Dear Glenn,

I am always so puzzled by what essentially amounts to censorship in the US media when it comes to Israel. I am also constantly surprised by how the many wonderful, intelligent, kind American Jews I know somehow feel it is okay to use an entirely different lens when thinking about Israel. One explanation for this (the kindest) is that the US media is so biased in its reporting when it comes to Israel that most of the US public is unaware of the extent to which US involvement with Israel is damaging to the US.I suspect not too many Americans are aware that their taxpayer money is being spent on 30 billion dollars in military aid to Israel.

Thank you so very much for being one of the few journalists providing an honest picture about this -- and other -- issues.

So let me get this straight. You can write endlessly about the evils of Apartheid Zionism, but when I says something to you like

If one looks hard at the historical and political record, one can see there are two peoples, each trying to establish their own state. The difference is, with few exceptions, the Palestinians seem unwilling to accept a state of their own unless Israel is destroyed as part of the deal.

Then your response is, I'm neither an Israeli nor a Palestinian, so I don't care whether that's true or not. How intellectually dishonest.

"I hate them for making us kill their sons" Famous Golda Mier quote.

Those people are Jews? Pathetic.

By Aaron David Miller | NEWSWEEK, Published Jan 3, 2009 (see sig)

Miller, an adviser for Democratic and Republican administrations and author of “The Much Too Promised Land,” is at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Jews worry for a living; their tragic history compels them to do so. In the next few years, there will be plenty to worry about, particularly when it comes to Israel. The current operation in Gaza won't do much to ease these worries or to address Israel's longer-term security needs. The potential for a nuclear Iran, combined with the growing accuracy and lethality of Hamas and Hizbullah rockets, will create tremendous concern. Anxiety may also be provoked by something else: an Obama administration determined to repair America's image and credibility and to reach a deal in the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong. Barack Obama—as every other U.S. president before him—will protect the special relationship with Israel. But the days of America's exclusive ties to Israel may be coming to an end. Despite efforts to sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it's serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

[…]

If Obama is serious about peacemaking he'll have to adjust that balance in two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are many, including terror, violence and incitement), he'll also have to deal with Israel's behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.

Then there's the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America's credibility.

Second, Obama will have to maintain his independence and tactical flexibility to play the mediator's role. This means not road testing everything with Israel first before previewing it to the other side, a practice we followed scrupulously during the Clinton and Bush 43 years. America must also not agree to every idea proposed by an Israeli prime minister. Our willingness to go along with Ehud Barak's make-or-break strategy at the Camp David summit proved very costly where more disciplined critical thinking on our part might have helped preempt the catastrophe that followed. Coordinating with Israel on matters relating to its security is one thing. Giving Israel a veto over American negotiating tactics and positions, particularly when it comes to bridging gaps between the two sides, is quite another.

If the new president adjusts his thinking when it comes to Israel, and is prepared to be tough with the Arabs as well, the next several years could be fascinating and productive ones. I hope so, because the national interest demands it. The process of American mediation will be excruciatingly painful for Arabs, Israelis and Americans. But if done right, with toughness and fairness, it could produce the first real opportunity for a peace deal in many years.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177716

Gimme a break. Israel got their clocks cleaned in the Lebanon war of 2006.

It's pretty easy to win an engagement against an enemy that has been economically, medically, and nutritionmally starved for months on end. Then go in with tanks and fighter jets. Wow, Israel, you are so tough!

The IDF is a bunch of pussies. Have they ever engaged a real army and won? Have they ever fought their own war, with their own money, and their own people? Without American money and arms, and their only taking on ghettos of impoverished men, women, and children, they would be crushed faster than France in underpants.

"Don't fuck with Jews." (rolleyes) Shut up.

G. Just count this as one message from a reader who admires (although does not necessarily agree with) all of your work including your criticism of Israeli policy toward Gaza. Keep pounding away at them. PT