Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Judenrein Palestine

Judenrein Palestine
By Moshe Arens
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972825.html
What makes the removal of the outposts in Judea and Samaria seem like
a mission impossible for Israel's defense minister? Most will agree
that they were put up illegally, and like all illegal structures in a
country in which the rule of law is supposed to prevail, they should
never have been put up in the first place, and they should be removed.
But behind the government's intention to remove them lurks a ghost. It
is the ghost of the uprooting of the settlers in Gush Katif. The Gush
Katif settlers were there for many years and their settlements were
perfectly legal - no one will contest that. And yet they were forcibly
removed from their homes by orders of the Israeli government.
The removal of the settlers from their homes in Gaza was part of a
policy, or if you like an ideology, that cannot be called by any other
name but Judenrein Palestine. In other words, certain parts of western
Palestine, or using the generally accepted terminology in Israel,
certain parts of the Land of Israel, need to be cleared of all Jews.
This is the declared policy of the Olmert government, and it
presumably is part of Tzipi Livni's negotiating position in her talks
with her Palestinian counterparts.
Can you blame many Israelis, including many who do not countenance the
erection of illegal outposts, for feeling less than enthusiastic about
the removal of the outposts, when their removal is seen as no more
than a prelude to the forcible removal of the settlements in Judea and
Samaria that were established legally, just as were the settlements in
Gush Katif?
The concept of removing all Jews from a certain region is surely
repugnant to any person not prepared to deny somebody's rights on the
grounds of his ethnic or religious origin. It brings back the worst
memories of the tragedy that befell the Jewish people in World War II.
When it is applied to a part of the Land of Israel it is also contrary
to the very foundations of Zionism, a movement based on the right of
Jews to settle and live in their land, a right that has received
international recognition.
And yet, not only the Olmert government's ministers, but many Israeli
citizens who insist they are confirmed Zionists, and of course those
who claim no such affiliation, all of liberal views, subscribe to this
concept. Presumably this is because they consider this view to be part
and parcel of making peace with the Palestinians. What kind of a peace
can this be when nobody Jewish will be allowed to live within the
borders of Israel's neighboring state?
The settlement policy condoned by successive Israeli governments and
promoted by the settlers' movement over the years created a patchwork
of Jewish settlements dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria, and not
concentrated in settlement blocs. As a matter of fact, Gush Katif and
Gush Etzion were the only large settlement blocs beyond the Green
Line, and the former exists no more. The architect of this settlement
strategy was none other than Ariel Sharon, who for years urged the
settlers to occupy each "hilltop."
And it was he who, as prime minister, so graciously received Talia
Sasson in his office when she presented him her report proving that
many of the outposts he had encouraged and authorized were illegal,
something he must have been well aware of. Both of them must have been
smiling to themselves at this meeting.
It is generally agreed that Israel should not incorporate all of Judea
and Samaria, with its large Arab population, within its borders. But
does it necessarily follow that all areas not incorporated within
Israel's borders need to be cleared of all Jews? The Palestinian
negotiators currently engaged in the phantom negotiations with
Israel's foreign minister are in any case not capable of making and
carrying out any commitments.
But when and if serious Palestinian negotiators appear, it will have
to be made clear to them that the continued presence of Jews on
territory over which they will have sovereignty in the future, and the
assurance of their safety, must be part of a durable peace agreement
between Israel and the Palestinians. An agreement that does not
include such a provision will not be an agreement worthy of being
called a peace agreement.

 grounds of his ethnic or religious origin.
Col ciufolo.   Amira Hass vive a Ramallah, e vorrebbe andare a Gaza.
Hamas O l'Autorita' Palestinese non hanno nulla incontrario.   Stessa
cosa vale per Barenboim.
In generale, se cittadini Israeliani hanno il diritto di vivere a Gaza
o in Cis-Giordania senza chiedere il permesso ai Palestinesi, allora i
cittadini Palestinesi possono andare a vivere a Tel Aviv senza
chiedere il permesso agli Israeliani.  Non sarebbe una cattiva idea,
ma Israele ha sempre preferito il senso unico per quanto riguarda la
liberta' di abitazione dei territori occupati.   O, se dir si voglia,
l'Apartheid.
GT

 cosa vale per Barenboim.
uh, diciamo che per usufruire di un certo diritto ci vorrebbe una
adesione ideologica. Mi ricorda qualcosa...