"It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others."

- Michael Goldfarb, Aug. 18, 2008, dissing gamers in his post on John McCain's blog

that there are those whose "sociopathic indifference" keeps them from seeing that when you behave like 'them' you become 'them'. Refusing to have a higher moral standard reduces one to either being a fool or nothing more than a "Good German" jewish or not. Keep up your excellent work Glenn, since we aren't likely to find anything like it in the corporate media, and this is an important discussion to have.

Mammal,

This post, like the several before it that included the words "Israel" and/or "Gaza," is not about the Israeli actions, as much as they form the backdrop for his pieces.

Rather, they have been about the American reaction to these events, and how looking at this reaction can inform our understanding of the American political/media complex.

I find this much more interesting than another 1000-comment spiral into "Greenwaltz is a self-hating Jew" vs. "Israel did 9/11." I know it'll only be another few pages before the Troll Wars take over the comments section, so please, can't we discuss the actual post?

A further irony is that, nowadays, the spokesmen for the western brand of state terrorism piously insist that they are at war only with the people of a nation, not its leadership, even as they target universities, hospitals and places of worship. The U.S. used this line in Iraq ("We're liberators!"), and now Israel is doing the same in Gaza. (Despite the fact that Hamas was put in power by those same people that the Israeli government claims to have no quarrel with.) Did Roosevelt declare war on Hitler but claim to be the friend of the German people, even as Dresden was incinerated? It's doubtful that that level of hypocrisy would have been swallowed by the public 60 years ago.

True, of course, that Newspeak is just a precursor of "political correctness" which so many liberals seem to support, even though it makes independent thinking difficult or impossible.

No, it isn't, you don't know what your talking about, you neither know nor care about what Newspeak is or isn't, and what Orwell was or wasn't doing at the time he got the idea for it.

Unlike Israel and any of its militarists' cheerleaders, Orwell really was trying to preserve his own nation, Britain, from falling to a genuine threat of destruction (an actual Nazi & fascist military capable of taking Britain) -- but Orwell was simultaneously horrified that he was being basically asked to lie to the independence-seeking Indians in the form of a controlled language.

Imagine that -- here Orwell was, in the midst of a nearly total worldwide war, and his motivation wasn't simply slavishly cheerleading his own nation against its very real and actually powerful enemies, but speaking truthfully even to those who wanted to break away from the Empire itself.

Israel faces no actual threat of destruction, none whatsoever, certainly not from bands of gangsters in the Gaza strip, and unlike Orwell, very few of its cheerleaders seem to have the genuine concern of Orwell that he not simply be a cheap mouthpiece for power, not even for the nation he was trying to preserve, and that he seek justice for the very people currently being oppressed by his own nation.

But thanks for the silly effort to try to use Orwell as an excuse to bash "liberals" and anyone who doesn't obtain sexual release by thinking about how long and thick and hard they're going to give it to Hamas.

"to wipe out 3,000 of a man's fellow countrymen on September 11th, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues in the American heartland at least a moment's pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of the United States rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Al Qaeda under the current conditions."

-- Summ Azz Holi

Makes just as much sense no matter who says it.

By the way, an aspect of the Israeli/Arab dispute on which few (here, at least) focus, but is basic to understanding what's happening, is the concept of Whose Side Time Is On. Each side attempts to manipulate the outcome by creating a situation where the passage of time works to their advantage.

For example, the Israelis' main strategy is the Separation Barrier, because absent Palestinian willingness to negotiate, the Barrier becomes the de facto border. The Palestinian strategy for keeping time on their side is to stay front and center in the media by means of "the armed struggle". At the moment, they seem to be winning this battle, as evidenced by the anti-Israel vitriol stirred up here.

I'm just curious - at what point will Israel not be seen as occupiers? What are the conditions the world (or you) put on Israel in order for that nation to not be viewed as occupiers? Please provide your definition of Israel's occupation?

When non-psychopaths disagree with me, it is because they are insufficiently objective. If they were objective, they would know that I am right about everything instead of just most things.

So the Time concept helps explain why the settlements were appealing to the Israeli public. Expanding them put time on the Israeli side. Basically, the longer Palestinian rejectionism went on, the smaller their eventual state would be.

That attitude isn't because the wicked Jews want to deprive these poor people of what little is left of their ancestral lands. It's because the Israelis wanted to pressure the Palestinians in the direction of making peace. One does that by making it clear that the terms you'll receive today are better than those you might receive in the future.

This of course is why many Israelis opposed the Separation Barrier: because it limits the expansion of settlements, which they perceive as a concession to the Palestinians.