Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Bush's Israel Problem – And Ours

Bush's Israel Problem – And Ours 
 
by Ira Chernus 
No one knows what's in George W. Bush's mind as he heads off for Israel
and Palestine. Perhaps he himself doesn't know exactly why he's making the
trip. But if he is really going to burnish his legacy by moving both sides
closer to peace, as the pundits say, he faces enormous problems on both
sides.
Among Palestinians, the Fatah leaders Bush is willing to talk with speak
for only a segment of their people. A recent poll showed 39% of
Palestinians trusting Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party. Only 16% trust the
opposition Hamas Party. But 41% say they do not trust either faction. Even
if Abbas concludes some kind of deal with Bush and the Israelis, he may be
a leader who looks over his shoulder and sees only a small band of
followers. 
If such a deal really creates a Palestinian state, more Palestinians may
jump to the pro-Fatah side. But the deal is bound to create a rather
truncated state with limited independence, as chunks of land around
Jerusalem are officially ceded to Israel or the Palestinians are denied a
full-scale army and full control of their water supply. Bush supports
Israel's insistence that the democratically elected Hamas leaders must be
excluded from the government. So, many Palestinians will see any deal as a
sell-out and resist. How many, and how they will resist, no one can
predict. But it's predictable enough that Palestinian society will end up
more fractured and its government less able to govern. 
This chaos is probably just what the Israeli government wants. According
to many reports, Israeli undercover agents helped found Hamas years ago to
undermine the then-nearly-universal Palestinian support for Yasser Arafat.
Then the Israelis pumped money (and perhaps arms) to Fatah during its
internecine war with Hamas to intensify the inner Palestinian split. To
further sow dissension, the Israelis used massive violence to break up the
prospect of Fatah-Hamas unity in 2006. 
Israeli governments have pursued such divide-and-conquer strategies ever
since the state was born. What the Israelis have always feared more than
anything else is a unified opponent. And on the Israeli side, fear more
than anything else is the obstacle to peace. That is George W. Bush's
Israel problem – and ours. 
The Politics of Fear
Last month a well-respected rabbi in my community, Tirzah Firestone, wrote
a moving public confession. Like most Jews, she "had been raised with the
unquestioned narrative about Israel's righteousness." She first began to
question when she visited the Occupied Territories. "I encountered the
shocking effects of my people's fear," she writes. "Fear has been
inculcated into us Jews. It lives in our cells." By now, fear has become
"the sovereign power in our lives, and [it] justifies any action." 
As a trained psychologist, the rabbi knows that people who build walls
around themselves for safety end up reinforcing their fear. "What an
incredible metaphor this 'security barrier' [which Israel is building in
the West Bank] is for our own lives!" she writes. "The danger of our
barriers is a kind of sclerosis of the soul, a deadening of our humanity."
The fear comes from a history "full of real trauma and suffering,
centuries of expulsions and pogroms, ghettos and methodical
extermination." 
But even sympathetic critics of Israeli policy usually fail to point out
what every Palestinian knows all too well: Jewish fear comes from, and
perpetuates, a confusion between past and present. Jews have been far too
quick to identify Palestinians with Nazis, to equate isolated bombings in
an Israeli bus or café with the methodical killings of the Nazi holocaust.
Jews have become victimizers because they have never ceased seeing
themselves as victims. 
Indeed, the influential Jewish theologian Emil Fackenheim once quoted an
Israeli psychologist who said that so many Jews equated all Arabs with
Nazis because they have "entered a holocaust psychosis." Fackenheim
offered this quote to support his claim that the Israeli occupation of
Palestine, and all the violence it entailed, was not merely a moral but a
sacred act. 
Israel has spent nearly 60 years showing conclusively that Jews not only
can fight back but can make themselves invincible in the Middle East. Yet
the fact that Israel is militarily secure has not taken away the fear. It
just does not sink in to the minds of most Jews, in Israel and elsewhere. 
Why not? One intriguing speculation came recently from the always
insightful Israeli commentator Uri Avnery. When the U.S. intelligence
community announced that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, Avnery
wrote that the news that Israel was not in danger of an annihilating
attack fell "like an atom bomb" on that country. The Iranian threat was,
he said "our most precious possession." 
Beneath the irony he revealed a grim truth: "Jews have become used to
