What a surprise!

Actually Stephen, your little post speaks of more than a bias 'in favour of Israel' (by which, I presume, you mean Israel's actions in the recent conflict). If you're examining that bias perhaps you should also examine the following quirks:

(a) you seem happy to blanket all those opposed to Israel's action's as 'liberals' (though Lo, for one, sees some of them as anything but: racists, neo nazis etc)

(b) 'liberal hand-wringing' (terminally exhausted cliche that it is) suggests a certain impatience, if not contempt, for liberals (however that word may figure in your mind) which seems a tad hasty, to put it mildly, certainly not congruent with even a cursory self-examination

(c) anti-liberals (conservatives?) often use 'liberal' as a dirty word, effectively a curse-word, and they are always so ready to fling this at anyone who disagrees with their point of view that it makes me wonder if they've considered AT ALL what that word actually means. After all, these are the same people who'll speak of 'the Free World' in the same breath.

(d) what's the opposite of liberal-as-curse-word? Conservative seem rather mild doesn't it? Hawkish? Warhead? Whatever it is, I can't recall any 'liberals' on this thread flinging it around as a blanket dismissal.

Just a few thoughts for your own period of self-reflection.

Mark,

The reasons why I’m generally biased in favour of Israel would take too long to outline and be off topic, even though the process of finding out why we’re biased, if we all went through it, would probably bear more fruit than circular arguments.

There’s an assumption that liberals hold the neutral middle ground, that they have the moral ascendancy between two extremes. I question that assumption. My bias for Israel does not automatically mean I agree with everything they do. Every government can miscalculate and in this last bout of fighting there’s been a whole lot of miscalculation.

From my point of view, this isn’t an oh-so-interesting coffee table discussion about who’s most in the wrong, or posturing about who’s scored the most points in an argument. I have a son in the RAF who has served duty in Iraq. I take sides; mostly his.

I agree ‘liberal hand-wringing’ is a clichéd, blanket term, but there’s so much of it about.

Regards,

Stephen

Well, Stephen, it's tough satisfying you demanding Conservatives. I regularly refer to most Israeli leaders, Hezbollah, most Palestinian leaders, all of the ultra-religious loonies on all sides of all disputes, and the Bush Administration as "assholes" and "fucking imbeciles", and I'm told that I'm crude and simplistic. But if I tried to write something thoughtful, and explore and propose the difficult solutions and compromises that go beyond posturing and bombing, the Stephen Foots of the world would accuse me of "liberal hand-wringing." So I'll continue to belch out angry "liberal" generalities. If nothing else, it's saved me tens of hours of time on this thread alone.

[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited September 07, 2006).]

Michael,

Those ‘difficult solutions’ will always involve a degree of concession and compromise. I’m not arguing that they do not. I think you’ll find Israel more magnanimous in a final compromise than many would imagine. For the most part, it’s the so called friends of the Palestinians who have proved to be their worst enemies. There seems to be no recognition amongst Israel’s neighbours that they must be part of the solution; even Hamas recognises that not all of their problems are caused by the Israeli occupation. At the very least, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria should recognise they have their own ‘Palestinian’ citizens and work towards a solution that recognises the Palestinian’s right to self determination, elsewhere, other than in the occupied territories.

Stephen

Mark,

Here’s the rub:

The very people you purport to stand up for hate and despise the liberal beliefs you base you arguments on. They consider you weak, disposable and eminently exploitable. Your philosophy has no solutions, only fuel to feed more flames. It’s a tough call, we all want to be considered nice.

Stephen

Stephen,

I think you mean "biased." It would be a bit grandiose to claim to be bias itself. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

Could you explain why you lean that way?

Kevin

So we should get rid of Women's Suffrage because there exist angry lesbian separatists?

Oh wait, I'm sorry, we're talking about Israel-Lebanon here. I was just extending this logic into other venues. Sorry. My bad.

Kevin

Kevin,

I have strict orders to stop mucking about on the internet and have my tea, so briefly:

Have you heard of the Brethren Movement? My parents belonged to it and brought my family up under its strictures. I formed a close friendship with a Jewish convert to Christianity who, unknowingly, led me to examine the history of Jewish/Christian relations over the last two millennia. To cut a long story short, this led to a crisis in Faith. The Christian Church has much to answer for. I fear the roots of anti-Semitism within the Church are as strong as they ever were. Do I want to make amends in some way, I don’t know. Do I feel the Jewish people are still looked on with suspicion, yes. Will the Church ever really change, I don’t think so. Do I think the Jews need and deserve a Homeland, yes. Should it be Palestine, where else?

Sorry to be so cryptic; normal service is resumed.

Stephen

What people did I 'purport to stand up for' Stephen? I'm not sure if you're referring to the Lebanese people, the entire population of 'liberals' or some other simplified generality. Were you to separate one or all of those weirdly homogenous masses into living breathing individuals would they ALL consider me weak, disposable and 'eminently exploitable'? Mightn't some of them actually enjoy having a couple of beers with me (or even, who knows, with you) and debating things in much the same way as we're doing here? Hey, if it were 20 years ago maybe I might have fallen in love with one of them; we might have a bevvy of Liberal/Labanese kids. But I know such an imaginative leap is difficult for you; perhaps you better rest and gather your strength before attempting it.

As to my beliefs, these are many and varied, and, even if you could guess what they are, you certainly couldn't pigeonhole ALL of them as liberal. But your arrogant presumption that you can once more says far more about your painfully limited imagination than it could ever hope to say about my beliefs, liberal and otherwise.

What 'philosophy' are you talking about? I don't claim to have anything as organised as a philosophy, any more than I claim to have a religion. And I certainly don't claim to have solutions. You're right about that (but why would a philosophy have solutions?)! Do you have solutions?! Amazing! You should head straight into the fray then; you're wasting your time here.

What 'fuel'? What 'flames'? Are you speaking about this thread (flame wars?) or about the wider less virtual world?

What's a 'tough call' in your estimation?

Who wants to be 'considered nice'? What a weird idea (and what the fuck is 'nice' when it's at home?). I want to be loved by people I love, and respected by people I respect, but the wanting is very much second fiddle.

Kindly refrain from presuming we share the same desires, Stephen. I'm not sure we're even in the same universe. But good luck with your philosophy (if you possess one).

Kind (if not nice) regards,

Mark



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 07, 2006).]