quarta-feira, 4 de junho de 2025

FGV 2019 – INGLÊS DISCURSIVO – RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS – 1º SEMESTRE

  

https://vestibular.fgv.br

 TEXTO:

ISRAEL  AND PALESTINE
ISRAEL E PALESTINA
Background
Contexto

Zionism is the name of the movement that sought to recover for the Jewish people its historic Palestinian homeland (the Eretz Israel) after centuries of dispersion, or Diaspora – the term used to describe the scattering of Jews in the world outside the land of Israel in ancient times.
Sionismo é o nome do movimento que procurou recuperar para o povo judeu a sua histórica pátria palestiniana (Eretz Israel) após séculos de dispersão, ou Diáspora — o termo utilizado para descrever a dispersão dos judeus no mundo fora da terra de Israel nos tempos antigos.

The modern Zionist movement arose in the late 19th century with plans for Jewish colonization of Palestine, and under Theodor Herzl also developed a political program to obtain sovereign state rights over the territory.
O movimento sionista moderno surgiu no final do século XIX com planos para a colonização judaica da Palestina e, sob a liderança de Theodor Herzl, desenvolveu também um programa político para obter direitos de soberania sobre o território.

In 1917, the British Balfour Declaration endorsed Zionism's objectives, as long as rights for non-Jews in Palestine were not impaired.
Em 1917, a Declaração Balfour britânica endossou os objetivos do sionismo, desde que os direitos dos não-judeus na Palestina não fossem prejudicados.

From 1920 to 1948, the United Kingdom administered Palestine, which was viewed by the Jews as the “Promised Land,” but which also contained an Arab Muslim majority as well as many Islamic holy sites associated with Mohammed.
De 1920 a 1948, o Reino Unido administrou a Palestina, que era vista pelos judeus como a "Terra Prometida", mas que também continha uma maioria árabe-muçulmana, bem como muitos locais sagrados islâmicos associados a Maomé.

After World War II, Jewish immigrants (strongly supported by the United States) flooded into Palestine.
Após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os imigrantes judeus (fortemente apoiados pelos Estados Unidos) fugiram para a Palestina.

Tension between Jews and Arabs (i.e., native Palestinians) led the UN in 1947 to propose the formation of two states in Palestine, one Jewish and the other Arab.
A tensão entre judeus e árabes (i.e., palestinianos nativos) levou a ONU, em 1947, a propor a formação de dois Estados na Palestina, um judeu e outro árabe.

When the Arab side rejected this, David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) announced the creation of the independent State of Israel on 14 May 1948.
Quando o lado árabe rejeitou a proposta, David Ben-Gurion (primeiro-ministro de Israel) anunciou a criação do Estado independente de Israel a 14 de Maio de 1948.

Embora os seus vizinhos árabes tenham invadido imediatamente, Israel saiu vitorioso e conquistou mais terras do que as que tinham sido concedidas pela ONU.

Over 700,000 Arab refugees left the Israeli-occupied areas.
Mais de 700.000 refugiados árabes abandonaram as zonas ocupadas por Israel.

Since then, several wars and armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and neighboring Arab countries.
Desde então, têm ocorrido várias guerras e conflitos armados entre Israel e os países árabes vizinhos.

And the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, especially those Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, which are under Israeli control (although the Palestinians living there do enjoy some measure of self rule), remains marked by animosity, bitterness, and violence, all of which have been exacerbated by, among other things, Palestinian accusations of Israeli oppression (and encroaching occupation and colonization) and Israeli accusations of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Semitism.
E a relação entre israelitas e palestinianos, especialmente os palestinianos que vivem em Gaza e na Cisjordânia, que estão sob controlo israelita (embora os palestinianos que aí vivem gozem de algum grau de autonomia), continua a ser marcada pela animosidade, amargura e violência, tudo isto exacerbado, entre outras coisas, pelas acusações palestinianas de opressão israelita (e de ocupação e colonização invasivas) e pelas acusações israelitas de terrorismo e anti-semitismo palestinianos.

As for Zionism itself, it is still active as a movement encouraging Jews worldwide to immigrate to and take an interest in the Jewish state.
Quanto ao sionismo em si, ainda está ativo como um movimento que incentiva os judeus de todo o mundo a imigrar e a interessar-se pelo estado judaico.
********************************
TWO TERRORISMS
DOIS TERRORISMOS
By Henry Siegman

To a great extent, Jewish terrorism and war crimes marked the creation of Israel.
Em grande medida, o terrorismo e os crimes de guerra judaicos marcaram a criação de Israel.

Those who are told about this history dismiss it as a fabrication.
Aqueles que são informados sobre esta história descartam-na como uma invenção.

What they deny or ignore is that these charges have been fully documented not only by historians, including Israeli ones, but also by Israel’s own military.
O que negam ou ignoram é que estas acusações foram plenamente documentadas não só pelos historiadores, incluindo israelitas, mas também pelas próprias forças armadas de Israel.

The point of recognizing this history is not to justify terrorism by either Israelis or Palestinians, but to acknowledge the outrageous double standard that has been applied to the two parties and has undermined the possibility of a peace accord.
O objetivo de reconhecer esta história não é justificar o terrorismo por parte de israelitas ou palestinianos, mas reconhecer o escandaloso duplo critério que foi aplicado às duas partes e minou a possibilidade de um acordo de paz.

Without knowing that history, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the extent to which Israeli propaganda has succeeded in shaping a narrative about the creation of Israel that presents the Palestinians who were brutally expelled from their homes as the aggressors and the Jews as their victims.
Sem conhecer esta história, é difícil, senão impossível, compreender até que ponto a propaganda israelita conseguiu moldar uma narrativa sobre a criação de Israel que apresenta os palestinianos que foram brutalmente expulsos das suas casas como os agressores e os judeus como suas vítimas.

Without that history, it is impossible to understand the outrage Palestinians feel over having been portrayed as the bad guys for so long.
Sem esta história, é impossível compreender a indignação que os palestinianos sentem por terem sido retratados como os vilões durante tanto tempo.

Palestinians opposed the UN partition plan and started the 1948 war, but they did so not because of their hatred of Jews or their unhappiness with the partition plans, but because they didn’t want to accept exile, homelessness and disenfranchisement.
Os palestinianos opuseram-se ao plano de partilha da ONU e iniciaram a guerra de 1948, mas não o fizeram por ódio aos judeus ou por insatisfação com os planos de partilha, mas porque não queriam aceitar o exílio, a falta de habitação e a privação de direitos.

What other people would have reacted differently?
Que outras pessoas teriam reagido de forma diferente?

What other people would have agreed to go into exile to accommodate a group that came from outside its borders, claiming a homeland lost two thousand years ago, a principle of ownership that has no parallel in international law?
Que outras pessoas teriam concordado em exilar-se para acomodar um grupo que vinha de fora das suas fronteiras, reivindicando uma pátria perdida há dois mil anos, um princípio de propriedade sem paralelo no direito internacional?

Acceptance of Zionist claims necessarily meant exile for the Palestinians: the Jews of Palestine in 1948 were a minority and if the Jewish state was to be a democracy, it would need a Jewish majority, meaning that the 750,000 Palestinians who lived there would have been expelled even if they hadn’t rejected the partition plan or declared war on the new Jewish state.
A aceitação das reivindicações sionistas significava necessariamente o exílio para os palestinianos: os judeus da Palestina em 1948 eram uma minoria e, se o Estado judaico fosse uma democracia, necessitaria de uma maioria judaica, o que significa que os 750.000 palestinianos que aí viviam teriam sido expulsos mesmo que não tivessem rejeitado o plano de partilha ou declarado guerra ao novo Estado judaico.

As Benny Morris and other historians have written, the war crimes ordered by David BenGurion and executed by his generals were not intended for any purpose other than ensuring the departure of a panicked Arab population.
Como Benny Morris e outros historiadores escreveram, os crimes de guerra ordenados por David BenGurion e executados pelos seus generais não tinham qualquer outra finalidade que não fosse garantir a partida de uma população árabe em pânico.

