If Neda Was an Afghani , Nobody Would Give A Damn. Every day innocent children are being killed by American forces. People are people. Innocence is innocence. Victims are victims.
But the media lags behind and no wonder with the MSM in such financial problems. Not so the blogosphere which is entirely (with the exception of the crazy right) opposed to US's current policies. It is no coincidence that the blogosphere is immune to pressure from big advertisers and from highly paid lobbyists. That may be one reason an Andrew Sullivan can move from being a typical New Republic type friend of the occupation in Afghanistan to its most powerful and persuasive internet opponent and supporter of Al-Qaeda
Nonetheless, the MSM is still significant and it is still in the business of keeping the Afghanistan off your television screens. One day videos like them will be on cable, but not now. For now, rely on Al-Qaeda.

Andrew Sullivan is not brilliant and he is not our friend. He's a media whore. He's merely following the trends that advance his career. When those trends were in favor of Bush fluffing, he fluffed the Bush like no other. When those trends moved away from Bush and toward Obama, he suddenly started sounding reasonable. When those trends trend away again, as they will one day, he will be the first to stab you in the back.

Andrew Sullivan is not brilliant, he is merely a focus. He is a lens through which stupid is focused to a single point as dense as a thousand black holes.

israel has kidnapped an american citizen, a former member of congress, and there is zilch news about it.

if another country had kidnapped a former congresswoman there would be breaking news reports with all the usual talking heads.

Israel Attacks Gaza-bound Aid Ship, Kidnaps Activists

where is president obama getting on national tv demanding the release of the kidnapped american?

Against my better judgment, I'll weigh in on this topic after holding my comments for quite a while.

I believe that unjustified, deliberate killing of any innocent person is reprehensible, regardless of the conflict, and regardless of who is victim and who is perpetrator. There can be no double standard on this point.

I was not impressed that the Blumenthal videos made a conclusive case that the shooters either intended to kill, or that they did not perceive themselves threatened. Even so, I regret the deaths of the two victims. I'll go further and suggest that even if these videos left some room for ambiguity, there is no doubt that the Israeli military have committed atrocities.

Having stated my principles and my understanding of the facts, I must now state that I disagree with MJ Rosenberg that the media are responsible for the failure of public outrage here comparable to the death of Neda in Iran. I believe the public's disparate reactions are understandable, and defensible, in view of the larger scope of the two different conflicts.

Rightly or wrongly (and I believe more or less rightly), the issue of blame is fairly unambiguous in the case of Iran. The Iranian protestors themselves, and the cause they represented, did not have blood on their hands.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the other hand, lends itself less well to assigning responsibility for the bloodshed, however deplorable the bloodshed. I concede that I'm less familiar with the ancient history of the conflict than I am with the events of the past hundred years or so - i.e., since the late 1800's.

During that time, massacres have been perpetrated on both sides, but principally by the Arab side instigated to violence by leaders with a self-interest in distracting their subjects from the leaders' own transgressions. Since the inception of the state of Israel in 1948, that nation has seen itself to be a target for annihilation, and has developed a seige mentality. With its existence at stake, it has engaged in wars where victory meant it would still be targeted for annihilation, while defeat meant it would cease to exist.

As far as I know, nowhere in the history of armed conflict has a nation ever completely succeeded in avoiding atrocities. That does not excuse the atrocities committed by Israelis - these should be investigated and prosecuted when possible - but it makes it extremely difficult to translate condemnation of the acts into a demonization of an entire nation.

That Palestinians have suffered is indisputable. Who deserves most of the blame is now, and will continue to be, a matter of highly emotional argument. My reading of history places the blame for most of the tragic bloodshed over the ytears on misguided and often murderous Arab leadership, among Hamas and other groups in the region.

We here at TPM are not going to resolve that argument, but I believe attempts to pretend the ambiguity does not exist are doomed to failure. I deplore many of the policies of the current Israeli government, particularly on settlements. I agree, however, with President Obama, and with most Americans of all faiths who believe that we must continue to be an unfailing and stalwart ally of the nation of Israel, even when we condemn some of its actions and demand justice for the victims. And as a practical matter, I will predict that what is perceived as a one-sided condemnation limited to Israeli offenses will impede efforts to find a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and delay the day when Palestinian suffering will end.

However indignant anyone may feel in any conflict, those feelings are sometimes best expressed in ways that will achieve one's desired results. Appearing sympathetic to the suffering of only one side of a conflict which inflicts its horrors on both can be counterproductive in the search for public support. I see that as a simply the way the world works, whether any of us likes it or not.

So Reza Pahlavi doesn't get to be King?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/where-are-you-going-where-have-you-been/

In my earlier post, I mentioned that I was entering this fray against my better judgment, and I suspect my better judgment may prove correct, although it's still too early to be sure. In any case, I thank GD river for finding "reasoned argument" in my comments, while disagreeing with some of them.

After that, I see the commentaries as having gone downhill - degenerating into the sad but predictable recourse to indignant accusations that falsify reality not because they are wrong but because they are egregiously selective in whom they target.

I'll invite any reader who wishes more detail to review what I wrote earlier on the specifics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including my perspective on Hamas and other groups dedicated to destrution of Israel as a nation. Here, I would like only to re-emphasize my conviction that progress toward peace, and therefore progress toward the end of the Palestinian suffering that troubles many who post here, will be very difficult when each side in a conflict can acknowledge only its own grievances and not those of the other side.

From a pragmatic perspective, in terms of appeal to public opinion in the U.S., I would suggest that most Americans are aware of atrocities inflicted on innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists, and some are aware of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as well. Given that reality, I believe that any individual who is perceived as implying that Israel is the only perpetrator and Palestinians the only victims will simply be tuned out by most audiences who come to this issue without entrenched positions.

The only way, in my view, to gain a sympathetic audience, is to acknowledge the suffering on both sides. After that, specific examples needing redress may earn some attention. Until then, the accusations will probably remain an invitation to be ignored.