Pollard is a convicted spy and he belongs right where he is in prison.

Or, I should have said, Bronner denies having a son in the IDF, so it's sensible for Phil to apologize for making the claim when he has no proof to support it, whether in fact it is true or not. We don't know that it's false. We just know that Bronner denies it.

Bronner is biased and unprofessional. He just doesn't have a son in the IDF.

Well, I understood her just fine, as apparently did the interviewer. If you didn't, that probably says more about you than about her. Intelligent, educated people don't always speak literally, nor are they obliged, even in interviews, to communicate in baby-talk or take into account that a fair portion of the people reading the interview are likely to be cultural illiterates.

One could turn this around and say that she was giving an interview, not writing a legal opinion. I don't expect people to speak in interviews as if they were writing mathematical proofs, and in any case Supreme Court justices are in a very different position from elected officials. Do you really think interview subjects never make use of irony or sarcasm?

I'm sure it would be blamed on a "lone gunman" and every effort would be made, not just in Israel but in the American mainstream media as well, to emphasize that Israel should not be blamed for the "unfortunate tragedy."

I agree that one state that is neither a "Jewish state" nor a "Muslim state" is the best long-term solution. However, it's going to be a long time before the Israelis are ready for that, if they ever get there at all.

I don't agree that a real Palestinian state would require "ethnic cleansing" of Jewish settlers. For one thing, "ethnic cleansing" is an emotionally loaded term that implies forcible evacuation or slaughter of people who have a right to be where they are. But the settlers have no right to be where they are. They are invaders, living outside the legal borders of Israel in Palestinian territory, and the repulsion of invaders is very different, by any sensible moral standard, from "ethnic cleansing."

But furthermore, I don't see a need to expel the settlers. Instead, they should be given a choice: They can voluntarily move to Israel, or they can stay right where they are as long as they accept that in doing so they will become citizens of the state of Palestine living under Palestinian law. Most of them will probably prefer to move to Israel, but that's their choice, not something forced on them.

There is a further complication here that some of the settlements are not new construction, but occupations of Palestinian villages. What to do about these becomes a matter to be settled through negotiation if the Palestinians are willing to compromise in order to reach a lasting peace more easily. It's simplistic, though undeniably tempting, to be morally absolutist and say, "All the settlements must be abandoned and all land stolen from Palestinians must be returned," but politically it might be sensible to compromise to some extent, with some Palestinian families receiving compensation in cases where it's easier to arrive at a resolution that way.

The basic issue here is who Ginsburg meant by "we" when she spoke of populations "we don't want too many of." Literally one would expect that "we" includes herself, but expecting people to always speak literally is naive and suggests an inability to understand nuanced speech. I still think she was speaking ironically (Jews are known to do this on occasion, you know) and in reference to the historical supporters of birth control who explicitly argued that contraception, abortion, and voluntary sterilization would reduce "undesirable elements" of the population.

Yes, it is odd that you now find yourself "in bed" (as you put it) with people like Jonah Goldberg and Michael Gerson. This isn't, by itself, proof that you're off the mark on this issue (even someone like Goldberg may be right once in a blue moon), but it is something that ought to cause you to think carefully about the situation. When you find yourself in bed with pigs, the likelihood is that you're lying in mud.

If you think Ginsburg's comment (which I thought was obviously a sarcastic reference to how some people saw abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade) was outrageous, you should research the background of Planned Parenthood, and in particular Margaret Sanger, who founded the organization that eventually became Planned Parenthood. The idea of encouraging abortion and voluntary sterilization among certain "undesirable" segments of the population goes back a long way, and Justice Ginsburg is probably quite aware of that fact. I don't see any reason to think that her comment indicates that she supports that sort of "negative eugenics" herself.

If Bazelon didn't dig deeper into the question, it's probably just because she understood what Ginsburg was saying as she intended it. Jonah Goldberg, as a neocon propagandist, simply wants to stir up controversy in connection with someone who, as a liberal jurist, he considers his enemy.

What, you expect integrity from Zionists? Who are you kidding?