Israelis and Palestinians: the conflict and solution
Moshe Machover (1)
Lecture in London on 30/11/2006 in the framework of "Barry Amiel and Norman Melburn Trust Annual Lecture"
Preamble: How think the conflict?
How think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Warning: "how to think? "Precedes the" only thinking? "Before reaching any meaningful conclusion whatsoever - and certainly well before taking sides - we must be clear on how to tackle the problem. Start a standard would be a mistake. We must bear a moral judgement. I do will certainly not an advocate of an idea. But we should not begin by bringing moral judgments (these come after analysis. NDLR).
Décerner blame because of atrocities is not a good starting point. In any violent conflict, it happens that both sides - and this is often the case - committing horrific atrocities: To kill and maim innocent people at random disarmed, destroy their homes, deprive them of their livelihood. And, of course, all these atrocities must be condemned. Yes, it is quite easy to show that Israel is committing atrocities on a much larger scale, immeasurably larger than its opponents Palestinian (or other Arab). But in itself, this is not a sufficient basis for taking sides. Israel is much more difficult, committing atrocities more horrible because he can: he is much stronger. He has a huge war machine, one of the largest in absolute and most formidable relative to its size. That is why the stock of atrocities does not necessarily mean that Israel is wrong.
Similarly, asking "which began? "Is not helpful. Each side claims to avenge the crimes that the other has committed. The media talk about "cycle of violence" in fact this is not really a cycle is a spiral. How far can we go back? And even if we backwards as far as it is possible to reduce, if we find who fired first, what does it give? Maybe the one who fired the first was right?
It was necessary to confront the problem so descriptive and analytical. We must ask the question: "what is the nature of the conflict? What is it? "The understanding should precede the verdict. When we understand what it is, each of us can apply its moral principles and make a judgement. And then, only then, having understood the nature of the conflict and dealt a moral judgement, we can develop what would be a solution to the conflict and try to imagine what should be done to achieve that solution.
1. ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT
1.1 Operation settlement in a regional context
History is important. We can not understand the conflict by taking a snapshot of the current state of things. The conflict did not begin in 1967, then it is only entered a new phase with the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan. Nor did he started in 1956 when, in connivance with France and Great Britain, Israel attacked Egypt.
And he has not started in 1948 with the creation of Israel, who led the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe), turning into refugees most Palestinian Arabs living on this land that would become Israel. The conflict began a century ago and it was accentuated after the First World War. In general terms, it is part of all the unresolved problems in the region caused by the way the Western imperialist powers - France and Britain - have dismantled and dépecé the Ottoman Empire.
We have in front of other elements of this complex legacy in Iraq, Lebanon and throughout the region. The regional context of extreme importance will be the leitmotif of what follows. But, specifically: it is a conflict between the Zionist project to colonize Palestine and the people of this country, the Palestinian Arabs.
In 1948 it was transformed into conflict between Israel - the State colonizer which is a product of Zionist settlement enterprise and the Palestinian Arab people. Saying that Zionism was and is a settlement and that Israel is a colonial state, a colonial State, is not a value judgement but a simple statement of fact. I do not use these words as insulting. In fact, the Zionist movement in its internal discourse, used the term "colonization" and later its equivalent in Hebrew. It can be argued the argument, and some do - that colonization and installation of a colonial State are acceptable in terms of morale in general or in this specific case.
This is really a value judgement which depends on moral criteria of each. But, intellectually, you can not deny that Zionism is a colonization and that the State of Israel is a colonial State. Of course, there are many colonial States, established by settlers from Europe who settled in different parts of the world. In this sense, Israel is no exception. But on several important aspects, Israel and Zionism are exceptions and I will draw your attention to three of these aspects.
1.2 A late start… and still running
The first characteristic that makes exceptional Zionist colonization is that, historically, was the last project of colonization was born. This is the last and currently the only active, active in the sense of an active volcano, as opposed to a dormant volcano.
Other states have made their colonial "for obvious" (to use an American expression popular at the time of the U.S. expansionism unien) there, colonization is over, finished. But not in our case. The Israel of today is not only a product of the Zionist settlement enterprise, but also an instrument that promotes its extension and expansion.
The settlement continues. It continued from 1948 to 1967 in the territory at the time under the domination of Israel, within the Green Line. Land belonging to the Palestinian Arabs-including below-the Green Line, were expropriated and handed over to the Zionist colonization. And shortly after the 1967 war colonization continued inside the new occupied territories. This happened in all governments, they were led by Labour, Likud or large coalitions. A sharp controversy reigns about what the Israeli government of Yitzhak Rabin really wanted to do during the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993 and that Prime Minister Ehud Barak wanted to say with his so-called "generous offer" at the Camp David summit in 2000.
