Gush Shalom = Forum

Gush Shalom=20 Forum

=93Two States or=20 One=20 State=94
A debate = between
former Knesset Member Uri=20 Avnery
and
Dr. Ilan Pappe

Moderator: =
Professor Zalman=20 Amit

Tel Aviv =96 May 8,=20 2007

Zalman=20 Amit:=20 Greetings to you all, and thanks for coming to be with us this=20 evening.

First of all, I = would like=20 to thank Teddy Katz, who initiated this event and did a large part of = the=20 logistics involved.

I would not be = exaggerating=20 in stating that the subject we discuss today is the most important and = most=20 difficult question facing people on the left of the political spectrum, = and=20 those whom we could broadly call the people of the peace movement. I = also think=20 we are lucky in having tonight two speakers who are perhaps the most clear representatives, respectively, of the = two=20 approaches and worldviews to whose debate this evening is=20 devoted.

To my right is = Dr. Ilan=20 Pappe, historian of Exeter = University, formerly of=20 Haifa = University. [Pappe corrects: Not yet = formerly]. To my left is Uri Avnery, former Knesset Member, former = editor of the=20 weekly Haolam Hazeh, and present activist in Gush=20 Shalom.

As agreed, the = debate will=20 be conducted as follows: First, Pappe will speak for twenty minutes and = Uri=20 Avnery will answer in a similar period of time.

Then, both will = speak again=20 for ten minutes each. Then will come the time for questions and answers, = and I=20 as moderator promise to exercise no censorship. Finally, Ilan and Uri = will have=20 five minutes each to summarize.

I now ask Ilan to = start the=20 first round.

Ilan=20 Pappe: I would=20 like to thank Gush Shalom for this event, for the initiative and the = willingness=20 to discuss such an important subject in such an open forum. I hope that = this is=20 just the beginning of discussing this subject, not a one-off event =96 = since the=20 subjects with which we will deal tonight are = vital to=20 us, and clearly a single evening would not be enough to thoroughly = discuss them,=20 reach personal and collective decisions and develop our strategy as a = peace=20 camp. Whatever the differences between us, we all belong to the peace = camp, the=20 camp that believes in reconciliation between the Palestinian people and = Israel,=20 and we all want to work together to promote that = cause.

Zionism was born = out of=20 impulses. Fair impulses, natural impulses, impulses = that can=20 be understood against the background of the period when this movement = was born,=20 the reality of East and Central=20 Europe at the end of the = nineteenth=20 century.

The first impulse = was the=20 desire to try to confront the waves of anti-Semitic persecutions and = harassment=20 =96 and possibly also a premonition that there was even worse to come. = Therefore,=20 a search started for a safe haven where European Jews could live without = fear=20 for their lives, property and dignity.

The second = impulse was=20 influenced by =93The Spring of the Peoples=94 in the mid. nineteenth = century. The=20 leaders of the Zionist movement thought that it was possible to redefine = Judaism=20 as a nationality rather than only a religion. That, too, was an idea = widely=20 circulating at the time, and more than a few ethnic or religious groups=20 re-defined themselves as nations. When the decision was taken =96 for = reasons=20 which there is no time to go into here =96 to implement these two = impulses on the=20 soil of Palestine, where nearly a million = people=20 already lived, this response to impulses turned into a colonial=20 project.

The moment it was = decided=20 that the only territory where Jews could be assured of a safe haven, the = only=20 territory where a Jewish nation state could be created, was in=20 Palestine, this humanistic national = movement=20 turned into a colonial project. Its colonial character became all the = more=20 pronounced after the country was conquered by the British in the First = World=20 War.

As a colonial = project,=20 Zionism was not a big success story. When the British Mandate came to = its end,=20 no more than six percent of the territory of = Palestine was in Jewish hands. = Zionism also=20 succeeded in bringing here only a relatively small number of Jewish = immigrants.=20 In 1948, Jews constituted no more than a third of the population of=20 Palestine.

Therefore, as a = colonial=20 project, a project of settling and displacing another people, it was not = a=20 success story. But the problem =96 and the source of the Palestinian = tragedy =96 was=20 that the leaders of Zionism did not want only to create a colonial = project, they=20 also wanted to create a democratic state. And why was it a Palestinian = tragedy=20 that Zionism at its early stage wanted to be democratic? Because it = still wants=20 to be democratic. Because if you put together Zionist colonialism, = Zionist=20 nationalism and the impulse for democracy, you get a need that still = dictates=20 political positions in Israel up to the present =96 from Meretz on the = Zionist=20 left to the National Union Party on the extreme right. It is the need to = have an=20 overlap between the democratic majority and the Jewish majority. Every = means is=20 fair to ensure that there will be a Jewish majority, because without a = Jewish=20 majority we will not be a democracy. It is even permissible to expel = Arabs in=20 order to make us a democracy. Because the most = important issue=20 is to have a majority of Jews here. Because = otherwise=20 the project will not be a democratic = project.

It is not = surprising that=20 not far from here, in the Red House on the seashore of Tel Aviv, eleven = of the=20 leaders of Zionism gathered in 1948 and decided that if you want to = create a=20 democratic state and also to complete the Zionist project, i.e. to take = over as=20 much as possible of the land of Palestine, and if you have no majority = and you=20 are only a third, then the only choice is to implement ethnic cleansing, = to=20 remove the Arab population from the territory you intend for a Jewish=20 state.

In March 1948, = under the=20 leadership of Ben Gurion, the Zionist leadership decided that in order = to have a=20 democratic Jewish state here it was necessary to expel a million = Palestinians.=20 Immediately after the decision was taken, they embarked on = systematically=20 expelling the Palestinians. Cruelly they passed from house to house, = from=20 village to village, from neighborhood to neighborhood. When they were = done, nine=20 months later, they left behind them 530 empty villages and eleven = destroyed=20 towns. Half the population of Palestine had been expelled from = its homes,=20 fields and sources of livelihood =96 more than 80 percent of the = population in the=20 territory they conquered. Half of the cities and villages of=20 Palestine were destroyed, and their = ruins=20 planted with forests or settled with Jews.

This was the only = way in=20 which a demographic Jewish state could have been created =96 the kind of = state=20 that is the common rallying call of the Zionist consensus, from then = until=20 now.

Had this act of = the Zionist=20 movement taken place now, no international body would have hesitated to = label it=20 a crime against humanity. The eleven Zionist leaders who took the = decision were,=20 indeed, criminals according to the criteria of international law. Sixty = years=20 later it is a bit difficult to prosecute them, all the more so as none = of them=20 is among us any more.

The UN Partition = Resolution=20 of November 1947 and the attempts to effect a division of the land after = the=20 1948 War were not based on the ideals of justice =96 i.e., there is = justice and=20 rights for the indigenous people, most of whom had been=20 expelled, and there is justice for the new settlers. No. At the basis = for the=20 impulse to effect a two-state solution then, as at the basis of this = impulse=20 now, there was the idea that the Zionist Minotaur could be satisfied by = letting=20 the Jewish state have control over only part of Palestine =96 not the=20 whole.

The UN had = proposed giving=20 50 percent of Palestine. For the Zionists that = was not=20 enough and they took 80 percent of Palestine, and there was a feeling = that that=20 would be enough for them.

But we know that = this=20 territorial hunger did not end in 1948. When the historic opportunity = came, a=20 hundred percent of Palestine came under the rule of = the Jewish=20 state.

But here the = great=20 Palestinian tragedy manifests itself once again. Even after 100 percent = of=20 Palestine became the Jewish state, = there is=20 still a real impulse to create and preserve a democratic state. This is = the=20 background for the creation of a special kind of peace process, a peace = process=20 based on the assumption that the Zionist territorial hunger and = democratic=20 wishes can be assuaged by leaving part of = Palestine =96 the = West = Bank and=20 Gaza =96 out of Israeli=20 control.

