Forward.com

It could be that there is no solution to the conflict in the Middle East. It could be that the Jewish people will just have to shoulder this burden for generations. That is candor. To pretend that the conflict can simply be defined in terms of refugees, roadblocks, settlements or borders is not candor. It's naivete to the point of absurdity. The conflict was already quite complicated, defying all solutions, even before the founding of the State of Israel.

What happened to Leonard Fine? He used to be an astute analyst of the Middle East situation.

I don't think that something "has happened" to Mr Fein, as Yoav suggests. I think his analysis has been quite consistent, and there are many in Israel and in the Diaspora who would agree with his observations. The basic thinking is that the conflict is rational, and it can be defined in terms of logical grievances of this side or that side. Certainly, we (the Jews) can understand the logic of the Jewish aspirations and demands. However, we don't really understand the codes of the Arab side of the conflict. When they articulate their grievances, they will speak of "occupation" or of "settlements" or of "refugees", etc. It seems to make some kind sense to many Jews. Yet, amazingly, an end to occupation, the dismantling of settlements, the return of refugees - and even the cancelation of the 1948 Declaration of Independence - do not mean that the conflict will be ended. The conflict, as Yehuda pointed out, existed before Israel's independence - before there was a single refugee and before the occupation. Actually, the conflict was quite fierce before the birth of the whole list of Arab "grievances" that are now articulated in today's presentation of the conflict. All of these grievances are the result (the byproduct) of the conflict - not its cause. The cause of conflict must be clearly defined by the Arab side - the real cause as it would probably have been expressed seventy-eighty-ninety years ago. The Arab side has successfully presented a view of conflict that focuses on their post-1948 situation of defeat, and in so doing they avoid having to answer the real questions. Why did they decide to go to war in 1948 in the first place? Do they shoulder any responsibility for this fateful insistence on war (instead of negotiations)? Why did they reject every proposal for compromise throughout the whole era of the Mandate? Which national rights of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel do they recognize as legitimate?

I felt that Mr Fein wished to present an even-handed approach to the conflict: each side must give up on some of its dreams. However, what we really need is some "candor", to use Mr Fein's own term. The candor is hearing from the Arab side what is the true issue at stake.

Ben Levi is correct in each particular. And the candor he calls for from the Arab side would not be as polite as Fein's foolish pieties.

Fein is a perfect example of what has happened to liberals. They have become incapable of judging good from evil. It is a level of naiveté that borders on mental illness. It’s really quite simple. There will never be peace with the Arabs until the Arabs decide they want peace. It has nothing to do with land but has everything to do with hatred.

Two question for liberals:

1) If tomorrow the Arabs put down their weapons and stopped attacking Israel and renounced violence and Israel’s destruction what would happen?

Answer: There would be peace and a two state solution within a year.

2) If tomorrow Israel disarmed and removed all checkpoints, the fence, etc. What would happen?

Answer: Israel would be destroyed and the Arabs would kill every Jew they could.

This is not rocket science. It is obvious who the bad guys are. Israel does not have a peace partner to negotiate with. It never has and unfortunately probably never will.

Len Fein and Obama have the same Orwellian message "Strength thru weakness" Yawn

To assume, as some here do, that the basis of the conflict lies in some inbred hatred of Jews by Arabs is as flawed and nonsensical as claiming the 400 year conflict between Native Americans and European settlers resulted from an inbred hatred of Christianity by Native Americans. This is a political struggle based on the dispossession of native Palestinians by the forces of Zionism. It has been thus from the start. In 1923 Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the spiritual father of the Israeli right, published two essays under the heading "The Iron Wall" which confronted this question squarely. "We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but [the Palestinians] understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon their Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. . . . Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to to prevent the transformation of 'Palestine' into the 'Land of Israel.' . . because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left." Jabotinsky, who also believed the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine to be "absolutely impossible in any form," and was content with two peoples living in Palestine, "provided Jews become the majority," (a rather weighty provision) posited that peace would come only when the Palestinians lose hope of breaching Israel's "Iron Wall." That the posited moment has come and gone is pretty damn clear. Israel's tardy and duplicitous response to the PLO's 1988 offer of recognition of Israel in exchange for the remaining 22% of Palestine consisted of mere lip-service while continuing, by any means, to cleanse more Palestinians and take more of their land. Leonard Fein's inability to recognize this is indicative only of the larger blindness in Israeli society, which views every thwarted desire as more evidence of victimization. The best Fein can do is admit to some equality in their complaints of the others' sincerity. The fly in the Zionist ointment has always been their own blind ethnic nationalism. The fulfillment of Jabotinsky's Iron Wall theory would have been crime enough, but Israel tossed off what little humanity remained in that long ago. Israel's actions have always spoken louder than her words - she wants it all, no matter how much suffering she visits upon herself or the Palestinians, whose lives, rights, and humanity have always been viewed with indifference at best.

It's always interesting to notice that anti-Israel people such as Grif always have quotes from the writings of Zionist thinkers to "prove" the "evil intentions" of Zionism. Any diary entry or any theoretical debate is presented as "policy" and as part of some "cruel plot". Do such people have ready quotes from speeches or articles of Arab leaders? Are they aware of the declarations of Arab leaders calling for a "war of extermination" during the 1948 war, for example? Of course not. The Arab side rejected the UN compromise plan of Nov 29, 1947 and went to war - and they were defeated. This result had nothing to do with the articles of Jabotinsky (who had died in 1940) or with "blind ethnic nationalism" of Jews. The Arab side suffered from a chronic inability to accept compromise - and a chronic inability to accept the results of its own bad decisions. They, like Grif, try to convince us that it was some kind of diabolical plot against them. I, on the other hand, regard the Jews to be simply normal people: when facing moral danger, we fight for our lives.

Grif makes the same mistake that Fein does and then does us the favor of carrying is a step further. That step exposes the silliness of their shared assumption. Fein and he both make the classic progressive mistake of assuming that "they" are just like us and if they do not treat us as we want to be treated it must be that we somehow have done something wrong. This is all too easy for those who wish to ignore the kindergarden curriculum of "Kill the Jews" that is taught in Palestinian schools, the long pre-1948 Arab history of hatred and killing of Jews in our ancestral and continuously inhabited homeland, and the inconvenient fact that The Mufti of Jerusalem was a close ally of Hitler in the late thirties exclusively on the basis of their shared hatred for the Jewish people. The delightful Grif, however, takes the argument to its most illogical extreme and casts a bright and disparaging light on the whole prehistorical socialist construct. He drags the poor, bedraggled corpse of the Native American into the court and throws it down as exhibit A. The act is disgusting. It is the basest cynicism. Using Jabotinky's allusion would be a fine irony if it had merit but there is no merit to found. Jabotinsky was apparently unaware and Grif is so eager to use his example that he will not inquire that The Native American was of a cultural background and education that renders his thoughts and desires something a modern intellectual can never hope to appreciate. The best explanation of this gulf of understanding that I know of if the following quote from D.H. Lawrence:

“It is impossible for white people to approach the Indian without either sentimentality or dislike. The common, healthy, vulgar white usually feels a certain native dislike of those drumming aboriginals. The highbrow invariably lapses into sentimentalism like the smell of bad eggs. Why? – Both reactions are due to the same feeling in the white man. The Indian is not in line with us. He’s not coming our way. His whole being is going a different way from ours. And the minute you set eyes on him you know it. And then, there are only two things you can do. You can detest the insidious devil for having an utterly different way from our own great way. Or, you can perform the mental trick, and fool yourself and others into believing that the befeathered and bedaubed darling is nearer to the true ideal gods than we are. The Indian way of consciousness is different from and fatal to our way of consciousness. Our way of consciousness is different from and fatal to the Indian. The two ways, the two streams are never to be united. They are not even to be reconciled. There is no bridge, no canal of connection. The sooner we realize this, and accept this, the better, and leave off trying with fulsome sentimentalism, to render the Indian in our own terms.”

As what Lawrence calls a "highbrow" Grif is sitting here in a puddle of sentimentality and trying to tell us that these primitive, tribal indigenous people of North America are in some way comparable with the so called Palestinians. It is a triple insult. It insults the Native Americans because is comparing their priority in the land with that of a political aggregation of squatters with no claim to nation hood at all. There never was a country or "nation" of Palestine. No one in the history of the planet earth ever referred to themselves as "a Palestinian" until Yasser Arafat invented that mischievous cultural fiction in 1968. He insults us by expecting us to buy his stale lefist anti-semitism. and He insults the Palestinians by telling them that they are not the Jihadist Muslims they believe them selves to be (just read what the have written, for God's sake!) and only want a country (which they have turned down time after time). But then, progressives (as Stalinists are calling themselves these days) have never let the realities of human nature and culture trouble them. They are committed to the belief that their rationalizations can do everything from make human beings act against their own best interest to magically making an inefficient, badly run tractor factory produce more tractors just by declaring a five year plan. How else to explain his assertion that the most open, democratic, most productive and most tolerant country in the middle east is guilty of crimes and has "tossed off" her humanity. It is against logic, against fact and shows his bad faith. Let Grif lecture the mullahs in Iran and the Princes of Saudi Arabia about humanity- let's see how long he gets to keep his head attached to his shoulders. The one true comparison that can be drawn between the Palestinians and the Indians is that there was only ever one way to have peace in either case. Defeat- either moral or military. I have blogged extensively on that subject. Here is a link if you are interested: http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2007/04/indian-guilt-and-american-view-of-islam_19.html

Ah yes, the blithering Zionism of Yehuda and Yaakov:

Yehuda would have us believe that the seminal writings of Israel's founders are entirely immaterial, that they have no bearing at all upon Zionism or the history and present state of Israel, but, in fact, are just some curious scribblings from long ago. For Yehuda history begins in 1947 (as if nothing that might offend the Palestinians had happened before) and everything from then on is a natural reaction by virtuous Zionists to the evil Palestinians, who, irrationally as always, resented having their land and homes taken from them and handed over to a recently arrived minority of strangers. That they might naturally have viewed such as a "mortal danger" as Jabotinsky correctly observed is entirely beyond Yehuda's limited understanding. I note also that he conflates Jews with Zionists, which is par for the course but which I did not, but which no doubt makes him feel even more the aggrieved victim.

Yaakov's historical ignorance and ugly racism speaks for itself. He clearly knows nothing of American Indians, referring to them as a "corpse," and "primitive" and curiously quotes the 19th century racial nonsense of D.H. Lawrence as if all time and understanding stopped nearly one hundred years ago. He himself labors under an equally benighted 19th century viewpoint (one indistinguishable from that of John Wayne or Little Phil Sheridan), either ignorant of or ignoring the vast differences between the many tribes, nations, and confederations, preferring for his own notions of white European supremacy to see them all as savages engaged in unending "human sacrifice, slavery and constant low-intensity warfare," as he informs us on his blog. That this might as well serve as an apt description of Europe entirely escapes him. Instead he sees the European settlers as delivering the "greatest experiment in liberty, prosperity and self-government ever seen on earth." Too bad those ignorant redskins were too "primitive" to appreciate why we were slaughtering them. If so then they might have had the good sense to commit mass suicide and thus aid our advancing civilization. But Yaakov's ignorance knows no bounds. In his blog he approvingly quotes a Comanche named Yeagley (and who would know better than a Comanche?) to the effect that "Arabs weren’t even in Palestine until the mid-7th century AD, over a thousand years later, after Palestine’s 1,300-year Jewish history" - as if the indigenous populations of Palestine had been wiped out (or never existed) leaving only newcomers, the Arabs, who therefore have no claim to the land in the face of Jewish history, who merely all but left for a few thousand years. Utter idiocy. The Arabs brought the Arab language (the definition of an Arab is one who speaks Arabic), Islam, and intermarried to some extent (no doubt with Jews as well). They did not wipe out the native populations, nor did they enter "a land without a people." Yaakov's irrational hatred and blind bigotry is encapsulated in his description of Palestinians as "a political aggregation of squatters with no claim to nation hood [sic] at all. There never was a country or "nation" of Palestine." (What a tiresome banality!) Aside from the fact that the area has been called Palestine for over 2000 years (oh wait, the Romans called it Palestine, so therefore we must ignore those 2000 years! Only that aggregate of mud huts called the ancient kingdom of Israel counts, none of the other co-existing kingdoms!), but aside from that, there is no existing legal doctrine that allows ancient long extinct and dubious kingdoms to reinvent themselves and thus claim precedent thousands of years later. Nor is there any legal doctrine that allows alien conquerors to define for themselves whether the people they defeat are a nation or not, are deserving of their own land and homes or not. Yaakov then goes off on a wild tangent throwing in Joe Stalin and five-year plans for tractor factories for good measure, before finally settling on his main theme, that might makes right, the white man's burden is supreme, and the righteuous necessity of slaughtering those who stand in your way.

Both these gentlemen also task me with ignoring carefully selected remarks of Arab leaders, as if they were evidence of the need for the Zionist cleansing of the non-Jewish populations. This is more silliness and merely speaks to Jabotinsky's point, which they also ignore: that you can't displace a native population without having them somewhat angry at you, that they might even take up arms against you in an effort to save their homes, land, and way of life. As I said before, this is not a longstanding contest of hatred between religions, it is a political contest over land and dispossession, no different than that between European settlers and Native Americans, the same story repeated over and again throughout history.

Thanks for visiting my blog Grif, I can only admire your will power and powers of perception. There are many of us who have been fooled by explicit public statements by the leaders of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas that Israel must be destroyed and the Jews killed or driven into the sea. But you see right through those bellicose statements right? What do you call it? "selected remarks of Arab leaders"? Brilliant!- I suppose you think we are taking "selected remarks" from Jeremiah Wright too.

Your practiced and selective deafness to the chants of "Death to America" and "{Death to the Jews" shows incredible determination. And your refusal to read the charters of Hamas and Fatah which both call for the same thing. Show a phenomenal ability to read without understanding. So, while you are obviously not listening at all, I'll just clear the record on a few things:

My belief that different cultures have differing values is not racism. It has nothing to do with race. In case you hadn't noticed Jews and Arabs are of the same race. The difference is culture. So, it is more like culturism- It is belief in the power, grandeur and value of culture. To believe that all cultures are of the same value is not just absurd on its face but devalues the human spirit, is actually a kind of "soft racism" (the soft racism of lowered expectations) and gives rise to post-modern nihilism. Yet, in another stroke of genius you actually play the "ignorance and racism" card on me shrugging off both your own ignorance of the meaning of the words and your own guilt of the very things of which you are accusing me. Grif, you really ought to pay some attention the meaning of the words. Look up nihilism, Grif- or just look in the mirror.

I am not a racist, nor am I full of hate- I simply do not want to see the entirely legal (you ignore that neatly too) and tolerant state of Israel disappear into the vast, despotic, religiously fanatic, intolerant, violent land mass that is the rest of the Middle East. Nor do I wish to live under Shari'a law or any of the totalitarian permutations that rules the lives of most Middle Easterners. That is not racism, it is a simple and, I think, rational cultural preference.

I have to hand it to you too, for your summation of my "main theme" which you say is, "...that might makes right, the white man's burden is supreme, and the righteuous necessity of slaughtering those who stand in your way." Oh, very good. Except that my point is actually more like we (and I mean you too, unless you think you would be immune from Islamist intolerance and shari'a barbarity) are very fortunate that for one of the few times in the history of the human race might is actually on the side of right and we should not, by falling into the intellectual trap of post-modern nihilism and multiculturalistic moral relativism, let this opportunity slip by.

The jewel in the crown of your intrepid defecation upon reality, though, is typified by this: "you can't displace a native population without having them somewhat angry at you" It is transformational, even transcendent, ignorance and bigotry. In one excrementally filthy lie you negate the suffering of the Jews that lived continuously for 3,000 years in what ultimately deteriorated into the precincts of the Ottoman Empire known as "Palestine". You defile the memory of the massacred Jews of Hebron. You desecrate the effort and dedication of thinking, feeling, historically aware Jews who only wanted, in 1948, to have their own part of Palestine, the part that was predominantly Jewish, declared as a Jewish state. You dare to compare, by implication, the actions of the Israelis who not only tolerate but grant equal rights and political representation to Arab citizens with the brutal Judenrein and exterminationist policies of the Palestinian authority (and, indeed, most other Arab countries). What a tour-de-farce!

I always wondered why an exchange of comments in the net must include belittling remarks such as "limited understanding" or "blithering Zionism". Anyway, I'd like to clarify to Grif that no one is claiming that history begins in 1947. Surely, all who read the literature of the Arab side of the conflict realize that they see the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as the beginning of conflict. I mentioned the Partition Plan of 1947 since this is the point of reference for the outbreak of the war which the Palestinians themselves see as the most important of all events. They call this war "nakba", a very strong word - and, indeed, in their particularistic view this was the greatest of all injustices in human history.

Grif claims that I feel the "aggrieved victim". No, not at all. I know that the Jewish side has come out victorious in this struggle, and I also take pride in our success.

The Palestinians, as mentioned, do portray themselves as victims, and many throughout the world identify with this image. Moreover, they lack the ability for self-criticism, and their sympathizers also refrain from judging the Arabs for their poor policy decisions. The attitude seems to be that Israel is strong, and hence only she has to answer accusations. And, indeed, if Israel were not strong, she wouldn't have to answer any tough questions. Her fate would have been very bitter.

There really is no point in arguing that the Jews were "a recently arrived minority of strangers", as Grif describes the Palestinian perspective - just as there is no point in my countering that we (the Jews) see ourselves as the sons and daughters of this ancient land. Both sides cherish their narratives and heritages that link them here.

The real issue is how to handle the conflict. And here is my debate with Grif and my criticism of the Palestinians. Jabotinsky's writings, as interesting as they may be, were never the policy. Indeed, the Jewish policy was immigration, settling the land and the ultimate establishment of Jewish statehood. Yet, the Yishuv always was ready for negotiations, compromise and some kind of understanding. The Arab side of the conflict rejected any compromise. They made it very clear that they will go to war - a war of extermination. These are not, as Grif claims, "carefully selected remarks of Arab leaders". These were their speeches at the 1947 UN General Assembly debate about Palestine, announcements of the Arab League and comments that one hears throughout the years. One has the right to identify with the Palestinian struggle and even justify it, as Grif does - but this identification does not free the Arabs from responsibility for their decisions. Going to war is a big life-and-death decision. It is simply absurd to go to war, and then cry about defeat (or point a finger at Ze'ev Jabotinsky).

Grif mentions that I "conflate Jews with Zionists". Well, I have noticed throughout the years that anti-Israel people always use the term "Zionists". Perhaps, they wish to be careful not to seen as anti-Jewish. In any case, out of politeness (yes, one can be polite even in a fierce political debate), one should call people as they call themselves. We in Israel simply call ourselves "Jews". Often, we call ourselves "Israelis", but even this term generally is understood to mean "the Hebrew speaking Jews". One does not label ethnicities or national entities by the name of a political movement. We don't call our neighbors "the Hamasists" or the "Fatahists". We call them as they call themselves - Palestinians. We are Jews. That's our true primary identity, and so we call ourselves.

Yaakov only compounds his ignorance and bigotry as exemplified in his last tirade of a paragraph, a tissue of half-truths and nonsense. He claims in essence that since historically a small Jewish presence remained in Israel that the rights of the non-Jewish majority were nonexistent. According to him one cannot even refer to the Palestinians as a "native population." For him, they are the dust he walks on, and his refusal to recognize their humanity and their natural connection to the land they have long inhabited is the same racist attitude most 19th century Americans took toward our native population - squatters, we called them as well, savages in league with the devil, with no tenure on the land because they did not view the land or wish to use it in the same way we wished to, and of course they were not Christians, nor Jews nor Moslems. For all this we slaughtered them with alacrity, for we had a "better claim" to the land. After all, God gave it to us.

