In response to my post about picking olives with Palestinians, Ismail wrote: 
Judging from the context of her remark, Tamar was proactively insulating herself from the imagined ire of partisans of Israeli policy who may have thought she was going too easy on the Palestinians. Nothing ironic at all in pointing out the political myopia behind such a fear. And please, don't confuse principled objection to a political delusion with hostility, and lay off the namby-pamby "everyone's a little right, everyone's a little wrong" banalities, would you? Please advise if there is any other significant political disagreement in which this spineless trope occurs with such frequency. It may be true that all perspectives have some particle of reason supporting them, but so what? Should that require that we put the brakes on our deeply held beliefs? I'm sure there are lovely Israelis who desire peace, just as I'm sure there are reprehensible Palestinians. So what? Taken as a whole, the historical evidence suggests to me that Israel has, since its inception and under many different regimes, made the dispossession of the Palestinians a conscious element of its statecraft. You may disagree (or, like Benny Morris, you may agree but cheer these disgusting actions anyway), but please come up with (what you imagine are) substantive reasons for your misapprehensions, rather than this silly incantation about there being enough blame to go around. Ismail
Ismail’s right that “particles of reason” shouldn’t put the brakes on deeply held beliefs, but that doesn’t mean someone else’s deeply held beliefs are wrong, babe. I haven't found the historical evidence quite as convincing as you have, apparently. Also, yes, you should register.