Writing in this morning's Haaretz, Amos Harel (the paper's military analyst), asserts that "it is important to see how [Obama's] conduct is perceived in the Arab world, and this is not so hard to guess. Obama is seen as weak, hesitant and vacillating."
This passes for "analysis?" Who are "the Arab world?" The governments? All of them? Some of them? The Arab "peoples?" Which? Harel doesn't say. And what is the evidence for any of it? None--not a shred--is provided. Translation: Harel wants Obama to attack Syria and is willing to say anything that might help bring that about.
Of course, similar ideology--masquerading as serious journalism or analysis--can be found throughout the American media. Still, why would Haaretz, Israel's most important and only serious newspaper, publish such drivel? Partly, no doubt, because Haaretz regularly seeks to "balance" its general liberalism with rightwing commentary. But my own sense is that the problem is even deeper: the general poverty and corruption of serious political discourse and analysis--with many honorable exceptions, of course--in Israel.