School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[laughing dog]

Raven, when legislators want to make a non-gendered reference to a human being they write "he or she". Like the rest of us, they do not write "it" for that purpose unless they're referring to an infant.

Blatant assertion.

Moreover, the contract provision is perfectly plain that it is there because of chapter 2270 of the Texas Government Code. The topic of chapter 2270 is "Prohibition on contracts with companies boycotting Israel." The law doesn't say "Prohibition on contracts with men or women boycotting Israel".

Still clinging to that stupid blatant assertion that an independent contractor = company but does not equal a person,

Indeed so, but the point in dispute is whether "all of the terms of the contract" include any terms about what she does on her own time in non-speech-therapy-related activities.

No, one point in dispute is that it is not simple to distinguish between her personal activities and purchases, and her work-related activities. Another point in dispute is that this is an infringement on free speech rights.

Well then, we can add your blatant assertion to laughing dog's blatant assertion, on one side of the scale, as your contribution to helping counterbalance the legal opinion of an actual law professor on the other side.

Extremely ironic. When nothing else fails, you appeal to authority.

Are you even trying to make a convincing argument, or are you just playing to a gallery?

Coming from someone who made an idiotic argument about appendixes, that is hilarious.

 

[RavenSky]

Blatant assertion.
Still clinging to that stupid blatant assertion that an independent contractor = company but does not equal a person,

Indeed so, but the point in dispute is whether "all of the terms of the contract" include any terms about what she does on her own time in non-speech-therapy-related activities.

No, one point in dispute is that it is not simple to distinguish between her personal activities and purchases, and her work-related activities. Another point in dispute is that this is an infringement on free speech rights.

Well then, we can add your blatant assertion to laughing dog's blatant assertion, on one side of the scale, as your contribution to helping counterbalance the legal opinion of an actual law professor on the other side.

Extremely ironic. When nothing else fails, you appeal to authority.

Are you even trying to make a convincing argument, or are you just playing to a gallery?

Coming from someone who made an idiotic argument about appendixes, that is hilarious.

It appears someone is again trying to explain something he clearly doesn't understand. Thanks for setting him straight.

 

[Bomb#20]

Raven, when legislators want to make a non-gendered reference to a human being they write "he or she". Like the rest of us, they do not write "it" for that purpose unless they're referring to an infant.

Blatant assertion.

It's actually okay to make blatant assertions when it's painfully obvious that they're true. The problem is making blatant assertions of dubious claims. However, just for you and RavenSky (since I highly doubt anyone else requires it), here's evidence -- the Colorado Legislative Drafting Manual -- backing up my assertion:

http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/lsss/ExcerptGender-NeutralDraftingCO.pdf

6. Use both the masculine and feminine pronoun.
Examples:
The duties shall be exercised in the name of the director and under his OR HER direction.
A person shall receive an exemption if he OR SHE submits an application.​

I'm afraid you'll have to read the whole thing to verify that "Change he to IT." is not one of the recommended options.

Still clinging <rest of post snipped for utter lack of substance>

<whole post snipped for utter lack of substance>

 

[ruby sparks]

This from July 2018 says the case was dismissed after Kansas amended the law (state to pay plaintiff's costs):

https://www.timesofisrael.com/lawsu...i-bds-law-state-to-pay-plaintiffs-legal-fees/

"In March, in an attempt to salvage the law, the Kansas legislature narrowed the scope of the legislation, making it apply only to businesses and not individuals, and made it apply only to contracts higher than $100,000."

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/documents/summary_hb_2409_2017.pdf

Anti-Israel Boycott; HB 2409
HB 2409 prohibits the State from entering into a contract with any individual or company
engaged in a boycott of Israel. The definition of “boycott” includes the refusal to engage in
commercial relations with persons and entities engaged in business with Israel and Israeli
controlled territories. The State must require written certification from all individuals and
companies with which it enters into contracts for services, supplies, information technology, or
construction that the individual or company is not engaged in a boycott of Israel. The bill
prohibits the State from adopting a procurement, investment, or other policy that effectively
requires or induces the boycott of the government of Israel or a person conducting business in
Israel. The Secretary of Administration has the authority to waive application of this prohibition if
the Secretary determines the prohibition is not practicable.​

No way was that one ever going to be upheld.