anxiety. We have little red warning lights in our heads, which come on at
the slightest sign of danger. In such a situation, we feel at home. We
know what to do. But when the lights stay off and no danger appears on the
horizon, we get the feeling that something suspicious is going on.
Something is wrong." 
In other words, fear has become a foundation stone of Jewish identity.
Indeed, too many Jews define what it means to be Jewish largely in terms
of persecution, oppression, and the need to resist anti-Semitic enemies.
Without an enemy to fight they would be plunged into an identity crisis. 
Fear as Foreign Policy
The Israeli government feeds this fear by insuring that there will always
be an enemy. Once it was all Arabs, then all Palestinians, then the PLO.
Now it is Hamas. The Israelis have a long history of ignoring Hamas offers
for peace, insuring that Hamas will be retained as an angry foe. 
Now they've done it again. In the last few weeks Hamas leader Ismail
Haniyeh and others have proposed a long-term truce. Although certain
forces in the Israeli government are urging that truce talks begin,
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has publicly vetoed the idea in no
uncertain terms. And Israel has stepped up its attack in Hamas-ruled Gaza. 
Fear has prevailed again in the dominant Israeli view, as Avnery sums it
up: "If the Palestinians are strong, it is dangerous to make peace with
them. If they are weak, there is no need to make peace with them. Either
way, they must be broken." And if (as is likely) they will not be broken,
Israel gets to have two strong factions continuing to tear Palestinian
society apart. For fear-driven Israelis, it's a win-win situation. 
This fear helps to explain not only the many Israeli policies that are
violent and outrageous ("Those Arabs understand only one thing: Force")
but the few that are now in the direction of peace. In a recent interview,
Olmert shocked his nation by saying publicly that Israelis must take
seriously the prospect of dividing Jerusalem. But he quickly explained
that it has nothing to do with wanting better relations with the emerging
Palestinian state. On the contrary, Olmert views his primary
responsibility as prime minister as "ensuring a separation from the
Palestinians." 
Israelis have become obsessed with the fear that, if the occupied
territories are not somehow jettisoned, Palestinians will some day
outnumber Jews. The idea of letting them have the right to vote, and thus
rule over Jews, is too terrifying to accept. But how can Jews "live
eternally in a confused reality where 50% of the population or more are
residents but not equal citizens who have the right to vote like us?"
Olmert asked. "My job as prime minister, more than anything else, is to
ensure that doesn't happen." 
Olmert's talk of flexibility on Jerusalem may look courageous. He knows
that an undivided Jerusalem has become the prime symbol of the Jewish
people taking an intractable stand against their enemies. What Rabbi
Firestone, or any good psychologist, could tell him is that people who
feel compelled to prove their inflexibility (like people who wall
themselves in) only root themselves deeper in their anxiety. 
Olmert also knows that Israeli leaders who do not create an appearance of
intransigence that caters to the fears of their public will soon be voted
out of office. So at the same time that he shocked Israelis by hinting
about dividing Jerusalem, he shocked Palestinians by insisting that the
huge settlement of Ma'alei Adumim, built in the West Bank, must remain
part of Jewish Jerusalem. And his government further outraged Palestinians
when it announced that it would build 1,000 new units in the settlement
Har Homa, which Israel plans to keep as part of its Jerusalem (even though
Israel's attorney general says it's illegal). When Condoleezza Rice said,
"This doesn't help to build confidence," it was quite an understatement. 
Olmert knows one more thing: Right-wing politicians recently forced
through a law that says fully two-thirds of the Israeli parliament must
approve any changes in the boundaries of Jerusalem. So he can safely sound
conciliatory, knowing that the concession he hints at will probably never
come to pass. 
Negotiating a Two-State Solution
The limited independence the Israelis will probably offer now might have
been widely welcomed in Palestine and paved the way to real peace – if the
Israelis had offered it back in 2000 when Bill Clinton tried to broker a
final peace. But just as the talks came near to the point of agreement,
then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak backed out. He was overtaken by fear – not
of the Palestinians, but of his political opponents on the right, who were
busy scaring Israelis into seeing an independent Palestine as Nazi Germany
reborn. 
Seven years of war and occupation have passed since then, terribly lean
years for the Palestinian people. Fewer of them are now willing to accept
a two-state solution at all. The movement for a single, secular,
binational state – the ultimate terror for most Israeli Jews – has now
taken deep roots and gained widespread support among Palestinians and
their supporters. 
A two-state solution might still win over the Palestinian public, if it
requires Israel to remove all but a few of the settlements, gives
Palestine full control over all of the West Bank and Gaza including all of
Arab Jerusalem, and offers real independence, including a genuine army and
full control over water. And it would have to be ruled by the government
the people elected, including the full complement of elected Hamas
officials. 
But the fears of Israeli Jews are powerful enough to insure that no
Israeli government that agrees to such a deal can survive. That is Bush's
Israel problem. 
Why is it also our problem? Listen to Karen Hughes, Bush's close friend
and former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. After two years
trying to understand how to improve America's image in the Muslim world,
Hughes found that "the Iraq war was usually the second issue that Muslims
and Arabs raised with her, after the long-standing conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians. Hughes said she advised Bush and Rice two years ago
that U.S. help in ending the six-decade old fight over Israel would
probably do more than anything else to improve the U.S. standing
worldwide." 
Restoring U.S. Reputation
If indeed anger in the Muslim world poses a threat to our national
security, nothing will make us more secure than helping to bring peace
between Israel and Palestine. That will require a just peace, creating a
genuinely independent, genuinely viable Palestinian state. And that, in
turn, will require Jews overcoming their fears. 
The good news is that there have always been Jews, in Israel and around
the world, who have escaped the grip of fear. Here in the United States
many are joining the proliferating Jewish peace groups. Though these
groups are still small, their numbers are growing rapidly, and their
impact can be great. As they grow, their voice will reach the several
million Jews who do not really believe the fear-driven alarms sounded by
right-wing Jewish institutional leaders. The fear that grips those several
million is the fear of speaking their conscience, despite the harsh
criticism they may endure. 
The more Jews speak out now for a just peace, the more they will make
their view a legitimate option in the mainstream Jewish community. That is
the key to breaking through the widespread fear-induced silence. And that,
in turn, is the key to taking genuine steps toward peace for Israel and
Palestine and greater security for the United States. 
Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus.
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 by Ira Chernus 
CUT
Un articolo interessante, che esplora questioni molto poco dibattute ma ben 
evidenti ad una lettura attenta di certi comportamenti.
Una proposta di riflessione del genere, molti mesi fa, mi costò la "espulsione" 
da IPS, col solito bagarozzo a minacciare e a sputare insulti di antisemitismo e 
con Rosalux ad accompagnarmi bruscamente alla porta.
Proprio Rosalux, mesi fa, a proposito del caso Ariel Toaff citò la "paura" come 
causa della reazione delle comunità ebraiche alla pubblicazione di Pasque di Sangue.
Una persona come nahum, ad esempio, non solo vive in una specie di paura atavica 
ma confonde spesso il piano del passato con quello del presente, oltre a 
confondere ogni nemico con l'altro, come se il "nemico" fosse sempre e solo "uno".
Ma non solo lui presenta questa confusione di piani: Peres è andato nel 2007 a 
ringraziare i turchi per aver accolto gli ebrei espulsi dalla Spagna, nel 1492! 
  Come se non fossero trascorsi 5 secoli da quegli eventi e il mondo non fosse 
cambiato profondamente nel frattempo.
Gli spunti di riflessione non mancano con questa chiave di lettura.  Ad esempio 
ho sempre interpretato come strumentale il rifiuto delle autorità israeliane di 
trattare con Hamas a causa del suo statuto.  Forse ai massimi livelli la 
strumentalità della questione è autentica, ma per l'opinione pubblica no.  E' 
possibile che la sola minaccia di distruggere Israele, portata da un'entità che 
non possiede minimamente la forza di attuare questa minaccia, causi una tale 
ondata emotiva da oscurare completamente la capacità di valutarla 
oggettivamente, cioé come una minaccia vuota?
Eppure, anche qui, ho avuto accanite discussioni che confermano questo singolare 
modo di reagire alle minacce.
L'interpretazione che qui ho fornito del viaggio di Bush, destinato secondo la 
mia ipotesi a strumentalizzare questa profonda paura per la minaccia di 
Ahamdinejad, esaltandola col passo indietro degli USA nei confronti dell'Iran, 
lasciando platealmente e improvvisamente solo Israele di fronte ad essa, ma 
soprattutto lasciandolo "incompreso" rispetto ad essa, poggia anche su queste 
considerazioni.

 Bush's Israel Problem
ma non solo di Israele, direi...

 cagna)?
Cosa, nel mio post, ti fa agitare così scompostamente?

 PROT!
soffri di aerofagia in sti giorni? Non finisci post senza farti
scappare un prot...

 cagna)?
In altre parole, pirla.
Tb
-- 
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

 Am.

* Tonibaruch wrote, Il 13/01/2008 1.34:
Uhm, ci sono bagarozzi in questa cantina.  Che schifo.

 ruolo degli USA è più defilato.
hai appena detto una cazzata, eh
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/08_gennaio_13/bush_emirati_arabi_iran_067ea138-c1cf-11dc-bb2b-0003ba99c667.shtml


A parte che è notizia di oggi, che avevo letto, la cazzata l'hai detta tu.
Nel post ho impostato il discorso sulla tecnica di dichiarare pubblicamente 
un'intenzione e di negarla nei fatti, oppure di sovrapporla, a coprire, una 
strategia che non si vuole rendere esplicita.
Se il NIE è stato suggerito e sollecitato da Bush, e se il NIE ha avuto 
l'effetto di rendere impossibile un'azione militare contro l'Iran in quanto 
immotivata, allora Bush mentì quando accolse il rapporto ostentando disdetta e 
sorpresa e mente ora, dichiarando cose che contraddicono platealmente il rapporto.
E lo fa per innalzare il livello della tensione emotiva, e lo fa sapendo bene 
che il NIE gli impedisce di fatto l'azione militare, che è il motivo per cui è 
stato concepito, e che il Congresso vigila.
Ma a chi sono diretti, secondo te, questi allarmi gettati da un Presidente 
impossibilitato a prendere iniziative?

 E lo fa per innalzare il livello della tensione emotiva
[cut tarabaralla]
Oppure un'altra possibilità è che tu non abbia capito assolutamente un cazzo e 
che la tua tensione emotiva vada alle stelle mentre cerchi di grattarti il naso 
passando col braccio dietro la testa.
Perché lo fai?
IMHO perché sei un pirla.
Tb
-- 
Libertà per i comunisti siriani in carcere: Fateh Jamus, 'Isam Dimashqi,


 Chi ha scritto questo periodo ammirevole?
Un narcisista.

 Se il NIE è stato suggerito e sollecitato
certo, certo. Ora ricordati le pillole e continua pure a scrivere, che
sei divertente,

 sei divertente,
Se fosse, sarebbe meglio che essere un po' triste e ripetitivo come te, 
ti pare?

 E gne gne gne
uh, pure i versacci.
sta di fatto che il corriere della sera, assieme alla totalità della
stampa, occidentale, scrive che non si registra affatto un
abbassamento dei toni di Bush verso l'Iran. Ma ovviamente tu ne sai di
più (ti senti meglio, adesso?)

 abbassamento dei toni di Bush verso l'Iran.
Bush può starnazzare quanto vuole da buona anatra zoppa, ormai si è
sputtanato completamente...