reposted to fix coding (preview is my friend)

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.

That Israel still controls Gaza's land, air and sea access. That the occupation 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

Which then feeds into the "we can't talk to them--they are all crazy radicals" rhetoric. Providing even greater excuse for bombing them again in the future. With the end goal of destroying any hope at all of a Palestinian state.

the war does appear to be making Hamas more open to negotiation.

Under what definitions of the words "negotiation," "open," and "Hamas?"

And, while we're at it: "does?"

Even taking all of your statements as given, which is a stretch: how is the war going to solve anything?

Bombing people to make them stop hating you is not a strategy with a great record of success.

Elephantman, for the analogy to work, the U.S. would have occupied two non-continguous territories, left the smaller one and kept the larger one.

....~That we had left Alberta two years earlier, and had forcibly dismantled all remaining "US settlements" at substantial domestic political cost; WHILE CONTROLLING ALL ACCESS, WATER AND ELECTRICITY.

~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; HAMAS ELECTION PLATFORM ACCEPTED A PALESTINIAN STATE ON 67 BORDERS, WITH AN IMPLICIT RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL

~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. REALLY, WHAT BIG CITIES HAVE THESE HIGH-TECH WEAPONS HIT?

~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. RIGHT, PHOSPHOROUS, CLUSTER BOMBS, BUNKER BUSTERS... THAT'S WHY THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES ARE SO LOW

Glen,

He is a hardcore zionist. He's a leading member of the "American" zionist cabal who are infiltrating the media (TV, movies, newspapers, et el). Their loyalty is to Israel. Their job is defend Israel actions. They will never talk about “American” jews working in federal or state jobs spying on their own government for Israel ( for them it is not treason). They will never talk about Israel copying american military hardware then resell it to India & China coasting the american companies ( Boeing, Raytheon, LM, GD)billions of $$. They will never talk about Jewish influence in the states and municipal government positions using their power to invest American workers pension funds in Israel to expand settlements in the west bank. They will never talk about The Manhattan DA using his office to “monitor “ American banks who dare expand their business or do any transactions with Iran even though it will benefit the American banks to create a new market( but this is not in Israel interests).

We reach the point of total Israelis saturation. Not a single day goes by unless we have to be bombarded with a story about Israel in anyway, shape, or form. They wanted ( and succeeded) in keeping Israel on the center stage of our daily life. How many holocaust movies we have to absorb every 2-3 years? William Safire use to write at least a column every week in the Times about his long, interesting conversation with the war criminal Sharon. Friedman have to enrich us every couple months about the great trips he took to Israel. & on & on.

The questions is: When we the American people going to say enough?

You have the same sickness as those who deny the Holocaust.

Which do you prefer, killing unarmed innocent civilians with aerial bombardment or gassing?

At least the average German in Nazi Germany could say honestly that they didn't know. YOU KNOW. WHO IS WORSE?

The whole world knows and does nothing.

NEVER AGAIN MY ASS!

AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!

Damned dirty murderous apes. There can be no GOD with such evil.

The most salient and impressive point I took away from GG's reaction to Friedman's sadistic piece today was the straightforward comparison of what Friedman advocates to what the statutory law of the United States defines as a war crime. One and the same. That seems like it might be important.

Having read through over 200 comments, I am struck by the almost complete absence of recognition of any significance of Friedman's bald advocacy of a strategy that is decidedly contrary to established law, without anywhere acknowledging this fact or offering even so banal a justification as "that's American law, they're Israel."

Instead, nearly everybody here plays the game by Friedman's rules, which are to ignore what the law provides and go straight to the visceral "this is good" (or, as most of the comments here rightly note, "this is bad") level of analysis. In fact, after comment upon comment about white phosphorous, root causes of the Palestinian situation, Dresden, and other moralistic approaches (all ably stated), a post shows up succinctly objecting to GG's reference to the United States Code as "a ridiculous form of moralism."

When did we all accept the premise that written, codified principles of law are subject to nullification where their provisions are otherwise inconvenient to a temporary political circumstance? That the "debate" does not involve whether the law applies, but only whether what is going on somewhere is "good" or "bad"? If one approves of what is being done, then an inconsistent law becomes "a ridiculous form of moralism'?

Of course the topics of "good and evil" are important, indeed crucial. But aren't we supposed to presume that these concepts have been considered in the process resulting in the adoption of statutory principles (or international war crimes laws, or the United States Constitution) which are then to be followed and applied, with arguments about "situational ethics" left for the penalty phase? If the "justifications" are offered before application of the law, what's the point in having the law?

It has been the systematic flouting and disregard for fundamental principles of law by the Bush Administration that has made the kind of discussion we are having here today even remotely possible. Why should Friedman be so stupid as to make an argument to the effect the "I know what I'm about to say is flagrantly inconsistent with controlling law in America, but..." when the last seven years have been spent emphasizing that "9/11 changed everything" so that the Constitution, American statutory laws and principles of international law are now just presumed quaint and applicable, if at all, only to those who disagree with America's elite?

Thanks, Glenn, for once again lining up an argument being made opposite the actual legal principles that exist to govern the issue being discussed.

What Friedman is advocating would violate American law. On the assumption that America has rules against providing military support and weaponry to those who want to use them for purposes that would be barred under American law, is there something that could be done to stop this? Or is it OK to ignore this law if the Bush Administration doesn't like it? Does that apply to the Obama Administration too?

When do we get to start treating the Rule of Law like it matters again, or do we just treat each future political issue as if it is sui generis and make up something for that when it happens?