What should Israel do now to change the situation in Gaza?
It was a mistake to build settlements anywhere, and especially in Gaza. I think that more people understand that now. So the simple idea is that Israel has to leave Gaza. To move 7,000 people from Gaza doesn't need two years, four years. It can be done in a short while and then we can, of course, move out the troops. During the Oslo years we calculated the time that was needed to leave Gaza and Ramallah, and it took some hours. We can leave Gaza in a very short time, a few months.
Are you saying now that a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is OK?
I believe that a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is better than remaining in Gaza, but it is stupid. We have partners there and we can strengthen these partners by coordinating the withdrawal from Gaza. By leaving Gaza unilaterally, we may weaken our partners and strengthen Hamas. [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon has only strengthened Hamas by his talk about leaving Gaza through unilateral withdrawal and by his refusal to talk about it with the Palestinian Authority. I hope that it is only a mistake.
Meaning?
I hope that it is only a mistake that he is strengthening Hamas by doing it unilaterally and that he is not happy to strengthen those forces which refused to negotiate with us.
Tell me something about your personal motive in negotiating the Geneva Accord, something that we can't read in your book.
The main thing was my feeling that we [were] very, very close to an agreement and we had to prove it to the general public, which became so skeptical about the ability to finish the job. Yasser [Abed Rabbo] and I both thought that we did not need to work on the details too much to have a solution for the most delicate issues, like Jerusalem and the refugees. So it was like a private mission to prove that the problem was solvable.
Talk about these issues -- the Palestinian “right of return,” the future of Jerusalem. What should the American public understand?
The solution for the refugees is a repetition of the Clinton plan, meaning that they will have five options for permanent place of residence, and one of these options is in Israel -- but according to Israel's own sovereign decision. We are suggesting for the first time a formula in order to calculate the number of refugees, which I believe at the end of the day will not exceed 30,000. This is the average number of refugees admitted by third parties, whoever is ready to accept them. It's the first time in any solution or draft solution that the words “right of return” for Palestinians don't appear.
Referring to Jerusalem, here again this is the Clinton solution -- namely, whatever is Jewish would be part of Israel, whatever is Arab would be part of Palestine, and the Wailing Wall would be under Israeli sovereignty and the Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty. Both sides would not have permission to excavate or build without permission by the other, and there would be international supervision.
How would you characterize support for the Geneva initiative in Israel?
We got 40 percent support, which exceeded our rosiest expectations. This may go up or down, but generally this is the support we have. The same was achieved on the Palestinian side, which is really very interesting. By the way, the recent monthly poll of the Steimetz Institute [which tracks support among the Israeli public for peace initiatives] shows most Israelis are ready to dismantle [close to 70 percent of] all the settlements. It's unbelievable think about it: In Geneva, we keep three-fourths of the Israelis beyond the “Green Line,” and there is a majority in Israel to dismantle all of [the settlements]. It shows something about what happened to Israeli public opinion.
In your book, there are a few touching interactions you describe with [Palestinian Foreign Minister] Nabil Shaath. One includes a discussion of history, where you write that the question is “where to begin,” referring to the Israeli and the Palestinian historic narratives. How can the two peoples move beyond the weight of the past to make peace?
I believe that history is a must. It's very important to know all the stories, the genesis, to understand your own anger -- which is the easiest one -- and also to understand the other side. Then the most important thing is not to use this knowledge every morning by saying, “Yes, yes, I know the dates, I read the books, I know everything.” The big challenge is to keep it to yourself and say, “OK, I take everything in moderation.” For example, before meeting, you learn something about your partner, let's say some bad things, but when you meet you don't say, “I know that you failed a very important exam in 1965.” You can use it in your own way, which is usually to be careful about the vulnerabilities of the other side. This is what I want in the negotiations. I don't have to say every day, “Holocaust … how cruel you were to us.” There are so many things that I should know without mentioning, and then we should talk about the future.