Let me give you a tip: do not lend ear to politicians because politicians in general - not only our Tony Blair - are liars. They are lying when it suits them. Look at the facts, they do not lie. Observe, for example, [the diagram shows us] trends in the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank between 1976 and 2004. [On the axis of time is 1 year 1976 and the year 2004 is 29.] One can easily see that the settlement - planned, led and financed by the Israeli government and benefiting from the military protection of its army, -- Was continuing. I reported on this diagram periods of Labour governments Y. Rabin and E. Barak, respectively from 1992 to 1995 and from 1999 to 2000/2001. Do you see any slowdown? Look at the map of settlements. What intentions ate all Israeli governments with regard to these Palestinian territories occupied by Israel? Please draw your own your own conclusions.
Note: See the chart and a map at the end of this document: www.amielandmelburn.org.uk / articles / moshe% 20machover% 20% 202006lecture_b.pdf
1.3 The doctrine of Ben-Gurion
On 17 February 1973 General Moshe Dayan tînt a speech outlining his program at a meeting of the Israeli Association of Jurists. The daily Ha'aretz (18/02/1973) reports that Dayan "surprised his listeners' lawyers who had invited thought that as Minister of Defence, he would speak on military subjects. Instead, he read a speech ideological prepared in advance in which he explained the doctrine of his mentor David Ben Gurion, founder of the State of Israel.
The latter was still alive at the time, it was going to die late 1973, and can be quite assume that Dayan was certain to have its agreement (in fact, it is not fanciful to believe that Ben-Gurion issued a message to the nation through its preferred protected). Dayan cited the words of Ben Gurion, made many years ago when internal debates about the report of the Peel Commission, but he insisted on the fact that these words spoken in 1937 "had remained relevant today" Here l Essence of the doctrine of Ben Gurion, quoted by Dayan:
"In our midst (the Zionists) there can be no debate on the integrity of the land of Israel (ie Palestine), nor on our ties and rights in respect of this land in its entirety … When one speaks of Zionist integrity of the earth, this can only mean colonization by Jews (hityashvut) of land in its entirety… This means: from the viewpoint of Zionism, the real touchstone not is not reduced to the question of which this piece or that piece there is the political point of view, nor even the abstract belief of the integrity of the earth. The purpose and the touchstone of Zionism, but rather the true implementation of the settlement carried out by Jews in all regions of the land of Israel ". This is the counterpart of the Zionist doctrine of "obvious destiny." Let me spell out what that means: any partition of Palestine, any "green line", any agreement or treaty that excludes any part of the "land of Israel" of the Jewish settlement east, from the viewpoint of Zionism, at best a compromise ephemeral - accepted for a time for tactical reasons or pragmatic - but which will never be regarded as definitive. Of course, that does not mean that the expansion of the Zionist settlement can not be stopped. This means that it will continue - and taking advantage of the highest priority - as long as will the balance of forces.
1.4 Writing on the wall
The Zionist colonization of Palestine is the original source of conflict. The current settlement is the driving force that perpetuates the incessant conflict. That is why I am in this analysis, to discuss the company Zionist policy which is the trigger aspect of the conflict. For lack of time I will speak little about the Palestinian struggle was a predictable reaction. At the outset, it was clear that the implementation of the project Zionist policy would inevitably provoke the resistance of Palestinian people and lead inexorably to a violent conflict. Most sighted recognized and Zionists less reserved and more openly admitted francs.
Nobody was less reserved than Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), political and spiritual ancestor of 5 prime ministers Menachem Begin, Ytzhak Shamir, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
Long following quotations are taken from his article rightly called "the wall of iron" (O Zheleznoi Stene) published in 1923 in the Russian language newspaper Rassvyet "L'Aurore."
"A compromise between Palestinian Arabs and ourselves is out of question for now and in the foreseeable future. This intimate conviction, I expressed so categorically, not a desire to despair of many friendly people [ie the Zionists moderate], but rather because I wish to avoid their despair. Apart from the blind by birth, all these friendly people have long understood that there is not the slightest hope of obtaining the agreement of Palestinian Arabs to "Palestine" Arab country to become a country with a Jewish majority.
All readers are more or less informed about the history of the colonization of other countries. I suggest they remember all known cases. If they try to find a single case of countries colonized with the consent of the natives, they will not succeed.
All people - whether wild or civilized - see their country as their homeland, they will always be the absolute master. Not only do they will never voluntarily new masters, but they refuse even co-owners or a new partner. This is also true for Arabic.
Supporters of the compromise among us try to convince us that the Arabs are idiots who can be deceived by an attenuated formulation of our objectives or constitute a species that venal abandon its inalienable rights in Palestine against the cultural and economic gains. I categorically rejects this view that we have on the Palestinian Arabs.
Culturally, they have 500 years behind us, spiritually they have neither the stamina nor our will, but apart from that there is basically no difference between us. They are also for psychologists and that we, like us, they have centuries of experience as regards trickery of casuistry (in Hebrew: pilpul) Whatever we say they see through us as we see through them. They Palestine the same instinctive love and the same fervor that intrinsic did the Aztecs for their Mexico or the Sioux for their grasslands. While people fight the colonizers as long as there will be a spark of hope to get rid of the threat of colonization.
