I also wanted to take issue with something you wrote: "At a certain point during the six day war, the one that the Israeli revisionist historians claim was just another case of Israel defending itself when the very reason Israel won so quickly because it surprised the Egyptians with a sneak pre-emptive first attack…" This statement is a bit one-sided. Did Israel attack first? Yes. But this attack — in June 1967 — was a response to growing signs of military aggression toward Israel that was building throughout the month of May. President Nasser had announced renewed blockade of Tiran Straits; internationally recognized as an act of war (May 23rd). Then, King Hussein signed a five-year mutual defense pact with Egypt. At that point, Israel was surrounded by a hostile Arab alliance. President Nasser declared, "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel." So did Israel attack first? You could say so. But it wasn’t in response to a peaceful situation. All you need to do is look at a map to see that Israel is a tiny, tiny nation, surrounded (mostly) by hostile enemy. The attack may have been ‘pre-emptive,’ but it was an effort to protect Israel’s sovereignty.

Whoa. Sorry. I had no intention of leaving such an obnoxiously long comment. But now that I’ve written it, I might as well post it.

I really like your blog. Honestly. I support almost everything you write about. I read Common Dreams, Alternet, Tom Paine, Utne Reader, and Mother Jones. I hate Bush with a passion, no matter what he thinks about Israel. I’m a liberal, I swear. I just think that the Israel issue is a very difficult one, and that it’s not as clearcut and one-sided as some people like to say it is. The news we get from there is so convaluded and ‘spun’ that it’s hard (sometimes impossible) to know what’s what. I’m actually headed over there in a couple days, to try to see what’s what for myself.