Pat's not anti-semitic, he's anti-zionist. The distinction is important to understanding Pat's article. He is also anti-dispensationalist and an isolationist. Now, we can argue with his stance re: international terrorism post-9/11, that he needs to heed the warning presented by a Neville Chamberlain in the face of a nazi-like threat coming at us. But I think one need take this viewpoint seriously, not so dismissively. Look at history: English, although buying properties in the new colonies, basically stole the native's properties, not least of which was Jackson's Trail of Tears and Polk's Mexican-American War. Well, now the followers of Theodor Herzl ("Zionists") have done much as the settlers here did: start by fairly settling/buying mostly unutilized property, then slowly encroaching on other's properties, then wontonly grabbing by sheer force that property of others, claiming "Manifest Destiny". --I'm not against the modern state of Israel--any democratic state we need as a friend in this world!--but I think one needs to keep in mind the hypocrisy involved in taking natives' territories in very disingenuous ways, whether this process take place circa 1760-1912 in N. America, or in 1948-1973 Israeli/Palestinian territories. Manifest Destiny as a justification for what any fair law would deem theft needs to be understood in both contexts.
Oh boy. A lot to respond to here. I would point out, though, that Israel had historical claims to the land going back thousands of years.
That's the issue in a nutshell, isn't it? Israel's right to exist. I believe strongly that it has that right. I know some others disagree.
And the US? At least the French haven't asked for the Louisiana Purchase back! Although some have said that Napoleon betrayed the French nation by selling it too cheap to finance his wars. Might make a good case for the International Court in the Hague to resolve. (sarcasm)