"I can pay for your one-way ticket out of my country. As long as you stay out.

Even if you're a USN hot shot, Hornetdriver.

Even if you're an immaculate, intelligent, articulate Zionist, Gator90."

--Holly McLachlan

Holly, thanks for the lovely adjectives, but FYI, it's my country too.

People using speech Glenn doesn't like to criticize speech he likes.

Also, a question: Has it occurred to you, Glenn, that Obama might actually have meant what he said in his AIPAC speech? Your underlying assumption appears to be that he was lying, i.e., that he felt compelled to make his "pilgrimage" to AIPAC in order to protect his political viability by lying to the members of that organization. (Funny how Obama routinely appears at events and makes speeches to numerous groups, but if it's AIPAC, it's a "pilgrimage.") But what if he was actually saying what he believes? Are you so sure he was being dishonest? And if he was being honest, isn't he a poor example of the ruthless suppression of debate by the "establishment"?

Another question: Can you give any examples of nationally significant (or insignificant, for that matter) politicians whose careers "immediately ended" because they suggested that US policy toward Israel & the Palestinians should be even-handed? (Your other big example was Dr. Dean, but as he is the national committee chair of one of our two major parties, he seems to have weathered the storm...)

if I could get all Americans to read one thing written by any person in 2007-2008, it would be this column.

Glenn, I know what an "analogy" is, but thanks. When people make "analogies" between Israel and Nazi Germany, I think they usually do it to be purposely obnoxious and gratuitously insulting to Jews who are fond of Israel. It's amazing how often such "analogies" are made, particularly in the left blogosphere, as if there is just no source of apropos "analogies" for Israel other than Nazi Germany. As if, in all human history, there is just nothing else one could possibly think of in order to make an "analogy" involving Israel. It sucks, in my opinion.

Although you make an ostentatious point of telling me that the blogger in question is Jewish, that is of limited relevance to me. Could a gay person make a remark about homosexuals or homosexuality that you found offensive, and if so, would the person being gay make it OK?

for starting my morning with a link to a blog post comparing Israel to the Third Reich. That's always charming.

It sounds like you are calling Obama a flat-out liar who is simply misrepresenting his beliefs to get elected. Was he just lying to AIPAC about his beliefs regarding Israel, in order to dupe them into supporting him? Are you saying he actually opposes the death penalty for child rapists, but deliberately lied about this belief so he could appear more Republican?

Have you considered the possibility that he is being honest about his beliefs, which differ from yours in some respects?

Glenn, you're correct that Israel has not formally stated a reason for arresting/banning Finkelstein, so my use of the phrase "stated reason" was imprecise.

BUT, the articles you first linked to suggest quite strongly that Israel was interested in, and/or purportedly basing its actions on, Finkelstein's meetings with Hezbollah.

GUARDIAN: "interrogated him for around 24 hours about his contacts with ... Hizbullah, when he traveled to Lebanon earlier this year and expressed solidarity with the group which waged war against Israel in 2006."

HA'ARETZ: "The Shin Bet argues that Finkelstein constitutes a security risk. But it is more reasonable to assume ... that the Shin Bet ... latched onto his meetings with Hezbollah operatives, in order to punish him."

Now maybe the Guardian and Ha'aretz are wrong, and the anonymous government officials cited in the J-post article are correct. (Although you are usually not so quick to assume the conclusive truth of statements attributed to anonymous government officials.)

It may well be that Israel has sought only to punish a vehement critic for his speech. But, given the above quotations from your own source material, for you not to mention his recent meetings with Hezbollah in your column was at best sloppy and at worst grossly slanted.

I would absolutely defend the right of any person of any nationality to sing Al Qaeda's praises to their heart's content. But if someone from another country actually met personally with Al Qaeda members (after lavishly praising that organization) and then sought to enter the US, I'm not sure I'd see it as tragic if they were told to go home.

When I read the Guardian article Glenn linked to, I quickly learned that Israel's stated reason for arresting and banning Finkelstein was his meetings with Hezbollah earlier this year, a fact oddly omitted from Glenn's column. Given that Finkelstein flew to Israel 15 times before without incident, is it possible that this time was different due to his recent actions (meeting with Hezbollah) rather than his speech?

Ha'aretz, perhaps to its credit, was skeptical of the Israeli government's stated reasons, but at least it (unlike Glenn) discussed them. If one read only Glenn's column, one would have no idea of the existence of a possible non-speech reason for Israel's actions. I guess the omission made it easier for Glenn to fit this incident in with his broader theories about suppression of free speech by right-wing Zionists.

I have neither the time nor the legal background to determine who is right, but I'm sure if we knew more about all this, we would support whatever the Bush Administration is doing.

How DARE that horrible awful Goldberg ask a presidential candidate QUESTIONS about the candidate's views toward Israel?!!? Scandalous!! J'accuse!!