This seems to be a universal characteristic of the "deeply devout" religious. If you're doing God's work, then you can do no wrong. No matter how horrific your actions and behavior, it's divine. God's will selectively determined.

I wonder if this is related to the supposedly highest form of religion. The one God religions. With only one God there's only one view to consider. Only one righteous path to follow or create. If there was more than one God than by that very nature there would be more than one viewpoint to consider. More than one perspective. More than one pair of shoes to walk in.

People still believe the Lone Gunman Theory?

I wonder how long folks like yourself will look to the U.S. (Rice, her successors) to make a difference there, when we are heading down the same road Israel has traveled -- only I suspect, being much more powerful and arrogant, we'll go even further. The dynamics of our occupation of Iraq are very similar to Israel's occupation of the West Bank: we got there via a "defensive war" that wasn't actually defensive; we keep telling everyone, including ourselves, that we really, really want to leave -- and we will leave, but the time just isn't right, and so on. The only real difference is that we haven't built civilian settlements there (At least, that we know of). And whereas the hardest of the hardest core of Israel's crazies, who talk of a "Greater Israel" that includes Jordan, are seen as crazy even there, our crazies who talk of war with Iran and Syria, and even advocate using nuclear weapons, are greeted with solemn head nodding in respect for their vision and "toughness." We're in no position to play peacemaker, there or anywhere. We won't even make peace for ourselves.

The US can effectively impose a two-state settlement on Israel, taking the side of the Israeli left and breaking the back of the settler movement's continued ability to block the two-state solution. An intelligent US president who understands the damage of the escalating stalemate in Israel/Palestine would put this tops on his or her agenda. But such a move requires a US president to make a break with AIPAC and its allies in the US that would be nearly as daring as the break Rabin made, and for lesser rewards.

What's happened with Yigal Amir resurrects the question of whether it is tactically more effective to execute such political criminals or jail them for life. If Amir were dead, he would be a martyr to the right-wingers. But a martyr is in many ways less dangerous than a living symbol.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Actually I don't.

We live in a time when there is a rebellion against the modern world. Within Western societies there are Christian and Jewish fanatics who wish a certainty that is absent in the real world. Fortunately in most of the West there has been a long tradition of liberalism and individualism. There is also a basic success in these societies. The result is that while these groups can have political influence they do not control their societies.

This is true even when you add their secular counterparts such as the many on the left who blog at sites like this and the right who preach fear of the modern, of the individual, of respect for diversity. While the right in America has some chance at political power, see Bush, the left, not liberals, have no chance at political power.

The Muslim World too much still resembles the aftermath of WWI. Nations that aren't quite nations, economic not only inegality but stagnation. Against Muslim fundamentalists there is little success in countering them outside of the various dictators that exist in virtually every Islmic, especially Arab, societies.

Those who cheer the assination of Rabin are sick people who are dangerous. If Hamas keeps firing missiles at Israel and they and Iran keep threatening to "wipe Israel of the map" they cause the middle to side with the fanatics as assualts on existence so often does.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Right, John W.

But, the polls in Israel show 25% of the population favor Amir's early release.
Believe me, if 25% of Americans were of similar mindsets, it would not be safe to walk the streets.

Happily, the hold religious nuts have here is nothing compared to Israel's. Even Dobson and Robertson do not advocate the fusion of church and state that the religious minority have pushed through in Israel.

Thank God for the Constitution, the First Amendment and James Madison. Israel still can get itself the first two!

But, the polls in Israel show 25% of the population favor Amir's early release. Believe me, if 25% of Americans were of similar mindsets, it would not be safe to walk the streets.

What's happened with Yigal Amir resurrects the question of whether it is tactically more effective to execute such political criminals or jail them for life

Comon, Daniel,

If Hamas keeps firing missiles at Israel ..

I join MJ in pointing out and condemning these evil haters of Rabin

Although I understand your reaction, I think it's more accurate to say that the crazies such as Amir represent a particularly depraved subset of the "deeply devout." There are deeply religious people who would never think of twisting their religion's tenets in such a distorted manner. A selective reading of religious texts can produce a justification for just about anything. The problem isn't religion itself - this sort of person, lacking a purely religious justification would certainly find another, imho. But there are many deeply religious persons, I think, who would find Amir's actions reprehensible, as we do.

M.J. has reported elsewhere in this thread that 25% of Israelis favor releasing Amir, so in Isreal's case, the depraved subset appears to be frighteningly large. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

"But of course if you're a Zionist then war is what you want" (Don Bacon).

There is no arguing with a singularly hateful perspective like that.  We can only expose and confront it in public discourse at every opportunity.

Now that you, MJ, and others here are all getting your self-righteouness out of your system I am going to give you some uncomfortable facts.
As a preface, I am, in the name of full disclosure, telling you my position. I didn't like Rabin at all, just like many of you despise Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. Just like your dislike for them doesn't mean you want someone to kill them, I also oppose murder as an instrument of protest. I believed then, as I do now, that Rabin, Peres and the rest of the gang who imposed Oslo on Israel should have been subject to a commission of inquiry revealing the illegal means in which it was passed in the Knesset, and the gross irresponsibility they showed in arming terrorist gangs and turning them loose to kill or wound THOUSANDS of Israelis.
At the time of the murder, Rabin was deeply unpopular due to the ongoing terrorist attacks, mostly suicide bombings that were unknown before they signed their cursed "peace" agreement with Arafat. Rabin and Peres were reduced to using Orwell's famous slogan form "1984"- "war is peace". They referred to the victims of terrorist attacks as "victims of peace" and they would say that "peace brings violence". In order to shore up political support, they used a SHABAK agent, named Avishai Raviv, to carry highly publicized assaults as an agent provocateur on Arabs and Leftist Jewish politicians, including HADASH's Tamar Guzhansky. He pretended to be a "right-wing religious extremist". He was never prosecuted for any of these crimes. The infamous poster of Rabin in thd SS uniform which appeared at the Likud rally against Oslo in Zion Square was shown by Raviv and given to the media by him. This was revealed in the official SHAMGAR state commission of inquiry about the assassination. The politicians on the balcony did not know about it and couldn't have possibly seen it, and certainly didn't bring it to the rally. Raviv also carried out a staged (as confirmed by SHAMGAR) swearing-in ceremony for people who swore to assault Leftist politicians at the grave of LEHI founder Avraham Stern. Israeli Televsion participated in the staged event (they knew it was staged) and broadcast it on the news, knowing it was fake, which is against the law.
Like any controversial policy carried out by a government that leads to a lot of deaths, such as the War in Vietnam, or Bush's war in Iraq, there was a LOT of anger against the gov't. Does this mean that everyone who opposed the gov't or spoke out against it are guilty of "incitement to murder"? Four days before the assassination, Rabin appeared on a news interview program. He clearly was out of control and under the influence of heavy drink. He stated that the Likud political opposition was "guilty of causing traffic accidents" because of their opposition to him. The next day at work, a colleague of mine who vote for the Labor party her whole life said "we have a madman running this country , we have to get rid of him before he destroys us all". Is she guilty of "incitement to murder". In any event, the Likud and Netanyahu and the anti-Oslo Right certainly got not benefit from the murder.

Now, I am going to pose you some uncomfortable facts and questions:
(1) Leah Rabin, in her autobiography, says that immediately after the shooting, she was bundled away by the SHABAK. She repeatedly asked the agents what happened. They repeatedly told her: "This was a planned excercise, the shots were blanks, Yitzhak is all right". She also told this to her daughter, Dalia, who confirmed it to the Ma'ariv newspaper in 1999.

(2) Why was Yigal Amir allowed to loiter for 40 minutes in the sterile zone? Policemen came to him and talked to them. This can be seen in the Kempler film, which is available on the internet. There are two possible answers, either gross incompetance by the heads of the SHABAK, or the police were told that it was permitted for him to be there.

(3) If we assume that it was "gross negligence", then please explain to me why SHABAK head Carmi Gillon (who wasn in Paris at the time of the shooting even though a major HAMAS terrorist had been liquidated a few days before and there was a general alert to increase protection of public officials) was given high profile jobs by Shimon Peres, the man who became Prime Minister as a result of the murder. Peres first appointed him as the head of the "Peres Peace Center" which was a highly paid sinecure job which left Gillon plenty of time to work out in his health club. Peres later appointed him as ambassador to Denmark. One would think that a SHABAK head who was responsible for the biggest foul-up in SHABAK history would hang his head in shame and drop out of sight. Instead he has become a big media celebrity, in addition to getting those nice jobs. Not bad for an incompetant bungler.

(3) The Official SHAMGAR Commission report found that the person closest to Yigal Amir in the months before the murder were not "extremist Rabbis" or "Likud politicians", but.........no one other than the SHABAK provocateur Avishai Raviv. Raviv repeately, in front of numerous witnesses, to kill Rabin. I would think the SHABAK would try to protect the Prime Minister, not try to find someone to kill him.

(4) Yigal Amir has been in solitary confinement and under total control of the SHABAK for 12 years now. For one month, he was not allowed to see anyone, including a lawyer. Anything he does or says is under the control of the SHABAK. The SHABAK contolled the time of the conjugal visits. It was they who decided when the baby would be born, and it certainly helped outrage Leftist Israelis and guaranteed a good turnout at the demonstration a week ago.

The fact is that Rabin's late wife and two children DO NOT accept the "official" politicized version of the murder which is what MJ outlined here (i.e. "extremist Rabbis and political incitment drove Amir crazy so he decided to kill Rabin and SHABAK "incompetance" made it possible for him to get to Rabin). Dalia Rabin-Pilosof herself revealed this in an interview to the La'Isha magazine in 1999. Yigal Amir was well known to the SHABAK long before the murder, and yet he was given access to Rabin. ( I can get a link to the interview if anyone is interested).
There is a lot more that can be said, but I decided to list only things that were stated by the Official SHAMGAR Commission report and by Rabin's family.
I suggest if you want to really understand Rabin's murder, you look into the murder of Leningrad Communist Party boss Sergei Kirov in 1934. There is a lot to be learned from that historical precedent.

What the heck are you talking about MJ? Is it really necessary to tell untruths? It is a lot safer to walk the streets in Israel than it is in the US. Arabs walk in Jewish towns in complete safety. There is NO left-right political violence. YOU KNOW ALL THESE THINGS.

One of the most disturbing things that I have observed as I've grown older is how things that were once inconceivable in society can gradually become quite widely accepted.

The open use of torture would be a case in point for American society. There was a time when torture was always regarded as the signature act of the moral monsters of the world -- the Nazis, and the worst of the Communists. Now one's use of torture is considered by many to be a sign of real strength of character and determination.

How did that happen, in my own lifetime?

I think that what's going on in Israel is the same phenomenon writ large, with stronger forces underlying it: namely, the inherent moral compromises of occupation, visited very effectively on virtually the entire population of Israel.

There seems to be very if any effective forces that push back against this trend in Israel.

I don't see this ending well.

Is your point that the current President of Israel ordered murder of Rabin?
If so, I have to agree with MJ that Israel is a crazy country beyound any hope.

I agree with MJR except on conjugal sex in prison, which should be allowed to most prisoners as routine. See my blog post.

I don't debate trolls. I do, happily, go back and forth with pretty much everyone at TPM except the two trolls. It must get pretty frustrating to the two of you to post at a place where you are considered nudniks.

Brilliant point, Wordie.

Why is MJ's belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK any different? Something like 80% of the American people believe in some conspiracy theory or other regarding JFK, i.e. they don't accept the Warren Commission findings of a lone gunman.

but should that prevent us from discussing situations

but I think most people can see through it.

Is it really necessary to tell untruths?

Dear Wordie, So, why did you rate 0 my suggestion that you go ahead and discuss situations?

I can assure you that no matter who heads the future government(s) of Iraq will not sign any peace agreements with Israel nor will recognize Israel. As much as both the Shi'ites and Sunnis hate each other, one thing that unites them is opposition to Israel. Thus, there is no danger of Iraq selling oil to Israel, although Egypt has in the past, (I don't know if they still do).

Hope you are correct. But what should the US do if you are not?

MJ,

Last week in Haifa during a major league soccer game between Beitar Jerusalem and Maccabi Haifa, a moment of silence to commemorate the Rabin assassination was interrupted when half the stadium hissed and booed Rabin's name and sang songs extolling the virtues of his assassin.

I am putting all of it on the Beitar fans.  Anyone who has ever been to Haifa will appreciate how inconceivable such obscenity would emanate from the home crowd.

MJ,

I agree.

Wordie might agree with my opinion on Anne Coulter on TV. I have no problem with her appearing on Television as some do, as a matter of fact, I support it. Coulter on TV is a constant reminder for all to see of how ugly the right wing is.

Zionista, Please:
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=605487

JERUSALEM - Fans of Beitar Jerusalem football team added to controversy over 12th anniversary commemorations for assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin by booing through a one-minute silence.
Before kick-off late yesterday against Maccabi Haifa, more than 2,500 Beitar fans refused to observe the silence, called in honour of Rabin and also to protest against violence in Israeli society and at sports stadiums.
Hundreds of fans booed and a few even sang songs praising his murder, public radio reported today.
Beitar management condemned the fans’ behaviour as "shameful" and sought to play down the incident, saying the rabble rousers were just a "handful."

Just because something bad happened 15 years ago, it doesn't mean that there is a need for any action today.

Not so, davai.  Shin Bet's abuses are ongoing. b'tselem has reported on the continuing torture of political prisoners, despite the Knesset's legal prohibition of their use (sound familiar?), and then there was the letter this year from Olmert to the head of the primarily Arab Balad Party, in which he said:

"The Shin Bet security service will thwart the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel, even if such activity is sanctioned by the law," read the letter, sent by the Prime Minister's Office on behalf of the Shin Bet to editor Ala Hlehel."

And what was the Balad Party's crime? Was it terrorism? Were they plotting violence? No. The "crime" was the publication of a position paper, "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel (excerpts here, pdf of the full paper also available at the link) that proposed peaceful democratic reforms in Israel. For this peaceful democratic activity, one can risk being labeled an enemy of the state in Israel.

(Note: please don't digress into a discussion about the merits of the paper - that's another issue. What I'm pointing out is that in a democracy, a free exchange of ideas must be permitted.)

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

b'tselem has reported on the continuing torture of political prisoners, despite the Knesset's legal prohibition of their use (sound familiar?),

For once, a valid criticism! Here is the correct link. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

The bottom line is that the damage the right has done to Israel can be undone when the occupation ends, the settlers move back where they came from, and a Palestinian state is established.

When you put it like that, I just don't see how anything ever changes.

Seriously, how and when might "the settlers move back where they came from"?

Once I thought the settlers were trying to establish "facts on the ground" so that no foreign party could ever remove them. But nowadays I see it rather differently: they are in truth trying to establish "facts on the ground" so that the larger Israeli population cannot ever remove them.

It's become increasingly obvious that it would rip apart Israeli society to force the settlers out, leading most likely to literal civil war. It's now well beyond the power of a vote to change the settlements. Really, the best way to see the assassination of Rabin and the current support of his assassin by significant segments of Israeli society is as a clear signal that nothing less than civil war will ensue if the settlers are deprived of the settlements that they truly care about (and that would seem to be the vast majority of them).

It still broken. Anyway. this has nothing to do witth whatever happened 12 years ago.

Very nice explanation but it's wrong. Let me remind you that Palestinians were offered two state solution what they refused to accept it. Settlers were not the problem unless you consider all Jews in Israel to be settlers.

Most settlers could be bought off financially
leaving on the minority of ideological settlers. I don't think the IDF would have much trouble removing them.
After all, once the army leaves, the settlers have to leave too. What can they do? Stay behind in the Palestinian state?
A few might. The rest will go back to Israel, Russia or the States.

From what I have read, he wishes to save Israel from everybody who would do it harm.

How about if something bad happened 70 years ago? Would that mean there is a need for action today?

Can you restate your point?
What are we arguing about?

Are you proposing that it's impossible that Israelis are sabotaging themselves and their long term interests?

I've seen silly tribalism, but this claim is ridiculous.

It's interesting Bruce, as someone who isn't Jewish, I read Don Bacon's comment as merely another variant on the claim that the Iraqi war was a war for oil. Certainly, we've all heard that our "sons and daughters" are dying for American oil interests. Stating that Israeli oil interests might also be behind the war didn't strike me as particularly antisemitic. And because of this, I was surprised by the passion in your post--but also enlightened by it. I read Bacon's post and react to it with the same lack of emotion as I'd react to a post blaming Halliburton for the deaths of our children in Iraq. You read Bacon's words and see a far more troublesome and sinister attack on "your people." I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong" in the way we interpret the comment. The difference in reactions just underscores how easily easily differences in background and perspective can lead to misunderstanding. I wonder sometimes if all these endless arguments about Israel are just a surrogate for a more important discussion we are avoiding about the relationship between Jews and Christians in the West. Maybe there's still a need for reconciliation after long centuries of suspicion, hatred, and fear. If Christians and Jews still so easily misunderstand and suspect each other, the threat of another disaster like the Holocaust is real, and we need to do something to bridge the divide before history repeats.

It's deja vu all over again.  

It's not as though we would have much trouble finding multiple examples of extreme positions by a minority lead a nation into dark and abhorent places, just in the living memory of some people here. 25% think it was just peachy to assassinate Rabin? If that were the percentage of the population infected with typhoid, we'd be hearing about a massive health emergency being declared.  

Are memories really that short, and so vulnerable to the same nonsense, over and over and over again?

The 20th century is replete with totalitarian, extremist regimes which came to power loudly trumpeting their only goal being to save their beloved Fatherlands. Franco's Spain? Germany and the National Socialists? Soviet Russia? Hell, just a bit earlier in history, there was Napoleonic France, which started in revolution against injustice as an idealistic movement and ended up drenched in blood and tyranny. 

The Middle East is full of authoritarian regimes now, and in truth, it's remarkable to me that Israel has managed to preserve itself even in the midst of such constant threat. But to claim that Israel does not have in it the same dark and malevolent and fanatical spirits that, in other lands, lead to the Holocaust and finally to it's own very creation is a sad thing. These spirits and believe exist in all societies, at all times, past and present.

 There are always those who claim that any extreme measure is justified by the threats they see aligned against "us" (real and imagined/exaggerated) the group faces.

The fight is always between those who would strip away all vestiges of rational self interest in favor of authoritarian/totalitarian practices, and those who manage to find a voice to oppose inhumanity and evil without sacrificing one's own humanity in the process. The former always make the arguments the settlers in Israel make, it seems to me, in the process dehumanizing the Palestinians. 

Who, by the way, have completely neutralized their own moral position by embracing a nihilistic worship of bloodshed and murder just as foul as anything I've ever seen.

But I agree with the poster above that the next US president will have on his/her plate the same quandry, and that the only way forward will be to side with the Israeli left and break the stranglehold of the anti-peace elements in Israel -- my guess, about 25% of the population -- and the US on our policies.  Oh, and they won't be happy about it, so expect they're gonna come after us, too. 

"In Vichy France, too, the story was told that the stunning, lightning victory by the Germans was the fault of the centuries-old Jewish community of France"

Bruce, I can testify as to the accuracy of this statement since it was my Grandfather who was driven out of Aix en Provence not by the Germans as much as by his friends and neighbors.

I agree with you that Don was over the top in blaming the Israel's oil pipeline dreams for the war in Iraq. However, there is enough germs of truth to the oil pipeline idea to cause the ill-informed to jump to incorrect conclusions. Since the mid-1990's, Israel has been a presence in and friendly with Kurdistan. When I have been in Israel during the last 10 years, there has been plenty of talk about rebuilding the Kirkuk/Haifa pipeline when Saddam was gone.

Personally, I have always thought this to be a "pipedream". The reality of crossing hundreds of miles of less than friendly arab territory makes this kind of capital investment ludicrous for probably two generations.

You are correct to jump on the "blame the Jews" meme that has been bubbling below the surface of the Iraq war for a long time. The whole neo-con association with Jews is deeply troubling. I just wish more prominent Jews would publicly call out Kristol, Krauthammer, etc etc etc that their aggressive offensive war strategy is incompatible with our faith.

I just wish more prominent Jews would publicly call out Kristol, Krauthammer, etc etc etc that their aggressive offensive war strategy is incompatible with our faith.

The further you carry this argument, the greater the diversion between anything Mr. Rosenberg has actually stated and the caricature you present. If we keep this going, I can only wonder if I will soon be reading how it "seems like" Mr. Rosenberg is claiming to wear a cape and tights, and have superpowers.

One might also argue that the circumstances of Sheinbein's murder case - the coldly premeditated murder, burning and dismemberment of a long-term acquaintance as 'practice' for a planned second murder (he was preparing to kill the boyfriend of an unrequited love interest) - are such that he should fall into a special category. I doubt that Sheinbein is even capable of feeling remorse. Of the two, if only one could spend life behind bars, I would vote for it to be Sheinbein. That's not sympathy for Amir - it's self-interest.

If Amir is indeed such an acute danger to prime ministers that his release puts them in immediate jeopardy, his supporters must be a lot less rabid than he. It is no doubt easier to cheer on a murderer than it is to commit murder, but I doubt that he is that unique. As for the rhetoric of the religious extremists who are likely among those who support him? Not so unique. The most unique person in all of this, unfortunately, appears to have been Rabin.

The principal point I was trying to make is that the 25% figure is not sufficient to establish that 25% of the Israeli population in fact sympathizes with Amir, and a prior survey suggests a significantly lower (albeit still significant) level of popular sympathy for his act of murder.

Good luck to you in trying to prove this audience that huge majority of Israeli Jews are not crazy.

"da Jews did it!"

Jewish people don't need me to take up their cause, but after living my long life hearing about "da Jews" I sometimes wonder why there is never any debate on how much good "deese Jews " do in the world; Humanitarianism, Science, Entertainment, etc.

