Who are “they” ? …

… in the post called “Yes They Did”? Seriously, I don’t know the answer.

The title starts off the muddled words in this post, which seem to result from Israel-related incontinence. Guess Andrew Sullivan didn’t take care of that over his month long vacation. Can’t he just be responsible, put an hour long hold on a Israel-related post, let the other Dish bloggers look it over first, and post with the benefit of critical thought — or would this be admitting that one has a problem?

The Dish goes on:

Such a move [maintaining the current settlement freeze (or stronger)] would also help coax those of us former staunch supporters of Israel back toward some minimal level of trust in Netanyahu.

I guess he no longer considers himself “staunch” … But I’m confused: what does it mean to be “staunch,” as opposed to just honest, in one’s support of something?

It would seem silly for “staunch” to mean not regularly attacking Israel while saying you’re a supporter.

Alas, I suspect there is no way that Netanyahu will do this. But we can hope, right? Israel will not have this opportunity again. And the consequences of doing nothing, as Goldblog has clearly stated, are the end of Israel in the long term as a Jewish or a decent country.

Except Goldberg has not stated this at all, “clearly” or otherwise! I’s all in Andrew Sullivan’s head, and from this head, come the intimations that the Jewish state will not be enduring or “decent.”

Goldberg in fact believes the peace process can wait without jeopardizing Israel in the short term and that the “long term” is much farther off than Andrew’s attention span can muster. This belief of Goldberg’s has pissed Andrew off in the past, so surely he is still aware of it — and finding it convenient to put words in the mouth of someone recognized as a “stauncher” Zionist.