Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Svizzera, Palestina/Israele

Visto che le idee vecchie non funzionano, ben vengano le nuove.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1812080,00.html
Comment
Instead of two states side by side, why not one superimposed on the
other?
We need to look at new solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict which
embody the globalised, not the territorial, state
Mathias Mossberg
Tuesday July 4, 2006
The Guardian
For more than half a century, Israelis and Palestinians have been
fighting over the same tracts of earth. Numerous proposals for dividing
the land have come and gone, and none has proved workable. Israel's
most recent effort to end the territorial stalemate by pulling out of
Gaza and dismantling some of the West Bank settlements has drawn
criticism for being too little, too late.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has outlined plans to finalise
the country's boundaries by 2010 - but as long as the Palestinians
demand a return to the 1967 borders, few expect the deadlock to be
resolved. Given the current downward spiral of violence, the prospect
of a peaceful and mutually agreed two-state solution seems further away
than ever. But it also makes it necessary for us to think about the
conflict in new terms.
In today's world, control of geographic territory doesn't mean as much
as it once did. Statehood has become less about territory, and more
about access to markets, technology, and the rule of law. What if the
Israelis and the Palestinians were able to somehow separate the
concepts of statehood and territory and to explore new ways of living
together? What if both peoples were given the right - at least in
principle - to settle in the whole area that lies between the
Mediterranean and Jordan?
I'll admit that it might not be the easiest thing to imagine. When we
think about states, we naturally think about borders - real, specific,
definable borders that you can plot on a map. What I have in mind is
utterly different, and no doubt somewhat far-fetched. (That said, given
the failure of all the "realistic" solutions over the past 50 years,
forgive me for suggesting that it may now be time to consider other
possibilities.)
You might call it a "dual state". Instead of the familiar formula in
which two states exist side by side, Israel and Palestine would be two
states superimposed on one another. Citizens could freely choose which
system to belong to - their citizenship would be bound not to
territory, but to choice. The Israeli state would remain a homeland for
Jews and, at the same time, become a place in which Palestinians were
able to live freely.
This basic administrative structure has worked elsewhere: for example,
in the cantons of Switzerland. There people of different origins and
beliefs, speaking different languages and with different allegiances,
live together side by side. In the Israel-Palestine dual state, smaller
territorial units could be given the right to choose which state to
belong to, based on a majority vote. At the same time, individuals
would be able to choose citizenship for themselves, regardless of where
they lived. A person living in a canton that opted to belong to
Palestine could continue to be a citizen of Israel and vice versa.
An Israeli and a Palestinian living side by side in, for example, an
Israeli-administered area would share many of the same rights and live
by many of the same laws. They would both be free to move about within
the area now occupied by Israel and the territories. They would share a
common currency, participate in the same labour market and contribute
common taxes for a number of shared services.
Civil disputes could be settled by independently appointed arbitrators.
Parents would be free to send children to the schools of their choice;
government funding for education could be allocated on a proportional
basis. Neighbours would vote for separate leaders in separate
elections, but these elected representatives would harmonise
legislation on a number of matters, such as taxation, criminal law and
traffic regulations.
There would be no need for security fences or barriers, no need for
corridors or safe passages, and no need for checkpoints. A joint
defence force could secure the borders, and a joint customs service
could ensure one economic space. Both states could keep their national
symbols, their governments, and their foreign representation. Local
affairs would be dealt with by canton administrators on a majority
basis, while individual human rights and freedoms could be guaranteed
by the two states in cooperation.
It is not difficult to imagine a Jewish-majority area consisting
largely of present-day Israel, plus a number of major settlements. That
area would be under Israeli jurisdiction but remain open to
Palestinians who wished to live under Palestinian jurisdiction.
Similarly, one can imagine a core Palestinian area, consisting of the
West Bank and Gaza, and perhaps even parts of Israel where Israeli
Arabs are the predominant population. The whole of this area would also
be open to Jews living under Israeli law. Jerusalem could be subject to
the same principle. The demographics of neighbourhoods would not change
overnight - for example, the divisions between East and West Jerusalem
would linger for some time - but there would at least be the
opportunity for people to move and live freely.
To be sure, the road to such a "dual state" solution would create its
own challenges. But, to a large extent, it could build on present
realities and proceed one step at a time. Israeli withdrawal from the
West Bank, accompanied by the development of credible and lasting
Palestinian institutions, could ignite the process. At some point,
direct talks about shared economic, civil and defence responsibilities
could begin to build the architecture for this new type of state.
Is this proposal completely unrealistic? Perhaps. But present realities
are far from sane and sound. There is a crucial need for new thinking
if the peace process is to take root. Perhaps by re-envisioning how
statehood can exist outside the traditional notions of who owns what
strip of land, Israel and the occupied territories can produce the
first modern embodiment of the globalised state, where the intangibles
of the 21st century can solve the most intractable territorial
conflicts of the 20th century.
Such a state would be an innovation in world politics, international
law and constitutional design. But it would in many ways be a
codification of the new world in which we already live, where our lives
are no longer tied to the land in the same way they once were. For
Israelis and Palestinians, forgetting about the land may be the only
way they will both be ever able to live on it.
· Mathias Mossberg is vice-president for programmes at the EastWest
Institute in New York. He served as Sweden's ambassador to Morocco from
1994 to 1996 and he has been involved in Middle East peace negotiations
since the 1980s. This is an edited version of an article that appears
in the Washington-based journal Foreign Polic

 Comment
Una stronzata di uno che non sa che la Svizzera e' una CONFEDERAZIONE ed
e' un SINGOLO STATO e non DUE (o piu') STATI sullo stesso territorio.
-Stefano


Io farei cosi': dividerei tutto il territorio in quadrati, a
scacchiera. Dopo di che, gli Israeliani si muovono ad alfiere sui
quadrati bianchi, i Palestinesi ad alfiere sui neri e i diplomatici si
muovono invece col passo della torre. Restano turisti e stranieri, ai
quali e' lasciato il movimento del cavallo.
:-)
A parte gli scherzi, l'idea qui presentata mi sembra irrealizzabile. E'
falso che gli Stati non debbano avere il controllo del territorio,
semmai si puo' dire che con l'aumentata mobilita' delle persone la
coincidenza stato-nazione sta diventando piu' labile.
Quello che si propone qui e' una doppia gestione che non avrebbe senso
da un punto di vista della convivenza civile. La giurisdizione legale
deve necessariamente avere una certa continuita' territoriale, e
infatti in quei casi in cui la situazione e' molto frammentata (es. la
Svizzera) esiste comunque un governo federale che come minimo coordina
le autonomie locali.
Ciao
R.

 live together side by side. 
Articolo molto carino da leggere ma ovviamente irrealistico; una
soluzione del genere, mai tentata, non è sperimentabile in un posto dove
le tensioni sono molto forti. La Svizzera non è un esempio pertinente;
tanto per iniziare è uno stato in senso territoriale (provate ad
invaderlo con un carro armato e vedete che cosa vi succede). E poi far
vivere i diversi gruppi linguistici senza che si scannassero fra di loro
ha richiesto secoli di sforzi (l'ultima guerra civile, fra cantoni
cattolici e protestanti, risale a metà ottocento) e tuttora si investono
molte risorse in quelle istituzioni, in particolare scuola ed esercito,
che devono formare uno spirito unitario.
-- 
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy        e-mail: 
ll...@dada.it
   Home page: 
http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
                   (musicologia pratica)

 che devono formare uno spirito unitario.
Piccolo disclaimer:  Noi che siamo "fuori" dal conflitto, per
definizione, possiamo solo dare le nostre opinioni.   Il conflitto
durera' finche' sia Israeliani che Palestinesi, per una qualsiasi
ragione, arriveranno a un punto in cui non vogliono o non possono piu'
combattere.
Detto questo, secondo me e' _inevitabile_ che questo "punto di non
ritorno" sara' la fondazione, in qualche forma, di uno stato
binazionale, con le comunita' Araba e Israeliana liberi di vivere su
tutto il territorio di Israele/Palestina storica, una legge di
cittadinanza che incorpora, in qualche forma, sia la "legge del
ritorno" che i diritti dei profughi, e un'assetto statale che tratti
tutti i cittadini ugualmente.   Non la vedo come un'"utopia".  La vedo
come L'UNICA soluzione praticabile, a parte il genocidio e la pulizia
etnica di una delle comunita' da parte dell'altra.
E gli eventi di questa settimana provano che uno "stato Palestinese",
nei confini di solito immaginati (Gaza piu' parti della Cis-Giordania)
e' una grottesca farsa che non fara' nulla per far cessare il conflitto
ne' per sollevare politicamente ed economicamente il popolo
Palestinese.
E' "praticabile" nonostante le tensioni?  Non hai idea quanto
velocemente questo tipo di cose puo' mutare.   L'idea di una convivenza
pacifica e politicamente paritaria fra l'etnica "colonizzatrice" e
"colonizzata" era impensabile in Irlanda del Nord, in Sud Africa, o
anche qua' in Quebec appena qualche decennio fa.
Francesi, Tedeschi, Polacchi e Cecoslovacchi si sono ammazzati molto
piu' a lungo, e con molte piu' vittime, che in Israele e Palestina.
Oggi, sono liberi di circolare, lavorare e risiedere nei rispettivi
territori, uniti in una grande area economica.
E nessun analista serio, non importa quanto anticomunista, ti avrebbe
predetto, negli anni '70 che l'URSS si sarebbe disgregata con la
rapidita' con cui e' successo.
L'idea dello stao binazionale, come puoi vedere a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
ha un rispettabile seguito intellettuale, che abbraccia sia Palestinesi
(uno per tutti: Edward Said) che Israeliani (Meron Bienvenisti,
l'ex-vice sindaco di Gerusalemme) che Ebrei della diaspora (Tony Judt),
sia "vecchi" che giovani (Michael Tarazi, il trentenne rappresentante
legale della palestinian Authority in Amerca).   Manca, e sarebbe
indispensabile, un "movimento di massa".
Ma, con Israele impegnato in un conflitto senza capo ne' coda e il
10-20% dei suoi abitanti Ebrei che emigrano, gli USA impegnati anche
loro in una guerra logorante in cui sono stati trascinati, in larga
parte, dall'impegno politico filo-Israeliano, con il sostegno verso
Israele in netto calo sia in USA che in Europa, sia fra Ebrei che fra
non-Ebrei, e sopratutto con l'evidente fallimento di qualsiasi
tentativo ad arrivare a due stati veramente autonomi, l'idea di uno
stato bi-nazionale potrebbe essere, per la prossima generazione, la
proverbiale piu' potente forza dell'universo, "an idea whose time has
come".
Vedremo, comunque.
GT

e' una grottesca farsa
Certo, certo....
*pat pat*
Taglio il resto delle solite stronzate di fantasia.
-Stefano