Palestinos e Judeus discutem Estado binacional como solução de conflito

Há cerca de três meses, de forma sigilosa, um grupo de intelectuais árabes e judeus se reuniu em Viena para discutir uma idéia que vem ganhando terreno nos últimos anos: o fim iminente da solução de dois Estados. 

Partindo do princípio de que as condições políticas e geográficas enterraram as chances de um Estado palestino viável, os participantes propuseram o estabelecimento de um só Estado para judeus e árabes, com direitos iguais para todos.

"A idéia de que a solução de dois Estados é a única alternativa está em crise", diz o cientista político palestino Bashir Bashir, que organizou o encontro. "Precisamos ser corajosos e pensar de forma criativa." 

Professor da Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém, Bashir reconhece que a partilha da Palestina histórica continua sendo a solução mais popular entre israelenses e palestinos e a preferida da comunidade internacional. 

Mas ele afirma que "há uma adesão crescente de vozes influentes dispostas a romper o paradigma" e a considerar outras fórmulas, como um Estado binacional. 

Acima de tudo, o debate sobre a morte dos dois Estados fornece um diagnóstico do ambiente de desalento criado pelo impasse entre palestinos e israelenses.

Muitos círculos palestinos consideram a luta contra a ocupação israelense uma causa perdida, que deve ser substituída pelo princípio de democracia cívica: "uma pessoa, um voto", nos moldes da campanha que derrubou o apartheid, sistema segregacionista sul-africano. 

A solução de um só Estado ressurgiu no meio acadêmico internacional a partir de um artigo do historiador britânico judeu Tony Judt, publicado em 2003 na "New York Review of Books". 

Numa era de sociedades multiculturais, argumentava Judt, "a idéia de um Estado judeu, em que judeus e a religião judaica têm privilégios exclusivos e não judeus são excluídos, tem raízes num outro tempo. Israel, resumindo, é um anacronismo". 

Embora o modelo de um só Estado não faça parte da agenda de líderes palestinos e israelenses e tenha crescido muito mais no campo das idéias, a crise do paradigma citada por Bashir é evidente. 

Vinte anos após o histórico aperto de mão entre Yasser Arafat e Yitzhak Rabin, que deveria ter pavimentado a solução dos dois Estados, o processo de paz está totalmente paralisado.

Apesar da intensa condenação internacional, o governo de Israel mantém a expansão de colônias na Cisjordânia ocupada, onde 350 mil colonos judeus vivem em meio a 2,5 milhões de palestinos. Enquanto isso, extremistas se fortalecem nos dois lados.

"A ocupação de Israel nos empurra para uma realidade de um Estado", diz Ghassan Khatib, ex-porta-voz da Autoridade Nacional Palestina. "Não será solução - só uma nova fase da crise, porque esse Estado será regido por um sistema de apartheid." 

Desde o primeiro dos Acordos de Oslo, assinados por Rabin e Arafat em 1993, os governos israelenses adotaram o princípio dos dois Estados, sobretudo para escapar de uma armadilha demográfica. 

Como a taxa de natalidade dos árabes é mais alta, a tendência é que até 2020 haja mais palestinos que judeus entre o Mediterrâneo e o Rio Jordão, os limites da Palestina histórica que incluem Israel e territórios ocupados. 

O demógrafo Sergio DellaPergolla, professor da Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém e autor da projeção, alerta que isso poria em xeque o caráter democrático de Israel, pois a minoria judia controlaria uma maioria árabe sem direitos iguais.

Para ele, a única forma de evitar isso é insistir na solução de dois Estados. Dadas a hostilidade histórica e as diferenças culturais entre os lados, a proposta de um Estado binacional é irreal, diz. 

"Um Estado binacional entre Brasil e Argentina daria certo? Claro que não", compara. "Essa proposta é uma forma elegante de defender a eliminação de Israel."

O cientista político Bashir pensa exatamente o oposto: após 45 anos de ocupação, israelenses e palestinos estão se tornando inseparáveis. Ele conta que o encontro em Viena não definiu o formato de um futuro Estado binacional, só princípios de convivência. 

"O formato é questão de engenharia institucional. Há muitas opções", diz Bashir. "Se a segregação é moralmente inaceitável, a alternativa é pensar sob a ótica binacional, que insista em direitos individuais e coletivos para todos."

Por: Marcelo Ninio

Creation of two states does not guarantee lasting peace

Israel did not wait long to reveal its first response to the United Nations General Assembly’s overwhelming recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, almost immediately announcing its intention to push forward with plans to build housing for Jewish settlers in E1, an area of the West Bank just to the east of Jerusalem.

Although it is sometimes misleadingly referred to as “disputed” or “controversial,” settlement construction in E1 is no more and no less of a contravention of international law than settlement construction elsewhere in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. What makes this development significant is E1’s location, sealing tight the gap between East Jerusalem and Israel’s largest settlement, Maale Adumim, further to the east.

That gap is the last remaining link for Palestinians between the northern and southern parts of the West Bank; it also occupies the interface among and between the Palestinian communities of Ramallah, Bethlehem and East Jerusalem — which, apart from being the cultural, religious, social and economic focal point of Palestinian life, is also one day supposed to be the capital of Palestine.

In moving forward with long-threatened plans to develop E1, Israel will be breaking the back of the West Bank and isolating the capital of the prospective Palestinian state from its hinterland. In so doing, it will be terminating once and for all the very prospect of that state — and with it, by definition, any lingering possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Oddly enough, the Palestine recognized by the United Nation is only an abstraction; the one that Israel is now about to throttle is much more real, at least insofar as the throttling will materially affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in a way that mere recognition does not.

However heavy the blow to Palestinian aspirations, an equally heavy political price for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s E1 plan will be paid by Israelis. For by terminating the prospect of a two-state solution, Netanyahu will also be sealing the fate of an exclusively Jewish state.

As cannier Israeli politicians (Ehud Olmert among them) have long warned, maintaining the existence of Israel as a Jewish state fundamentally requires perpetuating at least the idea of a Palestinian state, even if only as a deferred fiction kept alive through endless negotiations.

Once the fiction of a separate Palestinian state is revealed to have no more substance than the Wizard of Oz — which the E1 plan will all but guarantee — those Palestinians who have not already done so will commit themselves to the only viable alternative: a one-state solution, in which the idea of an exclusively Jewish state and an exclusively Palestinian one will yield to what was really all along the preferable alternative, a single democratic and secular state in all of historical Palestine that both peoples will have to share as equal citizens.

A campaign for rights and equality in a single state is a project toward which the Palestinians will now be able to turn with the formidable international support they have already developed at both the diplomatic and the grassroots levels, including a global boycott and sanctions movement whose bite Israel has already felt.

For Palestinians, in any case, one state is infinitely preferable to two, for the simple reason that no version of the two-state solution that has ever been proposed has meaningfully sought to address the rights of more than the minority of Palestinians who actually live in the territory on which that state is supposed to exist.

The majority of Palestinians live either in the exile to which they were driven from their homes during the creation of Israel in 1948, or as second-class citizens of Israel, where they face formidable obstacles as non-Jews in a state that reserves a full spectrum of rights only for Jews.

For Palestinians, the right to return home and the right to live in dignity and equality in their own land are not any less important than the right to live free of military occupation. A separate state addressed only the latter, but there can never be a just and lasting peace that does not address all those rights, even if it means relinquishing the prospect of an independent Palestinian state.

What must be added here is that if a one-state solution offers the last remaining key to a just and lasting peace, Israeli Jews will pay what will turn out to be only a short-term price in exchange for many long-term gains. Like Palestinians, they will lose the dream and the prospect of a state exclusively their own. But — also like Palestinians — what they will gain in turn is the right to live in peace. 

By Saree Makdisi – Herald Tribune

 

Criação de dois Estados não garante paz duradoura

Israel não esperou muito para revelar sua primeira resposta ao reconhecimento esmagador pela Assembleia Geral da ONU da Palestina como Estado não membro, anunciando quase imediatamente sua intenção de dar andamento aos planos para construção de moradias para colonos judeus em E1, uma área da Cisjordânia ao leste de Jerusalém.

Apesar de ser chamada de modo enganador como “disputada” ou “controversa”, a construção de assentamentos em E1 é simplesmente uma violação da lei internacional tanto quanto a construção de assentamentos em outros pontos da Cisjordânia ou de Jerusalém Oriental. O que torna esse desenvolvimento significativo é a localização de E1, fechando a separação entre Jerusalém Oriental e o maior assentamento de Israel, Maale Adumin, mais ao leste.  

Essa separação é a última ligação para os palestinos entre o norte e o sul da Cisjordânia; ela também ocupa a ligação entre as comunidades palestinas de Ramallah, Belém e Jerusalém Oriental –que, além de ser o foco da vida cultural, religiosa, social e econômica palestina, também seria algum dia a capital da Palestina.

Ao prosseguir com os há muito ameaçados planos para desenvolvimento de E1, Israel quebrará a espinha da Cisjordânia e isolará a capital do sonhado Estado palestino do restante do país. Ao fazê-lo, ele exterminará de uma vez por todas a própria perspectiva desse Estado –e com ele, por definição, qualquer possibilidade restante de uma solução de dois Estados para o conflito israelense-palestino.

Estranhamente, a Palestina reconhecida pela Organização das Nações Unidas é apenas uma abstração; aquela que os israelenses estão prestes a estrangular é muito mais real, na medida que afetará materialmente as vidas de centenas de milhares de palestinos de uma forma que o mero reconhecimento não afetará.

Por mais pesado que seja o golpe contra as aspirações palestinas, um preço político igualmente caro pelo plano E1 do primeiro-ministro Benjamin Netanyahu será pago pelos israelenses. Pois ao eliminar a perspectiva da solução de dois Estados, Netanyahu também selará o destino de um Estado exclusivamente judaico.

Como políticos israelenses perspicazes (Ehud Olmert entre eles) há muito alertam, a manutenção de Israel como um Estado judaico exige, fundamentalmente, a perpetuação ao menos da ideia de um Estado palestino, mesmo que apenas como uma ficção adiada, mantida viva por negociações intermináveis.

Assim que a ficção de um Estado palestino separado é revelada como tendo tanta substância quanto o Mágico de Oz – o que o plano E1 praticamente garante – restará aos palestinos que ainda não o fizeram se dedicarem à única alternativa viável: uma solução de um só Estado, no qual a ideia de um Estado exclusivamente judaico e um exclusivamente palestino dará lugar àquela que era a alternativa preferível o tempo todo, um único Estado democrático e secular em toda a Palestina histórica que seria dividida por ambos os povos como cidadãos iguais.

Uma campanha por direitos e igualdade em um Estado único é um projeto no qual os palestinos poderão contar com apoio internacional formidável que já desenvolveram tanto na esfera diplomática quanto de base, incluindo um movimento para sanções e um boicote global que Israel já sentiu.

Para os palestinos, de qualquer modo, um só Estado é preferível a dois, pelo simples motivo de que nenhuma versão proposta da solução de dois Estados tratar de modo significativo dos direitos da minoria árabe-palestina que de fato vive no território no qual o Estado supostamente existiria.

A maioria dos palestinos vive ou no exílio, para o qual foram expulsos durante a criação de Israel em 1948, ou como cidadãos de segunda classe em Israel, onde enfrentam obstáculos formidáveis como não judeus em um Estado que reserva o espectro pleno de direitos apenas para os judeus.

Para os palestinos, o direito de voltar para casa e o direito de viver com dignidade e igualdade em sua própria terra não são menos importantes do que o direito de viver livre da ocupação militar. Um Estado separado trataria apenas deste último, mas nunca haveria uma paz justa e duradoura sem tratar de todos esses direitos, mesmo que signifique abrir mão da perspectiva de um Estado palestino independente.

O que deve ser acrescentado aqui é que se uma solução de um Estado oferece a última chave restante para uma paz justa e duradoura, os judeus israelenses pagarão um preço a curto prazo em troca de muitos ganhos a longo prazo. Como os palestinos, eles perderão o sonho e a perspectiva de um Estado exclusivamente deles. Mas – assim como os palestinos – o que eles ganharão em troca é o direito de viver em paz.

Por: Saree Makdisi – Herald Tribune

Jesus, a Jew or a Gentile?

