<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P><BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org <DIV></DIV>>To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Hitchens hit <DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>There is no reason why Palestinians should be content <DIV></DIV>>with a two-state solution - why indeed honour and <DIV></DIV>>reward ethnic cleansing and leave intact an <DIV></DIV>>ethno-religious military super-state with aggressive <DIV></DIV>>expansionist proclivities. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>I support a unified secular democrtaic socialist <DIV></DIV>>palestine/Israel as much as the next fella. But you <DIV></DIV>>can't always stand on your hopes or even your rights. <DIV></DIV>>Rewarding aggression is not good. But Israel asa <DIV></DIV>>Jewish state is a fact on the ground. It is not going <DIV></DIV>>to go away. Likewise, there is no reason for American <DIV></DIV>>Indinas to settle for nondiscrimination rights and <DIV></DIV>>reservations when the country is in some their <DIV></DIV>>"theirs." Nonetheless, "US Out Of North America" is <DIV></DIV>>just a cute slogan. A movent to enforce it would be <DIV></DIV>>crushed with savagery that would make the repressiomn <DIV></DIV>>of the Intifadah look nice. Sometimes you settle for <DIV></DIV>>what you can get. jks <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>True, it is not always possible to get what you want, but your comparison between America and Israel is one often wheeled out by two-staters, and is never less than amazing.  For the truth is, the argument is not about ownership of the land: the Firbolgs were in Ireland before the Celts, but one would not conclude from this that they 'owned' the land or that some ancient entitlement guaranteed their return - just as no biblical claim for Israel, notwithstanding the failure of archaeological excavation to back it up, holds no water anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The argument, at least from my perspective, is that while the United States as a polity is at least in theory capable of delivering justice to native Americans, Zionism is <EM>constitutively</EM> incapable of accomodating the just demands of the Palestinians.  The right of return for Palestinian refugees, for instance, would forever destroy the demographic basis of 'the Jewish state', which is why Netanyahu has been getting himself in a huff about there being too many Palestinian Arabs in legal Israeli territory.  In disagreeing with the two-state option, I have no intention of closing off radical options.  A two-state settlement at the present juncture would be a vast improvement, but it would be no cause for giving up the rights of refugees scattered around adjacent countries.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Want to get more out of e-mail? Then get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUK/2737??PS=47575" target="_top">Outlook Live!</a> </html>