I already addressed some of this in my cousin-comment, and I think unclebucknasty addresses a lot of it, but anyway...

1) Yes, he depicts CH as mocking for the sake of mocking. Perhaps islamophobic-specific, perhaps just whoever-we-can-hurt. In a recent comment filoeleven links a Greenwald piece that characterizes CH the same way (I think the Greenwald piece is great overall). I dunno anything about CH's context, but if you and Bolling are correct about CH (and it seems very plausible that you are), then Sacco and Greenwald are wrong about CH. Fine.

1b) What's most-plausible about Bolling's thesis is that some of CH's "jokes", including tomorrow's cover, just do not make as much sense if CH's whole goal is offense. They make a lot more sense if CH is trying to mock the whole dialog (both the islamophobic side, and also the extremist islamist side).

2) "Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech." Yes, absolutely. Even if CH is just trying to offend... even if CH is just trying to offend whoever they think is most vulnerable... tough shit, that's free speech. Defend it.

3) I'm not seeing how it's patronising. Again, I don't think Sacco is saying "don't offend", I think Sacco is saying "if all you're doing is offending, that's vapid; there are more constructive things we could do" (see my other comment). But even if someone WERE to say "don't offend", there's room to say that without being patronising. It could look like this: "Hey, hypothetical-CH, you're being a dick. You shouldn't kick people when they're down. Pick on the strong, you asshole. (Though I will defend your right to say these reprehensible things you've been saying.)"

4) I'm not sure what to make of the offend-black-people and offend-jews panels. I'm not sure that the respective communities would find them "meh", though. Personally, I don't understand why blackface performances are so abhorred, but I have well taken note that they are. And I think his point about the jew panel is spot on: maybe everyone can "take the joke" today, but what about in 1933? Anyway, I'm not sure what his point is here. My suspicion is that these panels are not really relevant if you/Bolling are correct about CH's actual intent; this part of the comic is probably, as you say, an "uninsightful and flawed analogy". HOWEVER...

5) EVEN IF YOU ARE 100% CORRECT ABOUT CH..... I hope you don't dispute that CH's cartoons are being seen by everyone else as being tweaking-the-dirty-muslims. Tomorrow's print run of 10x the normal size.... who's gonna buy those up? People who understand CH's nuanced iconoclastic leftist humour? Or people who want to spit in the face of the murderers? Since it's the latter, criticism of this way of thinking is hugely relevant, and the conclusion that I attribute to him (see other comment) is still hugely relevant, without disagreeing with your claim that "He completely misjudges Charlie Hebdo and the cultural context.".

The fact is, CH is now a symbol. Luz said in an interview that this is horrible for CH, because disrupting symbols was a primary mission of CH. Well, I guess the murderers won. Sucks to be you, CH, sucks to be you. Anyway, as a symbol, now we have to fight about what it's a symbol OF, and FOR.

side note: I'm doing a lot of disagreeing with you on details, jules, but I want to note that I appreciate the respectful tone you've brought