There is a double = advantage=20 to this: on the one hand, the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs = is not=20 disturbed; on the other hand, the Palestinians are imprisoned where they = would=20 no longer threaten the Zionist project.

But as we know, = the=20 situation on the ground became increasingly complicated. Perhaps this is = the=20 time to mention Meron Benvenisti, one of the first to point out to us = the facts=20 on the ground that made this, too, into a = pipedream.

Already in the = 1980s, the=20 mantra of the Palestinian = State beside the=20 Israeli = State =96 as a good solution to = the=20 conflict or as a way to assuage the territorial hunger of the Zionist = movement=20 and preserve Israel as a Jewish state =96 = this mantra was=20 encountering increasing difficulties.

One factor was = that the=20 =91facts on the ground=92 were steadily reducing the Palestinian = territory, by=20 creating and extending settlements. And from a different direction, = there was=20 the natural wish of the political movements to extend the ranks of those = who=20 supported the two-states solution. Gradually, = they=20 found new partners, and these new partners gave new meanings to the term = =91a=20 Palestinian state=92. In fact, the connection gradually disappeared = between the=20 two-states idea on the one hand and the idea = of solving=20 the conflict on the other.

Suddenly, the = two-states solution became a way of arranging some = kind of=20 separation between occupier and occupied, rather than a permanent = solution that=20 should have dealt with the crime committed by=20 Israel in 1948, with the = problems of the=20 twenty percent of Palestinians inside=20 Israel, and with the refugee = population=20 which has steadily increased since 1948.

In the 1990s, and = since the=20 beginning of the present century, the two-states idea=20 has become common currency. The respectable list of its supporters = finally came=20 to include, among others, Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu and George W. = Bush.

When your idea = gains such=20 adherents, that is far from a bad historical = moment to=20 rethink the entire idea. When the two-states = idea=20 became the basis for the peace process, it provided an umbrella to the = Israeli=20 occupation to continue its operation without any apprehension. That was = because=20 official Israel, regardless of who was = prime=20 minister, was supposed to be involved in a peace process =96 and you = cannot=20 criticize a country that is involved in a peace = process.

Under cover of = the peace=20 process, you can say under the cover of the slogan of =93Two States for = Two=20 Peoples=94, the settlements were extended, and the harassment and = oppression of=20 the Palestinians were deepened. So far so that the = =93facts on=20 the ground=94 have reduced to nothing the area intended for the=20 Palestinians. The Zionist racist and ethnic hunger got legitimacy = to=20 extend itself into nearly half of the West = Bank.

It was impossible = to remain=20 unimpressed by the impressive presence of the peace camp in the = demonstration in=20 support of Ariel Sharon, at the time of the Gaza=20 Disengagement.

The connection = between the=20 =93Two states for two peoples=94 formula and the peace process logically = would lead=20 to peace activists who believe in two states crying out in city squares = =96 how is=20 that square called? The=20 Rabin=20 Square? - gathering in the = Rabin=20 Square and crying out: =93Long = live=20 Sharon, long live = disengagement!=94, which=20 means =93Long live the imprisonment of Gaza in the biggest = concentration camp=20 of the twenty-first century!=94 That is what they would cry out, that is = the=20 concern of the Sharon-supporting peace camp.

On the one hand, = this=20 formula makes it possible to continue the occupation by other means, in = order to=20 silence the outside criticism of the acts of the occupation. On the = other hand,=20 it enabled the State of Israel to create facts on the=20 ground.

In any case, by = 2007 you=20 can admit: there is not a single stone visible, in what is now called = the=20 West=20 Bank and=20 Gaza Strip, which can serve in the construction of a Palestinian=20 state.

How do you choose = to look=20 at this?

If the principle = of justice=20 be the basis for those who support the partition of this country, there = is no=20 formula more cynical than the two-states = solution, as=20 it is now presented in the peace camp. Eighty = percent of the=20 country to the occupier, and twenty percent to the occupied. That = is, 20=20 percent in the best and utopian case. More likely, = no more=20 than 10 percent, a dispersed and surrounded ten percent, to the=20 occupied.

Moreover, where = in this=20 solution do you find a solution to the refugee problem, to the question = of where=20 those who were the victims of the ethnic cleansing of 1948 will return=20 to?

Where will their = second and=20 third generation return to, if indeed justice is the guiding=20 principle?

On the other = hand, if=20 pragmatism and realpolitik be our guiding lights, and all that we wish = is to=20 assuage the Zionist state=92s territorial hunger with a demographic = efficiency,=20 why offer only 80 percent? If brute force alone is to determine the = solution,=20 God Almighty, there is no need today to offer the Palestinians even half = a=20 percent. You can move Wadi Ara [Arab-inhabited region of=20 Israel] to the = West = Bank, you can annex half the=20 West=20 Bank to=20 [the settlement of] Ma=92aleh Adumim and give the Palestinians in = exchange some=20 sandbags from [the Negev desert region of] = Halutza, you can=20 do a lot, lot more. If we trusted in the international and regional = balance of=20 forces as the decisive factor, we would give the Palestinians a tiny = piece of=20 land, hermetically enclosed with barriers and walls. Because we are not = guided=20 by moral principles, we are pragmatic people.

It=92s true, there are Palestinians in Ramallah who are = willing to=20 rest content with that. We know there are, and they deserve to have = their voice=20 heard =96 but it is utterly unacceptable to silence the voices of the = Palestinian=20 majority in the refugee camps, in the diasporas, in the Occupied = Territories and=20 among the internal refugees in Israel who want to be part of a state =96 = not a=20 state erected on 20 percent of the land, but of a future state that will = include=20 the whole of the country that was once Palestine. There will be neither=20 reconciliation here, nor justice or a permanent solution, if we don=92t = let these=20 Palestinians have a share in solving the questions referring to = reconciliation=20 and to defining the sovereignty, the identity and the future of this=20 country.

Unlike many other = groups in=20 the West, and possibly against the historical logic of those who were = the=20 victims of a hundred years of Zionist disregard, these Palestinians = surprisingly=20 want to include in defining the future state a recognition of the right = of the=20 Jews living here to take part in that future.

Even the Jews who = came=20 yesterday from St.=20 Petersburg and who pray in the = Church of the=20 Holy Sepulchre, even the presence of these Jews is acceptable to the=20 Palestinians. So we are not willing to let these Palestinians return? = They, who=20 are willing to let Lieberman stay?

Let=92s involve = them. Let=92s=20 respect their aspirations. Let=92s not say: =93It=92s we who decide, we = in Tel Aviv=20 and Ramallah.=94 No. They decide, too.

Let=92s at least = check the=20 applicability of the idea. At least try out two ideas and give both a = chance,=20 the two-states idea side by side with the = one-state=20 idea.

Let=92s give some = respect to=20 the new idea. The old idea, the idea of partition, we have tried for = sixty=20 years. The result was exile, occupation, oppression, discrimination. = Peace it=20 did not bring. Let=92s give something else a = chance.

Let=92s not offer = drafts of a=20 democratic constitution that would be applicable only to Western = Bak=92ah [Arab=20 town inside Israel] and say that we don=92t = care about=20 the future of Eastern Bak=92ah [originally part of the same town, which = is across=20 the line in the West = Bank]. Eastern Bak=92ah could = be=20 imprisoned in an enclave, as far as we are concerned, or languish under = a=20 dictatorship. We want Western Bak=92ah as part of the =93state of all = its citizens=94=20 which we want Israel to become, but Eastern = Bak=92ah we=20 will leave outside the fence, perhaps under a continuing occupation. How = can=20 we?

We have relations = of blood,=20 relations of blood and relations of common tragedy which cannot be = divided. We=20 are all in one political imbroglio.

The one who = expelled and=20 his sons and grandsons, and the one who was expelled with sons and = grandsons and=20 granddaughters, all of them together must take part in the negotiations = on the=20 future of the entire country.

