That is that educated blacks (a minority) and educated whites worked side by side on tangible projects that required collaboration and trust for a "higher good" (services towards profit). The working people on the ground (the blacks and whites working side by side) were not the owners. They made the service. The owners made the profit.

Israel is NOT South Africa. There was a viable path in South Africa and a CLEAR black majority. A civil democratic one-person one-vote society resulted in clear majority and authority.

In Israel/Palestine the demographics are equal. A single state would result in a 50/50 split. While in civilized US, that didn't result in civil war when Bush ran against Gore, even though the two were VERY different in policy, network, debts.

It would in Israel/Palestine, as it has in Palestine, only deferred by the equivalent of partition currently.

"a lot of the tumult reflects the anxiety in the pro-Israel community that a 30-year South Africa clock is ticking away."

This is false. It represents the escalating "permission" to demonize Israel and Jews in association, particularly among the ideological left.

One characteristic of the ideological left, rather than the humanist left, is that it adopts positions and disregards that there are TWO (or more) valid and rational perspectives on the conflict.

The left ignores that the unraveling of the knot is dangerous to real people, and urges imprecise vindictive "remedies". Functionally an imprecise dissent (a boycott or divestiture for example) illustrates EXACTLY the criticism that is validly levied against excessive bombing or sanctions or isolation.

That is that it is collectively punitive (and usually not even at all to the individuals or groups that offend), and vindictive.

A humanist would NOT suggest it. An ideologue might.

A humanist would ask to lay the issues out clearly on the table and sort them out, as issues, not as parties to the issues.

Hey man, if you don't like the neighborhood, why don't you leave? And don't let the door hit your *** on the way out.

Never mind. The Crusaders ruled the "uncivilized" Arabs for 200 years from their forts, but they had to leave eventually. Many of them didn't leave – they stayed and became part of the great uncivilized Arab masses. Check out all the red-heads with green eyes up and down the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon/Palestine. Converted Irish and German Crusader offspring.

Philip, your post reminds me of a joke I heard from a Palestinian in Lebanon in 1978, when I was a teenager. I'm sure you know it:

"Carter, Brezhnev and Arafat went to God to ask about the future of their countries. Carter, being the American president, went first.
"God," he asked. "When will America completely dominate the world?"
God said, "In fifty years." Carter cried huge tears, saying he would never live to see this glory.
Brezhnev asks next. "God," said the Soviet leader, "When will the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rule the world completely?" and God answered, "In two hundred years." So Brezhnev began to cry copious floods of salt tears. He would not live to see it.
Arafat steps up. "God, when will the Palestinians have a free and independent sovereign state?"
And God cried.

What is "humanist" about that? You make it abundantly clear that only fully "human" population of the Middle East are the Jewish Zionists, because you see them as your blood relatives.

I don't want any part of Witty Humanism, thank you.

I don't fault Richard for being interested in Israel and wanting it to thrive, just as I don't fault any Palestinian for wanting the Palestinians to thrive. To try and paint Mr. Witty as being a supremacist of some sorts as MM repeatedly attempts to, seems intellectually dishonest and in the service of demonizing Mr. Witty along with a group of people.

I happen to love the neighborhood! If it's a neighborhood where might makes right and no mercy to the weak (as you imply) then maybe Israel should start playing by those rules. How long do you think it would take the IDF to solve the Palestine question if they behaved like Syria did at Hama? I'd say by breakfast time Monday there'd be no more Palestinain question at all!

Let me see if I can get it right–

Giving the Palestinians human rights is … donating an organ?

But I mean, isn't it really more … selling a car?

Say you got a real beaut' on your hands, low miles, leather interior, new stereo, aren't you gonna try to sell it to someone of your OWN race, you know, before you go try to negotiate with that GREEK guy at the used car lot?

I mean, we all act on tribal prejudices all the time, right? And those decisions, they're all equally significant to the impact of a 60 year colonial project affecting several million people, in the city considered holy to the planet's three largest, monolithic religions.

Furthermore, we should use our tribal identification to inform us on the question of whether a people deserve human rights.

Otherwise, we're being dishonest.

Not a big surprise.

Posted by: David | January 26, 2008 at 03:22 PM

Yes, it's not frequently pointed out or anything, but the IDF are considered (by the IDF) to be the most moral army in the world.