----- 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
>