I believe I was referring to Jewish people who were now taking a stance against Israel. Then, again, I read widely, and I have never read in any German, British, South African, or American media anything against Israel until the last few years. In fact, if anything, they praised Israel for everything. As I'm 70 years old, the last few years is about the last 10 years.

Perhaps, because you live in Israel, you are exposed to Muslim news media. I have been exposed to the first world media, and criticism of Israel is fairly recent.

I didnt' know what operation Cast Lead was and I had to google it. You're talking about the Gaza War. Sorry, I don't agree with what Israel did. And I'm fully aware that there were bombs levied at Israel every day. What you keep doing is giving justifications for Israeli actions, and I don't think that hitting back with dynamite in exchange for pinpricks is justified. That said, I don't know what the solution is, and I still come back to what I keep saying repeatedly. There are no solutions.

You say "The problem is that many (most?) people just read the headline, often without entering the article (I'm talking about BBC)."

You're right, of course, most people do read just the headline. However, as a writer, one cannot fit an entire story into a headline, and one can seldom fit an entire story into the kind of length and simplicity that the average human brain can endure.

On Facebook, I often have people make comments on articles I've written or posted. I can see from the comment that they haven't read the article, and I immediately point that out.

The average article has to cater to Grade 8 education in America. Otherwise it won't be read. The average article needs to be 500 words. The only way one can do this is by writing the broad outlines for the simple minded, and then one provides links for those who require more information.

You said, " When you present it like this then it does sound wrong. But there are other ways to look at it."

Well, yes. And when someone who is not emotionally biased towards Isreal reads my article, it isn't biased at all. It only appears biased to those who are emotionally biased towards Israel.

You ask "It's not exactly a new tactic to use shock and awe in battle in order to wrap it up more quickly or deter the enemy in the future?"

Yes, it's a tactic, but it happens to be the wrong tactic to use with Arabs. I worked for Arabs for three years. The way they think isn't the way you and I think.They will go to the death rather than admit they are wrong. They will not submit. Their religions is fatalistic. Also, if you war against one Arab (Muslim), you war against them all.

You said, "You don't even have to accept Israel's response, but the fair thing is to at least say that this is how Israel responded, and let the reader decide."

The reason that Israel does not come across well in the article isn't because I wrote an article biased against Israel. It is because Israel is plain fucking wrong. And the reader can and does decide.

You said, "that I said such things to people who actually took my side in an argument."

Um, yes. I seldom write anything without a lot of thought and extensive research. A few weeks ago, an ex Israeli who wrote for the Israeli Times approached me telling me that I didn't know all the facts. It became apparent as I gave my rebuttals that I did indeed know the facts (in fact, I knew more facts than he did).

Then he changed his story to 'I'm not saying that you don't know all the facts. It's obvious that you do. I'm saying that you have interpreted all the facts wrong."

Um. Right.

At that point, I said goodbye to the guy.

To come full circle. It amazes me that there are under 15 million Jews in the world - less than .02 of the world's population, but write one tiny thing where one doesn't show a Jew or Israel is good light, and every single one of them will find you and rip you to pieces. Then accuse you of antisemitism.

I'm a little tired of it.