roachboy

elphaba: i would defer to will and dc on the questions you posed to me.

the only comment that i'd make is that by 1948, the wrong zionism was in control---and that many of the problems that have followed seem to me to turn on the particular notion of the meaning of a jewish state that right zionism brought along with it. that is the center of opposition to the right of return, when you get down to it: fear of a swamping of the jewish electorate.

i think that will and dc (and probably other comrades) know more about the prequels to the balfour decision than i do:

to my mind, the central questions are not so much how israel came to be formed--not at this point (2007)---but rather the ways in which that decision impacted on palestinians. behind this is the idea that the choice that was made was a terrible one, and its consequences are still playing out today.

one reason for this focus is that i see no point in debating the legitimacy of israel as a state--it is a fait accompli.
personally, i think that the single greatest shift in the terms of conflict that could happen would be for israel to shift into being a secular, multi-cultural state. this would provide a basis for addressing the myriad problems created by the refusal to allow the return of pelstinians displaced in 1948.

it would also undermine the rationale for the settlements, which i think need to be dismantled. all of them. the sooner the better.

if you look at palestine as outlined in the oslo accords, the map looks like hamburger thrown on a paper--the reason for that is the settlements, which render palestine completely incoherent---non-viable as a state---it makes palestine into an archipelago on the order of the "homelands"/reservations set up in south africa under apartheid. and that parallel is accurate.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite