@ fuster:
see above... further details available at the HotAir Quote of the Day thread (good work, there - although just between you and me I received no new oaths of eternal fealty from Steny Hoyer or Milton Bradley in 2007).

@ fuster:
As we can see, there is extensive evidence that the "state of Israel" itself was part of a Saudi plot to retain power and influence. The next step: Instruct Malcolm X to breed with that leftist white girl and produce the Alinskyist Socialite Messiah. The objective: Totalitarian Shariah Communist Health Insurance, of course - worldwide.

Gee, thanks, migs. That really closes the book on Caroline Glick, and explains EVERYTHING.

@ fuster:
That everything Israel has done since before the founding of the state has been inadequately harsh, insufficiently self-serving, reflective of too much concern with the rights, aspirations, and ideals of non-Israelis or of insufficiently rigorous Israelis.

In the piece migs just linked, for instance, she implies that Begin sold out Israel to Sadat. I don't know if she's ever clearly stated what she believes the concept of Israeli policy should be, but it seems to be something like keeping all territories, and at minimum holding them hostage against acceptance of maximal Israeli demands on security and recognition, combined with a willingness to establish and extend "facts on the ground."

Since it's too late for a re-do, Israel would now, by her logic, seem destined for catastrophe, whether it adopts her preferred policy prescriptions or not.

@ fuster:
Clearly that's one problem. Not sure that's the main one. It's easy to find fault with her forced readings of history and events, but it's her overall theme that's most striking.

@ miguel cervantes:
As ever, Glick remains the most skilled anti-Israeli polemicist there is. Her theme seems to be that Israel's position is hopeless and always has been.

@ fuster:
I've made it clear in the past that I don't fetishize electoral democracy as the be-all and end-all of a just and supportable state, but I don't think it can be selectively ignored without doing harm to the credibility of nations whose own legitimacy and whose policy otherwise is based on support for fundamental democratic values.

We can look through the Middle East and make comparisons based on more than electoral democracy. I don't have much trouble saying that Jordan's "system" is more supportable than Syria's or Yemen's.

As for Hamas, the response could have taken a range of different forms, going back decades, but the way that the U.S. and Israel handled the elections was particularly embarrassing, especially since Hamas' claim to democratic legitimacy extended beyond its electoral victory.

This guy puts it well:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6653819/life-on-the-nile.thtml

"Generally" approving of democracy but concretely supporting despotism has a cost, and the example of Iran works both ways.

fuster wrote:

it remains vaporous and about as accurate as saying that the Founding Fathers opposed democracy.

Many of the Founding Fathers did oppose "democracy" as it was defined in those days, but that doesn't have much relevance to this situation.

These impressions regarding Israel aren't "vaporous": They are the public positions of former officials like the one quoted above. It's the assumption of all the analysts I've seen commenting on the subject.

I'm well aware that Israel's predicament is complicated, and it's a good thing that, as far as anyone has reported anyway, Israel has no direct role in the situation. I haven't seen any comments from current Israeli officials, either - possibly also a good thing.

But it's indicative of something fundamentally out of whack when the representative of the progressive West fears progress.

@ fuster:
The events, and the presumptions about Israel's positioning, reinforce the impression that the Israel's state interest is in conflict with the general interest, with progress, particularly within the region.

@ fuster:
Doesn't it give you pause - it gives me pause - to think that Israel's position in the ME has evolved to the point where what it fears is democracy?

I'm not saying that that's the whole story by any means, but in broad terms I think that's how the world and Israel itself view Israel in this connection.