When Noam Chomsky thinks the Left has gone too far, it’s probably time for some reassessment. The famed intellectual and linguistic philosopher wrote an article last year in The Nation condemning the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment from Israel movement [BDS]. The article, however, was no endorsement for the policies of the State of Israel: In the article, “On Israel-Palestine and BDS”, Chomsky still criticized Israel’s “reactionary nationalist tide” that has devastated Palestine, disenfranchised Arab-Israelis, and shakes Israel (already fragile) republicanism.

Chomsky outlines multiple reasons for why BDS is a bad idea. One, the people who will suffer most from a boycott, embargo, etc. will not be the Israeli military, or the far-right businessmen and nationalists who support them. It would be Palestinians, and to a lesser extent, poor Israelis, including Arab-Israelis. When the spigot of trade goes dry, it is the workers who suffer, not the capitalists.

Second, the point of any campaign against Israeli occupation should be based on ending the occupation, while many BDS activists have the stated goal of delegitimizing Israel entirely. Chomsky, an anarchist, believes the state itself is a bit of a crime; but in an international state system, he says, it is hardly fair to attempt to destroy any state.

Finally, and inevitably, the parallels to South Africa are brought up. Admittedly, there are some disturbing similarities between South African apartheid and Israeli occupation. However, BDS advocates will put forward the idea that sanctions (vetoed by our sainted President Reagan) destroyed the apartheid regime. This argument ignores the near-continuous struggle by the African National Congress and other groups for over half a century to bring equality to South Africa. It ignores the tens of thousands of ANC (and Cuban) activists and soldiers who died fighting apartheid. These people were responsible for De Klerk’s fall and Mandela’s rise, not the sanctions brought against South Africa by the rest of the world, though they may have helped.

If, heaven willing, a just and peaceful agreement is ever reached between Israel and the Palestinians, it would be arrogant to give credit to BDS activists. It is self-congratulatory and arrogant to believe that boycotting Tel Aviv University is the masterstroke that will defeat the occupation.

There are also concerning hints of anti-Semitism in the campaign to delegitimize Israel. I have never said, and never will say, that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic. That is ridiculous. But I have heard Judaism referred to as a “brutal” religion (as though the others weren’t!), and been told to “step off” when talking about the issue and raising my anti-nationalist, two-state stance. I’ve heard blatantly anti-Semitic statements disguised by calling out “Zionists” and “Israelis” instead of Jews. The mistaken question put to Bernie Sanders about his nonexistent Israeli citizenship contained a dark undertone as well. The reason I bring these things to light is not to point fingers, but to indicate that we, as social justice advocates, need a better paradigm on this issue.

A potential solution to this problem, I believe, is to shift our focus from boycotting and “punishing” Israel to supporting progressive forces within Israel and Palestine. Israel is home to many leftist organizations open to, or in clear support of, peace with the Palestinians. These include Peace Now (which itself is opposed to BDS), and the Geneva Initiative.

Palestine, too, has progressive voices. The constant tension, and the human rights abuses committed by both Hamas and Fatah (no one has elected Mahmoud Abbas in a decade) has overshadowed groups like the Palestinian Democratic Union and the Palestinian People’s Party. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Left has been in decline for some time and exerts only a tiny influence on Palestinian society. Still, these are people whose ideas reflect our own: democracy, good government, and racial and economic equality. Perhaps foreign support could help them become more prominent. Or, perhaps, the nominally leftist Fatah is not completely lost: If reformed to become an actually democratic party, Fatah might be a force for peace and social justice.

Finally, as citizens of Israel’s most important patron, the USA, we are in a unique position to affect Israeli policy. We should not adopt an isolationist stance, attempting to end support to Israel because “my tax dollars shouldn’t fund them.” We should use our financial sway over Israel (not to mention the Palestinian Authority, to whom the United States also gives half a billion dollars annually) to bring this horrible conflict to an end. I said above that international support cannot end the conflict alone; this is true, but the United States can certainly make inroads towards a just peace, as a left-wing Israeli noted recently. I would tie this in with my earlier comments by asserting that the way towards peace is through supporting progressive Israelis and Palestinians, not through undermining the State of Israel.