I guess the argument would be "Yeah but, 'da Jews do OK but dey don't do enough.'"

By the way, I'm a German/Irish non practicing Catholic.

Should I cry when I read that you suggest that "good" Jews have a responsibility to denounce "bad" Jews so that goims don't blame "good" Jews for the actions of "bad" Jews? Brilliant and original idea.

(1) veering into antisemitism by questioning the motives and loyalty of all American Jews

we are not bigots.

The question is what's the best way to explore the connection between pro-Israeli hawks and the Iraq war. I suggest that congress should set new McCarthy like committee. McCarthy went mostly against Liberal Jews. We, real progressive/Liberals should get even with conservatives, let's go against conservative Jews.

Well said, Purple. I submit that the pro-Israeli group and the neocons have been all but inseparable (witness the AIPAC, AEI, PNAC, AJA, etc. connections). Perle and Feith wrote the original paper for Netanyahu that became the PNAC position paper and initiative behind the invasion.

Of course, if Iraq wasn’t an oil rich country, it would never be of strategic interest in the first place. And I do believe that on some cynically pragmatic level, Bush and Cheney wanted to maintain the “war president” footing and expand the GWOT even though other neocons and Israeli supporters did as well. 9/11 has been very useful for the right wing hawks, here and there. However, contentions that asserting Israel influence for the invasion is anti-Semitic may be heartfelt and sincere but that doesn’t make them any more valid. I have not seen anyone saying the Jews (as opposed to Israel or its supporters) led us into Iraq except from those claiming it is anti-Semitic.

I don’t think we will know the full story of the tragedy called the Bush Administration for decades because like true dictators everything is a state secret. Still all one has to do is watch the march to war with Iran to see clearly how Israel and its supporters in powerful positions here influence these guys to attack a country that is absolutely no threat to the U.S. Of course the degree of influence can and should be debated but to deny it exists is plain denial. Perhaps some cannot see this or admit it because it conflicts with or upsets their POV, which is fine, but don’t insinuate that those who do are anti-Semitic. Don’t shoot the messenger.

I have two questions:
1. How we get here from Yigal Amir.
2. Did MJ intend to get here?

Maybe it was a crooked path to get here, but it goes to the question of Amir getting 25% support, then the general rightward move in Israel, then the right wing stranglehold on much of the pro-Israel lobby here, etc. Now, Davai, you of all people are not going to protest straying off-topic, are you? Your questions wouldn't be fish of a crimson color, would they?

Of course no one called for any commissions of inquiry--and we don't need any. What we need is an open debate so Americans are informed and can judge for themselves whether policies advocated by people like Perle and Kristol are designed as much to protect the security of Israel as for other reasons and, if so, whether those policies should be supported by Americans and adopted by our government.

You missed a few in an otherwise excellent list:

Davai: "Why did you give me a zero for saying that M.J. is antisemitic for saying the sky is blue. You're illogical." 

Davai (completely missing the flow of the conversation, in which X has already been discussed):  "Please discuss X."

Davai (responding to a post about the Annapolis meeting): "What is the price of tea in China?"

Davai (responding to a reply to the above post that pointed out that the Annapolis meeting has nothing to do with the price of tea in China):Your unwillingness to discuss the price of tea in China proves that you're hiding something and I am right.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

So much for not "debasing every discussion by his reductio ad absurdum approach to every issue."

If we must bring in herring, I suggest that silver (wine) or white (sour cream) are far preferable to red (tomato sauce). Even yellow (mustard) are better than red.

Mind you, I did enjoy my exploration of the apparently infinite number of herring preparations in Scandinavian hotel breakfast bars. May Sweden or Denmark buy out McDonalds!

Ol!
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Dear Howard,
Thank you very much in participating in an open debate whether policies advocated by people like Perle and Kristol are designed as much to protect the security of Israel as for other reasons. You input is very valuable. Keep up good work.
Regards,
- Davai.

In a weird way, I agree. reductio ad absurdum requires reducing to absurdity, while you are already there.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"When the going gets tough, the tough get weird".

To say that there was a benefit to Israel as a result of the war just doesn't imply the sort of Israel-was-the-cause-and-war-was-the-effect relationship

Sure, it doesn't imply anything, on another hand
what was the point Don was trying to make in the discussion about Rabin's killer? Why he din't bring up the benefits of eating fresh fruits?

Howard,
Who is "we", what kind of problems do "we" have and what they have to do with Yigal Amir or bananas?

Yes.

Wordie:

It has been busy here. Let me try to address your concerns. You write:

"While I said I didn't presume to speak for Don Bacon, you yourself clearly presumed to do exactly that when you applied your own interpretation of what he said, and then attempted to shoot that down. And while I really don't know Don Bacon well enough myself to even begin to judge his intent, I also think, based solely on what he wrote here, that you inaccurately conflated his statement with antisemitic memes."

Here's what I said Wordie at the threshold; I said that snarky suggestions about the purported benefits to Israel resulting from the mess in Iraq are necessarily viewed through an historical prism in which such charges have been levied against the Jewish people, and levied repeatedly. And that was why I kept saying that "that is what my people hear [not Wordie et al by the way respectfully, I wasn't taking about you].

And in this particular case, I found it, at best, deeply offensive and insenstitive for someone to raise this historical charge with respect to Iraq in the manner in which it was. It hits home and it hits hard.

Now, perhaps you are concerned that sensitivity to what Jews have been charged with over the millinea will prevent an honest discussion about the role that Israel and/or its supporters had in sending American boys and girls off to die in Iraq. I understand your concern. If you think you can have an honest discussion with someone who leads with a cynical suggestion that Israel's thirst for oil is the reason that we are in Iraq, then I respectfully disagree.

Now if you think this is all about whether or not a ceratin statement by a certain poster is anti-semitic, well I'm not going to do that dance, and I told you that you do not speak for the particular poster for a specific reason. If you think that my argument touched the third rail of calling what someone said to be anti-semitic, and you want to reduce this to a game of gotcha (and I don't think you do) I understand why you might reach that conclusion, and I accepted such potential consequences in my initial piece.

You want to have a decent discussion Wordie? It will never happen if you think that the issue of whether Israel and/or its supporters pushed this country to war with Iraq can be divorced from the history of the Jewish people. Forget it. And that was what I wrote about at the threshold.

And it pains me to have this discussion with you Wordie, because I do respect you.

Bruce

Thank you. Got it.

Jdledell:

I was unaware of your "French connection". My older girls, through their mom, have a cousin in Paris still, and they have both spent quite a bit of time with her over the past year while studying there. She is 85 and going strong, and she apparently had to hide out during the war as both a Jew and a communist. She is one proud and independent lady and she remains French through and through. The girls just adore her.

All the best.

Bruce

P.S. Hell, I wish the right-wing pundits would change their tune too, but I wish even more that someone could get Bush and Cheney to see the light.

Howard:

"I'm lost by this. If you are suggesting that Zionism and the memory of the Holocaust somehow led to the invasion of Iraq, I am baffled--and you've lost me as far as having a decent discussion. I do not feel that the invasion of Iraq, in any way, contributed to the security of Israel."

The history of the Jewish people is inextricably intertwined with charges that Jews cause wars. I spoke of Vichy France, and consider Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, and Lucky Lindy in this country. And I agree with you that the invasion of Iraq has not helped Israel's security, and that is another practical reason why I think people should be even more careful to suggest that, but for Israel and some of its supporters, the U.S. would not be in Iraq.

