Well, if the neo-cons like Bill Kristol have their way, you better start brushing up. See Glenn Greenwald today and the idea that Israel's enemies are our enemies and that we need to bring it on in Israel, Syria and Iran. A political blog will be pretty lame without an opinion on an active war.

Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism.

And for good reason. Look at the leftist blogosphere's hatred of Joe Lieberman. Liberals hate him because of his pro-Israel stance. The liberation of Iraq resulted in greater security for Israel and liberals don't care. But liberals can't be honest about their anti-Semitism against Lieberman and other people of the Jewish faith so they decided to make up the word "neo-conservative" which is just a code word for Jew. When liberals attack their political opponents as neo-conservatives, this is just a code word by liberals labeling someone as being Jewish.

it's not a plausible excuse for a president of the United States

Why on earth not? Putting myself in GWB's velcro-closured shoes, I can easily imagine setting ideal, yet completely unrealistic, goals which need be met before the US will get involved, on either side.

Liberals don't hate Lieberman because of his pro-Israel stance. We hate him because of his pro-Bush stance.

You're all anti-semetic.

"punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides."

Kevin, I think this statement is ludicrous. The punditry is obviously dominated by people with non-extreme but strongly pro-Israel views. It also includes some people with extreme pro-Israel views, like William Krystal. (And the term pro-Israel is misleading since to be pro-Palestinian independence IS to be pro-Israel). The only pundits who get air-time who can be called pro-Palestianian are Novak and Buchanan, but their views (on this one issue) are hardly extreme.

Please name one well-known pundit who has extreme pro-Palestian views. Just one. Otherwise please retract the statement.

As a jewish-American, I have to say Kevin is right. There is little point in commenting, and little new to be said. Both sides behave poorly. Israel should behave better, and I do expect them to behave better because they are a western democracy. The arabs should behave better, but do you really expect that they will. The situation is sad, but except for oil, it would not be our problem. Let's work on energy independence and walk away.

Put UN peacekeepers on the ground in Palestine and force the parties to the table. Bold and decisive decision-making usually trumps "intractable".

So when are we going to get an Amy post on religion and democrats' inattention thereto? I want to participate in a shitstorm.

Look at the leftist blogosphere's hatred of Joe Lieberman. Liberals hate him because of his pro-Israel stance.

No, liberals hate him because of his his pro-Republican-talking-point stances. Virtually every Democratic senator is "pro-Israel"; the unique distaste for Lieberman has nothing to do with Israel.

"liberals have a bigger problem here than conservatives."

Maybe so, because to be against Palestianian independence is to be anti-liberal. Sorry but there's only one valid, intellectually honest liberal position to hold.

Please explain: how can you be a liberal and support the occupation of a people?

Wow. A blogger admitting he doesn't write about something because he doesn't know as much about the subject as he should? Most refreshing piece of honesty I'll see all day outside of catching bits of The Colbert Report or The Daily Show.

p.s. I don't care much about the history, but making it "history". And I'm not ashamed to say I desire this for the good of America. Letting Israel control the ground has allowed this to become "intractable". Put the UN peacekeepers, and you effectively declaw all parties, making them stay on best behavior in order to wrangle the best deal out of the Security Council-led negotiations (which ought to start with Geneva Accord parameters).

This problem is not intractable, it's just enabled by powerful allies until the desired party gets what it wants.

I never knew Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein and Glenn Greenwald were anti-semites. Go figure.

Liberals don't really have a similarly undemanding position that's suitable for the quick-hit nature of blogging.

This is because liberals want to wish away the problem too while sucking up to the pro-Israeli lobby, which only hopes to extend the conflict so that more ground can be taken before final resolution.

The honest and principled liberal position should be taking away the keys from all parties in the conflict, since all have been shown unfit to drive, and compel a solution through the UN. This will not happen, or the hope of such happening by keeping tensions low, if Israel dominates the air and ground space of Palestine.

UN peacekeepers need to be put in Palestine, and this conflict (the most overt parts of it, including the Israeli occupation) resolved. The Geneva Accord is more than fair to all parties, and can be the basis for beginning negotiations, which should not be allowed to go on too long, or far afield.

Put the UN peacekeepers, and you effectively declaw all parties, making them stay on best behavior in order to wrangle the best deal out of the Security Council-led negotiations (which ought to start with Geneva Accord parameters).

UN peacekeepers only work where both sides are committed to peace (even if only from exhaustion) and the peacekeepers serve to provide security for both sides; distrust of the international community and UN—for good cause— on both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict mean that simply putting in UN peacekeepers won't help, particularly with a typical mandate.

It might be possible to do something if major world powers made a major commitment of force to both provide security for (for instance) Lebanon and Palestine while actively taking on the extremists there, though that would be a complete disaster without significant local support (enough to give the security forces pretty much completely free reign) on the Arab side, and would require a credible threat of waging war with Israel without restraint if necessary.

Once peacekeepers are in place, and negotiations begun, all parties will need to be on their best behavior, or face being left out and having no basis for appeal to the international community.

Once the agreement is in place, the most onerous standards of respect between peoples and states will be held on all parties. Those who break this will be targeted as international rogues and pariah and dealt with decisively and accordingly.

I think that the primary reasons are fear of being attacked as an anti-Semite, and unwillingness to even seem to oppose Israel. Israel is a foreign nation and any two nations disagree from time to time, but if you suggest that the US supports Israel too much of the time, you're accused of being the new Eichmann.

The worst, most intransigent elements in Israeli society, American society, and Palestinian society are cooperating to make sure that this war has not peaceful or compromise outcome. The odds are that the Israelis will succeed in destrpying the Palestinians entirely in the long run, with full American support all the way. However, if America slips seriously, it's possible that the Palestinians will succeed in destroying Israel, and that's what the fiercest Palestinian militants are hoping for.

There are many compromise possibilities in between, theoretically, but they are not real because there are too manby people on all three sides intent on wrecking any compromise.

If the US committment to Israel were less absolute, and if the US crazies didn't egg the Israeli crazies on, Israel would be better off, and at least some Israelis know this.

A sensible and convincing post, Kevin. I agree exactly with the points you raise. I once ventured a remark to the effect that the Israelis, in one specific instance a year or so ago, seemed overbearing and the person I was talking to immediately accused me of anti-semitism, in spite of the fact that she knows me well and knows I am in no degree anti-semitic. It's just a reflex...

You should just always trust my judgement. It's much simpler =)

I don't think it would be that hard cmdicely. Most of the tensions arise from Israel being a heavy-handed force in control of the ground. Hamas and Hezbollah are not going to act against UN peacekeepers as they would Israeli ground troops, especially if they are as externally controlled by Iran and Syria as Israel likes to claim. The Palestinian bitterness mainly stems from being dictated terms by the "bully" with the massive army and air power (Israel).

Take away the "bully", put in the UN peacekeepers, install the new UN "bully", compel both parties to the table, and we'll be much further along. We can't eliminate all conflicts, but we can eliminate the statelessness of Palestine, and make the issues much more clear after that, in terms of aggression.

Those who are afraid to take decisive action because they aren't sure it will work don't really understand that it's not only "not working" right now, but spiralling into epochal violence and threatening other nations' security.

Therefore, we must act decisively to change course, and at the very least to clarify the situation so that Palestine has a state and if aggression continues after that from one party against another they will know that the UN and international community is pledged to stamp out that aggression one way or the other.

Kevin Drum:

As near as I can tell, most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way.

As near as I can tell, the U.S. government simply takes the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way.

But as near as I can see, the U.S. government, which serves as the security arm of the corporate state, has a vested interest in the oil reserves of the region. By means of protection agreements with local oppressors, it extracts and depletes a resource rightfully belonging to the entire population. While the oppressors are kept rich in exchange for their cooperation, they are also kept weak, lest they be empowered enough to throw off the corporate bandits. This weakness allows discontent to foment into the formation of groups dedicated to freedom and self-rule. Under the banner of religion, because their oppressors use it to appease them, they strike out at the U.S. corporatists' client state, Israel, its brutal local policeman, which is also appeased by a phony respect for its religion.

So you're right - it's not complicated at all.

But liberals can't be honest about their anti-Semitism against Lieberman and other people of the Jewish faith so they decided to make up the word "neo-conservative" which is just a code word for Jew.

...funny. Talk about deflection. Neo-con is code for Nazi. It's the religious right who want to save Israel. But that's all. It's the rest of the neo-con right who hate the "liberal jew-owned newspapers and media" , ad nauseum......

But the kool-ade drinkers of the Neo-con Copy and Paste keyboarders don't see the contradictory "flip flop" of what they are saying. It's all in a vacuum.

Figures.

Anyone is interested in what it's like being on the other end of Israel's "self defense" can come seem my blog.

My friends and I are pretty much holed up in Beirut while Israel bombs the country back twenty years. It's pretty easy to criticize Israel when you can't sleep at night because of the Isreali shelling that's destroying Lebanon's infrastructure.

Isreal seems to have a policy of creating "failed states" on its boarders. How is this a good long term policy? I am puzzled.

Sean's URL:

http://www.thehumanprovince.blogspot.com/

Great, I now await your grrlfriend Althouse's informing her readers yet again that email is used to control left wing bloggers while right wing conservatards only use blogs. All hail Matt!\

Anti-semitism in left bloggers Al? That's right, as Ezra said the other day, Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, Max Sawicky, and Lindsay Beyerstein, are all anti-semites. Duncan Black would have been gassed too, so he is also a self-loating anti-semite. Feingold, Clark (!), Boxer, Sanders, Kerry (!), all anti-semites.

Most American Jews, self-loathing anti-semites.

Me? Al-loathing self-loathing American Jewish anti-semite. Well 1/2 is true.

Kevin: I'm sorry if the notion that Israel has the right to respond to terrorist attacks isn't complicated enough for you. Maybe they should talk about their feelings instead, over some nice tofu?

Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism.

Wow. I've read a few comments on this thread agreeing with this and I just have no idea where it comes from. Either online or in real life, when talking to fellow liberals I am often the only one to defend Israel, which I tend to (try to) do as calmly and objectively as possible while being screamed at by anyone in the vicinity. We must be hanging out in different places. Wanna switch?

Kiril, you lead a sheltered life.

Mr. Drum wrote "posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism." Not only that, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Israelis run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of bias against Palestinians, Moslems, and Arabs.

david mizner wrote "The punditry is obviously dominated by people with non-extreme but strongly pro-Israel views." In the New York Times that may be true, but on the left, far from it. Pacifica Radio is way, way off the deep end in suppressing anything even slightly pro-Israel and is practically a propaganda arm of Hamas. Salon continually runs news and opinion that blames Israel for everything. The leftist press in the United States, both news and editorial, overwhelmingly sides with the Palestinians at every turn.

dilbert dogbert wrote "Isreal seems to have a policy of creating 'failed states' on its boarders." Withdrawing from Gaza and leaving behind some newly-enhanced functioning greenhouses that provide nice income for the local population demonstrates a policy of creating a successful state on its border. It was the Palestinians who chose for that to fail, not the Israelis.

Matt pointed out that "you can't hermetically seal Israel issues off from Iraq issues or Iran issues or even really big-picture questions about what our general attitude toward the war on terrorism or the United Nations ought to be."

But that is exactly what almost all Americans do.

unfortunately, Kevin, this appears to be a concession that palestine is yet another topic on which we are willing to cede the parameters of the discussion to the right wingnut viewpoint.

Kevin:

Absolutely. Well-made points.

I know anti-semitism when I see it -- and I scourge it mightily. "karen" and "tj" know when they're around and start in with their "stealth Jews" theory that they're in for an ass-whuppin' in the most vulgar language I can invent :)

But I'm still on the balance pro-Palestinian and believe that the creation of Israel cast the first stone.

A complicated situation? Sure. Morally ambiguous? -- not so much.

Bob

david mizner wrote "The punditry is obviously dominated by people with non-extreme but strongly pro-Israel views." In the New York Times that may be true, but on the left, far from it. Pacifica Radio is way, way off the deep end in suppressing anything even slightly pro-Israel and is practically a propaganda arm of Hamas. Salon continually runs news and opinion that blames Israel for everything. The leftist press in the United States, both news and editorial, overwhelmingly sides with the Palestinians at every turn.
Posted by: Anomalocaris

I'm curious, do you seriously think that salon's and pacifica's coverage reach an equal fraction of the population as the NYT's??? and why stop with the pro-israel stance of the NYT ... why not add CNN, wash post, LA times???

I could only wish that liberal media were as influential as the default pro-israeli lobby. Then maybe we'd have some balance in our palestine/israel coverage.

It's exactly this kind of false equivalency which people use to justify israeli aggression, which somehow invariably seems to lead to more palestinian civilian deaths than does the reverse situation.

Kiril, you lead a sheltered life.

Ha! How did you know I'm from New Orleans?

Examine the Facts:

Israel is a state defined by total domination by one racial sub-group (in this case, a particular group of semite tribes) and the dominance of a single state religion (Judasim).

Fact: To establish this state, the Zionists took land and personal property at gunpoint from other people already living there. The peoples already living in Palestine were defined as 'aliens', 'stateless peoples' and regarded as part of a 'population problem' (genetic/cultural impurity) that needed to be driven out.

Fact: The Western democracies were complicit in this theft... especially the United States and Great Britian.

Fact: Israel iteslf was established largely through terrorist acts. Israeli PM Mehachim Begin was the leading terrorist bomber of his era and Israeli PM Yitzak Shamir, an asassin. (the list goes on).

Fact: To maintain their racial/religous domination, Israelis have established an aparthied state supported by the best weaponry that money can buy.

Fact: To maintain their racial/religous domination of the region, the Israelis have invested tremendous amounts of money in establishing political operations and media outlets in the United States which dominate that 'operational theater'.

Fact: Any criticism of Israeli or Zionist policies in the United States will result in swift and well-coordinated retribution by their political operatives.

Fact: Politicians and pundits alike tremble in fear of the Israeli lobby... and that's why you won't see much blog activity on this subject.

In the longer run, the establishment of an Israeli state will go down in the history books as the greatest injustice of our times. (Should we survive long enough for history books to be written).

Any qestions?

Nice little article here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

Alright -- here's a summation of my views on the situation from a thread yesterday. It's pretty much the alpha and omega of my stance on Israel / Palestine -- and I'm sure it's going to provoke some Israel supporters into fearsome rebuttals.

As somebody famous once said, "Bring it on!"

Mike K:

Okay you wanna know the bottom line for me, Mike? Israel -- or rather
the international community in the horrific aftermath of WW2 and the
Holocaust -- perpetrated the first wrong.

The problem isn't political Zionism. Hertzl would've taken parts of
New Zealand, Uganda or perhaps even Antartica. The problem isn't
"Zionism = racism." The problem is *religious* Zionism, which equates
one's holy book with a retroactive land contract. If European Jews had
to displace a previously settled population, doubtless they'd see it
in more self-refective and equitable terms if the land in question
wasn't granted by God to Moses.

Jews had been settling in Palestine since at least the latter 19th
century, with very little problems with the locals. They had good
relations with the Arabs who had lived there for centuries, and some
of that is because Muslim culture -- at least when it's the dominant
party -- feels less threatened by outsiders in its midst than
civilized Christian Europe at the time.

But then after '48, Jews from ravaged Europe began pouring in by the
thousands. Relations with the locals quickly deteriorated, and Jewish
terrorist groups practiced ethnic cleansing in a brutal fashion. This
was the beginning of the emnity between the two sides that has little
to do with some abstract racial/religious hatred than it does with
simply the history of that time. Prosperous Arabs had their land
stolen and their livelihoods taken away. How would you or your family
feel?

Now -- I agree that the Jews needed a homeland after WW2. "Never
Again!" is not an empty slogan for me. But simultaneously, it's simply
wrong to transplant the problems of centuries of European
anti-semitism onto a population that had, before '48, always treated
the Jews in their midst equitably.

The Jews who poured into Palestine were the cream of European
civilization. Highly educated technical people who felt that they
could "make the desert bloom" and use the land more profitably than
the Arabs who had lived their way of life virtually unchanged since
Biblical times. This imparted a "Manifest Destiny" quality to the
settlement of Israel right at the very dawning of the anti-colonial
age, when Europe was about to start relinquishing her colonies in the
name of national self-determination.

America had acted out of a similar Manifest Destiny and decimated --
even genocided -- whole swaths of indigenous North Americans. Israel
was attempting to get away with that 100 years and more after we did
it -- right at the dawn of the age of the 1948 UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Many Americans feel horrifically guilty about what we did to the
Native Americans. Many Israelis -- especially on the right -- seem to
be in deep denial about this central fact of the forming of their
nation.

Thus it's not remotely anti-semitism (you should see me attack rabid
anti-semites on this blog) that motivates my bias towards the
Palestinians -- but rather a historically justified sense of fairness.

I'm Irish-American, after all. I don't need to hate the English people
(I love them, actually) or support the "real IRA" to hate what the
British did to my country of origin.

Bob

hawk, i know conservatives hate peace. what's more fun than counting corpses, right? but israelis and arabs have been shooting each other for nearly sixty years and the only thing its accomplished is creating a nice market for arms dealers and morticians. i don't want to see arms dealers nor morticians starve, but you know only idiots keep trying the same failed behavior for this long and expecting it to succeed. israel has every right to defend itself and so do the palestinians. the only way to stop the violence is for both sides to recognize that fact and to stop shooting at each other and start talking. obviously this is not an easy task but your beloved w might want to use the prestige of his office and this great country to attempt to broker some kind of deal. it'll probably fail, but what is there to lose at this point? ok hawk?

Neo-con is code for Nazi

Usually, but not always.
The tin-foil hat brigade see the neo-cons, and their attempts at government, as puppets of Israel.
All of whom together are trying to destroy our American way of life. [You know there are many Walmarts where you cannot buy a gun? Proof!]

