Un texto de la izquierda israeli aislada e ignorada por los progresistas del Mundo

Publicamos este texto de algunos representantes de los sectores que luchan por la paz en esa cruel región, donde los pueblos se destruyen en vez de trabajar en paz y tolerancia.

 

Para un utopico como nosotros, la paz es un hecho revolucionario.

Pues con ella los seres se animan a conocerse y tolerarse, a dar al otro la mano abierta y una sonrisa.

¡ El otro es nuestro espejo...nos guste o no!

Para los que se disfrazan de progresistas y rechazan a una de las partes de un complejo conflicto donde todo el Mundo participa y cree ser indispensable, donde hay tanta mierda disfrazada con bellas palabras o sonrisas cuando se mata al otro que somos nosotros...dependemos de qué parte de la calle nos tocó vivir...olvidandonos que somos y seremos vecinos y que sólo nos queda la fraternidad!

Lean...animense!  

................

AN ISRAELI VIEW Who's afraid of negotiations?
By Yossi Beilin
An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is in the Israeli national
interest
and in the Palestinian national interest. It offers Israel a high
probability of security, international recognition of its eastern
border,
internal recognition of Jerusalem as its capital, closing of the 1948
refugees file and an end to mutual claims. The Palestinians will
receive a
contiguous state within borders based on the 1967 green line, a capital
in
the Palestinian part of Jerusalem and sovereignty over the Temple
Mount, and
of course release from occupation and a good chance for accelerated
economic
development. Only negotiations can generate such an agreement.
The alternative that has become attractive in the eyes of many since
the
unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is an additional significant withdrawal
in
the West Bank. It is attractive because it relieves both sides of the
pitfalls and crises of negotiating, affords Israel what many of us
cherish--to determine our own fate ourselves--and avoids concessions
and
compromises over sensitive issues like Jerusalem. The price we would
pay for
this option would of course be to forego international recognition and
leave
open wounds for the future, when negotiations are liable to take place
under
more difficult circumstances and Israel will be left with little by way
of
territorial leverage. The price the Palestinians would pay would be
acquiescence in an entity made up of autonomous enclaves ("bantustans")
instead of contiguous territory, and the strengthening of Hamas, which
would
argue that only violence, rather than compromise, can remove Israel
from the
territories.
Israel's early elections, set for the beginning of spring, considerably
shorten the period of political stalemate that commenced with the
withdrawal
from Gaza. Elections in Israel and the PA offer the prospect of a new
departure. Will this take the form of an additional attempt to waste
time
and maintain the status quo while establishing new facts on the ground?
Or,
despite PM Ariel Sharon's concerted denials, will he carry out an
additional
unilateral move? Or will internal and external pressures force the two
sides
back to the negotiating table?
The attitudes of the principal actors in the arena can be characterized
as
follows. Among those advocating negotiations, some are prepared to pay
the
price of an agreement while others seek to maintain negotiations solely
in
order to prove that an agreement is impossible. Of those on both sides
who
oppose negotiations, some are prepared to make concessions, while
others
oppose any concession at all. That such disparate actors find
themselves in
the same category does not of course mean that there is any real
resemblance
or proximity among them, but rather reflects the fact that in politics
strange bedfellows can share the same conclusion.
The Labor party, particularly since the primary victory of Amir Peretz,
calls for a return to the Oslo track. This approach was supposed to
have
brought us back in May 1999 to a permanent agreement, and it mandates
achieving such an agreement as quickly as possible. Peretz's haste in
declaring, in the same breath, that he will not divide Jerusalem and
"is not
Geneva", raises incredulity concerning his seriousness. Nevertheless it
would appear to be correct to categorize him among the supporters of
negotiations and those prepared to offer significant concessions in
return
for peace. Meretz-Yahad is committed to the Geneva initiative and is
thereby
in the vanguard of those advocating negotiations and concessions for
peace.
Of the Arab parties, Hadash also emphasizes such positions. The PA
under Abu
Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) has long advocated renewing peace negotiations,
and
among its leaders are prominent personalities who have voiced explicit
support for the Geneva initiative.
It would appear fair to state that the Likud (particularly in the event
Netanyahu is its leader) emphasizes the priority of negotiations
primarily
because it sees in them a way of maintaining the status quo, insofar as
it
never evinces a readiness to make concessions that the other side can
live
with. There are also elements on the Palestinian left that offer
negotiations with Israel not with the purpose of reaching an historic
compromise but rather in order to prove just how impossible it is.
It was Ariel Sharon who stopped the peace negotiations in early 2001
and who
has done everything in order not to return to them. He asserts that
there is
no peace agreement that both Israelis and Palestinians can accept.
Hence
conceivably, under certain circumstances, and particularly if he feels
pressured, he will prefer to withdraw unilaterally from additional
areas.
Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beteinu party fills a similar ideological
slot.
On the Palestinian side, Hamas opposes any agreement with Israel
because it
is not prepared to legitimate the state of the Jews, but would agree to
an
extended ceasefire were Israel to withdraw unilaterally. From this
standpoint it is the ultimate partner for the Kadima party.
Parties like the NRP and the National Union make no secret of their
opposition to any negotiations and any territorial concession. Islamic
Jihad
presents a similar refusal.
It took more than 38 years for the Israeli political mainstream to
understand that without significant concessions regarding the Land of
Israel
it cannot maintain a Jewish and democratic state here. We don't have
another
38 years for the mainstream to recognize that there is no better way to
reach that goal than an historic agreement between the two
peoples--despite
the hostility and despite the scars.- Published 12/12/2005 ©
bitterlemons.org
Yossi Beilin is chair of the Meretz-Yahad party.

Meretz-Yachad Chairman Yossi Beilin, in reaction to the Adva report on
poverty:  The Labor Party bears direct and full responsibility for the
deterioration of Israeli society into the depths that separate the rich
from
the poor through its failure to fight against the policies of Silvan
Shalom
and Netanyahu during their terms as finance ministers.  Amir Peretz
himself,
who presents himself as the great opponent of the national unity
government,
joined this government and even boasted about One Nation's
representation in
it.
Meretz-Yachad will persevere in its struggle to rehabilitate the
welfare
state which has suffered at the hands of the Sharon-Labor governments
since
2001.

At a meeting in Paris between Meretz-Yachad Chairman Yossi Beilin and
French
Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French minister told Beilin
that
he is convinced that after the elections in the PA and in Israel, a
clear
demand will be made of the two sides to implement the road map in order
to
proceed toward a permanent arrangement. 
Beilin said that the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of
vital importance not only for our future but for that of the entire
region
and that the Americans do not understand that the resolution of the
conflict
could make it easier for them to convince the Arab world of the
sincerity of
their intentions regarding the region and to extricate themselves from
the
Iraqi quagmire.

Beilin Calls On the Quartet To Recall Its Ambassadors From Iran
In a letter he sent to the foreign ministers of the Quartet,
Meretz-Yachad
Chairman Yossi Beilin thanked them for their condemnation of the
remarks
made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and said that the remarks were
ethically problematic and politically worrisome.
"The international community must not tolerate statements of this
nature,
and I appeal to all those countries that have envoys in Iran to recall
them.
As a Jew, a Zionist, and an Israeli political leader, I reject the idea
of
an inevitable clash between Islam and Israel.  The isolation of Iran
from
the community of nations is vital in order to underscore the difference
between those elements in the Muslim world that do not recognize Israel
and
want to destroy it and those that are prepared to recognize Israel's
right
to exist and attain peace with it."