Our last day. My morning prayers were in my hotel room facing the Old City and the Temple Mount, overlooking the street scene of East Jerusalem. For me, it is strange to be in a non-kosher hotel in Israel. I find some yogurt to eat. The food products here and in Bethlehem are overwhelmingly Israeli. No boycott of food from the Territories. There is much more of an integrated economy than most people imagine.

After breakfast, we meet with Rabbi Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights. He offers a passionate presentation on Biblical and Rabbinic ideals of justice and how they are expressed (or absent) within contemporary Israel. He spoke of the work RHR does with Palestinian farmers and property owners to assist them to protect their assets against the claims of settlers or governmental policies. He has been arrested many times for these efforts, but feels that he is advocating for the ideals expressed in the founding documents of Israel. There are two different conceptions of justice (tzedek) competing for acceptance within Israel: justice representing the restoration of Jewish rights in its historic land and justice for others (minorities) within a Jewish and democratic polity.  

Ambassador Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs hosted us in its beautiful building in the Katamon neighborhood of Western Jerusalem. The former representative of Israel to the UN and close advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu welcomed us and pointed to importance of inter-religious issues in relation to strategic issues important to Israel. For example, Israel and Sunni Muslims share concerns about Shiite Iran. Private discussions go on between Sunni Muslims and Israelis in Europe, Emirates, and United States related to Iran and other concerns. Mutual threat created the relationship. 

Addressing strategic issues, Gold stated that the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 frames current Israeli thinking. Although everyone expected that disengagement would lead to lowering of conflict and tension, rocket attacks actually increased from 159 in 2003 to 946 in 2006. When Israel stopped trying to retard tunnels, the quantity and quality of weapons entering Gaza increased, Hamas fighters went via Egypt to Syria and then Iran for training, Sinai-based Bedouin developed a higher level of smuggling activity and violence increased. The conflict became more than one about territory; it was now regional and ideological. The introduction of shoulder-fired missiles from Iran and post-Qaddafi Libya would be dangerous to normal air traffic at Ben Gurion airport, so Israel seeks to intercept these weapons in the West Bank and sees the Jordan Valley as the security perimeter for Israel. This security perspective is basic to Israeli positions in all negotiations with the Palestinians.

Ambassador Gold then discussed the post-1948 (pre-1967) cease-fire lines as the basis for future internationally recognized borders. UN resolution 242 is the defining international declaration for all negotiations. It recognized Israeli legal right post- 1967 by speaking of withdrawal from “territories”, not “all territories”.    

A critical assessment is whether the Middle East is moving toward more stability and therefore Israel can take risks for peace, or not.  Two concerns: (1) Iran supports terrorist activities throughout region (the recent Israeli interception of Iranian arms, as well as intercepts by other Arab countries), and (2) the increase of jihadi violence. These two factors also explain Israeli caution in negotiations. US Secretary of State Kerry seeks to create an environment conducive to a future agreement. It will be a US assessment of possible areas of flexibility (with areas of possible disagreements, such as Jewish State, 67 borders).  Borders are a big issue: can the IDF be in Jordan Valley without Israeli sovereignty? 

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is important because it represents an acknowledgement that Israel and Jews are a legitimate and historic presence in the region. The Palestinian effort to deny Jewish history has made this claim significant. He complimented Prime Minister Stephen Harper for understanding and supporting the Israeli position. 

In response to questions from our group about the wall/barrier erected by Israel to separate between Israel and the Palestinian territories, Ambassador Gold acknowledged that it is ugly and disruptive, but pointed to its effectiveness in reducing acts of terror. While planned acts of terror require intelligence efforts to intercept, this type of wall/ fence has reduced “terrorism of opportunity” that was relatively quick, easy and deadly. Answering questions about Israeli soldiers and their actions toward Palestinian civilian population, the Ambassador acknowledged that some soldiers (as with American and Canadian forces) act improperly (leading to disciplinary actions), but that that the army must act to protect its personnel. In 2002, the IDF attacked the infrastructure of terrorism via house to house fighting. In Jenin, the army lost a number of men because of booby-trapped homes.  Instead of using flame throwers and aerial bombing, the army developed a technique of moving from house to house by knocking down walls between houses. This was messy, but saved lives. All war involves choices between bad and worse alternatives.

