"An elderly Jewish friend from London"

Even David Gregory gets it.

The question asked was 'who'. The actual question should be 'why'. We all have to fight our own battles and Israelis should do the same.

Israel is smack dab in the middle of the most conflict prone region of the world populated with insane religious zealots. Does it come as a surprise that they apparently have few supporters?

I have my own reasons for supporting Israel but I can also see why others might not want to associate with this conflict.

While Israel was a socialist, kibbutz oving experiment then the left was behind them. As soon as the elected a right wing government, Likud, then the left turned on them

I have my own issues with Likud, I still maintain the settlemnts are ultimately a big issue that will need to be resolved (and these were a problem of Israel's own making). Nothwithstanding that, Israel is acting rationally in this action, and the calls against them are overdone.

You can see that Israel by calling the ceasefire (after bloddying Hamas) is now trying to move back to, or maintain some moral high ground. Cease fire and a call for negotiations. Smart PR, one hopes they are sincere (I believe most in the Israeli government are), in the call for negotiations and an agreement.

I will be a long process, but the Saudi's, the Egyptians and the Jordanians are putting pressure on the Palestinians to "wake up". If those governments thought that the Israeli's werent serious you think they would risk any of their "capital" on the Israeli's. If Mubarek wanted to end his domestic opposition and make himself popular wouldnt it be easier for him to just back Hamas and Hezbo.

Mubarek, who is secular, the Saudi's who are Sunni and the jordanians who are secular know that Hamas and Hezbo are just plain crazy. Sadly the British left, as is the Canadian left, so blinded by ideology that they miss what is in front of them.

While the left always likes an underdog, the problem is if Israel put itself in that position the first comment would be, "they deserved it". Only when they had lost the struggle would the left pick it up and blame the US for abandoning them for "oil interests".....I can here it now.

The left feeds on victim classes. When Jews refuse to be victims, they're considered traitors.

drained brain - if you choose to select and listen to radicals on any side, that's the type of rhetoric you'll get. Always. It's outside of debate, outside of thought and analysis.

Instead, why not listen to and focus on the moderates on any side? They exist, and they are the ones to nurture, enable and support. [By the way, some 'moderates' don't like being called that as they define themselves as the true interpretors of their religion/state, while the radicals are viewed as invalid.]

I consider it an error to merge Islamic fascism with Islam, just as it's an error to merge the ideology of the Israeli settlers with 'Judaism'.

It is equally an error to reject evaluation and analysis in favoour of mechanical support of either Israel or Islamic fascism. Both are political systems, and the political decisions of both can and must be evaluated.

I reject Islamic fascism not only for its ideological utopianism and violence but because it runs counter to modern industrialism and democracy -both of which are required in a multimillion population base.

I've said, repeatedly, that I'm in favour of a two-state solution and that I feel that the Israeli political agenda rejects that. But, to me, the best solution for Israel's security would be that two-state, with Palestine as a robust instead of non-existent economy, and one that is embedded within the Israeli economy. The two together, one a Muslim democracy and the other a Judaic democracy, would further disable the force of Islamic fascism.

The strategy to achieve this is to empower the Palestinian 'man on the street' to be economically constructive. That means, getting out of the West Bank and enabling it to function as an economy (that means lifting water restrictions etc); and the same with Gaza - Israel's cutting off of water, hydro and closing the border to Gaza exports to Israel- shortly after they left Gaza in 2006 - ended that economy.

I don't think that violence, that war, can be used as the primary strategy to defuse either Palestinian goals (which are NOT Islamic fascist goals) - or Islamic fascist goals. I think that the first has to be economically managed while the latter has to be confronted on three levels: militarily, economically and intelleltually (end multiculturalism).

"The left feeds on victim classes. When Jews refuse to be victims, they're considered traitors."

Concision is refreshing.

and to think they accused Dubya of 'simplisme'

'the worldview of the radical Left is shaped by a Manichaean dualism that unifies it's common agendas...at the heart of this worldview is the PSYCHOLOGICALLY INDISPENSABLE belief in a utopian future that embodies the idea of "social justice"....it is this utopian vision that provides radicals with the standard of judgement that condemns the ACTUALLY EXISTING world no matter how decent it may be"
(all MY emphases)

basically your average lefty means well...he truly does...but he/she is so breathtakingly simple minded so averse to critical thought and oblivious to anything but emotion that he/she of course ends up being an impedance to longitudinal logical growth or development......
....and so it has been for the last 100 years...

Sorry, kate, I don't agree with the second part of your phrase.

I fully agree that the left focuses on victims,(and they define that status and like these people to remain victims)... but, the second part suggests that the refusal to be a victim defines that group as a traitor. And the left then turns against them.