The post Instead of BDS, support progressives in Israel and Palestine appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Social media speculation is hypocritical on a number of issues, but Israel is a particular example. The “Fuck Israel” Facebook pages and posts grew over the summer, when Israel’s brutal crackdown (as well as Hamas’s enabling of and seeming indifference to it) took the lives of more than a thousand Palestinians. First, note the insolence of saying “Fuck Israel,” instead of a measured criticism of the security apparatus in a country where many oppose the occupation as much as outside activists do. Second, these angry social media messages disappeared a few weeks after Israel’s mortars stopped. People seem willing to criticize Israeli crimes, but not to understand or comment upon the complex factors that make the violence possible.

With this in mind, Israel’s interior politics are about to get interesting. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of a “center-right” (read: ultraconservative, religious and nationalist) coalition, fired two of his governing partners: Yair Lapid, a Jon Stewart-like former TV journalist and centrist Minister of Finance, and Tzipi Livni, Minister of Justice and a leading voice for the two-state solution. He justified the firings with the assertion that he would “no longer tolerate opposition from within the government.”

Meanwhile. Netanyahu has veered even farther right, as represented by two crucial steps: His patronage of a “Jewish State” bill, which would symbolically alienate Arab Israelis, Palestinians, and other Gentiles, and his unwavering support for Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Neither of these actions bode particularly well for the peace process, or for moving towards Israel’s ideal of a “Jewish and democratic state”.
Netanyahu’s inability to engage with the US and President Obama in particular, who has potential as a moderating force in the peace process, is also threatening the security of both Israel and Palestine. This, however, did have the added benefit of causing an amusing scandal in which an unnamed US official described Netanyahu as “chicken-shit.” Bibi was not amused.

All of this will probably lead Netanyahu to attempt to form an even farther-right coalition to win the upcoming elections, bolstered by Orthodox Jewish extremists and ultranationalists. Opposing him is Isaac Herzog and his Labor Party, who has called for Tzipi Livni and others to help him form a center-left coalition to defeat Netanyahu. Recall that many of the peace process’s tangible gains have taken place under Labor administrations, such as Yitzhak Rabin’s Oslo Accords in the 1990s.

Those on the left interested in the Palestinian cause must take note of more than just Israel’s crimes. If there is any hope at attaining peace, it comes from Netanyahu’s defeat in the upcoming elections. Instead of spouting useless and rather offensive anti-Israel slogans, peace advocates should support the Israeli left. They have the potential to be the torchbearers of a better Israel and Palestine.

The post Israel’s elections: Crucial to understanding the conflict’s future appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When I watched Obama’s first speech on his plans to go after ISIS (now ISIL), I felt physically ill. As I watched his strange robotic body language, my own body told me he was lying. He is not going after ISIL. ISIL is an excuse to start another war in Iraq, and effect regime change in Syria. The ultimate plan is to regain control of Iraqi assets, depose Assad and install a US puppet in Damascus.

I say “he” but I don’t know if it is Obama who is starting a war, or John Brennan, director of the CIA. It’s not clear to me who, exactly, is calling the shots when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and military involvements abroad. As we all know by now, John Kerry has directly contradicted Obama is some press statements. The State Department was heavily involved in fomenting the Ukraine coup as was the CIA. Just prior to Kiev initiating the violence against the separatists in the East, John Brennan was there advising the newly installed puppets. Is State or Langley in charge? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who is calling the shots. I find what Obama was saying about ISIL and US involvement in Iraq and Syria to be completely untrustworthy.

Comedy exposes the truth

Comedians, like Jon Stewart, John Oliver and the UK’s Russell Brand have a way of cutting to the chase, to the truth of a situation. We watch them because they are incredibly funny, but we also watch them to hear the truth. It’s their expression of the unvarnished truth, and our ability to recognize it that makes their comedy so powerful. It’s no surprise that many people get their news from the “Daily Show” or “Last Week Tonight.”

In the following 13 minute video, Russell Brand analyzes Obama’s speech, sentence by sentence, something we should all do when watching him or any other politician on the evening news. Brand shows how to deconstruct what is said, practice critical thinking, and trust your gut when something doesn’t sound right.

Obama was elected to office through the cynical manufacturing of a personality cult where, starry eyed, we all filled in the blanks in his vague, platitude filled speeches. Brand teaches us to lose the Obama worship and really listen to what he is saying—and not saying.

Brand’s cockney accent might take a little getting used to but it’s worth struggling with to hear what he has to say. His YouTube channel is called “Russell Brand: The Trews” He uploads daily, Monday through Friday.

Here’s his .47 second introduction to his channel:”Welcome to the Trews”

And here’s his commentary on Obama’s ISIL speech, “Will Obama’s Bombs Stop Beheadings?”

The post Russell Brand analyzes Obama’s ISIS/ISIL war speech appeared first on Occasional Planet.

By now, the world has heard about the so-called caliphate set up around Mosul in Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now simply calling itself the Islamic State (IS). The Telegraph reported that during its offensive against the precarious Iraqi state, the IS has executed more than a thousand civilians and wounded a thousand more. In areas under its control, it has restored a degree of order, but also implemented an extremist interpretation of Shari’a law so brutal that both al-Qaeda and Hamas are said to have balked. It is also worth noting that the caliphates of early Islam, upon which the IS is based, were hardly ever this arbitrary or intolerant. Regardless of historical precedent, however, most would agree that the rise of ISIS is both a humanitarian crisis and a tragedy. However, it also represents an opportunity.

This opportunity rests with the fact that major actors across the region all have a vested interest in seeing the IS defeated. For a useful visual representation of this, observe the helpful Middle East Friendship Chart, published by Slate. By Slate’s estimation, the IS has no major allies in the region, and more than a few enemies. The most immediate beneficiaries of the creation of the Islamic State have been the Iraqi Kurds. As Baghdad has pivoted towards dealing with the IS, the Iraqi Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga, has gained control of Kirkuk and other oil-rich areas. However, should Maliki’s government in Baghdad fall, the Kurds could be forced into conflict with a strengthened Islamic State. By assisting Iraq, the Kurds have a chance to win from them a peaceful separation or partial autonomy, a chance they would certainly not have under the hegemony of the Islamic State. There is evidence that this antagonism between the Kurds and the IS has started to crystallize anyway: BBC reports that the occupation of Kirkuk will probably draw the Kurdish Peshmerga into the fight against ISIS, and the militia has even been training female fighters to assist in the defense of Kirkuk.
Turkey, too, has a direct conflict with the IS: It has kidnapped over two dozen Turkish diplomats, including the Turkish consul. Turkey could also strengthen its ties with its Kurdish population. The decades-long war between Turkey and a Kurdish insurgency ended in 2012; that peace could be solidified through an alliance with Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi state against the Islamic State.

Iran, too, has much to gain from an anti-ISIS stance. The Islamic Republic, ideologically, is most likely concerned for the Shi’a in Iraq: the IS is extremely anti-Shia. Videos even show IS fighters rejoicing once they realize their executed victims were Shia. In more pragmatic terms, Iran should act to stabilize its western neighbor. A destabilized Iraq is simply more trouble than it is worth for Iran. The administration of President Hassan Rouhani may have realized this: Slate reports that Iran and the United States, bitter enemies only a few years ago, are “now tacitly cooperating in helping the Iraqi military fight ISIS”. Of course, there is also the matter of the United States, which has plenty of reasons to prop up Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Baghdad government. The failure of the Iraqi nation-building project would be a major blow to imperial prestige.

The Obama administration in particular, having presided over the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, should hold an interest in maintaining stability for purely political reasons, if nothing else. However, direct military intervention is ill-advised: Regardless of the righteous, or not so righteous, intentions of the United States, the most probable result of military intervention is chaos. If the United States is to play any role at all in the defeat of the IS, it should be a backseat role, one of organizing coalitions and supporting alliances. Fortunately, this appears to be the way things are unfolding: President Obama and Secretary Kerry have opted for a soft-power, hands-off approach. This, alongside support from regional powers, might spell the end for the Islamic State.

The triple crises of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Syrian Civil War, and the rise of the IS continue to rock the Middle East. We can anticipate that the first two crises will be protracted and bloody. However, the Islamic State is not an undefeatable problem: if the interested powers in the region are willing to work together for long-term stability, they may be able to put an end to the Mosul caliphate and its inhumane policies. This cooperation is perhaps not a likely scenario; but it is a possible course of action, and one the powers that be of the region would be wise to consider.

The post ISIS: A tragedy, but also an opportunity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

While waiting for a connecting flight in the Dallas, Texas, airport, I witnessed a woman turn to a man and ask him to watch her luggage so she could go peruse about some of the shops. The man answered in playful banter, “Well, as long as you’re not a terrorist…” The woman laughed and replied in her Southern accent, “No, it’s okay, I’m Israeli.” The two chuckled, and the woman, who was not an Israeli, but an American, named the US location she was actually from. The topic changed, and the woman got her dose of pre-flight shopping. I balked.

Yes, this actually happened.

In about 15 seconds, this exchange summed up the extreme bias apparent in US mainstream media and discourse on the topic of Israel and Palestine. “No, it’s okay, I’m Israeli” as an answer to “Are you a terrorist?” exposes the subconscious notion harbored by many Americans:  that Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim are interchangeable terms that all equal “terrorist”.

If more Americans knew the reality of life in the West Bank or Gaza, they might just be whistling a different tune.

Terror, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder

Let’s examine the events of December 12^th, when a teenage boy was shot dead at a checkpoint near the West Bank city of Hebron. When demonstrators gathered to protest the controversial, premature death of seventeen-year-old Muhammad Ziad Awad Salaymah, they were met with live rounds of ammunition and tear gas, in the country that labels itself the most democratic nation in the Middle East. In the same story Al Jazeera reported that it is commonplace for “Israeli soldiers [to] use rubber-coated metal bullets, tear gas bombs and stun grenades against non-violent protesters in the West Bank – in addition to spraying them with water mixed with chemicals. These tactics have led to the injuries of hundreds and even several deaths among protesters.”

Concerned for the safety of innocent civilians in Gaza, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon spoke of the most recent wave of violence to break out between Israel and Hamas this past November. By the time a ceasefire was reached “more than 139 Palestinians had been killed, more than 70 of them civilians, and more than 900 were injured. In addition, some 10,000 Palestinians had lost their homes.” To the grieving family members who lost loved ones or homes, and to those whose lives have been forever altered by a debilitating injury, the Israeli military is the terrorist.

While I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, one can hardly call peaceful protesters in the West Bank a threat to Israeli existence. “Shoot first, ask later” tactics at checkpoints also serve no peace-keeping purpose, but rather spark outrage and increase tensions in an already tense region. And shelling such a densely populated area as Gaza when Israel has the resources and technology to carry out targeted assassinations with drones, mass killings of civilians are not self-defense.

In a 2009 statement, the Secretary of Press boasted of President Obama’s pro-Israel stance, quoting Obama’s speech before the United Nations, “the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance – it’s injustice.”

It should also be said that “the slaughter of innocent Palestinians is not self-defense – it’s injustice.”

Who starts the peace process?

Again, US impressions of who must begin the peace process are skewed in favor of Israel.

Many Americans rightly wonder, “How can you negotiate with an entity that has sworn your destruction?” as did this Baltimore Sun reader in his response to an editorial stating that perhaps the successful statehood bid would make Israel resume the peace process. He asserted that, “The pressure should be on the Palestinians and Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself from constant aggression by the Palestinians.”

Bill Maher boasted a similar opinion in an interview with Jewish Journal’s blog Hollywood Jew.

HJ: Why are you more on the side of Israelis?

BM: Take this conflict; here, everyone in the newspapers, the pundits, they talk about it like it’s very complicated. It’s not that complicated: Stop firing rockets into Israel and perhaps they won’t annihilate you.”

While I agree that Hamas needs to stop firing rockets into Israel, both Halikman and Maher’s gross oversimplifications ignore the realities of systematic Israeli aggression against Palestinians. Like the majority of American citizens and politicians, they fail to ask equal questions of Israel.

They confuse the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, but more than anything, they willfully woefully ignore the baseline inequality between Israeli and Palestinian existence.

What’s fair is fair

The West Bank and Gaza are territories. One lives under occupation and the other under blockade. The Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, “governs” the West Bank to the extent that it can, although it does not have control of its borders and does not collect and distribute its own taxes. Hamas, the group that rules in Gaza, is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization rather than a legitimate source of authority, although some Israeli columnists propose that this assessment change.

Israel, meanwhile, is a full-fledged nation. Please note that because Israel is exclusively a Jewish State, Palestinians living in Israel do not enjoy the full civil rights endowed to their fellow Jewish citizens. Israelis are free to exit and re-enter their nation. Palestinians are not.

Mere existence is a struggle even for Bedouin communities within Israel like Al-Arakib, where families who have lived on the land for years play a constant cat and mouse game as they continue to rebuild the homes the Israeli Lands Administration continues to destroy.

Palestinians in the West Bank are deprived access to water and can face forced illegal eviction at a moment’s notice like the residents of The Firing Zone. Or in Gaza, where people live “free” of occupation, but under a blockade that allows in aid packages containing slightly less calories than the amount each person needs to survive.

Both sides have certainly alternated playing the role of instigator and victim. Both sides have done wrong, but the situation is far from equal.

The largest hold-ups to peace talks have been Israel’s refusal to halt settlement building and Palestine’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s existence. While Palestinian refusal to acknowledge Israel’s existence is a static mindset that is not carried out in action, Israeli settlement building is an action that continues to change the Palestinian landscape and even the viability of a separate Palestinian state.

Forget the rhetoric, and look at what’s happening on the ground. The Palestinian territories are disappearing, and have been disappearing over the past 50 years, as can be seen in the map below.

If given the option to choose between the peace process or continued expansion, which does Israel choose? Immediately after the successful Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, Netanyahu announced plans to move forward developing settlements in the highly contentious E1 section of East Jerusalem, splitting the West Bank in two by separating Ramallah and Bethlehem, and cutting off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem. As the two-state solution envisions East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, settlement development in E1 would serve the final deathblow to the two-state solution.

Does Israel recognize the Palestinian right to exist?

Why do I care about Israel-Palestine?

I’m not Israeli and I’m not Palestinian. I know people on both sides and I consider myself an ally to those pursuing peace and equality. I stand in solidarity with Palestinians seeking their full civil rights and with Israelis yearning for an end to inequality and violence. But I also know that this is not my fight to fight, and not my country’s fight to fight. We have plenty to take care of at home, as the shocking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut has shown us.

Thomas Friedman recently wrote an opinion column in the New York Times entitled “My President is Busy.” Friedman continues, “Soon Americans will be asked to pay more taxes for less government. It’s coming. It will not make us isolationists, but it will change our mood and make us much pickier about where we’ll get involved. That means only a radical change by Palestinians or Israelis will get us to fully re-engage.”

