Thank you for this article.

I have sought for years to understand "the blind hatred Israel evokes." I think you put your finger on a good deal of it.

Another piece may be simple cowardice on the part of some in the West. If only Israel wouldn't call attention to itself, the attitude goes, if only it sought peace at any price, life would be so much easier for us in Europe or, for some, North America. The Arabs are many, they have oil, and some of them are willing to kill westerners. The Israelis present none of these threats.

It is completely fair and accurate to make comments such as "Israel is better than its neighbors, and the region would be a lot better, safer, happer, and more productive if its neighbors were even half as committed to law, justice and democracy as Israel." But I think that misses a fundamental issue - Israel is not, and does not want to be, like its neighbors. Israel asserts itself as a progressive, Western democracy - and that's the standard by which it can reasonably be judged. Of course, Olmert stands head and shoulders (and then some) above Hafez al-Assad, as did Sharon. But who wants to be measured by that standard?

You say, "What is often lost sight of under the incessant anti-Israeli barrages is that most Israelis would give their right arm and then some to have a real peace with their neighboring countries". The easy retort is, why then won't it give back the land of its neighbors in return for peace? It returned the Sinai to Egypt - peace, cold though it may be. It resolved its border disputes with Joran - more cold peace. It wishes to annex East Jerusalem and huge portions of the West Bank from the Palestinians as part of any peace deal - no peace. It does not wish to return the Golan Heights or Shebaa Farms to Syria - no peace. The price for this lack of peace isn't the allegorical loss of limbs and then some - the price is paid in actual flesh and bone, Israeli and Arab.

I don't wish to suggest that if only Israel gave up its claims on occupied lands peace would break out all over - the reality is much more complicated. And any peace that could be achieved would likely remain icy cold well into the future. But let's not ignore the reality that such a peace proposal by an Israeli Prime Minister - even if it involved retaining all of metropolitan East Jerusalem as Israeli territory, simply ceding any claim to the remainder of the West Bank - would almost certainly result in the collapse of his government, and would have absolutely no chance of being approved by the Knesset.

For the record, given your statements on Israel as the region's only democracy, do you believe that Turkey is in the Middle East? Its location sometimes seems to magically shift from Europe to the Middle East and back again, depending upon whether it is convenient to the argument being made.

  I regret when Israel is treated as co-equivalent with the policies of its current government (which, by the way, are by no means all off the mark). Nor can I ignore that many of those who are most vociferous in their denouncement of "Israel" are also anti-Semites, a despicable lot.

Hmmm, aren't all countries identified with their governments policies?  America certainly is. Our support Israel causes hatred of America and 'westernization'...so why should it be any different for Israel? Is it despicable when America is vociferously denounced by Korea, China and Russia?

I believe, in the Jewish tradition, that if one saves a single soul, it is as if he has saved a whole world. And I hate; to see innocent people on both sides killed.

If you truly belive this...Why cannot all the Israeli's who want peace and to live in security with their families simply emigrate to America, where they can do precisely that.

That would be a nice way for Israel to repay her debt to America in terms of the billions of dollars in foreign aid as well as the countless American lives lost since WWII and almost 6 decades of support for what clearly has not been in America's interest. When does America's untold suffering in support of Israel come to an end?

How does Israel repay America for that tremendous debt?

Start now. Emigrate to America and leave the ME ...live in America in peace and prosperity.

I've always felt that Turkey is European myself, though I'm not sure what the author would make of it.

"I pay special mind here about Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East."
Well, Lebanon was on its way to becoming the second one....but....well...
I think it's great you love your country so much and certainly Israel's best interests should be your first priority.
I, however, am AMERICAN, and so AMERICA's interests are MY first priority. What I want is for my government to PUT AMERICAN INTERESTS FIRST, before the interests of any foreign nation, no matter who they are, including Israel.
The growing perception is that the US Govt puts Israels interests before American interests and that for me is the big beef.
It seems we've been lead to believe that what is in Israels best interest is always in the best interest of America and this is simply not so. I want my government to understand the difference between the two when it does occur. When a friend does something that I consider morally wrong I do not go along with it. I set my boundaries. The US government needs to set boundaries here. That's what I want.
PS Mel Gibson's remarks, like those of any bigot, are deplorable...any sane person can see that.

Amitai,

I agree with everything you say, but I do not approve of the way the Israeli government responded to Hezbollah's raid into Israel that resulted in Israeli military deaths and the kidnapping of the two soldiers. I feel it is counterproductive.

Tom

Traditionally, U.S. support of Israel has had a sort of two-pronged justification. The stated reason, the one which politicians cite in speeches and the one which Israel accepts with pride, is that this Jewish nation is the beacon of Democratic hope in a sea of corrupt Theocracies.

The second reason, from an American perspective, is that it ensures access to Middle Eastern oil in case of some unforseen disaster which could put Western supply in jeopardy.

The difference now, however, is that President Bush has seemingly created a third prong to the relationship; one which POTENTIALLY benefits only the United States and does more harm than good for Israel.

The Iraq War, and the subsequent military stagnation there, has caused the Americn president to use Israel, a sort of Ace in the Hole, to serve as a deflection for the situation in Iraq and as a means of continuing his discourse of fear with the American public.

From a media standpoint the strategy has worked. 70 were killed today in Iraq and it barely makes headlines even in the most anti-Bush publications (CNN, New York Times, etc). Yet it has done nothing to actually IMPROVE the situation in Iraq.

What the Israeli war does, with U.S. implication, is create once again the sense at home that anyone not supporting Israel is "weak on defense." It is an election year ruse, perhaps the final notable act of this unpopular president who will find himself in Lame Duck status in three short (or long) months.

Bush's contingency plan, it seems, is the ability to broker a peace deal at any time. Indeed, international outrage at the United States is fueled more so by this fact than its persisently controversial support of Israel.

Bush can do three things with the current situation in Lebanon.

1)Use the war as a means of once again employing his Bush Doctrine theme in an election year: you are either with the effort or you are an enemy (in this domestic case substitute "enemy" for "weak on defense").

2)When the time is deemed opportune by the administration a peace deal can and will be brokered thus painting the President Bush in a glowing light. This will be used by Rove and others as a means of demonstrating that Bush is indeed the peace-loving man he claimed to be in 2000.

3)It will take the attention away from the one thing that will certainly hurt the GOP in November: Iraq.

A sound if not deplorable strategy from a president that knows his party could (and probably should) be dealt serious blows in November.

artappraiser,

If any righties are anti-semitic, they hide it, often going to irrational extremes in support of Israel, Israel right or wrong....

And "pro-Israel" for the wrong reasons.  All across the political spectrum there are many who reduce Jewish identity solely to its religious component, and at the expense of its cultural, political and national components (ie, at the expense of its core humanity).  To these people Israel is Israel because the Bible says so, and the history is an inconvenience at best.

On the right, "supporters" of Israel will passionately oppose any peace process that relinquishes any part of "Biblical Israel," even to the point of subverting the will of the Israeli electorate.  I put it to everyone here that those people cannot ever be Zionists in the truest sense of the term, since Zionism was and remains the movement for Jewish national self-determination.  Meanwhile, on the left, we often hear that the Bible is not a land deed.  Fair enough.  But there is simply no other spot on the planet to which the Jewish people is native but what we know today as Israel.  Every other place, country or region, Jews have been first and foremost alien.

Of course, none of this will begin to make any sense until even us Jews break the habit of limiting our identity strictly to its relgious component; and broadly accept that we contain all the elements of a legitimate polity -- a language of our own, a culture of our own, a shared history marked by a calendar of our own -- as well as, but not necessarily in spite of, certain dynamic religious traditions.  And to the extent that any of these national components may be rooted in it is by now beside the point.  Further, Arab peoples are not the only peoples native to the Middle East region, and it's time to accept it.

I agree with a substantial portion of this. It is certainly true that there is some very open and nasty anti-semitism on the Left. Following discussions about the Israel/Palestinian conflict at sites like indymedia can be a real eye-opener. If one limits the comparison to the blogosphere, I think your characterization holds pretty well.

With very rare exceptions, though, the anti-semitism I've seen on the Left is political in nature, and it is explicitly grounded in post-1948 (or post-1967) opposition to Israel and the Israel lobby. Anti-semitism that takes the form of religious and/or racially-motivated paranoia about Jews still seems to lurk primarily on the Right, as Mel Gibson recently was kind enough to remind us. If you follow the links I put into my previous post, I pointed to the persistent problem of neo-Nazism in Europe and the neverending problem of discrimination against all non-Christians in rural public schools. The money quote from a PTA member in Georgetown, Delaware was particularly enlightening:

"If you want people to stop calling him 'Jew boy,' you tell him to give his heart to Jesus."

None of this bigotry is really "hidden," so much as it generally remains outside the spotlight, so long as European countries continue to censor their neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers, and so long as the main issue at hand is Israel's prerogative to wage war against its neighbors (as opposed to the right of the Jewish people to pay taxes to their local school board without seeing those funds used to discriminate against the Jewish faith.)

My intent in responding was not to defend Chomsky and his followers, whom I strongly oppose, but to challenge the recent mainstream respectability of the talking point that the American Right is a far better friend to American Jews than the liberals whose opposition to Israel's military policies has increasingly been conflated with anti-semitism or Jewish self-loathing. See, for example, this, or pretty much anything Mona Charen has ever written. The Jewish people have many more hardened and dedicated enemies, but it would be a tragic mistake for Jews to conclude that everyone who speaks on behalf of Israel is their friend.

The problem is that the blogosphere, much as we love it, is not representative of American political and cultural opinion. I don't mean to excuse anti-Semitism on the left when I say that there is even more on the right, but you won't find it in righty blogs as much as in suburban high schools, evangelical churches, PTA meetings, the sidelines of the soccer field. Furthermore, whatever hatred of jews you find there you will find an equal or greater hatred of arabs.

I found Mr. Etzioni's statement to be overwhelmingly positive and I am very glad to read it here. The part that bothered me, however, was this:
"However, it is a dangerous delusion to believe that the fundamentalist Muslims will cease to believe-correctly, by the way-that the West is undermining all that is dear to them: treating women as third-class citizens; severely punishing people for minor transgressions; dealing with all nonbelievers as if they were dog meat; putting their rigid interpretation of Islam above any decisions arrived by elected representatives; and using the sword to impose their worldview on others."

I know he is talking specifically about fundamentalists, but he holds that vision of the arab world up against the vision of individual Israelis as those who "would give their right arm and then some to have a real peace with their neighboring countries, to play a key role in promoting mutually beneficial economic ties by sharing the technical knowledge and higher education that make for high-tech economics and expected trade, and to work with progressive groups to advance democratic and human rights in the region and elsewhere." Is it really that black and white? I think even Mr. Etzioni is unable to see the world as clearly through others' eyes.

In her reply, Zionista refers to two different components of jewish identity, one which is religious and one which is cultural. I would hazard a guess that it is the religious component which serves as the focal point of the hatred -- I think many in the arab world are unable to see Israel as anything other than a theocracy akin to so many Islamic states. But to the extent that lefties share the arabs' position on Israel, it stems from sympathy for the Palestinians' plight, and a prediliction for supporting the underdog against a regional military superpower armed by the US. Neither source of anti-Semitism is excusable, but it's still important to understand the difference.

The fact that Mr. Etzioni contributes to a volume edited by Prof. Derschowitz indicates that he supports or condones theories of the professor, to wit, how to ethicaly and lawfully torture captive persons, and how to massacre civilians with clear conciousness.

Egyptians, unlike Palestinians, are not subjected to the innumerable petty inconveniences and humiliations, receive visits of tourists and experts, and yet do not reciprocate with friendship. Verily, they hate Israel for its freedom.

When I read Derschowitz and Etzioni, I am getting impression that the essence of Israel is to let Jews free themselves from the narrow confinces of universal ethics and enjoy the satisfactions of the tribal perspective. When Chechen terrorist action against a theatre in Moscow lead to hundreds of fatalities, Jerusalem Post had a commentary "Israel is Number One!", in which the author was exultant how much better Israeli security is than Russian. The unseemly glee was truly revolting. Apparently, seeing non-Israeli victims of terrorism leads only to satisfactory feeling "that's not us".

In the same vein, Holocaust deniers can be feted as good friends of Israel -- if they deny Armenian Holocaust.

This tribal vision is truly liberating and reduces the number of worries and scruples.

Luckily, I know many Israelis, so I know that generalizing this impression is wrong. But it is there.

By the way, Lebanon is also a democracy.

break the habit of limiting our identity strictly to its relgious component; and broadly accept that we contain all the elements of a legitimate polity -- a language of our own, a culture of our own, a shared history marked by a calendar of our own -- as well as, but not necessarily in spite of, certain dynamic religious traditions.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Perhaps I just have too much imagination but "I certainly do not see how, in the wake of the Holocaust, the international community could have done anything other than what it did do." The world recognized that they had very badly failed in their duty to mankind, and to Jews in particular, by allowing the holocaust to go on. The world needed to make amends, so they gave someone else's land to the Jews. What they should have done is give an unlimited immigration quota to Jews to come to the land they did possess, our country, for example. That could have resulted in a state, such as Nebraska, for example, being heavily settled by Jewish immigrants, and Nebraska would have been their homeland instead of Israel.

This would have separated Jews from some of their most cherished religious sites, a bad thing, but remember that most of the world's Moslems are separated from Mecca, and they do just fine.

Hoppy in Sacramento

 Are people actually thinking that Mel Gibson is a lefty?  Mel Gibson is as far right as you can get, and a certifiable member of the religious right.  I'm totally at a loss to understand the belief that liberals are the group that is anti-semitic.  Liberals, as a group, as far as I can see, want Israel and Jews treated as well as Palestine and Moslems.  They want to see equal treatment for the world's people without regard for their religion.  They will criticize America when our country is on the wrong path and they will criticize Israel when it is on the wrong path.  But, they also criticize Moslem countries for the same reasons.

Recognizing just how counter productive the current Israel military adventure is is hardly anti-semitic or even anti-Israel.  It is based on reality. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

We would live in a much better and safer place if more nations of the world, and especially in the region, were half as democratic as Israel is

For a century after the civil war the US South democratically suppressed-and lynched- Blacks. And the Northern Ireland Prods oppressed Catholics for 3 centures. How about the succession in post colonial Africa of "one man , one vote, one time"regimes. And BTW how did Hitler happen to become Chancellor ? .,And , and . Add your own examples.

Democracy results in the will of the majority being implemented . Which can be noble or horrible. Would a democratic Egypt warm up the cold peace ?

As a well wisher of Isreal's I thank God every day for the undemocratic regimes in Egypt and Jordan .

Democracy is a possible means to a goal , not a goal in itself.

Dear Sir, Forgive me if this type of “framing” and rhetoric makes me recoil with both Fear and Loathing.

“Neocons often dream about turning the Middle East (and the rest of the world) into "shining, prosperous democracies."”

Believe me when I say, this is not what most critics of Neocon’s fear most about their movement. Personally they terrify me because they are ideologues that are more closely aligned to the likes of Arial Sharon than they are to US National Security, and they’ve gained traction by using this ridiculous “Democracy Building” rhetoric to start an ever expanding war in the Middle East.

“Critics are quick to point out that the Israeli democracy is not without blemishes. And they find some real, and often imagined, violations of human rights.”

Israeli Human Rights Violations… Blemishes… Dozens if children dead in the past week. To the intellectually rigorous, this might seem a little disingenuous.

“I am stunned at the blind hatred Israel evokes, not only by the same dark forces that mean to do in all of Western civilization, the United States first, …”

Do you mean Al Qaeda? Or do you mean the entire Muslim world and every enemy of Israel? I ask this because it almost seems like you’re trying to make the entire Muslim World a Dire Threat to America with this silly turn of phrase.

“Israel has sent literally hundreds of delegations of physicians, nurses, scientists, educators, agricultural experts, and members of many other professions and occupations to Egypt to try to build bridges and mutually beneficial arrangements.”

Israel is good. Stay tuned... Because in the next paragraph…

“However, it is a dangerous delusion to believe that the fundamentalist Muslims will cease to believe-correctly, by the way-that the West is undermining all that is dear to them: treating women as third-class citizens; severely punishing people for minor transgressions; dealing with all nonbelievers as if they were dog meat; putting their rigid interpretation of Islam above any decisions arrived by elected representatives; and using the sword to impose their worldview on others.”

Rag heads are bad…

Sir, I can relate to your sentiments regarding Israel, for personal and familial reasons, but this sort of “Editorial” sends shivers down my spine.

Framing this conflict with the four chambers of your heart is totally dishonest in any useable political sense. Especially when it’s packaged in a pseudo fair minded Xenophobia.

Bulldozing Israel’s atrocities underground, while hyping all that is wrong with the Muslim world in some non specific Muslim threat that wants to destroy the civilization starting with the United States is not exactly, well how shall I say it. The truth???

Perhaps that’s why Europe has a different opinion about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Because it’s got more perspective on the conflict than you do.

You who obviously has a dog in this race…

You do appreciate that the modern Zionist movement started in the 1890s. Jews had were buying land in Palestine thereafter. Also, the Jews of Palestine fought on the side of the allies. The aftermath of the Holocaust having created millions of displaced persons led them to go to the one safe place the Zionist homeland.

Jerusalem was to be an internationalized city in the Peel Commission partion of Palestine and the U.N. partition. There was of course no Arab country in Palestine prior to 1947 either. The Jordanian move into the West Bank and East Jerusalem kept Jews from some the holiest sites until 1967.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Flavious,

You've actually re-written my comment, and in doing so re-written my meaning. What I actually said was the following.

Framing this conflict with the four chambers of your heart is totally dishonest in any useable political sense. Especially when it’s packaged in a pseudo fair minded Xenophobia.

I'm not attacking the messenger or the four chambers of his heart. I'm attacking the message, which is a personal sentimental connection to Israel and general hatred of the entire Middle East, standing in for an "Objective" political perspective.

His fear for his children us fair and just.

It is also fair and just that the parents of those newly dead Lebanese children, will hate and fear Israel.

That is the death spiral of the Middle East, an endless and self perpetuating machine.

I want neither of them to control the debate. When people who’ve got an agenda try to present themselves as the objective, middle of the road, arbiters of false choices, it frightens me. Much like the Neocon’s frighten me.

Here is your rebuttal from the Middle East, This is about the politest letter I've seen written in the last 24 hours.


Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl
BY MIRA AL HUSSEIN

2 August 2006

President Bush,

It has become extremely difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt on Lebanon, for you have left no doubt in our minds. We are now certain — like many of us have always been — that your foreign policy is completely biased towards Israel, and you have made no effort to hide this fact. Just out of curiosity: are they also drafted in Tel Aviv?

It is your choice, Mr Bush, to support Israel, just like it is our — the entire Arab and Muslim world’s — choice to support Lebanon. You insist that Israel has the right to defend itself. Defending oneself, I believe, is a universal right, not exclusive to Israel.

"The first Qana massacre did not quench the Israeli thirst for blood," it is said, graphically describing yet another Israeli crime against the innocents of Lebanon. In Qana, 57 armless, defenseless civilians died in an Israeli air strike, 37 of them were children. Maybe these numbers don’t matter to you, Mr Bush; they are mere numbers of the nameless Lebanese dead. But they matter to more than 200 million Arabs in the Middle East.

I quote our late president, Shaikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, who in 1973 had said, "Arab oil is not dearer than Arab blood." But it seems that Iraqi oil is dearer than American blood. I am somewhat relieved to arrive at this conclusion. At least there’s no racism against a certain group of people. Everybody is a potential sacrifice to secure US interests, even if it means sacrificing a whole nation.

No, Mr Bush, we will not accept, nor will we allow the sacrifice of more Lebanese civilians. A ceasefire should have been enforced two weeks ago. Was there a need for 37 children to die before you decided it was time for a ceasefire? How many more, Mr Bush, should die before you decide to stop sending those bloody weapons to Israel? Perhaps we can afford a sacrifice that will rein in your generosity towards Israel permanently.

We have a dream for a new Middle East. Not the "New Middle East" that you’ve been brainstorming in your Oval Office. It is the new Middle East that Middle Easterners have been dreaming of; a Middle East with no violence, and no US-made weapons to fuel that violence. It is a dream only we, Middle Easterners, are allowed to dream and realise it.

In Arabic we have a saying that goes, "They murder the murdered and walk in his funeral." Allow me to interpret this for you, Mr Bush: Your precision-guided missiles shipment has arrived in Tel Aviv. These missiles will "precisely" fall onto Lebanese villages; kill hundreds; and displace thousands more. (Evidently, we’ve just witnessed the first "precise" target in Qana.)

Yet you have "compassionately" been able to send aid to Beirut, at the same time, with supplies for the thousands of people directly and fatally affected by your vocal, (im)moral and military support for Israel. Please include US flags in your aid shipment to Beirut; they must have burned all the US flags in stock.

Mr Bush, Lebanon can and will be rebuilt, but lost lives cannot be restored. Your credibility and your government’s credibility have long been lost — irretrievably lost like those lost innocent lives. People will not forget this though. They will not turn the other cheek; they will retaliate — just like you had chosen to retaliate after 9/11. Retaliation is a value you have successfully promoted by putting it into practice, always.

I was born too late to see how the British Empire had collapsed, but right on time to see how the American Empire is falling apart. Mr Bush, You will surely be remembered in history for hastening that process.

 With no more respect to offer,

 Mira Al Hussein

Mira Al Hussein is a UAE national writer based in Dubai who has had a brief stint with the KT. She can be reached at Mira.AlHussein@zu.ac.ae

As you willfully ignorant or just a liar. There was no ethnic cleansing there are a million Arab citizens of Israel. The new historians such as Benny Morris make it clean that while some Israeli commanders responded to the Arab attack on Israel by driving out the local Arab population post of the Arabs left as refugees from the war. Had the Arabs not launched the war in 1948 there would have been a Palestinian state and a smaller Israel.

Just because the Arabs chose a stupid path of action does not illegitimate Israel.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Thanks.

I criticize both Fallujah and Qana. Got a problem with that?

Its an open question to who?

Within the context of the discussion, you appeared to be talking about the political left, so the mistake is understandable.

So you are stating for the record that you believe the "kooky anti-Semitic end of the political spectrum" to be that of the political right?

Daniel Greenbaum:

There was no ethnic cleansing there are a million Arab citizens of Israel. The new historians such as Benny Morris make it clean that while some Israeli commanders responded to the Arab attack on Israel by driving out the local Arab population post of the Arabs left as refugees from the war.

This individual makes increasingly difficult to believe he is capable of approaching debate on this subject in good faith. I have already corrected him on this point precisely (July 20):

Benny Morris, 2004 (from Wikipedia)

There is no justification for acts of rape [...] or acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

I think there is compelling irony in the fact that Mr Greenbaum preceding his fallacious assertion with the question:

Are you willfully ignorant or just a liar?

I wonder...

I have NEVER met an Israeli who in his or her heart believes that one Arab is equal to one Jew is G-d's eye.

Never?  Not even Arab Israelis?  Even Israelis who don't believe in G-d in the first place?

Okay - I will qualify my statement to say never have I met a non-arab Israeli who believes...As far as Israeli's who do not believe in G-d, the strongly secular Jews (who believe they are part of a separate race rather than religion)I know have even stronger negative feelings towards arabs.

I have never thought that the left opposition to Israel is anti-semitic.

Rather it is part of the left narrative, as we can see in this comment by whiterosebuddy. It includes "Always favor the underdog." Poverty is itself evidence of mistreatment, and the more wretched the circumstances of a group, the more they are absolved of any responsibility for their condition and the more need to focus on the misdeeds of their supposed oppressors.

So it is not surprising that almost all leftists are anti-Israel.

Subsequent generations are responsible for perpetuating or ameliorating the inequities of those who came before them.

Your  position is well expressed and intellectually respectable.

I disagree with it .

Bad things are done by all societies at all times  and therefore there will always be a  respectable argument for the children of the victims to demand reparations from the children of their tormentors. Or for the children of those who only imagine themselves to be victims to demand reparations etc. etc. ad infinitum.

My position is that  the obligation to do the time ends with the generation that did the crime. I won't vote to return  Arizona and Utah  to the Navajos ,nor condone 20 year old Palestinian suicide bombers avenging acts that occurred 20 years before their parents birth. 

.

"Context" is generally a good thing, sure. But to say that we must discount (surely that's what you mean) well-reasoned, temperate remarks because in some other contexts the writer has consorted with those whose reason or temperance are open to question - well, isn't this really out of context? If we start doubting the reason of everyone who has unreasonable friends, reason itself becomes entirely debased.

As for someone committed to Israel speaking for its interests "even" when they conflict with America's - so what? Would we prefer the French or Germans not to speak for their national interests just whenever they might conflict with ours? How is your throwing this item on the scales intellectually honest?

If we start doubting the reason of everyone who has unreasonable friends, reason itself becomes entirely debased.

Doubting does not debase reason It is perfectly appropriate. Substitute rejecting in that sentence and I agree

There were long periods where Jews were better welcomed throughout most Muslim lands than through most of Europe. It was also a time when Muslim Arabs maintained scholarship in the Greek classics which Europe had forgotten.

But the Jews had no territory then. It seems the Arabs, being a fallen civilization (and a degenerate one - fundamentalism itself being a serious degeneracy from the sophisticated cultures Islam had helped inspire at the height, just as fundamentalism in America shows our own degeneracy) cannot tolerate the loss of any territory they have ever dominated. Thus their hatred of Israel, which is only exceeded, among the Wahabbi of Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda, by a hatred of Spain. Seriously. Read their statements.

Education of Arab cultures is a key, but it also seems that identification by Arab cultures with their own histories as educated and enlightened people, matters.

No real disagreement regarding the Arab perspective -- I wasn't suggesting that the Arab world respected Israel for its appearing to them to be a theocracy, rather that they view Israel as a theocracy run by the great Satan.

By the way, I really appreciate your comments, I just wish you'd get my name right (Balzer, not Blazer)
;)

The Muslim world already has nuclear weapons and missles to launch them with. They are in Pakistan. The life of one lone man, Mushareff, who has already survived several assasination attempts, is all that stands in the way of the jihadists getting hold of them. This is a much more serious danger than any Iranian nuclear program.

Bush has been pointing to the success of democracy in Lebanon as an example that freedom is on the march in the middle east. So Israel attacks it.

Israel has attacked the only one of its neighbors that is a democracy.

Alternatively, it might recognize its unique Turkic roots and see Central Asia, especially the fUSSR republics, as its realm, all the way to Afganistan.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

really intriguing thought, marcf; thanks for having the courage to post it.

My only animosity towards Israel arises from its stupidity. Stupidity is always infuriating I guess.

Every thing your country does just perpetuates its own misery. And so yet another generation of hatred ensues simply because stupid people can't figure out that every "terrorist" you kill creates 100 new ones. And every child you kill in the process creates 1000.

Of course everything I say here applies to Israel's enemies as well.

It's just an idiotfest over there. Eyes for eyes and all that. Meanwhile you just salivate at the thought of dragging Americans into your perpetual stupidity machine. I guess cause we still have an eye or two left over here.

I have only one word of advice for your country: Gandhi.

Well, thanks, but it is not so hard to post what I see as an evident truth on an anonymous blog. Now Bill Cosby, I do admire his courage.

My position is that  the obligation to do the time ends with the generation that did the crime.

World leaders and countries do not agree with your position. Bush started a war to avenge an 'attempted' assasination of his dad. Israel is fighting Arabs because they do not agree with your position either. If Israel agreed with your position they would all emigrate to the USA, since the generation that did the time for the crime that created Israel has just about died.

So the real question that is on the topic is would you vote for Israel's right to exist since the generations there are not the ones that did the time for the crime. Do you condone Israel's actions to avenge themselves by asserting a right to exist based on persecutions that occured 50 plus years ago?

He is an articulate, impassioned proponent of Israel’s national interests, even when they conflict with America’s national interests.   There is nothing illegal, or  intellectually improper about this, but TPM readers need to consider his words in the context of his politics.    

Thanks for the additional bkgrd information. Previously Etrizoni has posted and complained about solicitation letters from the Heritage Institute as well. Most people I know do not receive letters from the Heritage Institute let alone have their names on a list for solicitation of funds for a group who is primarily funded by the families whose inheirted wealth is from the worldwide sales of munitions.

Etrizoni keeps strange bedfellows indeed.

I also appreciate your post. Truly, I hope it's a minority of posters that believe one cannot be neither especially pro- nor anti-Israel, but treat it as one treats any other country that has relations to the US.

It would be silly to say that US-Israeli relations aren't important, as are relations with any country in a hot spot of the world. I think, though, of a country with an insurgency, such as Sri Lanka, and wonder why an American would be expected to support either the Sri Lankan government or the Tamil Tigers.

Sometimes, what Nixon used to call a "sinister force" gives me a mental image that won't go away. Perhaps saying it "aloud" will banish the idea that if liberals like underdogs, they must love dachshunds.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Going with marcf's underdog theory, it does seem that, over time, Israel and the Palestinians have switched places as the underdog in the left wing imagination.  Rightly so, I suspect, .

Yes, one could express it as the 'underdog has changed' and I think more significantly is that in the past Israel was being judged by their intentions  rather than their actions. The attack on Lebanon though is viewed as excessive force and that makes Israel the aggressor.  Add to that the growing frustration that comes with the same conflict in the ME over basically 'religious beliefs' and who has rights to the 'holy land' and people are fed up with what is basically a nanner nanner" my god is mightier than your allah"  fight.

But what has really put the frustration over the top, is the fact that American's foreign policy has been so one-sided that it has failed to function in the interest of America in the eyes of many Americans.

 although overall I feel like the whole conflict is so tangled at this point that I can't pick out a good guy -- could be I just need more information

Yes, much of the American public no longer understands how it is beneficial for us to take sides in the ME conflict. What is the basis for who we support in the ME?  It is unAmerican to support one religion over another, so how have we picked the side of Israel over the Palestinians?

These posters agreed with Flavius reasoning.

 

  UserRatingviviane4mhpine4artappraiser4Hal from NY4Gallowglass3

 

My position is that  the obligation to do the time ends with the generation that did the crime. I won't vote to return  Arizona and Utah  to the Navajos ,nor condone 20 year old Palestinian suicide bombers avenging acts that occurred 20 years before their parents birth

To them I ask:

The post WWII generations in America, never "did the crime", and they are still doing the time to the tune of 15M dollars daily in aid to Israel...when does America's "obligation" to  the 50 year old persecution of Jews in Europe  end?

Howard,

The question begins to arise as to the value to humanity of separating itself into politis.