Wouldn't this also mean that the left ought to reject Islamic fascist terrorist attacks as 'traitorous acts'? Instead, the left supports such violence. Don't they also see Islamic fascism as the fight by the 'colonized' (heh) against the evil industrial imperialists?

I wonder if it's a 'left/right' issue.

i scorn and flout them to their mealy mouthed faces....an eg...."how can a f***ing atheist like you", i say, "side with a party whose raison d'etre is religiously motivated mass murder?"

but it does no good whatsoever...i don't believe i have even one convert to the cause after a lifetime of attempted suasion.....which brings me back to my father(everything does it seems)...he said "all these bums ever understand is when you flatten them...."

"I wonder if it's a 'left/right' issue." (ET)

The enemy of my enemy...

"There are two things I just can't stand: People who are intolerant of other peoples' cultures; and the Jews!"

-Seemingly every Liberal worldwide

correction.....'i JEER and flout them...'

i wouldn't wish to misquote le maitre....

"I wonder if it's a 'left/right' issue?"
ET you've hit the nail on the head.

Kate should install a shock absorber between her brain and keyboarding fingers. That Saskatchewan winter seems to be causing cabin fever.

not stirred enough says:
"The question asked was 'who'. The actual question should be 'why'. We all have to fight our own battles and Israelis should do the same."

If anything history has shown that very few battles are fought by one country. If that was the case then Britian would be eating knackwerst and speaking German. And what exactly is the reason for NORAD, NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Do you honestly think Hamas is fighting it's own battle? You must be drinking ET's koolade.

There is nothing wrong with fighting your own battles but having friends and allies that my give a hand is nice too.

On reflection I can only assume that not stirred is a troll or an idiot.

oh dear....what an intellectual dilemma !

you ask....how can one be a victim when one is paramount in science ....research and development....medicine....making war....finance.....agriculture.....the nuts and bolts of messy messy democracy.....charity...philosophy....all the arts...?

two opposite and opposing thoughts having the same weight and moral heft....surely it's impossible for a people that possess all these virtues to be victims...it CANNOT be !!!!!!!!

and yet it is...

the 'palestinians' have wittingly and unwittingly chosen to be victims....

whereas the Jews had no free will in the matter...

now that's what i call a truly inconvenient truth...

john begley - "..but he/she is so breathtakingly simple minded so averse to critical thought and oblivious to anything but emotion that he/she of course ends up being an impedance to longitudinal logical growth or development......"

"he said "all these bums ever understand is when you flatten them...."

When you next make such an impassioned diatribe against the left, you might wait at least ten minutes before you completely discredit yourself.

As a first generation Canadian whose parents immigrated from England, I am ashamed when I read articles like this one. Considering Britain's direction of late and the fiasco in our HofC, I don't think it's ever been more evident than now that Canada needs to become a Republic.

"The left feeds on victim classes. When Jews refuse to be victims, they're considered traitors."

True, but not necessarily in this case.(i.e. Sarah Palin)

The leftard elites are simply throwing the Joo's under the bus because the upside of of anti-Semitism is too attractive politically. The parrots on the left are simply mimicking their masters completely oblivious to what they say or stand for. For those who are intellectually lazy, intuition dictates that war is bad; therefore, if the leftards can create the perception that Israel, the United States, conservatives ect are warmongers, then that's what they are. When you play victim politics and ostracize certain groups to push your agenda forward, you inevitably will find yourself in the same cross-hairs you previously pointed at others.

"The leftard elites are simply throwing the Joo's under the bus because the upside of of anti-Semitism is too attractive politically. The parrots on the left are simply mimicking their masters completely oblivious to what they say or stand for. For those who are intellectually lazy, intuition dictates that war is bad; therefore, if the leftards can create the perception that Israel, the United States, conservatives ect are warmongers, then that's what they are. When you play victim politics and ostracize certain groups to push your agenda forward, you inevitably will find yourself in the same cross-hairs you previously pointed at others."

As I noted earlier, "the enemy of my enemy..."

Drained Brain,
interesting link about David Gregory. I followed a link in that article to another interesting item from The Atlantic(JeffreyGoldberg's blog on Nizar Rayyan)

"There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel." There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. "Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."

...it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people." What are our crimes? I asked Rayyan. "You are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah," he said. "Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God."

Wherever you are on the political spectrum, and for all of Israel's faults and failings, I don't see how you could possibly apologize for the likes of Hamas.

Head stooge-"The left feeds on victim classes."

Oh oh…she’s figured us out. We got empathy. Perhaps now Kate could direct that rarified sapience on the motivations of the right-wing…never mind, I figured it out…single minded self-interest.

