I didn't think you'd agree with me on that one, robomatic, because you are very pro-Israeli, and will always consider an issue only from their point of view (in my opinion). I see the 1967 war as a very well planned first strike by Israel. The 1973 war was a very well-planned first strike by Egypt and Syria. In either case, the attackers knew exactly what they were doing. They didn't have war forced on them...they sought war willingly and eagerly. In either case they could both have pointed to any number of earlier provocations by the opposing side...but the war, as a real full-scale war, was launched when they attacked with the full forces at their disposal, not when waters were mined or forces mobilized.

The Germans and Poles were also both mobilized in 1939 prior to the outbreak of hostilities. They had both already accused one another of provocative and warlike acts. In that case, the Polish accusations were largely correct, the German ones were entirely false and trumped-up, but the German public believed them (as is generally the case with any public in such a situation). Germany launched the war, willingly and eagerly. Israel launched the 1967 war...with great skill, willingly and eagerly. They are masters of the modern blitzkrieg once pioneered by Germany...probably its greatest masters in the post World War II era.

The difference between our viewpoints is essentially this. You will call a spade a spade only when it is not an Israeli wielding it. I will call a spade a spade regardless of who wields it. I believe I am more even-handed on the matter than you are willing to be.

I don't see it as a situation where there are guys in white hats (Israelis) on one side and guys in black hats (Muslims) on the other. I see it in shades of gray. Both sides have their fanatics and their greed for power and dominance. Both sides have their good people, their peacemakers, and their legitimate concerns for territory and security.

I've done some interesting reading (by a Jewish author) on the 1967 war recently. Although it was the impression of the Israeli public in 1967 that Israel was the "little guy", militarily speaking, it was the impression of the Israeli general staff that it was their Arab foes who were quite weak and vulnerable and that they could score a quick and decisive victory by attacking in force. They were entirely correct in that assumption. An aggressor is usually someone who has already determined how he can launch a crushing attack on his weaker opponent, and Israel was the aggressor in charge of that particular war. Egypt and Syria were the aggressors in charge of the one that followed in '73...at the beginnning. Israel managed to turn it around, with difficulty.

I call a spade a spade, I don't care who is wielding it. I am not tied to a tribal identity. I think of myself as human, period...not Canadian, not white, not Christian, not male, not anything that leaves out much of the rest of humanity...but human. There is no group out there that is guaranteed to be always right just because of who they are.

I think your tendency toward automatic support of Israel under all circumstances is naive. It's tribal thinking. Humanity cannot afford much more tribal thinking at this point in history.

And that's why it was said by a wise man: "Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel (or just a naive person) clings."