I think an important component of much of this is the ascendance of Jewish extremist ideologies, and the inability and general refusal of most Jews to acknowledge or fight this trend. While everybody and his mother knows about and fears right wing Christian extremism and Islamic fundamentalism (as they should), there seems to be minimal ability to identify and marginalize Jewish extremists, both within the Jewish community and outside it. While people like Thomas Friedman like to point to Islamic terrorism as the problem, they would be more truthful in looking at their own community and the critical role American Jews have played in promoting a world view in which the lives of Muslim civilians are worth about as much as those of a cockroach's. I do not believe it is a coincidence that people like Charles Schumer (at the rally), Michael Bloomberg (defending Israel on CNN), many neocons such as Marty Peretz, and on and on - are Jewish. Their ability to promote Jewish extremist views is facilitated by what is essentially a tacit understanding that there is no such thing as Jewish extremism, despite all the evidence to the contrary that large segments of the Jewish community both in Israel and the US hold very extreme views.

I would argue that acknowledging this fact is very important because the most vital way to marginalize these people will be to support within the Jewish community those contrarian, non-extremist views (Jewish Voices for Peace being an excellent example). Just as al Qaeda in Iraq survived and proliferated as long as the Sunni community refused to see them as a dangerous, extremist enemy, and was essentially eradicated in less than a year once Sunnis turned on them, extremist Jewish voices are able to monopolize the discussion not only because they are well funded and highly mobilized, but also because the rest of the Jewish community has refused to stand up to them. While people like Thomas Friedman love to talk about Muslims needing to reject extremism (which they more often than not do when given the opportunity), the inherent organizational, ideological, and military weakness of Muslim extremist groups makes this not especially important. They essentially marginalize themselves. The supposed exceptions, Hezbollah and Iran, proves the rule - they are successful only insofar as they have rejected extremism - building coalitions with other religous and ethnic groups and nations, taking steps to empower women, and accepting some Democratic norms. However, given their ideological and military strength and general effectiveness, the most important component of changing the poisonous atmosphere that rules media discussions of the middle east will be the Jewish community and their willingness, or lack thereof, in challenging their own extremists. If they do not do so soon (and there are increasing attempts that have been as yet ineffective), the results will be bad for Muslims in the short run, and likely even worse for Jews in the long run.

He started to make it towards the end and got cut off before he fully finished. Gotta run for a meeting

The legality of the use of WP is at best ambiguous - see this article in the London "Times" of 5 Jan last:

The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece

Here also is a link to an audio interview with the Beirut doctor I mentioned previously - I hadn't realised until I listened to it today that the 3 year old brother twins mentioned also died of WP-caused injuries:

http://download.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/specials/2007/08/20070816_specials_beirut1.mp3

then we'll have to disagree. not so big a deal. but whether or not the conflation is typical -- and that's not the case within the industry -- it's still not accurate.

if you recognize how the deterioration of news-gathering and reporting has been hastened by the willful disregard between those functions and editorializing, you'll understand that it's a distinction worth defending.

I think we're in agreement on the substance and the disagreement is just semantics.

I'm often amazed at how alleged fact-reporters will spout all sorts of opinions -- engage in pure punditry -- in order to get on TV. The distinction really has broken down between reporting and opinion, and I think it's a major problem for journalism and you're right to say so. I agree with you.

My only point is that I think both reporters and Op-Ed columnists are practicing "journalism" -- albeit different kinds of journalism. That's why I say our difference is semantic -- we agree those are separate functions, must be kept separate, and they've become way too conflated. I think our only difference is whether the term "journalism" encompasses both.

If wars were fought merely militarily there MIGHT be a reasonable case to be made that Israel won the 2006 Lebanon War. Even then it's a very doubtful case.

Unfortunately, for Israel, war is fought as much, if not more, politically then they are militarily. Israel lost the 2006 Lebanon War.

First on the battlefield. Second on the p.r. front. Third politically. And fourth when they outright admitted their own defeat. To think or try to spin it otherwise is merely wishful thinking.

Hezballoh is more reticent to go after Israel now? Funny I seem to remember them launching rockets on Israel from inside Lebanon, oh, three days ago. The response from Israel? Nothing.

Despite the huge moral problems involved in this, Israel will have a case about disproportionate response and their war with Lebanon being a success, when they can show tangible results from it. So far all they have is the definitive end of Ehud Olmert, continuing missile attacks from Lebanon into Israel, a worsening war in Gaza and mounting casualties on both sides.

You have to win something, in the past 2 decades, to have a strong military reputation. That's not even to mention the moral, political and civilian sides of this. And you should also never go into a war without a specific end game and clearly defined strategic goals. This war lacks both.