Negotiating With Arafat -- Is There an Alternative?

Rabbi Melanie Aron

May 1, 2001

The Arab Jewish dialogue group which Shir Hadash has co-sponsored this year has been in some ways the bane of my existence. First of all, meeting on Sundays from 3-5pm has messed up my schedule in various ways. Secondly, I almost always come out aggravated. I ride home in the car afterwards, fuming and fussing about who had said what.

Part of the problem is that we have continued to have new participants at each session. The ground rules of dialogue are violated by these one timers, who are not interested in understanding but in defending their cause and pointing out the transgressions of the other side. In truth though, the problem goes beyond those ringers brought in by one particular participant when he feels the Arab side is not well enough defended. The real problem is that the gap between even the most liberal left-wing Israel sympathizer and the most moderate, western democracy oriented Arab participant is still enormous. It is tremendously discouraging to see this gap re-emerge, in some comment on past or present events, each time you think that perhaps there is some real understanding.

However, I continue to participate. Why? First of all, because among the participants, there are some fascinating people on both sides: for example, an Egyptian born Muslim woman, who runs Muslim education for the general community and serves on the County Human Relations Commission. She is a thoughtful, truthful person, and I gain a great deal from my contacts with her. We also have a few older, retired Arab engineers, who have been in this valley for 30+ years. They are pragmatic, interested in the possible and thus are more focused on an achievable future than a review of the past. There is also an Israeli former soldier, who brings to the group his gentleness and his willingness to admit that the Israelis have blown it on numerous occasions.

But even if the members of the group offered me no sustenance, I would still participate, and that is because I believe - Ein Bereirah, there is no choice.

The Hebrew word Bereirah, choice or alternative, was the name of an outcast group in the 1970's. The common slogan of the time was Ein Bereirah, there is no alternative, as in there is no alternative but constantly to be ready for war with the Arabs. This group argued Yesh Bereirah, there is an alternative. Israel needs to negotiate with the Palestinians. Academics for the most part, and liberals here in the United States, they were physically removed from various gatherings and public meetings for speaking heresy. They were blacklisted from certain positions within the Jewish community and accused of being traitors. Yet, eventually the Israeli government and the American Jewish mainstream adopted their position- yesh bereirah, there is a choice, there is the alternative of talking to Arafat and PLO.

All of us are deeply hurt and disappointed by the events of the last seven months. The use of violence, rather than negotiation, by the PLO to achieve political ends, completely defies the agreements that had been made. The Israeli left feels betrayed- first because it was precisely when Barak extended himself to the furthest margins of the Israeli consensus in negotiating with the Palestinians that the peace process broke down. Secondly, because they watched Arafat pull the strings to control the last Israeli election, fully knowing that each act of violence was a nail in the coffin of Barak's electoral prospects.

Still if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit we, Israel and Israel's American friends, wanted to have our cake and eat it too. We wanted peace without sacrifice. Sure we were giving the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank and Gaza, but everyone knows we didn't want to continue to be responsible for their large Arab populations. Sure, we were talking some kind of co-territoriality for Jerusalem, but in a purely symbolic way. Finally, and I think most significantly, the Israeli Government, even under Barak, never renounced the settlements across the green line, never faced the really difficult, painful concession that would have to be made. There was talk of exchanging territory so that the settlers could remain under Israeli jurisdiction, but there were no meaningful limits on the settlement. Over these past seven months we have seen just how unfortunate that lack of limitation has been. The greatest number of incidents of violence are directly related to maintaining the security of these settlements in Arab inhabited areas, that are not part of any responsible person's ideal map of Israeli territory. It is these settlements that make it impossible to create coherent borders and to give the Palestinians contiguous land. At this very moment the issue of increasing settlements, through "natural growth", is again on the table, and those in the peace camp fear that as time goes by, it will be impossible for Israel to do what it has promised in terms of a land swap because of the growth of these settlements.

Is this latest peace initiative that we hear about on the news, headed somewhere- or is it as one Israeli editorial write wrote "the tunnel at the end of the tunnel"? It was interesting to me that a recent newspaper poll, done by Yediot Achronot (Israel's equivalent to the N.Y. Daily News) found that even after these 7 months of violence Israelis were interested in and supportive of the peace process. The poll found that, when asked how to bring about a ceasefire, 53% of Israelis said diplomatic means, 25% said military pressure and 17% said expel terror leaders. Only 3% supported the retaking of territory ceded to the Palestinian Authority. In addition 63% of Israelis favor freezing settlements in return for a ceasefire and most Israelis oppose a unilateral settlement.

These last seven months have been among the most disheartening in Israel's history. Israeli friends report feeling depressed; the economy is in a tail spin. Arab violence continues on a daily basis. Even the Israeli right has admitted that electing a strong leader has not accomplished what they hoped in quelling the Intifada and Arik Sharon has, in the words of Haaretz (Israel's equivalent to the New York Times) commentator Nehemia Strasler, "quickly learned the limits of force in providing security for residents of the territories."

Ein Bereirah, there is no alternative but to return to the table of diplomacy and to negotiate for a better future.