No misunderstanding, I just think you're wrong.

Submitted by Dean Kitnick (United States), Feb 22, 2007 at 20:08

Why now propose a Straw Man argument by introducing the silly hypothesis that "every oppoenet [sic] of Israel's right to exist is a terrorist supporter?" Surely we can agree that not all anti-Jews are terrorists. But to suggest that we should invite anti-Jews to give congressional testimony before the House Subcommittee on Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations seems at best, too clever by half. Yet, one still does wonder what "ignoring a substantial group a voice" means? And, why is it "reasonable" to give anti-Jews a voice in congress?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".