-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Brad DeLong Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:36 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The Crimes of Empire?
>X-From_: sackerman at FAIR.ORG Tue Sep 10 13:19:19 2002
>From: Seth Ackerman <sackerman at FAIR.ORG>
>To: "'dhenwood at panix.com'" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Subject: Re: The Crimes of Empire?
>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:21:07 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Status: O
>X-Status:
>
>>...The Crimes of 'Intcom'
>>By Noam Chomsky
>>
>>...One does not read that for 25 years the United States has barred
>>the efforts of the international
>>community to achieve a diplomatic settlement of the
>>Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines
. . . So it seems to me Mr. Ackerman has a big problem: which of the many
positions taken by the PLO in 1976 were lies, and how does he know
which were the lies?
Brad DeLong
Opportunity matters more than intent. Opportunity limits you, regardless of your aspirations, malign or otherwise.
Therefore the right question is whether an interim settlement would lead to more or less conflict. Given the inherent logistical problem of a fledgling, poor Palestinian state contending with a regional superpower, I would say a settlement would lead to Palestine reconciling itself to a Jewish state.
I admit to being an optimist. But play it the other way. What's the implication of no settlement. It would look just like what we have today, pending the inevitable expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank until they were reduced to a sufficiently pacific minority.
mbs