I certainly didn’t get my negative view of the Iraq war from CNN. It’s largely from academia. But, nonetheless, even watching the BBC would give a negative view of the war. It’s hard to get a positive view of it.

“Jaime pointed out that I wasn’t a Middle East expert, so where are you trying to go with that?”

Well, I was pretty much highlighting that it is difficult for someone with little knowledge of the conflict to prescribe what the solution is (or in your case, what the solution isn’t, i.e. Res 242). This is a very valid point that I was making.

“From what I see, you’re not much of an expert either (or a good one), else your professed academic qualities would have convinced me long ago, but they failed. Why? Think about it… if you can.”

Also, I’m not quite sure about this “academic” argument. If only people listened to academics more often (especially politicians!) then I’m sure the world would be a nicer place (my tongue is firmly fixed in my cheek here, as I’m obviously biased). But, by your logic, simply because someone is an academic does not mean that they, by definition, are able to convince a person of a particular line of thought. Well academics can try, but they often fail. There were academics, for example, arguing (with strong evidence) that Iraq didn’t have WMDs and that any invasion of Iraq would result in a lengthy conflict. And not many people were convinced, yet these academics were actually correct. If simply being a academic would convince a person of a particular line of thought, then every government in the world would employ an team of academics to “convince” everybody that they were right (as opposed to, say, hiring an advertising agency or PR company to disseminate a particular message). Often, there are many academics with many different academic views. But, I have at least provided at least two people with further knowledge on a particular subject: you and Jaime. As much as you might disagree with me, you might know a little more after our exchange (e.g. Res 242)? Maybe?

Also, I’m not being ignorant (Chris, I have read every side of the various arguments in the occupied territories. From the legal justifications postulated by Israeli lawyers concerning settlement expansion, to Zionist, Biblical and other pro-Israeli arguments for continued presence in the occupied territories; to Palestinian literature highlighting their claims for a state, why Camp David 2000 failed, etc. I have personally spoken to large numbers of both Palestinians and Israelis in Israel and the occupied territories who are on opposite sides of the spectrum, etc). Wikipedia is largely unchecked and open to abuse. And the sources it generally uses are largely restricted to internet links, as opposed to academic journals or literature. So, in the hope of reaching a middle ground, maybe it can be used for a brief overview of Res 242… But nothing more. So, my criticism would be, then, to read-up more on the topic and not concentrate on Wiki.

Your comments reek of personal attacks!

And I don’t debate the specifics with you because I realized several posts ago that you’re not the rational type… that regardless of the situation you’ll sit there and bark! bark! bark!… I offered my opinion a long time ago. I reached a point where I had nothing more to say.

BTW… wiki is an excellent tool for a broad overview of any topic in a NEUTRAL context. Don’t be so ignorant about everything… the news orgs and everyone else… Come to think of it, how did you get your negative perception of the Iraq War… most likely CNN?

Jaime pointed out that I wasn’t a Middle East expert, so where are you trying to go with that? From what I see, you’re not much of an expert either (or a good one), else your professed academic qualities would have convinced me long ago, but they failed. Why? Think about it… if you can.

Haha. How pathetic you are, Chris. I thought I was debating with an adult, not a child. Obviously, I was wrong… Yes Chris, your post was so striking that I’m in tears.

A terrible reply Chris. A terrible comeback. Pathetic. Which attests to my assertion that you simply know nothing about the occupied territories. I notice you didn’t debate anything specific with what I’d written. You simply had to reply with a personal attack on me. Pathetic.

Chris, you are an ignoramus. And I think you’re a phony. Why? Because, Chris, it is people like you that keep “the situation the way it is”. People who know nothing (and I mean “absolutely nothing”) about the conflict yet talk so strongly about it. People who know nothing about what the Palestinians are asking for and their legal rights (and the Palestinians constitute quite an important part of the conflict, wouldn’t you say?), people who only see Israel as the victim, and simply watch CNN and think they know about the conflict. It’s people like you that keep the situation the way it is. Again, please stop talking about Res 242. It’s making you look like such a fool given that you don’t even know what it is. Your knowledge amounts to a quick read of it (by your own admission) on Wikipedia. Not exactly the most intellectual sound method of analysing a situation. But, nonetheless, you’re now parading as if you’re an expert.

