|
|
Mahmoud Abbas - President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) since January 15, 2005. He is also the President of the "State of Palestine" since November 23, 2008 (Source: Wikipedia)
| |
It's Time for Words to Lead the Peace Process
-- Judea Pearl
It is now clear that no peace agreement, not even
on principles, will be
signed by the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating team
before some time in 2009, after the new American
administration takes charge, the Israeli election runs
its course and the fate of Mahmoud Abbas' presidency
is decided. Analysts who have been urging the two sides
to expedite matters for all the good reasons
that made the window of opportunities
narrower by the day are now urging them to
"keep the momentum going," lest the window,
which I doubt ever existed, becomes too narrow
to re-open.
But how do you keep momentum going when the two sides
are locked in a fundamentally immobile stalemate?
Israel is physically unable to accommodate
a sovereign neighbor rocket-range away from its vital airports,
one whose youngsters openly vow to destroy it.
And Palestinians, on their part, cannot change
their youngsters' vows after having nourished them for decades,
especially under occupation, while Iran is promising to
turn those vows into reality.
Yet there is a way. If we cannot move on the ground,
we should move above it -- in the metaphysical sphere of
words, metaphors and paradigms -- to create a movement that not only
would maintain the perception of "keeping the momentum going,"
but could actually be the key to any future movement on
the ground.
Let us be frank: The current stalemate is ideological, not
physical, and it hangs on two major contentions, "historical right"
and "justice," which must be wrestled with in words
before we can expect any substantive movement on the ground.
Starting with "historical right" we recall that
a year ago, the Annapolis process was
on the verge of collapse on account of two words: "Jewish state".
In the week preceding Annapolis, Palestinian Authority
chief negotiator Saeb Erekat
proclaimed "the PA would never acknowledge Israel's Jewish
identity," to which Olmert reacted angrily with:
"We won't hold negotiations on our existence as a Jewish state...
Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me."
Clearly, to the secular Israeli society, the insistence
on a Jewish state has nothing to do with kosher food or
wearing yarmulkes; it has to do with historical claims
of co-ownership and legitimacy, which are prerequisite
for any lasting peace, regardless of its shape. Olmert's
reaction, which is shared by the
vast majority of Israelis, translates into:
"Whoever refuses to tell his children that Jews
are here by moral and historical imperative has no intention
of honoring his agreements in the long run."
In other words, recognizing Israel as a "Jewish
state" is seen by Israelis as a litmus test for Arabs
intention to take peace agreements as permanent.
Unfortunately, for the Arabs, the words "Jewish state"
signal the legitimization of a theocratic society
and the exclusion of non-Jews from co-ownership in the state.
Can these two views be reconciled? Of course they can.
If the PA agrees to recognize Israel's "historical
right" to exist (instead of just "right to exist"
or "exist as a Jewish state") fears connected
with religious exclusion will not be awaken, and Israel's
demand for a proof of intention will simultaneously
be satisfied: You do not teach your children of
your neighbor's "historical right"
unless you intend to make the final-status agreement
truly final -- education is an irreversible investment.
But would the PA ever agree to grant Israel such recognition?
This brings us to the second magical word: "Justice".
One of the main impediments to Palestinians'
recognition of Israel's "right to exist," be it historical
or de-facto, is their fear that such recognition
would de-legitimize the Arabs' struggle against the Zionist
program throughout the first half of the 20th century,
thus contextualizing the entire conflict as
a whimsical Arab aggression and weakening
their claims to the "right of return."
All analysts agree that Palestinians would never agree
to give up, tarnish or weaken this right.
They might, however, accept a symbolic recognition
that would satisfy, neutralize, and perhaps even substitute
for the literal right of return.
Palestinian columnist Daoud Kuttab wrote in the Washington Post,
(May 12, 2008): "The basic demand is not the physical return of
all refugees but for Israel to take responsibility for causing this
decades-long tragedy"
Similar to Jewish refugees from Arab countries,
Palestinian refugees demand their place in history,
through recognition that their suffering was not a senseless
dust storm but part of a man-made historical process to which
someone bears responsibility and is prepared to amend the injustice.
Journalist Uri Avnery, an Israeli peace activist and
former member of the
Knesset believes that this deep sense of injustice can be
satisfied through an open and frank Israeli apology.
"I believe that peace between us and the Palestinian people --
a real peace, based on real conciliation -- starts with an apology"
he wrote in Arabic Media Internet Network, 14 June, 2008,
http://www.amin.org.
"In my mind's eye" he writes " I see the President of the State
or the Prime Minister addressing an extraordinary session of the
Knesset and making an historic speech of apology:
MADAM SPEAKER, Honourable Knesset,
On behalf of the State of Israel and all its citizens, I address today
the sons and daughters of the Palestinian people, wherever they are.
We recognise the fact that we have committed against you a historic
injustice, and we humbly ask your forgiveness.
The burning desire of the founding fathers of the Zionist movement was
to save the Jews of Europe, where the dark clouds of hatred for the
Jews were gathering. In Eastern Europe, pogroms were raging, and all
over Europe there were signs of the process that would eventually
lead to the terrible Holocaust, in which six million Jews perished.
All this does not justify what happened afterwards. The creation of the
Jewish national home in this country has involved a profound injustice
to you, the people who lived here for generations.
We cannot ignore anymore the fact that in the war of 1948 -- which is
the War of Independence for us, and the Naqba for you -- some 750
thousand Palestinians were compelled to leave their homes and lands.
As for the precise circumstances of this tragedy, I propose the
establishment of a "Committee for Truth and Reconciliation"' composed
of experts from your and from our side, whose conclusions will from
then on be incorporated in the schoolbooks, yours and ours.
Is Israeli society ready to make such apology and assume such
responsibility? Not a chance! For an Israeli,
admitting guilt for creating the refugee problem
is tantamount to embedding Israel's birth in sin,
thus undermining the legitimacy of its existence,
and encouraging those who threaten that existence.
The dominant attitude is: They started the war;
wars have painful consequences; they fled on their own,
despite our official calls to stay put. We are clean.
Can this attitude be reconciled with Palestinians'
demands for official recognition of their suffering?
I believe it can. Whereas Israelis refuse
to assume full responsibility for the consequences of
the 1948 war, they are certainly prepared to assume
part of that responsibility. After all,
Israelis are not unaware of stories about
field commanders in the 1948 war who initiated private
campaigns to scare Arab villagers and,
on some occasions, to force them out.
So, how do we find words to express reciprocal responsibility?
Here I take author's liberty and, following Avnery,
appeal to my mind's eye and envision the continuation
of that extraordinary Knesset session at the end of the
Israeli President's speech.
I see President Abbas waiting for the applause to subside,
stepping to the podium and saying:
MADAM SPEAKER, Honourable Knesset,
On behalf of the Palestinian people and the future state of
Palestine, I address today the
sons and daughters of the Jewish nation, wherever they are.
We recognise the fact that we have committed against you a historic
injustice, and we humbly ask your forgiveness.
The burning desire of the founding fathers of the Palestinian
national movement was to liberate Palestine from
colonial powers; first, the Ottoman empire
and then the British Mandate Authorities. In their zeal to
achieve independence they have treated the creation of
Jewish national home in this country as a form of
colonial occupation, rather than a homecoming endeavor of
a potentially friendly neighbor, a partner to liberation, whose
historical attachment to this landscape was not weaker than ours.
We cannot ignore anymore the fact that the Great Arab Revolt
of 1936-1939 has resulted in the British White Paper,
which prevented thousands, if not millions of European
Jews from escaping the Nazi extermination plan.
Nor can we ignore the fact that, when survivors of
Nazi concentration camps sought refuge in Palestine, we
were instrumental in denying them safety and, when
they finally established their historical homeland, we
called the armies of our Arab brethren to wipe out their
newly created state. Subsequently, for the past 60 years,
in our zeal to rectify the injustice done to us we have
taught our children that only your demise can bring
about the justice and liberty they so badly deserve,
They took our teachings rather seriously and some of them
resorted to terror wars that killed, maimed and injured
thousands of your citizens. ....
Admittedly, this scenario is utopian. The idea of Palestinians
apologizing to Israel is so heretical in prevailing political
consciousness that only six Google entries mention such a gesture
compared to 615 entries citing "Israel must apologize"
Yet, peace begins with ideas, and ideas are shaped by words.
And the utopian scenario I painted above gives a feasible frame
to reciprocal words that must be said, in one form or another,
for a lasting peace to set in.
And if not now when? Recall, we must keep the momentum going.
Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and president of the Daniel
Pearl Foundation, named after his son. He and his wife,
Ruth, are editors of "I am Jewish: Personal
Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl
(Jewish Light, 2004), winner of the National Jewish Book
Award.
Did you enjoy this article?
If so,
- share it with your friends
so they do not miss out on this article,
- subscribe
(free), so you do not miss out on the next issue,
-
 donate
(not quite free but greatly appreciated) to enable us to continue
providing this free service.
If not,
|