Our political = elites are=20 incompetent in the best case and corrupt in the worst, in all that = pertains to=20 finding a solution to the conflict. The elites that accompany us in the = West and=20 in the Arab world are just as bad. When these elites masquerade as civil = society, simply because there are some politicians who happen not to = hold office=20 at a certain moment, the Geneva bubble is floated and the = situation=20 becomes even worse and peace even more distant.

We will find an = alternative=20 model. All of us, including the old settlers and the new =96 even those = who got=20 here yesterday =96 including the expellees with all their generations = and those=20 who were left after the expulsions. We will ask all of them what = political=20 structure, which would include the principles of justice, reconciliation = and=20 coexistence, fits all of = them.

Let=92s offer = them at least=20 one more model, in addition to the one that failed. In Bil=92in we are = fighting=20 shoulder to shoulder against the occupation =96 can we not live together = with=20 Bil=92in in the same state? Who do we want more as our neighbors, = Bil=92in or=20 Matityahu Mizrah [the settlement expanding at the expense of Bil=92in=20 lands]?

In conclusion: in = order for=20 this dialogue to start and flourish, let=92s admit one more thing. = Let=92s admit=20 that the occupation, which they are increasing daily, we =96 with all = our=20 important efforts =96 can=92t stop from here. The occupation is part of = the same=20 ideological infrastructure on which the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was = built, for=20 which the Arabs of Kufr Qassem were massacred [in 1956], for which lands = are=20 confiscated in both Galilee and the West Bank, for which detentions and = killings=20 without trial are committed. The most murderous manifestation of this = ideology=20 occurs now in Greater Jerusalem and the West = Bank. In order to stop the = extension of=20 these war crimes, the extension of this criminal behavior, let=92s admit = that we=20 need external pressure on the State of Israel. Let=92s thank the = associations of=20 journalists, physicians and academics who call for a boycott of=20 Israel as long as this criminal = policy=20 continues. Let us use the help of civil society in order to make the = State of=20 Israel a pariah state, as long as this behavior continues. So=20 that we here, everybody who belongs and who wants to belong to this = country,=20 could conduct a constructive and fruitful = dialogue.

The aim should be = to create=20 a political structure that will once and for all absolve us from the = need to=20 live under a conflict, and make it possible to build a better future. = Thank=20 you.

Zalman=20 Amit: I give=20 the floor to Uri Avnery.

Uri=20 Avnery: It is=20 a great privilege to speak to such an audience, in which there are many = veterans=20 of the struggle for peace.

This is not a = gladiatorial=20 fight to the death in a Roman arena. Ilan Pappe and I are partners in = the=20 struggle against the occupation. I respect his courage. We are in a = common=20 struggle but we have a sharp debate about the way to win it. What do we = debate=20 about?

We have no debate = about the=20 past. I am wholeheartedly willing to sign everything Ilan said on that. = There=20 can be no dispute that Zionism, which had implemented a historical = project, had=20 also caused a historical injustice to the Palestinian people. There can = be no=20 dispute that ethnic cleansing took place in 1948 =96 though allow me to = remark, in=20 parenthesis, that the ethnic cleansing was on both sides, and that there = was not=20 a single Jew left residing in whatever territory was conquered by the = Arab=20 side.

Occupation is a = despicable=20 condition which must be terminated. There is certainly no debate about = that. We=20 might have no debate about the far future, either, about what we would = like to=20 see happening a hundred years from now. Perhaps we will have a chance to = talk=20 about that, too, later this evening.

We do have a = debate about=20 the foreseeable future. About the solution of the = bleeding=20 conflict, within a range of twenty, thirty or fifty years. This = is not a=20 theoretical debate. You can=92t just say, =93Live and let live, each = according to=20 their beliefs, and let the peace movement live in peace.=94 There can be = no=20 compromise between these alternatives, because each of them dictates a = different=20 strategy and different tactics. Not the day after tomorrow, not = tomorrow, but=20 here and now.

The difference is = important. It is crucial. For example: should we concentrate our efforts = on the=20 struggle for Israeli public opinion, or give up the struggle inside the = country=20 and struggle abroad, instead?

I am an Israeli. = I stand=20 with both legs on the ground of the Israeli reality. I want to change = this=20 reality from one side to the other, but I want this state to=20 exist.

Those who deny = the=20 existence of the State of Israel, as an entity expressing our Israeli = identity,=20 deny themselves the possibility of being active here. All their activity = here is=20 foredoomed to failure.

A person might = despair and=20 say that there is nothing to do, everything is lost, we=20 have passed the point of no return. As Meron Benvenisti said many years = ago, the=20 situation is irreversible, we have nothing = more to do=20 in this state.

It happens that = you=20 sometimes despair. Each one of us has had such moments. Despair destroys = any=20 chance of action. Despair must not be made into an ideology. I say: = there is no=20 place for despair, nothing is lost. Nothing is irreversible, except for = life=20 itself. There is no such thing as a point of no = return.

I am 83 years = old. In my=20 lifetime I have seen the rise of the Nazis and their fall, the peak of = the=20 Soviet=20 Union=92s=20 power and its sudden collapse. One day before the fall of the Berlin = Wall, there=20 was not a single German believing this would happen in his lifetime. The = experts=20 did not foresee it =96 none of them. Because there are subterranean = currents that=20 act below the surface, and that nobody sees in real time. That=92s why = theoretical=20 analyses come true so rarely.

Nothing is lost = until the=20 fighters raise their hands in surrender. Hands up = is=20 not a solution, nor is it moral. In our situation, a despairing person = has three=20 choices: (a) emigration; (b) internal emigration, that is to sit at home = and do=20 nothing; or (c) run away to an ideal world of messianic solutions. The = third=20 possibility is the most dangerous, because the situation is critical =96 = especially for the Palestinians. There is no time for a solution that = will be=20 implemented in a hundred years. An urgent solution is needed, a solution = that=20 could be implemented within a few years =96 even if it is not=20 ideal.

I heard people = say: Avnery=20 is old, he sticks to old ideas and cannot = absorb a new=20 one. And I wonder: A new idea? The idea of a single joint state of Jews = and=20 Arabs was old when I was a boy. It flourished in the 1930s. Among = others, it was=20 inscribed on the banner of the movement whose headquarters we meet in = today,=20 Hakibbutz Ha=92artzi Movement. But that idea went bankrupt and it was = the idea of=20 the two states which flourished in the new = reality.

If I may make a = personal=20 remark: I am no historian. I have seen things with my own eyes, heard = them with=20 my own ears, felt them as they were happening. As a soldier in the 1948 = war, as=20 a newspaper editor for forty years, as a Knesset Member for ten years, = as an=20 activist of Gush Shalom. I am in the thick of things, from different and = changing points of view. I have my hand on the public=20 pulse.

There are three = basic=20 questions about the one-state idea.

First: &nbs= p; =20 Is it possible at all?
Second: If it were possible, is it a good=20 idea?
Third: &nbs= p; =20 Will it bring a just peace?

About the first = question,=20 my answer is clear and unequivocal: No, it is not=20 possible.

Anybody who is = rooted in=20 the Israeli-Jewish public knows that this public=92s deepest aspiration = =96 and here=20 it is permissible to make a generalization =96 the far, far deepest = aspiration is=20 to maintain a state with a Jewish majority, a state in which Jews will = be=20 masters of their fate. This takes precedence over any other wish and = aspiration, it takes precedence even over wanting = to have a=20 Greater Israel.

You can talk of a = single=20 state from the Mediterranean to the = Jordan = River, define it as bi-national = or=20 supra-national =96 whatever the term used, in practice it means the = dismantling of=20 the State of Israel, destruction of all that was built for five = generations.=20 This must be said out loud, without any evasions. That is exactly how = the Jewish=20 public sees it, and certainly also a large part of the Palestinian = public. This=20 means the dismantling of the State of Israel. I am a bit disturbed by = the fact=20 that these words are not said explicitly.