You see it as a value. I submit that it is human nature.

whiterosebuddy,

Add to that the growing frustration that comes with the same conflict in the ME over basically 'religious beliefs' and who has rights to the 'holy land' and people are fed up with what is basically a nanner nanner" my god is mightier than your allah"  fight.

This recitation is more of a Christian or Muslim narrative.  To the extent it follows a Jewish narrative, we can apply it to the ideology of the settlement movement, and only then post-1967 until recently as the settlement ideology has been pushed to the margins of Israeli political discourse.

What is the basis for who we support in the ME?  It is unAmerican to support one religion over another, so how have we picked the side of Israel over the Palestinians?

It is simplistic and misguided to apply a religious test to the idea of "support" in the region.  Any maturity in US foreign policy in the region must reflect the notion that Jewish and Arab national rights are not mutually exclusive in the area of the former British Mandate, regardless of mutually exclusive theological constructs.

Prof. Etzioni posted a response in this separate blog entry today.

So the real question that is on the topic is would you vote for Israel's right to exist YES

This is intellectual hypocrisy based on your prior post. Why vote for Israel but not the Navajo's?

since the generations there are not the ones that did the time for the crime.
NOT ON THOSE GROUNDS BUT ON THE GROUNDS THAT
I BELIEVE HISTORICAL RIGHTS OR WRONGS ARE AN INADEQUATE BASIS FOR CURRENT ACTION . I WON'T VOTE TO RESTORE ARIZONA AND UTAH TO THE NAVAJOS.

The grounds you assert here invalidate any other 'mental justification' you attempt to give to your vote, since it is only on the basis of historical rights and wrongs that Israel exists to begin with. In other words, as you put it; "the generation that did the crime is NOT doing the time."

Do you condone Israel's actions to avenge themselves by asserting a right to exist
I ACCEPT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST

This was a yes or no question, why are you equivocating, after shouting out a yes  vote for Israel's right to exist in the first query. Your positions are intellectually dishonest.

based on persecutions that occured 50 plus years ago? ASKED AND ANSWERED

Hardly. You gave one answer for the Navajos and different one for Israel based on 'historical rights or wrongs' 

thanks AA...it is quite lengthy

There are some valid reasons for jews to want to live where Israel currently stands.

However, there's a difficulty in equating individuals with the government that represents (or rules) them: what is to be my punishment for being an American while my government orders the killing of civilians? That is the question to be answered in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere in the mideast.

It's not a simple question, but if a government or a groundswell of people are willing to apply their answer equally to themselves and their opponents, then they may at least have some claim to be moving towards justice.

To demand otherwise is to cast your opponents as less human, which I think we learnt some clear lessons about in the 20th century.

There are some valid reasons for jews to want to live where Israel currently stands.

The reasons have no greater validity than for Palestinians to still live on the land they occupied prior to Israeli's receiving it by USA and Britain fiat..

However, there's a difficulty in equating individuals with the government that represents (or rules) them: what is to be my punishment for being an American while my government orders the killing of civilians? That is the question to be answered in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere in the mideast.

The statement was made about countries (not individuals) being equating with their governments policys. And America under all Presidents is equated with the government policies of that administration. Israel does not get to have some exception for that. Israel will and should be judged by the actions of their government just like all other countries.

Wow! Thanks for that, a very powerful statement and I agree with almost everything he says. About Israel that is. He goes much too far in his history lesson. The Nazis were a left-wing organization? Not hardly. "The centre of world anti-Semitism is now firmly rooted in the Left." That is absurd.

But it is what Brian Wimborne does NOT say that pegs him as profoundly reactionary. There always have been real victoms and there always have been real oppressors and the victoms have usually been the poor and the weak and the oppressors have usually been the strong and the rich. In many situations it is honorable to side with the victom against the oppressor.

It is hard to appreciate how rapidly our world has changed towards human kindness and the role the left has played in those changes. Marx wrote his manifesto at a time when it was routine for white Americans to rob, cheat, steal land from and kill Indians.

In general, when I post to a public forum, I accept that the material may be redistributed freely, either in entirety or in scholarly quotes.

I'd simply feel more comfortable if I knew the purpose, and ideology if any, of the Institute and the context and purpose of the "Feedback" emails. In other words, since you are nice enough to ask, I confess I don't know the manner in which comments are intended to be used.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Thus, we enjoy providing our readers with feedback (both positive and negative) while doing our utmost to refrain from giving any opinion save a Communitarian perspective

So, this sounds like a 'Letters to the Editor" section we would find in most magazines or newspapers. Is that pretty much what you are saying here, in terms of feedback?