I am sick of Glen, his self loathing, and his rabid rationalizations of the ignorance that has fueled and encouraged the cause of fanatical Islamists to continue this unnecessary butchery in the mid east, when there is so many good reasons to stop shooting missles and make peace. Instead of these stupid diatribes against anyone who is gauch enough to think Israel has an actual right to exist, he should be demanding that Hamas acknowledge Israel and commit to peace so that people of their nation can stop suffering. There is not one good reason for this madness. There may be anger over the initial creation of Israel but this is after all a tiny bit of land. The hated is being turned into a grand religious revival and the monsters who are leading these groups are filling the hearts and minds of little children with lies and anger and hatred and the desire to blow up their bodies, of jihad. That is the great sin. And Mr.l Gfeenwald, your rhetoric is contributing to this madness big time. You are filled with the sickness of self hate.

Dude,

That sounds live..

Is that anything close

To the old

"Shuck and jive?"

You wrote:

"Glenn and his ilk are using a ridiculous form of moralism with their idiotic proportionality argument. There is nothing proportional about war and there has never been anything proportional."

Unfortunately, the Geneva Conventions demand proportionality of response and of collateral damage in war.

Both Israel and the USA are signatories to these conventions, I believe.

Apparently, the civilian and military authorities of 194 countries hold that proportionality in war is not only achievable but is a moral imperative.

You, alone, claim differently on both counts.

A truly epic fail.

I was trained as a philospher,

But I turned out to be some kind of schmendrick instead! Too bad.

And you missed the point of the column completely.

Anybody else notice the basic renunciation of responsibility his comment rests on? See, it's not what Friedman says, or what Israel (or Hamas, for that matter) does, that matters, it's what Glenn says about it that matters and can even, if enough of us say the right thing, change the reality of it!

Brother, that's some philosophy!

As one who is usually a peacenik but in this case supports the fighting, don't compare what I'm thinking and feeling with Tom Friedman's perverse logic. I believe that Israel is targeting Hamas, a proxy for Iran and part of an extremist, fundamentalist movement that needs to be arrested before it starts its own wars of conquest.

I believe that part of the relatively slow international response to Israel's offensive is the story that was told in the 25% civilian casualty rate during phase 1: Israel is targeting Hamas, and not trying to hit civilians. The growing casualty rate during phases 2 and 3 reflects rules of engagement that prioritize Israeli lives and therefore lead to higher civilian casualties.

Glenn's makes an important point, that such an ugly war, with so much innocent blood spilled, leads to greater radicalization. But let's not forget that Hamas was elected after Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. Let's not ignore the fact that the radicals are already in charge there, and are the ones who need to be negotiated with, and that the war does appear to be making Hamas more open to negotiation. At the same time, by boosting Labor and Kadima, this war may well keep Netanyahu from getting elected, and give the Israeli leadership room to make peace. After 80+ years of Zionist-Arab war, the end is beginning to come into sight.

"I read many OpEd where he disagreed with Bush's going into Iraq."

Really? If you mean to say that he opposed it after he supported it--that is, after we invaded Iraq and it was revealed to be a complete disaster--then yes, you could be said to be correct. But you have to provide the links that show he opposed the invasion in the months leading up to it. He, of course, didn't, just the opposite. As always, Bernbart, you're just looking for a fight.

First Freidman has NOT been a propagandist for the Iraq war. I read many OpEd where he disagreed with Bush's going into Iraq.

That was how many Friedman Units after that mad march into Babylon started? Read the ones at the invasion's run-up and outset and you'll see something different.

He was NOT praising Israel's attack of Gaza. Freidman was posing a question trying to makes sense of Israel's motives. I suggested you read the entire article at NYT.

It wasn't an article, but an Op-Ed piece. A subtle but important distinction. And I agree he wasn't so much praising Israel's actions as giving a warm sound of approval, not unlike what my newborn makes after she's just been fed.

Again, a subtle but important distinction. This isn't something that you can intellectually puzzle over and not ultimately feel apalled at. Friedman's piece does, and thus I'm left to wonder at his lack of empathy.

Some questions for you:

1. Is it legal for a Palestinian to own a weapon in Palestine?

2. What army occupies the "occupied territories"? Who mans the checkpoints? Are they Palestinians?

3. Are Israeli settlements--colonies--present in the occupied territories?

4. Are Israeli citizens who live in the occupied lands allowed to carry personal automatic weapons?

5. Where is "the wall" located? Is it built on the border between Israel and Palestine, or is it built within Palestine? (or what remains of Palestine)?

and dedicated to Israel's destruction? Is it comfy up there on the green cheese moon, Boyo? Holy Smokes, Osama just called for a united front to combat this "Zionist-Crusader" outrage.

That work for ya, Kid?

But let's not forget that Hamas was elected after Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. Let's not ignore the fact that the radicals are already in charge there, and are the ones who need to be negotiated with, and that the war does appear to be making Hamas more open to negotiation. At the same time, by boosting Labor and Kadima, this war may well keep Netanyahu from getting elected, and give the Israeli leadership room to make peace. After 80+ years of Zionist-Arab war, the end is beginning to come into sight.

That Israel still controls Gaza's land, air and sea access. That the occuption in the West Bank HAS NOT ended, but is in fact expanding. That Hamas's only negotiation conditions BEFORE THE WAR were easing the blockade and extending the cease-fire to the West Bank. That Hamas HAD SAID during the 2006 election that t will accept a Palestinian state on the 67 border.

Israel doesn't want anyone left to negotiate with, they want a puppet they can dictate to.