That Times of London piece really sucks.

The WaPo has a much better editorial, this past Saturday, about Nader and his descent into fringe/hate politics:

Mr. Nader's Baiting:

"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced."

"Bush also repeated the catch-phrase . . . 'committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state,' which is repeated almost word-for-word again and again by Israel's sycophants and Capitol Hill puppets."

QUICK QUIZ: Which of the above quotations is lifted from the Web site of the white supremacist National Alliance and which was uttered this summer by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader? It's a tough one. After all, both play on the age-old anti-Semitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr. Nader is at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such metaphors, he sure isn't showing it. In a letter this week to the Anti-Defamation League, which had complained to him about his rhetoric, he responded with breezy indifference and more rhetoric that only compounds concerns.

[snip]

This is poisonous stuff. And if Mr. Nader doesn't understand what such words actually mean, the less savory elements of American society certainly know how to read such code. But Mr. Nader, as always, is not backing down: "As for the metaphors -- puppeteer and puppets -- the Romans had a phrase for the obvious -- res ipsa loquitor," which means the thing speaks for itself. Indeed it does.

Quiz answer: The first quotation was Mr. Nader's

I feel sorry for him. He's an angry, bitter and twisted man. And his pride has gotten the best of him. And as such, he's a gift to George Bush.

Please. Don't insult our intelligence. No honest person actually believes the Unites States is seriously committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state (unless you call squeezing millions of people in the narrow Gaza Strip surrouned by a fence topped by barbed wire true self-determination). In fact, noone seriously believes the U.S. has any real plan for the middle east other than pandering to the likkudites and following their lead. Excuses excuses, wink wink ... Actually Nader's position IS a big deal for the millions of people around the world that are appalled by the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. At a time when America seems to have descended into resentment and utter madness this is a sign that some American politicians still have a slight grip on reality.

Yes Barney - you've got it, I mean this grip on reality. Congratulations!

Barney -

First, a history lesson. The Palistinians already have a state: it's called Jordan. When a Jewish homeland was created in 1947, the British territory of Palestine was divided: one portion, Israel, was given to the Jews; the rest, present day Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, was given to the Arabs. There was a significant Jewish population in Arab territories, and vice versa. After failing to wipe out Israel in several wars, King Hussein of Jordan essentially gave up sovereignty over the areas now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, correctly assuming that Arafat and the Palestinians would destabilize his own country. The fact of the matter is that the "Palestinians" are not a distinct ethnic group that existed prior to 1947.

Secondly, what other solution is there to the Palestinian problem than to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? The only other possibilities are to place those areas under the sovereignty of Jordan and/or Egypt (neither of which countries would agree to take those areas) or eliminate the State of Israel and give its territory to the Palestinians (which the Israelis would never agree to do). A two state solution has been the policy of every US and Israeli government for years because it is the only viable solution to the problem. Until the rest of the world joins the grown-ups and starts holding Arafat accountable, nothing is likely to change.

Thirdly, the Second Intifada gives the lie to the myth that Arafat wants peace. He was offered the best deal he could reasonably hope for in the late 1990s, and he started a war instead. Anyone who still thinks he is dealing in good faith is delusional. There will be no peace while Arafat leads the Palestinians.

What the Washington Post doesn't say is that the aforementioned quote was part of a speech given on behalf of a "symposium" sponsored by the virulently anti-Israel group Council for the "National Interest", entitled "The Muslim Vote in Election 2004."

"CNI" supports Hamas. In fact, another panelist was Nihad Awad, the co-founder of CAIR and former Islamic Association of Palestine employee, which is a Hamas front:

The Islamic Association of Palestine, a Dallas-based group that distributes Hamas literature, has seen many members questioned by the FBI. "IAP is a Hamas front," said former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver "Buck" Revell. "It's controlled by Hamas, it brings Hamas leaders to the U.S., it does propaganda for Hamas."

Every once in a while, CNI spouts a reasonable position. But everytime I hear something reasonable from them, I remind myself of an article written Richard Curtiss, editor of their associated "magazine," The Washington Report for Middle Eastern Affairs.

An American Dreyfus Affair: The Case of Mousa Abu Marzook

At the time, Marzook was the admitted U.S. political leader of Hamas. And here we have Curtiss comparing him to an innocent French Jew wrongfully accused and convicted of espionage, because Jews were easy scapegoats.

Laila al-Arian, the daughter of the indicted North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Sami al-Arian, is WRMEA's current "editorial assistant."

Ralph's words are ugly and stupid. Congress is not behaving like a puppet when it refuses to address intractable Israeli-Palestinian issues that it could easily address -- such as stopping further west bank settlement building activity by simply inserting a prohibition for further building as a condition of US aid in the yearly Foreign Ops Appropriations bill.

Congress is simply acting in its own self interest. Republicans need the votes of evangelical Christians that want an Israeli state to exist so that Armageddon can take place. Democrats need the 50% of their campaign donations which come from Jewish Americans exercising their constitutional right to influence the political process.

There is no zionist conspiracy -- it is right out in the open. It is interesting that Jewish Americans at 2% of the population, through almost entirely legitimate means, exercise so much power and influence in America. It is silly that this issue cannot be looked at dispassionately without people flipping out. Ralph Nader, with his crude and inaccurate comment, contributes not a whit toward a rational discussion of the matter.

It's not much of a quiz, Michael, given how much blog discussion there was of Nader's speech months ago when he gave it.

Marcus,

Just the same - one way or another this is still Jews fault. Brilliant.

I have a long-standing and entirely perverse interest in reading the National Alliance website, and particularly the writings of one of their intellectual heroes, the deranged classicist Revilo Oliver (revilo-oliver.com), a former close friend of william f. buckley by the way.

The National Alliance is more accurately a "white separatist" rather than white supremacist group. They want a separate all-white country, not one in which whites rule over minorities. But their main thing is anti-Jewish hate. They really think that Jews are this unified diabolical, evil, parisitic, highly-powerful force. Those who toss around the word antisemitic a lot should measure whatever they're complaining about up against the National Alliance. They are the real 200 proof thing.

Marek -- it's not the Jews fault at all. But the fact that Jewish Americans wield a large amount of persuasive power in Congress does explain why the Congress, for instance, is much more "pro-Israel" as it is called, than whoever happens to be in the White House and running the Department of State.

Markus,

Has it ever occurred to you that Congress, like Americans generally in both political parties, support Israel because she is the only democracy in the Middle East and also a fellow victim of post-911 terrorism?

I am not Jewish. I am not paid by Jews. And yet I support Israel.

Michael,

They didn't tell you but you have been brain washed. If only the West Bank would be freed from any Jewish presence the eternal peace would descend on Earth. And you don't know that the State Department is much more patriotic than the Congress. However, the ever influential Jews are working hard to correct this anomaly.

>>>>"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House."

I forget if Israel is our puppeteer or our pit bull. The Left tries to give me both versions, depending on what suits them at the time. Can somebody clear that up for me?

That Ralph Nader chap is a certified A-grade moonbat. He has the Muslim vote in the bag.

I don't see why this is surprising. A friend of mine went to the Green Party rally in 2000 at the Fleet Center in Boston and said it was like a Nuremburg rally. These people couldn't even bring themselves to use the word "Israel", they kept referring to "Palestine", a term which clearly indicates a rejection of Israel's legitimate right to exist. I'm afraid Nader has been going down this road for a long time.

Yep, Nader morphs into Pat Buchanan more and more everyday. Oh, and David, let me clear this up for you...

In leftist-speak, I believe it is Tony Blair (a good liberal like myself) who has now assumed the title of "American Pit Bull" for standing up to tyranny and recognizing the existence of evil in the world. He actually still believes in the concepts of "right" and "wrong". It drives the post-modern cultural-relativists in academia nuts.

Israel is but a mere puppetmaster, I'm afraid. Or so they would tell you. How anti-semitism ever became the darling of the Hard-Left is beyond me. That one I'm still trying to figure out.

Considering that no Arabs of Palestine have ever had self-rule prior to the establishment of Transjordan, I can think of a number of peoples who have greater claims to nationhood than the non-Jordanian Palestinian Arabs:

Sicily
Wales
Prussia
Assam
Texas

>>>>"How anti-semitism ever became the darling of the Hard-Left is beyond me. That one I'm still trying to figure out."

oh, that's an easy one. Allow me to clear this one up for you.

Only a few decades after the Holocaust, Jews became strong. They are no longer pogrommed and Israel is able to hand anybody their ass on a plate.

Strength to the Left is like sin to a christian; and perceived victimhood is tantamount to sainthood. Israel = strong = evil. That's the extent of their analysis on the matter.

Part of it also has to do with stereotypes. (Wait a sec, is that not like saying that stereotypes are based on stereotypes? No, not exactly). There is a stereotype that Jews are especially successful in capitalism. Beyond the success Jews have had in business in America, Israel is a thriving capitalist economy in a part of the world where free market economies are few and far between.

That is always going to put Jews on the wrong side of the radical left.

Mr. Totten, the confluence of the supremecist 'right' and the radical left is not as surprising to me as it is to many. First off, that was a central tenet of the book I recommended to you, "Leftism Revisited", which argued that Nazism was leftist, not rightist, in nature and that similar movements would always end up eventually competing for the same ground as leftist movements. Second, if one goes and looks at the goals of the various white power groups from the Aryan Nations to the NAAWP to Aryan Action, they are straight out of the Socialist Internationale platform except with racist policies tacked on. National Alliance was one of the exceptions as, when I had done that research a few years back, its agenda was strictly racial and not into socialist politics; it looks like that group of scumbags is ready to join the rest of the white power scumbags not as opponents of the radical left, but as competitors of the radical left.

Compare what Nader wants and what David Duke wants, excepting the racial politics. Not much difference there.

Markus,

Nice smear of William F. Buckley, by the way. I'll emphasize the word 'former', just as Joe Sobran is a former friend and associate to Buckley; the friendship ended as Sobran slid down the path to the Holocaust denying madness he now exhibits.

"Strength to the Left is like sin to a christian; and perceived victimhood is tantamount to sainthood. Israel = strong = evil. That's the extent of their analysis on the matter."---David

This seems exactly right to me.I remember back in what feels like the distant past,when I actually believed what the media told me ,that as soon as Israel went from being the gallant little survivor to the bad kid on a mean block,I somehow felt the Israelis were 'wrong'. No deep analysis.Just that feeling.
Thank goodness for that brain transplant or I would might still believe that Nader was something other than a self-important crackpot.

Gerry -

In a previous thread some time ago I argued in favor of Seymour Martin Lipsit's political formulation, which says that there is a Moderate Left, Center and Right and an Extreme Left, Center and Right. The Left-Right part of the spectrum is defined by class of the supporters. Fascism is Extreme Centrism in this forumlation because the base of support of fascist movements is found in the middle class. (Communism is Extreme Left, Absolutist Monarchy is Extreme Right). Your comment illustrates this formulation.

Michael -- Yes, I agree many people support Israel because it is a democracy, more importantly a pro-American, WESTERN democracy.

Of course Israel is a democracy. It was founded and settled by worldly and highly intelligent Europeans and Americans, whose descendents continue to make up the majority of its citizenship. Golda Meir was an AMERICAN, for god sake, her name was Goldie Myerson and she grew up and taught school in Milwaukee. As we've discussed before and you and I more or less agree, this one hundred and twenty year old Zionist colonization project is OK, as long as the indigenous folks are treated fairly. That means let them have land and water and democracy too, either in their own state (your preference and mine) or in a unified, bi-national one (Christopher Hitchens' preference).

Alan -- What difference does it make whether or not there was a Palestinian state before the establishment of Transjordan? Jews had no self-rule in Palestine prior to the establishment of the Jewish state either.

David and Doug -- the great sin to a sometime "leftist" like me is not a person or group having power in and of itself, but rather when that power is held OVER other people(s), particularly when such power is retained and jusified not through merit but through birthright. As in, Jewish settlers in the West Bank, recently arrived from Brooklyn or Moscow, selling water at a huge profit to Palestinian olive farmers.

Considering that no Arabs of Palestine have ever had self-rule prior to the establishment of Transjordan, I can think of a number of peoples who have greater claims to nationhood than the non-Jordanian Palestinian Arabs

You forgot Tibet. Whoops! I forgot. That's just a bumpersticker to show how much people "care."

Marcus,

right, that's what you say now. Obviously. Because little Israel is all growed up. Before that though, you'd have been a kibbutnik on the front lines of underdoggism.

>>>"You forgot Tibet. Whoops! I forgot. That's just a bumpersticker to show how much people "care."

Bill,

Tibet who? the Kurds who? the chechens who? the Basques who? the Armenians who?

When was the last time Nader made a speech about the poor Kurds? I guess these other groups haven't honed their terror machines to the degree the palestinians have; and therefore go ignored by the compassionate, terror-loving Left.

Terror works when you're trying to pull at the heartstrings of the Compassionate People of Deep Understanding.

David -- You didn't understand a damn thing I said. I said power is fine. Power over others is not. If Israel were to pull out of Gaza, the West Bank and the Arab parts of Jerusalem, and compensate the families of the indigenous people forced out in 1947-48, it would still be an ass-kicking nuclear military superpower. And it would have my full support.

By the way, Chomsky and other leftists were just about the ONLY western champions of the Kurds, particularly when Saadam was gassing them and the Rumsfeld was assuring him that we didn't really care. To the great discredit of Chomsky and his compatriots, it was only when circumstances caused the Kurds to align with the United States that they stopped talking about them.

Markus,

Chomsky supports the PKK because they're communists, not for their statehood. And that explains why nationalist Kurds who align themselves with the Great Satan fall out of Chomsky's favor.

Markus: To the great discredit of Chomsky and his compatriots, it was only when circumstances caused the Kurds to align with the United States that they stopped talking about them.

That's because the Kurds got strong then. I think you're making David's point for him here.

But you're also countering his "terror-loving left" point, which is a slander.

The Palestinians aren't loved by the left because they are terrorists. This is the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" phenomenon. They're in the newspapers every day, so they get attention Tibetans can only dream of.

"If Israel were to pull out of Gaza, the West Bank and the Arab parts of Jerusalem, and compensate the families of the indigenous people forced out in 1947-48, it would still be an ass-kicking nuclear military superpower. And it would have my full support."--MR

Wow.I just cannot understand why Israel would not go for a deal like that.Back to insecure borders with a nuclear option it cannot use except in extremis and next door to a dysfunctional terror state with no real civil society, run by thugs and fanatics who want to destroy you.But it would have MR's 'full support'.
Can't understand what is the hold up here.

I hardly consider the Kurds to be "strong." Granted, Kurds under Turkish rule are finally allowed to speak Kurdish. But Kurds in Iraq live under a fragile autonomy that could vanish in an instant, particularly if/when the US public goes isolationist and pulls out or on the other hand if/when we get busy with another neocon regime change project. If a majority of Arab Iraqis decide to embrace "illiberal democracy", get an army together and decide to assert their will, the Kurds are screwed. If Chomsky and his ilk only like the vulnerable peoples, they sure ought to continue supporting the Kurds.

>>>"But you're also countering his "terror-loving left" point, which is a slander."

Michael,

You may disagree, but it's not slander. It's based in fact. Who loves the PLO? Who loves Hamas? Who loves the neck-sawing "minutemen" of Iraq? The terror-loving Left won't ever come out and SAY they love terror, but they sure as hell don't make any qualms about loving the terrorists.

dougf -- can't understand what the hold up is either. The Green line is a much more defensible and secure border than the present situation, in which the border between legitimate Israeli and Palestinian land is left unsecured so that settlers can live in God's country and the IDF to spend huge sums of money to defend them. The wall that Israel is building now could have and should have been built on the Green line in July 1967. I agree that an Arafat or Hamas ruled state would be bad news, for Palestinians especialy (not that I suppose you care about them). But frankly, the best alternative to a PLO state died around 1978, when Begin (and Sadat too, I think) refused to allow King Hussein to come to Camp David and put the West Bank and Gaza on the table along with the Sinai.

David -- obviously, there have been lots of right-wing terrorist groups across the world that the Left despises. So the Left's passion is not for terror, it is for empowering people who are oppressed (this is justifiable), and also anti-American (this in and of itself is not).

Markus: I hardly consider the Kurds to be "strong."

The U.S. Marines are their allies now. So they are strong in that sense.

I had to chuckle at this:

"Mr. Nader complains in his letter that the debate in Israel over Israeli policies is far more robust than the American debate over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

And, startlingly, the debate in the United States over US policies is far more robust than the Israeli debate over the Iraq war.

dougf -- wow, I just noticed that you think it would be a disaster if Israel had "a nuclear option it cannot use except in extremis." When else would you suggest that Israel use its nukes? And how would pulling out of the West Bank affect its nuclear posture in anyway? Just who are you itching to exterminate?

