>Nathan said that the partisan affinities were for economics & social
>reasons apart from the conflict with Palestinians. By that I presume
>he means that Labor & the Dems are associated with social spending,
>unions, etc., and Likud/GOP with free markets, bosses, religious
>cranks, etc. All of which is true, and still consistent with
>monopartisanship on core imperial issues.
Only if you assume monopartisanship within Israel in regard to those imperial issues (as opposed to internal Israeli interests, which need not be the same). Those economic/ social issues come out within Israel based on how they want to structure their relationships with both Palestinians and other countries in the region over Israel's economic structure, including the core internal division over whether to incorporate the West Bank/Gaza into Israel.
-- Nathan