It’s rather unfortunate that those who take a pro-Palestinian/Arab side in the Arab-Israeli (or Arab-Hebrew) conflict have to equate Zionism to racism (or, more evidently, only anti-Arab culturism); ultimately, as with most other facets of the conflict, there is (and has almost always been) a risk of inflaming and tangiblizing religious passions even further, and at least most peaceniks hold off from directly criticizing or touching upon the role of religion in the conflict. As soon as one decides to utter the words "Khazaria" in one of their screeds, of when one becomes textually obsessed with the role of Maimonides and the Talmud in Jewish religion, I pretty much stop and desist from further reading.

However, I honestly don’t think that peaceniks who aren’t obsessed with the discrediting of the Jewish religion’s origins have fully addressed the issue of religious fundamentalism and its ties – on both sides – with a reductionist or eliminationist revanchism (that is, to vengefully regain the true width of the religious territory from the others – the infidels). (Semi-theocratic) Religious Zionism and (secular) Revisionist Zionism were both about getting the full breadth of the Land of Israel back from the Ottomans, British and Arabs, and both wings have played a prominent role in the history of hinterland settlement in or near areas of archaeologically-Jewish importance; the area of Jerusalem and Judea, in this case, is and has been at the forefront of revanchist politics since the earliest period of Zionism’s evolution as a diaspora, and later state and religious, ideology.

If peaceniks understood or saw the element of outwardly-lashing Jabotinskian and Kahanist revenge and rage within the settlement movement, I honestly could predict that they would see it in a different, more realistic light, albeit one that could still exhibit balance between the two sides of the conflict (and address the third, more ancient and rooted side: the Euro-Christian side).