We want to change = very many=20 things in this country. We want to change its historical narrative, its = commonly=20 held definition as =93Jewish and democratic.=94 We want to end = occupation outside=20 and discrimination inside. We want to build a new framework in the = relations=20 between the state and its Arab-Palestinian citizens. But you cannot = ignore the=20 basic ethos of the vast majority of the citizens of=20 Israel. 99.99% of the Jewish = public do not want to dismantle the = state.

There is an = illusion that=20 you can achieve this by outside pressure. Would outside pressure force = this=20 people to give up their state? I suggest a very simple test. Think for a = moment=20 about your neighbors at home, colleagues at work, fellow students. Would any of them give up the state because somebody = outside demands=20 it? Pressure from = Europe, even = pressure=20 from the White House? Short of a decisive = military defeat=20 on the battlefield, nothing will induce Israelis to give up their state. = And if=20 Israel is militarily defeated, = our debate=20 will become irrelevant anyway.

The Palestinian = people want=20 a state of their own, too. This is needed in order to satisfy their most = basic=20 aspirations, the restoration of their national pride and the healing of = their=20 trauma. Even the Hamas leaders with whom we spoke want it. Those who = think=20 otherwise engage in daydreams. There are Palestinians who speak of a = single=20 state, but for most of them this is simply a code word for the = dismantling of=20 Israel. And even they know this = is=20 utopian.

There are those = who delude=20 themselves that if they speak of a bi-national state, that would = frighten the=20 Israelis so much that they will immediately consent to the creation of a = Palestinian state alongside Israel. But the result will be the opposite. = This=20 frightens the Israelis, that=92s true =96 and pushes them into the arms = of the=20 right-wing. This arouses the sleeping dog of ethnic cleansing. About = this I=20 agree with Ilan: this dog is sleeping, but it is still=20 there.

All over the = world, the=20 trend is opposite: not the creation of multi-national states, but on the = contrary the division of states into national units. This week the = elections in=20 Scotland were won by a party = seeking to=20 separate from Britain. The French-speaking = minority in=20 Canada is always hovering on the = point of=20 secession. Kosovo is about to become independent of=20 Serbia. The = Soviet = Union broke into pieces, and=20 Chechnya seeks to separate from=20 Russia.=20 Yugoslavia fell apart.=20 Cyprus fell apart. The Basques = want=20 independence. In Sri=20 Lanka there is a civil war, as = in=20 Sudan. In=20 Indonesia the seams are coming = apart in a=20 dozen places.

There is no = example in the=20 world of two different peoples voluntarily agreeing to live in one = state. There=20 is no example in the world, except for=20 Switzerland, of a really functioning=20 bi-national or multi-national state. And the example of=20 Switzerland, which has grown for = hundreds of=20 years in a unique process, is the exception that proves the=20 rule.

After 120 years = of=20 conflict, after a fifth generation was born into this conflict on both = sides, to=20 move from total war to total peace in a single joint state, with a total = renunciation of national independence? This is completely an=20 illusion.

How is this = supposed to be=20 implemented in practice? Ilan did not talk about it. This worries me. I = suppose=20 it should look like this: The Palestinians will give up their = independence=20 struggle and their wish for a national state of their own. They will = announce=20 that they want to live in a single joint state. After that state is = created,=20 they would have to struggle in its framework for their civil rights. = Many good=20 people around the world will support that struggle, as they did in the = case of=20 South=20 Africa.=20 Israel will be boycotted.=20 Israel will be isolated. = Millions of=20 refugees will return to the country, until the wheel turns full circle = and the=20 Palestinians assume power.

If that was = possible at=20 all, how much time would it take? Two generations? Three generations? = Four=20 generations? Can anybody imagine how such a state would function in = practice?=20 An inhabitant of Bil=92in paying the same taxes as = an inhabitant=20 of Kfar Sava? Inhabitants of Jenin and of = Netanya=20 together formulating a constitution for the state? The=20 inhabitants of Hebron and = the=20 Hebron = settlers serving=20 side by side in the same army, the same police, obeying the same=20 laws? = Is this=20 realistic? This is not realistic today, nor would it be realistic=20 tomorrow.

There are those = who say: It=20 already exists. Israel already rules one state = from the=20 sea to the river, you only need to change the = regime.=20 So, first of all: There is no such thing. There is an occupying state = and an=20 occupied territory. It is far easier to dismantle a settlement, to = dismantle=20 settlements, to dismantle ALL the settlements =96 far easier than to = force six=20 million Jewish Israelis to dismantle their state.

No, the single = state would=20 not come about. But let us ask ourselves =96 should it somehow be = erected, would=20 that be a good thing? My answer is: absolutely = not.

Let=92s try to = imagine this=20 state =96 not as an ideal creation of the imagination, but as it might = be in=20 reality. In this state the Israelis will be dominant. They have an = enormous=20 dominance in nearly all spheres: standard of living, military power, = level of=20 education, technological capacity. Israeli per capita income is 25 times = =96 25=20 times! =96 that of the Palestinians: 20,000 = dollars per=20 year compared with 800 dollars a year. In such a state the Palestinians = will be=20 =93cutters of wood and hewers of water=94 for a long, long=20 time.

It will be = occupation by=20 other means, a disguised occupation. It will not end the historical = conflict,=20 but just move it to a new stage. Would this solution bring about a just = peace?=20 In my view, exactly the opposite. This state = would be a=20 battlefield. Each side will try to take over a maximum of land. Bring in = a=20 maximum number of people. The Jews would fight by all possible means in = order to=20 prevent the Palestinians from gaining a majority and taking power. In = practice,=20 it would be an apartheid state. And if the Arabs do become a majority = and seek=20 to gain power democratically, a struggle would start that might reach = the scale=20 of a civil war. A new version of=20 1948.

Also those who = support this=20 solution know that this struggle would last several generations, that a = lot of=20 blood might be shed and that there is no knowing the result. It is a = utopia. In=20 order to achieve it, you need to replace the people =96 perhaps the two = peoples.=20 To produce a new kind of human being. This is = what the=20 Communists tried to do, in the early years of the = Soviet = Union. Also = the=20 founders of the Kibbutz movement. Unfortunately, you can change = many=20 things, but humans don=92t change their basic = nature.

Precisely a = beautiful=20 utopia can bring about terrible results. In the vision of =93The Wolf = Lying Down=20 with the Sheep=94 a new sheep would be needed every day. The two-states solution is the only practical solution, = the only=20 one that is within the bounds of reality. It is ridiculous to say that = this idea=20 was defeated. In the most important sphere, the sphere of consciousness, = it is=20 growing ever stronger.

After the war of = 1948, when=20 we raised that banner, we were a small handful, which could be counted = on the=20 fingers of one hand. Everybody denied the very existence of a = Palestinian=20 people. I remember how, in the 1960s, I was running around=20 Washington, talking with people in = the White=20 House and the National Security Council. Nobody wanted to hear of it. = Now, there=20 is a world-wide consensus that this is the only solution. The United = States,=20 Russia, Europe, Israeli public opinion, Palestinian public opinion, the = Arab=20 League. You should grasp what this means: the entire Arab world now = supports=20 this solution. This has enormous importance for the=20 future.

Why did it = happen? Not=20 because we are so clever and talented that we convinced the whole world. = No. The=20 internal logic of this solution is what conquered the world. True, some = of the=20 declared adherents are only paying lip-service. It is quite possible = that they=20 use it to distract attention from their true purposes. Ariel Sharon and = Ehud=20 Olmert pretended to be supporters of this idea, while their true = intention was=20 to prevent the abolition of the occupation. But precisely the fact that = such=20 people need to resort to such a pretence, = that they are=20 now outwardly committed to it, exactly that proves that they realize it = would be=20 futile to go on fighting it. When all peoples, the whole world, = recognize that=20 this is the practical solution, it would finally be=20 implemented.

