2012-05-17 07:11:14 / Fuente: Palestinalibre.org / Imágenes: Occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com
2 Comentarios / Comenta esta artículo:
Me parece realmente triste como al pueblo palestino le hayan quitado sus tierras, pero ya llegara el día en que las naciones se levanten y caiga el sionismo, y el pueblo palestino vuelva a ser libre!! FUERZA PALESTINA!!!
I consider the two state sloituon unjust (because in the 2-state sloituon Israel will not allow a full right of return). I also consider it very hard to reach politically, but not at all impossible if the international pressure ramps up, as it is/will.I would prefer the single state sloituon, but I do not see any way that such a massive transformation could occur in any *reasonable* time frame (of course, this is absent the unacceptable bloodshed method, whereby a fascist Israel under regional conflict repeats 1948 to make a Jewish 1-state and the conflict still continues from new borders, or an Arab/Persian coalition defeats Israel when it attempts the former).So I am stuck with the 2-state sloituon the international community generally has settled on, despite the injustice of it. My question for my fellow MW posters is-1) WHEN/WHY did the 2-state sloituon actually die for you? [I understand many of you never supported the 2-state sloituon; that is principled and you can ignore this question]2) HOW do you think a just 1 state resolution can be arrived at, step by step with a time frame, and actual political steps?I will point out that I am not overly optimistic about the 2-state sloituon, but I am much more pessimistic about a *just* 1-state sloituon being arrived at. Also, we need to think about the political/mental barriers to both resolutions . As Israel has the balance of power, and will for the foreseeable future, we have to consider the political barriers within their society. Expansionists and the settler fringe obviously oppose the 2-state resolution, while the majority of Israelis accept it, at least in principle. Israel failed to offer it before, but that does not mean the dynamics cannot be altered in the future.The 1-state sloituon is opposed by the VAST majority of Israelis, on various levels. The settler fringe opposes it because they want the right to live in their cherished land, but they also want ethnoreligious control of it. Most of Israeli society opposes 1-state because they fear that civil war and ethnic conflict is a very real possibility. In a way, the 1-state sloituon rewinds the clock to pre-1947, and we see where the Zionist ideologues took events from that starting point. Now we have even more blood in the sand, and we are going to hope that Zionist fanatics do not wage a war to maintain/regain ethnoreligious dominance? What I am saying is that the concern of security coming from Israelis is very real, and not unwarranted. A liberal Israeli who wants justice and *truly* prefers a single state sloituon *in theory*, may honestly insist that the extreme Zionists, plus a few radicalized Palestinians, is just a recipe for civil war. Such secular Israelis likely fear race riots started from within their own ranks, but that fear is still valid; they just know they cannot control the flow of events and it threatens everyone.*I do propose that there is a third way , which keeps the just dream of 1-state sloituon alive, and may be the only way to achieve it (absent the bloodshed thing). What if the initial goal is a 2-state resolution, with an ultimate goal of a binational/single state in the future, if desired by both sides. The 2-state sloituon has less barriers, and once the societies realize they can get along again, latter phases can be voluntarily entered into, with the consent of both sides. Basically, soon after there are 2 states there would be a significant flow of labor and people between both states (as it was from 1967 until the 1st intifada+; even now thousands of people from the West Bank work, legally and illegally, in Israel and the illegal settlements). Only after this position is reached, and peace is sustained for a tangible period, will the parties (namely Israelis) start to accept the idea of sharing the land and coexisting. If for some reason one or both sides feels they want to maintain their own more ethnic identity based state, the 2-state resolution would become the ultimate outcome, with only limited manifestations of union they can agree upon. It is not just the Israelis who may like the idea of a state which is largely defined by its ethnoreligious majority. The Palestinians in Palestine may also find they enjoy the unique nature of their national identity (and there may be cultural and economic reasons they prefer to remain separate from Israel).Further, the multi-phased peace lowers the barriers to the initial 2-state resolution for elements on both sides. Settlers know they will have access to religious sites, but perhaps the eventual right to live there [and they need to act well to ever secure such a right to residency/Palestinian citizenship/a single state]. Refugees will get compensation, and realize they may in time get their due right to live in their ancestral homeland (sadly, the nature of it is so radically changed, and so many towns erased, many may be fully contented in the Palestinian state; in fact many of them are integrated and left the camps).All I can say is that the 1-state dream might be dreaming too big, for a single political step, and therefore prevent any movement. Perhaps a multi-phased plan is the best way to keep a truly just, 1-state sloituon, even possible. If it fails to reach its highest aspirations, we tried. And I think that is the best way to try for it.