I think the following statement from the response-response, when you consider for just a second or two its basis in fact (which is by all means sound on its terms) and its obvious intent, tells a person really all she needs to know about Jeffrey Goldberg’s journalistic corpus to date, as well as his guiding mission for that part yet to be done:

I find myself hesitant to criticize Israel these days because my words are inevitably used by people who don’t have Israel’s best interests, or the best interests of American Jews, at heart.

Jeffrey Goldberg, ladies and gentlemen.

Also perhaps of direct interest to readers of this blog (I might presume to presume): those happening to be in the Madison, Wis area this evening will want to be aware of this tasty morsel seemingly divinely placed in time to provide needed distraction from these matters of only illusorily immediate importance:

http://www.avclub.com/madison/events/ted-leo-and-the-pharmacists-and-title-tracks,151166/

man, with that kind of praise, i think sullivan just became my favorite jewish blogger.

I was watching the Steve Ditko video going on about everything being black or white when I read these sentences in Goldberg’s penultimate attack on Andrew Sullivan:

– I dont know why Andrew refuses to admit that Middle East history is complicated. Once, he was rabidly pro-Israel, and refused to acknowledge legitimate Palestinian Arab claims and grievances. Now, he is rabidly pro-Palestinian and refuses to acknowledge Israel’s legitimate claims and grievances.

It almost defines epitomizes chutzpah to go from one sentence describing Middle East history as complicated and in the following two suggesting there are only two poles. I think it is pretty obviously Andrew Sullivan who has the better understanding of the complexity since it is obvious that Jeffrey Goldberg sits at one pole of extremity.

Almost as stupid as these three sentences was the following one in which Jeffrey Goldberg decreed:

– Perhaps it is malevolence that motivates his campaign to demonize the world’s only Jewish country.

Presumably, only the malevolent can have a different opinion from Jeffrey Goldberg. If Jeffrey Goldberg really does quit his daily libelling of anyone who disagrees with him it can only be a good thing.

Goldberg may have just stumbled upon the one thing that can bring ultra-Zionists and Arabs together: both agree that he’s a douchebag.

Goldberg didn’t say he wouldn’t be blogging about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said he wouldn’t be obsessing about Sullivan’s positions and shifts.

Goldberg said the middle east was complex, but said that Sullivan over-simplified.

Sullivan is not Jewish.

Sullivan’s map is suggestive but really quite vague. It does get one thing right: The Jews are winning. He just found out? Or it bothers him? What?

In Palestine, the Jews and Arabs are both neighbors and enemies. Hamas and Fatah, though are enemies of each other and of Israel. Enemies that often fight.

Palestine was created, in terms of international law, in the 1920′s by the League of Nations, explicitly as a homeland for the Jews. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordon were created for the Arabs, mostly at that same time. I doubt Sullivan knows much of this.

LOL!!!

Goldberg didn’t say he wouldn’t be blogging about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sadly true.

Goldberg said the middle east was complex

Right after Goldberg oversimplified it.

Sullivan’s map is suggestive but really quite vague. It does get one thing right: The Jews are winning. He just found out? Or it bothers him? What?

I agree with Goldberg that the left side of that map was deeply flawed, but Sullivan’s point was on the right side–the future, not, the past. The powers that be in Israel, whether that happens to be Netanyahu or the settlers he coddles–seem to want all of Palestine. That should bother every decent person just as much as Hamas’s refusal to accept Israel’s existence.

Palestine was created, in terms of international law, in the 1920’s by the League of Nations, explicitly as a homeland for the Jews.

“it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”, maybe isn’t so clearly understood anymore?

Goldberg is a wonderful journalist and one of my favorite bloggers. He genuinely wants to see a two-state solution, he doesn’t oversimplify in his blog. How many bloggers have left their armchair, gone to Gaza and had long, honest conversations with members of Hamas? If you’re starting from the viewpoint that the Jews do not deserve a state of their own in the only place on Earth they can truly call a homeland, then Goldblog probably isn’t for you (and neither is the Dish, for that matter) (and also, screw you!)

And as for that misleading propagandist map: Guess what, Jews are a minority. If you believe Jews should only be allowed to live in areas where they’ve made up a majority of the population at every point in history, then you probably don’t believe they should live on Planet Earth.

“And as for that misleading propagandist map: Guess what, Jews are a minority. If you believe Jews should only be allowed to live in areas where they’ve made up a majority of the population at every point in history, then you probably don’t believe they should live on Planet Earth.”

I am not sure if anyone here has this belief that “Jews should only be allowed to live in areas where they’ve made up a majority of the population.” But is it fair to partition a big portion of Palestine to Jews, who were a minority not only population-wise but also in terms of land ownership?

is it fair to partition a big portion of Palestine to Jews, who were a minority not only population-wise but also in terms of land ownership?

I, along with Jeffrey and Andrew, believe in a two-state solution. If you’re going to establish a Jewish state on land where the Jews historically lived, you’re going to be establishing a state on land where Jews were the minority in the 1800′s.