Yes, I wish I had done that. 
Why does the left wing support the Palenstinians?
Because the left wing has always supported losers. Look at the whole welfare-state thing.
Okay, cultural arrogance aside, any attempt to cubbyhole this conflict into a tidy “right v. left” discussion is doomed to failure, since both the Israeli and Palestinian societies contains elements westerners would consider rightist and leftist.
Israelis have military conscription, an armed populace, expansionist tendencies (though the settlements), strong religious beliefs… = right wing
Israelis also have strong emancipation for women and, to some degree, the communal kibbutz structure, etc = left wing
Palestinians have (like Arab cultures generally) a patriarchical social structre and strong religious beliefs = right wing
Palestinians are downtrodden etc, gaining sympathy from the left wing.
I find it interesting that in the 30s and 40s, there was a great deal of rhetoric in the U.S. that being Jewish was hand-in-glove with being communist, and in recent years the Taliban in Afghanistan established a government that was the epitome of fascism.
It’s easy to find elements within the politics of each side that seem right- or left-wing, and from what I’ve seen, supporters of either side latch onto the elements that appeal to them while ignoring the rest, and critics latch onto the elements that displease them… and ignore the rest.
For example, I choose to latch onto the fact that Isreal elects its leaders while the Palestinians do not, nor do they seem likely to establish a working democracy or rule of law in the near future. I don’t think you have to be right- or left-wing to make this distinction. The Palestinians have nothing to lose because they’ve not yet built anything worth losing. They need a left-wing public works project, stat!
Nice post, Bryan
One minor quibble. Israel isn’t that all religious. Around 20% or 25% of Israelis are Orthodox. They wield disproportionate political impact. However, the other 80% are probably less religious than the average American. And, they’re not crazy about the Orthodox Jews.
When I was visiting Jerusalem I was warned about the Orthodox Jews. I was told that they sometimes throw stones at visitors to their neighborhoods.
december: "An analysis of a Bush policy in the NYT would make a good SAT test. One must read carefully to separate fact from opinion. The article is interesting, but much of it is actually the columnist’s opinion of what Bush ought to be thinking or might be thinking, rather than Bush’s own thoughts.
FTR, december, it’s customary to call the writer of an article in a serious newspaper a journalist or reporter. In addition to reporters, the Times employs several columnists (e.g., Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, Saffire), but the link is to an article not to a column. Also FTR, it’s appropriate to call columnists “pundits,” but reporters seldom fit that bill.
“E.g., One can doubt the efficacy of Sharon’s policy, and still support him 100% vis a vis Arafat. I do. This position is not contradictry, as the NYT implies. This may or may not be so, but it’s the columnist’s opinion, not Bush’s.”
Unfortunately you have misunderstood the article: it isn’t the doubt/support that the article says is contradictory. That’s just the dilemma. What’s contradictory is the waffling from one week to the next. For example,
“Only two and a half weeks ago, on March 13, Mr. Bush publicly rebuked Mr. Sharon for Israel’s military action in the West Bank, calling it “not helpful” in the effort to piece together a cease-fire and resume a peace process that is at its lowest point in nine years. There have been a lot of bombs and death and blood since, but it was notable that on Saturday, Mr. Bush reversed course, describing Mr. Sharon as a democratically elected leader who was legitimately “responding to the will of the people” for more security.”
december: “Again, it’s the columnist’s opinion that this is a “true dilemma.” IMHO the Arab states aren’t ever going to help us overthrow Saddam, so it’s a false dilemma.”
To be sure, it’s the reporter’s interpretation or “analysis” which is why the Times explicitly calls this type of article a “news analysis.” OTOH, it certainly seems like a dilemma to me.
Do you think that if the Saudis and other Arab nations declared their opposition (in contrast to their Gulf War stance) that it would be easy or even possible for Bush to proceed against Iraq? Do you think that the UN or even NATO would sanction an unprovoked military action against Iraq that the US’s supposed friends the region vigorously opposed?
Do you think it would be wise to so inflame friendly Muslim nations and, in so doing, possibly trigger a fundamentalist overthrow in Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia?
“…but I have no doubt that Bush’s statement – that Isreal [sic] has the right to take action – reflects his beliefs…”
Neither does the reporter. For example, he cites a Middle East expert who says…
“Iraq has a receded a bit,” and “you are seeing Bush react with his own instincts,” which have led him, inevitably, to compare the attacks in Israel to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States."
Which part of that statement has left you so confused?
“Mandelstam, again you confuse strategic advice with which side they’re on. …”
And december, again, you lack the subtlety to understand what’s been said. I’m not disagreeing that most conservatives side with Israel, and neither is The Times. I’ve been saying that most conservatives shun meddling in peace processes, but support hawkishness, esp. insofar as it suits their own policies. This creates complexity beyond the simple matter of what “side” one is on. (As others in this thread, including Alterman, have already pointed out, there’s hardly anyone in the US media who’s actually not on Israel’s “side.”)
The Times has complicated my take by showing that, apart from their inherent tendency towards isolationism, 1) any conservative angling for Iraq has a reason to want to separate US action against Iraq from Israeli action against the Palestinians; and 2) conservatives are at their most critical of Bush when he seems to be meddling (as Clinton was chastized for doing).
There is also a difference, often substantial, between the editorial position of a newspaper and the views of its columnists; that is true of any newspaper and, I believe, esp. true of the Journal. Did you read the WSJ editorial in question?
“I fully stand by my point that conservative pundits give greater support to Israel than liberal ones do. It’s just obvious to anyone who wastes as much time as I do reading them.”
And I fully stand by the fact that I never suggested otherwise; but “pundits” are one thing, editors a different matter, reporters also different, and what politicians actually say and do yet another matter still.
You simply have no subtlety, december. You think in broad strokes and are all but incapable of seeing things in a new light.
This is obvious to anyone who wastes as much time reading your posts as I have today. 