“you and others still hold on to it [242] vehemently”

Who are the others, Chris? Practically ALL the UN, for example? What about Israeli politicians? Israeli negotiators who conceded that withdrawal is a necessary prerequisite? Palestinians? Pretty much ALL the Arab world? Chris, again, you’re talking about 242 like you actually know what it is. Until this weekend you’d never even heard of it. Chris, I’m far from “crying” at your post. I’m laughing even more at your idiocy!

You’re debating way above your intellectual weight and ALL of your posts prove this. Now, I really feel like I’m wasting my time debating with you; I’m debating with someone who seems to know little about anything. I would’ve taken you so much more seriously if you would at least conceded that you know very little of the conflict but would like to give your opinion. But, alas, you pretended that you knew what you were talking about and looked like an idiot in doing so. And to talk about the Semantic debate… Chris, I honestly couldn’t stop laughing at your attempt to “out manoeuvre” me by mentioning this, thinking I wouldn’t know about it. You’re read an excerpt about it on Wikipedia. I’ve delivered lectures on this very debate. That one really backfired on you, didn’t it? Haha. Cheers mate. you’re making this so easy.

This is getting so boring, debating with someone who palpably knows so little…

All of this BS you talk and at the end of the day… no progress whatsoever. I have the last several decades to prove that 242 and every other resolution is a waste of everyone’s time, but yet you and others still hold on to it vehemently. It’s your kind of thinking that keeps the situation the way it is…

an inability to think outside the box… roaming around the garbage with the rest of them.

You can spit and spat like a little girl all day long, but we’ll see who’s right when its all said and done…

BTW… I want you to cry when you read this…

My source? You want a full reading list? I’d be happy to email it to you (MZR awaits Chris’ immature “I wouldn’t give my email to a loser like you” reply). Or, if you want to read exactly WHY Camp David 2000 failed, try reading Bregman’s excellent book “Elusive Peace”. Maybe read some Ilan Pappe too. Or Avi Shlaim. And you will find out just how important the Resolution is. The fact that you had to “Wiki” Resolution 242 shows that you didn’t even know what the Resolution was when you began talking about “peace” in the Middle East! So, you know nothing about the Resolution, yet pretend to know about the conflict. Hilarious. It’s like thinking you know about the Colombian conflict and not knowing what Plan Colombia is (I assume you know about this, Chris? Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if you didn’t). Anyway, I’m guessing that you won’t read any of the books I’ve mentioned. In fact, you should stick to reading CNN headlines (and maybe Wiki) in which to base your analysis. I don’t want you getting a headache. Although, I think you will struggle with anything more intellectually challenging than Wikipedia or CNN. You blatantly know nothing about the occupied territorites. But you are clinging on to your Wikipedia fueled argument and parading as some kind of Middle East analyst.

Now, you really want me to talk about the SEMANTIC DISPUTE (I love the way he capitalised this, as if he actually knows what it is! Haha – he read it on Wiki about 3 minutes before he wrote his post). EVEN if you subscribe to the view that the Resolution does not obligate Israel from withdrawing from all the territories it currently occupies (which is the debate we’re talking about), the Resolution WILL STILL BE USED AS A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION AND A PEACE ACCORD BECAUSE IT STILL OBLIGATES AN ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL. That is to say, some Israeli’s argue that the whole territories belong to Israel (using, for example, Biblical arguments to justify this stance). Now, the Resolution itself legally solidifies Israel’s obligation to withdraw from the occupied territories. I’m going to guess that you are not a diplomat or involved in any kind of negotiations or peace talks, Chris. However, I will try to explain. The peace deal, when it materialises, will be based on Resolution 242. This is a fact (again, if you want a reading list, I’m happy to provide it). But then, if you knew about the conflict we wouldn’t be having this debate as you wouldn’t be questioning the importance of Resolution 242. Nonetheless, withdrawal will be a NEGOTIATED WITHDRAWAL. That is to say, Israel will bargain to keep some of the territories it has expanded into. In return, the Palestinian negotiators will receive “concessions” (such as the dismantlement of other settlements). The fact that you are dismissing the Resolution because of the semantic dispute (sorry: SEMANTIC DISPUTE), again, shows how little you know. During Camp David 2000, Arafat conceded that Israel will not withdraw from ALL the territorites it has acquired . BUT the fact that he had the Resolution means he had a HUGE bargaining chip. Indeed, as a signatory to the UN, Israel is legally bound to accept this resolution and therefore negotiations will be based around some kind of withdrawal. So, no doubt, a land swap will ensue. Chris, we have already seen the importance of Resolution 242 in the most recent peace talks. But, I think that you might also know little (if anything) of Camp David 2000.

So, Chris, if you insist on making your comments, then I implore you to read about WHY the last peace talks failed. It was for THREE factors: the status of Jerusalem, the right of return, and territory. And the important thing here is this: the Palestinian negotiators were willing to make concessions on territory and the right of return. BUT it was the status of Jerusalem that really prompted the Palestinians to turn down the peace deal (again, I can provide a reading list, but Bregman’s book will suffice). As Arafat argued, if he sacrifices on Jerusalem he will not only be seen as a traitor to Palestinians, but also to the whole Muslim world, and will therefore be signing his own death warrant. If you want to read a full, day-by-day account of Camp David 2000, read the aforementioned Bregman book.

So Chris, your idiotic argument implying that the Semantic Dispute renders Resolution 242 useless is, indeed, idiotic. Without Resolution 242, the Palestinians would have no legal basis whatsoever to negotiate for their land. With it, as I have said, they have a legally binding document which has been ratified by the United Nations. Israeli politicians (e.g. Barak) have recognised this and thus began negotiations on a land swap. But, Mr Chris thinks Resolution 242 is useless because of the Semantic issue so the Palestinians should simply give up their legally binding, internationally recognised Resolution that will secure them a future state. So, to reiterate for you, Chris: the peace deal WILL BE BASED ON ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM THE TERRITORIES IT OCCUPIES. Will this be a full withdrawal? The answer is “no”. But, nonetheless, there will be a withdrawal. Why? Because Israel faces strong international pressure to withdraw from the occupied territories. Why? Because of RESOLUTION 242! Without it, the Palestinians would have nothing. So, the fact is this: Resolution 242 will continue to play a huge role in any peace deal. It’s called negotiation, Chris and is very common in politics. I assume you didn’t do a degree in International Relations, Chris?

Chris, to be honest with you, you are punching way above your weight on this one.

That’s even more laughable.

I LOVE how you selectively choose your passages… EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING WITH YOUR ARGUMENT!

Did you skip over the entire SEMANTIC DISPUTE you moron! That’s what makes it hard to conceive that the resolution should produce results.

OHHH the UN passed… do I have to state all the crap the UN has passed to demonstrate that it’s a worthless organization!

But, if you insist: if calling for “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” and “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” exacerbates the problem, then I’m not sure how else to solve the problem. But this isn’t why the resolution is important. Indeed, Resolution 242 is so important because it recognises that the only way to achieve this peace is for Israel to retreat from the land it annexed after the six-day war. Chris, it acquired this land after a war. I assume that this is ok for you, though? Israel is recognised by the international community as an occupying force within these lands. Resolution 242 It is the only way that Palestinians (not to mention the United Nations, the Arab world and a host of other countries) see as the most pertinent way to solve the conflict.

Now, I realise that my posts may be too complicated for you Chris. So, let me make it easy for you, with regards to one of my “truths”. How do I know that the Resolution is seen, internationally, as the best way to achieve a lasting peace in occupied territories? Well, because it was UNANIMOUSLY adopted by the United Nations. Indeed, you can see this on Wiki, your favoured source:

“United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.”

So, the Resolution is so important is because it recognises that Israel MUST retreat to the pre-1967 borders, to give back the land it sized during the six-day war (and the Palestinians are not asking for a retreat to 1948 borders, it is worth noting). So, the land that Israel annexed from Palestinians, after the six day war, you think that they should keep this land? This is “just and proper” for you? You think that by illegally expanding on this land that this solves the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#

I quickly read wiki’s post on 242 and don’t see any of your glaring truths or knowledge, from your ever so complicated posts. All I see is a bunch of gray… I bunch of bickering over what word means what, and no definitive conclusion on anything. How can this resolution even begin to lead to any kind of peace in the middle east? If anything, it exascerbates the problem.

