This article is riddled with loaded, biased words, as well as a lack of context. For example, LaFranchi writes that the fighting is the result of "heavy Israeli retaliation for escalating rocket fire from Gaza." However, if you go just a few days back in the timeline, it can be documented that there is equal evidence that it was Israel that triggered this particular round of violence. In addition, quotes from experts calling on Morsi to convince Hamas to stop the rockets are not balanced with a look at the need to stop Israeli aggression, which is incontestably disproportionate.

Can someone please tell me why the U.S. government saying it is "deeply concerned" is news? Pathetic.

Well, this is an opinion piece, pure and simple. And as with all opinion pieces, readers only get one narrow point of view. Consider this statement alone: "The guiding principle in the determination of the borders is that the parties will agree through negotiations that Palestine will comprise 22% of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and the remaining 78% will be Israel." How on earth can anyone think that is fair? And, of course, no attempt is made to get into the mind of the "other"...

This is one of those stories that connects the dots between global happenings....so lacking in most news today. Workers of the world unite!

This is a classic example of biased journalism -- not surprising since Ethan Bronner's son joined the Israeli military. 1) His description of how/why Hamas took over Gaza is woefully incomplete and misleading, completely ignoring the fact it wasn't a civil war -- it was Hamas repelling a coup d'etat instigated by the US and Israel. 2) Ibrahim Abrach does not represent most Gazans; many may hate Hamas, but NO ONE blames the siege on them or wishes it would continue. (I lived there for six months this year.)

This is excellence in civilian journalism in action. The average member of the general public doesn't get to hear these endless State Dept. briefings, so we need bloggers like Weiss to fill us in...The video says it all...It should be added to the Hall of Shame (for Crowley that is).

Well, this has not been my opinion...and I still tend to think that Obama's administration keeps acting out of weakness than from strength, due to its unwillingness to consider its significant military assistance to Israel as a bargaining chip. But it's a perspective worth considering. I hope Chernus is right.l

Kudos to the AP for focusing on this travesty of justice and not giving up. It has been largely missing from the mainstream media.

This is a very depressing perspective, but true. And the U.S. needs to face up to the reality and stop playing its endless charades. The only thing that could change this course is for the US to stop bluffing and use the power of its dollars to effect change -- and that means with sacred cow Israel. Since it has already shown it won't, the only sentence in this commentary I disagree with is the one saying "the point is fast approaching when negotiations will be over." They have been for a long time.

There have been a ton of commentaries written on the latest Wikileaks "dump" but this one offers a fresh perspective on an angle no one else has examined.

This is an excellent analysis I have not seen anywhere else before. The U.S. may be forced to learn the meaning of "blowback" once again.

This is an excellent, much-needed perspective that should be discussed at greater length. We are blaming religion when it's really all about money and power...

The author raises some good questions...now I'd like to hear some observant Egyptians answer them...

This is an excellent overview of the controversy over the new TSA procedures at the airport...All points of view are explained, with plenty of links to back them up.

This is another one of those "this is what he said" stories. No challenge is offered to the claims made -- like Obama's statement that tangible progress has been made in U.S.-Muslim relations since his Cairo speech. He should have been asked to back that up, or at least some expert commentary could have been included.

FINALLY, someone asks the question -- whether our mania for security post 9/11 is worth the price in terms of our quality of life and the values that supposedly define who we are. Phlip Kennicott questions whether it might just be best to accept a measure of risk as part of life.

Mr. Hague is severely behind the times. He says he's worried that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine COULD be closing. But the cow has escaped from the barn and the door has slammed shut -- a long time ago. The reporter only quoted Hague, however. Absolutely no original reporting or context was offered.

This is an important update on public opinion trends in Israel, but only cites the Israeli complaints regarding lack of peace progress...For instance, the statement that "the failure of the left's long push for peace with the Palestinians has gutted (the left's) support," is followed only with citations of suicide bombings and "militant's'" response to "Israeli withdrawal from Gaza." No mention is made of Israeli terror attacks or the fact that Israel withdrew only its settlers from Gaza...it continues to control all aspects of life in Gaza. These are the major reasons for the lack of peace...

This is an aspect of Saudi society that never gets coverage. Kudos to Ali al-Ahmed for his courage.

It's time that this issue -- the Israel-Palestine dispute-- be included in the litmus test for the honor of being able to call yourself a progressive/liberal.

This is very cool...Now the world can see how the translation of the Bible has been altered over the years, like from "Children of God " to "Israelites." My only criticism of this article is that it gives short shrift to the dispute over ownership.

I almost always disagree with the Washington Post when it editorializes on the Middle East..it is typically bellicose and blindly pro-Israel. But this is an exception.