Are in error those who believe Jesus was a Gentile and not a Jew. Statements of this nature smell pure anti-Semitism to be aimed away from Judaism the figure of the greatest master of the whole Christian family, regardless of denomination or subgroup. Jesus, or Yeshua bar Yosef, a direct descendant of the house of King David, whose birth was prophesied centuries before his coming, was born in Bethlehem of Judea, the son of Miriam and Yosef, Jewish believers in Gd, and so was Jewish and never denied his origin, his history, his roots and his culture.

To despair of the vast majority of Christians, Catholics or Protestants, fundamentalist or not, ever, at any time, claimed to be God, but only the Son of Man or Son of the Living God, as indeed all of humanity is. Nor has created a religion and even less a religious institution. At no time was against the "mitzvot," the commandments of his religion, or against the precepts of Jewish time. He was presented to the temple on the seventh day after birth for "brit-milah" or circumcision ceremony and made his "bar-mitzvat" at 13 years old in Jerusalem.

He always had free passage in the synagogues and in the Great Temple and always made it clear that he had not come to destroy the Law but to comply with it, without, however, bow to any kind of prejudice, common then and now, as well as subservience demanded by so-called doctors of the Law Despite having good relationships with some of the elders of the Great Sanhedrin, or Council of Elders of the Great Temple, provided Rabbi positioned himself so, and very properly and firmly against corruption alarming , against hypocrisy, lies, deception of the divine laws, and especially against the oppression of the powerful over the weak.

For this reason he was hated and persecuted by a whole variety of people who saw the uneducated Galilean a real threat to the "modus vivendi" and the "status quo" effect. However, on the other hand, was revered by crowds of unhappy slaves, the sick and marginalized of all social order. He walked with the poor, the simple and the persecuted and ate with the socially discriminated, as the tax collector and the prostitute. His holiness and knowledge of natural laws that science still has failed to discern, healed the sick and dying brought the ante-chamber of death, but because of the mysticism and blind faith of a majority weary of waiting a messiah at any price, was climbed the rank of miracle worker and reviver of the dead.

He preached pure love, tolerance and forgiveness and a life lived as a righteous man is expected of a faithful follower of the Jewish Mosaic Law and the Holy Torah. He died a victim of the hate dispensed by the powerful to those who have no commitment to lie, with foolish pride, the prejudice and wickedness. His life was the most beautiful love poem that never has heard and his message can be summed up in "Love Gd above all things and your neighbor as yourself, Jew or Goy," a Jewish commandment before being Christian, but forgotten by all races and peoples as if it was a mere decadent and revolutionary slogan without real value these days.

His message and call to universal love and to the most vigorous moral code that we have news, of which testified to the last drop of blood on the wood of the Cross, were abducted by phalanges of men of the world, victims of greed, vanity, pride and the most cruel wickedness. He was promoted to the status of God and in His name all sorts of ills and evils were freely practiced and innocent blood, even millions of Jews like himself, gushed fed through the fields and squares throughout the centuries, as the rivers flowing into the sea.

Yeshua bar Yosef, son of Miriam and Yosef, born a humble Jew in Bethlehem of Judea, was not a god, but was not an ordinary man. Anyway, did not descend from the highest heavenly home just to dwell among us and live a limited and small life. Neither came to earth to save us from a supposed and doubtful hellfire, but rather to bring to all mankind, regardless of religious denomination, creed, origin and race of each one, vigorous and real subsidies for a hard and incessant work that must be done inside our human essence in order to become us worthy for one day inhabit the house of HaShem, the New Jerusalem in Heaven.

By LauLimor

Jesus: Judeu ou Gentio?

Incorre em erro quem defende que foi Jesus um gentio e não um judeu. Afirmações dessa natureza cheiram puro anti-semitismo por ter como objetivo afastar do Judaísmo a figura do mestre maior de toda a família cristã, independentemente da denominação ou subgrupo. Jesus, ou Yeshua bar Yosef, descendente direto do Rei David, cujo nascimento fora profetizado séculos antes de sua vinda, nasceu em Belém da Judéia, filho de Miriam e Yosef, judeus crentes em HaShem, e foi Judeu sim e jamais negou sua origem, sua história, suas raízes e sua cultura.

Para desespero da grande maioria dos cristãos, católicos ou protestantes, fundamentalistas ou não, jamais, em tempo algum, afirmou ser Deus, mas tão somente o filho do Homem ou filho do Deus Vivo, como de resto toda a humanidade o é. Tampouco criou uma religião e, menos ainda, uma instituição religiosa. Em momento algum se posicionou contrário às “mitzvot”, os mandamentos de sua religião, ou contra os preceitos judaicos da época. Foi apresentado ao templo no sétimo dia após o nascimento para a realização do “brit-milah” ou cerimônia da circuncisão e fez o “bar-mitzvat” aos 13 anos em Jerusalém.

Sempre teve trânsito livre nas sinagogas e no Grande Templo e sempre deixou claro que não viera para destruir a Lei, mas para dar-lhe cumprimento, sem, entretanto, curvar-se a qualquer natureza de preconceito, comuns naquela época como hoje, assim como à subserviência exigida pelos chamados doutores da Lei. Apesar de ter bom relacionamento com alguns dos anciãos do Grande Sanhedrin, ou Conselho de Sábios do Grande Templo, na condição de rabino posicionou-se sim, e com muita propriedade e firmeza, contra a corrupção alarmante, contra a hipocrisia, a mentira, a mistificação das Leis divinas e, sobretudo, contra a opressão dos poderosos sobre os mais fracos.

Por esse motivo foi odiado e perseguido por toda uma casta de gente que via no inculto Galileu uma real ameaça ao “modus vivendi” e ao “status quo” vigente. Entretanto, por outro lado, foi venerado por multidões de infelizes, de escravos, de doentes e de marginalizados sociais de toda ordem. Andou com os pobres, com os simples e com os perseguidos e comeu ao lado de gente mal vista e discriminada, como o cobrador de impostos e a prostituta. Sua santidade e conhecimento de leis naturais que ainda hoje a Ciência não logrou vislumbrar, curou doentes e trouxe moribundos da ante-câmara da morte, todavia por conta do misticismo e da fé cega de uma maioria sedenta de um messias a qualquer preço, foi galgado ao posto de fazedor de milagres e ressuscitador de mortos.

Pregou o amor puro, a tolerância e o perdão incondicional e viveu uma vida de homem justo como se espera de um Judeu seguidor fiel da Lei Mosaica e da Sagrada Torah. Morreu vítima do ódio dispensado pelos poderosos àqueles que não têm compromisso com a mentira, com o orgulho tolo, com o preconceito e com a impiedade. Sua vida foi o mais belo poema de amor de que jamais se teve notícia e sua mensagem sintetiza-se no “Amai a HaShem sobre todas as coisas e ao próximo como a si mesmo, Judeu ou Goy”, um mandamento judaico antes de ser cristão, porém esquecido por todas as raças e povos como se fora mero e decadente slogan revolucionário, sem valor real nos dias que correm.

Sua mensagem e chamamento ao amor universal e o mais vigoroso código de moral de que se tem notícia, do que deu testemunho até a última gota de sangue no lenho da cruz, foram seqüestrados por falanges de homens do mundo, vítimas da cobiça, da vaidade, do orgulho e da mais cruel impiedade. Elevaram-no à categoria de Deus e em seu nome toda sorte de males e maldades foram livremente praticados e o sangue inocente, inclusive de milhões de Judeus como ele, jorrou farto pelos campos e praças através dos séculos, como rios que correm para o mar.

Yeshua bar Yosef, filho de Miriam e Yosef, nascido um humilde Judeu em Belém da Judéia, não foi um deus, no entanto não foi um homem comum. De qualquer forma, não desceu dos mais altos páramos celestiais apenas para habitar entre nós e viver uma vida limitada e pequena. Tampouco veio ao mundo para salvar-nos de um suposto e duvidoso fogo do inferno, mas antes para trazer a toda a humanidade, independentemente da denominação religiosa, do credo, da origem e da raça de cada um, subsídios vigorosos e reais ao trabalho duro e incessante que nos cabe no burilamento interior e no engrandecimento de nós mesmos a fim de nos tornarmos dignos de um dia habitar a casa de HaShem, a Nova Jerusalém Celestial.

