The Palestinian struggle for self-determination has taken
many routes and each, with its own twists and turns has
taken the struggle forward in its own way. Subsequent to
the Oslo process, one stage of this struggle, the era of
exiled leadership and the armed struggle from outside Palestine,
concluded. Oslo and its preceding related processes substituted
dialogue for armed struggle and this was welcomed by the
international community and a large sector of the Palestinian
population, including those who had once thrown their sympathies
and support behind the armed struggle. Dialogue finally
seemed far more viable and likely to end the bitter years
of conflict. It promised a just and lasting peace and a
strategy to pave the way for Palestinian aspirations to
be achieved. Equally, it promised Israel peace through recognition
of its right to exist as a State within defined boundaries
and with security.
Tragically, the promises and prospects of Oslo evaporated
into thin air with the failure to bring to fruition their
intent. It resulted in deep frustration among the Palestinian
populations and those in the international community who
had dreamed along with their Palestinian compatriots that
a just peace was possible, even imminent. In the aftermath
of Oslo, it became apparent that Israel was quite unwilling
to countenance even some objective essentials and fundamentals
in the route to peace. The thorny question of settlements
was one of these. Equally crucial was the failure to find
common but just grounds on the wider questions on the status
of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and borders. Quite clearly
the Israeli view was not veering towards an end to occupation.
Analysts suggested that maybe what Israel really wanted
was a ‘soft occupation’. It did not help too
much that Israel was still an occupier in Lebanon and was
drawn into a losing battle in the South of Lebanon with
the Hizbollah- a factor that had its indirect impact on
the talks with the Palestinians because it allowed Israel
to deflect attention from the question of occupation to
that of security. This conveniently helped to evade the
fundamental issue of Palestine, its freedom based on justice
and with dignity.
Alongside, the sagging pace and glaring omissions in the
evolution of the formulae of Oslo resulted in elevating
the right-leaning Likud to power. This was possible only
because of a drastic alteration of the public mood in Israeli
wherein the push for Oslo was replaced firmly by the desire
for a heightened and still more aggressive type of occupation.
The end result was to bring the Palestinians to their knees
and get them to accept what was on offer, never mind that
the offer was inadequate, devoid of justice, and in violation
of all the possible and applicable tenets of international
law. On the Palestinian side, it was plain to see that the
talks were getting nowhere. The settlements were growing
in numbers; the Palestinian economy was being demolished
as a way of getting the Palestinian resistance to succumb
to the arm-twisting measures. The processes of the ‘bantustanization’
of Palestinian territories were rapidly being put in place.
Everyday, there were blatant human rights violations, closures,
curfews, arbitrary arrests, houses demolished, infrastructure
torn down, and agricultural activities cut short—the
list goes on. In short, nothing seemed promising.
A look at recent history may be helpful. The first ‘Intifada’
in 1987– the people's uprising- was a defining moment
and turning point in the long Palestinian struggle for independence
and self-determination. It significantly influenced the
course and flow of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict
at large. Why? Because for virtually the first time in Palestinian
history the weight and the core of the struggle shifted
to the confines of Palestine itself. No more was the base
and origin outside. Not Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. The locale
and organization of the struggle found centre-stage in the
West Bank and Gaza. A significant and noteworthy dimension
of the Intifada was that it was, in essence, a movement
with young people at the forefront. But it was sufficiently
solid to assume the dimensions of a mass uprising joined
in by women and men of all ages while cutting across the
entire gamut of the political and ideological spectrum.
Israel could no longer rest on the claim (dubious as it
was) that the Palestinian resistance was being orchestrated
from the outside with the sponsorship of Arab and Muslim
countries whose sole aim was to destroy Israel. This time
around Israel had to contend with the fact that the struggle
was planned and executed from inside Palestine and by the
very people who had lived under a brutal and totally unjust
and unwarranted occupation for more than 20 years at that
point in time. The previous Israeli claims that the people
were not in charge of the resistance could no longer serve
to malign the Movement. The entire Palestinian nation revolted,
each one contributing to the struggle. A well-organized
leadership appeared and led the people in their struggle.
