Thank you. In your series of errors, you've made my point.

You had no point to begin with, so quit patting yourself on the back.

Israel is not "targeting" general civilian populations in Gaza. Israel is using the most advanced weaponry available to target Hamas. It is, admittedly, an imperfect exercise. But a necessary one, in reponse to Hamas' doing the obverse of what you condmen; targeting Israeli civilian populations with its own rocket fire.

So in response Israel is allowed to target population centers in Gaza, because that's where the targets are.

That's the logic you're following?

And without "American munitions," I suppose that Israel might be causing even more collateral damage and civilian casualties.

Only a sociopath would speak so dispassionately about this.

As for "cheerleading", my point was also the one you have just made for me. I'll take Glenn at his word, that he is no "cheerleader" for Hamas the moment that he concedes that I am not a "cheerleader" for the tragic loss of life among innocent civilians in Gaza.

That jersey you're wearing and the pom-poms you're waving say otherwise.

any whiff of reasoned discussion on how we can build a lasting peace in the Middle East

Such as:

We need to end the cycle of wars, not keep the score close in this one.

You wanna explain that "end this cycle of wars" part, Mr. reasonable?

They [regular posters on this blog] want Israel gone,

-- PalestraJon

Links?

I can't seem to make that link work, but I saw just one of those events you describe, again, it was on CNN. It looked like it was deployed from a helicopter, or perhaps fixed-wing aircraft of some sort.

I've been a fan of Glen's FISA coverage - for his in-depth knowledge, careful reporting, and incisive analysis. So I respect his work and have a tendency to listen carefully to what he has to say.

I haven't commented on his Gaza columns before this. But equating Israel with terrorists tipped me over the line.

For one thing, if you agree with him, then you also agree that the United States is a terrorist nation, for our actions in Iraq, Afganistan, and elsewhere. (Let's not even mention South America, for example). How many Iraqi civilians have died because of us? 100,000? And we are supposed to condemn Israelis as terrorists for 1,000 deaths - when they were actually being attacked - which we weren't? Utter hypocracy.

In a more general sense, I have been disappointed by his columns. I think that using such overheated rhetoric is a disservice to his fellow Americans. This conflict directly affects Jewish-Americans, whose family histories cause them to identify with Israel and fear the effects of anti-semitism - a fear recently made stronger with all of the anti-semitic comments made based on 'jewish bankers' and the Wall Street crisis. It also directly affects Muslim-americans, who struggle every day with the prejudices of the living in a post 911-america, and the hope and despair of wondering if they will ever be fully accepted or valued as equal. Why not treat this as the tragedy it is - for both sides?

Why not consider what practical measures the US can take to actively help the situation? Offering aid and supporting the red cross in its call for more time for humanitarian efforts. Publicly offering to host ceasefire negotiations.

Instead Glen blathers on about the pundits he considers his peers. It smacks of self-promotion rather than serious consideration of the issues. It's also not terribly impressive - I mean, how hard is it to discredit Friedman. It's like bird-shooting with Cheney - no skill, no knowledge, and no effort required. Glen can do better than this.

So not only are the columns markedly fixated on righteous (and hypocritical) indignation rather than solutions, they are also narrow in their scope and analysis of the sitation. Just a couple questions you might want to consider: Who benefits from continuing conflict? What role do the surrounding nations play? What action could Israel take that wouldn't be criticized? What could end the bombings? How is Israel becoming radicalized by the injection of the settler populations into the mainstream and the exposure of new towns that used to be buffered to rocket fire? Why would Hamas benefit from continued conflict? What would happen to Hamas if there was peace? What is Hamas's purpose in firing at Israel? (Because anyone has to agree, it's not getting them sympathy, land, or concessions, so it's not a very effective strategy.) Also - why did the Palestinians abandon the peaceful strategies of the first intifada - which successfully brought Israel to the peace table?

These are just a few of the questions which might engender a more thoughtful discussion and a richer understanding of the situation - at least I think so.

I know that Glen is trained as a laywer, and so tends to regard discussion as adversarial. I was trained as a philospher, and so I hope this critique is ultimately helpful to the overall dialogue. I hope I have shown that I am disappointed, but not disrespectful.

grackle

There's been much discussion about why what Israel has done is wrong, but little about what Israel actually should have done, instead.

You make a good point. And it should be noted that Israeli lives are threatened, and that it too has been subjected to terrorism. Both sides have been subjected to terrorism.

as to what should be done--here's a scenario. Let's say that through a series of international decisions made in europe and military incursions in North America, the United States took possession of Alberta, Canada, with its rich oil sands. US military occupied the province, and Americans began establishing towns there, fortified ones, and also began exploiting the oil riches.

In response, Albertans began to violently resist the US presence in their province, including small acts of violence in the lower 48.

What should the US do to halt the violence being experienced by US citizens?

-- casual_observer

Of course, a better analogy would include some other hypotheticals:

~That we had left Alberta two years earlier, and had forcibly dismantled all remaining "US settlements" at substantial domestic political cost;

~That the Albertans had elected a local government which issued a statment that their identity as Albertans demanded that the United States be driven out of existence;

~That the Albertans were obtaining gradually better weapons, including rockets that occasionally hit and killed people in Boise, and Great Falls, and Billings, and were now good enough to hit Seattle and the Columbia Nuclear Generating plant in Washington state.

~That we had chosen to attack Alberta, with the most precise weapons that we had, to target the specific individuals responsible for the rocket attacks.