The origin of the state of Israel was no more chaste than that of the Soviet state in the 20th century, the German state in 19th, or the USA in 18th. As an explicitly racist state, it has even less claim to original chastity.
But imagine what it could or could not have done absent American support after 1967. It's hard to believe it would not have had to find a modus vivendi with its neighbors. But with the US using it as an imperial instrument - not just in the ME but in Africa and even in Central America - it had a role as a button-man for the godfather.
That's not good for the character.
On 6/2/10 8:47 AM, Eric Beck wrote:
> So how can the Chomskyan/Estabrookian thesis of Israel's chasteness
> before it met the Yankee Lothario explain the brutality of the Nakba
> and the immediate post-48 period? Undoubtedly Israel has gotten
> nastier in the last 40 years, but to attribute that solely to US
> machinations instead of to Palestinian resistance as well is
> maddening, condescending, and more than a little Orientalist. And
> Chomsky does this. To him, Palestinian resistance is always secondary,
> something to mention when talking about the nobility of Palestinians,
> but it's always reactive and never a cause of Israeli aggression.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk