Actually, Great Britain (a democracy) declared war on Finland ( a democracy) so as to support a brutal dictatorship (USSR) during 1943. There you go - a war between two democracies.

Michael, London,

I note the comment about the Jews have their capital of Jerusalem some 3000 years ago - 1500 years before the Arabs. Suggesting of course that that makes the occupation right. This is misguided one two accounts.

First, the Arabs were always there. The process of Arabization did not remove any indigenous peoples. So Egypt is an ancient civilisation that became Arabized. So too the Assyrians as well as the ancestors of today's Palestinians - the Phillistines.

More importantly however, if we were to follow this reasoning, everyone should leave the United States and give it back to the Indians! We could say the same for all the New World.

Israel must be respected as a state not because of some quaint historical antecedent, but because it is the law as established by the UN. If we accept the international law then we should also accept the fact that Israel has no right to the West Bank and Gaza.

The rationale is very simple indeed. It is a shame people ignore it.

Jonathan, London,

A war between two democracies - how about Athens and Syracuse?

andrew, london, uk

Fine in theory but not very practical. Aside from the fact that dictators and madmen do get elected (Hitler, Mussolini and recently that clown of Iran), does it takes decades for a democracy to develop. People in third world countries vote on ethnic, tribal or religious lines. Shia’s in Iraq will continue to vote for a Shia strongman, whether he is a capitalist or socialist.

Simultaneous economic development is vital. Democracy in Africa was tried in the 50’s and 60’s and failed because their economies were undeveloped. The secret to western style democracy is to get a big middle class and that can only happen through economic growth.

Herman, London, UK

John Chuckman - Toronto, Canada

John,

A comparison between the the amount of news coming out of Israel and the Canary islands?! I'm not sure whether that's an in-house Canadian joke? But, anyway John, nice to hear from you.

Paul, London, UK

Democracy most of the time means being ruled by people that think everybody else in the population do not know their plot. This plot has been going on for more than a decade. Only the actors believe the plot. The West is not a Jewish population. They are mainly Christian. Politicians are taking everybody on a ride. Once the ride ends they will decide on a reason for it. In a conflict the first thing you lose is the truth.

Mohamed, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E

The 'analogy' of imposing a Buddhist state in Europe doesn't hold water. Like so many other people, the poster fails to see that the Jews are not 'just a religion', but a nation, a nation that is entitled to live in its ancient homeland. Anyone who denies this right to the Jews whilst giving this same right to the French, the Vietnamese, the Danes and the Japanese is antisemitic by definition. They may feel proud to be antisemitic, but they are antisemitic all the same. And it is typical that most antisemites are also too cowardly to admit that they are.
The comparison with the British in India is as ludicrous as it is ignorant. The British didn't have their capital in Delhi 3000 years ago, 1500 years before the Indians even arrived. The Jews did have their capital in Jerusalem 3000 years ago, 1500 years before the Arabs even arrived. That's why Al Aqsa is on TOP of Solomon's Temple, not under it.

Ann Sinclair, Manchester,

Democracy At Home, Tyranny Abroad

Early 1900s - 10 million Congolese killed under exploitative conditions on rubber plantations in The Congo
1920s, Post Versailles - Colonisation imposed on Arab world by Britain and France
Iran 1953 - Democracy overthrown by US, UK coup
1954 Guatemalan democracy overturned by CIA coup in order to hand back plantations to corporate America
1963 - Western backed coup against nationalist government in Iraq
1963 - Congolese democracy backed by CIA backed coup
1965 - CIA enginnered coup in Indonesia overthrew democratic government and put army in power - 800,000 die
60s & 70s some 3 million Vietnamese killed in order to "save them from communism"
1973 - CIA backed coup against Salvador Allende in Chile

If democracy is truly good, then it should be a force for good both at home and abroad. Unfortunately this has not been the case. It seems democracies don't go to war against each other because they exploit and share the spoils of everyone else.

Jonathan, London,

The Zionists have made themselves the McGuffin of the Middle East.
If a country expands and steals other countries lands, steals their sub soil water resources, subjugates the population, kidnaps their Members of Parliament and commits acts of mass punishment, then you are, to put it mildly, McGuffin.

Robin Bather, Metepec, Mexico

Re Nathan from Surrey's comment --

"Benign despotism" does sound attractive until you realize that there is nothing benign about many Arab monarchs (and even Iran) -- they maintain their power by subjugating women and minorities and creating a fear of the 'other' (whether the other is the Jew, or Western culture, or universal values like freedom of faith and expression). They keep their population in poverty and ignorance, deny them oppotunities in a world where India and China are zooming past them.

I do agree that military intervention can be disastrous. But if you think the status quo is acceptable you are dreaming.

Ravi Shekhar, Manchester,

Gabby Logan says that `when we moved to Leeds-there was no indoor tennis centre just ramshackle old council courts and nowhere to have lessons` yet she lived less than two miles from Chapel Allerton Lawn Tennis Club which has the finest facilities including extensive indoor courts. Her mother Christine Yorath,a property developer, has recently developed a site into 24 flats,one of which is reputedly owned by Gabby herself. The site shares a boundary wall with the said tennis club.

Mike Smith, Leeds, W Yorks

"Name me a war between two democracies"

I think when Mr Finkelstein talks about 'democracies', he means 'true' democracies. Democracy is just pot luck. It is only a true democracy when the people have voted in the right party (who usually avoid wars). Every general election it's potluck.

Confused, London, UK

Just to clarify for Frank of Solihull, I wasn't even going that far back, but purely referring to the occupied territories, as defined by international law.

(you may also, if you wish, extrapolate a little tangentially to Jewish-Israel's Apartheid against their co-habiting Arab-Israelis in so called Israel proper)

Geoff, London,

What is there to say? The man is absolutely right. What I would be interested in knowing is if anyone can cite an example of a democracy attacking a dictatorship or other non-democratic arrangment -- without provocation or with crapp0y, trumped-up accusations of a provocation.

Jim Houghton, Encino, CA, USA

Hitler was elected by a democratic vote - he did, of course, proceed to crush dissent later but he was elected by democratic process. Similarly, the Iranian revolution was very democratic - it had widespread support among Iranians. If Khomeini had run for election he would have won by a lanslide in 1979. And if there were elections in Pakistan today, you'd have fundamentalists in power. Hamas, of course, was also elected by elections.

The Neocons are clutching on to Democracy as their last hope. It has already failed - in Iraq. Democracy is not always desirable. Sometimes benign despotism is better - Lee Kuan Yew in Sinagpore, for example.

Nathan, Surrey,

If the Buddhist analogy held true then Tibetans would have lived in Europe before Christianity and Europeans, Tibetan Buddhism would have been the basis of Christianity and Islam, Tibetans would be the indigenous population returning to the source of their religion, their land, and all the landmarks of their sacral texts, and Europe would be the historical and ethnic source of their identity. Go ahead ignore 4,000 years of history, the Bible, the meaning of national and religious identity, and the source of one of the main components of European culture, in order to what? Find another excuse to kill Jews? Only Palestine, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are ethnically cleansed (of Jews). Nearly 25% of Israel's population is NOT Jewish. Israel is more multi-cultural than any European nation. The UK can barely tolerate 5-6% of its population being non-white. Within 60 years (1939-99) Europe went from having 9 million Jews to 900,000. Congratulations! Ignorance and racism divinely united.

toni manson, london, england

This is an interesting insight and highly relevant, but is a pity that this will fall on deaf ears...once again!

Paul Charney, London, UK

Have you forgotten Germany and Britain in WWI?

The Kaiser was a constitutional monarch with formal powers very little different from the British monarch.

john ray, Brisbane, Australia

Though both Spain and Portugal had "internal" or colonial struggles in the mid-late twentieth century, they had peace with other nations.

The other readers have mentioned wars between democracies...
If a democracy must have universal sufferage, then it will never exist. People are always denied the right to vote, from ethnic Russians in Estonia to convicted lawbreakers in the US. In many countries you can even get your right to vote taken away if you're declared "insane" (in Portuguese we use the term politically insane).

Think about it. If we ban smoking or prejudiced speech, those who smoke and speak in a "prejudiced" way can easily loose their right to vote.

The west doesn't want to win this war just yet, it needs it's own boogieman to keep in power.

Disatisfaction with undemocratic alliances like the EU, with politically correct speech controls, with not being able to afford their own homes and with the lies of opportunity have been muffled by fear of terrorism.

Vasco de Sousa, Aberystwyth, Wales

NeoCons are correct. Truly, what else is left? We long tried almost everything else. Accepting dictators on their own terms did not bring stability, but constant war, oil embargoes and terrorism from the 1960s onward. And staging coups or propping up authoritarians in Iran or the Gulf simply radicalized the Middle East. Isolation encouraged jihad.
In truth, fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq was not our first, but last choice. It was not a good option, only a bad one when the other alternatives had proven far worse. What the U.S. is trying to do in the Middle East is costly, easily made fun of and unappreciated. But constitutional government is one thing that may free the ME from the religious police, the secret police, intolerant militias, corrupt royalty in Raybans, clerics and presidents for life.

courtneyme109, Chattanooga, TN, USA

Jimmy Carter has done more for the Palestinian cause in the past year then he did while he was President of the United States from 1977-1981. The publication of his book, 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid', initiated discussions and forums throughout the world on the question of the policies of apartheid in the state of Israel. Zionists throughout the world, the US in particular, became outraged with his candidness and honesty. Alan Dershowitz became obsessed with the man and went on speaking engagements trying to prove that Carter was indeed an antisemite for daring to speak the truth on such matters. Such are the tactics of the Lobby and their supporters. They wear their blinders and see only what zionism wants them to see. It matters not to them what Israel might be doing wrong, but it is a mortal sin to speak out against such doings. Jimmy Carter dared to do just that

Desert Peace, IL, Jerusalem

Peace in the Middle East is only a press of a button away... Not what you're thinking.

Switch of your TV and start reading the Timesonline!

Great article!

Mohammed, London, UK

"Name me a war between two democracies" - Hamastan/PA vs. Israel.

Supporters of democracy would do well to consider the situation realistically. Elections are the end not the beginning of the democratic process; the rule of law, free institutions and education are prerequisite. Otherwise, election results will continue to favor Islamists like Hamas.

Jason, Fairfield, USA

If the land of Israel doesn't belong to Israel, as one commentator claimed, who does it belong to? The people who actually live there now - but they are mostly Jews, with a large minority of Arabs? The previous owners, in reverse order, the UK under a League of Nations mandate, the Turks, the Crusaders, the Arabs, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Jews, the Greeks, the Jews, the Babylonians, the Jews, the Assyrians, the Jews again, the Canaanites, the Neanderthals.......asking who the land belongs to is a way of expressing conviction rather than resolving anything.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

So the problems of the Palestinians has nothing to do with Israel, nothing to with confiscation of their land, their property, nothing to do with restrictions on all aspects of their civialian life, nothing to do with American funding of the Israeli military state, nothing to do with the countless broken UN mandates, nothing to do with Israel right? If only Arabs could stop fighting amongst themselves, stop bringing all this trouble on themselves, they would be better off, right? Wrong. This is the twisted logic of the oppressor, this how you can vindicate your actions and trick your conscience into believing that all the wrongs you have committed are somehow justifiable. How incredibly sad.

Saoirse, dublin, ireland

Just because there are leaders who invent enemies it does not mean there are no enemies. What a ludicrous position to take. It is perfectly credible to think that Israel is the antagoniser in the Middle East.

jack , london, uk

No amount of intelectual debate will change the basic fact that Bush was the first American President to suffer a military attack on the American mainland with the 09/11 assault and it became clear someone was going to pay for it. It was Saddam Hussain and Iraq. The Irony is how a war of 'liberation' has become a war against 'insurgency and freedom', and how Americans are in the Country at the invitation of the Iraqis (George Bush quote) but who are not doing their bit.

Filby, Fondettes, FRANCE

Depends how you define democracy, depends how you define war.
If you have a very narrow description of both then yes the democratic peace theory is untouchable, but surely the world is more complex than that?

Jo, London, UK

You neocons are certainly not right that only democracies make peace.

Powerful and secure leaders do not need to create an enemy. Henry VIII made peace and he was the arguably the most despotic, appropriating leader this country ever had.

Democracies are rarely powerful and secure, especially were a significant minority of the country rejects democracy. So democracy alone cannot bring a good prospect of peace.

We should do all we legally can to encourage democracy for its own sake.

A Clarke, London,

The neo-cons ARE right, especially if the emphasis is not on democracy per se but on more basic values, justice and respect for indiviual life. That's what is lacking in Islamic culture. The problem is more there, than how the West responds to it. They really need a reformation over there. The more we try to keep it contained by cozying up to thugs and terrorists, the more we blame ourselves or Israel, and the more we ignore it, the more it festers. Thank God Bush and the necons finally lanced that boil. It will be a mess while it heals, but it would only get worse otherwise. The neocons are getting a bad rap: they are a healthy alternative to a "realism" that acquiesced in brutes, or an Internationalism that is corrupt and self-delusional.

Robert MacArthur, Tucson, AZ

Kevin Sullivan, London, UK: "I think we are totally missing the point here! If a Buddist State was imposed in the center of Europe, the local population 'ethnically cleansed' and deprived of their human rights"

I assume you're referring to Israel. Your analogy would be nearer the mark if Buddists ethnically cleansed from Tibet returned over a thousand years later to their homeland and found the Chinese not only refused their offer of a shared state but murdered them and packed Tibet with Vietnamese.

The Buddists then won a war of independance and several others against all expectations. The Chinese, the worst perpetrators of human rights in the region then ethnically cleanse 1,000,000 Buddists from China while stopping the Tibetan Chinese and Vietnamese that fled the flighting in Tibet from becoming Chinese and Vietnamese citizens once more.

The Chinese then call the Chinese and Vietnamese refugees Tibetans and claim them to be stateless.

Got the point yet?

Dan, Hampton, UK

Isn't a democracy that declares war on someone reclassified to be feudera? Wasn't Hilter voted into power?

Chris, Birmingham, England

israel - palestine

ok, one could dismiss hamas or the israeli govt as a heavily armed group of terrorists. but both were elected in relatively fair and free elections. the israeli govt's insistence that the hamas govt give in on all points before negotiating (which, clearly, as democratic representatives, they were unable to do) has done nothing for the cause of democracy in the middle east..

fred, london,

Henry, Graz, mentioned Britain declaring war on Finland. To be fair, no actual fighting took place so no actual damage was inflicted on either party. This means that Daniel Finkelstein's argument suffers no damage as well.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

War between two democracies? - the Great War, Daniel. the big one, that changed the world forever.

UK and France vs Germany. Tho' officially an Empire, as were we, Germany was a constitutional monarchy with a functioning Reichstag and govt headed by Chancellor, and it was the government not the Kaiser who started World War 1.

alistair stewart, London , UK

The second world war , do you understand?

jorge, España,

"Name me a war between two democracies": Athens' invasion of Sicily (415BC). Democratic Boeotia fought Athens at Mantinea (362BC). Republican Rome ended the Achaean federated states of Greece and levelled Corinth (146BC). Italian republics of the renaissance were constantly at each others' throats. Revolutionary France and parliamentary England were deadly enemies; a democratic United States fought twice against the consensual government of Britain. There was a Union and Confederate president and Senate. The Boers and British in southern Africa each had elected representatives. Both elected prime ministers in India and Pakistan have at times threatened each other.

These details are from pp.453-4 of "Why the West has Won" by Victor Davis Hanson. The idea that democracies never go to war with each other is often repeated but incorrect. Democracies tend not to go to war with each other, but when they do the wars are catastrophic.

Dr. Keith Anderson, Durham, England

Democracy is a contractual arrangement between the government and the citizen. The government manages the country and the citizen pays taxes. And that is the rub; if they don't pay, they don't play. Democracy and taxation are sides of the same coin. But, in the Middle East, I am guessing that (Israel excepted) there is not a lot of personal tax paid. Many of these 'governments' are funded directly or indirectly from oil revenue and there is the crux of the problem.

Charles, London, England

* Name me a war between two democracies*

Israel-Lebanon, July-August 2006

What do I win?

passingthrough, Kent,

Britain (democracy) declared war on Finland (democracy) in WW2.

Henry, Graz, Austria

A war between two democracies,mmmmm.....ever heard of Northern Ireland? Perhaps you are not considering the UK as a democracy? Or maybe that is (was) not war enough for you.

B, San Jose, Ca

William Garrett, Harrow: "It is because it was installed without the consent of the Palestinians. it ethnically cleansed western Palestine of 800 000 Palestinians (a war crime)"

The Arabs of the British mandate of Palestine did not want a shared state with the Jews of the British mandate of Palestine. The Arabs of the British mandate of Palestine murdered the Jews while the British looked the other way. Nevertheless, today there are over a million Israeli Arabs. There are hardly any Arabian Jews because they WERE ethnically cleansed from Islamic countries, over a million of them.

All the above are easily verifiable facts. Get thee to a library, WIlliam.

Dan, Hampton, UK

Great article.

The creation of a perceived threat to the nation is the best way to unite a nation, whilst masking up the true problems. It's a shame that the BBC, as well as others, has failed to realise that this happening in the Middle East.

Fred, London,

Britain created a democracy in India. True, it has its problems, but they are minor compared to the Middle East.

So democracies can create new democracies, but only if they are willing to take on the burden of long term imperialism.

William McIlhagga, Ilkley,

Your Right -
A married couple were at war with each other so went to their Rabbi to act as a marriage counselor. The wife goes first with the Shammas (beadle) present. She complains that the husband does not work hard and was a lousy provider - The Rabbi agrees with her.
The husband arrives later and complains that the wife is profigate and a lousey house-wife. The Rabbi agrees.
The Shammas complains that the Rabbi has said both were right , which is impossible , to which complaint the Rabbi responds "Your Right"

Colin Wagman, London, UK

He says "Have you ever wondered why everyone goes on and on about Israel?".
It is because it was installed without the consent of the Palestinians. it ethnically cleansed western Palestine of 800 000 Palestinians (a war crime), it has illegally annexed east Jerusalem, it has 400 000 illegal settlers in the West Bank, it has kept the Palestinians under occupation for 40 years, it has built a wall on Palestinian land that encloses the main illegal settlements, and more Palestinian land, it ignores international law, the Geneva Conventions and all critical UN Resolutions, it still occupies the 'Sheba Farms', Lebanese land and the Golan Heights, Syrian land.

Yet despite all of this it still has the total support of the US and trades freely with the democratic Western powers; this double standard has angered most countries in the region and set them against the West.

William Garrett, Harrow,

A war between two democracies? That's a variation on Tom Freidland's assertion that there's never been a war between two countries in which there's a McDonald's. One could argue that held until the most recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon....

jonathan anthony, london,

Name me a war between two democracies?
I can do better than that Daniel, I can name you a war in which every side that took part was a democracy: the war between Yugoslavia and the NATO powers in 1999. Even Milosevic's hostile biographer Adam Lebor, who occasionally writes for The Times, concedes that Yugoslavia was not a dictatorship under Slobo.

Neil Clark, Oxford, UK

No. Nothing to do with the people of Palestine being caged in, imprisoned, tortured, denied human rights, having a whacking great apartheid wall erected....
None of it is Israel's fault. No. Never. Israel would never do anything mean or nasty. It's a well known fact that Israel is pink and fluffy and lovely.
It's them mean, nasty Aye-rabs, innit?

<sarcasm>

dragonhead, nottingham, uk

Israel is an easy excuse used by many in the region to justify or explain away any bad behavior. It works as well for the Zionists as it does
for Hamas. As for this attempt to revive the neo cons from
their Iraq humiliation, I can only say, who am I supposed to believe,
Mr Finkelstein, or my own eyes?

rkerg, oakland, CA USA

"Name me a war between two democracies."

The Cod Wars

Of course it depends on how you define war. And democracy. And with the latter it requires so many qualifications that it turns out there are only three democracies extant, and they only for five years, so maybe it's not that definitive a rule. Otherwise, my answer would have been the War of 1812.

Chris Clark, Stroud,

The real tragedy is that the democratic world only seems to see the Arab- Israeli problem as causing the problem with the Muslim world. What about the Taliban destroying the Budha, the Sunni Muslims bombing Shiite Mosques and vice versa? The simple but most ignored fact is that for the third time Islam is trying to dominate the world. What they failed to achieve in Spain in the 8th. and outside Vienna in the 17th. century by armed force they are now trying to achieve in Europe by sending their poor to be a) a burden on the European economy and b) by refusing to integrate into this democratic society to make use of their freedoms to make Islam the dominant religion and then the political power in Europe and then the rest of the world will be no problem. Fatah is no more 'moderate' than Hansa, Islamic Jihad or Al-Queida. They all have the same aim to make the whole world a 'caliphate' and then they only need to continue fighting each other.

Mendi, Jerusalem, Israel

Well said, Mr Anderson!

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

Natan Sharansky supports Israeli settlements in the West Bank and also a Jewish State of Israel; these aims cannot coexist with democracy if democracy means that everyone has a vote.

However true they may be - it is difficult for me to take at face value Sharansky's comments about our undemocratic neighbors when he himself advocates transforming our democracy into an apartheid society.

Jonathan Sivan, Haifa, Israel

A passenger on the station at Ascot protested against the 'Big brother' regulations which told her wher to stand on the platform. The other passengers supported her protest, and the EHO driven employees were forced to 'conceed' and back off.
The protest was against the overbearing - big brother- attitude of the authotities (government) towards the people (us) and their assumption that we were all morons. It is not important where we stand, but that we should be coerced/ordered to stand anywhere is a violation of our freedom [read human rights] in europe speak.

CAB, Richmond,

The rural American south saw much of the same thing during the depression. "If you set your feet under my table, you vote for Eugene Talmadge." (Males, of course, it was unladylike and questionable for females to vote). Talmadge screamed the" N" word, and roads went unpaved, sharecroppers starved, and rural schools went to the fifth gade.My father worked from daylight to dark for $.50 a day. Others worked in the cotton mills for pitable wages under horrific conditions. Fear works.

joyce, Douglas, Ga

Interesting article. Of course, men have a natural tendency to fight between themselves; it is an unproductive instinct, that intelligence can usually suppress. Once intelligence has been damaged though, fighting becomes inevitable; look at Palestine. Perhaps Israel is the centre of the earth, because it is the birth place of Jesus Christ. Christianity accepts this as a given, and Muslims accept it with some caution. It seems to be only the Jews who do not accept it. Therein perhaps lies the cruel dichotomy, that Israel has become. And a war between two democracies? Anglo-Boer war, for starters; a very ugly, almost inexplicable, war.

H. Grattan, Johannesburg, South Africa

Absolutely brilliant - the MacGuffin is of course central to post-post-modernist theory by articulating the Lacanian Real in positing the signifier without a signified.

David V., Sheffield,

Religious fundamentalism is not confined to the muslim world nor is the internal conflict/influence occasioned by it!
Extreme fundamentalist reactions seem to be influenced to some degree by the pressure (real or perceived ) placed upon them.
I must say that living in Gaza for an ordinary family must be like living in a pressure cooker without a safety valve, is it any wonder that it blows up?

Jim Golightly, Prudhoe, England

Show me a neocon and I'll show you a zionist. What if they're both wrong?

Speranza, London,

The arabs living in Israel (and they are israeli citizens!) do not want to leave Israel. They live with comfort, education and health services. Those are indeed the benefits of democracy. Give the arabs from the territories comfort, education and health services and they will finally accept democracy as the system which may improve their lives. Let them live in towns as Raanana, for example (a modern and residential city, 10 km north from Tel Aviv). So, may be(and just may be) that allowing arabs an economic improvement will they make appreciate the democracy benefits. I think this comes first.

Eduardo Ferder, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Finkelstein tells the story as though Israel has never been at fault in any way whatsoever, and whilst that kind of blind support for Israeli actions continues without any realistic assessment of the actions of every side involved, there will be no peace or end to the injustices for all involved.

For example, Ariel Sharon was hardly a man reknowned for a peaceful attitude or saintly conduct but he was not referred to, so let's have a balanced comment or why bother?

Ken.H, Harrow,

Is Daniel F really challenging us to "Name me a war between two democracies" How about World War 2 for starters? Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected in constitutionally recognised democracies. What more does Daniel F want by way of proof?

Unlimited democracy, and unlimited is is where it always ends up, creates huge conflicts as everbody tries to live at the expense of everyone else. As such, it is anything but peaceful; it is the greatest promoter of total war the world has ever seen. As Robert Skidelsky reminds us in his article in The New Statesman of 6th January 2004, the rise of democracy and nationalism in the twentieth century served to make mass killing of civilians an aim of policy. He also reminds us that genocide in Bosnia in the early 1990s started with the onset of Democracy.

Terry Arthur, Stamford,

"Name me a war between two democracies."

1. Israel vs Hamas (If Israel, a democratic thocracy, can be called a true democracy -- A democracy only for Jews). It is a "democracy" which builds vast settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land. Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people, but not approved by Israel and America.

"Name me a truly peace-loving dictatorship." This is a two edged sword. Could America, a democracy be called peace loving? Since the second World War It has made more wars than any dictatorship .

James Born, Williamsburg, Virginia

"Name me a truly peace-loving dictatorship": UAE, Qatar, Singapore, Malaysia, Kuwait, Brunei? And there are others. Are these dictatorships? They're certainly not fully functioning democracies. So, there's sometimes something that works between a neo-con definition of democracy and a tyrannical dictatorship. It's only the simplicity of these oh so sophisticated people that prevents them from realising there are sometimes more than even two "rights". And sometimes, in some situations, there are no "rights" that anyone - especially not Harvard educated Westerners - can be so sure of. Not so sure anyway that it's worth sacrificing 1,000,000 people to test out.

J Miller, Dubai, UAE

"Name me a truly peace-loving dictatorship."
If "peace-loving" means non-aggressive in practice, this is even easier than naming a war between democracies.

Of course, dictatorships tend to be anti-free-market, and therefore their best chance at getting richer is to invade other countries. However, many dictators have been realists, especially military dictators in the XX century, and their realism has been a strong restraint. Indonesia invaded East Timor, and Argentina invaded the Falklands, but this is small beer compared to the aggression of ex-socialists (Mussolini), national-socialists (Hitler), or communists (Trotsky, Stalin). Most other communist dictatorships have also been non-expansionist, perhaps because they believed that central planning would make them richer, more probably because they were realists about their chances of success.