Ironically, and as a side note, the long-standing Jewish presence Yaakov correctly refers to were overwhelmingly religiously observant and adamantly anti-Zionist, viewing the establishment of Israel by anything other than the return of the Messiah as heretical.

Yaakov claims also that in 1948 the Jews of Israel only wanted their share of Palestine, "the part that was predominantly Jewish." This too is nonsense. They wanted it all and still do. The Zionists began their organized and wide-scale ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians a full six months before war broke out in mid-May of '48. Statements abound by all Zionists leaders of the period attesting to the need to drive out the Arabs. Some five years ago the Israeli press covered in full the revelations from the IDF archives which included the direct written orders to accomplish just that, along with after-action reports detailing some 2 dozen massacres of Palestinians, etc. The very notion that the Zionists only wanted a portion of Palestine, but were forced into taking all of it by Arab hatred, is one of the ugliest big lies in the last half-century. Yaakov also makes the idiotic claim that "Israelis . . . tolerate [and] grant equal rights and political representation to Arab citizens." Arab-Israelis are granted third-rate citizenship at best. With few exceptions housing and schools are segregated, with little state funding attached to Arab schools, either in curriculum support or in the physical plant itself. Since 1949 the Arab population of Israel has grown from 150,000 to over a million, yet Israel refuses to allow any Arab village to expand beyond its 1949 borders, nor, despite the perennial pledges of the gov't to do otherwise, has there ever been built any new Arab villages. There are also hundreds of "unrecognized" villages (no doubt mere coincidence that all are Arab). These villages receive no services at all, no water, no gas, no sewage, no garbage pickup, and the residents live under the constant threat of having their homes torn down around them. Israel until a few years ago stamped one's "nationality" on everyone's identity papers: Jew, Arab, Druze, etc. (Oddly enough, Israeli is not a recognized nationality in Israel). Now they use a numerical code. With this Arabs are easily identified and when they wander out of their ghettos they more often than not are harassed. In every aspect of society Israel discriminates against her Arab citizens, land use included, as through the cover of quasi-governmental organizations Israel reserves 93% of the land for the lease or ownership of Jews only. Yaakov ends his parade of extremist nonsense by making out the Palestinians to be the heirs of Hitler, "brutal Judenrein and exterminationist policies of the Palestinian authority." Yet it was the PLO that has made every substantial effort toward a two-state solution over that past 20 years. In fact, for years Zionists responded to the Two-State solution in the same manner they today respond to the one-state - as an anti-Semitic plot to destroy Israel. Funny, Israeli propaganda claims the state to have only wanted that portion of Palestine relegated to them by the UN GA resolution, yet, when the PLO presented their land for peace deal, asking for only 22% of their original homeland, an offer no other people in history have ever made, Israel responded with shock and horror. He also mentions the nine Arab representatives in the Knesset as a sign of Arab-Israeli equality with all other Israelis. What he neglects to mention is paragraph 7(a) of Israel's basic laws, which refuses to allow any law to be considered that is seen to endanger Israel as a Jewish state. This Catch 22 denies Arab-Israelis full equality as any law that might serve their interest, such as anything resembling the many civil rights laws passed in the US requiring full and equal treatment for all citizens, is seen as endangering the Jewish state.

Israel has many Kafkaesque laws and regulations that make all their oppressive and racist ways legal, but then again, so did Mississippi.

I should first apologize the Yehuda for my belittling remarks, for he did not refer to my remarks in that manner and he was indeed polite and remains so. As he correctly observed "one can be polite even in a fierce political debate."

I would agree with him that the Arab leadership (Palestinian and otherwise) is and has been abysmal at best in both tactics and strategy in this conflict. In short, they appear to have been primarily motivated by a narrow and short-term alleviation of wounded pride than a long-term strategy based on a practical appreciation of how and where to place their lever. But the leadership's many faults do not change history, nor the fact that the Palestinian people are indeed the victims of Zionism, and, of course, of the ineptitude of their leadership. And if Yehuda reads the Arab literature (or even the Israeli press), as he claims to, then he would be aware that many Palestinians, in the diaspora as well as at home, also criticize their leadership for the same reasons. A small quibble, the Palestinians do not refer to the war as the Nakba, but to the ethnic cleansing that resulted. It means "disaster" and it surely was the worst disaster that ever befell them in their history. One could hardly blame them for feeling its importance. Another point, the issues is not about crying over defeat in a war one started, it is about human rights long recognized under international law. Whether one won or lost the war or who started it is immaterial. Human rights are immutable and have been so for more than a century. I have long found it interesting that much of this law was created in reaction to the depredations of WWII, a conflict in which the European Jewish population was nearly annihilated, and towards the final cessation of such actions the Geneva Accords of 1947 were primarily addressed. Yet, Israel, a signatory to the accords, continually flaunts them while at the same time waving the bloody shirt of the Holocaust in defense of its lawless behavior. Whether this is the result of a mass disorder along the lines of PTSD or mere expediency is up for grabs, but if PTSD it is a lousy basis for national policy.

I am also glad that Yehuda does not believe history began in 1947, I hope he also does not believe it began in 1917. But 1947 was his reference point in his first post and he places strong emphasis on it in his second as well. Yet, the use of it is problematic: It was shoe-horned through with strong-arm tactics by the US, as a GA resolution it had no bearing in international law, and, as the Arab states argued at the time, it was most likely illegal. The Arab states attempted to take the issue to the world court, but were blocked by the US. They wished to argue that since the UN charter states "self-determination" as one of its first principles the handing over by fiat of 52% of Palestine to 30% of its population without a referendum of any kind was a violation of the charter and thus illegal. A sound argument, too bad they weren't allowed to present it. While the resolution gave a patina of legitimacy to the founding of Israel it was not that which founded Israel. That was accomplished by the US recognition of Israel within minutes of its declaration of independence. I have also long puzzled over the Zionist embrace of the Balfour Declaration (whether Yehuda himself does or not I don't know). The thing itself is actually a call for a one-state solution. It speaks not of a state but a home, and the two are not the same. It also calls for the complete equality in civil and political liberties for the Arab population, which would have negated the possibility of a Jewish state, as the majority of the population, sans ethnic cleansing, would have been Arab.

I would also agree that arguing, at this point, which population came first is a waste of time, although not for reasons of dueling narratives which are supposedly of equal historical value. The Jewish population of Israel, I would argue, have an equal right to live on the land. They are there, finis, and a number of generations have been born there. That is their home, just as the whites of South Africa have a right to their homes.

Where we differ is whether the Palestinians should have that same right. That the right exists in international law and treaty is beyond argument, but Yehuda and many others would have it that with that right the Jews of Israel would be wiped out. No doubt Yehuda will refer to the infamous 3 nos, or however number there were, yet he neglects decades of Israeli scholarship that has demonstrated the difference between rhetoric and reality. The Arabs states were suing for peace from the time of their defeat in 48. The files of the Foreign Ministry, as one Israeli historian has pointed out (Simha Flapan, I believe, in "The Birth of Israel"), were fairly bulging with offers. Israel has had any number of opportunities to make peace, yet spurned them all. It is the Jewish State that is all important, in of itself, and not any peace that would recognize the rights of Palestinians. After all, one cannot maintain a Jewish state in perpetuity if there exists a non-Jewish population that might overtake in numbers the Jewish population. Thus, in the Israeli press, the constant refrain warning of the "demographic threat," thus the segregation of Jewish and Arab populations, thus the prime reason for whole damn mess.

Yehuda is also wrong in his assertion that "Jabotinsky's writings, as interesting as they may be, were never the policy." They were indeed the policy. After Jabotinsky's Reform Zionism split from the main body a concerted effort was made to reunite the two. The Iron Wall theory was incorporated as policy as part of that unification. I suggest he read "The Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim, a nice Jewish-Israeli historian, for a more detailed presentation. He might also read "Collusion across the Jordan," by the same author.

As to me not conflating Jews with Zionists, I do so because not all Jews are Zionists (and vice versa). The two are not the same, not even in Israel, yet on this side of the pond there is constant effort towards the notion that it is so, thus pushing the faulty equation of anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. For Yehuda it may be a casual and natural reference, but here it is the distinction between the adherents of a political philosophy, who continually argue that they represent the whole, and recognition of the great diversity of opinion within the Jewish population, and not tarring them all with the same brush. Yet I suspect that Yehuda may be a bit disingenuous here, for the Israeli government and all Zionist political parties reflexively make the same equation - that all Jews support Israel and that Israel represents all Jews. As Olmert asserted during the last war with Lebanon, "Every Jew in the world fights along side of us." Perhaps not an exact quote, but the import was clear.

I have always suspected that the use of the term "Zionist" (instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli") in the political debate about the Middle East has its source in the perceived negative connotation of this word in the eyes of those who oppose Israel. In Palestinian broadcasting, for example, they regularly refer to Israel as "al-'adu as-sahyuni", the "Zionist enemy". Not calling people by their own true identity is a typical way of belittling them. Anyway, I can't imagine any other conflict in the world in which people would regularly call one side by its ethnicity while the other side is called by the name of an ideology. Hence, our conflict is generally called the "Arab-Israeli conflict" - both halves being national or ethnic adjectives. The fact that not all Jews support Israel does NOT change the obvious fact that the one side of the conflict is Jewish in its identity, and that Jews live in this country because of the circumstances of Jewish history. I should add that most Jews do support Israel, obviously. This is not because of an agreed ideology (Zionism), but because of the very common sociological phenomenon of identifying with one's own; i.e. Jews see the Israelis as Jews like themselves, living in the land that has tremendous meaning to these Diaspora Jews as well. Palestinians generally define the 1947 UN Partition Plan as illegal or illegitimate, as Grif argued. They went to war in the wake of this decision. In the history of mankind, many peoples or nations found themselves in a situation that necessitated in their eyes the dramatic decision to go to war. The Arab decision, therefore, is not unusual or without precedent. It was, however, a very bad policy. Grif blames their leadership for its poor tactics, and I would agree with him. Still, the war was popular also amongst the masses, and even today Palestinians justify the 1948 war. They seem to be saying that they had a right to go to war, but the Jews had no right to defeat them! Indeed, the result of the war was tragic for them, as it is tragic for every defeated population. The destruction of Germany by the Allies in 1945 was also tragic, including masses of refugees who have never returned to their pre-war homes. The Palestinian defeat is therefore not unusual. Calling it "nakba", giving this tragedy a special quality, has its roots in their ideology: The illegitimacy of Israel's birth and, therefore, the illegitimacy of her struggle.

In recent years, the Palestinian struggle went into the direction of suicide bombings. It was a very powerful weapon, and it struck deeply into our society. Although I cannot really understand the phenomenon, I do realize that for the Palestinians this was a means of waging war. And, it too was very popular amongst their masses. The result was, obviously, a counter-measure. Israel is building a barrier. Of course, this barrier has been criticized and condemned. The criticism may or may not be justified, but the basic historic truth remains the same: An act of war (suicide bombings) has resulted in a (rather moderate) act of war in return (the barrier). The Palestinian reaction is a type of "deja vu" from 1948: They attack their enemy with the cruelest of intentions, and then express their shock that this enemy has struck out at them. The prophet Hosea 8:7 put it very poetically: "ki ruah yizra'u ve-sufatah yiqtzoru" ("for they sow a wind and harvest its storm").

Supporters of Palestinians, those who really wish them well, could indeed help the Palestinians if they would guide them towards moderation. The Palestinian position has always ben focused on the denial of Jewish claims and rights in the Land of Israel, and they view every act of Israel as illegitimate and even criminal. Their supporters feel that it is their duty to agree - and to present Israel as a kind of aberration. What a mistake. What a strange kind of support.

Grif, perhaps I could add a few words about your comment: "I have also long puzzled over the Zionist embrace of the Balfour Declaration..." The declaration was quite important, yet I would never have used the word "embrace". In the struggle for Jewish statehood, there was always the need to find support from outsiders. The Balfour Declaration was a statement of support from the non-Jewish world (and a major world power). Moreover, the declaration became the preamble of the Mandate from the League of Nation in 1923; i.e. the international community declared the founding of a Jewish national home in Palestine as the very purpose of the British Mandate. Note that this was a "Jewish" (not a "Zionist") national home, even though not all Jews agreed to the idea - just as the 1947 Partition Plan speaks of a "Jewish" (not "Zionist") state in Palestine, even though just a minority of Jews lived in the proposed state. The Declaration of Independence of 14 May 1948 also mentions the Balfour Declaration and its recognition by the League of Nations. This reminder is meant for the outside world, obviously - to demonstrate legitimacy in a gigantic national struggle in which the sympathy and support of others is sought. This, however, does not mean that "Zionism embraced the declaration" or that the declaration is a statement that reflects the internal codes of Jewish history and society. The Jews who wished to found a Jewish state saw this future state as the framework in which the collective Jewish identity could continue to exist in the modern world. Most people seem to think that the state was to be a refuge from anti-Semitism. Not quite. Indeed, anti-semitism was a driving force in modern Jewish history, but it was not the whole story. The new Hebrew speaking society was destined to be the carrier of a Jewish culture that would survive the forces of assimilation and cultural disintegration. In the end, both proved true: Many of today's Israelis are the children and grandchildren of persecuted Jews, but many are the descendants of dreamers and idealists who revived the Hebrew language and created a whole society and culture based on this ancient language.

The Balfour Declaration is an important milestone in the history of the Middle East, but the motivation of the Jews was a function of internal Jewish social forces. I don't know how things would have worked out if the Partition Plan had been voted down - but I'm quite certain that even without this international recognition of our right to statehood, the Yishuv would have continue striving for independence. In short, it's nice that others say "amen", but the driving forces of any people will be its own perceived collective narrative.

The Palestinians see the Balfour Declaration as the beginning of conflict. All of their calendars mark its anniversary (2 Nov) as a day of mourning. The Jews have another point of view, as always. Every year, before Independence Day, we mourn those who have fallen in the ongoing hostilities - about 23,000 of our people. But what is the point from which we start to count? We are counting from 1862! That is the moment when the first groups of Jews left the old city of Jerusalem to found the new neighborhoods outside its walls. This is regarded as the beginning of the "new yishuv". I probably would have chosen a later date, if someone would have asked my opinion. But, still, this choice of dates is a good indication of how the Jews perceive the essence of the conflict: We see the conflict as resulting from the Arab opposition to the rise of of the new yishuv - a community that came to see itself as a national entity seeking sovereignty.

Yehuda writes, "I can't imagine any other conflict in the world in which people would regularly call one side by its ethnicity while the other side is called by the name of an ideology." Really? Merely one example: During the second decade of the last century a movement arose in Italy called Fascism, led by a rotund little clown named Mussolini. The proponents on this ideology were universally referred to, not as Italians, but as Fascists. Even within Italy the distinction was maintained. As the son of an Italian-American who was an adamant anti-Fascist during the rise of Mussolini I assure you it was an important distinction to many Italians. It was later when other national fascist groups arose that one began referring to Italian Fascists in order to distinguish them from the Spanish, German, or any of the other varieties.

Among the numerous Jews within my circle of friends and acquaintances the reaction to Israel runs a wide gamut, from firm support to an equally firm rejection to complete indifference. Those within the latter groups make the same clear distinction between Zionists and Jews in general, as do many of Jewish critics of Israel whose writings are readily available on the web and in any bookstore. It is revealing that Zionists now run from the appellative of their own movement. There was a time when they were quite proud to be called Zionists, for they were the "New Hebrew", the Sabra, molded after the sturdy Hebrews of the misty past, as opposed to those weak deficient Jews of the diaspora, who might only be redeemed from traditional Judaism by returning to the soil. Of course, that was back when Fascism was on the rise and Zionism, one of the great chameleons of political movements, had hitched its star to it. Now, of course, Fascism is defunct and Zionism has moved on to claim Democracy as its true nature, although as such it is strictly for Jews only. Now that Israel is established and wishes to be seen as legit its supporters prefer to be called Jews, so as to appear to be as legit as possible, to appear to have as much representation as possible throughout the world, and to tar its critics as anti-Semites as much as possible. Zionism is hardly the first ideological movement to play this game. Mussolini attempted to claim all Italians as supporters of Fascist Italy, all those of Italian descent no matter what their citizenship as part and parcel of the great Italian nation marching towards renewal. (and just as with Zionism, those Italians who opposed Fascism were never considered to representative of anything but some peculiar form of "self-hatred.") The Germans did the same, as has done every movement of ethnic/religious nationalism throughout history.

Perhaps it is true as Yehuda claims that "most Jews do support Israel, obviously." I would have added "to varying degrees," and "perhaps for many reasons, not all approved of by Zion," but nonetheless, at the moment, his assertion may well be true. Fortunately, polls show it may not be for too terribly long. The majority of American Jews under the age of thirty report they do not feel much if any connection to Israel, and are rejecting at large, along with their non-Jewish peers, all such nationalistic notions.

In his discussion of the 48 war, Yehuda again posits the outcome as if the world still ran by "winner takes all." This is the Zionist position, that the Arabs started it (only if one ignores Israel's preceding brutal anti-Arab pogrom)and Israel won so therefore Israel gets all the marbles - the land, homes, towns, sheep, cattle, all the loot. All this, as if nothing had changed in the world since the Mongol hordes. What Yehuda and Zionists in general steadfastly ignore is that under international law Israel does not have the right to all the marbles, that even in defeat the Palestinians still have the right to return to their homes, the right to their land, the right to political and civil equality, and that is what this conflict is about. One might have naively believed that Zionists would have eschewed such logic as being far too close to that of Adolf Hitler in his treatment of conquered peoples, but Zionists lost the ability to blush long ago. And truth be told, the Holocaust for Zionists is only a flag to wave when expedient for nationalistic reasons, as the callous treatment of survivors in Israel has long demonstrated - the outright theft of much of their reparation monies, the contempt with which they were greeted in Israel after the war (The "Sabonim" they were called, plural for soap), etc.

Yehuda quotes Hosea in reference to Israel's building of the wall allegedly in reaction to Palestinian suicide bombers, "for they sow a wind and harvest its storm." The fact that Sharon first pushed this very plan as early as 1977, according to his pal Uri Dan in the Jerusalem Post, might raise a question or two, but never mind. That this same poetic statement might well apply to Israel as well is to be ignored as another inconvenient fact. Israel's ruthless embrace of terror as means of "national liberation" has been endemic throughout its history. The bombing of the King David Hotel, which murdered any number of innocents, Jews included, was just one of a large number of murderous acts no less reprehensible than similar acts of terror by Palestinians. Reaping what you sow is indeed true.

As to the supporters of the Palestinians guiding them toward moderation, one can only point out that the Palestinians have tried moderation until they were blue in the face. Israel's reaction has always been to take more land, drive out more Palestinians, no matter what tact the Palestinians take. What the supporters of Palestinians should guide them towards, in mine and others opinion, is a mass campaign based on the tactics of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, which Israel would no doubt reject as radical, but would be far more effective. Unfortunately, as I said before, their leadership is far too wrapped in the exigencies of wounded cultural pride to take the advice of even the ANC. Although, I might add the use of nonviolent protest has increased in recent years.

Yehuda closes with a very nicely put discussion of the Balfour Declaration. It is unfortunate that for all its stated importance the Yishuv took it as a "statement of support from the non-Jewish world (and a major world power)" while ignoring the entirety of its content after the words "a Jewish home." But Yehuda hits the nail of the head with his closing words, "We see the conflict as resulting from the Arab opposition to the rise of of the new yishuv - a community that came to see itself as a national entity seeking sovereignty." Yes, indeed, but not "came to see" but saw themselves so all along. Sovereignty over another people, over their land and homes, no matter what.