Now, that doesn't mean that there are Jewish people in PNAC and elsewhere that didn't have sway with the Bush Administration. But this war is Bush's war, and it's Cheney's war, and there is a coalition behind them that includes some supporters of Israel. But the notion that, but for those supporters of Israel, we would not have been in Iraq, I think is absurd and, for the historical reasons I have described, insensitive at best. And, although I might be misjudging Jewish people in the aggregate, my thesis was and remains that what they hear with respect to Iraq is deja vu all over again.

Bruce

I usually think that much of what you write is well-documented and sound, even if I don't always draw the same conclusions you do.  But here you are going deep into tinfoil-hat territory.  You've taken a series of minor "things that make you go 'hmmm'" and are implying a conspiracy when there is absolutely no evidence of one.

Let's suppose Amir was known to the Shabak and that your contention that Shabak was stirring up the right in order to gain sympathy for Rabin is correct.  Even if both of those were true it still does nothing to either prove or disprove ANYTHING about Rabin's murder or the fact that a lot of right-wing nutcases were baying for Rabin's blood. The fact is that regardless of any agent provocateur or any dirty tricks that Shabak might have been up to, hatred of Rabin on the far-right was just a fact.  Just like there are people who venerate the murderer Baruch Goldstein, there are now people who venerate Yigal Amir.  These are sick fanatics who represent a tiny minority of Israelis.

I chalk up your post to the same thinking that has animated millions of people to believe in conspiracies.  That is, for many it is just inconceivable to think that events of such earth-shaking consequence could be the result of the actions of one lunatic.  Just like a majority of people cannot accept that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and that the death of John F. Kennedy - probably the most consequential political assassination in the last 50 years - was essentially an unlucky, random event, there will be those who cannot accept a simple explanation for the death of Rabin. 

Remember the philosophy of Occam's Razor.  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

You do make one important point that is worth repeating again and again.  That is that at the time of his death, Rabin was quite unpopular and there was a better than even chance that even if he had not been killed, he would have been defeated at the polls.  the idea that if Rabin had lived there would have been peace is pure fantasy.  Even if were not defeated at the polls, the chances that Rabin would have reached an agreement with that vile worm Arafat were slim to none.  And even if he did reach agreement, the chances that Rabin could get an agreement through the Knesset were small.  And even if that happened, the chances that it would have led to an actual peace is the slimmest of all.  Again the parallels with the Kennedy assassination are striking.  In both cases the very real flaws of the person in question are often brushed aside and the thinking is that they would have avoided the disaster that followed.  Kennedy would have kept us out of Vietnam, don't you know.  And Rabin would have signed a peace deal with the Palestinians and there would be peace now.  It would be hard to exaggerate just how ludicrous this is.

Good list, but you forgot one:

Davai: It's all Arafat fault.

Ah yes, God. The all-purpose excuse excuse for evil. Lovely.

Come see TV from the Reality-Based Community at http://RealityBasedTV.com

Bruce.

Israel wasn't pushing for an attack on Saddam so much. Sharon was not afraid of him. To deny that those infleuntial Americans who are Jewish thought a war on Iraq was to Israel's benefit is not plausible. Israel did actively cooperate on many levels for the war and even today, public opinion favoring the war is nearly an exact reverse of our own. I wonder if they know their own security is more precarious as a result.

Their interests were shared by players who have little "emotional" attachment to Israel other than as a strategic asset. That would be Rummy, Cheney and probably Condi.

Bush was and is their perfect foil. His messianiac impulses were used to manipulate him. He is a true believer.

It was a Perfect Storm by human design or so they thought.

I was so heartened today to see ret. Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi tell David Ignatius in the WP that Israel's interests would be better served by dealing directly with Syria and Iran than war. Halevi has managed to trump those of Israel's most dangerous American friends who want war first; some of them are Jewish.

There are other well-credentialed Israelis holding similiar opinions who are natural allies of those American Jewish activists seeking peaceful solutions. Let THEIR voices be heard by Congress, America and the world.

I do think you are misjudging Jewish people in the aggregate, especially the youngun's.

I should know better than to respond to your apologia for Israeli actions. I'm glad, actually, that you don't represent Israel, or I'd really have to be cheering on its enemies.

Do you know about war where both sided didn't commit war crimes? Why would you expect this war to be different?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I suspect most Americans have no idea who Perle and Kristol are. And most Americans thought we were going to war for the reasons the President stated--because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was in league with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 (neither of which was true).

Very few Americans know that in 1996 Richard Perle recommended the overthrow of Saddam Hussein to Benjamin Netanyahu as a measure to strengthen Israel's position in the Middle East. And that after 1996, Perle joined PNAC and began advocating for the same policy. And then Perle became an advisor to Rumsfeld and continued to advocate for the same policy.

Given that Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't in league with the terrorists, why did we go to war? Honestly, I don't think we would have gone to war without the energetic efforts of Perle and the folks at PNAC. PNAC's reasons for overthrowing Saddam Hussein may have had to do with more than the security of Israel, but I believe the security of Israel was a major element in their reasoning. And so yes, I believe we went to war in Iraq in part because people like Perle thought it would be good for Israel. This is not to blame American Jews who overwhelmingly disagreed with Perle's vision. But the connection between pro-Israel hawks like Perle and the war seems strong to me. Nothing needs to be done to prevent these pro-Israel hawks from speaking their minds or advising administrations--however, it is important to understand what their interests are so that the American people can make an informed judgment about whether to follow them or not.

Lally:

You write:

"There are other well-credentialed Israelis holding similiar opinions who are natural allies of those American Jewish activists seeking peaceful solutions. Let THEIR voices be heard by Congress, America and the world."

Lally, I have never sought to suggest, G-d forbid, that the voices of those seeking peaceful solutions should not be heard. Nor have I ever sought to deny that there were and are influential Jewish Americans who thought a war on Iraq was to Israel's benefit. I have acknowledged that consistently and I do so once again. Took on quite a few of those who took such a position myself back in 2002-03.

I do see a material and significant difference between recognizing that there were influential Jewish Americans pushing for war in Iraq, and positing that, but for these influential Jewish Americans and their allies in Israel, we would not have been in Iraq. The latter position is something I don't accept, that I find offensive, and that I think most Jewish Americans would find offensive too. This "but for" position is not something in my own imagination by the way, but it is also the position, as I understand it, that Walt & Mearshemeir continue to posit in their book. It is a position on the merits that even MJ rejects and from your post it appears that you reject it as well.

I guess I can only hope that people are sensitive to the notion that analogous "but for" discussions have been had before. It is far from a cliche to posit that those who fail to recognize history are doomed to repeat it.

Now I also subscribe to the notion that the war in Iraq was in large measure motivated by oil interests. I submit there is an influential oil lobby in this country. I also submit that the oil lobby is not controlled by Israel and its supporters. Indeed, it's to the contrary AFIK. And these submissions cut against the "but for" the influential Jewsih Americans argument that I do not accept.

