Wednesday 30 July 2014

Does Israel "Cause" Anti-Semitism?

The great German socialist August Bebel once dubbed anti-semitism "the socialism of fools". This oft-quoted aphorism referred specifically to the conspiracy-mongers of his day for whom capitalism was the front for international jewry. But could it be that anti-semitism is the delusion of the desperate too? This question was raised in the Lords last night. Ex-diplomat and crossbencher Lord Wright of Richmond mused whether there was a link between the rise of anti-semitism in Europe and Israel's brutal assault on civilians in Gaza. He further suggested that its spread might be curbed in this country if the government acted resolutely against current operations, and pressured Israel to take the two state solution seriously by withdrawing from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This drew two sharp responses. One from Lord Winston, who argued that if such a link was tenable, then "the affairs in Syria would cause anti-Islamic feeling in this country". Likewise, Lord Ahmed, "the Islamic faith is very clear - in such situations you should protect churches, you should protect cloisters, you should protect synagogues, you protect all innocent life."

Let's be clear about this. Israel doesn't cause anti-semitism. Lest we forget, the Holocaust and centuries of pogroms and massacres precede it. Yet as a species of racism, anti-semitism as a jumble of prejudices and attitudes are no different from any other set of ideas: they form and cohere in the crucible of history, and their breadth and acceptance waxes and wanes according to specific historical conjunctures. No collection of ideas free-float. There isn't an ideological grab bag from which perfectly rational beings pick and choose according to reasonable criteria. The notions, opinions, prejudices or otherwise each and every human being adheres to is done so because it speaks to their personal circumstances. There's something about an idea that makes sense, that helps people understand their situation, that anchors them in the world. For example, conservative views of various stripes find a readier audience among business people because it speaks to and orders the social world for them as business people. Similarly, socialism has a greater reach in trade union circles because, again, it provides a coherent explanation of the issues confronting them.

Let's explore this in relation to racism. When the BNP was on the rise during the last decade, where did this racist party find its wells of support? Here in Stoke it was almost-entirely white working class estates blighted by low pay, unemployment, and insecurity. Might there perhaps be a link? Or think about it in terms of a more pertinent analogy. After the September 11th terror attacks, British Muslims experienced greater press hostility, increased everyday racism, an epidemic of vandalism against mosques and an increase in physical attacks. Did Muslims "cause" the antipathy and violence they received? No. Was the increase in Islamophobia heavily conditioned by terrorist outrages and war in the Middle East? Undoubtedly. Does the context of war excuse racist abuse? Absolutely not. Understanding and explaining is not the same as justifying, apologising for, or accepting racism.

That brings us to anti-semitism now. Let's think about it from a Gazan viewpoint. If your family had their land and property stolen by Israeli settlers at the point of a bayonet, if the sprawling slum you now called home groaned under the weight of an economic blockade, was subject to periodic attacks by the Israeli army and friends and family were lying injured and killed, might anti-semitism strike a chord? Might the idea that the Holocaust was a myth to justify Israel's foundation find a ready audience? Could the stony silence of the West and, in some cases, their connivance with Israel's slaughter in Gaza lead some to think they're under Jerusalem's sway? Might this go some way to explain the support for Hamas, an organisation that - until 2006 - was formally committed to Israel's eradication? In Palestine itself where anti-semitism exists it is inseparable from the occupation and all that goes with it. It doesn't excuse it, but it does help explain it.

What then of the West? Unfortunately, anti-semitism is on the rise. The electoral support enjoyed by the French Front National, for example, has nothing to do with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. The explanatory axis there is secured in economic precarity and persistent mass unemployment. For long-term anti-semites in fascist parties and movements, Israel and Gaza is a pretext, not an impetus. And if some of their anti-semitic actions, like daubing the walls of synagogues and attacking Jewish cemeteries can be pinned on Arabs/Muslims, so much the better. What then of Muslim anti-semitism? Is Israel's behaviour merely an excuse as per white racists? For some, undoubtedly. For others, it's complex. Being a Muslim in the West is more "political" than perhaps any other religious identity, and it is an identity location that identifies more readily with co-religionists elsewhere. Palestine "speaks" to Western Muslims more because there, in its most extreme form, do you have the epitome of injustice to Muslims - all accepted without a qualm by Western governments. Their experience is identifiable, understandable. The anger and hate Palestinians feel is readily translatable to Muslim communities in the West. Anger against the occupation is shared, along with the hate. So when Israel continues the killing, so anti-semitism provides a simple, convenient but poisonous frame that, for some, makes sense.

Would the transformation of Israel from a belligerent warmonger to a paragon of peace make a difference to anti-semitism in Europe? Perhaps. Its actions can influence the ebbs and the flows. Ultimately, however, rooting out anti-semitism is a problem for politics here. Blaming Israel is easy. The hard work is putting into place policies that tackle the root causes of racism, whatever forms it assumes and from wherever it comes.


Jim Denham said...

Very wise and fair commentary. The likes of the 'Morning Star', The 'Stop The War'(sic) Coalition and SWP should take note.

For a two states strategy!

Speedy said...

Well put.

Israel of course was created by the Zionist movement IN RESPONSE to anti-semitism.

Israel is surely the quintessential creature OF anti-semitism: it is unlikely that it would exist without that ultimate expression of anti-semitism, the Holocaust.

This is why, even now, I have some sympathy for the Israelis, as much as I find it hard to understand how their crazy, counter-productive approach to Gaza can garner 87 per cent public support.

The Israelis are only behaving in much the same way - but with comparative restraint - that their persecutors did for a thousand years, and it must turn their stomach to see the very same societies who stood by now condemn them.

Whataboutery? Too right - but as I have said before, they may be forgiven for thinking that holding them up to higher standards than everyone else (and oh the irony by the very same people who persecuted them) is an expression of exceptionalism, and therefore anti-semitism. It will take the Israelis 50 years to equal the amount of innocent Arabs "we" killed in Iraq, but no one is boycotting Apples - it is easier to boycott olives.

Israel is a state and acts like a state. No one is "islamophobic" because Pakistan shells India. There wasn't much anti-Irish feeling during the IRA (cue exceptions). Islamophobia is prompted by terrorism and exceptionalism in the name of Islam. Jews aren't terrorising Britons in the name of Juda, and even the handful of Hassidic Jews don't oblige their women to cover their faces (and nod to cultural norms by having them wear wigs outside). Hundreds of home-grown Muslims have been convicted for terrorist offences in the UK. No wonder people are Islamophobic! You might not like it - but it is not an illogical response. Anti-semitism is. It is fine to hate the Israelis if you are a Palestinian, but there is no reason to hate the Jews if you are British.

The Arabs have suffered post-WW2 but they have also brought suffering on themselves. Right back to Nasser they have stoked up antagonism against Israel to deflect for their own governmental failings. In turn these regimes were supported by the West for their own myopic reasons (only today I was thinking how incredible it was that there is nary a peep from the West about doing something about ISIS, presumably because it is backed by Saudi and Qatar).

In this midst of this is the punchbag of Israel - which the Arabs have unilaterally attacked a number of times over the past 50 years with the intent of "driving the Jews in to the sea". But "the Jews" won, every time, which is largely why they control much of the territory they do. Personally I believe they should give a lot of it back, but I can't help having some sympathy for them, and find the antipathy directed at them by both non-Arab Muslims and supposed Leftists, sinister, and ill-informed.

Ralph Musgrave said...

BNP racist? Dear oh dear. Labour and the Tories took part in the slaughter of a million Muslims in Iraq, while the BNP opposed the war from day one (as did UKIP). For a Labour supporter to describe the BNP as racist is the most extreme form of hypocrisy imagineable.

As to why BNP support is concentrated amongst the working class, one explanation is that middle class person with a responsible middle class job would be completely mad to join the BNP. Reason is that they’re liable to be sacked from their job or suspended from it, pending an investigation (which has actually happened to several BNP members), after which their career is b*ggered. I.e. 2014 Britain, as in Hitler’s fascist Germany or Stalin’s fascist Russia, you need to abide by the right political views if you want to keep your job.

So not only are Labour supporters racist: they’re fascist as well.

Phil said...

Ralph, may I suggest you read a political dictionary before making of fool of yourself in future.

asquith said...

Excellent comment by Speedy there.