The surveys that may (or may not) indicate a weakening of connection of young American Jews to Israel are not a sign that they are abandoning such "nationalist notions". American Jews have an American identity and a sence of American patriotism - so they have "nationalist notions" of some sort. The weakening of connection to Israel, if that is the trend, is a result of the general weakening of Jewish identity in America. It's a process of assimilation and a dramatic change in primary identity (from a primary Jewish identity to a primary American identity). The loss of Yiddish, the meagre hours dedicated to Jewish education, etc - these and other sociological factors are the issue here. A weakening of Jewish identity will express itself in a weakening relationship with all aspects of "Jewishness", including the Land of Israel.

Grif's example of Fascist Italy as a conflict that one side is called by its ethnicity while the other side is called by a political ideology is simply false. Which conflict? The battles between the British and Italians in North Africa were between the British and Italians. Similarly, the 1947 partition proposal for Palestion spoke of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the country. Any talk of a "Zionist-Palestinian" conflict is simply an improper presentation of the issue. In normal speech between Jews and Arabs on an everyday basis here (in Israel), the Arabs will always speak of "the Jews", even when debating about politics. Calling the Israeli side in the conflict "Zionists" is simply a means of belittling. Since anti-Israel people feel that Zionism is illegitimate, insisting on calling the Israeli side "Zionist" is a way of determining illegitimacy as the very basis for discussion.

The right of return can be established (or rejected) with an end of conflict. The position of the Arabs and their anti-Israel supporters has always been that Israel has to behave as if she is not in the midst of an ongoing armed conflict. It's a very strange perspective. So it's not "winner takes all", as Grif claims. The conflict will not be solved by returning refugees (there was conflict before 1947) - rather the conflict will be solved first, and that will determine the ultimate fate of refugees. The war with Germany also occurred after the times of the "Mongol hordes", and still many Germans (in Sudetenland and elsewhere) lost their homes as a result of conflict.

A conflict, Grif, always has two sides. For some strange reason, some believe that the Arabs are at war but the Jews are living in peace. We, too, are at war. Our behavior in crisis is remarkable. Every other people at war should be so lucky as to have a reasonable enemy such as Israel. But viewing us as if there is no threat, no violence and no evil intentions is - as always in the debate about the Middle East - discriminatory. The source of discrimination is in the perception that the birth of our society is illegitimate and therefore has no right to fight.

In Yehuda's 1st paragraph he assumes wrongly that Jewish kids in the US are merely swapping one nationalistic allegiance for another, due to a poor Jewish education. The fact is they and their non-Jewish peers appear to be moving toward a more global view of humanity that transcends national borders. How long that will last as a trend, who knows? But I should not look a gift horse in the mouth. At least, there is a tacit acknowledgment of trend among US Jews on NOT supporting Israel.

His second paragraph is getting close to plain silly. The conflict began with very rise of Mussolini in 1922, within Italy and without. The anti-Fascist movement did not begin with WW 2 and there were numerous causalities well before then, if indeed Yehuda demands bloodshed in order to have a conflict. The reason Zionists run from being called Zionists is for reasons of political expediency alone. The reasons many critics of Israel refer to her supporters as Zionists is because that is what they are. They are adherents to the political ideology known as Zionism. Zionists are not all Jews, as Yehuda well knows, and not all Jews are Zionists. I refuse to speak of Jews, or any other groups, as if they were all a herd of cattle, undifferentiated by other than a few spots. It is true that many Palestinians refer to the other side of this conflict as "the Jews." This is due to the fact that the Israelis they come into contact with, along the Israeli press and media, continually refer to themselves as such - a rather grandiose notion as if they were the totality of world Jewry. It is also interesting to note that when the Palestinians and others do as Yehuda would have them do they are usually tasked with anti-Semitism for lumping all the Jews in the same pot, along with this comes the hue and cry of a revival of the Elders of Zion. Logic and consistency matters not here, expediency of the moment is all.

In his third paragraph Yehuda again ignores both history and international law, the very mention of which he avoids assiduously. Israel is the occupying power engaged in an illegal occupation, a military force many times more powerful than all of her neighbors combined, backed to the hilt by the most powerful nation on earth. To act as though there is some of equality between forces, either militarily or legally, is to indulge in logic worthy of the Mad Hatter's tea party. Israel controls and occupies everything between the river and the sea. The conflict he strangely refers to as if it were the second world war concerns Israel's brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (yes, Gaza is still occupied, no matter Israel's assertions to the contrary), the longest military occupation in modern history. If we as the post-war occupiers of Germany and Japan had treated their populations as Israel treats the Palestinians they'd still be shooting at us. The question of refugees, apparently unbeknownst to Yehuda, has already been resolved, not just through international law, numerous UN resolutions, but also through Israel's treaty with Egypt, that portion of which Israel has steadfastly ignores. Israel has twice turned down, and refused to even discuss, the Arab League's offer of complete recognition, full trade relations, and peace will all Arab states in exchange for Israel's withdrawal to the Green Line. In essence, everything Israel has long claimed to desire. The Arab League and the PLO both stated clearly that even their position on the right of return is up for negotiation. All this in addition to many previous offers of peace based on a two-state solution, which Israel pays only the barest lip-service toward. It is odd that he brings up the 1945 expulsion of the German Folk of the Sudetenland as a precedent for Israel to follow, an act that would have been illegal a few years later through the Geneva Accords of 1947, to which Israel was a signatory.

He ends with the astonishing statement, "Every other people at war should be so lucky as to have a reasonable enemy such as Israel." Ah yes, those lucky Palestinians, driven from their homes, their villages destroyed, crops bulldozed and burned, livestock and possessions stolen, slaughtered, invaded at will, preyed upon by death squads and aerial missile attack, starved, beaten and humiliated on a daily basis, denied every civil liberty due them as human beings - if they only knew how lucky they were they'd thank the day the Zionists arrived! Do the Israelis suffer as well? Of course they do, but the Palestinians do in far far greater numbers, and for reasons that could have been resolved decades ago if not for Zion's dream of reestablishing Greater Israel.

He ends with, "The source of discrimination is in the perception that the birth of our society is illegitimate and therefore has no right to fight." What makes a society and a fight illegitimate is what one is fighting for and what the society's actions are. The Third Reich's desire for state based on the spurious notion of an Aryan state was illegitimate, as was South Africa's notion of a white ruled state, as was Mississippi's and the other like states notions, and the fights they put up to maintain such was also illegitimate. Israel operates outside of international law and recognized standards of behavior. Other nations do as well, to lesser and greater degrees, but this does not excuse Israel's behavior in any way. It is Ethnic Nationalism, the bane of the last 100 years, and the ethnic cleansing that invariably follows that lies at the heart of this conflict. When Israel decides to act according to law and end this conflict and give its minority populations full and equal rights, then it will be a legitimate state.

"When Israel decides ... then it will be a legitimate state." Grif, you don't mean it. You've already agreed with me that the source of conflict is the rise of the new yishuv, so all the talk of "missed opportunities" or "ethnic nationalism" or "international law" or whatever is simply nonsense. None of those issues is the essence of conflict. You can tell someone that he's an awful driver. If that's what you really mean, then obviously he could take some driving lessons and win your approval. But it's not what you really mean. You really mean that you are really sorry that he was born at all - and that's why he's such an awful driver in your eyes. Even though no one's a perfect driver, this one particular driver just will never pass your test - because he simply shouldn't be behind the driving wheel. He simply shouldn't be.

Grif, like most of the anti-Israel supporters of the Palestinians, you are not critical of Israel. Your list of grievances sounds like criticism, but it isn't. You're not asking Israel to improve her driving. Israel simply shouldn't have been born. The new yishuv was illegitimate. Also the Palestinians prefer to articulate their opposition to Israel by ranting off a whole list of grievances, trying to leave the impression that these grievances are the true issues at stake. But, strangely, there is absolutely nothing that Israel could do that would win a word of approval from her "critics". There is nothing that Israel could do that you would say to yourself: "Well, I suppose I would have done the same under such circumstances". The "abnormality" of Israel's existence is such that every act of hers is simply "scandalous". And so, for example, Jewish nationalism is condemned as bad and out of step with the times, but Palestinian nationalism seems to be quite normal. Jewish "terror" (the Kind David Hotel bombing) is clearly condemned, but you express understanding that Palestinian pride prevents them from adopting a non-violent approach. Every article of Jabotinsky has been read for indications of Israel's evil intent, but Arab calls for "extermination" are simply selective hearing on my part. "The Palestinians tried moderation until they were blue in the face" is how you see their struggle.

Be honest. State your truth. You believe that Zionism should not have been, and that's all. I hear recently such lines as "original sin"; i.e. Israel is the source of all this trouble (and therefore shouldn't exist). You never used this term, yet you always found the way to slip in mentionings of the Third Reich, South Africa and Fascist Italy. Your position is clear. So state it. Say that "illegitimate" Israel will never meet your approval, and that's it. Stop pretending, like the Palestinian spokespeople, that there is a real list of grievances that Israel must rectify.

Israel is a country that thrives in self-criticism. There really is a lot to improve. But criticism or self-criticism has in its background one simple truth: We (the Jews/Israelis) and our collective existence (the State of Israel) are a normal member of the family of peoples, a normal member of the family of nations. If this truth is obvious to you, then indeed criticism about Israel is worthy of mention.

Dear Yehuda, For some reason my computer has rebooted twice in the midst of writing this, but I'll give it another try.

Yes, you can tell someone he's a lousy driver and ask or direct him to take driving lessons. But what if he refuses? Here in the US, if one ignores the rules of the road one is sanctioned. Is it any different in Israel? It is not a matter of wishing he was never born, but demanding that he obey the commonly accepted rules of the road, for his own safety and the safety of others. But this is the heart of the matter that you have so far ignored - for "rules of the road" read "internationally accepted standards of behavior toward the rights of others as enshrined in law and treaty." Israel refuses to acknowledge that these apply to her as well as everyone else. It is the part and parcel of Israel's belief in its own exceptionalism, that due to the historical record Israel should be and is exempt from obeying the rules of the road. This is the problem that you have steadfastly avoided throughout these posts - international law and human rights.