And this time around, the leadership was right in the presence
of the people who could be influenced and actually take
their ideas and resistance from the minds and hearts of
the people. It was no longer possible for Israel to ignore
this peaceful but determined resistance. They were faced
by the reality that a solution simply had to be found.
The Intifada was indeed the catalyst for new political and
diplomatic initiatives and Oslo was the formula that was
proposed for working it out. Let us dwell on this at some
more length. For all its promise and prospects, Oslo failed.
You could say it never really took off despite the euphoria
that followed its signing and announcement. I can even recall
how ordinary Palestinian people wiped out awful memories
of occupation and offered olive branches and flowers to
soldiers as their tanks withdrew. The disillusionment set
in very fast. Clearly, the Oslo agreement failed for the
very simple reason that Israel used it as a sort of opium
to silence criticism of its occupation. It was manipulation
at its worst and cunning at its best on the part of Israel!
The Palestinians saw in Oslo the openings for a historical
reconciliation. The expectations of both sides were at wide
variance and hugely contradictory. Oslo was so weak and
ineffectual that it had no effect on stopping Israel’s
continued colonization of Palestinian territories. So cynical
was the Israeli attitude to Oslo, that they used the opportunity
of the world’s gaze on Oslo to convert the accord
into the “green light” with which they colonized
the Occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza
at a rate faster than the previous 26 years of colonization.
Even by the most conservative estimates, the number of settlers
in the Occupied West Bank increased from 247,000 to 380,000
and the number of settlements increased to 345 or more,
not to mention the confiscation of land for things like
the by-pass roads and other such tools of occupation between
1993 and 2000.
To Israel, all these gains simply did not satiate their
need for more. Having gained what they could, they then
set out to create a system and a solution, which would make
their access and power unassailable. By 28 September 2000,
Ariel Sharon, under the eyes and ears of Ehud Barak, had
successfully seen off Oslo. In any case, Oslo was extraneous
to the hawks within the Labor party and absolutely irrelevant
to the Likud as a whole. Oslo’s opponents never meant
it to be the grounds for a just and lasting settlement.
So they tried to circumvent the accord by attempting to
enforce their own interpretations of it. This way they didn’t
look completely out of step in the international community.
Barak, in fact, came up with his own formula and interpretation
of the Oslo Accords and tried to impose it as a "final
solution" for the Palestinian people at the Camp David
II negotiations. Barak, then Netanyahu, and finally Sharon
decided to employ brute force to impose their solution on
the Palestinians with the tacit compliance of the United
States government (under both Clinton and Bush Jr.).
Fast forward to the Second Intifada. Equipped with lessons
learned from the first Intifada, Palestinians adopted the
slogan ‘Freedom and Independence’. It was
another affirmation from the Palestinian people that occupation
was no longer acceptable. It had to end. New and different
realities were created on the ground. The facts are known
to all of us. This Intifada has seen more killing, more
separation, and a far bloodier struggle than before. Not
only are the Palestinians losing lives and properties. It
is a similar pattern within Israel as well. Aside from increased
casualties, the Israeli economy is floundering and on the
verge of collapse. Their people are more desperate than
anytime before. Local and foreign investors have deserted
the country having designated it as ‘unsafe for investment’
and lacking ‘decent investment climate’. Immigration
into Israel is at a standstill. Many have left Israel to
safer and greener pastures in Europe and the United States
thus making the claim of the Jewish homeland into something
of a mockery. What kind of homeland is it where life is
unsafe, jobs are scarce, military service is compulsory,
and racism is rampant for those who are not of European
origin? As expected, and as usual, the Palestinians have
lost a lot too but have succeeded in maintaining their spirit
and their determination to continue their struggle for their
independence. Three years of confrontation have not brought
an end in sight to the conflict. Instead, the continuous
conflict has triggered other conflicts in the region.
All this of course, embarrasses the US government no end.
They have pretended to be the mediator and tried to forge
a peace. But even this peace is floundering because it is
a peace designed to serve US interests. Each formula that
the US puts on the table gets unraveled only to be doomed
to failure. In the meantime, the US is being compelled by
other factors to do something. The situation in the region,
the so-called war on "terror", the war in Afghanistan,
the war on Iraq- all of these events- compel the USA to
present alternatives in the form of political initiatives
that they hope to mediate. The Road Map was their new mantra.
Once again, the Palestinian Authority and some important
political factions took the view that it could serve as
a possible base for the commencement of a journey to a historic
and negotiated settlement and as a reconciliatory step.
Not surprisingly, Israel has its own designs. It is more
than obvious that they are maneuvering to draw the map to
suit their needs and interests. Sharon, for example, conditioned
his acceptance of the Road Map with some changes. The changes
he wants in place are quite outrageous and hideous and lay
basis for the argument that an independent Palestinian State
is neither viable nor desirable. At best, he is willing
to hand the Palestinians a State with no real power. The
Palestinian identity is completely outside the frame of
his calculations. His notion of the Palestinian State was,
and continues to be, one which will do his bidding and bring
to a firm and definitive conclusion any resistance to occupation.
In other words, the Palestinian State would have to be the
handmaid of the Israeli State, subservient in all respects
to Israeli interests, and being a State only in name, not
content. Sharon has proposed the absurd and is candid about
it. He feels neither shame nor regret when it comes to oppressing
the Palestinians. It was the foundation of his political
career and he sees no reason to abandon the way he has conditioned
himself to think and act. After all it has brought him power
and legitimacy. He is called a ‘man of peace’!
Sharon wants a Palestinian state comprised of enclaves cut
off from one another inside the West Bank and Gaza. The
"Apartheid Wall" of which he is the architect
has been described as "temporary". The fact is
quite the opposite. The Wall has been constructed at prohibitive
costs to the Palestinian. We the Palestinians have paid
with our blood, sweat, tears, and our land”.
The Road Map will meet the same fate as Oslo for many reasons.
Chief among them is that Israel does not want to have a
state next to her within borders as defined before the war
of 1967. They might be interested in a Palestinian state
within Jordan but definitely not between the Jordan River
and the Mediterranean. The Palestinians on the other side
can never ever fulfill the Israeli demand on this score-
that new borders be drawn to suit the apartheid-type solutions
that Israel has in store for them.
The second reason for the failure is that the solution proposed
is not viable any more. It envisages a two-state solution-
something that is a fast evaporating idea- a mirage at best.
Israel’s thirty-five year illegal colonial enterprise
has not been, and cannot be executed without forcefully
dispossessing the Palestinian population of the rights guaranteed
to them under UN Resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention
and other international treaties. The full implementation
of Israel’s colonial designs for the Occupied Palestinian
Territories, which entail vast confiscation of Palestinian
lands and water resources as well as disruption of Palestinian
territorial contiguity, would leave the Palestinians with
a “state” only in name. Israel’s ultimate
goal is to permit a Palestinian “state” with
no recognition of Palestinian national rights and no recognition
of the Palestinian peoples’ historic and religious
attachment to Jerusalem; the right of return for refugees,
limited access to water and land, and insufficient area
to accommodate population growth and returning refugees.
The borders of Israel define “Greater Jerusalem”
as including at least 31 Israeli settlements and cover 440
square kilometers, of which only 25% is within West Jerusalem.
With a planned length of 360 kilometers, the new Israeli
Apartheid Wall will be three times as long as the Berlin
Wall and, at points, twice as high. This wall, most of which
is built within Occupied Palestinian Territory, will effectively
serve as a means by which Israel can consolidate and de
facto annex all Occupied Palestinian Territory on the western
side of the wall.
The proponents for peace have been somewhat glib in articulating
the idea of a two-state solution. The idea is bound to flounder
because it has some very fundamental flaws within it. To
persist with the idea is to ignore reality and, unthinkingly,
provide the seeds of frustration and disappointment from
which can stem more conflict. Apart from the above-mentioned
factors, there are many other compelling reasons why the
two-state solution has no scope to go anywhere and does
not introduce an end to the conflict.
First, a two-state formula has no scope to contain the potential
fallout of the demographic problem inside Israel because
the Arab minority will emerge as a majority sooner or later,
unless Israel takes extreme open racist measures like ethnic
cleansing etc. (This I will never put beyond the political
capacities of any Israeli government).
Second, we must admit that the facts, which Israel created
on the ground over the 35 years of occupation, have destroyed
the climate for a two-state solution.
