giovedì 22 novembre 2007
domenica 18 novembre 2007
Israel, Jewish? A stupid demand
A stupid demand
By Yoel Marcus (source HaAretz.com)
Forty years ago, Yaakov Herzog (brother of Israel's sixth president, Chaim Herzog) was invited by the BBC to take part in a symposium. The subject: What Are Israel's Chances of Survival? Herzog, shocked by the choice of topic, declined to participate but said if they ever held a symposium on Britain's chances of survival, he would be glad to attend.
Who would believe that 32 years after Herzog's death, and 60 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, which is still here despite all those who sought its downfall, the leaders of this country are demanding to be recognized as a Jewish state? And by whom? By the Palestinians, who flatly turned down the Partition Plan approved by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, and have done everything they possibly can to remain stateless to this day.
After the Oslo Accords that Yasser Arafat fumbled, and after two intifadas that left a trail of bodies on both sides, they are still without a state of their own. It seemed as if Ariel Sharon's nod to the Palestinians in evacuating Gush Katif would convince them that Israel was sobering up from its dream of a Greater Israel, that it was open to a peace agreement, including concessions that would make it possible for the Palestinians to finally adopt the UN resolution giving them a state of their own.
Advertisement
I won't repeat here all the preparations being made in advance of the Annapolis summit, the details of which appear daily in the media. We know that we are facing a weak leadership, but neither do they have a sense of Israel's leadership being all-powerful. The infighting between Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, and the doubts about the ability of the present government to move tens of thousands of settlers into the blocs set out in a future agreement, are not exactly projecting a message to the other side that its expectations can be met.
Olmert believes that both sides, no matter how weak, realize that the chances of reaching an agreement outweigh the obstacles. Let's say we don't make peace, says Olmert, and two years from now, Hamas becomes the ruling power in the West Bank. So what are people going to say? That we didn't see the danger? That we sat on the sidelines and did nothing to prevent it?
Olmert and Barak, who are more in sync than one would think, based on the media leaks and the flying insults, do not delude themselves that Israel will be sitting at the table with a strong Palestinian leadership. But they know that right now, that's all there is. The talks will be conducted the way porcupines make love: v-e-r-y carefully. Neither side wants to get President Bush hot under the collar. Neither side wants to be blamed for the failure of the summit, which is shaping up as a kind of multi-delegation, global conference orchestrated by the president of the United States.
And then we wake up one morning to the announcement by the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who says the PA is planning to recognize Israel's right to exist (well, thank you, Mr. Erekat), but "will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state." You read that statement over and over, and try not to explode. Especially at our stupidity at even making the demand that they recognize for us our Jewishness. Who are they? The Chief Rabbinate? The Council of Torah Sages?
Israel's Declaration of Independence reads: "By virtue of our natural and historic right, and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, [we] hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." Eight hours after this declaration, two Egged buses were attacked, an attack snuffing out the lives of the first seven victims of the War of Independence.
The ever-present threat against the very fact of Israel's existence is what has caused, or at least encouraged, the expansion into the territories by tens of thousands of settlers. It is this threat that eggs on the Jewish extremists and has turned this country, which has longed so much to live in peace, into a country of occupiers.
We exist, and we are a Jewish state. The whole world has recognized us as a Jewish state. The Arab countries that attacked after Israel's Declaration of Independence did so because it was a Jewish state. We made peace with Egypt and Jordan in spite of being a Jewish state. If there is anyone who needs recognition, it's the Palestinians. Their leaders over the generations have goaded them into hating Jews and killing Jews, which has gone on without stopping, but left them without a state of their own.
This demand that they "recognize" us as a Jewish state, even if the cabinet votes in favor of it at the insistence of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, is like denying the legitimacy of our own national existence - as if we need them to reinforce the identity of the state.
How does such a smart country come up with such a stupid demand?
By Yoel Marcus (source HaAretz.com)
Forty years ago, Yaakov Herzog (brother of Israel's sixth president, Chaim Herzog) was invited by the BBC to take part in a symposium. The subject: What Are Israel's Chances of Survival? Herzog, shocked by the choice of topic, declined to participate but said if they ever held a symposium on Britain's chances of survival, he would be glad to attend.
Who would believe that 32 years after Herzog's death, and 60 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, which is still here despite all those who sought its downfall, the leaders of this country are demanding to be recognized as a Jewish state? And by whom? By the Palestinians, who flatly turned down the Partition Plan approved by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, and have done everything they possibly can to remain stateless to this day.
After the Oslo Accords that Yasser Arafat fumbled, and after two intifadas that left a trail of bodies on both sides, they are still without a state of their own. It seemed as if Ariel Sharon's nod to the Palestinians in evacuating Gush Katif would convince them that Israel was sobering up from its dream of a Greater Israel, that it was open to a peace agreement, including concessions that would make it possible for the Palestinians to finally adopt the UN resolution giving them a state of their own.
Advertisement
I won't repeat here all the preparations being made in advance of the Annapolis summit, the details of which appear daily in the media. We know that we are facing a weak leadership, but neither do they have a sense of Israel's leadership being all-powerful. The infighting between Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, and the doubts about the ability of the present government to move tens of thousands of settlers into the blocs set out in a future agreement, are not exactly projecting a message to the other side that its expectations can be met.
Olmert believes that both sides, no matter how weak, realize that the chances of reaching an agreement outweigh the obstacles. Let's say we don't make peace, says Olmert, and two years from now, Hamas becomes the ruling power in the West Bank. So what are people going to say? That we didn't see the danger? That we sat on the sidelines and did nothing to prevent it?
Olmert and Barak, who are more in sync than one would think, based on the media leaks and the flying insults, do not delude themselves that Israel will be sitting at the table with a strong Palestinian leadership. But they know that right now, that's all there is. The talks will be conducted the way porcupines make love: v-e-r-y carefully. Neither side wants to get President Bush hot under the collar. Neither side wants to be blamed for the failure of the summit, which is shaping up as a kind of multi-delegation, global conference orchestrated by the president of the United States.
And then we wake up one morning to the announcement by the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who says the PA is planning to recognize Israel's right to exist (well, thank you, Mr. Erekat), but "will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state." You read that statement over and over, and try not to explode. Especially at our stupidity at even making the demand that they recognize for us our Jewishness. Who are they? The Chief Rabbinate? The Council of Torah Sages?
Israel's Declaration of Independence reads: "By virtue of our natural and historic right, and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, [we] hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." Eight hours after this declaration, two Egged buses were attacked, an attack snuffing out the lives of the first seven victims of the War of Independence.
The ever-present threat against the very fact of Israel's existence is what has caused, or at least encouraged, the expansion into the territories by tens of thousands of settlers. It is this threat that eggs on the Jewish extremists and has turned this country, which has longed so much to live in peace, into a country of occupiers.
We exist, and we are a Jewish state. The whole world has recognized us as a Jewish state. The Arab countries that attacked after Israel's Declaration of Independence did so because it was a Jewish state. We made peace with Egypt and Jordan in spite of being a Jewish state. If there is anyone who needs recognition, it's the Palestinians. Their leaders over the generations have goaded them into hating Jews and killing Jews, which has gone on without stopping, but left them without a state of their own.
This demand that they "recognize" us as a Jewish state, even if the cabinet votes in favor of it at the insistence of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, is like denying the legitimacy of our own national existence - as if we need them to reinforce the identity of the state.
How does such a smart country come up with such a stupid demand?
giovedì 15 novembre 2007
OGM, liberi di essere correttamente informati
Firma il documento
SAgRi: salute, agricoltura, ricerca
Il 5 novembre 2007 era il settimo anniversario dalla pubblicazione di un manifesto-denuncia degli scienziati italiani contro il divieto di ricerca sugli OGM. Quel testo (leggi qui) fu sottoscritto da alcuni tra i più prestigiosi ricercatori italiani (Garattini, Boncinelli, Regge, Redi, Ballabio, Amati, Cortese, Sala, Bellone, idealmente anche dall’allora Ministro della Sanità Veronesi) e tra gli altri dai premi Nobel Levi-Montalcini e Dulbecco oltre che da moltissimi membri dell’Accademia dei Lincei e delle Scienze, i quali hanno prodotto poco dopo il primo completo documento (scarica) a sostegno degli OGM...
http://www.salmone.org/documento
SAgRi: salute, agricoltura, ricerca
Il 5 novembre 2007 era il settimo anniversario dalla pubblicazione di un manifesto-denuncia degli scienziati italiani contro il divieto di ricerca sugli OGM. Quel testo (leggi qui) fu sottoscritto da alcuni tra i più prestigiosi ricercatori italiani (Garattini, Boncinelli, Regge, Redi, Ballabio, Amati, Cortese, Sala, Bellone, idealmente anche dall’allora Ministro della Sanità Veronesi) e tra gli altri dai premi Nobel Levi-Montalcini e Dulbecco oltre che da moltissimi membri dell’Accademia dei Lincei e delle Scienze, i quali hanno prodotto poco dopo il primo completo documento (scarica) a sostegno degli OGM...
http://www.salmone.org/documento
Israel, Jewish and democratic?
Still a democracy?
By Shulamit Aloni (source www.haaretz.com)
The government of Israel, with all due respect, does not represent the Jewish people but rather the citizens of the State of Israel who elected it. Israel is a sovereign state, which is still considered to be a democracy. In other words, it is a state for all of its citizens. Therefore it must not demand of the Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish state, because in that way it would be declaring that any citizen whose mother is not Jewish or who did not convert with our strict Orthodox rabbis is a second-rate citizen, and his rights as a human being and a citizen are not ensured.
The Jews are a people but not a nation, they are a religious ethnic group or as respected a tribe as may be. The Jewish citizens of Britain, including the Orthodox among them, are British, and that is what is written in their passports and in the British population registry.
The same is true of France; the Jews there are French. In Canada, they are Canadians, and in Holland they are Dutch. They uphold their Jewish lives in their communities, since in democratic nations there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If they were to register the Jewish citizens in these countries as "Jewish" in the nationality category, we would accuse them of being anti-Semitic.
Advertisement
There is a difference between a people and a religion and a nationality, since nationality is decided by citizenship - a people as opposed to a nation - and therefore citizenship is nationality. The affinity of a citizen to the state is based on citizenship and not on religion; it is not based on the tribe nor on the heritage of the genes of the mother.
If among the cabinet ministers there are those who feel that they are more Jewish than Israeli, that is their right, and they can uphold all the religious precepts and pray all the prayers. But that is not relevant to the ties between the State of Israel and its neighbors.
There are people among us who like to repeat that this is a Jewish state and not a state of all its citizens. It is strange that the demand has been raised of the Palestinians, as a condition for ending the occupation, to recognize a state where some 20 percent of its citizens have inferior status.
In the past it was a great joy to be an Israeli. Israel was father to the nations. The word "Jewish" does not exist in any of the prayers. There is: "And I will restore the captivity of my people Israel." And there is the people of Israel, the land of Israel, the Torah of Israel, the God of Israel and the daughter of Israel, who with the Jews is also a second-rate person.
The state of Israel was established as a civilian state, as a state of law, and not as a state of Halakha (Jewish religious law), by the "representatives of the Jewish yishuv and the Zionist movement." Not by the ultra-Orthodox to whom the cabinet ministers enslave themselves, and whose masses they release from military service, from working, and from tuition fees, and even pay them a monthly wage.
