Step 1: Visit Israel. Step 2: Meet sweet bearded down to earth spiritual hippie guy. Step 3: Leave devastated – our politics will never work.
How many left-wing peacenicks have experienced this exact scenario? Zeek editor Jay Michaelson explores this question and more in the latest issue.
So, what is going on? How can people who are sincerely open-hearted, who sincerely do their spiritual practice, and who in almost any other social context could be counted on for ardent progressive views, take such oddly militaristic positions?
I also really love this article for the message it sends at the end – as Jews believe we spend too much time trying to re-create beautiful experiences and getting disappointed when we can’t.
It’s not that the Jewish fundamentalists are confused in a way that I or the rest of us aren’t. We all make this mistake — it’s natural and human to do so. You feel good after doing something, so you value the something that brought you there, whether it’s a meditation practice, a territory, or a car. We fetishize our own triggers all the time, which is why we’re constantly trying to arrange the conditions for our happiness.
Even if you’re not concerned with this particular issue, Michaelson’s article is for anyone who is on the path of struggling with their own Jewish journey, which, Godwilling, is all of you. His conclusions are sincere, touching on something that we all need to hear:
Other paths can lead here too… so many roads can lead to paradise…
If it’s you that’s looking for paradise lost, it’s time to ask yourself: can you get there a different way than you first arrived? If you haven’t found it yet, keep in mind that too much focus may distract you from the path of enlightenment (this time).
That is a really amazing article – I found it quite enlightening. Thank you for sharing it shamirpower
There are some interesting ideas floating around the article, but it should be obvious even to those who agree with its premises and conclusions that the article doesn’t do much more than preach to the choir. The superiority of “progressive” views is pretty much assumed from the beginning.
(Yes, there is some attempt to present right-wing arguments, but anyone who reads the comments section at Jewschool knows that there’s far more to the Left-Right argument than what the article half-heartedly presents as the right wing view. Example – ” Of course, much of the Right then proceeds with a racist and absurd claim that this [support for terrorism by Palestinians] is due to something about the people as an ethnic group, rather than the conditions of living under occupation. ” This is a fraudulent argument, of the false choice variety. Why must I choose between (1) a racist claim that bad behavior is intrinsic to a group and (2) the liberal /left mantra that bad behavior stems from mistreatment by others? How about (3) that some groups are under the sway of sick cultures and ideas, which are not intrinsic to the group (and thus can be changed), but which sway is still the fault of the group itself and not others? If the author of the article was not aware of this argument, he isn’t fit to be writing about these subjects; if he was aware, he’s a fraud.)
Having way too easily dismissed right wing arguments, the article proceeds to psychoanalyze the right wingers. “Fetishizing the trigger”? Could apply to some righties. But it could just as easily apply to the Left. Perhaps the Left gets off on that “peace and love” vibe to such an extent that it tends to ignore the more hard-headed dictates of the Torah (“he who comes to kill you…”; “peace, peace when there is no peace…”) and common sense. Further, the “fetishizing’ idea is not all that original – it’s a theory in classic sources of the underlying nature of avodah zara.
As propaganda, the article is passable. Those who want to understand should look elsewhere.
When you say understand, I suspect you mean agree J. I just think some Palestinians over react to their oppression, and while they maybe culturally sick their sickness isn’t unique to them. The Kahanist in Hebron that beat up little kids going to school are also culturally sick.
Dameocrat –
No, when I say “understand”, I refer to a piece of writing or publication that does the best possible job of making its case, whether or not I agree with that case. That’s why I’ve recommended magazines like the New Republic and Washington Monthly to people (of all stripes), even though I’m a conservative (also why I can’t stand Ann Coulter).
As for the Kahanist you mention, I don’t know of the incident you refer to, but if true, I agree that the guy is sick, along with anyone who supports his actions. But you’ve illustrated the crucial difference between Jews and Palestinians. What percentage of Jews (Israeli or otherwise) support that Kahanist? What percentage of Palestinians support terror? The difference is huge.
The New Republic’s editor Martin Peretz and its financer Roger Hertog, are both supporters of settlements, so it isn’t like they don’t agree with you. They are right wingers, who talk to liberals. Every one of the neocons at the Weekly Standard have worked for the New Republican.
A very high percentage of Israelis support transfer, so it isn’t like mainstream israel doesn’t embrace extremist views.
From Haaretz
10/05/2005
More Israeli Jews favor transfer of Palestinians, Israeli Arabs – poll finds
By Amnon Barzilai
Some 46 percent of Israel’s Jewish citizens favor transferring Palestinians out of the territories, while 31 percent favor transferring Israeli Arabs out of the country, according to the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies’ annual national security public opinion poll.
In 1991, 38 percent of Israel’s Jewish population was in favor of transferring the Palestinians out of the territories while 24 percent supported transferring Israeli Arabs.
When the question of transfer was posed in a more roundabout way, 60 percent of respondents said that they were in favor of encouraging Israeli Arabs to leave the country. The results of the survey also reveal that 24 percent of Israel’s Jewish citizens believe that Israeli Arabs are not loyal to the state, compared to 38 percent who think the Arabs were loyal to the state at the beginning of the intifada.
The poll, overseen by Prof. Asher Arian, also finds that Jewish public opinion is Israel has become more extreme on issues of foreign affairs and defense as well as on possible concessions by Israel during peace talks in particular.
“The New Republic’s editor Martin Peretz and its financer Roger Hertog, are both supporters of settlements, so it isn’t like they don’t agree with you. ”
I don’t know about the views of those two on settlements, but the magazine as a whole is not that way (see a recent article by Wieseltier on the disengagement, for example). In any case, there’s far more to being a liberal (or conservative, etc.) than that one issue. The New Republic does bash Leftists, but also conservatives and Republicans. If you think the New Republic is right wing, you must be very far to the Left (I could use the word “extremist”…) In any case, you can still read the Washington Monthly…
As for transfer, are you trying to draw a parallel between an Israeli desire for transfer and the Palestinian desire for terror? (Aside from the obvious differences, the desire for transfer is almost entirely a reaction against terror; terror is a reaction against what, exactly? Occupation? When was the PLO founded?)
As for what views are “extreme”, one definition – views held by very few – doesn’t apply. So you’ll have to make an argument as to why your views are reasonable while the views of others are “extreme”. Good luck.
Transfer isn’t extreme huh. Uh huh ok. Well one could say support for terror whatever that percentage maybe is only a responce to Israeli intransigence on settlements.
The new republican only bashes paleocons that don’t like Israel. They are republicans mostly. They have employed mostly republicans in the past and they have supported such illiberal things as “The Bell Curve” and the IRaq war. Disengagement was only done to annex settlements on the West Bank, so it isn’t a liberal position. That is why likudnik Ariel Sharon proposed it.
As for a position being noextreme because a high percentage supporting it. Well consider transfer, creationism not to mention mainstream support for genocide in WWII germany. Also stats show that over one-third of Israelis supported transfer before the intifada.
“Transfer isn’t extreme huh. Uh huh ok. ”
It might be, but “Uh huh ok” isn’t much of an argument.
My larger point is that labeling an idea “extreme” isn’t helpful. What is helpful is making an argument against an idea one doesn’t agree with. Too often we see people using “extreme” as an epithet rather than an argument.
“Well one could say support for terror whatever that percentage maybe is only a responce to Israeli intransigence on settlements.”
Yeah, it’s been said. But my response is not to yell “extremist”. I call such behavior unjustified, and point out, as I did above, that terror preceded the settlements.
“The new republican only bashes paleocons that don’t like Israel. ”
Have you actually read it? Or do you define “paleocon” as “anyone to the right of me”?
“Disengagement was only done to annex settlements on the West Bank, so it isn’t a liberal position. That is why likudnik Ariel Sharon proposed it.”
Really. How then do you explain that nearly everyone left of center supported disengagement, and most right-wingers opposed it? Are you now telling nearly all the other liberals that they don’t understand liberalism? Again, good luck.
“Well consider transfer, creationism not to mention mainstream support for genocide in WWII germany. ”
I simply said that one definition of “extreme” is based on how few support the policy in question. And here you’ve touched on why I don’t like to argue based on calling something “extreme”. In WWII Germany, “mainstream” was to support harm to Jews, and “extreme” would have been to support leaving the Jews alone. Clearly, an “extreme” position could be the right one. So instead of “mainstream” vs. “extreme”, let’s try “right” vs. “”wrong”.
The most liberal option they were presented with was disengagement, most would have approved of the geneva intiative as well, which was a true liberal position. Sharon promoted disengagement to scuttle Geneva. Just because the position is more liberal than transfer, doesn’t make it liberal.
The point here was whether the New Republic is liberal (as I say) or are “Republicans” or “right-wingers” (as you say). Inasmuch as there was almost no support for disengagement among Republicans and right wingers, and near total support among liberals and leftists, it’s irrelevant that many or most liberals may have wanted a policy more to the left than disengagement. The most you can show is that the New Republic is closer to the center than most liberals, and I would agree with that.
You might want to read up on the history of liberalism. The point of view of the New Republic is that of an updated New Deal-style liberal/progressive, a very different creature from the liberal-leftists that started with the New Left in the 60’s. Their views may not be your cup of tea (they aren’t mine, either) but they often present cogent arguments and deserve respect. Anyone of any political persuasion who ignores them, or dismisses them as something they are not (right -wing), is doing themselves considerable harm.
If you still don’t see the value in reading NR, you can still read the Washington Monthly or the American Prospect. If those won’t do it for you, you can try the Nation or get a lobotomy, whichever is more convenient.
Sorry, you aren’t convincing me of their liberalism just because they advocate the position of Ariel Sharon and he scuttled the truly liberal option. They aren’t new dealers either or they wouldn’t have advocated the bell curve.
nice to have some coherant and intelligent arguing going on here … i really liked jay’s article from zeek. and i agree with his suprise – how come these religo hippies are so eagerly right wing… yet i also agree with j here that the assumption that these spiritual maniacs should be leftists may also be naive. jay intially thinks he may be naive in his assumption, but in the course of the article, he asserts his original expectation that their political stance should mirror their love and peace slogans. And he then provides his explanation for the inconsistency – fetishizing the trigger. From my experience, hippies are often quite unexpectedly right wing. its one of the reasons i hate hippy culture. I’ve found that hippies can be quite patriarchial in their thinking and acting. and i think the reason for this, as well as their right wing tendencies in israel may reflect the fact that they don’t really want love and peace per se. what they really are after is living some kind of pre-urban rural life in a tribal context. and that way of thinking goes well with patriarchy [my expereience of many hippies] and ethnic chauvanism [jay’s experience in israel]. the point is, you shouldn’t be suprised.
Dameocrat says “They aren’t new dealers either or they wouldn’t have advocated the bell curve.”
Ooh, you REALLY have to study the history of liberalism. The Bell Curve? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet… Prepare for a shock.
Mr. Intellectual:
Some good points. But for me, the primary problem with hippie opinion of any stripe is the emphasis on what the hippie in question feels, at the expense of facts and logic. Feelings certainly have an important place in many aspects of life, but can be dangerous when trying to understand political and social realities. The results aren’t pretty. I have problems even (especially?) with the right -wing version, because emotion-based thinking rarely allows for careful distinctions. (Relevant example -Ten years ago I regarded Rabin as a fool because of Oslo. But a bunch of crude idiots decided that because Rabin’s policies were bad for Israel, he must be the worst possible kind of person – a traitor.)
Ok so they are pre civil rights movement liberals. Most of those have joined the republican party, including the majority of the writers and the New Republican
You really need more facts and less dogma. Most of the New Republic’s writer’s have joined the Republican party?? Where do you get this from? And have you seen which candidates the New Republic endorses?
And civil rights was not the event that turned liberals conservative (but nice try, to imply that Republicans today, or even back then, are/were anti-civil rights). No, it was the late 60’s anti-Americanism of the Left, along with illiberal policies such as affirmative action and tolerance for crime and illegitimacy on the part of minorities, among other things, that caused some liberals to move right.
Michael Kelly, Andrew Sullivan, William and Bill Chrystal, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podheratz All of them are republican and they all have worked for the New Republic. Roger Hertog the financer is a republican and member of the club for growth. Martin Peretz endorsed Bush. None opposed the war exept for John B. Judis. Being opposed to affirmative action wouldn’t justify the damned Bell Curve. Genetic racial superiorty just isn’t compatable with modern liberalism.
Strom Thurmond ran for President on the dixiecrat ticket. Jessie Helms was also a dixiecrat. The moved from the democratic to republican parties as a result of the civil rights movement.
You really have to learn to pay attention to the question before you answer.
You said “most” of the New Republic’s writers joined the Republicans. I called you on it. You respond by naming seven people who have written for the New Republic. And how many people overall have written for them? Hundreds. And further, most of the people you mention were never liberals to begin with. Yes, NR allows the occasional conservative or centrist to appear in its pages. So what?
