Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Nothing Inevitable About a One-State Solution - 3 -

interessante articolo di Jonathan Tobin, che smonta pezzo per pezzo
uno dei teoremi piu' diffusi, che impedisce la comprensione di quel
che potrebbe accadere in medio oriente se (come del tutto probabile)
uno Stato palestinese non nascera' entro breve. L'articolo e' in tre
parti.  terza parte qui
 
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/09/one-state-solution-israel-inevitable-three/
 
 
Nothing Inevitable About a One-State Solution-Part Three
Jonathan S. Tobin
 
Peter Beinart and the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg claim that Israel
must evacuate the West Bank of Jews or be faced with an inevitable
scenario in which they will either be forced to accept a one-state
solution that means the end of Zionism or be branded an apartheid
state. As I wrote in part one of this series, this is a false choice
because the settlements would not prevent a two-state solution if the
Palestinians were willing to accept one in the first place. In part
two, I also pointed out it is wrong to assume that Americans would
ever be willing to try to force Israel to risk the creation of a new
Hamasistan in the West Bank without even a dubious promise of peace.
They understand the Palestinian goal is not so much independence as it
is to destroy Israel. But are Beinart and Goldberg right when they
assume that the continuance of a standoff will eventually destroy the
pro-Israel consensus and lead to a majority of Jews and non-Jewish
Americans to view Israel as an apartheid state?
 
The South African analogy, so popular with leftist anti-Zionists and
so feared by some liberals, is utterly inapplicable for a number of
reasons.
 
First, as I wrote earlier, the Palestinians were given autonomy and a
path to statehood. Were the Palestinians devoted to peaceful
coexistence and desirous only of independence alongside Israel, they
would long ago have attained independence. The security restrictions
in the West Bank and the presence of the Israel Defense Force there is
merely a function of the terrorist campaigns the Palestinians have
undertaken, not part of a grand scheme to subjugate the Arab
population. If there were no suicide bombings and other terrorist
threats, there would be no checkpoints or security fence about which
the Palestinians complain so bitterly.
 
It is not logical to assert that a Palestinian Authority that is able
to operate its own broadcast and print media (which spews forth hatred
and incitement against Jews and Israel with impunity) or has control
over the civil government of the West Bank is a new version of South
Africa. Nor is the existence of Jewish communities, whose inhabitants
are constantly threatened with terror, an indication of apartheid.
Many of those settlements would certainly disappear if the
Palestinians would only consent to accept a two-state solution the
Jews appear to want more than the Arabs.
 
So long as the Palestinians, now divided between Hamas and Fatah but
united on their refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no
matter where its borders are drawn, are unwilling to accept Israel’s
peace offers, they cannot play the role of South Africa’s blacks. Even
at the United Nations, no bastion of support for Zionism, the PA’s bid
for unilateral independence has fallen flat, because even the
Europeans and much of the Third World understand that its up to the
Palestinians to engage in the peace process if they truly want their
own state. So long as the Israelis hold the door open to statehood,
the South African analogy is untenable, especially because Arab
citizens of Israel have full citizenship rights and representation in
the Knesset. The Palestinian demand for a Jew-free state makes it
clear it is they who are practicing racism, not the Jews.
 
The expectation of some observers that eventually the Palestinians
will wise up and ask for Israeli citizenship so they can vote Zionism
out of existence misreads the nature of Palestinian politics. While
such a tactic might conceivably facilitate their fantasy about ending
Israel, it also presupposes a willingness to engage in even a charade
of co-existence as well as underestimating the influence of Hamas and
Islamism that already rule part of the country — the Hamasistan in
Gaza — without benefit of democracy or a peace deal.
 
Demographic predictions of Israel’s doom may or may not be
exaggerated, but they are not enough by themselves to trump the fact
that peace requires the Palestinians to make the choice for a two-
state solution. If, as seems likely, they continue to stall while
hoping eventually Israel’s friends will tire of them, they will find
out that support for the Jewish state is not as superficial as they
think.
 
Americans look at the Middle East and they can tell without a
scorecard who are the democrats and who are the opponents of the
values Israel and the United States share. Americans are not so simple
minded as to be misled in thinking Israel can be blamed for
Palestinian rejectionism. Their backing for Israel is so deeply
engrained in the political DNA of this country that it cannot be
destroyed by the empty rhetoric the South African analogy represents.
Israel’s foes think they have time on their side, but they
underestimate the patience and the intelligence of the majority of
Americans who make up the pro-Israel consensus.
 
As difficult as the status quo may be, Israel can and must afford to
wait until a sea change takes place within Palestinian society that
will make peace possible. Americans will wait with them.

 parti
 
segnalato per spam. Esiste il copia e incolla, cafone