Mmmmmmmmm Tofu

I can appreciate the perils of the Israel/Palestine debate but it is of central importance to American foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq has made understanding the issue essential. It would be fine to avoid it if this were a blog about Dutch politics.

When, exactly, and why, were the beliefs, obsessions, and blind spots of the Israeli right incorporated so unquestioningly into American conservatism?

I'm not really asking so much about the "neocons" themselves, like Feith, Wurmser, and the like. I'm more curious about why so many other conservatives without the same dual loyalties all seem to toe the same line anyway. What's their excuse?

I'm also aware of the alliance of convenience with the Christian evangelicals, but that doesn't explain everything either. Reagan was genuinely sympathetic to Israel, but he never adopted the Likud agenda as his own (let alone launching a war in the region to help "secure the realm"). Why and how did we get from his kind of approach to that of the Powerline guys? Just wondering.

The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is to turn Jerusalem over to the Buddhists.

Think about it.

The Nobel peace prize winning Dahli Lhamma is an internationally respected figure. Having been expelled from Lhasha, he needs a base of operations, which Jerusalem could fill quite nicely.

It actually happens to be a point of Buddhist doctrine that one can simultaously be a Buddhist and either a Jew or a Muslim ( or both - so far as the Buddhists are concerned ). Therefore there should be no religious issues.

The benefits abound.

I think "conservatives" are just happy with the status quo. As long as the body count is 10 to 1. It's hard to believe that they really think excessive military force and failed states are going to bring an end to terrorism. Well, I guess if they believed the flower throwing nonsense in Iraq . . .

The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable.

This is a rather narrow lens. It's probably better to view the conflict from the late 19th century, when Zionists start getting their act together. If you go back that far, the "complexities" you lament tend to dissolve a bit and the narrative of colonisation and ethnic cleansing, on which the state of Israel is based, pops its ugly head to the surface. At least, then, you're forced to deal with it. If you only go back to '48, it's quite easy to see the conflict primarily as an "intractable" battle between Jews and militant Arabs.

It follows the same rhythms decade after decade, full of hypocrisy and posturing from both camps, and there seems little to say about it that doesn't eventually boil down to, "Both sides need to ratchet down the rhetoric and rein in their own extremists."

Please. You could say the same thing about anything. Why follow American politics when it invariably "follows the same rhythms decade after decade." This is bullshit and anti-historical.

As with the conflict itself, punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides.

Hahaha. Name me one prominent, "extremist" pro-Palestinian commentator in the American media. You can't.

The debate in this country is dominated by the Israeli point of view, with a good number of the pundits being extremist zealots who'd have no trouble seeing all of historic Palestine ethnically cleansed of Palestinian Arabs.

At bottom, there's no balance in the American media when it comes to the I/P conflict and by failing to challenge the bias -- or at least keep it in check -- you privilege the Israel narrative.

...posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism.

And your point is? Does that mean you should shut up about something, just because you're afraid someone's going to call you a bad name? If you don't harbor anti-Semitic feelings, you really shouldn't be all that concerned about people calling you one. Especially when it's widely acknowledged that the label of 'anti-Semite' is systematically abused by those that want to hush up any criticism of Israel.

In general, the key point is that the I/P conflict pops up in discussion here, and generally elsewhere, only when something bad happens to Israel. Palestinians are trampled on every day and nary a peep is heard about their plight in the media.

The fact that this blog was virtually silent throughout June, when Gaza was being pummeled and strangled by Israel, with scores of civilians killed and wounded, is quite telling.

Kevin, I'm sorry, but this ham handed approach of an explanation to why you don't post about the conflict is, in itself, offensive.

I think Kevin is both smart and honest on political issues, but he is normally very weak on military issues and foreign issues in general. This post supports my view.

First, Kevin acknowledges that he is "inexpert" on the subject. Then, he proceeds to declare the current situation as a "fight between Israel and the Palestinians" and that Israel's approach has not worked very well in the past. The current situation is not Israel versus Palestinians, and Israel's past approach has been very successful in winning wars, and establishing and maintaining a free and democratic country against the hostility and efforts of hundreds of millions of enemies seeking to destroy it. I think Kevin's weaknesses on these issues are generally representative of liberal thought, although the issue does not break down as easily on liberal/conservative lines as many other issues.

I think it is nationalism. It is the appreciation of power for power’s sake- the right of the strong to dominate the weak because of Providence, or the Will of God or the Will of the People or of the blessings of history.

There is also a family resemble between American manifest destiny, American exceptionalism and Zionism in its strongest form. I think among certain conservative American communities, particularly in the South, there is an appreciation of the notion of a master race or a chosen people. This is separate from evangelical millennialism and Israel’s role in the end times.

Reading Bill Kristol's and the National Review piece is showing me that there is a potential split in the conservative base. You have neo-cons who advocate even more military action, against the current Bush administration who shows no stomach for any more military action, with the approval ratings in the polls being decidedly against Bush. I disagree that military action will increase Bush's ratings - if there is talk of military action, given the mess that Iraq is in now, public opinion will surely be against such action. So now, you have some conservatives starting to bash Bush for more military action, which is going to create ideological fissures in the Republican party. As long as Democrats present themselves as moderates, I don't see how they won't gain significant seats in upcoming elections.

You're all anti-semetic.

Posted by: Al on July 15, 2006 at 1:29 PM

You, sir are anti-semantic!

So brian, you're happy with the status quo? I guess that's a realist viewpoint.

Re Point No. 5, I think some of this image of Europe is stereotyping by certain Jewish-American organizations and their Religious Right bedfellows.

Not all of it, to be true. But, some of it.

Andy,

Maybe I'm just a prude, and maybe I need to lighten up and chill out, but looking for domestic political advantage out of a situation where so many innocent Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese are dying, and a possible world war is brewing, just puts an ugly taste in my mouth.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

bellumregio,

Those are interesting suggestions. I'm trying to square them with my sense that the current degree of loyalty to Likud assumptions is a recent development on the American right.

What you say about bigoted habits of thinking rings true, I think. Ironically, perhaps, I think this would often have been manifested as anti-Semitism -- I'm pretty sure that was a lot more widespread in the South during past generations. But maybe the same impulse is expressed today as prejudice against Arabs, or (as Kevin Drum says) the assumption that Palestinians are basically all terrorists.

The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable.

I hear this excuse a lot. Israel is only abble to fight as a hegemon due to US military and economic aid. Stop the aid as a condition of going back to 1956 borders, along with a guarantee of security for those borders, and Israel will become a much better neighobr. It is US subsidy of the Israeli war machine that makes the conflict intractable. That and Palestinian refusal to let their nation die.

It sparks unusually vicious comment threads

Why are so many bloggers milquetoasts?

B,

I am happy that Israel has survived and prospered all these years and still appears able to defend itself. I don't think the critics of Israel are very realistic, and they certainly don't have the stake that Israel has in the issues.

It has been obvious for 60 years that Israel would cut a deal to live in peace with its neighbors. So at the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is caused by the terrorists and now the jihadists.

I've just been re-reading my old testament. And I'm struck by how nothing has changed in that region for the last 3500+ years. The only difference is that Israelites have the heavy artillery and jets. The Canaanites and the Amorites, because they don't have the weapons, become human bombs. This form of warfare offends the Levitican sensibilities of Israelites -- after all dead bodies need to buried intact and not scattered in little pieces -- and they can't imagine that anyone else could imagine getting into Paradise in little pieces. So the Israelites are rightfully angered and puzzled on how to respond effectively. Even more frustrating for the more god-fearing of them, Yahweh hasn't smote anyone yet. But I expect that a certain other middle eastern country that is trying to build some Yahweh-class bombs (nukes) can expect some smiting from the Israelites -- after all, that Satellite that the Russians launched for them a few months back would certainly be useful for locating those smite-inducing nuke factories.

Sorry that I wax cynical, but I find that I can't sympathize with either side in this conflict. Israel should behave better than they are, because the have a 3500-year-old moral framework to rely on. And, well, the Palestinians don't seem to be able to keep themselves from sabotaging their own best interests. I can't help but wonder what would have happened with the early intifada if the Palestinians hadn't started singing "we shall overcome" and sitting-in instead of throwing rocks and molotov cocktails. Think how that would have changed the hole dynamics of this conflict!

Too late now...

My two cents:

A one state solution; a secular state whose constitution guarantees the right of return for all Jews and Palestinians: The Republic of Israel and Palestine.

I guess that could be called an anti-Israel position, but it's not to my mind.

So basically you are afraid to discuss an issue that has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decades, or am I missing something?

In the next phase Israel will invade Syria with the professed intention of creating a buffer— against Finland.

Kevin needn't ratiocinate over his muteness on the Palestinian issue. Walt and Mearsheimer already have covered the real whys and wherefores.

Skip is correct. If Mr. Drum really believes what he said he should recommend that we completely disengage from the issue rather than reflexively support Israel. This would clearly be in the US national interest if we accept Mr. Drum's axioms as true. There is no other logical answer. But he demures.

I can augment your futility by blending a piece from The History Channel, “Battles of the Bible” with the ongoing, very readable, “Blogging the Bible” by Jacob Plotz on Slate: Irrational Hatred Begets Exuberant Belief in the Publicists of One’s God.

This conflict began before the written word. Yet it contains enough fuel to continually fester as a sore on humanity. Item #5 (language) is fully inculcated, completely corrupt, and the major reason no one can write or speak without approbation. Who can define Zionism or Anti-Semitism without a “spokesperson”?

Because the current situation is foreign affairs and (by definition) not the bailiwick of anyone other than our president, every thoughtful American should be frightened: When asked about the current conflict, President Bush answers with jokes on eating pork.

Go back to my first paragraph and realize rampant passions quickly lead to loss of control. We do not need history to prove the point: 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq are in the present tense. That many people cheer this on in hope of fostering the End-of-Days is pathetic: Love don’t hate, Forgive don’t accuse, Live for your progeny.

What passes as conservatism in the US is really a textbook case of nationalism which developed from the anticommunist movement of the middle 20th century. Nationalism depends on a sense of besiegement of the true people by an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The identity of the enemy is not important but it is convenient if he is both inside and outside the society- a traitor on whom you can blame all the failures of the true nation. Jews classically played this role in European societies. In the US it came to be communists, socialists, and liberals. Muslims can be the pariahs de jour as well.

More importantly, I think most American politicians know nothing about the Israel/Palestine conflict; I suspect they just take on policies that are presented to them by advocates of Israel- the so-called neocons. If there were more Palestinian lobbyists you would see a different approach in Washington. So the primacy of Israel in American foreign policy is really because of a vacuum created by the end of the Cold War- a military-industrial complex with nothing to do. I also think the Israeli “get tough” style appeals to many in Congress and the White House.

i have found it impossible to have a rational conversation that includes any criticizm of Israel, without being accused of being an anti-semite.

Unfortunatley, the Holocaust, in addition to the tragedy to its many victims, it seems, has furnished a convenient excuse to make Israel, Zionists and their supporters, sacred cows.

Ideological sacred cows can be devastating to human civilization.

When the zionists finally provoke their neigbors into an all out war that ultimately ends in nuclear holocaust and the destruction of the Northern Hemisphere, perhaps then we can have a dialogue about "doing unto others"

Until then, color me heartbroken

If the situation were simple, then simple answers would be answers.

The conditions of peace are easy to define whether in single-state or two-state solutions (Israel/Palestine).

1. Acceptance of minority rights
2. Renunciation of terror as a means
3. Application of law consistently applied in a color-blind manner

That earnest outcome will satisfy all except the Islamic expansionists and the Zionist expansionists. It will satisfy even most of the orthodox Jews for whom Jewish national community supercedes Jewish political sovereignty. I don't know the Islamic perspective well enough to know if there is a plausible non-exclusive solution.

The majority though want peace more than they want one of those fanaticisms.

