I would venture that few of them accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

Well, that may be, I don't know, but I will let you in on a little secret: Nobody is asking us! And furthermore, the Zionists seem to be much more impervious to our negative thought-energy than you seem to think. Israel, for better or worse, ain't going anywhere.

But once again, it seems to be a central tenet of Zionism that what you say about something is just as important as the reality of it and ultimately human will (of better humans) can overcome all obstacles and prevail.

Now, gosh, speaking philosophy, where have we heard these ideas before? Do they come from the Old Testament? The Torah? Midrash? Apocrypha? Gosh, all that do-it-by-will stuff looks so familiar. Well, I'm not gonna bother my pretty head about it.

All those shocks and awes

Rewind

To remind me

Of that

Great white shark

The one

They called

JAWS.

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2338

Have you joined Redstate Strikeforce yet?

Got that patch?

LIGHTNING BOLT!

LIGHTNING BOLT!

LIGHTNING BOLT!

The only problem with those invisibilty cloaks that make you invisible to LIBRULS..is that you still have to see the same reality we all do now..

May want to combine Nascar & gun loving virtual reality beer goggles ALONG WITH the invisiblity cloak though..

THAT MIGHT just work to keep reality out...

LIGHTENING BOLT!

LIGHTNIN BOLT!

LIGHTNING BOLT!

JTP!

JTP!

JTP!

I fully agree with you about the despicable nature of Friedman's column, as well as the many other similar columns written by neoconservative pundits that essentially cheer for state-sponsored terrorism against Palestinians or Lebanese. That said, the other op-ed column you mention, by Jeff Goldberg, doesn't really advance that viewpoint at all.

I acknowledge that Goldberg's assertions leading up to the Iraq war were irredeemably misleading and reckless. While I won't forgive and forget those transgressions, I am willing to listen to other arguments he makes. (And at least he's not quite as hypocritical as other war advocates, since he has actually been a soldier in these war zones himself.)

I also acknowledge that putting Goldberg's column next to Friedman's doesn't constitute any sort of meaningful debate. Goldberg may not be a dyed-in-the-wool neocon who believes the Palestinians need to be beaten into submission, but he's not anti-war either.

In defense of Goldberg, according to everything I've read from him, he opposes torture in all cases, opposes rendition and indefinite detention without trial, and opposes the Israeli settlement expansions. He's not a moderate in an international sense, but I think it's fair to say that he's pretty closely in line with the Israeli mainstream.

Goldberg's column, and it's basic thesis, seems reasonable and worthy of inclusion in the debate about Israel. He's arguing that Hamas will never accept any negotiated solution, and basing it on numerous interviews with Hamas leaders. He argues that the best way to deal with Gaza is to negotiate with Fatah, improve conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank, and thereby erode support for Hamas's hard line stances among Gazans. This strikes me as a reasonable approach.

"No one doubts that any constituted nation, after generations of existance has a right to exist."

Are you kidding? Do you honestly believe that even a fraction of those excoriating Israel in Glenn's blog believe that? Moreover, you go on the condition the right of existence to what essentially is the destruction of Israel, i.e., a single multi-national state. The possibility of that occurring died with the Arab uprising against the British in 1936-1939, in which Arab militias terrorized Jewish farmers and forced them off the land as an oestensible response to what was the British killing of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the leader of Black Hand. The Black Hand, of course, was designed to terrorize the Jews and make them give up any claim of a homeland in Palestine. Numerous atrocities were committed against the Jews, leading to the creation of a Jewish terrorist response, the Irgun. By the time of the Partition, there was no question that the two populations could not live together. The Partition recognized the census that 60% of the population was Muslim Arab and limited the Jewish state to 3 non-contiguous pieces, and Jerusalem itself (where there was a Jewish majority)was to be internationalized behind Arab lines. Still, the Jews accepted it and the Arabs did not. The invasion was the response, and the rejection of a Jewish state in Palestine has been universal since that time.

Would Israelis agree to a multi-national state with an Muslim majority? Would you if in their shoes? Would they agree to the 1947 partition borders? Would you, after 6 wars? Would they agree to the 1967 borders? With minor modifications (understanding that minor is in the eyes of the beholder), yes. They were willing to make that offer in 1967, and again at Taba. The rejection of peace means war. No state can accept a war of attrition, and Israel's response in Gaza is no exception. Make peace and there will be no war. Simple as that.

Let me ask you something. You witness a crime; a mugging, child abuse, whatever. Must you first come up with an alternate plan for the perpetrator before you intervene? (Like "Hey, dude, before you mug that guy, I've lined you up with a job interview, so you'll have money so you won't need to do this!") Of course not.

The same applies here. One does not have to present an alternative course of action before one decries war crimes. What Israel should have done differently is neither here nor there to whether they are violating international law, the laws of war, or the Geneva Convention.

But if you insist on a discussion on what Israel should have done, most of the world (with the exception of the US, Australia, and Israel) already have a plan: Israel should stop occupying Palestinian territory and fall back to the 1967 borders. Just because you don't like this plan doesn't mean those who support it don't have one.