is that the Left cares more about human rights than the Right.

In spite of why the US and Britain are fighting this war, for the combattants, there doesnt have to be any idealism. The Baatists (Sadaam Hussein and Company) lost power to the Shiites and want to regain it. They both believe in G-d is on their side. They both practice war. They dont care about your morality

Thank you Yaron London for describing the situation so accurately.

..that "the Americans are sick of it" is unfounded;so your whole article about Right-wingers & Left-wingers has forgotten about the CENTRE-FORWARDs who usually score the goals ; the moral is :give TOTO his citizenship & he'll score goals.

His opponents are great as old conservatives oil lobby republicans from the cold war era. (I am referring to foreign affairs matters). The line “You cannot impose democracy from above” is an old-con line, a rational used to justify US relationships with the military huntas of South America and apartheid South Africa. The reasons Iraq is in a mess don’t begging with George Bush, they go back to 1920. Bush and Rumsfeld did not made their homework about Iraq prior to the invasion, and neither have their critics.

Bush's policy of regime change regardless of the threat or the effectiveness of containment - this global welfare, global warfare agenda - has historically been a product of the American left, not the right. What we Americans (and ex-pats) need is to return to the traditional policy of peace and non-intervention. The only one who can get us there is Republican presidential candiate Rep. Ron Paul. Check out his site ronpaulexplore.com and give him your support.

Not sure what he's talking about. Lots of generalized assumptions, not much meat.

I like this article because it makes some excellent points in a neat and concise manner, but it does overstate its case. The left did protest about the treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan and I don't think that the left would have supported fascist Spain anymore than it supported Serbia in the Yugoslav wars. What both those examples do illustrate, however, is the fickle nature of comtemporary "champagne socialists" who called for intervention against the Taliban before 9/11 but refused to support Western military intervention after that date, or in Bosnia where the Western international brigades were notable in their absence.

the Left has nothing but the stink of the hypocrite about it these days. like 'cafeteria' Catholics, they make a point of only choosing issues they feel truly agree with their ideological 'comfort zone'. Here in the states, you hear nary a word about issues like women's rights in the Islamic world or the never ending cycle of Arab Muslims raping & murdering black Muslims in Darfur. the Left: idealism through inertia

Raised on television and the 60-second sound byte, this generation of Americans does not understand that some things take years of hard work and sacrifice to achieve. The goal of the Iraq war was 1. to remove a dangerous S. Hussein who had already attacked Israel, Kuwait and the Kurds and 2. to establish a democracy in the center of the Middle East. The 1st goal was achieved. There is still a chance the 2nd goal will, too, if people will wake up and realize that withdrawing our troops now will hand a huge victory to the Jihadis and will lead to the destruction of Israel and Western civilization.

What about Darfur, the UN can not do the job its been intended to do. So thus, its up to the USA to be the policeman. I have heard no one yet say, the results of non intervention in Iraq. Are these left wingers/ liberals advocating the return of corrupt regimes. Its GODS will that we all be free to practice a belief in God.

In the 60s and 70s I was considered a liberal. In the 80s and 90s, recognized as conservative. Presently, I see myself as an independent moderate, or libertarian. The funny part, is that my opinions have not changed all that much. It's the parties that have changed so drastically. Those of us who stay on top of these things, have long ago recognized that we no longer fit neatly into these party organizations, regardless of what they call themselves. They are nothing like they were just 37 yrs ago. They have shifted along toward their most extreme elements. The democrats have become more like European Socialists, and the Republicans have drawn nearer to Theocracy. Look what the democrats did to Joe Lieberman for example, and If Barry Goldwater were alive today, he would be considered quite reasonably liberal. These days it appears that if you have become attached to a party label, which was more appropriate in the past, you are more likely to be led around by the nose by some very manipulative political and social dynamics, which require much more independence and clarity of thought. Parties have always had an awful tendency to sometimes ignore common sense and the overall good in favor of their own agendas to the detriment of all. They are no longer worth the negative polarizing effects and divisions that they help create in society, nor are they deserving of the allegiance and committment that they once commanded. Still, people and parties must be elected to power, but all should recognize that they no longer serve the same interests that are taken for granted. Bob Dylan said it well. " The times, they are a changin' . "

It's a bit late... The fact that the Right has adopted the idealism of the Left and the Left has turned to isolationalism was appearant already in 2003. As a matter of fact, regarding Israel things have been changing in this regard since the 2nd intifada if not earlier. But I guess if you're a known left-wing Israeli journalist it's a crime to have an original thought. I would be ashamed to write an article like this. Why didn't you write it 5 years ago? Well I guess if you're a known left-wing Israeli journalist you are allowed to be lazy.

I would agree that the best hope for America, at present , rests with the Republicans, but not for the reason of isolationism. Funny, but the one representative that you chose, Rep. Ron Paul, is one of the few Congressmen to make the list of those not particularly a friendly to Israel. He has his good points, but this is not one of them. ...You live and you learn. Shalom Shalom.

People , especially Jews are supposed to figure it out themselves, and detect these shifts in party policies and emphasis over time, rather than waiting for someone to hold their hand. An article like this is a glance in hindsight which memory can support, if you have lived long enough. The situation is , that Jews in the US are still under the spell of the old Democratic party, which no longer exists, while a new generation ignorant of events and useful tradition have arrived at the helm steering the party toward a black hole. Many Jews are still gripping with white knuckles on to a cherished, and long gone version of the Democratic party, when at present, it is the Republicans who are most honorably and dedicatedly serving the needs of Israel in this war. You are all smart. Figure it out. See for yourselves. Remember, CNN does you no good !

Very nice essay. I believe that I may be able to add some insight into the question you posed on classifying the views of the American war-hawks as left or right. On the surface, it may seem to many outside the US, as well as within, that the Iraq war and occupation are motivated by the noblest of intentions. All the rhetoric used by the Bush presidential administration (and also the American media up until 2005) creates a fantastic image about freedom and democracy, and is supposed to legitimize a "moral high ground." Well, quite frankly, it is all smoke and mirrors; it is all show. From the start of the war it was clear that the goal of the Bush foreign policy was aimed at making big business even bigger, by securing foreign oil reserves and offering enormous reconstruction contracts to the administration's closest associates. The right's war is about capitalism and free markets and money and power... all very 'right' values. And it will use whatever means necessary to accomplish it's goals. And Americans know and have certainly always suspected this... up until Hurricane Katrina in 2005 the president's stranglehold on the media was so strong, any dissenting views were alarmingly absent, because they were being so aggressively repressed. Did you know that pres. George Bush reads Machiavelli's "The Prince" every year? That has some terrifying implications...

You're postively ridiculous.

Dear Mr. London, It was brought to my attention that you recently mentioned my late father Rami Dromi on an television interview program. I'm working on a film about my father and would welcome your recollections about him. Let me know the best way to get a hold of you if you are interested. Thanks in advance. Shalom Noam Dromi