Well we can say it wasn't upheld. And the teacher in Texas might get a similar outcome on the same basis.

Note that in Kansas, the law was salvaged, by amending it. It's a sort of compromise. Sole proprietors are exempt, as are other businesses contracting up to a certain financial threshold.

I think it's quite a good compromise, though it still doesn't relate to the issue I think is the most interesting, and complicated, the justifications for having any anti-boycott Israel law at all. Or maybe we've already sorted those: sympathy for Israel, geopolitics, money, lobbying, etc. And of course the desire to limit antisemitism.

Whether those sufficiently justify such laws is, I guess, a matter of differing opinion.

 

[ruby sparks]

These kinds of boycotts don't work until enough people join in and a tipping point is reached.

The sick oppression by Israel should stop.

But it is not clear there is a power in the world to force it to stop.

Israel is not the baddie here. Nor are the Palestinians. Nor are the other arab or muslim states in the region. Nor is the US. There are no baddies and goodies because it's not that clear cut and is infernally complicated.

Regarding specifically Israel, yes it definitely acts unfairly towards Palestinians, and violates International Law by continuing to colonise areas such as the West Bank, but, given that Israel not unjustifiably feels it is defending its very existence against hostile neighbours and a hostile element within its own territory, it has a cause.

In modern times, the problem started with Jews resettling Palestine and dislodging what were at that time the existing population of mainly arabs. That much is surely clear. Was that right or wrong? That's up for grabs. It happened. Those were different times (the British Empire was still intact for instance, and Britain played a big role in the Jewish colonisation of Palestine, countries were still being divvied up post WW2, the situation was fluid, assisting Jews in obtaining a nation had a lot of support because of the holocaust). In hindsight it was bad, because it created the problem that is still ongoing today.

To be charitable, it must have been hoped that things would settle down peaceably, that Israeli Jews could coexist, alongside the Palestinians and other arab neighbours, or that perhaps the original two-state solution would hold. But it didn't. Israel (not unsurprisingly) did accept the original (1947) two-state solution proposed by the UN (which would have been very generous to the Palestinians by comparison with the current options) but the arab neighbours did not and instead tried to wipe Israel out. At that particular point, the arab neighbours and Palestinian arabs arguably lost the moral high ground, because a solution was offered but they rejected it.

In hindsight, other countries encouraging and assisting the Jews to colonise (mainly arab) Palestine before 1947 may have been a big mistake made in different times and circumstances. It pitted two opposing cultures directly against each other in an explosive mix on territory they contested with the other. It's a power struggle, a fight over land. What is needed is a compromise, shared solution.

The problem is a failure of compromise on both/all sides.

 

[ruby sparks]

The 1947 UN-proposed two-state solution. Looking at it now, it's a patchwork. The shapes are oddly intertwined. It's hard to imagine any sort of stability. Has there ever been a stable country, other than a series of Islands separated by water or connected only by peninsulas and bridges, the shape that the arab lands are on that map?

Perhaps a simpler north-south division (as happened in Korea, and Northern Ireland) or east-west (as in Germany) would have been at least a slightly better idea. I doubt it would have solved the problem, but it might have been worth a shot.

Perhaps even a shared one state solution would have been better, with equal rights and opportunities enshrined for all etc. Reasonable limits on Right of Return for both Jews and arabs.

 

[ruby sparks]

In principle, this is the sort of thing, or something like it, that is needed. It's very small scale.

"Neve Shalom (Hebrew: נְוֵה שָׁלוֹם‬, lit. Oasis of Peace), also known as Wāħat as-Salām (Arabic: واحة السلام‎) is a cooperative village jointly founded by Israeli Jews and Arabs in an attempt to show that the two peoples can live side by side peacefully, as well as to conduct educational work for peace, equality and understanding between the two peoples."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neve_Shalom

 

[ruby sparks]

The 'siege mentality' of Israeli Jews is very similar to that of Northern Ireland Protestants. Both got where they are by colonising (and being encouraged to colonise) territory and dislocating existing occupants. Both fear that the descendants of those ousted occupants want to literally drive them back into the sea. Luckily for white Americans, there aren't enough natives left to pose such a serious threat, because the ousting was especially effective in that particular case.

One difference is the absence, in NI, of the malign influence from others outside the situation. The Israelis are up against anti-Israel support from places like Iran, for example, and other arab nations. It's true that there was some public and political sympathy and support for 'Brits Out' (of NI) in America, but not to the same extent*.

There are many parallels between the Israeli situation and the NI situation, not least the legacy role played by the British colonial governments in partly causing the problems. In both cases, those opposed to the creation of each state (NI and Israel respectively) tried to strangle it at birth (or during pregnancy in the case of NI) and both failed. The IRA failed again 50 years later.

Here, many Irish Nationalists now strongly support the Palestinians:



And many British Unionists here in turn respond by supporting Israel:




* On a minor note, it's ironic that Americans like, for example, Republican Congressman Peter King, who openly supported the IRA, were funding and supporting Socialism with a capital 'S'. Irish Republicanism was and arguably still is essentially Socialist to the core.

I also wonder how many Americans still feel some support and sympathy for Irish Nationalism (a united, free Ireland) and know that here it's often aligned with not only Socialism but also Palestinian national aspirations?

Things is always complicated. Be very careful about picking sides in someone else's dispute, imo. There's usually two valid sides in most (not all) disputes and multiple versions of almost any issue within the larger dispute. Try to stay as neutral as is possible. Support moderates and those willing to compromise. Encourage reasonable concessions on both sides, etc. Only the future really matters from here on; what's happened already has already happened.

 

[James Madison]

In other sole proprietorships, such a solo practice law firms, solo landscaping business, solo lawn mowing business, solo accounting firm, solo tax business, solo plumbing business, solo heating and air business, there’s no difficulty in distinguishing between actions done in relation to the business and as the business from those actions which are private and are not related to the business or undertaken as the business.

There’s no logical reason given, so far, as to why the sole proprietor speech pathologist is different from other kinds of sole proprietorship such that the actions of the speech pathologist cannot be distinguished between private and business related actions like the other sole proprietors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Despite the fact that the word “contractor” is used for the boycott provision? Despite the fact that the word “it” is also used?

The relevant contract provision is reasonably clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, one could say that it is reasonably clear. But I don't think it's entirely clear, when the 'it' is her (which it is). For example, a sportsperson agrees not to drink Pepsi. Is he free to be seen drinking Pepsi when not at games, or not?

I can’t comment upon your example because it’s missing to many needed facts.

Adhering to the facts of this situation, is there an instance where it’s ambiguous whether “she” or “it” is acting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[untermensche]

These kinds of boycotts don't work until enough people join in and a tipping point is reached.

The sick oppression by Israel should stop.

But it is not clear there is a power in the world to force it to stop.

Israel is not the baddie here. Nor are the Palestinians. Nor are the other arab or muslim states in the region. Nor is the US. There are no baddies and goodies because it's not that clear cut and is infernally complicated.

Oppression is bad.

It creates people like Hamas, which is bad.

Theft of land is bad.

Violence as a reaction to oppression is bad, but it is a reaction to something just as bad.

The US diplomatic protection of Israel from facing it's crimes is bad. Protecting criminals is bad.

Plenty of baddies.

Regarding specifically Israel, yes it definitely acts unfairly towards Palestinians, and violates International Law by continuing to colonise areas such as the West Bank, but, given that Israel not unjustifiably feels it is defending its very existence against hostile neighbours and a hostile element within its own territory, it has a cause.

One could possibly believe the sick oppression and denial of basic rights, like the right of self defense, was because Israel was afraid, EXCEPT FOR THE CONSTANT THEFT OF LAND.

The constant theft of land gives the whole game away.

 

[untermensche]

View attachment 19544

The 1947 UN-proposed two-state solution. Looking at it now, it's a patchwork. The shapes are oddly intertwined. It's hard to imagine any sort of stability. Has there ever been a stable country, other than a series of Islands separated by water or connected only by peninsulas and bridges, the shape that the arab lands are on that map?

Perhaps a simpler north-south division (as happened in Korea, and Northern Ireland) or east-west (as in Germany) would have been at least a slightly better idea. I doubt it would have solved the problem, but it might have been worth a shot.

Perhaps even a shared one state solution would have been better, with equal rights and opportunities enshrined for all etc. Reasonable limits on Right of Return for both Jews and arabs.

What do you mean?

It is an equitable distribution of land.

The Palestinians get about as much coastline as the Israelis.

They have about the same amount of land bordering Egypt.

They each get about the same amount of land.

Israel opposed because Jerusalem was surrounded by land controlled by the Palestinians.

Thus the 1967 revisions where Israel has as much access to Jerusalem as the Palestinians.

The 1967 borders are the only internationally accepted borders that exist. To settle beyond them is theft.

They are also where fair negotiations begin.

Israel has chosen expansion over fair negotiation for a long time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Israel opposed because Jerusalem was surrounded by land controlled by the Palestinians.

Israel (ie Jewish Israelis) accepted it (the 1947 UN map) as I understand it. The arabs did not accept it, and to cut a long story short there was a war in 1948, started by the arabs, and as a result Israel gained more territory than allocated to it in 1947.

Post 1949 (pre-1967) map:



So the arab attempt to kill Israel at its (modern) birth failed and the arabs lost territory (and direct land access to the mediterranean) as a result of trying.

 

[untermensche]

Israel opposed because Jerusalem was surrounded by land controlled by the Palestinians.

Israel (ie Jewish Israelis) accepted it (the 1947 UN map) as I understand it. The arabs did not accept it, and to cut a long story short there was a war in 1948, started by the arabs, and as a result Israel gained more territory than allocated to it in 1947.

Post 1949 (pre-1967) map:

View attachment 19551

So the arab attempt to kill Israel at its (modern) birth failed and the arabs lost territory as a result of trying.

We're talking about Israel and the Palestinians.

Not about Israel and the Arabs.

What you call a glorious inception of a new nation is really a land grab by force, a taking, an intrusion, terrorism.

It is natural for people to try to expel violent intruders on their borders.

And nothing changes about the fair distribution of land between Israel and the Palestinians because a handful of leaders of neighboring nations try to expel a terrorist intruder.

This is between Israel and the Palestinians, not Israel and the Arabs.

 

[ruby sparks]

We're talking about Israel and the Palestinians.

Not about Israel and the Arabs.

What you call a glorious inception of a new nation is really a land grab by force, a taking, an intrusion, terrorism.

It is natural for people to try to expel violent intruders on their borders.

And nothing changes about the fair distribution of land between Israel and the Palestinians because a handful of leaders of neighboring nations try to expel a terrorist intruder.

This is between Israel and the Palestinians, not Israel and the Arabs.

My point was that the arabs rejected the 1947 UN two-state solution. You said it was the Israelis who rejected it. That's the wrong way around. Whatever your opinions, if you get something as big as that the wrong way around, it's not good.

Actually it wasn't strictly speaking the Israelis who accepted it, it was the Jews who accepted it. Pre-1947 there was no modern Israel. The 1947 UN map split the land (which had been the British Mandate known as Palestine after 1915 when they ousted the Turks) into 'Jewish' (controlled) and 'arab' (controlled) and Ben Gurion then, a few months later, declared the former allocation 'Israel'. The allocation was acceptable to the former (Jews) but not the latter (Arabs), as I understand it.

Now, if you want to instead say that the arabs were as you see it right not to accept it, that's fine, but at least get the situation in 1947 the right way around. Israelis/Jews were willing to accept the UN partition and Arabs were not (we have to say arabs because it wasn't just Palestinan arabs who tried to kill off the 1947 two-state solution by starting a war).

The arabs arguably screwed up because they lost 26% more land in the war than they were allocated by the UN (plus they lost direct land access for Palestinian arabs to the Med). No one knows how things would have panned out if they had accepted the UN partition, but it's possible things would not be as bad now.

I am no historian and stand to be corrected if anything in the above is incorrect.

Worth noting that the neighbouring arab states in 1948 were arguably more interested in land-grabbing for themselves than fighting for a Palestinian state. Jordan annexed the West Bank into itself for instance, in 1950.

 

[laughing dog]

In other sole proprietorships, such a solo practice law firms, solo landscaping business, solo lawn mowing business, solo accounting firm, solo tax business, solo plumbing business, solo heating and air business, there’s no difficulty in distinguishing between actions done in relation to the business and as the business from those actions which are private and are not related to the business or undertaken as the business.

Really? If the independent contractor in question bought a box of pencils from a BDS supporter as an individual, but ended up using one (or more) of those pencils in her capacity as a speech pathologist, is she clearly in compliance with the contract or out of compliance? What if she donated some of her earnings as a contractor to a political candidate who supported boycotting Israel?

 

[untermensche]

We're talking about Israel and the Palestinians.

Not about Israel and the Arabs.

What you call a glorious inception of a new nation is really a land grab by force, a taking, an intrusion, terrorism.

It is natural for people to try to expel violent intruders on their borders.

And nothing changes about the fair distribution of land between Israel and the Palestinians because a handful of leaders of neighboring nations try to expel a terrorist intruder.

This is between Israel and the Palestinians, not Israel and the Arabs.

My point was that the arabs rejected the 1947 UN two-state solution. You said it was the Israelis who rejected it. That's the wrong way around. Whatever your opinions, if you get something as big as that the wrong way around, it's not good.

The "arabs" did not vote on it.

Your language is so loose it loses all meaning.

The nations that surrounded Israel rejected the notion of taking land by force. They did not think terrorism should be rewarded.

When the Nazi's took over France was Britain and the US in the wrong for trying to expel the terrorist intruder?

The Israeli terrorists taking land by force were only allowed to stay by the UN because they served a purpose for the US and because so many nations felt guilty about not caring about the plight of the Jews during the war.

The arabs arguably screwed up because they lost 26% more land in the war than they were allocated by the UN. No one knows how things would have panned out if they had accepted the UN partition, but it's possible things would not be as bad now.

Why do you keep talking about the "arabs"?

The land in question and the matter in question is between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel is an intrusion into lands occupied by Palestinians.

That is what the 1948 map recognizes.

It recognizes that the UN wants Israel to have a nation and it also recognizes there are people there already that are just as deserving of a nation.

 

[ruby sparks]

The "arabs" did not vote on it.

Your language is so loose it loses all meaning.

I am using the terminology of the 1947 map, since that relates to the point in time I was referencing.

The nations that surrounded Israel rejected the notion of taking land by force. They did not think terrorism should be rewarded.

That's naive. During the war, that Jordan started (along with others) Jordan grabbed the West Bank for itself for instance (annexing it into Jordan in 1950). Also, there was a LOT of antisemitism involved on the part of the arabs generally.

When the Nazi's took over France was Britain and the US in the wrong for trying to expel the terrorist intruder?

Not quite the same situation. Similar, in some ways, yes. But in the case of Israel, it was as much if not more about migration of people (Jews) over an extended period leading up to 1947 (starting roughly in 1880). Israel did not invade palestine in the way Germany invaded France. Jews moved there (to the region, since there was no Palestine as a nation, it was merely a region in the Ottoman Empire initially). And the Zionists in particular did so in order to set up a Jewish state, in the vacuum left behind after the Turks were ousted as rulers. No one ruled the region after WW1 (well, the British had taken the Palestinian part of it over). And after WW2 especially, partly because of the holocaust, they were assisted in this new nation aspiration by the world powers of the time, including the UN. You can say that was in hindsight a bad move, or unfair on the arabs already living there, in that part of what had been for centuries the Ottoman Empire, yes, but it's different to Germany invading France. The situation was much more fluid. There were no fixed nations involved. Boundaries were being redrawn in many parts of the world at that time.

Why do you keep talking about the "arabs"?

See above regarding the 1947 UN map.

The land in question and the matter in question is between Israel and the Palestinians.

Not in 1947. There was no Israel.

That is what the 1948 map recognizes.

It recognizes that the UN wants Israel to have a nation and it also recognizes there are people there already that are just as deserving of a nation.

I can agree with that. But unfortunately, the arabs (Palestinian and otherwise) rejected that plan and decided instead to start a war of annihilation (against the Jews in Palestine) that they lost, partly because they underestimated those they chose as their enemy in that war.

 

[untermensche]

There were no 'Palestinians' or 'Israelis' prior to the UN 1947 map and I am using the terminology of that map, since that relates to the point in time I am referencing.

There were Palestinians. People that lived on and migrated freely across the land. Like the native Americans.

There were some newly emigrated Jewish settlers and the people that had been there a long time.

And an insane religious notion called "Zionism". The insanity at the bottom of all of this.

That's naive. Jordan grabbed the West Bank for itself for instance. Also, there was a LOT of antisemitism involved.

