"that I'm "Palling around with Neo-Cons,"

I've certainly never said that about you. Google it if ye doubt the claim. Its quite possible I've never used that word in all of my posts in two years. I do think that you've painted yourself into an ideogical corner. From any perspective, the bombing is a bad idea. In my view, Israel has as much write to protect itself as Palestinians have to protect themselves from the Israeli military. Its a point that's pretty much lost any meaning however. I mean, how far back do you want to go in the reprisal contest? A blockade is an act of war, as much as lobbing a rocket at a civilian area, as much as assasinating a leader of Hamas, as much as a suicide bombing, as much as destroying a refugess camp and occupying a country.

Those things have actually little to do with Israel's attack. Israel's goals for this attack have little do with stopping rocket fire. What will Israel do if after all this, a completely unaffiliated secular group begins lobbing rockets at Israel? Invade again? What a spectacular waste of time. If you are defending Israel's right to defend itself--whether or not they have that right--then you are not using your energy very wisely in defense of Israel.

Glenn writes:

It applies to virtually every political dispute: Some opponents of affirmative action are racist but not all are; therefore, to oppose affirmative action is not to be racist. Some opponents of tax cuts are socialists but not all are; therefore, to oppose tax cuts is not to be a socialist. Some opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq were Saddam supporters but not all were; therefore, to oppose the war on Iraq is not to be pro-Saddam.

This is third-grade logic. You haven't mastered it yet.

Look! Over there! An anti-semite against the war on Gaza. See! It's about anti-semitism!!!!!

Why you continue to fail to grasp it is because 0% and 100% are both extremes. You pick and choose your binaries in which two completely distinct language systems apply for you, and for your critics.

To boil it down to simple math, so you can follow it, your logical fallacy builds like so.

x = issue/event

y = legit motivation for the issue

z = illigitimate motivation for the issue (bigotry, bias, etc.)

1. One can believe X, but Y as the cause of X and not Z as the cause of X. If some believe Z as the cause of X, that is not my fault. If some use Y to cover for their real belief, Z, that does not excuse Y.

2. Critics of Y use the excuse of Z to try to drown out Y.

3. But I never said Z didn't exist!

This is a neverending shell game in which you can constantly shuffle your motivations for X under cover of Y and accuse your critics of using Z to try to drown out Y, while cursorly acknowledging that Z doesn't exist.

Anyone can do this with any argument. So f-ing what, Glenn? What do you think it proves? That you're objective? That you're a critical thinker because you pay lip service to Z existing, somewhere out there in the ethos (but certainly not on this board, as your fervent apologists so self-righteously proclaim)?

Total bullshit, Glenn.

There are underlying root and historical narratives that influence X, Y, and Z. This is not a parlor game of three equal cards, in which you can shuffle in one and proclaim a false equivalency to the others.

Israel hatred, Jew hatred, conspiracy theories, The Protocols of Zion, the Turner Diaries, Henry Ford, Charles Coughlin, Joe McCarthy through today's Bill O'Reillys, simply code their language to make Z seem like Y.

That is the card shuffle you refuse to acknowledge in your "third grade" logic understandings. Just as Bush refused to be held accountable for those who heard the dog-whistles on Saddam and 9/11.

You set up the bonfire built on 1000 years of historical narrative, but want the rest of us to only examine your arugments on the issues of the last three weeks. This is why you are disingenuous, and why your position on Israel is considered so fringe. You simply refuse to understand what Karl Marx (and more recently Foucault) made perfectly clear -- that a conversation with the past is actually a conversation with the present. And that arguments of the present are reworkings of power struggles of the past.

That is why this isn't just about how much we gave to Israel in 2008, or whether the Gaza bombings violate the Geneva conventions. It is why your threads explode into 700+ comments, much as you want to disingenuously limit discussion to "just the facts," as you accuse your opponents of "emotional bias."

This is what makes you a fraud on this issue, Glenn. Yes, you are right that just because some use Israel as an excuse for Jew hatred, all criticisms of Israel are not Jew hatred.

But you cannot disengage from broad cultural perspective, much as your lawerly and vacuous reductionisms hope to do. 1000 years of history speaks otherwise, Glenn. And deep down, you know it.

Jew hating, under cover of "Israel criticism," is neither the province of liberals or conservatives. It is a productive narrative in all corners of the political spectrum, as we see here. -- WinSmith

You have, at great length, insinuated that everyone and anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is (by definition) an undercover or unwitting anti-Semite. This is untrue. I can't tell if it is a lie, because you don't give the impression of mental competence, but it is a false notion designed to inflate your opinion of yourself.

Regarding Sinnard's rejoinder:

...WinSmith is somewhere between the "You're all antisemites" stage and the "We agree on more than you realize" state, before going back to and repeating the "Nuke the subhuman animals" stage.-- Chris Sinnard

What did you mean by this?

... I believe Hamas is one of the vilest terrorist thug groups in the world, and because I believe the Second Intifada means Israel has a lot of leeway in choosing to make its country functional and its citizens feel protected. -- WinSmith

For a man who purports that everyone is speaking in subtext code, all the time, this reads far too much like.....

Ohhhh... I the Virtuous One, will never say "Nuke the subhuman animals".... but all options should remain on the table.

A phrase and thought that is too commonly used to convey a "Nuke the subhuman animals" subtext.