Let's see if I follow your "logic": the Israeli army (assuming the accuracy of your anecdote) did something horrible, and the Nazis did horrible stuff, so Israel is just like Nazi Germany!! Wow, it makes total sense!!

(Sounds like you're in category 2.)

"Master race of the Middle East" ... good one.

(Or maybe category 3 - the jury's still out.)

Don't forget to tell Omooex that his opinions about Israel/Palestine are invalid because he is Palestinian and thus incapable of rational thought about the subject. If you do that, you'll still sound shallow, snide and condescending, but at least you'll be even-handedly shallow, snide and condescending.

Glenn and commenters often decry the unfortunate phenomenon of legitimate criticisms of Israel being met with unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism. But when you guys start attributing opinions with which you disagree to mindless Jewish tribalism, you are just employing the same rhetorical tactic from the other direction. Both are ad hominem arguments premised on the idea that a person's opinion is the product of his or her irrational bias concerning Jews. So the dialogue goes like this:

A: Israel sucks!

B: You're just saying that because you're anti-Semitic! Besides, Israel rocks!

A: You're just saying that because you're Jewish!

And so on. It would be better, I think, if more people on all "sides" tried harder to deal with the substance of contrary opinions instead of relying on lazy, knee-jerk psychoanalysis and accusations of bias.

"Tribalism is a very important part of entrenched conflicts. It's silly to demand that everyone ignore the role it plays in this one."

Sure it is, and I made no such demand. But it's even sillier to sneeringly tell people that they disagree with you because of their tribalism (or some other logic-destroying prejudice), while blithely assuming that your own opinions (and the opinions of those who agree with you) are the superior products of objective reasoning. It is a pointless, ad hominem way to discuss an issue, whether it's Abe Foxman calling half the world anti-Semitic, or Armagednoutahere calling Israel's Jewish supporters self-centered bigots, or Republicans attributing concerns about illegal spying to "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

Sure, Israel is more than "just another foreign country" to me, as anyone who reads my comments about Israel surely knows, and as I've acknowledged here plenty of times.

I strive in all things to be as rational as I can. Don't know what else to tell you.

I guess I would add that Israel is obviously more than just another foreign country to you as well, since you write about it (with considerable heat) more than all other other foreign countries put together. But I know, I know, all your positions are derived from pure logic and 100% neutral objectivity...

"I suggest you reverse the roles."

An important concept, that. Everyone who identifies or sympathizes more strongly with one side than the other (including myself) should apply it on a regular basis. Think it's fair to say each side has given the other ample reason to doubt its good intentions. I hope this will change in my lifetime.

For Glenn, being even-handed and slamming Israel are pretty much synonymous.

Consider the boldface portions of the MLK quote: according to Glenn, Israel is so evil that American support for Israel is poisoning America's soul and sending America down dark and shameful corridors. (If Glenn meant something else by highlighting those passages, perhaps he'll explain.)

And furthermore, sez Glenn, not only is Israel to blame for the sad state of affairs in the Middle East, now it's responsible for America's domestic ills too! (Soon to come: "Global Warming: The Israeli Connection")

Glenn is certainly entitled to his views, but his pretenses of neutrality are laughably transparent.

"How do the Vietnam-era references King makes and clear parallels between that era's war against communism and this era's war on terror fit into a 'blame Israel for all the problems' narrative."

As best I could tell, GG's quotation of King was in support of an argument that decreasing or ending US support for Israel is vital to the civil liberties of Americans, and highlighted the part about poisoning America's soul. I thought the implication was unambiguous.

Gotta give Glenn credit, though. He became prominent primarily as an advocate for civil liberties and constitutional governance, but his growing obsession with Israel started getting in the way. Today's post is an ingenious attempt to merge those themes: if we Americans want civil liberties and constitutional governance, the key is... (wait for it) not supporting Israel!

Having said that, this "cheerleader" is pretty open to policy changes that would alter the nature of the US/Israel relationship if such changes would enhance the likelihood of peace between Israel & its enemies. The status quo ain't workin'.

Holly is correct; my nom de blog is simply an unimaginative tribute to my alma mater, the varsity athletic teams of which are nicknamed the Gators. (This includes many men's and women's sports; not just the macho football players.) It is short for "Alligators," which are common in Florida.

I can honestly say that the notion of my screen name as a projection of masculinity has never once occurred to me prior to your comment. I believe that alligators can be either female or male. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and I think that's the case here.

Since adopting Gator90 because I wanted to be anonymous and couldn't think of anything better, I have seen and envied many clever screen names used by others. I think my favorite is "Caren, Creator of Anthropomorphic Pancakes."

Three years, four football/basketball national championships. The Heisman. Two SEC football championships. 51-21. Tebow back for his senior year.

Wanna talk about Israel?