When are the Palestinians going to get their fair shake in Salon? It's incredible to me how one sided all of Salon's coverage of the issue is. This reporter is clearly doing an attack interview here. She scores cheap points with the "your victims don't care about the difference." Do you think that the families of a Palestinian child killed by an IDF soldier cares? Or are those question simply reserved for those with lighter skin, the richer, more powerful majority?

Its not just the content of the questions. Its who's being interviewed. Who do you have on to talk from a pro-Palestinian viewpoint? Someone who you label a terrorist. Would you have an Israel soldier who murders Palestinian children on to advocate for Israel?

Yeah. I mean, seriously.

I acknowledge that most of the calls were judgement calls, even though I stand by the opinion that they were the wrong calls. But that call was just bizarre. Just absolutely loony. Illegal block? What? Thats just having no conception of whats going on down on the field. I don't cotton much to conspiracy theories but I can at least understand how someone can look at a play like that and think that the refs had a rooting interest in seeing the Steelers win. The NFL needs a wide overhaul of its officiating system-- starting with full time officials. The job is too difficult, and too much money is invested in it, for the leauge to continue to employ part timers.

that last post of mine was in regards to the weird blocking below the knees call on Hasslebeck when he made a tackle, not the hold (which I agree was egregious and the real game killer.)

Very adult.

Kill kids with suicide bombs, you're a terrorist. Kill kids with tanks and guns, you're a soldier. Members of Hamas killing innocent people is horrible and needs to end, but it is no better than the daily murders that are commited by Israelis. Guns and tanks play better for the American muddle, but they kill people just as indiscriminately as bombs. Both deserve complete condemnation. And both need to be stopped through a rigorous evaluation of the issues at hand.

Only by directly confronting the grievances of both sides are we ever going to find any way to improve this mess. And you can't possibly do that with a reporter who is blatantly and obviously opposed to the person who is interviewing. Can you really say with a straight face that this interviewer doesn't clearly have strong negative feelings to the interviewee? How does that further the dialogue?

As long as our American dialogue is so stilted and one-sided, we'll never help solve this-- and it's our responsibility to do so, considering we give $9 billion dollars in direct and military aid to Israel every year.

Among many other sources, here is a breakdown. http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

$9 billion is a fairly standard figure; some say $6 billion, others say $11 billion. We can't know because the rules for reporting this kind of aid are byzantine and opaque. Remember that economic incentive packages and charitable donations from private corporations(which are in effect tax deductible) are not included in aid figures. More importantly US military hardware that is used by the Israelis, serviced by Israelis, and under the command of Israelis is not included, because technically it is still considered the property of the United States. None of this includes money from the NSA or CIA (who we know has a large presence in Israel) that goes to Mossaud, because it can be hidden under the guise of security/secrecy interests.

To suggest that the US does not commit an incredible amount of financial resources to Israel is fantasy. To suggest that we give anywhere close the amount of aid to Egypt is fantasy.

Let me just say simply what I want: I just would like more coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here in Salon to show awareness of the concerns of both sides. Part of that is the questions that are asked. Part of it, though, is who you choose to interview. I think its an unfortunate fact of the American media that they tend to choose the most extreme view possible to present about any Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern issue. If we can't show the beliefs of more moderate voices, how can we advance the dialogue?

I'm no fanThere are plenty of people out there who, like me, abhor and condemn Israels treatment of the Palestinians (half the population of Israel, or thereabouts) who also are committed to notion of the continued existence of an Israeli state. I personally want that state to be secular and to guarantee protections for all minorities, ethnic or racial or religious. But I don't want to abolish Israel like Hamas, and neither do people in a lot of Palestinian rights groups (such as We Refuse to Be Enemies). And I just think the dialogue is stifled by equating demanding equal protections and rights for Palestinians with a desire to "drive the Jews into the sea" as the famouse quote goes.