From the forum discussion of the bombing in Eilat yesterday: We all feel despair and hopelessness again. My despair comes from the fact that we are stuck in a cycle of violence and can't find a way out. And the way things appear to me, even if we disbanded all the settlements tomorrow, ripped down the wall, pulled back to '67 borders, did everything that you say we must, we still would not have peace and security. And because we cannot do those things tomorrow without some assurance, I feel dejected because that assurance gets further and further away every day.
over there at all who will ever want to talk, hard not to come to terms with the fact that maybe we want the Palestinians to have a state more than they do, and still I don't want to give up and admit that maybe I was wrong after all, that this is not going to work. I am so afraid that if I let go of hoping completely I will totally give up. Everyone on the forum is jumpy, full of suspicion, looking for ulterior motives in everything. The Lebanese are convinced that Israel launched poisonous balloons over the border. The Jews think that an article about the relatively small magnitude of the kingdom of Judea is an effort to refute our heritage and everyone goes screaming for the hills with accusations. It is very difficult, but we keep on. And after three hours of attempting to convince the Lebanese that we were not launching poisonous balloons, I finally gave up and pulled a kuntz: OK, People, it's time I spilled the beans. Time I told you our secret. The storm is our friend in time of need! The balloons are designated for:...Ahmedinijad! People, this is IT! Israel is attacking Iran!
Saturday, January 27th: Here is an example of the height of absurdity of what the press can convince people: Here is the full story of the balloon episode. If you are going to launch an ad campaign, make sure the wind is not blowing north, or you may instigate trouble with our northern neighbors! Hang on to that kite, Tzfoni! Of more serious matters, this is the intro to the thread that I posted on Shalom-Salaam last week. (since it is my posting, I feel free to post it here, but will not post other people's reactions to it, since it is not fair to others to do so.) Let your curiosity take over! A Proposal for a Bi-national State Solution and a Middle East Confederation I would like to use this thread to discuss the idea of a bi-national state, why I find it a positive vision, a morally just and fair solution, and a viable ideal for the distant future. Then I would like to take this further, and present an interesting article on what the author, Jeff Harper, calls a confederational approach to forming what he calls a Middle East Federation, similar to the European Community. I realize that this idea will be met with much opposition and controversy here or anywhere, but I think it is worth discussing, experimenting with, and examining it, if not as a serious proposal, than as an ideal. It also serves as a good alternative against which we can examine the advantages and disadvantages of the two-state solution that most of us here are talking about and accept. But when thinking about this, please keep in mind that I I do not see this idea being fulfilled within the present context of mistrust, hostilities, and alienation that exist between Israelis and Palestinians today. It is necessary to see it as an ideal that could be implemented after Israelis and Palestinians have already succeeded in living together in a side-by-side two state solution for a significant period of time. These are the questions that I think need to be addressed in this debate: 1.Can Israel continue to be a homeland for the Jews and offer self-determination, freedom, and security even if it is not an exclusivist Jewish state? (Which it already is not) 2.What will happen to the infrastructure that now exists in the occupied territories if these areas are designated to be the Palestinian State? Can this infrastructure be utilized? 3.Can Jews who are now living in the occupied territories continue to do so, even after a Palestinian state is declared? Could they become citizens in the Palestinian state, making it bi- national as well and not exclusively Moslem? 4.On the other hand, can Palestinians who wish to join families in Israel or those who wish to exercise the right of return come back to Israel and become citizens as Israeli Arabs are today? 5. What can a single state solution offer both Jews and Moslems as opposed to a two-state solution? Here are some excerpts from an article, the link of which appears below, that describes a two- stage process that begins with the formation of a Palestinian state (two state solution) and ends with a Middle East Confederation. Here are several excerpts showing the main points from the article. I've shortened it as much as I can for those ofyou who would prefer a shorter version. A one-state solution: A single, democratic state encompassing all of Palestine/Israel is another possibility. In many ways this is an attractive solution. Acknowledging that Israel itself has created a single state through its “facts on the ground,” it merely goes the next step to claim equal rights, including the vote, for Jews living in what is now occupied territory, and for Palestinians wishing to exercise the right of return. *As for the one-state solution, it requires both the dismantling of Israel as a “Jewish” state and a Palestinian readiness to relinquish their aspirations for self-determination – both tall orders. Working Around the Occupation: The Two-Stage Approach There exists yet another option, far less elegant, much more difficult to present in a sound-byte. That is an evolutionary “two-stage” conception in which two states, Palestine and Israel, eventually join in a bi-national federation that in time will include Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and ultimately Egypt and other countries of the Middle East – a Middle East Union. A win-win approach, it rests on the balance between national sovereignty and the freedom to live and work regionally that underpins the European Union. In terms of the Occupation, it works around a permanent Israeli presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza (Bracha's note, this was written before the disengagement) – and eventually neutralizes it as a controlling presence -- by compensating the Palestinians’ readiness to compromise on territory with the economic, social and geographic depth afforded by a regional confederation. Stage 1: A Palestinian State Alongside Israel Recognizing that Palestinian demands for self-determination represent a fundamental element of the conflict, the first stage of the confederational approach provides for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This meets the Palestinians’ requirements for national sovereignty, political identity and membership in the international community. A perspective of inter-communal harmony in Palestine-Israel within a context of a democratic and prosperous Middle East might sound utopian at the present moment. We must remember, though, that the Palestinians, including most of the refugee population, have recognized Israel as a fact of life, even as the vast majority of Israelis have rejected the “Greater Land of Israel” ideology. Stage 2: A Regional Confederation Leading to a Wider Middle East Union Following upon the emergence of a Palestinian state, the international community would broker a regional confederation among Israel, Palestine and Jordan, which would likely include Syria and Lebanon as well, then perhaps Egypt and other countries of the region. Although such a Middle East Union sounds like a pipe-dream in the present context of intense conflict, it is probably the most easily done element of a Middle East peace process. The great advantage of this approach is that it balances political sovereignty with the practicalities of having to deal with a dispersed nation requiring social services and economic development far beyond the capabilities of the small Palestinian state. The Palestinian state can address the need for national self-determination; it cannot meet the dire needs of the shattered Palestinian people, refugees and residents of the Occupied Territories. Such a win-win scenario promises both justice and hope for all the peoples of the Middle East. It addresses the need for Palestinian self-determination yet provides for economic development and accommodates the demographic changes that have fundamentally affected Palestinian society in the past sixty years and more. It addresses Israeli concerns of sovereignty and security, even leaving much of the Occupation’s infrastructure intact, although neutralized. And it addresses the wider need for regional cooperation, development and democratization, ensuring a viable context for the region’s peoples. The confederational approach offers a realistic hope of a just peace. It transcends the immediate conflict and enables us to look at the broader common interests and possibilities that show us a way out. The entire text of the Jeff Harper article can be found here. |
January 2007
