?Land for Peace? is the central equation discussed and debated in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, ever since the Six Day War. The equation has divided the Jewish world to the extent that the division into ?right? and ?left? is made strictly based on the attitude to ceding territory to the Arabs. However, I suggest that, while the equation is indeed central to the debate about peace in the Jewish State, it is simplistic to view all territorial concessions as ?leftist? and all demands for territorial integrity as ?rightist.?
I once learned that any debate must be based on a strict definition of terms, in order for it to be fruitful. Therefore, let us define the terms ?land? and ?peace? in the ?land for peace? equation. The ?land? is, more or less, those territories conquered by Israel in June, 1967. ?Peace? is a more slippery term. There are many ways to understand peace. At its most sublime, it could be love and brotherhood, or, at the very least, refraining from active violence.
Thus, to translate ?land for peace? into a fully defined equation, we would say: ?the territories Israel conquered in June 1967 from the Arabs, in exchange for the cessation of active violence by the Arabs against the Jews.? That is to say, Israel is willing to transfer land to the sovereignty of the Arabs responsible for attacks against it (for even the Arabs agree that their side of the equation is to refrain from attempts to physically exterminate Israelis), so that they will not attack Israel again in the future.
In the Jewish world, three distinct camps are discernable in relation to the ?land for peace? formula: The Independence Camp, the Negotiation Camp and the Justification Camp. Below, I will endeavor to define and explain each camp, along with the political manifestations of the philosophies they represent.
The Independence Camp
This camp sees peace, the cessation of violence against the Jews, as a basic right of the People of Israel in their homeland. Peace is not something that a nation requests from the surrounding nations, that a nation begs or trades for, but rather a right, which an independent state demands. Therefore, the equation ?land for peace? is simply unacceptable to members of this camp, as they see the demand for consideration in exchange for cessation of attacks on Jews as utterly immoral.
While there are those in this camp who are in favor of territorial withdrawal, their rationale for such withdrawal is based on a tactical consideration of improving Israel?s ability to defend herself militarily, with absolutely no relation to the demands of the Arab side.
A large part of the Independence Camp consists of those referred to as ?right-wing extremists? and generally viewed as unrealistic fanatics. However, from the perspective of the internal logic of the camp, any compromise on the matter of land for peace is equivalent to negotiating on the right to life. As former Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir once shouted, exasperated, at Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, on a television talk show, ?I can?t believe you are talking about this [negotiating about ceding parts of the Land of Israel]! Would you negotiate over your mother??
It would not be a mistake to believe that most religious Jews belong to this camp, but one should not exaggerate the uniformity of the religious attitude to the land for peace equation. There are many religious Jews who are willing to admit, even if only in private, that if the Arabs were able to deliver the goods (peace), then they would agree to ?painful concessions? (for example, the legal ruling by the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Ovadiah Yosef). Fortunately for those Jews, at least from the perspective of their religious attachment to the Land of Israel, there is no true partner on the Arab side.
The Negotiation Camp
This camp sees peace not as a right, but rather as an arrangement that the Jews make with the non-Jewish nations. Therefore, there is nothing more natural to the leaders of this camp than to refer to the ?painful price? Israel has to pay in land and in ?victims of peace? in exchange for the cessation of violence against the Jews in Israel. A high price or a low price, depending on political party, but a price nonetheless. The very lives of Israeli citizens are subject to negotiation, as the sides come to an agreement as to how much Israel has to pay the Arabs to cease their attempts to kill Jews.
This camp has both people who insist on giving in to every Arab demand, as that is the best way to purchase peace, and those who are better, tougher negotiators, sometimes called ?nationalists?. In either case, however, the guiding principle of this camp is compensation for those who agree to refrain from killing Jews.
As mentioned earlier, as a result of the current terrorist war on Israel, there are those in the Negotiation Camp who have been convinced that the consideration Israel was meant to get for its territories (cessation of the murder of Jews) will not be forthcoming from the Arab side. These individuals are often seen as ?crossing the lines? into the ?right-wing? camp. However, in truth, they have remained ?leftist? in the sense that they do not object to the basic transaction of land for peace.
The irony of the philosophy of the Negotiation Camp is that Zionism arose specifically as an anti-thesis to the acceptance by the Jews of the need to negotiate for basic human rights. One of the central goals of the Zionist movement was to extricate the Jewish people from dependence on the good will of the non-Jews, from the need to placate the local, powerful non-Jew so that he would be so kind as to defend the Jews? right to life.
Zionism never had as a goal to bring peace to the Jews, but rather to attain independence for the Jews from the charity of the nations. The hope was that, through independence, the Jewish people would be able to defend itself and guarantee its own peaceful existence.
The Justification Camp
The third camp in the Jewish world represents the point of view that it is not the Jewish State that currently has a right to peace, nor is peace a deal Jews make with the non-Jews, but rather, Jews will cease to be killed only insofar as the Jews recognize the injustice they have committed against their killers. The perspective of this camp is that the Arab attackers are the true victims who are demanding an inalienable right.