After a quick lunch in the Emek Refaim shopping and restaurant neighborhood, we went to Ramallah to meet Xavier Abu Eid, a representative of the Negotiations Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization. We again passed through checkpoints without incident. Mr Abu Eid stressed that the conflict is not a religious issue. This is a national conflict, where religion plays a role. He criticized Netanyahu for asserting the status of an undivided eternal city of Jerusalem, pointing out that this could exclude other religious groups. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, East Jerusalem is occupied, just as the rest of Palestine. The challenge is how to make the city open to all. As an example, he pointed to his status as Christian who is unable to attend the Church of Holy Sepulcher during Lent.

He enumerates seven million Palestinian refugees (a number far in excess of what is usually enumerated) for whom Israel must accept its responsibility. These refugees should have a choice for their future: return to their homes or resettlement elsewhere. In either case, they should receive financial compensation. Future borders should use the 1967 lines as the basis for settlement. This would allow Israel to retain 78% of historic Palestine, leaving the Palestinians with only a small fraction of its patrimony.  

As far as Mr. Abu Eid is concerned, the Palestinians recognized Israel In 1988. There is no need for recognition of a Jewish State. This was not part of the peace treaties with Egypt or Jordan and would negatively affect the rights of Palestinians living in Israel. The PLO views this as a new pre-condition for those who don’t want peace and simply want to manage occupation.

The Palestinian goal is to end occupation. In contrast, Mr Abu Eid asserted, the Israeli intent is to reframe the area as one state with two systems. Palestine would be without a true state authority.  Israel wants to exclude from Palestine Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and the settlement blocs. This would be another territorial grab so that Palestine would not become a real sovereign state. Since Oslo, there have been twenty-two years of useless negotiations. It is time for decisions. Everyone who believes in a just peace knows what results must be. Israel want to delay to make a final agreement impossible. The latest effort to divert attention from real issues is the pseudo-issue of a Jewish state.

Noting that most of the participants were from Canada, he criticized the Harper government and stated that Canada is not wanted in international discussions about future of Palestine.

In response to the question of whether Jewish settlers could remain in Palestine, Mr. Abu Eid stated, “This is not our problem” and is not comparable to the restoration of property to Palestinian refugees. Palestine is willing to accept Jews within Palestine, but not settler communities. We didn’t ask those people to steal our land. 70% of settlers have come into Palestine because of economic incentives offered by the Israeli government. These include (1) cheaper housing, quick transportation, and lower taxes; (2) charitable organizations that support settlers; (3) international trade with settlers (no distinction between Israeli products and settler products made by those who steal our resources).  As for the call to boycott products produced by Israelis living in the West Bank, he said that if governments would not act, then private citizens would do so.

Addressing the concern of the security collapse after Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, he stressed that Palestine/West Bank is not the same as Gaza. He then pointed out that Israel left Lebanon, but remained in the Shebaa Farms (thus continuing occupation). Former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon delegitimized President Abass by not negotiating with him about Gaza. Sharon used a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza to camouflage efforts to increase settlements in the West Bank. As for Israeli claims about its need for security, Mr Abu Eid stated that the Palestinians are the people that need security, unlike a nuclear power like Israel. .

The best way to stop violence is by stopping injustice. Palestinians want security from Israeli army and a just resolution for refugees. This was an issue pre-1967, because Jaffa is still Palestine – even if it will never be returned. The Right of Return should apply to people who were in Palestine pre-1947 and their children. If Israel wants to bring Jews of world here (via its Law of Return) why shouldn’t Palestinians also have that right? The PLO seeks a resolution to the conflict without dismissing rights of other people.