The hope of Palestinians for self-governance is real and should be applauded. The hope of Jews for self-governance is real and should be applauded.

Hence the two-state proposal, whether it is permanent, long-term, or temporary; towards some other prospective integration.

I was right about the Israelis that were kidnapped and killed on Israel's northern border having crossed into Lebanon, so it seems it wasn't an incursion by Hezbollah at all. This is from the Asia Times:

[...]They back this argument by saying that Israel still controls the Sheba Farms, which are part of Lebanon, and still has Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Also, they add that the Israeli tank destroyed by Hezbollah, and the soldiers captured and killed on July 12, had trespassed into Lebanon's side of the border with Israel.

Kind of puts a different spin on events doesn't it?

I waiting for Kevin to write a post on "Women of the Christian Right in the Middle East."

michele,

not really. israel is the good guy and the terrorists/jihadists are the bad guys.

not really. israel is the good guy and the terrorists/jihadists are the bad guys.
Posted by: brian

bwahahahahahahaha ... this comment alone should preclude you from future commenting ... at least until your testicles descend and you grow some chest hair.

juvenile fucking pissant.

Well Jimm, you hit pretty close to the problem. I would revise what cmdicely said a bit and say that the UN only works when the permanent members of the security council all back action. In the case of Israel/Palestine, the problem is the United States. We went along with those two UN resolutions passed decades ago (242 and 338?) that said Israel could not keep the occupied territories, but since that time we have never had the will power to help enforce them.

Every Arab/Muslim/Persian knows this and resents it. The United States is the great Israeli enabler is many many ways.

Carter had a big breakthrough with the Camp David Accords, but Israel immediately began to fudge when he left office. Egypt was Israel’s most serious threat in those days, but rather than capitalize on that momentum, Israeli and U. S. right-wingers worked overtime to kill it.

What is frustrating is the ignorance of the average U. S. citizen. It’s ridiculous to blame everything on the Palestinians. That’s got to end. Many moderates in Israel know this, and have always known this, but they have not prevailed in recent years.

This is one of the only issues where a moderate or balanced view is considered to be raw opposition by both sides. That makes it pretty sticky for bloggers.

The following comment was inadvertently posted on the Iran thread below. Since I referred to Kevin's point #2 I though I should move it here:

I've been reading lefty bloggers for a few years now, and will admit against interest to being pursuaded on one issue. I think the US and Israel have a faulty calculus on the issue of civilian casulties/collateral damage when responding to the new challenges. I first started thinking this way back when Clinton was running his focus-group directed campaign against the Serbs. In that case we pesky neocons mostly supported the goals of the war, but challenged the idea that 2500 civilian casualties from high altitude airstrikes was preferable to 3 dozen ground troop American losses. Of all the criticisms of our efforts in Iraq, which I still support, the one I'm most troubled by is the charge that GWB has not done the job in a way that we should have, preferring tax cuts and such to sincerely making the sacrifices of blood and treasure needed to prove our good faith.
Now Israel is lashing out at those sectors of Lebanese society that have not had the strength to take on Hezbollah rather than doing the dirty work of running sweeps with ground troops through the Shia neighborhoods. I do not agree with Kevin's point #2, that there is equivalence on both sides, but I do think that Israel's actions don't serve it's long-term interests.

minion of rove:

Then I'll respond to it as I did in the other thread.

Thank you for an honest and unhypocritical response.

I only wish you could talk some sense into your warmongering right-wing buddy rdw.

Bob

Erik:
As far as I know, the official position held by the entire world, except Israel, is that a two-state solution must be reached. Now, of course the Bush administration does not seem to place high priority achieving this result.

So why not do what Jimm suggests and install UN peacekeepers until an agreement can be reached on boarders? It is not true that the resistance would come equally from both sides. I would bet my own money that the Palestinians would go along with that. I would bet a lot more of my own money that Israel would resist fiercely. If I’m right, does that tell you anything?

It tells me that too many people in Israel want that land. Certainly the Israel settlers and their supporters want the land.

posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism

Very true. And that is bad, bad, bad. The people making those accusations are not doing Israel any favours.

Why? Support. I teach in the Toronto area. Some of the finest people I have ever met are my Palestinian students. They are now fellow citizens in Canada. Their presence affects us. We have to recognize that we went overboard in our support for Israel in the past. That point is past debate. Our citizens in North America of Arab descent are going to make this point clearer and clearer, so we need to clean up our acts now. If we can't talk with temperance, why should they?

One can make all sorts of wild statements on the Internet, but any discussion in the real world now has to take account of our fellow Arabic citizens. I would lose my job instantly if I were to say in a college setting half the things that so-called pundits say. They are not restrained by knowledge, intellectual honesty or any code of civilized behaviour. No leadership there because no temperance there.

Light blogging is a good compromise.

Thanks for this post, Kevin. It is indeed a difficult subject--in all senses of that word--and you haven't exaggerated the pitfalls inherent in discussing it.

But Nads is right when he says: unfortunately, Kevin, this appears to be a concession that palestine is yet another topic on which we are willing to cede the parameters of the discussion to the right wingnut viewpoint.

And way up top, Martin gets it right, too: Well, if the neo-cons like Bill Kristol have their way, you better start brushing up. See Glenn Greenwald today and the idea that Israel's enemies are our enemies and that we need to bring it on in Israel, Syria and Iran. A political blog will be pretty lame without an opinion on an active war.

Jimm from the Red Country:

Israel has accepted the two-state solution. The only party that remains equivocal on the subject (I am putting it nicely) are the Palestinians.

Wombat:

Why do you think that is?

Bob

This blog posting is debunkable on multiple levels, but I'll make the obvious points:

1. "It sparks unusually vicious comment threads"

So? The very reason why such comments are posted leads to the focus of this article. They (and when I say "they" I mean the pro-Israel extremists) want to control the discussion and prevent any positive assessment of occupied Palestinians. THEY want to make sure that Israel is portrayed as the victim, and the Palestinians as the aggressors, because if enough people actually remember that the Palestinians are the occupied victims it might actually lead to pressure being put on Israel to end the occupation.

2. "The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable."

It only "seems" intractable. The reality is that the US has increasingly given Israel carte blanche to do whatever the fuck it wants to the Palestinians, and so it has come to now where the Israelis are basically drawing their own borders, and in fact would make their borders even broader if it wasn't for those pesky little things (we call them "Palestinians") littered about the countryside in their way.

The issue is not at all intractable. There's just been a lack of courage on the part of American politicians to put a stop to the madness of supporting Israel no matter what they do. Or if it's not an issue of courage, it's an issue of money, as in the amount of money AIPAC has given a politician to buy them off and make them spew the pro-Israel line no matter how out of context or blatantly pandering it may seem.

The discussion is now completely controlled by pro-Israel forces, from the Whitehouse to Congress to the cable news networks. Whenever we speak of Palestinians we use the words "terrorists", "murder", etc. but when we speak of Israelis we use the words "self-defense", "restraint", etc. Total hypocrisy of a kind never known in human history.

3. "The conflict is fantastically complex"

No, it's not. It's simple: the Palestinians are under brutal occupation by Israelis. Full stop. That's all you need to fucking know. Israel is in violation of countless UN resolutions, and the only reason they haven't been sanctioned out of existence is because the US, at least in recent history (i.e. the past 20 years) faithfully blocks every UN resolution proposed that is critical of Israel, even when the criticism is equally distributed to all sides (see recent UN resolution proposal vetoed by the US).

4. "As with the conflict itself, punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides"

Yes, sadly there are extremists. In every issue. But why do you cower from this issue because of the extremists? This is just a cowardly out for you to avoid talking about the most important issue of our time.

5. "Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism"

This hits the nail on the head. A total lack of honesty and a desire to defend Israel at all costs, no matter what crimes of aggression or genocide it commits, results in hordes of pro-Israel zealots flooding every form of media with rants, viscious attacks, and even threats in order to silence the other side.

"I gather that the opposite is more frequently the case in Europe."

No, there's no inverse analog. The Europeans just happen to not have their heads completely crammed up their ass like the American audience does. One would think that we have this super-sized hard-on for Israel and that's why we support them so much, but the fact of the matter is that rabid pro-Israel extremists control the news media in this country and paint a very biased picture of events in the Middle East. Of course I hear the cries of "anti-semitism" over this comment. But check for yourself: watch CNN for half an hour and see how many times you see Wolfie or Lou describe the Palestinians or any Arab fighters as "terrorists" and the Israelis in terms of "self-defense". Bias is the name of the game. What other reason would the news media have for looking favorably upon the Israelis? It's either because they're racist, or because it's controlled by pro-Israel extremists. So go figure.

Kevin Drum is just a big pussy. If he doesn't want to tackle the primary issue that has our world on the brink of self-destruction then that's his perogative, but he could at least be honest about it and not come up with pissant excuses for why he doesn't have the courage to deal with it.

This conflict began before the written word.

I do not think so. It began when England kept Palestine a colony. If England leaves Palestine and the Palestinian state is established in 1919, then there is no Israel.

As an aside, when the Israelites exterminated the Canaanites, I think their was writing. It seems even when you commit genocide against your neighbors, it is still not the final solution even YWH hoped for.

Great post--many in America are unwilling to cast a suspicious or even questioning eye on Israel, and that keeps us from making rational decisions.

Thanks, Kevin, for not joining the endless ruminating over Israel and Palestine. In my opinion, it's all the obsession from pundits and the media that fuels the conflict, by inflating the religious self-importance of the region. People die everywhere all over the world for different reasons, yet when 2 people die in Gaza or Tel Aviv, it's expected to grip the world's attention (and anyone who doesn't care is either anti-semitic or not sympathetic to human rights). Pardon me if I give that a big ho-hum.

Meanwhile human rights tragedies like the Tibetan occupation (just one example - not trying to say this is the world's only important issue!) are hopelessly underreported. And while you can always convince some section of the world to take urgent, coordinated action to support either side of the Israel / Palestine conflict, just try and drum up the same level of concerted action to curb global warming. It's just so stupid, and any blog or media outlet that can't be bothered to cover the conflict earns me as a lifetime reader.

Keep doing what you're doing, and don't let the Alan Colmes's of the world convince you otherwise.

Wombat: give me a break. How aggresive can you be. Grab land, build settlements that the whole world disapproves of, build permanent walls in and around Palestine.

And show me where the Palestinians have not petitioned for a two-state solution. And don't quote some radical Hamas statement made before the last elections.

It is pointless to discuss Israel. There is zero respect for any position even slightly critical of Israel. Making an effort to write a reasoned post just invites flaming. Why bother?

I would like to thank all of you for the fact that this discussion has been remarkably free on name-calling, and remarkably focussed on the issue at hand.

It gives me heart to read posts from Jimm and others, recognizing that the situation in the Near East has been contributed to by Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc., AND THE US, and that NO nation or group of people in this conflict can claim entire innocence. The whole situation is tragic. Thousands and probably even millions of innocent lives have been wasted.

Israel keeps doing the same thing, bombing and sometimes overtly warring, on Palestine, Lebanon, etc. Palestine keeps doing the same thing, suicide bombers, bombing public buses, etc. Both sides seem to somehow believe that they are teaching the other side a "lesson" and some of you posting here believe the same thing. The only "lesson" learned is that the opposite side are "monsters". "But THEY did"...whatever. "THEY started it." Such statements sound like a bunch of kindergartners.

Until we can get people to admit that there has been wrong on all sides, and to admit that all sides have rights which must be respected, but that no side will get everything they want, there is NO possibility of a solution. Continued war, bombing, sniping, etc., only ensures more continuation.

Jimm, I like your idea of a UN-brokered settlement, with UN forces stationed to reinforce it, but the best we can hope for is that more overt warmaking actions can be nipped in the bud. There will still be lots of bombing, sniping, and strafing for a long time to come.

