Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Hanging up on J-Call

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/guest/entry/hanging_up_on_j_call
It took a while for liberal European Jews to start their me-too version 
of J-Street. Half a year after J-Street held its inaugural conference in 
Washington, DC, its European equivalent (named "J-Call") will be 
launched at the European Parliament on May 3.
Among J-Call's initiators is Elie Barnavi, a former history professor at 
Tel-Aviv University and ambassador to Paris. Barnavi moved to Brussels 
in 2005 to run the European Museum. In an interview to the Belgian 
newspaper Le Soir published on April 20, he termed "illegitimate" the 
policy of Israel's elected government.
The text published online by J-Call makes three points: a. The 
status-quo is suicidal for Israel; b. Israel's leaders do not understand 
that the status quo is bad for their country; c. Therefore, Israel must 
be saved from its blind and unintelligent leaders by enlightened and 
critical Diaspora Jews.
In other words, Barnavi and his friends see reality better than we do 
and they want to help us. In truth, however, Barnavi is trying to hang 
on to a failed ideology by claiming to be a realist. The peace ideology 
of the Left is no less bankrupt than the territorial integrity ideology 
of the Right. Being a realist means accepting the fact that Israel can 
neither achieve peace with the Palestinians (a painful admission if 
you're from the Left) nor maintain its sovereignty over all of the 
historical land of Israel (a no less painful admission if you're from 
the Right). Rather than facing reality, the authors of J-Call are 
desperately hanging on to their bankrupt ideas by trying to make 
themselves look smart.
A closer look at their argument reveals three fallacies: a. Israel does 
want peace and it is not Israel that constitutes an obstacle to the 
two-state solution; b. The fact that the two-state solution is desirable 
does not mean that it is achievable; c. Israel does not need the 
Palestinians' agreement to deactivate the demographic ticking bomb.
The two-state solution has been accepted by the Jews and rejected by the 
Arabs six times: when it was proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, by 
UNSCOP in 1947, by the Camp David Agreements in 1979, by Ehud Barak in 
July 2000, by Bill Clinton in December 2000 and by Ehud Olmert in 
September 2008. Ehud Olmert accepted the establishment of a Palestinian 
state on all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (with land swaps), a 
shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, and an Israeli gesture on Palestinian 
refugees. Mahmoud Abbas turned down the offer and declared to The 
Washington Post a few months later that the gap between what Olmert 
offered and what the Palestinians were willing to accept was "huge."
The current Israeli government has officially endorsed the two-state 
solution (Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan Speech in June 2009), has called for the 
renewal of negotiations with the PA and has made gestures to the 
Palestinians by freezing Jewish construction and by removing outposts in 
the West Bank. It is the PA that rejects negotiations, by demanding 
preconditions it never demanded when it negotiated with the Barak and 
Olmert governments. If Israel were to demand from the PA the dismantling 
of refugee camps as a proof of good faith and of Palestinian 
renouncement to the so-called "right of return" (which happens to be 
intrinsically incompatible with the two-state solution), the world would 
accuse us of looking for excuses for not renewing negotiations.
J-Call's proponents do not seem to understand the difference between the 
desirability and the applicability of a solution. The fact that the 
two-state solution makes the most sense when compared to all its 
alternatives does not mean that it can actually be implemented. Indeed, 
as long as the Palestinians continue to reject the two-state solution, 
this solution will keep working in theory and failing in practice.
Fortunately, Israel does not need the Palestinians' agreement or 
collaboration to extricate itself from the demographic trap. In other 
words, Israel does not need the peace it will never get from the 
Palestinians in order to preserve its Jewish and democratic character. 
The same way that Israel did not ask the Palestinians' permission to 
separate itself from Gaza, it does not need the Palestinians' permission 
to separate itself from most of the West Bank.
Baranvi and his friends are pointing their accusing finger to the wrong 
person, fail to understand that wanting something is generally not 
enough to make it happen and do not seem to realize that Israel does not 
need the Palestinians' agreement to end the status-quo. By refusing to 
swallow the bitter truth and by compulsively holding on to their failed 
ideology, the J-Call signatories are no better than their political 
bêtes noires. Political messianism, whether from the Left or from the 
Right, is always about bad faith. J-Call is a call to bad faith, so just 
hang up.







 of J-Street.
quattro post uguali in tre minuti, dev'essere una cosa che lo preoccupa
molto

 hang up.
E quattro. Non sei sereno, rilassati..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Pmjppf0o0

 quattro post uguali in tre minuti, 
che ci vuoi fare, non tutti hanno un software cosi' affidabile come la 
moderazione di ICRC.