“Martin Peretz endorsed Bush. ”
And who did the magazine endorse? What about the vast majority of the writers?
“None opposed the war exept for John B. Judis.”
There are more kinds of liberals in the world than are embraced by your philosophy. Try to get out more.
“Strom Thurmond ran for President on the dixiecrat ticket. Jessie Helms was also a dixiecrat. The moved from the democratic to republican parties as a result of the civil rights movement.”
Once again, you confuse things by changing the subject. We were discussing old-time LIBERALS, not old-time DEMOCRATS. As you know, there’s a diffrence. Further, if you’re accusing New Republic-style liberals of being like Thurmond or Helms, you know nothing of the actual record.
Martin Peretz promoted the Bell Curve so we have every right to associate him with dixiecrats. His magazine is not liberal. At best they are conservative Dems, the ones who were formally aligned with Thurmond.
“Martin Peretz promoted the Bell Curve so we have every right to associate him with dixiecrats. ”
Peretz is not the whole magazine, or even most of it. He publishes a great deal of articles with which he doesn’t agree (as I pointed out earlier, his magazine did NOT endorse Bush).
The Bell Curve seems pretty important to you. What is your dispute with its findings? Do you think the science was unsound? (If so, tell us how.) Do you think the science was sound, but that such findings shouldn’t be published? Do you think such findings are impossible regardless of the soundness of the methodology, and if so, under which dogma?
“At best they are conservative Dems, the ones who were formally aligned with Thurmond.”
Simply not the case. The magazine practically defined liberalism from its inception through the late 60s, and still defines a great many liberals (of the ant-Leftist variety). You may prefer to write them out of liberalism (just like some religious sects try to claim that their version is the only legitimate form of their religion), but by doing so, you deprive yourself of an alliance with half the politicians in the Democratic party and most of the party’s electorate.
(Hey, wait a minute, why am I giving advice to the other side?)
Never mind. Keep up the good work. Keep alienating the center-left, and tear the Dems in half. The (somewhat) more stable conservative – right leaning centrist alliance will keep winning elections in the meantime.
Martin Peretz didn’t own TNR in the 60s. It was owned by a bunch of George Wallace Liberals. Martin Peretz bought in the 80s and turned into a DLC neoliberal rag. I already linked to an article on the bell curve’s scientific innaccuracy and racism. Click “Bell Curve” in the post you’re responding to. The fact that it promotes the idea of the genetic inferiority of the poor and used research from a neonazi group ought to be enough to discredit in a Jewish forum though.
Very few dems liked the Bell Curve or the war. We could have picked up more independents if we hadn’t pandered to them.
“Martin Peretz didn’t own TNR in the 60s.”
Didn’t say that he did. I mentioned the late 60s because that was when the New Left split from the non-Leftist liberals. That split is the main source of the tensions within today’s Democratic Party.
“I already linked to an article on the bell curve’s scientific innaccuracy and racism. Click “Bell Curve” in the post you’re responding to. The fact that it promotes the idea of the genetic inferiority of the poor and used research from a neonazi group ought to be enough to discredit in a Jewish forum though. ”
As a fan of scientific thought, I’m surprised that you would dismiss an idea based on dogma or the source of research (however distasteful). If we can acknowledge that some individuals are smarter than others, and that some families are smarter than others, there’s no prima facie reason why all groups have to be equally intelligent.
As to the scientific arguments, after reading articles from all sides, I came to the conclusion that 1) I couldn’t trust any of them not to let politics overshadow the science and 2) if I wanted to get to the bottom of it all, I’d have to do original research. But sadly, 3) I have no time for that. So I’m agnostic on the issue.
“Very few dems liked the Bell Curve or the war. We could have picked up more independents if we hadn’t pandered to them.”
Ah, the myth of the independent. Yes, millions of potential votes out there who agree with you, and could be had SO EASILY, if only the Dems gave you and yours the power you so deserve. Hey, here comes an independent now. He’s riding on a unicorn and drinking from the Holy Grail.
I have to wonder… who was your spiritual down to earth bearded hippy guy? did you only have one? what did he make so real to you?
J: On the Bell Curve. In a society when there are such disparities in access to a good education, particularly between low tax base and high tax base communities, it is simply unfair to assume everyone at Harvard deserves to be there. George Bush appears to be dumber than a stump and he still managed to get a Harvard degree and the nomination to run as his parties Presidential candidate, though I don’t think he won the first time around.