Asked about the Aida Refugee camp and why these people had not been resettled, the speaker responded that, as Palestinians, they have identity cards and have a right to return. He did not actually answer whether their resettlement was restricted so that they would be used as political pawns. He went on to say that wherever Palestinians live and whatever their financial status, they should have a right of return. 

Regarding the conflict between the PLO/Fatah and Hamas regarding the acceptability of any agreement reached between Israel and the PLO, he stated that Hamas has committed to accept the results of a referendum on agreement. However, he believes that Israeli settlers will be the major impediment, as they will not accept Israeli withdrawal. While US Secretary of State Kerry is a good man who is trusted, he hopes that Kerry will not repeat old mistakes.

I have reviewed the presentations of Ambassador Gold and Mr. Abu Eid without introducing my own opinion to indicate the wide gap that exists between the approaches of the Israelis and the Palestinians regarding negotiations and the issues that separate the two positions. Prior to today, some of our group believed that peace was just a matter of good will. These presentations indicated how challenging the process actually is. 

We proceeded through another checkpoint on the way to Neve Shalom/Wahat a Salam/ Oasis of Peace (based on Isaiah 32.18)., an intentional village founded in 1978 by a Dominican monk, Bruno Hasar, to see whether religion could be a basis for peace, not conflict. On land leased (later given) by a Trappist monastery, this village was established, seeking a place where Jews, Christians and Muslims would live together. We met with Daoud Barouj, a Christian Arab, who explained that the intent was for residents to find a way to live together and teach peace by example and through education.

The village includes 60 familes (with 20 on a waiting list). It is primarily secular Jews and Arabs, so religious practices are modest, not assertive. There is a private high school and a conflict resolution program at a university level. It provides a platform for people to discuss and debate. Jews enter the Israeli army. When a soldier from the village was killed in a military accident, there was a community debate about dedicating a monument in his memory. Eventually, a new basketball court was dedicated to “young man of peace who died in war”.

In our final debriefing, people had the following comments about the week together:

We are learning not to jump to conclusions, as there are many different perspectives;

The week left me sad about the realities, yet hopeful about possibilities;

We would like to see the shoots of peace and grow into a tree;

This has stimulated renewed interest in the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the collision of narratives;

I experienced the Palestinian narrative in my heart and the Jewish narrative in my head;

The spiritual architecture of the week allowed us to encounter the Holy Land and each other- gradually developing trust and faith in one another;

I regret that I was reluctant to disclose my Jewish identity in Bethlehem;

Giving dignity to the Other and being sensitive to different life experiences are crucial to reconciliation;

It is important to feel our reactions and to use our heads for deeper analysis;

This is not a zero sum game;

Religion can spread or heal the conflict;

I am hopeful that peace and the grassroots will “win”;

The two parents who lost children gave me hope. Moving from victimhood to forgiveness is hard, but important;

Friends were concerned about my visiting Israel, but I can report that I felt safe throughout the trip;

One did not have to choose sides;

Israelis and Palestinians each want their family and home to be safe;

It is not clear whether the conflict involves cutting the baby (no real compromise, like Solomon) or cutting the garment (possible compromise);

True strength does not flow through the power of a gun, but through the ability to listen;

We need to do things differently to see and hear the Other;

Headlines are only a part of the story;

Our leader and teacher, Ophir Yarden, crafted an amazing week of education and spiritual growth; 

The work of the Interfaith Coordinating Committee for Israel was great;

Realizing the potential for peace and justice will require compromise;

The four clergy friends who inspired this group gave us a special gift; 

There was so much learning; 

This week was life-changing.

We boarded the buses to Ben Gurion airport. I guided twelve people through the usual security questions. The agents were quite amazed when I told them what we had done. Actually, wherever we travelled throughout Israel or Palestine, people asked about the nature of our group and expressed surprise and admiration for the people who participated in the Path of Abraham. Did you really bring Muslims to an Israeli settlement? Did  Jews actually spend the night in Arab homes? Did Christians actually go into Hebron? Is Canada a place where such dialogue is possible? Could it happen here one day?

Rav Baruch