Yes... it is the absurdity of it all... israel is asked to help the palastinians perform ethnic cleansing of their "territories" while israel itself is a multicultural free nation with a sizeable arab citizenship that holds spots on congress, military, etc... 

*sighs* I hate generalizing, because it serves no useful purpose and only shows ignorance. Freakin' A, such is life.

~Alderic

That is a stupid thing to say when it comes to politics.

Designations like "liberal" and "conservative" are based on common opinions held by the members of those groups. The entire American election system works on the basis that there are, in general, two different opinions competing.

And the pro-Arab-imperialist position is indeed a common trait among the left.

Heck, the German socialists even have a group among their own dedicated to fighting the latent and open anti-Semitism among German socialists:

http://bak-shalom.de/

So while it is true that not ALL left-wingers are anti-Semites, it is certainly a problem that so many are. And while you attempt to solve that problem by opposing generalisations (and hence focussing on the exceptions), this left-wing group (who are a part of the German Socialist party) focus on the other part of the problem, the non-exceptions, the GENERAL left-winger.

Here is an English-language article written by the spokesman of the BAK Shalom:

http://bak-shalom.de/index.php/2008/12/10/jerusalem-post-let-the-left-go-forward/

Luckily their attitude towards generalisations was also one of hatred. But they didn't hate that it was pointed out, but the fact that there was something to point out.

We spoke about this before. How many liberal protesters do you see on the streets demanding that Arab countries end slavery or allow for homosexuals to marry? Well, there are lots of liberal protesters on the street protesting the "occupation" or even the existence of Israel.

When it comes to Israel, many liberals forget the values they claim to believe in. Arab nationalism, for liberals, outweighs all liberal values. That is a generalisation. But it is also a problem for liberalism.

Because, and I hope I  explain this well enough, "liberals" are a group of people who share common features, especially political positions and it is hence a generalisation but not an invalid generalisation to list some of those common positions.

I can make statements about all liberals, because all liberals share certain things. It's like saying that mice are small mammals belonging to the order of rodents. It's not an unfair generalisation and it doesn't ignore the complex nature of mouse personalities.

Here's another one for you:

All neo-conservatives are people who support using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries and who are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state.

This doesn't deny that individual neo-conservatives differ from each other.

But they certainly do have some things in common.

(That doesn't mean that I couldn't be wrong and that you could easily correct me by pointing me to news coverage of gigantic demonstrations against Arab imperialism organised by liberals.)

I agree with you here. Modern so-called "liberals" do usually not stand for classical liberalism (and individual liberty) at all.

Yes, but I was using the word "liberal" in the modern American sense. You are right, I shouldn't do that. But that's the word they use to refer to themselves and that's the word so many others use to refer to them.

How can it be?

"Liberal" is defined, in theory, by certain political positions.

"Conservative" is defined simply by trying to preserve or go back to a previous situation.

In a society that used to be liberal, a conservative is a liberal.

In a society that used to be communist, a conservative is a communist.

Neo-conservatives, for example, want to preserve (or go back to) Lincoln's positions and 19th century economic policies and attitudes while allowing for a modern welfare state. That is a form of conservative politics. That's why you find so many neo-conservatives in the English-speaking world outside the US who are staunch monarchists and who praise the British Empire.

What you call "true" conservatives are people who want to go back to a different time than neo-conservatives. That doesn't make them more conservative, it just makes them a different type of conservatives.

I think you are oversimplifing here.  For I see what you're saying here Leauki.  An example would be JFK during his time he would be consider a liberal, but now probably be in the center to the rightish.

Still even though times have changed does not mean that he's no longer liberal. He was liberal.

One final example which I feel will help you understand my point is with Biblical Israel.  Most people who have absolutely no understanding or very little understanding of the Bible or the times/place that the Bible happened may say statements like 'the Israelites were so barbaric and sexist. I could not follow a G-D who treats people as inferior.'

They are making a fallacy of putting constraints of what they feel is appropriate and right behavior and bring Biblical Israel into their times and into the context how what their culture/society define things.

Taken off hand you may agree with them.  Yet if you look at the culture and times that they lived in Israel was revolutionarly different.  One example is if Israelite is Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the law of the Beautiful Women.  After a battle an Israelite found a woman that he liked.  He could take her back to Israel.  Have her shave her head, not cut her nails, and take off her fancy dress and mourn for 30 days.  If he still desired her she could be his but he needs to treat her with same respect that other Israelite women would get.  If he no longer desired her then she could go free or become an Israelite.

As you most likely know, nearly all other nations around Israel didn't do this.  The conqueroring country would just make the women become their slave.

When you see and know this background you are able to have a better understanding of the culture at THAT time.

Its about taking things in context.