-----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]Em nome de Yoshie Furuhashi Enviada em: segunda-feira, 10 de setembro de 2001 22:02 Para: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Assunto: Re: States, Nationalisms, & the American Empire
You don't advocate "a two-state solution" a la Leo. You say you want to see "as plural and secular a state as possible." Can you elaborate on it? What does it mean? Secularism + federalism (e.g. a federal union of autonomous republics)? Or a secular state in which Jews, Palestinians, & others co-exist as citizens with equal rights? Something else? What will its relation to the rest of the world be like?
Yoshie
Here is Uri Avnery (a Israeli citizen who is a strong critic of Israel policies). He managed to convince me that a two state solution is better, at least for now....
....There is a gaping inequality between Israelis and Palestinians in nearly all respects. The disproportion is immense. In a joint state, if it were to be set up, the Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the state almost completely. At this point in time, a bi-national state would be an occupation regime in a new guise that would hide, with difficulty, a reality of exploitation and economic, cultural and probably political repression. Therefore, I do not believe that such a solution, if it were possible at all, would put an end to the conflict. It would only put it on a different track, perhaps more severe and more violent. Regretfully or not, one has to accept the conclusion that the realistic solution is, as it has been since 1948, the solution of "two states for two peoples". A solution that will channel the national feelings of the two peoples in a reasonable, practical framework, one that will make co-existence, cooperation and, finally, a genuine conciliation (in this order) possible. The recent past has shown that even this modest goal is extremely is extremely difficult to achieve. We still have to overcome much mutual fear, hate, myths and prejudices to make even this solution possible. But if one despairs because of this and adopts instead the bi-national gospel, one resembles an athlete who despairs of a 100 yard sprint and therefore enrolls for the marathon. When my friends and I raised the two-state idea in the early 50s, we did not speak of "separation". Today, too, we reject this term absolutely. We speak of two states with an open border between them, with free movement of people and goods (subject, of course, to mutual agreements). I am convinced that, in the light of the geographical and political facts, a natural process will lead to an organic connection, perhaps by federation, and later to a regional union like the European Union.
His articles can be acessed at: Gush Shalom (extra-parliamentary grass roots movement ) http://www.gush-shalom.org/