Despair is taking hold of great parts of the Israeli public.
Its main cause is not just the coming to power of Ariel Sharon, the man of blood, but the absenceof any ray of hope.
The Labor party has become a collaborator of Sharon’s; its leaders, Simon Peres and theothers, have become his most efficient propagandists. The opponents of Peres in his party,people like Avraham Burg and Haim Ramon, are not different from him in their language.
Meretz has remained in opposition, but it turned long ago into a one-man’s-party, and this manis far from being a consistent and courageous peace leader. While the occupation is turningthe Palestinian territories into hell, Meretz does not cry out nor take part in any action.There are some wonderful people in this party, but the party has become their prison.
There are courageous peace movements that have not lowered their flag and are conductingactions nearly every day. But the enlisted Israeli media are working together to silence ourvoice. Our actions are not reported, our people are not interviewed, our statements are notpublished, except in small, paid advertisements (and there is no money). A large part of theIsraeli and Palestinian public, not to mention the international one, does not even know thatthese movements exist or what they do.
And so, for the first time in many years, it seems to decent Israeli citizens that there is nochance for change, that the chances of peace have disappeared forever and nothing remains buta sea of blood and tears. In this situation, it is natural to look for an escape hatch.
The easiest way is to clear out. Many do this quietly and without fanfares. Those who can, buy anapartment abroad “as an investment”. They move “temporarily” or “partly”, leave an addressin Israel and return for frequent visits.
Another way is “inner emigration” (a term born in Nazi Germany). They freak out. They do notwant to hear about politics, do not watch the news on TV, do not read the newspapers at all, turnthe radio only onto the music channel.
There is a third way for intellectuals, people with ideals and ideas. They look for an escapeinto the world of thought. Some, especially among the sharp-minded and good-hearted, areagain airing an idea that had, so it seemed, passed away forever: the idea of the bi-nationalstate.
History shows that in times of despair, messianic ideas flourish. I believe that theresurrection of the bi-national idea is an example of this. It’s a beautiful idea,high-minded and humane, but it belongs to the “days of the Messiah” – if it has a chance at all, itcan be realized only in a hundred years’ time. In the meantime, it is a form of escapism.
According to the bi-national idea, the country between the Mediterranean and the Jordanriver – Palestine / Eretz Israel – will once again become one state, as it was under the Britishmandate, and Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, will live there together as equalcitizens. The technical arrangements – a “bi-national” or a “civil” society – are secondary.
It seems rather strange that this idealistic vision is appearing just now, after it has failedthe world over. The multi-national Soviet Union has disappeared, and now even themulti-national Russian federation is in danger of falling apart (see Chechnya). Not onlyYugoslavia has fallen apart, Bosnia and Serbia (Kosovo) have to. Now the integrity ofMacedonia is in doubt. For a long time, already, the integrity of Canada has been under threat.United Cyprus, with its model bi-national constitution, is barely a memory. And the list islong: Indonesia, the Philippines, Spain and many others, not to mention our neighbor,Lebanon.
But there is no need to travel far. Our own reality is enough. The Israeli-Palestinianconflict is, basically, a clash between the Zionist movement and the Arab-Palestiniannational movement. After a hundred and some years, the force of Zionism is far from exhausted.Its main thrust – expansion, occupation and settlement – is in full, offensive swing. On thePalestinian side, nationalism (including the Islamic version) is deepening and growingfrom martyr to martyr. One has to be of a religious mind to believe that these two nationalisticpeoples will turn overnight from total enmity to total peace, giving up their nationalnarratives and being ready to live together as supra-national citizens.
One must pose three decisive questions:
1 – Will both sides accept this solution?
2 – Can a bi-national state function?
3 – Will it put an end to the conflict? My answers to all these questions is a clear ‘no’.
here is no chance at all that this Israeli generation or the next will accept this solution,which absolutely negates the myth and the ethos of Israel. The objective of the founders of theState of Israel was that the Jews – or a part of them – could at long last take their destiny intotheir own hands. A bi-national state means the abolition of this aim, and in practice theabolition of Israel itself. And not as a result of a crushing military defeat, but by free will.Not very likely.
And the Palestinian side? Some Palestinians do indeed talk longingly of a bi-national state,but I believe that for at least some of them this is just a code word for the dismantling of theState of Israel. They dream of a return to the days of the British mandate, when the Arabmajority in united Palestine hoped to dominate the Jewish minority. But I am convinced thatthe great majority of the Palestinian people want to live, at last, in a national state of theirown, under their flag and their government, like any other people.
There is hardly any multi-national state in the world that really functions properly. (Have Imentioned Switzerland?) Because in order to function properly, one of two conditions must befulfilled: either both sides cede their national identity or they must have equal economicaland political power.
The very opposite is true in this country. There is a gaping inequality between Israelis andPalestinians in nearly all respects. The disproportion is immense. In a joint state, if itwere to be set up, the Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the state almostcompletely. At this point in time, a bi-national state would be an occupation regime in a newguise that would hide, with difficulty, a reality of exploitation and economic, cultural andprobably political repression.
Therefore, I do not believe that such a solution, if it were possible at all, would put an end tothe conflict. It would only put it on a different track, perhaps more severe and more violent.
Regretfully or not, one has to accept the conclusion that the realistic solution is, as it hasbeen since 1948, the solution of “two states for two peoples”. A solution that will channel thenational feelings of the two peoples in a reasonable, practical framework, one that will makeco-existence, cooperation and, finally, a genuine conciliation (in this order) possible.
The recent past has shown that even this modest goal is extremely is extremely difficult toachieve. We still have to overcome much mutual fear, hate, myths and prejudices to make eventhis solution possible. But if one despairs because of this and adopts instead thebi-national gospel, one resembles an athlete who despairs of a 100 yard sprint and thereforeenrolls for the marathon.
When my friends and I raised the two-state idea in the early 50s, we did not speak of”separation”. Today, too, we reject this term absolutely. We speak of two states with an openborder between them, with free movement of people and goods (subject, of course, to mutualagreements). I am convinced that, in the light of the geographical and political facts, anatural process will lead to an organic connection, perhaps by federation, and later to aregional union like the European Union.
In the end, we shall achieve the objective: to live together in peace, side by side. Some bthatutopia can play a positive role as a vision lighting the distant future. But it is not apractical option. Indeed, it may divert attention from the practical, immediate objective.If we fail to achieve it, everything will be destroyed, because in the meantime facts are beingcreated on the ground that will make any solution impossible.
Utopia, promising us a light at the end of a tunnel, may get us into the wrong tunnel.
I hope that the 21st century will bring vast changes in the structure of the world and thelife-patterns of nations. We shall whole-heartedly take part in the march of humanity. Weshall not be tardy. But neither, I am afraid, shall we be one or two generations ahead of it.