[Urbane Guerrilla]

Seems you have a little problem here with doing right by the Jews, as the great bulk of your solutions to the problem will shortchange them. You do comprehend, do you not, just why doing right by the Jews is something we want to do? You do comprehend, do you not, just how offended decent Christians were at the excesses European antisemitism had created? The death camps, the ovens? After the death camps' proof that inhuman savagery is the lot they could expect for being stateless outsiders in Europe, just what do you think they ought to have done?? If it were up to me, I'd find a permanent, yes a final, solution! And how should I behave if I find someone determined beyond life itself to impede it, do you think?

And how about doing right by a democracy, eh? Have you a mustard seed's faith in democracy? Most of the people who bitterly dispute with me on this point have no faith in democracy as a social order at all -- their posts evidence this. That manifests a want of thought, a want of morals, a want of human decency, and with it, a surplus of fascist sympathies. I have no fascist sympathies whatsoever -- none, that is, beyond such sympathy as is needed to choose for them and their lackeys a swift death over a slow one. Look, sometime, into the fascist roots of the Ba'athist Party -- these guys modeled their ideology on the examples of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, and that was how they invented their party. Such things offend my libertarian sensibilities.

I take my stance as a decent man who is offended by pogroms -- and I lash out at any who would give pogroms slack.

In Europe, statelessness is, long-term, dangerous. Were not the Jews harried from pillar to post by varying levels of prejudice among Europe's rulers? And were they not being punished for -- well what? -- being Jewish? Sheeyit.

Back in the nineteen-teens, British Prime Minister Balfour offered Europe's Jews a choice for land in which to reestablish a state: the Holy Land or a swatch of Uganda. The Jewish representatives discussing the matter with him -- this had to do with getting Europe's Jews generally allied with England in WW1 -- said thanks but no thanks to Uganda: in effect, promise them the Holy Land or promise them nothing. I think the desires of the Jews for a homeland, a state, do rather come into this for consideration.

The one-state solution, a reversion to the borders of the British Mandate, would perhaps be a stable one -- if anyone on either side actually wanted it. I keep in mind that politics is the art of the possible, not the Graustarkian: I say it's bootless to even say that they should, when absolutely no such thing will happen unless they want it, and there isn't enough motivation for those there on the ground to even start wanting it. For differing reasons, neither side does, and no visible bloc in either Israel or Jordan wants such a union. The situation is this: the Israelis do not want to be put in a minority, and the Jordanians and other Arabs prefer being aggrieved to sharing in the wealth that could make the entire Eastern Mediterranean bloom. Culturewide, the Arabs underperform at generating wealth, and equally culturewide, the Israelis overperform. Guess which side I think is likely to be the better.

The one Arab response to the return of the Jews to their ancient home has been murder, and only murder. Mass murder. This was going on long before 1948. The Arabs cannot cry to me that they are the victims when their invariable behavior is that of the perps! They have utterly deceived you, Pierce, and you've been made a fool of. Never, never come down on the side of the perps, unless your life's goal is solely to be a perp. I, for one, cultivate better ambitions, uncontaminated by such nastiness.

I see the evils of Israel's opponents just a little too clearly to be fooled. The Jews are NOT the ones feuding with the Arabs: it's all one way.

If you're going to blame the Zionists -- and that's too close to antisemitism to be palatable, and Jewish antizionists strike me as a lot of culturally suicidal misplacers of priorities -- I should hope you'd lay equal opprobrium on the Huns for pushing the Lombards and Vandals west and south, pushing the Visigoths into Iberia, et cetera, in the fourth and fifth centuries, and the Celts going west beginning about in the fifth century BC, absorbing or displacing previous occupants, until eventually they set up shop in the British Isles -- which weren't empty then either. And while you're at it, want to reprehend the Cro-Magnon replacing the Neanderthal population?

Nah, to me that line of thought is all hooey. Remember that some ideas are so bad that only left-wing intellectuals can hold them.