Thanks for the link to your previous article Glenn:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html

I agree with everything you wrote there, but there is an important reason for American support of Israel that is not discussed there.

Israel is important to American political leaders because it is seen as a crucial strategic ally in the most important part of the world.

The US is utterly dependent upon foreign oil (2/3 to 3/4 of the oil we use is imported). Not necessarily Middle Eastern oil, since we tend to get our oil imports from Canada, Mexico, etc. But since the oil market is global, and the Middle East supplies a large share of the world's oil and the world's oil exports, if Middle Eastern oil was taken off the market, the result would be skyrocketing oil prices which would cripple the US economy.

The free flow of Middle Eastern oil to the global oil market has been a top foreign policy goal of the US for literally decades, and is stated explicitly in the Carter Doctrine.

This is important because Israel is a strong and unambiguous ally, right in the heart of the Middle East. They are a potential base of operations if we need to intervene militarily in the region, but usually simply act as a proxy, doing the work for us so we don't have to.

It's true that we have other allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia or Qatar. But these countries often show more independence than we would like, or our coziness with their governments causes problems of it's own (bin Laden began his crusade against the US because we stationed our forces in Saudi Arabia - something he viewed as infidels occupying the Holy Land).

There are other ancillary reasons too - such as the Israelis are jews, not muslims, and therefore have closer religious ties with the West. Race plays a part too, since the Israelis

look like white europeans, not dark arabs, etc. But those kinds of reasons just reinforce the primary reason for such support, and do not really explain it.

Anyway, if the Middle East's only export was dates or figs, and it didn't have any oil to sell, I doubt you would see the kind of rabid support for Israel among our political elites - it would probably take the form of more garden variety interest group politics.

Hi Glenn,

It appears to me that you have shifted your opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian issue over the last couple of years. I'm curious if you'd agree. I recall you being more accepting of the standard American position in the past, and a bit more willing to criticize the Palestinians, although I'd say you've always been pretty fair on the issue, especially in contrast to mainstream attitudes.

Anyway, nice post. Peretz and the other blind supporters of Israel deserve as much scorn as is possible to heap upon them.

Can I first say that it would be REALLY nice to have a thread based comment section? I'm sure I'm not the only one to mention this, and I'm not trying to say you're responsible for this Glenn, but it's VERY hard to carry a comment discussion past one or two posts without it.

Back to the topic, I agree with you and Che Pasa that the Fox report compares well with other media outlet reports. So much the worse for other media outlets. This does not strike me as a reason for praising FOX, but for criticizing the media generally (as, I understand, you've done).

I think your strategy was a good one - to basically make sure to mention in every response that the COMMENTS Brennan made were the reason for the opposition. But, as Che Pasa notes, even though they broadcast your comments, this did not change the narrative, as he put it.

Which brings me back to wondering, why bother doing the interview at all? You're just the token looney lefty to show how "balanced" they are, so they can say they presented both sides. BTW, I'm not trying to criticize you personally - you are obviously free to go on whatever show you like for whatever reason you like, to make your own decisions. I'm just saying that if I got such an invite I'd turn it down because I'd view it as a waste of time.

Sorry you were given the "Fox News" treatment. I'm surprised you bothered to be interviewed at all by such an outlet. I guess you never know for sure, it's POSSIBLE that they will do a good story, but the odds are that you simply wasting your time since they control the format, the content of the report, etc.

The only reason I can think of to go on Fox would be to attack the interviewer - you know, like that Obama campaign staffer did to Hannity over the anti-semite guy after one of the debates (I don't remember any details at the moment, but hopefully people will rememeber what I'm talking about).

But I guess you can only do that if the interview is carried live versus taped, so you were screwed from the get go.

I like Ron Paul a lot - I thought he was the best candidate for President this year in either party. I am emphatically NOT a libertarian or a Libertarian, but he was the only one talking sense on foreign policy, on civil liberties, and apparently on some domestic economic issues as well (I agree with the opinion you ascribe to him on fractional reserve banking, although probably not for the same reasons).

I hope you will refrain from the liberal bashing, however, and simply engage poeples arguments instead of lashing out with ad hominem attacks. Discussing the merits of an issue is much more fun, productive and educational.