Perhaps the most important point of Hitchens' entire piece is the idea that anti-semitism is a self contained concept. The left believes that being a "friend of the Palestinians" is a progressive stance that allows them access to all the glories that a true liberal progressive can obtain.

The reality is that a ture " friend of the Palestinians" wants a situation in the Middle East where Israel does not exist in anything remotely approaching the powerful position it holds today. This progressive Middle East would then be free to liberate all the oppressed people of the world and sectarian violence driven by religion would vanish from the scene.

How would the eradication (a word used before in history) of the state of Israel occur? Apparently the progressives believe it would be a painless and smooth process much like going to take a shower. No one would die, at least no one important.

A weak Israel would be a better Israel but it is hard for the progressives to explain how it would still exist.

I'm not really sure what you're saying. Here's my leftist vision of Israel: a safe and secure state that has withdrawn to it's pre-1967 borders, one which is defended at all costs against aggression, from Islamists or otherwise, and one which also is a moral and just nation, which does not make land grabs through military conquest, divide citizens into classes on ethnic grounds, or act as an authoritarian state to millions of dispossessed and disenfranchised people. I want an Israel that sits next to a true nation-state of Palestine, not a quasi-state; a Palestine that has self-determination, control over its own borders, airspace and coasts, and its own military. This state would have a land bridge between Gaze and the West Bank, and would cede back territory equal to the size of the land bridge to Israel. ("Artificial contiguity" doesn't work.) Both Israel and Palestine would be free, independent and secure, and aggression against either by each other or anyone else would be condemned and prevented by the international community.

I'd also like an Israel that is an inherently secular state, because I believe in liberal democracy. No ethnic or religious character to the nation, as that is antithetical to egalitarianism and minority rights.

How does a weakened Israel exist? First develop some progrssive secular minded Palestinians, then get back to me.

RANGER 82:

Perhaps the most important point of Hitchens' entire piece is the idea that anti-semitism is a self contained concept. The left believes that being a "friend of the Palestinians" is a progressive stance that allows them access to all the glories that a true liberal progressive can obtain.

Liberals have long tended to identify with the downtrodden. If that group is no longer Jewish but Palestinian, maybe you need to ask yourself "why?"

The reality is that a ture " friend of the Palestinians" wants a situation in the Middle East where Israel does not exist in anything remotely approaching the powerful position it holds today. This progressive Middle East would then be free to liberate all the oppressed people of the world and sectarian violence driven by religion would vanish from the scene.

Not as a nuclear power, no. Not as a constant oppressor of Palestinians, no. Not as a repeat invader of Lebanon, no.

How would the "progressive Middle East...liberate all the oppressed people of the world?" That's silly, to say the least. As is the idea that "sectarian violence driven by religion" would ever "disappear from the scene."

How would the eradication (a word used before in history) of the state of Israel occur? Apparently the progressives believe it would be a painless and smooth process much like going to take a shower. No one would die, at least no one important.

I see - it was a 'reduction in power' before, now it's 'eradication?' Of course, you have to say that to make it fit with your filthy Nazi reference, I suppose.

A weak Israel would be a better Israel but it is hard for the progressives to explain how it would still exist.

What, you haven't come up with a strawman for that, yet? Get cracking, man, we're wasting time!

Ranger, if any other country on earth attempts to regularly disenfranchise minority groups or engage in large-scale restrictions against certain segments of the population, we would call that racist or, worse, genocidal.

But in Israel's case, it's perfectly okay to be One Religion, One Race. Why?

Freddie, you're just not talking sense. The 1967 borders are simply indefensible. Losing the Golan Heights alone puts the state at a severe disadvantage, and I'm not even going to go into the mad heaves back and forth that the border makes as one travels north-to-south along the '67 lines. The usual answer to such a complaint is the idea of an "international peacekeeping force," an idea I find idiotic at best: peacekeepers are the most disinterested sorts of policemen, drawn either from reluctant western countries who know full well that they've nothing to gain from a successful mission. So likewise are they dissuaded from seeing their sons and daughters come home in pieces over the fate of some far-off land of foreigners who don't even speak their language. Would you ask your son/father/daughter/mother/fri­end/etc. to go get shot over such a conflict? Hardly. Would you expect some third-world power to do the job while behaving itself? Not if you've got any sense of history:

<link>

<link>

That Israel should even cut back on its promotion of Judaism too, in my opinion, is an idea of suspect merit. Nations must be united by something, so unless you're really advocating forcing all the surrounding Arabs to learn Hebrew, then I'm not sure what there is left for Israelites to rally around. Common ideals are difficult things to instill, and they've barely been established in the U.S., let alone that hodgepodge of the E.U. or even of the increasingly-divided (ethnically yes, but, more significantly, culturally and religiously) individual member states of the E.U. I doubt that the average rock-chucker has read "The Rights of Man," let alone the prospects for the average suicide bomber.

RANGER 82:

How does a weakened Israel exist? First develop some progrssive secular minded Palestinians, then get back to me.

That's putting the cart before the horse.

No, reality before the terrorists.

There were plenty of secular Palestinians before 1948...

You mean like the Arab Legion and the terrorists that attacked the Kibbutz network? I see.

What happened to the Wailing Wall after 1948?

And Christian Palestinians, too.

Boomer

Why does the solution require a "weakened" Israel? How about a super strong Israel, and a fairer one at the same time?

I write as a conservative, not a lefty or a "progressive." Sure, there are self-styled liberals and progressives who will support anything the Pals or other victims of history support. There will be some who look at simply power differentials between warring parties, rather than moral ones. This is part of the sickness of the Chomsky left. I don't want a Palestine which is just another sick, backwards, tyrannical Arab state.

Nonetheless, why can't Israel be just as strong while stopping building on the Gaza Strip and other occupied territories? As painful as it will now be, why can't it go back to the pre-'67 borders (except while maintaining the Golan Heights for genuine security purposes)?

It could and should continue building it's security fence, while avoiding the taking of even more land in its building, as it has been doing. That Fence is a beautiful thing, which has dramatically decreased the ability of suicide bombers to come into Israel. They have a right to self defense.

All of this does what Israel should do regardless of how Pals will respond. And if the Pals want to have a peaceful, grown up state next to Israel, great. If it still wants to be a violent child, forever attacking Israel, Israel can then carpet bomb the idiots.

RANGER 82:

You mean like the Arab Legion and the terrorists that attacked the Kibbutz network? I see.

What happened to the Wailing Wall after 1948?

I said *plenty* , not all.

Israel has made an accomodation with both Egypt and Jordan, the two real military powers in the region. They apparently cannot with Syria and the Palestinians. Return of the Golan for peace with Syria? Possible, but will Syria unhook from Iran? Not likely. The Palestinians are another issue. As a people they should have ignored the Grand Mufti and stayed where they were. Too late for that now.

My earlier post had a question "What happened to the 'Wailing Wall' after the 1948 war?". The answer explains a lot and indicates the probable outcome of a "reasonable" Israel.

The kibbutzim: communists suck--unless you're talking about Israeli communes.