Ariel Center for
Policy Research

A JOURNAL OF POLITICS AND THE ARTS

 

NATIV   ■   Volume Fifteen   ■   Number 4-5 (87-88)  ■  September 2002   ■  Ariel Center for Policy Research

 

SYNOPSIS

 


 

Between Left and Leftism and Between Nationality and Chauvinism

Yoseph Gorny

The history of the Zionist movement seemingly had a contradictory nature because on the one hand it claimed a readiness for a protracted struggle, while on the other it showed a willingness for a political compromise. The recognition that Israel needs an ally as a condition for any settlement characterizes the history of Zionism. Only a formal, real alliance with the United States could possibly lead to a settlement. Based on these assumptions, the author proposes a confederative settlement that would include Israel, Jordan, and Palestine while making Jerusalem a sort of Vatican of the three religions. East Jerusalem could be handed over to the Arabs because, in any case, Israel does not have control over it. The “right of return” is completely rejected in principle. The idea of transfer is not feasible from the standpoint of international politics. The confederative settlement would lead in the future to a regional military alliance, a sort of Middle Eastern NATO. Both utopias – the brutal one that favors war, and the rational, humane one, i.e., the confederative solution – are infeasible in the foreseeable future. Despite the fact that the Arab terrorist movement is the cruelest in the history of underground and terrorist movements on the one hand, and notwithstanding Jews’ deep historical attachment to Judea and Samaria on the other, Israel should not remain in Judea and Samaria because this constitutes occupation. Thus, the self-destruction of Israeli society does not stem from self-hatred as claimed by the ACPR, but instead is a consequence of this occupation. 

ACPR Contact usNativ IndexNativ in Hebrew