You really do have to ask yourself WHY this conflict is deemed so much more important and newsworthy than Syria (worse shedding of blood), Iraq (more heinous persecution than anyone has even tried to accuse Israel of), Ukraine (right next door) or Libya (virtually unreported, for no reason I can identify).

Why are the likes of David "the Jews" Ward doing it?

Usually, I dismiss social "justice"/"intersectionality" types. But I will do some head-scratching of my own over white people.

Why do white people obsess over this one conflict? You've got your anti-"Zionists", the regular student and otherwise radical tits who support "Palestine".

But also, white gentiles often turn up as the staunchest supporters of "Israel", having a more hawkish stance than western Jews or even Israeli Jews.

And why?

PS- Also it is not widely remarked upon that many Jewish Israelis are there for reasons not directly related to the Holocaust. They are there because they, having dwelt poeacefully in Arab countries for centuries, were driven out en masse in 1948 or some other time.

The explusion of Jews or other mainorities in similar roles to be demonised in similar ways (Huguenots, Ugandan Asians, and Chinese in south-east Asian countries that aren't majority Chinese) generally spells disaster for the country doing the expulsion. Those who talk of "Rothschild banks", "Zionism", etc. should bear this in mind.

Dan said...

Obviously anti-Semitism has a long and inglorious past. It's strange how pervasive and persistent it has been over millennia, and disturbing to see it on the rise again across Europe.

However, I think to some degree if not Israel itself, the current ultra-nationalist, expansionist iteration of Zionism that is espoused by the majority of the Israeli political spectrum will inevitably cause anti-Semitism.

I think this is partly caused by the attempt (by some) to conflate this form of Zionism with Jewish identity. The notion that you cannot separate the two, the nods towards history and literature that demonstrate the significance of a Jewish homeland in Israel and purport to make it something fundamental and essential to being Jewish.

I disagree with the idea, but I have spoken with people that talk in these terms.

I think then, if there is a conscious effort to associate the two, then these associations will be made by others - the end result being that when people see horrific images of dead children, killed by IDF shelling, there will be some responses along the lines of "Jews are baby-killers!"

It's ridiculous, of course, but I think somewhat inevitable.

I think here lies the inherent danger in conflating this form of Zionism and the Jewish identity. Equally there is the flipside to this which is the conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. There could be an extended debate regarding what anti-Zionism is and means, but I think colloquially most would understand it to be an objection to the settlements and to the actions taken in the name of Israel by its governments and army. Defining it in these terms (rather than say an objection to Israel's existence - which could be some people's interpretation of it) it is not the same as anti-Semitism.

To try and portray it as such runs the risk of crying wolf, when there is more than enough true anti-Semitism to try and tackle.

Sadly, I think that some of the elements that try and encourage this mode of thinking (who I would describe as the more extreme elements, and I would hope are a tiny majority) are probably aware of this and on some level welcome it.

For the extreme elements - who would deny a Palestinian state altogether (to the extent that they steadfastly call the West Bank 'Judea and Samaria') the rise of anti-Semitism around the world is strategically advantageous to their cause. It justifies their position, it validates their claims, it encourages Diaspora Jews to emigrate or return to Israel which helps with the 'demographic problem'.

Sadly, I think there are some people out there twisted enough to think this way. Thankfully, they are the minority, hopefully a tiny one

rags meiklejohn said...

"In this midst of this is the punchbag of Israel - which the Arabs have unilaterally attacked a number of times over the past 50 years with the intent of "driving the Jews in to the sea""
Really? Could you give us some examples of these unilateral attacks over the past 50 years?

Speedy said...

Frankly rags I think you are trolling, but it begins in 1948 when, according to wiki...

In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on May 15, 1948, the Arabs stated publicly that Arab Governments found "themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine."...

That day, the armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq invaded/intervened in what had just ceased to be the British Mandate, marking the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The nascent Israeli Defense Force repulsed the Arab nations from part of the occupied territories, thus extending its borders beyond the original UNSCOP partition.

(Me) Admittedly the Six Day war of 1967 was opened by a pre-emptive Israeli air strike but this was in response to Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanisn forces massing on its border.

Following this, according to Wiki:

At the end of August 1967, Arab leaders met in Khartoum in response to the war, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. They reached consensus that there should be no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations with the State of Israel, the so-called "three no's".[57]

In 1969, Egypt initiated the War of Attrition, with the goal of exhausting Israel into surrendering the Sinai Peninsula. The war ended following Gamal Abdel Nasser's death in 1970.

On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt staged a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur.

I look forward to your deconstruction of the historical record.

rags meiklejohn said...

Your knowledge of how to access wiki is obviously profound and worthy of respect, so please respond to the following:
1. Where and when did Arab forces enter the territory allocated to a Jewish state by the UN Nov 47 partition plan following May 15, 1948? (this is the only possible meaning which could be given to a "unilateral attack on Israel", since the state self-proclaimed on May 15 had no borders.
2. When did Deir Yassin take place? How many Palestinian refugees had fled their homes as a result of Zionist military actions before May 15?
3. You admit that there was no unilateral attack on Israel in June 67, but claim Israel's attack on Egypt and Syria was "pre-emptive". So please present whatever evidence you have of any Syrian-Egyptian plans to attack Israel and oversee the driving of the Jews into the sea - that would require quite a lot of forward planning, wouldn't it? I think the fact that LBJ's aide Walt Rostow referred to the Israeli attack plan as "the first day's turkey shoot" indicates the military balance of force and the amount of danger Israel was actually facing.
4. As you note, Egypt's goal in the War of Attrition was to recover its own occupied territory in the Sinai, so not a unilateral attack with the intention of destroying Israel.
5. Syrian and Egyptian troops did not enter Israeli territory at any point in October 1973 and once again their war aims were to recover territory occupied following the Israeli aggression in June 1967. That isn't seriously questioned by any historian I am aware of.
I note that even you don't attempt to portray 1956 or any of the Lebanon wars as instances of Arab aggression. So again, where is your evidence for your claim that "the Arabs have unilaterally attacked [Israel] a number of times over the past 50 years with the intent of "driving the Jews in to the sea".

Speedy said...

Like ants to honey.

You're right, my use of wiki is masterful @ 3 try

As for the rest - I'll leave you with your obsessions.

rags meiklejohn said...

So you accept that you simply have no basis for your allegations apart from in the case of 1967? As for the reference you give in relation to 1967, its introduction states: "By the mid-1960s, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors had deteriorated to the extent that a number of border clashes had taken place. In April 1967 Israel invaded Syria. In June 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez conflict, and announced a partial blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea. Israel claimed this as a casus belli. Tension escalated, with both sides' armies' mobilising. A month later, Israel launched a surprise strike which began the Six-Day War.

Most scholarly accounts of the crisis attribute the drift to war to an escalation that was unwanted, however despite a desire to avoid war on all sides, everyone was in the end responsible for making the escalation unavoidable"
So we have border crises, an Israeli invasion of Syria, armies mobilised on both sides, an Israeli surprise attack, in a context most scholars attribute to an unwanted escalation where all sides wanted to avoid war. How does this provide supporting evidence for your statement that "the Arabs have unilaterally attacked [Israel] a number of times over the past 50 years with the intent of "driving the Jews in to the sea""? You really aren't very good with this logical argument thing are you?

Chris said...

No wonder Jim Denham applauds this article!

As the people of Gaza are being massacred the problem is found to be the rise of anti Semitism, or what people like Denham really think, the rise of anti Zionism. Which to Denham are always one in the same.

To equate the situation in Syria with that between the Israeli's and Palestinians is just another form of Israeli apology. The analogy with apartheid South Africa is better, and we can safely say that Denham is a supporter of apartheid.

Incidentally with regard to Syria, it isn't like the left have been quiet. Some have supported the rebels, some see them has sponsored Islamists. Personally I support the rebels against Assad. The point is that people on the left who are anti Zionist are thinking about other conflicts, weighing up the facts and drawing conclusions.

n Israel they have also drawn conclusions, so has Denham, he is a steadfast supporter of the racist and terrorist state of Israel, and in their moment of need, he rallies to their cause, like the servile little apologist that he is.

Lastly, when an Islamic group carries out an atrocity in, say Nigeria, Denham uses this as proof of the wickedness of Islam, he justifies the murder of Muslims in Nigeria on this basis (he keeps quite about it), so why when an Islamic group carry out violence should we become anti Islamic but when the 'Jewish state' massacres the people it is occupying and oppressing why should the response be down with anti Semitism!

