Interesting analysis, but a policy of fear and appeasement should be labeled as such rather than obscured by blandishing philosophical notions such as "neo-Hobbesian."



(Would that the appeasers were, instead, neo-Hobbits.)



And as regards the attitudes of the progressive castes toward the Palestinians (and the Iraqis for that matter), I think you've got it backwards; the latter are, precisely, viewed as tautologically "good" (despite whatever evil they commit---evil that is sanitized since it must be "placed in context") simply because they are opposing intrinsic evil (i.e., Jews and Zionism---and the US---though to be sure, the US, despite Patrick Buchanan et al.'s best efforts, has now become conflated with Jews & Zionism by the radicals of both left and right and the luminaries of the Arab/Islamic bloc.)



New world order?

Barry - I thought I was explaining why
they view Israel as more evil than the Palestinians. I think the hostile attitudes toward Israel and the U.S. show that they are not
merely appeasers driven by fear. Fear will not drive them to appease us, but to oppose us, just as they do not feel obliged to appease Israel, but oppose it ardently.



I am not saying that France or Germany will soon go to war against Israel or the U.S., but that individuals in those countries nourish a hatred and anger for us that is far more intense than their reaction to Arafat, Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Mugabe.

Actually, the problem of Europe, as of Leftism generally, is that it is no longer at all Hobbesian. They believe everything can be settled by negotuiation because all men are essentially decent and good and because there's no such thing as evil, only misunderstandings. Would that they did still understand that life is the war of all against all, with civilization a thin and fragile veneer.

Actually, the problem of Europe, as of Leftism generally, is that it is no longer at all Hobbesian. They believe everything can be settled by negotuiation because all men are essentially decent and good and because there's no such thing as evil, only misunderstandings. Would that they did still understand that life is the war of all against all, with civilization a thin and fragile veneer.

oj - I think they go 90% of the way to the position you ascribe to them. I think they believe people are naturally good and that evil is a real but rare phenomenon - sort of like a birth defect. Therefore, they think we can always wait for a wicked man to die of old age; we need not worry that an evil regime will corrupt its people and spread a contagion of wickedness. Thus, containment through bribery appears a feasible strategy.



On the other hand, they think the intractable problem is the war of good people against good people. The religious wars are their great intellectual model: they want to say that both sides were basically good and well-intentioned, but their ideological differences led them to conflict. Therefore people who are willing to fight for their ideology (whether political or religious) they see as the great enemies of peace.

I hope you're right about Uncle Sugar finally putting his foot down, but the reaction ot the Chinese attack on our plane does not give me hope.



Maybe Bush reads the warblogs and is getting more steel in the spine.



I still think he should have frozen at least some Russian assets over the GPS jammers. Sending diplomatic protest notes is the least productive of all human activities.

Harry - Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you.

oj,

Your analysis enables one to understand why the European elites appear to so despise Israel: for (irrationally and unjustly!) refusing to negotiate away its own existence (followed up by the cardinal sin of daring to defend itself against those that attack it).