-----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]Em nome de Nathan Newman Enviada em: terça-feira, 17 de outubro de 2000 19:06 Para: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Assunto: Re: RES: Said on American Zionism
Again, the need to reach for the Apartheid comparison is rhetorical and analytically weak, when there are far better analogies. Apartheid was rule by a minority against a majority population. If the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were given full voting rights, Arab parties would still be a minority. Even if all Palestinians were given the right of return and all exercised that right, Jews would still be a marginal majority in an integrated Palestine-Israel. And however admirable many would find such a non-ethnic democratic state, it is a result that neither Jews nor Palestinians generally desire. So for this reason, the real conflict is not over the extension of democratic rights to Gaza and the West Bank but over the borders between two states where each contesting population wants a strong majoritarian dominance.
-That´s why both sides have essentially reactionary positions and this -conflict will lead to nothing excet, maybe, mutual ruin....An Palestinian -state is no more viable than Israel as a racist state with a Middle Age -code of Laws....
In fact, the best analogy is to Ireland where the British always had a majority over the United Kingdom, but the Irish wanted not the extension of democratic rights but of sovereignty over territory. And the dispute is over where that border would extend (i.e. the ongoing conflict over Northern Ireland). Note that Ireland also has a comparable problem of Irish diaspora, mostly to America, with a similar reality that large chunks of that diaspora will never return to the home country despite their international political support for Irish Catholic rights.
-Yes, but the only difference is quantitative, i.e., Israelis are opressive -majority, while Whites in South Africa were opressive majority. Ireland is -a reasonable comparison, but the situation of Northern Ireland from the point -of civil rights is far better than that of Palestinians (from the point of -socio economic conditions too). Both comparisons have their weak and stron points -but I still think the situation of Palestinians is much closest from former -South Africans due to their lack of political rights. We can even advance in the -fact that the situation joins the worst aspects of South Africa (lack of citi- -zenship rights) and Ireland (both sides are unwilling to live together in a -non etnhical state)
Alexandre Fenelon
In some ways, it is unbelievable that so much blood is being spilled over what is truly wretched land by any arable or resource measurements. But the "bantustan" analogy (again the weak misplaced South Africa analogy) would only make sense if Israel proper was some great prize on that basis. Despite all the making-the-desert-bloom rhetoric, Israel is mostly desert with only a bit of decent land in the North (a chunk of which they are negotiating to hand back to Syria). But the wealth of the region, among both Israelis and Palestinians, are the educated dynamic people who could economically bloom under a secure peace. And of course tourism in the region is a massively undeveloped resource that could be a quite large economic boost for any new Palestinian state.
Nathan Newman
-Not with a bantustan (which I think is a very real analogy...an defenseless -state with many Israeli setlements inside it, withouth decent access to -water, and totally dependent on Israel for energy supplying, and trade with -another countries). Who will risk to put its money there? The prizes Israel -gain by securing the status quo are really a better security (the Palestinian -state would be really close to Israel, and a source of potential hostility) -and water, which is very scarce in the region. Palestinian cities are under -water rationing with frequency.
Alexandre Fenelon
What was most striking to me from discussions with Palestinian folks I met with last summer, particularly the labor advocates (both pro- and anti-Fatah), was how many saw the possibilities of economic development in the West Bank and Gaza. Part of this was political nationalism but many saw incredible opportunities for rapid economic expansion as just the basics of infrastructure expand and are combined with the educated talent that is unemployed in the area. Of course there will be intense economic integration between Israel and Palestine, but there are good reasons why the Palestinians would rather have democratic control over their economic development at this point in history. Down the line, maybe we could see the evolution of a Middle East Economic Community, including a range of states with shared economic interests over water and economic development. But a two-state solution is probably the best approach now for both political and economic development in the region.
Nathan Newman
-I don´t know why two small states would have economic advantage over one -single entity. However, the key point is that almost nothing is thinking -about building a unified, non ethnical state.
Alexandre Fenelon