Reply #11: I don't think that one's opinions on I/P in isolation are enough to label one as RW or LW

[LeftishBrit]

except in extreme cases (e.g. 'I don't care if Iran bombs the shit out of Israel' and 'If I were in power in Israel I would depopulate Gaza' are both very RW statements, and both have been said on this forum, though not by regulars.)

There is, however, a tendency on ALL sides for people to sometimes quote from RW sources if they appear to support their 'side' on I/P.

Pro-Palestinians have sometimes quoted from xenophobic-isolationist sources, or implied that RW-ers are OK if they support Palestine. Most worrying are people who may or may not be pro-Palestinian (I suspect that in most cases they aren't), but who make the truly VILE allegation that Israel or its Jewish supporters control America/the world and are responsible for other countries' wars. Anyone who holds such views is, in my opinion, not a progressive. Such comments are rare on this forum, but have occurred elsewhere on DU.

Pro-Israel people have sometimes quoted from Islamophobic or culture-warrior sources - occasionally from right-wing Israelis (the one time in my 5 years on DU that someone implied that I was an antisemite was when I said that I didn't consider Israel National News as a reliable source!), but far more often from RW American sources. Most worrying are people who may or may not be pro-Israel but imply that Europe is allowing itself to be 'overrun' by Muslim immigrants, and who take exactly the same attitude to Muslim immigrants that antisemites do to Jews (in fact, a large number of RW-ers do both). Some combine all this with a hatred for the 'secularism' and 'leftism' of Europe (Thanks, Pipes, Steyn et al, you helped to convert me from my previous left-wing Euro-scepticism by showing me starkly what is really at stake, and the sort of thing that Europe must unite to oppose!)

As far as I am concerned, NO right-wing argument or viewpoint is EVER valid. This is not the same as saying that 'no argument voiced by a right-winger is ever valid'. Nor does it mean that all right-wing individuals are bad or stupid people. Nor does it mean that it is never necessary for left and right to compromise on an issue for pragmatic reasons (though this is often overdone). However: an argument that is based on harshness or xenophobia, or one that justifies right-wing policies because they seem to support 'your side' is invalid. I have heard the argument that one should not dismiss right-wing views out of hand, and that 'the left/liberals have no monopoly on the truth' just a little too often for my taste, from pro-Israelis, pro-Palestinians, and most of all, those who are opposed to certain vaccinations(!) Of course, sometimes a generally right-wing person or government acts in a progressive fashion - as when Begin and Sadat (both right-wingers) made peace at Camp David or when Nixon went to China. And sometimes a generally good liberal does something viciously right-wing, as when FDR interned the Japanese-Americans. But that does *not* mean that right-wing views are sometimes better than left-wing views. It just means that politicians, like the rest of us, are not always absolutely consistent about being right or left.

Thus I will never think that Hamas or other Muslim-Righties are Good Guys. But I will also never think that because they are bad guys (they are), it is really a kindness to the Palestinians to punish them for voting for Hamas; or that the Palestinians are a fundamentally bad culture.

As regards the people whom you mention: I would consider both Hanania and Strenger as on the left, though I think you sometimes oversimplify their views by taking certain statements out of context. Rubin appears to me to be right-wing - perhaps not extreme-right but certainly right - and not *only* on the basis of his I/P views. Buchanan is of course far right, and I have hated his guts ever since he defended LePen in 2002.

(edited because my paragraphs somehow got in the wrong order!)