I am somewhat unmoved by the current direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. I am deeply attentive to it, as an Israeli and a concerned citizen of the world, but, like many, unmoved. Unlike the Oslo Accord of the early nineties that swept Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world with positive hope of reconciliation, love and peace, the devastating events and many failed attempts that followed Oslo altered this sentiment and changed its focus. It might be that a change in vocabulary is indeed called for as Prof. Biletzki suggests before me: We might want to progress from a language of reconciliation and talk to a terminology of divorce and action. The friendliness on Abbas’ and Netanyahu’s faces as they met with King Abdulla, President Mubarak and President Obama earlier this month is disquieting at best. As representatives of their people they should know that the Middle East is tired and suspicious of symbols and gestures of goodwill. We are not that touched anymore by the mere fact that our leaders converse and shake hands. If Abbas writes a note in Netanyahu’s guestbook, I am not sure the world should be told; neither is it important that Netanyahu welcomed Abbas with a Palestinian flag in his official Jerusalem residence. It is mistaken and anachronistic to adhere to these symbols at this 11th hour of the two-state solution. What the conflict needs, what every good divorce needs, is a serious mediator that can resolutely lay down a rule.
And yet symbols are no doubt involved. Many unfold in one pregnant location and name: Jerusalem. It is not the holiness of Jerusalem that makes it the last topic to reach the Israeli-Palestinian roundtable. Palestine and Israel are not short of holy sites and most definitely not short of secular inhabitants. Jerusalem is not a military strategic location either anymore, nor the most important center of commerce: Jerusalem, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, is a dream. It is a kernel of identity around which all national hopes and aspirations of both sides congeal and crystallize to one meaningful whole. Or shall we say two meaningful wholes one of which is mutually exclusive with the other.
Dreams play a tantalizing game with reality: they entice it to come their way, linger around it when it doesn’t, change their focus to accommodate the facts and sometime, if accommodation does not yield results, they die and other replace them. The Israeli dream of united Jerusalem has proved itself to be at odds with reality to such an extent that Israelis are presented these days with one of two choices: abandon reality or abandon the dream. As things stand right now Israel is oscillating. On the one hand it offers to discuss core-issues with the Palestinian Authority, among which one can assume is the status of Jerusalem, on the other hand, it approved settlement building in East Jerusalem just as VP Biden arrives in the area to commence on proximity talks and Netanyahu vowed to never divide Jerusalem on Israel’s last “Jerusalem Day” (May 12th 2010). Israeli consciousness is hesitant to pick its path between maintaining the impossible dream and waking up to a reality that might allow for new dreams. It lacks charismatic leaders that can envision new paths and has excess of right-wing politicians which are still very much enchanted by Jerusalem as “ir shehoubra la yachdav” (Psalms. literally: the city that was put back together). This attachment maintains itself with force and illusion. Evictions and bulldozers at East Jerusalem are there for no other reason than to prevent Palestinians from dreaming an identity and allowing Israelis to continue sleeping themselves into theirs. Declaring a freeze on settlements that does not include East Jerusalem does the very same thing. It helps keep the illusory status of Jerusalem as united and wholly Israeli rather than divided and occupied. Israelis need a new dream that does not so devastatingly disagree with reality and the dreams of others around them.
An American resolute demand on complete settlement freeze, including East Jerusalem and declaration of a plan to divide of Jerusalem made public by Binyamin Netanyahu might just be the right mix of action and dreaming the conflict needs. It will most probably result in Israeli turmoil in the Knesset and the streets but it will be real progress; it will demonstrate Obama’s true determination and will awaken the Israeli public to the possibility of new visions concerning their capital. In an article published June this year in Haaretz Amos Oz righty suggest that ideas cannot be bombed. They have to be combated with better ideas. Dreams are much the same way: Bulldozers do no erase or maintain them. The only way around dreams that are in discord with reality are new dreams that are less in discord with it. Dreams can be a great weakness or a great strength. They help us muster the power to change reality, but can also draw us to bury our heads in the sand and carry us off the shore of what is to no-man’s-land of things that will never come to pass. It is a fragile balance and the issue of Jerusalem hinges on its verge. Will Israeli Jews agree to wake up and share Jerusalem? Will they let a new better dream come along? Or will they bury their heads in holy sand and continue to dance the perennial tango of feint reconciliation talks, hand shakes and nods until the very last minute of the 11th hour will trickle away and leave them with long lost reverie and nothing more.
Sarit Larry
Philosophy Department, Boston College
Director of "Beyond Divided Cities: Jerusalem - Israel/Palestine"
http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/guestbook/future_events.html