As to the youngins, perhaps you're right and I don't have my finger on their collective pulse (although I'm not sure that young Jewish Americans believe that influential Jewish Americans caused the war in Iraq). In any event, I have a whole bevy of my own independent young thinkers thank heavens--as I probably point way out too much for some people's tastes--and they might be inclined to agree with you. But I thought differently about a lot of things too when I was young, and the notion that young thinking American Jews didn't question certain givens about Israel when I was a young adult in the late 1970s is just not accurate and seems to be an almost mythical assumption; I know because I was one of the questioners and I was hardly alone on the campuses where I studied. With the young you need to wait and see; that is another given. Stay tuned and with luck we'll continue this discussion when we're both a pair of old fogeys.

Thank you Lally, as always, for your patient and comprehensive reply. I hope you know how seriously I take what you write. I also hope you understand that I am trying to offer my different and seemingly minority perspective on here in a spirit of good faith, and with hope for peace as my ultimate guiding principle.

Bruce

P.S. I consider it a net positive in this ongoing debate we all seek to have if the consensus is that the "but for" argument is flawed, but is materially different than the valid argument that there are influential Jewish Americans who supported the war in Iraq and that alternative voices need be heard.

There are a lot of people at this site who are very casual about Israeli deaths and use Israel to disguise, mainly from themselves, their anti-Semitism. I appreciate your efforts but remember a lot of these bigots aren't all that smart.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Kristol and Perle's advocacy for the war in Iraq, except for the good that would come from ousting Saddem, was remarkably ill-informed and shortsighted. It was also never put in terms of what was good for Israel except in terms of the identity of interests between the U.S. and other democracies.

There is no doubt that as former leftists the neo-Cons have a much great confidence in the redeaming power of American power. They are very influenced by both Munich and Britain's failure and the American Left's failure to confront the evils of the Soviet Union. This a grand world view of which Israel is but one small piece.

People might want to read Donald and Frederick Kagan's "Why America Sleeps" which put forward the view that Britain post WWI failed to take on the necessary burdens that would have stopped WWII and takes the US to task for making the same mistake post the Cold War. It is some what simplistic particular in their failure to take into account democratic politics. However, it does give a coherent view of the neo-Con's view of the ability of military power and a signle superpowers ability to mold the world.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Don Key,

My understanding is that the original Zionist movement was religiously based....

Misunderstandings have a nasty habit of growing up into presumptions.  While the rabbinate had been established as Jewry's government in exile spanning ancient and medieval historiography, Zionism is a product of modernity.  With the advance of the modern era in the West, the deference to the rabbinate in socio-political matters declined among increasing numbers of Jews.  Zionists in particular had no use for the rabbinate's insistence upon awaiting messianic redemption to reassert Jewish national self-determination in Israel as a way of liberating Jewry from a globally intolerable socio-political status quo that they attributed to political statelessness.

Bruce, I'm waiting for a flight and blogging from a Blackberry is painful, but I want to say that I think Zunnes analysis is a fair one and I'm glad you shared it. That said, I still think Walt and Mearsheimer's concerns are valid. It would be wrong to blame Iraq solely on pro-israeli hardliners. But at the same time it does seem that there are an awful lot of pro-israeli hardliners advising tough solutions in the middle east. I do worry that the US is not only being dragged into an Israeli-Arab conflict but being asked to take a particular side in that conflict and take that side in a particularly aggressive and warlike way. And I'm not 100 percent comfortable with that because I don't believe the right and wrong in this conflict is so black and white.

Dear Borak,
I know Uzbeks , I worked with Uzbeks, Uzbeks were friends of mine, I backpacked in Uzbekestan. Let me tell you, Uzbeks are smart, friendly good people. MJ is not Uzbek.

AIPAC is an Israeli lobby. They don't hide it.
I don't see any evidences that they (now) an Likud lobby or an right wing lobby or anything like that.

But I really think it's an important discussion to have

What's at stake?
If assertion A is correct then what?
If assertion B is correct then what?

The only way to neutralize the power of the neocons is to expose them, so that American public opinion against them grows

It's just not possible to say honestly that there were not prominent "pro"-Israeli neocons who were clearly also concerned with Israel in the run up to the war

Thank you for your reasoned comments. I do not claim to know what really happened. I do repeat that Rabin's family does not accept the official explanations (i.e. Yigal Amir was unkown to the SHABAK and acted simply because he was 'driven crazy by all the incitement against Rabin') and does believe that the SHABAK was involved in some sort of dirty tricks of using provocateurs. I do believe that Yigal Amir's actions were part of a provocation by the SHABAK. I suggest you investigate further, because the questions I posed still need to be answered in order to refute what I and a large part of the Israeli population believe.
BTW-I absolutely reject the idea that those who tell the pollsters that they want Amir released early approve of Rabin's murder. My own son-in-law told me point blank that we would tell pollsters he would favor early release even though he really doesn't simply to antagonize the Left which is trying to turn Rabin's death into something like the USSR's cult of Lenin which MJ himself did here.

Bruce: I just wanted to add an apology of sorts for singling your comments out in my post. What I was expressing was a general impression about some of the claims of antisemitism I see here at TPM Cafe, and you aren't really the first generally to raise such claims. And I also want to stress that I don't think you in any way actually have any affinity for the neocons. You have, as you mentioned elsewhere, spoken out against them. The support that I mentioned above in relation to claims of antisemitism is in all ways inadvertent as I see it. I probably could have stated this better.

I probably should add that I think there are also some persons who wade into these sorts of discussions with an incomplete understanding of the nuances of these issues. I would suggest to everyone that a calm explanation of those nuances would be preferable to attacking such posters, either for antisemitism or for too much support for Israel. Why make enemies of persons who are merely inadequately informed?

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Your allegation that Israel is a "pariah" is outrageous. South Africa became a pariah state, North Korea is a pariah state, Iran is a pariah state. Israel is NOT A pariah state. For you, the right to define a "pariah" belongs to the so-called "progressives" like Iran, Syria, Chavez's Venezuela and radical anti-Israel forces in the US and Europe, not to mention Islamic radicals. The fact that you feel the need to get validation from regimes and groups like those shows what your political beliefs are. You are totally OUTSIDE the mainstream of American non-Jewish and Jewish public opinion, in addition to that of world Jewry.

I must point out that the illegal poltical sabotage the SHABAK was carrying out against the political opposition is well documented and part of the SHAMGAR commission's official record. Just to remind you: SHABAK agent provocateur Avishai Raviv , who SHAMGAR showed was closer to Yigal Amir than anyone else in the months prior to the assassination, was involved in the following illegal acts
(1) assaults upon Leftist Knesset Member Tamar Gozhansky
(2) assaults upon Arabs living in Hevron
(3) photographed while holding a pistol wearing a shirt with a picture of Rabin saying something like "death to traitors". This photo was distributed by him to the media
(4) Staging for Israel television news, with their active participation, a "swearing-in" ceremony at the grave of LEHI founder Avraham Stern with boys who threatened violence against "traitors"
(5) Distribution to the news media of the infamous photo of Rabin in the SS uniform at the Likud anti-Oslo demonstration in Zion Square
(6) Repeated goading of Yigal Amir on numerous occassions in front of numerous witnesses to kill Rabin
(7) taking credit for the murder of an Arab in Halhul who was actually killed by other Arabs. The Arabs threatened vengeance against the Jews of Hevron and Jewish vehicles were attacked by Arabs in retaliation. Yossi Sarid, a member of the Knesset intelligence committee and who was aware of the SHABAK's provocations, denounced the Jews of Hevron and demanded their expulsion.

Add to this what the SHABAK told Leah Rabin after the shooting, add to this the odd treatment of SHABAK head Carmi Gillon after his failure to keep Rabin alive and the case for the SHABAK carrying out a provocation to discredit the anti-Oslo political forces is, to my mind, overwhelming. There is much more that can be said, but I am only including things that are accepted by the SHAMGAR commission and the mainline media.

Let's be honest. Yuli Tamir, a veteran Peace Now/Labor Party activist who is now (unfortunately) Education Minister, once said "peace is so important, it is allowable to use anti-democratic means to achieve it". I can see even how anyone who believes "peace is the most important thing" could justify using illegal actions including provocations to discredit the opposition. This kind of thinking leads one to a slippery slope, as indeed happened in the case of Rabin.

Think.

From a Jm Lobe article at CommonDreams:

But perhaps its most notable letter was sent to Bush Sep. 20, 2001, just nine days after the 9/11 attacks. In addition to calling for the ouster of the Taliban and war on al Qaeda, the letter called for waging a broader and more ambitious "war on terrorism" that would include cutting off the Palestinian Authority under Yassir Arafat, taking on Hezbollah, threatening Syria and Iran and, most importantly, ousting Hussein regardless of his relationship to the attacks or al Qaeda.

"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States," it said. "But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

The letter was signed by 38 members of the predominantly neo-conservative Washington echo chamber, many of whom -- especially Kristol, Kagan, Defence Policy Board members Perle, Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Centre for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, former Education Secretary William Bennett, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Foundation for the Defence of Democracies director Clifford May --would emerge, along with Woolsey, as the most ubiquitous champions of war with Iraq outside the administration.

Seven months later, PNAC issued another letter signed by many of the same people urging Bush to step up preparations for war with Iraq, sever all ties to the Palestinian Authority under Arafat and give full backing to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's efforts to crush the Palestinian intifada.

"Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an important part of our victory," the letter noted. "For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism." Bush complied two months later.

Well I did a modicum of research just because you piqued my curiosity.  I don't claim anythink like comprehensive knowledge of the subject, but I think I can separate what might be significant from what is insignificant.  And I stand by my contention that none of it really matters very much anyway.

The central contention of the right is that because Amir was friends with Raviv, a government agent, and Raviv actually goaded Amir to go ahead with the assassination, that means that the central charge of the left - that the right is indirectly responsible for Rabin's death - is false.   The theory seems to be that if Amir were shown to have been prodded by the government itself, as part of a dirty tricks campaign, that exonerates the right.

Let's stipulate right off the bat that it is a known fact that Raviv and Amir were friends and that Raviv was a government agent.  Let's also state with slightly less certainty that the government was engaged in some kind of a dirty tricks campaign - how serious and to what extent is not clear.  The question then is: how does any of this let the right off the hook for the central charge: that the right created an atmosphere that allowed political extremism to reach a dangerous level.  In the first place, there seems to be some uncertainty about the degree to which Raviv's actions were the result of orders from his Shabak superiors or were of his own volition.  If Raviv, who was known as a right-wing extremist independent of his actions as a provocateur, pushed Amir into murder because he himself thought it was a good idea (a not implausible scenario) then that just reinforces the idea that the right was responsible.  But as I said, we don't know for sure.

But in order to exonerate the right, you would need to show that ALL the nutty, loony, extremist behavior in the days and weeks before Rabin's murder - which was either encouraged or at least winked at by the mainstream right - was the work of the government.  That is a tall order.  The fact is that whether or not Amir's actions were the result of a government dirty tricks campaign gone horribly wrong, which seems highly dubious, there were many other extremists out there being egged on by the right.  The lunatic rabbis who encourage the fanatical settler groups.  The political parties who give them respectability.  The authors and intellectuals who preach contempt for the democratic process - they were all partially responsible.  At the end of the day, the decision to kill Rabin was taken by Yigal Amir, whether or not he was the unwitting pawn of a dirty tricks campaign.  The mindset that made that decision possible was a product of the extremist right-wing and at least partially enabled by the mainstream right wing.  That much is irrefutable. 

It sounds like the early Zionists were still led somewhat by their religious beliefs

It would be hard to exaggerate how wrong this is.  The early Zionists came in an infinite variety of flavors, but the vast majority were strictly secular and indeed had little but contempt for the religious establishment.  David Ben-Gurion would have rather stuck pins in his eyeballs than set foot in a synagogue.

Point taken, Brad. As I said, I was not debating it in the first place. I remember reading about Zionists in the late 19th century that were religiously motivated (led by a rabbi?) but I guess that was a small group. Isn’t the Eretz Israel that you hear about (sometimes here) about God-given land that is Greater Israel?

I am afraid that you have simply repeated the canards that MJ expressed in his posting...that there is a hard-core of violent fantatic "right-wingers" many (or most) of whom are Orthodox/religious and they created a climate of violence that led to Rabin's murder. THIS IS FALSE. As I stated and you confirmed yourself, Rabin carried out a very controversial policy that never had majority public or Knesset backing that led to a LOT of people dying. This, like the War in Vietnam, led to a lot of anger and protests. Yes, there were strong statements against Rabin, just like when MERETZ Knesset members, during the equally controversial first Lebanon War stood with signs that said "BEGIN IS A MURDERER-SHARON IS A MURDERER". I attended innumerable demonstrations against Rabin and Oslo and 99 % of the violence came from the police who broke up the demonstrations, particularly those of the "Zo Artzenu Organization".
You talk about "lunatic rabbis". WHO ARE THEY? How much violence are their followers guilty of? A controversial right-wing Rabbi who for years has been at odds with most of his colleagues went on TV right after the murder and said Joe McCarthy-style "I have a list of Rabbis who proclaimed a death sentence on Rabin". There was a major hullaballoo from this, everyone said he should go to the police and hand over the list so they could investigate it. He then admitted he had no list.
The anti-Vietnam War movement spawned extremist groups like the Weathermen and a bomb was placed in a US Army Laboratory IIRC at the University of Wisconsin and someone was killed. Does that make the anti-War crowd a "bunch of extremists" and followers of "lunatic progressives"? The fact that the SHABAK had to embark on a series of highly publicized provocations shows that there wasn't enough "action" on the right to discredit it.
On this very web site, TPM, I see lots of incendiary comments about Bush and the Neocons. Is that "incitement"? Where at the limits of freedom of speech? Or does it only apply to the side you support?

that there is a hard-core of violent fantatic "right-wingers" many (or most) of whom are Orthodox/religious and they created a climate of violence that led to Rabin's murder. THIS IS FALSE.

It is false to assert that the number of right-wingers inclined to political violence was any more than a handful.  The number of extremists who were willing to go as far as Amir was, I'm sure, exceedingly tiny.  However, it is not false to assert that there were significantly greater numbers of people who engaged in highly provocative rhetoric, explicitly designed to demonize Yitzhak Rabin, and asserting that a policy of reliquishing control of Jewish land was against the Torah.  Furthermore, the mainstream right never explicitly distanced itself from that sort of rhetoric.  IIRC, there was a well-reported incident not long before Rabin's death when someone shouted "Death to Rabin!"  Netanyahu heard this person and expressed his disapproval, but in a rather weak, mealy-mouthed way.

Of course you can argue that it was all free speech and people were just expressing their strong views.  If some took their views to an extreme and resorted to violence, well who knew that would happen?  Sorry, but this is just a tad disingenuous.  It is the responsibility of mainstream political leaders to condemn in no uncertain terms the use of violence.  Your analogy to the anti-Vietnam war protests is instructive.  To the extent that the mainstream antiwar leaders didn't say anything about the violence that did exist or worse, winked at it, they are guilty of the same negligence that the Israeli right is guilty of.

