Okay, right off the bat I apologize because I was merrily bloghopping along and right-clicking links for later viewing when I found something I want to share and now have no idea who to credit for steering me this way.

Anyway,  I ended up here, an article in IMPRINTS: A JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL SOCIALISM which is an interview with Michael Walzer, UPS Foundation Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Yeah, I hadn't heard of him before either.  Anyway, he is asked:

In Just and Unjust Wars you take a strong stand on the issues of war crimes, guerrilla war, reprisals, and terrorism in general. How do you view the current crisis in Israel in the light of what you wrote in that book? How do your insights regarding the history of anti-semitism contribute to an analysis of how radical politics is understood within both sets of national identities?

Walzer responds:

This is a hard question for me to answer with any sort of brevity, given my long involvement in Zionist politics in the Jewish diaspora and in Israeli politics too, as a frequent visitor. I recently published an article in Dissent, 'The Four Wars of Israel/Palestine,' explaining my position, which I will try to summarise here. These are the four wars: there is a Palestinian war to destroy and replace the state of Israel, which is unjust, and a Palestinian war to establish a state alongside Israel, which is just. And there is an Israeli war to defend the state, which is just, and an Israeli war for Greater Israel, which is unjust. When making particular judgements, you always have to ask who is fighting which war, and what means they have adopted, and whether those means are legitimate for these ends, or for any ends. Most of the people attacking Israel or defending it, and most of the people attacking the Palestinians or defending them, don't even begin to do the necessary work. I can't do that work here, but I will suggest some of the judgements that I think it leads to – most crucially these two: Palestinian terrorism, that is, the deliberate targeting of civilians, should always and everywhere be condemned. And Israeli settlement policy in the occupied territories has been wrong from the very beginning of the occupation. But this second wrongness doesn't mitigate the first: Palestinian attacks on the occupying army or on paramilitary settler groups are justified – at least they are justified whenever there is an Israeli government unwilling to negotiate; but attacks on settler families or schools are terrorist acts, murder exactly. (I want to insist that this is not special pleading: I am old enough to have made similar arguments at the time of the Algerian war: FLN attacks on French soldiers or on OAS militants were justified; putting a bomb in a café or a supermarket in the French section of Algiers was murder.) And similarly, Israeli attacks on Hamas or Islamic Jihad fighters are justified; dropping a bomb on an apartment house in Gaza was a criminal act.

The distinctions Walzer makes here are useful to keep in mind when attempting to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The four different "wars" he describes each work toward different agendas and are fought by different "armies."  I think this offers a useful analytical framework with which to break down assumptions and rhetoric when one is attempting to discuss this issue.

Walzer continues:

Since I have often been a critic of Israeli governments, I am reluctant to call such criticism anti-Semitic. But it does seem to me that there is an oddly disproportionate hostility toward Israel on the European left, which requires some explanation. I know, for example, people my own age who indignantly refuse even to consider a visit to Israel, but who had no trouble visiting France at the height of the Algerian war and have no trouble visiting China today despite its brutal policy in Tibet (which includes a far more massive settlement program than Israel has attempted in the West Bank). Indeed, much of the criticism directed at Israel has more to do with the existence of the state than with the policies of any of its governments – which was, again, never the case with France or with Germany after World War Two or with China today. Something is seriously wrong here.

Folks who've read my blog for awhile might know that I myself am suspicious of the particular vehemence and passion of anti-Israeli rhetoric in Europe.  Whether or not such criticism is justified, it always smells just a little off to me.

Anyway, the interview touches on many, many other issues that have nothing to do with Israel.  I am intrigued by Walzer and will keep my eye open for more.

10:54:57 PM    

Just watched Dean on Larry King.  He looked a little overwhelmed at first, but quickly got his sea legs.  I hope the King show or the Dean Team posts a transcript because there were a few really good quotes I'm excited to share but I am not going to be able to recreate them from memory.  One that I do remember [more or less]:

King asked: "Do you think you are going to have move more toward the center?"

Dean: "I am the center..."

My vote is his to lose at this point...  I am looking forward to the Meet-Up on Wednesday.

Update: 

(1) Not that the Daily KOS needs any traffic from me, but there might be a few folks new to the blogosphere that haven't found him yet.  In any case, this post on Dean is a nice, pragmatic complement to my idealistic enthusiasm.

(2)  The Likely Story saw Lieberman in CNN on Sunday and had the same reaction to him that I did today.

I saw a Democratic presidential contender repeating talking points that Karl Rove might very well have written in an effort to scare Democrats away from standing up against the failed polices and bankrupt leadership of George W. Bush in the '04 presidential election.

The truth is presidential candidates Joe Lieberman and John Kerry are effectively conceding the presidential race to Bush. Worse, they are echoing the preferred talking points of Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the rest of the far Right. Their argument boils down to a blatant attempt to scare Democrats into pandering to the Right and effectively conceding the playing field for '04 and most likely the general election.

[...]

This is politics and everyone understands that passionate criticism is to be expected. I don't think anyone has a problem with real criticism, but this is not legitimate. It's crap. Lieberman and Kerry are using the same distortions and attacks favored by Republicans against a fellow Democrat. This does a disservice to all Democrats as Kerry and Lieberman are doing the dirty work of Karl Rove.

Kerry has thrown his lot in with the likes of Lieberman and the DLC in the hopes that playing to the Left's fears and subscribing to the Right's manipulations will move him up in the polls against a very energetic insurgent. Kerry and Lieberman are not attempting to lead. They are using the same scare mongering that has muted all opposition to Bush and left the Democratic party reeling. This comes as the media and public are finally starting to wake up to see the disastrous effects of Bush's policies.

9:36:20 PM    

Lieberman spoke at National Press Club today and evidently came out swinging against his fellow '04 Dems. I know, I know -- I'm on board for voting for whichever Dem gets the official nod, but damn I hope it's not Lieberman. He sounds exactly like a friggin' cheap-labor conservative in his [mis]characterization of his opponents below. [Emphasis below, mine.] 

 Lieberman Warns U.S. Democrats Against Turn to Left
Aug 4, 4:26 pm ET, By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent, WASHINGTON (Reuters) 

... The Connecticut senator, the most conservative of the nine Democrats vying to challenge President Bush next year, said he shared the anger of party activists over Bush's policies.

"But the answer to his outdated, extremist ideology is not to be found in outdated extremes of our own," Lieberman said in a speech on the party's future delivered at the National Press Club.

"That path will not solve the challenges of our time, and it could well send us Democrats back to the political wilderness for a long time," said Lieberman, the party's vice presidential candidate in the last election.

Asked about Dean after the speech, Lieberman said a party led by a candidate who opposed the war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and would raise taxes was buying a "ticket to nowhere."

[...]

Last week, Lieberman lashed out at Dean, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri for making Democrats look weak on defense by failing to recognize the war in Iraq was justified.

Oh Joe!  Are you really saying that there is no room for an intelligent person with a healthy instinct for self-defense to argue that the war in Iraq -- as undertaken by the current admin -- was unjustified?  Really?  It's inconceivable to you that someone could be very concerned about the safety and wellbeing of US citizens and still believe the war was a wrong step?  That all those who thought the war was unjustified really are treasonous bastards hoping to see the US go down in flames?  Okay, Okay.. I know you didn't say that, but folks out there [and we know who they are, don't we, dear reader?] are saying that and your little barbs are just a coded way of co-opting those fears and accusations for your own purposes.

On Monday he broadened the attacks, referring in general to proposals by Dean to eliminate Bush's tax cuts and the broad health care insurance plan offered by Gephardt.

"Some Democrats still prefer old, big government solutions to our problems, but with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can't afford that," Lieberman said.

"Fueled by understandable frustration, some in my party are grasping failed solutions that will not meet our 21st century needs, and will not save America from another four years of Republican misrule," Lieberman said.

He said "old Democratic policies like higher taxes and weakness on defense are not the solution. We need to reclaim the vital center, and that is the leadership I offer my party and my country."

It just really fries my potatoes to hear a Democrat using right-winger rhetoric against fellow Dems.  This to me is such an ugly and classically conservative move -- motivating folks out of fear.  "Weakness on defense."  Harumph!  How stupid does he think his fellow Dems are? 

8:31:53 PM