It would be disingenuous or blind of me to reject any influence of my personal identifications on this subject. However, I think my arguments themselves can be engaged on their own merits. Historically, my political sympathies in Israel have been with Labor, and decidedly anti-Likud. There are reasons, though, that the formation of Kadima was possible, and that such a historic Labor figure as Shimon Peres felt comfortable in it. There are reasons why Ehud Barak could align with Ehud Olmert on Gaza in 2008. One prejudicial explanation, offered by Andrew Sullivan, in response to Wieseltier, is some “moral slide” by Israel. (Glad all of the other nations of the world are upholding their moral character sufficiently to warrant no special attention and mention in his list of policy passions – one of, in fact, Wieseltier’s points.) Another explanation is to cease conceiving Palestinian behavior as meteorology. It isn’t a question of being critical of Israel: it’s a matter of how one is critical: the nature of the rhetoric and emphasis, the nature of the company and the cited authorities, the forces and movements aligned with by virtue of those first two considerations.

As to Ron Paul, just when I thought I had a sense of where you are politically, I see I’m back to the political calculator.

I have a strong preference for Israel and the whole region to live in peace. Is it not possible to believe that there are policies that Israel could pursue that would lead to a better prospect of that outcome? Currently, Israel is not on any path to peace.

It seems as though it is the contemporary Israeli political system that has resigned itself to endless war. The frustration and discouragement is understandable and yet it would be more productive to find a way to keep hope alive that peace is possible.

To me, your reasoning here seems different from the reasoning I see you apply to other questions. It seems as though you are identified with the political team of Israel and you the political prospects for that team as precarious. So, any criticism of Israeli policies is perceived as betrayal of the political team.

Even though I identify as a Zionist, I don’t share that perspective. Perhaps because I perceive Israel’s political status as secure.

A pair of minor reactions: you say the 90s became the 00s not because of what Israel did. I reacted that this idea overlooked the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin. From the shadow of that event, we might infer that there are political forces within the Israeli polity that are violent.

Also, I perceive Ron Paul to have a coherent philosophy of public policy. I don’t agree with it. But I find him to be less of a cracked pot than any given Republican leader who I perceive to be rehearsing a set of incoherent slogans to mask an agenda that has little to do with public policy.

On a minor note, I perceive Ron Paul to have an actual coherent conservative political philosophy. I don’t agree with it. But he actually seems capable of thinking about pubic policy. He seems altogether

The fact is, ever since the United States became engaged in the Middle East after World War II, Israel has time and again been singled out as a threat to U.S. interests.

Here are just a few examples over the last 20 years of when Israel was declared to be a “strategic liability”:

http://www.thejudeosphere.com/?p=498