ET;

I don't know whether you read any of Mark Steyn's work, but he's correctly pointed out that those today who argue in favour of a two state solution of Israel and Palestine are unaware that such a reality currently exists and are in fact arguing for a three state solution.

There indeed already is a Palestine. Most don't realize it because it was first called Trans-Jorden, then later shortened to just Jordan. Whether you are correct or not in your belief that another Palestinian state will lead down the road to peace, (I think not) at least call it what it is.

Remember too that Jordan at one time opened their doors to their Palestinian brothers from the West Bank with the result that they caused so much trouble they got their asses kicked all the way to Lebanon. Of course as we all know, they turned that place into a sewer, reducing Beirut, formerly referred to as the Paris of the Mediteranian, to a ghastly shell of its former self.

Truth be told ET, so-called Palestinians have an unfailing ability to turn everything they touch to s*it. It's no small wonder that a lot of Israelis are less than convinced of the merits of your plan.

sorry to hear that 'hypocritic'....

but nobody is allowed to correct me on 'style' or 'timing' other than God or my father....and you are clearly neither...

...but you ARE allowed to make comment no matter how frivolous on the actual substance of my transmission....please DO try to stay au point rather than play at Miss Floggy.

My point in wondering if the anger at Jews is a left/right issue is on multiple levels.

First, I separate 'Judaism' from 'Israelism'. The two aren't identical. Indeed, Judaism has in itself, several distinct groups, such as the Orthodox, Conservatives and Reform. This is reflected in Israeli politics as well although the Orthodox and Conservatives are key powers in political Israel. But, there are divisions in Israeli politics about the agenda of the Israel state; eg, there were demonstrations in Israel AGAINST this current Gaza war.

Different Views in Israel

Second, I don't think that the global anti-semitism has anything to do with definitions of 'being a victim', which is indeed, a value of the left perspective. Victims are the workers (heh, even the elite unionized workers), minority groups (even well-funded ones), and so on.

Third, as I said, I don't merge Judaism with Israeli politics, so, when I criticize the latter, it isn't a criticism of the former. But many people do merge the two; indeed, we've even seen articles that insist that if you criticize Israel then you are an anti-semite.

Equally, I don't merge Islamic fascism with Palestinian anger at their occupation and lack of a state and economy. I view the causes of each as quite different, and the solutions to each, as also quite different. But, there are a number of people who do merge the two. Or even worse, who merge Islamic fascism with Islam. Oh well.

That means, however, that I feel that it is correct to criticize Israeli politics. I suspect that a fair bit of the vicious rallies against the Israeli Gaza War is because people merge Israel with 'Jewish'. Israel, after all, has set up such an imagery itself. And so many people have claimed that criticism of Israel really is an act of anti-semitism, that one can see why people merge the two.

They aren't identical, but I criticize Israel for its treatment of Gazans, both since it left when it effectively broke the Gaza economy, and in this current war. And I criticize Israel for its settlements of the West Bank and its role in denigrating the Palestinian economy there.

Why shouldn't these acts be open to comment and critique? It has nothing to do with left/right, for often such perspectives function to remove the issue from critique and analysis - by both sides.

joebaloni....

'single minded self interest'..

gee...thanks...you hit the nail on the head !!!

it's a dream i know we both share.... i too, like you, envision a world of people going about single mindedly taking care of themselves and their families(newclear extended and otherwise)within this unbelievably wealthy wonderful capitalistic democratic free trading full of fabulous prizes and rewards cocoon !

Truth is, I see no way to resolve the Israel/Palestine dilemma short of utter destruction of one of the two parties. And truth be told, there is only one of the two parties that is vulnerable to genuine destruction.

Right and wrong are irrelevant now. The Arab and Muslim hate is so bred in the bone that no solution that includes Israel as a viable Jewish state would ever be acceptable to a sufficient number of people to create peace.

And given that there are 6 million Jews in a tiny land surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslim arabs in oil rich countries, I see the end as totally predictable.

It doesn't matter how we get there, in the long run Israel is doomed.

Just like it was obvious that the world was heading for an economic downturn after 7 years of continuing growth created by irrational real-estate valuations and unsustainable 3rd world economic expansion. It had to end at some point. How, probably no one could predict with certainty and exactness, but it had to end. And so it is.

Similarly, somehow Israel will not survive. Whether it's in the manner that South Africa was destroyed, or through a devastating war with an enemy that finally has acquired the means to commit nuclear insanity. Somehow, it will happen.

In the big picture of world history and important change the existence of Israel for 50-100 years (keep in mind it has only been in existence for 61 years) will be little more than a hiccup in world history. When the history books are written 200 years fro now, the big story of that part of the world in our times will not be the wars of the Jewish nation, but how infinite oil riches permitted the backwards culture and primitive religion of that part of the world to spread through the rest of the world and cause untold harm to centuries of human development.

So, while I root for Israel to fight on and defeat the seas of barbarians around it, I see it as a tiny candle flickering in the face of an ocean of darkness that is going to inevitably overwhelm it.

One has to wonder if those that call Israel's military response in Gaza "disproportionate" would accept a proportionate response instead. What would the say of Israel intermitantly lobbing rockets into residential neighborhoods and commercial areas with the express intent of killing civilians? What if that transpired over years? What if that happened in spite of agreements to the contrary? What if Israel initiated the rocket attacks? I very much doubt it would meet with approval.

How does one expect them to be peaceful?I don't know if it is left/right but I do know the kids are brainwashed from the day they are born to hate Jews. I read a missive by a Palestinian on the subject. He never questioned his hatred of Jews as abnormal. He grew up on it, was taught by his friends and his schools. To him it was just normal. The cartoon characters are murdered by Israelis.

"And what exactly is the reason for NORAD, NATO and the Warsaw Pact."

Texas,

NATO and NORAD were formed to prevent the spread of Communist aggression, the Warsaw Pact was devised to counter NATO and NORAD. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Comparing this example to Israel/Gaza today is apples and oranges.

Who's the troll idiot now!

bob c; sorry, but I don't deal in Universals with regard to human beings, so I disagree with your opinion that '{all] Palestinians have an unfailing ability to turn everything..".

I also disagree that Jordan is 'the Palestinian state'. The view that they are 'really all Jordanians' isn't substantiated in history or geography. There is no such thing as an 'essentialist or natural state'; states/nations are human constructs. After all, one could say that there is no such thing as a Belgian state; it ought to be split up between the Netherlands and France (as it is such linguistically). Or how about merging the Dominican Republic with Haiti; heck, they're on the same terrain.

What can't be ignored is that the area which is now partly Israel and partly occupied by Israel, was inhabited by people who were called Palestinians (British Mandate). They were not all expatriates of Jordan; some had been living there for centuries. Jordan won't accept them; indeed, if a Jordanian takes out a Palestinian travel document he loses his Jordanian citizenship instantly.

Yes, I've read Mark Steyn and no, I don't agree with the view that a Palestinian is identical to a Jordanian.

Equally, as I said before, and I'll remind ex-liberal, anyone can find examples of radical thinking as that of Rayyan, both within the Judaic Orthodox and within the Islamic orthodox. You know that perfectly well, and have instantly dismissed its expression in the Israeli right as irrelevant.

lori- I don't think your doom-laden and, if I may say, heroic-tragic prognosis is that realistic. I think that Israel will stick around. My wish is that it would allow others to share the land and water base - and enable a Palestinian state.

Just so Speedy. I agree. The Arab/Palestinian hatred is bred so deep, now into its third generation, that I can't see it ever leaving the Arab mentality. I wish it could, but there's nothing that Israel could ever do that would satisfy them.

That's why I despair for any hope of peace in that part of the world. What manner of statemen could ever pull that off? You'd need a Palestinian and an Israeli of extreme stature, extreme wisdom and immeasurable courage who could survive politically (and literally) for long enough to effect a change in perception that would somehow undo all the damage of the last 60 years. But there are no such candidates on either sides.

Look what happened to Sadat, and that was at a time when the Arab world was far less radicalized.

It's deeply depressing.

ET - I hope you are right and I am wrong. It's just that I see many parallels in the South Africa and Israel situations. Sure there are key differences, but one could argue that the differences are actually NOT in Israel's favour (like being up against an aggressive militant religion that seems to have no trouble coming up with an endless stream of martyrs nor with an endless stream of oil-derived money.

ET, the difference is Kahani-ites are ostracized and not big shots in government. I think you would be hard pressed to find any orthodox rabbi, other than fringe ones like the followers of Meir Kahane, who would say that there should be no Muslim countries in the Middle East - that Jordan, Egypt, Iran etc are an offence to God and an impossibility. You cannot run around Israel saying "Arabs out" - you will be arrested. There are no Israeli TV shows, sermons, etc vilifying Muslims or Arabs 24/7. I don't remember Sharon or Netanyahu running around saying whacky stuff.

The West Bank was Jordan from 1947 - 1967. This is just historical fact. Was anyone telling the Jordanians that they were occupiers, squashing the nationalistic dreams of the Palestinians?

Israel does not share water or land? One quick google of "does Israel share water" brings up many articles detailing how Israel isn't greedy. According to the Economist "Israel shares its water sources with the Palestinians (the main aquifer that feeds many of its wells lies under the West Bank), as well as Jordan and Syria."
Israel also shares its desalination technology. Over 1 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. How many Jews are citizens of Muslim countries?

Wow.

Lori, Israel/Jews will not be destroyed.

I've been trying to post this link, one of many, ex-liberal, which outlines Israeli control of water.

Israel and water

Israel doesn't 'share' water and indeed, its takes control of water very seriously; the 1967 war was in large part about water control.

The Gaza greenhouse economy failed because when Israel withdrew in 2005 it also cut off water and hydro supplies, as well as shortly after closing its borders to the exports.

Water and its control is a key factor in ME politics.

As for radicals, they exist on both sides, and not simply in the outlawed Kahanites. The orthodox view plays an important role in Israeli politics and no politician in Israel can afford to ignore them.

I hope the link works this time.

I've tried three times to post this link on water in Israel and Palestine - but get sent to the corner each time. Even when I set it up correctly (sigh, weep, sniff).

I'll try the old way. ex-liberal, I don't think that Israel shares the water. Add the usual stuff at the beginning, and then this link.

globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9597

And radicals are on both sides; the orthodox in Israel, not the Kahanites, are quite outspoken in their views and have quite an important role in the political scene.

ET there is no comparison when it comes to radicals and you know it. You can not march around in Israel yelling death to Arabs.

We can go round and round with the water issue, Israel is always accused of not doing enough - as if any western country would put up with one iota of what Israel has to deal with. When water is brought up, it is another moving goalpost which Israel is not satisfying and which lends credence to anyone harboring ideas about "greedy" Jews. Sorry, but that is how I have often seen it used in arguments.

bottom line, it is lonely for Jews, especially with so many Westerners standing on the other side. That is actually the meaning of the word Hebrew/Ivrit - Abraham is called the Ivrit - because he stood on the other side (literally of the river; figuratively on the other side of his contemporaries, idol worshippers).

ex-liberal, the water issue isn't rhetoric; it isn't words. It's real.

Water is a vital, key issue in Israeli politics. The 1967 war was about control of water in large part.

The West Bank is important to Israel both for the land, which is rich if irrigated and the land base for settlements and, and, the water. Three important aquifers are there, vital to Israel.

The settlers in the West Bank are allowed full use of the water, including to irrigate their fields. The Palestinians are only allowed household, and limited household, use of water. No irrigation.

In Gaza, the infrastructure for hydro and water comes from Israel. When they left in 2005, they shortly after shut off hydro and water, ending the greenhouse economy in Gaza - and they shut the border to exports as well..which finished off this vital economy.

So, I suggest that the water issue is very real. I suggest that you take a look at that link.

"The water issue isn't rhetoric, it's real."

The same thing applies to anti-Semitism as well, ET, yet you have yet to acknowledge the primacy of this ancient hatred to the ongoing conflict.

Handily, you wrote "First, I separate 'Judaism' from 'Israelism'... Well yes, yes you do. You have not flagged nor failed in that regard. What you don't do, ET, is factor in or acknowledge that vast numbers of Israel's going-concern enemies both in the region and abroad hate Israel because it's full of Jews, and that the putative humanitarian concern for Palestinians that certain academics and unionistas and average folks claim as their motivation is put to the lie by their utter lack of any expressed and organized concern for millions of suffering people outside of the region who happen to not be motivated by the promise of the destruction of Israel. The dots are there -- they're close together, and yelling at you -- but you argue, in effect, and diligently, for non-connection.

No one is making the case that anti-Semitism is some catch-all that obviates all considerations of policy and strategic decisions, it's more that the behaviour of Israel as a nation can never be entirely separated from the nature of forces that they as Jews are dealing with. You describe in great anthropological and sociological and economic detail on the tribal genesis of current social and economic conditions in Palestinians and various Arab countries as you see it, and you chastise others for not basing all their arguments from within that set, but the obvious needs to be said again here, namely that, first, we can't go back in time to change their historical path, and that even if we could we could never have supplanted the moral agency of the individuals who comprised those distinct societies, and second, to put it in the bluntest possible terms, with no unfriendly intent towards you here, they're not affected by your theories or mine. In the blood and guts reality of the situation over there, it doesn't matter a whit if their tribal-based culture and or their cultural enmity for Jews fell from the sky or popped out of a unicorn's ass. One could tell a friend who's through difficulties that his problem lies in the fact that he was weaned too early, if that was in fact your theory, but your verdict wouldn't solve his problem to anything approaching the extent to which it was -- had to be -- gratifying to express.

