> That, I believe, dove-tails with the Left's position advocating a single,
> multiethnic and secular state - which imho is a far more sensible solution
> than the "bantustan" approach favoured by US liberals.
>
---------------------
If by that you mean the end of an ethnic-based "Jewish" state in the Middle
East in favour of a single entity encompassing and guaranteeing equal rights
for all citizens presently living in Israel and the occupied territories,
than I think you'd have to agree that, while it may be a position we both
share, it is emphatically NOT the position of the broad left, and hasn't
been since the end of WWII. The Communist and social democratic left both
supported the partition of Palestine and formation of a Jewish state in
1948, and the left mostly continues to support Israel's right to exist as a
Jewish state. Even the PLO and Arab governments have been compelled by force
of arms to recognize Israel as such. Islamist groups like Hamas and
Hezbollah continue to reject the "Zionist entity" and, in doing so, are
probably better representative of sentiment on the Palestine and Middle
Eastern "street", which has contributed to their steady ascendency in the
region. (Which is not to say, BTW, that the anti-Zionist Arab masses are all
for continuing an exhausting armed struggle against Israel.)
The North American and European left at best deplores the ethnic character of the Israeli state, but dismisses any calls for its replacement by a democratic, binational Palestine as "utopian" given the historical emnity between the two communities and, decisively, the overwhelming emnity towards it of Israeli Jews, who alone have the power to decide the issue one way or another.
I concede that the goal of a single binational state - one which doesn't discriminate officially with respect to immigration and unofficially with respect to housing, employment, and a range of other matters - is not immediately realizable. I expect, however, if and when peace does come to the region, it will result over time in the gradual integration of the two communities and the corresponding decline of Zionist ideology within Israel. In fact, you began to see the seeds of this development in connection with the hopes engendered by the Oslo peace process in the 90s when Israeli historians and other intellectuals began investigating and repudiating the Zionist origins and underpinnings of the state. This exercise was abruptly terminated with the collapse of the Oslo talks and the second intifada, the revival of a siege mentality in Israel, and the corresponding collapse of the Israeli left and its budding contemplation of a non-Zionist future.
Prior to World War II, as you may know, not all self-described Zionists thought in terms of an exclusive "Jewish" state called Israel based on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Some saw their goal as a Jewish "homeland" in PALESTINE, conceived as a binational state of Jews and Arabs allowing open immigration to it of both communities. The inherent settler logic of Zionism, however, coupled with the trauma of the Holocaust and its exploitation by the Zionist leadership, put paid to that dream, and more than a half-century of virtually uninterupted bloodshed has ensured it is not likely to reappear soon.
MG