It may be, in the view of many members of this camp, that the Arab side exaggerates in its reaction; however, the most the cream of this camp are willing to do is to advise the Arab side to avoid murdering residents of the Tel Aviv vicinity (not coincidentally, the area where many of the members of this camp live), as those murders damage the overall struggle for ?justice,? as they see it. In any event, the Justification Camp represents an absolute acceptance of the Arab position on the Jewish State in the Land of Israel.
Land for peace is, in the eyes of most of the Justification Camp, an incomplete equation, as the cessation of violence against the Jews is essentially the cessation of actions of national liberation. Rather, it is the Jewish State?s moral responsibility to ?liberate? the Arab victim from our yoke out of our own free will, not as a result of external pressure of any kind. Only then, after liberation, will the Arab victim see no need to ?defend his basic rights? with mortar shells and suicide bombers.
The members of the Justification Camp are almost always willing to demand, day in and day out, the expulsion of Jews from many cities and villages in the Land of Israel. This is for the simple reason that they see the very existence of those settlements as an Israeli injustice to the Arab side. ?Only evacuation will bring peace? read a popular sticker, which was the ultimate goal of Gush Shalom initiatives such as the failed ?Boycott of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank.?
The intellectual problem facing honest members of this camp is the fact that from the perspective of the historical record, there is no real distinction between the territories captured by Israel in 1967 and those captured in 1948. In both cases, military conflict led to the extension of Jewish sovereignty to wide areas of ?Palestine.? After all, it is not the 1967 war that the Arabs refer to as al-Nakba (the Disaster), but rather the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. Realizing this, the advocates of the philosophy of the Justification Camp cannot morally defend their own right to national sovereignty in the Land of Israel and thus see any Arab agreement to Jewish sovereignty as a generous concession.
The most reasonable solution the bulk of the members of this camp can come up with to settle their internal, moral dissonance is the championing of the transformation of the State from ?Jewish? to ?Civil?. That is, there will then be no more need to attempt to justify the existence of a Jewish State, rather the hope that in a state that is not defined as ?Jewish? they will find true peace.
Clearly, this is the opposite of any Zionist ideal ever formulated. Did the author of the words, ?To be a free People in our Land,? from the Israeli National Anthem, not have in mind the Jewish people in the Jewish land ? Israel?
The Question
The only problem left for us, as Jews, is to determine which camp we are a part of, irrespective of which party we support or our level of religious commitment. Our basic, moral attitude to the land for peace equation is an indicator of our attitude to other questions of Jewish sovereignty. Questions which may become, in the future, even more important than the question of territorial integrity.
I once learned that any debate must be based on a strict definition of terms, in order for it to be fruitful. Therefore, let us define the terms ?land? and ?peace? in the ?land for peace? equation. The ?land? is, more or less, those territories conquered by Israel in June, 1967. ?Peace? is a more slippery term. There are many ways to understand peace. At its most sublime, it could be love and brotherhood, or, at the very least, refraining from active violence.
Thus, to translate ?land for peace? into a fully defined equation, we would say: ?the territories Israel conquered in June 1967 from the Arabs, in exchange for the cessation of active violence by the Arabs against the Jews.? That is to say, Israel is willing to transfer land to the sovereignty of the Arabs responsible for attacks against it (for even the Arabs agree that their side of the equation is to refrain from attempts to physically exterminate Israelis), so that they will not attack Israel again in the future.
In the Jewish world, three distinct camps are discernable in relation to the ?land for peace? formula: The Independence Camp, the Negotiation Camp and the Justification Camp. Below, I will endeavor to define and explain each camp, along with the political manifestations of the philosophies they represent.
The Independence Camp
This camp sees peace, the cessation of violence against the Jews, as a basic right of the People of Israel in their homeland. Peace is not something that a nation requests from the surrounding nations, that a nation begs or trades for, but rather a right, which an independent state demands. Therefore, the equation ?land for peace? is simply unacceptable to members of this camp, as they see the demand for consideration in exchange for cessation of attacks on Jews as utterly immoral.
While there are those in this camp who are in favor of territorial withdrawal, their rationale for such withdrawal is based on a tactical consideration of improving Israel?s ability to defend herself militarily, with absolutely no relation to the demands of the Arab side.
A large part of the Independence Camp consists of those referred to as ?right-wing extremists? and generally viewed as unrealistic fanatics. However, from the perspective of the internal logic of the camp, any compromise on the matter of land for peace is equivalent to negotiating on the right to life. As former Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir once shouted, exasperated, at Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, on a television talk show, ?I can?t believe you are talking about this [negotiating about ceding parts of the Land of Israel]! Would you negotiate over your mother??
