the Jewish Agency, as you recall) Trusteeship, etc. <br /><br />Indeed, my arguments are appeal to authority. That is because in law, as in many other subjects, including science, what is reasonable to believe is what the majority of experts believe. And the greater the majority, the more plausible. That is how science is done -- you do experiments and you submit your papers to journals that have peer-review. Ditto for law. Now, it is possible, in theory, that everybody is wrong and you are right. But your arguments are so bad and tendentious that they are rightfully rejected, just as the Serbian jurists' arguments justifying their forces' war crimes are.<br /><br />As for the flat-earthers, surprise -- you are also wrong here! Scientists from Aristotle all believed that the earth was a sphere. But what about that Columbus business about sailing off the edge of the earth? A nineteenth century American history textbook invention. <br /><br />You see, you don't have any proof for your assertion about belief in flat earth -- besides, perhaps, your mistaken third grade geography teacher. And you talk about my appeal to authority!<br /><br />I am glad that you accord nations the right to make laws including laws to expropriate land from non-citizens in occupied territories. That would have been a good argument for the Germans and Japanese to use in World War II. But since then, the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified.<br /><br />Ah, but you are skeptical about the force of international law. Yet you are not skeptical about the force of international treatises that favors your side.<br /><br />Let me sum up your position, Metternich:<br /><br />"My side is always right. When international laws and treatises favor it, hurray for them. When they don't, who cares about them, it is all realpolitik and power."<br /><br />Spoken like a true chauvinist! <br /><br />And yes, I mean that term perjoratively!Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-50220255649758007102010-01-25T16:16:38.853-08:002010-01-25T16:16:38.853-08:00Having worked through all of the above, it must be...Having worked through all of the above, it must be pointed out that international law does not make history. Armies and various "Forces", such as technology and possibly even class struggle make history.<br /><br />The Nazi invasion of Poland was not prevented, of course, by international law. And the Nuremburg Trials after the war had no treaty or custom to back them up.<br /><br />If international law was really law, then nations would not need armies. In fact, nations would not be allowed to have armies since there would have to be a world government with a monopoly on violence.<br /><br />International law did not defend the Jews from the Holocaust and did not defend the Jews from the Arab armies in 1948. I trust my life to the IDF but I would not trust my life to international law.<br /><br />International law enters history mainly as a propaganda tool. Various media including this blog use it to bludgeon their enemies. I use international law to defend the Jewish People. What do you use it for?Your Correspondent https://www.blogger.com/profile/17440467058108985654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-55766089065781752072010-01-25T15:59:52.475-08:002010-01-25T15:59:52.475-08:00Mr. Haber:
The older laws or treaties are not lega...Mr. Haber:<br />The older laws or treaties are not legally obsolete. For example, the Hague Convention is still international law.<br /><br />Labeling those who hold a position as "Right-wing" in order to dismiss them is not an argument. Will any of those you dismiss as right-wing oppose Israel's socialized medicine system?<br /><br />That the West Bank was conquered is not relevant. A nation can conquer it's own territory, as the Soviet Union did in WWII.<br /><br />The Partition Plan of 1947 is not international law.<br /><br />The Palestine Mandate and the San Remo Convention of 1920 are indeed international law and they both were accepted by the League of Nations and subsumed into the UN. They both grant Jews national rights in territory that includes everything from the river to the sea. Arabs are granted civil and religious rights in that area.<br /><br />Presumably religious rights do not include a religious obligation to kill Jews.<br /><br />Treaties don't die because they are old. Neither do legal arguments.<br /><br />Most of your arguments are merely appeals to authority. The rest of your arguments are about recency, which is totally irrelevant.<br /><br />The earth was, long ago, generally considered to be flat by the vast majority. That didn't make it true.<br /><br />Israel was not created by the illegal Partition Plan of 1947, Jewish Palestine was created by the two treaties mentioned above. The nation of Israel was created by it's Declaration of Independence and the Jewish Agency. Nations have the right to make laws, including laws of eminent domain.Your Correspondent https://www.blogger.com/profile/17440467058108985654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-83702551842681351872010-01-18T20:56:04.605-08:002010-01-18T20:56:04.605-08:00Jerry:
You may be amused to know that I independe...Jerry:<br /><br />You may be amused to know that I independently rebutted Phillip's article using almost the same arguments as you <a href="http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2009/12/illegal-settlements-myth-myth.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> on my blog.Ibrahim Ibn Yusufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839484683464457225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-77099397480519421032010-01-08T07:17:06.411-08:002010-01-08T07:17:06.411-08:00"Only the laws of the goyim" ?? If Israe..."Only the laws of the goyim" ?? If Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention (and indeed it did), then GIV is Isreal's law as well as the law of (many) goyim.<br /><br />Those who argue that all of Israel/Palestine is Israeli territory (disputed by disputatious Palestinians but not "occupied, because you cannot occupy your own territory) are arguing that Israel is not a democracy because Israel has never offered a vote (or other incidents of democracy) to those who live in OPTs -- never mind that there qare two systems of law, one for Israel's citizens and another for non-citizens living in OPTs.<br /><br />BTW, what system of laws is there for non-citizens living or otherwise present in pre-1967 Israeli territory?<br /><br />Cheers. Keep up the good fight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-67913449532528643342010-01-08T06:59:54.170-08:002010-01-08T06:59:54.170-08:00Another magn(es)ificent article.
