heru-ur said - Many have been called "anti-Semitic", even though the Palestinians are a Semitic people...

That's being over-logical. What "anti-Semitic" in general English indicates is "anti-Jewish".

Tho I suppose there might be something to be said for being inclusively anti-Semitic - a pox on both (all) your houses ... work it out among yourselves (see and call us when it's settled. Like, I am wondering if the U.S. (better, the U.N. with the U.S. cooperating) imposed an embargo on the whole region, Palestine/Israel, until the parties worked out an agreement - with a warning that the embargo would be resumed immediately upon any violation by either side.

But I doubt it would happen. Partly because there are probably lots of problems with it that my simple mind doesn't see. And partly because, it seems to me, humankind has a collective simple mind and continues with warfare and dreams of genocide, even tho history from the beginning of time has demonstrated the futility of same. Change We Can Believe In - just a slogan, really, as *world leaders* continue to ring variations on The Same Old Honking... Same old Bombing...

As for the American attitude...y'know, America was founded on a somewhat similar history - a technologically superior people invaded (This Land Is Our Land) territory inhabited by more 'backward' people and carried on warfare against them for a long time - even continuing, after a fashion. Further, in the American version, much of their technological superiority came from the exploitation of slaves. The Americans may, deep down, have a sympathy with, feel vindication through, the Israeli thing. (I'm Canadian, with a history vis a vis Native Americans parallel with the U.S., and even a little teensy bit of slavery early on - just to explain the You Americans comments. We're in the same boat, except yours is an ocean-liner and we're the dinghy tied behind.)

And then there's the whole holocaust guilt thing and the original feeling that YES, Jews need a country of their own to escape from the centuries of horrors inficted on them. (And besides, they might otherwise all want to come to the States...)

Hah! In referring to Native Americans, I was thinking of the smallish # of people on reservations or elsewhere, and forgetting my occasional theory about how the Indians are taking back the U.S.! - the vast majority of Hispanics that you-all worry about are Indian. Another generation or so and they could well be the most numerous segment of the American population, border walls or no.

Then we'll see how THEIR myths work out vis a vis their erstwhile conquerers. Perhaps not to our (white) satisfaction!

Tho one always has hope that the Space Brothers (I've given up on God) may cause some kind of evolutionary advance in human behavior by then... (Tomorrow wouldn't be too soon - the world needs it NOW.)

P.S. I am still working on my mastery of HTML, thus my previous all-italic post.

in today's WaPo presents what on first read seems to be a reasonable argument in favor of Israel. No doubt some people here will be able to point out the flaws in his reasoning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101780.html?wpisrc=newsletter

(or link to my sig.,if I've done that right)

(Thanks, Curtain - preview was another of those things I didn't pay any attention to...)

Not taking sides in this dispute, but just an observation that the U.S. has a founding sin too, took over land from the indigenous population at gunpoint, did their best to exterminate them, put them on reservations, etc.

No question of the U.S. undoing its founding - and perhaps the same is true of Israel. All parties in the region have to work out something... (Not following the U.S. example.)

One, that the first black prez would have to be what Obama seems to be (or is being accused of being), that is, an agent of *apparent* change but essentially safe and feel-good. Couldn't get elected otherwise. In fact, would have to have safe and feel-good amplified in some, haha, magic way. And so may not be the kind of person to rock the boat in office. (Since the boat has taken on so much water, he has no choice but to do something drastic...but that's circumstances and perhaps not the essential him.)

Possibly the first female prez would have to be similar. Perhaps Clinton was a little too gritty or something....tho she was acquiring "magic" as she went, certainly a lot more magical than when she started out.

Mona - too much age and life-experience tips one over from "realistic" to despairing.

Random - how come we can embrace fantastic new technologies (us crusty oldies as well as the young) that transform our world, but stick with the same old honking when it comes to governance? (Okay, there have been some major changes over the millenia, but compare changes in technology to changes in governance over the last couple of decades.)

Glum despairing note here - war is perhaps the major arena of vast changes in technology, not all of which we hear about like we do about the latest phone-oid gadget.

Cavindude said -

"stuttering Bugs Bunny"

That is were I stopped reading. How can a person get this wrong?

-100 DKP

Porky Pig stutters.

####

If she meant Porky Pig, she could have said stuttering like Porky Pig. But the way it's phrased, it could work - a Bugs Bunny (i.e., somebody with big ears) but who stutters.

(Ah, yes, Matty D. that time of the month again...)

Please let Xrandadu Hutman write Paglia's future columns. Shorter and funnier.

A project for next month - a C.P. column totally in Palin-speak.

Haha, you have produced the archetypical C.P. fan letter. (This can't be real, can it?)