Follow-up of the back-and-forth blogging with DD has spilled *after having exceeded 50-entries] from

the prior page to a second page of comments on a PoliticsPa website *Kathleen Kane Tells CNN
Pornographic Emails Included Pictures of Children+ and onto a newer one *Reader Poll: Do You
Approve of Attorney General Kathleen Kanes Job Performance?+; the perp finally admitted he
considers Israel to be illegitimate *reflecting, sadly, what can underlie much of the behavior of BHOs
Dems] while desperately trying to walk-back his strident condemnations, to wit:
DD:
Wow. You wasted a lot of time writing all that crap that Im not even going to bother
reading, since you didnt answer the % question about what % of the responsibility does
Israel bear.
Me:
Now that Im going to answer your question, you will be obligated to attempt to reply to
what I typed.
Israel, assuredly, accepts 100% of the responsibility for its actions including bombings
of Gaza although, as previously documented, they have not targeted civilians.
Take note, also, of the fact that Israel takes full responsibility for razing the homes of
terrorists.
DD:
So, if Israel takes 100% of the responsibility for killing children and other innocent
civilians, then Hamas as 0%. Thats rather surprising from you.
However, the policy of razing the homes of terrorists is counter-productive (unless you
intention is to inflame hostilities with collective punishment).
The fact that Netanyahu has resumed the policy is further proof that he wants to keep
the cycle of violence going.
Me:
You falsely assumed this was a zero-sum game; Israel is responsible for what it did,
but Hamas is responsible for placing civilians in harms way.
Im not surprised that you have avoided again replying to the extensive debunking of
your five claims; they are restated for convenience:
As of this moment, you
*1+support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and
praised by Hamas, in its efforts [per its Covenant] to destroy Israel and to kill its
citizenry;
*2+claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the
Founders/Framers disregarding the Enlightenment was not as great as that of the
Magna Carta; and

*3+charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents and/or
teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort beyond
videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily] those
who would try to kill them.
Through it all, you have yet [yourself] to have confirmed that you feel Israel can
justifiably claim to be a Jewish State.
DD:
It is a zero-sum game when assigning % of responsibility
As of this moment, you
1) support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by Israel
against civilians
2) The Ethic is different from the supernatural/deity aspects. The Founding Fathers
were clear to separate church and state and declare that the state should not show a
preference for one religion (or religious group) over another. Israel is still centuries
behind the US in that regard. Their policy is more like Animal Farm some are more
equal than others.
3) The kids are TAUGHT that Arabs are those who would try to kill them. The adults
are identifying to the children that the Arabs are their enemies.
Me:
I dispute your characterization of my views, and certainly cannot concur with your
reinvention of yours:
You write It is a zero-sum game when assigning % of responsibility.
Nope. Hamas is responsible for purposefully placing Gazans in harms way.
You write that, As of this moment,
1) It is UNTRUE that I support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder
implemented by Israel against civilians; to the contrary, not only have you failed to
document this assertion, but proposing it represents a transparent effort to
counterpoint your having admitted that you are supporting Hamas in this regard.
2a) It is UNTRUE THAT the Ethic is different from the supernatural/deity aspects *in
your usage because+ the Founding Fathers were clear to separate church and state and
declare that the state should not show a preference for one religion (or religious group)
over another; to the contrary, there was no church/state separation *read the 1st
Amendment], for that phrase was derived from a letter by Jefferson, years later
*specifically neither precluding establishment nor expression+.

2b) It is UNTRUE that Israel is still centuries behind the US in that regard, *because]
their policy is more like Animal Farm some are more equal than others; to the
contrary, the activist courts are easily portrayed as liberal *as manifest, for example,
by how the separation-fence was altered by the Supreme Court].
3) It is UNTRUE that The kids are TAUGHT that Arabs are those who would try to kill
them *because+ adults are identifying to the children that the Arabs are their enemies;
to the contrary, any sentient being can listen to the hyperbole emanating from the
Arabs and recognize the degree to which they represent existential threats.
Therefore, notwithstanding your lame effort to place the shoe on the other foot,
whereas I have denied your assertions, you have acknowledged mine [e.g., admitting
Hamas used human shields and sent missiles into civilian regions of Israel].
THEREFORE, the prior conclusion holds:
As of this moment, you support and justify terrorist-policies and
wholesale-murder implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts
to destroy Israel and kill its citizenry; you claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic
is delusional and that its impact on the Founders/Framersdisregarding
the Enlightenmentwas not as great as that of the Magna Carta, and
you charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents
and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of
either effort beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing
the desire to target *militarily+ those who would try to kill them.
*
This is an amalgamated commentary from a childhood friend, for your edification and
enjoyment:
DDs source is an LA-T op-ed written by a Palestinian proponent. I have heard black
South African distinguish Israel from SA (Prager U). Besides Arab members of the
Knesset and Supreme Court, Miss Israel was an Arab. Druze are in the military. Twenty
percent is Arab and THEY vote (in a higher percentage then Dems voted in midterm
using his logic, America is an apartheid state). How many Jews live with Area A? Why
were Jews forcibly removed from Gaza? Judeinrein by definition is apartheid. There was
a Nightline (Ted Koppels show) show with PM Shamir that interviewed Jewish and Arab
children. The Jews talked of peace and the Arabs talked of killing Jews. Let him read the
Federalist papers to determine the influence of the Bible and the Enlightenment. I do
not remember the Magna Carta even being mentioned.
He also remitted this hyperlink:
PA and Fatah continue promoting violence
So, DD, perhaps you should finally admit the errors of your ways!

DD:
You wrote:
1) It is UNTRUE that I support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder
implemented by Israel against civilians;
Im glad to hear that youve decided to stop supporting and justifying Israels terrorism.
I didnt bother reading the rest of what you wrote.
Ill just assume that it was a long apology.
Me:
Your assumptions were in-error; first, my having accepted Israels ability to assume
responsibility for its actions did not serve as an indictment of what transpired in Gaza
and, second, I have been unapologetic throughout.
THEREFORE, the prior conclusion holds:
As of this moment, you support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder
implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its
citizenry; you charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents
and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort
beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily]
those who would try to kill them; and you claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional
and that its impact on the Founders/Framersdisregarding the Enlightenmentwas not
as great as that of the Magna Carta.
DD:
An Israeli, Peled-Elhanan, a professor of language and education at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, has studied the content of Israeli school books for five years
and wrote a book about what she found: Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and
Propaganda in Education.
Here is a news article about her findings:
She describes what she found as racism but, more than that, a racism that prepares
young Israelis for their compulsory military service Children, she says, grow up to serve
in the army and internalise the message that Palestinians are people whose life is
dispensable with impunity. And not only that, but people whose number has to be
diminished.
A review of her book ends with: Peled-Elhanans book is the definitive account of just
how Israeli schoolchildren are brainwashed by the state and society into hatred and
contempt of Palestinians and Arabs, immediately before the time they are due to enter
the army as young conscripts.
Here is the Amazon listing, so you can buy yourself a copy.

Me:
We should no more support reflexly the judgments of a Jewish anti-Semite than we
should accept blindly the writings in Howard Zinns History textbooks.
*
She is a radical *as per repeated descriptions in an article that was published by lefties.
You have evaded answering the fundamental query as to whether Israel should be able
to define herself as a Jewish State.
DD:
1) She is an academic. A professor.
2) She read and researched the books, then presented her analysis.
3) She is clearly not anti-Semitic, and advocates for peace as a long term solution,
declaring her belief that the current policy are ruining Israel.
4) Radical doesnt mean wrong. Those that stand up to institutionalized injustice are
often called radicals.
From the article: Anybody who challenges the dominant narrative in todays Israel, she
says, is similarly accused.
Galileos ideas about a heliocentric solar system were radical as well.
5) If you want to condemn radicals, then you should condemn all the pro-Israeli, proZionist expansion radicals.
Anyway, I have sourced a well researched book to support my claim about Israeli
children taught to hate. The research was from an Israeli, not an Arab (who you would
have dismissed immediately). The research was from a professor, not a used car
salesman, or a blogger, or op-ed writer or a video.
The fundamental query? This is the first time you are asking me this. My answer is
that unless all citizens have equal rights, regardless of their religion or ethnic
background, then a state that defines itself otherwise should receive no support from
the US.
If by Jewish state it merely means that it supports and promotes Jewish
culture/people, but not at the expense of the rights of non-Jews, then that would be
acceptable. If it means that it plans to engage in ethnic cleansing of non-Jews, then it
should be opposed by the US.
Me:

First, you have inserted a qualifier that you didnt quite choose to answer; do you
believe that Israel plans to engage in eth*n+ic cleansing of non-Jews, then it should be
opposed by the US?
Second, your favored-author is a self-proclaimed human rights activist and, curiously,
the article draws upon a value-judgment *Nurit Peled-Elhanan of Hebrew University
says textbooks depict Palestinians as terrorists, refugees and primitive farmers +
without supplying detailed quotations. Indeed, her goal *books might be seen to
marginalize Palestinians, legitimize Israeli military action and reinforce Jewish-Israeli
territorial identity+ is itself qualified.
Again, this differs from the absolute pronouncements from Hamas to UNRWA
[documented earlier] that the Shoah be expunged and that Jews be targeted.
Thus, you have failed to cite a truly disinterested reference to justify your anti-Israeli
claim.
Therefore, in addition to replying to the new clarification [removing a bit of wiggle-room
from your view of Israel], you must again recognize the mire into which you have sunk
yourself, to wit:
As of this moment, you support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder
implemented by and praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its
citizenry; you charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents
and/or teachers, notwithstanding the inability to produce evidence of either effort
beyond videos purporting to show teenagers expressing the desire to target [militarily]
those who would try to kill them;; and you claim the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional
and that its impact on the Founders/Framersdisregarding the Enlightenmentwas not
as great as that of the Magna Carta.
Ken from Conshohocken:
Mr. Diano, As Arabs applaud the senseless murder of Jews at prayer, please remember
during Gulf War 1, American soldiers could not wear a cross or have Bibles; then ask
yourself which culture is xenophobic? Which culture engages of acts of genocide? If you
still believe it to be Israel, then ask yourself why you do not want to move to live in
Islamic State? People are being slaughtered/sacrificed not for what they do (reporters
or human rights workers), but for who they are [Christians, Americans, British, French,
Italians or not the right type of Muslim]. Then note why The Jewish states newest hero
wasnt Jewish.
Me:
In conjunction with what Ken wrote, you may wish to deepen your appreciation for
the forces-at-play regarding the Arab War on Israel by reading Sunni Political Islam:
Engine of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Jonathan Spyer
You will learn that Fatah is, in Arabic, a term literally meaning to open, but is used in
context to mean to conquer a land for Islam. *It has no relationship with Palestine.+

You will also learn that the current argument being used by the Arabs is reminiscent of
what had been invoked previously; in 1929, it was precisely an attempt by Jews to assert
Jewish prayer rights at the Western Wall that led to a furious Arab and Muslim counterreaction and this reaction, in turn, led to the slaughter of over one hundred Jews and
the destruction of an ancient Jewish community (in Hebron).
Finally, you will learn from a Palestinian columnist [Dr. Issam Shawer] that the War
against Israel is fundamentally religious [and not political].
You may not care that CAIR has been labeled a terrorist organization *by the UAE+ or
that the entity Palestine has never had any type of recognized legal status; we do,
however, because we feel Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State.
DD:
If Israel wishes to redefine itself as a Jewish state, rather than a Jewish/democratic
state, then it should be able to do so. However, if it does do, the U.S. should cease to
support it.
So, yes to should Israel be able to define itself. But, no to should they receive
further U.S. support if the definition matches the one described in the NYT article
condemning the recent bill in Israel.
Not supporting is different than opposing, so PLEASE do not conflate the two.
Opposing would mean for the U.S. to try to overthrow, dismantle, disband Israel.
Not supporting means that the U.S. not encourage bad anti-democratic, racist policies
by sending them military aid or giving them preferred status.
The bill in question would be a bad definition for Israel, and further isolate it from the
21st century progress on democracy.
It would be lending support to Isis wanting an Islamic state.
This new definition of Israel, if finalized, would be another disaster by Israels right-wing
fanatics.
Me:
You are again trying to be evasive; my double-syllogism analysis was not predicated
on whatever the Knesset might do regarding Basic Law; you need to be reminded of the
first half thereof.
I asked: Do you believe that Israel plans to engage in ethnic cleansing of non-Jews,
then it should be opposed by the US?
You replied: Not only do I believe that Israel (under people like Netanyahu) plans to
engage in ethnic cleansing, I believe they are currently engaged in the practice, and have
been for years.