In the document establishing the state, it was promised that there would be "complete equality of rights for all its citizens regardless of origin, race or gender." And another reminder: On the Day of Independence, we light 12 beacons, the number of the tribes of Israel.
Let the cabinet ministers feel at home as Jews as much as they want, let them raise their voices in prayer and let them lay tefillin (phylacteries) - but they must remember that they serve the government of Israel, which still represents itself as being democratic. In other words, they are the representatives of all its citizens and are responsible for them.
Therefore it would be better to demand of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, and not to coerce them with what the citizens coerce us - religion and its rabbis.
The existing arrangement was suitable for the Catholic Spain of Isabella and Ferdinand at the end of the 15th century. That is when the expulsion from Spain took place, since Spanish nationality was granted only to the Catholics or to those who converted to Catholicism.
If it is more important to be a Jew than it is to be an Israeli, why do we demand of the Jews of the world to come here at a time when they are having it good in the democratic countries in which they live as Jews?
By Shulamit Aloni (source www.haaretz.com)
The government of Israel, with all due respect, does not represent the Jewish people but rather the citizens of the State of Israel who elected it. Israel is a sovereign state, which is still considered to be a democracy. In other words, it is a state for all of its citizens. Therefore it must not demand of the Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish state, because in that way it would be declaring that any citizen whose mother is not Jewish or who did not convert with our strict Orthodox rabbis is a second-rate citizen, and his rights as a human being and a citizen are not ensured.
The Jews are a people but not a nation, they are a religious ethnic group or as respected a tribe as may be. The Jewish citizens of Britain, including the Orthodox among them, are British, and that is what is written in their passports and in the British population registry.
The same is true of France; the Jews there are French. In Canada, they are Canadians, and in Holland they are Dutch. They uphold their Jewish lives in their communities, since in democratic nations there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If they were to register the Jewish citizens in these countries as "Jewish" in the nationality category, we would accuse them of being anti-Semitic.
Advertisement
There is a difference between a people and a religion and a nationality, since nationality is decided by citizenship - a people as opposed to a nation - and therefore citizenship is nationality. The affinity of a citizen to the state is based on citizenship and not on religion; it is not based on the tribe nor on the heritage of the genes of the mother.
If among the cabinet ministers there are those who feel that they are more Jewish than Israeli, that is their right, and they can uphold all the religious precepts and pray all the prayers. But that is not relevant to the ties between the State of Israel and its neighbors.
There are people among us who like to repeat that this is a Jewish state and not a state of all its citizens. It is strange that the demand has been raised of the Palestinians, as a condition for ending the occupation, to recognize a state where some 20 percent of its citizens have inferior status.
In the past it was a great joy to be an Israeli. Israel was father to the nations. The word "Jewish" does not exist in any of the prayers. There is: "And I will restore the captivity of my people Israel." And there is the people of Israel, the land of Israel, the Torah of Israel, the God of Israel and the daughter of Israel, who with the Jews is also a second-rate person.
The state of Israel was established as a civilian state, as a state of law, and not as a state of Halakha (Jewish religious law), by the "representatives of the Jewish yishuv and the Zionist movement." Not by the ultra-Orthodox to whom the cabinet ministers enslave themselves, and whose masses they release from military service, from working, and from tuition fees, and even pay them a monthly wage.
In the document establishing the state, it was promised that there would be "complete equality of rights for all its citizens regardless of origin, race or gender." And another reminder: On the Day of Independence, we light 12 beacons, the number of the tribes of Israel.
Let the cabinet ministers feel at home as Jews as much as they want, let them raise their voices in prayer and let them lay tefillin (phylacteries) - but they must remember that they serve the government of Israel, which still represents itself as being democratic. In other words, they are the representatives of all its citizens and are responsible for them.
Therefore it would be better to demand of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, and not to coerce them with what the citizens coerce us - religion and its rabbis.
The existing arrangement was suitable for the Catholic Spain of Isabella and Ferdinand at the end of the 15th century. That is when the expulsion from Spain took place, since Spanish nationality was granted only to the Catholics or to those who converted to Catholicism.
If it is more important to be a Jew than it is to be an Israeli, why do we demand of the Jews of the world to come here at a time when they are having it good in the democratic countries in which they live as Jews?
martedì 13 novembre 2007
Israel, democracy at stake?
Quanto segue é una lettera che ho mandato a Economist in risposta ad un articolo-analisi apparso nel secondo numero di Novembre sulla salute della democrazia in Israele. Alla fine del mio intervento riporto l'articolo originale e alcuni dati utili.
Aa
Sir,
In your present issue (November 10-16th), you query the status of Israel democracy, its robustness and future. Whilst these are sensed unknowns the analysis to which arguments hang is weak and misses the point. True, Israel occupation policy has a negative impact on the democratic values of its society. Nonetheless Israeli democracy is a ray of light and inspiration in the cloudy skies of Middle Eastern societies. It has been under fire for 60 years struggling to survive. It is made of a Jewish majority with a rather important Muslim Israeli-Palestinian minority, which accounts for more than 1/6 of Israelis citizens and it is represented by, although it does only partially support, different Arab and mixed parties at the Knesset (Israeli Parliament). This has been the case in decades in spite of serious regional and internal crises.
You describe the behavior of Israeli soccer fan (of one specific team) to hint for a corruption of democratic values. If that would have been a parameter, I suppose that a racist anarchy could be declared in Italy today and in England two decades ago. Your comment on Rabin legacy is also not precise. True, the legion of the so called "candle" youth are not there anymore, they are grown into realistic adults. Their grief has transformed into scepticism. True, Yigal Amir, one of the rare examples of post-independence Jewish terrorism, does receive love letters from freak teens and he was indeed allowed to marry in jail (haven’t you recently had a special issue on human rights and detention policy in western democracies?), although he could not celebrate his son circumcision. In spite of these, Rabins legacy did won Israeli society and policy; as Peres says and Sharon taught, there is no other road on the map than the one leading to Palestinians freedom from occupation and to Israel security. Test for democracy not mentioned in the article have indeed occurred. Among them the soul corrupting daily missile attacks on Sderot and its citizens. Among them Sharon's pullout from Gaza, when roughly ten thousand of Israeli citizens were redeployed within the green line borders following a 30 years of life on conquered Egypt territory in a defensive war. Despite their political affiliation might have something in common with that of two Jewish terrorists (Amir and Goldstein), the settlers taught a lesson of civil resistance to the world. Within Israel those days were characterized by reserved silence and common grief for the suffering of Israeli fellows. Israel democracy must deal with its weaknesses as it did for the past 60 years, through a disenchanted critic eye on the Middle Eastern reality.
-------------------------
Aaron Fait, Berlin, Germany
Israel and the Palestinians
Remembering Yitzhak Rabin
Nov 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition (www.economist.com)
The inner price Israel pays for its continuing occupation of the West Bank
AFP
“YOU were the pillar of fire before the camp and now we are left only as the camp, alone and in the dark”. So said his weeping grand-daughter, eulogising Yitzhak Rabin after he was shot in the back by a Jewish religious zealot 12 years ago. The murder of a strong and popular prime minister appeared briefly to unite the Jewish state. But the Israel of that time was in fact a camp divided. This year's anniversary has brought grim new evidence of how bitter the divisions have grown.
Millions of Israelis continue to mourn the war hero who shook the hand of Yasser Arafat and had seemed poised like a Moses to save the Jewish state by leading it out of the West Bank and Gaza, the lands he had himself conquered as army chief in 1967. But to a large minority of Israelis, Yigal Amir, his unrepentant murderer, has also become a hero. Though he remains in prison, Mr Amir has been allowed to marry and produce a son. A quarter of Israelis say they would not object to his sentence being commuted. At a recent football match, fans of one Jerusalem team horrified respectable Israel by greeting a call to remember the anniversary with chants in praise not of the fallen leader but of the fanatic who killed him.
The resurgence now of Israel's divisions over Rabin is no coincidence. He was murdered by one of those Israelis who say that the Jews have been granted a divine right to the whole of biblical Israel, and that this overrides both the Palestinian right of self-determination and the decisions arrived at by the secular institutions of Israeli democracy. The Oslo peace process of the 1990s convinced Israel's national-religious right that Rabin intended to surrender the God-given land. And now comes a new peace process, stirring new fears of betrayal. Later this month Arabs and Israelis are due to meet at Annapolis in Maryland. To make this more than a photo-opportunity, Israel's present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, will have to endorse the principle of sharing Jerusalem with a Palestinian state and giving up the bulk at least of the West Bank.
Whether some new Yigal Amir is plotting right now to destroy this plan by murder it is impossible to say. But one moral of the Rabin story is clear. Although history let some lucky countries (such as Britain, but not—remember Algeria—France) colonise the lands of others for a while without corroding unity and democracy at home, Israel is not one of those. Its own definition of itself, encompassing not only the location of its borders but also its internal cohesion and its political and moral values, is hostage to the fate of the Palestinian-inhabited territories Israel still occupies by military force.
As the stronger party, Israelis sometimes behave as though they can afford better than the weak and divided Palestinians to postpone the day when historic Palestine must be divided into separate Jewish and Arab states. They are wrong. As the fight over the legacy of Rabin shows, the longer the occupation of the West Bank continues, the coarser, more fractious and more potentially violent Israel's inner life becomes. It is too much to say, as some do, that the survival of Israel depends on finding a safe way to leave. But the survival of Israeli democracy may well depend on it.
26 June 2007
PRESS RELEASE
(Truman Institute for the advancement of peace, http://truman.huji.ac.il/)
Joint Palestinian-Israeli Public Opinion Poll*
IN THE BACKDROP OF THE GAZA TAKEOVER BY HAMAS, ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS SHARE GRIM EXPECTATIONS OF THE OTHER SIDE’S LEADERSHIP AND THE CHANCES FOR THE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
These are the results of the most recent poll conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, between June 12 and 20, 2007. The data for these surveys were collected while the Hamas’ violent takeover of the Gaza Strip took place. The evaluation of the reported figures must take into consideration this context.
The joint poll examined the two publics’ support of a renewed cease fire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian factions and several ideas to promote it including the deployment of international forces on the borders of the Gaza strip, and the security plan proposed by US Secretary of State Rice. In addition we examined assessments of the Arab League (Saudi) plan, the Israeli leadership's degrees of freedom to negotiate with various configurations of a Palestinian government, and an Israeli-Syrian settlement.
• 89% of Israelis and 76% of Palestinians believed at the time of the survey that armed confrontations between the two sides will continue. 47% of Israelis and 51% of Palestinians believed that negotiations will resume. However only 31% of Palestinians believed it is possible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership. Among Israelis, 42% believed that it is possible to reach such a settlement with Abu Mazin, and 25% - with a Palestinian national unity government.
• 63% of the Palestinians support the security plan proposed by the American Secretary of State last month, compared to 45% among Israelis who support it. The plan requests from the Palestinians the enforcement of law and order, fighting terrorism, preventing rocket attacks on Israel, and preventing smuggling through tunnels. It requests the Israelis to open the crossings of Rafah, Kerem Shalom, and Karni on a regular and permanent basis, to allow passage of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and remove checkpoints in the West Bank. Presumably Israelis’ lukewarm support of the plan has been driven by fears of renewed violent attacks by Hamas following its takeover of Gaza if checkpoints are removed and Gaza crossings are open, echoing Israeli security authorities’ concerns.