The parameters = are=20 well-known, and about them too there is worldwide=20 agreement.

One: A Palestinian state will be = created,=20 side by side with Israel.

Two: The border between them will = be based on=20 the Green Line [pre-1967 border], possibly with agreed exchanges of=20 territory.

Three: = Jerusalem will be the capital of = both=20 states.

Four: There will be an = agreed=20 solution to the refugee problem =96 meaning that an agreed number will = return to=20 Israel, and the others will be absorbed in the Palestinian state or in = the=20 present places of habitation while getting generous compensation, for = example=20 like what the Germans paid us.

I am not against = asking the=20 refugees. Let us put on the table the solution that will be agreed upon = =96 a=20 detailed, clear solution, so that each of the refugees would know the = choices=20 they could make =96 and ask them. Neither Ilan nor I can speak = authoritatively in=20 the name of the refugees. (I did talk with some refugees in=20 Lebanon when I was there, at the = time of=20 Sharon=92s previous=20 adventure.)

In my view the = great=20 majority of refugees, if you give them the compensation they truly = deserve, the=20 great majority would prefer to stay where they are. Because they have = lived=20 there for sixty years already, their sons and daughters got married = there, they=20 have opened businesses there.

I think there = will remain a=20 problem of some hundreds of thousands for whom a solution will have to = be found,=20 and I am in favor of us being full partners and finding a solution. I = also don=92t=20 think it would be so difficult. When everything else is solved and only = the=20 refugee problem is left on the table, the public will agree to a = compromise. I=20 think that a country that already has a million and quarter Arab = Palestinian=20 citizens =96 and I think it is good that there are =96 some addition = will not make a=20 big difference.

Five: There will be = an=20 economic partnership between the two states, in whose framework the = Palestinian=20 Government will be able to defend the interests of the Palestinian = people,=20 unlike the present situation. The very existence of two states will to = some=20 degree diminish the gap in the imbalance between the two sides. This = imbalance=20 exists. We can complain about it, we can cry salty tears about it, but = this=20 imbalance exists =96 and we need to find a solution in the world that = really=20 exists, not in an imaginary world that we would have liked to come into=20 existence. We have to find a solution in the real = world.

Six: In the = longer=20 term, there should be a Middle-Eastern Union on the European model, = which might=20 eventually include also Turkey and=20 Iran.

There are big = obstacles.=20 They are real. Real obstacles can be overcome. They are as nothing =96 I = want to=20 emphasize this =96 they are as nothing compared with the obstacles on = the way to a=20 single state. I would say that it is in the order of one to thousand. = Opting for=20 the one state since it is difficult to gain the two states is like being = unable=20 to beat a lightweight boxer and therefore choosing to contend with a=20 heavyweight; or failing to run a hundred meters, and therefore shifting = to the=20 marathon; or being unable to attain the peak of Mont Blanc, and = therefore trying=20 Everest instead.

There can be no = doubt that=20 the one-state idea gives its holders a moral satisfaction. Somebody told = me: OK,=20 perhaps it is not realistic but it is moral. This is where I want to = stand. I=20 respect this, but I say: this is a luxury we can=92t afford. When we = deal with the=20 fate of so many people, a moral position that is not realistic is = immoral. It is=20 important to repeat this: a moral stance that is not realistic is = immoral.=20 Because the final result of such a stance is to perpetuate the existing=20 situation.

Ilan=20 Pappe: The=20 one-state idea does not proceed from despair. There is indeed despair of = the=20 political elites, that is true =96 but no despair of human nature or of = civil=20 society. The despair is felt from politicians who have been selling and=20 commercializing and reselling again and again the two-states solution for sixty years already =96 and = the results=20 are visible on the ground: more occupation, more injustice, greater and = ever=20 more systematic violation of human rights and civil=20 rights.

There is hope. = You can see=20 it, for example, in Galilee =96 where Jews and Arabs = live in a=20 region relatively free from state interference.

It is interesting = to note=20 that exactly where there is a demographic balance = between Jews=20 and Arabs, there are also business partnerships, joint schools, = suddenly=20 there is a budding common life of the two nationalities. It turns out = that you=20 can fight segregation.

Why is it = possible to fight=20 it? Do you know why? Because the idea that nationalism is bound to win = around=20 here is the result of manipulation and education =96 not of human = nature. You can=20 educate otherwise.

It=92s true =96 = there is an=20 enormous difference between the two-states = solution and=20 the one-state solution. For two states you need politicians, for one = state you=20 need educators. Educators are people who don=92t expect to see results = within a=20 year or two. It can also happen that the educators will not see the = results=20 within their lifetime. What Yossi Beilin can=92t afford, I can: to die = without=20 knowing whether or not the seeds of education for one common state of = Jews and=20 Arabs would bear fruit. A politician can=92t afford such a thing =96 not = because he=20 wants the conflict to end, but because he does not want his political = career to=20 end.

If this = unrealistic two-states formula which says that settlements can = be=20 dismantled is indeed realizable, who is going to dismantle Gilo? Is = anybody=20 going to dismantle Gilo? What are we talking about? And who is going to=20 dismantle Ma=92ale Adumim? What are we talking about? What settlements = are going=20 to be dismantled? These are not =93settlements=94 in the Israeli public = mind which=20 Uri is talking about. Deep, deep in the public consciousness Gilo is an=20 inseparable part of the State of Israel =96 and if Gilo is not = dismantled, it=92s no=20 use talking about two states at all.

If somebody could = tell me=20 under what conditions Gilo could be dismantled, I am willing to start = talking=20 again of two states. Without that, there is nothing to talk about. An = exchange=20 of territory is an invention of Israeli diplomats. No sane Palestinian = could=20 accept that, on such a small territory.

The real two-states formula =96 not the utopian one in which = Gilo=20 becomes part of the Palestinian state, but the real two-states formula = =96 is the=20 one that we see being implemented in front of our eyes. It means fifty = percent=20 of the West=20 Bank=20 annexed to Israel, and the other fifty = percent as a=20 Bantustan surrounded by walls and = fences, but=20 with a Palestinian flag. That is the state, with apparently some kind of = tunnel=20 connecting it to the other concentration camp which is called the Gaza=20 Strip.

This is what will = be signed=20 in a ceremony on the White House lawn, about which the Zionist peace = camp will=20 come and say: Nevertheless, this is a bit better than what we had until=20 now.

We have already = seen the=20 results of this kind of thinking.

There is a need = for persons=20 who struggle with their society. The kind of person who says to his = society: I=20 am sorry, the collective ideological identity that you have chosen is = despicable=20 and impossible to maintain. It does not stand the test of Judaism or of = common=20 morality.

This idea=20 that Jews have an ethnic preference, ethnic majority, ethnic superiority = =96 for a=20 state that is supposed to represent the victims of the=20 Holocaust. Am I=20 supposed to accept all this because the majority thinks so? Because this is the result of past education? Even = if I am=20 left as the only Israeli who thinks otherwise, I will go on saying=20 it!

What are you = trying to say?=20 That in the name of the collective consciousness as it was under the = apartheid=20 regime, it was forbidden for a white person to come and say out loud = what=20 certainly did not sound realistic in the 1960s and 1970s =96 that = apartheid was a=20 despicable ideology?

Zionism is not = the ideology=20 of a national movement. It is an ethnic ideology of dispossessing the = indigenous=20 people and denying them the possibility of going on living here. If we = do not=20 start changing the discourse, the general public certainly will=20 not.

There ARE points = of no=20 return in history. Yes, there are points of no return in history. I am = sorry to=20 say, Uri, that genocide is a point of no return, an irreversible act. = There is=20 no lack of examples.

Let me tell it to = you as a=20 historian, there is no lack of historical examples where ethnic = cleansing turned=20 into genocide. You should give a thought to the depths of this national=20 consciousness, this Jewish consciousness from which you draw such hope = for the=20 implementation of the two-states solution. I = don=92t like=20 to contemplate these depths, the possible transition from ethnic = cleansing to=20 ethnic extermination.

