This comment, from the Advocate article, says it all:

"One could continue with this wearisome display of internal Jewish hysteria. If non-Jews uttered these barbarities, we would not hesitate to call them anti-Semites."

Shouldn't this be a bedrock standard? If a comment is so heinous that we wouldn't hesitate to react against it were a non-Jew to utter it, then why should Jews be allowed similar statements without reproach?

I wonder at the ridiculous ease with which history and reality are so blithely ignored by some representatives of a people whose prime legacy may in fact be a deep sense of history and a high regard for truth. Is it a combination of living in an ivory tower, a safe Western state, and some overstretched sense of one's own "moral superiority", that makes it so easy to condemn what is in fact a relatively progressive state trying to survive in a very nearly impossible situation?

And if Israel is "bad for the Jews," then what was the Shoah? What was so "good for the Jews" about stateless Diaspora, with no possibility of self-defense, no safe haven, no self-determination and opportunity to live as anything other than a vulnerable, despised minority?

I think these people are nuts.

And I'll go a step further: the people who should be speaking loudest against such blindness, are my fellow Leftists.

Why? Because we as a group despise attacks on minorities, we despise stereotyping and theoretically, we despise violence. Why doesn't that include war and terrorism against Israel, or the demonization of her and her people, or calls for her destruction, along with the inevitable human rights catastrophe that would ensue?

I believe the Left has in fact been co-opted by the ghosts of the most evil aspects of the far Right and that's a real philosophical disaster, and one which the current attacks against Israel are bringing to light. In fact, we see far too many so-called Leftists, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, buying into extreme totalitarian philosophies and cant.

Enough is enough. It's time to rebalance the scales and stand up for what's rational, honorable and right - and that doesn't include advocating "divine victory" over a democratic state which is itself composed primarily of victims and their descendants.

"Progressives", a word with less bagage than "Leftist" are just returning to their "proud" history of 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

"The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact or German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact or Nazi-Soviet Pact and formally known as the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a non-aggression treaty between the German Third Reich and the Soviet Union."

Eddie:
Your point really isn’t a compelling one. Everyone knows about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but the fact that Stalin supported a treaty with the Nazis is hardly heavy baggage for today’s “progressives.” Outside of a few Russians pining for the good old days, there have been no Stalinists left in the world since the 1950s. That pact is no reflection on present-day progressives, whether they be liberals or left-wingers.

Sophia:
"And I'll go a step further: the people who should be speaking loudest against such blindness, are my fellow Leftists"

Not necessarily. It depends on how one sees the story. Most on the Left do not see Israel as the underdog, but as the oppressor. I think that there are historically five major factors that made the Left lose its sympathy for Israel:

1. The first factor was when the Soviet Union turned against Israel in the late forties or early fifties. It's true that the Western Left no longer took the USSR seriously by the 1960s (although some still preferred it to the USA), but the idea of anti-Zionism had been firmly placed within the left-wing lexicon, even if it took a long time before most of the Left would accept it wholeheartedly.

2. The second was the rise of the Third World as a focal point for left-wing idealism. The New Left replaced the Old Left. East-West issues were replaced by North-South issues, especially as the Vietnam War was winding down. Now the focus wasn't class politics but anti-imperialism, and it was easy to fit Israel into this framework as a bad guy: The Israelis could be seen as European colonialists and the Arabs as the indigenous people of Palestine. A crude and distorted image certainly, but one that took hold because it didn't require very much knowledge of the region, was endorsed by prestigious sources, and seemed to fit into a broader pattern of world history.

3. The third factor was the Six Day War. What prevented left-wing anti-Zionism from taking hold faster than it did among the Left was the formidable heritage of the Holocaust and of the philo-Semitism that harked back to the pre-War days, when the Jews were the most visibly persecuted minority in Europe and were often associated with progressive intellectual currents there. The Jew was the classic Underdog. And as the Jew was the Underdog in Europe, Israel was seen as the Underdog in the Middle East, heroically struggling to survive against powerful foes. That ended with the Six Day War, when it was Israel that emerged triumphant. Anti-Zionism may have been latent for some on the Left, just waiting for the right moment to come out. It may have been a new reaction for others. But I think the Six Day War was the tipping point. I think that many people held their breath during the war, hoping Israel would not lose, and then they condemned Israel in the months or years that followed.

4. The fourth factor was Israel's alliance with the U.S. The memories of Israel's socialist and humanist roots have faded, as have the memories of Israel's initially close relations with the Soviet bloc (I believe that Israel got much of its early weaponry from Czechoslovakia, at the behest of the USSR). As an ally of the US, Israel was on the "wrong" side of the Cold War, and the Arabs naturally aligned with the "right" side, whether that meant the Soviet Union or the non-aligned states of the Third World. Forgotten was the fact that Arab nationalism was anti-imperialistic but not traditionally left-wing. In a similar vein, the alliance of the fundamentalist Christians to Israel is like a nail in the coffin of Israeli respectability. Not to cast aspersions on those Christians who honestly and unselfishly sympathize with Israel, but fundamentalist Christians are nevertheless the laughing stock of the developed world, a prime example of American ignorance and even backwardness. Contrast this with the coolness toward Israel of the more established and prestigious churches. Many people ridicule this alliance, and see it as another sign that being enthusiastically pro-Israel is just not normal for well-educated and well-informed minds.

5. The fifth factor was Israel's own behavior, some of it understandable, some of it not. The occupation was gentle at first, but when violent resistance emerged Israel responded violently. Whatever Israel's security needs were, this was a disaster for Israel's image in the world, and that image took further terrible hits with the 1982 Lebanon War and the two Intifadas. You couldn't argue so easily that Israel was miscast in an oppressor's role; it seemed to be playing the part very willingly.

6. And there is a sixth factor, ironically a result of revulsion for fascism and Nazism. Nationalism became taboo not only for the Germans and Austrians, but to an extent for all Westerners. It was eventually seen as an exclusively right-wing or conservative phenomenon. Leftists and liberals even outside of Germany and Austria began to have ambivalent feelings toward their own countries, especially in the US during the Vietnam War. [This did not apply, of course, to Third-World nationalisms, but we’re not talking about consistency here.] I think that this trend engendered an overreaction, so that many on the Left cannot see the difference between jingoism or fascism and simple patriotism. Thus Israel’s desire to make itself into a nation-state for the Jews is seen as “racism” and, in Tony Judt’s view, a historical “anachronism.” Of course, an “anachronism” ends up signifying something that is simply no longer fashionable among the friends of Tony Judt.

7. Finally, one might argue that the economic importance of oil also turned much of Europe against Israel, a disaster since Europe has so much political and intellectual influence around the world. This became especially discernible after the first OPEC embargo, in 1973. Oil may not have been a left-wing concern, but left-wing members of the European political establishment would have been influenced by their countries' dependence on oil and arms contracts from the Arab countries. So they would have had an additional reason to tilt to the Arabs, thereby reinforcing anti-Zionism among their moderate supporters. Moreover, don’t underestimate the importance to Arab financial donations and grants to Western universities and individual scholars. There is also the importance of access for scholars and journalists to Arab leaders, visas, and research libraries and other institutions.

Many people on the left, therefore, see Israel's difficulties as proof that "right will out," that the Palestinians will or should prevail because the Israelis are trying to graft a European colony onto an Arab region, a doomed project from the start. These Leftists won't have any more sympathy for the struggles of Israel than they did for the struggles of the whites in South Africa or the Colons in Algeria. Never mind the fact that this is a classic case of projection, that many Israelis are themselves from Third-World countries. Never mind the fact that Israel is nobody’s colony, just a people fighting to survive on its own. But when the latter argument was made to Noam Chomsky, he easily deflected it by saying that the U.S. more or less plays the role of Israel’s mother country .

Unfair? Stupid? Ignorant? Distorted? Simplistic? Of course!

It seems to me, however, that it’s not the more accurate or just argument that often prevails. It’s the argument that’s more easily understood. More easily understood and more easily repeated. The image of Israel as an artificial entity, as a vestige of a less enlightened era, is now firmly implanted in the minds of many people, to the point where it seems self-evident.

Sophia, you refer to your fellow Leftists. Well, I’m glad that there is someone else here commenting who is pro-Zionist but not necessarily conservative. I am afraid, though, that we Jews who are liberal or left wing have no real political home. I could never vote Republican. I disagree with them on too many issues and I have a worldview that is simply not the same as theirs, even if there is some overlap. But I have long been uncomfortable among liberals and left-wingers who too easily slip into demonizing Israel, and who take for granted that I won’t mind.

Oops, did I say five major factors? I had that at first, then I ended up with seven. I missed the reference to the number in the first paragraph. Sorry if that was confusing.

Joanne,

The 1939 non-aggression pact between the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics and nazitional SOCIALIST Germany, has a MODERN DAY version in the pact between "socialists", "progressives", "communists" and Islamofascists.

Both are unified in their hatred of US and Jews, just as their predecessors were in 1939.

"Leftist", "Progressive" groups like ISM, ANSWER, SWP hate religion when it's Judaism or Christianity, YET these same "progressives" have NO PROBLEM with Islamists or Islamofascism.

When was the last time a "Progressive" denounced Islamofascism?

When was the last time Chomsky, Finklestein, Judt, Cagan denouncd Islamofascism?

Where is a "Muslim Voice For Peace" or "Muslims Against Suicide Bus Bombings"?

When was the last time "progressives", "leftists" marched to stop a palestinian kassam rocket factory or denouce the 9/11 sneak attack on the US?

When was the last time "progressives" denounced the lack of Free Elections in Cuba? Castro has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959.

The only "term limit" in Cuba is mortality.

Speaking as a registered Democrat, I have seen more support for Israel from REPUBLICANS than from Democrats.

I will vote, again, FOR people who support my views.

Eddie, the term "socialist" has been used by many different people in many different ways. The Soviet bloc countries used it, and the term "democratic," to describe themselves. They felt entitled to use the word "socialist" because the Communist International grew out of the socialist movement, although "split from it" would be a better way to put it. The Nazis used it because, in those days, even right-wing movements were anti-capitalistic, in least in theory.

In any case, the term "socialist" covers a broad range, from doctrinaire collectivists who would support a command economy (not many of those left) to social democrats like James Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt and other West Europeans who were stalwart democrats and allies of the US during the Cold War. Oh yes, and Tony Blair.

Eddie, everyone who calls himself a socialist or social democrat (a bit to the right of socialist, though there's a great deal of overlap) is not Castro or Che, nor a member of the ISM or ANSWER or whatever. To suggest that is absurd, as absurd as saying that all conservatives are Strom Thurmond or a member of the John Birch Society or the Ku Klux Klan.

Nor are all progressives "unified in their hatred of Jews." That's putting it very crudely. It's also simply not true.

Of course you'll want to vote for people who support your views. But don't paint with such a broad brush. And don't assume that people who are critical of Israel don't support it overall. You have to listen carefully to the tone of their criticism to gauge how selective or how fair they are, and then make a judgment.

I know that Stalin was an antisemite, and I know that he was happy to make peace with Hitler. But, frankly, that's not going to weigh very heavily in my decision on whom to vote for in 2008.