• Regarding another closely related issue, the deployment of international forces along the borders of Gaza, Egypt and Israel, in order to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel, a considerable majority among Israelis (65%) support this step, while 35% of the Palestinians support it. Three years ago in June 2004, 53% of the Israelis and 60% among Palestinians supported the deployment of such an armed force.
Given the blowing of war winds in the region and speculations about a new war in the summer we attempted to asses the impact of these speculations on Israelis’ expectations and attitudes toward the use of force versus peaceful means to cope with threats that Israel faces.
• 46% of the Israelis believe that another war can be expected this summer while 42% do not expect such a war.
• 15% of the Israelis also believe that a ground operation in the Gaza strip can prevent a coming war in the summer while 49% believe that such an operation will rather promote war.
And Given the difficulties the Palestinians confront in their domestic scene, we attempted to assess how the Palestinian public views its options regarding the future of the PA, possible confederation with Jordan, and the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the next five years.
• 41% of the Palestinians want to dissolve the PA and replace it with an international trusteeship (26%) or return to full Israeli occupation (16%). 49% oppose the dissolution of the PA.
• 42% support the establishment of a confederation with Jordan and 52% oppose that.
• 70% believe the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the next five years are low or nonexistent and 26% believe the chances are medium or high.
The joint poll further examined Israeli and Palestinian assessments of the capability of both leaderships to reach a political settlement these days.
Total Palestinian sample size is 1270 adults interviewed face-to-face in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 127 randomly selected locations between June 14 and 20, 2007. The margin of error is 3%. The Israeli sample includes 598 adult Israelis interviewed by phone in Hebrew, Arabic, or Russian between June 12 and 19, 2007. The margin of error is 4%. The poll was planned and supervised by Dr. Yaacov Shamir, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Department of Communication and Journalism at the Hebrew University and Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR).
For further details on the Palestinian survey contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki or Walid Ladadweh, at tel. 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org. On the Israeli survey, contact Dr. Yaacov Shamir at tel. 03-6419429 or email jshamir@mscc.huji.ac.il.
*This joint survey was conducted with the support of the Ford Foundation Cairo office and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah.
MAIN FINDINGS
(A) Cease Fire Agreement and the renewal of the political process
• At the time of the joint poll, Israelis and Palestinians do not hold high hopes regarding the resumption of negotiations. Only 17% of Palestinians and 9% of the Israelis believe that negotiations will resume soon enough and armed confrontations will stop. 34% of the Palestinians and 38% of the Israelis think that negotiations will resume but some armed attacks will continue. 41% of the Palestinians and 51% of the Israelis believe that armed confrontations will not stop and the two sides will not return to negotiations
• 70% of the Israelis believe that neither side came out a winner in the current round of the conflict, 12% believe that the Palestinians won, 10% believe that Israel won and 5% believe that both won.
• 9% of the Israelis also believe that Israel will gain more from the recent cease fire while 33% believe Palestinians will gain more, 40% believe both will gain and 16% think neither side will gain.
• As to steps which can help to sustain a cease fire, 35% of the Palestinians and 65% of the Israelis support a proposal to deploy international armed forces in the Gaza Strip, especially on the border with Israel and Egypt to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel. 61% and 29% oppose this proposal respectively.
• Similarly, 63% of the Palestinians and 45% of the Israelis support the American security plan, which was presented to the Palestinians and Israelis last month. The plan requests from the Palestinians the enforcement of law and order, fighting terrorism, preventing rocket attacks on Israel, and preventing smuggling through tunnels. It requests from the Israelis to open the Rafah, Kerem Shalom, and Karni crossings on a regular and permanent basis, allow passage of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and remove checkpoints in the West Bank. 36% of the Palestinians and 52% of the Israelis oppose this plan.
• 40% of the Israelis support and 57% oppose the release of Marwan Barghouti from prison and negotiations with him in order to reach a compromise agreement with the Palestinians.
• 60% of the Israelis support negotiations between Israel and Abu Mazin over a final status settlement.
• Despite these levels of support only 42% of the Israelis believe that it is possible to reach nowadays a compromise settlement between Olmert and Abu Mazin. In December 2006, 46% believed so.
• Similarly, 50% of the Israelis support and 46% oppose negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government which includes Hamas if needed to reach a compromise agreement. However only 25% of Israelis believe that it is possible, and 70% think it is impossible to reach a compromise settlement with the Palestinian national unity government. In March 2007, 33% believed this is possible. This drop in Israelis’ optimism regarding the chances to reach an agreement between the two leaderships is likely a reaction of Israelis to the leadership crisis in the PA, following the recent events in Gaza.
• As to Palestinians, 31% believe it is possible and 65% think it is impossible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership.
• A majority of 60% among Palestinians and 64% of the Israelis agrees with the proposal that after reaching a permanent agreement to all issues of the conflict, there would be mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people. 38% and 30% respectively disagree. 51% of the Palestinians and 48% of the Israelis believe that a majority in their public supports such a proposal, and 37% and 36% respectively think the majority opposes it. However both publics are only partly aware of the majority support for such a step in the other side. Only 43% of the Palestinians and 35% of the Israelis think the other side public supports this step.
• Despite the ongoing internal strife in the PA, these levels of support in a mutual recognition of identity did not change much. In December 2006, 63% of the Israelis and 58% of the Palestinians supported such a step.
• Given the ongoing events, both publics are quite pessimistic regarding the chances for such a mutual recognition (marking support in a two state solution) to materialize. Only 26% of the Palestinians and 39% of the Israelis believe that there are medium or high chances that a Palestinian State will be established in the next 5 years. 70% of the Palestinians and 59% among Israelis believe that these chances are nil or low.
• 66% of the Palestinians and 43% among Israelis believe that a political settlement will never be reached or only in many generations to come, 13% and 33% respectively think it will come in the next generation or next decade, and only 13% Palestinians and 18% Israelis think it will come in the next few years.
(B) The Arab league plan and negotiations with Syria
• In addition to the Palestinian arena, we examined in the poll both publics’ attitudes regarding the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and Israelis’ attitudes toward a settlement with Syria over the Golan Heights.
• As to the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and after briefing our respondents on its essential elements, 36% of the Israelis and 66% of the Palestinians support the plan compared to 59% and 31% respectively who oppose it.
• When we framed the reference to the refugees issue in terms of President Clinton’s approach to the issue, support for the Saudi plan decreased among Palestinians and slightly increased among Israelis. Under this framing 46% of the Palestinians and 39% of the Israelis support the Saudi plan while 49% and 52% respectively oppose it.
• 47% among Israelis believe that Israel should and 50% think that Israel should not enter negotiations with Syria's President Assad on full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement
• 25% of the Israelis support and 60% oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement with Syria.
• Israelis’ support for the return of the Golan Heights increases noticeably when presented with the proposal to demilitarize the Golan Heights and to turn it into a recreational park under Syria's sovereignty, but administered jointly with Israel. Israeli citizens would be allowed to enter the park freely for vacation and recreational purposes. Under these terms, 31% support and 56% oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement.
(C) Other Conflict Related and Conflict Resolution Issues
Given the current difficulties confronting the Palestinians, we examined Palestinian public perceptions of various threats and options:
• A majority of Palestinians (56%) believe that the most serious threat confronting the Palestinians today is infighting and lawlessness, followed by poverty (21%), Israeli occupation and settlements (12%) and finally international boycott and sanctions (10%).
• A large percentage (41%) of the Palestinians wants the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority but a larger percentage (49%) opposes that. The percentage of those in favor of dissolving the PA is divided among those who want it replaced with international trusteeship (26%) and those who want it replaced with a return to full Israeli occupation (16%).
• Similarly, 42% of the Palestinians support the establishment of a confederation with Jordan while 52% oppose that. The percentage of those in favor the confederation solution is divided among those who want it now (25%) and those who want it only later after the establishment of a Palestinian state (17%).
• Overwhelming majority of 82% of the Palestinians view acts such as the kidnapping of foreigners, the burning of internet cafe’s, and the bombing of foreign schools as criminal deserving condemnation while only 3% view them as nationalistic and deserving support. In the Gaza Strip, 85% view these acts as criminal and 2% as nationalistic.
• Given the blowing of war winds in the region and speculations about a new war in the summer 46% of the Israelis believe that another war can be expected this summer while 42% do not expect such a war. We attempted to asses Israelis’ attitudes toward the use of force versus peaceful means to cope with threats that Israel faces. Israelis were presented with a list of possible steps Israel could take and were asked to assess the potential of each step to promote or rather prevent a war in the summer. The table below presents Israelis’ assessments of the possible outcomes of these steps.
Percent believing it
can prevent war Percent believing it can neither prevent nor promote Percent believing it can promote war
Negotiations with Syria 46% 41% 10%
Negotiations with Abu Mazin 26% 61% 10%
Negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government 24% 47% 14%
Negotiations on the Saudi plan 35% 49% 10%
Preventative attack on Hizballa 16% 24% 55%
A ground operation in the Gaza Strip 15% 31% 49%
Bombing Iran's nuclear reactor 15% 15% 65%
Threatening Syria with harsh measures if it will start a war 22% 27% 44%
• Of all the negotiation options facing Israel these days, the most preferred one is negotiations over the Saudi plan, with 31% of the Israelis chose preferring it most. Second stands negotiations with the Palestinians on a compromise agreement, with 25% preferring it most. Only 17% prefer most negotiations with Assad and Syria over the Golan Heights in return for full peace.17% do not prefer any of these options.
(D) Palestinian Domestic Balance of Power
• If new parliamentary elections are held today, Fateh would receive 43% of the vote, the same percentage it received three months ago in our March survey. But support for Change and Reform (Hamas) drops from 37% three months ago to 33% in this survey. Support for all other third parties combined stands at 12% and 13% remain undecided.
• If new presidential elections are held today and the only two candidates were Mahmud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh, 40% would not participate in these elections. Among those who would participate, 49% would vote for Abbas and 42% for Haniyeh. If the competition was between Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, non participation would drop to 31%. Among those who would participate, 59% would vote for Marwan Barghouti and 35% for Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, Barghouti wins against Haniyeh by 55% to 41%.
(E) General mood and attitudes toward democracy
• 90% of the Palestinians describe current Palestinian conditions as very bad or bad while only 6% describe them as good or very good. 28% of the Palestinians say they want to immigrate to other countries and 23% say they are not proud of being Palestinians. As to Israelis, 44% think Israel’s general condition these days is bad or very bad, 38% believe it to be so-so and 17% describe Israel’s condition these days as good or very good.
• In the backdrop of the internal strife in the Gaza strip 54% of the Palestinians and 85% of the Israelis see democracy in the Palestinian Authority as a failed system that cannot be implemented in Palestine. 41% of the Palestinians and 10% of the Israelis see democracy rather as a successful system that is suited for Palestine.
• Nonetheless, 42% of the Palestinians who believe that democracy is a failed system believe that the Palestinian Authority should maintain that democratic system despite its problems, while 45% think that it should abandon it and adopt a non democratic system. 2% of the Israelis think that the current status of democracy and human rights in the Palestinian Authority is very good or good, 12% believe it is so-so, and 84% think it is bad or very bad.