From the=20 audience:=20 Where does it not exist? It is like this all over the=20 world?

Ilan=20 Pappe: I = want to=20 tell you the worst of all. If within twenty years we do not come up with = an=20 alternative solution, and indeed the Israeli balance of power stabilizes = a=20 situation where half of the West = Bank is annexed to=20 Israel and in the other half the = people=20 just cannot go on sustaining themselves, it is quite possible that we = shall wipe=20 the Palestinians out of history. It is possible that we shall wipe them = out of=20 all consciousness =96 but then the Arab and Muslim world will wipe us = out, even if=20 it takes a hundred or two hundred years.

We have to think = of a=20 long-term solution, not only in order to end the occupation, not only in = order=20 to find a solution for Jews and Arabs in this country, but because the = entire=20 future of the Jewish people will be in danger if the Zionist project = succeeds in=20 fulfilling itself. The Zionist project will be fulfilled only if the = majority of=20 this country is Jewish, and there are as few Palestinians as=20 possible.

As to what the = refugees=20 want, there is =96 by the way =96 a project that tries to check their = political=20 will. It is called CIVITAS. If you look at the results, Uri, you will = see=20 uncomfortable things. Most of the refugees want to return. Most of the = refugees=20 don=92t want money.

But perhaps the = most=20 important thing that we can see in the process of democratization that = is now=20 beginning in the refugee community is that the most important question = where=20 they are concerned is not to return or not return, to accept = compensation or not=20 to accept compensation.

The most = important question=20 that they ask themselves is: Why are we not allowed to=20 take part in defining the future of our = homeland?

Not if we return, = even if=20 we don=92t return =96 let us take part in the decision! Not only the = inhabitants of=20 Jenin and the inhabitants of Jaffa, let us also take part in = defining=20 the future of the country!

Ten minutes have = passed, so=20 I will say two more sentences.

Is it possible? = It is not=20 possible tomorrow, nor is it possible the day after tomorrow. I am sorry = to say=20 that it is far more possible that the Zionist project will succeed in = creating a=20 state without Arabs here. This is far more possible. It is on the cards, = among=20 other things because of the mistake of the peace camp and the support = for =93Two=20 States for Two Peoples=94. Because with the help of the slogan of =93Two = States for=20 Two Peoples=94 it is possible to start talking of a transfer of = population, it is=20 possible to talk of reducing the Palestinian territory, it is possible = to=20 cleanse the Israeli territory of = Palestinians. =93We are here and they = are there=94,=20 said Ehud Barak. They can also cleanse the Palestinian minority in=20 Israel, in the name of the = sublime idea of=20 two states.

By the way, I = don=92t think=20 that pressure from the outside is what will finally bring about the = creation of=20 one state. That is not what I said. I said that pressure from outside = can bring=20 about the end of Israeli military presence in the lives of the = Palestinians. But=20 the end of this military presence would not be the end of the=20 conflict.

That was the = pipedream of=20 Camp David 2000, that an end to the occupation would be the end of the = conflict.=20 No. The end of the occupation would just make possible a real, full, = just=20 discussion of the end of the conflict. The end of the conflict in this = small=20 country could be brought about on the basis of one joint=20 state.

Historical = examples can be=20 cited against it, but contrary historical examples can also be cited. = The same=20 is true for contemporary examples, some can = be cited on=20 the one side and others on the opposite side. What is=20 most important is the questions that we ask ourselves =96 exactly we, = who are=20 partners for a joint struggle with the Palestinians. Do we have no = partners on=20 the Palestinian side for building a joint state here? Are there no = Palestinians=20 in Israel with whom we want to = build a joint=20 state? Are there no Jews in Israel with whom we DON=92T want = to build a=20 joint state? So let us already make the division as between normal Jews = and=20 Arabs on the one hand and Jews and Arabs who are bastards on the other = side. Let=20 us stop dealing with the nationalist discourse that perpetuates = occupation,=20 alienation and oppression. Thank you.

Zalman=20 Amit: Second=20 round, Uri Avnery has ten minutes for a reaction.

Uri=20 Avnery: I am=20 in a slightly embarrassing situation =96 because in the debate between = emotion and=20 logic, it is always emotion which gets the applause. In the debate = between=20 absolute morality and relative morality, absolute morality gets =96 and = rightly so=20 =96 the applause.

I have listened = attentively=20 to what you said, Ilan, but I also listened attentively to what you did = NOT say.=20 You did not say how you can bring about the dismantling of the State of = Israel.=20 You did not say how the one state will come about. You did not describe = how it=20 will look in reality.

You have = described ideal=20 things. Excuse me for making such a comparison, but you reminded me a = bit of the=20 utopian book Altneuland [The Old New Land] by the founding = father=20 of Zionism. But we live in reality, and we know how things look in = reality. How=20 they can be in reality and what can be created in reality =96 and that = is what=20 counts.

There are many = good people=20 in Israel. Many, who do good things. There are a hundred peace organizations and = more,=20 each one of which does important things in its = own way.=20 There are teachers who educate for Jewish=96Arab coexistence, there are kindergartens that start = this even=20 earlier in life, all true. But you yourself said that the solution that = you=20 propose will not come about in their lifetime. You propose planting an = almond=20 tree of which your grandchildren will get to eat.

But God Almighty, = all this=20 frightens me terribly. You talk of ethnic cleansing, of the terrible = danger of=20 ethnic cleansing. You talk of the terrible dangers that threaten the = Palestinian=20 people in the present reality, and I see this situation as darkly as you = see it.=20 I am even more somber than you. In this reality, we do not have fifty = years to=20 wait for a solution!

I said that there = can be no=20 compromise between our positions. But let=92s offer you a compromise = anyway: work=20 with us for the creation of the two states. After the two states come = into=20 existence, after these dangers have been averted, go on struggling to = get them=20 united into a single state.

I say this = seriously. Struggle for it that the two states will become one,=20 voluntarily. I personally hope very much =96 and I talked about = that with=20 Arafat, more than once or twice =96 that between the Israeli state and = the=20 Palestinian state there will be a kind of federation, a partnership = between two=20 states with an open border and a joint economy =96 of course, with = safeguards for=20 the Palestinian economy.

The first time = that I met=20 Arafat, during the Siege of Beirut, he talked of a = =93Benelux=94 style solution (the = older among=20 you would remember Benelux, the united framework of=20 Belgium, the=20 Netherlands and=20 Luxembourg).

Arafat meant a = triangular=20 alliance of Israel, = Palestine and=20 Jordan, and possibly including=20 Lebanon too. During our last = meeting, he=20 still talked of that.

This is, indeed, = an=20 important and worthy vision. But meanwhile, we have a patient lying in = front of=20 us, a severely wounded and bleeding patient. The most urgent thing is to = stop=20 the bleeding, to find a solution which, even if it is not ideal, is real = and can=20 be implemented.

To end this part = of the=20 debate: I don=92t think that the peace camp was defeated, nor that it failed. There is a far more complicated = process=20 going on here. There are things that happen on the ground, and things = that=20 happen below the surface.

It is absolutely = true: On=20 the ground we see that reality is terrible, that it is even getting = worse =96 if=20 that is possible, and we know that it is always possible. We deal with = all that=20 every day.

But below the = surface other=20 things are happening.

There was a time = when 99=20 percent of the Jewish-Israeli public denied the very existence of the=20 Palestinian people =96 now, nobody speaks = like that any=20 more. Once, the big majority opposed the idea of creating a Palestinian = state.=20 Now, according to all opinion polls, the great majority in=20 Israel accepts this idea as part = of the=20 solution.

When we said that = Israel should talk with the PLO, = they said=20 we were traitors. Afterwards, the government made an agreement with the = PLO. Now=20 we say that there should be talks with Hamas. I am sure that=20 Israel is going to talk with = Hamas, and=20 that it will not even take too long before that = happens.

