Nathan,
Nothing in my previous post made any reference to secret masterminds, plots or conspiracies. In fact much of my information comes from the New Isreali historians who are secular but still zionist in perspective.
The structural relations of dependent imperialism in a world economy and nation-state system are sufficient causes for explaining the creation and persistance of the state of Isreal. In the midst of a dual power cold war virtually every corner of the globe was being divided between the Soviet Union and the West (then in final transition from British to US hegemony). The sheer fact that Isreal was real estate not in the Soviet camp was enough impetus for the UK and US to support Isreal and bring it into the western camp. Though the Brits didn't gain immediately from the creation of Isreal it is important to note that the British response to Palestinian struggle for statehood, which included strong elements from the Palestinian Communist Party, during the 1930's (36 if memory serves) was quite different from the British response to Zionist attempts to create a state. British resistance to zionist efforts became half-hearted because they knew a Zionist state would be much more favorable to western geopolitical interests. This isn't a conspiracy, just a measured estimation of the balance of forces in a bipolar world.
You are correct about Palestinians inside Isreal having the formal right to vote (except of course the 900,000 forcibly expelled from 47-51. If only those 900,000 Palestinians and not their descendents would be allowed to repatriate the Palestinian population inside Isreal would be 1.9 million people or 32% of the 5.9 million people in Isreal, which would make for a very different Knesset and "Jewish" state. If you allowed the 900,000 expelled Palestinians return with their descendents (a law of return for Palestinians) The Palestinians inside Isreal would make the Jewish state ungovernable. A Democracy premised on ethnic cleansing isn't much of democracy.
Moreso you fail to mention that Isreal systematically does not recognize the real estate property titles of these Palestinians *inside Isreal* and regularly demolish their homes and or refuse to issue building permits to Palestinians living on desirable property. Palestinians inside Isreal are also denied the same social service funding for schools, day care and medical clinics as Jewish Isreali's. Job discrimination against Palestinians inside Isreal is common place. Palestinians inside Isreal are not treated in exactly the same manner as Blacks in Apartheid South Africa. The condition for Palestinians inside Isreal more closely follows the logic of Jim Crow in the South of the USA, formally equal but systematically denied equality in the market and in government policy.
I mentioned the number of Palestians vs, Isrealis for three reasons. First, Theodore Hertzel and other early zionists often made reference to an "empty land" or "a land without a people, a people without a land" something Palestine certainly wasn't. Second, if some kind of democratic referendum was held in Palestine in 1948, Palestine would have never become the zionist state of Isreal. Third, the demographic future doesn't bode well for either the Isreali's or Palestinians within that small resource scarce piece of real estate. You mention the possibility of a two state solution supported by Isreali Labor and Arafat but such a solution is not viable given the scarcity of natural resources in the region in light of projected demographic trends (the birth rate in Gaza is something like 8 children per woman). If Oslo is fully carried out the PA areas aren't viable economic units without a massive redistribution of water and arable land now controlled by Isreal. No matter how many times Madeline Albright chants the mantra of "Peace Process" Madrid-Oslo-Wye is not workable in terms of population trends, natural resources, raw materials, industrial development and political stability. The only workable long-term solution to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict is a single multi-ethnic and secular socialist state, which would of necessity include the abolition of the state of Isreal. That the only forces on the ground pushing such an agenda (The Democratic Front and Popular Front) have suffered serious defeats since the intifada wound down can be attributed to the confluence of interests between the U.S., Isreal, Arafat and Hamas.
Now a quote from Nathan:
"...but to argue that Jews don't have any special claim on the geography is just silly rhetoric. You have a people who for 2000 years saluted each other with the words "Next year in Jerusalem"; that is a special claim, even if you don't agree with it being granted."
My apologies I meant a special claim with legitimacy. History is filled with "special" claims like *Next Year in Jerusalem*, *Manifest Destiny* *Blood and Soil* and *Kill the Jesus Killers* none of which are legitimate claims. No matter what happened in the holocaust it does not legitimately justify the creation of a religious zionist state by using violence and forcible expulsion in Palestine. Isreal continues its expulsonary policies today by building Jewish settlements, a network of roads that destroy Palestinian property and connect those settlements, moving Jews into East Jerusalem etc and you claim that to oppose this state of affairs is to participate in racism against jewish people. I don't have any animosity against Jews as an ethnic group. But when any group of people decide to make any religion the organizing principle of a nation-state, I will oppose it on at least secular humanist grounds. Religion is simply false and should never be the basis for a political order, especially when that religion includes explicitly racist and exclusivist doctrines.
Nathan again:
"Again, there is a strain of obsessively blaming Israel and an "Israeli lobby" - ie. Jews in America - for all sorts of policy decisions that have lots of other, and more important, causes."
First, I mentioned the zionist response to the Armenian genocide because it highlights the exclusivist principle's of zionism. Second, there are several million pro-Isreal jews in the U.S. and though I don't have numbers I would venture that their are even more pro-Isreal christians who believe that the state of Isreal is a precursor to the return of Jesus. I don't care if the pro-isreal lobby is ethnically jewish or anglo, nor do I care if they are followers of Judaism or Christianity, they are simply wrong regardless of their identity. Also, I don't share your ability to split hairs between "right-wing" and "moderate" zionists. The Isreali New Historians, are secular and do recognzie the autrocities that accompanied the creation of Isreal, that is they have a guilty conscience, but their support for Oslo indicates an unwillingness to come to terms with the real consequences of Isreal as a state and the impossibility of a two state solution.
Finally, of course other regimes (including Arab ones) do nasty things, but I fail to see how this lets Isreal off the hook. If you had posted a defense of Fujimori in Peru, Hussein in Jordan or the Saudi's (and I had the time) I would have challenged your post as well. I don't hold the pro-Isreal lobby solely responsible for U.S. support for Isreal but it does play a key role in securing around 4 billion dollars a year in aid to Isreal which I believe is more money per capita than any other recipient of U.S. aid. This, along with Yoshie's excellent point, is why Isreal is different from other state's and their nastiness. Without that essential U.S. aid, I seriously doubt Isreal's ability to carry out its racist policies of ethnic expulsion, political and economic domination. Isreal is a special case. It is a case where liberals strangely put aside their basically genuine commitment to freedom and equality and turn a blind eye to oppression.
Sean Noonan seanno at ksu.edu