The issue here isn't whether or not your analysis and your conclusions are based on any personal enmity towards Jews. What matters -- to the extent it matters what a respected fellow commenter at SDA says -- is that your analysis surgically excises the salience of anti-Semitism in creating the nature and sheer extent of worldwide political opposition to Israel. It's neither here nor there whether this seamless disposal of a massively huge factor is a mindful elision or a blind spot -- the results are identical, and harmful to your argument -- it's not in any given point, or in the details therein, but in the missing chapters. When you say "I don't merge Islamic fascism with Palestinian anger..." the implication is that by drawing such a distinction your argument is more reasonable and more-finely tuned than those who would attempt to conflate different things. But one can distinguish and connect at the same time -- you do so superbly on other issues. One needn't have merged Genghis Khan with his horse, or the horse with the sword Khan is holding while mounted, in order to have had an opinion on...events. One could not legitimately excise the skull-splitting actions of Khan from all considerations of his own moral agency by saying "let's focus on the culture he grew up in" or by saying that a particular attempt to merely describe his real-world behaviour is illegitimate on the grounds that the analysis at some point attempts to merge the club with Khan .

Here's the short form of what I'm trying to say, ET: it's not a legitimate argument, in my opinion, to say "well I'm not anti-Semitic, therefore I can remove from my argument consideration of the agency of the behaviour and attitudes of the rest of the world towards Jews in creating the current situation, including Israeli policy, without damaging my argument." That is, in effect, what you've been saying in an ongoing way. One could certainly imagine an intellectual parlor game wherein the question being debated was "how would one describe Israel's current policies and actions if the murderous enmity of their neighbours *didn't* exist?" If the interlocutors were well-educated and highly intelligent, and without a trace of anti-Semitism, their answers would come very close to what you've been posting here, and within the given parameters one would absolutely come to the conclusion that "...it is correct to criticize Israeli politics." But this conclusion would, of course, be understood to be purely hypothetical, and an academic exercise.

The long and the short of it, EBD, is that you don't get what I'm trying to say.

With regards to 'tribalism', tribalism is NOT about an ancient mode of existence; it happens to be the CURRENT mode of organization of the main Arab/Persian states! That FACT, that they are organized within a mode of political and economic organization that is completely out of sync with modern industrial and large population requirements is the basic cause of Islamic fascism.

Yes, the source of Islamic Fascism DOES matter. If you don't know the cause, you can't get rid of it. The cause is the political/economic outmoded structure of tribalism in these states. How do you fix it? Bush's plan - to take out the dictatorial tribalism and enable the people themselves to be in power, to move into democracy. That, and that alone, will get rid of Islamic fascism.

So- your claim that it doesn't matter what causes this fascism is, I submit, incorrect. It matters very much - and you'd better get it right or you won't be able to deal with it.

You write: "the putative humanitarian concern for Palestinians that certain academics and unionistas and average folks claim as their motivation is put to the lie by their utter lack of any expressed and organized concern for millions of suffering people outside of the region who happen to not be motivated by the promise of the destruction of Israel."

I have no idea what/who you are talking about here; you have so many common nouns (their lack; millions of suffering people; the region) and I don't know the precise peoples these nouns refer to.

When I am critiquing Israel, I am referring ONLY to my own words and thoughts. When I say that my critique is not an anti-semitic critique, it refers ONLY to me. Therefore, your attempt to somehow imply that I am saying that anti-semitism doesn't enter into the picture of OTHERS who are critiquing Israel - is not relevant. I am talking about my OWN CRITICISM.

However, I disagree that anti-semitism is the crux of the situation even with other countries. YOU declare that it is the key factor in the behaviour of other countries. I disagree. I think that there is rhetoric in the official political rhetoric of SOME countries, such as Iran and Syria, but less so in other countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Iraq.

But, the main infrastructure of relations between political entities is not ideological but economic. Always.

If the Arab/Persian states could move into a democratic structure, which empowers a middle class, rather than a two-class tribal structure, this economic empowerment would greatly reduce the externalization of internal resentment and anger in these states. At the moment, it is very handy for these governments to externalize this tension to anger against Israel and the USA. But when these dictators are removed from power, and the power is vested in The People, the middle class - that externalization won't be necessary.

So, I disagree, totally, with your assumption of a necessary and inherent anti-semitic causality. The causes are deeper than ideas, which can and do, change. The causes are structural: political and economic structures.

At one time, women were not allowed to vote; at one time, Jews were not allowed in the country; at one time...on and on and on. Ideas about people can change; the causes in the ME are structural, not ideological.

ET says that she considers it wrong to merge Islamic fascism with Islam, and I call her on it. ET either prove your point with references to the Koran and Hadiths or refrain from spouting this standard liberal claptrap.

Furthermore your ignorance of Judaism is equal. No matter where Jews live they face Jerusalem when they pray and Israel, the Jewish homeland is also centre in the prayers. Yet you have the audacity to suggest that Judaism and Israel are different.

Nobody gets what you're trying to say, ET.

On this issue, which is very telling, they never have.

That's right, alain, Judaism is a religion, while Israel is a political entity. The two are completely different. I'm surprised you don't know the difference between a religion and a political entity, a nation.

You can follow the Judaic religion in any country in the world but you can only be an Israeli citizen in one geographic place.

And, you can be an Israeli citizen, and also be a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu.

Face Jerusalem when they pray? No kidding. I've been to a lot of Jewish ceremonies, including seders, funerals and so on. I've never, ever, seen or heard any notion of 'facing Jerusalem'.

How can I refer to the Qu'ran and the Hadiths with reference to Islamic fascism? Islamic fascism is a political, not a religious, movement. It is a political utopian movement, emerging in the late 19th c, as a reaction to the western industrialization of the Arab States.

The states moved, economically, into an industrial economy but this industrialism didn't establish a middle class. The nations remained tribal, or two-class; an elite sector in power and the rest without power.The political and economic power remained with one tribe or clan.

This lack of participation in the economy led to the fascist movement, a utopian movement to reject industrialism, to 'return' to an imagined state of pre-industrial purity, based around a radical interpretation of the Islamic texts (which are, themselves, based on a 7th c lifestyle).

That's Islamic fascism and it didn't emerge with the Islamic religion but within a post WW political and economic structure where the population was moving out of their rural peasantry, into cities, into education - and yet - without any power over their own govt and economy. The tribal elite were going their own way within this new industrial economy.

Because the rulers of these nations refused to empower their own people but retain this tribal dictatorial powers - the fascist movement emerged to try to take out this power, and replace it with another power, a seemingly non-material power, a fundamentalist religious one.

A good outline is Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.

She says:

"Islamic fascism is a political, not a religious, movement. It is a political utopian movement, emerging in the late 19th c, as a reaction to the western industrialization of the Arab States."

Nix history. Nix Mohammad. Nix the historicity of the Quran and Hadeeth.

Just agree with her that the reason the ideology of islam came about was because the Byzantium Europeans were imperialistically inclined to taking over the desert dry sands of Arabia for agricultural reasons.

But please, don't ask questions. Nor facts.

Just believe, in what ETcetera says.

(I don't know why I bother but here goes)

ET, while you may have been to seders and funerals, synagogues face east. When saying the Shmona Esra (which observant Jews do 3 times a day,) they face east to Jerusalem.

Israel is a nation and any one can join. Israel's independence day was the first Passover. Israel has been a nation for some 3300 years. As Alain said, Israel and Jews cannot be separated. Jerusalem is the spiritual center of the Jewish nation/religion. The other nations have tried many times to destroy the nation of Israel, but Am Israel Chai - the people of Israel live.

First, ET, I well and truly understand that your critique refers only to you. That's why my comment, in turn, was only about your critique -- specifically, its pointed, long-term, corner-to-corner absence of any acknowledgment of the role of profound cultural anti-Semitism in driving current conditions, including Israel's policy, in the region.

The reason I pointed out (the syntax seemed clear enough to me, if other commenters were confused by my pronoun usage they can let me know) that large numbers of people who avow strictly humanitarian sympathy and concern for Palestinians are simply using that display as a pretext to attack Israel was to introduce again the notion that if one's views on the state of Israel do not even acknowledge the manifest, global political force that such anti-Semites represent, then one is, in effect, and for whatever reason, jettisoning a fundamentally crucial piece of information.

I was not using these hateful people as an argument against you as a person, but rather merely pointing out that if your argument elides their manifest force, your proposed solutions will be unrealistic in direct proportion to the extent of the elision.

Since I hope -- strange, huh? -- and assume that you are aware of the force of Jew-hatred among Israel's neighbours, and of the intransigence and viciousness of anti-Semitism in the rest of the world, I was heartened when you wrote, further up the thread, "I suspect that a fair bit of the vicious rallies against the Israeli Gaza war is because people merge Israel with 'Jewish.'" This suggests that you fully understand that some people protesting here in the west only rally viciously against a particular state because it's full of Jews.

I commend you for your insight, and I believe your suspicions about those people's motives are more acknowledgment than suspicion, so I find it curious that nothing you've written here at SDA lets on that you even suspect that Israel's neighbours' opposition to Israel's existence might be due to their own tendency to "merge Israel with 'Jewish,'" -- in other words, you have yet to acknowledge that they oppose a particular state precisely because it's full of Jews.

It seems to me that one can either deny that this is the case, i.e. say that opposition to Israel's existence is not based on any deeply-held enmity towards Jews, or acknowledge the extent of the enmity. If one does acknowledge it, one would have to be a gold medal moral contortionist to not see it as problem number one.

Hence, EBD, Yale's newest study conducted by non-Jews and reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Lest it might be found suspicious.

ET;

You say in an earlier post; "Israel's cutting off of water, hydro and closing the border to Gaza exports to Israel- shortly after they left Gaza in 2006." Do you have a time frame a little more precise than "shortly after"? What I remember is Gaza opening fire on Israel literally on the heels of the last Jew leaving, sending a clear signal to Israel of what they could expect going forward.

I also remember reading articles at the time about a group of Jews who passed the hat to pay evacuating Jews for extensive greenhouses so that they wouldn't be dismantled and removed, and to instead give them to Gazans as a gesture of goodwill.

And what else happened besides fire nipping at Israeli heels? Joyous celebrations for the end of occupation and the dawning of a new peace? A positive outlook to making the most of the opportunity? Making the most of the greenhouses left to them to grow food for their own people or to sell it to the Israelis?

Nope. It was Kalashnikovs in raised fists, the destruction of the greenhouses to their own detriment, a metaphorical f*ck you and your mother too one fingered salute followed by 10,000 rockets in a little less than 4 years.

As was said of Yasser Arafat, he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Apparently, it wasn't a trait particular to only himself. Israel closing its borders was nothing if not predictable, something Gaza has only itself to blame for.

One last point. Had Israel cut off water to Gaza for any signifigant period of time there wouldn't be any Gazans left to talk about today.

ex-liberal - there were no 'nations' 3,300 years ago; there were ethnic tribal domains with fluid borders and fluid 'sovereignty'.

EBD- No, I disagree that anti-semitism is the first cause of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians, just as I disagree that the first cause of the orthodox Jews against the arabs is their own rejection of Others (non-Jews) owning and living in the land of Israel. These are ideologies, and as such, open to interpretation in the minds of the holder.

A certain ratio of a population will hold these as Truths not open to interpretation regardless of any attachment to experienced reality. A larger proportion holds them as 'possible' but irrelevant to the current experienced interactions that one has with people. Another proportion dismisses them completely. These three ratios can change.

In economically or politically problematic times, this triadic ratio can change such that the ratio that rejects Others will rise, the ratio that accepts them will be reduced. The same occurs in the ME. The ME arab/persian states are in a politically fragile state, fighting to retain tribalism (two-class) against the necessity of having democracy (three-class) and handing over elite power to a middle class. The triadic ratio changes - because not only is Israel a democracy, but, using them as also 'semitic' means that one can nationally reject democracy while rejecting Jews.

The real problem in the ME is that deeply maintained dysfunctional political and economic structure - not the ideological beliefs.

As for those who demonstrate in the West, they belong in the ratio of Believers in a Belief - who are outside of debate and reason. They'll always exist; the point is, to keep their ratio proportion small.

bob c - the water/hydro and borders were closed to the Gaza strip's greenhouses almost immediately on Israel's leaving; I've posted links to this before. No, the household water was not cut off, but reduced. I've posted a link to this above. But the greenhouse economy was destroyed - and closing the border to the exports of these greenhouses ended that economy.

No, it was Gates who purchased the greenhouses. Not Jews. The reason why Jews 'fronted' the purchase was because of the Jewish orthodox Halikhah law (rules of behaviour) that forbids selling Jewish property/land to non-Jews. Of the approximately 1,000 greenhouses there, about 1/4 were dismantled by the leaving settlers, about 1/4 were looted by Palestinians; the rest were put into production - but the enterprise failed without irrigation water, hydro and the border closing to their products.
I've posted links to this as well.

I suggest you do a bit of research on these issues.

There is a sort of lunacy set loose in the land, Britain, a country of which I have fond memories, has succumbed. Today's inauguration of Obama marks its triumph here in the U.S. It is impervious to logic, to facts and to goodwill. It can now only run its course, but what ghastly damage will it leave in its wake? It comes from drinking deep draughts of leftist poison and asking for more. God help the Jews of Britain, God help us all.

ET you have demonstrated once again your profound ignorance of both Islam and Judaism by your own statements, which makes you unqualified to comment on either. What is worse however is your refusal to educate yourself on these matters. You have assimilated the liberal claptrap indoctrination so prevalent in our universities, especially in the "social sciences".

You failed to present any evidence from the Koran and Hadiths that Islam is being misinterpreted by the Islamists. Until you can do this, your comments on the topic are nothing more than your personal opinion.