[insert post here]

PalestraJon: "I have read some of Benny Morris' writings---a very interesting guy with a changing viewpoint."

Morris' political viewpoint may have changed (although he says it hasn't), but his scholarship has not. And his scholarship is impressively detached (at least as much as one can be while being so close it all, I suppose) from his political viewpoint(s). And the book I recommended - "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist Arab Conflict, 1881-2001" - is an impressive display of scholarship.

PalestraJon: "I will take a look at his book on the turn of the century."

I think you may be referring to the other book I suggested - "One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate" by Tom Segev. Or perhaps you are referring to Morris' groundbreaking "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" - that too is a worthwhile read that will forever change your perspective on "blame" with respect to the conflict.

PalestraJon: "With respect to Hezbollah, I respectfully suggest that it was its rather brutal takeover of Beirut from the Sunni militias that was far more responsible for its hold on the Lebanese government than its war with Israel, which made it very unpopular in non-Shiite parts of Lebanon. Still, the right wing wingnuts (is that redundant?) of the Bush administration gave their blessing to the Lebanon power-sharing deal precisely because it neutralizes Hezbollah in the Arab-Israeli dispute (Bush and Co. do not give a rat's ass about Lebanon---that is deemed a French problem). Now that it is responsible for its actions as a nation-state, Hezbollah cannot cause Lebanon massive damage by starting wars with Israel."

One of Hezbollah's long-term goals is the destruction of Israel - as they see it they are on a mission of God to do so. Perhaps their greater control over Lebanon will help to neutralize that as a future threat, though I am not optimistic.

PalestraJon: "Similarly, I would like to see that particular carrot being offered to Hamas---be part of the process and take the responsibility of a nation instead of being simply rejectionist. One of the singular qualities attracting me to Obama was his willingness to talk to anyone. I hold no illusions, however, that Hamas will suddenly see the light. I just see no downside to trying."

For the same fundi-fueled reason I am not optimistic that Hamas will turn away from their long-term "god given" goal to destroy Israel, though I hope my pessimism is misplaced there. And they do at least say they receptive to a long-term truce in exchange for Israel's return to pre-67 borders. In any event I agree that negotiations instead of shunning is in order there.

PalestraJon: "And I also hold no illusions that if the Israelis, through their own decision or pressure from the US, stop settlement activity, that suddenly rose petals will flutter over the Separation Barrier. I just see no downside to trying."

If nothing else, stopping stop settlement activity would be a big upside with respect to U.S. security interests - which as an American I put first. I also believe that action will demonstrate that Israel is finally getting serious about a real peace process - before then it's impossible to objectively them seriously there. Which will then take some of the heat off of the conflict and help strengthen the hands of the more moderate (and non-fundi-wingnut) factions on both sides. Which hopefully will eventually lead to a 2-state solution to the conflict along the lines of what was being negotiated at Taba.

This:

and remembered something I noticed before from Zionists, regarding their behavior and viewpoints, as reflected in their arguments.

They are essentially part sociopath and part narcissist. They don't believe the rules of international law apply to their tribe. They don't believe their tribe should be criticized for ethnic cleansing, though they're quick to criticize others for having previously done it to them. They demand a free pass, and feel a certain entitlement to it.

They can do no wrong. They view anyone who criticizes their ideology, or Israel's actions in the worst possible terms. They see these people as the enemy - as blatant 'anti-semites'. And they relentlessly try to crush them politically, professionally, and in any way they can. They slander them, label them, petition their employers, and pull every string available to them.

The Palestinian perspective is irrelevant - it's all about the Zionists and their tribe, and their selective historical perspective. They see their propaganda, lies, distortions, rhetorical labels, as just a means to their ends. They get caught in lies, fallacies of logic, etc .. and they don't care, they just dust themselves off, and continue spewing more of the same.

Ugly.

So lets cut out the middlemen, and get to the operative axiom, baby: To prove you don't hate Jews, you have to applaud Israel's war crimes and other transgressions. Nothing less will do!

You said in a few sentences what WinSmith, zenwick, Lotus Feet and countless others failed to say in hundreds of posts. I don't think these guys know what they're arguing on behalf of, half the time (and that fraction talk will no doubt infuriate them).

This: [...] Ugly.

A lightbulb goes off: do you think the word "Zionist" means "Jew?"

This is a genuine question. Do you believe there is no disentangling the two?

Are you saying anti-zionism is anti-semtic? You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. Lord Balfour was a Zionist, one of the first, in fact. And you don't have to be a Zionist to be Jewish [obviously].

I'm beginning to understand your problem.

What a completely original viewpoint! And so charming! And it speaks so well of you! Wonderful to see you here.

That's the 2nd time I've read the term "piling on" in regard to this comment thread ... and I'm kind of puzzled by it ...

On the one hand the wholesale slaughter of defenseless women and children is neither disporportionate nor criminal nor is it Israels fault ... even though it is IDF people pulling the triggers ... although it is, of course, "regrettable" ...

... yet on the other hand some few thousand lines of ascii criticising these actions is loathesome ... your 1930's allusion suggesting it is near enough to genocidal ...

It certainly seems as if there is some lack of proportionality at work here ...

I cannot accept that an otherwise apparently sane, intelligent, educated, mature adult can simultaneously entertain such fragile sensibilities about completely textual criticism on the one hand (and very reserved, careful, and qualified criticism at that), while maintaining a slightly pained air of mild regret about the brutal deaths and dismemberment of hundreds of civilians on the other ...

... unless, perhaps Glenns earlier points about tribal identifications hold some merit? Perhaps the difference between the two contexts is where one see the "I" in all this?

Just a thought ...