Just so you don't think that I worship the fellow, I'm going to have to say that the second paragraph of this particular post is out of line. The post (which started to be about improving Israeli/Indian relations, then segued into an odd - and to my mind, unsupported - allegation* that the Intifada is a 'proxy war' between the EU and the USA) ends with this:
I've thought for quite a while that "proxy war" was the appropriate characterization, and indeed I've used that term here before. Europeans should worry, though, about what will happen if Israel -- or America -- decides to return the favor. Providing financial aid to terrorists who target European civilians would be uncivilized -- but, then, the Europeans are supposed to be the civilized ones, no?
Glenn Reynolds, I'm sure that you've used the phrase 'proxy war' before, although I can't remember offhand the last time you've used it. However, those last two sentences are offensive. Europeans should not have to worry about us 'returning the favor', both because it's not going to fragging happen and because the entire idea is not what this country is all about**. And I don't buy this tit-for-tat bit, either - and I find that I don't really like the tone of that last line, either. Too close to deniably advocating in the classic Henry II fashion.
*Yes, I'm aware that it's based off of remarks made by a EU MP. I have some sympathy with MP Schroeder's belief that anti-Zionism represents a polite form of anti-Semitism, but really, jumping from that to allegations of an actual war and everything is too much.
**And anybody gearing up to say something snide about George W Bush right now can kindly shut the Hell up unless they've got documentary evidence that this specific administration has ordered the creation of terrorist organizations that target civilians.
And, no, Israel doesn't fragging count, either.