You task me with accepting Palestinian nationalism while refuting Jewish nationalism, yet in doing so you only hoist yourself with your own petard. Note your use of "Jewish Nationalism," not "Israeli Nationalism." The use is widespread and deliberate, for to cite the latter would be to include the non-Jewish citizens of Israel as equal citizens, something Israel is loathe to do, for it is a Jewish state, for Jews and only Jews. Palestinian Nationalists includes Palestinians of any religion. If such a state ever comes into existence and refuses to accept its citizens of differing religions then I will be the first to rail against them.

You also charge me with excusing Palestinian terror while condemning Jewish terror. You say that I "express understanding that Palestinian pride prevents them from adopting a non-violent approach." I fail to understand how foolish pride becomes a compliment or how you could see this as an excuse for terror. I soundly condemned Palestinian terror, along with their stiff-necked and incompetent leadership. Yet, nowhere do I see you condemning Israeli terror or even admitting that it exists, or what role this might have played in furthering the conflict.

You dare me to admit that I believe Zionism "should not have been." Excuse for not making myself clear. I thought indeed that I had. Of course, I am against Zionism. I most firmly believe it "should not have been." It is a foolish error of historic and tragic proportions for everyone involved, Jews included. Is that clear enough? How could you ever thought otherwise? The history of the United States is one long and violent struggle for equality, a struggle that began before 1776. Did you think I do not know the history of my own country? Did you believe that somehow I would support equal rights for all yet exclude the Palestinians just because their oppressors are Jewish? There is no historic exceptionalism for Israel or any other nation. As Dr. King once said, "If one person is not free than no one is free." Israel cannot be allowed to create a ethnically exclusive state that denies others their rights any more than the United States could during its period of racism and Jim Crow. This is not a matter of denying Israel's existence or its right to exist. It is a matter of HOW Israel is to exist, as a Jewish apartheid state or a state of all its citizens, Palestinians included. If years ago, or even now, some Mississippi segregationist had complained that the critics of Jim Crow were just interested in denying Mississippi's existence, he would have been laughed into silence. As you may have noted, Mississippi still exists, so does South Africa, Germany, Japan, and Italy. Do they still have troubles stemming from differing racial, ethnic, and religious groups? Certainly, but they have abandoned their policies of exclusivity and approach solving them through internationally recognized standards of human rights and equality. When Israel abandons her antiquated notions of a Jewish State and the discriminatory policies that maintain it, then I will the first to applaud and support her.

You claim that Israel is a "normal" state, yet she is not and, in fact, denies such herself. This notion has been debated much in the Israeli press and is very unpopular, viewed as code for the end of the Jewish State. I would think you'd have read this debate yourself in the press. I would welcome indeed Israel becoming a normal state. There would be nothing better for the health of the Middle East and the world at large if she did.

Grif - One of the frustrations of ideological or political debates is that one may find out after exhausting hours of discussion that the other person has a different "dictionary". Essentially, there isn't an agreement on what "x" means or what "y" means. I don't really know what you mean by "Zionism". For me, when you say that "Zionism should never have been", it's the same as saying that the struggle for renewed Polish sovereignty shouldn't have been. It's like saying that the Greeks or the Estonians can have their own nationhood - but not the Jews. For me, saying that Zionism shouldn't have been is like saying the cultural miracle of the revival of Hebrew shouldn't have been (Modern Hebrew is the creation of the new yishuv). Apparently, you have a different dictionary. Maybe we don't even have the same dictionary definition for "Jewish". Surely, an irrelevant term such an "apartheid" comes from your very different definitions.

You've brought up Mississippi a number of times. Again, I don't really understand your dictionary. You apparently find some parallel with Israel, but I wouldn't know what it is. We are in the midst of an armed struggle in which the two sides are two national groups, each one fighting for its perceived national rights in this land. There is no racial hatred here, but there was in the USA. There is an armed struggle here between two different peoples, but that was not the situation in American society. The discrimination in the USA was racial, and it was based on simple and irrational hatred. The Arabs accuse Israel of practicing discrimination. Maybe some of the accusation has merit - and maybe not - but the background of the whole situation is the ongoing historic and violent struggle, not "just because". Here is my criticism of your views. You see Israel as if it is not a society in danger - and I claim that her behavior as a society in danger is indeed moderate. A phenomenon, such as the incarceration of Japanese Americans in the Second World War, would be impossible in Israel. But it wasn't impossible in the USA. You also demand the return of refugees, but that's the same strange logic: Even though the hostilities have not ended, Israel has to behave as if she lives in peace. The Hamas, for example, can declare on a daily basis that "Palestine will be the graveyard of the Jewish people" (that's a threat of genocide), and in the same breath demand that Israel withdraw from occupied territory and return the refugees. Funny - they are at war, but Israel isn't. Well, we are at war, and there are certain things that will be left for the post-war era.

Finally, we don't share the same dictionary regarding "a state of its citizens". Poland is a nation-state that was founded to serve the interests of Poles. There were other ethnicities in Poland - the Jews (later murdered during WWII), the Lithuanians and the Ukrainians. These other ethnicities were citizens of Poland, voted in its elections, had their own cultural life and more. There were Jewish members of parliament who represented the interests of the Jewish minority nationality (the Jews were defined as such). The state was "Polish", but many of its citizens were not Poles (they were Polish citizens, but not ethnic Poles). So what? There are so many nation-states that have a variety of minority nationalities - then and today. Israel is a Jewish nation-state that has citizens who belong to another national group. It's not so unusual. So, it's a Jewish state that is also the state of all its citizens, all of whom participate in the social and political systems. The only reason that there's "a problem" is because of ideological opposition to our yishuv. When peace is established, when the legitimacy of our society is finally accepted, then there won't be an issue about Israel's character - just as there is no issue about a Finnish nation-state that has its Swedish population, or a Dutch nation-state that has its Frisian minority (and the list of examples is really quite endless).

Really, Grif, I just couldn't imagine any other society in our situation handling this conflict in a better way. On the contrary, I would imagine that others would have handled conflict (and explicit existential threats) quite differently. Here, too, the examples are also quite endless.

Once upon a time, when wandering through a forest, I saw a target painted on a tree and exactly in the "bull's eye" was an arrow. A few minutes later, I noticed another target with an arrow in its center, and then another and yet another. How impressive! Finally, I happened to run into a child holding onto a bow and arrow (and a can of paint), and I praised him for his extraordinary marksmanship. "Oh, it's nothing", replied the child. "I first shoot the arrow, and then I paint the target around it!"

That's the nature of debates. All of us have our firm beliefs, and then we find the arguments to justify them. Therefore, it is so rare to have a debate that ends with the words: "Wow, you convinced me!" Perhaps, that has happened to me once in fifty years. Generally, we just dig deeper and deeper into our positions.

But, debate is healthy despite its frustrations. And enlightening, too. Shabbat shalom.

Ah, yes, the entire debate has now been reduced to "different dictionaries." Yehuda is entirely perplexed as to the meaning of "Zionism" or the meaning of "Zionism should never have been." Never mind that Yehuda himself first used the latter phrase, after all his dictionary is different from mine and god only knows what he first meant by it. Apparently, he may not even know what "Jewish" means, but it is clear that the phrases “Human Rights,” “International Law,” and “Civil Liberties” have been long banned from his dictionary, along with, no doubt, such other troublesome words as “Democracy,” “Pluralism,” and “Humanity.” This is not surprising. As I said before, it is part and parcel of the Zionist belief in “Israeli Exceptionalism.” Just in case this phrase is not in Yehuda’s dictionary either I will provide a definition: It is the belief that Israel, as the Jewish state, shall not be beholden to the internationally recognized standards of behavior as set down in International Law, UN SC resolutions, or any of the many treaties Israel has signed and subsequently ignored. It consists in addition of the correlative belief that Israel is also to be free of the Laws of Physics (“Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction”) and any related lessons of history (any and all peoples will resist subjugation – see “Laws of Physics” above, and look up in any encyclopedia Spartacus, Slave Revolts, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and the French and American Revolutions, just for a start). This theory has been carefully parsed and inculcated over the years so as to provide a restful night’s sleep to the supporters of Israel, otherwise the better part of their Judaic upbringing, that portion which speaks to the common humanity of all and fair and equal treatment for all would haunt them ceaselessly, they would then never sleep at all and look like hell at shul.

