Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Two-State Dreamers

Two-State Dreamers 
If one state is impossible, why is Olmert so afraid of it?  
by Jonathan Cook 
If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's most
intractable, much the same can be said of the parallel debate about
whether its resolution can best be achieved by a single state embracing
the two peoples living there or by a division of the land into two
separate states, one for Jews and the other for Palestinans.
The central argument of the two-staters is that the one-state idea is
impractical and therefore worthless of consideration. Their rallying cry
is that it is at least possible to imagine a consensus emerging behind two
states, whereas Israelis will never accept a single state. The one-state
crowd are painted as inveterate dreamers and time-wasters.
That is the argument advanced by Israel's only serious peace group, Gush
Shalom. Here is the view of the group's indefatigable leader, Uri Avnery:
"After 120 years of conflict, after a fifth generation was born into this
conflict on both sides, to move from total war to total peace in a Single
Joint State, with a total renunciation of national independence? This is
total illusion."
Given Avnery's high-profile opposition to a single state, many in the
international solidarity groups adopt the same position. They have been
joined by an influential American intellectual, the philosopher Michael
Neumann, who wrote the no-holds-barred book The Case against Israel. He
appears to be waging a campaign to discredit the one-state idea too.
Recently in defense of two states, he wrote: "That Israel would concede a
single state is laughable. … There is no chance at all [Israelis] will
accept a single state that gives the Palestinians anything remotely like
their rights."
Unlike the one-state solution, according to Neumann and Avnery, the means
to realizing two states are within our grasp: the removal of the half a
million Jewish settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Both believe that, were Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, it
would be possible to create two real states. "A two-state solution will,
indeed, leave Palestinians with a sovereign state, because that's what a
two-state solution means," argues Neumann. "It doesn't mean one state and
another non-state, and no Palestinian proponent of a two-state solution
will settle for less than sovereignty."
There is something surprisingly naïve about arguing that, just because
something is called a two-state solution, it will necessarily result in
two sovereign states. What are the minimum requirements for a state to
qualify as sovereign, and who decides? 
True, the various two-state solutions proposed by Ariel Sharon, Ehud
Olmert and George Bush, and supported by most of the international
community, would fail according to the two-staters' chief criterion: these
divisions are not premised on the removal of all the settlers.
But an alternative two-state solution requiring Israel's withdrawal to the
pre-1967 borders might still not concede, for example, a Palestinian army
– equipped and trained by Iran? – to guard the borders of the West Bank
and Gaza. Would that count? And how likely do the campaigners for two real
states think it that Israel and the US would grant that kind of
sovereignty to a Palestine state?
Importantly, Neumann and Avnery remind us that those with power are the
ones who dictate solutions. In which case we can be sure that, when the
time is right, Israel and its sponsor, the United States, will impose
their own version of the two-state solution and that it will be far from
the genuine article advocated by the two-state camp.
But let us return to the main argument: that the creation of two states is
inherently more achievable and practical than the establishment of a
single state. Strangely, however, from all the available evidence, this is
not how it looks to Israel's current leaders.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for example, has expressed in several speeches
the fear that, should the Palestinian population under Israeli rule – both
in the occupied territories and inside Israel proper – reach the point
where it outnumbers the Jewish population, as demographers expect in the
next few years, Israel will be compared to apartheid South Africa. In his
words, Israel is facing an imminent and powerful "struggle for
one-man-one-vote" along the lines of the anti-apartheid movement.
According to Olmert, without evasive action, political logic is drifting
inexorably towards the creation of one state in Israel and Palestine. This
was his sentiment as he addressed delegates to the recent Herzliya
conference:
"Once we were afraid of the possibility that the reality in Israel would
force a bi-national state on us. In 1948, the obstinate policy of all the
Arabs, the anti-Israel fanaticism and our strength and the leadership of
David Ben-Gurion saved us from such a state. For 60 years, we fought with
unparalleled courage in order to avoid living in a reality of
bi-nationalism, and in order to ensure that Israel exists as a Jewish and
democratic state with a solid Jewish majority. We must act to this end and
understand that such a [bi-national] reality is being created, and in a
very short while it will be beyond our control."
Olmert's energies are therefore consumed with finding an alternative
political program that can be sold to the rest of the world. That is the
reason he, and Sharon before him, began talking about a Palestinian state.
Strangely, however, neither took up the offer of the ideal two-state
solution – the kind Avnery and Neumann want – made in 2002. Then Saudi
Arabia and the rest Arab world promised Israel peace in return for its
withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. They repeated their offer last year.
Israel has steadfastly ignored them.
Instead an alternative version of two states – the bogus two-state
solution – has become the default position of Israeli politics. It
requires only that Israel and the Palestinians appear to divide the land,
while in truth the occupation continues and Jewish sovereignty over all of
historic Palestine is not only maintained but rubber-stamped by the
international community. In other words, the Gazafication of the West Bank.
When Olmert warns that without two states "Israel is finished," he is
thinking primarily about how to stop the emergence of a single state. So,
if the real two-state camp is to be believed, Olmert is a dreamer too,
because he fears that a one-state solution is not only achievable but
dangerously close at hand. Sharon, it seems, suffered from the same
delusion, given that demography was the main impulse for his disengaging
from Gaza.
Or maybe both of them understood rather better than Neumann and Avnery
what is meant by a Jewish state, and what political conditions are
incompatible with it.
In fact, the division of the land demanded by the real two-staters,
however equitable, would be the very moment when the struggle for Israel
to remain a Jewish state would enter its most critical and difficult
phase. Which is precisely why Israel has blocked any meaningful division
of the land so far and will continue to do so.
In the unimaginable event that Israel were to divide the land, a Jewish
state would not be able to live with the consequences of such a division
for long. Eventually, the maintenance of an ethnic Israeli state would
(and will) prove unsustainable: environmentally, demographically and
ultimately physically. Division of the land simply "fast-forwards" the
self-destructiveness inherent in a Jewish state.
Let us examine just a few of the consequences for the Jewish state of a
genuine two-state solution.
First, Israel inside its recognized, shrunken borders would face an
immediate and very serious water shortage. That is because, in returning
the West Bank to the Palestinians, Israel would lose control of the large
mountain aquifers that currently supply most of its water, not only to
Israel proper but also to the Jewish settlers living illegally in the
occupied territories. Israel would no longer be able to steal the water,
but would be expected to negotiate for it on the open market.
Given the politics of water in the Middle East that would be no simple
matter. However impoverished the new sovereign Palestinian state was, it
would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of its own population were it to
sell more than a trickle of water to the Israelis.
We can understand why by examining the current water situation. At the
moment Israel drains off almost all of the water provided by the rivers
and aquifers inside Israel and in the occupied territories for use by its
own population, allowing each Palestinian far less than the minimum amount
he or she requires each day, according to the World Health Organization.
In a stark warning last month, Israel's Water Authority reported that
overdrilling has polluted with sea water most of the supply from the
coastal aquifer – that is the main fresh water source inside Israel's
recognized borders.
Were Palestinians to be allowed a proper water ration from their own
mountain aquifer, as well as to build a modern economy, there would not be
enough left over to satisfy Israel's first-world thirst. And that is
before we consider the extra demand on water resources from all those
Palestinians who choose to realize their right to return, not to their
homes in Israel, but to the new sovereign Palestinian state.
In addition, for reasons that we will come to, the sovereign Jewish state
would have every reason to continue its Judaization policies, trying to
attract as many Jews from the rest of the world as possible, thereby
further straining the region's water resources.
The environmental unsustainability of both states seeking to absorb large
populations would inevitably result in a regional water crisis. In
addition, should Israeli Jews, sensing water shortages, start to leave in
significant numbers, Israel would have an even more pressing reason to
locate water, by fair means or foul.
It can be expected that in a short time Israel, with the fourth most
powerful army in the world, would seek to manufacture reasons for war
against its weaker neighbors, particularly the Palestinians but possibly
also Lebanon, in a bid to steal their water.
Water shortages would, of course, be a problem facing a single state too.
But, at least in one state there would be mechanisms in place to reduce
such tensions, to manage population growth and economic development, and
to divide water resources equitably.
Second, with the labor-intensive occupation at an end, much of the Jewish
state's huge citizen army would become surplus to defense requirements. In
addition to the massive social and economic disruptions, the dismantling
of the country's military complex would fundamentally change Israel's role
in the region, damage its relationship with the only global superpower and
sever its financial ties to Diaspora Jews.
Israel would no longer have the laboratories of the occupied territories
for testing its military hardware, its battlefield strategies and its
booming surveillance and crowd control industries. If Israel chose to
fight the Palestinians, it would have to do so in a proper war, even if
one between very unequal sides. Doubtless the Palestinians, like
Hezbollah, would quickly find regional sponsors to arm and train their
army or militias.
The experience and reputation Israel has acquired – at least among the US
military – in running an occupation and devising new and supposedly
sophisticated ways to control the "Arab mind" would rapidly be lost, and
with it Israel's usefulness to the US in managing its own long-term
occupation of Iraq.
Also, Israel's vital strategic alliance with the US in dividing the Arab
world, over the issue of the occupation and by signing peace treaties with
some states and living in a state of permanent war with others, would
start to unravel.
With the waning of Israel's special relationship with Washington and the
influence of its lobby groups, as well as the loss of billions of dollars
in annual subsidies, the Jewish Diaspora would begin to lose interest in
Israel. Its money and power ebbing away, Israel might eventually slip into
Middle Eastern anonymity, another Jordan. In such circumstances it would
rapidly see a large exodus of privileged Ashkenazi Jews, many of whom hold
second passports.
Third, the Jewish state would not be as Jewish as some might think:
currently one in five Israelis is not Jewish but Palestinian. Although in
order to realize a real two-state vision all the Jewish settlers would
probably need to leave the occupied territories and return to Israel, what
would be done with the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship?
These Palestinians have been citizens for six decades and live legally on
land that has belonged to their families for many generations. They are
also growing in number at a rate faster than the Jewish population, the
reason they are popularly referred to in Israel as a "demographic
timebomb."
Were these 1.3 million citizens to be removed from Israel by force under a
two-state arrangement, it would be a violation of international law by a
democratic state on a scale unprecedented in the modern era, and an act of
ethnic cleansing even larger than the 1948 war that established Israel.
The question would be: why even bother advocating two states if it has to
be achieved on such appalling terms?
Assuming instead that the new Jewish state is supposed to maintain, as
Israel currently does, the pretense of being democratic, these citizens
would be entitled to continue living on their land and exercising their
rights. Inside a Jewish state that had officially ended its conflict with
the Palestinians, demands would grow from Palestinian citizens for equal
rights and an end to their second-class status.
Most importantly, they would insist on two rights that challenge the very
basis of a Jewish state. They would expect the right, backed by
international law, to be able to marry Palestinians from outside Israel
and bring them to live with them. And they would want a Right of Return
for their exiled relatives on a similar basis to the Law of Return for
Jews.
Israel's Jewishness would be at stake, even more so than it is today from
its Palestinian minority. It can be assumed that Israel's leaders would
react with great ferocity to protect the state's Jewishness. Eventually
Israel's democratic pretensions would have to be jettisoned and the
full-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinian citizens implemented.
Still, do these arguments against the genuine two-state arrangement win
the day for the one-state solution? Would Israel's leaders not put up an
equally vicious fight to protect their ethnic privileges by preventing, as
they are doing now, the emergence of a single state?
Yes, they would and they will. But that misses my point. As long as Israel
is an ethnic state, it will be forced to deepen the occupation and
intensify its ethnic cleansing policies to prevent the emergence of
genuine Palestinian political influence – for the reasons I cite above and
for many others I don't. In truth, both a one-state and a genuine
two-state arrangement are impossible given Israel's determination to
remain a Jewish state.
The obstacle to a solution, then, is not about dividing the land but about
Zionism itself, the ideology of ethnic supremacism that is the current
orthodoxy in Israel. As long as Israel is a Zionist state, its leaders
will allow neither one state nor two real states.
The solution, therefore, reduces to the question of how to defeat Zionism.
It just so happens that the best way this can be achieved is by
confronting the illusions of the two-state dreamers and explaining why
Israel is in permanent bad faith about seeking peace.
In other words, if we stopped distracting ourselves with the Holy Grail of
the two-state solution, we might channel our energies into something more
useful: discrediting Israel as a Jewish state, and the ideology of Zionism
that upholds it. Eventually the respectable façade of Zionism might
crumble.
Without Zionism, the obstacle to creating either one or two states will
finally be removed. And if that is the case, then why not also campaign
for the solution that will best bring justice to both Israelis and
Palestinians? 
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
VOTATE LA SINISTRA L'ARCOBALENO
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 military - in running an occupation and devising new and supposedly

Dovrebbero far pensare qualsiasi sostenitore della soluzione "due
stati per due popoli".  Dalle persone sincere che rispetto moltissimo
(Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery,...) ai razzistelli
che abbiamo in questo NG.
L'accenno ai "privileged Ashkenazi Jews, many of whom hold
second passports" poi e' una frecciata al cuore di quella che oggi e'
la situazione Israeliana.
Israele, ci dicono, e' nato per dare un rifugio sicuro agli Ebrei.
Quando contava, e cioe' durante la Shoah, il contributo di quello che
poi sarebbe stato l'Estabilishment Israeliano a salvare gli Ebrei era
nullo se non negativo.
Oggi, invece, la popolazione Ebraica Israeliana, oggi, e' composta da
un'Elite che in molti casi ha piu' di un passaporto, da un nucleo di
fanatici religiosi,e da una popolazione di proletari e immigranti che
vorrebbero in larga parte vivere in America o in Europa.
Con in piu' qualche perdente tipo Andrea Zanardo, andatoci peche' si
affiancava meglio  alle sue masturbazioni esistenziali.
Considerando il prezzo in sofferenza umana che Israele e' costato e
sta costando (sia da una parte del conflitto sia dall'altra), i
"risultati" della sua esistenza sono grotteschi anche per i cosiddetti
beneficiari.
Io non vivo da quelle parti, e spero non ci vivro' *mai*.
Aldila' del fatto ("self-evident", come dice una certa costituzione)
che qualsiasi soluzione al conflitto medio-orientale _deve_ basarsi
sul principio dell'uguaglianza giuridica ed economica degli esseri
umani che vivono nella regione, non sta a me decidere quale percorso
e' piu' appropriato a quei popoli.
Ma posso esprimere un'opinione.  E la mia opinione e' che l'*unica*
via fattibile alla pace e' di accantonare tutti i nazionalismi e i
particolarismi etnico-religiosi (dal Sionismo alla Ummah) a favore
dell'idea dell'eguaglianza dei diritti (di vita, liberta' e ricerca
della felicita', della cittadinanza, e delle opportunita' economiche)
di *tutti* gli esseri umani che vivono sul territorio.
Nel XXIsimo secolo, questo dovrebbe essere molto meno "rivoluzionario"
di quello che e'.
GT

luno...@gmail.com
 wrote:
[cut]
IMHO non č una soluzione al tuo problema.
Prova con l'acido.
Tb
-- 

 di *tutti* gli esseri umani che vivono sul territorio.
e la strada per ottenerlo si chiama Unione Sovietica. A proposito di
perdenti.



E di strade piene di buche, di merda e di fango che non portano da 
nessuna parte.
Tb
-- 


i veri perdenti sono coloro che pensano che ci siano sconfitte
definitive.

 di quello che e'.
Ma infatti non e' rivoluzionario. La legge israeliana gia' garantisce
l'uguaglianza dei diritti, quindi l'origine del conflitto non puo'
originarsi da un principio di ingiustizia o di iniquita'.
Ciao
R.

 beneficiari.
Certo, certo..... :)
*pat pat*
-Stefano

 di quello che e'.
Esiste pure il pragmatismo, perň. Dopo decenni di violenza (anche 
"post-umana": ammazzare i bimbi nelle culle), lo "Stato unico" 
significherebbe uno strumento nelle mani della maggioranza etnica, che 
sarebbe araba: e questo strumento verrebbe utilizzato per la *vendetta 
razziale* (che esista un antisemitismo palestinese *vero*, non mi sembra 
cosa da porre in dubbio). La tua soluzione č ottima solo astrattamente; 
storicamente, materialmente, porterebbe ad un carnaio ancora peggiore di 
quello cui assistiamo oggi.
Namib

