Temat do dyskusji Jedno Panstwo czy Dwa ?

[danadana]

[danadana]

The One-State Solution

by Daniel Lazare

The Nation, October 11, 2003

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031103&s=lazare



Is Zionism a failed ideology? This question will strike many people as absurd
on its face. Israel, after all, is a nation with an advanced standard of
living, a high-tech economy and one of the most formidable militaries on
earth. In a little over half a century, it has taken in millions of people
from far-flung corners of the globe, taught them a new language and
incorporated them into a political culture that is nothing if not vigorous. If
this is failure, there are a lot of countries wishing for their share of it.



But consider the things Israel has not accomplished. In his 1896 manifesto The
Jewish State, Zionism's founding document, the Austrian journalist Theodor
Herzl predicted that such a country would be at peace with its neighbors and
would require no more than a small professional army. In fact, Zionist
settlers have clashed repeatedly with the Arabs from nearly the moment they
began arriving in significant numbers in the early twentieth century, a
Hundred Years' War that grows more dangerous by the month. Herzl envisioned a
normal state no different from France or Germany. Yet with its peculiar ethno-
religious policies elevating one group above all others, Israel is
increasingly abnormal at a time when almost all other political democracies
have been putting such distinctions behind them. Herzl envisioned a state that
would draw Jews like a magnet, yet more than half a century after Israel's
birth, most Jews continue to vote with their feet to remain in the Diaspora,
and an increasing number of Israelis prefer to live abroad. Israel was
supposed to serve as a safe haven, yet it is in fact one of the more dangerous
places on earth in which to be Jewish.



Israel was also supposed to have been the final answer to "the Jewish
question," an issue that is as old as--and has virtually defined--modernity
itself. Herzl emphasized again and again that hatred and competition would
melt away once Jews removed themselves from their increasingly reluctant host
countries, returned to their ancient homeland and took their place as separate
but equal members of the international community. Yet anti-Semitism is
mushrooming in the Muslim world and, based on anecdotal evidence, may be
undergoing a resurgence in Europe and the United States. Is this because the
world is intrinsically anti-Semitic and is therefore always looking for an
excuse to bash the Jews? Or does Zionism bear responsibility in any way for
the upsurge?



There is no doubt that the approach to such questions, especially in the
United States, has reached a turning point. The collapse of Bush's
farcical "road map," the Berlin wall that Israel is building deep inside
Palestinian territory, the threats to exile or even assassinate Yasir Arafat
and now the extension of hostilities to Syria--the old consensus is crumbling
under the impact of such developments, and it is now possible to say things
that would have been verboten only a few months ago. In Israel, Avraham Burg,
former speaker of the Knesset, recently warned that if Israel wishes to
preserve what little democracy it still has, it must either withdraw to its
pre-1967 boundaries or grant full citizenship to the approximately 3.5 million
Palestinians in the occupied territories, a step that would spell the virtual
end of the Jewish state. Meron Benvenisti, the former deputy mayor of
Jerusalem, has pronounced the two-state approach "inapplicable" to the problem
of Israel and Palestine and is calling for a single binational state based on
Arab-Jewish equality. In the United States the historian Tony Judt, declaring
the Middle East peace process a dead letter in The New York Review of Books,
says that the very idea of a Jewish state has become an "anachronism" in a
multicultural world in which citizenship is increasingly separated from race,
religion and ethnicity. "In today's 'clash of cultures' between open,
pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-
states," he adds, "Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp."



A longstanding taboo has finally begun to fall. The more the United States
sinks into a morass in Iraq, the more the Bush Administration leaps to do
Sharon's bidding, the more fierce and wide-ranging the debate is likely to
grow. How it will end, nobody knows. But where before it was all but
impossible to have an honest conversation about Zionism, it is now becoming
impossible not to. Of course, this taboo is largely an American invention. In
other countries, the field has been much more open--including, irony of
ironies, in Israel. As Tom Segev describes it in his lively ideological
survey, Elvis in Jerusalem, Zionism has been under ideological and political
assault in the Jewish state virtually from the beginning. Nearly everyone has
had reason to find fault with it. In its early days Orthodox rabbis complained
(in so many words) that it was an attempt to do an end run around God by
returning from exile without divine permission. In the 1950s, a young
journalist named Uri Avnery argued that Zionism was indelibly stained by the
Diaspora it supposedly opposed and called for a more authentic Hebrew
nationalism instead. Sephardic Jews from North Africa and the Middle East saw
Zionism as a tool of the European-Ashkenazic elite, while post-Zionists, like
the historian Ilan Pappe, have argued that it is fundamentally undemocratic
and will have to fall by the wayside if Israel is ever to evolve into a normal
pluralist state.



Even archeologists have gotten in their swipes. In the beginning, Israeli
archeologists assumed that the Bible's tales of the patriarchs, the Exodus,
Joshua's conquest of the Holy Land, etc., were broadly accurate and that the
more they dug, the more the essential outlines would be confirmed. But, in
fact, the opposite occurred. Not only was evidence lacking but archeologists
uncovered a mass of countervailing data as well. As a University of Tel Aviv
archeologist named Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the newspaper Ha'aretz in 1999, "The
Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer
the land in a military campaign, and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes
of Israel. Furthermore, the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is
described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal
kingdom." The Israelites were merely one indigenous culture among many. The
idea that they had some sort of pre-eminent claim to the Holy Land has no
basis in historical fact. Zionist archeology thus turns out to subvert Zionism.



Elvis in Jerusalem is valuable for a number of reasons, among them the insight
it provides into the nature of Israeli politics. Israel is a heavily
militarized ethno-state, to use Judt's term, but it is also a democracy, one
that compares quite favorably in many respects with a played-out eighteenth-
century republic like the United States. Israeli politics are serious,
ideological and bitterly contentious. Where Jewish leaders in America have
done their best to suppress debate, Israelis have let it rip. Ethnic cleansing
of the Palestinians, Jewish religious intolerance, Zionism's various efforts
over the years to make common cause with anti-Semitism--as Segev makes clear,
topics that have been off-limits for years in the United States are fair game
in the Jewish state. Americans, especially American Jews, should take a lesson.



Not that all of them will. Allan Levine's new book, Scattered Among the
Peoples: The Jewish Diaspora in Twelve Portraits, is a relic of a less
critical age. The story it tells is often a tragic one, yet the tone is bland
and u

tu nie ma zadnej dyskusji

[Gość: dana33]

tylko i wylacznie dwa panstwa, jedno ich jedno nasze. tylko nasze.

Koniecznie dwa!!!!

[Gość: A.D.]

)) Jedno dla Palstynczykow w ich calej Palestynie, no a drugie, dla zydow - na
lonie Abrama u samego Diabla!!!!




danadana napisała:

