-----Original Message----- From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>If Israel's existence is legitimate (or at least as legitimate as most
other
>lines on the map), then my point would be that its self-definition is no
>more restrictive than most other nations.
-Oh, no the problem is that Israel is much *less* restrictive than most -other nations. It has never declared its own "lines on the map", and is -at least 7x bigger than its original size.
Very true, although again, the wars that led to that expansion were not one-sided. Israel's original borders were clear and no one else in the region respected them, so it is putting a bit of a burden on one country to have to accept a certain set of lines that no one else nearby would. In fact, the lines dividing Egypt from Israel and Gaza are clear and accepted by Israel precisely because there was mutuality in acceptance of borders.
Developing mutually agreed to "lines on the map" are what the Oslo accords are supposed to be all about. That is why there is continual skirmishing over precisely what land is handed over and where each piece is leading. The continuing growth of settlements in the West Bank is an outrage against those accords, but undermining the accords is the main goal of the settlers - a goal they share with Hamas.
--Nathan Newman