Glenn claims he has a consistent yardstick, unblemished by Glenn's own personal biases

Does he? Can you give an example of this claim?

Glenn's premise is that many (but not Glenn) are blinded by personal loyalties, backgrounds, emotional status, etc. that leads them (but not Glenn) to reach conclusions that are illogical.

Is it? Can you give a quote that exemplifies this premise?

Glenn, however, claims he is above his own biases here

Does he? Can you give an example of this claim?

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!

-- maureenodonnell

In the interest of true historical accuracy, shortly after the United States entered the war, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met and agreed that the first order of business was to defeat Germany. That's why there were no reinforcements sent to the Phillipines and why, the great majority of our war production and manpower was sent East, not West, until it was quite obvious that Germany was on its last legs.

In short, your thesis about how the US concentrated on Japan is, well, Tommyrot and poppycock!

Part of the problems is that although Israel is recognized by the UN as a permanent state, it is not recognized as such by Hamas, which presumably believes that the existence of the state of Israel is not yet a done deal.

There is some precedent for this. For example, the Soviet Union was recognized by the UN, but is now defunct. Likewise Yugoslavia.

The division of Germany into two states seemed like a permanent arrangement to me, but it was eventually undone.

The revolution in Cuba is still not accepted by the US government as a done deal, though hardly anyone would now consider trying to reverse the American Revolution, the French Revolution, or even the Russian Revolution.

I think widespread American support for Israel stems from the belief (fairly reasonable) that Israel IS a permanent state, as well as sympathy for a long history of persecution of Jews throughout European history through the middle ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and Final Solution envisaged and partially implemented by Adolf Hitler.

When Hamas say Israel has no right to exist, most reasonable Americans will put them in the same mental category as Inuit Alaskan separatists. They will say, well, maybe you do have a point, but let's get real and see what the best outcome for your people is in practical terms.

After all, there was no clearly defined Palestinian nation at the time of the breakup of the Ottoman empire, and really never has been. Just a coalition of districts, regions, tribes and assorted religions.

Most Americans see the Oslo Accords as a reasonable attempt to solve an insoluble problem and think that although both sides may have been intransigent, the Palestinians have been more intransigent--especially Hamas, which really does not seem to be in close touch with the real world.

While the Israeli strategy of mass collective punishment of the Palestinians is strictly frum with me, there is another terrible danger to Israel that no one is facing, let alone doing anything about. I refer, of course, to the Demographic Time Bomb! Yes, of course, our Arab enemies are beasts, but the problem is, too often, they are the two-backed kind! When I ask you, when, are all the little Israeli princesses going to live up to lie down and fulfill their obligations to Israel by abandoning every notion of traditional Jewish morality and schtupping, schtupping schtupping so we can meet or exceed the Palestinian birth-rate? The defeat of Israel can be laid at the feet of the closed thighs of Israeli womens!

Listen to me, girlchik, every time you feign a headache, Fatah and Hamas gain an advantage! Enough of this fol-de-rol! Let's get busy, with a hey-nonny-nonny and a ha-cha-cha, we're fit as a fiddle and ready for love!

Is this how the Jewish race disappears? By going gently into that "Not tonight"? Believe me, the refusniks don't do as much damage as your refusal.

I say we make Dennis Praeger the Israeli Chief Rabbi!

Doesn't the fact that this struggle has continued pretty much unabated for those same 20 years convince you that using the heavy handed approach to the problem actually has proven not to work mean anything to you?

But it hasn't continued consistently. It is disgraceful how quickly we forget the Second Intifada. It began in 2000 when Israel was coming off its longest period of peace and concessions to the Palestinians since Egypt and Syria declared war on Israel in 1973 (The "Yom Kippur War", it's worth Googling).

Israel has been under near constant assault since its formation.

Yet in spite of all this, Israel went to the peace table and offered Arafat, as fraudulent a "leader" as there has ever been, a huge peace offering. Arafat unleashed suicide bombers by the hundreds.

You call Israel "heavy handed," and they undoubtedly have been over the past six years. But can you just dismiss the Second Intifada, what that did to Israeli civilization? Tourism? The ability for the nation to function?

Glenn claims military action by Israel never works.

Did the 1990s peace process work? Did Israel's offer to return land work? Did American funding of the PLA work?

Or did suicide bombers unleash hell on the streets of Israel?

You don't want Israel to be "heavy handed," and neither do I, but the truth is that it does work, at least in the sense of reducing attacks on Israelis. Glenn is completely wrong on this point. We can debate the morality of killing hundreds of Palestinians for this, whether the response is appropriate or not (and we should debate this), but we can't debate that Israel's military response in 2003-2004 ended the Second Intifada. There are maybe 1-2 suicide bombers a year now in Israel. The checkpoints and border sealings that you bemoan are the reason for that drop in suicide bombings.

What should Israel do?

Yes, the checkpoints are cutting off the Palestinians and causing great suffering. But after the Second Intifada, what choice did Israel have?

Have Israeli deaths fallen due to Israeli tactics or have they risen?

Since the Second Intifada, they've fallen significantly.

Should Israel ban the automobile? After all, in 2007, there were 43 Israelis killed by automobiles for every single Israeli killed by a terrorist.

Death by accident is not the same thing as murder. You're better than this question.