Paul Daniel Ash has pretty much summed up the argument against you. Your pathological fixation on GG is full of accusations, but is totally bereft of any evidence. You have taken the use of hyperbole into the stratospheres, along with declamatory rhetoric that bears no connection whatsoever with anything GG has written.

Have you noticed that no one here is buying your arguments?

Uhm, no.

I'm not making an argument. I'm critquing the fairly obviously paranoid rantings of Glenn Greenwald's agenda and bias on anything involving Israel.

If you'd like me to make an actual argument on Israel, you'll find that I have tons of critiques of Israel, especially its militarism of the past 2+ years, much of which was an inexcusable military response (albeit to provocation).

Paul Daniel Ash simply asked questions. I'm in GG's "house" so it's natural his dittoheads will rabidly defend him and it's what I expect.

But I know there are lurkers who are trying to rectify two troubling impulses:

1. Israel deserves criticism

2. Glenn Greenwald's rants inspire the ugliest in age-old conspiracy theories and age old hatreds

How to do #1 without falling into the Greenwald trap? There are many other liberal bloggers who accomplish it quite nicely. Bloggers like Yglesias and Marshall acknowledge their Jewishness and query that subjectivity.

Greenwald, of course, has found a positively Zen approach to thought that suffers from no Kantian bias.

/On the one side, heroic critics of Israel who are authentic and sincere and would express identical beliefs were it any other country in the world, and the craven and two-faced Israel defenders, exploiting "anti-Semitism" (which doesn't actually exist anymore) to make profit, by destroying America from within as some fifth column embedded in Washington./

Please go ahead and provide anything you have - even the flimsiest of contextual support - for any of this.

It's easy, and I've noted it repeatedly. When Glenn finds a voice of Israeli criticism, he presumes it to be authentic. When he finds a voice of Israeli support who speaks against that criticism, as Schumer does with Freeman, Glenn assigns words like "corrupt," and "craven" and "broken."

The dichotomy is clear -- those who think like Glenn are honest. Those who disagree with Glenn could not possibly be being honest, so they must be "corrupt" or "duplicitous" or "bought by AIPAC."

It's nothing new to poison the well, as Glenn does, by implying those who don't think like you must be lying (because if they were honest, they would speak exactly like Glenn on all issues). But it's a pathetic way of arguing.

Again, if this is just, like, an exercise in venting for you... just let us know. The assumption is that people post here in order to discuss the issues raised. If you'd like to defend any of this, I'm all ears. Or, you know... eyes.

I've defended my points. I believe Glenn Greenwald has an anti-Israel agenda that colors every facet of his arguments. He ascribes honest and noble motives to every single critic of Israel during the war on Hamas in Gaza in December. He actually cited the United Nations's condemnation of Israel in December as proof of global outrage. Never once does he consider the corruption within those who share his purported beliefs.

And, of course, never does he textually address historical narratives of Jewish power. He is either ignorant of history, or he rejects the need to examine linguistic coding. The former is inexusable, and the latter is laughable. Glenn has written entire posts about how the right wing uses code words to race bait. "Welfare Queens" to mean African-Americans" or stressing "Hussein" in Obama's name.

Greenwald wades right into historical anti-Semitism narratives and barely bats an eye. Even when the loons pop up in his comments threads and wonder why Rahm Emmanuel doesn't "move to Israel" or if Joe Lieberman is a Manchurian Candidate, or claim Bernie Madoff "proves" the insidious nature of Jewish money working behind the scenes to rape America.

Greenwald has no time to worry about the affect of his words. For he is a truth teller, with no bias.