...when Glenn unleashes his rants, he obscures so many legitimate points of critique that the entire issue devolves into anti-Israel rants and Jewish conspiracy theories involving AIPAC and the "money-lenders." -- WinSmith

Glenn sometimes can "rant", but he is usually very careful when he writes about Israel. The hyperbole that sometimes damages his points is absent when he discusses it. His comments section becomes inflamed whenever he discusses Israeli-Palestinian issues because a number of otherwise infrequent or non-commenters hone in on it in order to make statements of aggression, of support for genocide, and racist contempt for Palestinians. (You know, those "children" and "sewage dwellers" we've been reading about recently.)

What gets lost in the rants on this board are the following basic facts:

* Israel does have the right to defend itself. The question here is one of proportionality and response. -- Winsmith

There are no serious, regular commenters here who have said otherwise (heru-ur is a nut). You have a few foreigners and one-note johnnies who come in and say things which may be construed that way, but this is not a moderated forum. There are no over-educated, underpaid young women in the background acting as gatekeepers as is the case, say, at the New York Times blogs. Glenn has to hand-delete the freak posts when he can find time.

* Hamas does use civilians and schools as human shields for their mortar fire. To automatically assume Israel is just "targeting civilians" without waiting to learn more about whether Hamas was firing mortars and rockets from these locations is wilfully ignorant. -- Winsmith

Possibly, but Israel also uses disproportionate response as a (stated, thought-out) tactic of war. Giving them a pass while civilian casualties are mounting is not a prudent thing to do -- if you actually want to prevent those deaths. As shooter242, Lab2112 and other have indicated, there are substantial numbers of pro-Israel partisans who want to see all & any Palestinians exterminated. They will gently deplore the situation long after the fact, when the "job is done".

* Hamas is a terrorist organization.

And so was Sinn Féin. But the U.K. managed to negotiate with them to end terrorism. Your unexamined sense of specialness does not go over well with many of us because we've watched other bitter religious/ethnic partisans stop their crap and get on with civilized life.

The United States accidentally slaughtered innocents targeting Al Qaeda and other terrorists long before George W. Bush drove us off a cliff in Iraq. Bill Clinton killed innocents in Yemen and Afghanistan trying to get Bin Laden. But when America does it, it's a "necessary cost in pursuing terrorism." When Israel does it, it's "TEH WAR CRIMES!" -- Winsmith

No actually, not on this board. Over the years Glenn has come far closer to 'unhinged hyperbole' on the issue of U.S. war crimes than he ever does over Israel. I suspect that like me, he feels a greater sense of responsibility for actions taken by U.S. forces, on behalf of U.S. citizens.

Our actions in Iraq 2003-2009 are about 50,000 times more egregious in terms of human rights violations, slaughtering innocents and unjustifiably starting a war than anything Israel is doing in Gaza responding to mortar fire. -- Winsmith

Yes. And does that give Israel a pass on its misuse of U.S. funds and materiel when it slaughters innocent non-combatants and damages U.S. interests? No.

If Glenn posts a diary on American war crimes in Iraq, it gets maybe 50-100 posts. If he posts on Israel, there's a freaking meltdown of Americans frothing with rage at the *temerity* of the Israelis.

This is the embodiment of pathology. There's a reason I/P discussions turn into emotional tornadoes, and it has to do with the uniqueness of Jewry in the world as pariah, demon, pathological "other." -- Winsmith

"It" is not always someone else's fault Winsmith. You continually insist that legitimate critiques of our government's excessive favoritism toward this one nation-state, Israel, are always, completely due to latent anti-Semitism. This is a lie Winnie.

Bill Owen:

Maybe it's a good thing, Israeli is keeping the shills out, if they did let journalists in, wouldn't it be just a bunch of clowns and stenographers from AP, FOX or CNN?

You have a fair point there. Our news readers puppeted by their corporate overlords would probably make a proper hash out of it. We'd be worse off for the way they'd scrub their video and warp their commentary. It's not like we don't have ample evidence of this thanks to Glenn.

I might wonder though, that by keeping out those who play journalists on the teevee, poorly I might add, the IDF has also barred some independent/ethical types like we'd get from, say, McClatchy. Still, my respect for Al Jezeera grows the more I am exposed to it in these circumstances. The IDF may come to see their choice as a poor PR move. Might work in the short term, but not if it manages to bolster Al Jezeera's creds over the longer haul.

PalestraJon:

As usual, the discussion of the Arab-Israeli dispute on this board breaks down to a chorus of rants by those who simply see Israel as illegitimate and must be destroyed.

Thanks. With that very first sentence, you've informed me that I really can save myself a dose of bile by not reading one more word of your 585 word, 38 line, 2,723 character manifesto. It always helps when an interlocutor kicks right off with the most important thing they have to say. And, in your case, it's patently a false claim. So, my thanks are genuine.

Some poster a while back expostulated that when Glenn posts on matters I/P the comment threads turn into "anti-Jewish hatefests."

But that's simply wrong.

If a commenter around here goes into an anti-Jewish rant (and it happens now and then) other commenters, plural will set the ranter straight. The discussion is not about "Jews" per se; it is about Israel and the actions of Israel -- a nation in the Middle East supported by the United States Government -- vis a vis the Palestinian people, a stateless, oppressed and brutalized population under Israeli control. It's called an occupation.

Pointing out the simplest facts of the matter, however, are interpreted as "anti-Jewish." The facts, apparently, have an "anti-Jewish" bias.

Arguing against Israeli propaganda is declared to be "anti-Jewish." Arguing an end to American subsidies of Israeli brutality is said to be "anti-Jewish."

Saying anything critical of Israel is "anti-Jewish."

And anything "anti-Jewish" is of course "support for Hamas."

If this form of "logic" weren't happening in real time on these threads, over and over and over again in exactly the same way, using the same terms, one would be hard pressed to believe it was happening at all. If so many people weren't being killed and injured while this endless argument goes on, it would be laughable.

Criticizing Israel and American governmental support for Israel IS NOT BY DEFINITION ANTI-JEWISH.

Just a reminder...