Perhaps I oversimplified your view of the rockets from Gaza and for that I apologize. But, by including in your quote how few Israelis have been killed you've used a justification (or at least a mitigation) of Palestinian attacks I've heard all too often.

"They're just rocks" Can I hit you with one?

"They're just crude rockets" Try launching them at any country with a military and see what happens. You might find Israel is relatively restrained. Think Bashir Assad would put up with it? His Dad had no problem with wiping out an entire city, if I thought he actually ran the country instead of his Dad’s old friends, I'd predict Bashir wouldn’t hesitate to do the same thing.

Hamas will continue the rockets as long as nobody calls them on it. Of course, as long as Hamas keeps lobbing rockets over the border, or lets others do so while they cynically claim a cease fire, Israel is going to feel justified in non-proportional responses. Then, the far right in Israel gets to say "I told you this would happen if you withdrew from Gaza" thereby making it more difficult for Israel to talk to Hamas no matter how many of their people want them to. Hamas also gets to say "look at how those monsters murder innocent civilians". This of course, insures the conflict continues.

By all means Glenn, do not stop writing. Even if you are part of the problem, you’re a fairly minor part. Besides, on most other issues, you’re one of my favorite bloggers. But, just remember, while the US’s blank check to Israel is a huge problem in this conflict, the blank check written to the Palestinians by others is a huge part of it too. Start looking at the problem as one huge mess rather than two, and while it’s more depressing, things become a lot clearer.

William Timberman writes: "Meanwhile we might just as well let the idiots drown in their own shit."

Two problems with that.

Shit stinks.

We all seem to be on the same sinking boat, drowning, it would seem, in that extremely large, if shallow, sea of shit.

Hard to explain, PDA, but not hard to characterize. Just four words will do the trick:

Thomas Jefferson. George Bush.

We'll know when the pendulum has started back when Pepperdine starts advertising courses with titles like:

Effective Management through Nuance.

or

The Role of Nuance in Successful Global Strategies.

Meanwhile we might just as well let the idiots drown in their own shit.

You definitely got a point. Its a hard balance, keeping vigilant and critical, while not becoming a shrill, reactive pukey-face. I fail on it alot, but I have to admit, I'm a pissed off person. Werking on that, too.

For the life of me, I can't decide if people are being cute or are really so stupid as to believe it when they say that for every complex, intractable problem in human society there are no greater (and no fewer) than two diametrically opposed positions one can take.

Either you're part of the solution or your part of the problem. Either you love the war or hate the troops. Either you want everyone to be spied on, all the time, or you want Osama bin Laden to cut your grandmother's head off.

It's as if, as a society, we got to the third grade, decided we liked it just fine, and outlawed nuance.

“The more energy one spends on recounting all the evil inherent in one's enemies, the less available for any sort of self-reflection. The mirror so distorts things that people fail to realize that they are viewing themselves.”

That is so insightful. I hope in my extreme disgust for the Busheviks that I have not gone so far as to see myself. I think you’ve described the pessimists and “fatalists” that post here. I subscribe to the Michael Jordan approach of using someone who is holding the upper hand for the moment, as motivation to give me extra energy and determination to rise above the next time. Those who are fully succumbing to the fun-house mirror are giving too much of their power over to someone that doesn’t deserve it.

Hamas lets people fire rockets into Israel, knowing full well that people like Glenn will have no real problem with it because they're not very good rockets.

What is it about this topic that people believe, even more so than is normally the case, that they can attribute opinions to people that they haven't expressed?

I didn't say that I have no problem with Hamas rockets.

Israel responds with better rockets and ends up killing civilians who are near the launch sites because they know there's no real penalty for doing so because others feel those A-Rabs deserve it.

That's my point, which you missed. People on one side or the other will justify whatever killings their side does while believing that the other side's killings is the root of all evil.

I'm a big fan of yours Glenn, but in this case you're part of the problem

Definitely. If only I stopped writing, there would be peace there by now.

You need to scroll down a little. You're missing something big.

I don't know the answers to either, but am interested in what others think about that.

Haven't a clue. All I can say is that his views strike me as utterly unique, incisive, logical. Therefore of unique value.

I haven't read your (GG) piece on Buckley yet, but I do remember a fun clash between Chomsky and Buckley on Buckley's show, could be 35 years ago or more. If I recall accurately, Chomsky got the better of Buckley, which hardly ever happened. A segment of that show can be seen on a film about Chomsky, widely available for rental. Netflix has it for sure.

One other thing regarding comparison of Buckley and Chomsky. If Chomsky has been marginalized over much or all of his public/political career, I think Buckley was marginalized at the end of his. Buckley must have found this very painful, seeing his beloved conservatism pulling away from the dock, loaded to the brim with more animals (and more bizarre ones) than Noah's Ark. People who Buckley surely despised--including most of those writing memorials to him today.