While I think its valuable to know the internal politics of the Israeli government--since so much of our country's foreign policy seems to take its cues from it--the tone of this article is inexcusable in an online mag that regularly derides the US's adventurism in Iraq and its saber-rattling at Iran.

I find the following caption to speak volumes of the kind of reporting that Salon bemoans in our country's supine press:

"Since he took over for Ariel Sharon in January 2006, there have been the election of the militant Hamas government, a total breakdown in the peace process, the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, a barrage of rocket attacks on Israeli cities, rising tensions with Iran, and last summer's disastrous war with the Hezbollah, for which Olmert was later brutally criticized by a government commission. His detractors emphasize that Olmert failed to secure the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers and crush Hezbollah, and that he has failed to make any progress toward an agreement with the Palestinians."

Thus, the Israeli public's unease about Olmert is not because he presides over cynical manuervers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip or horrifying wars of aggression on neighboring nations. No, just as in our country, where our mainstream media criticize Bush not for waging an ujust war of aggression, but for not winning it, so does Salon accuse of Olmert of being a less than competent hegemonist.

It seems clear that Israel orchestrated the tensions in Gaza--first with its cynical and isolating withdrawal, then with its ham-fisted embargoe, and finally by priveledging Fatah over the duly elected power sharing government. Likewise, the idea of launching a war that killed a thousand Lebanese over a kidnapping is as laughable as launching one for any of the ever-changing reasons posited by the Bush administration. This is a criminal government as much as the Bush administrations is.

Salon, please clean up your act on Israeli reporting.

I wish I could post a refutation to the points you made in your letter, but you didn't make any. Next time, start by actually reading the text you excerpt, then carefully build an argument based on what you've read there. I'll give you a start with the first sentence.

1. "first with its cynical and isolating withdrawal" You may want to look at a map for this one. Gaza is bordered on one side by Israel, the other by Egypt...Israel continues to control the only route to the West Bank, continues to control Gaza's imports and exports, and for all intents and purposes its foreign relations. If you can't understand that this is not autonomy, then you're plainly stupid. But that's obvious.

"Terrorists imagine the world in black and white, as full of demons and angels, and place themselves on the side of the angels"

Funny, this also sounds alot like the way political pundits and our political leaders thinks of the world. And it wasn't just religeous fanatics cheering on the deaths of innocent people; I recall a great deal of that kind of thing going on for the past 5 years.

There have been years of wide spread opposition to the invasion, then the occupation of Iraq. Millions of people around the world came out in peaceful protest, went to the ballot box, sponsored initiatives, sought redress from the rule of law. In fact, every arm in the democratic arsenal has been exhausted. I cannot help but think that it is people like Juan Cole that are delusional, when they call outrage at the deaths caused by the US invasion--surely at least in the tens of thousands--'a gross oversimplification'. If the 'terrorists' feel a sense of urgency, I can't see how any sane person, no matter what they think of their ideology, could blame them.

"Hamas or Fatah can conduct all the foreign relations they want. Furthermore, Israel has every right to control the borders under the Oslo accords."

These are mutually exclusive ideas. You're dumber than I thought.

'you do realize that "sense of urgency" somehow translates into killing innocent people, right? But in your world killing innocent people is something that "sane" people should accept or condone?

man, you are screwed up.'

Yeah, I was the one saying that we couldn't wait to invade Iraq because it was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. I was the one saying that a few thousand civilian casualties was a fair price to get Saddam. I was the one saying we can't wait for the UN to do anything.

You do understand that when people refer to lives, they also are talking about Arabs in the countries we and our allies invade, right? Not just Americans and Britons.

I usually agree with Glen, but I also think there is something to be said of the idea of being in the forest too long to notice the lichen. Certainly, Americans hold progressive views that are strong enough to get picked in polling data--that is until Matthews and other heavyweight pundits tell them they believe the opposite for a few months.

That being said, and knowing the sorry history of this country's electorate, I can definitely envision a near future where Democratic voters (Jew or not)shun a presidential contender whose middle name is Hussein and who seems to have said he'd like to sit down with Ahmadinijad the day after he is elected president.

I'm glad you're here Glen Greenwald, but at the end of the day, the enemy is us.

Keep in mind Mueller was not under oath, and he was at best vague. If this administration were interested in ethics, all of the evidence you've suggested would be enough to cause Gonzales to step down. Ethics are a thing of the past, however, and this administration is particularly immune to them, as are their supporters. It would be one thing if Congress had ever shown any teeth on this issue, but their constant dragging of Gonzales in front of committee, only to sigh in exasperation, is becoming tedious even for people who support them.