HOLY LAND UNION ארץ הברית - THE BLOG - Join the Movement: WWW.PA-IL.ORG
Tuesday, November 10, 2026
Israel–Palestine as a Prototype for Supranational Sovereignty
You are invited to read my article in the Federalist Debate:
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Le fédéralisme comme réponse au défi du conflit israélo-arabe
Le fédéralisme comme réponse au défi du conflit israélo-arabe
par Hazem H. Hanafi jeudi 13 mai 2010
C'est moi qui souligne.
Comment le fédéralisme pourrait-il répondre à certains des défis actuels auxquels le monde arabe est confronté ? Réussirait-il mieux à gérer, tempérer ou résoudre les conflits qui hantent encore cette région ? J’examinerai le défi le plus aigu : le conflit israélo-arabe.
La complexité de ce conflit particulier avec ses aspects historique, religieux, politique, légal, culturel et socio-économique n’a pas besoin d’être soulignée.
Au coeur du problème il y a deux versions contradictoires sur le « nous » et « les autres ». Pour les Arabes, Israël représente un projet d’installation coloniale auquel il faut résister. Pour les Juifs, il s’agit du projet de construction d’une nation qu’il faut protéger. Il n’est pas facile d’aller vers un compromis et le dilemme entre résistance et coexistence continue à hanter les différentes solutions à ce conflit irréductible.
La pierre d’achoppement réside dans la dispute concernant un territoire géographique spécifique. L’histoire, la religion et le droit ont été utilisés par chacune des parties pour justifier les revendications et les contre-revendications [1], la plus sérieuse étant que l’autre est juste une « communauté imaginaire » [2]. Les solutions ont varié entre partager le pays sous la forme d’un Etat [3] ou d’une organisation fédérale [4] ou en divisant le pays en deux Etats séparés [5] ou encore à travers des institutions fédérales et/ou confédérales. [6] Des solutions fédérales sont communes à ces deux approches qui seront au centre de ce texte. Il est important de revisiter la liste de David Elazar des onze options fédérales, publiée il y a deux décennies et de prendre en compte les développements qui ont renforcé la viabilité de sa première option, une fédération israélo-palestinienne, et disqualifié les autres. [7] Ses options allaient depuis une organisation israélo-palestinienne exclusive (1-4), une organisation entre Israël et la Jordanie incluant les Palestiniens (5-6), l’absorption par Israël des territoires occupés (7-8) et une organisation multilatérale avec des partenaires de la région sur une base limitée (9-11). Avec l’affirmation récente de l’identité nationale palestinienne à travers l’Intifada (le soulèvement palestinien) de 1987 à 1991 et de 2000 jusqu’à aujourd’hui, la séparation du lien entre la Jordanie et la Cisjordanie en 1988, le processus de paix israélo-palestinien qui conduisit à la création de l’Autorité palestinienne, le Conseil législatif national et la réalisation d’élections parlementaires et législatives disputées en 1996 et 2006, il est aujourd’hui inconcevable de ne pas considérer les Palestiniens comme un partenaire national à égalité. [8] Cela invalide les autres options incluant les Palestiniens dans un plan de paix général israélo-jordanien, affirmant un contrôle israélien sur les territoires occupés ou concluant des accords multilatéraux régionaux limités. La remarquable identité politique palestinienne a démontré qu’elle était très déterminée et énergique. Ces mêmes développements apportent un soutien supplémentaire à l’option d’une fédération israélo-palestinienne bi-nationale, bilingue, bi-communautaire et bi-étatique, avec Jérusalem comme siège du gouvernement fédéral. Une confédération entre les deux laisserait les deux parties avec de sérieuses préoccupations sécuritaires et une tension continuelle lorsque chaque communauté, insatisfaite de la « moitié » qu’elle aurait obtenu, regardera la « moitié » qu’elle a perdu. Une solution fédérale utilisant des éléments à la fois de « gouvernement séparé » et d’ « auto-gouvernement » est l’option la plus viable. Elle donnerait à chaque partie un sentiment d’identité territoriale avec des droits garantis par une constitution qui ne serait pas amendée par un groupe qui obtiendrait la majorité dans un Etat unitaire. En ayant une union fédérale gérant les deux pays d’Israël et de Palestine, cela permettrait à chacun des membres de cette union de revendiquer le pays dans son ensemble comme étant le leur et dans le même temps cela garantirait à chaque communauté un Etat territorial séparé avec ses propres lois qui s’appliqueraient.
Une telle solution supposerait que chaque partie reconnaisse l’autre comme une nation égale. Les relations communautaires qui existaient durant les siècles de domination ottomane [9] et durant une bonne partie du 20° siècle [10] pourraient servir en tant qu’expérience historique commune sur laquelle construire, comme la « disqualification de l’intégration nationale, la partition, la double autorité et le contrôle comme mécanismes pour la résolution des conflits, nous amènent à examiner différentes organisations de gouvernement partagé comme une base viable pour la stabilité politique. [11]
Le leadership israélien et l’opinion publique se réfèrent au problème du soulèvement palestinien en tant que violence inter-communautaire alors que cela masque la négation d’un nationalisme palestinien et ils sont en faveur de solutions fédérales, mais dans le contexte d’une « autonomie » sous contrôle israélien ou d’une « entité » palestnienne incorporée à la Jordanie. [12]
Certains, par ailleurs, ne sont pas d’accord que le fédéralisme puisse opérer en tant que solution au conflit israélo-arabe et croient que « des avancées à petits pas » sont plus sûres et plus réalisables. [13]
La fédération pourrait être parlementaire et agglomérer les systèmes parlementaires actuels d’Israël et de l’Autorité palestinienne. Une union d’Israël et de la Palestine basée sur l’expérience du Royaume uni pourrait éviter les problèmes liés à la classification de la fédération soit comme juive, soit comme arabe, tout en préservant cette identité au niveau de l’Etat. Une identité politique légère associée à la fédération permettrait à la fois aux Juifs et aux Arabes de conserver leurs propres symboles nationaux à travers lesquels chacun est associé et l’autre exclu. [14]
Une constitution fédérale définirait la distribution des pouvoirs et des fonctions et, comme il s’agirait d’une fédération bi-communautaire composée de deux communautés nettement différentes, il faudrait maintenir un équilibre entre asymétrie et égalité.
C’est similaire au débat qui se déroule au Canada sur le Québec et on bénéficierait de la notion de la concurrence et de la prédominance provinciale, avec une distribution symétrique mais une application asymétrique. [15] Chacun disposerait de la souveraineté dans ses territoires dans des domaines spécifiques tels que l’éducation, la culture, le droit, la santé, la police, tandis que les autres seraient laissés au gouvernement fédéral. La liberté de mouvement et d’installation serait garantie et il serait possible d’autoriser des restrictions pour un temps limité dans un but particulier. La nécessité d’une application asymétrique est essentielle pour prendre en compte la structure asymétrique du pouvoir et de la relation entre les deux communautés ainsi que leurs rapports avec leurs « diasporas » respectives.
La Belgique apporte un autre outil original pour une fédération non territoriale. [16]. Les Juifs comme les Palestiniens pourraient avoir leurs droits qui les suivraient où qu’ils soient. Cela pourrait résoudre le problème de la minorité juive restant dans l’Etat palestinien mais qui refuserait d’être soumise aux lois palestiniennes. De la même manière, cela pourrait résoudre le problème des Palestiniens résidant en Israël et qui préfèraient obéir aux lois palestiniennes. D’un point de vue israélien, une fédération non-territoriale serait moins menaçante pour la sécurité de l’Etat car elle éviterait les revendications territoriales de la population arabe qui, dans cette perspective, serait partagée et ne constituerait pas un corps cohérent. [17]
Une organisation fédérale traditionnelle ne permettrait pas que les entités constituant la fédération aient un rôle formel dans les affaires étrangères et les relations internationales, mais cela est en train de changer. [18] L’Etat palestinien pourrait être représenté au sein de la Ligue arabe en tant qu’Etat arabe, discuter et voter sur des questions qui relèvent directement de sa souveraineté telles que l’éducation, la culture et la santé. Seules les questions politiques seraint exclues parce que le gouvernement fédéral devrait en être responsable. La même chose s’appliquerait à l’Etat des Israéliens. Les Etats palestinien et israélien pourraient tous les deux avoir des bureaux commerciaux à l’étranger pour s’occuper de leur commerce, promouvoir des investissements ou le développement de ressources naturelles, en coopération avec le gouvernement fédéral en tant que de besoin.
Avec une solution politique fédérale praticable, la force de chaque communauté -que l’autre a essayé de saper- pourrait devenir une valeur ajoutée pour une coopération et un développement partagés à leur bénéfice mutuel. Surtout, cela aurait un effet positif de domino sur la politique générale et le développement économique du Moyen-orient en supprimant un catalyseur de conflit qui contribuait à empêcher le progrès, la paix et la démocratisation. [19]
par Hazem H. Hanafi jeudi 13 mai 2010
C'est moi qui souligne.
Comment le fédéralisme pourrait-il répondre à certains des défis actuels auxquels le monde arabe est confronté ? Réussirait-il mieux à gérer, tempérer ou résoudre les conflits qui hantent encore cette région ? J’examinerai le défi le plus aigu : le conflit israélo-arabe.
La complexité de ce conflit particulier avec ses aspects historique, religieux, politique, légal, culturel et socio-économique n’a pas besoin d’être soulignée.
Au coeur du problème il y a deux versions contradictoires sur le « nous » et « les autres ». Pour les Arabes, Israël représente un projet d’installation coloniale auquel il faut résister. Pour les Juifs, il s’agit du projet de construction d’une nation qu’il faut protéger. Il n’est pas facile d’aller vers un compromis et le dilemme entre résistance et coexistence continue à hanter les différentes solutions à ce conflit irréductible.
La pierre d’achoppement réside dans la dispute concernant un territoire géographique spécifique. L’histoire, la religion et le droit ont été utilisés par chacune des parties pour justifier les revendications et les contre-revendications [1], la plus sérieuse étant que l’autre est juste une « communauté imaginaire » [2]. Les solutions ont varié entre partager le pays sous la forme d’un Etat [3] ou d’une organisation fédérale [4] ou en divisant le pays en deux Etats séparés [5] ou encore à travers des institutions fédérales et/ou confédérales. [6] Des solutions fédérales sont communes à ces deux approches qui seront au centre de ce texte. Il est important de revisiter la liste de David Elazar des onze options fédérales, publiée il y a deux décennies et de prendre en compte les développements qui ont renforcé la viabilité de sa première option, une fédération israélo-palestinienne, et disqualifié les autres. [7] Ses options allaient depuis une organisation israélo-palestinienne exclusive (1-4), une organisation entre Israël et la Jordanie incluant les Palestiniens (5-6), l’absorption par Israël des territoires occupés (7-8) et une organisation multilatérale avec des partenaires de la région sur une base limitée (9-11). Avec l’affirmation récente de l’identité nationale palestinienne à travers l’Intifada (le soulèvement palestinien) de 1987 à 1991 et de 2000 jusqu’à aujourd’hui, la séparation du lien entre la Jordanie et la Cisjordanie en 1988, le processus de paix israélo-palestinien qui conduisit à la création de l’Autorité palestinienne, le Conseil législatif national et la réalisation d’élections parlementaires et législatives disputées en 1996 et 2006, il est aujourd’hui inconcevable de ne pas considérer les Palestiniens comme un partenaire national à égalité. [8] Cela invalide les autres options incluant les Palestiniens dans un plan de paix général israélo-jordanien, affirmant un contrôle israélien sur les territoires occupés ou concluant des accords multilatéraux régionaux limités. La remarquable identité politique palestinienne a démontré qu’elle était très déterminée et énergique. Ces mêmes développements apportent un soutien supplémentaire à l’option d’une fédération israélo-palestinienne bi-nationale, bilingue, bi-communautaire et bi-étatique, avec Jérusalem comme siège du gouvernement fédéral. Une confédération entre les deux laisserait les deux parties avec de sérieuses préoccupations sécuritaires et une tension continuelle lorsque chaque communauté, insatisfaite de la « moitié » qu’elle aurait obtenu, regardera la « moitié » qu’elle a perdu. Une solution fédérale utilisant des éléments à la fois de « gouvernement séparé » et d’ « auto-gouvernement » est l’option la plus viable. Elle donnerait à chaque partie un sentiment d’identité territoriale avec des droits garantis par une constitution qui ne serait pas amendée par un groupe qui obtiendrait la majorité dans un Etat unitaire. En ayant une union fédérale gérant les deux pays d’Israël et de Palestine, cela permettrait à chacun des membres de cette union de revendiquer le pays dans son ensemble comme étant le leur et dans le même temps cela garantirait à chaque communauté un Etat territorial séparé avec ses propres lois qui s’appliqueraient.