Underneath what I am saying is all land is taken by terrorism. All nations exist because of terrorism at one time. People never got along with the other and still do not get along with the other. We are one species. There should be one nation. Modern communication makes it possible. Human nature makes it not likely.

The Jewish example is just one example.

The antisemitism just made the desire to expel the intruder greater. But wanting to expel violent terrorist intruders is not unusual.

When the Nazi's took over France was Britain and the US in the wrong for trying to expel the terrorist intruder?

Not quite the same situation. Similar, in some ways, yes. But in the case of Israel, it as much if not more about migration of people.

That is how you look at it. You look at it romantically.

It is a violent intrusion and occupation.

Based on religious nonsense. Not some great principle.

I grew up on Long Island.

Millions of Jews in NYC and many living on Long Island.

I attended about a dozen bar mitzvahs.

The Jews have a homeland. Even if it is not the same one written about in a book of fantasy.

Why do you keep talking about the "arabs"?

See above.

I see no rational explanation.

To focus on what a handful of leaders of surrounding nations did is to totally lose focus on the Palestinians.

The people the UN recognized in 1948 as just as deserving a homeland as the Jewish terrorist intruders.

And again the Jewish terrorists were given special privileges not because they deserved them but because of what happened in the war.

And I don't disagree with it. It was a good gesture to allow the Jewish terrorist intruders to stay. Because most Jews living there today are not violent terrorists.

But the Palestinians deserve everything the Jews deserve.

That is what the 1948 map recognizes.

It recognizes that the UN wants Israel to have a nation and it also recognizes there are people there already that are just as deserving of a nation.

I can agree with that. But unfortunately, the arabs rejected that plan.

The "arabs" never voted on it.

A few leaders rejected it.

 

[ruby sparks]

There were Palestinians. People that lived on and migrated freely across the land. Like the native Americans.

There were some newly emigrated Jewish settlers and the people that had been there a long time.

And an insane religious notion called "Zionism". The insanity at the bottom of all of this.



Underneath what I am saying is all land is taken by terrorism. All nations exist because of terrorism at one time. People never got along with the other and still do not get along with the other. We are one species. There should be one nation. Modern communication makes it possible. Human nature makes it not likely.

The Jewish example is just one example.

The antisemitism just made the desire to expel the intruder greater. But wanting to expel violent terrorist intruders is not unusual.

When the Nazi's took over France was Britain and the US in the wrong for trying to expel the terrorist intruder?

Not quite the same situation. Similar, in some ways, yes. But in the case of Israel, it as much if not more about migration of people.

That is how you look at it. You look at it romantically.

It is a violent intrusion and occupation.

Based on religious nonsense. Not some great principle.

I grew up on Long Island.

Millions of Jews in NYC and many living on Long Island.

I attended about a dozen bar mitzvahs.

The Jews have a homeland. Even if it is not the same one written about in a book of fantasy.

Why do you keep talking about the "arabs"?

See above.

I see no rational explanation.

To focus on what a handful of leaders of surrounding nations did is to totally lose focus on the Palestinians.

The people the UN recognized in 1948 as just as deserving a homeland as the Jewish terrorist intruders.

And again the Jewish terrorists were given special privileges not because they deserved them but because of what happened in the war.

And I don't disagree with it. It was a good gesture to allow the Jewish terrorist intruders to stay. Because most Jews living there today are not violent terrorists.

But the Palestinians deserve everything the Jews deserve.

That is what the 1948 map recognizes.

It recognizes that the UN wants Israel to have a nation and it also recognizes there are people there already that are just as deserving of a nation.

I can agree with that. But unfortunately, the arabs rejected that plan.

The "arabs" never voted on it.

A few leaders rejected it.

It's a power struggle over territory. It doesn't make sense to make one side the goodies and the other the baddies. I'm fine with a lot of what you say, except inasmuch as you've picked a side and labelled it 'good' and the other 'bad'.

Most importantly, things don't get better by rehashing who did what to who over the millennia, who was (in the past) 'right' or 'wrong'. Things only get better by aiming at the future. I accept that's a long long way from straightforward, but it's still true. In the meantime, imo, we who are outside need to stop saying the Israelis are right or wrong because x, y or z and the arabs (or Palestinians) are right or wrong because a, b or c. Right now what's needed are big compromises, and no one directly involved, and many with outside influence, is/are especially interested in them.