I would also favor establishing an international court in Jerusalem, before which people who commit acts which kill and main other people, can be brought and accused, and also given a chance to defend themselves. With juries made up of Israelis, Palestinians, and people from neutral countries. Proven offenders would be jailed in maximum security prisons. If this were done fairly and offenders from all sides were jailed, people would eventually begin to trust in this. There is no trust now.

Those of you who strongly favor one side or the other and who refuse to recognize that the other side has legitimate grievances, are, frankly, blowing smoke out your rears, and are part of the problem. Please try to remove your blinders.

I hate to be in the position of agreeing with Bill Kristol (editor and -- or perhaps the upper lip -- of the neocon mouthpiece, the Weekly Standard), but Kevin shouldn’t be afraid to take a stand on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (which I prefer to call the Israeli/Hamas-Hezbollah conflict). I think Kristol's question is apropos…

“So basically you are afraid to discuss an issue that has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decades, or am I missing something?”

Yes, why shouldn’t we discuss an issue that could drag this country into another no-win conflict -- one that carries the risk of focusing the wrath of other terrorist groups (rather than just Al Qaeda), potential troop casualties, oil embargoes, etc.? The current Middle East situation is a powder keg. The fuse is lit, and the neocons want drag us into the room where the powder is stored. Come on, Kevin, stir things up!

I'm sorry if the notion that Palestinians has the right to respond to terrorist attacks isn't complicated enough for you…. American Hawk 2:10 PM

METULA, Israel, July 15 - In another day of cross-border shooting exchanges, Israeli air strikes killed more than 20 Lebanese civilians on Saturday, including at least 15 who died when their convoy of vehicles was attempting to flee the south Lebanon border area, according to news reports.

It was the Palestinians who chose for that to fail, not the Israelis. Anomalocaris2:23 PM

It has been obvious for 60 years that Israel would cut a deal to live in peace with its neighbors. brian 3:53 PM : Israel has accepted the two-state solution. Wombat 6:58 PM

Here is an article on the various offers for peace that Israel has turned down.

Here is brief history of the conflict

Ok I couldn't resist responding to this particular bit of nonsense

Once peacekeepers are in place, and negotiations begun, all parties will need to be on their best behavior, or face being left out and having no basis for appeal to the international community.

Once the agreement is in place, the most onerous standards of respect between peoples and states will be held on all parties. Those who break this will be targeted as international rogues and pariah and dealt with decisively and accordingly.

First of all Jim the only peacekeepers that will be on the ground if there is any kind of real danger will be Americans.

Second can you give an example of some nation that was dealt with effectively and really gave a damn about being labled as international rogues?

Saddam certainly didn't over a decade of resolutions and condemnations did nothing. Kim Jung Il certainly doesn't give a damn. Sudan? Israel for that matter which has more resolutions against it than any other nation (based on the Arab leaning UN) doesn't give a damn what the UN says.

I wonder why? because other than the US the UN is a spineless amoral group of nitwits.

We clearly have different ideas as to what consitututes a "shitstorm". The two examples you linked to at TPM seemd to me like perfectly reasonable disagreements, stated in perfectly resonable language. Maybe you are just extremely sensitive?
No offence intended, but to avoid the most serious political issue in the world today out of fear of strong language, or fear of powerlessness, is a pretty lame excuse for a political blog, no?

As to the current problems that have spiraled into a near full scale regional war, I’m convinced that the solution to the many issues rests solely upon one defining problem…from which all others emanate and from which all others can be resolved. In fact, in what some may call my fanciful Hollywood formulaic prescription, one particular movie quotation seems to capture the essence of my proposed story line…“If you build it, they will come”. The “it” is none other than a Palestinian state.

Read an analysis on the Middle East that posits that the solution to the regions turmoil rests in the immediate creation of an independent Palestinian state...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

To begin --- the "Israelites" did not kill off the "Canaanites" -- they were Canaanites themselves. Israelites lived in Israel, an organized society populated by "Canaanites" in North Eastern Palestine before the unorganized semi-nomadic tribesmen in an area much much smaller to their south ever began to become the Hebrews/Jews. "Israel" is another untrue purloining by Judaism.

Why do so many posters persist in saying "anti-semitism" when they mean anti-Jew or anti-Zionist. Every single Arab is a Semite, you ill-educated dumb crows!

rmck1 was pretty good back there.

PNAC/AIPAC has sold the US a sadly dangerous bill-of-goods. Their one-eyed jingoistic messianism bloinds them to the long term. There are more Russians, in more space, with more oil and other natural resources.

If for no other than commercial survival reasons it is really dumb of the US to piss off the owners of most of the reat of the world's oil reserves by helping some unentitled Europeans steal the land of the historic owners and then one-eyed because all our politicians are persuaded (I am too scared to say 'threatened and 'bribed') to give billions every year to keep the boil suppurating.

The fundamentalists would have remained marginal if we had not been so consistent in our support for our colony Israel. The MSM, and most of the blog site owners too, do not tell us that Israel is the chief spy on things American, that it sells US military technology, that this tiny srea gets more money per head given it every year, that it is the terrorist in that neighborhood, that it has never acceded to a Security Council Resolution.

It is to the Palestinians enormous credit that they have ever been prepared to accept anything other thaqn the return in its entirety of their lands with full reparations.

Only those Jews whose total descent is from people shown on the last Turkish census should be permitted to remain, with all othrs required to return to their, their parents', their grandparents', countries of origin.

It is Unamerican to support Israel. It is
Bad for Business!!!!! Go out to the Near, Middle and Far East and try to sell things American; it gets harder and harder. This is a 1.3bilion people market and they have a lot of oil. It is time to unload this terrible burden about the size of New Jersey!

I hope you are all reading Justin on antiwar.com, and please follow the links to educate yourselves a little.

我向大家推荐:上海新丝路国际商务旅行社提供各种飞机票包括打折机票、特价机票、国际机票等上海机票；除机票预定外，还提供火车票查询。购上海机票及飞往各地机票请至上海尚游旅行社，提供打折机票、特价机票、国际机票等各种飞机票。上海国际机票网还提供其他旅行社的打折机票、特价机票和国际机票等。

hawk, i know conservatives hate peace. what's more fun than count