Don't you see the twisted logic in your first post here, McGrath? Since we speak Latin in this thread, it is a variant of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

A GUEST posting here with a consistent name, New York City, says (by implication) (s)he is Jewish and has lost relatives in the Shoa. A couple of days later Carol calls him or her a virulent anti-semite. NYC calls that remark offensive.

Then you come and say the remark is not offensive since we cannot know whether New York City is actually Jewish or not.

With this type of argumentation nothing can be called offensive anymore. I am a German Neonazi who has raped a Turkish immigrant? That's not offensive for it could be true after all (meaning you could never be completely sure that it is not true). You are the IRA's godfather of the English campaign? From all I know (or better: I don't know) about you it could be true. CarolC is a member of Israel's secret service trying to make Western intellectuals supporting Palestinians look dumb...

I think we are better off when we take what people post about themselves as true and treat them accordingly. It makes the communication easier and the few errors we make this way are on the side of treating wrongduers with undue civility.

Looking back I still think Carol made a very cheap shot with her remark about NYC's anti-semitism.

--------

I'm not at all against links to support argumentation. There are many good or less good reasons to post links in political threads. One type I call for myself the let-me-show-you-how-I-came-to-think-this-way type. I love these informative links and Carol has posted a couple of them in the Israel/Palestine threads. The type I dislike is the look-how-many-websites-I-know-sharing-my-opinion type. Especially, if links of this type come in half dozens in many posts in quick succession and all of them bring the same information in slightly differing words then I know a link-throwing competition has begun.

Multi-linking of this type invariably elicits in me the same reaction I get when a sales(wo)man can't stop talking to me while I consider an offer (or an argument). I think to myself how unsecure (s)he must be of his or her arguments when repeating her(him)self incessantly. Less is more here, at least with me.

--------

Whenever I go to my local supermarket I see a small memorial plaque telling (rephrasing in my words): On (date given, late 1930s), from this place, several hundred Jews from Muenster have been deported to (a concentration camp). 12 of them have come back in 1945. Whenever I cycle to work I pass the place in which the Gestapo has tortured German Jews (and communists, and...).

This may explain to you why I have a deep sympathy for Israel's wish to live in peace in a land with undisputed borders and with no government (or subgovernmental organisation in a neighbouring land) denying its right to exist. This sympathy doesn't extend to everything what the present Israeli government does. Many of its actions do not promote peace at all in my eyes. This sympathy doesn't exclude feelings for the plight of the Palestinians. However, some of this plight has been caused by actions (or inactions) from Arab countries (that's what the link in the first post is about though it belittles too much the responsibility of Israel) and some of it has been self-inflicted by a policy that matches Sharon's in political stupidity.

Wolfgang