This is also what the Palestinian Arabs, and they continue to do so will remain as a single spark of hope. Colonization has only one goal. This goal is unacceptable for the Palestinian Arabs. That is the nature of things and change this nature is impossible.
If it were possible (and I doubt it) to obtain the consent of Arabs from Baghdad and Mecca, as if Palestine was for them a small country bordering unimportant, Palestine would still be for Palestinians, not a border area but their native country, the centre and the basis of their own national existence. That is why it is necessary to continue the colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs as is the case today.
But an agreement with non-Palestinian Arabs is also a chimera. For Arab nationalists of Baghdad, Mecca or Damascus accept a contribution as expensive (agree to waive the preservation of the Arab character of Palestine, a country located at the centre of their future "federation") we should offer them something of equal value.
To be clear, this could mean two things: either money or political support or both. But we can not offer neither one nor the other.
Regarding money, it is ridiculous to think that we could finance Mesopotamia [Iraq] or Hijaz, when we do not have enough to Palestine [Israel]. Providing political support to Arab nationalism would be deeply dishonest.
The Arab nationalism has the same goals as the Italian nationalism before 1870: the unification and political independence.
In plain language this would mean the expulsion of England Mesopotamia and Egypt, the expulsion of France from Syria and perhaps then Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. We support such a move would be a suicide and a betrayal. We operate under the British Mandate. A San Rémo France supported the Balfour declaration. We can not be part of a plot to expel England from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and to frustrate France as a colonial power. We can not play this double Thursday We can not even consider it. They écraseraient us, bringing us a well-deserved disgrace before we bougions a finger. In conclusion: there is nothing we can give the Palestinians or other Arabs in exchange for Palestine (Israel). That is why their voluntary agreement is out of question.
So those who maintain that an agreement (with indigenous people) is an essential condition for establishing Zionism can immediately say "no" and renounce Zionism. It must be put an end to our colonial enterprise is to continue ignoring the will of the people.
This colonization can, therefore, continue to develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population: a wall of iron that indigenous people can not cross. Here is the totality of our policy towards the Arabs.
What we mean to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate? This means that an external power is committed to creating safe conditions such that it will be impossible for the local population, whatever was his desire to interfere, administratively or physically, our colonization. "
1.5 Rempart against the Asia
A second characteristic rather exceptional Zionist colonization is the fact that settlers were not nationals of a great power which had sent a mission colonizing and protected. From the outset it was clear to the founders of political Zionism that it was vital for their project to obtain the support of a great power - whatever the great dominant power in the Middle East - which would provide a "Iron wall" to protect the Zionist colonization which could develop. Without such support - that the Zionist settlement in its infancy called "charter" - the colonization of Palestine would be a project stillborn.
Of course, the major powers are not philanthropists. They provide no protection for nothing, but in exchange for services. And ever since, the nature of these services was evident. The founder su political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904) expressed in the following way in his book Program "der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State) published in 1896: "We train for Europe element of a wall against Asia, we will be the vanguard of culture against barbarism. As a neutral we would be in contact with the whole of Europe, which should guarantee our existence "… Not as a" clash of civilizations "that the shock of single civilization with barbarism!
So it's a transaction, a question of giving - giving. In exchange for the protection of vital "iron wall" against the Palestinian Arabs that Western imperialism facilitate construction, the Zionist settlers and finally the colonial State would give their protector a "bulwark" against the "barbaric" in the Middle East (the practice of Zionism is filled with walls and ramparts. But they still appeared earlier in the Zionist discourse: In the beginning was the word!).
An inevitable consequence of this transaction was the extension of regional conflict. The shock of the Zionist enterprise (and eventually Israel) with the indigenous Palestinian turned into a confrontation with the peoples of the entire region. This is due not only to national solidarity of the Arab region with their fellow Arabs in Palestine but also the active role of Zionism (Israel) as a partner of Western powers in the exploitation and domination of the Middle East . In the 1880 Germany of Wilhelm II had replaced France and Great Britain as a friend and military advisor of the Ottoman Empire decadent. Palestine was then part of that empire and Herzl tried to sell his idea to the German Emperor. But he wiped a refusal. The Kaiser went further tractation proposed.
1.6 "A small Jewish Ulster loyalist"
Chaim Weizmann had much luck with the government of Lloyd George towards the end of the 1st World War. The Charter of Zionist aspirations was granted in the form of the Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917). In his memoirs, Sir Ronald Storrs, - the brains of Lawrence of Arabia and the first British governor of Jerusalem - made the following comment about the logic involved in tending the Balfour Declaration: "Even if this land now could not still absorb 16 million people, or even 8 million, a sufficient number could return to form if the Jewish state (what a few extremists demanding publicly), at least to prove that the company is a blessing for the one who gave [ Great Britain] and for those who took [Zionism] training for England "a small Jewish Ulster loyalist" in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism "The Balfour Declaration was part of a global contract. Another part of the contract was transformed Palestine into a separate entity.
During almost thirteen centuries of Muslim domination that only stopped the Crusades, Palestine has never been a separate administrative entity, much less separate, but was an integral part of Greater Syria (which is roughly the "small" d Syria 'Today, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip). In the Ottoman Empire, the southern half of Palestine was a particular constituency, the Sandzak of Jerusalem, which depend directly on the Sublime Porte in Istanbul. The northern half was composed of two districts that were part of the Province of Beirut. When the imperialist powers have voracious dépecé the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was a member on which Britain is cast. In 1922 Great Britain managed to persuade the League of Nations to grant him a mandate on Palestine and the Balfour Declaration was included in the text of the mandate, and several detailed provisions aimed at facilitating the Zionist colonization. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Palestine, cut in the Arab East, was made to measure for the Zionist colonization, regardless of the wishes of its true inhabitants.
In reality, as revealed to the U.S. Commission King Crane in 1919, these people did not want a specially Palestine separate and quite satisfied to be part of Greater Syria. In addition, this requires cutting a certain size. Initially the Mandate for Palestine also embraced a mostly arid territory to the east of the Jordan, but Great Britain had permission to "postpone or not to implement" the proposals promoting Zionist colonization this eastern territory. Of these, Britain made it a separate Emirate of Transjordan, making his head his protégé Hashemite Abdallah. He became the Kingdom of Jordan. Starting from 1923 "Palestine" meant the territory to the west of the Jordan, which the Balfour Declaration applied fully under the Mandate of the League of Nations. This territory existed 25 years as a political entity separate and distinct.
1.7 "a kind of watchdog
Shortly after 1930 relations between the Zionist movement and the protector of English was once refroidirent. The objectives and interests began to diverge. A serious disagreement arose between them, disagreement which turned into a violent conflict after World War II. I can not here go into details about the exact causes of this conflict. Suffice it to say, among other things, that the Great Revolt of the Palestinian Arabs clearly showed the Great Britain that the price to pay to impose the terms of the mandate would be too high for power and influence limited. Meanwhile, the Zionist project had exceeded the role of a "small Jewish Ulster loyalist" and had matured to the point of assuming that of a sovereign state. In any event, Great Britain lost its dominant position in the Middle East. The Zionism needed a new imperialist protector. Michael Assaf, an orientalist the Labor Zionist expressed thus: "During these years of struggle (between Zionism and British imperialism) appeared the beginnings of a new commitment: instead of Sion-England, America-Zion, process resulting from the fact that the USA were in the process of gaining a foothold in the Middle East as a world power in determining role "
"From the moment of its creation in 1948, Israel continued in the direction of this new commitment. He was seeking a new alliance - in exchange for protection services with the USA. But the shift to a new imperialist protector became gradually, in several stages. At the beginning Great Britain retained some influence in the Middle East. The following statement on the role of Israel in the region, highlights this fact in evidence. "
"The feudal regimes of these states in the Middle East are so concerned with nationalist movements (secular and religious) who sometimes enjoy a colouring undoubtedly Socialist Left, that sometimes they are no longer willing to put their natural resources at the disposal of Britain and America nor allow them to use their country as military bases in case of war. True, those in power in the Middle East know that when social revolution or conquest Soviet they will undoubtedly be liquidated, but the immediate fear of being victim of a political assassination for more than l 'Moment this fear impalpable a communist annexation. All these states are low on the military. Israel has demonstrated military power during the liberation war against the Arab States and for this reason, some reinforcement of Israel is for Western powers a pretty convenient way to maintain a balance of forces in the Middle East. If we stick to this assumption, it gave Israel's role as a kind of watchdog. Do not be afraid that it would implement an aggressive policy against the Arab states if it was clearly against the wishes of America and Great Britain. But if, one day, for some reason or another, the Western powers preferred to turn a blind eye, one can be trusted to Israel to punish in good and due form one or several neighboring states whose lack of good manners Against the West would have exceeded the allowable limits. "
The period 1948-1967 was a delicate phase for Israel in its pursuit of attachment to a new dominant imperialist power: the USA showed interest, cool, but not too enthusiastic. They supported Israel financially and politically significant, but their accession to Israel was far from complete.
The usefulness of Israel as regional qu'exécutant was not at all evident in the eyes of U.S. policy. In search of an alliance closer political and military equipment, Israel turned to France in the fifties, when it led a colonial war in Algeria. The Arab nationalism, led by the charismatic Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, was the common enemy.
During the Suez War in 1956, Israel showed its military talents, proved its usefulness as a "Rottweiler" local, but the bad boss imperialist. France and Great Britain were worn as colonial powers. The U.S. does not funny found their attempt to come back clumsy and unauthorized and put out of combat with arrogance. Without doubt, they say that Israel withdraw from lands conquered, that Prime Minister Ben Gurion had too quickly declared "belonging to the 3rd kingdom of Israel" This episode was nevertheless beneficial to Israel. During the meeting secret Sèvres where the conspiracy was plotted Suez, Ben Gurion, Dayan and Fathers arrachèrent to France to thank a reward Israel for its crucial role in the commencement of the war: A French promise to build a nuclear reactor in Israel and provide fissile materials. Accordingly Israel became the fifth nuclear power worldwide.
