>I don't know what the "reds unter the bed" theory is.
Then the name you have chosen is appropriate, you are probably not of this world.
> >The answer is perfectly obvious. A Jewish state
>>imposed on a native population who are not Jewish
>>implies either genocide, or imprisonment and
>>enslavement, of those natives
>
>Again, this brings us back to the question of what
>state is morally pure in this regard. Start with the
>United States, which was founded upon an act of
>genocidal expropriation. Real genocide, not merely
>displacement or war.
Deliberate "displacement" of an ethnic group *is* genocide, I've explained this to you before and I'm losing patience with your feigned refusal to understand the definition of genocide. And two wrongs don't make a right, previous genocides don't make genocide OK.
> Unless the Americans condemning
>Israel along these lines are willing to give up their
>places of residence in some act of moral atonement, I
>think we all subconsciously accept the fact that
>states are founded upon crimes.
You are being deliberately obtuse as usual. To oppose the Jewish state is not to say that the Jews must be driven out, there is an obvious alternative. A non-sectarian nation.
To oppose apartheid in South Africa was not to demand that the descendants of European settlers pack up and leave, it was merely to demand that they acknowledge that other ethnic groups had equal rights. Opponents of the Jewish state such as myself are likewise merely demanding that Jewish settlers and their descendants in Israel concede that other ethnic groups in are entitled to equal rights.
Other nations, especially those created by settlers like the US, South Africa, Australia etc, now concede this principal (in principal at least). Israel does not. It will eventually have to, because that is the way the river of history is flowing.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas