Where do we go from here?
The tragic eruption of large-scale violence between Palestinians
and Israelis in recent months makes manifestly clear that the
approach to peace symbolized by the Oslo Accords is dead. Yet it is
also evident that when this latest sustained eruption of
rock-throwing, shooting and killing finally subsides and the
political fallout from these events is absorbed, our two
long-suffering peoples will find themselves confronting exactly the
same dilemma they faced a year ago and a decade ago and a
generation ago, namely, 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.
Belonging and Sharing
So if the Oslo process, based upon mutual recognition and trading
land for peace, has proven not to be the answer, what conceivable
formula can we find to finally break the impasse? While both sides
do indeed need to make painful concessions in order to reach a just
peace settlement, it will also be necessary for each people to make
profound psychological adjustments that render more inclusive the
manner in which both 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 over 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, namely, that while our two
peoples are indeed fated to live side by side forever, it is not
preordained that we must do so in a mutually resentful fashion, as
though forced to put up with a free-loading 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?
Indeed, why cannot the mutual enthusiasm of Israelis and
Palestinians for the same hills, valleys and ancient cities and for
the same sights, sounds and smells become a positive force for
drawing closer together? No immutable law of nature dictates that
we cannot enthusiastically share with each other the abiding love
each people feels for the common land one side calls Palestine and
the other Israel. Why cannot we not celebrate together our common
feeling of connectedness and belonging to the place? Why not
embrace a doctrine of "Two States, One Common Land"?
Against Separation, for Reconciliation
The two of us have joined together to espouse this new
consciousness 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 of
his life 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 tiny, jewel-like land that is 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 grass-roots
Palestinians and Israelis. Imagine people from twinned Israeli and
Palestinian villages and cities or from professional associations
in both states talking to each other on a sustained basis via
telephone, the Internet and regular face-to-face meetings on both
sides of the new border. Imagine Israeli scouts, both Jewish and
Arab, hiking together with Palestinian scouts along the old Green
Line, comparing historical, religious or folkloric associations
each side attaches to the same hidden spring, ancient village or
crumbling ruin.
The ethic of "Two States, One Land" is also about taking urgently
needed steps to protect the fragile environment of the land, which
is under great strain due to over-population and runaway
development. It is necessary for Israel and Palestine to work
together to institute sensible environmental and land-use policies,
while equitably sharing water and other scarce resources.
A Common Vocabulary
At first glance, our vision of "Two States, One Common Land" may
sound romantic, even utopian. Actually, it is eminently pragmatic
and practical, since the realization of this new ethic could
finally overcome the entrenched opposition to a peace agreement by
large constituencies on both sides.
Many Palestinians oppose the Oslo Accords because of a fear that by
signing a peace deal with Israel they would 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 would have to
sever ties to West Bank sites, including some that have been
attacked by Palestinians in recent months, 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
emotional connections to the remainder of the biblical
homeland.
Rejectionists on both sides happen to be correct that
Israel-Palestine is organically one land. Yet they are profoundly
wrong 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 most sensible strategy for achieving
reconciliation is to divide the land into two states while
promoting love of a common land that transcends the borders of
those states.
"Two States, One Common Land" cannot be a substitute for a just
peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, but must instead go
hand in hand with one. Yet the latest spasm of violence has made
graphically clear that it will likely prove impossible to find a
formula for 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 belonging they can share. The
notion of "Two States, One Common Land" is the missing link needed
to bring about genuine and lasting reconciliation.