In 1967 Israel secured the prior approval of the USA before attacking Egypt and Syria. He used this opportunity also to occupy the rest of Palestine that Abdallah had seized in 1948 by a secret agreement with the Government of Ben Gurion. Israel has made many great services to the West, particularly the USA.
But the most valuable, it was the assistance provided to defeat secular Arab nationalism that the West considered, rightly, as detrimental to its interests and who do not remit of the military debacle of 1967. Israel had become the ally most dedicated and most trustworthy of the USA and was the force of law in the region.
1.8 Is this apartheid?
Israel is often compared to South Africa under apartheid. It employs much the word "apartheid" to characterize the colonial State of Israel and especially the Israeli regime in the territories occupied since 1967.Je believe that the repeated use of this word is explained by the fact that South Africa's time of apartheid was the only State continued its colonial settlement company until very recently in the living memory of most people. This is the only other colonial state "assets" that people remember. And therefore, they use the word "apartheid" as an insult or as a generic for a tyrannical system of racial discrimination.
But the analytical point of view, this label does not apply strictly to the Zionist colonization. And it can be confusing: use the word "apartheid" as an insult can be satisfactorily resolved to give free rein to his feelings or a shortcut to an effective propaganda. But it's dangerous, because people are beginning to believe that Israel is another South Africa, therefore, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is similar and we can resolve it the same way.
Of course there is a lot of similarities. South Africa under apartheid and Israel belong to a similar colonial State. Colonisation automatically mean dispossession of indigenous peoples, racial discrimination against them violent, brutal measures to overcome their resistance. The truth is that if the Palestinian Arabs inside the Green Line (who are citizens of Israel) are victims of violent institutionalized discrimination, they are not quite as abused than non-whites under the apartheid. On the other hand, Palestinians living inside the territories of 1967 are more often treated brutally by the Israeli military and settlers that they were non-whites under apartheid.
But my intention is not to compare the degree of oppression. There is an important qualitative difference, structural between the two colonial States. They belong to the same kind but two different species. An accurate characterization must not only define the type approximate but also highlight the specific difference. Here j'invoquerai the great insight of Karl Marx: the key to understanding a company-a social order - is its political economy, its mode of production. And this means first the origin of surproduit and arrangements for its extraction. In all settlements, indigenous resources have been plundered. But what to do with them? Enough schematically we can distinguish the two species, two main models of settlements and colonial societies. The crucial difference is whether the indigenous population is used as a work force that will operate or whether it is excluded from the colonial economy, marginalized, exterminated or deported, a victim of ethnic cleansing.
South Africa was the first case. Not at first, but with the development of industry and capitalist exploitation of mineral resources, it became a system in which Africans were the primary source of added value. Apartheid was a system intended to have a handy non-whites, an essential resource for the economy but without civil rights.
The Zionism, so deliberate, conscious and explicit chooses another model: it had to avoid using local labour. It does not consider the Palestinian Arabs as an exploitable source of additional manpower, but themselves are too many. It is not necessary to have close or even from a distance, we must completely remove them. Something had to ethnic cleansing, language Zionist "transfer". From the beginning of political Zionism is planned to evict them. On 12 June 1895, Theodore Herzl confided in his diary: "We move the poorest part of the indigenous population on the other side of the border, without making any noise, giving them work in countries of transit, but in our own country we reject any form of work. " It would be tedious to mention the countless evidence confirming the transfer of planning and report on its implementation which used pressure, intimidation and forced expulsion whenever the opportunity arose. I refer you to literature (such as "ethnic cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappé).
In this regard, when it comes to exclude the indigenous Palestinian economy colonial before 1948, plan and implement their displacement, the Zionists "left" or "Labor" were the most diligent. They thought in terms of class and therefore knew perfectly well that, as in any other political economy, producers direct form the majority. The Zionism could not come to establish a Jewish state with a Jewish majority predominant, if did not exclude Arabs. It was that the work is done by Jews: a pioneer European Jews idealistic and, since there were not enough volunteers, by indigent Jews, most of the time basanés, that Jews would seek to around the world.
In all, Zionism and Israel adhere to this model, minimizing the use of use of the work of Palestinians, with just a glance away and focused in the years 70-80. And now the Israeli high-tech established on the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 prefer to use Israeli Jews overfished rather than Palestinian Arabs. The strategy Zionist / Israel has always had a dual purpose: to maximize the Jewish settlement of the land and minimize its Arab population. There is a certain degree of tension between these two objectives. Yosef Weitz, a Zionist "Labour", an architect particularly ardent transfer projects before the 1948 war and one of the main actors in their implementation during the war and after it, showed concern after the war: "When the UN decided the partition of Palestine into two states, the independence war of 1948 broke out and this was our big chance and a double miracle took place: A victory on the ground and the rout of the Arabs. During the six-day war (1967) there was a great miracle, a huge victory on the ground, but the majority of people in the liberated territories remained committed to their places, something capable of destroying the foundations of our State. The population problem is most acute, especially if the weight of numbers we add the weight of refugees. "
The fantasy of colonization is increasingly marred by the demographic nightmare of danger. Various Zionist hesitate between two goals. Some prefer a mandatory territorial expansion on ethnic purity absolute. Others are petrified by the demographic threat: there are too many Arabs in Palestine and they have a high birth rate! Ideally, they are all ok, if in one way or another the Palestinians disappeared, the problem would disappear with them. But ethnic cleansing therefore can not be carried out, according to the Zionist expression, at a propitious moment (she 'at kosher). Pending such an opportunity arises, the main strategy is to confine the Palestinians in pockets easily controlled, preferably ensuring their own security. They are different from concentration camps to the extent that people have every right to leave when they emigrate.
These are not Bantustans, because the purpose of the Bantustans was to serve as dormitories theoretically independent who served as a reserve labor whose economy depended colonizers. What these pockets resemble the most, these are the Indian reservations in the USA. And the various plans and Israeli peace agreements with Palestinian leaders consenting have some resemblance to the famous Indian treaties. The fact that the Zionist colonization follow this model, based not on the exploitation of labor of indigenous peoples, but on the desire to exclude and expel them, a very important consequences. First the danger of a new mass expulsion is never far away. "A moment" may arise, for example during an extreme emergency or war: an ever present in this volatile region. It may even help Israel to provoke such an occasion. Meanwhile, a slow movement takes place, according to the salami method, using harassment economic, administrative and physical. Moreover, it is much harder to reverse the ethnic cleansing and expulsion as the relations of exploitation and racial discrimination. That is why those of us who are against this injustice must act with the utmost urgency to alert public opinion and mobilize civil society, that Israel has the most difficult to expand the settlement and pursue the expulsion.
1.9 The national dimension
Another extremely important result of the specific nature of the Zionist colonization is the crystallization of the conflict into a national conflict. While in the model of colonialist exploitation of the conflict between settlers and indigenous people took the form of a quasi-class struggle in the other model, followed by Zionism, the colonizers form a new colonial nation. And the Zionist colonization has also resulted in the creation of a new nation: Israeli Jews or modern Hebrews. They have the essential attributes of a nation in the modern sense: a territorial contiguity, a structure class (similar to that of other modern capitalist nations), a common language in the speech of every day (for them is unique) and a culture which is both refined and popular. Please note that Jews elsewhere, those who constitute the Diaspora today have none of these attributes. They are not a nation in the modern meaning of the term. The adoption of a new national identity is as fast as in the case of other nations colonial settlement (immigration). Children born in Israel of Jewish immigrants from Russia or an Arab country are members of the Hebrew nation. They are no more Russians or Arabs that an American of Italian origin is Polish or Italian or Polish.
The origin of their parents is not cleared, but no longer appears that background. Ironically, Zionism, as a father who denies the existence of the child he did not want, denies the existence of the Hebrew nation recently created by the Zionist colonization. Because according to the Zionist ideology, all Jews around the world constitute a single nation. The real homeland of all Jews is not the country where it where it can be born and where his family lived for generations. The home of the alleged nation is the land of biblical Israel, which it has an ancient inalienable right, in fact, granted by God. The non-Jews living in the Jewish homeland are only foreign intruder. The Zionist colonization is justified as a "return to the motherland", a right recognized the Jews but denied these intruders foreigners, Palestinian refugees, which in any legitimacy, were expelled from the Jewish homeland.
There is therefore no Hebrew nation but simply members of the Jewish nation throughout the world who have already returned to their homeland, avant-garde of their brothers in the diaspora who have a right, indeed a sacred duty monitor and be assembled on the land of Israel. Here I would like to highlight another feature unique to the Zionist colonization. In the model of colonial exploitation, the colonizers have ended up being a relatively small minority, a top layer or almost a class operator of local labour. These form the bulk of direct producers and therefore constitute the vast majority of the population. On the other hand, in most settlements that followed the other model, in which settlers formed a new nation colonial indigenous peoples, if not completely thwarted, were crushed and the less marginalized
The national identity of the colonizing nation has been superimposed on their national identities distinct and separate. Their languages and cultural traditions, if they have not completely disappeared, persist in the form of "folk relics," confined to secrecy or in remote rural areas, while the language and culture of the nation colonizing predominate everywhere else . This is not even in the case of Zionist settlement here, the conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed, the colonizers and indigenous people, took the form of a national conflict between two national groups well-defined size roughly equal.
Despite its efforts, the State of Israel has won, until today, a partial success by "transferring" Palestinian Arabs from their homeland. The 1967 war was too short to repeat ethnic cleansing comparable in magnitude to that of 1947/1949. Moreover, the Palestinians had accepted the bitter lesson of the Nakba and, as noted lugubrement Yosef Weitz, remained firmly "attached" to their land. At the same time, the birth rate higher Arabs had, to some extent, offset the influx of Jewish immigration to Israel. The national identity of Palestinians, rather than dissolve itself under the impact of colonization, crystallized and was even strengthened by the conflict. They retained their language and developed a national cultural production alive. The regional context is largely responsible for this remarkable force. Most Palestinians live nearby or are refugees inside a vast Arab world and populated. They share a common literary language (and also less formal version used by the media) and a glorious cultural heritage. Their spoken language is very similar to those used in other parts of what became the Greater Syria and not far from those of neighbouring countries in the Arab East. Cultural exchanges are easy. Even the Palestinian Arabs who escaped the ethnic cleansing of 48 and remained in Israel as an oppressed minority were able to monitor radio broadcasts in the Arab world. Conversely, a poem or a novel written by a Palestinian from Haifa can be read and appreciated by millions of readers of the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Gulf.
Moreover, because of "the lateness of the hour" of the Zionist colonization, when it took place, she confronted the Arab national identity and a nascent Arab nationalism that emerged at roughly the same time. Exceptionally, a settlement was confronted from the beginning a national movement to emerge.
Notice the reference to the concerned Arab nationalism and his desire for a regional federation in the "iron wall" of Jabotinsky. The analogy that Jabotinsky made between nationalism and Arab nationalism in Italian before 1870 is also quite relevant. In Italy, in addition to the pan Italian national identity and nationalism that had not yet passed the political unification, there were distinct national identities and local patriotisms: Venetian, Tuscan, Roman, Neapolitan, Sicilian and so on. In fact, they still survive today. In the same way in the Arab world, there are two levels of national identity and nationalism. In addition to the overall Arab identity and the yearning for unification or federation, there are identities and local patriotisms: Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian and so on. Palestinian and of course, forged by a common experience and by the disastrous struggle for survival and victory.
There is a certain tension between these two levels of national identity, but they are not necessarily antithetical. They can be compatible or even complementary. While Arab governments and power elites in Arab unity is just wishful thinking, a genuine sense of belonging is very popular among the masses. And a crucial component of this sense of belonging is deeply rooted solidarity with the Palestinians.
Any valid design a solution must begin with understanding the nature of the conflict. It is a colonialist violent confrontation between two nations that have taken shape throughout the conflict itself: on the one hand, a Hebrew colonizing nation and a colonialist state of Israel and the other an indigenous Arab Palestinian nation and colonized. The first is allied to the imperialist powers who dominate the whole region. The second is a component of the greater Arab nation in the region.
2. SOLUTIONS, PRINCIPLES AND PRECONDITIONS.
2.1 Principles normative
If we believe a solution to the conflict, we must begin on how prescriptive. It makes no sense to try to assess any one specific formulas proposed before establishing some general principles to which a truly just solution must meet. In other Colonial States as part of the same type of colonization, the colonizers were able to eliminate all of the indigenous population or reduce it to some remains relatively insignificant. The conflict between colonizers and colonized ended with the overwhelming victory and virtually complete first, and in that sense, was "solved".
Such an outcome is unlikely in the case of the State of Israel. Of course, history suggests that the Zionist leaders of Israel will exploit any opportunity to continue its colonial expansion and carry out ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the boldest of them strongly attempt to create such opportunities. But whatever the realistic limits of this extension process, the State of Israel will find himself still surrounded by Arabs, the Arab nation whose Palestinian Arab people is a constituent element. Ultimately, this conflict can be resolved by conciliation between the two national groups directly involved: the Palestinian Arabs and Hebrews.
Please note that what I propose to discuss here is a solution rather than a series of palliatives. Of course you can do several things to improve the current difficult situation, which causes great suffering to millions of human beings, mostly Palestinians but also Israelis. I do not oppose to such remedial measures: on the contrary I think it is necessary to mobilize public opinion so that it requires. Above all, we must exert pressure on Israel to end military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. But we must not confuse success with palliative care or improvement solution. While the causes are not eliminated, the conflict will persist. It is likely that any improvement will be a decoy, followed by another outbreak of violence.
So what are the essential elements that a lasting solution must devise?
-- First and foremost, equal rights. I am not talking here only of equal individual rights, it goes without saying. But also, and equally importantly, equal rights, national rights for both national groups really concerned: the Palestinian Arabs and Hebrews of Israel. It is a minimum requirement because his absence, by definition, means that one of the groups will be disadvantaged, weak and oppressed. A national oppression led inexorably to a liberation struggle, the opposite of a solution.
-- Second, the right of return: recognition of the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland, the right to be rehabilitated and adequately compensated for their properties and livelihoods lost. It is so obvious that it requires no justification sophisticated. In fact, the only argument against is that it would endanger the Jewish character "of Israel or, to speak simply, its ethnocratic dimension of colonial rule. But accept this argument would capitulate to the Zionist ideology, which leads me to the next item.
-- The third element, and more decisive to solve the problem really is the disappearance of the root cause of conflict: The company Zionist settlement must be eliminated. This means not only désionisation Israel, but also the rejection of the Zionist assertion that all Jews, wherever they live, have a right over "the land of Israel".
-- Indeed, this claim not only a retrospective legitimacy of the Zionist colonial past, but requires the acceptance of an alleged perpetual right to continue to "return", which means re-colonization and further expansion.