Third, the presence of a Jewish state on one side will only
prompt the emergence of an Islamic state on the other side
and will motivate more Islamic states, as extreme and as
racist as Israel, to emerge in the region. The latter will
be unacceptable to the International Community in the current
situation.
Fourth, and a very crucial factor that will work against
a two-state formula is that when it is inaugurated, both
states will share one common geographical space, a space
which cannot be disconnected because it is linked with history,
people, holy sites, economic relations etc.
Fifth, the Palestinian State will be composed of mostly
refugee communities. Currently, in the West Bank and Gaza
almost two-thirds of the people are refugees. If refugees
from outside are add to the already overcrowded and poor
communities living there, there will be a drastic decline
in economic standards and the competition for scarce economic
resources will only create social tensions. Coping with
this will require need more than grants and gifts from donor
states.
Sixth, the two states will never be symmetrical in terms
of power and Israel cannot be expected to be magnanimous
in the asymmetry that now prevails. Any attempt to equalize
things will be seen as a threat. Nor is there any likelihood
of equality coming about now or even in the near future.
Seventh, a Jewish state steeped in European mores, traditions,
and cultural practices will continue to be a minority in
the region. It has never shown the willingness or capacity
to be integrated or engage with the dominant social factors
in the region which will provide the recipe for more tensions
and eventually conflict of a severe nature.
Eighth, the two-state solution will not ultimately satisfy
any of the other nations living in this region forever.
Religiously but also demographically such a solution will
put barriers between the same nations. This solution has
the potential to divide and spread the Palestinians into
two or more different countries.
Ninth, within the framework of a two-state solution, the
refugee problem will never be resolved, nor will the other
equally persistent issues of Jerusalem or settlements and
the settlers be tackled fairly and adequately. (400,000
settlers including Jerusalem and settlements now account
for almost 42 percent of the West Bank, not including Palestinian
East Jerusalem. Israeli settlements and bypass roads have
virtually encircled occupied East Jerusalem, making it impossible
for Palestinians to develop and expand their most important
urban center - and making a mockery of the idea of a shared
capital.
Tenth, Israel's so-called security wall, parts of which
is nearly 8 meters high and are topped with watch towers
and barbed wire, has more to do with seizing Palestinian
land than it does with security. The wall is not being built
on Israel's border, but rather in occupied Palestinian territory
in such a way as to separate Palestinians from their adjacent
farmland and water resources, thereby denying Palestinians
not only their freedom of movement but also their livelihood.
In summary, one can conclude that the two-state solution
might have been possible some years ago. Not any more. The
realties, which Israel itself created on the ground are
beyond the scope of honest co-existence simply because too
much water has flowed under the bridge of this conflict.
Israel alone must assume responsibility for the impasse.
The Palestinians never held the bargaining chips in their
hands. We had to be content to play second fiddle simply
because the US under the influence of powerful lobbies had
tied their hands, and Europe simply cannot really extricate
itself from the guilt of the holocaust.
In the sixties, the notion of a single democratic state
where people of different nations and religions in the area
could live had gained much currency. Many factions in the
PLO believed in this solution. But the battle for justice
in the Middle East has begun to defy the obvious. The best
choices are not always the wisest choices! Such are the
dimensions of the conflict. So, what are the contours of
a single state solution? And why does it seem such a futile
path to pursue especially considering that it is such an
attractive and ideal solution? In fact this is not a popular
one on the streets of Palestine these days nor indeed in
Israel. It used to be a much-discussed idea some four decades
ago as a viable idea. It was popular among the educated
and informed progressive groups and many political factions
who saw the benefit of having one democratic state.
A single state is one which is democratic and secular. Not
Jewish. Not Islamic. It will stand for justice and equality
of all races and religions. It will accept and tolerate
each religious community and accord each of them their right
to practice and propagate their religion. Those who oppose
this are from both sides. The Jews, influenced by Zionism,
fear being overpowered in demographic terms very rapidly
and the balance of power in number terms turning against
them. The Palestinians, for their part, fear that that the
superior economic circumstances of the Israelis will enable
them to maintain and perpetuate their higher status. This
pattern of thinking may just be getting too cynical. Can
one simply rest in the past and abandon principles? Or shall
we dream dreams and work on actualizing them?
The respected Israeli analyst Uri Avnery, writing in the
Palestinian Chronicle, a journal of Palestinian studies,
under the auspices of the UC Berkeley, has posed questions
that must be considered before proceeding with this idea
and popularizing (or re-popularizing it). He argues that
if this idea has any realistic chance of being actualized
it will happen a few generations down the line at best.
There is, in his view, no political space for such an idea
to take root and grow in the here and now. He dismisses
the idea as untenable by pointing to the negative experiences
of the multi-national Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Bosnia,
Canada, Cyprus, Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon and
many other countries. He asks: Will the two now-strongly
nationalistic identities- the Zionists and the Arab-Palestinian-
give up their national narratives and be ready to give up
their supra-national claims. How do I read this? With disappointment
mostly because Uri Avnery is meant to be part of the Israeli
progressive project for the resolution of the Palestinian
Question. So you begin to wonder what IS happening. Either,
Uri is pessimistic or he is simply unwilling to concede
the essential Israeli claim to land and more land. By discounting
the prospects of one democratic state (bi-national state),
Uri leads the progressive Israeli charge to defend Zionism
while still couching it in the language of progressive and
liberal thinking. He argues in this vein: ”There
is no chance at all that the present, post-holocaust, Israeli
generation, or its successor, will accept this solution,
which conflicts absolutely with the myth and the ethos of
Israel.” Speaking of the Palestinians he observes
that “some Palestinians do indeed talk longingly
of a bi-national state,” but this, he complains,
“is just a code word for the elimination of the State
of Israel and for some others an escape from bitter reality
to the dream of returning to their homes and villages of
the past.”
Uri Avnery as a representative for the average Zionist left,
simply cannot possibly countenance such a state functioning
because, as he says: “there is hardly any multi-national
state in the world that really functions properly.”
I am not sure if he includes the USA and Canada in this
argument as well. He goes on to describe how the gaping
inequality between Israelis and Palestinians in almost every
sphere would be perpetuated by the Israelis. The Palestinians
will continually lose out economically, and the gap between
the two peoples will grow. His conclusion? "Two states
are needed for two peoples. This will direct the national
feelings of the two peoples into reasonable, constructive
channels that will make co-existence, cooperation and, finally,
a genuine reconciliation possible.” But like many
of the opponents of the bi-national state, Uri becomes a
bit jaded, even somewhat blinded in his vision of things
when he argues, “There is great danger even in propagating
this idea. His logic: “The perfect is the enemy of
the good…(and) the very mention of the bi-national
vision will scare the great majority of Israelis, who are
now slowly approaching acceptance of the two-state solution.
It will arouse their most deep-seated existential anxieties
and push them into the arms of the extreme right-wing.”
He goes on to rationalize things and guesses that “talk
of bi-nationalism will give the Right a powerful weapon
to justify their suspicion that the real aim of the adherents
of the two-state solution is to abolish the State of Israel
by stages!”
This is the crux of the problem because it somehow says
to us, the Palestinians, that we must wait for the generosity
of the Israeli before we are given legitimacy. What if they
never come around? How many generations of Palestinians
will have to put up with the colonial instincts and approaches
of Israel? Mr. Uri Avnery himself comes with the right arguments
when he says: “Should we abandon a good and positive
idea just because the enemies of peace pervert it and try
to use it for their ends? Logic would dictate the opposite:
to expose the perversion of the idea by Sharon and fight
for a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders?”
Mr. Avnery hopes that one day “we shall reach the
objective: to live together in peace, side by side. Perhaps
a later generation will one day decide to live in one joint
state. But today the propaganda for this utopia diverts
attention from the practical, immediate objective, at a
time when the whole world has accepted the idea of “two
states for two peoples”. I can agree with Mr. Avnery
fully when he states in a prophetic tone: “I am convinced
that the 21st century will bring vast changes in the structure
of the world and the way of life of human society. The importance
of the nation-state will gradually diminish. A world order,
world law and worldwide structures will play a central role.
But I can not agree with him when he says, "I believe
that Israel will whole-heartedly take part in the march
of humanity. We shall not be tardy. But there is no point
in expecting the Israeli public to be 50 years ahead of
the times.” I would argue that Mr. Avnery has not
tackled the facts on the ground for the last 35 years and
how to deal with them. In the same token I would argue with
his belief that the current Israel, as a racist state, can
play the human role he described unless it changes its practices
and attitudes. Mr. Avnery knows quite well the Apartheid
system inside Israel and the way the Arabs and the other
minorities are treated. If Israel changes all these practices
then it would be possible for Israelis to accept the one-state
solution. Since Israel failed to offer equality to its own
citizens for the past 50 years, it is unlikely that it could
add something positive to human history. Supported by the
Christian Zionists and other re-actionist forces in the
US and Europe, the racist country of Israel plays the role
of regional watchdog, fighting to suppress all progressive
countries or powers in the region.
I must underline the fear I expressed just a while ago-
Mr. Uri Avnery comes across as a fervent Zionist except,
of course that he gives the impression of progressive and
visionary thought. I am no political analyst or philosopher
but I cannot help asking: If an idea is a good one, why
wait for a few generations to realize it? And who said that
pluralism is not viable simply because it has not been the
European experience? Why find grounds to be re-jectionist
when you have to be proactive in the search for positive
ideas? I have a grave fear and concern that those we once
banked on have now turned around and opted for the status
quo. In fact, I am rather persuaded by a growing sentiment
in Palestinian circles that the average Israeli rejects
both a democratic bi-national state and a two-state solution.
They simply do not subscribe to the idea that Palestinians
have the right to freedom and independence. Mr. Avnery is
different only in one way. He wants soft-Zionism, not the
Sharon variety. Me? I want no Zionism at all. Nor do I want
fundamentalism in Islam or Christianity or in any form anywhere
in any political spectrum. I don’t want to see any
fanatic ideology in the world. Zionism is in the lead of
such ideologies and should be fought against. This is what
is expected from Mr. Uri Avnery and others.
One will have to go beyond the confines of Israeli and Palestinian
territories to find merit in the one-state idea. Or shall
I call it the one-state ‘ideal’? Or, perhaps,
as Mr. Avnery would call it, ‘The Utopia’?
A unified state is one which will need sweat and tears-
I hope there will be no blood. It will require concerted
effort and struggle too against the very tenets of the Zionist
project. [For that matter, the struggle must vociferously
oppose any form of fanaticism- Islamic, Jewish, or Christian.
I want to be a dreamer and to dream dreams of a world, of
a Middle East in which my children and their children and
all subsequent generations of children will not have to
resort to defining borders, of going to Madrid, Oslo, Camp
David, and other secret locations to avert catastrophes.
I need a solution which will bring eternal peace, not one
that will take me from one war to another.
The Middle East is not devoid of natural and human resources.
A region free of the fear of conflict could convert weapons
of destruction into instruments of peace and development.
The collective gifts of all the peoples can be mobilized
and unleashed into a common union and market place of enhanced
prosperity. This is what many of our people dream of- simple
peace and prosperity. NOT hatred and war, or death, or demolished
houses, or ransacked olive fields or orange groves, or midnight
knocks on the door and the arrest of a loved one who may
never return.
The alternative is nothing short of disaster. Israel can
win a short-term war. It can even try to expel the Palestinians
out of the West Bank or Gaza. They may have won the conflict
but only for an interim period. The bigger question is “Will
they have won peace?” The Palestinians for their
part can continue the resistance and unravel the Israeli
populace with attacks. Even peaceful resistance- which is
the bulk of the Palestinian resistance- takes its toll.
The question remains: ”Who will win peace? Perpetuating
the conflict and extracting short-term victories is easy.
But what are the consequences? Death and destruction? Hatred
and more prejudice? Young lives and futures jeopardized
by irreversible anger? Recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan
must illuminate our minds. Mere military success adds nothing
to peace. On the contrary, it breeds violence.
Palestinians and progressive Israelis must resist the urge
to counter the claims of a Jewish State with an Islamic
regime, which can only pour more oil on the flames of the
conflict. It is incumbent on progressive forces to find
ways of articulating the ideals of a single, democratic,
secular state and to use comprehensive education strategies
to have the Palestinian and Israeli masses consider the
idea. Young fertile minds must be won over as a start and,
if the notion of the two-nation theory is not viable, then
one must ask about the notion of a single democracy, where
Israelis and Palestinians can co-exist within the parameters
of a pluralist society. What chance does this formula have
of getting any further? Those who once were sold on the
idea have now voiced doubts and questions. It’s not
that they disagree with its positive connotations, but that
they have become tired and suspicious. The entire political
landscape is polluted with distrust and the bitterness of
failed experiences, of naked aggression, of homes demolished,
of agricultural fields destroyed and rendered useless, of
sons, daughters, and fathers put into prison for no rhyme
or reason, and of children brutalized.
Palestinians and progressive Israelis must also educate
international opinion and gain advocates in a variety of
forums, for example, the EU, the G-8, the Non-Aligned Movement,
the African Union- and all other international political
alliances. International NGOs, international religious bodies
of all faith traditions, trade unions, etc., should be mobilized
to understand and advocate for such a model.
They say:" The powerful do not part with power voluntarily;
they do so under pressure.” Here is a function for
the international community. Unless pressure is brought
on Israel to abandon its separatist stance, any peace initiative
is a non-starter. This is the function of the international
community but the Palestinians and the progressive Israelis
must provide the materials and arguments for their case.
One can also hope to put in place the foundations of a joint
progressive entity which can unify the struggle of both
nations. A joint solid progressive political party would
implement such a resistance project. Palestinian and Israeli
aspirations can only be fulfilled when people across the
divide the separatist tendency affirm the fact of pluralism
as an ideal to be pursued with vigor and enthusiasm, and
thus hand the forces of fundamentalism and Zionism a sound
rejection. The spark for this must come from a new generation
of people- or from those who have been sidelined by the
present forces because they have sought to propose alternatives.
In Israel, the Peace Movement, which has traditionally opposed
occupation and all its attendant features needs to pursue
its work with greater courage and vigor and to overcome
its fear of being labeled a traitor? These are the risks
of peace and they must be taken if we are to avoid the risks
of war. Lest it appear that these are brand-new ideas, I
must quickly point out that there exist a large number of
people who share the one-state ideal. They are unorganized
and scattered. They cut across the political divide. If
only they can find ways to come together and unite, their
combined forces and their moral authority can influence
and shape public opinion significantly. In some ways it
can be argued that there is a sense of ‘conflict-fatigue’
growing among people. People would enthusiastically welcome
a solution that held the promise of justice and security
for both the peoples. This is, perhaps, the time to create
a new political force. Such a force must, of necessity,
cut across the religious and ethnic divide. It must unite
all progressive and liberal forces who believe in pluralism-
political, religious, ethnic, racial, etc. After all, the
solutions are going to have to be political. The current
political space is occupied by parties who are tired and
devoid of new ideas and caught up in self-interest. How
can you expect those whose need to survive exceeds the need
to come up with real political solutions? The failure of
Oslo has proved this argument beyond the shadow of a doubt.
For both sides, there exist some extremely tricky issues
that have to be resolved. None of these are ones that can
be papered over or postponed. Solutions to the Arab-Israeli
conflict cannot be found on a piece-meal basis, one-at-a-time.
The solutions must be comprehensive.
The solutions will not come from mere compromise. We cannot
reach compromise because a compromise is usually a half-and-half
thing. No one is happy at the end of it. I would rather
use the concept of reconciliation, which is to say we must
adopt shared principles. Within the framework of these principles,
each side can agree to give up something in the interests
of the larger peace. For this we need statesmen. And where
shall they come from? From among our people. Recount the
Bible stories of liberation. The prophets were not messianic
or charismatic people. They were humble men who possessed
a vision of something distant and worked tirelessly to achieve
it. We might have to settle in for the long haul. The question
becomes then: What seeds are we sowing and on what soil?
Is this a dream? Perhaps. But the prophet Isaiah tells us
that when we are devoid of visions, we perish.
I want to end by recalling the song of the great poet, social
thinker, and singer John Lennon, IMAGINE.
Imagine there's no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for need or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
