Avishai Margalit è il più grande filosofo israeliano. Non solo per i riconoscimenti che ha avuto. Compreso lo Israeli Prize. Quello che segue è lo stralcio di una intervista rilasciata al Jerusalem Post, in cui Avishai Margalit spiega con la solita nettezza cosa pensa della politica israeliana e di quella internazionale su Gaza, sulle elezioni del 2006, sulla punizione collettiva inflitta al milione e mezzo di abitanti di Gaza. Margalit, amico dai tempi dell’università in Gran Bretagna di un altro intellettuale gerosolimitano, Sari Nusseibeh, racconta anche cosa pensa di Gerusalemme, stravolgendo la prospettiva (After ’48, there was a consensus in Israel, that the borders of ’48 are the borders of Israel, including the Galilee, which consists mostly of Arab Israelis. After ’67 there was no consensus and in order to create a consensus, they used the term “Jerusalem.”, e poi, sul cosiddetto bacino storico di Gerusalemme, There should really be joint sovereignty over this part, and the administration of it should be by UNESCO. Don’t change the physical part of the city, because it’s a treasured heritage of the whole world, and of the Abrahamic religions. The administration should be made up of both Israelis and Palestinians).
Ma torniamo a quello che pensa dell’assedio attorno a Gaza Margalit, professore a Princeton, fondatore di Peace Now, tra i dirigenti di Btselem:
Do you think Israel should talk to Hamas?
About what? There is very little to talk to with Hamas. If you can talk, you should talk. Indirectly, directly. This is not the issue. What is intolerable is the belief that you can put a million and a half people under siege and believe that something good will come out of it, and this will undermine the Hamas regime. This collective punishment is inhumane. I am surprised that the world accused Israel of doing it and not Egypt. Obviously Egypt is part of the siege. Both do it.
I see the dilemma. You don’t want the Hamas to succeed because that’s what they want. They want to be the avante-gard of the Palestinian community, to show that they can create a mobile society, and they need one place like Gaza to succeed. And Israel rightly doesn’t want them to succeed.
The other extreme is to push them so hard that something will happen. I think in between there are lots of options. They don’t have to succeed. You don’t have to make their lives easy in terms of a success story, but on the other hand to create this huge jail and believe that something good will emerge because now it’s quiet, that’s an illusion. Actually it’s moral bankruptcy and a terrible illusion.
In what way?
Because collective punishment is unjust. There are kids, there are people who want to study and go abroad. There are people who want to conduct some semblance of life. You can’t put a million and a half people, most of them refugees, under siege and then start lamenting the settlements that were destroyed. After all, we gave them the license to vote. They voted for Hamas with the understanding that it’s acceptable.
So your appeal to the government would be to lift the siege?
There are things that you should take seriously to make sure that you get as much as you can, but basically, lift the siege, yes! I think that the siege can’t go on, and I think that it is a disaster. Basically, the Hamas smashed the Fatah. They took over Gaza.
I believe there was a preemptive strike. I think both the Americans and [former Fatah chief in Gaza Muhammad] Dahlan tried to mount a coup in Gaza, which failed. It’s not that the Hamas are squeamish, but they were quite afraid of taking over by military means, I think.