Por: LauLimor

One-State Solution in reality

The "two-state" option is clearly the default option, for a variety of reasons: - The politicians have invested their efforts in promoting this solution for decades. - The power of the politicians on both sides of the conflict will be preserved only if there remain two separate countries. - There is no popular movement promoting a "one-State" solution. -Neither side seems to possess the necessary tolerance towards the other to make a "one-State" solution possible. I've read many articles and essays regarding a one-State solution for the Palestinian – Israeli conflict. They all seem to have one theme -by winning the battle for land the evil Zionists have reversed thevictory of the War of Independence. By making impossible there-partition of the country they have doomed the Jews of Israel tominority status in the re-born, unified State of Palestine.

I would like to present a somewhat different perspective on the matter.

Firstly, Ariel Sharon's "Disengagement" from the Gaza Strip has turnedthe tables on the opinion that the "settlers" cannot be removed fromthe West Bank. I can attest to the fact that the Settlers are beside themselves now that it is clear that the Likud party can no longer berelied upon to stand in the way of their expulsion. If 8500 settlerscan be expelled in a week chances are the 85 to 100 thousand who will not be annexed to Israel within the framework of the "Geneva Accords"can be expelled within the 30 months specified in the agreement.

Secondly, Yossi Beilin's "Geneva Accords" can easily follow theprecedent set by his "Oslo Accords" by being adopted by the Laborparty the moment they regain power. Thus the "Two State" solution isalive and well in my opinion.

In light of the fact that the options facing the residents of Israeland the Occupied Territories are becoming increasingly substantial andconcrete, the window of opportunity to choose between them is rapidly closing.

The "two-state" option is clearly the default option, for a variety of reasons:- The politicians have invested their efforts in promoting thissolution for decades.- The power of the politicians on both sides of the conflict will bepreserved only if there remain two separate countries.
- There is no popular movement promoting a "one-State" solution.
- Neither side seems to possess the necessary tolerance towards theother to make a "one-State" solution possible.

Though I expect a Labor government to adopt the Geneva Accords astheir policy, I doubt even they would accept it in its pure form. Iwould expect them to insist upon the following modifications:

1) Financial – the Geneva Accords in their present form wouldbankrupt Israel. Israel cannot agree to give a blank check to aninternational panel of "experts" to decide how many billions ofdollars Israel owes the Refugees in compensation. At best Israel wouldagree to finance the relocation of the Settlers (if the U.S. and/orother benefactors arrange long term loans to cover the cost). Assuggested in the Accords, the infrastructure Israel abandons in theterritories will have to serve as adequate compensation. After all, from Israel's point of view, had the UN partition plan been adopted bythe Arabs in 1948 no refugee problem would have arisen and the endresult would for the Palestinians would have been far superior to that which they would achieve with the acceptance of the "Geneva Accords" today.

2) Territorial – the principle presented in the Geneva Accords as tothe borders being the pre -1967 armistice lines, with a 1:1 land swapadjustment to accommodate the annexation of large numbers of settlers has merit. I suspect that Israel would find it in its interest thatareas in the Galilee adjacent to the border and populated largely by Israeli Arabs be included in the swap.

3) Refugees – Israel will undoubtedly reject the premise that it must accept refugees equal to the average accepted by third-party countries. At best Israel might agree to consider accepting a number of refugees on the basis of family reunification, where the refugees are relatives of Israeli Arabs.

4) Jerusalem – If Israel is to retain the Jewish Quarter of the Old City then it will prefer the Quarter to be isolated from the Arab Quarters and open to the Israeli sector outside the Old City, rather than open to the remainder of the Old City and isolated from the Israeli sector outside the Old City. This will also simplify security and sovereignty issues.

5) Security – Israel will continue to object to any foreign military presence in Palestine. Once Israel withdraws from the territories, an international military force can only provide the Palestinians with immunity from retaliation for attacks against Israel. Paradoxically, from Israel's perspective, their presence would encourage attacks against Israel rather than preventing them. I suspect that some of the security concessions Beilin negotiated into the Accords, such as the "Early Warning Stations", are superfluous and will be replaced by
airborne and satellite surveillance.