Une telle solution supposerait que chaque partie reconnaisse l’autre comme une nation égale. Les relations communautaires qui existaient durant les siècles de domination ottomane [9] et durant une bonne partie du 20° siècle [10] pourraient servir en tant qu’expérience historique commune sur laquelle construire, comme la « disqualification de l’intégration nationale, la partition, la double autorité et le contrôle comme mécanismes pour la résolution des conflits, nous amènent à examiner différentes organisations de gouvernement partagé comme une base viable pour la stabilité politique. [11]
Le leadership israélien et l’opinion publique se réfèrent au problème du soulèvement palestinien en tant que violence inter-communautaire alors que cela masque la négation d’un nationalisme palestinien et ils sont en faveur de solutions fédérales, mais dans le contexte d’une « autonomie » sous contrôle israélien ou d’une « entité » palestnienne incorporée à la Jordanie. [12]
Certains, par ailleurs, ne sont pas d’accord que le fédéralisme puisse opérer en tant que solution au conflit israélo-arabe et croient que « des avancées à petits pas » sont plus sûres et plus réalisables. [13]
La fédération pourrait être parlementaire et agglomérer les systèmes parlementaires actuels d’Israël et de l’Autorité palestinienne. Une union d’Israël et de la Palestine basée sur l’expérience du Royaume uni pourrait éviter les problèmes liés à la classification de la fédération soit comme juive, soit comme arabe, tout en préservant cette identité au niveau de l’Etat. Une identité politique légère associée à la fédération permettrait à la fois aux Juifs et aux Arabes de conserver leurs propres symboles nationaux à travers lesquels chacun est associé et l’autre exclu. [14]
Une constitution fédérale définirait la distribution des pouvoirs et des fonctions et, comme il s’agirait d’une fédération bi-communautaire composée de deux communautés nettement différentes, il faudrait maintenir un équilibre entre asymétrie et égalité.
C’est similaire au débat qui se déroule au Canada sur le Québec et on bénéficierait de la notion de la concurrence et de la prédominance provinciale, avec une distribution symétrique mais une application asymétrique. [15] Chacun disposerait de la souveraineté dans ses territoires dans des domaines spécifiques tels que l’éducation, la culture, le droit, la santé, la police, tandis que les autres seraient laissés au gouvernement fédéral. La liberté de mouvement et d’installation serait garantie et il serait possible d’autoriser des restrictions pour un temps limité dans un but particulier. La nécessité d’une application asymétrique est essentielle pour prendre en compte la structure asymétrique du pouvoir et de la relation entre les deux communautés ainsi que leurs rapports avec leurs « diasporas » respectives.
La Belgique apporte un autre outil original pour une fédération non territoriale. [16]. Les Juifs comme les Palestiniens pourraient avoir leurs droits qui les suivraient où qu’ils soient. Cela pourrait résoudre le problème de la minorité juive restant dans l’Etat palestinien mais qui refuserait d’être soumise aux lois palestiniennes. De la même manière, cela pourrait résoudre le problème des Palestiniens résidant en Israël et qui préfèraient obéir aux lois palestiniennes. D’un point de vue israélien, une fédération non-territoriale serait moins menaçante pour la sécurité de l’Etat car elle éviterait les revendications territoriales de la population arabe qui, dans cette perspective, serait partagée et ne constituerait pas un corps cohérent. [17]
Une organisation fédérale traditionnelle ne permettrait pas que les entités constituant la fédération aient un rôle formel dans les affaires étrangères et les relations internationales, mais cela est en train de changer. [18] L’Etat palestinien pourrait être représenté au sein de la Ligue arabe en tant qu’Etat arabe, discuter et voter sur des questions qui relèvent directement de sa souveraineté telles que l’éducation, la culture et la santé. Seules les questions politiques seraint exclues parce que le gouvernement fédéral devrait en être responsable. La même chose s’appliquerait à l’Etat des Israéliens. Les Etats palestinien et israélien pourraient tous les deux avoir des bureaux commerciaux à l’étranger pour s’occuper de leur commerce, promouvoir des investissements ou le développement de ressources naturelles, en coopération avec le gouvernement fédéral en tant que de besoin.
Avec une solution politique fédérale praticable, la force de chaque communauté -que l’autre a essayé de saper- pourrait devenir une valeur ajoutée pour une coopération et un développement partagés à leur bénéfice mutuel. Surtout, cela aurait un effet positif de domino sur la politique générale et le développement économique du Moyen-orient en supprimant un catalyseur de conflit qui contribuait à empêcher le progrès, la paix et la démocratisation. [19]
Toward a Binational Alternative in Israel: On the Illusion of the Two State Solution
A very good article by
Omri Boehm, presenting his book "Haifa Republic”.
I agree with his approach: ”True Israeli patriots must now challenge Zionist taboos as we have come to know them, must dare to imagine the country’s transformation, from a Jewish state into a federal, binational republic."
His article follows:
Omri Boehm on the Re-Imaginings Necessary for Transformation
By Omri Boehm
August 19, 2021
In the 25 years that have passed since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, his two-state Oslo legacy has been driven into the ground. In 1993, when the agreement was first signed, approximately 110,000 settlers were living in the West Bank, and 146,000 were living in occupied territories surrounding Jerusalem. By now, the numbers have increased to approximately 400,000 settlers in the West Bank and 300,000 around Jerusalem. This situation will not be reversed. In 2021, roughly 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population lives on occupied territory—subject to Israeli law, represented by Israel’s parliament—and enjoys the opportunities and prosperity of a flourishing first-world country, with public schools, factories, banks, a system of highways, and a research university at their disposal. Around them, however, are almost 3 million Palestinians who, for 53 years now, have lived under Israel’s aggressive military regime.
Even intransigent two-state supporters agree that not all of these settlers can be evacuated, but they insist that the challenge posed by their presence is exaggerated. On this view, whereas the West Bank’s map is stained by approximately 130 spots marking Israeli settlements, about 110 of them count populations of less than 5,000. Another 60 settlements, the argument goes, have populations of less than 1,000, and many of them are, in the first place, located next to the 1967 border: by introducing only minor corrections to the border, it is allegedly possible to leave most settlers within Israel’s proper territory, and to compensate the Palestinians with other pieces of land from other areas. Given this, it is claimed that the tendency to “grossly overstate” the obstacle that settlements pose to a future two-state solution is based not on a sober analysis of the situation, but on an ideological support of one-state politics.
Unfortunately, this optimism is itself highly ideological, and can only be preserved if one avoids a careful look at the map. Surprisingly to many, the main obstacle has nothing to do with the number of settlers, but with the number of Palestinians. In the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea currently lives a Palestinian majority, constituting approximately 53 percent of the population. Yet even the most “generous” two-state programs offer this population about 22 percent of the land. We have grown accustomed to ignore this fact, and to see this arrangement as a reasonable, desired compromise. The truth is that it isn’t, and not merely because it is unjust: offering sovereignty to the majority of the population on this tiny and discontinuous fraction of the territory isn’t the type of compromise that can bring peace.
And then again the number of settlers must also be considered. While it is true that about 110 West Bank settlements have less than 5,000 inhabitants, this leaves 20 settlements counting more than 5,000, and some of them counting significantly more. Modi’in Illit, a settlement not far from Jerusalem, counts more than 70,000 inhabitants; Beitar Illit, 55,000; Ma’ale Adumim, 40,000; and the list goes on. To understand the significance of these figures, consider Israel’s evacuation of settlers from the Gaza Strip, in 2005. In total, 8,400 settlers were removed from a land that is not nearly as sacred to Jews or symbolic to Israelis as the West Bank, and the event is still remembered as traumatic to Israeli society.
Also, the idea that most settlements are located along the ’67 border is misleading. Whereas the largest settlements indeed are located near the border, numerous others are located very deep in the territory. Ariel, one of Israel’s most prosperous settlements—population 20,000—is positioned at the heart of the West Bank. Its location was strategically chosen in the 1970s to interrupt any possible geographical continuity of a future Palestinian state. Speaking in 1980 as Israel’s minister of defense, Ariel Sharon had already referred to the settlement project as a fait accompli, a “skeleton” that had been laid down in the West Bank and would prevent any territorial compromise. Given this “skeleton,” he said, “I don’t see now any area that can be handed [over] to anybody.” When he spoke, a settlement like Ariel counted only a few hundred inhabitants. In 2018, Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul who served as Trump’s chief donor, contributed the necessary sum for the founding of Ariel University’s Adelson School of Medicine. Sharon’s “skeleton” is now a fully formed, heavy body. At some point one must admit that the two-state dream has faded into a two-state illusion. Ignoring this fact is akin to denying global warming.
At some point one must admit that the two-state dream has faded into a two-state illusion. Ignoring this fact is akin to denying global warming.
Meanwhile, the idea of an enlarged Jewish state encompassing the West Bank is gaining currency, both in Israel and internationally. Almost immediately after he had assumed office, President Trump signaled that he would back out of the two-state commitment to which US presidents—Democrats and Republicans alike—had remained loyal for decades. When Trump’s so-called Deal of the Century emerged, Israelis across the political spectrum started explicitly advocating annexations as well. During Obama’s presidency, even Netanyahu paid occasional lip service to the two-state solution, proclaiming a “vision of peace” in which the two peoples would live “freely side-by-side,” each with “its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government.” The Obama administration countenanced this open lie because it helped mitigate escalating feuds with Israel’s government and spared the president a clash with America’s Jewish community. The mainstream liberal media was getting comfortable with Netanyahu’s lies as well. Whether we like it or not, Trump’s presidency shattered the hypocrisy: the position of the Israeli government has hardly changed in practice, but it now speaks truthfully of what it has been doing all along, namely preventing a Palestinian state and promoting annexations.
Significantly, this is not just a Netanyahu policy; his party, Likud, embraced annexation officially in 2017. Blue and White, as well as Yesh Atid, Israel’s “center-left” opposition, have also been enthusiastic about the Deal of the Century—and no longer even pay lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state. If a Biden-Harris administration wishes to backpedal to the old familiar politics, it will be sure to fail: there is no going back to the two-state lie, let alone to the two-state solution. A new generation of Democrats refusing to accept ethnic nationalism obviously knows this well. Yet what is there for liberal democrats in Israel or the US to offer in place of the defunct two-state solution? What is the plan?
Israel’s Basic Laws, which stand in for the country’s constitution, are currently being rapidly revised in ways that reinforce the same trend and raise the same unsettling questions. Though Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence asserts somewhat generally that Jews have the “right for self-determination” in Eretz Israel—thus accommodating the possibility, at least, of Palestinian self-determination—Israel’s 2018 nation-state law specifies that this right is “unique to the Jewish people.” Preparing the legal infrastructure for massive annexations—anticipating the moment at which “too many” Arabs will live within Israel’s declared borders—the law also revokes the status of Arabic as an official language in Israel, and defines “Jewish settlement” of Eretz Israel as a “national value,” thus undermining the declaration’s pledge to equality, irrespective of “religion or race.” The nation-state law constitutes a dramatic step towards establishing a one-Jewish-state “solution.”
In recent years, right-wing legislators such as Naftali Bennett, Moshe Ya’alon, Ayelet Shaked, and others have begun to promote political plans that could be called “apartheid with a human face,” plans now effectively accepted by Likud’s central committee. The idea is to annex large portions of the West Bank and stop subjecting Palestinians to Israel’s military regime—but without granting them a sovereign state or full citizenship. The model for such a “humane apartheid” is the status quo in Jerusalem. Unlike the rest of the West Bank, the city’s eastern parts were annexed by Israel immediately after the Six-Day War, with its Arab inhabitants becoming permanent residents of Israel, but not citizens. (Unlike Arab Israeli citizens, they cannot vote for the Knesset.)
The general public, as well as government officials, journalists, lawmakers, police officers, and judges—and also the international community—have come to accept this as entirely normal, and it provides a convenient model for the future in other areas of the West Bank.
And though separation is now plainly untenable, democratic visions for Israel beyond the two-state solution are perceived as anti-Zionist forms of betrayal—quite literally, as treason.
Less moderate voices support not just apartheid but transfer, or ethnic cleansing—an idea that is being rehabilitated at the heart of Israeli politics. Amiram Levin, a former top Israel Defense Forces major general publicly perceived as a liberal Zionist, suggested in 2017 that in the next round of hostilities, Israel should “tear the Palestinians apart,” to make sure that “they do not stay.” He proposed “kick[ing] them to the other side of the Jordan River.” In 2019, Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the religious Zionist party Tkuma, said to Israel Hayom, Israel’s largest daily: “As far as I’m concerned, let Gaza rot, let them die of hunger, of thirst and of malaria.” This policy, he says, should be accompanied by opening “Gaza’s gates to massive emigration,” otherwise known in Israel as “voluntary transfer.” Smotrich may be the leader of an extreme-right religious Zionist party, but as he drafted this plan, in 2019, he was also a minister and a member of cabinet.
For that matter, Trump’s so-called Deal of the Century also raised the possibility of population swaps and the denaturalization of Arab Israeli citizens in what is sometimes called the Triangle Area—a region that is heavily populated with Arab Israelis and borders the West Bank. As Israel’s former defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, tweeted immediately after the announcement of the plan: “In 2004, when I suggested a plan for population swaps, everybody raised an eyebrow. But just now President Trump adopted the full plan . . . Standing by your principles and being patient pays off.” In 2014, when he was Israel’s foreign minister, Lieberman ran on a platform calling for the transfer of Arab Israelis from Acre, Haifa, and Jaffa to the West Bank and neighboring Arab countries. Lieberman was once considered an outlier, an extremist; today, he is seen as a pragmatist, a moderate, and indeed a pillar of what passes for Israel’s center-left.
We should listen very carefully to these calls for ethnic cleansing. Israelis have always wavered between repressing and boasting about the fact that, in 1948, a Jewish democracy with a Jewish majority was enabled through massive expulsions of Palestinians. Seventy-three years later, with no prospect of two separate states and the Palestinians soon again to become the majority of Israel’s population, Israelis still shun any responsibility for these crimes. Political despair, in combination with a violent ethnic conflict, threatens a catastrophe. If we continue to ignore reality and to refuse to imagine an alternative we can fight for, the result will be much worse than apartheid. Israel’s right wing has its solutions—annexation, apartheid, expulsion—while liberal democrats have failed to come up with any. This is true not just of Israel’s now nonexistent parties of the left, but also of organizations like B’Tselem, Peace Now, J Street, or the New Israel Fund. They are united against the occupation—B’Tselem just now took the step of explicitly labeling it apartheid—but can they make any meaningful political progress without having a viable goal they can fight for?
The reason for the inability to offer an alternative positive agenda is not difficult to find. Committed as these liberals are to the principle of a Jewish democracy, they require separation from the Palestinians in order to ensure a Jewish majority. And though separation is now plainly untenable, democratic visions for Israel beyond the two-state solution are perceived as anti-Zionist forms of betrayal—quite literally, as treason. Accordingly, liberal Zionists can only seek refuge in criticizing Netanyahu’s corruption, fighting for the legalization of light drugs, and promoting women’s and gay rights: important objectives, but also ways not to talk about Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank, and the future of a country where liberal democracy is ever more at risk.
As these monumental transformations beyond two-state politics take shape, leading left-leaning Israelis and liberal Zionist voices (think David Grossman, Amos Oz, Ari Shavit, Avishai Margalit, or Michael Walzer, among many others) are lagging dangerously behind. Clinging to the lost hope for a Jewish liberal democracy—and, yes, for a sustainable ethnic Jewish majority—they continue backing separation plans that have been losing credibility since the late 1990s. What once was an audacious rational perspective on Israeli politics has stagnated into an irresponsible bad faith. It is long past time for liberal Zionist thinkers to think again.
Consider Amos Oz’s Dear Zealots, his last political statement, in which Oz reaffirmed his longstanding support for two-state politics while dismissing leftists seeking one-state alternatives as, at best, a “sad joke,” or, worse, as dangerous moral fanatics. Oz knew particularly well that the situation had dramatically changed in the course of fifty years, but he remained unimpressed by what Israelis call “the facts on the ground.” In his view, the facts only served as excuses for fanatics: the “extreme right” and the “anti-Zionist” left had, as he saw it, entered a “secret pact, a conspiracy,” brainwashing us with the idea that the occupation is “irreversible.” “Irreversible,” Oz wrote, was the word that “irritated” him, that “outraged” him. His idea, which some falsely acclaimed as prophetic, was basically that it is always possible to use the imagination in order to conceive a return to the past. Oz’s praise of the imagination as a counterweight to the idea of “irreversibility” was in fact a reactionary obfuscation.
Gramsci famously stated that times of political “crisis” are times when “the old is dying, and the new cannot yet be born.” At these times, Gramsci predicts, intellectuals belonging to the cultural hegemony will seek to anchor people’s nostalgia to the dying ideologies of the past, thus aggravating the crisis. In Israel, which has been trapped in a Gramscian crisis for a long time now, the old political slogans—“Jewish and democratic,” “liberal Zionism,” “the two-state solution”—are rapidly becoming empty clichés. By continuing to ignore the facts on the ground, by continuing to insist on the two-state solution, by refusing to rethink the relation between Israel and Zionism, liberal intellectuals have allowed the conversation about the country’s future to decline into a shouting match between chauvinistic Zionism on the right and anti-Israeli critique on the anti-Zionist left.
Haifa Republic argues, by contrast, that the vital center can still be reclaimed, articulating an alternative to two-state politics from within a liberal Zionist perspective. True Israeli patriots must now challenge Zionist taboos as we have come to know them, must dare to imagine the country’s transformation, from a Jewish state into a federal, binational republic. Contrary to common misconceptions, passionately held by Zionists and anti-Zionists alike, such a transformation is neither post- nor anti-Zionist. It represents a type of politics that was a matter of consensus for many long years among Zionism’s founding fathers: for the greater part of their careers, Theodor Herzl, Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, Ahad Ha’am, and David Ben-Gurion could all agree on it. Future leaders—on the left and the right—can and ought to agree on such politics as well. Rehabilitating Zionism’s binational origins is the only alternative to apartheid and expulsions and the only way to sustain liberal Zionist aspirations in the 21st century: securing a democratic homeland in which Jewish citizens exercise national self-determination—alongside Palestinian compatriots doing the same—in a joint, sovereign state.
______________________________________________________________
Haifa Republic
From Haifa Republic: A Democratic Future for Israel. Used with the permission of publisher, New York Review of Books. Copyright © 2021 Omri Boehm.
Friday, June 25, 2021
ישראל שוכן לשבטיו
בלָק בֶּן־צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב חשש מבואם של בני ישראל מ"הקהל הזה", ה"עם רב" הזה שיצא ממצרים. אז הוא ביקש את שירותי הנביא בלעם בן בעור, שיקלל את ישראל כדי להחליש אותו.
נאמר:
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א בִלְעָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שֹׁכֵ֖ן לִשְׁבָטָ֑יו וַתְּהִ֥י עָלָ֖יו ר֥וּחַ אֱלֹהִֽים׃
(במדבר כד:ב)
בלעם הסתכל קודם על מחנה ישראל, ואז, רק אחרי שראה את ישראל, ההשראה הנבואית פתאום אחזה בו.
שאלה עולה: מה ראה בלעם שזיכה אותו בהתגלות?
הוא ראה - כלשון הפסוק - את ישראל "שוכן לשבטיו".
בלעם ראה שכל שבט הוא השכן של השבט השני, ושכל השבטים יושבים ויחסי שכנות ביניהם.
כך רש"י מפרש "שוכן לשבטיו":
"רָאָה כָל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט שׁוֹכֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵינָן מְעֹרָבִין, רָאָה שֶׁאֵין פִּתְחֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין זֶה כְנֶגֶד זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא יָצִיץ לְתוֹךְ אֹהֶל חֲבֵרוֹ."
כל אחד חי בנפרד, חופשי מחדירה או מהתערבות של השני. זה מה שמאפיין את ישראל האידיאלית: כבוד לאחר, לצנעת הפרט, כל אחד שומר על פנימיותו וזהותו בתוך אחדות הכלל.
למה בכל זאת בלעם לא הצליח לקלל את ישראל?
נאמר: "אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין". לכן, בלעם - שנשלח לקלל את ישראל - לא יכול היה אלא לברך את ישראל, פעם אחר פעם:
מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(במדבר כד:ה)
"מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ", גם היא נגזרת של השורש שכן.
בברכה הראשונה שבה בלעם בירך את ישראל, מוצאים כבר אותו השורש:
הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן וּבַגּוֹיִ֖ם לֹ֥א יִתְחַשָּֽׁב׃
"ישכון", שוב לשון שכנות, גם אם לכאורה הבידוד והייחוד מפרידים בין ישראל לגוים. ישכון נושא בתוכו הבטחה עתידית של שכנות טובה בין כל האומות.
החזרה הזו על אותו השורש "שכן" קוראת לפרוש: ניתן לומר שבלעם ראה שבין השבטים שוכנת השכינה. הוא הבין שהיא באמת נמצאת במשכן...
בלעם ראה אחדות וייחודיות יחד: כולם ביחד וכל אחד לחוד. בתנאים אלה, השלם שנוצר הוא יותר מסכום מרכיביו. זה סוד הברית, סוד הבריאה: לייחד בדין וצדק - ולאחד בחסד ורחמים .
זהו המראה האלוהי שהצית אצל בלעם את חוש הנבואה שלו…
לקלל הוא מלשון "קל", ההפך של כבד, השורש של "כבוד". לקלל משמע לבזות, להשפיל, ההפך מלתת כבוד.
בלשון הצבאי שלנו, ניתן לומר שהאויב, אדום, נרתע.
ההרתעה האמיתית אינה נרכשת רק על ידי נשק, אלא על ידי הולדתו של רגש כבוד ויראה בלב האויב.
כשישראל מכבדים זה את זה בכל רמות האחדות: יחידים, משפחות ושבטים, אז גם אויביהם אינם יכולים אלא לכבד ולברך אותם.
הנשיא ריבלין, ב"נאום השבטים שלו, אמר בכנס הרצליה ב- 2015 כי 'נוצר "סדר ישראלי חדש" ובו ישראל מורכבת מדתיים, חילונים, חרדים וערבים - ארבעה שבטים שחיים בפחד וללא שפה משותפת. "החברה הישראלית זקוקה לקריאת השכמה", אמר הנשיא. "יש למצוא תשובות".
אנחנו היהודים מהווים בעצם רק שני שבטים וחצי בתוך ישראל, יהודה, בנימין ולוי. ישראל הייתה מורכבת משניים עשר שבטים. היום, עלינו לראות את הנוצרים, המוסלמים, הדרוזים, הבדואים ושאר קבוצות אתניות, החיות בארץ ובשטחים, כולם כ"שבטי יה" חדשים. כי למעשה, כולנו מונותאיסטים שאמורים לעבוד יחד, "שכם אחד", את האל האחד המשותף להם.
יש לנו בתורה דגם מדיני זמין שניתן ללמוד ממנו, של ברית פדרלית בין השבטים, כאשר כל שבט ושבט שוכן תחת דגלו, נהנה מאוטונומיה במסגרת על-מדינתית, תחת ריבונות שמים, המקבלת ביטוי בתוך עליונות שלטון החוק והמשפט.
הדבר הזה, אומות העולם מכבדים.
קמה לנו קואליציה חדשה, המאחדת דתיים וחילונים, יהודים וערבים, גברים ונשים, רפורמה יהודית ואורתודוקסיה מוסלמית…
נקווה שזוהי אות לאחדות תוך כבוד לשונה, הקורמת עור וגידים. ונאחל לנציגנו במשכן אחר - משכן הכנסת - לזכות ולשבת בה בתוך אחדות של שכנות טובה!
בלָק בֶּן־צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב חשש מבואם של בני ישראל מ"הקהל הזה", ה"עם רב" הזה שיצא ממצרים. אז הוא ביקש את שירותי הנביא בלעם בן בעור, שיקלל את ישראל כדי להחליש אותו.
נאמר:
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א בִלְעָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שֹׁכֵ֖ן לִשְׁבָטָ֑יו וַתְּהִ֥י עָלָ֖יו ר֥וּחַ אֱלֹהִֽים׃
(במדבר כד:ב)
בלעם הסתכל קודם על מחנה ישראל, ואז, רק אחרי שראה את ישראל, ההשראה הנבואית פתאום אחזה בו.
שאלה עולה: מה ראה בלעם שזיכה אותו בהתגלות?
הוא ראה - כלשון הפסוק - את ישראל "שוכן לשבטיו".
בלעם ראה שכל שבט הוא השכן של השבט השני, ושכל השבטים יושבים ויחסי שכנות ביניהם.
כך רש"י מפרש "שוכן לשבטיו":
"רָאָה כָל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט שׁוֹכֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵינָן מְעֹרָבִין, רָאָה שֶׁאֵין פִּתְחֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין זֶה כְנֶגֶד זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא יָצִיץ לְתוֹךְ אֹהֶל חֲבֵרוֹ."
כל אחד חי בנפרד, חופשי מחדירה או מהתערבות של השני. זה מה שמאפיין את ישראל האידיאלית: כבוד לאחר, לצנעת הפרט, כל אחד שומר על פנימיותו וזהותו בתוך אחדות הכלל.
\
למה בכל זאת בלעם לא הצליח לקלל את ישראל?
נאמר: "אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין". לכן, בלעם - שנשלח לקלל את ישראל - לא יכול היה אלא לברך את ישראל, פעם אחר פעם:
מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(במדבר כד:ה)
"מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ", גם היא נגזרת של השורש שכן.
בברכה הראשונה שבה בלעם בירך את ישראל, מוצאים כבר אותו השורש:
הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן וּבַגּוֹיִ֖ם לֹ֥א יִתְחַשָּֽׁב׃
"ישכון", שוב לשון שכנות, גם אם לכאורה הבידוד והייחוד מפרידים בין ישראל לגוים. ישכון נושא בתוכו הבטחה עתידית של שכנות טובה בין כל האומות.
החזרה הזו על אותו השורש "שכן" קוראת לפרוש: ניתן לומר שבלעם ראה שבין השבטים שוכנת השכינה. הוא הבין שהיא באמת נמצאת במשכן...
בלעם ראה אחדות וייחודיות יחד: כולם ביחד וכל אחד לחוד. בתנאים אלה, השלם שנוצר הוא יותר מסכום מרכיביו. זה סוד הברית, סוד הבריאה: לייחד בדין וצדק - ולאחד בחסד ורחמים .
זהו המראה האלוהי שהצית אצל בלעם את חוש הנבואה שלו…
לקלל הוא מלשון "קל", ההפך של כבד, השורש של "כבוד". לקלל משמע לבזות, להשפיל, ההפך מלתת כבוד.
בלשון הצבאי שלנו, ניתן לומר שהאויב, אדום, נרתע.
ההרתעה האמיתית אינה נרכשת רק על ידי נשק, אלא על ידי הולדתו של רגש כבוד ויראה בלב האויב.
כשישראל מכבדים זה את זה בכל רמות האחדות: יחידים, משפחות ושבטים, אז גם אויביהם אינם יכולים אלא לכבד ולברך אותם.
הנשיא ריבלין, ב"נאום השבטים שלו, אמר בכנס הרצליה ב- 2015 כי 'נוצר "סדר ישראלי חדש" ובו ישראל מורכבת מדתיים, חילונים, חרדים וערבים - ארבעה שבטים שחיים בפחד וללא שפה משותפת. "החברה הישראלית זקוקה לקריאת השכמה", אמר הנשיא. "יש למצוא תשובות".
אנחנו היהודים מהווים בעצם רק שני שבטים וחצי בתוך ישראל, יהודה, בנימין ולוי. ישראל הייתה מורכבת משניים עשר שבטים. היום, עלינו לראות את הנוצרים, המוסלמים, הדרוזים, הבדואים ושאר קבוצות אתניות, החיות בארץ ובשטחים, כולם כ"שבטי יה" חדשים. כי למעשה, כולנו מונותאיסטים שאמורים לעבוד יחד, "שכם אחד", את האל האחד המשותף להם.
יש לנו בתורה דגם מדיני זמין שניתן ללמוד ממנו, של ברית פדרלית בין השבטים, כאשר כל שבט ושבט שוכן תחת דגלו, נהנה מאוטונומיה במסגרת על-מדינתית, תחת ריבונות שמים, המקבלת ביטוי בתוך עליונות שלטון החוק והמשפט.
הדבר הזה, אומות העולם מכבדים.
קמה לנו קואליציה חדשה, המאחדת דתיים וחילונים, יהודים וערבים, גברים ונשים, רפורמה יהודית ואורתודוקסיה מוסלמית…
נקווה שזוהי אות לאחדות תוך כבוד לשונה, הקורמת עור וגידים. ונאחל לנציגנו במשכן אחר - משכן הכנסת - לזכות ולשבת בה בתוך אחדות של שכנות טובה!
בלָק בֶּן־צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב חשש מבואם של בני ישראל מ"הקהל הזה", ה"עם רב" הזה שיצא ממצרים. אז הוא ביקש את שירותי הנביא בלעם בן בעור, שיקלל את ישראל כדי להחליש אותו.
נאמר:
וַיִּשָּׂ֨א בִלְעָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שֹׁכֵ֖ן לִשְׁבָטָ֑יו וַתְּהִ֥י עָלָ֖יו ר֥וּחַ אֱלֹהִֽים׃(במדבר כד:ב)
בלעם הסתכל קודם על מחנה ישראל, ואז, רק אחרי שראה את ישראל, ההשראה הנבואית פתאום אחזה בו.
שאלה עולה: מה ראה בלעם שזיכה אותו בהתגלות?
הוא ראה - כלשון הפסוק - את ישראל "שוכן לשבטיו".
בלעם ראה שכל שבט הוא השכן של השבט השני, ושכל השבטים יושבים ויחסי שכנות ביניהם.
כך רש"י מפרש "שוכן לשבטיו":
"רָאָה כָל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט שׁוֹכֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵינָן מְעֹרָבִין, רָאָה שֶׁאֵין פִּתְחֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין זֶה כְנֶגֶד זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא יָצִיץ לְתוֹךְ אֹהֶל חֲבֵרוֹ."
כל אחד חי בנפרד, חופשי מחדירה או מהתערבות של השני. זה מה שמאפיין את ישראל האידיאלית: כבוד לאחר, לצנעת הפרט, כל אחד שומר על פנימיותו וזהותו בתוך אחדות הכלל.
למה בכל זאת בלעם לא הצליח לקלל את ישראל?
נאמר: "אין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין". לכן, בלעם - שנשלח לקלל את ישראל - לא יכול היה אלא לברך את ישראל, פעם אחר פעם:
מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(במדבר כד:ה)
"מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ", גם היא נגזרת של השורש שכן.
בברכה הראשונה שבה בלעם בירך את ישראל, מוצאים כבר אותו השורש:
הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן וּבַגּוֹיִ֖ם לֹ֥א יִתְחַשָּֽׁב׃
"ישכון", שוב לשון שכנות, גם אם לכאורה הבידוד והייחוד מפרידים בין ישראל לגוים. ישכון נושא בתוכו הבטחה עתידית של שכנות טובה בין כל האומות.
החזרה הזו על אותו השורש "שכן" קוראת לפרוש: ניתן לומר שבלעם ראה שבין השבטים שוכנת השכינה. הוא הבין שהיא באמת נמצאת במשכן...
בלעם ראה אחדות וייחודיות יחד: כולם ביחד וכל אחד לחוד. בתנאים אלה, השלם שנוצר הוא יותר מסכום מרכיביו. זה סוד הברית, סוד הבריאה: לייחד בדין וצדק - ולאחד בחסד ורחמים .
זהו המראה האלוהי שהצית אצל בלעם את חוש הנבואה שלו…
לקלל הוא מלשון "קל", ההפך של כבד, השורש של "כבוד". לקלל משמע לבזות, להשפיל, ההפך מלתת כבוד.
בלשון הצבאי שלנו, ניתן לומר שהאויב, אדום, נרתע.
ההרתעה האמיתית אינה נרכשת רק על ידי נשק, אלא על ידי הולדתו של רגש כבוד ויראה בלב האויב.
כשישראל מכבדים זה את זה בכל רמות האחדות: יחידים, משפחות ושבטים, אז גם אויביהם אינם יכולים אלא לכבד ולברך אותם.
הנשיא ריבלין, ב"נאום השבטים שלו, אמר בכנס הרצליה ב- 2015 כי 'נוצר "סדר ישראלי חדש" ובו ישראל מורכבת מדתיים, חילונים, חרדים וערבים - ארבעה שבטים שחיים בפחד וללא שפה משותפת. "החברה הישראלית זקוקה לקריאת השכמה", אמר הנשיא. "יש למצוא תשובות".
אנחנו היהודים מהווים בעצם רק שני שבטים וחצי בתוך ישראל, יהודה, בנימין ולוי. ישראל הייתה מורכבת משניים עשר שבטים. היום, עלינו לראות את הנוצרים, המוסלמים, הדרוזים, הבדואים ושאר קבוצות אתניות, החיות בארץ ובשטחים, כולם כ"שבטי יה" חדשים. כי למעשה, כולנו מונותאיסטים שאמורים לעבוד יחד, "שכם אחד", את האל האחד המשותף להם.
יש לנו בתורה דגם מדיני זמין שניתן ללמוד ממנו, של ברית פדרלית בין השבטים, כאשר כל שבט ושבט שוכן תחת דגלו, נהנה מאוטונומיה במסגרת על-מדינתית, תחת ריבונות שמים, המקבלת ביטוי בתוך עליונות שלטון החוק והמשפט.
הדבר הזה, אומות העולם מכבדים.
קמה לנו קואליציה חדשה, המאחדת דתיים וחילונים, יהודים וערבים, גברים ונשים, רפורמה יהודית ואורתודוקסיה מוסלמית…
נקווה שזוהי אות לאחדות תוך כבוד לשונה, הקורמת עור וגידים. ונאחל לנציגנו במשכן אחר - משכן הכנסת - לזכות ולשבת בה בתוך אחדות של שכנות טובה!
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Federalism and peace from an Islamic perspective
Federalism and peace from an Islamic perspective
Emphase is mine.
29 April 2013
By Ibrahim Saleh
In the name of God
Your Excellency Arnold Koller, ladies & gentlemen, peace be upon you. The Fribourg peace forum has asked me to deliver a speech about federalism and peace from the Islamic perspective.
However, in order to cover this subject objectively, we must consider the religious, social, and political systems existing at that time especially the question of the relation between men and others – those who are different in color, language and religion. At the emergence of Islam, the two major powers – Persia and Rome – were frequently engaged in wars which took place in the Middle East. The Romans were known for their brutality and the persecution of the Christians. They also used to enslave the defeated and those who were different in color and language. The Arab Peninsula consisted of tribes fighting against each other, they were ignorant, used to burry alive their new born baby girls. The religions prevailing were pagan, with some Jews and Christians.
Before Islam could establish a viable political system, it had to totally uproot the existing pagan, social and political order in the Middle East by taking the following steps:
1. To abolish racism and the rejection of others because of their religion, race and color. For this Islam promoted peace and brotherhood. The Quran says in Surat Al-Hugarat: nr 49, verse 13: Oh people we created all of you from man and woman, made tribes and folks, to cooperate with you …”
Islam stressed that the creation of mankind in different colors, faiths and languages is God’s divine will to make us different surat al rum 30/22 .
