The majority of American Jews favor reconciliation with the Palestinians, rather than continued animosity. They perceive the Palestinians as predominately angry with them, and willing to use violence against civilians to express that anger.

And, as the anger preceeded what is now called the occupation, they don't ascribe the anger TO the occupation, but to something deeper, something more existential.

It may be true that the anger is prejudicial, or the anger may in fact be limited to the consequences of the occupation.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else here knows for sure.

Given that status, not knowing, an Israeli administration cannot gamble. They must stake out a secure position. The question then is what constitutes that secure position.

Likud takes a position of collecting bargaining chips (that they are not even willing to bargain with though). Labor similarly, though they are willing to bargain. Meretz and parts of labor take the position that Israel should do what it can unilaterally, but not to the point of exposing civilians to terror.

Israel is a multi-party state. In the states, many criticize the two-party state as not enough options. In Israel, there are perhaps too many options. (Likud, Kadima, Labor, Meretz, Community, 2 Arab parties, Shas, Israel Beitanhu, National Torah).

All players, none majorities.

The very inspiring reality of the current situation, is that it is a generally peaceful transition, defining an actual democracy. There is no bloody civil war between parties. There is no threat to militarily annex the state. The most there are are personal accusations.

In particular there is this particular dishonest and sleazy assertion:

"It may be true that the anger is prejudicial, or the anger may in fact be limited to the consequences of the occupation.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else here knows for sure."

Of course every sentient observer knows that Palestinian anger goes much deeper than the consequences of the occupation. His statement implies that if, in fact, the anger does go deeper than the day to day atrocities of occupation, then this provides justification for continued occupation. I know, I know, RW does not state this explicitly, he just lets it hang to dispense doubt and confusion, if called on it he can come back with some denial and dissembling tangent.

These kinds of comments are not designed to reach agreement between the parties, they are designed to prolong debate. The time, as we sit and argue today, is being used to expand the West Bank settlements and seize more land from the native Palestinians. That is the object.

It makes you into a fraud.

There is no causal relationship between identifying the need for defense, and the different options for how to approach that defense, and occupation.

That is more your bias than mine.

A bunch of racists from E. Europe stole their country.

Much more interesting are the violence and rage of ethnic Ashkenazim and the intellectual contortions that Jewish apologists use to stymie any rational discussion of the associate crimes of Zionism and Bolshevism.

I have two relevant articles on my blog:

Roots of Zionist Jewish Agression and

When Comes Jewish Rage?

Note that Jewish violence, intent to commit violence, incitement to commit violence long precedes the Holocaust, and apologetics for Jewish violence.

I've seen him argue with Meir Kahane (available on YouTube), objecting to the thesis of Greater Israel, and also objecting to the vicious methods of his followers.

Kahane was raging, by holding it in. He considered Dershowitz an ant for even objecting to his interpretation of Torah.

Dershowitz, a non-adherent, telling him what being Jewish was, what Israel was.

Things got ugly, and still get ugly, when dissenters misrepresent history and law to make their points. Then Dershowitz defended Israel (carelessly but assertively and condemningly). Finkelstein and Chomsky called him a racist bigot and a plagiarist. Dershowitz called Depaul.

An escalation by zealots, unwilling to apologize, unwilling to see the other's perspective at all.

I just heard him speak yesterday in Newton. See announcement below.

I will post a report on my blog within a day or so, but he is an extremist Ashkenazi ethnic fundamentalist, who differs from the most extreme German Nazis of the 30s only in that he modifies standard German Nazi discourse by subsituting Jew for Aryan and Palestinian, Arab or Muslim for Jew.

Christians and Jews United for Israel
Sunday, September 21, 2008 | 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM
Third Annual CJUI Genesis Award presented to Professor Alan Dershowitz and Gordon College Israel InitiativeTeam Temple Emeth Sanctuary, 194 Grove St.,Chestnut Hill,Ma. 02467 Special Guest Speaker: Tom Trento, Director, Florida Security Council Music and Refreshments Admission free RSVP@CJUI.ORG
Time:
03:00 PM to 05:00 PM
Location:
Temple Emeth Sanctuary,
194 Grove St,
Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467,
RSVP@CJUI.ORG
Contact:
RSVP@CJUI.ORG