Just to clarify a few things, in case someone should get the wrong idea:

I support the right of Israel to exist.  I support the right of Israelis to live in safety and security.  I respect the history of scholarship and the rigor of devotion to righteous behavior that many Jews have gotten from their religion.  I respect the sanctity of life of all people, and I do not have any problem with Jews as a people or as a religious group. 

 What I am arguing with over at Boker Tov, Boulder! is the assertion that the only way to provide security and justice for Israel is the complete destruction of Islam. (And by the confusion of the words "Arab" and "Muslim" over there, I assume Anne and Smooth make no distinction between religion and ethnicity.) 

  While I suppose it is true that if one side were wiped out completely, there would be no more problem, ("No man, no problem" – Stalin) It nonetheless remains an immoral and unacceptable solution. 

 When someone advocates the violent extermination of a culture, people, idea or religion, they are wrong, and should be told so. 

 I was talking to an Egyptian friend of mine about the situation and she sadly shook her head, and said something like; "There will never be peace there.  There's too much blood.  The Israelis have lost too much blood to stop.  The Palestinians have lost too much blood to stop.  They will never stop."  We also discussed how each person thinks that the blood of their group is worth more than the blood of another group, so that if you want to make the other side "pay" it will never be even.  She admitted that she grieved more for the deaths of Palestinian children than for the death of the Israeli children (though she DOES grieve for both, and does not mock anyone’s pain).  "Of course, this is the life."  Of course. 

 So, it's natural that Anne has a long catalogue of wrongs against her people on her blog.  Ancient, new, documented and anecdotal, terrible and heartbreaking.  They're all there, represented passionately.  They are held up as an example of the nobility and righteousness of the suffering Israeli people.  Also there, are the news media's depictions of the plight of Palestinians who are hurt or suffering.  These are always dealt with dismissively, mockingly, deprecatingly.  Proof of both the debasement of the Palestinian nature, and any sympathy in the media as proof of a global conspiracy to wipe out the Jews.  After all, the suffering of the Palestinians isn't as important as the suffering of the Israelis.  Of course, this is the life. 

 But not everyone is locked into such natural behaviors.  Most people, with some training and discipline, can rise above it. 

  Calling for more blood (i.e. all of it from one side) won't change the situation.  It isn't a solution.  Blood does not drown bad ideas, it feeds them. 

 So you might say "OK, smarty pants, what’s the solution then?" 

 I don't know. 

 I'm not a middle east scholar.  I went to seminar at our church when I was in second grade.   It was put on by an Israeli grad student and an Iranian grad student who lived in our neighborhood.  They gave a joint seminar on the history of the region.  They disagreed on quite a few points starting with the birth of Abraham's sons, and going forward.  Yet they were professional and respectful and they were heard by a small audience of Christians in the basement of a Christian church (not the evil church I talk about sometimes.  That came a couple years later.) in the middle of Montana.  That’s encouraging. 

I took a couple of classes on the history of the Middle East in college (not encouraging).  I've read the Bible cover-to-cover more than a couple of times (not encouraging; the books of Judges and Daniel are particularly heart-breaking).  Then there's the Comparative Religions class that I had in college.  That's more encouraging…once again, because every major religion was represented by the students in that class, (and a few minor ones) and yet these "intellectuals" were able to explore the material professionally and respectfully.  I've talked to a lot of people about what they believe, and how their beliefs affect them and their decisions and how they behave and how they treat others. 

That's about all I’ve got. 

However, I am rather a student of history in the more general sense.  I'm thinking there's a reason those who promote extermination of any group or idea always have to end up demonizing (and often trying to exterminate) the intellectuals. 

Calls for the extermination of another race, culture, history, idea have never been judged well by history.  Usually because it creates more problems, solves nothing, and leaves future generations to clean up the mess. 

When you honestly believe that the whole world is against you, and is trying to destroy you, you've crossed into a dark fantasy realm called paranoia.  When you start misusing and actually mangling history and science to support your ideas you are on dangerous ground.  When you have to demonize, marginalize, and/or advocate the killing of artists, intellectuals, scholars and reporters who represent the scientific and historical consensus to defend your position - you should really start to wonder where you're headed, because that’s how the greatest disasters of history most often begin.