Markus,

I think Doug meant that Israelis may be pushed into a situation where they make have to effectively nuke themselves. That's how I read it, anyway. I don't think he is itching to exterminate anybody.

Markus:

Have you ever lived in Israel or anywhere in the Middle East?

Do you speak any of the languages of the region well enough that you can read either side's literature?

Do you have any experience there as a diplomat? As a soldier? As a journalist? As a policy-maker of any kind?

Are you an academic specialist of the region?

If not, then I wonder why you think anyone would wish to take your crudely drawn anti-Israel opinions seriously, and I also wonder why you take such an especial interest in this subject above all others. Also, I wonder how it is that you feel that you can speak with such certainty about these matters. I wonder.

Eric,

Can you answer yes to any of your questions above? I can't.

Michael:

I certainly can't either, and it perhaps was untoward for me to raise the question. They were questions that were in mind because of something going on in The New York Observer, one of my favorite publications. Among a lot of good stuff they publish by basically pro-Israel writers like Ron Rosenbaum, they also publish these screeds by this guy Phillip Weiss, who is a harsh critic of Israel, not quite on a Chomsky level but as far in that direction as you'll see outside of Harper's or the Nation or American Conservative. After his most recent tirade there was a really good letter published asking very similar questions. The guy writes with such certitude. I mean, he continues to use the "apartheid" canard against Israel. He also writes all these sentences as if Israeli society and politics are completely unified, and he can make all these blanket, usually unsupported statements about how all Israelis think. Since his polemics, like most of these type of anti-Israel polemics, are written with complete certitude and little in the way of concrete specifics, it's a valid question to ask what foundation these opinions are based on.

If he knews who he is, I'm sure Markus Rose would find it flattering to be compared to Phillip Weiss, still, I'm not sure if that comparison is justified so I'm definitely re-thinking whether my gambit was fair, whatever that means.

It's just that I see the type of posts which Markus is making in this thread, and which he makes in any thread anywhere that Israel is mentioned, some of which IMO are ugly and traffic in conspiracy-mongering and a lot of outright lies (such as, specifically, the idea that all or at least most supporters of Israel in America are evangelical Christians), and I also see so many other people making the same arguments. Most of these people are presumably middle class Americans like you and me, with no special expertise as you say. However, I think the "burden of proof" lies with Markus and his ilk to show some reason why his ideas, which would hamper the ability of allies thousands of miles away to defend themselves, should be implemented, and why a decades-old policy should be reversed. I'm also genuinely curious, and have never found a satisfactory answer, as to why these people are so fixated on Israel-bashing (or "the plight of the Palestinians" in their parlance) as an idee fixe, given all the other stateless groups with far stronger territorial claims that have been listed above. They claim that this isn't evidence of anti-Semitism. Again, I think the burden of proof lies with them. What's the explanation?

Eric, darling --
you could have pointed out something specific that I wrote which you had a problem with...

Instead you just had to let me know what you really think of me!

Well, guess what, that's OK, the feeling's mutual.

Now, to answer your "questions":

Like most people in this country with political opinions about the Middle East, I've never lived or visited there, and I am only fluent in English (to my considerable shame). I am not a journalist, diplomat, or soldier. I do have a legislative/public policy related job in Washington DC, and I do deal occasionally with Middle East issues in addition to other ones, although I am not an academic or any other sort of specialist in the area. I became particularly interested in what was going on in early 2002, when I began having long debates and discussions with a friend/coworker who was an ardent Zionist and supporter of Sharon. I learned a lot from him, and from my own research attempting to verify or rebut his assertions. The fact that half my family is Jewish probably contributes a little bit to my interest. But frankly there are a whole bunch of other issues that I'm more interested in talking or thinking about.

I do think the "Palestinian side" of the dispute raises some pretty strong points, and when I stress that side of the controversy I feel that I usually come out pretty strong in a debate. At the same time, it's pretty easy to point out to anti-Israeli partisans the numerous failures, missed opportunities and moral outrages that the Pals have committed. I try to be a devil's advocate with others, and I hope that other's are with me too -- this is how I've learned the most in the past.

Though obviously you disagree with them, I don't see how you can call my arguments crudely drawn; certainly they are no more crude than a lot of other posts that you see on Michael's site. Since I'm NOT that deeply committed to the points I raise, and clearly willing, I believe, to consider their counterpoints and rebuttals, I am perplexed that you think I write with more certainty than you or anyone else who posts here.

My question to you: what difference does it make?

Eric -- I wrote the above response to your initial questions before I read your more thoughtful, non-hostile response to Michael's questions.

1. I dislike and disagree with those who are completely hostile towards Israel, and unwilling to criticize the Pals, just as much as I dislike intractable Israeli apologists, such as (apparently) yourself.

2. Israel is NOT an apartheid state. It is nevertheless a democratic state that has consistently refused to extend the rights of citizenship or even permanent residency to the non-Jews living in "disputed territories" under Israeli control, even though those non-Jews for the most part have OLDER and STRONGER ties to that particular land than most Israeli citizens. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the millions of stateless Palestinians living in refugee camps - waiting at checkpoints, buying expensive water from west bank settlers, unable to buy land, liable to be arrested without charge at any moment - have less of right to a state than other stateless peoples.

3. I am not sure that MOST "supporters of Israel" are evangelicals. However, a large percentage of Republicans, possibly a majority, DO consider themselves to be evangelical, and I find it very hard to believe that these religious beliefs do not shape their attitude toward Israel. Vast numbers of Americans, of course, support Israel for the reasons Micheal Totten does. And a majority of Americans probably don't know much about what's going on there except that Israelis look more like Americans than Palestinians do.

4. A couple other reasons I am particularly interested in the issue. First, as an American, I think the US can and must play a key role in effecting a solution, and PART of that involves putting appropriate pressure on Israel. Second, of course, I think creating a Palestinian state with fair, viable boundaries will help us win the win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, and thus help to marginalize Islamic extremism.

4. I reject your claim that my ideas "would hamper [Israel's] ability to protect itself." Israel has the right to demand a real Arab offer of peace (i.e. the Arabs formally relinquishing the refugees' "right of return") before completely withdrawing from the West Bank. But once such an agreement is made, and Israel withdraws to the Green Line (or more realistically, to the boundaries envisioned under the so-called "Geneva Accords"), I don't understand why it would be unable to defend itself just as well as or even better than it does today. I believe the objections to a pull-out of that degree have to do with religious and political viewpoints that are strongly held by many (but certainly not all) in Israel, not for reasons of military security.

5. If I make a point without offering specifics, call me on it specifically and I'll either find you an example or I'll backtrack.

6. I've never read Phillip Weiss. I'll have to check him out.

>>>"Israel has the right to demand a real Arab offer of peace (i.e. the Arabs formally relinquishing the refugees' "right of return") before completely withdrawing from the West Bank."

That's great Markus; but the Arabs won't reliquish that right of return (Arafat is scared of getting murdered for it), and therefore no peace deal can be signed. Should the Israelis wait for this peace that doesn't arrive before they carry on with their lives? Should they allow suicide bombers keep killing them until the Arabs finally decide to make peace? Or should they build a great big Wall in the meantime?

I think the latter. You, however, disagree and think a final border should be drawn before they build a wall, and that won't happen. Therefore, you DO endanger Israel's security.

How come the Times states "Bush who is strongly pro-Israel or Kerry whose grandfather was Jewish." What do they mean. Tha Kerry's Jewish blood makes him automatically pro-Israel? Or that we Jewish lovers of Israel are too stupid to realize that our fellow Jews are not necessarily favorable to Israel. (Noam Chomsky is just one small example among many) Or that we would think of Kerry as a Jew because his grandfather was born a Jew? Anyway you slice it I don't like it.

That's great Markus; but the Arabs won't reliquish that right of return (Arafat is scared of getting murdered for it), and therefore no peace deal can be signed. Should the Israelis wait for this peace that doesn't arrive before they carry on with their lives? Should they allow suicide bombers keep killing them until the Arabs finally decide to make peace? Or should they build a great big Wall in the meantime?

Well...there's where the problem comes in. Oslo was supposed to address this. The idea was that Israel pulls back and lets the Palestinians get on with their lives, and the fruits of that (and the hope for more under full independence) would smooth over the "right of return" concept by getting the majority of Palestinians to accept a bird in the hand, as they say.

Didn't work, for a number of reasons.

What difference does it make whether or not there was a Palestinian state before the establishment of Transjordan? Jews had no self-rule in Palestine prior to the establishment of the Jewish state either.

Don't you know any ancient history? Who do you think the Babylonian evicted from Jerusalem in 587 BC?

Its important to keep in mind when discussing history that the Palestinian national movement as we think of it is a post-1948 phenomenon. Its primary historical catalyst was the Arab defeat in the Israeli War of Independence. Any discussion of pre-'48 Zionist attitudes to the Palestinians or post-'67 Israeli policy in the territories has to take this into consideration. It is also very important to realize that, until the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian national movement rejected any legitimacy whatsoever to Israel's existence and sought its total destruction. One of the primary reasons so many Israelis have soured on negotiations is their beleif that post-2000 events have proved that this stance remains, in fact, unchanged among all but an impotent handful of Palestinian intellectuals. I happen to share that point of view.

Eric -- well I read the Weiss fellow last night. He's too anti-Israel for me. I'd split the difference between him and Tom Friedman and put myself about half way in the middle.

Alan -- does every group have the right to return to where their ancestors lived in 527 B.C., or just Jews? (Go ahead, make my day, tell me to read Joan Peters.)

David, Jeremy -- Yes, the indigenous Palestinians certainly do have to give up their dream of returning to their homes in present day Israel. It would be decent and helpful if Israelis and supporters of Israel were willing to admit that requiring them to do so, while justified and necessary, IS asking a lot. Religious chauvanism aside, an Arab refugee family has a stronger and a much more recent claim to the land than my family -- whose ancestors last lived there two thousand years ago or more -- does.

Nevertheless, mainly as a result of the Holocaust, there have never been enough Jews wanting to emmigrate to Israel to compete with the Pals high birthrate, and the Pals themselves have demonstrated over the years that they are deeply, often violently hostile to the prospect and reality of sharing the land with newly arrived Jewish immigrants (and now with the native born Israelis). So, having lost two big wars their Arab brethren foolishly started, renounce the right of return they must.

Arafat views on the issue are fairly consistent:
1. Palestinians will never give up the right of refugees to return to their homeland.

2. the right of return should be implemented in a way which takes into account Israeli demographic concerns.

The only way this is not utterly contradictory is if it means that the refugees are in all but a few cases resettled in the West Bank and Gaza, as proposed at Camp David, Taba, the Geneva Accords. The Palestinians aren't there yet. And you're right, David, Arafat would probably get killed for it. (Sharon, or any Israeli Prime Minister, would also be at great risk of assasination if he seriously contemplated agreeing to dismantle a large number of settlements.)

In the meantime, Israel could protect itself against terrorists by building a huge wall at the green line, while continuing to occupy the West Bank militarily until the Palestinians are prepared to acknowledge the Jewish state of Israel won its war of independence and is here to stay.

>>>It was founded and settled by worldly and highly intelligent Europeans and Americans, whose descendents continue to make up the majority of its citizenship.

Just a point of fact, FYI. The Mizrahim, the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from the Arab countries, used to be the majority of the population. When the waves of Russian Jews emigrated it reduced their proportion to about half.

In any event, the Arab Jews and the Russian Jews together make up an easy majority, putting the descendents of those original settlers in the minority.

I didn't know that European/American Jews were always outnumbered by the Arab and Russian Jews. I'll be checking that out.

does every group have the right to return to where their ancestors lived in 527 B.C., or just Jews? (Go ahead, make my day, tell me to read Joan Peters.)

Who's Joan Peters? (Googling.) Heard of the book. Actually, my kneejerk referral would have been to David Horowitz.

Recall that my exact phrase: "greater claims to nationhood." That doesn't mean HAS a claim to nationhood. It's like saying that England has a greater chance than Seychelles of defeating the US in a war.

Ancestral claims are relevant only when creating nations is a legitimate issue. Sicily would have had a legitimate reason to rebel and restore the kingdom under the Mussolini regime. Israel's legal claim ultimately rests in the fact that the previous owner of the land - Britain - gave them the deed of title. The issue of ancestral claim is relevant only to determining whether Britain made the right decision.

The Palestinian Arabs claim falsely that there's some special occasion demanding that a state be carved out of Israel, and they're invoking ancestral claim to add a veneer of legitimacy to their cause. The special occasion does not exist ("We'll keep bombing buses and pizzarias if you don't" doesn't count). They have far less history in Judea/Palestine/Canaan than the Jews have, and have never had a local autonomous Arab state there.

Heck, Turkey has stronger claims to the region. But not enough to do anything legal about it.