Doesn't seem like the Nation website is very fond of Israel's existence, particularly or especially under the Ehud Olmert government. Here we go again with another smear to Israel by The Nation, which would actually not be as pressing as more oppressive nations surrounding the Jewish state! Looking at the larger picture of Israel, for instance, women do have more rights than they would in Arab or some African nations.

It's sad how Israel's intention for religious freedom and human rights is taken for granted by those who are so skeptical of Israel existing as the anomaly in the Middle East, just because it appears as the least Arab nation. Sure, if an Arab nation oppresses or turns away certain human rights, then it is a sigh; but when Israel has perceived human rights violations, it is a shock and a "better" target to smear and single out, even by the UN.

It's all a matter of choosing to coexist. Bad enough it's been hard to coexist even long before Israel was formed. Any wonder why Islamic fundamentalists have been perceived as wanting world denomination far more than righteous Jews and gentiles (who just want to better the world)?

Nicholas Rosen

Great Falls, VA

Is The Nation still considered a progressive magazine? I really don't know, sometimes I go to your website and get confused and think I've accidentally clicked on Mort Zuckerman's Myspace blog.

This was on your homepage, presumably placed there by an editor (and wasn't even in the article): "Abandoning Israel's longstanding commitment to those fleeing persecution, the Olmert government is deporting refugees back to Sudan, where they may face torture and death."

Israel has a longstanding commitment to those fleeing persecution? Right, just not if you're Palestinian, or a Lebanese civilian bombed by the IDF, or a woman in Israel's bustling sex slavery ring, or from Darfur, or pretty much anyone who isn't Jewish.

And for the record, Israel is a country where torture and death are pretty much standard operating procedure for the government against the Palestinians.

My uncle's dog has better politics than you guys at The Nation... way better politics.

Sami Khan

New York, NY

This is the Nation's homepage byline about this article: "Abandoning Israel's longstanding commitment to those fleeing persecution..." I suspect that whoever wrote this is irony-challenged. The history of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians--creating refugees--would seem to be relevant. If anything, deporting the Sudanese refugees is consistent with the racist nature of the Israeli state.

Notice also that nowhere in Lynfield's article is there a reference to the Palestinians--there are millions of Palestinian refugees languishing in camps all over the Middle East, and they aren’t allowed to return to their native land. This fact would seem to be relevant context for the topic Lynfield has chosen to write about, yet it is nowhere to be found. The acceptance of some of the Darfur refugees is a nice propaganda ploy to hide the fact that Israel has a sordid history of creating refugees.

Paul de Rooij

London, United Kingdom

I applaud your ability to somehow find a way to concentrate blame on Israel in this whole Sudan mess. Is there a reason the article isn't titled "Egypt Keeps Sudanese Refugees in Torture-Prisons" or "Sudanese Refugees Lives at Stake If They Return Home"? Or how about "Europe Refuses to Halt Humanitarian Disaster at Its Front Door"?

Mark Hayden

Davis, CA