1. Blacks had a legitimate grievance. Those that call themselves Palestinians do not. Although this open an entirely different argument, it still suggests the failure of the analogy.

2. Blacks were and are US citizens. Palestinians do have the ability to exercise sovereignty over their own affairs. Their sovereignty has led them to elect terrorists as their leader. Israel has offered to make massive investment to assist the Palestinians.

3. I'm sure if blacks in the US were funded and armed by the USSR, there may have been a little force used in removing the militants. The analogy does not provide an exactly equal circumstance.

4.

We are about to see in America, huge political/soc...

1. Blacks had a legitimate grievance. Those that call themselves Palestinians do not. Although this open an entirely different argument, it still suggests the failure of the analogy.

2. Blacks were and are US citizens. Palestinians do have the ability to exercise sovereignty over their own affairs. Their sovereignty has led them to elect terrorists as their leader. Israel has offered to make massive investment to assist the Palestinians.

3. I'm sure if blacks in the US were funded and armed by the USSR, there may have been a little force used in removing the militants. The analogy does not provide an exactly equal circumstance.

4.

We are about to see in America, huge political/social division over this issue, the treatment by Israel of the Arabs under its power.

Many Arabs live in Israel peacefully. In fact, it surely may be that most Arabs living in Israel do not support Hamas.

1. Is just saying "the analogy is wrong".
2. "Palestinians do have the ability to exercise sovereignty..." False. The borders of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israel. Palestinian land is appropriated by Israel for settlements. The Palestinian state has to rely on Israel to collect taxes. Palestinian settlers have police power over Palestinians. As we are seeing right now, Israeli troops have the ability and willingness to invade Palestinian territory. This is not sovereignty by any meaning of the word.
3. Not sure what the relevance is. It surely has no bearing on Weiss's point that both 1970s black militants and contemporary Palestinian militants have engaged in v...

1. Is just saying "the analogy is wrong".
2. "Palestinians do have the ability to exercise sovereignty..." False. The borders of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israel. Palestinian land is appropriated by Israel for settlements. The Palestinian state has to rely on Israel to collect taxes. Palestinian settlers have police power over Palestinians. As we are seeing right now, Israeli troops have the ability and willingness to invade Palestinian territory. This is not sovereignty by any meaning of the word.
3. Not sure what the relevance is. It surely has no bearing on Weiss's point that both 1970s black militants and contemporary Palestinian militants have engaged in violence to seek redress for their grievances.
4. According to Wikipedia, there are ~4 million people living in the Palestinian territories (1.4 million in Gaza, 2.5 million in West Bank). There are 1.1 million non-Jewish Arabs who live in Israel. Most Arabs living in Israel+Palestine unfortunately are living under the yoke of Israeli occupation.

1. If you say so.

2. They elected their leadership who happen to be terrorists. You choose to blame Israel for stalling and setting back the progress to a permanent peace settlement and I choose to blame those who continue to refuse to come to terms with Israel's right to exist.

3. The relevance is the support behind the missile attacks. The terrorism is funded by anti-Israel and pro-terrorist governments. They do not want peace with Israel. If Weiss wanted to make a more equal analogy, he might want to hypothetically suppose that the blacks were armed and funded by imposing enemy, namely USSR.

4.

Most Arabs living in Israel+Palestine unfortunately are living under the yoke of Is...

1. If you say so.

2. They elected their leadership who happen to be terrorists. You choose to blame Israel for stalling and setting back the progress to a permanent peace settlement and I choose to blame those who continue to refuse to come to terms with Israel's right to exist.

3. The relevance is the support behind the missile attacks. The terrorism is funded by anti-Israel and pro-terrorist governments. They do not want peace with Israel. If Weiss wanted to make a more equal analogy, he might want to hypothetically suppose that the blacks were armed and funded by imposing enemy, namely USSR.

4.

Most Arabs living in Israel+Palestine unfortunately are living under the yoke of Israeli occupation.

This does not diminish my point. It only more clearly illustrates your bias.

Surely you can admit that there are no perfect analogies, especially when the analogy is presented in such a way as to assist an opinion rather than the actual facts, which Weiss' does.

Why? This might explain it:

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only...

Why? This might explain it:

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them

Geroge Orwell,