From Max to Johannes:
>I would add to what Dennis said, possibly not w/his
>agreement, 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.
Not so. Those who have fought against the war on Iraq have implicitly or explicitly questioned the right of the state of Kuwait to exist, for instance. While one may correctly point out that all existing states are artificial products of colonialism & neo-colonialism, some are more glaringly artificial than others. Yoshie
Iraq certainly put the right of Kuwait to exist into question by invading it, but I fail to recall any of the protestors against the Gulf War (incl myself) questioning the right to sovereignty of Kuwait. They (we) certainly questioned the legitimacy of the Kuwaitii royal family, but that wasn't the same thing. Nobody was cheering go Saddam, smash Kuwait. It was all bring the boys home from something that need not concern us, and the royals were not worth protecting. There was no preoccupation with Kuwait as a nation that had a particular case for not existing.
It remains the case that the only nation whose right to exist is routinely questioned on the left is Israel. The fact that Israel as a state is defined in exclusionary terms is true but irrelevant. From a consistent left standpoint, almost all states have deep flaws that undermine their legitimacy. The Mexican government is nothing to cheer about, but nobody says the govt should dissolve and sovereignty be returned to the indigenous peoples, of whom there remain quite a few. Not even the zapatista's.
mbs