Tonibaruch wrote:

-- 
Libertą per i comunisti siriani in carcere: Fateh Jamus, 'Isam Dimashqi,
Basel Hurani, 'Abd al-Halim Rumieh, Ratib Sha'bu, and Doha 'Ashur
al-'Askari 
http://snipurl.com/1oqtm

 razziale*
E' uno scenario che svanirebbe quando le condizioni per uno stato
binazionale diverrebbero reali (un movimento di massa, con componenti
non-violente e internazionali su modello Sud-Africano. Un movimento
dentro Israele che unisca cittadini Arabi ed Ebrei
che chieda l'Uguaglianza).
D'altra parte, ci sono le considerazioni fatte dall'articolista
sopra.  Secondo te, un *vero* stato Palestinese, indipendente nel
senso
in cui lo e' l'Italia, e' fattibile?  Per me no.  Nel senso che sara'
fattibile solo quando sara' fattibile lo stato binazionale.
Quindi tanto vale concentrarsi su quest'ultimo.
GT

 definitive.
Giusto. Io infatti non ho mai smesso di credere nel ritorno del Sacro
Romano Impero, e chi crede che la potenza degli Asburgo sia tramontata
per sempre è solo un povero sciocco.

 per sempre č solo un povero sciocco.
Credo piů che l'Impero sia destinato a ricostituirsi in forma 
repubblicana-federalista. Magari con Otto d'Asburgo senatore a vita...
Tb
-- 

 repubblicana-federalista. Magari con Otto d'Asburgo senatore a vita...
Sì, ma io la voglio coi confini del 1789, ovviamente compresi Regno
d'Ungheria e Ducato di Milano.

 d'Ungheria e Ducato di Milano.
Quindi niente Paesi Bassi? Mi sembra un peccato.
Tb

 Quindi niente Paesi Bassi? Mi sembra un peccato.
Certo che sì, l'indipendenza di quei fottuti brabantini servi
dell'imperialismo inglese è stata l'anno dopo.

 fattibile solo quando sara' fattibile lo stato binazionale.
Non sono d'accordo: non esiste una situazione del tipo +/-. Lo Stato 
palestinese, infatti, non risolverą cmq tutti i problemi, ma perlomeno 
"calmiererą" la violenza, che potrą essere gestita da controparti 
convergenti nel ritenerla un problema. Poi, la convivenza e il commercio 
dovrebbero poter fare il resto, in un futuro di *declino* (ma non di 
immediato azzeramento) delle tensioni. Natura non facit saltus.
Namib

 dell'imperialismo inglese č stata l'anno dopo.
Benissimo.
Se dovessero chiederla di nuovo, ci penseranno i compagni Putin e 
Christoflas a far mordere loro il freno.
Tb
-- 

 d'Ungheria e Ducato di Milano.
E il sor Granduca a Firenze un ce lo vogliamo rimettere?
Carlo "Jurassic Park" 

Jurassic Park wrote:

In posizione subordinata, naturalmente.
Tb
-- 

 E il sor Granduca a Firenze un ce lo vogliamo rimettere?
Quoto Toni. Ho dei dubbi riguardo al Ducato di Modena, ma
tendenzialmente direi che tenerlo sotto controllo come ai bei tempi
non è ipotesi da scartare.

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:fre11k$ihr$1...@tdi.cu.mi.it...

Sicuro: e in buoni rapporti con la Repubblica di Lucca.
Carlo "Jurassic Park" 

 dovrebbero poter fare il resto, in un futuro di *declino*
Se *nei fatti* questo stato sara' una Bantustan, senza un'effettiva
indipendenza politica, civica ed economica, non "calmierera'" un bel
nulla, come non ha "calmierato" nulla Oslo o il ritiro da Gaza.
E nell'attuale assetto politico e' *impossibile* che lo stato
Palestinese sia qualcosa di diverso da una Bantustan, dove *tutto*
(risorse, movimento dei cittadini, confini) sono controllati
dall'esterno.
Il punto dell'articolo citato da Sergio e' questo.  E per me e'
inoppugnabile.
GT

 una guerra contro la NATO
e da quando il polo è della Nato, orfanello dell'imperatrice Vittoria?