I have relatives that on my mothers side who were hard scrabble farmers and they literally can’t read road signs, yet my mother and I both have above average iq. She was just fortunate enough to have been born when my gradparents had more money. These things get used as a rationalization for social darwinism.
Dameocrat:
“In a society when there are such disparities in access to a good education, particularly between low tax base and high tax base communities, it is simply unfair to assume everyone at Harvard deserves to be there. ”
I’m not sure how Harvard’s admission policies got into this (if you’re interested, there’s a brand new book out about Harvard, Yale and Princeton’s admission policies over the years), but if you’re making an argument that other factors (besides genetics)affect intelligence, that’s nothing new. Any argument trying to show genetic differences will claim that even after controlling for environmental factors, a difference exists (as the Bell Curve attempted).
As for Bush, I think a great deal of the reason you think he’s stupid is attributable to your disagreement with his views. (True, he lacks some of the polish of other politicians, but polish is not the sole indicator of intelligence. Consider also that a less-polished image is a better sell for a conservative Texan.)
Don’t think he won? The New York Times counted the Florida votes, and doesn’t agree with you. (Unless you think that losing the popular vote means he didn’t really win. But that’s also wrong. Had the rules before the election been that thepopular vote counts, Bush would have, for example, campained in California and grabbed a great many votes, rather than conceding the state as was advisable under the electoral system. We’ll never know who would have won in a straighjt popular contest.)
“I have relatives that on my mothers side who were hard scrabble farmers and they literally can’t read road signs, yet my mother and I both have above average iq. ”
Again, taken into account.
“These things get used as a rationalization for social darwinism.”
They could be. But that wasn’t what the Bell Curve was trying to do. In any case, if this country would stick with the idea of the government viewing each of us as individuals, rather than instituting affirmative action and other forms of a race-based spoils system and alotting group privileges, differences of intelligence among groups, if they exist, wouldn’t matter much in terms of policy.
I repeat, I’m agnostic on whether there are differences in intelligence among groups. But I don’t see why this would be impossible.
Bush got into Harvard on a legacy scholarship. Even Harvard admits his grades weren’t high enough. If you bitch about affirmative action, than legacy scholarships are also insulting.
Bush’s brother actively barred African American from voting in the 2000 election, by falsely accusing them of being felons. The New York Times didn’t cover this until three years after the fact.
He also lied about WMD, so aside from being stupid, I would add dishonest and untrustworthy.
Needless to say if we are worried about unqualified people why don’t we focus on people like Bush first.
“If you bitch about affirmative action, than legacy scholarships are also insulting.”
I’m not fond of legacy scholarships (they took away available seats when I was applying to law school), but they exist for fundraising purposes. In any case, they now can benefit people of any race or ethnicity.
“Bush’s brother actively barred African American from voting in the 2000 election, by falsely accusing them of being felons. The New York Times didn’t cover this until three years after the fact. ”
What’s the evidence for this? And your own article claims it was Harris, not Jeb, who did it.
If the Republicans really wanted to block a large number of Democratic voters, they should have stopped dead people from voting.
“He also lied about WMD, so aside from being stupid, I would add dishonest and untrustworthy.”
If I thought you knew better, I’d be applying those epithets to you. How did Bush lie? All intelligence services, American and foreign, thought Saddam had WMD, as well as the CLINTON administration. Stop parroting all the sleazy Leftists and opportunistic Dems, and check out the facts. (See the recent article by Podhoretz on Commentary’s website for a summary, and by all means check up on his facts.)
“Needless to say if we are worried about unqualified people why don’t we focus on people like Bush first.”
And how exactly is Bush unqualified?
the Bush administration stovepiped evidence. That is why Libby is in trouble.
If you watched the Palast interview you will see that choicepoint admitted there list produced a 90% failer rate. Harris is a Jeb Bush appointee, and he signed off on the deal. Either way that shows Bush didn’t win.
