The problem, dear folks, is when in citing Donna Edwards's critique of Israel, Glenn makes statements like this:

----

That's much further than most national Democrats have been willing to go.That's much further than most national Democrats have been willing to go.

----

"Willing to go."

In other words, many democrats secretly share Edwards's opinions, but due to fears of Jewish "silencing," they cower and reverse their own opinions.

Never once entering Greenwald's mind: The possibility democrats might actually believe what they say when the support Israel's right to retaliate to Hamas terrorism.

Yet when the corporate media cynically challenges democrats who oppose NSA lawbreaking like Feingold, Glenn (correctly) mocks the beltway Sober Serious crowd for belittling honest conviction. Here's Glenn in 2006:

----

When Russ Feingold announced in March that he would introduce a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law by eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, a clear two-pronged consensus immediately arose among Beltway pundits and politicians -- including Republicans and many Democrats as well:

(1) Feingold had just disastrously handed a huge "gift" to Republicans, because opposition to Bush's warrantless eavesdropping would doom the Democrats politically, and,

(2) Feingold had introduced this resolution not because he really believed anything he was saying about it, but only as a "political stunt," selfishly designed to advance his own political interests (at the expense of his party) by shoring up the "liberal base" for his 2008 presidential run.

----

Now Glenn would have us believe the democratic establishment is only backing Israel to "selfishly advance their own political interests."

Never once considered: Pelosi, Reid and other dems genuinely believe what they say.

Nope. Can't be.

They're clearly not "willing to go" where Glenn wants them to. Must be that hidden pernicious Jewish money again.

I think you're generally right in that providing military weaponry makes us more complicit than simply financing. I'm simply noting that we can provide military technology for Israel's defense without that being the same as your equation that America just attacked Gaza. Israel made that decision. The armies in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan are all using weaponry we provided in the 80s to attack us in our current wars. This does not mean we are attacking ourselves.

There are levels of complicity. Yes, we are more complicit in Israel's actions than Palestine, or Egypt. My point was you cannot isolate our support for Israel without discussing our support for dozens (hundreds) of countries around the world, including financial support and aid to some seriously scummy despots.

And I continue to believe that you insistence you'd feel this way about any country, not just Israel, to be disingenuous at best. However I'll look forward to your critique of the 2 billion a year we send Egypt and the billion to Pakistan, both anti-democratic patriarchal dictatorships with little respect for human rights. This funding must make us complicit every time a citizen in Egypt or Pakistan gets hung without a trial.

http://www.hrw.org/en/search/apachesolr_search/Egypt

http://www.hrw.org/en/search/apachesolr_search/Pakistan

Are we complicit in the atrocities perpetuated by the Egyptian and Pakistani government on many ethnic subgroups in their midst? If so, please blog on it.

With friends like Pat Buchanan, the anti-Israel faction of the "left" (if I can still call it that) has found its new hero.

Proving once again that the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle.

Now if we can just tie in the blacks, gays and Latinos to the grand global financing conspiracy, we might have something here.

Glenn writes:

----

Those who favor the attack on Gaza due to that calculus are certainly misguided about the likely outcome.

----

Other than the "because Glenn Says So" logic, how are you so certain of this prediction? And would you please comment on how many military attacks Israel made on Palestinian areas in the 1990s leading up to the Second Intifada? And how many Palestinian suicide bombers went off after Israel's violent and bloody military response to the Second Intifada?

Just to refresh your memory, Glenn, the Palestinians used the excuse of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (OMG!!) to cover for Arafat's walking out on the peace process as the real reason to unleash the terror of hundreds of suicide bombers.

Peace efforts and tongue lashings by false equivalence experts such as yourself Glenn prevented Israel from responding militarily to this onslaught for well over a year.

Finally, in 2002, Israel militarily responded with a bloody, violent reaction:

Glenn, care to comment on how many suicide bombers have gone off in Israel since the borders were sealed off, checkpoints increased, and Israel responded with brutal and violent military action?

Yeah, I thought not.

Your entire premise is bullshit, Glenn, and I'm beginning to think you know it. You state future hypotheticals like they're fact (Israel's military response will not work), while ignoring that Israel's longest stretch of non-military violence against Palestine led up to the Second Intifada itself.

Your logic is ass-backwards.

Israel spends the 1990s reducing border control, arming Palestinian police, negotiating with the corrupt terrorist Yasser Arafat, and offering to give back land, and are met with nail bombs dipped in rat poison through their schools, buses and shops.

The 2000s, Israel unleashed numerous invasions, occupations and bombing campaigns, and the violence drops signicantly.

There will be no Third Intifada, Glenn, for the very reasons you claim there will be.

None of this excuses the specifics of military crimes. When Israel commits a crime, it can and should be observed and noted.

But your pathetic, unsourced, and unsupported claim that this "won't work" is belied by the exact opposite of the past 20 years. While this may not be the path to peace, it certainly is the path to less Israelis getting killed by Palestinians. And, last time I checked, that's a valid motivation for a nation's military to take action. To prevent the death of their own citizens.

And as to your armchair psychology as to the "motivations" for people to support Israel, stick to legalisms, or take a class in cultural studies, biases and at least a rudimentary understanding of subjectivity and Kantian frameworks before you talk out of your ass.

The cheapest argument around is the fraud who claims his critics are slaves to their own personal biases while only he alone has achieved a superior logic system to see "The Truth."

We all have truths, Glenn.

This level of cheap dime-store psychology is the same nonsense that would call you the self-hating Jew, desperate to prove his bonafides to the goyim by trashing Israel, because he's working out personal issues.

It's not a compelling argument. Stick to facts.

Like the fact Israel placed a phone call trying to get the family of the Hamas leader out before they bombed. A fact you, naturally, don't cite, in your false equivalency linking the Israel attack to the mentality of terrorists to intentionally kill innocents.

That being said, your critiques of the right wing chicken-hawks are, as always, 100% accurate. They are bloodthursty, amoral disgraces. But their stupidity must be separated from the facts of the attack itself.