MF: 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
mbs: None, I guess. Was this really a question?
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?
mbs: sure.
Israel is not just 'any other state'--the historical specificity of Israel means that 'singling out Israel' may be a legitimate exercise. No?
mbs: The crimes we allude to are against particular persons and groups, committed by equally specific parties -- states, groups, etc. So singling out is essential to justice. The context with which we began, namely the UN conference, was not supposed to be about Israel. But that is what it was turned into, to no apparent benefit to anyone except practitioners of racism (including the present Israeli government).