The point is not that Israelis have no right to defend themselves against Palestinian terrorism, but that the Israeli argument that there is no moral equivalent between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli preventive and retaliatory violence is deeply flawed.
A questão não é que os israelitas não tenham o direito de se defenderem do terrorismo palestiniano, mas sim que o argumento israelita de que não existe um equivalente moral entre o terrorismo palestiniano e a violência preventiva e retaliativa israelita é profundamente falho.

The relevant comparison is between the way Jews acted during their struggle for statehood – not after they achieved it – and the way Palestinians, still very much in the midst of their hopeless struggle for statehood, are acting now.
A comparação relevante é entre a forma como os judeus agiram durante a sua luta pela criação de um Estado – não depois de o terem conquistado – e a forma como os palestinianos, ainda imersos na sua luta desesperada pela criação de um Estado, estão a agir agora.

It is also flawed because you cannot condemn terrorism if you do not offer people under occupation a credible route towards achieving viable statehood through non-violent means.
É também falho porque não se pode condenar o terrorismo se não se oferecer às pessoas sob ocupação um caminho confiável para alcançar uma criação de um Estado viável através de meios não violentos.

That is something Israel has never offered the Palestinians.
Isto é algo que Israel nunca ofereceu aos palestinianos.
Introduction

In the above passage, taken from the article “Two Terrorisms,” author Henry Siegman (himself a Jew and a refugee from The Holocaust, as well as president emeritus of the US/Middle East Project and a former senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations) discusses polemical aspects (both current and historical) of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
No excerto acima, extraído do artigo “Dois Terrorismos”, o autor Henry Siegman (ele próprio judeu e refugiado do Holocausto, bem como presidente emérito do Projecto EUA/Médio Oriente e antigo membro sénior do Conselho de Relações Exteriores) discute aspectos polémicos (actuais e históricos) do conflito entre israelitas e palestinianos.

After reading the separate Background section and then Siegman’s text, answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.
Depois de ler a seção "Contexto" e, em seguida, o texto de Siegman, responda às questões abaixo. Recomendamos que leia as perguntas com atenção e dê respostas que sejam diretamente relevantes. Lembre-se: a sua resposta à Questão 1 deve ser escrita em português, mas as suas respostas às Questões 2 e 3 devem ser escritas em inglês. Com estas duas últimas perguntas, pode usar o inglês americano ou britânico, mas deve ser consistente em todas as suas partes.

(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
(Esta questão testa a sua compreensão do texto, bem como a sua capacidade de identificar e parafrasear a informação relevante. A sua resposta deve preencher aproximadamente 15 a 20 linhas no espaço indicado.)

As outlined in both the Background and the passage, the year 1948 witnessed the founding of the State of Israel. In the opinion of the author of the passage, what circumstances characterized that founding? What measures did the Jews take to guarantee the creation and survival of Israel? How did the Palestinians react? Why, for example, do you think the author has entitled his article “Two Terrorisms”?
Tal como descrito tanto no Contexto como na passagem, o ano de 1948 testemunhou a fundação do Estado de Israel. Na opinião do autor da passagem, que circunstâncias caracterizaram esta fundação? Que medidas tomaram os judeus para garantir a criação e a sobrevivência de Israel? Como reagiram os palestinianos? Por que razão, por exemplo, acha que o autor intitulou o seu artigo "Dois Terrorismos"?

Last, does the author think the Palestinians have been treated fairly or unfairly during this conflict? What reasons does he give to support his opinion?
Por fim, o autor considera que os palestinianos foram tratados de forma justa ou injusta durante este conflito? Que razões apresenta para fundamentar a sua opinião?

In supporting your points of view, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, but please try to be as objective as possible.
Ao apoiar os seus pontos de vista, pode ter em conta considerações legais, éticas, práticas, históricas e até religiosas, mas tente ser o mais objetivo possível.

