truly typical

Via Rod Dreher, here's a classic example of the establishment media's take on Israel/Palestine-- all Israel, all the time, without a hint of neutrality or balance. That's fine within this individual piece; op/eds and commentary aren't required to show balance. But, of course, the idea that The Washington Post would run such a screed if it was pro-Palestinian is so absurd it doesn't merit denying. That's the American media and Israel, one side, all the time. The op/eds and commentaries calling for moderation or restraint on the part of Israel, meanwhile, (including mine!) take every opportunity to attack Hamas and remind everyone involved that Israel must be defended. The supposed extremists, again, are the ones who make every appropriate caveat and concession, while the supposed moderates expect absolute fidelity to one side and one position, and will attempt to excommunicate those who don't play ball with accusations of bigotry.

Bonus points to this guy for straightfowardly making the "Hamas is worse so Israel can never do wrong" argument. It's nice to see empty moral rhetoric that's actually just hanging out there for all to see. Also nice, the "intentions are the only thing that matter" argument, which I'm sure would come as a surprise to, say, a Vietnamese family that has endured cancer and horrible birth defects thanks to Agent Orange. And, again-- the idea that this episode leaves Hamas weaker is utterly contrary to history. Assaults like this one feed Hamas, playing directly into the extremism and violence that keeps that horrible organization alive.

Of course, some my commenters will soon appear to tell me that, somehow, my criticism of this guy's commentary is still somehow strawmanning. I don't know, maybe they'll claim that there's no such thing as The Washington Post.

Update: I like arguing politics, you know? It's one of my passions. That's part of why this conversation about the conversation is important, because on a national, mainstream level, we don't really have an argument about Israel and Palestine. We have one side of an argument. That's part of why Glenn Greenwald is doing such yeoman work; he's demonstrating the weird condition of a situation in American political life where we only hear one side of the tale. That's a big problem in a democracy, and people like myself are trying to change it, to open the debate to new opinions. I'm not looking to invite people who are out to kill innocent Israelis into the discussion. I'm looking to invite people who don't tow the same predictable extremist line that our MSM does.