Nuanced isn't neutered
See Chris Floyd's blistering take on Israel's attacks in Gaza.
In the midst of it, he avows this:
I hold no brief for Hamas; like the Angry Arab, whose coverage of the conflict has been relentless and penetrating, I don't care for any party based on religious extremism.
Did you see what he did there?
He acknowledged a reality where Hamas isn't a cuddly mascot for our favorite team.
Did he just ruin his case, bending over backwards to support some false equivalency? No, he strengthened his case (one with which you may or may not generally concur), by showing a degree of nuance, firewalling his disapproval for Israel's tactics from any perceived tacit approval of Hamas.
When we fail to do so in this classically polarizing topic, we're undercutting our credibility. If we, say, dismiss the notion of showing Israeli victims as tiresome "recycling," we're doing the same, we're becoming boosters and haranguers instead of honest brokers.
Je répète, if Israel's culpability is as stark as its critics believe, why should lefty bloggers not welcome discussion of how its actions look in the broader context, a context which includes attacks on Israelis by Palestinians. I say that not to make excuses for Israel, but to challenge progressive bloggers to be something better than an echo chamber.