Thanks for your temperate response. I have to raise a few questions though.

I am not acquainted with the deeper history of South Africa, although Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism" has some fascinating reflections on it. As I understand it, the apartheid state (after all the word is Dutch) was the creation of the Afrikaaners who came to power after WWII (they were the other side in the "Boer War", fighting it seems to assert their right to exploit the Native Africans in their own way) and the British of SA (and I've known several) were as appalled by the system as most everyone else. (BTW, one of the main organizers of the ANC was a leader of the SA Communist Party, a Lithanian Jew named Joe Slovo.) And as a side note...the white Rhodesians who resisted the cession of that country to its natives (and who, alas, wound up with Mugabe) were over-ridden by the British government itself. So the "colonialist" explanation is not as clearcut as it might seem.

As in most historical cases, there are a number of influences at work.

Certainly this is true in the matter of the "Jewish Homeland" , as the Balfour Declaration (actually in the form of a letter to Lord Rothschild, who opposed Zionism) of 1917 put it...the British motives for this were very mixed. Colonialism played a role, mostly in concern to protect the Suez Canal, which in turn was deemed vital to the British control of India (which was the main objective in much of these maneuvers...Arabian oil --- hardly developing at the time --- was a relatively minor issue, as the Brits got theirs from Mexico). But there were many many currents at play. In fact, the year 1917 bears looking at in a larger context: the bloody stalemate on the Western Front, the unrestricted U-Boat War, the two Russian revolutions which threatened to take Russia out of the war, and did, the real possibility that the Germans would overwhelm the Western Allies before the American entry could be significant, and old colonial rivalries between France, England and Russia. Many decisions were made by minor functionaries (people like Mark Sykes and Gertrude Bell) in places like New Delhi and Cairo with very short-term objectives, with the usual results: long-term disasters. I suggest: Bible and Sword, and The Zimmerman Telegram, both by Barbara Tuchman; a real source book: The Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin (an irresistible title!) which traces the incredibly convoluted history of the last days of the Ottoman Empire and the resultant mess with which we still live, and Power Play, the struggle for Middle Eastern oil, by Leonard Moseley. It seems to me that without some idea of the historical context, it is difficult or impossible to understand the origins of the present intractable passions and much easier simplify things by spinning elaborate conspiracy tales.

Of course, there is also the possibility that there is too much history...unless both the Israelis and the Arabs forget some, they will never be able to settle their issues with a smidgin of fairness.

I agree that Israeli actions (at least those of the recent governments...which don't even represent all Israelis and certainly not all Jews) are provoking anti-Israeli feeling which does ooze over to real anti-semitism. And the bozos who scream "anti-semite" every time someone criticizes Israeli policy or will call me a "self-hating Jew" aren't helping anything but their own self-justification. It's not unreasonable to feel that such behavior reflects badly on the "family" as a whole, is it?

I don't see another Holocaust world-wide (you are quite right there) it's not hard to see that ordinary Israelis who have to hit the shelters every time a rocket comes over could believe that Iranian and Hamas proclamating the obliteration of Israel mean what they say. And if Israel were overrun I fear that Jews world-wide would become much more vulnerable to attack, even here in the US. Again, I refer you to the history of Father Charles Coughlin as an example.

Do you really read what I write? I'm in no contest for victimhood. I'm trying to say that all sides have a right to feel aggrieved but that until they somehow get beyond that (unlikely, I fear) nothing will happen but more dead people.

And do work on the rhythm of your lines, please.