In a comment to my post below Glenn writes:
"My problem with the Israeli attack on Gaza is two-fold. First, as far as I can tell, the Israelis made no serious attempt to identify combatants before they started blowing things up. Second, I fail to see any possible relationship between the Israeli actions and the cessation of rocket attacks. This was an indiscriminate tantrum which killed 1,300 Arabs and 13 Israelis."
I have a problem with both folds of Glenn's problem and of course with his conclusion. To the first point I understand the Israelis indeed took great pains to identify combatants, and to the second point the Israeli action did force Hamas to stop their rocket attacks. My own conclusion is that far from being an "indiscriminate tantrum" it was rather as precise a military operation as it could possibly have been given the density of the population and Hamas cowardly propensity to use as much of their own population as possible as human shields against the Israelis.
Some time ago at the old Cafe it was Glenn that first pointed out to me (I know, it's something I should have realized long before) that new information we consider to be fact is often (even usually) greatly influenced by our pre-existing opinions. This new information - which we now consider factual - then reinforces the original opinion.
This tendency is probably at play here. Glenn is a smart man and I don't consider myself that stupid either. Yet here we are, looking at the same information, and walking away with completely different opinions on the matter because we perceive two completely different versions of what the true facts are.