The United States has long expected friends and allies to share its belief in values and concepts like democracy, secularism and capitalism. To this short list, you can now add an unquestioning and uncritical support for Israel.

For decades, American governments have stood by the Zionist state more as a moral imperative than an expression of a foreign policy objective. In its earlier, formative years, Israel was admired as a David beset by Goliath and drew much support from the American left, specially as so many Jewish intellectuals were themselves left-wing radicals. In addition, memories of the Nazi Holocaust were still fresh, and the fledgling state enjoyed the good wishes of many Europeans who bore a heavy burden of guilt for what had been done to millions of Jews.

The founding fathers of Israel included many idealists who were dedicated to the concepts of humanism and equality. Ranged against this small island of democracy was a collection of venal local despots with unsavoury images in the West. In terms of public relations alone, it is easy to see why so many intellectuals and idealists identified with Israel. But years of occupation, combined with the plight of the Palestinian refugees and the growing arrogance of Israel with its elevation as the region's paramount military power have taken their toll. It is now seen as the regional bully, not the victim.

Ever since the second intifada began over two years ago, the sight of Israeli tanks and helicopters wreaking death and destruction among defenceless Palestinians has angered people around the world. Even erstwhile European supporters have been repulsed by these televised images, and their governments have become increasingly critical of Israeli policies.

American support, however, has been reinforced by the events of 9/11: identifying with Israel as fellow-victims of (Islamic) terrorism, the Bush administration has assailed the Palestinian freedom struggle as none of its predecessors has ever done.

So much so that the American establishment, led by an influential coterie of neo-conservative Jewish columnists, has charged Europeans of anti-Semitism because of their relatively even-handed approach to the Middle East imbroglio.

Indeed, American annoyance and contempt for its European allies are also reinforced by a growing reluctance to get dragged into a war with Iraq. To Bush's inner circle of advisers, this is all evidence of European cunning that took advantage of American defence against the Soviet threat for decades, but now balks at supporting the United States against its enemies.

In Europe, it is the charge of anti-Semitism that stings most. In a recent article in the Financial Times, John Lloyd quotes George Will, a Washington Post columnist and a fervent supporter of Israel: "Anti-Semitism is a stronger force in world affairs than it has been since it went into a remarkably brief eclipse after the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps.

Today, many people say that the Arabs and their European echoes would be mollified if Israel were to change its behaviour. People who say that do not understand the centrality of anti-Semitism in the current crisis. The crisis has become the second - and final? - phase of the struggle for a final solution to the Jewish question."

Lloyd then quotes William Kristol, a former foreign policy adviser in Bush Senior's presidency and at present editor of the Weekly Standard: "We are sympathetic to Israel generally because they seem so much like us. They take religion seriously. They are willing to fight their enemies. They are patriotic and proud of their state. They are a settler society with a dangerous frontier."

In a conversation with Lloyd, Gideon Rose, editor of the prestigious and hugely influential Foreign Affairs says: "It's clear that there is an anti-Israel bias in Europe. I don't think it's necessarily anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is a very serious charge. The Israelis believe that the Europeans would not lift too much of a finger to help them. If they had to rely on the Europeans to protect them they wouldn't be around today."

It is true that despite holding the military whip in hand in its fight against the Palestinians, Israel and its supporters are feeling isolated. In an impassioned article in a recent issue of France's most respected daily Le Monde, Arno Klarsfeld writes: "Israel is one of the rare - if not unique - countries that does not respond to barbarism with barbarism. Who is there to recognize this? Nobody.

But most countries, and particularly those who have always answered barbarism with barbarism, are ready to denounce self-defence measures Israel is forced to take for the sake of its people... Is it the same thing to wish to eliminate as many Jews as possible as to want to destroy those who organize the crimes against humanity that are committed nearly every day in Israel?... But European public opinion-makers are impervious to logic in the case of Israel as they are so accustomed to view Jews as passive victims..."

Ever since the escalation of violence in the Middle East, there has been a tendency among the supporters of Israel to silence criticism of the Zionist state by accusing the critics of anti-Semitism. Although I have long been critical of Israeli policies, I resent this gross oversimplification as it greatly reduces the space for rational debate. It is almost as if criticizing Robert Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe made one a racist.

In any case, I have many Jewish friends and have long admired the accomplishments of this remarkably gifted race, apart from sympathizing with it for its trials and tribulations over the centuries. To be branded an anti-Semite for opposing the suicidal policies of successive governments in Tel Aviv is ridiculous.

The fundamental and central problem Israel and its supporters fail to recognize is that it is viewed by its neighbours as a colonial outpost, and not as an indigenous entity. Its citizens are seen as foreigners who have dispossessed millions of Palestinians and wish to grab even more land. Israel has done little to address these concerns: in the name of a flexible definition of 'security', it has steadily expanded its 1948 frontiers, and given the Palestinians little to hope for beyond a moth-eaten and non-viable state at some undetermined point in the future.

To mitigate the sufferings caused by one historical injustice - the Holocaust - another injustice was committed - the creation of Israel in a land populated by a people who were understandably unsympathetic to the enterprise as they had nothing to do with the suffering of the Jews of Europe. But life has to go on, for both the Israelis and the Palestinians; we cannot forever fight old battles whether in Kashmir or the Middle East. Sooner or later, Israel and the United States will have to recognize that the occupation of land causes resistance, and the only way to end violence is to evacuate the occupied territories.