Anyway, I can see you didn’t vote for the Dems even though the party pandered to you with prowar Kerry. It is obvious you didn’t vote for them in 2000 either. Why are you so worried about centrist dems when you vote republican anyway?
in response to yosef leib:
ah if there were only one it would be so much easier…okay so there’s only one that i was actuallly invovled with [as opposed to all the others i took and interest in but stayed away from]…we actually dated when he was still in the new york area. he got more and more strictly observant over the time we were dating [when we first dated he ate in my (liberal kosher, i.e. 2 sets of dishes plus non hekshered cheese) kitchen and counted women in a minyan, cuddled on the couch as we read the parsha in Hebrew and Aramaic, now…no way]. anyway, he was non-materialistic, spiritual, cared about regular study of Jewish texts, got excited about giving tzedakah, made friends with otherwise outcasts, and always challenged me. always. but besides the fact that i could only have stayed with him if i moved to israel and frummed out, i couldn’t stand his political views on Israel – he quickly became a mega Religious Zionist, spouting ideas about how we should get back land on the east of the Jordan in addition to the West Bank.
one summer he shaved his head and sent me his pais along with a love letter about how he’s a “leaver” and how tragic it is we’ll never be together. sigh. like it’s that simple! [pais grew right back, fyi]
anyway, i guess like a lot of people i am for some reason attracted to anyone i can win an arguement with [though i don’t have to win ALL the time]; so while i am not looking for a copy of myself, i think that i’m looking for a man that would protest bulldozing Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem over sweet bearded peacefulness. the end of the story is we are still friends, which i think is important, but he’s really just not for me.
Another idea about right wing Israeli hippies … esp men:
Many Israelis that I know (including supposedly left wing ones) think fairly lowly of Palestinians. Many (men) think that they know all about Palestinians, having spent much time with them on army duty in the shtachim. Obviously, Palestinians aren’t huge fans of Israeli men clad in tzahal uniform seeing that they encounter such men most often at checkpoints, when they come to raid their homes etc. So they (the Palestinians) treat the Israelis like soldiers rather than people. But the Israelis aren’t aware of the power of their uniform and feel that their experiences in the army are perfectly good evidence of how Palestinians are.
Dameocrat:
Is this how you debate? You throw out challenges, I respond. Instead of dealing with my response (showing me why I’m wrong or conceding the point), you just throw out a new batch of unrelated items. I asked how you know that the Republicans blocked blacks from voting. No response. Bush and WMD? No response. Bush unqualified? No response. Possibility of IQ differences? No response. Thurmond and Helms as liberals? No response. And your rushed item re the 2000 election doesn’t prove your point either. At best it casts doubt, rather than proving Bush didn’t win.
Not a good showing. If I were a reader of these posts, I would have to conclude that you just don’t have any defenses for your positions. The next question would be why you continue to hold those positions despite the fact that you have no reason to hold them. Seems like dogma. Maybe you haven’t really left the dogmatic version of religion after all, you just switched to the left-wing religion.
But lest anyone think I might be dodging your points-
“the Bush administration stovepiped evidence. That is why Libby is in trouble.”
What evidence? Are you aware Libby is not even accused of breaking the law re outing Plame? Who says the Administration ordered Libby to do what he did (whatever exactly that was)?
“If you watched the Palast interview you will see that choicepoint admitted there list produced a 90% failer rate.”
Try to explain this slowly, in english.
“Why are you so worried about centrist dems when you vote republican anyway?”
I thought this was obvious. Because although I believe centrist Dems to be wrong, they are still sane and even sometimes responsible. They have a chance to win elections. Leftists, on the other hand, make up only a tiny fraction of the electorate, and they are usually neither sane nor responsible, something not lost on the voters. I want conservative politicians to win, so I am concerned about the viable competition. (However, I still always hope that the centrists beat the leftists, because of the danger posed by the leftists.
“But the Israelis aren’t aware of the power of their uniform and feel that their experiences in the army are perfectly good evidence of how Palestinians are.”
That is very unfortunate. The evidence for how Palestinians really are should be based upon how many of them are dancing in the streets and handing out candy while tiny shattered body parts of Jewish children are being cleaned off Israeli (or New York) streets, and how many Palestinians support further terror.
Oops, should have separated that. Jewish children (and adults) off Israeli streets, all kinds of adults in downtown New York. Same point.
all the hippies i have met in israel all right wing. all of the sweet bearded, environmentally conscious, guitar playing, tie-dye wearing people are kahane sympathetic. the pot smokers are kahane sympathetic. the protesters of the 60s with the long hair and colorfull clothes and funky music are the settlers of 2005. so please get out of the road if you can’t understand because the times they are a changing.