> What does "take up violent revolution" mean to you, Doug?
Fucked if I know. Makes no sense in the context of a country like the
US anyway.
Tahir: I agree, but the US could degenerate into internal violence at some stage, whether "revolutionary" or not. I think it's a powder keg that is only kept from exploding by the national debt. But we have disagreed elsewhere on this sort of question, and you're the economist ...
Here's my opinion in a nutshell, not that it matters: Israel, as a predominantly Jewish state, is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. I'd prefer it drop the religious identification, but that's not going to happen any time soon. So, it'd be best for all if it withdrew to the pre-67 borders, accepted them as official boundaries, as should its neighbors. They should drop the talk of pushing Israel into the sea. A truly independent Palestine should be created, not as a bantustan or semi-colony, but as a real state. The US should stop sending big gobs of money and arms to Israel. Everyone
should try to get along. Etc. Doug
Tahir: I don't think that one should ever confuse reforms with the longer term goals. In terms of the latter Hamas have been quite right in my view to reject the two state "solution". My question to you Doug is what would make this "truly independent Palestine"? i.e. what would make that little piece of land into a viable independent state? You must, as an economist surely understand the import of this question. No? -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/uwc2006/content/mail_disclaimer/index.htm