Contemporary Germany is sometimes criticized. No one is calling for its abolition. The Catholic Church is criticized quite a bit; does anyone seriously think one billion Catholics are imperiled? Likewise the Muslim world; there are many hundreds of millions of Arabs, and more than a billion Muslims worldwide; they are not going anywhere. We like to make fun of the French--but no one is saying France ought to eradicated, or that French people are murderers and should be eliminated. Black people are victims of perpetual racism, and yet black people are not going to disappear, and neither are the nations of sub-Saharan Africa, or the Caribbean, where people of African heritage form a majority. It's not to say they aren't victimized, or that they don't suffer tragedies. Only that they do not have cause for existential angst, for wondering if they will have descendants, posterity, a place in the future.

Now, as for the Jews: Our sole homeland, on our historic toothpick of land, is incessantly, loudly declared illegitimate. And Jews themselves are impugned, our character is impugned, our loyalty called into question in the Diaspora. And we constitute a tiny percentage of the world's population. And there have been numerous attempts to finish us off.

If you can't understand why we get a little tetchy about books, movie stars and bloggers arguing that we're the principal source of evil in the world, then you are not capable of empathy.

...What Israel needs is a leader who will step forward and say, "Here is the way things should look," and then present an outline for the creation of a viable Palestine. The settlers will go nuts, but that's what they do. Hamas will go nuts, because that's what it does. But Hounshell is right: What is needed is a Rabin. I tend to think that Netanyahu has the potential to be this leader. Maybe it's more a hope than a reality at this point, but only someone from the right can bring the majority of Israelis to the painful compromises that are obviously necessary. And, to make the obvious point, one of the reasons this compromise is necessary is because American public opinion is one of Israel's most important battlegrounds.

...And he doesn't recognize, at least from what I've read so far, that his analysis of the Middle East crisis is consistently and rather wildly one-sided. For instance, he recently wrote, "Without a permanent cessation of such (settlement) activity, there's no way to get the two sides together. But Israel simply refuses to cooperate, as it has refused for two decades in its land-grab." I'm opposed to all settlements, just as Andrew is, but it is silly to argue that for two decades Israel has simply refused to cooperate. By the end of the Camp David talks, Israel was ready to cede roughly 90 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians. By the Taba round, more than 95 percent. Recently, the former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, made -- as an opening gambit -- an offer of 97 percent of the West Bank, plus land swaps. These offers were rejected by Israel's Palestinian interlocutors. And of course, Israel unilaterally reversed its land-grab in Gaza by forcibly evacuating eight thousand settlers there in 2005 (and it evacuated four West Bank settlements at the same time). But these are facts you will no longer learn on Andrew's blog.

The New Israel Fund, which does extraordinary work in Israel, has recently come under attack for supporting -- this is my interpretation -- anti-Likud NGOs...

...The New Israel Fund, of which I'm a supporter, advocates for civil liberties, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights and religious pluralism, and yes, it's a supporter of the idea that Israel should be a haven for Jews. I've had numerous arguments with its former director, my friend Larry Garber, about a few of the groups NIF has supported, those whose leaders argue for a repeal of the Law of Return, or for soft one-statism. I don't like those groups very much, but it is my impression that they represent only a small portion of the funding work of NIF. Mainly, the New Israel Fund supports groups that work to ensure that Israel remains a democracy, and it surely represents American Jewish values of tolerance, pluralism and diversity, as well as support for Israel as a Jewish state.

[A young man walks into a bar in Scotland and sees an old-timer sitting at the bar with a long face. "What's wrong old fella?" he asks.]

The Old Man says, "Lad, look out there to the field. Do ya see that fence? Look how well it's built. I built that fence stone by stone with me own two hands. I piled it for months."

"But do they call me McGreggor-the-Fence-Builder? Nooo..."

Then the old man gestured at the bar. "Look here at the bar. Do ya see how smooth and just it is? I planed that surface down by me own achin' back. I carved that wood with me own hard labour, for eight days."

"But do they call me McGreggor-the-Bar-builder? Nooo..."

Then the old man points out the window. "Eh, Laddy, look out to sea...Do ya see that pier that stretches out as far as the eye can see? I built that pier with the sweat off me back. I nailed it board by board."

"But do they call me McGreggor-the-Pier-Builder? Nooo..."

Then the old man looks around nervously, trying to make sure no one is paying attention.

"But ya fuck one goat..."

Shamai Leibowitz was at American University on a full scholarship as a NIF Fellow at a time of his divestment activism in Somerville, MA. It was on NIF dime that Leibowitz traveled to Boston at that time and worked as a spokesperson for the Somerville Divestment Project.

During that period, Larry Garber, then new NIF director, had an appearance at Harvard University. During the Q&A period, he was specifically asked about Leibowitz' divestment activism in Somerville. Garber acknowledged his familiarity with Leibowitz' activities, but expressed not an iota of concern or a disagreement.

It was only much later, after the damage was already done, that NIF leadership changed its tune somewhat under the pressure from the Boston Jewish Community.