I doubt that even Labor will be able to conclude negotiations without most of these modifications being included in the final agreement. If accepted then the Palestinians will have achieved the following:
- End of the "occupation"
- Removal of all settlers and Israeli military forces from the occupied territories
- Creation of a sovereign Palestinian State, free of the corrupting influence of Zionist culture and society
- Initiation of the process of resettlement and compensation of the Refugees - Eventual construction of an express highway and probably rail line connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip
- Opening of international airport and construction of commercial seaport

Israel will have its separation, even reducing the percentage of Arabs in its population. It will rely on the IDF to guarantee quiet from across the wall isolating it from the alien Arab society beyond.Politically and economically it should be significantly better off than it is today.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, will be on their own to meet the challenge of building the society and environment they aspire to. Unfortunately, confidence in their ability to build a successful and flourishing country is low. Experience has shown that the Palestinians tend to blame their failures on others rather than expending the effort required to succeed. I would wish them all possible success, though I fear the Palestinian State will be plagued by violence, hunger, poverty, overcrowding, and rampant political corruption; in other words a continuation of the current situation in the Gaza Strip since the "disengagement".

The second option is not currently a practical reality; however it could become one with effort on the part of its proponents. The realistic one-State option which could come about would differ substantially from that described in the articles I've read promoting a one-State solution. Their authors seem to think Israelis will raise their hands and say "Zionism is dead; long live the secular State of Palestine". I don't think so. The politics of democracy don't work that way. The process of change in a democracy requires the accumulation of political power and involves forming alliances and finding common interests. This will not happen overnight and these newly elected Arab parliamentary representatives will have to contend with seasoned opponents.

A likely scenario would take the following form:
- Israel officially annexes the occupied territories.
- Institutions and functionaries of the PA are integrated into parallel institutions of the Israeli government.
- The vast majority of Palestinians are registered as Israeli citizens, equal in rights and responsibilities to the existing Israeli Arab population.
- Following parliamentary elections the proportional representation of Arabs in the Knesset increases substantially.
- Due to this increased parliamentary clout legislation is passed accommodating the needs and desires of the Israeli Arab community, without harming the interests of the Israeli Jewish community.

What would not occur, at least not within the first few decades following annexation, is the formation of an Arab dominated parliamentary coalition, which converts the Jewish State of Israel into the "bi-national" State of Palestine. Be assured that initially the Arab representation in the Knesset will be in the minority, and the Jewish majority will do all in its power to maintain their majority. To do this you can be certain that they will not allow the law-of-return for Jews to be repealed or for a similar law to be enacted for Arabs. If anything they will attempt to enact immigration laws which maintain a balance between Arab and Jewish immigration, in order to sustain the Jewish parliamentary majority in the Jewish State.

This may seem racist however I have yet to find an example where the politicians in a democracy commit political suicide by assisting a minority to overpower them politically. Short of achieving the power to dominate the Jewish population however, the Arab community will have sufficient political power to achieve social and economic parity with the Jews, making them the most prosperous Arabic community in the region.

In time the interaction between the two communities will have evolved into a relationship of mutual benefit and respect; where equal opportunities and prosperity will be combined with the ability to live according to the culture and lifestyle each individual desires.

These are the two options on the table as far as I can see, and one of the two will likely become a reality within the next few years. I can guarantee a tremendous number of Rightist Zionists who would prefer the one-State option over relinquishing their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria; as well as Orthodox Jews who consider Judea and Samaria the heartland of biblical Israel, and cynics who expect Katyusha rockets to rain upon Israel as soon as Palestine becomes a State. Perhaps there are those from the Peace movements who also believe that unification is morally superior to separation.

The key question however is, given a true understanding of their choices, are there any Palestinian Arabs who would prefer the one-State option? Only they can cause it to come about – either through substantial grass-roots support, or by allowing negotiations over the Geneva Accords to fail, thereby causing the Israeli Right to seize power and annex the territories unilaterally.

I've read over and over how Israeli Arabs are second class citizens.This has always seemed strange to me for several reasons. Firstly, every time I hear of a legal case where Arab Israelis sue for equal treatment the courts find in their favor. Secondly, far from the pitiful image second class status evokes, most Israeli Arab neighborhoods and villages I've seen have been filled with large, lavishly decorated homes. And lastly, I have been led to believe Israeli Arabs treasure their citizenship and would object strenuously to its revocation. If this is true perhaps it would be wise to ask them what they find so agreeable about being second class Israeli citizens. In fact it would be likely that Israeli Arabs faced with possible revocation of their Israeli citizenship as part of the Geneva deal would also support the one-State option (the Geneva Accords in its original form includes the revocation of the Israeli citizenship of Arabs living in East Jerusalem).

