Basic HTML Version
us back our land, then we accept
peace." The Arabs, being believers in
hell and paradise, couldn't see gray.
They insisted that unless they get
back their territory, there could be
no peace. Of course, in such a situa–
tion, Israel, created in an Arab envi–
ronment, was besieged. The Arab
states were larger in number, wealth–
ier, but weaker in terms of politics
and armament. Under such a situa–
tion war was bound to erupt some–
day.
And this war carne in 1967. In
June 1967
t~e
Israelis occupied all
mandatory Palestine. They added to
it Sinai and the Golan Heights. The
result of the 1967 war was enor–
mously important. After the war the
Arabs got disillusioned for the first
time. They started to believe tbat
Israel really does exist. Until then
they did not want to believe that it
existed. The Israelis were now seen
as a strong people.
This development laid the grounds
for the Arabs to change gradually
thei r attitudes over the last years. So
Israel is there. Israel does exist.
On the eve of the 1967 war, the
Israelis were calling for reaching a
peaceful settlement, within their bor–
ders. That was before they got the
West Bank and Gaza and the other
Arab areas. After the war when the
Arabs said, ..OK, let's sit down and
talk," the Israelis said, ..No, we have
other views now."
This victory created in the Israelí
psyche what I might call the rhythm
of victory. They won the first war.
They won the second war.
(lt
is
demonstrated in a territory in their
hands.) They changed
their minds...Why should
we reach peace on the pre–
vious terms after taking all
the land of Palestine? Af–
ter all , this is the promised
land."
Thus began the mixing
of historical allusions and
religious aspirations with
realpoli tik and human di–
mensions. The Palestinian
national rights were
blurred. Then confusion in
Tel Aviv started to emerge,
the result of which is that
the religious right in Israel
began to emerge. To make
their ideas materialize in
Palestine-in the promised
January
1986
land-they started to build settle–
ments. At the beginning they re–
searched the Bible for locations of
religious significance. They went
there to build a settlement and to
bring Israelis to live there. That was
at the beginning, a religious move–
ment.
This religious movement was soon
supported by political parties. Settle–
ments were first built in the name of
security. Other settlements were
built on economic grounds. As a re–
sult the West Bank became an open
area for the well-organized efforts of
the settlers.
On our side we were warning,
shouting out, going to the United
Nations, going to the United States.
Many U.N . resolutions have been
taken to condemn this movement as
being illegal, as another form of ag–
gression, but nobody would listen.
When we presented the question
of sett lements to the American peo–
ple, very few of them could under–
stand our position . Most of the
Americans cannot understand our
position simply because of the cul–
tural parallel between the settle–
ments in Israel and the foundation of
the United States of America. After
all , the United States was built the
same way. People came to America
to settle.
This affinity between the Israelí
mind and the American cultural her–
itage made you Americans a very
hard target to talk to. You couldn't
understand what we are saying. To
you, ..It is a good sign that people
can settle and develop. After all, our
founding fathers did the same."
T
bis affmity be–
tween the Israeli mind and
the American cultural
heritage made Americans
hard to talk to.
Another area which made it diffi–
cult for us to present our caseto you
is the Judea-Christian heritage,
which is a part of your culture. Islam
to you is something strange, except
perhaps for scholars who care to
know about Islam. After the oil em–
bargo in 1973, sorne people other
than scholars started to look into Is–
lam, not out of trying to know the
common heritage between nations,
but out of new economic consider–
ations resulting from the oil em–
bargo.
In the last decade the Arabs
be–
carne weaker; the Israelis became
stronger. Their grip on the territories
became tighter. They now have 160
settlements on the West Bank alone.
The ex-Vice Mayor of Jerusalem
wrote a book, published in 1984. In
bis book
The West Bank Data Proj–
ect,
Mr. Benvenesti suggests that it
is too late to talk about a West Bank.
It
has become part of the state of
Israel. He was, however, criticizing
tbat situation because he had other
ideas.
In Israel, as a result of not reach–
ing peace, as a result of maintaining
their occupation on tbe West Bank
and building settlements, Israelis are
facing now a big question. "What
kind of Israel do we want? Is this the
Israel we had conceived of? Is this
the Israel which our Zionist fathers
thought of?"
The answer to these questions is
no, because Israel on all mandatory
Palestine is not and cannot be a
purely Jewish state. In mandatory
Palestine, there are around five mil–
lion people, two million Arabs and
three million Israelis. On the basis of
the current growth rate, of the Arabs
and the Israelis, the Arabs
will
be
equal to the Jews in lO to 15 years'
time.
Now this is a dilemma in Israel
itself. Those who are raising this
question in Israel are asking, "What
kind of state do we want? lf we have
to continue maintaining our occupa–
tion, it means either we have to be–
come a bi-national state, which is
against the basic ideas of Zionism, or
we shall have an apartheid state, hav–
ing Arabs as a community apart,
third-rate citizens."
In answer to this dilemma there
are two schools of thought in Israel.
One is on the right, represented
mainly by the Likud Party, and the
33