Culturally, I am not very sympathetic with Palestinians, and I have much in common with Israelis.  But it is absurd in my opinion to equate the behavior of the two in this case...If Israelis burned down mosques it would be at their whim and no doubt the mosques would still be in use.  In this case, these are the abandoned synagogues of a former, often brutal occupier.  Burning them, shows a certain amount of degeneration, I believe, but not as much as you imagine.  I suppose if Palestinians had been running, say, Tel Aviv as a giant, society-sized concentration camp for a half century while also gobbling it up bit by bit, diverting the water into their resevoirs and destorying the farms of the local Jews, and then decided abruptly to abandon it...I don’t think many would blink if the now semi-free Jews burned down the mosques being left behind by their unsympathetic former masters.  One wishes everyone could have achieved enlightenment and freedom from hate, but the displaying, among those who haven’t, of some level of humanity seems not beyond the realm of comprehension in some circumstances…

Lee, without arguing some of the surrounding politics, let me first say that some similar thoughts went through my mind before I decided how I felt about the situation. But I decided that the disuse of the synagogues really didn’t matter to me in the same way that the destruction of Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan--although they were unlikely to ever be “used” again--showed a distinct lack of respect for cultural and religious differences. It also, in this case, can’t be seen as anything other than a seriously unfriendly gesture after what I would consider to be a hefty concession on the part of Israel.

I suppose, though, that we can’t really argue whether it was appropriate or not without discussing the surrounding politics (where, I have to admit, my sympathies are probably a little more clear cut than yours).

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

I’m a WASP who converted to Catholicism and I guess I couldn’t have less in common “culturally” with Israelis (and I’ve only know a few) but it doesn’t take a lot of thought to know that burning a religious site is barbaric or to recall that the Nazis and Cossaks burned down synagogues openly like this not so long ago. On the other hand, it only takes one hand to light the first fire and we don’t judge all of New Orleans or all of America because of the acts of a smallish (I hope) percentage of looters. However, I fear that many Palestinians cheered and danced around the flames and that our children’s children will not see peace in the area in and around Israel.
Congrats on the coming instalanche. Glenn’s never linked to me.

Lee, an excellent observation...you said what I wished to, albeit far more eloquently than I could have.

I think it is important to remember that the Israeli settlers were gone and these were abandoned, vacant buildings. I don’t think it’s any worse than my evangelical neighbors being vocally gleeful about a small local Catholic church being demolished to make way for a housing tract. *shrugs* It happens.

"Culturally, I am not very sympathetic with Palestinians, and I have much in common with Israelis.”

Pointless credentialism: “Listen to me, I’m disinterested.” Too bad the rest of the comment belies this stated position.

“But it is absurd in my opinion to equate the behavior of the two in this case...If Israelis burned down mosques it would be at their whim and no doubt the mosques would still be in use.”

I’m sure.  Probably with hundreds of people on the prayer mats even as the minarets fell into the burning hulk of the building.  See, this is where the wheels of the “disinterested” pretense show that they’re missing most of their lugnuts.  This is purely argument by assertion, and assertion isn’t valid argument.  You offer no facts to back your case (there are none), but simply assume that your audience is consumed by hatred of Israel.  I’m sure that works in your more usual haunts (word chosen advisedly).

“In this case, these are the abandoned synagogues of a former, often brutal occupier.”

And the wheels fall off.  Brutal?  Ad hominem attack without underlying factual basis.  Whose government makes a policy of blowing up whose pizza parlors, and buses, and universities, and launching random rocket attacks, and sniping at farmers?  Oh, yeah.

“Burning them, shows a certain amount of degeneration, I believe, but not as much as you imagine.”

They were burned purely for intentional desecration.  (Note that this is actual desecration, not the more usual metaphorical sort.)

“I suppose if Palestinians had been running, say, Tel Aviv as a giant, society-sized concentration camp for a half century while also gobbling it up bit by bit, diverting the water into their resevoirs and destorying the farms of the local Jews, and then decided abruptly to abandon it...I don’t think many would blink if the now semi-free Jews burned down the mosques being left behind by their unsympathetic former masters.”

Let’s see, “concentration camp”, “masters”, “semi-free”.  When you add the “brutal” smear above, that about covers the usual free-floating anti-semitism.  You might want to take a look at the historical record of those terms, and also the historical record of Israel.  When I begin to hear a bit more about the “society-sized concentration camp” that is East Prussia, perhaps I’ll have some reason not to immediately assume malice in this sort of situation.  I don’t expect that any time soon.  Since the available evidence indicates that you are not disinterested, I’ll simply take this as the usual propaganda promulgated by an enemy of one of an actual liberal government in a sea of fascism.

“One wishes everyone could have achieved enlightenment and freedom from hate, but the displaying, among those who haven’t, of some level of humanity seems not beyond the realm of comprehension in some circumstances…”

That sort of “more in sorrow than in anger” content-free close is intended to again show the writer’s non-partisan compassion.  While it fails miserably at that, it does show that you are just another apologist for terrorists.  There is a gentlemanly course of action to atone for that sort of thing, but I doubt that you actually have the pistol.

"There is a gentlemanly course of action to atone for that sort of thing, but I doubt that you actually have the pistol.”

Doug, I’m sure you would be willing to lend him one of yours.

Huh. Blogging conundrum (and, yes, Ronald, you’re invited to answer the question, too):

I usually delete comment spam without a second thought. Yet Ronald provides me with a strange situation: his comment is actually directed toward the conversation, yet his URL is spam. I need a new set of rules, apparently, to deal with near spam.

My inclination is to go ahead and leave the link and the comment because he’s taking part in the conversation, but with the caveat that any link to a site that I find objectionable (donkey-girl porn for example) will be deleted along with the comment.

I realize that this is off topic, but, hell, it’s my site, so I give myself a little extra leeway…

Suggestions? Am I over-analyzing this?

The destruction of the synagogues should not have been permitted by the Palestinian Authority. It sends a terrible signal to Israelis and will harden many hearts against the new occupiers. This was a very stupid and politically unsophisticated move.

Whack it, Zombyboy.  No need to tolerate it.

I try to be a polite host whether I want to be or not.