"...some of Israel’s harshest critics — including Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, George Ball, Robert Fisk and Ilan Pappé — are given overwhelming representation."

Critics???

Christopher Hitchens is a harsh critic of Israel. But a critic he is. These people whose names are conjured here are no critics of Israel. They have long ago lurched into a category which I could name as Israel's would-be eliminators.

Here's an excerpt from Howard Jacobson's speech on July 11 (Engage anti-boycott meeting). Being himself an author and a critic, he knows the difference:

"Reader, only think about it: was ever a tiny word sent on such a mighty errand, or to put it another way, was ever such a massive job of demolition done by so delicate an instrument. Critical - as though those who accuse Israel of every known crime against humanity, of being more Nazi than the Nazis, more fascist than the fascists, more apartheid than apartheid South Africa, are simply exercising measured argument and fine discrimination.

I know a bit about being critical. It's my job. Being "critical" is when you say that such-and-such a book works here but doesn't work there, good plot, bad characterisation, enjoyed some parts, hated others. What being critical is not, is saying this is the most evil and odious book ever written, worse than all other evil and odious books, should never have been published in the first place, was in fact published in flagrant defiance of international law, must be banned, and in the meantime should not under any circumstances be read. For that we need another word than critical."

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/howard_jacobson/article2768274.ece

Good heavens.

I am quite honestly beginning to get scared.

"Reverend Stephen Goldstein?"

More closet self-haters?

so uncloseted as to convert it would seem, but I'd say our gain and the Methodists' loss.

Why weren't THESE Christians included in CNN's segment "G*d's Christian Warriors"? Almost the entire focus of that segment was on evangelicals, including those who support "the Jewish state."

Are Methodists, Presbyterians, and other mainstream Christian groups not political? Doesn't ownership of a major newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, count as power?

Are THESE Christians not using their religious base and connections to try and influence worldly affairs? Why don't they qualify as "G*d's Warriors?" Or do you have to go around waving an Israeli flag or goosestepping in an Iranian parade to attract notice as one of "G*d's Warriors"? What about Lebanese Christians for example? Amanpour mentioned Sabra and Shatilla - in the section about G*d's JEWISH warriors.

Sabeel? Were they discussed? Of course not - certainly not in the context of the Carter Center. Nor were other Middle Eastern Christians examined, either as players or as victims. Yet challenges confronting religious minorities in the Middle East are certainly a major part of the story there - why wasn't this examined?

Doesn't religious intolerance toward Jews, for example, play a huge role in the Middle Eastern conflict? Yet - in G*d's Jewish Warriors it was "the settlers" who were portrayed as extremists, illegal per se, religious Zionism extreme, per se, and guilty of "inflaming the Muslims". Even the Palestinian suicide terrorist was portrayed as human, his artwork and hopes for the future sympathetically expressed, his conversion to terror explained as a reaction to the death of a young girl who died in his arms, killed during an Israeli military incursion. We never saw or spoke to the family of the Israeli MP who was murdered, and whose death sparked this incursion. But we did get to meet and sorrow with the family of the fallen martyr, torn between grief and pride at his desperate, homicidal act.

Given the stakes, the decades of bloodshed and the spiraling violence against people from London to Bali, wouldn't a truly thoughtful program on religious war feature the very pertinent and persistent problem of religious bigotry in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, India, Central Asia? And of the three groups - Christians, Muslims and Jews, which, over time, has been the primary victim and of whom? Moreover, doesn't this intolerance extend to people of the "wrong" sects of the same religion? Look at Lebanon, Iraq!

And - don't numbers count? Count the number of Jews extant in the world and tell me "G*d's Jewish Warriors" wield such extraordinary power they've managed to have themselves reduced to a global population of something like 14 million people.

Why isn't the overwhelming presence of religious bigotry in the Middle East considered THE uber-problem, and not the presence of self-determining Jews in Judea?

The other obvious question is this: who is REALLY more powerful in the United States: the "Israel Lobby" or the power, money and influence wielded by people like the Bush family, extremely rich and politically powerful at the very highest levels; heads of giant corporations like Chuck Percy, deeply bitter at "Jewish pressure"; heavy political and international figures like Jimmy Carter, oil industry exemplars like James Baker? All of them were featured prominently, along with Mearscheimer, in the segment discussing "G*d's Jewish Warriors", supposedly more powerful than Foggy Bottom, dripping with diamonds, their "influence" discussed against a backdrop of spooky music.

So what ABOUT the "WASP" and other mainstream establishment groups and individuals? I guess they aren't "extreme" and therefore don't merit attention.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=1354

That people take CNN and Amanpour very seriously in all this is an interesting factor in and of itself. No, not in the spirit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, rather in the imbalance and politically correct quality being suggested. The entire focus on "religion" is one aspect of that imbalance, as if non-religionists and anti-religionists have been immune from perversely coopting better motives and ideals, such as is reflected, most obviously, during the 20th century. The human condition is a warranted focal point; that Amanpour and CNN focus upon their conception of "religion" is largely a reflection of their ideological and philosophical set of assumptions, beliefs, including those that pertain to metaphysical issues, etc.

It's also a way of saying, well yes, Muslims or at least Islamicists aren't so hot right now, but golly, it's really the whole religion thing, thus reflecting the initiatives of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Co. presently. And no, that has nothing to do with being defensive because I'm a theist, the point is to not be detracted by red herrings and to probe more deeply in order to more seriously address the issues of the day.

Taking additional liberties here and in the interest of suggesting a counterweight to Amanpour's and CNN's cartoonish qualities, I can recommend Peter van Inwagen's The Problem of Evil book length treatment for some more thoughtful and more substantial probings.

Speaking of books, it appears that the CNN "documentaries" were based on Karen Armstrong's work (she appeared several times on the show.)

Here are a couple of links. They make it rather obvious that Armstrong comes to the table already prejudiced, bearing a certain ideology - the question then arises, why is CNN promoting it?

Armstrong can certainly be challenged as to her neutrality, historical accuracy or objectivity, and this especially pertains to her views on Israel and one has cause to question her sensitivity to Jews per se:

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ockarm.html

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=7158&sec_id=7158