And if He wished He could make all of us Jews, Christians, Buddhists or Muslims, this is His will, and for this He created us Hood 11/118
2. Islam declared freedom of religion. It was the first in the history of mankind. Whereas people were usually forced to adopt the religion of their rulers, the Quran states in al kahf 18/29 say the truth from God and al baqqara 2/256- no compulsion in religion al kafiroon 109 last ayat…
3. Also to his credit, Islam banned and dismantled the ugly establishment of priesthood which decided over life and death, misery and happiness of the people. The Quran says anyone could interrelate with God without a broker to ask for forgiveness – and God would accept his prayer…hood nr.11 /3 and ghafer 40/60 pray me and I shall accept your prayer.
4. The Swiss professor Hans Küng once said that there could be no peace between nations before we make peace between people; and there could be no peace between people before we make peace between religions. That is precisely what Islam did when it declared acceptance, respect and peace with and for all previous religions; especially with Judaism and Christianity…sura Imran 3/84… and in al baqqara 2 verse 285 … The Quran also stressed the strong belief and respect of Islam towards Judaism and Christianity. God speaks about the Torah and the Bible as having light and guidance Al Maida 5/44 and 46. It is worth to mention that the Quran is the only book which honored Maria with a complete Sura of 95 verses (Surat Maryam 19). It also honors Jesus and describes him uniquely as being the “soul” and the “word” of God. No other prophet has been described by these characteristics. The Quran also confirms all of Jesus’ miracles such as he was born without a father, that he resurrected the dead, healed the ill and returned vision to the blind.
From this special relationship with the people of the book, the Muslims were allowed to marry their women and to eat their food. From the Muslims belief in the two religions, Jews and Christians enjoyed peace and protection in the Muslim countries facing neither prosecution nor extermination. To date both minorities live in peace and tranquility in Muslim countries. The Jews themselves admit as stated by Professor Israel Shahak in his book “Jewish religion and Jewish history”, that the Muslim always protected the Jews and that those expelled from Spain during the Inquisition were granted asylum in Muslim countries, especially in Turkey.
By this we see that Islam really has eradicated racism and the rejection of others, made peace between the major world religions and their worshippers. Another example of acceptance of the others were the Prophet Mohammed’s companions: Bilal – a freed black slave, Salman – a Persian advisor and Suhaib – a white Roman counselor. In Islam there was no “Clash of Civilizations” as described by Huntington, nor such thing as described in “The End of History” by Fukuyama; and no there was no Holocaust under Islam. There was no such call “as Germany over all”.
5. After Islam uprooted racism, he turned to handle the question of women: the mother, the wife, the daughter. The woman was accused by all the religions to have been responsible about Adam being expelled out of Paradise; hence she is responsible for the suffering of all human beings. She was also accused to be a low, satanic creature who seduced man. It was even questioned whether she had a soul or not. She was persecuted and even buried alive at birth by the Arab tribes.
The Holy Quran reinstated the woman and restored her honor and her esteem. It was Adam who followed Satan and disobeyed God as described in sura Taha 20/120-122. Islam elevated the woman to be equal to man as mentioned in Sura Al Imran 3/ 95. Islam even gave her financial independence: her husband has no right over her fortune and belongings; these rights were granted to European women just a few decades ago.
6. In Islam, life is sacred. Killing a man is considered as killing all mankind. Surra al maida 5/30. War therefore was only allowed in case of self defense or to stop aggression al baqqara 2/90 and by no means to start war or aggress others. The retaliation should be equal and not exceed the damage suffered Al baqqara 2/194.
7. In Islam cooperation between individuals or states is allowed provided they are dedicated to the good. They are forbidden if it is for the evil Al maida 5/2
After all these reforms have been implemented, Islam by then has laid down the foundations of a healthy society and a viable state. Under Islam, the first federation with the Jews was concluded in what was considered or known to be the “Al–Madina-document” which foresees:
"In the name of God. The Jews in Madina are a nation and a community; they have their own religion, rules and customs; and the Muslims are a nation and a community. The Jews are our neighbors and partners with equal rights and obligations. Both parties agree to cooperate against any aggression committed by a foreign power against the other community; they have to work together in good faith and promote trade.”
This treaty or agreement was extended to cover the Christians of Nagran. When they visited the Prophet in Madina, he allowed them to enter his mosque with crosses so as to perform their prayers and ceremonies. Further the Prophet asked the Muslims to allocate money for the repair of the churches and to build new ones. This money was donated by the treasury as a gift and was not to be returned. The Prophet committed himself and the Muslims to defend the Christians against any aggression as if defending their own wife and children. This was the first federation or confederation in the history of Islam.
The same principle of confederation was applied in the Muslim Empire which one day extended from China to Spain. In this confederation each country had its own religion, laws, and languages with open borders and free trade. Their cooperation was in Finance and Defense against any foreign force. They lived in peace and prospered. There was no massacre against any minority. Till now Jewish and Christian minorities in Muslim countries have their own courts to judge upon their own religious and personal affairs.
As an example of such a system we could mention Muslim Spain where Christians, Jews and Arabs lived together in peace and harmony and established a great civilization which greatly influenced the European Renaissance.
However, after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire the remaining countries of this federation were divided on national basis and Turkey became an independent. This arbitrary division of nations caused numerous conflicts, such as the Kurdish question in Iran, Iraq and Turkey; the Arabs in Iran, the Berber in North Africa to mention but a few.
Europe has learned a lot from its bloody and painful history and finally established the European confederation of states. Now we ask ourselves this question: could the Muslims establish the Great Muslim Confederation which could solve all existing problems? We are still waiting for the answer.
Ibrahim Salah, 17 September 2010
29 April 2013
By Ibrahim Saleh
In the name of God
Your Excellency Arnold Koller, ladies & gentlemen, peace be upon you. The Fribourg peace forum has asked me to deliver a speech about federalism and peace from the Islamic perspective.
However, in order to cover this subject objectively, we must consider the religious, social, and political systems existing at that time especially the question of the relation between men and others – those who are different in color, language and religion. At the emergence of Islam, the two major powers – Persia and Rome – were frequently engaged in wars which took place in the Middle East. The Romans were known for their brutality and the persecution of the Christians. They also used to enslave the defeated and those who were different in color and language. The Arab Peninsula consisted of tribes fighting against each other, they were ignorant, used to burry alive their new born baby girls. The religions prevailing were pagan, with some Jews and Christians.
Before Islam could establish a viable political system, it had to totally uproot the existing pagan, social and political order in the Middle East by taking the following steps:
1. To abolish racism and the rejection of others because of their religion, race and color. For this Islam promoted peace and brotherhood. The Quran says in Surat Al-Hugarat: nr 49, verse 13: Oh people we created all of you from man and woman, made tribes and folks, to cooperate with you …”
Islam stressed that the creation of mankind in different colors, faiths and languages is God’s divine will to make us different surat al rum 30/22 .
And if He wished He could make all of us Jews, Christians, Buddhists or Muslims, this is His will, and for this He created us Hood 11/118
2. Islam declared freedom of religion. It was the first in the history of mankind. Whereas people were usually forced to adopt the religion of their rulers, the Quran states in al kahf 18/29 say the truth from God and al baqqara 2/256- no compulsion in religion al kafiroon 109 last ayat…
3. Also to his credit, Islam banned and dismantled the ugly establishment of priesthood which decided over life and death, misery and happiness of the people. The Quran says anyone could interrelate with God without a broker to ask for forgiveness – and God would accept his prayer…hood nr.11 /3 and ghafer 40/60 pray me and I shall accept your prayer.
4. The Swiss professor Hans Küng once said that there could be no peace between nations before we make peace between people; and there could be no peace between people before we make peace between religions. That is precisely what Islam did when it declared acceptance, respect and peace with and for all previous religions; especially with Judaism and Christianity…sura Imran 3/84… and in al baqqara 2 verse 285 … The Quran also stressed the strong belief and respect of Islam towards Judaism and Christianity. God speaks about the Torah and the Bible as having light and guidance Al Maida 5/44 and 46. It is worth to mention that the Quran is the only book which honored Maria with a complete Sura of 95 verses (Surat Maryam 19). It also honors Jesus and describes him uniquely as being the “soul” and the “word” of God. No other prophet has been described by these characteristics. The Quran also confirms all of Jesus’ miracles such as he was born without a father, that he resurrected the dead, healed the ill and returned vision to the blind.
From this special relationship with the people of the book, the Muslims were allowed to marry their women and to eat their food. From the Muslims belief in the two religions, Jews and Christians enjoyed peace and protection in the Muslim countries facing neither prosecution nor extermination. To date both minorities live in peace and tranquility in Muslim countries. The Jews themselves admit as stated by Professor Israel Shahak in his book “Jewish religion and Jewish history”, that the Muslim always protected the Jews and that those expelled from Spain during the Inquisition were granted asylum in Muslim countries, especially in Turkey.
By this we see that Islam really has eradicated racism and the rejection of others, made peace between the major world religions and their worshippers. Another example of acceptance of the others were the Prophet Mohammed’s companions: Bilal – a freed black slave, Salman – a Persian advisor and Suhaib – a white Roman counselor. In Islam there was no “Clash of Civilizations” as described by Huntington, nor such thing as described in “The End of History” by Fukuyama; and no there was no Holocaust under Islam. There was no such call “as Germany over all”.
5. After Islam uprooted racism, he turned to handle the question of women: the mother, the wife, the daughter. The woman was accused by all the religions to have been responsible about Adam being expelled out of Paradise; hence she is responsible for the suffering of all human beings. She was also accused to be a low, satanic creature who seduced man. It was even questioned whether she had a soul or not. She was persecuted and even buried alive at birth by the Arab tribes.
The Holy Quran reinstated the woman and restored her honor and her esteem. It was Adam who followed Satan and disobeyed God as described in sura Taha 20/120-122. Islam elevated the woman to be equal to man as mentioned in Sura Al Imran 3/ 95. Islam even gave her financial independence: her husband has no right over her fortune and belongings; these rights were granted to European women just a few decades ago.
6. In Islam, life is sacred. Killing a man is considered as killing all mankind. Surra al maida 5/30. War therefore was only allowed in case of self defense or to stop aggression al baqqara 2/90 and by no means to start war or aggress others. The retaliation should be equal and not exceed the damage suffered Al baqqara 2/194.
7. In Islam cooperation between individuals or states is allowed provided they are dedicated to the good. They are forbidden if it is for the evil Al maida 5/2
After all these reforms have been implemented, Islam by then has laid down the foundations of a healthy society and a viable state. Under Islam, the first federation with the Jews was concluded in what was considered or known to be the “Al–Madina-document” which foresees:
"In the name of God. The Jews in Madina are a nation and a community; they have their own religion, rules and customs; and the Muslims are a nation and a community. The Jews are our neighbors and partners with equal rights and obligations. Both parties agree to cooperate against any aggression committed by a foreign power against the other community; they have to work together in good faith and promote trade.”
This treaty or agreement was extended to cover the Christians of Nagran. When they visited the Prophet in Madina, he allowed them to enter his mosque with crosses so as to perform their prayers and ceremonies. Further the Prophet asked the Muslims to allocate money for the repair of the churches and to build new ones. This money was donated by the treasury as a gift and was not to be returned. The Prophet committed himself and the Muslims to defend the Christians against any aggression as if defending their own wife and children. This was the first federation or confederation in the history of Islam.
The same principle of confederation was applied in the Muslim Empire which one day extended from China to Spain. In this confederation each country had its own religion, laws, and languages with open borders and free trade. Their cooperation was in Finance and Defense against any foreign force. They lived in peace and prospered. There was no massacre against any minority. Till now Jewish and Christian minorities in Muslim countries have their own courts to judge upon their own religious and personal affairs.
As an example of such a system we could mention Muslim Spain where Christians, Jews and Arabs lived together in peace and harmony and established a great civilization which greatly influenced the European Renaissance.
However, after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire the remaining countries of this federation were divided on national basis and Turkey became an independent. This arbitrary division of nations caused numerous conflicts, such as the Kurdish question in Iran, Iraq and Turkey; the Arabs in Iran, the Berber in North Africa to mention but a few.
