I was born
into the Israeli left. I grew up in the left. I was always a member of the
left. I believed that the day that the Palestinians would have their own
sovereign state would be the day when Israel would finally live in peace. But
like many Israelis of the left, I lost this certainty I once had.
Why? Over
the last 14 years, I have witnessed the inability of the Palestinians to utter
the word "yes" when presented with repeated opportunities to attain
sovereignty and statehood; I have lived through the bloody massacres by means
of suicide bombings in cities within pre-1967 Israel following the Oslo Accords
and then again after the failed Camp David negotiations in 2000; and I have
experienced firsthand the increasing venom of anti-Israel rhetoric that only,
very thinly, masks a deep and visceral hatred for the state and its people that
cannot be explained by mere criticism for the policies of some of its elected
governments.
But one of
the most pronounced moments over the past several years that has made me
very skeptical toward the left were a series of
meetings I had with young, moderate Palestinian leaders to which I was
invited by virtue of being a member of Israel's Labor Party.
I had much
in common with these young Palestinian leaders. We could relate to each other.
However, through discussion, I soon discovered that the moderation of the young
Palestinian leaders was in their acknowledgement that Israel is already a
reality and therefore is not likely to disappear. I even heard phrases such as, "You
were born here and you are already here, so we will not send you away."
(Thank you very much, I thought). But, what shocked and changed my approach to
peace was that when we discussed the deep sources of the conflict between us, I
was told, "Judaism is not a nationality, it's only a religion and
religions don't have the right to self-determination." The historic connection
between the Jewish people and the land of Israel was also described as made-up
or nonexistent.
Reflecting
on the comments of these "moderates," I was forced to
realize that the conflict is far deeper and more serious than I
allowed myself to believe. It was not just about settlements and
"occupation," as Palestinian spokespeople have led the Israeli left
to believe. I realized that the Palestinians, who were willing to accept the
need for peace with Israel, did so because Israel was strong. I realized that,
contrary to the leftist views in Israel, which support the establishment
of a Palestinian state because the Palestinians have a right (repeat: right) to
sovereignty in their homeland, there is no such parallel Palestinian
"left" that recognizes the right (repeat: right) of the Jewish people
to sovereignty in its ancient homeland.
These did
not remain personal reflections. For the following years, these conversations
impacted my political career as I found myself within the Labor Party
increasingly alienated from what I began to term as the "self-flagellating
left," to which the conflict was entirely due to Israel's actions and
which demanded no responsibility or recognition from the Palestinians. As a
member of the Knesset, on behalf of the Labor Party, I helped carry out a split
within the party between its dovish and hawkish wing in order to allow the
hawkish wing headed by then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak to remain in the
coalition with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This realization has also
motivated my continued work around the world to defend Israel and Zionism,
insisting that all peace must be rooted in the mutual recognition of the equal
right of both peoples to the land.
So, it was
somewhat ironic when, just several months ago, I received an email from the
Israeli-Palestinian meeting's organizer to write a response to one of the
program's core funders as to whether the program had an "impact on
anything or anybody." I was asked to "reflect back a few years"
and to write whether the program "had any impact on you — personally,
professionally, socially, politically … " Naturally, I
responded. I wrote that the program had a "tremendous impact on my
thinking and I continue to discuss it to this day in my talks and
lectures." I shared the above story with the organizer, recognizing that
"it is probably not a perspective you want to share with your
funders."
In
response, the organizer sent me an email saying that there are "many, not
one, grass-roots and political Palestinians who truly believe that Jews have a
right to part of the land." I responded enthusiastically that meeting even
"one Palestinian who believes that the Jewish people have an equal and
legitimate claim to the land would be huge for me," and that "I've
been looking for someone like that ever since I participated in the program
many years ago."
Shortly
thereafter, I received the following quote from a Palestinian participant who
expressed a desire to renew the program so that "we can reach a resolution
to this conflict by having an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem
as it's capital living in peace side-by-side with the State of Israel." I
responded, "I do not see that this individual writes that he recognizes
the equal and legitimate right of the Jewish people to a sovereign state in
their own homeland." I was then asked to write precisely what would convince
me that we have a true partner for peace in the Palestinians. So, I drafted the
following phrase:
"The
Jewish people and Palestinian people are both indigenous to the Land of
Israel/Palestine and therefore have an equal and legitimate claim to a sovereign
state for their people on the land." I added that this sentence could be
expanded to say, "Both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people around
the world have an equal and legitimate claim to settle and live anywhere in the
Land of Israel/Palestine, but given the desire of both peoples to a sovereign
state that would reflect their unique culture and history, we believe in
partitioning the land into a Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state,
Palestine, that would allow them each to enjoy dignity and sovereignty in their
own national home." I would also add here that it should be clear that
neither Israel nor Palestine should be exclusively for the Jewish and
Palestinian people respectively and both should accommodate minorities of the
other people.
The
organizer promised to get back to me. Weeks and months passed, and I was
about to publish this piece, opening up the conversation, hoping to find
partners who share my belief, so that I could rekindle my hope that peace
is possible. At the last minute, I was contacted by professor Mohammed S. Dajani Daoudi, the head of
American Studies at Al-Quds University and founder of the Palestinian centrist
movement, Wasatia. All he asked was to change the word "claim"
to "right," and "partition" to "sharing," saying
that "right" was more positive, and "partitioning" had in
the deep psyche of the Palestinians the negative connotation of the 1947 UN partition plan recommendation. He
emphasized that 67 years later, he hopes that Palestinians would realize that
sharing the land by a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, as envisioned by
the UN resolution, was "the right thing to do" in 1947, since both
people do have a legitimate right to the land, and remains "the right
thing to do" today. I found these changes wholly acceptable and welcome.
So the statement we share now reads as follows:
"The
Jewish people around the world and Palestinian people around the world are both
indigenous to the Land of Israel/Palestine and therefore have an equal and
legitimate right to settle and live anywhere in the Land of Israel/Palestine,
but given the desire of both peoples to a sovereign state that would reflect
their unique culture and history, we believe in sharing the land between a
Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state, Palestine, that would allow them each
to enjoy dignity and sovereignty in their own national home. Neither Israel nor
Palestine should be exclusively for the Jewish and Palestinian people
respectively and both should accommodate minorities of the other people."
Who else
will join us in our journey to find true partners on both sides?
No comments:
Post a Comment