Pirate state of Israel

[AlexfromLA]

Bottom line :

Israel has become to the United States what North Korea is to China.

Congrats for having a fascist racist government guys.

 

[Choripán]

I used to have a sign on the wall in my law office to the effect: We appreciate the chance to discuss your problems. We have not succeeded in answering all of your questions. In some ways we are still confused as ever, but we believe we are now confused on a higher level and about more important things.

Regarding naval blockades per se, the applicable law is codified in the San Remo Armed Conflicts at Sea manual; http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument.

For Alan Dershowitz's (Jewlover, Zionist pig that he be) analysis of the legality of the attack on the flotilla and the actions of the IDF at sea: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_were_entirely

For a detailed discussion of the legality of the blockade in general:
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/ and especially the comments/notes.

At this point I am persuaded that the blockade of Gaza is legal from a purely technical point of view because it is part of an Internatiional Armed Conflict (AIC) as opposed to an Non-International Armed Conflict (NAIC). See above opiniojuris article for discussion. Moreover, it appears from historical precedents that even if it were considered an NAIC, a blockade would be legal.
There are those who would argue that even if a blockade of Gaza would be permitted under the rules of war, the severe manner in which Israel is conductng it makes it nevertheless unlawful. That is because it results in a disproportionate harm to the enemy population. This proportionality argument is the same kind of principle that governs the use of fire power during combat and about which there is lots of heated debate. Personally, I believe the proportionality argument is not convincing for a number of reasons.
However one comes down on this issue, what should be keot in mind is that ultimately proportionality rests upon what is "reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances. As a former trial lawyer I can assure you reasonable people of good faith can disagree when it comes to deciding what is or is not reasonable under the circumstances. Jurors are called upon to do it every day in all kinds of court cases. The concept of reasonableness is at the heart of ours and many legal systems so it should come as no surprise it is the ultimate standard in international law, too.
That being the case it seems to me that those who hysterically shout that Israel has committed piracy, that the IDF actions on the Marmara were criminal, that the blockade is a war crime need to tone down their rhetoric. As I mentioned above the supporters of the Palestinians lose credibility when they accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. People of good faith can argue the proportionailty case, but at least all should acknowledge that it is not a simple black and white issue. No one wants to see the Gazans suffer and it is hoped their leadership will reform its constitution calling for the total elimination of Israel. Maybe then Israel will be able to negotiate realistically with Hamas.

No doubt the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a "black and white issue," as you say. But in this particular case, this case of an unprovoked armed assault on an unarmed group of civilians bent on making a political *statement*, there can be no dispute: legal or not, it was 100% immoral and unjustifiable - that is, 100% black.

But this has nothing to do with legality. At the end of the day the state of Israel survives in the Middle East exclusively because of the support and sympathy of the American people. Our power has made their continued existence possible. Without us - without our money and our weapons - Israel would be obliterated in relatively short order.

Little by little Israel's current policy towards the Palestinians erodes the support and sympathy of the American public. Their immoral behavior is boomeranging into growing sympathy and support for the Palestinians. It doesn't matter if Netanyahu is able to finesse some kind of "legal" justification for what was obviously nothing more than vengeful "we do it because we can" brutality. When the Israelis start losing voters like me - ordinary Americans who have historically supported them - they are in trouble.

At current course and speed Israel will find themselves without American support in the not to distant future. They should think deeply about that as they assert ever-more preposterous legalistic justifications for their butchery.

 

[darmanad]

No doubt the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a "black and white issue," as you say. But in this particular case, this case of an unprovoked armed assault on an unarmed group of civilians bent on making a political *statement*, there can be no dispute: legal or not, it was 100% immoral and unjustifiable - that is, 100% black.

Duh? How can you possibly say that the IDF was not provoked? The Marmara was attempting to violate a legal blockade. The IDF warned it and then boarded pursuant to international law. When the IDF soldiers boarded the Marmara they were immediately attacked with bats, sticks, knives. One or two were thrown to a lower deck. There is video evidencing this conduct. One or two soldiers had their firearms taken. The resistors didn't just provoke the IDF, they attacked them. Get your facts straight.
Moreover, why do you contend that acts you concede are legal are immoral? On what basis do you contentd the IDF act immorally?

But this has nothing to do with legality.
Not so sure about that. Israel has been accused of everything from war crimes to genocide to piracy. It is important to demonstrate that these accusations do not hold water.

At the end of the day the state of Israel survives in the Middle East exclusively because of the support and sympathy of the American people. Our power has made their continued existence possible. Without us - without our money and our weapons - Israel would be obliterated in relatively short order.
Oblierated? Is this a comment on Israel or on its neighbors who refuse to accept the US sanctioned existence of Israel?

Little by little Israel's current policy towards the Palestinians erodes the support and sympathy of the American public. Their immoral behavior is boomeranging into growing sympathy and support for the Palestinians. It doesn't matter if Netanyahu is able to finesse some kind of "legal" justification for what was obviously nothing more than vengeful "we do it because we can" brutality. When the Israelis start losing voters like me - ordinary Americans who have historically supported them - they are in trouble.
The policy of the current administration may indeed erode the support of many, but all of us should at least try to determine the real facts and not the propaganda promulgated by the war is deceit gang.
At current course and speed Israel will find themselves without American support in the not to distant future. They should think deeply about that as they assert ever-more preposterous legalistic justifications for their butchery.
Butchery is what the piosu mujahdeen did to Dan Pearl a few years back. Choose your language carefully if you want to maintain credibility.

 

[darmanad]

I'm not a lawyer. I find my position analogous to that of the jurors in the film "The Verdict" (with Paul Newman): not knowing the subtle intricacies of the law, but having some feeling for what is right, what is wrong, where some injustice has been committed. Even if some interpretation of the law gets the Israelis off the hook, I doubt many people will be persuaded of the rightness of their actions. In the court of public opinion the Israelis have lost. It's like getting O.J. Simpson off the hook on some technicality while most people kept on thinking he was guiltier than sin.

I don't know why this point of Hamas recognising Israel is trotted out again and again. They have agreed to Israeli ceasefires time and again. It is Israel that does not recognise them, does not want to negotiate. The Israeli government wants to buy time. It goes through the motions of negotiating to make it appear it's interested in compromise, in "dialogue." And seen from their point of view, why should they negotiate? They are in a position of power. The disparity between their power and that of the Paelstinians is so great that a negotiated settlement makes no sense for the Israelis.

I must say that this is about as close to reapproachment as I could expect from you given the tone/content of your prior posts. Let's see if we can't reach some possible areas of agreement. I'm not sure the OJ Simpson analogy is apt. After all, he was guilty of the crime, but the jurors let him off. Israel may not be guilty of a crime by enforcing a blockade of Gaza, but the jury is condemning it.
Nevertheless, I do get the point. Most people believe Israel has been unfair in the way it has so severly restricted the goods that it allows into Gaza. Whether or not it this is true and whether or not there is some justification for the restrictions, Israel is making a strategic mistake because it is losing in the court of public opinion. Most people believe it is true and that as a result thereof Israel is causing 1.5 MM Gazans to suffer miserably.
I agree that even if Israel's Gaza blockade (incl the interdiction of foreign flagged ships) does not violate international law, it is not wise and comes too close to being unjust. I am ignorant of the exact rationale for limiting so SEEMINGLY severely the nature and quantity of all goods necessary to maintain an adequate level of existence in Gaza. I need to learn more about what goods are prohibited, and why. I read the Haaretz article you linked and I would appreciate any other references that would help me to better comprehend the whys and wherefores of the restictions on the entry of goods into Gaza. Has Egypt now lifted it's restrictions?
I do not agree that it is wrong to stress that the constitution of Hamas calls for the elimination of the state of Israel. The only thing that Hamas has offered Israel is a temporary cease fire, not a permanent peace. Sorry to have to refer to the Quran as you apparently think religion is irrelevant here (naive on your part) , but that is a tactic fully endorsed by Muhammed/Islam as a step to ultimately win a war. War is deceit.

 

[darmanad]

For those who wan to learn more about the blockade you can just google "gaza blockade effects" to get a wealth of info. Here is a sampling.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/free-gaza-from-hamas/
Hamas men rank 8th and women 3rd in the world in obesity. Kind of hard to argue there is mass starvation. Why did Hamas refuse to permit delivery of the Turkish flotilla's humanitarian aid into Gaza? Is this part of a plan to use the suffering of their brethren as a political tool?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-...eli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01
A differing view. Amnesty International has recently suffered some bad press concerning its internecine struggle regarding bias in human rights reporting. Some might say it was a scandal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...7806209/Dispatch-Just-how-hungry-is-Gaza.html
A balanced discussion of the effects of the blockade.

There will be a shitstorm if Turkey makes good on its promise to send its warships to accompany the next humanitarian relief ships leaving fromTurkey bound for Gaza. This is the kind of conduct one should expect from the current Turkish administration as it departs from the secular reformation instituted by the great Ataturk and begins to backtrack to the medieval values of the Islam belief system.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I must say that this is about as close to reapproachment as I could expect from you given the tone/content of your prior posts. Let's see if we can't reach some possible areas of agreement.

We are not states that find it necessary to reach some consensus or modus vivendi. And it is irritating to read time and again things personal like "your prior posts." Is this what law is about, bringing in the personal when the discussion is about neither of us?

I'm not sure the OJ Simpson analogy is apt. After all, he was guilty of the crime, but the jurors let him off. Israel may not be guilty of a crime by enforcing a blockade of Gaza, but the jury is condemning it.

You are playing with words. The "condemnation" is strong disapproval. The public does not constitute some kangaroo court or lynch mob. I argue the analogy is apt because in both cases a legal case for the defence is being made on obscure -- and probably spurious -- technical points. By the way, how do you know OJ Simpson was guilty of the crime yet protest so strenuously that Israel is not? In the former, you are happy to go along with the court of public opinion but in the latter you bring up abstruse legal points to counter that court of public opinion. If Simpson was acquitted, he could not have been guilty by your legalistic criteria. Correct?

I agree that even if Israel's Gaza blockade (incl the interdiction of foreign flagged ships) does not violate international law, it is not wise and comes too close to being unjust.

You perhaps unwittingly make a key point I want to make: the Palestinians should not be in a position where the Israelis can choose to be just or unjust to them. This merely underlines the point that they live under the thumb of the Israelis and are effectively impotent. If the Israelis hold the whip hand, how does anyone expect there to be a real settlement involving concessions on the Israeli side? It will not happen.

The only thing that Hamas has offered Israel is a temporary cease fire, not a permanent peace. Sorry to have to refer to the Quran as you apparently think religion is irrelevant here (naive on your part) , but that is a tactic fully endorsed by Muhammed/Islam as a step to ultimately win a war. War is deceit.

As I argued in a prior post, the disparity of power is such that Israel has no motive for a permanent settlement that would be acceptable to the Palestinians. To avoid international censure it half-heartedly goes through the motions -- and continues illegal construction. Engagement in the "peace process" is a cynical exercise.

I've lived in the area for several years. Religion is at most a veneer for which ethnic groups get what. Saying it's about religion is as naive as saying that the domestic splits in Iraq are about the differences between Shia and Sunni. If all the Palestinians miraculously converted to Judaism, the conflict would not disappear: it is about ethnic groups.

Quoting the Quran here undermines your credibility in my eyes at least. I would never quote something like the Talmud -- it is irrelevant to what is happening. I see you criticising Hamas -- fair enough -- but I don't see you criticising mendacious politicians like Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Ayalon.

On a sidenote, I see there's a more vigorous and critical discussion taking place in Israel (if Haaretz is any indicator) than in the USA.

 

[Choripán]

Duh? How can you possibly say that the IDF was not provoked?

So I guess the concept of a proportionate response holds no meaning for you, which probably explains your zealotry. The Marmara did not provoke a violent response of this magnitude (10 deaths), especially with the ridiculous threat of sticks and stones. I know it's hard for you to see this, but the reason that the rest of the world is pissed off is precisely because the response was disproportionate. No doubt the protesters intended a widely publicized POLITICAL response - arrest, imprisonment, deportation, the standard media spectacle stuff that in reality is quite ineffective these days. Even so, the analogies here are tragedies like Kent state and Tienanmen Square. Citizens looking to raise awareness through protest end up dead because of a vengeful and reactive state. Lot's of legalistic post-hoc justifications after those events as well. They screamed bad words at us! They made menacing faces! So we killed them all!

Moreover, why do you contend that acts you concede are legal are immoral?

Never conceded anything of the kind. My point was that jokers like you will invent all sorts of ridiculous "legal" arguments to avoid dealing with the one thing you know to be true: the guys playing for your team over-reacted and killed a bunch of people who did not deserve to die. You are merely using the language of legality to mask the underlying immorality of the behavior. Again, legality does not matter here.

But since we are on the topic of legality... All the so-called international "laws" that apply here were agreed to among nation states. The Palestinians do not have a nation state, and thus are not party to these agreements. International law binds states and until the Palestinians have one, who knows what counts as legal and illegal. This in fact is one of the better arguments for giving them their own state - so that they can be held accountable in a way that merely occupied and oppressed populations cannot.

On what basis do you contentd the IDF act immorally?

Pretty much the same basis as everyone else: 1) the blockade is unjustifiably repressive and reeks of punishment rather than prevention and 2) killing ten people who were clearly trying to make a political statement rather than commit an act of terrorism offends common sense moral intuitions. I realize that YOU can't see Israel's behavior in this case as immoral. But that failure merely reveals your strong relationship to Israel and your weak relationship to otherwise ordinary moral institutions. You remind me of that old joke, "love my mother, drunk or sober!" Sure, but let's face it: the woman should sober up! In other words, you, like many maniacal pro-Israel zealots around the world, have already given up common sense morality in the name of partisan gains. You want your team to win so badly you won't acknowledge when they have committed a foul while trying to score a point. Yes, I know there are lots of other people in our ugly world who do the same: no one person or group holds a monopoly on immorality. Likewise, no one holds a monopoly on virtue and justice. And it's precisely the failure to recognize this very important nugget of wisdom that gets Israel into so much trouble these days.

Your disturbing comment about Dan Pearl's death drives the point home: in your mind you see the persons who murdered him as the same as the people on the boat. That failure of distinction, the failure to recognize the the distinctness of individuals rather than the ethnicity or religion or class that they belong to, is perhaps the best indication that someone has lost his moral bearing. What's especially shocking is that Israelis themselves have been and continue to be victims of exactly this kind of immorality. And yet instead of trying to end it they dive into the muck with all the other bad human beings while blah blah blahing away about how this or that "higher" principle justifies what is to anyone else prima facie unjust. Do you not realize that every act of political butchery is accompanied by a legalistic explanation of why it was the right thing to do? "They deserved it" justifications are a dime a dozen - the inquisition, colonialism, terrorism, crusades and, yes, even when the sons of Israel invaded Palestine in the first place to exterminate all the non-believers who lived there at the time. And supposedly they all deserved it. Ironically, this despicable attitude is the main thing Jews and Muslims have in common these days (not withstanding the whole Abrahamic tradition).

Oblierated? Is this a comment on Israel or on its neighbors who refuse to accept the US sanctioned existence of Israel?

That is exactly what I mean. The existence of Israel depends on the support and good faith of people like me - people who believe that Israel has a right to co-exist and thus merits our help. Which means that if you want us to keep helping Israel, something we have done for more than 60 years now, you should probably listen to us when we say Israel's current behavior offends common sense morality. Because at the end of the day Israel's ridiculous legal justifications won't matter. No one gives a shit. The only thing that matters are the moral intuitions of the average American paying for Israel's safety and security. And when we start to believe that you no longer share our values the world of Israel will get very ugly indeed. So do yourself a favor: call a spade a spade. When Israel fucks up, as it undoubtedly did in this case, admit it and look for solutions that will serve to resolve the larger and more complicated issues fueling all of the bullshit. You think you're winning with the partisan nonsense, but in reality you are losing more by the day.

Butchery is what the piosu mujahdeen did to Dan Pearl a few years back. Choose your language carefully if you want to maintain credibility.

My god this is as offensive as it is pathetic. As if the fact that there are evil Muslims doing bad things means that there can be nothing but angelic Israelis doing good things. Just to be clear: butchery is murdering ten individuals looking to make a political statement. Butchery is also what happened to Danny Pearl. The world, sadly, is full of butchery these days. Some of it is on the part of radical groups, some of it is state sponsored. What the Israeli defense forces did on that boat was butchery and nothing less. As for the example of Pearl, I would suggest that next time you want to exploit a dead man who did not share your worldview for political gain, check with his living wife first. She will tell you and your zealous politics to go fuck yourselves.

 

[orwellian]

Gee, your use of the word "Zionist" seems to equate it with something menacing. If a Zionist is one who supports the right of the state of Israel to exist as a national homeland for Jews, I plead guilty. But wasn't the creation of Israel sanctioned by the UN? I mean, it is a legal state, isn't it? So why would somone who supports its continued existence be menacing?

I called you a Zionist because you are completely incapable to criticize Israel. You can support the right for Israel to exist, but you shouldn't support their war crimes, which you are.

With respect to your argument that the attack on the Marmara was illegal, do you contend that Israel did not have a right to inspect the cargo to confirm it was not prohibited war materiel? Do you contend that if it does have a right to do so and the ship refuses it can not be inspected by force? Nothing you write defines Israel's rights when the ship refuses to be inspected.

They do have the right to inspect the ship yes. But that is not what they did. They attacked it, murdered people on board and then kidnapped them. Even those on board who were not resisting their illegal attack.

With respect to Mr Murray statements, I am confess I am confused. As to his first point, even if Israel and Gaza are at war (I agree they are) it is not okay for Hamas or other Gazans to randomly fire missles into civilian populations. That is a violation of the rules of war. Israel's complaints are well founded since no one denies those are the facts. It would be doubly evil if such violations occured during a peace truce. In any case, it is absurd to argue that one should not condemn random shelling of purely civilian populations.

Israel violates the same rule of war all the time. They bomb schools and hospitals in Gaza. They even hit UN installations. Both sides are guilty of war crimes. Both sides use terrorist tactics.

As I understand the Geneva Conventions, not all enemy combatants are entitled to the prisoner of war protections established by the Geneva Accords. There are unlawful enemy combatants e.g. those who disguise themselves as civilians. I do not believe unlawful enemy combatants aka terrorists are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Accords. Mr Murray seems to disregard this distinction between lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants. His arguments are utterly unconvincing.

You understand it wrong. "Unlawful enemy combatant" is an American term and is nowhere to be found in the Geneva Convention. And according to the Geneva Convention a civilian population do have the right to fight an occupation. Like the French Resistance did during WWII. But of course they were heroes and Palestinians are terrorists in your opinion right?

Regarding naval blockades per se, the applicable law is codified in the San Remo Armed Conflicts at Sea manual; http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

So now can we all agree what Israel did was a violation of international law?

That being the case it seems to me that those who hysterically shout that Israel has committed piracy, that the IDF actions on the Marmara were criminal, that the blockade is a war crime need to tone down their rhetoric. As I mentioned above the supporters of the Palestinians lose credibility when they accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. People of good faith can argue the proportionailty case, but at least all should acknowledge that it is not a simple black and white issue.

Of course it's not a black and white issue. But who is occupying another country's land? What country continuously violates UN resolutions? Why should these issues be toned down? If they continue their illegal blockade and continue to violate the UN resolutions, how do you think there is ever going to be peace?

Maybe then Israel will be able to negotiate realistically with Hamas.

The PLO government does recognize Israel's right to exist. And Israel wasn't trying to negotiate any peace with them either. The Israeli government doesn't want peace. What they offer is ethnic cleansing and genocide. That fact I think is becoming pretty obvious to the international community.

Duh? How can you possibly say that the IDF was not provoked? The Marmara was attempting to violate a legal blockade. The IDF warned it and then boarded pursuant to international law. When the IDF soldiers boarded the Marmara they were immediately attacked with bats, sticks, knives. One or two were thrown to a lower deck. There is video evidencing this conduct. One or two soldiers had their firearms taken. The resistors didn't just provoke the IDF, they attacked them. Get your facts straight.
Moreover, why do you contend that acts you concede are legal are immoral? On what basis do you contentd the IDF act immorally?

IDF attacked civilian ships on international waters. This is illegal and the civilian boat crew has a right to defend themselves. Those are the facts. We have already demonstrated that Israel had no legal right to attack those boats. And if you disagree, why don't you show us the evidence for it?
And the video we have seen is from confiscated journalistic material, another Israeli crime, edited out for us to see what they want us to see. The activists say the Israelis fired on them before boarding. Only an independent investigation can tell us who is lying. And that is if Israel doesn't destroy the evidence like they usually do.

For those who wan to learn more about the blockade you can just google "gaza blockade effects" to get a wealth of info.

The blockade is like UN says; ineffective. They smuggle most of the food and supplies through underground tunnels. It does have the effect that prices are a lot higher. Especially for things like building materials which is needed to rebuild the civilian houses, schools, hospitals and roads that the Israelis have bombed or bulldozed.
And if they can smuggle that much food in. Imagine how easy it is to smuggle rockets.

 

[darmanad]

I knew I was debating with a couple of hysterical screamers, but I expected more from you BBwolf.
1. If I made a personal remark in my last post addressed to you it was in an effort to build bridges so this debate could be more productive. I regret you seem to have taken offense. There was no need to and I find it odd you make it an issue.
2. Conformity with applicable international maritime law and all rule of war is not the legal equivalent of " if it does not fit, you must acquit." Israel has cogent legal arguments to support its position when applied to the real facts. OJ had smoke and mirrors. Accordingly, your analogy is false. It is your juvenile rhetorical question about OJ's guilt that constitutes playing with words.
3. The Israelis did not institute a blockade in Gaza for a couple of years after they voluntarily withdrew. The blockade was enforced only after Hamas took power and the missles started randomly flying into Israeli civilians in clear violation of the most fundamental rules of war. Your crocodile tears decrying the need for Palestinian reliance on Israel for well being overlooks the fact that they are at war. That the blockade creates hardship for the Gazans and puts them at a disadvantage is just a case of what goes around comes around. The Hamas fighters chose to execute a policy of naked aggression. They and their constituency are now paying the consequences of that idiotic jihadist policy.
4. In light of the broken promises of the PLO, and now Hamas and Hezbollah, over the years, your disparagement of Israel's sincerity in the so-called peace process would be laughable were it not so tragic. When does history start for you ? 2007 ? The charter of Hamas provides for the elimination of the state of Israel. It seems to me Arafat and the PLO supposedly abandoned that policy many years ago. Do you really entertain any doubt that if the tables were turned the Arabs would "obliterate" (to borrow Choripan's term) the Israelis in hearbeat? Hamas has nevered offered to withdraw its avowed purpose to eliminate Israel. It has offered only a truce of defined duration which is nothiong more than a tactic to rearm so that it can level the military playing field.
6. I believe Islam is a neanderthal belief system and the most pious of Muslims are the most militaristic. The Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Taliban, Hamas bedfellow membership comes not from not poorly educated, lower classes, but from the well educated pious component of Islamic societies. The son of a former Hamas leader who turned and worked for Israel has just published a book, the central thesis of which is the importance of religion in this struggle, this jihad , against the unholy intrusion of kuffir in Dar Es Salam. I would write more , but my wife has called me to dinner. Catch up with you soon Choripan.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I knew I was debating with a couple of hysterical screamers, but I expected more from you BBwolf.

Amice, you are not enhancing your credibility with this kind of ad hominem. There are some intelligent people on this thread (modesty precludes me from including myself in this category), and they are making coherent and persuasive arguments. Like you, I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. Auf wiedersehen.