lawyers like Glenn come along, proclaim they've reached a perfect truth

No. Nowhere in Glenn's post does he make such a claim, or anything that can be remotely interpreted as such.

In point of fact, the thesis of the post is almost precisely that "everyone brings personal biases, subjectivities, cultural frameworks and notions of identity into their arguments."

I don't doubt that you have "a reading comprehension above high school level."

I doubt that you've used it to read Glenn's post.

And that is why you FAIL.

GG: "Does that attachment to Israel color your view as to who is right and wrong, and what is and is not justified, when it comes to Israel's various wars with its neighbors and enemies?"

I'm sure it does.

"Does it color your view about whether the U.S. should give special treatment to Israel and what the extent of its support and protection should be for that foreign country?"

A harder question. I personally don't really care if the US gives special treatment to Israel. The US has no inherent obligation to treat Israel as special, and you and others may be right that a change in policy would better serve US interests. (You also may be wrong.)

On the other hand, the success of some American Jews in using the American political process to bring about and maintain special treatment for Israel does not offend me, as it offends you. Our current political system allows policy in many areas to be disproportionately influenced by relatively small groups who are single-minded and have money to spend. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Now a question for you: Do you imagine that you have achieved a perfect state of objectivity concerning Israel and the Palestinians?

show repugnance, the Brits fought the Nazis (the Americans' first concern was Japan), the Dutch were over-run by the conquering Germans. Your attribution to "the West" of Nazi atrocities is downright malicious or it could be that you haven't benefited from a decent educational system. Tommyrot and poppycock!

Many questions are being voiced as to why the Palestinian people would support Hamas when the actions of Hamas are provoking violence from Israel, an enemy that Palestine can never hope to defeat. The answer to this question is of course very complex, and the details endlessly debatable.

The very simple answer, however, is also quite accurate: At this point, nearly everyone alive in Gaza has lived since birth in what amounts to a vast refugee shantytown in the midst of a warzone; without adequate housing, medicine, education, nutrition, electricity, fresh water, or opportunities for advancement or escape. They are not making rational decisions, nor can they be seen as a unified populace.

The people of Palestine, individually, have a very limited understanding of world affairs. Their understanding of the world has mostly to do with Israeli bulldozers, tanks, bombs, soldiers, and missiles; juxtaposed with Palestinian starvation, displacement, and death. This state of desperation, and the limited worldview which results from it, is the reason why they would hold such an illogical allegiance to Hamas.

The solution, therefore, is not to exacerbate the root causes of Hamas power in Palestine by killing and displacing more Palestinians, nor by destroying what little infrastructure remains in Gaza. The solution is to alleviate these root causes by building hospitals, schools, farms, power plants, sewage treatment facilities, roads, and all the amenities of civilization.

After all, the radical Islamist groups that do exist in the world have some adherents in the United States as well. The reason they can't establish a foothold here is that the lives of our citizenry are basically comfortable. Many organizations within the United States and nations on its borders have declared the destruction of this government as one of their goals; but they are incapable of causing any serious harm, because even those who express the most vehement anti-American sentiment will never trade in their comfortable lives in order to fight for that cause. Even the most wretched of conditions in the United States - say, living as a homeless child in the midst of a major urban area, which I have done - can never compare to the lowly and hopeless lives of the citizens of Gaza.

5000. - N.

I am combining several of your posts in the interest of....well, maybe it's because I don't feel like opening a new screen for each one.

I have visited Israel during my life. I have a strong appreciation for the basic goodness of the Israeli people, their initiative in creating something from nothing, and their attempts to set a good example even under physical (as well as rhetorical) attack.

And now you can go ahead and explain to the multitudes why they can comfortably discount any opinions I might have, rather than responding to them directly. -- zenwick

I don't discount your opinions regarding Israel, but you have failed to mention whether you have visited Gaza. Should I discount your opinions of the Palestinians because you have not been there?

Of course, as well as the Stern Gang. They were terrorists, and they were suppressed by the Israeli establishment. The difference is that Hamas are terrorists, and they ARE the Palestinian establishment.

By the way, nice to speak with you again.

-- zenwick

Aren't those terrorists in Gaza pretty much like the Irgun in that they are using terrorism as a means of overthrowing those who oppress them? Do you believe for a moment that if Hamas had modern military aircraft, tanks, and other modern weaponry that they would utilize the pinprick strikes of terrorism to wage war?

Terrorism is not really a weapon, it's a tactic. It's a tactic which results from a lack of parity in actual military hardware and logistical support. IOW, they use terror because they really don't have any other means at their disposal to fight who they believe has wronged them.

If Hamas, or any other terrorist organization were to utilize tanks, aircraft, etc., to fight for what they believe in, would you object? Bear in mind that you have already admitted that what Israel has done to the Palestinians is something you consider wrong. Are you objecting to the tactics used by Hamas or the fact that they are fighting the same fight the Irgun fought to gain possession of Palestine from the British?

As we have seen, modern weaponry does not distinguish legitimate military targets from innocent civilian targets, it's probable that if both sides to this conflict were armed similarily, that there would be huge civilian casualties on both sides. Would you still believe that Israel was correct in bringing its modern weapons to bear on Gaza was the correct thing to do?

By the way, are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the American Communist Party?

-- zenwick

That cheap shot was beneath you. Glenn has explained in detail why he asked the question about emotional ties and his explanation was legitimate. Can you say the same of your's?