-3 points for using the irrelevant "but look how much money we give to other people, even bad guys!" talking point.

The Israel-haters might want to do a global analysis of how much money we give to countries around the world, including stationing our military in Japan, South Korea and Kuwait. Israel is one of a number of countries that we support militarily. And compared to what we're spending blowing up Iraq and Afghanistan, hardly at the top of our financial concerns.

--WinSmith

If only Glenn and Hugh's discussion could be multiplied 1 million times, or even just 1,000, or maybe 100 times, there might be some real change.

Fear, anger, hatred, revenge, demonization are contagious memes, but so are civility, respect, coolness, calmness, and rationality.

Another valiant keyboard warrior in the Israel-First Propaganda Troll Army.

If you can restate any legitimate questions by Derbig Mooser, I'd be happy to offer my thoughts. All I've seen from that person is dripping hatred for all things Jewish, written in a mocking tone that if it's going to be that clueless, should at least be funny.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Zionism," the term has historical meaning, but today it is usually invoked by anti-Israel fringe lunatics ranting about conspiracy theories and babbling nonsense about how Jews see themselves as superior because they once heard the term "chosen people" (which I'd be happy to explain if you actually think it means Jewish exceptionalism).

"Zionism" has no meaning today because Israel exists. It is fact. No amount of internet whining will wish away a country with nearly seven million people in it.

If you believe Israel itself has no right to exist, there is little starting point for a discussion. I'd sooner debate the veracity of Santa Claus.

wbgonne

"Hamas advocates for the destruction of Israel"

So fucking what? If you are gonna be a state, and if you think states are formed by stealing land, and you will not abide by the UN rules and rules of war, people are going to advocate for your destruction. That's politics, pal. That is the level the Zionists decided to play on, and now you're complaining that Hamas "advocates"? Jeez, what a bunch of delicate flowers you Zionists are "Momila, momila, the Hamas is advocating against us!"

What is so shameful is that one look at a map will show how absolutely dishonest your contention that Gaza is a place which can in any way "destroy" Israel. You ZIonists are sickening.

Wow. Vitriol, much?

If by "Zionist" you mean that I think Israel has a right to exist, then I plead guilty. Alas, it isn't my fondness for Israelis or Jews for that matter that dictates my position: it is this, which based on your "so fucking what" comment, you are evidently oblivious to: I want a solution and the only viable solution poses two states. You tell me how one state negotiates a two-state solution with the other party denying its right to exist. The only other possibility, as I already said, and as you also apparently missed, Hamas just remains silent about its anti-Israel mandate and stops taking actions, i.e., firing rockets into to Israel, in accord with its charter. If not, Hamas must go. Simple as that.

Of course, if you can propose a different solution, I, and many others, would be quite receptive. Unless that is, your solution is little more than a reprise of the Final Solution. Which, based on the tone of your post, is a real possibility, unfortunately.

Shalom.

The Ponzi Scheme Presidency

Tom Englehardt

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=14003

With the highest-tech military on the planet, funded at levels no other set of nations could cumulatively match, the United States, they were convinced, was uniquely situated to give the phrase "sole superpower" historically unprecedented meaning. Even the Assyrians at their height, the Romans in their Pax Romana centuries, the British in the endless decades when the sun could never set on its empire, would prove pikers by comparison.

In this sense, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and the various neocons in the administration were fundamentalist idolaters – and what they worshipped was the staggering power of the U.S. military. They were believers in a church whose first tenet was the efficacy of force above all else. Though few of them had the slightest military experience, they gave real meaning to the word bellicose. They were prejudiced toward war.

With awesome military power at their command, they were also convinced that they could go it alone as the dominating force on the planet. As with true believers everywhere, they had only contempt for those they couldn't convert to their worldview. That contempt made "unilateralism" their strategy of choice, and a global Pax Americana their goal (along with, of course, a Pax Republicana at home).

Thus, the sole nuclear super-power of the Middle East, Israel, is playing the god of ultimate force in Gaza right now, as we are playing god all over the globe--and with Space Command, even out in space. I suppose that means "Death from above!" is our new national motto.

The "war on terror" is a perpetual motion holy war cash machine, just like the Crusades were. "Holy" war is what we do. It's our number one export (as measured in weapons).

"Support Israel Because it's Cheaper then Iraq".

Is that what you heard? That has got to be prize-winner of some sort.

Israelis actually have some collective accountability for their actions, so American discussions often tend to be especially stupid on both sides, so it's a nice surprise when this isn't the case.

I agree that no one who has served in the armed forces--regardless of the conflict--should be made to apologize for his or her service. Those among us who volunteer for such service deserve nothing but our praise and admiration.

The only point I wished to make in my earlier comments was that war is ultimately unnecessary. Do we really need to send our promising young men and women abroad to kill their fellow human beings in order to be secure as a nation? Or can we gain that security through negotiation and communication with our foes?

For example, the U.S. was deeply isolationist during the inter-war (1918-1939) period. I can't know, obviously (and no one can), whether more diplomatic and, yes, military, engagement with our European allies during this period would have averted a second world war, but it's certainly possible. More than 70 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed in that war.