On the other hand, it would be foolish to work only under the shadow of history because then it prevents you from talking about your future. You become the slave of your own history. So since I believe that both of us, Nabil Shaath and myself -- for that matter, Yasser Abed Rabbo, [Palestinian Prime Minister] Abu Ala, and others -- know something about history, we should be very careful about using it. We know that you can use history in more than one way. The Palestinian suffering from 1948 is very obvious. They either fled or were forced to leave their homes and became refugees and paid in huge suffering. If you think that one morning Israelis got up and thought it was a nice day to deport Palestinians, you really say, “How come these Israelis are awful?” If you know that some months beforehand -- November 1947 -- Israel was ready to have a very small Jewish state beside a Palestinian state, and had it happened, nobody would have found himself or herself out of their home or if you know that the Palestinian refusal to accept this and the decision of Arab countries to attack Israel caused the war, which, I would say, was also used by Israel in order to get rid of some of the Palestinians, then you are having a much more balanced picture. Nothing is justifying anything, but it is a very different perspective, and that's why I believe that the question is when you begin to read history.
It is in vogue in U.S. academic circles to endorse a binational state instead of two states, and Zionism as racism has become part of the conversation again. Also, claims that Israel cannot be a Jewish democratic state are made. Your response?
I will never forgive those Israelis who contributed to the notion that a Jewish democratic state is a contradiction. I believe that for many years … people understood that the only Jewish state in the world was the only democracy in the Middle East -- never a perfect democracy, but which democracy is perfect? There was much to do to ensure implementation of equal rights of Jews and Arabs and other minorities, but this was the notion. The definition of a Jewish state was not meant to impose Jewish values on others. It only said that because of Jews' historical suffering, they deserved a state whereby they won't become a minority. It means a Jewish state has to have a Jewish majority, but not that others should suffer for that, and a smaller state could have assured that such a majority would be a sustainable one without depriving anybody -- by assuring that the only difference between Jews and Arabs is in the gate of the Jewish state, meaning that Israel would welcome Jews from all over the world to become its citizens while for any other potential citizen, they would have to go through the motions. But once in Israel there should be no difference whatsoever. I believe that if Israel is not a democratic state, it's not Jewish, and if it's not a Jewish state, it is not Israel.
How would you define Zionism. It's such a confusing word to Americans these days … .
I believe that I am a Zionist in the original vision of the founding fathers of Zionism. They were secular Jews who wanted to live as human beings, and they understood that in Europe, that was impossible for them and that only in a state whereby Jews were a majority they would not be deprived. Their main aim was normalcy. They wanted to live as normal people without giving up on the fact that they were Jews, although most of them did not see a synagogue from within for many, many years. And this is me. I am as far from a religious Jew as one can be. I love my people. I like the history of my people. I feel very much a descendant of the generations of Jews. I believe in Jewish continuity. It is important for me. I am afraid that it is difficult to assure Jewish continuity for secular Jews outside of Israel, and I see Israel as a place where my culture, my norms, my history can be transmitted from one generation to another without any special efforts of Sunday schools and special courses just because most of the Israelis are Jews and it is obvious for them that their heritage should be standard.
I would love to live in a world of its inhabitants whereby the tribal bonds don't exist and everybody can refer to each other only as human beings. I have to admit that this is not the world in which I live, and as long as the world is different and refers to nations, to tribes, and extended families, I think that it is OK that the Jewish people will not be the first to dissolve [their] own state. I am willing to get in line, at number 17 or 19, but in the meantime I want my country to be a Jewish state -- but only as long as it is a democratic one and only as long as non-Jews feel there exactly as Jews.
Is there a new coming together across the board of the peace forces in Israel?
We have a very nice, interesting newcomer by the name of the Labor Party, which made its biggest mistake in history perhaps by joining the government of Sharon in 2001. After three and a half years, the center-left in Israel is awakening in order to change the situation on the ground and push for a change of government and policy. This is very, very encouraging. We must work together. When I won the race for the leadership of my party, I called upon [Labor Party leader Shimon] Peres to have a joint leadership of the opposition in order to coordinate our activities. We are much smaller in the Knesset than in the public, but we have to work together, and after two months I didn't get an answer.
This is an election year here. What do you have to say, as an Israeli citizen, should be the role of America right now?
You know, we always say we don't get involved in the politics of another state, as if it were an internal issue. But electing an American president is many times more important for Israel than anything else. I won't say more [important] than its own prime minister, but sometimes even that. So I can say that the story of our process with the Arab countries is the story of the changes in the American administration, besides the readiness of the Israeli government to move. That's why it would be very hypocritical on my side to say that it's an internal American issue and that I can say nothing about it. Despite it, this is what I am going to say.
Jo-Ann Mort is the co-author, with Gary Brenner, of Our Hearts Invented a Place: Can Kibbutzim Survive in Today's Israel? published last year by Cornell University Press.