Personally, I've always been a proponent of co-existence. In my view the "leftists" who criticize settlers as undemocratic, are the ones who cannot abide the idea of living alongside Arabs. I harbor no hatred towards anyone. I do have difficulty showing tolerance toward those who have no tolerance towards me, whether these individuals are those Arabs who want to shoot me, blow me up or merely chase me away; or Jews who have difficulty with the fact that I am religious or that I see nothing wrong with a Jew living in an area which, 38 years ago, was occupied by Jordan for 19 years. Yet if the decision is made that I will have to abandon the home I spent the last 15 years building with my own hands, and the community I have become an integral member of, then I will adapt, with no regrets, to my new home. It's up to you now. Choose well, for both our sakes.

By C. Handler (Samaria)
handlevy [at] gmail.com

Netanyahu and the one-state solution

Israel's unwillingness to compromise on key issues might annul a two-state solution, making only power-sharing viable.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently addressed US legislators. He has told members of Congress that he supports a two-state solution, but his support is predicated on four negative principles: no to Israel's full withdrawal to the 1967 borders; no to the division of Jerusalem; no to the right of return for Palestinian refugees; and no to a Palestinian military presence in the new state.

The problem with Netanyahu's approach is not so much that it is informed by a rejectionist worldview. The problem is not even Netanyahu's distorted conception of Palestine's future sovereignty, which Meron Benvenisti aptly described as "scattered, lacking any cohesive physical infrastructure, with no direct connection to the outside world, and limited to the height of its residential buildings and the depth of its graves. The airspace and the water resources will remain under Israeli control..."

Rather, the real problem is that Netanyahu's outlook is totally detached from current political developments, particularly the changing power relations both in the Middle East and around the world. Indeed, his approach is totally anachronistic. 

Netanyahu's not-so-implicit threat that Israel will continue its colonial project if the Palestinians do not accept some kind of "Bantustan solution" no longer carries any weight. The two peoples have already passed this juncture.

The Palestinians have clearly declared that they will not bow down to such intimidations, and it is now clear that the conflict has reached an entirely new intersection.

At this new intersection, there are two signs. The first points towards the west and reads "viable and just two-state solution", while the second one points eastward and reads "power sharing".

The first sign is informed by years of political negotiations (from the Madrid conference in 1991, through Oslo, Camp David, Taba, and Annapolis) alongside the publication of different initiatives (from the Geneva Initiative and the Saudi Plan to the Nussaiba and Ayalon Plan), all of which have clarified what it would take to reach a peace settlement based on the two-state solution. It entails three central components:

1. Israel's full withdrawal to the 1967 border, with possible one-for-one land swaps so that ultimately the total amount of land that was occupied will be returned.

2. Jerusalem's division according to the 1967 borders, with certain land swaps to guarantee that each side has control over its own religious sites and large neighborhoods. Both these clauses entail the dismantlement of Israeli settlements and the return of the Jewish settlers to Israel.

3. The acknowledgement of the right of return of all Palestinians, but with the following stipulation: while all Palestinians will be able to return to the fledgling Palestinian state, only a limited number agreed upon by the two sides will be allowed to return to Israel; those who cannot exercise this right or, alternatively, choose not to, will receive full compensation.

Israel's continued unwillingness to fully support these three components is rapidly leading to the annulment of the two-state option and, as a result, is leaving open only one possible future direction: power sharing.

The notion of power sharing would entail the preservation of the existing borders, from the Jordan valley to the Mediterranean Sea, and an agreed upon form of a power sharing government led by Israeli Jews and Palestinians, and based on the liberal democracy model of the separation of powers. It also entails a parity of esteem - namely, the idea that each side respects the other side's identity and ethos, including language, culture and religion. This, to put it simply, is the bi-national one-state solution.

Many Palestinians have come to realize that even though they are currently under occupation; Israel's rejectionist stance will unwittingly lead to the bi-national solution. And while Netanyahu is still miles behind the current juncture, it is high time for a Jewish Israeli and Jewish American Awakening, one that will force their respective leaders to support a viable democratic future for the Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. One that will bring an end to the violent conflict.