"Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?)

Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com
Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:21:17 +0000

Paul Prescod writes:
>American Jews are safer as long as the American public is on their side. On 
>a Jew with a very constrained view of society would consider that the sort 
>of safety they can depend upon in the long term. ..

As opposed to relying on the security of Israel ?!?

You can argue for Israel from fait accompli. Or you can
argue for it as Jewish homeland. But it hasn't had a
history long enough -- nor successful enough -- to argue
for it as a way of guaranteeing the security of Jews,
vis-a-vis the western democracies.

>There is no doubt that the official western foreign policy is to discourage 
>the dissolution of countries along cultural line. But there is also a 
>realistic aspect that says that when two peoples cannot get along they are 
>better off in separate countries than fighting to the
>death in the same one.

Absolutely. I completely support the creation of two, three,
or four states, when there is inadequate cultural unity to
sustain one in success. But without some kind of ethnic
cleansing, geographic divisions never exactly partition the
various cultures. And the western democracies should push
EACH of the states involved to institute legal systems that
respect the minorities that remain within them.

This is not an argument that requires either-or. Perhaps
the best chance lies with BOTH a Palestine separate from
Israel, and western democracies pushing the two governments
to give adequate legal protection to the different ethnic
and religious minorities that remain in the national bounds
of each.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp