I agree with the part of the editorial that basically argues that a dangerous and growing religious war is going on that is spreading worldwide (see for example this Monday NYTimes  story on India here), a sort of Osama bin Laden wet dream, which is aided significantly and fueled by agitprop. And that seculars in the west who ignore this do so at peril to their own culture. And perhaps even aid the enemies of their own culture and beliefs, certainly they do so when they laud or make excuses for leaders of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

But I also feel that the Netanyahu way of fighting this is pretty much the same as the George Bush way: counterproductive to the max. And that's where I strongly disagree with the editorial.

As someone who followed the whole "jihad" thing several years before 9/11, I felt the same way the minute I first read of George Bush's Pre-Emptive doctrine, spread across the front page of the New York Times. I screamed: noooooo! That's exactly what bin Laden wants! And went in search of newly popular political blogs to find discussion. What I found was what I see happening deja vus allover again: the incredible heaviness of counterproductive action, how it turns people into idiots working against their own best interests. That people aren't capable of despising two ideologies at the same time, it seems, that even lefties fall for the George Bush line: you're either with us or against us. So you would see so many making George Bush into the devil incarnate on nearly every point to the point of serious mental illness, and at the same time making every excuse for jihadis of all ilks and supporting them to the point of self-hating nonsense.  And now again. Israel: bad doesn't necessarily have to mean Hamas:good. They can't see that the idiotic reactions of the Bush's and Netanyahu's of the world doesn't mean that those that the Bush's and Netanyahu's are fighting are worthy of their support, but are instead, dangerous to support.

I see it as a political or sports model sadly being applied to everything. Everything has to be put into Manichean camps. As if the human brain is not capable of nuance, as if passion about something cannot be raised unless its in the context of a sports contest or political camps.

(By the way, this is also why I was so severely disturbed by the whole year of the Hillary vs. Obama invasion at TPMCafe. I see this whole type of thing as "bread and circuses" I think this sort of distraction can be very dangerous in itself. And it is indeed a tactic used by "terrorists," get the emotions riled until the camps start spending all their time fighting each other.)

Within this context, I found the developments in Egypt over the past few years incredibly fascinating. There, somehow, some way, a large segment of the population turned against "the terrorists." And when they did so, they weren't talking about Israel, fancy that. Israel's current government might indeed deserve the label of "terrorist," but there are others that also deserve that label, and make no mistake, they are enemies of "the west" and modern life in general. Israel, for the most part, is not.

I felt the same way one someone commented about a lull in Gaza coverage here. Yes, we were were deficient on Gaza, but we were deficient on international events as general, as we tend to be in general. Why, I wondered, is Gaza the benchmark? Not Syria or Iraq or even Ukraine?

That said, Gaza is nonetheless an important and terrible story. I haven't written on it because I don't even know what to write and have so little time, but I just posted a heartrending personal account of the war by a Palestinian novelist in Gaza.

This Robert Mackey story implies ithere's a newly sophisticated agitprop war that Netanyahu's Israel is losing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/indian-tv-crew-shows-...

And in this vein, it's useful to remember how long Hamas and Hezbollah have fueled a martyr culture--long, long before anything like Al Qaeda existed. So among the people under their yolk, there's minimal harm or foul. Netanyahu's Israel allowing itself to be egged into making more martyrs in this way is very counter-productive indeed. I realize that Israel under many leaders has long desired to be seen as being fearlessly aggressive in protecting itself and is willing to leave behind the "winning hearts and minds" stuff when doing so. But here it seems to cross the line over into just plain aiding the enemy.

My reaction includes this specificity: maybe Israel's military leaders aren't anywhere near what they have been cracked up to be. Even within the context of presuming military action righteous if that is your opinion, there should be someone with a few more smarts leading this thing than those falling for what they are falling for. Infowar has always been a significant part of being a military planner.

There are any number of reasons -- rational and sinister -- here and overseas for the more intensive focus on Gaza, But, here in America, we have a special bond with Israel (or we used to) and like it or not we are its principal benefactor and ally and protector.  We have reason to focus on this conflict.

Of course, this doesn't settle things.  We've also invested quite a bit of blood and treasure in Iraq, and right now there is real ethnic cleansing, real genocide taking place there, just north of Baghdad (against Christians, Assyrians, and other ancient ethnic minorities).  For whatever reason, it just feels so remote.  But who can dispute that it is our footprint (one made not only by George Bush and his crew) that helped to pave the way for what is happening now?

Gazans may not be fond of the governance of Hamas, but they view the siege by Israel that keeps them trapped as the greater evil.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/07/the-gaza-paradox-hamas-...