But Yehuda’s strange dictionary does propose that Jewish Nationhood is the same as Greek Nationhood. Never mind the obvious and very large differences between the two that make the comparison entirely specious. I will try and lay out these difference as simply as possible so that Yehuda is not overwhelmed: 1) The apt comparison is not between Jews and Greeks, but between Israel and Greece: Israel is to Greece as Jews are to, say, Catholics. i.e., Israel is a nation as is Greece, Jews are the adherents to a religious belief, as are Catholics or Protestants, etc. 3) To become a Jew one would have to convert to that religion or take it up entirely if one did not already have a religion. To become a Greek or a Dane or an Italian one does not have to belong to a specific religion or convert to one, one merely follows the procedures set down by law in those states to become a citizen. 4) There are Catholic Greeks, Protestant Greeks, Jewish Greeks, etc., but there are no Catholic or Protestant Jews. Now, Israel being a "Jewish State," as opposed to "normal" western state adhering to liberal democracy, a non-Jew cannot become an Israeli citizen unless one first converts to Judaism, despite the existence of many Israelis who are not Jewish. Yehuda apparently only recognizes Israel as the site of the Jewish State and no more than that, yet search your geography as much as you want, you will not find a state on any map called "Jew" or "Jewish" or "Hebrew." It is called "Israel" and the citizens of such are "Israelis," not all of whom are Jewish. If I became a Greek citizen it would not make me ethnically a Greek or a member of any particular religion, but if I converted to Judaism I would be, without doubt, a Jew, but not necessarily an Israeli. To posit a nation to which all Jews belong merely by dint of the same religion is indeed problematic, for Yehuda clearly does not mean Israel as that nation, but something far more amorphous and misty that exists independent of Israel. How this comes about is merely by assertion, an assertion that is not to be questioned lest its fallacies are shown to be the same common nonsense that define other such “nationalisms” such as Christian Nationalism, a scary bunch if I may say so, White and/or Black Nationalism, both equally troublesome, Aryan Nationalism, past and present, or Islamic Nationalism. One might as well posit a nationalism for red-heads and left-handed peoples as any of the above. “Apartheid” seems also to be missing from his dictionary. It means “separation,” a condition that is basic to the maintenance of a Jewish State and endemic to Israel. Just as we speak 21 human rights activists from South Africa have finished their visit to Israel. Among them were members of Nelson Mandela's African National Congress; at least one of them took part in the armed struggle and at least two were jailed. There were two South African Supreme Court judges, a former deputy minister, members of Parliament, attorneys, writers and journalists, blacks and whites, about half of them Jews. Their conclusion? That what Israel imposes in the West Bank is “worse than Apartheid.” Yehuda can read Gideon Levy in Haaretz for their reasons: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html

Yehuda also seems puzzled by my reference to “Mississippi,” a word he also claims ignorance of, or if not the word then the attitudes that once dominated it as they relate to Israel. He is correct that racial attitudes dominated, but wrong in that there is no parallel to Israel. In MS blacks were considered racially inferior humans, in Israel Palestinians are not considered at all, nor their humanity. This is evidenced not only by the lack of human rights for Palestinians on either side of the Green Line, but also by Yehuda’s consistent and steadfast refusal to acknowledge that they have any such rights. He is also wrong in his assumption that Israel’s troubles are a “historic and violent struggle” and Mississippi’s “just because.” Jim Crow grew out of a long history of slavery, an institution that was rationalized, not just by a sense of racial superiority, but also by religion and a sense of exceptionalism, and was far more violent in terms of numbers killed and wounded than the Israel-Palestine conflict. Of course in Mississippi, as in Israel, the far greater preponderance of causalities was on the side of the oppressed minority.

He also states, “A phenomenon, such as the incarceration of Japanese Americans in the Second World War, would be impossible in Israel. But it wasn't impossible in the USA.” True, enough, as far as it goes. What he neglects is that, as terrible as that event was, Japanese-Americans returned to the fold. They were apologized to, given reparations, and remain in the US as full and equal citizens. No such luck for the Palestinians who were slaughtered en masse from 1947 to 1956, driven from their homes, and are still forced to live in exile from their historical homeland.

He claims that Israel is a “society in danger,” this is nonsense. While individual Israelis may face danger, Israel as a society is in no danger at all. As Abba Eban, Israel’s Foreign Minister from 1966 to 1974, once said, “Israel is no more danger from Palestine than the Soviet Union is from Lichtenstein.” The only society in this conflict that is in danger, or suffers from an “existential threat” is that of the Palestinians, who are indeed in danger of being “pushed into the sea.”

He again states, “Israel is a Jewish nation-state that has citizens who belong to another national group. It's not so unusual. So, it's a Jewish state that is also the state of all its citizens, all of whom participate in the social and political systems.” And brings up “a Finnish nation-state that has its Swedish population, or a Dutch nation-state that has its Frisian minority” determined as usual to conflate religion with citizenship, ethnic/religious nationalism with democratic pluralism. Israel is a Jewish State, for Jews and only Jews. Any number of laws and officials statements make that clear. To claim otherwise is simple nonsense. Israel must always maintain a Jewish majority in order to be a Jewish state. It is impossible to perpetually maintain that majority without discrimination against those who are not Jewish, as Israel does at every turn. Holland is not a state that defines itself as one for ethnically pure Dutch, nor is Finland. Nor do either state make any attempt to define themselves as such.

“Really, Grif, I just couldn't imagine any other society in our situation handling this conflict in a better way.” Yehuda, I truly find this an astonishing statement. You are an articulate intelligent man. I find it hard to believe you are so unaware of Israel’s history, of world history. I can only assume you are being purposely disingenuous. If you need just one example look to the post-war struggle for equality in the United States, look to the fact that Jews in the US are far freer to be Jewish, in any form they care to practice or express, far safer in body and possessions than anywhere else, including Israel. This is due to the Constitutionally protected rights of equality for all under the law, separation of church and state, and a commitment to democratic pluralism. All of which Israel lacks, and must maintain that lack, in order to sustain itself as a Jewish State.

Reuven, Thanks for the marvelous story. You are right, of course, concerning the nature of debates, but I am glad you find this one healthy and enlightening - then again, you may have been just making a general observation. In any case, shalom to you as well.

Indeed, Grif, we don't share the same dictionary. As I suspected, we don't even agree on the meaning of "Jewish". For you, "Jewish" is a term about religion (parallel to "Catholic"), whereas "nationhood" is a term that refers to sovereign states (as "Greece" or "Israel"). But it's just not so. Perhaps, that's how Americans (including assimilated American Jews) define these words - but it's not the universal definition.

Let's start with "Jewish". In your local library, you will find a book entitled "The History of the Russian People" or "The History of the German People" or "The History of the Jewish People" - but you will not find a book entitled "The History of the Catholic People" or "The History of the Protestant People". So while there is a religion called Judaism, it is the religion of a particular peoplehood. The "Jews" are parallel to "Russians" and to "Germans" -and hence they have a national history. The founding of the Bund or the expulsion of the Jews from Spain are events of Jewish history - events of a certain peoplehood. The Catholics are not a peoplehood, and hence the above-mentioned book doesn't exist (you might find a book entitled "The History of the Catholic Church"). So the Jews are a people - and that is why the UN Partition Plan speaks of a "Jewish State". It is a state meant for a particular people, a particular ethnicity - parallel to the other half of of partition plan, the Arab State (now called Palestinian).

"Nation" refers to a group of individuals who see themselves as having a common descent. It is derived from the Latin term for "birth" (as is the term "native"). The Jews, like the Danes or the Poles or the Greeks, are a nation. The Armenians were a national group, people who saw themselves as sharing a common descent, even before their political independence from the USSR. They were always a nation, but not always a sovereign state. This also explains the term "nation-state" - it is an independent state meant for a particular national group. France is a nation-state, and so is Latvia. Likewise, the Jews were a national group (in their own eyes and in the eyes of others) even though they were dispersed and even though they did not have their own independent state. The Balfour Declaration speaks of a "national home" for the Jews; i.e. the text is referring to a home for the Jewish national group. Israel is, therefore, also a "nation-state" - a state founded for a particular national group.

I know that for an American, these terms are quite different. An American can say "the best location in the nation" - whereas everyone else would say "the best location in the country". A nation is a group of people who share a common descent, not a political entity or a geographical term.

So, yes, "Jewish nationality" is parallel to "Greek nationality". Go to Poland and read the signs of the Polish government regarding the murder of the Jews on Polish soil. They always refer to the murder of "Polish citizens of the Jewish nationality". The Jews were seen as a national minority in Poland - not just a religious minority. In the USSR, as well, the Jews were one of about 100 nationalities. If you ask a Jew today in Russia "Are you Russian?", he'll answer "No, I'm Jewish" (although he is a citizen of the Russian Federation).

Even in their own eyes (obviously), the Jews are a nation. Just look at their use of language. "Goyim" means "nations", and its use in Yiddish means "the other nations" (i.e. not our nation, the Jews).

The term that you frequently use against me is "disingenuous". It's not true. You are assuming that your sense of ethnicities and identities are universal. They aren't. You should call "disingenuous" those people whose share your cultural associations and symbols - not outsiders.

You might find it interesting to read the positions of the Reform Movement of Judaism from the 19th century (see the Pittsburg Platform of 1885). There the rabbis declare that "we no longer see ourselves as a nation..." (which means that, formerly, they did see themselves as a nation). The Reform Movement wished to redefine the essence of the Jewish experience as solely a "universal religion". Indeed, many Jews in America see themselves as only a religion. But the Reform Movement did not speak in the name of the Jewish masses, most of whom still spoke their own language and shared their own unique narrative (language and ethnic/national identity go hand-in-hand). They defined themselves as a nation. Even the anti-Zionist Bund Party defined the Jews as one of the nations of the world.

Well, anyway, I can at least understand why you insist on using the term "Zionist" when I would probably say "Jewish". For you "Jewish" means religion, and so it doesn't fit our political debate. Funny, though, even the Arabs use the term "Israelis" ("israiliyyun") interchangeably with "Jews" ("yahud"). "Zionist" is a term that would be used only in propaganda, when they wish to express illegitimacy.

Yehuda, you are right in that one generally hears far more references to the Jews as a people and not the Catholics or Protestants. I say generally as I have encountered the latter numerous times, along with references to Christians in general as a people. Google "the Catholic people" (with quotes) and you will find 33,300 references; "catholic peoples", 935. "Christian peoples" 69,700; "Protestant people" 28,800. And to be niggling about the matter, Michael Novak published a work called "All the Catholic people, Where did the Spirit Go" in 1971. Numerous other books reference the same, as others do the Protestant people. While some have posited Christian, Protestant, and Catholic nationalisms, I most emphatically do not.

It is worth noting that your references to Jewish nationhood references those gentiles who, no friends to the Jews, historically excluded them as "others," the Poles, the Russians, even the Balfour declaration was written and supported by open anti-Semites while opposed by the Jewish leadership of Great Britain. Again, even so, it refers to a "Jewish home" with no mention of a state and required full civil and political rights to the already existing non-Jewish population. A one-state solution if there ever was one, and one that precludes the founding of a Jewish State.