I hope your not in any position to influence policy in that region.

How did I insinuate you were arab? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I am not writing dissertations on this blog, so I like to keep things simple. Hence, simple concepts and opinions, broad statements so that the audience can get a sense of where I am going, and so that I can contribute in the minute I get between my real job.

“mankind being arseholes and likely TO continue to be for the time being”

Chris, some of what you say is true that, which according to my interpretation amounts to mankind being arseholes and likely continue to be for the time being. It’s true, but you also should listen to MZR and learn from his erudition on this field matter.

Jcg, I have nothing to say about your philosophy of seeing things from different perspectives. At most that somebody in that thinking stance, hardly will ever act effectively as there will always be objections as to the appropriateness of his plans, whether they be simplistic as tying up your shoes, or more profound, as say, transforming society.

Your posts are incredibly simplistic. “I like your idealism, but the world is not yet ready for it.” I honestly nearly chocked from laughter when I read that. Define my “idealism”. And I am not arguing that Iran should acquire nuclear weapons. I am arguing that while Israel and the US continue to threaten it (and continue to hold huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons), it gives Iran a huge incentive to continue to acquire nuclear weapons. And who says the world isn’t ready for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Mr Chris? CNN? The US government? The Israelis? And you say I’m biased? So, Israel is ready for nukes… But Iran is not (or any other Arab nation? Because they are not like “us”, I suppose? They can’t be trusted!!!).

Please read up on Resolution 242. You will find that it carries a large amount of support, not only within the UN. So, if you’re going to criticise the resolution, provide specific points of criticism. And, please, don’t argue that my views are only from an Arab point of view. That insinuates that I am Arab? I’m not an Arab, Chris. I’m looking at this situation from a human point of view. That is to say, a point of view that will spare the blood of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives should Israel/USA invade Iran. What evidence do I have? Look at the catastrophe in Iraq. Will the USA never learn?! So, my point of view isn’t Jewish/Israeli, Muslim/Arab, Christian, atheist, or whatever. The facts are palpable. And you simply refuse to see them. There is no extreme bias in my view. You know only a part of my view. Do I want the destruction of Israel? Of course not. Should there be a state of Israel? Of course there should be.

There is an extreme bias in your views, Chris. Why? because of your ignorance. How can you possibly talk about “peace” in the Middle East without mentioning resolution 242? Or any other resolution, for that matter? Or the “right of return”? Or Jerusalem? Do you even understand how significant these factors are with regards to peace in the Middle East? Well, let me tell you: if they are not satisfactorily addressed, peace will not emerge. And the research of hundreds of academics, think-tanks, etc, attests to this. And, yes, I will profess that I know a lot more about the Israeli-Palestinian problem than you do. This is clear from the omission of the aforementioned factors from your posts. Also, you are clearly making out that Israel is the victim by suggesting it is up to the Arab states (and Arab states alone) to move for peace. You completely ignore the role of Israel. Your ignorance is extreme bias, whether you know it or not.

“every government or organization on this planet manipulates everything”

I’m not even going to get into how general and simplistic this comment is.

“My notion of the “haves and have nots” IS really that simple to me…!

Haha – yes, Chris. I thought it would be that simple for you.

“Where’s my Friday round-up Adam?!!!!”

First, you have a tendecy of putting words in other peoples mouths. You’re reading way too much into my posts and drawing conclusions that you then attribute to me.

Yes… while major powers maintain nuclear stockpiles, Iran should seek its own. Or else it will continue to be second rate. I like your idealism, but the world is not yet ready for it.

Iran has not invaded anyone in 300 yrs. because they haven’t been able to!!!! Prior to that, they were more than happy to…

You profess to know so much about the situation and you state your words as if they’re uncontested facts. But you’re YOUR focus is strictly from the Arab point of view, so there’s is an extreme bias in your posts that warrant repudiation.

Reevaluate the situation as a whole, you’ll realize that the problem is multi-faceted, has a shared responsibility, and is by no means BLACK & WHITE — GOOD vs EVIL.

