It would seem that you find the idea of a racist left surprising. I find it quite ordinary, indeed, it seems to me that a basic amount of patronism is a part of most leftist ideologies, and occasionally, when expanded in a national manner, it may become racism.

Again, I am at error. I should not have used the word "left."

I had meant socialists, especially the more radical ones. It seems to me that at the base of their actions lies the presumption, one that they may even be hiding from themeselves, namely: "We know better than these prolateriat fools, we'll tell them how to run themselves."
Listen to those of that persuation who are also anti-Zionists, and you will surely detect the tinge of patronism towards Arabs, too. Listen to those of that persuation who are anti-globalizationists, and you will hear tinges of patronism for anyone who is not of the group they purporedly despise, but to which they also belong. (WASPs, Americans, Europeans, depends on the specific anti-glob)

I will respond to your message by paragraphs.

I. That it is a dichotomy I agree. That doesn't stop them from acting in that manner. Observe the dichotomy of Christianity, which on the one hand claims to be monotheistic, and on the other hand has a holy trinity.

II. I under no circumstance said that all anti-zionists or that all anti-globalizationists are socialists. I had said things about those socialists that are also anti-zionists, and about those socialists that are also anti-globalizationists. I was referring to the intersection of those sets, not implying that the latter sets are subsets of the former.

III. I don't know enough about the details of the Oslo accords to make a relevant comment. I can only say that I had thought the whole thing very non-patronistic, in relation to previous handling of this situation, but I could be wrong.

IV. I find in anti-Zionism a mass head-dunk into the sand pool. But that may be just me.

V. This short paragraph results from your misinterpretation of what I had said. No comment.

VI. Ditto.