“I have a feeling that you are more than a dispassionate observer…” You are right, I am a passionate observer. And certainly, we agree more than we disagree, but I feel very strongly that the left (of which I consider myself a part, in part) has lost its way on a number of issues, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the most significant.

My background? Short and most relevant answer: I am an American Jewish filmmaker in a mixed marriage with two kids. I have no connections to any organized political groups excepting a 30 year membership in the Democratic party. I have had the benefit of a superior education, extensive travel and even more extensive reading. Finally, I live not too far from you, near Monticello, New York, after almost 50 years in NYC.

“After reading about the 3 ISM kids that were subsequently shot, and after witnessing a child shot in his fathers arms, I have no love for the IDI…”

Who can “love” an armed force (unless one is a member and even then….)? But the IDF is probably among the most responsible and civil armed forces in the world… if not the most. Do not confuse and “army” with the policies it is obliged to carry out. The IDF is a multi-ethnic, two gender force (with its reserves that make up a significant percentage of its personel) that include the bulk of Israeli citizens. It is not an uneducated group of mercenaries or a bunch of wild-eyed ideologues, but a true citizen’s defense force manned by people who genuinely believe that their country is worth defending.

And if by “…witnessing a child shot in his fathers arms,” you mean Mohammed al-Dura, the famous video of whose death was a significant part of the ramping up of the second intifada - I have some news for you… news that you are sorely late in hearing. Al-Dura was not killed by the IDF, and no responsible party is currently in a position to claim this. In fact, it appears likely that he was shot by his own, particularly since the Palestinian stringer who videotaped him for French television, Talal Abu Rahme, has recanted his original story. There has been much credible reportage on this matter since the original controversy has died down, but it has gotten only the smallest fraction of attention… fancy that. Bottom line, the left has been repeatedly lied to and systematically fooled in Palestine, largely with their own complicity.

That’s enough for now.

-Eric

Yes, I’m sure he’s got a thick hide. But I just didn’t want this site to turn into shouting match between folks on the same team.

I really think Mike is on to something. These talk shows are not a good thing. And, to be honest, I don’t think the left’s versions (i.e. Air America) are a good thing either.

But this site can serve to coordinate and refine arguments, and I don’t want the larger purpose to be lost.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this site really took off… It could be a C&L but with a direct influence on the media presented (rather than passively reporting it alongside commentary).

Ken

I don’t think you need to worry about Mike. Think about it.

Mike’s been calling wingnuts for quite awhile. He’s undoubtedly got one of the thickest hides around. I doubt a little criticism from friendly guests OR trolling winguts is going to phase him in the slightest.

I appreciate what you are doing.

I would also ask other commenters on this string to focus on the larger goal:

Developing logical and rational responses to right wing talking points and exposing their inherent fallacies.

Criticism is tough. But criticism refines argument. That being said, if we are all on the same team then we need to (gently) point out when we could be more clear or persuasive.

What you are doing is very difficult. You are trying to argue, live, with people trained to debate.

So, for everyone who wants Mike to succeed, let’s take it easy on him. Also, Mike, when people disagree with you on particular points they may still agree with your larger position: right wing radio is harmful and without accountability.

Mike, keep up the good fight. Others, let’s keep the criticism constructive and be mindful that Mike is trying the best he can.

Ken

And, FWIW, I agree with Mike. If they could not safely remove the danger of the situation through tear gas or through physical removal of the protestors, then those bulldozers had exactly ZERO business continuing to operate. Why? Because it risked human life.

Rachel was risking her life. Not only in the face of the bulldozer’s, but also the danger implicit in professed reason for the bulldozer’s existence: hidden bombs and explosives. The guy in the bulldozer was protected by armor. Rachel had nothing but her jacket.

She was a non-violent actor trying to change the situation in an incredibly violent area. She was the very definition of courage and yet the right wing loves to devalue her and her death. Blame her for making the poor IDF kill her. It is despicable.