Aa
Sir,
In your present issue (November 10-16th), you query the status of Israel democracy, its robustness and future. Whilst these are sensed unknowns the analysis to which arguments hang is weak and misses the point. True, Israel occupation policy has a negative impact on the democratic values of its society. Nonetheless Israeli democracy is a ray of light and inspiration in the cloudy skies of Middle Eastern societies. It has been under fire for 60 years struggling to survive. It is made of a Jewish majority with a rather important Muslim Israeli-Palestinian minority, which accounts for more than 1/6 of Israelis citizens and it is represented by, although it does only partially support, different Arab and mixed parties at the Knesset (Israeli Parliament). This has been the case in decades in spite of serious regional and internal crises.
You describe the behavior of Israeli soccer fan (of one specific team) to hint for a corruption of democratic values. If that would have been a parameter, I suppose that a racist anarchy could be declared in Italy today and in England two decades ago. Your comment on Rabin legacy is also not precise. True, the legion of the so called "candle" youth are not there anymore, they are grown into realistic adults. Their grief has transformed into scepticism. True, Yigal Amir, one of the rare examples of post-independence Jewish terrorism, does receive love letters from freak teens and he was indeed allowed to marry in jail (haven’t you recently had a special issue on human rights and detention policy in western democracies?), although he could not celebrate his son circumcision. In spite of these, Rabins legacy did won Israeli society and policy; as Peres says and Sharon taught, there is no other road on the map than the one leading to Palestinians freedom from occupation and to Israel security. Test for democracy not mentioned in the article have indeed occurred. Among them the soul corrupting daily missile attacks on Sderot and its citizens. Among them Sharon's pullout from Gaza, when roughly ten thousand of Israeli citizens were redeployed within the green line borders following a 30 years of life on conquered Egypt territory in a defensive war. Despite their political affiliation might have something in common with that of two Jewish terrorists (Amir and Goldstein), the settlers taught a lesson of civil resistance to the world. Within Israel those days were characterized by reserved silence and common grief for the suffering of Israeli fellows. Israel democracy must deal with its weaknesses as it did for the past 60 years, through a disenchanted critic eye on the Middle Eastern reality.
-------------------------
Aaron Fait, Berlin, Germany
Israel and the Palestinians
Remembering Yitzhak Rabin
Nov 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition (www.economist.com)
The inner price Israel pays for its continuing occupation of the West Bank
AFP
“YOU were the pillar of fire before the camp and now we are left only as the camp, alone and in the dark”. So said his weeping grand-daughter, eulogising Yitzhak Rabin after he was shot in the back by a Jewish religious zealot 12 years ago. The murder of a strong and popular prime minister appeared briefly to unite the Jewish state. But the Israel of that time was in fact a camp divided. This year's anniversary has brought grim new evidence of how bitter the divisions have grown.
Millions of Israelis continue to mourn the war hero who shook the hand of Yasser Arafat and had seemed poised like a Moses to save the Jewish state by leading it out of the West Bank and Gaza, the lands he had himself conquered as army chief in 1967. But to a large minority of Israelis, Yigal Amir, his unrepentant murderer, has also become a hero. Though he remains in prison, Mr Amir has been allowed to marry and produce a son. A quarter of Israelis say they would not object to his sentence being commuted. At a recent football match, fans of one Jerusalem team horrified respectable Israel by greeting a call to remember the anniversary with chants in praise not of the fallen leader but of the fanatic who killed him.
The resurgence now of Israel's divisions over Rabin is no coincidence. He was murdered by one of those Israelis who say that the Jews have been granted a divine right to the whole of biblical Israel, and that this overrides both the Palestinian right of self-determination and the decisions arrived at by the secular institutions of Israeli democracy. The Oslo peace process of the 1990s convinced Israel's national-religious right that Rabin intended to surrender the God-given land. And now comes a new peace process, stirring new fears of betrayal. Later this month Arabs and Israelis are due to meet at Annapolis in Maryland. To make this more than a photo-opportunity, Israel's present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, will have to endorse the principle of sharing Jerusalem with a Palestinian state and giving up the bulk at least of the West Bank.
Whether some new Yigal Amir is plotting right now to destroy this plan by murder it is impossible to say. But one moral of the Rabin story is clear. Although history let some lucky countries (such as Britain, but not—remember Algeria—France) colonise the lands of others for a while without corroding unity and democracy at home, Israel is not one of those. Its own definition of itself, encompassing not only the location of its borders but also its internal cohesion and its political and moral values, is hostage to the fate of the Palestinian-inhabited territories Israel still occupies by military force.
As the stronger party, Israelis sometimes behave as though they can afford better than the weak and divided Palestinians to postpone the day when historic Palestine must be divided into separate Jewish and Arab states. They are wrong. As the fight over the legacy of Rabin shows, the longer the occupation of the West Bank continues, the coarser, more fractious and more potentially violent Israel's inner life becomes. It is too much to say, as some do, that the survival of Israel depends on finding a safe way to leave. But the survival of Israeli democracy may well depend on it.
26 June 2007
PRESS RELEASE
(Truman Institute for the advancement of peace, http://truman.huji.ac.il/)
Joint Palestinian-Israeli Public Opinion Poll*
IN THE BACKDROP OF THE GAZA TAKEOVER BY HAMAS, ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS SHARE GRIM EXPECTATIONS OF THE OTHER SIDE’S LEADERSHIP AND THE CHANCES FOR THE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
These are the results of the most recent poll conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, between June 12 and 20, 2007. The data for these surveys were collected while the Hamas’ violent takeover of the Gaza Strip took place. The evaluation of the reported figures must take into consideration this context.
The joint poll examined the two publics’ support of a renewed cease fire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian factions and several ideas to promote it including the deployment of international forces on the borders of the Gaza strip, and the security plan proposed by US Secretary of State Rice. In addition we examined assessments of the Arab League (Saudi) plan, the Israeli leadership's degrees of freedom to negotiate with various configurations of a Palestinian government, and an Israeli-Syrian settlement.
• 89% of Israelis and 76% of Palestinians believed at the time of the survey that armed confrontations between the two sides will continue. 47% of Israelis and 51% of Palestinians believed that negotiations will resume. However only 31% of Palestinians believed it is possible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership. Among Israelis, 42% believed that it is possible to reach such a settlement with Abu Mazin, and 25% - with a Palestinian national unity government.
• 63% of the Palestinians support the security plan proposed by the American Secretary of State last month, compared to 45% among Israelis who support it. The plan requests from the Palestinians the enforcement of law and order, fighting terrorism, preventing rocket attacks on Israel, and preventing smuggling through tunnels. It requests the Israelis to open the crossings of Rafah, Kerem Shalom, and Karni on a regular and permanent basis, to allow passage of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and remove checkpoints in the West Bank. Presumably Israelis’ lukewarm support of the plan has been driven by fears of renewed violent attacks by Hamas following its takeover of Gaza if checkpoints are removed and Gaza crossings are open, echoing Israeli security authorities’ concerns.
• Regarding another closely related issue, the deployment of international forces along the borders of Gaza, Egypt and Israel, in order to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel, a considerable majority among Israelis (65%) support this step, while 35% of the Palestinians support it. Three years ago in June 2004, 53% of the Israelis and 60% among Palestinians supported the deployment of such an armed force.
Given the blowing of war winds in the region and speculations about a new war in the summer we attempted to asses the impact of these speculations on Israelis’ expectations and attitudes toward the use of force versus peaceful means to cope with threats that Israel faces.
• 46% of the Israelis believe that another war can be expected this summer while 42% do not expect such a war.
• 15% of the Israelis also believe that a ground operation in the Gaza strip can prevent a coming war in the summer while 49% believe that such an operation will rather promote war.
And Given the difficulties the Palestinians confront in their domestic scene, we attempted to assess how the Palestinian public views its options regarding the future of the PA, possible confederation with Jordan, and the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the next five years.
• 41% of the Palestinians want to dissolve the PA and replace it with an international trusteeship (26%) or return to full Israeli occupation (16%). 49% oppose the dissolution of the PA.
• 42% support the establishment of a confederation with Jordan and 52% oppose that.
• 70% believe the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the next five years are low or nonexistent and 26% believe the chances are medium or high.
The joint poll further examined Israeli and Palestinian assessments of the capability of both leaderships to reach a political settlement these days.
Total Palestinian sample size is 1270 adults interviewed face-to-face in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 127 randomly selected locations between June 14 and 20, 2007. The margin of error is 3%. The Israeli sample includes 598 adult Israelis interviewed by phone in Hebrew, Arabic, or Russian between June 12 and 19, 2007. The margin of error is 4%. The poll was planned and supervised by Dr. Yaacov Shamir, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Department of Communication and Journalism at the Hebrew University and Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR).
For further details on the Palestinian survey contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki or Walid Ladadweh, at tel. 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org. On the Israeli survey, contact Dr. Yaacov Shamir at tel. 03-6419429 or email jshamir@mscc.huji.ac.il.
*This joint survey was conducted with the support of the Ford Foundation Cairo office and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah.
MAIN FINDINGS
(A) Cease Fire Agreement and the renewal of the political process
• At the time of the joint poll, Israelis and Palestinians do not hold high hopes regarding the resumption of negotiations. Only 17% of Palestinians and 9% of the Israelis believe that negotiations will resume soon enough and armed confrontations will stop. 34% of the Palestinians and 38% of the Israelis think that negotiations will resume but some armed attacks will continue. 41% of the Palestinians and 51% of the Israelis believe that armed confrontations will not stop and the two sides will not return to negotiations
• 70% of the Israelis believe that neither side came out a winner in the current round of the conflict, 12% believe that the Palestinians won, 10% believe that Israel won and 5% believe that both won.
• 9% of the Israelis also believe that Israel will gain more from the recent cease fire while 33% believe Palestinians will gain more, 40% believe both will gain and 16% think neither side will gain.
• As to steps which can help to sustain a cease fire, 35% of the Palestinians and 65% of the Israelis support a proposal to deploy international armed forces in the Gaza Strip, especially on the border with Israel and Egypt to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel. 61% and 29% oppose this proposal respectively.
• Similarly, 63% of the Palestinians and 45% of the Israelis support the American security plan, which was presented to the Palestinians and Israelis last month. The plan requests from the Palestinians the enforcement of law and order, fighting terrorism, preventing rocket attacks on Israel, and preventing smuggling through tunnels. It requests from the Israelis to open the Rafah, Kerem Shalom, and Karni crossings on a regular and permanent basis, allow passage of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and remove checkpoints in the West Bank. 36% of the Palestinians and 52% of the Israelis oppose this plan.
• 40% of the Israelis support and 57% oppose the release of Marwan Barghouti from prison and negotiations with him in order to reach a compromise agreement with the Palestinians.
• 60% of the Israelis support negotiations between Israel and Abu Mazin over a final status settlement.
• Despite these levels of support only 42% of the Israelis believe that it is possible to reach nowadays a compromise settlement between Olmert and Abu Mazin. In December 2006, 46% believed so.
• Similarly, 50% of the Israelis support and 46% oppose negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government which includes Hamas if needed to reach a compromise agreement. However only 25% of Israelis believe that it is possible, and 70% think it is impossible to reach a compromise settlement with the Palestinian national unity government. In March 2007, 33% believed this is possible. This drop in Israelis’ optimism regarding the chances to reach an agreement between the two leaderships is likely a reaction of Israelis to the leadership crisis in the PA, following the recent events in Gaza.
• As to Palestinians, 31% believe it is possible and 65% think it is impossible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership.
• A majority of 60% among Palestinians and 64% of the Israelis agrees with the proposal that after reaching a permanent agreement to all issues of the conflict, there would be mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people. 38% and 30% respectively disagree. 51% of the Palestinians and 48% of the Israelis believe that a majority in their public supports such a proposal, and 37% and 36% respectively think the majority opposes it. However both publics are only partly aware of the majority support for such a step in the other side. Only 43% of the Palestinians and 35% of the Israelis think the other side public supports this step.
• Despite the ongoing internal strife in the PA, these levels of support in a mutual recognition of identity did not change much. In December 2006, 63% of the Israelis and 58% of the Palestinians supported such a step.
• Given the ongoing events, both publics are quite pessimistic regarding the chances for such a mutual recognition (marking support in a two state solution) to materialize. Only 26% of the Palestinians and 39% of the Israelis believe that there are medium or high chances that a Palestinian State will be established in the next 5 years. 70% of the Palestinians and 59% among Israelis believe that these chances are nil or low.
• 66% of the Palestinians and 43% among Israelis believe that a political settlement will never be reached or only in many generations to come, 13% and 33% respectively think it will come in the next generation or next decade, and only 13% Palestinians and 18% Israelis think it will come in the next few years.
(B) The Arab league plan and negotiations with Syria
• In addition to the Palestinian arena, we examined in the poll both publics’ attitudes regarding the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and Israelis’ attitudes toward a settlement with Syria over the Golan Heights.
• As to the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and after briefing our respondents on its essential elements, 36% of the Israelis and 66% of the Palestinians support the plan compared to 59% and 31% respectively who oppose it.
• When we framed the reference to the refugees issue in terms of President Clinton’s approach to the issue, support for the Saudi plan decreased among Palestinians and slightly increased among Israelis. Under this framing 46% of the Palestinians and 39% of the Israelis support the Saudi plan while 49% and 52% respectively oppose it.
• 47% among Israelis believe that Israel should and 50% think that Israel should not enter negotiations with Syria's President Assad on full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement
• 25% of the Israelis support and 60% oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement with Syria.
• Israelis’ support for the return of the Golan Heights increases noticeably when presented with the proposal to demilitarize the Golan Heights and to turn it into a recreational park under Syria's sovereignty, but administered jointly with Israel. Israeli citizens would be allowed to enter the park freely for vacation and recreational purposes. Under these terms, 31% support and 56% oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement.
(C) Other Conflict Related and Conflict Resolution Issues
Given the current difficulties confronting the Palestinians, we examined Palestinian public perceptions of various threats and options:
• A majority of Palestinians (56%) believe that the most serious threat confronting the Palestinians today is infighting and lawlessness, followed by poverty (21%), Israeli occupation and settlements (12%) and finally international boycott and sanctions (10%).
• A large percentage (41%) of the Palestinians wants the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority but a larger percentage (49%) opposes that. The percentage of those in favor of dissolving the PA is divided among those who want it replaced with international trusteeship (26%) and those who want it replaced with a return to full Israeli occupation (16%).
• Similarly, 42% of the Palestinians support the establishment of a confederation with Jordan while 52% oppose that. The percentage of those in favor the confederation solution is divided among those who want it now (25%) and those who want it only later after the establishment of a Palestinian state (17%).
• Overwhelming majority of 82% of the Palestinians view acts such as the kidnapping of foreigners, the burning of internet cafe’s, and the bombing of foreign schools as criminal deserving condemnation while only 3% view them as nationalistic and deserving support. In the Gaza Strip, 85% view these acts as criminal and 2% as nationalistic.
• Given the blowing of war winds in the region and speculations about a new war in the summer 46% of the Israelis believe that another war can be expected this summer while 42% do not expect such a war. We attempted to asses Israelis’ attitudes toward the use of force versus peaceful means to cope with threats that Israel faces. Israelis were presented with a list of possible steps Israel could take and were asked to assess the potential of each step to promote or rather prevent a war in the summer. The table below presents Israelis’ assessments of the possible outcomes of these steps.
Percent believing it
can prevent war Percent believing it can neither prevent nor promote Percent believing it can promote war
Negotiations with Syria 46% 41% 10%
Negotiations with Abu Mazin 26% 61% 10%
Negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government 24% 47% 14%
Negotiations on the Saudi plan 35% 49% 10%
Preventative attack on Hizballa 16% 24% 55%
A ground operation in the Gaza Strip 15% 31% 49%
Bombing Iran's nuclear reactor 15% 15% 65%
Threatening Syria with harsh measures if it will start a war 22% 27% 44%
• Of all the negotiation options facing Israel these days, the most preferred one is negotiations over the Saudi plan, with 31% of the Israelis chose preferring it most. Second stands negotiations with the Palestinians on a compromise agreement, with 25% preferring it most. Only 17% prefer most negotiations with Assad and Syria over the Golan Heights in return for full peace.17% do not prefer any of these options.
(D) Palestinian Domestic Balance of Power
• If new parliamentary elections are held today, Fateh would receive 43% of the vote, the same percentage it received three months ago in our March survey. But support for Change and Reform (Hamas) drops from 37% three months ago to 33% in this survey. Support for all other third parties combined stands at 12% and 13% remain undecided.
• If new presidential elections are held today and the only two candidates were Mahmud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh, 40% would not participate in these elections. Among those who would participate, 49% would vote for Abbas and 42% for Haniyeh. If the competition was between Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, non participation would drop to 31%. Among those who would participate, 59% would vote for Marwan Barghouti and 35% for Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, Barghouti wins against Haniyeh by 55% to 41%.
(E) General mood and attitudes toward democracy
• 90% of the Palestinians describe current Palestinian conditions as very bad or bad while only 6% describe them as good or very good. 28% of the Palestinians say they want to immigrate to other countries and 23% say they are not proud of being Palestinians. As to Israelis, 44% think Israel’s general condition these days is bad or very bad, 38% believe it to be so-so and 17% describe Israel’s condition these days as good or very good.
• In the backdrop of the internal strife in the Gaza strip 54% of the Palestinians and 85% of the Israelis see democracy in the Palestinian Authority as a failed system that cannot be implemented in Palestine. 41% of the Palestinians and 10% of the Israelis see democracy rather as a successful system that is suited for Palestine.
• Nonetheless, 42% of the Palestinians who believe that democracy is a failed system believe that the Palestinian Authority should maintain that democratic system despite its problems, while 45% think that it should abandon it and adopt a non democratic system. 2% of the Israelis think that the current status of democracy and human rights in the Palestinian Authority is very good or good, 12% believe it is so-so, and 84% think it is bad or very bad.
lunedì 12 novembre 2007
"Enzo Biagi: lo ha fatto per interesse o credo?"
Riporto qui sotto un pezzo apparso di recente sul passato di E. Biagi. Lo pubblico perché credo nel diritto a conoscere. Ció nonostante sono convinto che il dibattito sul passato di una persona cosí influente nel giornalismo italiano si sia dovuto svolgere ancora quando questa in vita. Non conosco abbastanza gli scritti di Biagi per sapere se abbia mai fatto i conti con il suo passato, con l'immondizia a cui ha partecipato e né sapró mai se in cuor suo Biagi abbia taciuto questo servilismo bacato (se ideologico) e vergognoso (se ipocrita) per interesse o per vergogna.
Aa
Il passato antisemita di Enzo Biagi
"La memoria selettiva di Enzo Biagi"
di Gaspare De Caro e Roberto De Caro
Nell'intervista concessa a Luciano Nigro in occasione dei festeggiamenti per il suo ottantasettesimo compleanno nella natia Pianaccio di Lizzano in Belvedere e pubblicata il 9 agosto scorso sull'edizione bolognese di Repubblica, Enzo Biagi racconta che «Giorgio Pini, cognato di un mio zio che si chiamava come me, incontrò Mussolini alla vigilia del gran consiglio che lo destituì», cioè poco prima del 24 luglio 1943. Nigro chiosa: «Lei in quei giorni scelse i partigiani». Biagi non fa una piega: «E mi trovai con gente di ogni classe...». Non è certo la prima volta che l'illustre giornalista glissa sui particolari, e crediamo sia giusto informare i lettori che non fu affatto «in quei giorni» che «scelse i partigiani», poiché qui le date contano e l'omissione non è innocente.
In virtù della parentela con il cugino Bruno Biagi - potente ras fascista, deputato dal '34, presidente della Commissione industria della Camera dei fasci e dell'Istituto nazionale fascista della previdenza sociale, poi sottosegretario alle Corporazioni -, Enzo Marco (così firmava all'inizio i suoi articoli) scriveva già diciassettenne sull'Avvenire d'Italia e su L'Assalto, «organo della federazione dei fasci di combattimento di Bologna», e in seguito su Il Resto del Carlino, dove divenne professionista nel giugno del '42, quotidiano che per razzismo e fanatismo non era da meno e che fu diretto a partire dal 16 settembre del '43 proprio da Giorgio Pini.
Partecipò anche a Primato, la rivista di Giuseppe Bottai, il ministro delle leggi razziali, che «ha sempre stimato» e nei confronti del quale ha pubblicamente confessato il proprio «dovere di gratitudine» (Enzo Biagi, Ma che tempi, Rizzoli, Milano 1998, p. 43), una di quelle «camicie nere ma teste libere» di cui serba affascinato ricordo (Id., Scusate, dimenticavo, BUR, Milano 1997, p. 12). L'Assalto - «giornale della federazione fascista, dove poi ognuno scriveva quello che voleva» (Id., Ero partito da Bologna piangendo, in Bologna incontri, XIII, 5, maggio 1982, p. 6) - si distinse sin dal luglio del '38 per la violenza della campagna antisemita, condotta settimanalmente sulla pelle degli ebrei bolognesi e non solo - per esempio invocò con urgenza profetica un'«opera di purificazione indispensabile specialmente nelle maggiori città dell'Italia settentrionale e centrale (Roma, dove ci sono ancora troppi ebrei, compresa)» (23 agosto 1941) - e dal giugno del '40 per il «tono forsennatamente fascista e bellicoso» (Nazario Sauro Onofri, I giornali bolognesi nel ventennio fascista, Moderna, Bologna 1972, p. 159).
Sul periodico Biagi si occupava di critica cinematografica e quando venne il suo turno di fornire un diretto contributo al razzismo nazifascista elogiò Süss, l'ebreo, film la cui visione Himmler impose alla Wehrmacht e alle SS in partenza per le campagne di sterminio in Europa Orientale: «un cinema di propaganda. Ma una propaganda che non esclude l'arte - che è posta al servizio dell'idea», scriveva in implicita polemica con il cinema italiano, che non trovava altrettanto valido. E continuava: Süss, l'ebreo «ricorda certe vecchie efficaci e morali produzioni imperniate sul contrasto tra il buono e il cattivo [...], trascina il pubblico all'entusiasmo», l'«ebreo Süss è posto a indicare una mentalità, un sistema e una morale: va oltre il limite del particolare, per assumere il valore di simbolo, per esprimere le caratteristiche inconfutabili di una totalità. Poiché l'opera è umana e razionale incontra l'approvazione: e raggiunge lo scopo: molta gente apprende che cosa è l'ebraismo, e ne capisce i moventi della battaglia che lo combatte» (4 ottobre 1941). Dopo l'8 settembre, i giornali bolognesi passarono sotto il controllo nazista e proseguirono la lotta, compresa quella di sterminio contro le «caratteristiche inconfutabili di una totalità».
Furono, quelli, giorni e mesi decisivi, come sanno gli storici. Biagi rimase al servizio della causa repubblichina fino alla tarda primavera del '44, continuando a svolgere compiti redazionali e a compilare le sue scialbe schedine cinematografiche, cellule staminali delle opere a venire. L'ultimo articolo apparve il 17 giugno su Settimana: Illustrato del «Resto del Carlino», insieme all'intervento, assai più autorevole, di un suo giovane collega, Giovanni Spadolini, che sfoderava una devastante critica del liberalismo, prima di inabissarsi nel refettorio di qualche convento in attesa di risorgere après le déluge liberaldemocratico in altra Repubblica. La caduta di Roma e lo sbarco in Normandia avevano illuminato definitivamente il futuro, e quando giunse, non più aggirabile, la chiamata alle armi nell'esercito di Salò Enzo Marco preferì la montagna, come altri giornalisti, «la categoria che, più di ogni altra, era stata curata, selezionata, vezzeggiata dal regime, oltre che strapagata».
Tornò a Bologna dieci mesi dopo, con indosso una divisa dell'esercito statunitense: sempre à la page, il Biagi. Se riscattò con la sua tardiva conversione quegli «anni di servilismo e di abiezione professionale e morale» (Onofri, op. cit., p. 264), non è dato sapere con certezza. Forse. Ciò che invece è sicuro è che fu complice attivo e non accidentale delle nefandezze del fascismo: poteva scegliere e lo fece. Non era il solo? non è un alibi, come ammonisce Hannah Arendt. Era giovane? Non abbastanza: aveva l'età di Piero Gobetti quando fu bastonato a morte e delle decine di migliaia di connazionali che il regime mandò a uccidere e morire mentre lui si assicurava i dividendi di spettanza. E se l'Asse avesse vinto la guerra, che gli sarebbe successo? Be', questo è facile: Auschwitz o no, avrebbe percorso la sua brillante carriera, come poi ha fatto. All'ombra del potere in fiore.
Pubblicato Settembre 5, 2007 10:52 PM
http://www.carmillaonline.com/archives/2007/09/002364.html
Ringraziamo per la segnalazione l'anonimo post sul Forum di Ghetton:
http://www.ghetton.com/it/forum2/forum.php?action=view&topic=1194607126
=============================================================
Kolòt-Voci - Newsletter di Morasha.it a cura di David Piazza
=============================================================
Aa
Il passato antisemita di Enzo Biagi
"La memoria selettiva di Enzo Biagi"
di Gaspare De Caro e Roberto De Caro
Nell'intervista concessa a Luciano Nigro in occasione dei festeggiamenti per il suo ottantasettesimo compleanno nella natia Pianaccio di Lizzano in Belvedere e pubblicata il 9 agosto scorso sull'edizione bolognese di Repubblica, Enzo Biagi racconta che «Giorgio Pini, cognato di un mio zio che si chiamava come me, incontrò Mussolini alla vigilia del gran consiglio che lo destituì», cioè poco prima del 24 luglio 1943. Nigro chiosa: «Lei in quei giorni scelse i partigiani». Biagi non fa una piega: «E mi trovai con gente di ogni classe...». Non è certo la prima volta che l'illustre giornalista glissa sui particolari, e crediamo sia giusto informare i lettori che non fu affatto «in quei giorni» che «scelse i partigiani», poiché qui le date contano e l'omissione non è innocente.
In virtù della parentela con il cugino Bruno Biagi - potente ras fascista, deputato dal '34, presidente della Commissione industria della Camera dei fasci e dell'Istituto nazionale fascista della previdenza sociale, poi sottosegretario alle Corporazioni -, Enzo Marco (così firmava all'inizio i suoi articoli) scriveva già diciassettenne sull'Avvenire d'Italia e su L'Assalto, «organo della federazione dei fasci di combattimento di Bologna», e in seguito su Il Resto del Carlino, dove divenne professionista nel giugno del '42, quotidiano che per razzismo e fanatismo non era da meno e che fu diretto a partire dal 16 settembre del '43 proprio da Giorgio Pini.
Partecipò anche a Primato, la rivista di Giuseppe Bottai, il ministro delle leggi razziali, che «ha sempre stimato» e nei confronti del quale ha pubblicamente confessato il proprio «dovere di gratitudine» (Enzo Biagi, Ma che tempi, Rizzoli, Milano 1998, p. 43), una di quelle «camicie nere ma teste libere» di cui serba affascinato ricordo (Id., Scusate, dimenticavo, BUR, Milano 1997, p. 12). L'Assalto - «giornale della federazione fascista, dove poi ognuno scriveva quello che voleva» (Id., Ero partito da Bologna piangendo, in Bologna incontri, XIII, 5, maggio 1982, p. 6) - si distinse sin dal luglio del '38 per la violenza della campagna antisemita, condotta settimanalmente sulla pelle degli ebrei bolognesi e non solo - per esempio invocò con urgenza profetica un'«opera di purificazione indispensabile specialmente nelle maggiori città dell'Italia settentrionale e centrale (Roma, dove ci sono ancora troppi ebrei, compresa)» (23 agosto 1941) - e dal giugno del '40 per il «tono forsennatamente fascista e bellicoso» (Nazario Sauro Onofri, I giornali bolognesi nel ventennio fascista, Moderna, Bologna 1972, p. 159).
Sul periodico Biagi si occupava di critica cinematografica e quando venne il suo turno di fornire un diretto contributo al razzismo nazifascista elogiò Süss, l'ebreo, film la cui visione Himmler impose alla Wehrmacht e alle SS in partenza per le campagne di sterminio in Europa Orientale: «un cinema di propaganda. Ma una propaganda che non esclude l'arte - che è posta al servizio dell'idea», scriveva in implicita polemica con il cinema italiano, che non trovava altrettanto valido. E continuava: Süss, l'ebreo «ricorda certe vecchie efficaci e morali produzioni imperniate sul contrasto tra il buono e il cattivo [...], trascina il pubblico all'entusiasmo», l'«ebreo Süss è posto a indicare una mentalità, un sistema e una morale: va oltre il limite del particolare, per assumere il valore di simbolo, per esprimere le caratteristiche inconfutabili di una totalità. Poiché l'opera è umana e razionale incontra l'approvazione: e raggiunge lo scopo: molta gente apprende che cosa è l'ebraismo, e ne capisce i moventi della battaglia che lo combatte» (4 ottobre 1941). Dopo l'8 settembre, i giornali bolognesi passarono sotto il controllo nazista e proseguirono la lotta, compresa quella di sterminio contro le «caratteristiche inconfutabili di una totalità».
Furono, quelli, giorni e mesi decisivi, come sanno gli storici. Biagi rimase al servizio della causa repubblichina fino alla tarda primavera del '44, continuando a svolgere compiti redazionali e a compilare le sue scialbe schedine cinematografiche, cellule staminali delle opere a venire. L'ultimo articolo apparve il 17 giugno su Settimana: Illustrato del «Resto del Carlino», insieme all'intervento, assai più autorevole, di un suo giovane collega, Giovanni Spadolini, che sfoderava una devastante critica del liberalismo, prima di inabissarsi nel refettorio di qualche convento in attesa di risorgere après le déluge liberaldemocratico in altra Repubblica. La caduta di Roma e lo sbarco in Normandia avevano illuminato definitivamente il futuro, e quando giunse, non più aggirabile, la chiamata alle armi nell'esercito di Salò Enzo Marco preferì la montagna, come altri giornalisti, «la categoria che, più di ogni altra, era stata curata, selezionata, vezzeggiata dal regime, oltre che strapagata».
Tornò a Bologna dieci mesi dopo, con indosso una divisa dell'esercito statunitense: sempre à la page, il Biagi. Se riscattò con la sua tardiva conversione quegli «anni di servilismo e di abiezione professionale e morale» (Onofri, op. cit., p. 264), non è dato sapere con certezza. Forse. Ciò che invece è sicuro è che fu complice attivo e non accidentale delle nefandezze del fascismo: poteva scegliere e lo fece. Non era il solo? non è un alibi, come ammonisce Hannah Arendt. Era giovane? Non abbastanza: aveva l'età di Piero Gobetti quando fu bastonato a morte e delle decine di migliaia di connazionali che il regime mandò a uccidere e morire mentre lui si assicurava i dividendi di spettanza. E se l'Asse avesse vinto la guerra, che gli sarebbe successo? Be', questo è facile: Auschwitz o no, avrebbe percorso la sua brillante carriera, come poi ha fatto. All'ombra del potere in fiore.
Pubblicato Settembre 5, 2007 10:52 PM
http://www.carmillaonline.com/archives/2007/09/002364.html
Ringraziamo per la segnalazione l'anonimo post sul Forum di Ghetton:
http://www.ghetton.com/it/forum2/forum.php?action=view&topic=1194607126
=============================================================
Kolòt-Voci - Newsletter di Morasha.it a cura di David Piazza
=============================================================
Storia di una donna di frontiera 01-09-03
Sono una donna di frontiera. Nata a Trieste, vissuta per trent'anni a Bolzano, attualmente risiedo in Israele dove spero di vivere la mia vita lasciando una traccia delle mie esperienze.Bambina, ero a Trieste quando la citta' ritorno' all'Italia e ricordo tutto.
Ricordo le manifestazioni, tutti vestiti di bianco-rosso-verde; ricordo il mio foulard-bandiera che sventolavo per le strade.
Ricordo mio fratello maggiore che andava a manifestare contro gli inglesi.
Ricordo Pierino Addobbati colpito a morte, quasi bambino, dai titini mentre manifestava per l'italianita' di Trieste.
Per anni il suo banco al Liceo Dante Alighieri e' rimasto vuoto, coperto da un mazzo di fiori.
Ricordo gli slavi che urlavano "Trst je' nas", Trieste e' nostra!
La guerriglia per le strade e infine l'arrivo dei Bersaglieri che correvano al suono della loro canzone accolti dalla popolazione in delirio: "W Trieste Italiana! W Trieste italiana".
Che tempi!
Ricordo infine i profughi italiani di Istria e Dalmazia, poveri e senza niente, accolti come fratelli e subito integrati al resto della popolazione.
A Bolzano ho vissuto gli anni della "guerra dei tralicci" e dei Carabinieri uccisi dal tritolo. Una guerra civile tra cittadini dello stesso Stato ma non della stessa Patria.
Ho vissuto la difficile convivenza fra i gruppi linguistici, la discriminazione del gruppo italiano rispetto a quello di lingua tedesca.
Ho visto i bambini delle scuole divisi da reti di protezione (era un muro invisibile ma insormontabile) perche' non giocassero insieme, piccoli italiani e piccoli tedeschi. Dovevano essere solo bambini invece gli uni erano "walsche" e gli altri erano "crucchi".
Conoscere entrambe le lingue e' sempre stato fondamentale in Alto Adige sia per la convivenza che per la vita sociale visto che, tuttora, chiunque cerchi lavoro deve superare un severo esame di bilinguismo.
Pero' per imparare le lingue e il rispetto dell'altro bisogna lasciare che i bambini vivano insieme e giochino insieme e tutto questo era severamente vietato, vietato per legge!
Convinta dell'importanza della convivenza e dell'educazione che, in tal senso, doveva essere data ai bambini, quando mio figlio compi' tre anni lo presi per mano e andai con lui in un bel asilo tedesco vicino a casa con l'intenzione di iscriverlo, fummo ricevuti dalla direttrice che mi chiese subito, sorridendo gentilmente:
"Di che madrelingua siete?"
Risposi: "Io sono italiana, mia madre e' greca, mio padre e' istriano, mia nonna e' mezza greca, mezza polacca e anche un po' spagnola, a casa mia ho sentito parlare molte lingue. Faccia lei".
Naturalmente, per preservare la salute mentale della direttrice, non aggiunsi che oltre a tutti quei difetti eravamo anche ebrei.
Conclusione: Aaron non fu accettato e fu una fortuna perche' non so che vita avrebbe avuto in quel asilo un bambino di dubbia madrelingua e di origini cosi' poco pure.
Lo iscrissi in un comunissimo asilo italiano e diedi subito vita a una protesta perche' la lingua tedesca fosse insegnata a partire dai tre anni.
Insieme ad altri genitori iniziai l'occupazione dell'asilo e assumemmo a nostre spese le maestre di tedesco per i nostri figli. Scandalo cittadino, finimmo sui giornali ma fecemmo scuola e altri seguirono il nostro esempio col risultato che l'anno seguente il tedesco, pur se facoltativo, fu introdotto nella scuola materna. Grande vittoria anche se ormai ero conosciuta un po' dovunque col titolo di "strarompi".
Il disagio degli italiani di Bolzano era palpabile, la discriminazione era molto sentita e rifiutata, a volte con odio e rabbia e altre con la tentata assimilazione di coloro che fingevano di sentirsi tedeschi nella speranza di ottenere lavoro e magari, se andava bene, il diritto di frequentare l'universita' a Innsbruck.
Alla fine delle loro fatiche sbattevano comunque il muso perche' scoprivano che, nonostante i loro giuramenti di fedelta' al popolo tirolese, e, in alcuni casi, le dichiarazioni fasulle al censimento (Sei di madrelingua italiana? NO
sei di madrelingua tedesca? SI), vivere a Innsbruck era semplice e gratuito solo per gli studenti la cui madrelingua tedesca fosse assolutamente certa e il loro sangue puro.
Queste cose in Italia non si sapevano, forse ancora oggi sono sconosciute ai piu' e in Alto Adige-Suedtirol si ricordano ancora i terroristi come eroi combattenti per la liberta', con tanto di parate paramilitari e bandiere biancorosse con l'aquila a due teste.
Tanto per gradire alcuni Shuetzen portano orgogliosamente sul petto medaglie naziste.
Ed ora eccomi qui, in Israele.
Dai Paesi di frontiera al Paese da eliminare.
Israele ha avuto anche i suoi profughi, ebrei arrivati dai paesi arabi, e li ha accolti come fratelli e integrati al resto della popolazione.
Gli arabi hanno avuto anche i loro profughi, arabi-palestinesi usciti da Israele in guerra. Li hanno chiusi in campi recintati e li hanno lasciati marcire nella miseria e nell'odio, scelta rivelatasi lungimirante per mantenere nella regione confusione, guerra e violenza.
I profughi palestinesi sono gli unici al mondo che possono usare il diritto di profugo per ereditarieta': profughi i nonni, i genitori, i nipoti, i bisnipoti fino a chissa' quale generazione. Chi lo decidera'? L'eliminazione di Israele?
Dei 135 milioni di profughi delle guerre degli ultimi 60 anni solo i palestinesi pretendono il diritto assurdo di ritornare alle case d'origine di nonni e bisnonni e ormai scomparse.
Per ottenere quello che vogliono si dedicano al terrorismo. Negli ultimi anni si sono molto raffinati, non avendo niente di meglio da fare perche' mantenuti dall'URNWA, e hanno inventato il terrorismo suicida per coinvolgere nella loro morte vigliacca e crudele il maggior numero di bambini, donne e civili israeliani.
Chissa', se i profughi italiani dell'Istria fossero andati a far saltare autobus a Belgrado forse avrei potuto riavere la casa di Capodistria...sporca di sangue innocente.
I profughi istriani hanno ricevuto dopo 30 anni un po' di soldi. Zitti e mosca.
E zitti sono rimasti e hanno lavorato e si sono creati una vita in Italia o altrove, gente laboriosa e pacifica che oggi va a passare le vacanze al mare, il piu' vicino possibile alla casa perduta.
I profughi palestinesi continuano la loro vita di odio e miseria, continuano a seminare morte e terrore, continuano a urlare che torneranno e ci butteranno a mare.
Quando la Palestina fu divisa in due, una parte, Israele, per gli ebrei e l'altra, la Giordania, per gli arabi, il discorso era chiaro qui come lo era stato in altre parti del mondo dove era avvenuta una divisione e un passaggio di territori e popolazioni da una nazione ad un'altra.
Si, il discorso era chiaro ma nessuno aveva fatto i conti con l'intransigenza araba che non poteva accettare in Medio Oriente una nazione democratica e non islamica e non aveva fatto i conti nemmeno con le simpatie naziste delle nazioni arabe che rifiutavano la creazione di un stato ebraico.
Oggi, dopo 60 anni, i giornalisti buonisti vengono a raccontarci le storielle patetiche delle chiavi delle case che i vecchi palestinesi conservano.
Bene, le conservino, esattamente come io conservo per ricordo le chiavi della casa avita di Capodistria, oggi Slovenia, tanti anni fa Italia.
Cosi' va il mondo, poi e' solo questione di civilta'.
C'e' chi ce l'ha e c'e' chi non ce l'ha.
Deborah Fait
venerdì 2 novembre 2007
Rav Luzzato, la riforma e l'ebraismo oggi
La critica di Rav Luzzato riportata sotto é credibile. È comprensibile la sua preoccupazione per una nuova ondata di lassismo che rischia di mietere vittime e ha orgine dal cuore del mondo ebraico, dalla intellighenzia ebraica in europea. D'altronde il motivo della distruzione del tempio non é stata proprio per odio intra comunitario e abbandono della tradizione? Cosa puó verificarsi di piú terribile se non l'auto-distruzione del popolo ebraico, la lenta agonia dovuta al suo allontanarsi dalla Legge.
Mettendo da parte le origini della "riforma ebraica" che hanno dipeso dal contesto storico-sociale europeo e quello culturale della regione in cui é nata (la Germania protestante), la critica di Rav Luzzato non puó divenire la foglia di fico del mondo ebraico Italiano. Rav Luzzato infatti é chiaro :"Il vostro esempio formerà a religione ed a virtù le vostre famiglie e i figli vostri, i quali renderanno beata la vostra vita e la canizie vostra, e voi con lieto cuore benedirete il Dio, che vi elesse e che ci diede la sua legge." Rav Luzzato chiede di dare esempio. Il popolo ebraico ricevette la legge per dare esempio e servire D-O, queste circostanze lo fecero goy qadosh. La Qedushá del popolo risiede nel servire D-O e l'unico modo che l'ebreo ha per servire D-O é tramite le Mitzvot. Quella lunga lista di obblighi e proibizioni che scandiscono la nostra giornata. Ed ecco che la foglia di fico si libra al soffio del vento che spira dalle viscere della societá occidentale odierna con le sue comoditá e le sue tentazioni. Ed ecco che la vergogna di buona parte di coloro che usano le grandi parole del Rabbino si fa evidente e grossolana quanto la loro ipocrisia. L'ebraismo é in crisi, é in crisi perché l'ebreo dimentica le sue radici e le implicazioni della sua qedushá. L'ebreo dimentica lo shabat, l'ebreo dimentica i suoi obblighi e le sue responsabilitá. Ci si scandalizza perché un ramo del nostro popolo ha cambiato le regole del gioco e con questo ha mantenuto molti ebrei legati, anche se non saldamente, alla tradizione. Ci si scandalizza e si urla "vergogna" e lo si fa con il piede schiacciato sull'accelleratore, mentre di Shabat prendiamo la macchina per una scampagnata fuori cittá. Ci si scandalizza mentre l'ebraismo italiano é stato riposto nelle mani di Chabad con la sua visione messianica che in certi ambienti rasenta l'idolatria. Ci si scandalizza mentre abbiamo fatto della nostra religione qualcosa che sa di cristiano. Le sinagoghe si riempiono di Kippur e sono vuote di Shabat; la responsabilitá individuale della tradizione é stata consegnata ai nostri rabbini. Per questi motivi non possiamo usare le parole del grande rabbino Luzzato, per questi motivi l'ebraismo nella Golá rischia di dissolversi come un'aspirina in un bicchier d'acqua. Si, come Rav Di Segni ha notato, se si toglie al popolo ebraico la Quedushá delle mitzvot, rimane solo la parola Goy.
Il famoso rabbino italiano sul fenomeno che iniziava a prendere piede anche in Italia
La Riforma? Una "sconcissima" cosa
Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) - 1800-1865
Cosa nuova non è abusare delle parole e colorare con bei nomi sconcissime cose (...).
Eccocene un funesto esempio. Alcuni Israeliti, bramosi di esonerarsi dalle pratiche religiose annesse al Giudaismo, e volendo fare con una specie di legalità, in guida da non avere ad essere riguardati quali empi trasgressori della Legge di Dio, mascherando il loro progetto, di totalmente abolire la Legge mosaica, sotto lo specioso nome di Riforma. Ma questo nome è egli adeguato al disegno di questi uomini?
Riformò Lutero la Chiesa, depurandola di varie credenze e di varie pratiche, che vi si erano nel corso de' secoli intruse, e restituendo il cristianesimo quale egli era, o quale egli credette che esso fosse, nei suoi primordi. Così tra noi i Caraiti hanno creduto riformare il Giudaismo, attenendosi scrupolosamente a ciò, che credettero essere il senso delle parole di Mosè. Ma con qual fronte osano chiamarsi Riformatori del Giudaismo uomini, i quali "rinunziano formalmente a tutti i riprovevoli esclusivi precetti e costumanze"? Il Giudaismo fu sin dalla sua origine una religione esclusiva. La famiglia d'Abramo si è sempre creduta un popolo eletto, una nazione di sacerdoti. l'Israeliti furono effettivamente i depositari di quelle sante dottrine, che, uscite dal loro grembo e propagatesi sulla faccia della terra, dissiparono le tenebre del mondo morale, e partorirono quel molto o poco di bene, di cui va superba la moderna civiltà, la quale è ancora ben lungi dalla sua perfezione, atteso l'elemento greco, che in essa è sempre in conflitto con l'elemento abramitico. In qualità di sacerdoti del genere umano, gl'Israeliti furono distinti con varie pratiche esclusive, le quali hanno potuto conservar loro un'esistenza, che conservare non seppero tante nazioni assai più forti e potenti. (...)
Il Giudaismo è quindi essenzialmente un sacerdozio, e per conseguenza una religione esclusiva, carica di pratiche esclusive. È bensì lo spirito del Giudaismo una religione, una moralità universale (...) Ma il giudaismo, come Sacerdozio, come depositario e come propagatore di questa Dottrina, è inseparabile da molte pratiche esclusive; e chi le abolisce non riforma, ma distrugge il Giudaismo. È libero ognuno di rinunziare a questo Sacerdozio, a questa religione esclusiva; chiunque vuole può dal ceto giudaico separarsi; ma volersi chiamare Israelita, e volersi esonerare da tutte le pratiche, che contraddistinguono l'Israelita, questa è una contraddizione. Né vale il fingere di limitare le leggi esclusive, che si vogliono abolire, coll'aggiunta dell'epiteto "riprovevoli", quando non si spiegano i caratteri, che render possono un atto riprovevole. E d'altra parte i fatti dimostrano che i partigiani di questa Società non hanno nulla di sacro, e rigettano la stessa circoncisione, che è già da 36 secoli precipua caratteristica degli Abramiti. (...)