I single biggest problem in Europe, in relation ot the far right, is hatred of Muslims incidentally, but that doesn't matter because to the likes of Denham they simply don't count.

Phil said...

Actually Chris, anti-semitism is a problem that's on the rise across Europe and so asking this question is perfectly justifiable.

Chris said...

You have linked anti Semitism to pro Palestinian groups - directly. You are asking if the rise of anti Semitism is the fault of anti Zionists - directly. This plays straight into the hands of the Zionists and pro Israeli's like Denham. So the actual massacre of the Palestinians is not the problem but the protests against it are- it is an attempt to undermine anti Zionism. The pro Zionists have actually been caught trying to spread anti Semitism among the ranks of the anti Zionists (anti Semitic comments posted on a pro Palestinian site were traced to a Zionist group). So if there is an attempt to increase and spread anti Semitism, it is being consciously done by the Zionists, as a tactic to aid the racist state! Where was this aspect in your article?

We can assume with 100% certainty that the far rights motives for anti Semitism have nothing to do with Israel. But you have not located the rise of anti Semitism with the far right but with pro Palestinians.

The left should be unequivocal opponents of the racist, terrorist state of Israel.

Ralph Musgrave said...


Thanks for your utterly thick headed, moronic response above, namely that I look at at "Political Dictionary".

If you think I'm using some word other than it's correct dictionary sense then please specify. But the fact that you don't specify indicates that you can't actually point to any way in which I've used a word incorrectly. Game set and match to me.

Phil said...

Ralph, you're a racist. You're a member of an openly racist party. You're also a fascist, and a member of an openly fascist party. So no, I don't take you or your gibbering contributions about what is and isn't racist and is and isn't fascist with any degree of seriousness.

Run along now.

Phil said...

What are the material roots of anti-semitism, Chris? Why has anti-semitism had a recent boost? Why is it snaps from recent pro-Gaza demonstrations in London show Middle Eastern-looking people, albeit a small minority, with anti-semitic placards as opposed to white people? And should the left give anti-semitism a free pass here because "it's a distraction"?

Chris said...

There is talk of a rise of anti Semitism, this goes beyond a few people with placards. The motive is to undermine the anti Zionist movement at a time when Israel is carrying out massacres, which is why Denham was so quick to respond. But what about the Zionist movement who are trying to spread anti Semitism among the anti Zionist ranks? The motive is to provide cover for the ongoing and blatant act of terror being carried out by the Israeli's against the Palestinians.

The anti Zionists are typically left looking, they know how to deal with anti Semitism.

There is another motive of the Zionists here, this is the old attempt to link Muslims with anti Semitism, and thereby re-enforce the Zionist narrative that Israel is an innocent democracy in an hostile land of bigots and woman haters. So more Muslims in Europe = a rise of anti Semitism. All poison for the Zionist cause. The barbarity that is Zionism can only thrive where there is poison, and the Zionists pour poison wherever they can.

Speedy said...

"The barbarity that is Zionism". You really hate Zionists don't you Chris.

But how do you define them? If one believes in the right for Israel to exist - are they a Zionist?

Some would say yes. Mamy if not most Jews (and probably all Israeli Jews) would fall in to this category. So do these Jews "only thrive where there is poison" and do they "pour this poison wherever they can"?

Such exceptional hate for an exceptional people! Or do you feel the same way about Americans, Islamists, etc - after all, believers in these "ideas" do some pretty terrible things.

So what is a Zionist to you?

What always strikes me about the I/P debate is the /. It is possible to live in a world where Israel is the most progressive, democratic country AND is guilty of expansionist and unjust treatment of the Palestinians (indeed we do - Turkey is one of the most progressive Muslim countries and has been doing it to the Kurds for years. Britain, America, France - we ALL are guilty).

Whar makes Israel so specially evil? Why so colour-blind on this issue? I think Phil helped explain that in a previous post, but it's no excuse for otherwise intelligent folk.

Yet i suppose we all need something to hate. As an (unreconstructed) "Yid" i hate Arsenal.

Chris said...

I have seen the other posts by Phil, but I am responding to the Zionist tactic of portraying the anti Zionists has anti Semitic. This is a tactic of Zionists that needs pointing out. After all this article is about that very subject!

Another tactic of the Zionists is to build the straw man that the anti Zionists only focus on Israel. It is a lie, I also take an interest in Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Portugal etc etc etc. This is another attempt to pour poison. He even tries to steer my position to one of being hatred of Jews, again his only recourse is to pour poison. Speedy has to take my comments, put them through a filter and leave behind only poison. This is the only way his apology for Israel’s murder can function, via the pouring of poison.

When Russian was levelling Grozny I protested, as did many on the left.

Many on the left have been long time supporters of the Kurds, speedy needs to really do some research.


I don’t hate Zionists anywhere near the extent to which speedy hates Palestinians. When the Palestinians are being massacred by Israel speedy provides cover for Israel. If that isn’t total and absolute hatred for the Palestinians I don’t what is. I have to ask speedy, what makes the Palestinians so special that when their children are massacred by a heavily armed terrorist state do we say the terrorism is justified?

In fact it is speedy and the Zionists who make Israel special by condoning actions most other nations would be damned for. The size of Israel’s military is beyond that of any comparable nation, why do the Zionists think this is normal; we have to ask Zionists what makes Israel so special?

Unlike speedy when the massacres are taking place I don’t apologise for it by saying shit happens, and Israel isn't the only evil in the world. This is the ultimate apology for everything from holocaust to murder. What speedy is doing, let us be clear, is providing cover for murder on a huge scale, and also if you look at the pictures, Israel have reduced parts of Gaza to rubble. He is providing direct cover and apology for these actions. Again we ask speedy, what makes Israel so special? Now there is no law against him doing this, though other people have been locked up for inciting hatred, but speedy can apologise for this mass murder and still be within the law, fine. Just, if you are going to apologise for murder on a mass scale, how can you have any right to take a moral position on anything. How can you speak out about the serial rapist, or a terrorist planting a bomb?

Again speedy what makes Israel so special?

What makes Israel so special that you can compare their decade’s long sadist brutality against the Palestinian people to that of rivalry between Spurs and Arsenal? What makes Israel so special that you could ever bring that up as the appropriate analogy?

It isn't for me to dictate the solution to this problem, anymore than I have the right to tell the Scots how they should vote in the referendum or whether Greece stays in the EU. But I do have an opinion on all those things. I am for, but do not insist upon, the one state solution, a multi faith community where Jews, Muslims etc live side by side. You see my hatred of the ‘Zionists’ will never match your hatred of the Palestinians. NEVER!!

So I really would like to know speedy, what makes Israel so special?

Robert said...

It is completely wrong to blame jews in general for the crimes of Israel. The rise in anti-semitism needs to be addressed immediately in Europe and beyond. There is no excuse or justification for anti-semitism.

Nor is there any excuse for Israel's behaviour in Gaza. These are clearly war crimes against the civilian population.

Speedy said...

You didn't address my salient point about how you define Zionism Chris, and attempted to deflect it by turning my own question against me - forgive me if i doubt your syrength of outrage against "Portugal" matches that of Israel. And as this post is about the nature of Israel/ant-semitism i think the idea of identity is to the point.

That's a sort of a twist on intersectionality Phil? Where Jewish identity intersects with identidication with Israel. And if Zionism means a belief in the Jewish state? Then although not all Jews are Zionists, many if not most are, and the language used by Chris - poison etc - is very...unfortunate.

Two things strike me - one is that we keep trying to define the world in terms of the old, but - as a complex system - in this case it creates something new. And although most antiZionists are presumably not anti-semitic in the old sense, this kind of process can result in actions that may result materially in much the same thing - ie, most Jews are Zionists, Zionists are evil, Jews are legitimate targets. At one end of the spectrum we get boycotts of Jewish stores at the other physical attacks on Jews - not perpetrated by well-meaning Leftists but Jihadis who have "intersected" with this thimking.

I certainly do care about the Palestinians - i have worked with them, in Palestine - and as i have said above, i believe in the kind of solution that would see much of their land returned. But is either disengenuous or a cop out to believe in "one state" - rather like those Jehova's Witness pamphlets which depict Heaven with people mixing with lions, etc. what it really means is you want to see an end to Israel.