Arthur, Tallinn, Estonia

Absolute non-sense. "everyone goes on and on about Israel" because they are occupying land that does not belong to them. That is a fact. Take that fact away and you take away the ability to go on and on about Israel. Why don't we just try that? It's simple. It would stop al-qaeda, it would stop Iran and it would stop the Arab world (from going on and on).

Try it. At the very least a wrong would have been righted and the West would then have a case against these organisations/countries.

Some, shall we say, questions unanswered:

1)I often wonder why most empires "chose the Jews"? Babylonians, Romans, Europeans (Spain, Germany, Italy, even England), and now the Arabs. Because they are easy targets or because of their value systems?

2)"fear societies"-it could be easily argued that America and England rely on fear-eg 45min claim.

3)Dictatorship-public have almost no control over their military's actions; Democracy-public have almost no control over their military's actions.

geoff, london,

The authoritarians in our fear societies use Islamic fundamentalists and mostly hapless terrorist boogeymen as their MacGuffin.

Of course there is a kernel of truth to their claims, but there is also a kernel of truth to the "Arab" claims about Israel.

Jamie, Bolton, UK

Great article....Well done! Whether one agrees or disagrees with Daniel's viewpoints, his writing is always interesting, thought-provoking and well argued. I look forward to reading many more of his articles.

Dominic, London, UK

'Stalin needed the capitalists and the Trotskyites. North Korea demanded “ironclad unity under leader-party-nation” to keep the country safe from external predators. Hitler chose the Jews. And so did the leaders of Syria and Egypt, Iran and Libya.' And finally America and the West had the Soviet Bloc and now Bush has his "war on Terror".

Matt, London,

You forgot to mention the most obvious example of a Macguffin, the Iraq war, indeed the whole conduct of the war on terror smacks of 1984. The erosion of civil liberties and moral decency underpining the behaviour of democratic nations, both in the way in wich the conduct themselves abroad and in the way in which they choose to domesticaly. Fundementalist Islam has made it very clear that the current behaviour of the west is one of their most cherished end products...Macguffin?

lionar, london, Uk

Why does the West still contribute so much money to the Palistenians? As noted inthe Wall St. J today "Since its creation by the so-called Oslo Accords of 1993, the PA has garnered more international aid than any entity in modern history -- more, per capita, than the European states under the Marshall Plan. The lion's share of this fortune has been siphoned into the private accounts of Fatah leaders or used to pay off the commanders of some 16 semi-autonomous militias. The PA also maintains an estimated 60,000 uniformed gunmen on its payroll, giving the West Bank the world's highest percentage of policemen-to-population."

All of this money and for what exactly?

herb , new york, usa

In modern times, the development of democracy and nation states have usually gone hand in hand. Democratization has frequently failed where nationalist tensions prevented the development of the consensual political culture that underlies democracy (and you don't need a huge proportion of the population to refuse consent to prevent democracy functioning - witness Northern Island). Often democracy has arisen *after* nationalist warfare and ethic cleansing have established homogeneous nation states at ease with themselves. The tragedy of Israel is two nations claiming the same land, and in these circumstances democracy on both sides won't end the fighting, unless and until they agree to divide the territory, or at least establish a de facto division. Palestinian extemism, driven by frustrating at their defeat in the struggle to date, is unlikely to end until that happens (and may not even then).

Andrew, Lincoln, UK

The US forced Japan to become a democracy at the end of WWII. The US forced Germany to become a democracy at the end of WWII. Why is it that this fallacious argument that democracy cannot be forced continues to have credence?

rajah, St. Martin du mont, France

Dear Daniel,
With two boys attending Chavagnes college this year I am moved to write to you with little hope of this reply seeing the light of day.
The school has some deficencies indeed but the central thrust of the school which is to help the boys depeen their faith and grow into being moral, thoughtful men of the next generation is spot on.
My sons come home better in every sense than when they left. If that means they experience life a little differently to your view of the ideal, a better bargain cannot be had.
The fruit bears witness to the tree and they are well nutured at Chavagnes.

Yours in Christ
Xavier Mchugh

Xavier McHugh, dubai, U.A:E

It is truly refreshing to read of the problem in a wider perspective, measured in content and stule and free of emotive language.
There are a couple of more points that also need to be considered. The first is that Israel provides a focal point for intra-Moslem rivalry: the more powerful and destructive the effect of an Islamic group's attack on Israel, the greater is its status in the Moslem world.
The second point that needs to be made is that the conflict over Israel is really a cover for a wider conflict - the conflict between Western and Islamic structures of government and thought. In other words, remove Israel from the world and we are left with a conflict between democracy and sharia law.

reuben, London, UK

Dr Keith Anderson - your examples are somewhat misleading.

Revolutionary France was hardly a beacon of democracy, it was an expansive radical state that veered from one extreme to a greater extreme to Imperial power.

The South African example is not really applicable to modern day politics and the US civil war isn't either (the clue was in the 'civil war' bit).

The India and Pakistan example granted has some merit, but then the democratically elected governments there haven't actually gone to war as you say.

Every other example you give is archaic.

Julian, Wincombe,

Dr. Irene Lancaster might also want to study Jewish history, not least the 2 warring Jewish states of Judah and Israel. But it is not Jewish history that explains the present but the history of colonialism. I'm sorry if the Dalai Lama supports the Israeli State because he, of all people, should understand what it is to have your land occupied by another country.

Indeed it is very simple. Zionism sought to establish a Jewish state in a land which was predominantly non-Jewish. Even the existing Jewish population was anti-Zionist. Hence the Palestinians had to be expelled.

As to the present day. Hamas was the creation of Israel at a time when, in the early 1980's Shin Bet sought to create a counter-weight to the secularist PLO. Just as the USA helped create Al Quaeda at a time when it supported Muslim fundamentalists. What you sow....

Israel will use very excuse to avoid peace because it wants land. People under occupation don't form democracies.

Tony Greenstein, Brighton, UK

Daniel Finkelsteinon says: "...We are told that the fighting between Fatah and Hamas is inevitable given their desperation. It’s all the result of years of Israeli oppression. But why, then, is a very similar fight going on in Egypt between the Arab nationalist government and the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood? And why are Hezbollah and the Syrians killing Lebanese ministers? This fighting isn’t about Israel. ..... "

Actually a major reason for the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was Saddat's (right) decision to make peace with Israel. The increasing empowerment of Hezbollah in Lebanon can also trace its roots to the invasion and virtual annexation the southern part of that country's southern areas for years, by Israel.

It's by no means the only reason, but Israel's policies in the occupied territories have undoubtedly helped to radicalize and drive many desperate and despairing Palestinians into the arms of Hamas, which until very recently was pretty much a non-entity.

Paul Roberts, London, UK

"The West, they say, cannot force a country to be a democracy. We can’t simply march in with guns and tell other countries how to live their lives." But that is what the West did in Germany and Japan. Germany had democracy for only a few years and Japan none of it.

An example (Iraq) does not make it a rule.

Renaud, Wimbledon,

Arab has been killing Arab in Iraq, in Lebanon and in Gaza because the winner gets to call the shots on Israel. This is the culmination of 60 years of Arab vilification. Ayatollah Khomeini saw hatred of Israel as the key to Persian dominance of Arab lands, and his followers now fan the flames. The "Israel delenda est " objective may have once been a cynical ploy of Arab dictators, but it has a life of its own by now. Can anyone doubt that hostility to Israel is likely to be a hallmark of any Iraqi democracy that emerges? The tragedy of the Arabs (which I would define as their refusal to accept the reality of Israel and move on) has become the central tragedy of the modern world. Even when the jihadis wither away (as they will because no one with access to modern entertainment will be able to stand their strict rules), the world will be left to deal with the consequences of the dominant Arab passion. There's no quick fix available.

Andrew Hamilton, Washington, D.C., USA

the us overthrew a democracy in Iran in 1953 and in Chile in 1973.

ned terry, portsmouth, usa

Sorry, this is a rewrite of what defenders of Israel's bloody excesses have said for years.

It was a former Israeli Prime Mininister who said if he were a Palestinian he'd be a terrorist, too.

Israel has maintained the "iron wall' as its official policy against the Palestinians from the beginning. Its treatment of them is heartbreaking, and it is precisely because of Israel's claims to democratic values and past terrible suffering that makes this so terrible.

Countries are at peace with non-democratic countries all over the world. China has 15 states on its border and is at war with none.

Israel manages not to be at peace with most of her neighbors, at least in part because it treats them all with contempt.

Why do people talk so much about a small place? Because a day cannot go by without our hearing about Israel. Every change of a cabinet minister, every slight change of policy is news.

Ever hear any news about the Canary Islands?

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

There is another way of making peace - it's called Empire. All the Middle Eastern troubles began as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Kirsty, London, UK

IT'S TIME TO FACE FACTS...AND HISTORY!

1) Israel and its Arab neighbours have been in constant armed conflict since The State of Israel was founded back in 1947. There is no evidence that this is ever going to change:
Both sides claim to have God on their sides!

If they could/would make peace, together they could make the deserts bloom! Both sides would enjoy tremendously better standards of living!!!!...and Quality of Lives!!! Worth another try?

Sadly, it seems that the quality of leadership on both sides has not been adequate to realizing the fantastic benefits that could come from peace and cooperation.

2) History tells us that no nation can survive forever when surrounded by hostile enemies. Rome is only one example.
Remember Imperial Japan?...and The Soviet Union?

3) The day of the suitcase nuclear bomb is here.

4) Could it be that the Promised Land ....is really in Texas, or Idaho, or Montana, or Canada? Hmmm..mmm! Somethings to think about!

Garth Rex, Glendale Heights, USA

Kevin Sullivan needs a history lesson. How about Martin Gilbert's Jewish History Atlases for starters?

By the way, talking about Buddhists and Tibetans, the Dalai Lama totally supports the State of Israel, but that is because he knows something about Jewish history.

Dr. Irene Lancaster, Haifa, Israel

I think we are totally missing the point here! If a Buddist State was imposed in the center of Europe, the local population 'ethnically cleansed' and deprived of their human rights to accomodate not only Tibetans who had suffered dreadfully under the Chinese, but also gave automatic right of domicile and citizenship to Buddists world wide, would such a state have been accepted and allowed to peacefully integrate and live in harmony with all the other countries of the region?

Kevin Sullivan, London, UK

The neocon ideal is right in the same way that ideal of "no poverty" is right. Everyone more or less agrees. Coming to that conclusion is the work of minutes.

The useful neocon contribution would have been a sensible plan for making it happen. Instead there was no plan at all, except one for deceiving the people in existing democracies, thereby undermining them.

Martin, Perth, Australia

It's certainly true that you cannot easily impose democracy in the face of violent opposition. Even then this is not a real problem unless those exhibiting the violence start to export it. Germany and Japan exported violence in the mid twentienth century, and democracy was imposed only in the wake of their catastrophic defeat .
Nonetheless, democracy has flourished in those two countries since 1945. There are two lessons to learn from this:-
1. The civilised world must fight exported violence from totalitarian organisations.
2. When the men of violence have been defeated, sustainable democracy will then be possible.

arnoldo, Coventry,

Excellent ariticle..and yet how sad that what seems so self evident stands in such contradiction to the river of world opinion that choruses "the answer is Israel, whats the question". There is too little challenge to the basic assumptions we take as self evident. Get a grip world!!

lex, UK,

Don't agree - to some extent every society is a fear society; to suggest otherwise is ludicrus. You only have to look at how civil liberties are eroded under cover of 'threats posed' to 'us' from 'them'. And also Mr Finklestein conveniently omits to state that the US, the UK and Israel all have very convenient external enemies - Al qaeda; Iran; Syria etc etc. Lets not pretend that we don't do the same and use external enemies as an excuse to stay in power and pass draconian laws.

James Bourne-Smith, london,

Israel is not an excuse, its location will forever make it an issue and it should accept the leaders of Syria and Egypt over the Islamists that would replace them. The neo-con mistake has been to think that European style dictator v democracy choices apply in the Middle East. It has different rules, the choice is between a (ideally benign) dictatorship and a medieval version of Islam. Dictators are risky, but they are necessary there, while the Islamists have no fear and look for conflict, preferably against Israel and the US, but between themselves if there is no alternative

We have to leave them be where possible, accept the risks and wait for the spread of technology and communications to bring them into the modern world. I saw a report of Iraqi students in Syria, the image of their classroom was of a westernized looking group who would not look out of place here. If Syria's dictatorship was over thrown, the Islamists would try to take over, as in Iraq

Adrian, London,

If you are both right then "we" as a democracy cannot make peace, therefore "we" are becoming the same as the dictatorships; in a state of permanent war, just because dictators exist. (It sounds like an argument in the school playground).
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war" said Winston Churchill.
Ron Paul is a sane man in the world of politics and realises that no man has the wisdom to alter the constitution, to take that power confers absolute complete control. That sounds like dictatorship.
Menachin Begin was a terrorist /freedom fighter until the UK got out of Israel in 1948, he became prime minister of that new democracy .
Take Jerry Adams of Sein Fein- now a good democrat, the UK did that by treating the IRA as criminals, having human rights. It did not overreact to their criminal atrocities by invading and destroying Dublin and bombing Boston for those cities support of the IRA.

Jack Harley, Warminster, UK

"Name me a war between two democracies": Athens' invasion of Sicily (415BC). Democratic Boeotia fought Athens at Mantinea (362BC). Republican Rome ended the Achaean federated states of Greece and levelled Corinth (146BC). Italian republics of the renaissance were constantly at each others' throats. Revolutionary France and parliamentary England were deadly enemies; a democratic United States fought twice against the consensual government of Britain. There was a Union and Confederate president and Senate. The Boers and British in southern Africa each had elected representatives. Both elected prime ministers in India and Pakistan have at times threatened each other.

These details are from pp.453-4 of "Why the West has Won" by Victor Davis Hanson. The idea that democracies never go to war with each other is often repeated but incorrect. Democracies tend not to go to war with each other, but when they do the wars are catastrophic.

Dr. Keith Anderson, Durham, England

"a fear society as one in which you can’t participate freely and without fear in the public debate. "

Sounds like Britain on immigration......then again the Thought Police are everywhere

Winston Smith, London, England

This makes good sense.

Bob, London, UK

Machiavelli said the best way to become leader was to invent an enemy

skidmore, march, cambs

Your analysis is spot on.

In an ideal world there would be an easy solution. The democratic world would form a club in which we only traded with other democratic states which allow freedom of expression and the rule of law, a kind of ethical foreign policy if you will. Thus states which wanted to join the club, a kind of world wide EU, would be welcome to do so as long as they met those standards in much the way that eastern European countries joined the EU.

Unfortunately though we are not in a position to refuse to trade with the countries which have most of the world's oil. So our ideal world would also need a new and miraculous form of energy. Maybe science and technology will help us establish a new world order one day.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Even Plato and Aristotle, who lived in the world's first democracy, argued against it - a political system where charm and popularity mean more than honesty and genuine concern. Add to that the fact that it takes months to get anything done. Let's take up Plato's 'philosopher king' model and have an elected dictator with a body of supposedly wise advisors - hang on, scratch that, we've got one.

Gavin Le Boutillier, Hull, East Yorkshire

There's a lot to take very seriously in this very thoughtful article, but I think Mr Finkelstein needs to condsider if the US and Israel are not themselves 'fear societies'.

John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand

Very interesting article. The first section on fear societies sounds like it could be paraphrased from The Prince. The infighting between Fatah and Hamas smacks of the conflict between the Communist and National Socialists in pre-WWII Germany. They seem to be after the same 'target audience', namely impressionable extremists. I can't quite describe it, F.A. v Hayek does a better job in The Road to Serfdom (around the introduction). Good catalyst for further thought, if a bit scathing of Neocons.

Jan Klug, Sevenoaks,