It would not be a mistake to believe that most religious Jews belong to this camp, but one should not exaggerate the uniformity of the religious attitude to the land for peace equation. There are many religious Jews who are willing to admit, even if only in private, that if the Arabs were able to deliver the goods (peace), then they would agree to ?painful concessions? (for example, the legal ruling by the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Ovadiah Yosef). Fortunately for those Jews, at least from the perspective of their religious attachment to the Land of Israel, there is no true partner on the Arab side.
The Negotiation Camp
This camp sees peace not as a right, but rather as an arrangement that the Jews make with the non-Jewish nations. Therefore, there is nothing more natural to the leaders of this camp than to refer to the ?painful price? Israel has to pay in land and in ?victims of peace? in exchange for the cessation of violence against the Jews in Israel. A high price or a low price, depending on political party, but a price nonetheless. The very lives of Israeli citizens are subject to negotiation, as the sides come to an agreement as to how much Israel has to pay the Arabs to cease their attempts to kill Jews.
This camp has both people who insist on giving in to every Arab demand, as that is the best way to purchase peace, and those who are better, tougher negotiators, sometimes called ?nationalists?. In either case, however, the guiding principle of this camp is compensation for those who agree to refrain from killing Jews.
As mentioned earlier, as a result of the current terrorist war on Israel, there are those in the Negotiation Camp who have been convinced that the consideration Israel was meant to get for its territories (cessation of the murder of Jews) will not be forthcoming from the Arab side. These individuals are often seen as ?crossing the lines? into the ?right-wing? camp. However, in truth, they have remained ?leftist? in the sense that they do not object to the basic transaction of land for peace.
The irony of the philosophy of the Negotiation Camp is that Zionism arose specifically as an anti-thesis to the acceptance by the Jews of the need to negotiate for basic human rights. One of the central goals of the Zionist movement was to extricate the Jewish people from dependence on the good will of the non-Jews, from the need to placate the local, powerful non-Jew so that he would be so kind as to defend the Jews? right to life.
Zionism never had as a goal to bring peace to the Jews, but rather to attain independence for the Jews from the charity of the nations. The hope was that, through independence, the Jewish people would be able to defend itself and guarantee its own peaceful existence.
The Justification Camp
The third camp in the Jewish world represents the point of view that it is not the Jewish State that currently has a right to peace, nor is peace a deal Jews make with the non-Jews, but rather, Jews will cease to be killed only insofar as the Jews recognize the injustice they have committed against their killers. The perspective of this camp is that the Arab attackers are the true victims who are demanding an inalienable right.
It may be, in the view of many members of this camp, that the Arab side exaggerates in its reaction; however, the most the cream of this camp are willing to do is to advise the Arab side to avoid murdering residents of the Tel Aviv vicinity (not coincidentally, the area where many of the members of this camp live), as those murders damage the overall struggle for ?justice,? as they see it. In any event, the Justification Camp represents an absolute acceptance of the Arab position on the Jewish State in the Land of Israel.
Land for peace is, in the eyes of most of the Justification Camp, an incomplete equation, as the cessation of violence against the Jews is essentially the cessation of actions of national liberation. Rather, it is the Jewish State?s moral responsibility to ?liberate? the Arab victim from our yoke out of our own free will, not as a result of external pressure of any kind. Only then, after liberation, will the Arab victim see no need to ?defend his basic rights? with mortar shells and suicide bombers.
The members of the Justification Camp are almost always willing to demand, day in and day out, the expulsion of Jews from many cities and villages in the Land of Israel. This is for the simple reason that they see the very existence of those settlements as an Israeli injustice to the Arab side. ?Only evacuation will bring peace? read a popular sticker, which was the ultimate goal of Gush Shalom initiatives such as the failed ?Boycott of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank.?
The intellectual problem facing honest members of this camp is the fact that from the perspective of the historical record, there is no real distinction between the territories captured by Israel in 1967 and those captured in 1948. In both cases, military conflict led to the extension of Jewish sovereignty to wide areas of ?Palestine.? After all, it is not the 1967 war that the Arabs refer to as al-Nakba (the Disaster), but rather the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. Realizing this, the advocates of the philosophy of the Justification Camp cannot morally defend their own right to national sovereignty in the Land of Israel and thus see any Arab agreement to Jewish sovereignty as a generous concession.
The most reasonable solution the bulk of the members of this camp can come up with to settle their internal, moral dissonance is the championing of the transformation of the State from ?Jewish? to ?Civil?. That is, there will then be no more need to attempt to justify the existence of a Jewish State, rather the hope that in a state that is not defined as ?Jewish? they will find true peace.
Clearly, this is the opposite of any Zionist ideal ever formulated. Did the author of the words, ?To be a free People in our Land,? from the Israeli National Anthem, not have in mind the Jewish people in the Jewish land ? Israel?
The Question
The only problem left for us, as Jews, is to determine which camp we are a part of, irrespective of which party we support or our level of religious commitment. Our basic, moral attitude to the land for peace equation is an indicator of our attitude to other questions of Jewish sovereignty. Questions which may become, in the future, even more important than the question of territorial integrity.