We said that=20 Jerusalem was going to be the = capital of two=20 states. That was terrible, unacceptable. = Jerusalem is the Eternal Undivided = Capital of=20 Israel, blah, blah, blah. But when Ehud Barak proposed a kind of = partition of=20 Jerusalem =96 and it does not = matter whether he=20 meant it or not, and precisely what he meant =96 what was the public = reaction? The=20 public was silent.

Something is = changing in=20 this country. The changes in the depth of public opinion are vital on = the way to=20 the solution. I think we are winning, I think that historical = development is=20 leading in our direction.

It is not easy, = the=20 obstacles are enormous. But I am not mindlessly optimistic. I am = optimistic on=20 the basis of reality. I think that we will get to the creation of a = Palestinian=20 state, side by side with Israel. And I think that=20 Palestine will be a proud national=20 state.

I know that for = many people=20 the word =93national=94, the word =93nationalism=94, are dirty words. = You can open a big=20 additional debate on that, and take up a whole new evening with it, but = I will=20 say only this: anybody who ignores the enormous power of national = feeling lives=20 in an unreal world. Reality is nationalist.

National feeling = is far too=20 deep to be uprooted from people=92s hearts. It will not take a month, = nor a year=20 or two. It is a matter for centuries. Even in Europe, sixty years after = European=20 unification has started, look at what is happening in the football = stadiums. See=20 what happens when national feeling is hurt =96 even in = Europe. Nationalism is an = existing fact,=20 which must be taken into consideration.

Ignoring the = irrational=20 element in politics is not rational behavior. Irrationality exists. It = is=20 rational to take the irrational into account. We need to think how, = despite this=20 irrationality, we can reach a solution that can be lived=20 with.

Zalman=20 Amit: Now we=20 get to the part where I start earning my bread as moderator. I tell you = in=20 advance that not all questions can be presented, that would take far = more than=20 the fifty minutes allotted to questions and answers, but I will try my = best and=20 hope for your help.

The first = question is for=20 Ilan, from Moshe Bokai: =93UN Resolution 181 is the document on whose = basis the=20 State of Israel was declared. That resolution also defined borders for = two=20 states. Can anybody but the United Nations abolish that=20 resolution?=94

Ilan=20 Pappe: Can=20 anyone but the UN abolish that resolution? Certainly.=20 The Israelis and the Palestinians can abolish this resolution through = any joint=20 historical process, if they just want to.

There is no = problem. There=20 is nothing sacred about that resolution, nothing =96 unless you repeat = the mistake=20 that was at the basis of that resolution. The mistaken idea that, though = the=20 country=92s original population, 66 percent of the whole, did not accept = a certain=20 solution =96 nevertheless the international community and the United = Nations felt=20 justified in imposing on the indigenous population a solution that they = found=20 unacceptable. Therefore, of course this solution can be abolished. It = has no=20 legally binding status, it has no special status. What will ultimately = be=20 decided is what the inhabitants who were here and the inhabitants who = are here=20 will decide.

Zalman=20 Amit: Another=20 question to you =96 you talk of a criminal colonialism of the Jewish = people, in=20 the form of Zionism. Does that not mean that you deny the rights of the = Jewish=20 people in the past, and naturally also today? Does this not mean that = there=20 should be no talk of one state for two peoples, but just of one state = for a=20 single people, the Palestinian people?

Ilan=20 Pappe: I do=20 not deny the right of the Jewish people to a state, as I do not deny the = right=20 of the Palestinian people to a state. I do deny the right of the Jewish = people=20 to dispossess the Palestinian people of their homeland. If the political = solution that is being proposed would enable the Jewish people to = continue=20 dispossessing the Palestinian people, this is not only morally = unacceptable =96 it=20 also means that the conflict would be perpetuated. Therefore, what I = seek is a=20 solution that in the final account will enable everybody who lives here = to feel=20 that their historical rights are respected, and that their civil and = human=20 rights are respected, too. If this sounds like absolute morality, I = shudder to=20 think what relative morality would consist of.

Zalman=20 Amit: The next=20 question is for Uri Avnery. Considering that Jews had been persecuted = all=20 throughout their history, does the existence of a state with a Jewish = majority=20 not invite a new Holocaust, under the shadow of the Iranian=20 threat?

Uri=20 Avnery: We=20 cannot in this evening devote the time to a detailed discussion of what = happened=20 in this country in the past hundred and twenty years. It is a long = story, a=20 complicated story, a difficult story, a tragic story =96 and not one = story but two=20 stories, two narratives, an Israeli one and a Palestinian one. = Thoroughly=20 analysing it requires a whole evening to itself, or perhaps a week or a=20 month.

We in Gush = Shalom, in the=20 brochure entitled =93Truth=20 against Truth=94 which is on the table outside, have made = an effort=20 to write a draft for a joint Israeli=96Palestinian narrative about how = the=20 conflict was born and has developed up to the present. Anyone who wants = to read=20 it can do so.

About the=20 Iranian bomb: well, when part of the Jews decided that they wanted to be = a=20 nation and create a state, they took a very grave = risk. There had been a = traditional Jewish=20 way of life, and it was very simple =96 when Jews were in danger, they = packed=20 their belongings and ran away to another country. They have survived = very well=20 that way =96 perhaps not very well, but they survived that way for two = thousand=20 years.

When our = ancestors decided=20 to be a nation and create a state, they took a calculated risk. They = have gone=20 back to the arena of history, and the arena of history is a dangerous=20 place.

Every people = faces dangers. During the Cold War the=20 United=20 States was at every single = moment faced=20 with the danger that, in the event of a nuclear war breaking out, two = hundred=20 million Americans would be killed within five minutes. That is the price = of=20 living in history.

I am not afraid = of the=20 Iranian bomb. I think this is mostly a fabricated hysteria, part of the=20 demonization of the Iranian people. Iranians are a normal people, like = every=20 other. The Iranian people are no more insane than the Israeli=20 people.

Ilan=20 Pappe: That=92s=20 not saying much.

Uri=20 Avnery: True.=20 The Iranian regime is not crazy, even if their president sometimes = behaves a bit=20 strangely. If they gain a nuclear bomb =96 not that I wish for that =96 = if they gain=20 a nuclear bomb, they will not use it. They will have a bomb and we will = have a=20 bomb. They will not use theirs because they will know the price, and we = will not=20 use ours because we will know the price. We will live in danger like = many other=20 nations live under various dangers.

The greatest = danger is the=20 manipulation of the Holocaust. Anybody who mentions the Holocaust in any = political context should be condemned. By the way, if you want a direct=20 testimony about Iran, read what this guy said = who this=20 week landed by mistake in Teheran and was treated like a prince =96 = though they=20 knew he was Israeli.

Zalman=20 Amit: Stay=20 there a moment, there is another question addressed to you =96 from Rami = Nashef of=20 the Machsom news website =96 How would you define the status of Arab = citizens in a=20 Jewish state that is part of the two-states = solution?=20 Would Arab Knesset Members be expecting a future like that of Azmi = Bishara=20 now?

Uri=20 Avnery: I have=20 lived in this state from its first day, and from its first day I = objected to its=20 being defined as =93a Jewish state=94. I don=92t know what that means. I = don=92t know=20 what a Jewish state is. Nobody ever explained to me what a Jewish state = is.=20 During ten years of being in the Knesset I was never in any serious = discussion=20 defining what a Jewish state is.

What is it? A state expressing Jewish values? A state based on = the Jewish=20 religion? A state in which there is a Jewish majority? A state=20 belonging to all the Jews in the world, eleven million people =96 some = of whom are=20 part of the American nation, while others are part of the French nation = (and=20 have voted this week for Sarkozy)? What is a Jewish=20 state?

