I think this argument is entering the realms of primordial emotion to do with 'identity', which is always a bad place to go. This is as much true of the boycotters as it is of Mr Avnery himself. In such a zero-sum game, you are either 'for' us or 'against' us. This is a sad state to enter, and although Uri is at laudable pains to maintain emotional distance, he too takes the 'side' he sees as his.

But what is a national identity? What is a 'nation state'? I am proud to have a multi-faced identity that changes from situation to situation, and I defy anyone who says I must be pinned down to one.

The idea of a boycott is certainly one to consider. Boycotts have a long history of effectiveness. One can perhaps argue that an indiscriminate boycott might be a bad move, but a targeted one - in particular on military products/technology, could be very effective indeed.

The 'two state solution' is at a dead end. The Holy Land is essentially indivisible, culturally and historically, so a real solution requires everyone to let go of their incompatible 'national identity' dogmas and embrace something new.

Mr Buchanan has some interesting points but they are highly selective (and I emphasize 'highly'), as the comments above acknowledge. To take just one example (the Siegfried Line), it is worth pointing out that in the heyday of the Roman Empire Hadrian's allegedly 'defensive' Wall did not prevent Rome from pursuing an aggressive policy against northern Britain. It was after all only 70 years after the wall had been built when the emperor Severus invaded with a massive army and 'laid waste' to Caledonia from end to end (a policy that ultimately backfired, but that's another story).

It's possible to argue anything if you are conveniently selective with the evidence you analyze.