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.

A matança dos inocentes

Morte de crianças assinala a
escalada do conflito entre
israelenses e palestinos

Desespero: funeral de Iman Hijo, bebê palestino de 4 meses, vítima de um morteiro israelense que caiu em sua casa	Enterro dos dois garotos judeus: crianças mortas tornam-se ícones para ambos os lados

O pesadelo do conflito olho no olho entre palestinos e israelenses pôde ser medido a cada dia pelas crianças engolidas no turbilhão de violência. Numa das últimas incursões israelenses em Gaza, Iman Hijo, um bebê de 4 meses, morreu após um morteiro israelense atingir sua casa, em Gaza. Dos 22 feridos no ataque, incluindo a mãe e a avó de Hijo, outros dez eram crianças. No dia seguinte, dois garotos judeus, Kobi Mendel e Yosef Ishran, ambos de 14 anos, foram apedrejados e esfaqueados nos arredores de um assentamento na Cisjordânia. O crânio deles foi esmagado e os corpos, encontrados numa gruta na manhã seguinte, desfigurados. Menos de 24 horas depois, outro bebê palestino, de 3 meses, foi ferido por estilhaços de uma bomba israelense na fronteira de Gaza com o Egito. Quase um quarto das mais de 450 mortes nos sete meses da última Intifada, o levante palestino, envolve menores de 18 anos.

Reema Ahmed, 3 meses, com a mãe: sorte ao sobreviver à explosão de uma bomba

O modo como essas crianças perdem a vida a cada confronto é coerente com a escalada do conflito. As crianças já não são apenas atingidas por balas de borracha no tumulto dos protestos palestinos ou vítimas de terroristas suicidas em Israel. Morrem no meio de ataques com armamento pesado, como ocorreu com os bebês palestinos, ou massacrados com fria determinação por terroristas, como se deu com os meninos israelenses. Dos dois lados, as crianças mortas são usadas como símbolo de luta, e a sede de vingança de seus conterrâneos gera ainda mais violência. Foi o que aconteceu com Mohammed Jamal Aldura, menino de 12 anos morto pelos israelenses diante das câmaras de televisão, e com a garotinha Shalhevet Pass, de 10 meses, alvejada na cabeça por um franco-atirador palestino.
Muitas famílias tentam fugir dessa violência se mudando para bem longe das zonas de risco. Com a generalização do conflito, contudo, não há para onde correr. Os que ficam na linha de tiro – geralmente em áreas próximas a assentamentos judeus nos territórios árabes ocupados desde a guerra de 1967 – permanecem vulneráveis aos ataques de ambos os lados. Como a maioria dos bombardeios e das trocas de tiro ocorre à noite, a população acorda de madrugada com o estardalhaço de helicópteros e foguetes explodindo no quintal. Com isso, uma geração de crianças cresce apavorada e sem amparo emocional. "O que estamos vendo aqui são crianças sem esperança no futuro", diz Eyad el-Sarraj, diretor do Programa de Saúde Mental de Gaza. Ele calcula que mais de 100.000 pessoas (10% da população total de Gaza) passaram por algum tipo de tratamento mental no instituto coordenado por ele. Quase metade da população de Gaza tem menos de 14 anos e inventa maneiras mirabolantes para conviver com a violência. Sarraj conta que um dos reflexos mais evidentes da guerra é um dos passatempos preferidos da molecada: brincar de árabes e judeus que se matam, uma versão bélica do inocente pega-pega. "A auto-estima dos palestinos está tão baixa que os garotos sempre preferem ser o judeu, mais poderoso."
 

Yosef Ishran (à esq.) e o amigo Kobi Mendel (à dir.): morte bárbara e comoção em Israel

Enquanto as bombas caem, as duas figuras capazes de colocar fim à matança vivem um impasse. É bem possível que os líderes palestinos já não tenham condições de controlar a infinidade de grupos paramilitares ou civis, armados com todo tipo de arma, do fuzil ao carro-bomba, que atacam os israelenses para vingar seus mortos e externar sua insatisfação com a falta de governo. Nestes últimos tempos, também secaram os cofres da Autoridade Palestina e do governo autônomo de Gaza – e, conseqüentemente, a capacidade de dar empregos. Para piorar, eram os judeus do outro lado da fronteira que empregavam boa parte dos árabes. Com as fronteiras fechadas pelos conflitos e agora com o embargo a Gaza e com o muro de separação ao redor da Cisjordânia, o desemprego disparou, aumentando a insatisfação popular. A situação agrava-se com a decisão dos governos israelenses de não deixar ataque sem resposta e só voltar à mesa de negociações se os palestinos depuserem as armas e abdicarem de suas exigências prévias.
O Exército israelense considera como forças inimigas não apenas o Hamas que domina  Gaza, mas também o Fatah, a organização dirigida pelo líder palestino. Na prática, isso significa sinal verde para que os israelenses ataquem áreas sob jurisdição palestina e prédios da Autoridade Palestina, o que era impensável há tempos atrás. A estratégia, de ambos os lados, é a guerra de desgaste. Israel quer fazer com que a reação custe caro aos palestinos. Já os árabes querem tornar insustentável a presença dos judeus nos territórios ocupados. Na lógica palestina, quanto mais israelenses forem assassinados nesses assentamentos, pior fica a posição de do governo israelense. Nessa queda-de-braço, a única certeza é que mais crianças morrerão no fogo cruzado.

Por: Cristiano Dias

Is still possible a Two-State solution?

Hello, I'm Israeli-Palestinian

Ali Jarbawi has long seen the creation of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, as the best solution to the Middle East conflict. But the professor of political science from Bir Zeit university in the West Bank is not sure any more.

Jarbawi believes the two-state solution is on the verge of extinction, leaving Israelis and Palestinians facing a new reality – the prospect of life in a single binational state.

Jewish settlements, built in the West Bank, have entangled the people, making a solution based on two states look increasingly unlikely. Now, says Jarbawi, the separation barrier Israel is building deep inside the West Bank and which Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu wants to turn into a boundary between Israelis and Palestinians is final evidence that Israel is not interested in allowing the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

"Most Palestinians prefer the idea of separation because they want their own state," Jarbawi told IPS. "But Nethanyahu's idea of a two-state solution is to squeeze us into cantons in the West Bank. Given the choice between cantonisation and a one-state solution, Palestinians will go for the latter. We are at the edge of the two-state solution closing down."

The apparent collapse of yet another U.S. peace initiative in the Middle East, the seemingly unending Israeli-Palestinian bloodletting, and the approach of demographic parity between Jews and Arabs living in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea have all raised questions about the future and longevity of the two-state solution. These questions are being raised among Palestinians and Israelis, and on the pages of the world's leading newspapers and journals.

Jarbawi is not the only Palestinian warning about the imminent death of the two-state solution, which has long been supported by the international community as the preferred model for ending the conflict. Palestinian Prime Minister cautioned recently that if Nethanyahu took unilateral steps that included absorbing large chunks of the West Bank into Israel, the Palestinians would abandon their demand for their own, separate state and call for a single state with Israelis.

Pointing to Israel's settlement policy and the West Bank separation barrier, Palestinian Authority Chairman has warned that "time is running out for the two-state solution."

Some in Israel have dismissed these comments as a tactical ploy by Palestinian leaders to scare Israeli Jews. The threat: if Israelis do not agree to the creation of a Palestinian state, then higher Palestinian birth rates will ensure that in a decade Jews will be a minority in the area west of the Jordan River. There are currently 5.2 million Jews living in Israel, and 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and a further 1.2 million Arabs who are citizens in Israel.

The Israeli left has long warned of what it calls the "demographic threat," arguing that if settlement construction does not cease and Israel fails to relinquish its control over the West Bank, it will ultimately slide into an apartheid-like reality.

Israel, they contend, might survive for some time, but it will cease to be a democracy, and like South Africa will become increasingly isolated and will ultimately crumble. The death of the two-state solution, therefore, effectively means the death of the Jewish state.

Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the Oslo peace accords – an unofficial peace plan unveiled last year that is based on the idea of two states – has warned that his latest plan is "perhaps the last chance for a fair division of the land between Jews and Palestinians before the creation of a Palestinian majority west of Jordan that will effectively make the country binational."

But this thinking has now also begun to penetrate right-wing ranks in Israel. Ehud Olmert of Kadima party said in an interview that "more and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution."

Olmert said this meant a change from a struggle against occupation as they see it to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. "That is of course a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one," he said. "For us it would mean the end of the Jewish state." 

Some on the far right in Israel propose transferring Palestinians to Jordan, but they are a small minority. Jewish settler leaders, not unaware of demographics, have been suggesting various solutions, including giving Palestinians voting rights in Jordan.

That is a non-starter, given Palestinian demands for self-determination, Jordan's fear that it could become a Palestinian state – 60 percent of Jordanians are Palestinian – and the international community's backing for an independent Palestinian state. 

Some commentators have suggested that the demographic fear is now driving Sharon's latest plan announced last week to unilaterally dismantle Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.

In making his decision, Nethanyahu might have read a recent poll that indicated Israeli Jews' fear of a binational scenario. The survey conducted at Tel Aviv University found that 67 percent of respondents feared a binational reality. Seventy-eight percent of Jews said they favoured a two-state solution; only 6 percent said they support a binational state. 

Not surprisingly, support for a binational state among Palestinians is higher, at around 30 percent. With demography on their side – Palestinian birth rates are higher than Jewish ones – they would ultimately become a majority in a single state. 

Arafat was also on record saying that "the womb of the Arab woman is my best weapon." Some Israelis point to this as proof that he had never been committed to the idea of two states.

Some Palestinian intellectuals and Israelis on the far left actually espouse a one-state solution, arguing it is preferable to separation. With the two peoples merged into a single entity, they contend, many of the vexing problems that now make the conflict seemingly insoluble would melt away. There would be no reason to argue over delineation of borders, or over control of Jerusalem, and it would not even be necessary to remove settlements. 

This is not Ali Jerbawi's preferred route to statehood and to solving the conflict. Since Israelis would not agree to a single state, he says. It would mean an "apartheid-like struggle" in which Palestinians substitute their demand for national self-determination with a demand for one-person-one-vote in a single state. "This type of struggle will take many years," he says. "We want to end Palestinian suffering." 

But in the absence of Israeli agreement to the creation of a viable Palestinian state – in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank – he is prepared to go the one-state route. "If that happens, then we will say to the Israelis, 'We will meet you in 10 to 15 years time with the demand for one-person-one vote in a single state'." 

By Peter Hirschberg