“Few Israelis quarrel with the insistence that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. It encapsulates their profound aspiration, rooted in the history of the Jewish people, for a fully accepted presence in the land of their forebears — for an end to Arab questioning of Israel’s legitimacy, the specter of the Palestinian refugees’ return and any irredentist sentiment among Israel’s Arab citizens.”

I say this is not a problem with a simple proviso – it can be recognized as Jewish state as long as it it not murderous and aggressive toward the Palestinians and its neighbors. People say “Jewish State” as if it is in a vacuum, but what if it resembles and fully acts like Apartheid South Africa or worse (those who have visited from SA have said that it is worse). Israel has the right to be a racist state? Israel has the right to continue the occupation as it sees fit? Etc., etc. Even if you read Benjamin Netanyahu’s definition of a Palestinian state –

“…Mr. Netanyahu conceded the principle of a Palestinian state, but then described it in a way that stripped it of meaningful sovereignty. In essence, and with minor modifications, his position recalled that of Israeli leaders who preceded him. A state, he pronounced, would have to be demilitarized, without control over borders or airspace. Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and no Palestinian refugees would be allowed back to Israel.”

This is laughable, it shows no intention of not continuing a process of oppression, it shows no intention of a viable state – essentially it shows no recognition of any Palestinian state. There is also no fairness in the international communities position on any supposed negotiation process – the Palestinian must disarm, they must recognize an aggressor colonialist Israel, they must renounce violence (defense), they must accept all of the previous ridiculous parameters of previous bad faith negotiations, and Israel does not have to do any of this – complete bullshit.

There are no viable peace negotiations (just “piece” negotiations, where Israel steals more land as they negotiate in “good faith”), there is no viable offer of a Palestinian state, there is no impartial partner at any supposed negotiation table (where the U.S. acts like counsel for Israel) – it is all a joke. This administration does everything without any teeth, totally useless – it is also a joke, just like the previous ones.

The first problem I had with it, was myself – where did I fit in? Was I part of the West or was I part of the Islamic civilisation? In reality, I’m part of both.

I found it dangerous because if many influential people believe in it, we end up having a ‘cosmic’ war between these so-called civilisations, where lots of people die and all sides lose. It was, simply put, a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy. The War on Terror started off as a ‘clash’ but as soon as Iraq turned nasty, the Bush administration realised that this wasn’t going to work. The problem is, as the politicians stopped believing in it, as mass of ordinary Americans and Britons have started to believe.

There are very few that I out and out reject, that I think that nothing that they state is true, either in thesis or in support for it.

I have more confidence in my own intellect than that, than to regard the “other” as that dangerous that I cannot assess, pro’s and con’s.

Whose analysis do you trust so thoroughly that you’ll believe every word on the basis that they said it? And whose analysis do you distrust so thoroughly that you’ll disbelieve every word?

For me the answer to both those questions is NOONE.

How can one comment on Lewis, from the words of a critic?

I don’t grant either Lewis or Said authority. I’ve read and met Said. I’ve not read Lewis.