With health care and Afganistan GG should be able to come u with another topic. How about no Israel bashing for a month? Can GG do it?

The last time I wrote any post that dealt with Israel was on June 26 -- six weeks ago -- and that was more about neocon approaches to foreign policy than Israel itself:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/26/diplomacy/index.html

The time before that was June 3, when I defended Obama from charges he was "interfering" in Israeli domestic politics:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/03/israel/index.html

Including today, that's three posts on that subject in 2 1/2 months of daily posting.

Rather clearly, the problem isn't that I write much about Israel; I actually write rarely about it. It's that you hallucinate in lieu of perceiving reality.

The ever-deepening disappointment with Obama notwithstanding, one does have to give him some credit for changing DC's tone regarding Israel, even if the change is fractionally incremental. Had a republican won the WH, there would be absolutely no pressure on Israel--to do anything.

As I've written a few times before, that's definitely one thing I think Obama deserves credit for. Even purely tonal changes in the relationship are significant, risky and politically thankless.

If the article has been modified since its original posting to make that more clear, it is a definite improvement. If it has not been modified (and I suspect is has not), then I am guilty of a tragic misreading and I apologize.

The article hasn't been modified (other than the addition of the 2 updates) and your apologize is accepted and appreciated.

and jewish control of the media (of which Glenn is a major proponent)

You're lying.

The president said that "stopping settlements and making sure that there is a viable Palestinian state" is in the long term security interests of Israel as well as the US.

Exactly. He's not saying that he opposes settlement growth because, as the U.S. President, he prioritizes America's interests over Israel's. That's what Eisenhower said and it's what I said no politician could say -- and, as you just proved -- Obama has not said that.

His claim is that by opposing settlement growth, he's serving Israeli interests, since that's in their interests, too -- whether they know it or not.

He's saying the opposite of what you have spent all day claiming that he said.

Here's the quote of mine which you are claiming has been disproven by Obama:

Today, if an American politician said anything remotely like that -- that when formulating foreign policy in the Middle East, American interests would take precedence over Israel's -- how many seconds would elapse before the full-scale and permanent destruction of their political career was complete?

So when I ask whether Obama has ever said that American interests should take precedence over Israel's, I'm not "moving the goal posts." I'm pointing out to you that Obama never did what I said -- in the quote you cited -- a major politician could not do.

Here's how you prove that someone said something wrong: (1) you cite the statement they made; and then (2) you cite the evidence that proves it's wrong.

To achieve that goal with the above quote, you'd have to show where Obama said that American interests should take precedence over Israel's. If he didn't say that, then the statement hasn't been proven wrong. Surely you can grasp that.

Glenn, don't you think there's a qualitative difference between what Democrats have often done in the past - travel to the lands of our ENEMIES and provide said enemies with a propaganda coup

I didn't realize Saudi Arabia -- the venue for Gore's speech -- was America's ENEMEY. Maybe I was confused by things like this:

http://tr.im/wxKU

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html

And it's not a propaganda coup for Israel when one of America's leading right-wing politicians visits its settlements and tells them they have the right to build wherever they want? Sounds like it is to me.

Score one for JonathanInTelAviv

Did Obama say that American interests must be prioritized over Israeli interests, the way that Eisenhower did? I missed that, so could you provide the link for me? Thanks.

Which of those claims -- as opposed to the ones you invented and attributed to me -- have been disproven, and how?

Apparently, to Glenn, disagreeing with the federal government while on foreign soil is "bashing America," and siding with another country against the US.

As should be painfully obvious, I'm applying the Right's rhetorical formula to their own actions (bashing America on Foreign Soil), not adopting it as my own.

I remember your writing endlessly about an all-powerful "Israel lobby" that controls the entire US political and media spectra, paralyzing them from taking any actions, or even expressing any views, contrary to those of Israel's "right-wing" government.

Since you recall it to well, could you recall some quotes where I said that?

Yet, even though Barack Obama has somehow managed to overcome those all-powerful forces (just how we don't know - woooo...), and blew your thesis out of the water,

By doing what? Applying a policy that virtually the entire world, and all past administration, have affirmed: that there should be no settlement growth?

I also remember you writing about how it was Israel's settlement policy that was the main, perhaps the only, obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

I never said that either (there's a reason why people provide what are called "links" when they claim someone has said something). But what I have said -- and still believe -- is that a major cause of Middle East conflicts is Israel's four-decade occupation of land that doesn't belong to it. From what I can tell, that hasn't ended.

If you occupy land that belongs to other people, they tend to get angry about it. That's sort of basic.