(The german equi...Another magn(es)ificent article.<br /><br />(The german equivalent adjective for "judenrein" would be "araberrein")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-69969231976867646202010-01-06T13:12:34.114-08:002010-01-06T13:12:34.114-08:00Mr. Haber,
There is a disastorous situation in th...Mr. Haber,<br /><br />There is a disastorous situation in the territories currently. That's indisputable.<br /><br />Why, though, does it even matter if the territories are classified as "disputed" or "occupied" under "international law"--if international law even exists?<br /><br /><i> Show me some prominent conservative non-Jews in international law who back the position that law professors at Bar Ilan and the College of Ariel back. Show me the liberal hawks like Dershowitz who support the legality of the settlements and dayyenu. </i> <br /><br />And if there were such scholars, would you grant any validity to their arguments?<br /><br />Maybe I'm missing something. <br />Isn't it a better use of our resources to figure out a way to disentangle ourselves from the mess we've created than to split hairs over legal theories?<br /><br />I guess that's why I'm not a professor . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-21303755513664679592010-01-06T10:02:02.354-08:002010-01-06T10:02:02.354-08:00west bank squatments are illegal, criminal.
east,...west bank squatments are illegal, criminal.<br /><br />east, south, and north squatments, takings also illegal, criminal.<br /><br />but<br /><br />magnanimous zionists occupy there, so ok.5 dancing shlomosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-88587318662871970462010-01-05T12:40:55.826-08:002010-01-05T12:40:55.826-08:00Yisrael, as I said before, I don't think that ...Yisrael, as I said before, I don't think that the legality of the occupation is just a left-right question. It is more a Jewish nationalist question vs. the rest of the world, left and right. I don't see many conservative jurists who are not Jewish leaping to the settlers' defense. <br /><br />In short, there is a remarkable unanimity of opinion among left and right scholars who are not partisan that the settlements are illegal, especiallly in the last twenty years. I know that it is tough for the settlers to swallow. <br /><br />But this is simply not a left-right controversial issue like, say, the war in Iraq or abortion.<br /><br />I used the phrase "rightwing Zionists". Maybe that was misleading. After all, there are many Likud folks who consider themselve rightwing and Zionist, yet who are not particularly supportive of the settlers.<br /><br />But let's leave that point.<br /><br />As for Menachem Mendel, frankly, I don't see this as a controversial issue among Israeli legal scholars today, but I cannot speak with much expertise. I simply know of no international law experts in Israel today -- the sort that publish on this subject in peer-reviewed law journals -- who consider the West Bank not to be occupied territories. Maybe there are some, but as you said, it is a minority opinion.<br /><br />It is not one's nationality that disqualifies him or her, but one's ideological biases.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-3829910819185483372010-01-05T07:20:55.326-08:002010-01-05T07:20:55.326-08:00"I don't know any intelligent person who ..."I don't know any intelligent person who thinks that the Goldstone Report was a "hack job", although I know people who think that there are many falsehoods in the report, and I know critics of the report."<br /><br />The question is, at what point do the amount of errors and falsehoods make something a hack job, although I do appreciate its heuristic value.<br /><br />Blum et al.'s approach is definitely the minority opinion. As to the possibility of Military Occupation 2.0, time will tell what that is determined to be.<br /><br />As for conflicts of interest, they should be discussed, but not abused. Is no American allowed to comment on the legality of drone attacks in Pakistan? No small number of people claimed that the American bombing of Belgrade was illegal under international law, should we ignore what any American said about it? That there is a diversity of opinion among Israeli legal scholars shows that people are able to rise above their nationality, etc.Menachem Mendelhttp://menachemmendel.net/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-46904410055129630492010-01-05T03:13:04.341-08:002010-01-05T03:13:04.341-08:00Your "if they were convincing, they would be ...Your "if they were convincing, they would be accepted by people who are not of their political affiliation" is either an understatement, a facetious off-hand remark or a private joke.<br /><br />You accuse the "right" of being the only ones to uphold a legal principle and cannot conceive that the main reason for the left not to agree is because...it is not convincing?<br /><br />Really, the left is so distinguished from the right in that it is neutral and pure of thought processes and extremely logical?YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-62026318026952900642010-01-05T03:07:10.339-08:002010-01-05T03:07:10.339-08:00Menachem Mendel,
"I would hope that someone...Menachem Mendel, <br /><br />"I would hope that someone's opinions would be judged on how convincing they are and not on their political affiliation."<br /><br />I did not say that their arguments were not convincing because of the political affiliation. On the contrary, if they were convincing, they would be accepted by people who are not of their political affiliation. I merely noted that nobody advances or accepts the argument that the West Bank is not occupied territory nowadays except rightwing Zionists. <br /><br />And you have proven my point, by presenting a position paper offered at an (extremely) rightwing Zionist think tank, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Note that the author bases himself primarily on earlier authorities because he, too, apparently, could not find more recent authorities in international law that support his view. And he cites Israeli authorities. <br /><br />Look, Serbian law professors may have been right when they came up with legal arguments that justified Serbian practices in the Bosnia war. The fact that they were Serbian does not automatically disqualify them.<br /><br />But it should raise some eyebrows, no?<br /> <br />When the only people who hold a certain view are those who are directly interested in having it accepted, and whose biases lie in that corner, then it becomes questionable.<br /><br /><br />"One should distinguish between the legality of settlements and the question of whether the territory is occupied." Who doesn't make that distinction?<br /><br />By the way, the question of what is military occupation nowadays is a difficult one. Traditionally, one criterion has been "boots on the ground." That criterion allows Israel to claim, with some justification, that Gaza is no longer occupied. However, in a modern technological era, there may be situations where one can have as effective -- and maybe even more effective -- control over territory and population without boots on the ground." Arguably, a military can know more about what a population is up to, and can influence it accordingly, nowadays, than during actual military occupations in the past. For example, leaders of a resistance movement in a territory under occupation with "boots on the ground" may be able to plan attacks against its opponents more effectively than in a day of almost total electronic surveillance and GSP mapping.<br /><br />So a country may be effectively occupied even if it is not actually occupied, such as is the case of Gaza nowadays. De jure it may not be considered occupied, because the de jure definitions are outmoded.<br /><br />When such a situation happens, then there will be dispute over whether a territory should be considered occupied or not. And that is the case with Gaza. Here it is not only Israel (or rightwing Zionists) who are saying that Gaza is not occupied territory.<br /><br />Of course, Israel never considered its occupation of Gaza to be legally an occupation. So it is somewhat amusing to see it go to such a length to argue that the non-occupation is over. <br /><br />"Lastly, one can still be in favor of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and think that the legal situation may be a bit murky and that the Goldstone Report was a hack job."<br /><br />I don't know any intelligent person who thinks that the Goldstone Report was a "hack job", although I know people who think that there are many falsehoods in the report, and I know critics of the report.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-13454873138106232282010-01-05T02:42:40.479-08:002010-01-05T02:42:40.479-08:00"I would hope that someone's opinions wou..."I would hope that someone's opinions would be judged on how convincing they are and not on their political affiliation."<br /><br />You would? Really? So you don't believe in conflict of interest in criminal or civil law either? You wouldn't mind a judge deciding a property dispute concerning his family members, or even one in which he is involved himself, in a civil court? <br /><br />Because, you know, that is <i>literally</i> the situation here. It's not about some murky "political affiliation", it's about the simple fact that an inhabitant of a settlement, or someone who is related to settlers, or close friends with settlers, cannot be a neutral judge of a settlement's legality. <br /><br />Any judge or juror would immediately be dismissed from any civil or criminal case in which his own interests were so obviously at stake. To claim that things are different here is irrational and irrelevant.Tobiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06499126921801952616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-32530598797813321292010-01-04T17:25:35.321-08:002010-01-04T17:25:35.321-08:00"So the only people who support the legal arg..."So the only people who support the legal argument TODAY are rightwing Zionists, and nobody of any serious international stature."<br /><br />I would hope that someone's opinions would be judged on how convincing they are and not on their political affiliation. As to "international stature," I have heard plenty of people of international stature hold opinions which I thought to be easily disputed to put it nicely.<br /><br />I also think that you may have to distinguish between whether the West Bank is legally "occupied territory" and the legality of settlements. <a href="http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=101" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is another opinion of someone who past position in the IDF will hopefully not cause you to dismiss their opinion out of hand. <br /><br />Lastly, one can still be in favor of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and think that the legal situation may be a bit murky and that the Goldstone Report was a hack job.Menachem Mendelhttp://menachemmendel.net/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-12506547495623019612010-01-04T06:02:18.114-08:002010-01-04T06:02:18.114-08:00Whether a US embargo would have been a death knell...Whether a US embargo would have been a death knell or not is pure speculation. His motives were to stop the fighting. Ironically, the truce in the end helped the Zionists, did it not?