All of us are familiar with Godwin's rule. One formulation is as follows:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

It is with great pride that I announce two new rules of online discussion:

MEYER'S FIRST RULE

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Israel being attacked approaches 1.

MEYER'S SECOND RULE

No matter what the original topic if an online discussion continues for long enough the proportion of posts devoted to attacking or defending Israel approaches 100%

You're full of it Steven.
A simple look at any long running thread will prove your argument totally false.

The preponderance of debate about Israel and its conflicts is because it is at the heart of all of todays wars, conflict and terrorism.

I am reformulating the first rule:

REGARDLESS OF THE ORIGINAL TOPIC as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Israel being attacked approaches 1.

mikk's right, stevenlmeyer is full of it on this topic. If he's basing his silly 'rules' on online discussions at OLO, I haven't noticed Israel being "attacked" unless the OP or article originally pertained to the actions of that rogue State.

On the other hand, I have noticed that a number of OLO users persistently try to shift the discussion to that of Islam and/or Muslims, regardless of the original topic. There's also another handful of nutters who will try and invoke some kind of comspiracy theory, regardless of the topic. There's yet another bunch who will try and divert any discussion at all into a group whine about awful feminists. Etc etc.

I don't, however, think that such behaviour is generalisable into 'rules' like Godwin's Law - which does seem to be proven regularly. Indeed, stevenlmeyer provided a good example himself last night on his own thread about Yusuf Islam.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3683#89171

Dear Steven,

The American historian Norman Finkelstein argues
that, in fact, criticism against Israel has not
increased. What has increased however is the
meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas
(by Jewish groups) to not only exploit the historical
suffering of Jews abut also to deflect and
immunize Israel against criticism.

Finkelstein explains the Jews inflate the
"antisemitic threat when there are renewed
international pressures on Israel for their
actions, and to withdraw from occupied Arab
territories..." Finkelstein of course, has been
vilified as a result.

" Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and
saying so is vile. But singling out Israel
for opprobrium and international sanction -
out of all proportion to any other party in
the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not
saying so is dishonest."
(Thomas Friedman).

Its interesting Steven that you bring up this
topic at this time when there is global
outrage at Israel's current actions -
making the news globally.

I suggest you read -
Haaretz.com
They have an excellent analysis of the current
situation. But perhaps you'll see that as a
criticism as well.

mikk,
<<The preponderance of debate about Israel and its conflicts is because it is at the heart of all of todays wars, conflict and terrorism.>>
Correction:
Islam "is at the heart of (most) of todays wars, conflict and terrorism."