Western liberal democracy, now in its post-war era, to which Israel claims to be a natural member of and adherent to, does not divide its populations into "nationalities" and assign limited rights or space within the larger entity accordingly as Israel does. There is no country in Europe or the Western hemisphere that demands by law a designation of "nationality" in one's identity papers as does Israel. (As an aside, one would think that once plagued by the insistence of the Germans to stamp "Juden" in the ID papers of Jews one would forever be reluctant to follow suit, but such are the unblushing exigencies of ideology.) And this is where your analysis falls apart.

You reference Jews as members of a nation-state while largely ignoring the religious aspect and how that plays havoc with your equation of Jewish Nation as identical to a Greek or French Nation. This is where you are disingenuous. Even if one accepts the notion of the Jewish people as a nation, one cannot, even in the face of that, disregard or play down the religious aspect.

The definition of nation-state that I reference: "A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language" does not exclude subgroups from participating fully and equally, nor does it declare the state to be the property of the majority. A rather general definition it includes the US, but while we in the US "predominately" share culture, language, and history we do not exclude the same of the many subgroups that exist as full and equal citizens. France, Greece, and Denmark follow the US in this, as does the rest of Western Europe. France is not, as your argument logically presupposes, a state in any manner designated for Gauls or the ethnically French, if such a thing could be determined, or even in the name of Gauls [In fact, France's history since the revolution argues for exactly the opposite. One should also point out that France's current President is of Hungarian descent, not Gallic. When Israel allows a Muslim to serve as Prime Minister, please give me a call], nor is Denmark a state reserved for ethnically derived Vikings, or Greece for ethnic Greeks, whatever that might be. Within the self-conceived notions of those particular modern states is an expansive notion that includes differing sorts of peoples and religions (Jews included) as full and equal citizens. This is the difference between a state founded on notions of ethnic/religious nationalism and those founded on the notion of a common citizenship that transcends ethnic or religious identity. Israel is emphatically and by her own admission one of the former. Israel is not the state of all Israelis, it is the Jewish State, a state of Jews. This is the sticking point you skim over and ignore, even to the point of denying the reality of Israeli-Arabs third-class citizenship and all that attends such. Israel is NOT like France, Denmark, or Greece. As I said above, even if for the sake of argument I agree entirely with the notion of a Jewish nationhood, there still exists the reality that Judaism is a religion (which I see you do not deny) and Jews are the adherents to that religion. Israel defines herself as the state of those who adhere to a certain religion, founded for them, even reserves 93% of its land for their exclusive use. For me to become an Israeli citizen depends upon me converting to that religion. There is no religion called France (no matter what Francophiles may believe) or Denmark or Italy, and one is not required to change one's religious beliefs or belong to any particular religion to become full functioning citizens of those countries, nor is any particular section of the commonwealth in those countries reserved for the exclusive use of such a particular part of the populace.

These are the salient and telling differences between Israel and the Western Democracies of which Israel claims membership. When you finally deal head-on with these differences, along with the question of Israel's many violations of human rights and international law, which I have referenced many times and you have ignored or brushed off, then we will finally be in a conversation.

Finally, you are again correct in saying that my use of certain terms is not "universal[ly] accepted." They are only accepted universally within the community of Western liberal democracies, to which Israel claims membership, the inclusive human rights dictates of which Israel does not adhere. When Israel decides to join the fold and adhere to such standards of law and human rights, I will be among the first of her critics to wave the blue and white.

The English language is confusing vis-a-vis the word "people". It might be plural "Catholic people ARE pleased with the choice of pope". But it is also singular: "The Jewish people IS an ancient people". There is no Catholic people nor Protestant people in the singular (i.e "peoplehood"). Your googling brought you the term "Catholic peoples" which does make sense: Different peoples (ethnicities) in the world whose main religion is Catholicism. But there is a Jewish people in the singular. I won't accuse you of being "disingenuous" (but the thought occurred to me). Indeed, it's obvious to me that you realize that there is a peoplehood called the Jewish people since the Jews as a people are such an obvious factor throughout history since antiquity until today. I'll just assume that the confusion lies in your being an English speaker - and in English there is room for a misunderstanding (people in plural as many individuals, or people in singular as a collective identity).

It's interesting that you would accuse me of brushing off all your accusations about Israel. Do you realize how many times I have mentioned the Partition Plan's phrasing of a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State" - "Jewish" being parallel to "Arab" (two ethnicities or two national groups in the British Mandate for Palestine). You never once tried to explain why the international community used the term "Jewish" (an ethnicity) and not "Zionist" (a political movement).

I always try to be very polite in debates, hence I don't like to use terms like "you don't really know what you're talking about" (which I regard to be very rude). I assume that you can't read a book either in Arabic or in Hebrew (or in Yiddish). I understand that your view of society is based on the English language with its particularistic codes and symbolisms. Anyway, as I told you, the term apartheid is irrelevant. There is no racial hatred in this part of the world. Israel is a democratic society, but it is a society in the midst of a difficult historic conflict. It lives in certain dangers. All the anti-Israel criticism ignores the conflict and judges the Israeli democracy as if it is functioning in its post-war era. We know about the incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in the Second World War (you never gave a comment on that either). We also know that the Americans actually used atomic weapons on civilians in two Japanese cities. That is America, a democracy, behaving under the pressure of a war that wasn't ever perceived as existential. I think Israel can raise her head in pride and say: "Never were any such extreme measures ever used - even though we do perceive the threats against us as life and death for our people".

It's true that at this moment the Palestinians could not wipe us out. We are stronger than they, fortunately. However, you shouldn't brush off as irrelevant their declarations. They deserve your condemnation that such declarations are so common. "Takunu Filastin maqbarat il-sha'ab il-yahudi" ("Palestine will be the graveyard of the Jewish People") is a common theme in Hamas broadcasting. The Charter of Hamas (you could find that in English on the net) tells the story (from the Hadith) of stones and trees speaking out to the Moslems, revealing the hiding places of Jews so that they could be found and killed. What would our fate be if we weren't stronger? And yet, you seem to hold it against us that we are the stronger side.

I don't know if you have ever been to Israel. I assume that you haven't (you've never said anything that indicated any real first-hand experience beyond reading books). I really think that you should look around for yourself and get a picture of identities and aspirations. All the best to you and yours.

For Pete's sake, Yehuda, there are indeed far too many who consider the Prods or the Catholics or various Christian sects in general a people in the nationalistic sense - as many of them are also raving anti-Semites I am surprised you are unaware of them. And the confusion does not lie in my native tongue, thank you very much. There is no confusion, you insist upon exceptionalism when there is little or none. Ethnic and religious nationalism is not exclusive to Jewish supporters of Israel (note I avoided the use of Zionism).

You do indeed ignore my critiques of Israel, as you do again in your last post. Where is your reply to Israel's violations of international law and treaty; where is your response to the question of citizenship in a western liberal democracy vs. that same in an ethnic nationalistic state (see my last post)? As to the Partition plans phrasing of a Jewish and Arab, versa a Zionist and Arab state. And so? What do you want to know? I and many others refer to followers of Zionism as Zionists, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. UN res. 181 does not reference a Zionist state but a Jewish state. I take it you are arguing that I am obligated to follow suit and refer to all Zionists as Jews. But they aren't all Jews and not all Jews are Zionists - are you insisting that they are? And I don't see how the word Zionist should be viewed as belittling. Zionism is the national ideology of Israel, the last I checked the state of Israel considers it a positive force. Without Zionism there would be no Israel. Now you claim its a dirty word?

For a state of "Apartheid" to exist there is no special need for racial hatred to exist. It is in no way a prerequisite. All that is needed is a system of separation between ethnic and/or religious groups for means of social engineering. That is what the word means, "separation." And I did indeed comment on the Japanese-American Internment, perhaps you skimmed over it.

I must say also that as I much as reject the use of atomic weapons over Japan your comment on WW2 as "a war that wasn't ever perceived as existential" is very peculiar. I realize that only Israel faces "existential threats," while the rest of us face only ordinary run-of-the-mill threats, but we were fighting a war on two fronts against the most powerful military machines then in existence, while we ourselves in 1941 were not much of a power at all. If not for a bit of luck in the Pacific of 1942 and Hitler's incompetent military judgment we and the other western allies could very well have lost or been stalemated. I would argue in the case of Israel that she never faced a comparable threat, not in 48, 56, 67, or 73, a conflict in which she threatened to use atomic weapons unless we bailed her out. And in that context she has little to be proud of, unless ethnic cleansing and mass murder is now a mitzvah.

Such declarations as you cite from Hamas are indeed unhelpful, to say the very least, and the same goes for their charter. But you already know how little I think of Arab leadership and their tactics. So what of the rhetoric from Israel? The charters of many parties on the right, including Likud that claims all the land for a Jewish state? The many statements from Chief Rabbis and Jewish MK's referring to Arabs as "beasts on two legs" and "lice" (what does one do with lice but exterminate them, you certainly don't give them a state of their own), the calls within the Knesset for Arab MKs to be executed, the commonly heard calls to drive all Arabs, citizens included, from the land, the chants of "Arabs to the gas" from Jewish football fans. Israelis, leadership included, also indulge in such idiotic and violent rhetoric. Please do not try to deny such exists, all of the above are widely reported in even the most conservative Israeli newspapers. Shouldn't all such excesses be condemned with equal force? There will no peace, under any agreement, unless both sides first cool their hot-headed rhetoric.

No, I have not visited Israel. How often do you visit the West Bank? Reading history, written by supporters of Israel as well as critics, along with your newspapers (American Jewish as well), web sites, conference reports, conversations with those on both sides, reports from the UN, the State Department, Human Rights groups, including a number of excellent Israeli ones (You should delve into the archives of B'tselem http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp you might learn a thing or two from your own compatriots), and yes Israel should indeed be congratulated for their existence, and yes again, Arabs have the same too, critical of not only Israel but their own leadership and states. All of the above is how I learn of Israel's history and contemporary actions. While I should visit Israel and the OPT, and plan to, it would not hurt you in the least to read some of the same. Shalom as well, to you and yours.