Israel election: the allure of ‘separation’

HaAretz had a fascinating piece yesterday that was Ari Shavit’s account of a fierce discussion he had with Kadima MK (and Labor defecter) Haim Ramon about the virtues of the ‘spearation barrier’ (the Wall) and the whole Kadima mindset of unilateral separation that goes with it.
Since this is certainly the main issue in today’s election in Israel, I thought people might want to read the article. It’s here.

11 thoughts on “Israel election: the allure of ‘separation’”

  1. It’s a great read, Helena. Particularly interesting to me is Ramon arguing from demographics. Yet another reason why the option of sitting tight and doing their own thing looks like a decent strategy in the eyes of many Palestinians. For now, I guess we ponder these thoughts and await the exit polls.

  2. “A fascinating piece”
    Yes, I found it enlightening. The enlightening part was that Ramon (of Kadima) found the idea “They will demand one man, one vote, one state” to be of central importance. I have always considered a one-state solution to be a dead letter that would never be revived. They feel differently. I would love to know why.
    If, during the Cold War, the Soviets and Chinese had demanded at the UN that they unite with the USA into a one-state solution whose government would be chosen by referendum or post-unification election, you can imagine what would have happened to such a proposal. So why should a similar proposal in the mideast fare any better?
    I would truly love to know why Kadima (or at least Ramon) thinks things would go differently. Sincerely, help me out here, why would Israel participate in a suicide referendum?
    And as long as I’m asking: I’d love to know if the Israelis who voted for Kadima do so because they are afraid of a one-state solution. Or is that just Ramon?
    The other “Fascinating” fact is that both sides have agreed that no agreement with the Palestinians is possible. I think this means that they must also believe that another war (or large Intifada) is inevitable, at some future time, despite the fact Ramon says ” “I think there won’t be a war. The Palestinians will have something to lose. Their quality of life will be far better.” Perhaps another test of the theory of economic determinism in the Mideast. Some people believe in economics, some in “National interest” and some in peace treaties.
    I think the belief that war is inevitable tends to make war more likely. I don’t think that quality of life has much to do with it. Think of the quality of life of the Arabs for the preceding 500 years. Also, remember the quiet under the impoverished occupation of Jordon and Egypt. I think the issues are ideological, religious and nationalistic. Not economic.

  3. WarrenW,
    You write: “I think the issues are ideological, religious and nationalistic. Not economic.”
    Right you are. That is exactly what this is all about. And, frankly, what it has always been all about.

  6. “This is off the topic but this website has some disturbing photos from Hebron:”
    The beauty of Zionism brought to you in part by the American tax payer.

  7. Meanwhile, Israel gave the oil fields east of the Euphrates to American companies, and to this day (Sukkot 2010), gasoline is .25 cents/gallon. Israel is the 3rd largest oil exporting nation on earth and, with its solar and de-salination facilities, sustains the highest annualized GDP and the cleanest environment. Animal and bird species thought extinct have begun appearing in the Promised Land. Re’im are regularly sighted; even the chassidah….
    http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/269-NIGHTMARE-INTO-DREAM-BACK-TO-THE-FUTURE.html#extended

  8. warrenw –
    the reason why a partition-based plan is fundamentally untenable in 2005 is the same as it was in 1947, and in 1881. the land between the jordan and the mediterranean is one territory in geographic, economic, and historical/cultural terms.
    there are different ecological zones, to be sure, and have always been a complex mixture of social and cultural groups (as of, say, 1881: settled farmers, bedouin, urbanites; palestinians with roots in the caucasus or in africa as well as multi-century indigenous folks, yerushalmi and sefardi jews, turks, armenians, etc). but the connections between jaffa, gaza, hebron, al quds/jersualem, etc and the towns and villages between them have made the region one for centuries. partitioning palestine is a losing game, just as it was in germany, and has been in ireland.
    the founders of zionism recognized that, as can be seen in the discussions benny morris has documented around the long-term goal of ‘transfer’ – i.e. expelling the palestinian population from the entire area.
    and as jeff halper of the israeli committee against home demolitions has argued, that integration is massively increased by the very networks of highways and so on that have been built to sustain the occupation. this infrastructure binds the whole territory together even as the apartheid regulations governing its use enforce a division of the people who inhabit it.
    the only basis of support for partition right now is the commitment of many israeli jews and many palestinians to an ethnic/racial nationalist state. ramon gave a beautiful illustration of this.
    ironically, hamas seems to be the major political actor in palestine/israel who is most willing to argue for taking the territory as a whole and applying a one-person-one-vote standard to it. despite the fact that in such a system they would most likely never be more than a mid-range parliamentary player (warrenw –
    the reason why a partition-based plan is fundamentally untenable in 2005 is the same as it was in 1947, and in 1881. the land between the jordan and the mediterranean is one territory in geographic, economic, and historical/cultural terms.
    there are different ecological zones, to be sure, and have always been a complex mixture of social and cultural groups (as of, say, 1881: settled farmers, bedouin, urbanites; palestinians with roots in the caucasus or in africa as well as multi-century indigenous folks, yerushalmi and sefardi jews, turks, armenians, etc). but the connections between jaffa, gaza, hebron, al quds/jersualem, etc and the towns and villages between them have made the region one for centuries. partitioning palestine is a losing game, just as it was in germany, and has been in ireland.
    the founders of zionism recognized that, as can be seen in the discussions benny morris has documented around the long-term goal of ‘transfer’ – i.e. expelling the palestinian population from the entire area.
    and as jeff halper of the israeli committee against home demolitions has argued, that integration is massively increased by the very networks of highways and so on that have been built to sustain the occupation. this infrastructure binds the whole territory together even as the apartheid regulations governing its use enforce a division of the people who inhabit it.
    the only basis of support for partition right now is the commitment of many israeli jews and many palestinians to an ethnic/racial nationalist state. ramon gave a beautiful illustration of this.
    ironically, hamas seems to be the major political actor in palestine/israel who is most willing to argue for taking the territory as a whole and applying a one-person-one-vote standard to it. despite the fact that in such a system they would most likely never be more than a mid-range parliamentary player (<40% of the palestinian vote = <20% of the total vote in a 50/50 electorate).
    while the makhers of the 'only democracy [sic] in the middle east' make political decisions explicitly to avoid being confronted with a one-person-one-vote standard.
    interesting, if not surprising.

  9. the reason why a partition-based plan is fundamentally untenable in 2005 is the same as it was in 1947, and in 1881. the land between the jordan and the mediterranean is one territory in geographic, economic, and historical/cultural terms.
    There is nothing to objectively or empirically support your statement. It is simply an assertion. And the extension of that argument is that all of the Levant is essetially one territory – which might be true, but in 2006 would be very problematic to realize.
    BTW, I think that the comparisons you chose are completly irrelevant. In the case of Germany partition didn’t work because the majority of the people on both sides shared the same cultural and historical background as a nation (and remember, there are parts of “East Prussia” that are Polish today). In the case of Ireland, you have pretty much the same thing, and, in addition, the partition appears to be working for the time being.

  10. Have you ever thought of yourself as an Israeli leader having to deal with the needs of the people of Israel? I’m it is always easy to put blame on others as long as you don’t have to make any decision that would affect other peoples lives?

  11. Have you ever thought of yourself as an Israeli leader having to deal with the needs of the people of Israel? I mean,is it not always easy to put blame on others as long as you don’t have to make any decision that would affect other peoples lives?

Comments are closed.