De Israelische Terreur 393

De Israelische ambassadeur in het Verenigd Koninkrijk reageert op dezelfde wijze als de "onafhankelijke journalist" Salomon Bouman:

'Ambassador's own goal
Israel's ambassador in London is trying to delegitimise genuine debate about his country's future
Brian Klug
guardian.co.uk,
Friday June 13 2008

Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the UK, claims that the debate about Israel in Britain "has been hijacked by extremists". He alleges that Israel faces "an intensified campaign of delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards". With respect, the boot is on the other foot. His intemperate attack on his opponents, with its sweeping generalisations and uncorroborated slurs, is itself a form of demonisation and an attempt to delegitimise two perfectly valid debates.
One debate concerns the question of how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prosor describes calls for a "one-state solution" as "disingenuous", amounting to "a movement advocating Israel's destruction". Has he forgotten that a section of the right in his own country supports a version of a one-state solution: annexation of the West Bank and Gaza into a unified state of Israel?
His broadside, of course, is aimed against a different part of the political spectrum. But even here, there is no single, simple one-state idea. Variations include a unitary secular state, a binational state, a confederation, and so on. Moreover, some people see a "one-state solution" as a long-term goal, others as an immediate imperative. There are pros and cons for each view, just as there are for a "two-state solution" – which also takes several different forms. (A secular Jewish friend of mine from Tel Aviv tells me he supports three states for three peoples: Palestine for Palestinians, Jerusalem for religious Jews, and Tel Aviv for people like himself. He is only half-joking.)
In short, there is a range of possibilities. People of goodwill who care about the future for all the inhabitants of the conflict-torn territory between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan are entitled to debate them. Let the ambassador enter this complex debate instead of trying to close it down at a stroke by labelling his opponents Israel-haters.
The "one-state solution", Prosor says, is "euphemistic". Then what is the "two-state solution" that his government says it supports, given the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas? As recently as last week, Ze'ev Boim, the Israeli housing minister, announced plans to build nearly 900 new residential units for Israeli Jews in Pisgat Ze'ev and Har Homa. Officially, both neighbourhoods are part of the municipality of Jerusalem. Actually (as I saw for myself the other day with Har Homa), they sit astride West Bank hilltops.
Ambassador Prosor says that those who promote a "one-state solution" "distort Israel's past". Does he imply that people on his side of the argument do not distort the past? History does not speak for itself. Arguing over the past is part and parcel of the debate; so his point is null and void. He goes on to say that his opponents deny "Israel's right to exist as a liberal Jewish democratic state". Setting aside the question of what "a liberal Jewish democratic state" means, the abstract "right to exist" is not the focus of this debate. When I was in Jerusalem earlier this week, a number of (Jewish) Israeli friends expressed their concern as to whether the state has a future – not a right to a future but the reality of one – given the deadlocked status quo and the intransigence of their own government.'


Lees verder: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast