> Which puts zio-liberals like Pollack and Friedman exactly where on
> your spectrum of defined positions? Aspects like this are important to
> consider if we are to make any sense at all of articles like the
> Guardian one that Marvin Gandall just posted. Afterall, is a person
> really a 'liberal secularist' if that person supports pro-war policies
> in favour of zionist Israel?
> I think that are plenty of clearly defined positions outside the
> bookends you are talking about--besides how many times have I seen the
> illusory 'left' berated on this list for lack of clarity?
All of these political labels are pretty arbitrary -- most of them are made up in order to tar one's opponents (see the Adams quote below). In reality, a lot of people take the position that Israel, at this point, is a country that will and should continue to exist, while a peaceful settlement between it and the Palestinians is also necessary. You can call them "Zionists" if you want, but there are also other terms. What matters is not the terms but the real world.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds. (Henry Adams, "The Education of Henry Adams")