less of what you just did.

I don't think so. He started crying about manners, then started complaining again and stormed off forever because people were mean to him, to most likely come back the next time Glenn posts about Israel.

Nor any other's behest

Do I take

Post Modern

Or

Neo Classical

Requests...

Comprende?

The tears of the crocodile.

the "center", i.e. the war party. They love your silence. The status quo center is pro-war, pro-Israel, all the time. The center is keeping your mouth shut and embracing American Exceptionalism while the government subsidizes weapons for its friends.

does centrist necessarily mean not choosing a side?

clearly we could and should choose to be on the side of humanity (sorry, i view the notion of a nation as quite antiquated), which both sides consist of, yes? it is possible to be critical of israel and being against their actions without implying support of palestinian state-desire-related or hamas-rocket-related causes... i think so.

Yes, you see the modern nation state as "anitquated."

Can't wait for the rest of the world to catch up with you...

Don't hang on too hard.

Fair point there. Mexico isn't exactly Gaza...Palestine does what it does because they are in such a mess they might as well strike. But the expirement is still relevant from the point of view of morality and historical claims. Mexico has pretty much as much MORAL right to lob some rockets as Palestine does...or as Native Americans do, or Aboriginal Australians, or First Nation Canadians, etc etc. They all have just about the same grievance as Palestine: 'we were here first' (or at least before you guys got here)...the only difference is time frame.

So to continue the experiment...Israel is a pretty recent displacer...how long should they be expected to wait for Palestine to 'accept' the facts and begin to function like other displaced peoples? I'd think if Palestine renounced violence and accepted Israel as a state their conditions would begin to improve immediately. Conversely, since they are so recent, perhaps they should be expected to basically 'give it up' and cease to exist? That's what a 'one-state solution' really means by the way.

This question/experiment is meant to highlight how the moral & historical interact in a very messy way with the practical. What to do?

sorry but when people are having a pretty in depth heated discussion on an issue like this and then someone throws a freakin haiku in there from out of nowhere it makes you wonder.

To eat it or read it

Can you dig it?

I've always enjoyed Glenn's blog for his coverage of the expansion of presidential powers over the last few years. However, there are times when his argumentation comes across as indecisive. This is one of those times.

He attempts to link Hamas "terrorism" with Israeli "terrorism" by implying that the killing of civilians is the result of dehumanization on both sides.

He also attempts to elevate the rationality of Hamas "terrorists" with that of the Israeli army by proffering the many legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people as justification for their actions. While he introduces tribal identification as a blinder to the damage done by both sides in this conflict, in doing so, he is also insinuating that tribalism is not rational (i.e. it leads to contradictions, oversimplifications). This is contradictory.

If it is rational for Hamas to launch rockets into Israel with a full understanding of its reverberations, then why is it not also rational that many Israelis (and American of a Jewish persuasion) would choose to adopt a tribalistic stance in their foreign policy choices?

The contradiction arises because Greenwald refuses to take sides. He also fails to understand that real war is hell. Equating the killing of civilians to dehumanization ignores the internecine reality of the Goldfarb "pathology" i.e. killing civilians can end conflict. Use Hiroshima as your example. American "terrorism" during WWII ended conflict in that arena.

The sad reality is that both sides are being irrational and neither will realize any of their goals without accepting political reality. Hamas and Palestine will have to accept the state of Israel. They wont. Israel will have to accept the death of civilians due to extremist Palestinian elements as the price of nationhood. They wont. Proportionality merely perpetuates the tribalism Greenwald decries.

So apparently, Glen, it is rational to accept rocket fire and not retaliate. Too bad you wont admit that.

What? One look at Obama's "centrist" cabinet and it should be pretty clear that the "center" has chosen a side. There is bipartisan support for enabling Israeli war crimes that will lead to the deaths of Americans.

as for this:

clearly we could and should choose to be on the side of humanity (sorry, i view the notion of a nation as quite antiquated), which both sides consist of, yes? it is possible to be critical of israel and being against their actions without implying support of palestinian state-desire-related or hamas-rocket-related causes... i think so.

What are you trying to say? Both "sides" are completely irrelevant to the survival of Americans.

"Fair point there. Mexico isn't exactly Gaza...Palestine does what it does because they are in such a mess they might as well strike. But the expirement is still relevant from the point of view of morality and historical claims. Mexico has pretty much as much MORAL right to lob some rockets as Palestine does...or as Native Americans do, or Aboriginal Australians, or First Nation Canadians, etc etc. They all have just about the same grievance as Palestine: 'we were here first' (or at least before you guys got here)...the only difference is time frame."

i wouldn't say loss of territory would give mexico a "moral right" as you put it, to fire rockets at us. i don't see how you can ever really give someone a moral right to try and kill, so it may be hard to swing me in this issue.

i think we're getting too far into the right to exist area, though.