 Romano Impero,
non si parla di stati, si parla di rivoluzioni e di comunismo.
Nell'anno di grazia 2008 c'è stato il primo capo di stato dell'UE
comunista eletto da un partito che non ha mai rinnegato nulla.

 Non sequitur
Perchè la Nato dovrebbe fare la guerra alla RUssia se preme sul Polo?

 stesse risorse, finisce che si litiga.
Le risorse le accaparra chi possiede i fondali del Polo, visto che
sotto c'è l'acqua. La Nato che territori possiede? E perchè si
dovrebbe litigare tutti per le beghe interimperialiste tra Russia,
USA, Norvegia e Canada?

 dall'esterno.
Nell'attuale assetto politico ... NON ESISTE UNO STATO PALESTINESE, caro
*FESSO* di un Torrieri.
E *NON ESISTENDO UNO STATO* e' normale che qualcun'altro controlli
risorse, movimento dei cittadini, confini, caro *FESSO* di un Torrieri.
-Stefano

 dall'esterno.
Israele non ha il minimo interesse economico a perpetuare una situazione 
che probabilmente le costa molti punti di PIL; per contro, l'interesse 
di Hamas a prolungare una gestione "parassitaria" di Gaza è sotto gli 
occhi di tutti. O sapresti spiegarmi a cosa diavolo serva lanciare 
missili a casaccio contro i civili israeliani? Poi, la reazione dell'IDF 
è criminalmente sproporzionata, ma questa sproporzione è direttamente 
proporzionale (se mi perdoni il bisticcio) al delirio strategico (si fa 
per dire) "proposto" da Hamas.
Namib

 Giusto un rimanduccio storico
che c'entra con il polo?

 tocca a noi. O tu sei russo, armando?
non sono nè russo, nè norvegese, nè canadese, nè americano. SOno cazzi
loro e io non voglio spendere un centesimo delle mie tasse per
appoggiare una delle parti in caso di guerra.

 pagatore, frega poco.
se non erro la NAto parla di interventi se uno dei membri viene
attaccato, non se uno dei suoi membri ha le palle girate e invade chi
gli sta sul cazzo.

 missili a casaccio contro i civili israeliani?
Ah, quello e' lapalissiano.   E _razionale_.
Far vedere agli Israeliani che ogni loro azione comporta una reazione
spiacevole che non possono combattere con la forza (i missili sono
quasi sempre
*rappresaglia* per azioni Israeliane) e costringere in questo modo
l'opinione pubblica Israeliana a chiedere trattative.
La stampa Israeliana lo capisce benissimo:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953150.html
Non ha nulla a che vedere con quello che vorrei io, ma e' una
strategia del tutto "rispettabile", se la si guarda oggettivamente.
Ne' meglio ne' peggio
di cio' che fa Israele o gli USA (beh, con molte meno vittime).
E potrebbe funzionare.  Ha funzionato con Hizbullah in Libano.
GT

 E potrebbe funzionare.  Ha funzionato con Hizbullah in Libano.
E in Libano il risultato *qual è?*. Quello materiale, quello in soldoni, 
*qual è?*. Una strategia rispettabile è quella che funziona. Il tenore 
di vita a Gaza è migliorato o peggiorato, sotto Hamas? Maccheccazzo jje 
ne dovrebbe fregà al povero cristo palestinese medio, se "ad Israele si 
risponde colpo su colpo", quando - "grazie" a questa astuta strategia - 
non riesce a mettere insieme il pranzo e la cena? Ma una volta le 
strategie di "liberazione" non mettevano in prima linea i bisogni 
materiali? Ora c'è l'"onore"? Ma stai scherzando?
Namib

 legittimi interessi di Canada, USA, Norvegia e forse Danimarca
e che invadano l'Artico e non occupino territori di loro proprietà
l'hai deciso tu adesso, vero?

 piopio...
no, piotutto, anzi pija tutto Putin