“Where There Is No Vision, The People Perish…”
You cannot jump over an abyss in two jumps – thus said David Lloyd-George, the Prime Ministerwho made the historic decision to liberate Ireland after centuries of British rule. Hejumped.
Yitzhaq Rabin wanted to cross the abyss in many little jumps. He fell into the abyss. Ehud Barakapproached the abyss resolutely, but stopped at the brink. He demanded that Arafat meet him”halfway”. Each one should jump to the middle.
Barak has adopted “resoluteness” as his slogan, the mother of all virtues. So why did hehesitate? Why was he afraid? There are many reasons for that – a political system that wenthaywire, the utter irresponsibility of the Knesset, his own character. But beyond all thesefactors there lurks, I believe, one decisive reason: the lack of vision.
In Israel, “vision” has nearly become a dirty word. Old people had vision. Ben-Gurion hadvision. Shimon Peres had visions (which changed from time to time). But what has vision to dowith the age of high-tech? Nowadays one has to be pragmatic, practical. So they say. Is it true?
Vision is the ability to foresee a reality that does not yet exist. That is very difficult for anormal person who lives in a given reality/ He cannot imagine another. Especially if thepresent reality has existed for generations. Theodor Herzl, the creator of modern Zionism, amaster of fantasy, was aware of that. When he realized that the Jews were not impressed by thesober blueprint presented in his book “Der Judenstaat”, he wrote a novel, “Altneuland”, afictional presentation of the reality he imagined. On the title-page he put the by now famousmotto: “If you will it, it is not a fairy tale.” The vision was inspiring, and withoutinspiration it is impossible to make a revolution.
In Israel there is no enthusiasm for peace. On the contrary. Barak himself does not like to usethe word. He talks about a “permanent settlement”. When he cannot avoid the word “peace”, healways couples it with “security”. Peace and security, security and peace. Security is good,everybody longs for security. So perhaps, thanks to sweet security, the bitter pill of peacecan be swallowed.
All the arguments for making a “painful” peace (another favorite expression) are negative.If there will be no agreement, there will be war. The graveyards will be filled. Our best boyswill fall. And besides, if there will be no “separation” from the Palestinians, GreaterIsrael will be full of Arabs. An agreement is needed, so that (in Barak’s often repeated words)”we shall live here and they shall live there.” In other words, get them out of our sight. Toachieve this, it is worthwhile to “give up” some Arab quarters in Jerusalem.
Many people can be convinced by such arguments, although they smell heavily of racism. (Onecould, perhaps, found a movement called “Racists for Peace”.) But such slogans do notgenerate enthusiasm.
The opposite camp lives in a permanent state of ecstasy. People there are always excited. Theysing, they dance. “Love of Eretz-Israel”, “Eternal Jerusalem”, blood and soil. The mixtureof extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism make a potent brew. Right-wingers may beready to die for their belief, they have already proven that they are ready to kill.
In the “peace camp” there is no such excitement. During the days of Camp David, it did notsucceed in mobilizing even ten thousand demonstrators to encourage Barak and spurn him on.Most Israelis are somehow ready for a settlement, but enthusiasm there is none. Indeed, whereshould it come from, if in all the “peace camp” there is hardly a voice that evokes the glories ofpeace as a longed-for reality, which will enrich our lives and carry our state to new heights?
Even left-wing intellectuals cringe when they speak of peace with the Palestinians. Theynearly always add some negative remarks about them. Much as a good Christian crosses himself,a leftist Israeli, while speaking about peace, will add some derogatory words about Arafat,just to prove that he is not, God forbid, an Arab-lover. When Arabs now compare Arafat toSalah-al-Din (Saladin), because he did not betray Jerusalem at Camp David, the writer AmosOz, a certified leftist, heaps abuse on the legendary Muslim warrior. Yet Saladin, whovanquished the Crusaders, is celebrated not only by the Arabs, but by European literaturetoo, as a truly noble and humane leader. Maimonides, by the way, was his personal physician.
But peace can be inspiring. In a reality of peace, Damascus, Baghdad and Khartoum will be opento us. Our new president will visit his birthplace in Iran and speak with his colleague there inhis mother-tongue. Israeli contractors will build housing projects in Riyadh, Hebrewuniversity professors will teach Judaism in Beirut, Professors from Damascus will teachIslam in Tel Aviv. Our enormous military budget will gradually shrink, as peace takes hold,and the money saved will allow us to reach economic and social heights yet undreamed of. Thesame will happen on the other side. Peace will enable the Arab peoples, and especially thePalestinians, to move from the Third World to the First World, so that our relations will reachthe level of equality necessary for relaxed bonds of friendship and mutual culturalfertilization. That will not happen in one or two years, but it is a vision about which we can sayagain: “If you will it…”
But the vision is not there. Peace is still considered a bitter pill. That is what the author ofProverbs (29, 18) meant when he wrote: “Where there is no vision, the people perish!”