>From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
>Subject: Re: Israel's borders
>
>Why is it that "refugees" from New York are prominent among the most
>vicious in Israel?
I've always been intrigued by this as well (an infamous massacre by some crazed settler for Brooklyn comes to mind as a highlight), but I believe this is best treated as one of the many 'symptoms' of the essentially American material (not historical) origins of the "Israel" question at present.
Which is why I will endlessly insist that as a practical matter, this is a US question. Its resolution is here, not in the Middle East. If we allow our political opponents to continuously frame the dispute as "Jewish" (and its converse "Arab"), then we will never get to the bottom of the issue in any practical sense.
Otherwise, the eminently principled call for a democratic, secular state will always be portrayed as a "Palestinian front" for "driving the Jews into the sea", since it means "the destruction of the Jewish state". Formally, this is true: a democratic, secular state means "the destruction of the Jewish state". Formally, this is not really demanding much, and quite a few American Zionists would heatedly oppose the creation of a "Euro-Christian state" headed up by Pat Sharon, er, Ariel Buchanan - you get the picture (although the picture might look different to some Zionists if such a state was headed up by Pat Robertson - anything for Israel!). But most of us would fight to the end to destroy such a North American state, even at the risk that, in the aftermath, the "Euro-Christians" would be "driven into the sea", or back to Europe.
In practice, all we are asking is that the United States enforce the secular basis of its own foundation, across _all_ of the territories for which it has assumed _exclusive_ responsibility under international law. With Bill Clinton's formal nonrecognition of UN Resolution 242, the US has assumed just that responsibility over the territories comprised by "Israel", the West Bank and Gaza. Within this context, and as a practical matter, the "two state" scheme can only be supported on condition that it act as a transition to the democratic, secular state, and on condition that it is effective in providing real peace PRIMARILY FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE, behind "secure borders", precisely for them, in an "entity" whose fundamental purpose is creation of a space, for once, FREE OF ZIONISM. This would be a progressive "affirmative action" tilt to address the injustices of the past - we all support affirmative action, don't we?
Both "entities" would remain complete appendages of the USA, of course, as they are today. (Sadly) we're not discussing the fall of the US empire here - just the democratic reform of one of the territories it has assumed exclusive and fundamental responsibility for.
As for the more theoretical issues of racism, race and nationalism, biology and culture, that in another email. I want to go home now.
-Brad Mayer