) The One-State Solution
)
) by Daniel Lazare
)
) The Nation, October 11, 2003
)
) http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031103&s=lazare
)
)
)
) Is Zionism a failed ideology? This question will strike many people as
absurd
) on its face. Israel, after all, is a nation with an advanced standard of
) living, a high-tech economy and one of the most formidable militaries on
) earth. In a little over half a century, it has taken in millions of people
) from far-flung corners of the globe, taught them a new language and
) incorporated them into a political culture that is nothing if not vigorous.
If
) this is failure, there are a lot of countries wishing for their share of it.
)
)
)
) But consider the things Israel has not accomplished. In his 1896 manifesto
The
) Jewish State, Zionism's founding document, the Austrian journalist Theodor
) Herzl predicted that such a country would be at peace with its neighbors and
) would require no more than a small professional army. In fact, Zionist
) settlers have clashed repeatedly with the Arabs from nearly the moment they
) began arriving in significant numbers in the early twentieth century, a
) Hundred Years' War that grows more dangerous by the month. Herzl envisioned
a
) normal state no different from France or Germany. Yet with its peculiar
ethno-
) religious policies elevating one group above all others, Israel is
) increasingly abnormal at a time when almost all other political democracies
) have been putting such distinctions behind them. Herzl envisioned a state
that
) would draw Jews like a magnet, yet more than half a century after Israel's
) birth, most Jews continue to vote with their feet to remain in the Diaspora,
) and an increasing number of Israelis prefer to live abroad. Israel was
) supposed to serve as a safe haven, yet it is in fact one of the more
dangerous
) places on earth in which to be Jewish.
)
)
)
) Israel was also supposed to have been the final answer to "the Jewish
) question," an issue that is as old as--and has virtually defined--modernity
) itself. Herzl emphasized again and again that hatred and competition would
) melt away once Jews removed themselves from their increasingly reluctant
host
) countries, returned to their ancient homeland and took their place as
separate
) but equal members of the international community. Yet anti-Semitism is
) mushrooming in the Muslim world and, based on anecdotal evidence, may be
) undergoing a resurgence in Europe and the United States. Is this because the
) world is intrinsically anti-Semitic and is therefore always looking for an
) excuse to bash the Jews? Or does Zionism bear responsibility in any way for
) the upsurge?
)
)
)
) There is no doubt that the approach to such questions, especially in the
) United States, has reached a turning point. The collapse of Bush's
) farcical "road map," the Berlin wall that Israel is building deep inside
) Palestinian territory, the threats to exile or even assassinate Yasir Arafat
) and now the extension of hostilities to Syria--the old consensus is
crumbling
) under the impact of such developments, and it is now possible to say things
) that would have been verboten only a few months ago. In Israel, Avraham
Burg,
) former speaker of the Knesset, recently warned that if Israel wishes to
) preserve what little democracy it still has, it must either withdraw to its
) pre-1967 boundaries or grant full citizenship to the approximately 3.5
million
) Palestinians in the occupied territories, a step that would spell the
virtual
) end of the Jewish state. Meron Benvenisti, the former deputy mayor of
) Jerusalem, has pronounced the two-state approach "inapplicable" to the
problem
) of Israel and Palestine and is calling for a single binational state based
on
) Arab-Jewish equality. In the United States the historian Tony Judt,
declaring
) the Middle East peace process a dead letter in The New York Review of Books,
) says that the very idea of a Jewish state has become an "anachronism" in a
) multicultural world in which citizenship is increasingly separated from
race,
) religion and ethnicity. "In today's 'clash of cultures' between open,
) pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-
) states," he adds, "Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp."
)
)
)
) A longstanding taboo has finally begun to fall. The more the United States
) sinks into a morass in Iraq, the more the Bush Administration leaps to do
) Sharon's bidding, the more fierce and wide-ranging the debate is likely to
) grow. How it will end, nobody knows. But where before it was all but
) impossible to have an honest conversation about Zionism, it is now becoming
) impossible not to. Of course, this taboo is largely an American invention.
In
) other countries, the field has been much more open--including, irony of
) ironies, in Israel. As Tom Segev describes it in his lively ideological
) survey, Elvis in Jerusalem, Zionism has been under ideological and political
) assault in the Jewish state virtually from the beginning. Nearly everyone
has
) had reason to find fault with it. In its early days Orthodox rabbis
complained
) (in so many words) that it was an attempt to do an end run around God by
) returning from exile without divine permission. In the 1950s, a young
) journalist named Uri Avnery argued that Zionism was indelibly stained by the
) Diaspora it supposedly opposed and called for a more authentic Hebrew
) nationalism instead. Sephardic Jews from North Africa and the Middle East
saw
) Zionism as a tool of the European-Ashkenazic elite, while post-Zionists,
like
) the historian Ilan Pappe, have argued that it is fundamentally undemocratic
) and will have to fall by the wayside if Israel is ever to evolve into a
normal
) pluralist state.
)
)
)
) Even archeologists have gotten in their swipes. In the beginning, Israeli
) archeologists assumed that the Bible's tales of the patriarchs, the Exodus,
) Joshua's conquest of the Holy Land, etc., were broadly accurate and that the
) more they dug, the more the essential outlines would be confirmed. But, in
) fact, the opposite occurred. Not only was evidence lacking but archeologists
) uncovered a mass of countervailing data as well. As a University of Tel Aviv
) archeologist named Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the newspaper Ha'aretz in
1999, "The
) Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not
conquer
) the land in a military campaign, and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes
) of Israel. Furthermore, the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is
) described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal
) kingdom." The Israelites were merely one indigenous culture among many. The
) idea that they had some sort of pre-eminent claim to the Holy Land has no
) basis in historical fact. Zionist archeology thus turns out to subvert
Zionism.
)
)
)
) Elvis in Jerusalem is valuable for a number of reasons, among them the
insight
) it provides into the nature of Israeli politics. Israel is a heavily
) militarized ethno-state, to use Judt's term, but it is also a democracy, one
) that compares quite favorably in many respects with a played-out eighteenth-
) century republic like the United States. Israeli politics are serious,
) ideological and bitterly contentious. Where Jewish leaders in America have
) done their best to suppress debate, Israelis have let it rip. Ethnic
cleansing
) of the Palestinians, Jewish religious intolerance, Zionism's various efforts
) over the years to make common

[Gość: jarek]

Mowisz o Iraqu, ja jestem za trzema panstwami...