>the cry of all states must go as an after-
>thought to 'Israel must go' is just a round-about way
>of singling out Israel, since the right to exist of
>no other state is really in question.
Max, sincere question: what other states are made up of a population brought from somewhere else after 1900 (or 1945 for that matter) to an area already populated by other peoples, where the state is defined in terms of this in-migrating population (including discriminatory laws against and military and terrorist attacks on the indigenous population; expulsion of the indigenous population)? To my mind it is also relevant that the in-migrating population is dominated (politically if not in numbers, but possibly the latter as well) by Europeans and the geographic area in question is outside of Europe. Can we all agree that by 1945, the world was aware that the peoples of Asia and Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean desired their political independence and right to self-determination, their liberation from European colonial domination, so that the creation of a new 'state' for Europeans outside of Europe was going to be problematic?
Israel is not just 'any other state'--the historical specificity of Israel means that 'singling out Israel' may be a legitimate exercise. No?