What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

By dmsarad. Promoted by Karmafish.

Part of an interesting exchange between anti-Zionist ideologue Christopher Day and dmsarad concerning Keith Moon's latest effort.

Day's words in bold and italic. - KF

But rather because I'm not willing to play this sick game of treating Palestinian children as rhetorical pawns while they are being robbed of their childhoods by the Israeli occupation and seige.

So if Moon is using them as rhetorical pawns, what about whenever someone else posts about them? It seems to me that support Palestinian side = loves the children, oppose Palestinian side = using them as rhetorical pawn.

Moon doesn't give a shit if you burn a Palestinian school girl's flesh to the bone with white phosphorous or collapse her home on her with a missile, or humiliate her father in front of her at a checkpoint. Indeed he is an apologist for all of the above.

This is exactly the problem with I/P debates. If I said that you are TomJ or Heathlander didn't care about the murder of Israeli civilians, about the kidnapping and torture of Israeli soldiers, about Hamas support and participation in Terrorism, I would be called all sorts of vile names and HRed. But you can do it to Moon because he doesn't agree with you on I/P issues.

There are dozens of policies and practices of Israel that I could demand that you or Keith "condemn," but such a method of argumentation has nothing to do with actually working through the issue and everything to do with intimidation.

This is routinely done. In fact, it is common. Post an article about what Hamas is doing and the response is always "Yeah, but what about Israel." I hardly need to condemn Israel, there are plenty of peopl ehere to do it for anything and everything. This is the site that defended the Swedish article claiming that the IDF was harvesting the organs of Palestinians to sell on the black market. Nonetheless, even in this diary alone I have criticized the religious influence in the Israeli government. I have stated this before, but the advantage I have over people like you is that I recognize that conceding a point often gets your more credibility than arguing a silly point.

if so and so fails to "condemn" such and such policy or practice of Hamas this is taken as evidence of their sympathy for Hamas and therefore with all of its methods including suicide bombing and firing rockets at Sderot. Its demagogery 101 and the proper response is always to refuse to play.

Just to come full circle, I refer you back to your comment "Moon doesn't give a shit if you burn a Palestinian school girl's flesh to the bone with white phosphorous or collapse her home on her with a missile, or humiliate her father in front of her at a checkpoint." If Moon's views on the I/P Conflict engenders this type of response from you, I certainly think that the failure to condemn Hamas can equate to support for Hamas and their tactics. Again, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.