      RESPOSTAS EM PORTUGUÊS      :
  • Na opinião do autor, o terrorismo e os crimes de guerra por parte dos judeus marcaram a criação do Estado de Israel. Os palestinos foram brutalmente expulsos de suas casas, tratados como agressores, e os judeus, como suas vítimas.
  • Os judeus da Palestina, em 1948, eram uma minoria e, se o estado judeu tivesse que ser uma democracia, ele precisaria de uma maioria judaica, o que significa que 750.000 palestinos que lá viviam teriam que ser expurgados, ainda que não tivessem rejeitado o plano de divisão do Estado ou declarado guerra ao novo Estado Judeu.
  • Os palestinos se opuseram ao plano de divisão das Nações Unidas e começaram a Guerra de 1948, porém, eles assim fi zeram não por conta de seu ódio em relação aos judeus, mas porque eles não quiseram aceitar o exílio, a falta de moradia e a privação de seus direitos.
  • O autor intitulou o texto de “Dois Terrorismos” visto que, por um lado, os israelenses invadiram a Palestina a fim de transformar o país em um Estado Judeu, atacando e expulsando seus moradores com métodos terroristas e crimes de guerra; por outro lado, os palestinos se defenderam, desencadeando a Guerra de 1948. Assim, ambos os lados, Israelenses e Palestinos, podem ser considerados terroristas.
  • Segundo o autor, os palestinos foram tratados injustamente, visto que crimes de guerra foram ordenados por David Ben-Gurion e executados por seus generais, sem nenhum propósito, a não ser garantir a retirada da população árabe tomada pelo pânico.
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

In its 4 January 2018 issue, the London Review of Books presented an article (“The ‘New Anti-Semitism’”) in which the author, Neve Gordon, a Jew as well as a professor at Israel’s Negev University, points out that because of her active (but non-violent) support of Palestinian self-determination and her protests against what she considers Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights, she has been accused of a new kind of anti-Semitism.

In distinguishing between this “new anti-Semitism” and traditional anti-Semitism, Gordon writes the following: “The ‘new anti-Semitism,’ we are told, takes the form of criticism of Zionism and of the actions and policies of Israel, and is often manifested in campaigns holding the Israeli government accountable to international law… In this it is different from ‘traditional’ anti-Semitism, understood as hatred of Jews per se, the idea that Jews are naturally inferior, belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or in the Jewish control of capital etc.”

Gordon goes on to affirm that “The logic of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ can be formulated as a syllogism: (i) anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews; (ii) to be Jewish is to be a Zionist; (iii) therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.”

What is your opinion of the above syllogism? For example, do you think it is reasonable to insist that a sincere, conscientious Jew must also be a Zionist? Can one be a sincere, conscientious Jew, but have no interest in or even oppose the Zionist policies of the Israeli government? Moreover, considering the Israeli government’s often-harsh treatment of Palestinians, does concern for the Palestinian people – some of whom have certainly practiced acts of terrorism against Israelis – make anyone, even a Jew, automatically an anti-Semite, at least in the traditional sense? In your opinion, what would be some of the consequences for Jews around the world if Israel no longer existed?

In answering the above questions, you should support your points of view with clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons. And while you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, please try to be as objective as possible.

      RESPOSTAS EM INGLÊS      :
  • My opinion of the syllogism presented is that being a Jewish is not necessarily being a Zionist, since being a Jew means to follow a religion while to be a Zionist means to support the actions imposed by Israel´s government, its internal issues and foreign relations. One can be a devoted Jew but does not agree with the policies adopted by the Israeli government because it is possible that one may be in favour of two separate states in the region and that Jerusalem, which is disputed by the two sides, should be transformed into humanity heritage.
  • I believe that Palestinians receive the treatment from the government of Israel as they deserve it, because since Israel only retaliate the terrorist attacks and missiles sent from Gaza to the South of Israel. Even so, I am still in favour of two separate states, considering that every human being has the right to call a place his homeland, which does not make me an anti-semite.
  • Israel is considered the land for all the Jews around the world. If Israel no longer existed, the Jews would also be considered a people without a territory, which would mean that the Jews would be feeling the way the Palestinians do, which is diffi cult to grasp. Israel promotes several exchange programs for Jewish youngsters from around the world in order to show them every aspect of the country, cultural, political, social, in order to widen the knowledge of their off springs. If Israel no longer existed, Jewish culture would stop being thought to the next generations.
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. The quotations below underscore a crucial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Read the quotations and answer the question. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

Note: Given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s great complexity, many experts favor the so-called two-state solution, which would enable an independent Palestinian state to co-exist alongside Israel. Unquestionably, a significant number of Israelis and Palestinians support this option. Nevertheless, not only do certain radical Palestinians refuse to recognize the Jewish state, but also many Israelis oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, as Henry Siegman makes clear in the following quotations taken from his article.
• “To this day, the official position of Likud, Israel’s ruling party for much of the past half-century, is that it will never allow the establishment of a Palestinian state anywhere in Palestine.”
• “The two-state solution died because [Israeli prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu and successive Israeli governments were determined to kill it, and those who could have prevented its demise lacked the resolve and moral courage to do so. America failed in the mission it thought itself uniquely qualified to accomplish because it failed to understand that the diplomatic objective of a great power, and particularly the world’s greatest power, should not be peace, a goal that Netanyahu dishonestly embraced, but justice – or at least the avoidance of injustice so egregious as to discredit the values and institutions on which the future of humanity depends.” 

Considering the above ideas and information (as well as the ideas and information presented in Question 1 and Question 2), why do you think the two-state solution is or is not the best option for a lasting and just peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

If you advocate the two-state solution, how do you think it could be implemented? Should the Palestinians and Israelis work out such an accord by themselves, or should the international community, led by the U.S. or by the UN (or both), exert diplomatic pressure and/or impose economic sanctions to force the Israelis and Palestinians to reach an agreement? If and when the two states become a fact, should an outside entity, such as the U.S., NATO, or the UN, guarantee the security of both countries or should they be left alone to defend their own borders?

If you are against the two-state solution – and assuming that you do not want the present situation, with all its attendant violence, injustice, and suffering, to continue – what solution would you propose and why?

In any event, whether you are for or against the two-state solution, considering the following questions may help you to formulate your answer:
• Can Palestinians and Israelis ever live together peacefully, or must they live separately in their own communities or countries?
• Considering that unfriendly and even hostile Arab countries already surround Israel, won’t the creation of an independent Palestine compromise Israel’s national security? Couldn’t a Palestinian state serve as a base for terrorists or to launch a military invasion?
• Should Israel be allowed to incorporate all of the Palestinian lands (including Gaza and the West Bank) into one Greater Israel, in which Palestinians residents are deprived of their civil rights?
• Since the majority rules in a democracy, if Palestinians living in Israel enjoy full civil rights, and if one day they outnumber Jews, can that country survive as a Jewish homeland?
• Do the Jews have an exclusive right to Palestinian territory merely because their ancestors occupied that land 2,000 years ago?
• Should the Palestinians get all of their original territory back and send the Jews on their way? (In pondering this question, you might ask yourself whether the descendants of European colonizers should hand Brazil over to the Indigenous peoples whose ancestors originally inhabited this land.)

In answering Question 3, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.

      RESPOSTAS EM INGLÊS      :
  • The two-state solution is a plausible option for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, “two states for two groups of people”, an independente Israel and Palestine, it can be considered the mainstream approach to resolving the confl ict.
  • Israelis and Palestinians want to run their countries diff erently. Israelis want a Jewish state and Palestinians want a Palestinian one.
  • The implementation of this solution could be achieved with the help from the international community, especially the United States and the UNO.
  • The autonomy and the sovereignty of both nations should be guaranteed after the deal, so that both countries could implement its own rules to be followed by the people.
  • It is risky for the security of Israel in a strategic basis to have an Arab country so close, which could enable other Arab countries
  • to reach Israel with their war powers in an attempt to exterminate Israel, as Iran always states it will do. Anyway, it is even more hazardous to keep the situation as it is nowadays with innocent civilians dying in an endless confl ict that already lasts for decades. Let us try to leave in peace.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário