Down the frickin rabbit hole:

There can be no moral equivalence here. Treatment of the Palestinians is largely in the hands of the Palestinians. Treatment of Israel by arabs and others is not in Israel’s hands

So, anything bad that happens to the Israelis is the Palestinians' fault, and anything bad that happens to the Palestinians: also the Palestinians' fault.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/06/04/barack-obama-and-the-moral-equivalence-of-holocaust/

No one's listening to you. You're not even irritating anyone... you're like a crazy person muttering to himself in the corner of a subway station. People blink and get on with their conversations.

You may want to reassess how many hours of re-registering email addresses and setting up onion server proxies this is really worth to you.

It's interesting. I think the argument about settlers coming into a place and taking it over should stand on its own: wrong in North America, wrong in South Africa, wrong in Palestine (and yes, any Wampanoag who wants my apartment can have it, so long as I get to go to Calabria... I have no problem with that).

Arguments about bloodline and ancestry seem to be needlessly complex, though I appreciate the fact that the intervening centuries make the issue far murkier than Zionists would have it.

Jews BELIEVE that they are the descendants of a diaspora from Palestine. But there have been Jews in Palestine for the thousands of years they claim to have been in diaspora. There is nothing to suggest they are related to those original Hebrews

I was not aware that this was held seriously in dispute. Is there an alternative theory for how hundreds of thousands of people claiming the Jewish faith and heritage came to find themselves in Europe and North Africa?

Either we can use our financial powers to punish governments in both Israel and Palestine, or we can't. Greenwald can't have his "hypocrisy" against his opponent while advocating the very same hypocrisy in converse.

You are arguing with yourself. The only people that are arguing that we can't apply economic pressure - or as you say, "use our financial powers to punish governments" - are the critics of Obama's action. Punto e basta. Their hypocrisy is what Glenn is pointing out. Glenn has not said it is either right or wrong to apply financial pressure in every circumstance. If he had, you'd have grounds for your hypocrisy charge. But he hasn't, and you don't.

As a separate matter, lopping a few percentage points off the billions we send to Israel is in no fucking way equivalent to a massive economic and diplomatic blockade of a tiny war-torn region. Sure, it's a matter of fucking degree. Sending the cops into Dorchester with riot gear is the same as invading Iraq with tanks, missiles and stealth bombers. It's just a matter of degree.

Fucktard.

it is what he said. It's exactly what he said.

I'm blown away by this well-reasoned counterargument. I'm almost too shattered to continue, but I must. For the children.

The first part of my statement that you claim is not true is where I allege Glenn supports Obama's efforts to engage Israel on domestic policy.

I did not claim that was not true. What I did claim is that:

Glenn justifies this with the following:

But if one chooses instead to become dependent on someone else or seeks help and aid from them, then complying with the demands of those providing the aid is an inevitable price that must be paid – and justifiably so.

not that the justification had anything to do with the hypocrisy that Glenn pointed out.

The Palestine example only shows that Greenwald's desire to see America intervene in foreign elections only applies for Israel, and not for Palestine

How is Obama putting diplomatic pressure on Netanyahu "interven[ing] in foreign elections?" Seriously: if such an action is at all comparable to a full diplomatic and economic embargo of Palestine, then every diplomatic action - from repainting the embassy to naming Shirley Temple ambassador to Czechoslovakia - is tantamount to a blockade. So why put an embargo on Cuba at all? We could send Vanessa Hudgens.

God, but you suck at this.

How is Greenwald supporting his cause for intervention in Israel's political domestic policies justified by his citing of what he considers the indefensible meddling in Palestinian political domestic affairs?

You are the only person saying Glenn is "supporting his cause for intervention in Israel's political domestic policies [by citing] of what he considers the indefensible meddling in Palestinian political domestic affairs." He's not.

Point 2 was that the 'hypocrisy and double standards' of critics saying 'that it is wrong for one country to "interfere" in the politics of another democracy' were 'far too ironic to ignore. ' That's all.

Do you understand it yet?

I will try again. I will use small words. I will use short sentences.

The things that you are saying are the same are not the same.

They are different.

Do you see now?

Congratulations on making it to the second paragraph of my post. There was a third that your head was apparently spinning too fast to read. Allow me to reproduce it here:

If you try very hard, you can probably discern the difference between trying to press a country to change its policies (the very definition of international diplomacy), and trying to force a country to remove its own government.

In other words, if you want to say that mild prodding on this issue is completely equivalent to a complete financial and diplomatic embargo, go ahead. It'll be educational to Gator90, at least.