Huffington Post blogger Hagai El-Ad, the Executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) has recently written an article bemoaning the current nature of Israel. He doesn't focus on anything too specific but instead complains about how Israel was founded in response to the genocides of the 1940s and yet still isn't perfect 60 years later. I'm not going to fisk his article, because there really isn't anything to fisk. Nor is he completely wrong: There is still a lot about Israel that needs to be changed.
I bring this up because it really tells you about the nature of the Huffington Post editorial section and what they consider to be balanced. When it comes to the Middle East conflict, Huffington Post bloggers divide up into about four sections:
-Those who criticize Israel because they want it destroyed (like Ahmed Moor and Ali Abunimah).
-Those who criticize Israel because they want it to "save it from itself" (this includes pretty much all of them, but most notably MJ Rosenberg, Bradley Burston and Hagai El-Ad).
-Those who criticize Israel because they want to change it into something completely different from what it currently is (like David Shasha and Kevin Coval).
-Those who defend Israel, but are pretty clearly only there for tokenism (like Alan Dershowitz and Ed Koch).
It's pretty clear where the Huffington Post bloggers fall into these categories. I just find it very amusing that the Huffington Post's version of balance is "a critic of Israel motivated by caring" is counterbalanced by "a critic of Israel motivated by malice." If you think I am exaggerating, look for yourself. The numbers don't lie. And then the HP wonders why they have this problem of anti-Israel extremism and anti-Semitism on their website.