> Your analysis is arguable. Though it implies an implicit acceptance of of
the Zionist/Jewish equation. Anyway, it is a stretch to define that as a
"security" issue, rather than a religion-based issue.


Yes, didn't mean to imply that equating "jew" with "zionist" was the right
way to go, and I don't think it is, just that it's commonly done, especially
in the U.S.  Since that's the case I can understand Palestinian concerns and
don't see them as necessarily based on religion.  I think the whole
situation of mistrust by Arabs of Jews in the Middle East could be improved
if MORE attention was paid to the distinction between 'Jew' and 'Zionist'.
To me, one is religious while the other is political.  So rejection of the
first by arabs is abhorrent, but objection to the other, on
political/security grounds, not religious grounds, at least requires a
second look.

Thanks for your comments.  I enjoy your posts.
-Christian.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bartlett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Question for Bill


> At 6:02 PM -0800 4/4/02, trust5235 wrote:
>
> >(I'm assuming that you meant "...I suspect the object is a nation that
would
> >EXclude Jews...")
>
> Yes, sorry about that.
>
> >Bill...
> >
> >It may be that this kind of Palestinian objective would arise from
perceived
> >or actual security issues.  If so then a such a policy would not be
> >religion-based. I think it's reasonable to assume that 30 years of U.S.
> >funded terror and occupation, passionately supported across the west by
the
> >educated classes, is likely to produce security concerns for any future
> >Palestinian state. Moreover, if you equate 'zionist'  with 'jew', as a
great
> >many do (just try criticizing fundamental principles of zionism, or
better
> >yet declare yourself an 'antizionist', then measure the volume of the
cries
> >of 'anti-semite!'), then perhaps an independant Palestine would have
> >legitimate national security issues to base a policy of exclusion on.
>
> Your analysis is arguable. Though it implies an implicit acceptance of of
the Zionist/Jewish equation. Anyway, it is a stretch to define that as a
"security" issue, rather than a religion-based issue.
>
> What bothers me about this way of thinking is that its underlying premise
has to be a notion that Jews represent an internal threat to an independent
Palestian state. So they have to be excluded. I really find that repugnant
as it virtually amounts to an admission that Hitler was right to perceive
Germany's Jewish population as a threat and take steps to banish them. This
wouldn't be a very sound basis for a Palestinian state I don't believe.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>