While Mr. Friedman makes an excellent point that once Americans are hit in the wallet, we might look at foreign aid with an enhanced level of scrutiny, his notion of “re-engage”-ing with the topic of Israel-Palestine ignores the US role in the conflict. If we’re speaking about the US public conscience, then yes, only radical changes will bring Israel-Palestine back to the forefront of our political discussions — and the conflict in Gaza and UN Statehood Bid have certainly done that. However, the US is already very much engaged in the conflict. We fund 20% of the Israeli military… with US taxpayer dollars.

So, why should Americans care about the situation in Israel and Palestine? Because we are involved in it.

Our military aid packages to Israel total billions annually (the amount for 2012 was $3 billion) and are dispersed not in installments as they are for all other nations receiving US foreign aid, but in one lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year. Israel is the VIP aid recipient, receiving US taxpayer money not only to purchase (American) weapons to strengthen their military but to also fund research to develop their own weapons industry. Israel is now one of the lead arms exporters in the world. More details about US foreign aid to Israel can be found in the Congressional Report on US Foreign Aid to Israel.

As an American tax-payer, I do not want my tax-payer dollars to go towards bolstering Israeli military strength. Strength that is used to perpetuate an unequal situation. Strength that is used to fire live ammunition at protesters. Strength that is used to shoot teenage “threats” to Israeli existence at checkpoints in the West Bank.

I do not want my tax-payer dollars funding a country that does not hold their soldiers accountable for killing innocent civilians or peaceful US activists like Rachel Corrie, who was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer.

How to proceed?

Currently, Americans, or rather our representatives in Washington, must make tough choices about what we fund and what we cut. Instead of cutting funding for social services and entitlements, I would love to hear our Congress call into question the amount of US military aid sent to Israel.

I agree with the stance of many Middle East peace groups in requesting the following in an open letter to President Obama:

“Israel, the biggest long-term recipient of US aid, should not be above the law. Mr. President, please condition US aid to Israel on compliance with US and international law. It must not be used to violate the rights of Palestinians.

Anything less is a danger to Palestinians, to Israelis, to Americans and to the entire world.”

We can’t afford to fund world actors who are acting counter to US interests in the world. Israel, recipient of up to three billion in USAID annually, is continuing to advance policies that harm rather than help our strategic interests in the region and undermine our moral authority. The mission statement of the US Department of State is as follows:

 “Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system.”

I think we should re-assess the extent to which our unconditional, no strings attached aid packages to Israel carry out these goals.

We do not solve old problems by approaching them the same way that has failed and continues to fail. We must rejuvenate our approach to issues by trying new tactics. I respect the fact that Mahmoud Abbas pushed the envelope and forced the issue of Palestinian statehood with Israel. The majority of the United Nations thought so as well. And now, South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress has voted to join the BDS movement. The world is beginning to act.

Now is the time for the US to remind Israel of the definition of democracy and perhaps give the necessary nudge towards a lasting peace that empowers all. It’s about time we see some action that reflects the rhetoric about wanting peace. A good friend will tell you what you need to hear, even when you don’t want to hear it. The United States, as Israel’s number one ally, must step into this role, and save Israel not from the Palestinians, but from itself.

The post Tax dollars at work: American foreign aid to Israel appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The real-world, political/military/cultural conflict between Israel and its neighbors is bad, and the war inside my head is getting worse. Israel and I are roughly the same age, and in my early Sunday-school years, I was inculcated with post-Holocaust grief and pro-Israel pride. Jews and Israel were the underdogs who, after centuries of persecution, got justice and a permanent place to live. Like others similarly educated, I felt solidarity with Israel and supported its clear need to defend itself against neighbors who vowed to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Solidarity with Israel has been an article of faith for American Jews during my lifetime. I never quite understood the confusing inner workings of Israeli parliamentary politics, but that didn’t matter to me, because I had been taught to see the very existence of the country itself as a moral victory. I didn’t look at Israel objectively, because I didn’t know how to, and I could justify to myself that I didn’t need to. I found myself drawn to Israeli music, dancing and language; I visited the country and cultivated Israeli friends along the way. Even when I moved away from religion, my cultural and emotional connection to Israel endured.

But that connection puts me in conflict with contemporary American liberal dogma. Others who share my liberal American politics have been much more openly critical of many of Israel’s internal and external policies. They call for an end to Israeli “apartheid” against Palestinians. They feel solidarity with Palestinians, call for an end to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, and are outraged that a nation born from persecution has become, itself, a persecutor. I see their point.

On the other hand, official Judaism—by which I mean Jewish congregations—has maintained a wall of solidarity with Israel. Jewish religious schools are still teaching the iconic “Israel-made-the-desert-bloom” curriculum. Criticism of Israel from the pulpit is rare, and when it occurs, it’s highly controversial. Before I quit religion, I had been there, too.

Along the religious spectrum, the more observant factions of official Judaism support—ostensibly on religious and historical grounds—the expansion of Israel into the ancient lands that they call Judea and Samaria. I can’t go that far. Those views strike me as religious fanaticism that’s not very different from the extreme, dogmatic ideologies of neighboring middle eastern religions. I wonder, sometimes, if the political power of Israel’s extreme religious right—clout that helps keep Benjamin Netanyahu in office—has helped push Israel into becoming more of a middle-eastern tribe and less of a European nation.

Geopolitically, I still maintain that Israel—like every nation—has the right to defend itself. However, I think it’s fairly obvious that a two-state solution is the only way out—even though—geez—how do you negotiate a two-state solution when one of the potential powers—in this case, Hamas– has vowed to destroy the other as soon as possible.  It also concerns me that, while the abject poverty in Gaza is morally indefensible, you can’t help but notice that most Arab regimes have done virtually nothing to help create an economy there, preferring to keep the Palestinian issue hot, as a way of distracting their own populations from the failings of their own governments. Not to mention that, for many years, Palestinian school kids looked at maps of the middle east that didn’t even show Israel as a country. I’ve got as much of a problem with that as I have with the Israel-can-do-no-wrong propaganda I was fed as a child.

Some of my Israeli friends are peace-niks who have left Israel because it’s–understandably–very difficult to live and raise your kids in a permanent state of war. Others are adamantly pro anything Israel does to defend itself. Some—who have become U.S. citizens—are absolutely convinced that President Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Many base their vote for U.S. President on the single issue of who’s “best for Israel.” They won’t budge on these ideas, so when I see that conversation starting, I try to politely disagree and then move on.

It’s complicated, confusing–even Talmudic, to use a religious image.  I see merits in some of the arguments on all sides and in between. My head hurts from fighting with itself over these things. And now it’s worse, because Benjamin Netanyahu has made it so.

His latest move—approving more settlements in the already contended West Bank—came just days after the U.S. stood up for Israel in the U.N. in opposition to a status upgrade for the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s decision is an arrogant, angry, in-your-face, move that further isolates Israel in world opinion. I know, I know, Israel has always been isolated, and it can argue that, if they’re going to hate you no matter what you do, you might as well do what you see as in your own interest. I get that argument, too. So, now, with all the other meshugas in my head,  I have to try to separate my anger at a right-wing Israeli politician from my lifelong—and continuing—support for the existence and defense of the state of Israel.

I’m dancing as fast as I can. But I’m having trouble keeping pace with the back-and-forth rhythms in my brain.

The post Israel: One person’s inner conflict appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Sam Seder, guest host on September 15 of MSNBC’s Up  w/Chris Hayes, provided an informative survey of recent news from the Middle East and moderated a good discussion on the current uprisings taking place across the Muslim world. An interesting point made by one panelist: Not everything happening in the Middle East is a reaction to the United States. There are specific political struggles and conditions unique to each nation. Another guest reminded viewers that the Muslim people are experiencing tremendous upheaval and transition, while still traumatized by decades of dictatorship. Another insight: The anti-Muslim film was a pretext to violence in Libya rather than its sole cause.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The post What’s going on in the Middle East? appeared first on Occasional Planet.