Oy. Zenwick has trouble focusing on the issue. He imagines people whose opinions on the issue that differ from his must have psychological issues grounded in intensely personal conflict including sexual identity issues. Zenwick. You are off track. Thunk a little before you rant.

Glenn, I realize as a prosecutor you like to inscribe a self-narrative of dispassionate critical distance, but as anyone who reads you knows, just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

You are probably one of the most emotional bloggers to have achieved success, with nearly every post written as someone outraged by the abuses of our Constitution and our government by the crooks in the republican party, and by the complicity of the American media.

Unlike the actually dispassionate Josh Marshall and Matt Yglesias, your entire writing style is infused by emotional sway. You critique the motivations of those you write about using words like "craven," "base," "pathological" and numerous other discriptive words that are essential to emotive response.

At your best, you combine this with your lawyerly ability to make a factual case to make arguments that both touch the heart and convince the mind.

At your worst, you are in complete self denial, as you are about your now self-proclaimed "lack of emotion" about Israel either way. Give me a break, man. I'd need a team of psychiatrists to cut through this disconnect.

If Marty Peretz wants to saw Hamas not to "fuck with the Jews," why not demand that "low yield" nuclear weapons be used in Gaza. That'll show them who's boss. And since Israel would be the one doing it, it's 100% correct. (sarcasm)

Let's get back to where this started. You said:

"Theirs is a culture that celebrates death over life. There are no parties and celebrations in the streets when a Palestinian child is born, but when a teen straps a bomb to his chest and blows up 20 civilians on a bus, there is a block party."

When you questioned you said:

"I'll modify my statement to be more accurate of my own knowledge....I have seen videos of martyr celebrations.

Yes, and now you have been directed to similar festivities on the American side. I can't see how you can cling to your point; you admitted you were using anecdotal information. Similar anecdotal information was provided about Americans. Both examples prove nothing about Americans as a whole, or Palestinian residents of Gaza as a whole. Why continue this?

I'd suggest you use the team already at your disposal, but I'm sure they have their hands full with you.

That was pathetic. Mr. Greenwald is willing to live with the consequences of his beliefs.

You are neither willing, or able to do what has to be done to ensure Israel's survival as the "Jewish State".

A similiar position, now that I think about it, I see among War on Iraq supporters. You are a nothing but a pot of Zionist Chikenhawk soup.

Greenwald doesn't get it. When Israel killed the Hamas leader and his four wives (Even Mormons don't do that anymore) and their children, those killings were incidental, with the rather pathetic name of "collateral damage." They did want to wipe out the man, and they accomplished that. When Hamas lobs rockets at Israel the civilian casualties are not incidental collateral damage; they are deliberate. Israel has warned areas before bombing them, which is militarily silly, as it gets rid of the benefit of surprise, but it does save innocent lives. What other country has ever done that?

As Golda Meir once said (and I am paraphrasing, as I don't recall the exact quote): I don't hate them for killing our sons. I hate them for making us kill their sons.

Although one can say that Israel does still occupy the West Bank, they did pull out of Gaza over three years ago. The Palestinians in Gaza do have their own independent country with their own leadership. They are not being occupied. What is their beef, other than that Israel exists?

Does it occur to you that this reasoning occurs on the other side also? In other words, it's okay to target civilian Jews because they are "dogs" or fodder or their deaths are a way to make a statement, but it is not okay to kill civilian Palestinians in response?

I don't support what Israel is doing - AT ALL. At the same time I try to understand the underlying fear of the people of Israel which brings them to a place where they elect governments that will continue to use militarism in a foolish attempt to make them "safe".

While you are right, "some" Jews and Israelis think the way you describe in your essay. But the majority of Israelis and Jews DON'T see it that way. It's an extreme and odious view of the conflict.

One can support Israel while hating the policies of its government towards Palestinians. One can support the Palestinians yet decry Hamas methods.

Just as supporting the concept of agitation against occupation doesn't mean you support bombing civilians, supporting the concept of self-protection (even if you don't see the justification) doesn't mean you support disproportionate violence.

Yes, and now you have been directed to similar festivities on the American side. I can't see how you can cling to your point; you admitted you were using anecdotal information. Similar anecdotal information was provided about Americans. Both examples prove nothing about Americans as a whole, or Palestinian residents of Gaza as a whole. Why continue this?

The phrase "similar festivities" remains ridiculous.

On the one hand, you have a person blowing up dozens of innocent people, and his own people subsequently dancing in the streets and glorifying that specific act. On the other hand, you have the leader of a nation pulling a PR stunt and the nation yawning. They're not even close to the same thing.

When we bomb some place in Iraq, and a lot of innocents are killed, and normal Americans take to the streets, dance, and hand out candy, then we can talk equivalency.

Your argument simply boils down to assuming your premise: namely that Americans celebrate innocent deaths, and looking for any means to justify that premise, venturing into the absurd.