Pragmatism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Responses to Majalli Whbee, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel By Irman Abdurrahman In his article
"India and the Peace Process in the Middle East" (Koran Tempo, 12 February 2008), Deputy Minister
Israel Foreign Affairs, Majalli Whbee, writing, "This is the time for Indonesia to put themselves together with the
pragmatic and moderate, and by doing so show support for Indonesia to fully
road to peace (in the Middle East). "There are some notes in the above related Whbee
how to make a political settlement of pragmatism Israel-Palestinian conflict.
First, pragmatism, as the approach that accept reality and practicality in kekinian complete
problems, Whbee referred to the moderate Arabs and Palestinians. Of course, the intended Whbee here
is a regime-Arab regimes that are already formal-establish diplomatic relations with Israel and the government
President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faksi that Israel recognize the de jure. At the same time, pragmatism
dipertentangkan with what Whbee used as the groups of Islamic extremists and fundamentalists who
recognize Israel reject the de jure. There is one implication that pragmatism, for Whbee, equivalent to recognize
Israel, and this view is not entirely mistaken. Second, Whbee want to say that the road
pragmatislah that is now central Israel adopted with the moderate, and this is the road that will
to bring a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Strangely, speaking different factual reality. Israel and its
among moderate Arabs and Palestinians, it is often the policies and actions that are far from the aroma
pragmatism might even say extreme. Also unique, views "legalis-ideal" (ie
idealist-based law, to distinguish it from the "ideal-extremists") to the Israel-Palestinian conflict
it is very pragmatic and practical to implement. Pulang rights of the Palestinian Rights home (right of return)
Palestinian nation is one of the most crucial issue in the settlement of this conflict since the beginning of Israel faced
approach through the "ideal-extremists." Israel rejected the millions of Palestinian refugees, brothers compatriot
Whbee own, to return to their houses and lands of which they now reside in the territory of Israel.
There are at least two reasons that the public was on the disapproval of Israel. First, during the
Palestinian refugees can not be seen "live side by side in peace with their neighbors,"
Israel felt the back of their obligations not. Second, Israel regard the implementation of rights
return for Palestinian refugees is not practical considering there is centers on the Jewish population in the region,
the first is the land of the Palestinians. Validkah plea on the second? The first clear the
no way related to the pragmatic middle dititi Israel didaku. Pragmatism does not talk about
the possibility in the future. During the Palestinian diaspora is not getting their right to
home, how can someone may judge that they will not live with are friends
Jewish citizens. Fact one million Palestinians, more people now survive in Israel (20% of the population) are not
cause a problem of violence against Jews. In fact, citizens of Israel-Palestine often become victims of this
violence in the central Israel-Palestinian conflict. The second reason is not factual. Demographic data show that
78% Jews occupy only 14% Israel 22% while the remaining 86% live in the area of Israel, who is originally
the land of Palestine (Salman Abu-Sitta, Palestine Land Society). This means, only about two to three hundred thousand
Jews inhabit areas of 17,325 square kilometers, so placement of Palestinian refugees return there
still possible and practical. There is one question prod. If Israel can allow the 20% filled by population
Palestinian people, are brothers and their relatives, who have the same rights to live in Israel, in the
At that time is not allowed to go home? It seems a matter of practicality and security of Jewish citizens is not reason
main behind the rejection of Israel. Israel looks more worrying problem demografisnya. Citizens of Israel-Palestine
have a birth rate is higher (about 8.4% of 1000 births) than the Jewish people (about 3.5% of
1000 births). This phenomenon, plus the return of millions of Palestinian refugees, will create
Jews became a minority in Israel, and this is clearly the desire for Israel to be "state
Jews ". In addition to practical thing to do, the right home is also the Palestinian nation's mandate for at least
four International Covenant, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This mandate be back in
Resolution 194 explicitly by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Notice how the practicality and pragmatism
turns along the way with a "legalis-ideal". Recognition of Israel Conduct
talks with Israel must be recognized is a pragmatic step in the effort to take the peace in the Middle East.
This meniscayakan recognition of Israel as a reality, or de facto. Political pragmatism
make enough of this kind, and does not need to make a formal recognition (de jure). Not
political pragmatism should not talk about the formality or legality? If the de facto, Hamas,
faksi which is often described as the flow ekstrimitas Israel Palestine, Israel would have been admitted. Unlike
Arab countries that initially only mention of Israel as "Zionis entity," Hamas has
implicit in writing the name of Israel's color in the Charter in 1988. Even recently, Hamas
submit a proposal genjatan weapons to Israel, something that mengafirmasi de facto recognition of its over Israel.
Unfortunately for the time, a proposal that Israel rejected the precondition Hamas must recognize Israel
as a "Jewish state". Hamas does not recognize Israel is to exist as a "country
Jews ". This is not even a formal recognition of the moral, but there is no relevance at all with
pragmatism. It is important to note that, like Hamas, PLO Charter, which is made in 1964, declare
Israel as "completely illegal". The statement is a new change in 1998 but since 1993 Israel toh
can still talk to the PLO and the birth of Oslo. Why is the approach now is not the same
Israel against Hamas do? Where now is pragmatism? One again, momentum in the Hamas victory
legislative elections in 2006 (reality) and signaling the group to change his view concerning dialogue with Israel

wasted "the pragmatic". They even try to squeeze out the reality
elected government. Where pragmatism that now? Indonesia conclusion clearly does not need to be taught by a matter of Israel
pragmatism in solving a conflict. Indonesia-related conflict in Aceh, it should
a lesson for Israel. Indonesian able to negotiate an agreement with the birth and the Free Aceh Movement
(GAM), which is formal, perhaps even moral, does not recognize the existence of this country. So, stop talking
of pragmatism! Do and apply it only pragmatism! Irman Abdurrahman is on the Staff Writer
Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) and the Jakarta Aktivits Voters Palestine.