I went to their site, searched on gaza freedom march and this popped up right away. Note the date, the day before Walt's post denouncing the paper for not covering it.

Activists blocked from planned march to support Gaza

By Yasmine Saleh
Reuters
Monday, December 28, 2009; 2:08 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/28/AR2009122801266.html

By the way, with regard to your cynical point in your previous post that even a Holocaust survivor is anti-Israel, as usual, you failed to do simple basic research to back up your assertions. While Hedy Epstein, like most German Jews, did lose parents in the Holocaust, she herself spent all of World War II in England.

http://www.hedyepstein.com/abouthedy/

The Washington Post, the New York Times did carry reuter's stories on this yesterday as opposed to what you claimed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/28/AR2009122801266.html

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/28/world/international-uk-egypt-gaza.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gaza%20protest&st=cse

As did the Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1229/Egypt-cracks-down-on-foreign-protesters-heading-to-Gaza-Strip

As even medium sized newspapers such as the Courier-Journal covered the story
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091228/NEWS01/912280361/Louisvillians+among+Gaza+supporters+blocked+in+Egypt

By the way, where is your outrage about the lack of coverage of Anniversary of the deaths of 20,000 Sri Lankan civilians in Sri Lanka's war agains the Tamil Tigers? I am sure there is a Zionist angle to it somewhere.

Here are a few more gems from Hedy Epstein. She said her parents were so anti-Zionist that they preferred to die than emigrate.

“I’ve been involved with the Israeli-Palestinian problem for many years. It probably goes back to my childhood, because I born in Germany and my parents were anti-Zionists,” she said.

“When Hitler came to power in 1933 I was 8 years old, and my parents very quickly realized that Germany is not a place to raise a family. So they tried to leave to go anywhere in the world, but there was one place they were not willing to go, and that was Palestine.”

Link to Hedy Epstein quote
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=110169

There's excellent coverage of the March on Democracy Now today. Also included is an interview with Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters. For more updates check out PULSE's GMF page.

I find it quite interesting that everytime I see a comment from the two of you (if you are two different people) on Walt's blog, the issue is always Israel and your comments are always in defense of Israel.

Unless you happen to be Israeli (and I take it from one of David's recent comments he's not), your obsession with defending Israel is further evidence in support of Walt's thesis re the Israel lobby (broadly defined).

Defending Israel against demonization and slander is not the same thing as advocating a foreign policy which mirrors the Israeli right wing--Walt's thesis.

If an extemist Israel supporter called the Palestinians a cult worshiping suicide bombers, you would be right to defend the Palestinians no matter how many times you did.

"The majority of my posts are about Walt's "Israel Lobby" theory, not Israel."

Fair enough. I would argue, however, that by denying the centrality of the Israel lobby to the US-Israel relationship you are, by implication, defending the position that based on its merits Israel deserves the almost unconditional and hugely costly American support it receives.

"Wouldn't you think, if Walt's hypothesis about the Israel Lobby is true, he would attract scores, maybe hundreds of people challenging his ideas here, not the small handful who does."

Yes, if his blog were on a web site that attracted much attention. But it's not. (No offense intended to the good people who maintain this site.)

I would also note that when The Israel Lobby book came out I recall reading that the organized pro-Israel community was going to try to minimize Walt and Mearsheimer's impact by ignoring them as much as possible. The apparent reasoning behind this was that attacking them hard when the LRB article came out brought them and their thesis much more attention than they otherwise would have received.

"by denying the centrality of the Israel lobby to the US-Israel relationship you are, by implication, defending the position that based on its merits Israel deserves the almost unconditional and hugely costly American support it receives"

Just from a money stand point alone it does. If Israel didn't have US aid to create a army (95% of US aid is military) to defend itself after being invaded three times, no doubt it would have been invaded a fourth. $110 billion dollars were spent on the first Gulf War which is more than all of the aid Israel has received from the US in the last 60 years. Not to mention the fact that most of that aid goes right back to American defense contractors. Aid to Israel is also at the lowest point it has ever been in at least a decade.

This does not even take into account that for most of those years, Israel was the only militarily capable US ally in the Middle East dominated by soviet clients during the cold war.

I know Walt thinks it is ok for us to know throw Israel under the bus because (he argues) it is no longer as useful as it once was (he so called "realist" perspective). But, what lesson will this teach any potential US ally about how they will be treated when their usefulness is not as great.

60% of Americans sympathize with Israel with only 18 percent sympathizing with the Palestinians (22% both or don't care).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116308/Americans-Support-Israel-Unchanged-Gaza-Conflict.aspx

I guess 60 percent of Americans are part of the "Israel Lobby." Or maybe the elected leaders of the US favor Israel because a majority of the American people do.

As an FYI, the Palestinians were given $3 billion dollars in foreign aid in 2008. $300 million fro the US.

Preemptive sorry for a few typos as I know that is sometimes what people tend to focus on.

Code Pink admitted to giving money to Iraqi insurgents a couple of years ago and when Cindy Sheehan and CP were hanging around the Crawford Peace House a bunch of money mysteriously turned up missing just as these "peace activists" were heading off to Cuba to help Castro rub out some propaganda.

How much money, ammo and other support will Walt's "peace" lovers be taking to Hamas? Code Pink is a front group for The World Worker's Party, a revolutionary communist group known among the peace movement to be violent and detrimental to peace. It's not shocking that Walt supports them.

I just re-read the article and realized why Walt likes it. It blames Israel completely for conflict and therefore fits perfectly into his world view. It does not mention the 8,000 rockets fired into Israel prior to the conflict. It says there was a higher casualties(1400) than even Hamas is claimed; and puts no blame on Hamas for anything such as using the people of Gaza as human shields, firing rockets from civilian buildings, storing weapons in hospitals, forcing civilian taxis to move them at gunpoint, and intentionally targeting civilians in Israel.

We could probably just go in circles with these issues until we tire each other out, so I'll make this my last comment for now, with a few points and a question or two.

1. If I read the first full paragraph of your 5:08 post correctly, David, you appear to agree that the Israel lobby is the central cause of the "special relationship." You just disagree with Walt as to how "the Lobby" should be defined. Am I correct?

2. I understand that in general American public opinion "supports" Israel. As Mearsheimer and Walt demonstrate, however, this is mostly very soft support. First, while most Americans say they "support" Israel when specifically asked, most also want the US to be basically even handed its dealings. Second, and on a related note, very few Americans feel passionately about Israel. Very few are thinking about Israel when they step into the voting booth. (I would also argue that if my own personal experience is any indicator--as someone who went from softly pro Israel to strongly wanting to put Israel at arms' length--much of that soft support for Israel would evaporate if more Americans better understood the history of that region, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the huge costs our relationship with Israel generate.)

In other words, but for those very few Americans who do feel strongly about Israel and press the political system with much success, Congress and the president could--and almost certainly would--chart a significantly different course in the Middle East and pay almost no political price. (I say "almost certainly would" chart a different course because it seems to me there's no doubt that Israel acts in ways that are fundamentally in conflict with US interests--e.g., the settlements, and its refusal to even engage the Arab League peace offer--and, as things stand, it pays almost no price in the US.)

3. The issue of Israel moving toward China or Russia is intriguing. In general it's almost always better to have more allies than fewer, but in this particular case I don't think it would necessarily be to America's detriment. Having Israel as an ally is a significant net negative in relations with the much larger and much more important Arab and Muslim worlds. Not only do we complicate our relations with those governments, but we accept the terrorism threat that is largely--though not exclusively--a result of our relationship with Israel. It would be interesting to see whether China or Russia would even be willing to take that burden on. If so, I suspect either would put Israel on a much shorter leash than the US is able to.

4. The assertion that the US spent more on the First Gulf War than we have in the aid we've provided to Israel is questionable. You indicate $110 billion on that war. Mearsheimer and Walt indicate over $150 billion in direct aid to Israel since the 1967 war. Even if you're right on that narrow point, though, the cost of our relationship with Israel is much greater than the direct aid we provide to it. For example, according to one estimate the 1973 Arab oil embargo alone did about $1 trillion of damage to the US economy (in current dollars).

5. I don't think Walt is arguing that the US should "throw Israel under the bus." I think he and Mearsheimer have said that, absent the impact of the Israel lobby, the US would be able to--and should--make its close relationship with Israel conditioned upon Israel acting in ways fundamentally consistent with US interests. If Israel refuses to do so, as it currently does, then it should seek another major strategic partner.

6. No, I don't have any numbers re traffic to this web site. As much as I like FP, though, I'd be surprised if more than a few thousand people visit this site per day. I think it's reasonable to assume that if Walt had a regular op-ed spot with the NYT or the WaPo, for example, his writings would generate hundreds of comments per piece.

fopo: wildly popular in af-pak, cambodia, azerbaijan.

1. No, you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I am pointing to the possibility of multiple other causes. Point being, you can't take my addressing Walt's "Lobby" theories as an implication that I am advocating that we should support Israel as we do, as you did. My opinion is that the case is not as cut and dried as either side makes it.

As for the rest of your post that addresses my points, it's your opinion/speculation and I don't have anything to add.

In any event, it is much more enjoyable to engage on the issues rather than over insinuations about me based on what I post about.

Happy New Year's to you.

Max,
Sorry this is so long but I used a lot of quotes from your last post. I also apologize for all typos.

"I understand that in general American public opinion "supports" Israel. As Mearsheimer and Walt demonstrate, however, this is mostly very soft support. First, while most Americans say they "support" Israel when specifically asked, most also want the US to be basically even handed its dealings. Second, and on a related note, very few Americans feel passionately about Israel. Very few are thinking about Israel when they step into the voting booth. (I would also argue that if my own personal experience is any indicator--as someone who went from softly pro Israel to strongly wanting to put Israel at arms' length--much of that soft support for Israel would evaporate if more Americans better understood the history of that region, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the huge costs our relationship with Israel generate.)"

I don't see the relevance of this. The point is that when Americans do turn their focus to Israel and the Palestinians they are much more sympathetic to Israel. I personally did not think about Israel when I voted for Obama--even as a staunch supporter of Israel. I was much more concerned with the economy, American jobs, and health care.

The amount of aid given to Israel is no secret and never has been. Currently $1.9 billion of that aids directly to American companies. If American citizens were really concerned about this, then they would petition their representatives to end the aid.

"Having Israel as an ally is a significant net negative in relations with the much larger and much more important Arab and Muslim worlds. Not only do we complicate our relations with those governments, but we accept the terrorism threat that is largely--though not exclusively--a result of our relationship with Israel."

This statement is false. The reason people have a negative view of the US in the Arab worlds is that for years we have supported the dictators of their countries and have troops occupying them.

In fact, US support of Israel is only the fifth highest reason for anti-americanism in the Arab world.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/6/arab-and-muslim-perceptions-of-the-united-states

The Iranian Mullas hate us more for our support of the Shah than our support of Israel. There is a reason the Iranian government call us the "great Satan" and Israel the "little Satan" and not the other way around.

The 911 terrorists including bin Laden explicitly stated that they attacked us because of our troops in the most holy country for Muslims --Saudi Arabia. Troops which were, at the time, protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq. Bin Laden did not change his reasoning to the Palestinians until seven years after 911.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/terror/main4102367.shtml

"I say "almost certainly would" chart a different course because it seems to me there's no doubt that Israel acts in ways that are fundamentally in conflict with US interests--e.g., the settlements, and its refusal to even engage the Arab League peace offer--and, as things stand, it pays almost no price in the US"

The Arab "peace offer" is a take it or leave it offer that includes the non-negotiable term that 4 million Palestinians are allowed to settle in Israel--which would essentially destroy it.

It’s not as if the Palestinians have responded to the five times they could have had a state:

1937 Peel Commission Refused
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1938-british-partition-plan.html
1948 Partition Refused
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/oren/UN%20Palestine%20Partition%20Plan.gif
1967 Offer to return all of the West Bank and Gaza for peace refused
1998 95% of west bank, Israeli land swaps, East Jerusalem and all of Gaza offered—Negotiation ended—Intifada started
2008 Olmert Offer Refused and not responded to.

"The assertion that the US spent more on the First Gulf War than we have in the aid we've provided to Israel is questionable. You indicate $110 billion on that war. Mearsheimer and Walt indicate over $150 billion in direct aid to Israel since the 1967 war. Even if you're right on that narrow point, though, the cost of our relationship with Israel is much greater than the direct aid we provide to it. For example, according to one estimate the 1973 Arab oil embargo alone did about $1 trillion of damage to the US economy (in current dollars)."

I assume Walt is putting the sum in 2008 dollars. If you do the same for the $110 million in from 1990 the result is $170 million in current dollars. Not to mention the fact that the damage to Israel would be an order of magnitude higher than the damage to Kuwait as Saddam was not trying to destroy Kuwait just take it over.

Whatever the cost of the cut in oil production in 1973, it pales to the cost if Soviet Union's clients and therefore the Soviet Union (Egypt and Syria) took complete control over oil in the Arabian Peninsula. Israel's defeat of the two strongest Arab Armies in 1967 and taking of the Sinai prevented this from happening as Egypt was now completely cut off from from a possible land invasion path due to Israel's capture of the Sinai. Egypt's invasion of Saudi Arabia earlier in 1967 proved Egypt had no qualms of invading it's neighbor. Not to mention that Egypts defeat and the Israel-Egypt peace deal permanently brought Egypt into the US sphere of influence and out of the Soviet's.

"Having Israel as an ally is a significant net negative in relations with the much larger and much more important Arab and Muslim worlds. Not only do we complicate our relations with those governments, but we accept the terrorism threat that is largely--though not exclusively--a result of our relationship with Israel."

The only government it has hurt relations with is Iran unless you consider Hezbollah a government. I doubt that the 230 million Muslims in Malaysia really care about Israel. Not to mention Turkey who until has had very good relations and despite the current rhetoric still has large strategic and economic ties with Israel. In fact, tens of thousands of Israelis vacation in Turkey every year. It certainly hasn't hurt our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The Kurds and Bosnian Muslims also have very good relations with Israel.

As stated above, US support of Israel is only the fifth highest reason for anti-americanism among the Arab populace.

There has been two terrorist attacks on the United states and as I showed above the Palestinians were not even mentioned as the cause until seven years after the attack. Most likely to gain any sympathy from an Arab world that had turned away from his tactics of killing civilians.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/6/arab-and-muslim-perceptions-of-the-united-states

"I don't think Walt is arguing that the US should "throw Israel under the bus." I think he and Mearsheimer have said that, absent the impact of the Israel lobby, the US would be able to--and should--make its close relationship with Israel conditioned upon Israel acting in ways fundamentally consistent with US interests. If Israel refuses to do so, as it currently does, then it should seek another major strategic partner."

The problem is that everything is Israel's fault in Walt's view. His perspective is as narrow minded as Bush's “with us or against us”. There is no nuance about the conflict; no real understanding. As if Hamas would suddenly kiss and make up if Israel left the West Bank; as if the Palestinian people didn't elect Hams which the US had considered a terrorist organization for years. How is THAT for acting against US interests despite getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the US and billions from US allies. This is not even considered in Walt's view.

Not to mention that the Palestinians never used Israeli building in the west bank as an excuse to refuse any negotiation, as they do now, until Obama inexplicably drew that line in the sand, as Abbas could not appear to have lower demands than the US.

As I said above, Israel was bulwark during the cold war against Soviet clients.

Israel is also the only country that the US can count on to have a completely stable government in the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood could take over Egypt when Mubarak dies. Iranian influence could eventually take over a Shia majority Iraq. The weak Saudi monarchy could be overthrown.

Israel also had developed the technology which Obama is using for short range missile defense in Europe. It enabled Obama to end the huge strain on relations with the Russians caused by Bush’s missile defense plan.

It also has trained and aids the US in counter terrorism. It has save American lives by using its experience to help train US soldiers in urban combat. In Afghanistan the US has used Israeli innovations to create safer combat transports. The US uses Israeli developed body armor that weighs 20 lbs less than what soldiers previously had to wear making soldiers much more mobile. Unmanned aircraft, which give the US a huge tactical advantage in combat, were first developed in Israel over 15 years shared Israeli designs are the basis for American unmanned aircraft.

"the US would be able to--and should--make its close relationship with Israel conditioned upon Israel acting in ways fundamentally consistent with US interests. If Israel refuses to do so, as it currently does, then it should seek another major strategic partner."

Throwing away the entire US Israeli relationship or not taking a bright line stand on building in close-in areas that will without a doubt be part of Israel in any final peace plan.

Walt's uncorrected assertion that the new apartments are in Arab East Jerusalem http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/17/how_not_to_act_like_a_superpower?page=1 are patently false as Gilo is in South West Jerusalem and the new apartments do not even encroach toward Arab areas.

Just some rhetorical questions, how much as it cost the US to keep 37,000 troops in Korea for the past 50 years? Isn't in our strategic interest to not anger a volatile country with nuclear weapons that will be able to strike the US relatively soon? Why do we support Taiwan when it hurts our relations with a soon to be superpower?

I commend you for being rather polite. I was not initially and I apologize.
I look forward to engaging with you on these and other issues in the future.

Until then, I'll note that not all of my last post was just "opinion/speculation." In particular, I don't think it's just "speculation" to assert that most Americans' support for Israel is soft.

As I'm sure you well know, every election cylce various surveys identify the issues the voters indicate matter to them: the economy, jobs, health care, immigration, abortion, etc... To the extent foreign policy issues come up, Iraq and Afghanistan certainly have in recent years, and perhaps China to the extent it relates to economic/job concerns. I've NEVER seen such a survey indicate that the average American voter is concerned about a candidate's position on Israel.

if you and/or Dave have contrary information, I would be interested to see it.

Otherwise, Happy New Year to you, too.

Dave, yes, much too long a post for a reasonable response at this time! But I appreciate the effort to respond to the issues I raised.

I'll read your post overy carefully later. Thanks.

One last thing on your embargo point. Interesting article

" Most people believe that it was directly responsible for long gasoline lines and for service stations running dry. The shortages were, in fact, a byproduct of price controls imposed by President Nixon in August 1971"

Because oil is fungible"

Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani conceded afterwards that the 1973 embargo "did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States ... the world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else." It took a while, however, for Americans to figure this out. In his memoirs, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote that, looking back, "the structure of the oil market was so little understood that the embargo became the principle focus of concern. Lifting it turned almost into an obsession for the next five months. In fact, the Arab embargo was a symbolic gesture of limited practical importance."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3272

The price of gasoline was 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents in June 1974 which is the equivalent to a 79 cent increase today. Seeing as we do not have cars lining up at gas stations when the price of oil more than tripled from $1.20 in 2000 to $3.80 in September 2008 with no gas lines for rationing, it is pretty clear that the jump in the price in gasoline caused by the "embargo" was not the cause of the problem.

Gazans welcome peace groups by firing Grad rocket into Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1139142.html

A few quick replies.

1. Regarding my assertion that Israel has not engaged the Arab League offer, I recall that at last year's Davos Summit Shimon Peres admitted that Israel has not provided a formal response. (Perhaps something has changed since then. If so, please let me know.)

I don't think Dave is correct to contend that it's a "take it or leave it" offer. How could it be so when part of the offer involves a "just resolution" of the right of return issue? That appears to require some bargaining. However, even if it is postured as some sort of firm and final offer, it's possible (perhaps likely) that it's not. In my professional life I've seen many offers presented as "firm and final," only to later change when the other party counter-offered.

We won't know whether this is a "take it or leave it" offer until the Israelis counter-offer. I think Israel would earn some credit with world opinion if would do something bold. Recall that Sadat went to the Knesset to seek peace with Israel. Why can't the Israeli leadership acknowledge that this could be an extraordinary opportunity, go to a major Arab capital, and make a good faith counter-offer?

It's failure to do so makes many rightly question how committed Israel is to real peace with its neighbors. I'm not suggesting that Israel doesn't want peace, but that it's not willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

2. Regarding Dave's suggestion that the 1973 oil embargo had only symbolic effect, it's an interesting argument. The Saudi oil minister's comment--if it's accurate--is particularly intriguing. Kissinger's comment is less so. Since he's partly to blame for the whole fiasco, he has a motive to minimize its importance. I would be more impressed by the argument if you could cite to some reputable and unbiased economists who agreed with it.

On this very page some months ago someone linked to a study done by an economist commissioned by the US Army War College. As I noted above, that study estimated that the oil embargo did about $1 trillion of damage to the US economy.

3. David: "Likewise, when the UN creates an unbalanced resolution, we should veto it, regardless of who gets mad." I disagree. America's representatives should be first and foremost protecting American interests. If Israel expects the US to take heat for its bad behavior (at the very least, its PERCEIVED bad behavior), it has to earn that. It does not do so by acting in ways fundamentally contrary to US interests--e.g., the settlements, the treatment of the Palestinians, and refusing to negotiate with the Arab League--especially when those behaviors increase risks to America's security (see directly below).

4. Dave asserts that Israel is only the fifth most important issue causing Arabs and Muslims to be angry with the U.S. I took a look at your link, Dave. As far as I can tell, what it actually says is that four US "policies" particularly aggravate Arabs/Muslims, then it lists those policies. It's not clear that it's listing them in descending order of importance because it does not give the actual underlying data. It does list Israel fourth (not fifth). It lists the Iraq War first and the war on terror second. Since those are arguably both closely connected to our relationship with Israel, it's arguable that our relationship with Israel is overall the most important factor.

However, even if you can isolate Israel as "only" the fourth most important cause of Arab/Muslim anger, that's still a pretty important issue.

Furthermore, it's important to note that it was a very significant factor in the 9/11 attacks. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Muhamed, the architect of the attacks, was primarily motivated by US support for Israel. Furthermore, Bin Laden was substantially motivated by Israel--so much so that he wanted the attack moved up in response to the Second Intifada and wanted one plane to target Congress because it was (rightly) perceived to be the strongest source of Israel's support within the US government.

Whether or not 9/11 would have happened if the US was not closely aligned with Israel is probably impossible to know. But given the above it's certainly arguable that it might not have happened. And we all know the costs that calamity--and our response to it--have created for America.

Since Israel is at least potentially part of the reason for those costs, it should be working overtime to assure America that our relationship with it is worth those costs.

5. Finally, Dave wonders why it's relevant whether most Americans' support for Israel is "soft" or not. It's relevant because it indicates that it's not a driving factor when policymakers--especially elected ones--make decisions regarding US government support for Israel.

In other words, as I noted above, but for those few Americans who do feel very strongly about Israel and press the political system in favor of Israel, Congress and the president could back away from Israel and pay little, if any, political price.

"1. Regarding my assertion that Israel has not engaged the Arab League offer, I recall that at last year's Davos Summit Shimon Peres admitted that Israel has not provided a formal response. (Perhaps something has changed since then. If so, please let me know.) "

I don't know about a "formal" response, but Israel did ask for amendments and this was refused. This could have been done informally, or behind the scenes (see link below), meaning that a formal response was never given, yet Israel did engage.

Since it was presented in a "take it or leave it" manner, it is not surprising that Israel refused. (You can see this response from the Arab side after the 2002 and 2007 presentations of the plan in this detailed history: http://www.jcpa.org/text/Arab-Peace-Initiative.pdf, as reported by AFP and Reuters. Sorry for not bringing here, but I am having trouble cutting and pasting from the pdf and don't want to type it out.)

And the fact is, Israel wants to sit down and negotiate on all of the parameters in the plan, which tells me that they are still trying to engage. It is the Arab side that is not engaging, but rather wants to dictate terms.

"3. David: "Likewise, when the UN creates an unbalanced resolution, we should veto it, regardless of who gets mad." I disagree."

This goes back to what I said earlier. Unlike my point above which deals with facts, this is your opinion. I respect that you have yours, I have a different one.