I am going off on a tanget, but every government or organization on this planet manipulates everything… such that their interests come first. That’s politics. The UN is right-up there with the worst of them when it comes to injustice, so when you start throwing those UN resolutions around, don’t think that they’re not motivated by one force or another for whatever reason.

My notion of the “haves and have nots” IS really that simple to me… if Iran could acquire nuclear weapons it would change the entire dynamics of the Middle East in their favor. Then they probably would go back to invading other countries for whatever reason… it’s been like that since the dawn of civilization… did Iran all of the sudden become an exception to history?

Latin America hasn’t gone down that route because they have limited means, and the political price outweighs the benefits. Brazil was heading in that direction, but later chose another for many reasons, among which — it was made explicitly clear to them and others that the US would not except nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere (apart from its own stock).

There’s an imaginary red line that the little people don’t cross when dealing with the big people (other big people don’t cross those lines as well, unless they’re ready for all out war i.e. Bay of Pigs)… that is why our neighbors down south don’t have nuclear weapons… not because they somehow became the moral lighthouse of this planet… and we must all follow their lead. Bottom line, if they could they would… same goes for everyone. BTW, there are nations that have chosen not to because they way the economic burden of maintaining nuclear weapons, with their overall priorities and they don’t see the need to GIVEN that the US will provide them cover from other nation-states (Soviet Union) that maintains the weapons (in essence Japan, Great Britian, is getting a free ride on US).

This could obviously go on forever… I am done. I will not respond to this subject again. Where’s my Friday round-up Adam?!!!!

You can actually google her work (I think you’ll get some good PDFs). In all honesty, her best work is found in journals (she has also co-authored some fantastic books, although, as academic books, they’re quite pricey) but I’m sure there must be some good material on the internet.

Chris: “the nuclear divide exists in part because of history, and a genuine fear from regional states. Israel and its people have historically been subjected to the might of other powers and people. As a result, they have transpired into a period of opportune aggression and militarism. Specifically, they act when they feel they’ve been cornered or pressured.”

By this same logic, then, Iran has every right to acquire nuclear weapons. It is threatened on a daily basis by the world’s leading super power (the USA) and the region’s most aggressive state, Israel. One could also say that Muslims are being subjected to the “might of other powers and people”. For example, there is a (western) occupying force currently in Iraq. The same is also true of Afghanistan. Oh, and we have the Palestinian occupied territories too. So, again, by your very logic, Iran SHOULD acquire nuclear weapons.

“Specifically, they act when they feel they’ve been cornered or pressured”

What utter nonsense. Let’s take the first intifada, for example. Israel, with the strongest military in the region, simply acted during the first intifada because it felt cornered? It felt cornered when children were throwing stones at its tanks? I can see how, with it’s army, tanks, fighter jets, etc, Israel would feel so “cornered” to act so brutally during the first intifada.

“It doesn’t help anyone when Iran, Hezbollah, former Iraq regime, Hamas, and others threaten Israel in anyway…”

A very flawed and ethno-centric argument. So, it’s ok for the USA and Israel to threaten Iran on a daily basis?! This helps everyone for you, I assume, Chris? It’s ok for Israel to launch a mock-military operation by its airforce in preparation for an attack on Iran? Its ok for them to do this when the USA’s own intelligence services have conceded that Iran no longer has a weapons program (it has oil though… A bit like Iraq)? It’s ok for the USA to have warships stationed in extremely close proximity to Iran, with the ability to launch devastating attacks? As you have pointed out, a genuine fear of other states may stimulate the pursuit of nuclear weapons. And, Iran has a genuine fear of two, nuclear-armed states: the USA and Israel.

Now, if every one simply accepted these “hypocrisies”, like you have so blithely done, then the world would be a more terrifying place. Luckily, there are many people fighting against an illegal invasion of Iran (although, I realise that the illegality of the invasion of Iraq did little to stop the USA and its allies).

Also, you talk about “have” and “have nots”. This implies that Iran is simply complaining because it doesn’t have nuclear weapons and wants them. Like a child wanting the new bike that his friend has just been bought for Christmas. This is far too simplistic. For example, this also suggests that all non-nuclear armed states simply seek nuclear weapons because others “have” them. This doesn’t hold any weight as, for example, in Latin America, countries have voted against acquiring nuclear weapons. So, if Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, it is not simply because it doesn’t have them and wants them. It’s because it feels threatened by two nuclear-armed states. And the threat would seem very real to an Iranian, no? Look at how many countries the USA has invaded since WWII. And how many times has Israel launched attacks against its neighbours? Coupled with the daily threats from Israel and the USA that Iran has to endure and you wouldn’t blame an Iranian for feeling a little threatened by the prospect of a military attack.

“if its [Israel's] Arab neighbors would unequivocally state that Israel has the right to exist, and sign a peace treaty…”

No, Chris. Israel needs to recognise and adhere to UN resolutions (especially Resolution 242) before any peace treaty can be signed. Israel needs to pull out of the territories it occupies before any peace deal can be struck. Israel needs to stop its policy of illegal settlement expansion in the occupied territories before any peace deal can be struck. Israel needs to recognise and address the “right of return” with regards to the millions of refugees that it forced from their lands before any peace treaty can be signed. Israel needs to recognise the international status of Jerusalem before any peace deal can be struck. Israel needs to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of any future Palestinian state before any peace deal will materialise. Chris, you seem to place all the blame on Arab states, with Israel being the victim. Why didn’t you mention any of the above factors as a prerequisite to peace? Because you focus your attention too much on the pro-Israeli, US media, maybe?

“but ironically they don’t [unequivocally state that Israel has the right to exist, and sign a peace treaty], and the truth is that they will not because they use the threat of Israel and its existence as a tool to manipulate their own people.”

Again, what utter nonsense. For example, tell the seven-year old Palestinian girl whom I was speaking to last summer if the “threat of Israel” is being used to “manipulate” her and her opinion. Was her anger (at losing her whole family after an airstike) real? Or simply a manipulation by Hamas? Such stories are endless. To argue that it’s simply manipulation by the relevant elites is ridiculous. You need to spend some time in the occupied territories. You have no idea, Chris. No idea at all.

“If you can haphazardly blame all of your countries woes on the Israeli’s and the US, then you shift the focus/anger of your population against them.”

I think Palestinians can blame much of their woes against Israel and it’s main sponsor, the USA. Or would you disagree, Chris? As for Iran: of course it is complaining about the USA and Israel; these countries are threatening military action against a state the hasn’t invaded another country for over 300 years!

Chris, whilst you continue to see such conflicts through the lens of a CNN camera, then, of course, you will continue to disagree with me.

I wasn’t speaking of “unfairness” in terms of just omitting “good” things, the opposite can also be true. “Bad” things can also be left behind. Or both.

That also changes over time though, depending on the circumstances, research and the evolution of different interpretations. And, of course, different factions.

To provide a Colombian example that illustrates this very well….the modern “Neo-Bolivarian” version of the Bolivar myth isn’t, say, the same as what people thought about him just after his death or even 50 years later.

If I remember correctly, for a long time Bolivar was one of the founding icons for Colombian Conservatism (even in the 20th century, there was a “Cristo y Bolívar” slogan or some such), while Santander was enshrined by the Liberals as a reformer. What’s more, towards the end of his own lifetime, Bolivar was considered to be a dictator by his opponents, and even compared to Napoleon or Julius Caesar -comparisons I’m not really fond of either, for the record-.

Now it’s more or less the other way around: Bolivar has become a “progressive” icon for Neo-Bolivarians and a large part of the mainstream, who equate him with liberation and rebellion, while Santander becomes a “reactionary” figure that is equated with the establishment.

Maybe there’s some truth to *both* interpretations, but this example shows just how relative history can be. There are going to be beliefs about all of these individuals that are widespread but not necessarily accurate. Things that are forgotten, both good *and* bad, or just simply things that are true and others that are false.

One can still have a valid personal opinion about each of them and back it up with arguments or research, however, that’s not going to change. Discussions and debates can still occur. I’m just commenting on a general process that, like it or not, has taken place and will continue to do so forever.

Also…I wasn’t trying to imply, in terms of the Colombia / Israel comparison, that one was necessarily “better” or “worse” than the other in any of the mentioned aspects, only that they are different and I resist equating them just because there are perceived or real similarities. And even then, Colombia is probably “better” than Israel in some areas, but also “worse” in others. Or just different.