Thus, you feel Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing and continues to do so, and plans
to do so; therefore, you oppose Israel already *at of this moment+.
*
It is desirable to restate your posture [at this moment in time], based upon the
aggregate of your language:
You oppose Israel and, thus, the U.S. should try to overthrow, dismantle, disband
Israel.
You support and justify terrorist-policies and wholesale-murder implemented by and
praised by Hamas, in its efforts to destroy Israel and kill its citizenry.
You base your charge that Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs by their parents
and/or teachers by citing the perceptions of a radical human-rights activist that might
yield this conclusion; you have acknowledged that Hamas has ordered UNRWA both to
remove references to the Shoah and to promote anti-Semitism.
You claim that the Judeo-Christian Ethic is delusional and that its impact on the
Founders/Framers disregarding the Enlightenment was not as great as that of the
Magna Carta.
DD:
Ive made it quite clear that my opposition is to the right wing policies of the Likud
party.
I conditioned my opposition to Israel itself IF it passes the horrific bill in its [sic]
current/proposed form.
Such an Israel would be an insult to the founders of modern Israel.
So, stop taking my comments out of context, when Ive repeatedly made it clear that its
Netanyahu and the Likud party that are criminally destroying Israel by promoting racism,
ethnic cleansing, and war crimes against a civilian population.
Also, Israels refusal to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency
should disqualify them from U.S. military aid. (Not to mention that theyve stolen
nuclear secrets from the U.S.). Israel should sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
That alone is sufficient reason to deny them military aid under existing U.S. policy, that
is not being followed.
DD:
You keep making matters worse, for all Im doing is preserving your comments; for
example, at this moment in time, you oppose providing military aid to Israel [due to
what you claim are aberrations regarding nuclear weapons].

In addition, you cant undermine prior analyses with specificity *because all I did was to
cut/paste your postings, even preserving their faulty syntax and spelling]:
I asked: Do you believe that Israel plans to engage in ethic cleansing of non-Jews,
then it should be opposed by the US?
You replied: Not only do I believe that Israel (under people like Netanyahu) plans to
engage in ethic cleansing, I believe they are currently engaged in the practice, and have
been for years.
Thus, you feel Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing and continues to do so, and plans
to do so; therefore, you oppose Israel already *at of this moment+.
*
In addition, when you attacked current Israeli policy because you oppose the forces
behind it *Netanyahu and the Likud party are criminally destroying Israel by promoting
racism, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes against a civilian population+, you are again
confirming that you conditioned your disapproval of Israels existence upon factors
that you claimed are extant.
This explains why you support the rationale behind the terrorism being promulgated by
Hamas [and, presumably, other murderers such as the Islamic State], and why you
attempt to justify the fact that Hamas teaches hatred of Jews [even invoking the
academic musings of an avowed radical opponent of Israel whose interpretations
might be correct+.
As bad as BHO has proven to be, placing Americas leadership into the hands of a
mainstream-Dem such as yourself would doom Israel to being overrun immediately
[yielding the beheadings of millions of Jews]; as I wrote earlier, you are a Shanda!
DD:
1) I disapprove of Israels behavior, not its existence [sic]
2) I disapprove of Israels right-wing leaders/policy.
3) Israel is being destroyed from within by these right-wing Jewish extremists.
4) People like you are doing Hamass work for them.
Me:
Typical of the confirmed-leftie, you are even stooping to engage in historical
revisionism with regard to your own postings of extremely recent vintage; damage
accrued from your retreat is compounded by how you would unabashedly treat Israel
at this moment in time.
You stated unequivocally: Israels refusal to submit to inspections by the International
Atomic Energy Agency should disqualify them from U.S. military aid.

Therefore, you wouldnt have sustained any support for the IDF *for decades+, you
wouldnt have collaborated in the creation of the Iron Dome *nor would you have
rearmed it+, and you wouldnt be employing intelligence-coordination between
D.C./Jerusalem while the rest of the Middle East is in turmoil.
Once the gravitational-force of anti-Zionism has enveloped you, there is no escape from
being drawn into the block-hole of anti-Semitism; Jewish lives are so cheap [recalling,
for example, your disproportionate lament regarding the need for more Israeli civilian
casualties to match those in Gaza+ that you would apply a cost-effective criterion to
justify a conclusion that condemns the Iron Dome [that every other sentient being has
praised].
There appears to be no end to your venom directed @ Israel, and you even had the gall
to claim Israels leaders in 48 would recoil @ characterizing Israel as a Jewish State;
you would perhaps benefit from noting a quote from her Declaration of Independence
*DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN
AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL+.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp