====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
>From Pam Bailey's review: "However, the two scholars do not see a one-state >solution on the horizon. Chomsky warns that a one-state solution will 'arise >only on the US model: with extermination or expulsion of the indigenous >population.' Pappé concurs, concluding that the growing lack of faith in the >viability of two states is not likely to produce a dramatic change of >orientation or policy among the political power brokers. Readers are left >feeling confused and demotivated by the seemingly hopeless conundrum: the >possibility of two states has been extinguished by facts on the ground, but >Israel won't agree to one, democratic state. Instead, Chomsky advocates a binational state, with two fairly distinct societies living side by side, governed by autonomous systems. However, no reasoning is offered as to why Israelis -- if the decision is going to be left up to them -- would accept this alternative. After all, it would still require Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in equality. In contrast, Pappé advocates a 'back-door' approach to lobbying for one country. The movement should focus its energies on 'unmasking the paradigm of parity' -- the common belief that the wrongs that must be redressed began in 1967 rather than 1948. In other words, once the discussion is changed from an exclusive focus on the occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, to the expulsion from historic Palestine in 1948, the concept of one state will become a natural progression. " I guess "time" does tell the logic of perspectives, huh? All the former agita expressed about challenges to Chomsky's credentials in support of the Palestinian people come to this: acceptance of bourgeois power and "realistic" appraisals that do nothing to move forward the necessary intellectual and principled advance of the Palestinian people's struggles. Indeed, a clear path to dismantling the racist apartheid state of Israel has become ever more apparent and necessary and these "intellectual giants" acquiesce to bourgeois-inspired negativism of this necessity? At a time when leadership, in this case within intellectual progress, is needed? Chomsky shows, yes, in my opinion which I categorically state as now clearly demonstrated as fact, that he is a bourgeois intellectual at the base of his admittedly strong record of support to people's struggles. Only a bourgeois liberal framework would have such trouble recognizing that It Doesn't Matter how desperate the situation, one must Alway stand for what is necessary, especially when the Only Role one can play is to illuminate principles. No one can fault or blame an oppressed and desperate people for making deals that will assure their ability to "fight another day", But We Must Always fault those who contribute such desperation to force desperate deal-making by acknowledging the "power" of the oppressor that thereby delimits the potential power of the oppressed. Such pessimism, born of the fear of the oppressor's power, smacks of condescension and contributes to perpetuating that fear and serves to weaken the resolve of the oppressed. Such "perspective"-taking deserves only one response by principle revolutionists: rejection. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
