Interview with Adi Dagan

Can you tell me about your background, how you became active?

I grew up in a fairly left-wing home. As a child I always went to demonstrations with my parents and we always talked about current events at home. It always interested me. But I think that I became really active in the past three or four years.

What made you want to be involved?

Three years ago I lived in Jerusalem. I was living in the city center then, when the intifada1 began, and there were many bombings close to my house. It was really scary. I was fed up with sitting at home and watching television and getting mad. I wanted to do something active to change the situation.

Had you been active in any organization before then?

A little bit, but not regularly. I would go to demonstrations or try to join groups here and there - at the university - but nothing regular, only sporadically.

What did you study?

My BA is in psychology and my Masters is in History.

What do you do now?

Currently I am the Coalition of Women for Peace's2 media coordinator. In addition to that, I'm very active in Machsom Watch,3 and I am their spokeswoman.

Can you tell me about both, how did you come to join them?

What do you do in Machsom Watch, at Kalandia checkpoint for instance?

Our main aim is to document the checkpoints and what happens there and the violations of human rights. We see their presence as a breach of human rights because they prevent Palestinians from traveling in the regions where they live - I'm referring to the internal checkpoints, not to the few lone checkpoints between Israel and the territories. Our main objective is to document and bring material to the Israeli public and the world and to say: here's what the occupation looks like and these are the checkpoints. We have other aims aside from the main objective; we believe that when we stand at checkpoints our presence there scales down the abuse or human rights' violations to a certain extent. It doesn't transform the reality into something completely different, but it has some impact. Another aim is to meet the Palestinians at the checkpoints. For Palestinians it means encountering a different Israeli - meaning not the settlers6 and soldiers they are familiar with - but people who really aspire to achieve peace. That's the kind of activity we do.

Can you describe where Kalandia checkpoint is?

Kalandia is a very large checkpoint between Palestinian North Jerusalem7 and Ramallah.8 It's on the main road, in the middle of an urban sequence of neighborhoods, such as Beit Hanina, A-Ram, merging into Kalandia, Samira Mis,9 Ramallah; in the middle of it runs a main road and the checkpoint. Everything there is changing now as a result of the reality of the wall.10 When we arrived there four years ago it was a major junction between Jerusalem and Ramallah and in the middle of it stood the checkpoint. People from all over the southern West Bank,11 Bethlehem12 and Hebron13 traveled to Ramallah, passing through Kalandia, or traveling from Ramallah to Jerusalem through Kalandia. It's a very central throughway.

How does the wall affect Kalandia checkpoint now?

The reality of the wall is very complicated because it is constructed on the municipal borders of Jerusalem that were defined in '67,14 annexing East Jerusalem. It cuts off A-Ram from Ramallah and severs Ramallah from Jerusalem. So it isn't all that clear, an underground passage and a huge terminal might be built to replace the checkpoint, but it isn't clear. The current situation - the checkpoint - is far better than what is going to happen with the wall.

What is the current situation at the checkpoint?

What we witness in general at the checkpoints, at Kalandia checkpoint specifically, is that fewer and fewer people are able to pass, and fewer and fewer people are even trying. Carving the West Bank into very small cantons and restricting travel between them is a trend that is only getting stronger, so in Machsom Watch we don't focus on the issue of checkpoints but rather on the larger issue of travel restrictions,15 along with the closure16 and travel permit policies.17 Part of that issue is also the wall.

Can you talk about your experience monitoring checkpoints?

I just want to say that I stopped going to checkpoints because I just couldn't take it anymore. I did it for two years and it became unbearable. It was mainly a feeling of being crushed, as though someone were stepping on you. It was a sense of a lack of control over life, of someone taking your life away from you, just taking it away, a very bad feeling of helplessness and identifying with the people who need to cross the checkpoint then. Young soldiers stand there and they decide who passes and who doesn't. It feels very bad. After two years of seeing that I think that rather than improving, the situation is only getting worse. I couldn't bear it any longer, now I'm dedicating my experience in the field to the issue of the media because I hope maybe that will be successful.

Can you tell me about a certain event that affected you personally?

Certainly. At the end of March 2003 I arrived at Kalandiya checkpoint with another woman from Machsom Watch and a child was shot there. The soldiers shot a child, killing him; we were there when it happened.18 That was very, very, very traumatic and it was very difficult for me to return there afterwards. I kept imagining it happening all over again. Every soldier seemed potentially capable of killing a child. The tension was horrible. There was also the feeling that we hadn't managed to prevent it. That was difficult to deal with.

How do you think your work with Machsom Watch furthers peace?

My standing at checkpoints doesn't directly further peace, but there are different stages involved in the process. Currently the groups I'm involved with and the kind of work I do oppose the occupation. We haven't yet reached the stage of working towards peace. Working towards peace is a crucial stage which I believe must take place. Our standing at checkpoints and documenting is meant to convince the Israeli public that it's in an undesirable situation that is only leading us farther away from a solution, that we shouldn't be there, and that maybe later on there will be an agreement.

There's the matter of meeting Palestinian people there and that is a very intense encounter that draws us closer and that is significant. One of the reasons that I went to checkpoints for two years was my desire to stop referring to the Palestinians as "the other" and to build relationships with individual people. In today's state of affairs it's so easy to turn people into the collective "they" and to believe that all this is taking place somewhere else when actually everything is very close by. We have to continuously keep in mind that it's not something that's taking place far away from here. It's happening to people like us. We can't think about it in abstract terms.

Did any relationships develop between you and Palestinian people at the checkpoints?

Sure, there are women [Israeli activists] who have been going to the same checkpoints for the past four years. They get to know lots of people who live there and pass through there, exchanging phone numbers. People call to tell them about a problem and they try to help them from home. There are also just plain friendships. If somebody doesn't show up then people ask about her, where she is, what happened to her. Every person chooses to what extent to personalize her work, but relationships definitely exist between people there.

What kind of relationships, if any, develop with the soldiers?

We get to know them or recognize them, too, and that's also a matter of personal preference. As an organization, our approach towards soldiers is very businesslike; it is neither embracing nor hostile. Dialogue with them concerns what happened during that day, what the [army's] procedures are. We're a third element at the checkpoint so we don't identify ourselves with the army. We walk a thin line with the soldiers and with the army in general because there are all sort of different interests stemming from different concerns that need to be balanced. That's very problematic.

Can you say more about Machsom Watch's relationship with the Israeli army?

From the army's perspective our presence isn't so comfortable for them because we publish stories that maybe they would prefer people not know about.19 On the other hand, they use us. They claim that because they allow us to be there that shows they support our work. That's a little like us being their fig leaf, and they can then claim that there's a human rights organization basically saying that things are alright. On the other hand, we don't want to cooperate because we oppose the policies that the army is implementing, and yet we do turn to them and submit complaints. There is ongoing dialogue with them and we have to be careful not to venture to places where, politically speaking, we don't want to find ourselves. There are many forces involved in the matter and it isn't simple. We also have many arguments among ourselves regarding how the relations should be.

Are you responsible for coordinating with the army?

No. that's not at all a part of my responsibilities. There are other women who do that because the communications work is enough responsibility. Personally I can't see myself doing that; I think every person should do what suits them in terms of their perceptions and character.

Did you serve in the army in the past or do you do reserve service?

I did compulsory service.20

How do you think you are perceived by the soldiers at the checkpoint?

In general it's not that pleasant for them, just like it wouldn't be pleasant for anybody in a situation where people stand observing their actions, writing everything down and also approaching them, asking questions and occasionally making comments. In general, that's not exactly what they would like from us! It varies, it varies in that our presence is occasionally actually pleasant for them and they even say things like, "Good thing you're here." They like to tell us what's on their minds; they tell us about how hard it is for them. There are those who hate us, often they are settlers - civilians - but also some in uniform, and we simply drive them mad. They can't tolerate the presence of Israelis who have a stance so opposed to theirs. And there's the majority, which is indifferent. They aren't interested in anything because of the numb state they are in; they just aren't interested.

How do you relate to the question in general of security and the checkpoints, their role for the sake of security?

For instance, if at checkpoints people were checked for bombs or whatever and then allowed to continue like happens here at the entrance to a mall, then it would be less of a problem, and maybe we [Machsom Watch] wouldn't have to come to the checkpoints at all. But after you come there you understand that that's not what takes place there at all. There is a very minimal and arbitrary physical inspection, which at some checkpoints doesn't even take place. A person's ID card is inspected and if they come from a certain place and aren't supposed to be outside their allotted living area, they can't pass.21 That's how it is. Men between the age of 16 and 25 need a permit to pass through the checkpoint, for example. I'm talking about scores of checkpoints, and the meaning is that they can't really leave their houses to go to the city nearby or anywhere. It paralyzes life.

