I do support Israel, at least in the sense that my tax dollars help purchase the munitions and the machines that deliver them, into Gaza. What is it--3 Billion bucks? Highest per capita recipient of US free money?

you might want to look up a country called Iraq, bub. And if we tie in the sweatheart tax-free oil-field deals, we're essentially funneling a hundred times what we give to Israel to Saudi Arabia.

The Israel-haters might want to do a global analysis of how much money we give to countries around the world, including stationing our military in Japan, South Korea and Kuwait. Israel is one of a number of countries that we support militarily. And compared to what we're spending blowing up Iraq and Afghanistan, hardly at the top of our financial concerns.

If you can restate any legitimate questions by Derbig Mooser, I'd be happy to offer my thoughts. All I've seen from that person is dripping hatred for all things Jewish, written in a mocking tone that if it's going to be that clueless, should at least be funny.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Zionism," the term has historical meaning, but today it is usually invoked by anti-Israel fringe lunatics ranting about conspiracy theories and babbling nonsense about how Jews see themselves as superior because they once heard the term "chosen people" (which I'd be happy to explain if you actually think it means Jewish exceptionalism).

"Zionism" has no meaning today because Israel exists. It is fact. No amount of internet whining will wish away a country with nearly seven million people in it.

If you believe Israel itself has no right to exist, there is little starting point for a discussion. I'd sooner debate the veracity of Santa Claus.

America has committed nearly a trillion dollars and over 4,500 American, ostensibly to improve the lives of the people of Iraq. If we continue to give Israel 3 billion a year, it will take us 333 years to give Israel what we've sunk into Iraq in financial costs alone.

If you think Israel is the #1 country we are aiding right now, you're uninformed at best.

But Israel-hating requires one to talk about Israel in a vacuum. Thus no mention of Gaza missiles, the Second Intifada, the wars on Israel in 1967 and 1973, the fact Arafat was funneling PLO money to his family in France, our funding of Egypt, Pakistan, etc. etc.

It's just "Israel just did X!!! OMG!!" Lame.

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you can't even spell Holocaust and anti-Semitism correctly.

Here's your first clue. "Semetism" and "Holacaust" are both incorrect.

It wasn't an attack, it's just hurting my eyes.

I noticed at no point in your article do you note that Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005. Your attempt to conflate "occupation" with recent events is a slight of hand worthy of a George Bush "Saddam-9/11" maneuver.

Your claims that America has marched "lockstep" with Israel for 60 years, a wonderful talking point, makes me wonder where America was in 1967 and 1973 when Israel was attacked and nearly destroyed. Or where America was in 2001 when nailbombs were going off every day on the streets of Israel.

But then this entire article is the usual mish-mash of distortions and talking points that assume a brainwashed America supporting those brutal Israelis who use the Holocaust for maximum exploitation. There's a reason this issue divides the Left, and it's because most leftists know that the right of Israel to fundamentally exist and defend itself is non-negotiable.

What you cite as an "attack" is a response to years of mortar fire. Unlike our invasion of Iraq (about 1000 times more morally indefensible than anything Israel is doing), Israel was responding to direct provocation.

Do you agree or disagree that the relevancy of citing "occupation" is in question when Israel is not actually occupying the place in question?

Or do you just want to "Zing!" away and contribute your usual tripe?

Strong post, but I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as you make it. Lets not forget Joe Biden in September:

Mr Biden said at an event in Deerfield Beach, Florida: “If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president - no one is above the law."

His statement is the strongest indication yet that an Obama administartion might seek legal redress against the President George W. Bush. It could undermine Mr Obama’s message of bipartisanship and moving beyond the battles over Iraq.

In April, Mr Obama struck a similar note when he promised that he would ask his attorney general to review the Bush administration’s decisions to differentiate between "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2680908/Barack-Obama-would-consider-criminal-charges-against-Bush-administration-over-Guantanamo-Bay.html

Lets hope our new A.G. can be inspired to pursue the Constitution, and not these ridiculous notions of maintaining this above-the-law aristocracy that the Sober Serious crowd loves to opine on.