|
Walter Ruby and Aref Dajani
Where do we go from here? The tragic eruption of large-scale violence
between Palestinians and Israelis over the past month makes clear that
the approach to peace symbolized by the Oslo Accords is dead.
Yet it is evident that when the latest spasm of rock-throwing and
shooting finally subsides, the two peoples will find themselves
confronting exactly the same dilemma they faced a month ago, a year
ago and a decade ago: how to coexist in the tiny land between the
Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River without giving way to
murderous violence neither side can long sustain.
How can we finally break the impasse? The answer is not for either side
to make more painful concessions to the other. The answer is for both of
our peoples to make psychological adjustments in how we connect to the
common land over which we have been struggling for so long.
As agonizingly complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often appears,
at heart it is quite simple. For more than a century, our two peoples have
been fighting with stones, bullets, bombs and missiles over the same
small piece of land, all the while trying to out-shout each other with
expressions of undying love and devotion for the place.
In recent years, more and more Palestinians and Israelis have
understood that they cannot militarily vanquish or permanently disperse
the other side, and therefore will have to cede a portion of the land to
the sovereignty of the other. Yet it is surprising how few have followed
up that realization with another critically important one; that while our
two peoples are indeed fated to live side by side forever, it is not
preordained that we must do so in mutually resentful fashion, as though
forced to put up with a freeloading relative in one’s own home? As long
as we are condemned by fate to share the land both so revere, might we
not learn to enjoy doing so?
Why not celebrate together our common feeling of connectedness and
belonging to the place? Why not embrace a doctrine of “Two States, One
Common Land?”
The two of us have joined together as a Palestinian-American whose
father was driven from his ancestral village of Beit Dajan near Jaffa in
February 1948 by Jewish forces and who himself aspires to return to live
there one day, and as an American Jew who has spent five years living in
Israel and passionately loves the country. We do not agree on every
issue, but we rejoice in celebrating together our mutual love for the land
at the heart of our respective identities.
We strongly oppose the doctrine of “separation” between our two
peoples. True reconciliation can only come about through an ongoing
program of intensive personal interaction between grassroots
Palestinians and Israelis.
The ethic of “Two States, One Land” is not only about building together a
sense of common purpose based on a shared love of our common land,
but also about taking urgently needed steps to protect the fragile
environment of the land, which is under great strain due to
overpopulation and runaway development. It is necessary for Israel and
the Palestinians to work together to institute sensible environmental and
land use policies while equitably sharing water and other scarce
resources.
Our vision may sound romantic, even utopian, but it is actually quite
pragmatic. Indeed, the implementation of our vision offers hope of finally
overcoming the entrenched opposition to a peace agreement by large
constituencies on both sides. Many Palestinians fear that by signing a
peace deal they will be cutting abiding communal and personal ties to
the cities and villages from which they fled or were driven in 1948.
Israelis and Jews often see that as evidence of revanchism, but in reality
it is simply asking too much of Palestinians to relate to only the West
Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as Palestine. By the same token, many
Israelis and Jews fear that once a peace deal is consummated, they will
have to sever ties to West Bank sites, including some that have been
attacked by Palestinians in recent weeks, with which they have deep
spiritual and historical connections. Palestinians and Arabs often see
expressions of this connection as evidence of expansionism, yet in reality
it is asking too much of Israelis to embrace only the politically defined
State of Israel and sever all connections to the remainder of the biblical
homeland.
The rejectionists happen to be correct that Israel-Palestine is organically
one land. Where they are wrong is in insisting that the whole of the land
can be united only under their own dominion. A century of conflict has
proven that neither side has the power to force the other to accept such
a solution. Therefore, the only sensible course is to divide the land into
two states while promoting the love of a common land that transcends
the borders of those states.
Our vision cannot be a substitute for a just peace agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians, but must go hand in hand with one. Yet the
latest spasm of violence has made graphically clear that it will likely prove
impossible to arrive at a peace settlement acceptable to both sides
unless we find a common vocabulary allowing both peoples not only to
feel secure, but also to have a sense of mutual belonging. The notion of
two states in one land is the missing link needed to bring about genuine
and lasting reconciliation.
Walter Ruby, a New York-based writer, and
Aref Dajani, a Washington-based statistician,
are members of Encounter (http://www.salam-shalom.net), a worldwide Internet-based
community of Palestinians, Jews and others dedicated to communication
and reconciliation. |
