First, I am in total agreement with what the author says about Amy Goodman's mistake. I also agree that it is not becoming of Ms Goodman ignore these hunger strikes for as long as 'democracy now' has.

But the tone of this article is ridiculous. Amy Goodman is an excellent journalist who by and large gives far more space to the Palestinian cause than virtually any other news organisation I can think of. she has not sold out, she has not - far as we know -furthering another agenda, the maybe 100 reasons why she said what she said - and Charlotte Silver in this case has jumped to what may be totally unwarranted conclusions.

Charlotte Silver could approach this more calmly and more sensibly and it would not have risked (1) alienating a friendly voice like Democracy Now, nor (2) playing into the hands of the people who criticise electronic intifada as being totally reactionary under any and all circumstances.

Charlotte Silver should do some more actual journalism – find out why 'Democracy Now' didn't cover the hunger strikes in more depth and ask Amy Goodman why she said what she said. And she should be prepared to apologise to Ms Goodman on behalf of electronic intifada if it turns out that there is a perfectly reasonable or understandable logic behind these events.

American so-called liberal journalists esp. connected to NPR are afraid of touching the sacred cows such as Israel, 9-11 truth, the 1% etc. Especially since former Senator Bob Dole timidly threatened their precious funding some years ago. I have long ago stopped listening to these people

Arguing about whether or not the word "partial" could somehow be deemed an appropriate description of a 92 day hunger strike where milk was taken at the tail end to prevent possible death or demanding that Charlotte Silver open private correspondence with Amy Goodman and DN staff writers to exhaust all possible avenues of justification for the choice to add the term partial, misses the point.

Henry, you are being like Donny, who, in turn, is like a child who wanders into a conversation with no frame of reference. The lawyer's comment is not the issue here, man!

Ben, if you are going to pull the calm-down-woman-you-are-being-histerical-and-i-cannot-understand-what-you-are-saying, at least refrain from adding your own dramatic conclusions to what Charlotte says. Ms. Silver is not suggesting that DN went to great lengths to deliberately misinform the public about Mr. Sarsak's hunger strike, just that they put in no effort at all to inform us about the scope and historical significance of what Sarsak and other detainees are accomplishing through this form of non violent resistance.

Dennis,

You have misrepresented my argument. I did not say her article was hysterical. Nor did I say I that I did not (nor could not) understand what she was saying. I could and I did.

I said the (1) title and tone of the article offered a misleading representation of DN (2) she jumped to conclusions and (3) such misrepresentations could have been avoided (or alternatively her inferences could have been confirmed) had Charlotte Sliver bothered to do any kind of investigation.

But she did not and as a result I think the article was flawed. However, I don't think that is evidence of hysteria and, in my comment, I did not say it was.

Further, I have not missed the point. Instead, I have written to Amy Goodman because, as I said, I think Charlotte Silver was right about the term 'partial'.

But I also think ranting is not the same as journalism and I think this article was sub-par in comparison to Charlotte Silver's and EI's usual contributions. That is all.