Nel mentre che anche noi riconosciamo che l'attuale giudaismo contiene varie modificazioni ed aggiunte, dalla pietà e dalla profonda sapienza degli antichi Sinedrii portate nel Mosaismo, a seconda dei bisogni dei variati tempi e dietro le norme tradizionalmente tramandate dallo stesso Mosè; come pure varie dottrine intruse ne' bassi tempi sotto l'influenza d'una cultura straniera; crediamo ben diversa dalla nostra essere la "convinzione" di questi pretesi riformati, dopodiché essi dichiarano aver del tutto rinunziato all'odierno giudaismo (...).
Se il Giudaismo attuale comandasse azioni men che morali, o indirettamente conducesse ad una Morale rilasciata; o ispirasse sentimenti antisociali, ed antiumani, saremmo prontissimi anche noi a depurarlo o ad abiurarlo. Ma la santità della Morale giudaica è troppo nota; e noi (e chi no?) abbiamo conosciuto e conosciamo troppi esempi di uomini strettamente osservanti le leggi del giudaismo ed insieme modelli d'ogni più rara virtù sociale -- uomini, il cui numero va ogni giorno, col crescere dell'indifferentismo religioso, a grave danno della società, diminuendo?
Non esitiamo dunque di dare a quelli tra i nostri correligionarii, le cui convinzioni sono in discrepanza col giudaismo, il seguente consiglio:
Fratelli! abituate nuovamente le vostre mani all'esercizio delle avite costumanze; fatelo in onore dei vostri antenati, che per esse versarono il loro sangue; e, nel farlo, sperate di conseguirne quella contentezza, quell'interna soddisfazione, quella gioia, ch'essi ebbero in mezzo alle vessazioni, e di cui voi, in mezzo alla libertà, agli onori, ed ai piaceri, siete privi. Fatelo, e le vostre convinzioni a poco a poco si cangeranno, e voi comincerete a sentire i vantaggiosi frutti dei volontari sacrifizii; dai quali il vostro spirito acquisterà sempre crescente predominio sulla materia, e si alzerà dalla Morale mondana, basata sulla prudenza o sull'onore, guide ambedue spessissimo fallaci, alla celeste, basata sulla santa Provvidenza, la quale, tosto che comincerete a pensarvi, non mancherà di appalesarvisi, nei grandi avvenimenti e nei minimi, mostrandovi anzi come nulla cosa è piccola, ma le minime essere origine dalle massime.
Il vostro esempio formerà a religione ed a virtù le vostre famiglie e i figli vostri, i quali renderanno beata la vostra vita e la canizie vostra, e voi con lieto cuore benedirete il Dio, che vi elesse e che ci diede la sua legge. (source www.morasha.it)
Mettendo da parte le origini della "riforma ebraica" che hanno dipeso dal contesto storico-sociale europeo e quello culturale della regione in cui é nata (la Germania protestante), la critica di Rav Luzzato non puó divenire la foglia di fico del mondo ebraico Italiano. Rav Luzzato infatti é chiaro :"Il vostro esempio formerà a religione ed a virtù le vostre famiglie e i figli vostri, i quali renderanno beata la vostra vita e la canizie vostra, e voi con lieto cuore benedirete il Dio, che vi elesse e che ci diede la sua legge." Rav Luzzato chiede di dare esempio. Il popolo ebraico ricevette la legge per dare esempio e servire D-O, queste circostanze lo fecero goy qadosh. La Qedushá del popolo risiede nel servire D-O e l'unico modo che l'ebreo ha per servire D-O é tramite le Mitzvot. Quella lunga lista di obblighi e proibizioni che scandiscono la nostra giornata. Ed ecco che la foglia di fico si libra al soffio del vento che spira dalle viscere della societá occidentale odierna con le sue comoditá e le sue tentazioni. Ed ecco che la vergogna di buona parte di coloro che usano le grandi parole del Rabbino si fa evidente e grossolana quanto la loro ipocrisia. L'ebraismo é in crisi, é in crisi perché l'ebreo dimentica le sue radici e le implicazioni della sua qedushá. L'ebreo dimentica lo shabat, l'ebreo dimentica i suoi obblighi e le sue responsabilitá. Ci si scandalizza perché un ramo del nostro popolo ha cambiato le regole del gioco e con questo ha mantenuto molti ebrei legati, anche se non saldamente, alla tradizione. Ci si scandalizza e si urla "vergogna" e lo si fa con il piede schiacciato sull'accelleratore, mentre di Shabat prendiamo la macchina per una scampagnata fuori cittá. Ci si scandalizza mentre l'ebraismo italiano é stato riposto nelle mani di Chabad con la sua visione messianica che in certi ambienti rasenta l'idolatria. Ci si scandalizza mentre abbiamo fatto della nostra religione qualcosa che sa di cristiano. Le sinagoghe si riempiono di Kippur e sono vuote di Shabat; la responsabilitá individuale della tradizione é stata consegnata ai nostri rabbini. Per questi motivi non possiamo usare le parole del grande rabbino Luzzato, per questi motivi l'ebraismo nella Golá rischia di dissolversi come un'aspirina in un bicchier d'acqua. Si, come Rav Di Segni ha notato, se si toglie al popolo ebraico la Quedushá delle mitzvot, rimane solo la parola Goy.
Il famoso rabbino italiano sul fenomeno che iniziava a prendere piede anche in Italia
La Riforma? Una "sconcissima" cosa
Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) - 1800-1865
Cosa nuova non è abusare delle parole e colorare con bei nomi sconcissime cose (...).
Eccocene un funesto esempio. Alcuni Israeliti, bramosi di esonerarsi dalle pratiche religiose annesse al Giudaismo, e volendo fare con una specie di legalità, in guida da non avere ad essere riguardati quali empi trasgressori della Legge di Dio, mascherando il loro progetto, di totalmente abolire la Legge mosaica, sotto lo specioso nome di Riforma. Ma questo nome è egli adeguato al disegno di questi uomini?
Riformò Lutero la Chiesa, depurandola di varie credenze e di varie pratiche, che vi si erano nel corso de' secoli intruse, e restituendo il cristianesimo quale egli era, o quale egli credette che esso fosse, nei suoi primordi. Così tra noi i Caraiti hanno creduto riformare il Giudaismo, attenendosi scrupolosamente a ciò, che credettero essere il senso delle parole di Mosè. Ma con qual fronte osano chiamarsi Riformatori del Giudaismo uomini, i quali "rinunziano formalmente a tutti i riprovevoli esclusivi precetti e costumanze"? Il Giudaismo fu sin dalla sua origine una religione esclusiva. La famiglia d'Abramo si è sempre creduta un popolo eletto, una nazione di sacerdoti. l'Israeliti furono effettivamente i depositari di quelle sante dottrine, che, uscite dal loro grembo e propagatesi sulla faccia della terra, dissiparono le tenebre del mondo morale, e partorirono quel molto o poco di bene, di cui va superba la moderna civiltà, la quale è ancora ben lungi dalla sua perfezione, atteso l'elemento greco, che in essa è sempre in conflitto con l'elemento abramitico. In qualità di sacerdoti del genere umano, gl'Israeliti furono distinti con varie pratiche esclusive, le quali hanno potuto conservar loro un'esistenza, che conservare non seppero tante nazioni assai più forti e potenti. (...)
Il Giudaismo è quindi essenzialmente un sacerdozio, e per conseguenza una religione esclusiva, carica di pratiche esclusive. È bensì lo spirito del Giudaismo una religione, una moralità universale (...) Ma il giudaismo, come Sacerdozio, come depositario e come propagatore di questa Dottrina, è inseparabile da molte pratiche esclusive; e chi le abolisce non riforma, ma distrugge il Giudaismo. È libero ognuno di rinunziare a questo Sacerdozio, a questa religione esclusiva; chiunque vuole può dal ceto giudaico separarsi; ma volersi chiamare Israelita, e volersi esonerare da tutte le pratiche, che contraddistinguono l'Israelita, questa è una contraddizione. Né vale il fingere di limitare le leggi esclusive, che si vogliono abolire, coll'aggiunta dell'epiteto "riprovevoli", quando non si spiegano i caratteri, che render possono un atto riprovevole. E d'altra parte i fatti dimostrano che i partigiani di questa Società non hanno nulla di sacro, e rigettano la stessa circoncisione, che è già da 36 secoli precipua caratteristica degli Abramiti. (...)
Nel mentre che anche noi riconosciamo che l'attuale giudaismo contiene varie modificazioni ed aggiunte, dalla pietà e dalla profonda sapienza degli antichi Sinedrii portate nel Mosaismo, a seconda dei bisogni dei variati tempi e dietro le norme tradizionalmente tramandate dallo stesso Mosè; come pure varie dottrine intruse ne' bassi tempi sotto l'influenza d'una cultura straniera; crediamo ben diversa dalla nostra essere la "convinzione" di questi pretesi riformati, dopodiché essi dichiarano aver del tutto rinunziato all'odierno giudaismo (...).
Se il Giudaismo attuale comandasse azioni men che morali, o indirettamente conducesse ad una Morale rilasciata; o ispirasse sentimenti antisociali, ed antiumani, saremmo prontissimi anche noi a depurarlo o ad abiurarlo. Ma la santità della Morale giudaica è troppo nota; e noi (e chi no?) abbiamo conosciuto e conosciamo troppi esempi di uomini strettamente osservanti le leggi del giudaismo ed insieme modelli d'ogni più rara virtù sociale -- uomini, il cui numero va ogni giorno, col crescere dell'indifferentismo religioso, a grave danno della società, diminuendo?
Non esitiamo dunque di dare a quelli tra i nostri correligionarii, le cui convinzioni sono in discrepanza col giudaismo, il seguente consiglio:
Fratelli! abituate nuovamente le vostre mani all'esercizio delle avite costumanze; fatelo in onore dei vostri antenati, che per esse versarono il loro sangue; e, nel farlo, sperate di conseguirne quella contentezza, quell'interna soddisfazione, quella gioia, ch'essi ebbero in mezzo alle vessazioni, e di cui voi, in mezzo alla libertà, agli onori, ed ai piaceri, siete privi. Fatelo, e le vostre convinzioni a poco a poco si cangeranno, e voi comincerete a sentire i vantaggiosi frutti dei volontari sacrifizii; dai quali il vostro spirito acquisterà sempre crescente predominio sulla materia, e si alzerà dalla Morale mondana, basata sulla prudenza o sull'onore, guide ambedue spessissimo fallaci, alla celeste, basata sulla santa Provvidenza, la quale, tosto che comincerete a pensarvi, non mancherà di appalesarvisi, nei grandi avvenimenti e nei minimi, mostrandovi anzi come nulla cosa è piccola, ma le minime essere origine dalle massime.
Il vostro esempio formerà a religione ed a virtù le vostre famiglie e i figli vostri, i quali renderanno beata la vostra vita e la canizie vostra, e voi con lieto cuore benedirete il Dio, che vi elesse e che ci diede la sua legge. (source www.morasha.it)
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
