The irony is sweet. It’s a poor analogy, I confess, because in the traditional story of “David and Goliath”, David is a hero with positive intentions. That obviously isn’t the case with the Palestinians but it’s a popular analogy simply because Israel (and please, let’s be honest here) could crush Palestine if it so chooses. (Which I think they should, but that’s another argument completely)

So, for Silverstein to fantasize that Haniyeh is David in a sense that he’s weak compared to Israel, then fine. He’s a fool to believe that. The raw number of citizens (Palestinians vs. Israelis) is irrelevant.

300 million Arabs are “David” and 5 million Jews are “Goliath”. I love how the world changed since Biblical times.

Anyway, doesn’t the PLO also call Hamas “terrorists”? Isn’t Silverstein therefor not only anti-Israel but also anti-PLO? He speaks of a need for Israelis and Arabs to talk, but he is openly against those two sides (Israel and the PLO) who actually do talk.

So what’s his point?

But the reality of the situation is that Haniyeh is no David. There’s no reason to have sympathy for a terrorist simply because he’s outgunned by Israel. This is an irrational reflex that is the Achilles heal of liberals.

As for Olmert and Barak meeting with the idiot, I’m siding with the United States on this issue. Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization and the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. I don’t think Israel should either.