-- Such a claim excludes any possibility of solution to the conflict.
2.2 Two States? A State?
In principle, that is, in absolute terms, without addressing the real realities as the current balance of forces, an equitable solution satisfactory to the principles I have just mentioned could be sought in various institutional frameworks States . One can imagine Palestine divided into two states, Israel and a Palestinian Arab state. One can imagine a single state for all Palestine. And you can think of other options which I will talk later. But it is clear that the crucial point is not the number of States, but whether the essential principles of a real solution are met. For a two-state solution can satisfy, should Israel be désionisé. This would be the transformation of a colonial State ethnocratic in a democratic state composed of all its inhabitants. In the same way it should be a sharing and equitable distribution of resources, including land and water.
And none of these two states would have the right to exercise its supremacy over another. On the other hand a single state should be not only democratic (and therefore secular) but have a constitutional structure that recognizes both national groups and gives them the same rights on the national level and equal status. But in fact, none of these solutions is feasible at this time. In truth no real solution is possible in the short or medium term, because of the enormous disparity in the balance of forces. The Palestinians, crushed economically, poorly armed, regardless supported morally on the international level, face a State of Israel modern, capitalist and dominant, a nuclear superpower regional hegemonic power, ogre and local junior partner hyper world powers. Until last an imbalance of forces also enormous, any agreement necessarily impose conditions of oppression very hard alongside the lowest. Wait until something else is completely unrealistic.
Under such circumstances, any solution involving two states can only be a farce: No real two sovereign states (not even talking about two equal states) but a powerful Israeli state dominating a patchwork of Palestinian enclaves dismantled, resembling the reserves Indian, under the control of corrupt elites who will be the small friends of Israel. This was the real prospect in the Oslo accords in 1993 and since then, the situation continued to deteriorate sharply, as a result of virulent and malignant metastasis of the Israeli settlement and with the weakening of the Palestinian Authority , A victim of assaults Israel and the strangulation.
Faced with the obvious impossibility of the current two-State solution, many people sincere and good will are returned to the phrase "a State". That is, in absolute terms, a proposal attractive. But the trouble is that a real solution equal to a single state is not achievable in the short or medium term than the two-state solution and for exactly the same reason. Given the real imbalance of power, a single state including the entire Palestine will be an extension of occupation and military supremacy of Israel. A flaw common to the two formulas is that they are confined to "box" of Palestine, the territory of the British mandate from 1923 to 1948. They differ insofar as the first proposed remake sharing, while the second proposes closer to a single political entity separate. Ironically, as I highlighted in the 1.5, this box was made to measure for the Zionist colonization, root of the conflict. Can it be useful in resolving the conflict as a single container?
2.3 Solution in a regional framework
No balance of power is eternal. A real solution to the conflict will become possible in the long term, in a change in the balance of power today. It is impossible to predict exactly how this change could happen. But it seems quite sure he did not confinera the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, while nothing else bougerait. This will necessarily involve tectonic movements across the region and upheaval on a global scale. The interconnection of two mutually reinforcing processes will be a vital necessity for a change in the balance of power.
First, the decline of the dominance of American power and especially the ability of USA to support regional hegemony of Israel without implying economic costs and political unacceptable. Secondly, social transformation, economic policy and the Arab East, leading to a degree of unification of the Arab nation, the most likely being in the form of a regional federation. This makes little sense to discuss a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as if it had occurred in an isolated box Palestinian,-divided or in one piece - while ignoring the rest of the region and not taking not consider the transformation without which this solution would in any case impossible.
Last in its regional context appropriate, our vision of a solution involves a change of outlook. This would be a mistake to stick to data fixed once and for all Israel's borders in 48 to 67 or Palestine within its borders from 1923 to 1948. In fact, the data are human: the two national groups that are directly involved in the conflict and will continue to exist for quite a long time, the Palestinian Arabs and Hebrews of Israel. The task will be to bring these two groups in a national union or a federation. The borders will become internal boundaries and the Federation will be drawn as required. We can not predict what they will, but it is not at all mandatory that they conform to those that have existed until now.
It would be ridiculous to claim that for the moment, the outlook is radiant. The American dominance still seems solid, just as American support for his running regionally. The East Arabic is run by corrupt elites and cowardly. It has not yet recovered from the defeat of secular Arab nationalism. Even in its relatively progressive Nasser, Arab nationalism has been unable to exceed its limits small bourgeois and mobilizing a mass democratic movement, active and self organized. The degeneration that followed under the regimes Bath, and deadly rivals, claiming support socialism and Arab unity, led to give a bad reputation these two ideals in the region. The subsequent emergence of Islam was carrying a false promise. While it arose as a challenge to Western domination, it is retrograde and inherently incapable of being the bearer of progress.
It can no more be a force gathering. Rather it is sowing discord between Sunnis and Shiites and has no power on non-Muslims and secular Arabs, including Palestinians, not to mention the Hebrews.
While there is little reason for hope in the short term, there are some signs of hope for a more distant future.