...they were said to be "embedded" with the military. It always sounded a bit like "in bed with" to me.

the West should have militarily confronted Hitler when he annexed the Rhineland. That would be circa 1937 I think.

Great job in a tough environment (being on Hewitt's show). You did a fine job & Mr Hewitt let you make your points (which is more than I can say for slimeballs like Hannity & Savage, etc.).

Great interview Glenn and credit to them for inviting you and allowing you to speak at length without too many interruptions.

A couple of minor nit-picks, where you may have challenged their assumptions:

HH: Now of course in Israel, the government is not run by those extremist elements, to whatever extent they exist, and I just don’t know. I know that Kahane was an extremist, et cetera, but I just don’t know that there were many of them, nor have they ever been in power in Israel.

Israel has had several leaders and governments who were by any standards extreme. For example, the former terrorist Menachem Begin, former leader of the Irgun, was Prime Minister of Israel from 1977-1983. Then there was former senior member of the Stern gang, Yitzhak Shamir, Prime Minister of Israel from 1983-84, and again in 1986-1992. He once said "neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."

Then there was Ariel Sharon, former leader of Unit 101, under whose leadership the Qinya massacre of 1953 and other atrocities occured. He was Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006.

Regardless of the undoubted qualities and experience of these individuals, they were NOT moderates!

I also belive you are wrong that journalists would not be welcome:

GG: It depends. I mean, it’s probably, you’re probably right that especially now, Western journalists, Jewish journalists, would not be welcome in Gaza for reasons that aren’t that difficult to understand.

Right now, the Free Gaza movement (http://www.freegaza.org) has at least five westerners living and working alongside the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Western journalists are desperately neeeded to report on the atrocities now being comitted in Gaza, and the Palestinians realise this.

"But it seems to me, Glenn, that Hamas is in fact run by the fanatics, and that that’s the difference between Israel, a legitimate government, and Hamas, a terrorist organization, a gang, in essence, that seized power in Gaza, and that while the former might be able to negotiate with Egypt and Jordan along the lines you’ve laid out, that there really is no evidence for believing that Hamas will ever be other than what it has always been, a terrorist gang with which no negotiation is possible. Tell me where I’m wrong."

-- Hugh Hewitt

So, a gang that seizes control of a country -- in a violent coup, if you will – are fanatics who cannot be negotiated with in good faith.

One more time: If you overthrow a country’s leadership and seize control, then you are nothing but a terrorist gang with which no negotiation is possible!

Got it!

I suggest that your 'interview' was tokenism. Americans are still bombarded daily with racist, israeli centric propaganda.

Americans are held hostage to this sliver of ethnicity which may not be named. Until Americans understand that names like Panetta are NOT Italian - and that Paulson is NOT a Norwegian Christian Scientist.. but a Jew - we are prisoners of this cabal.

let's see how the censors deal with this kind of truth

Could we experience a renaissance of introspective and Fairness Doctrine approaches forthwith if Glenn's peculiar interviews catch on? I can only hope that it is contagious and viewed by other pundits/interviewees as the only way to meet the high standards that Americans and the world need--as to our deserving such accurate, educated journalism is another matter.

You face those devils (Hewitt's, O'Reilly's) head on enough--they may not only get the point, but get the axe as well.

You know, Glenn's interview was not an isolated incident. While the media culture in the US is still very non-reflectively pro-Israel, more and more intelligent commentary actually is leaking through. I am hearing, occasionally, things (like this interview) more and more often. And aside from the usual complement of dolts and trolls, a lot of the commentary on the Salon threads these days has been informed and intelligent. I think that there are definite cracks appearing in the AIPAC facade.

It is just possible that, from Israel's point of view, the biggest casualty of its Gaza attacks may not be the inevitable strengthening of Hamas, but the erosion of the American suspension of disbelief about Israel that they have come to rely and depend on.

The following was published by Keshev (The Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel) on the early performance of Israeli journalists in covering the Israeli invasion of Gaza:

"DIRECT HIT":

Israeli Newspaper Coverage of the First Two Days of Operation “Cast Lead”

...the Israeli media’s coverage of the first days of the fighting were characterized by feelings of self-righteousness and a sense of catharsis following what was felt to be undue restraint in the face of attacks by the enemy, along with support for the military action and few expressions of criticism...

Banging the War Drum: Let’s Fight

In a manner that recalls the first days of the Second Lebanon War, it appears that the print media in Israel refrained from raising questions about the necessity of the military operation and supported the decision to launch it. Just as in the Second Lebanon War, the headlines after the first two days emphasized euphoria and banged the drums of war...

...The war coverage employed terms that were competitive, euphoric and disconcerting...

Besides the headlines and enthusiastic reports on the operation’s justness and its achievements, some criticisms also appeared. But these appeared mostly on the margins of the coverage – in opinion columns by B. Michael and by Yehonatan Geffen. Opinion columns are usually perceived as the private opinions of their authors and not as actual “news”. Their influence is therefore limited.

“DIRECT HIT”: Coverage of Attacks on Palestinians

In the first two days of the bombing the media coverage framed the rapidly growing number of deaths on the Palestinian side mostly as strategic and tactical successes for Israel.

The killing of dozens of Palestinian police cadets was described in most places as a great success...

In general, in the first days of the operation the coverage of Palestinian civilian casualties was less extensive than the coverage of Lebanese civilian casualties during the Second Lebanon War. As it was during the Second Lebanon War, coverage of civilian casualties was characterized by what can be called the “principle of separation”: In the front pages of the newspapers the IDF was described as fighting Hamas; the fact that this fighting inflicted heavy casualties on the civilian population appeared relatively out of sight, in the inside pages of the newspapers or deep in the texts of the articles...

...CONCLUSIONS

... Now – not later, after the war – is the time to demand of editors and managers, reporters and analysts in the Israel media: Uphold your professional and civic responsibilities, lest you repeat the failures in coverage of the last war, with all their ramifications for the well-being and strength of Israeli society.

http://www.keshev.org.il/siteEn/FullNews.asp?NewsID=131&CategoryID=9

One could easily repeat most of the substance of this review for the U.S. news producers, which followed the same patters.

Obviously the above is just a short excerpt, follow link for all the examples left out and further details.

The review includes many references to both the 2006 Israeli attack in Southern Lebanon intending to halt Hizbullah's capacity to launch rockets into Northern Israel, so some familiarity with that war and its common perception among Israelis (as sort of a failure in many ways) is required, although in the examples themselves some context is given.