By contrast, consider for a moment the American anti-abortion movement.  There can be no doubt that anti-abortion activists are just as passionate about their cause as those who want to retain the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.  Many of them are also motivated by the same sort of uncompromising religious zeal.  But whenever violence has flared up, as it has from time to time, the mainstream anti-abortion movement has taken great pains to distance itself from such action and to make it clear that it wants nothing to do with the extremists. 

You talk about "lunatic rabbis". WHO ARE THEY?

Are you denying that there are rabbis who sanction political extremism?  Whether or not they explicitly gave the green light to kill Rabin is irrelevant.  The fact is there are rabbis who make it clear that violence is acceptable and this persists to this day.

Here's an excerpt from a Time Magazine article from a few years ago:

Intelligence officials tell TIME that since discovering religious Jews on reconnaissance missions across the valley at the Mount of Olives, they have been concerned about the possibility of radical settlers launching a missile attack against the mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Officials are also worried about the threat of lone assassins like Yigal Amir, who slew Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin nine years ago this week. "These extremists believe Yigal Amir changed the course of reality," says an intelligence official. "They still celebrate the murder of Rabin."

The young men in Avigail weren't always outside the mainstream. Most were in combat units of the Israeli army during their compulsory military service. As they recount their army days, they tell of operations carried out for Israel's special forces, Egoz and Shimshon, units with names that inspire admiration among almost all Israelis. Israel's politics--not they--have moved away from the ideals they fought for, the men argue. "We're not interested in protesting Sharon's plan," says Yair. "We're going to sabotage it."

The new extremists accuse those who support disengagement of being erev rav, a biblical term that refers to people from other nations who joined the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt. Some Talmudic rabbis blame all the bad events in Jewish history--from the Golden Calf to the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora--on the traces of those non-Israelites in Jewish society. Increasingly, the fringe of religious extremists, bound to refrain from killing Jews, justify the possibility of political violence by arguing that police and soldiers evacuating Jews from their land would be erev rav, enemies within who deserve to be destroyed.

or consider this page from the Anti-Defamation League:

Fears that extremists might resort to violence against Prime Minister Sharon were heightened after Rabbi Avigdor Neventzal, an ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem rabbi, publicly suggested in June 2004 that ancient Jewish law might have permitted vigilante attacks against a Jewish leader who intended to cede control of Jewish land to non-Jews.  Though Neventzal added that no rabbi would be justified in issuing such a ruling today, his comments were reminiscent of language employed by Jewish radicals shortly before the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.  Weeks after Neventzal’s comments, then-Shin Bet head Avi Dicther warned the Knesset Defense and Foreign services committee that well over 100 Jewish extremists “actively wish for the death of the prime minister.”  Israel’s security minister, Tzachi Hanegbi, added that he believed Jewish extremists already were planning to kill Israeli officials.   

Threats against Sharon’s life have escalated as the settlement evacuation has approached. Last fall, graffiti was found featuring slogans such as, “We assassinated Rabin, we will assassinate Sharon too.”  Kach spokesperson Itamar Ben-Gvir was arrested in January 2005 for displaying a bumper sticker that read, “Sharon, Lily is waiting for you,” referring to Sharon’s deceased wife.  Most recently, a group of extremist rabbis gathered to invoke a death curse against Sharon derived from ancient Jewish tradition called the pulsa denura. Rabbi Michael Ben-Horin, one of the rabbis, said that because Sharon was better protected “than Hitler or Stalin,” it was necessary to employ the curse to stop his disengagement plans.

"Full voting rights"--- do you mean like the voting rights the Arabs of Syria, Saudi Arabia or even Egypt have, for that matter?
"Liberal" Jordan just changed its electoral law making it harder for opposition parties to enter their parliament. The New York Times just ran an article about it. They pointed out that parliamentary constituencies in pro-Hashemite outlying areas have one MP per 2000 residents. In areas populated by Palestinians, it is something like 1 per 50,000.
The Arabs of Judea/Samaria do not have a choice between "occupation" and "democracy". They have a choice between continued autonomy with Israel having security control and a strong Jewish civilian presence in the Jewish people's historic homeland OR CHAOS-Gaza style.

They have a choice between continued autonomy with Israel having security control and a strong Jewish civilian presence in the Jewish people's historic homeland OR CHAOS-Gaza style.

1.Don't you understand that your argumenty is not supported by 99 % of American Jews and probably 90 % of Israeli people.

2. Do you let Palestinians to make the choice or you made the choice for them?

3. There is an alternative.
Contunue mliltary control over West Bank and Gaza in the near future with the goal of eventual independence.

In the world of the absurd, the blind man has one eye.

While I'm surprised to find myself saying this, Davai, thank you for a couple of perceptive posts.

Bruce,

Nice post, to which I'd like to add an anecdote, nothing all that profound but speaking to the value of communications and culture.

Last year, I was hospitalized with a mild intestinal bleed, which no one ever really figured out. There was a change in hospitalists that were seeing me, and one, who I had heard was Pakistani, came in, and said "we still don't know what caused it, but I think you are getting better."

As he turned to leave, I sort of muttered "Insh'allah." He looked like he had bounced off a glass wall, asked me to repeat, and asked why I said it. I said it simply felt right.

He started to leave again, and in a low and questioning tone, said "As-salaamu Alaikum?" I responded, "wa `Alaykum As-Salaam", mostly exhausting my Arabic unless I wanted to order dinner.

A couple of hours later, two of the nurses came in, and asked what I had done with Dr. X. They said he normally hated everyone, but he came out of your room, grinning ear-to-ear, came up to the nursing statement, and said "I want Mr. Berkowitz treated as if he was my brother."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Terrifying story about medical care in US.

davai.

Nearly everything that I know about Israel is from 7 years of reading the Israeli media (from right to left) and associated websites, not MJ's opinions. His perspective as a DC insider and player there is another matter entirely and as such, an essential ingredient in the stew.

You need to read the Israeli media yourself, as if you did, you would be aware that the campaign to free Amir caused widespread outrage among Israelis of diverse positions and political persuasions who do see these efforts as a threat to the democratic nature of Israel.

Go argue with them.

But then there was no public lionizing of Oswald, or Sirhan, or James Earl Ray.

A. Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl Ray were not lone assasins. Check your encyclopedia and let me know when the last national right wing leader was assasinated.

B. I grew up with people who celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day by calling it James Earl Ray Day. Racism is loud and proud. Only in the last few years, not more than a decade really, has it become good manners to wear your klan robes under your shirt.

davai.

Your reading list is waaaaaaaaaay too limited. Try adding Ynetnews, IMRA and Arutz Sheva to it. You can also check Ariga for rare "Today's Situation" updates and their news feed to see what's moving over the wires re Israel.

IMO, the JPost isn't good for much except for their guys writing on defense/security issues.

Lally:

Thank you for your kind words and keen insight. I am truly flattered. As to my negotiating skills, full disclosure requires me to tell you that the union that I spend the most time with has been involved in six industry-wide strikes since '04. The anologous action to the strike in the foreign affairs context might cause you to reconsider whether you would really want me at the negotiating table. Perhaps it's safer for all concerned if I remain in the peanut gallery. :)

Bruce