I keep on thinking I've written about this, and perhaps I have, but I'munable to find the entries where I have, so please bear with me if Irepeat myself. I have always found it disappointing that some parts of theleft, often especially fellow communists, have a very one-sided viewpointof the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, to briefly digress, thebook I got in Amsterdam was aware and mournful of a general trend of wollythinking in some Communist circles, pointing out that how some people,unwilling to accept that Trotsky predicted the Soviet Union would eitherfail or be reformed by the end of World War II, and was wrong in that prediction,instead decided that the war had not ended when it did, but had just entered anew phase. This trend is, alas, not unique to Communists, but is still a shameto see. While I think that Zionism is a poor fit with Communism nowadays, I findit odd that Communists find the idea of Palestinian nationalism to be in linewith their position. The Shari'a (religious law) that is present in most Islamiccountries (Turkey and Saddam's Iraq being exceptions) is not at all compatiblewith Socialism -- Marx's ideas on religion and ways to run a country place hisideas very distant from religious rule. It is easy to forget, when advocatinga Palestinian POV, what kind of a state that would be. On my trip to Europe, inthe Anne Frank House, was a wonderful exhibit discussing freedom of expressionversus protection against discrimination. It involved a presentation of varioussituations where the two ideals conflict, and had all present in the room voteon which ideal was more important. The lights in the ceiling, red and blue,lit up with each button press, to illustrate where the consensus lay. It wasmade clear to me that the American way of looking at how these ideals interplayis just one perspective, one rather different from what might broadly be calledthe European perspective in some areas. It touched on a former politician inthe Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn in one of the cases presented.To summarize the wikipedia article, he was someone who would be difficult tocategorize in American left-right terms, or even the 4-poles system theLibertarians invented to handle their stand. His views on politics can broadlybe considered very liberal, but not at all multiculturalist, instead pushingliberal values as things to be preserved at the cost of tolerance and neutralitytowards conservative elements. He advocated changing immigration rules to barimmigrants, particularly Muslims, who would make the country less tolerant. Inan interview showed in the presentation, he indicated that the hard-won rightsof gays (he was openly gay) and similar groups must not be lost for the sake ofimmigrants. He was assasinated while running for office. In some ways, Fortuyn'sstand can be compared to that of Stanley Fish.This connects to Israel, and to me, in that as I've become more educated onthe specifics of modern Islam,
All of this touches lightly on one possible view of some general perspectivesacross the divide between the traditional left and traditional right. One sidesees itself as the guardian/restorer of traditional values. It's end is topromote old, good culture, and to fight the other side's tug on society towardshedonism. Another side sees itself as the bringer of a new enlightenment,struggling to clear the barbarism of the past. Peacemakers like to pretendthere's a way to synthesize these perspectives into a new vision, acceptableto both. I think it's a pipe dream that hopes to confuse people intoagreement.