Many years ago, = when I was=20 still on speaking terms with Ariel Sharon, we had a very intense debate = on this=20 exact point =96 is this a Jewish state or an Israeli state? I am part of = a group=20 of citizens who is lodging an appeal to the Supreme Court to remove the=20 definition =93Nationality: Jewish=94 from our identity cards and replace = it with=20 =93Nationality: Israeli=94. Therefore, for me this question is almost=20 irrelevant.

The Arab=20 document that was recently published in = Nazareth is to a great degree = acceptable to=20 me[1]. = I=20 think it is a basis for serious discussion.

Earlier, I said = that a new=20 framework should be set out for the relations between the state and its = Arab=20 citizens. I think that discussion of this new basis can start from this=20 document. I can only compliment its authors.

Zalman=20 Amit: I have=20 two questions for Ilan. The first one in fact consists of three small = questions=20 by Yehezkel Dolev =96 When did the longing for = Zion and the desire to = resettle the=20 country start? Are the Arabs in Eretz Yisrael the descendants of the = Philistine=20 people who three thousand years ago were exterminated by King Saul and = King=20 David? Does the Koran contain any mention for the rights of the Jewish = people=20 over the Holy = Land?

Ilan=20 Pappe: The=20 ideal of a Jewish longing for Zion, as a national vision, = begins in=20 1882 =96 with some precursors a few years earlier.

Are the = Palestinians of=20 today descendants of people exterminated by King Saul? Look, I have = encountered=20 two interesting encyclopedias: The Hebrew Encyclopedia and The = Palestinian Encyclopedia. The Palestinian Encyclopedia = asserts that=20 the Palestinians are the descendants of Canaanites, the=20 Hebrew one holds that the Jews here are descendants of the ancient = Hebrews. Both=20 assertions are utter bullshit.

About the Koran: = No, the=20 Koran does not recognize the right of the Jewish people to this land, = nor does=20 it recognize the right of the Palestinian people to this land. The Koran = was=20 created in the seventh century. At that time there were no peoples or = national=20 movements =96 and surprisingly, at that time nobody was especially = interested in=20 Palestine.

The Koran was = mainly=20 concerned with finding a place in the world at the side of two = well-established=20 and quite strong monotheistic religions. In that it succeeded quite=20 well.

In the state that = will be=20 established here we will have to take into consideration all these = positions:=20 those who think they are descendants of somebody exterminated here three = thousand years ago, those who consider themselves descended from = somebody=20 expelled from here two thousand years ago, and those who think that they = have a=20 divine promise denied to everybody else. As is well known, the Zionist = movement=20 does not believe in the existence of God, but strongly holds to His = having=20 promised this land to the Jews.

Zalman=20 Amit: A=20 question from our mutual friend Teddy Katz =96 what gives Jews, who = themselves=20 have a sovereign state, any moral, or other authority to impose on the=20 Palestinians a supposedly common state, under conditions defined and = dictated by=20 the Jews themselves?

Ilan=20 Pappe: There=20 would have been neither hope nor meaning for the = idea of a=20 joint, common Jewish=96Arab state, if it had been solely = initiated by a=20 group of Jews. I completely agree with that. I would not have presented = myself=20 here, to say what I say, if I had not felt certain that I am = representing a=20 common activity of Jews and Palestinians together.

This action must = be common,=20 with its basic idea standing in contradiction to the two-states idea. The basic idea is not that in one = part of=20 the country =96 80 percent =96 Jews decide what will happen, while = Palestinians take=20 the decisions for the other 20 percent. No. I want Palestinians and Jews = together to take the decisions for hundred percent of the=20 country.

Zalman=20 Amit: Two=20 questions to Uri Avnery. First, having seen in your lifetime so many = phenomena=20 that nobody predicted and nobody believed could happen, why can=92t you = accept the=20 possibility that the nationalist ideas =96 Zionist as well as = Palestinian =96 will=20 swiftly pass away like smoke?

Uri=20 Avnery: I do=20 accept the possibility, except for the word =93swiftly=94. I remember = one evening=20 when I sat in a Ramallah restaurant, drank a bit of good arak, ate and = drank=20 while surrounded by the good Palestinian people of Ramallah. Feeling = elated with=20 the arak I thought: what a wonderful country this could have been, if = there was=20 peace. Everybody could have traveled everywhere in the country. I just = think =96=20 and that is my main difference with Ilan =96 that it will not happen in = a single=20 joint state, because such a single joint state will simply not come into = being.

I think that it = CAN happen=20 in two states, with each people having a state and a flag. They will = have their=20 state and their flag, and we will have our =96 different =96 state and = flag, and=20 each side will have its own football team, and the border will be open. = The=20 people of Ramallah would be able to swim in the Mediterranean, and we could =96 if we = want =96 bathe=20 in the Jordan = River.

These will not be = mutually=20 hostile states. Hostile states would not come into being, because the = two-states solution can only be implemented with = the=20 agreement of both peoples. That, the agreement of both peoples to the = proposed=20 solution, was Ilan=92s last sentence, and I completely agree with=20 it.

The solution that = you=20 propose and the solution that I propose have one thing in common: = neither could=20 be implemented except with the common consent of Israelis and = Palestinians.=20 Anything but that would mean either the destruction of=20 Israel or the perpetuation of = Israeli=20 occupation.

This solution or = that, the=20 one you consider realistic and the one I consider to be such =96 both = need the=20 consent of both peoples. And if you want to include the refugees in the=20 decision, too, I am certainly not opposed to that. I think that any = reasonable=20 overall solution should provide the refugees with a reasonable solution = to their=20 problem. It would not be an ideal solution, but they would be able to = live with=20 it. We will place on the table the solution agreed on in negotiations, = and they=20 will approve it.

Zalman=20 Amit: Uri, the=20 next question =96 what if in the far future the number of Palestinians = in=20 Israel will exceed fifty = percent, how will=20 the State of the Jews be preserved then?

Uri=20 Avnery: When=20 the State of Israel was created, twenty percent of its citizens were = Arabs. Now,=20 after sixty years, twenty percent still are. This is a statistical = miracle,=20 considering the enormous birth rate of the Muslim Arab citizens (the = Christian=20 Arabs have a lower birth rate than the Jews).

I think that what = you speak=20 about will not happen, but if it does =96 God will provide. If it = happens in fifty=20 years, the demographic balance will no longer be so important. It is not = completely indispensable that there will always be four Jewish citizens = for=20 every Arab one. What we need to do now is push the demographic demon = back into=20 the bottle. At this moment it is a national feeling that cannot be = dispensed=20 with, but if after fifty years of common life in the State of Israel the = demographic balance will change, then it will change. Many things change = in the=20 world.

In=20 America, too, there is such a = process. If=20 fifty years ago somebody had told the Americans: =93Let=92s create a = Hispanic=20 majority here,=94 an uprising would have broken out. But later the = Hispanics came=20 and slowly increased, and quite soon there will be more Hispanics than = White=20 Anglo-Saxon Protestants. There are things that change in the course of a = lifetime, there are natural processes, which should = not be=20 opposed.

In this debate we = are=20 talking about today, about the present consciousness of both peoples, = about the=20 solution that both peoples must achieve today, tomorrow, or the morning = of the=20 day after tomorrow. So, I am not among the people disturbed by this=20 question.

Zalman=20 Amit: Another=20 question, slightly connected to the earlier = one =96 if=20 there will be two states, where will the Israeli Arabs be? In=20 which one of them?

Uri=20 Avnery: I=20 would like to draw your attention to a very interesting phenomenon, = which is=20 hardly talked about. Some fascists, Lieberman as well as Effie Eitam, = have come=20 up with a revolutionary proposal, a supposedly humane proposal. The = Arabs in the=20 towns and villages of the =93Triangle=94 area of=20 Israel will stay where they are, = but the=20 entire region will be transferred to the Palestinian state that will be = created=20 =96 and in exchange, the settlers will be annexed to=20 Israel. Not