Europe has learned a lot from its bloody and painful history and finally established the European confederation of states. Now we ask ourselves this question: could the Muslims establish the Great Muslim Confederation which could solve all existing problems? We are still waiting for the answer.
Ibrahim Salah, 17 September 2010
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
כי גוי אובד עצות המה
עם טיפש
משחק באש הקודש
בא להיטהר
אינו מבין ששרץ בידו
בימים אלה, אחרי פיגועים רצחנים בהר הבית ובלב ישוב יהודי, איני מוצא טקסט אקטואלי ומתאים יותר למצב מאשר שירת משה, שבפרשת האזינו.
יהודים עולים על הר הבית, דורשים כביכול את ה' מלכם ומשיחם, בניית הבית השלישי במהרה.
אך למעשה הם קיבלו עליהם ריבון אחר, "ריבונות ישראלית".
מיהו אותו הריבון? מדינת לאום: אישיות משפטית פיקטיבית, "פרסונה", מסיכה מעשה ידם, אליל המייצג אותם.
ריבונות יהודית אמיתית היא ריבונות של ריבונו של עולם. היא איננה ריבונות לאומית, אלא ריבונות עולמית.
כי עם ישראל מייצג את כל האנושות:
| בְּהַנְחֵ֤ל עֶלְיוֹן֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם | בְּהַפְרִיד֖וֹ בְּנֵ֣י אָדָ֑ם |
| יַצֵּב֙ גְּבֻלֹ֣ת עַמִּ֔ים | לְמִסְפַּ֖ר בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ |
הם משתחווים לריבון מעשה ידם, ללאום ישראלי פיקטיבי. וקם נגדם עם פלסטיני פיקטיבי באותה מידה. לאומיות כנגד לאומיות.
| הֵ֚ם קִנְא֣וּנִי בְלֹא־אֵ֔ל | כִּעֲס֖וּנִי בְּהַבְלֵיהֶ֑ם |
| וַאֲנִי֙ אַקְנִיאֵ֣ם בְּלֹא־עָ֔ם | בְּג֥וֹי נָבָ֖ל אַכְעִיסֵֽם׃ |
הפלסטינים הם למעשה חלק מהאומה הערבית הגדולה.
אך לא סתם חלק: החלק היחיד שאין לו מדינת לאום, ולכן הוא יכול לייצג את אחדות האומה הערבית כולה.
ואכן, אם תשאלו אולי את עצמכם, מאיפה הזכות שניתן לערבים הפלסטינים לשלוט על הר הבית, הנה כאן התשובה: הם יכולים לקיים בהר כביכול ריבונות אלוהים, לדבר בשם ה', بسم الله, אפילו אם רובם מתכוונים לריבונותם של עצמם.
לפחות, הם מונעים מריבונות לאומית של מדינת הלאום ישראל, ריבונות מופשטת מעשה אדם, להתקיים בהר. וגם ישראל, מצדה, מונעת הרמת דגל לאומי פלסטיני על הר הבית.
ההר נשאר חופשי מסמלים לאומיים שהיו מטמאים אותו, ברוך ה'...
ובינתיים,
מחוץ מלחמה אורבת
ופנימה טרור בבית ובישוב
פוגע בנשים, ילדים וזקנים
| מִחוּץ֙ תְּשַׁכֶּל־חֶ֔רֶב | וּמֵחֲדָרִ֖ים אֵימָ֑ה |
| גַּם־בָּחוּר֙ גַּם־בְּתוּלָ֔ה | יוֹנֵ֖ק עִם־אִ֥ישׁ שֵׂיבָֽה׃ |
אנחנו שורדים בינתיים, לא כי טובים אנחנו, או כי מגיע לנו, אלא מפני שאסוננו הגדול עדיין לא נשכח, וכי אויבינו שפלים. הפרסים מאיימים בשואה גרעינית, בזעם של קנאות דתית מזויפת, כאשר למעשה הם רוצים להשתלט על העולם הערבי.
| אָמַ֖רְתִּי אַפְאֵיהֶ֑ם | אַשְׁבִּ֥יתָה מֵאֱנ֖וֹשׁ זִכְרָֽם׃ |
| לוּלֵ֗י כַּ֤עַס אוֹיֵב֙ אָג֔וּר | פֶּֽן־יְנַכְּר֖וּ צָרֵ֑ימוֹ |
| פֶּן־יֹֽאמְרוּ֙ יָדֵ֣נוּ רָ֔מָה | וְלֹ֥א יְהֹוָ֖ה פָּעַ֥ל כׇּל־זֹֽאת׃ |
| כִּי־ג֛וֹי אֹבַ֥ד עֵצ֖וֹת הֵ֑מָּה | וְאֵ֥ין בָּהֶ֖ם תְּבוּנָֽה׃ |
ירושלים, ט' באב תשע"ז
Sunday, July 9, 2017
The Six-Day war and the Palestinians
An attack by the PLO could have been a trigger of the Six-Day War. This same war lead to the Israeli occupation of the West-Bank and Gaza, the disproportionate reaction of the Israelis being a part of this trigger....
Six-Day War
In early November 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[23]Soon thereafter, in response to Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) guerilla activity,[24][25] including a mine attack that left three dead,[26] the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[27] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[28] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts"
Samu Incident
The Samu incident or Battle of Samu was a large cross-border assault on 13 November 1966 by Israeli military on the Jordanian-controlled West Bank village of Samu in response to an al-Fatah land mine attack two days earlier near the West Bank border, which killed 3 Israeli soldiers on a border patrol. It purportedly originated from Jordanian territory. It was the largest Israeli military operation since the 1956 Suez Crisis and is considered to have been a contributing factor to the outbreak of the Six-Day War in 1967
Result
Demolition of 40 to 120 houses in the town of Samu; rioting in West Bank against king of Jordan; increased tensions contributing to outbreak of Six-Day War
In Jordan, King Hussein was faced with a storm of criticism for failing to protect Samu, emanating from Jordanians, as well as from Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries. Riots spread throughout the West Bank demanding the king be overthrown. Four Palestinians were killed by Jordanian police as a result of the riots. On 20 November, Hussein ordered nationwide military service.
The West-Bank participated in the war
"Nine brigades (45,000 troops, 270 tanks, 200 artillery pieces) were deployed in the West Bank, including the elite armoured 40th, and two in the Jordan Valley."
Gaza could have remained Egyptian if Palestinians didn't attack the Negev
"With the exceptions of Rafah and Khan Yunis, Israeli forces had initially avoided entering the Gaza Strip. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had expressly forbidden entry into the area. After Palestinian positions in Gaza opened fire on the Negev settlements of Nirim and Kissufim, IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin overrode Dayan's instructions and ordered the 11th Mechanized Brigade under Colonel Yehuda Reshef to enter the Strip. The force was immediately met with heavy artillery fire and fierce resistance from Palestinian forces and remnants of the Egyptian forces from Rafah.
By sunset, the Israelis had taken the strategically vital Ali Muntar ridge, overlooking Gaza City, but were beaten back from the city itself. Some 70 Israelis were killed, along with Israeli journalist Ben Oyserman and American journalist Paul Schutzer. Twelve members of UNEF were also killed. On the war's second day, June 6, the Israelis were bolstered by the 35th Paratroopers Brigade under Colonel Rafael Eitan, and took Gaza City along with the entire Strip. The fighting was fierce, and accounted for nearly half of all Israeli casualties on the southern front. However, Gaza rapidly fell to the Israelis."
Israel did everything in order not to have to occupy the West-Bank
"In May–June 1967 Eshkol's government did everything in its power to confine the confrontation to the Egyptian front. Eshkol and his colleagues took into account the possibility of some fighting on the Syrian front. But they wanted to avoid having a clash with Jordan and the inevitable complications of having to deal with the predominantly Palestinian population of the West Bank. The fighting on the eastern front was initiated by Jordan, not by Israel. King Hussein got carried along by a powerful current of Arab nationalism. On May 30 he flew to Cairo and signed a defense pact with Nasser. On June 5, Jordan started shelling the Israeli side in Jerusalem. This could have been interpreted either as a salvo to uphold Jordanian honour or as a declaration of war. Eshkol decided to give King Hussein the benefit of the doubt. Through General Odd Bull, the Norwegian commander of UNTSO, he sent the following message the morning of June 5: "We shall not initiate any action whatsoever against Jordan. However, should Jordan open hostilities, we shall react with all our might, and the king will have to bear the full responsibility of the consequences." King Hussein told General Bull that it was too late; the die was cast."
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
The Emergent World Federation
A paradigm shift for the World Federation
Earth from spaceHumanity longs to live in a world of peace and human rights, a world in which the rule of law is maintained and the global community takes responsibility for responding to crises.
“Global problems need global solutions,” wrote Joseph E. Schwartzberg,
But the United Nations has failed to deliver on its promise.
Why? Because global solutions cannot be enforced upon sovereign nation-states. A sovereign, by definition, obeys no one but itself. The world needs a global governance having sovereignty over existing nation states. Therefore, this governance must be a supranational sovereign.
However, the possibility of voluntarily igniting such a global revolution, in which all states of the world would renounce their sovereignty, sounds highly unrealistic. But in fact, the global world is already emerging in front of our eyes, and states are unwillingly more and more dependent of each other.
The process of globalization appears to be both natural and historical
It seems like belonging to two different realms which modern rational thinking had learned to keep tightly separated: Politics and Cosmology. We need to understand this point.One may ask: if globalization is emerging spontaneously, why should we care about it? New political orders seldom emerge without violent opposition, and in this case, troubles could flare up into a third world war. If we understand that globalization will lead ultimately to a better world, we might be able to bring an easier delivery of this new born.
Moreover, the process is not natural only, it is obviously cultural too, the product of human agency, and humans can err. Global governance will happen, but the way it will depends on us.
I propose a new paradigm to understand globalization
One grounded in complexity theory, theory of evolution and emergentism[1]: Creative Emergence. It sees the whole of the system as more than the sum of its parts, and gives meaning to human civilization by including it in the whole cosmic evolution. What was once characteristic of mythical cosmologies is now achieved on a scientific basis.We can identify general principles operating at all levels of complexity, from the Big-Bang to living organisms and human societies:
Matter becomes more complex with time
Cosmic evolution has a direction: quarks and gluons form the elementary particles. Particles are assembled into atoms, atoms into molecules, macro-molecules, bacteria, eukaryotic cells, plants, primitive animals, higher animals, animal societies, man, human societies... On each floor, there is a jump of complexity when a system becomes a simple element of a higher order system, to form a hierarchy of nested systems.We humans belong to the highest level of complexity in the universe. We stand on top of the older sedimented strata, where Creation continues at this moment to reinvent itself in an eventful bubbling: human History.
Humans first grouped themselves into versatile hunter-gatherer bands, then clans; clans into tribes; tribes into ethnic groups or peoples, which evolved into complex societies having highly specialized division of labor. Lastly, ethnic groups and states form the most complex system existing on Earth: federal states.
What will happen further?
We need simply to extrapolate the next step onto the future: the complexifying unification of peoples and nations will evolve into one federated humanity in all its diversity. The World Federation (WF) is necessarily the next step in the cosmic evolution of complexity.Creating the WF is to engage in Creation proper[2]. Humankind has an immense responsibility. But the general principles of emergence that we are describing will help us. Aren’t they after all the original ‘Creator’ blueprint?
New properties and laws emerge
They emerge at each new level of nesting[3] which are not deductible from those of the lower constituent elements. The properties of water, for example, cannot be simply deduced from those of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.When the Hebrews were freed from slavery, they created a federation of multiple tribes bounded by a covenant, brit in Hebrew. As such, they became a system more complex than the totalitarian Egyptian or Babylonian empires. This could explain the ‘revelation at Sinai’ then of a new body of law, constitution of a new kind of republican polity[4]. It would eventually form the basis of both Western and Islamic civilization.
In the same way, the whole of the WF will be more than its national parts. A new world will emerge, with new laws and new properties we cannot really imagine now. Will the Super artificial intelligence[5] announced by some futurologists[6] turn into the perfect world governance?
Once it is formed, the parts of the system are protected by the overall structure
Society exists if it removes individuals from the Darwinian selection pressure applied at the lower biological level. Concretely, it means protecting the weakest: widows, orphans, foreigners, old people, disabled. Ethics is intrinsic to Creation.The WF alike will removes individual states from the selection pressure of the lower historical level. It means protecting the weakest states from war and poverty. Thus, the World Federation must be supranational, a sovereign UN on the Earth, its indivisible territory.
Each step of the ‘ladder of creation’ is shorter than the previous one
Complexification accelerates. Atomic evolution, molecular evolution, in the physical and chemical domains, Paleolithic, Neolithic revolution, industrial revolution, information revolution, in the cultural domain took less and less time to appear. We can expect the WF to appear in no more than a few decades…The whole is more complex when it integrates the own internal complexity of its parts
This can happen when the system does not repress its complexity, and allows for a rich connectivity and diversity.We understand now why democracy is a better model for society: it promotes maximum complexity by allowing everyone to express their potentialities, and enables free competition between different social and economic models.
The elements organized in a system do not lose their individuality
On the contrary, their own character is strengthened by their complementary participation in the construction of the global whole. The differentiated cells of a multicellular organism are a good example of this individuation.The whole of the federation will impact its parts in feedback. Each nation and culture will be autonomous and integrated, independent and interdependent. Each volkgeist will find its own identity and role as a unique member of the mankind family.
Only a few are 'elected'
Each more complex level is also quantitatively smaller than the one that precedes it.One model of civilization will be elected, the most tolerant and integrative federation. We can already see that globalization is led by the more complex western, democratic and technological nations. Who are the candidates? The EU? The US? Germany? The EU is supranational but not a sovereign federation. I doubt it would be able to turn into one. Furthermore, no national power will be able to impose itself onto the world: it would automatically arouse a counter power, just as once the USSR, and now political Islam, rose up against US dominance. Germany had already tried in recent past...
The most likely leader could well be Israel-Palestine
Their conflict is unique, receives an inordinate share of UN attention, and desperately seeks a unique solution.The Jewish people returned from a worldwide exile to its homeland, introducing a huge diversity. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Arab people formed on the same land. Therefore, they both have a legitimate claim to it, but two national and territorial sovereignties can only cancel each other out. A supranational Israeli-Palestinian federation is the only solution.
Will they be able to reach this solution[7]? Hope is possible: Arab and Jews already share the Abrahamic faith in the Sovereign of the World to whom the Land belongs, and both were born from a federation of tribes… and they have no other choice.
Once a Supranational Sovereign is recognized in the Holy Land, other nations will be able to join freely. The federal capital, Jerusalem, uniting East and West, should then become the seat of the new UN.
Degrees of freedom in interactions with the environment rise with complexity
Consciousness increases, from primitive forms of sentience to animal cognition, human self-awareness, and a future global ‘Noosphere’[8].United in the World Federation, with the help of the emerging super AI and reaching new levels of consciousness, humanity will be freed from scarcity, diseases, maybe death. Spatial conquest will open new worlds to its creative forces.
--------------------
[1] Valentin Turchin, The Phenomenon of Science. A cybernetic approach to human evolution.
[2] Stuart A. Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion.
[3] Laughlin, Robert B., A Different Universe (2005).
[4] Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought, Harvard University Press, 2010.
[5] Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence, Oxford University Press
[6] Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near, 2006
[7] Yosef Gorny , From Binational Society to Jewish State: Federal Concepts in Zionist Political Thought, 1920-1990.
[8] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, Harper Torchbooks, The Cloister Library, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1961, p. 253
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
The Holyland Union Dream
I don't agree with the principle stating that "The two national entities, Israel and Palestine, would enjoy absolute sovereignty". This is a confederation.
The Union should enjoy absolute sovereignty, and the states should have only a large autonomy, being independent and interdependent. This is a federation.
Apart from that, I like the name and have adopted it in my website.
Viewpoint: The Holyland Union Dream
The Union should enjoy absolute sovereignty, and the states should have only a large autonomy, being independent and interdependent. This is a federation.
Apart from that, I like the name and have adopted it in my website.
Viewpoint: The Holyland Union Dream
By ELDAD BECK
10/05/2010 13:19
With the renewal of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the time is ripe for some out-of-the-box thinking.
Photo by: Avi Katz
WITH THE RENEWAL OF DIRECT PEACE TALKS between Israel and the Palestinians, the time is ripe for some out-of-the-box thinking. Both theoretical solutions of the conflict – partitioning the holy land to create two states for two peoples, or leaving it intact as one state for two peoples, are problematic. One way forward might be to create a grand synthesis between the two by adopting the best of both.
In itself, the one state solution is a non-starter. Despite rumblings by some Palestinian leaders that they might be ready to go for a one state model in which the Palestinians would soon become a majority, most Palestinians are not ready to give up the more realistic dream of establishing an internationally-backed state of their own along the 1967 borders. And despite proposals by some right-wing Israeli thinkers to grant West Bank Palestinians Israeli citizenship in a single state that would somehow retain its Jewish majority, most Israelis won’t agree to put their already existing predominantly Hebrew speaking Jewish state at risk. Nevertheless, the complexity of the situation is such that both sides would be well advised to look beyond the conventional two-state wisdom to an arrangement in which partition of the holy land does not entail a total and possibly unworkable disengagement.
One such model could be that of the European Union. It could satisfy the aspirations of both sides for separate national sovereignty and unique cultural identity in two separate nation states, while creating a common superstructure to promote shared interests and exploit joint resources in all the territory of the holy land they share.
Even if establishing such a model today seems like a phantasmagoric pipe dream without any basis in the conflict-ridden Israeli- Palestinian experience, the very prospect could make it easier for both sides to reach a practical solution to the conflict.
If adopted, the EU-style superstructure would encourage the two nations to work together for the good of the land over which they had been warring for exclusive ownership, by establishing a kind of joint ownership over the territory as a whole.
The two national entities, Israel and Palestine, would enjoy absolute sovereignty, like, say, the French and the Germans, with their own flag, government, parliament, stamps, currency and the like.
But, like the members of the EU, the two separate countries would set up a joint administration, let’s call it the “Holyland Union,” which would be headed by a commission, with representatives from both sides. The commission would, of course, be based in Jerusalem. Its mandate would be to devise and implement joint projects designed to promote an improved quality of life and a solid infrastructure for reconciliation and coexistence, for example in fields like the economy, agriculture, environment, health, education and welfare.
A precondition for the success of the “Holyland Union” would be full recognition by both sides of the holiness of the land for different faiths, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Bahais and others. The commission would be entrusted with the task of preserving, maintaining and developing holy and historical sites, and ensuring free access to them. It would also draft joint educational programs to inculcate a thorough awareness on both sides of the importance of the holy land to all religions with roots there. This inclusive approach would quickly turn the holy land into a magnet for international tourism, providing a huge source of revenue and employment.
The joint framework could also help solve problems, which today constitute potential sources of friction: for example, the notions of “transferring” Israeli Arabs, on the one hand, and Jewish settlers, on the other, could be superseded by more creative solutions, allowing both to remain in their current homes, and to choose between full citizenship in their country of residence, or permanent residence and citizenship in the neighboring “Holyland Union” member state. That would enable Jewish settlers in far-flung settlements that become part of Palestine to stay on as permanent residents, but to choose Israeli citizenship and the right to vote for the Knesset. In other words, in a settlement of this kind, there would be no need for any involuntary uprooting of Jewish settlers.
Jerusalem, as the seat of the commission, would gradually become the capital of the union. According it this status should therefore be discussed in the early stages of any future negotiation.
From the outset, the “Holyland Union” will be open to the incorporation of Jordan. Later, membership could be considered for Syria and Lebanon as well, while strictly adhering to the union’s founding principles that guarantee the separate national, cultural and religious rights of all the contracting parties. The next stage might be to consider expanding the union to the Middle East as a whole, turning the initial “Holyland Union” into a much larger Middle Eastern Union. If all the parties will it, it won’t be a dream.
Eldad Beck, who reports on European affairs and developments in the Arab world for The Jerusalem Report, is based in Berlin.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refuses to be resolved
"if everyone considers the modern return to Zion a unique event in human history, that means the Palestinian people or the Israeli Arabs have also been forced to face a unique phenomenon that no other nation has confronted."
Yes Mr. Yeshoshua. And that is why we need a unique solution too!
Why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refuses to be resolved
The author argues that peace remains elusive because the conflict is unprecedented in human history.
By A.B. Yehoshua | Apr.26, 2011 | 1:53 AM | 35
IDF soldiers evacuating Lebanon at the end of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. Photo by Nir Kafri
The question in the headline should ostensibly be directed to a Middle East expert, a political scientist, or even a foreign historian, not a writer whose expertise is his imagination. But because the question is a real one that is painful to everyone in the region regardless of his nationality, I will try to propose an answer.
This question is serious and disturbing for two reasons. First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the longest-running conflicts in the modern era. If we mark its beginning at the start of Zionist settlement in Palestine in the 1880s, the conflict has been active, in blood and fire, for about 130 years.
Second, this is not a remote conflict in a godforsaken place, but one constantly at the center of international awareness. That means it is one of the most extensively dealt-with conflicts in the world. In the past 45 years alone, the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis has been the subject of serious attempts at mediation by many countries and respectable international organizations. Presidents of the United States have tried to mediate personally between the sides. Heads of government from all over the world devote their attention to it; high-level emissaries come to the region to try their hand at mediation and compromise. All this is on top of tireless initiatives by organizations and individuals on both sides in well-meaning symposia and meetings. Studies, books and innumerable position papers have been written and are being written all the time.
And although the sides have come to partial agreements in direct, secret and open talks, and although the formulas for a solution have seemed clear and acceptable, and even though these are two small nations that are ostensibly subject to international dictates, the conflict still contains an inner core that stubbornly refuses to surrender to peace.
It's true that there have been many mistakes and missed opportunities on both sides throughout the years. And because this conflict is cyclical rather than linear - in other words, time does not necessarily bring us closer to a solution, but peace approaches and recedes at historical junctions in the past and future - there is reason to wonder what makes this conflict unique compared to other conflicts, what causes it to persevere so zealously. I do not presume to intimate that my answer is the exclusive one, but I will try to put it to the test.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict refuses to be resolved because it is a conflict unprecedented in human history. There is no precedent for a nation that lost its sovereignty 2,000 years ago, was scattered among the nations, and later decided for internal and external reasons to return to its ancient homeland and re-establish sovereignty there. Therefore, if everyone considers the modern return to Zion a unique event in human history, that means the Palestinian people or the Israeli Arabs have also been forced to face a unique phenomenon that no other nation has confronted.
In the early 19th century there were only about 5,000 Jews in the Land of Israel, compared with the 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 there were about 50,000 Jews compared with 550,000 Palestinians Arabs. (These numbers are from the Jewish Encyclopedia. ) And by 1948 there were about 600,000 Jews versus 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs.
The Jewish people thus quickly ingathered from all corners of the world. They did not want to expel the Palestinians, and certainly not to destroy them, but neither did they want to integrate them into Jewish society as other nations did with the local residents. Moreover, there was no attempt here to impose a colonial regime, since the Jews had no mother country that had sent them on colonial conquests, as in the case of Britain or France. Here something original and unique in human history took place: A nation arrived in the homeland of another nation to replace its identity with an ancient-new one.
That is why at its most profound level, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a question of territory, as in the case of many historical conflicts between nations, but a battle over the national identity of the entire homeland - every stone and every part of it. For both sides, and mainly for the Palestinians, the size of the nation confronting them is not clear - whether it consists only of Israeli Jews or the entire Jewish diaspora. And the Israelis don't know whether they are confronting only the Palestinian people or the entire Arab nation. In other words, the demographic boundaries of the two sides are not clear either. This is therefore a fundamental conflict that constantly creates primal and profound mistrust between the two peoples, preventing a possible solution.
Is it still possible to resolve the conflict without ending up in the trap of a binational state? I believe so, but because this is a question I haven't been asked, I won't answer it now.
Yes Mr. Yeshoshua. And that is why we need a unique solution too!
Why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refuses to be resolved
The author argues that peace remains elusive because the conflict is unprecedented in human history.
By A.B. Yehoshua | Apr.26, 2011 | 1:53 AM | 35
IDF soldiers evacuating Lebanon at the end of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. Photo by Nir Kafri
This question is serious and disturbing for two reasons. First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the longest-running conflicts in the modern era. If we mark its beginning at the start of Zionist settlement in Palestine in the 1880s, the conflict has been active, in blood and fire, for about 130 years.
Second, this is not a remote conflict in a godforsaken place, but one constantly at the center of international awareness. That means it is one of the most extensively dealt-with conflicts in the world. In the past 45 years alone, the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis has been the subject of serious attempts at mediation by many countries and respectable international organizations. Presidents of the United States have tried to mediate personally between the sides. Heads of government from all over the world devote their attention to it; high-level emissaries come to the region to try their hand at mediation and compromise. All this is on top of tireless initiatives by organizations and individuals on both sides in well-meaning symposia and meetings. Studies, books and innumerable position papers have been written and are being written all the time.
And although the sides have come to partial agreements in direct, secret and open talks, and although the formulas for a solution have seemed clear and acceptable, and even though these are two small nations that are ostensibly subject to international dictates, the conflict still contains an inner core that stubbornly refuses to surrender to peace.
It's true that there have been many mistakes and missed opportunities on both sides throughout the years. And because this conflict is cyclical rather than linear - in other words, time does not necessarily bring us closer to a solution, but peace approaches and recedes at historical junctions in the past and future - there is reason to wonder what makes this conflict unique compared to other conflicts, what causes it to persevere so zealously. I do not presume to intimate that my answer is the exclusive one, but I will try to put it to the test.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict refuses to be resolved because it is a conflict unprecedented in human history. There is no precedent for a nation that lost its sovereignty 2,000 years ago, was scattered among the nations, and later decided for internal and external reasons to return to its ancient homeland and re-establish sovereignty there. Therefore, if everyone considers the modern return to Zion a unique event in human history, that means the Palestinian people or the Israeli Arabs have also been forced to face a unique phenomenon that no other nation has confronted.
In the early 19th century there were only about 5,000 Jews in the Land of Israel, compared with the 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 there were about 50,000 Jews compared with 550,000 Palestinians Arabs. (These numbers are from the Jewish Encyclopedia. ) And by 1948 there were about 600,000 Jews versus 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs.
The Jewish people thus quickly ingathered from all corners of the world. They did not want to expel the Palestinians, and certainly not to destroy them, but neither did they want to integrate them into Jewish society as other nations did with the local residents. Moreover, there was no attempt here to impose a colonial regime, since the Jews had no mother country that had sent them on colonial conquests, as in the case of Britain or France. Here something original and unique in human history took place: A nation arrived in the homeland of another nation to replace its identity with an ancient-new one.
That is why at its most profound level, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a question of territory, as in the case of many historical conflicts between nations, but a battle over the national identity of the entire homeland - every stone and every part of it. For both sides, and mainly for the Palestinians, the size of the nation confronting them is not clear - whether it consists only of Israeli Jews or the entire Jewish diaspora. And the Israelis don't know whether they are confronting only the Palestinian people or the entire Arab nation. In other words, the demographic boundaries of the two sides are not clear either. This is therefore a fundamental conflict that constantly creates primal and profound mistrust between the two peoples, preventing a possible solution.
Is it still possible to resolve the conflict without ending up in the trap of a binational state? I believe so, but because this is a question I haven't been asked, I won't answer it now.
Monday, May 9, 2016
להשוות או לא להשוות? זאת השאלה
להשוות או לא להשוות? זאת השאלה
כן נכון, הימין צודק, עלינו קודם כל להגן על עצמנו ולהיות חזקים. אין לרחם על אכזרים. זה הלקח הראשון שעלינו ללמוד מהשואה.
הלקח השני הוא שחייבים להיות מוסריים ואסור לנו להידמות לרוצחינו. האלוף יאיר גולן צודק, ואשר לביטחון , הרי הוא מקצוע.
מה, אי אפשר גם וגם? גם חזקים וגם מוסריים? חייב להיות או או?
אני תמיד מוחה בצורה שלא משתמעת לשני פנים כשערבים או אחרים משווים בין סבלם של הפלסטיני, היום בשטחים או בנכבה שלהם ב- 1948, ובין השואה. אין דמיון כלל. זה נכון בהווה ובעבר, ונכון עד היום. אך, האם לא קיים סכנה שבעתיד כן יווצר בארץ מצב הדומה לשל גרמניה הנאצית?
איום דמוגרפי, שליטה צבאית על אוכלוסיה אזרחית," שטחים כבושים, שטחים מסופחים, משתפי פעולה וממשל משתף פעולה", אלה הרבה מונחים שמתארים את המצב שלנו בין הים לירדן, וגםמשמשים לתאר את גרמניה הנאצית.
עובדה היא שערביי ישראל מהווים איום דמוגרפי על יהדותה של מדינת ישראל. אם מספרם היחסי יעלה, אם לא גורשו/ברחו/לא אושרו לחזור קרוביהם ב-48, הם היו לסכנה דמוגרפית של ממש.
זאת הסיבה למה ישראל עדיין לא סיפחה את עיו"ש: היא לא הייתה יכולה להבטיח את אופיה היהודי כשהיהודים הופכים למחצית או מיעוט במדינתם. אי אפשר לברוח מהמסקנה הנוראית: יש בארץ מצב פוליטי של עם אחד מיותר בעיני העם השני, מצב בו עצם נוכחותו של הראשון מסכן את קיומו של השני. והדבר גם הדדי עבור שני העמים!
הפיתרון המתבקש אובייקטיבית - כשחלוקה טריטוריאלית אינה אפשרית - הינו טרנספר או רצח עם.
רבים היהודים הישראלים והערבים הפלסטינים שתומכים בטרנספר של העם השני.
בהקשר לזה, צודק נתניהו: תחילה היטלר לא רצה אלא רק בטרנספר של היהודים לאי מגדסקר. רק כשראה שאף מדינה לא מוכנה לקבל אותם - לא אירופה, לא האנגלים והערבים בפלסטין, ואף לא האמריקנים הגדולה - גמר בדעתו להשמיד אותם. עלינו לשאול את עצמינו איך הגענו למצב הזה, דווקא אנחנו, אחרי שהיינו הקרבנות, אחרי שהקמנו מדינה דווקא כדי להינצל ממצבים של גירוש, פוגרום ורצח עם?
איזה צחוק צוחקת עלינו ההיסטוריה? ועוד בהומור שחור בלתי נסבל? מהי משמעות הניסיון הזה האכזרי, שמעמיד את הקרבנות במקום הרוצחים, כדי לבדוק לכאורה איך יתנהגו במצב דומה?
יש לי הסבר: הקמנו מדינה על המודל האירופאי, והבעיה נעוצה בכך. אירופה השמידה אותנו ואנחנו מחקים אותה....
המהפכה הצרפתית אמרה ליהודים: תקבלו הכל כפרטים, שום דבר כלאום. אין כאן מקום לשני לאומים באותה טריטוריה! תבחרו, להתבולל או להעלם! היהודים בחרו להתבולל בתוך עם ולהפוך ל"צרפתים בני דת משה"...
למה המהפכה הצרפתית גרמה לשינוי כה קיצוני
במעמד היהודים? במשטר הישן היהודים חיו בתור זרים, באוטונומיה קהילתית-משפטית מוכרת על ידי השלטון המרכזי.
הריבונות הייתה שייכת למלך באופן אישי, ושום דבר לא מנע ממנו לשלוט על מספר עמים וקהילות לאומיות או משפטיות שונות.
המהפכה הגדירה מחדש את טיבם של הלאומיות ושל בעל הריבונות: העם, הלאום קיבל הגדרה טריטוריאלית. כל אדם הנולד או חי חיי קבע בטריטוריה שייך ללאום ויוצר אותו. הריבונות שייכת לעם וגם היא טריטוריאלית. היות ו"אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד", היות ויכול לשלוט רק ריבון אחד במדינה אחת, לחול רק מערכת חוקים אחת זהה לכולם, לא יכולים לחיות שני עמים בארץ אחת.
האם יכולים הערבים הפלסטינים להפוך ל"ישראלים בני דת מוחמד"? לא. גם לערביי ישראל נתנה המהפכה הציונית (כמעט) הכל כאזרחים פרטיים ושום דבר כלאום. רק שלהבדיל מצרפת ובדומה לגרמניה הנאצית, אנחנו לא מציעים לערבים להיקלט בלאום היהודי. אנחנו לא רוצים להתבולל ולהתמזג למעין לאום ישראלי (או פלסטיני) אחד חדש. וגם הם קנאים לזהותם הלאומית -הערבית-מוסלמית, אם כי האיסלאם פתוח וקולט יותר מאשר היהדות.
הנה כאן הדמיון עם גרמניה הנאצית: הנאצים ראו את עצמם כעם-גזע עליון טריטוריאלי שרוצה לשמור על טהרת דמו. ואנחנו היהודים הישראלים רואים את עצמינו כעם נבחר שאינו יכול לשמור על זהותו הייחודית אם ייאלץ לקלוט אל תוכו עם אחר, או להתמזג איתו.
נכון, היהדות לא הבינה אף פעם את רעיון הבחירה כעליונות על אחרים.
נכון היהדות לא מבינה גם כן את עצמה כגזע, כקשר דם בלבד: כל אחד - ללא הבדל דת ולאום - יכול להתגייר ולהפוך ליהודי לכל דבר. אך למעשה קשה להתגייר, וברור שגיור הערבים אינו יכול להוות פתרון פוליטי.
נכון שהגרמנים אסרו על יחסי מין עם "לא ארים" תוך גזענות, ואנחנו, אם לא מתחתנים עם "לא יהודים", זה רק כדי להמשיך ולהבטיח את קיומנו כעם. מה רע ברצון לשמור על שוני ולא להתבולל?
למרות אלפי ההבדלים - שהאנטישמים לא רוצים לראות ושהרבה אחרים לא מבינים - התוצאה הפוליטית היא מאוד דומה: אין בטריטוריה שישראל ריבונית עליה מקום לשני לאומים. שני העמים לא יכולים להתמזג, ואין אפשרות או רצון לחלק את הארץ ביניהם. מדינת הלאום מחייבת שאחד משני העמים צריך "להעלם" כך או אחרת.
המשמח והמעניין הוא שהדבר לא יקרה, לפחות לא בקרוב.
היהודים לא יתנו לעוד שואה להתחולל, והערבים למדו את לקח 48. ועוד, העולם שבוחן ומבקר ללא הרף כל חטאון ישראלי לכאורה, יחד עם זכרו של השואה שעדיין כואב לרוב היהודים, לא יאפשרו זאת.
אם כן, מהו הפתרון למצב הטרום שואתי בה שרויה ישראל מאז היווסדה לפני 70 שנה?
הראיתי שבעיה זו נעוצה באימוץ מודל מדינת הלאום האירופאית להקמת מדינת ישראל.
במקום לפתור את "הבעיה היהודית", הפכנו תפקידים עם "הגוים", אנחנו נהיינו הלאום השולט, והפלסטינים הפכו ללאום הנשלט.
עלינו על כן להמציא מודל חדש של מדינה המאפשרת את קיומם יחד של שני לאומים או יותר באותה טריטוריה, תחת אותו הריבון.
המדינה תהיה בהכרח על-לאומית. המדינה תיצור ברית בין העמים החיים בה. והברית החוקתית היא אשר תהיה הריבון היחיד. שני העמים יהינו מאוטונומיה קהילתית ואזורית רחבה, אך הטריטוריה תשתייך רק לפדרציה., וצבא פדרלי ישמור על גבולותיה.
הלאומים ישמרו על זהותם ההסטורית-דתית-משפחתית העתיקה. לכל אזרח תהיה אזרחות דואלית, שתבטיח זכויות שוות לפרט ולכלל.
בקיצור: עלינו להקים יחד, יהודים וערבים, פדרציה על-לאומית של לאומים לא טריטוריאלים. כך נוכל לחיות בשלום, ביחד ולחוד.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)