>
>From traditional libertarian socialist principles it's difficult to argue
>that any state has a right to exist. Even Marx in his maturity wrote,
>"Freedom consists in the conversion of the State from an organ
>superimposed on society into one completely subordinated to it, and today
>too, the forms of the State are more free or less free to the extent that
>they restrict the 'freedom' of the State."
The "right to exist stuff" is tired. In practical political terms, no one disputes it, not the Arabs, not the PLO or the PLA or Hamas. Al Qaida, maybe, but they've got their hands full just now with the 101st Airborne. The idea that after the revolution we we get rid of states, if that is true, which I doubt, is merely hypothetical.
>
>In the shorter run, I suppose another traditional formula is appropriate:
>"a
>bi-national socialist state."
A good formula, also completely idealistic just now.
>
>In the even shorter run, if Israel is to remain a Jewish state, we should
>at least think about what kind of Jewish state we want to support. One,
>e.g., in which all except those of one racial stock are barred from well
>over 90% of the land?
Well, me, I can't _support_ any state based on religious and ethnic exclusivity, but I am a high Enlightenment liberal on these matters. I believe in the separation of church/synagogue/mosque and state and citizenship not based on racial or ethnic membership. However, nonsupport is not the same thing as calling for destruction. The only path of destruction that is plausible now is too horrible to contemplate, and does not involve socialist revolution. We may have to accept that Israel will be a Jewish state, and try to nudge it to be a decent and less racist one. Groupls like Not In My Name appeal to Jewish values, which are (we say) incompatible with volkisch ideology and religious oppression.
jk
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx