Originally Posted by stephanie
The analogy was mine, originally, not Wonderment's. And obviously I was clear in what you quoted that I didn't think that's what he was saying, but I wanted to make sure that it was made explicit, as he's getting read that way, I at one time read him that way (no longer, since I've become more familiar with his views on this), others do make the claim in question, and -- with respect to the comment to which you were responding -- he said, essentially, unfortunately Israel was trying 19th c methods when we know they were wrong. That's what seems to me to be consistent with the reading I mentioned and likely to be understood in a way he didn't mean it (that Israel, not the earlier US, has no right to exist).
Given that I didn't even misunderstand him, though, I'm puzzled why, of all the many posts on this topic, it's mine that you have a problem with. Sigh, probably being too defensive -- I've had a stressful day.
sorry about the stress.
It probably seems fairly odd what little bits of a conversation i focus on, but it wasn't intended to be confrontational.
I use that particular analogy to the founding of America when talking about Israel because I assume that it implies that you can criticize the founding of israel as a crime without the implication that israel should be destroyed (just like the U.S.). So, if you had a perspective on that analogy that was quite contrary to my intentions when talking about it, i wanted to know more about that for a couple of reasons: 1) because I'm frequently misunderstood and am often completely surprised at how people understand things i say - so i'm always interested in someone seeming to have a very different take on something like that. And 2) because i have a lot of respect for your logic and reasoning abilities, so i figured if you were understanding that analogy in a far different light than i do, it would be well worth my time trying to see your perspective.
i hope you have a great day steph!