More idiotic squawks from a terrorist-of course you will always remain terrorists without a real country.No Arab countries wants you-lucky that Israel is compassionate enough to provide for you.You should thank every Israeli for the benefits that are bestowed on you. You are a vanquished people and depend on welfare-be thankful that you are in Israel.Even EU are about to cut handouts to you.ONE PEOPLE -ONE WELFARE BLUDGERS.

I agree with you-but with the present leadership?

of a State that has hired you for its govt? That would be like a Belgian minister being voted in to represent their constituents but spending all of their time lobbying for African Congolese, even at the detriment to Belgium and their constituents.

In this instance your wrong in one sense. You write that freedom is an important difference between Israel and their neighbors. On that one point your entirely correct. But you erred in this statement: "that doesn't mean that what they are DOING is reprehensible" Yes it does, freedom of speech is admirable, but it doesn't bestow the meaning of what's said as being good vs evil? The idea of freedom of speech is a great ideal. but it can and has been abused. While somebody may have the right to say all Jewish people are responsible for all the problems of the world, I would say that's "reprehensible" speech although legal. A more than minor and important distinction. You see my point? But many issues we do agree, especially with support for Israel. Have a great day!!

I do understand how Alexander feels in this instance,but there are a few points to make. 1)People DO have different standpoints and differences have to be accepted and tolerated.The one proviso is that everybody has the responsibility not to provoke violence by his words. 2)Democracy has very little to do with this.Freedom of speech is a separate issue and CAN exist even without democracy.However,freedom of speech alongside democracy is far preferable.I'm concerned here with freedom of speech,not democracy. 3)Everybody is free to state a different opinion and bring forward counterargument,including Israel's government.In this case,the PA and these 3 MKs have expressed a view to some African diplomats.That doesn't prevent Israel's government from using its full weight to secure those same diplomats support.Indeed,if Israel's government does not do that,it's seriously in dereliction of its duty to the people of the State of Israel.Israel has a strong hand in its dealings with 3rd world countries that have to be very,very careful not to bite the hands that feed them.They can act big,but they aren't. Vigorous debate is great,and can only exist if there is freedom of speech.I think that Alexander should spend less effort moaning about it and more effort holding HIS government to account if it doesn't use it to protect Israel's interests,strongly,loudly,consistently and in a sustained way.They have been conspicuously poor at this. THREE CHEERS FOR ISRAEL!!!

I thank Mark for his remarks and suspect that there isn't really any point of issue between us.What I said,in full was: "What these 3 MKs are ASKING might be unpalatable to many,including me,but that doesn't mean that what they are DOING is reprehensible." They were DOING freedom of speech that Mark and I defend.They were ASKING for what both Mark and I find unpalatable and should be vigorously countered by we and the Israel government exercising OUR freedom of speech. Mark,we sort of agree with each other but even if we disagree,I agree to disagree. שבת שלום THREE CHEERS FOR ISRAEL!!!

We do agree, I think I misunderstood your point at first, as if you conferred some sort of acceptance to the the MK's point. When in fact you only referred to the idea of "freedom of speech" and not what was said as expressed in their ideas. Although I can think of no governments that have freedom of speech that are not democracies. Of course I don't mean governments that pretend at democracy, since in my view, it means more than just voting in an election, I would include freedom of speech in the equation, along with many other ideals. When you spoke of Alexander's remarks. Who I think may have misunderstood your point in the same way I did. It seems that freedom of speech only exists when democracy does. So when you write this: "Democracy has very little to do with this.Freedom of speech is a separate issue and CAN exist even without democracy" I would only ask, respectfully of course, where has there been freedom of speech without democracy? It seems they go hand in hand. I would say freedom of speech is part of democracy. But I'm not a history professor. Who knows, there may be some philosophical implications I'm unaware of. Always good talking with you, take care.