you forgot to mention the 100% media consensus on this issue. i literally saw an ap article linked from the front page of yahoo that ended with something to the effect that "despite the fact that israel has given up control of gaza, that action has backfired and attacks against israel have become more numerous." no mention of blockade, no mention of the demolished gazan economy, no mention of 100% closed borders, of human rights groups who have not been allowed to deliver aid, no mention of reporters who have been denied entry into gaza and have thus created no account of what actions israel has been undertaking there, nothing. it was meant to give the impression that gaza is now the free and independent state that palestinians have wanted for so long - and that that goal has resulted in "more attacks" - which is the single argument that pro-occupationers have for continuing the occupation. it is a false argument, but you wouldn't know it from this article. it is 100% misleading and even more discouraging than the political consensus on the issue.

hey hey, i skimmed (can't fully read friedman's columns without barfing these days) friedman's article right before i came to salon and posted this comment over at nyt:

""the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future."

this is sick and twisted logic. it is the logic of terrorists and hostage-takers. it is collective punishment at its worst.

the solution is not to hold on to the territories indefinitely while continuing to kill innocent civilians in the hopes of getting at the enemy you want. the solution is for israel to return to the 1967 borders and the creation of a palestinian state. no withdrawal without freedom (gaza), no 97% of the entire west bank (with walls and massive carvings of settler territory), no halfway solution. there is one just solution and only one way to end violent nationalist struggles.

why does the history of countless failed campaigns against guerilla nationalist movements escape tom friedman and the israeli hardline? why is (40 years' worth) of failed hardline policy toward the territories still accepted as the only way to "deal" with palestinians?"

me and you glennie, same wavelength ;)

(btw, when are you going to write about how the attorney general took six months to decide that he didn't want to prosecute that jerkoff at DOJ? or how a pentagon official actually used the word torture when describing what happened to a sad man at gitmo? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_torture and didn't some democrat committee somewhere ask obama to prosecute bush? curses i can't find the link now.. anyway, you see what i'm getting at here? lots of ground to cover ;))

didn't peres basically just admit that the israeli military is targeting civilians in its military action and is therefore committing war crimes?

but i guess our own politicians have gotten quite good at boasting of their law violations...guess we shouldn't be surprised that other countries' neocons do the same.

it also makes me extremely sad that it's considered mainstream (i think that f'ing friedman's picture is in the dictionary under "mainstream") to suggest that bombing civilians to dispirit them or somehow attack your real target by proxy is a perfectly acceptable warfare goal. the implication is always that "all these arabs understand is force." surely friedman has seen the al qaida tapes that say stuff like "the only way to stop the american government from doing the things we don't like is to target their civilians." personally i can't identify with the mindset that sees the legitimacy of one and denounces the other (even though they're both based on the same logic), but i imagine it has something to do with thinking that you're "right" and the other side is "wrong" (so it's ok to use the same horrifying tactics as long as you're doing it for the "right" reasons - i wonder how a judge would feel if i told him that i murdered so and so for the right reasons?) and that as long as the perpetrators are wearing a national uniform it's all good. i literally saw a commenter suggest that if only hamas wore a uniform like a normal military, this war would be so much easier! yea if only palestine were a real state with a real infrastructure and a real military! too bad they're occupied!

(reminds me of another commenter i saw who was very upset that palestinians were so ungrateful that israel was "providing" them with electricity. i guess to solve that problem palestine needs to become a real state with control of its borders so that it can negotiate its own electricity contracts without israel deciding when palestine "deserves" to have the lights turned on and when it doesn't!)

and here i thought that the times' humor columnist would have a job for the foreseeable future considering the 800+ comments his hilarious concoctions would regularly garner!