<br /><br />I agree with you that Magnes had a big ego. Hardly unusual for leaders, or, for that matter, for rabbis. But he also had the ear of the US State Department. Had another president been in there besides Truman...well, more speculation.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-11056975400289589072010-01-04T05:42:36.930-08:002010-01-04T05:42:36.930-08:00To your: "As for the Magnes business, both ac...To your: "As for the Magnes business, both accounts of the meeting with Marshall have Magnes calling for an arms embargo and financial sanctions on both sides in order to impose a truce. How this translates into your mind to "indadvertantly destroying the state" (which had not been declared that) is beyond me."<br /><br />An arms embargo and financial sanctions at that stage would have led to the quite probable destruction of Israel, its state to be declared 10 days hence (you really want to quibble on that? after all, it would have taken more than 10 days to get the sanctions going. jeez.) I presume you know the Arabs had already been circumventing all other embargoes as was Israel but a US-led embargo would have been a death kneel. To even think to offer such a plan is evidence of blind messianism with no touch of reality not to mention realpolitik or understanding of what utopian dreams can lead to. What other account? Sheila/Susan Hattis' PhD is on a shelf somewhere so I don;'t know if it's in there. But there was also the meeting with Truman with no record of content. To think that such a personality - and a Rabbi - would reach that high to go against the Zionist Movement and the Yishuv is mindboggling as regards Magnes' own ego.YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-62238385079679773732010-01-04T05:32:58.698-08:002010-01-04T05:32:58.698-08:00As for settlement, I have no problems with Jews li...As for settlement, I have no problems with Jews living in a Palestinian state. I never said I did.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-42658400935356889732010-01-04T05:31:32.867-08:002010-01-04T05:31:32.867-08:00Yisrael,
The issue is not leftwing vs. rightwing....Yisrael,<br /><br />The issue is not leftwing vs. rightwing. The issue is between rightwing Jewish supporters of Israel and everybody else. Show me some prominent conservative non-Jews in international law who back the position that law professors at Bar Ilan and the College of Ariel back. Show me the liberal hawks like Dershowitz who support the legality of the settlements and dayyenu. <br /><br />As for the Magnes business, both accounts of the meeting with Marshall have Magnes calling for an arms embargo and financial sanctions on both sides in order to impose a truce. How this translates into your mind to "indadvertently destroying the state" (which had not been declared that) is beyond me.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-18046724534442852152010-01-04T04:26:17.099-08:002010-01-04T04:26:17.099-08:00wait. here's the original document of the Mag...wait. <a href="http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&entity=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2.p0391&q1=judah%20magnes" rel="nofollow">here's</a> the original document of the Magnes-Marshall meeting.<br /><br />now, as to your addition at 4:04, time does not alter the basic legal fact. Jews received international legal recognition to reconstitute their historic homeland; that homeland included at least Israel + J, S, & G; the Arabs refused the UN's 1947 suggestion; they continued warfare with the purpose of destroying Israel; Israel's war in 1967 was defensive.<br /><br />Put all those into one basket and my conclusion is that - and pay attention since your snideness at times can cause you temporary laxity - no matter what political framework exists in J, S & G (Judea, Samaria and Gaza if you or other readers didn't catch on) - Jews have the right to live, reside, cultivate, etc. (the Mandate used the term "close settlement" but I avoid that word "settlement") throughout that area.<br /><br />Of course, all the other lawyers seem to be left-wing but why should political perversity interfere in law?YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-61634754845286228382010-01-04T04:10:34.420-08:002010-01-04T04:10:34.420-08:00You're welcome. Despite the sarcasm, defensiv...You're welcome. Despite the sarcasm, defensive or offensive, I try to keep to a neutral discussion of issues, something my 'other-side' interlocutors can't seem to do. See <a href="http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/01/02/look-whos-calling-hannah-rosenthal-dopey/comment-page-1/#comment-118185" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Gee, did I deserve to be banned?<br /><br />And as for the Magnes moniker, as someone who tried to get the state of Israel inadvertantly destroyed when he met Marshall and Truman in May 1948 (see <a href="http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/10/there-was-no-j-street-then.html" rel="nofollow">the P.S. here</a>(, I really would be wary of a Magnesite.<br /><br />And I'll try to let Avigdor know.YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.com