That's what we discovered about the checkpoints; that's what brought us to the conclusion that checkpoints mostly don't serve security needs. Again, I'm referring to the internal checkpoints. Now even if the checkpoints do fulfill security needs in some way, as the army claims, there are things known to all of us, including the fact that Palestinians who go to apply for a permit at the DCO [liaison office] are often pressured to become collaborators.22 It's a widely known fact; it's really not something that we discovered. "Come help us out and in return you'll get a permit for your child to go to the hospital." So there are many ways in which the checkpoints are used indirectly for security needs. The issue came up in the appeal to the High Court of Justice in the case of the wall. It's called proportionality; let me explain. It means we compare how much the population is harmed to the security benefit. For instance, the High Court of Justice ruled that in the case of the wall, it must be moved because the harm is too extensive. In relation to the checkpoints, one could say Palestinian men shouldn't leave their homes at all, and that will contribute to the Israelis' security. Maybe it will, but there are things that cannot be done according to international law, and the checkpoints are a violation of international law.

I think we all have our own red line for what we are prepared to let the army do for the sake of security. We could also bomb the cities and be done with it! So the issue is that it seems to be a total imbalance, and to a certain extent, a lie. I say a lie because there aren't physical searches at the checkpoints; rather, the checkpoints pen people into all sorts of areas. Why is this done? That's what a military occupation looks like, that's what control looks like. It states who's in charge; the Israeli army is in charge and that's the situation and "you" must accept that, "you" must let go of your aspirations, we're the strong side and that's the story.

Did the situation at the checkpoints come as a surprise to you?

Yes, I mean I really understand it now but at first I kept learning something new about the occupation23 and how the system works, and also about the large bureaucracy with the matter of permits. It's complicated on purpose and there are many types of permits; orders are changed on a daily basis regarding who is allowed to pass and who isn't. At first I was amazed at the discovery of these mechanisms.

I don't think that I ever thought that the checkpoints were a security measure, because as I said this was at a time when all the bombings in Jerusalem were taking place five minutes away from my house, and the last thing I felt was secure. I truly believe that the issue of security is symptomatic, meaning that it's superficial and that one must take a profound look in order to view the deeper issues. I think that if we remain at the level of security we won't ever get out of this.

How did you feel the first time you went to a checkpoint with Machsom Watch?

The first time I went to a checkpoint was during Passover.24 During the Jewish holidays, there is always a closure imposed and nobody passes through checkpoints. We went to Kalandia and it was empty; there was nobody there. On one hand, in terms of it being my first time, maybe it was a more gradual introduction, but I did see the physical environment. I felt as though I'd arrived in India, in the third world. It looked so bad-- so dirty, so neglected-- with barbed wire fences and mud. I remember that shocked me even without the presence of people there. When I came back a week later it was full of people and it was overwhelming-- lots of people, children, women and men and taxis and stalls with vendors and it was, wow! It flooded me and for the first months I went to the checkpoint when I came home I couldn't stop thinking about it for hours, I kept recalling the images. I couldn't fall asleep. It was emotionally flooding, the visual images. It is initially very overwhelming. You get accustomed to it. It's amazing how you get used to anything! That's just the way it is, when something is new it is visible and when you get used to it you start to pay attention to different impressions than from that first day. At first it was as though a spaceship transported me to a completely different world that is located 15 minutes away from my house. This place follows different rules and has a different language, but the encounter with Palestinians was amazing. I had so many conversations with people; I learned so much about what happens there. It's really amazing.

Do you think Israelis are aware of the situation at the checkpoints?

No. Maybe more today, in part thanks to Machsom Watch, I think. But no, in general, we say that you have to be there in order to comprehend. We explain what's going on to people who are distanced from it all. We try to bring people along because when people go there I think they grasp that there is a problem and that the checkpoints aren't a 100% solution. People generally didn't understand what the problem is, where things are taking place or why; I think that today when you mention checkpoints in Israel people know something about it and they aren't comfortable with it, they know it's a problematic matter. The average Israeli still doesn't understand it in full, but whoever is frequently there, sees it.

Are your guests [the Israelis you bring to see the checkpoints] political figures?

No. Our goal is to bring the next door neighbors-- anybody. Of course there are many journalists and people who publish and write, but we invite everybody. That's also our chance to invite men to come along because men can't become members of the organization, but as visitors everyone is invited. We invite everybody and we try to organize tours to the checkpoints actively and to initiate activities.

Why can't men be a part of your organization?

There are different levels; first of all the practical level. This is how it began. There was an understanding that the presence of a male third party at a checkpoint could achieve the opposite of what we wanted to, meaning adding tension. There's a certain tension during the encounter between Israeli men and soldiers, which can be even more complex than our encounter, which is also complex, as I described. There is also the matter of a certain identification in that men also get called for reserve service, meaning that there's a chance they were also in reserve service in this type of situation from the opposite side. I'm certain that if there were men in Machsom Watch it would have come to an end long ago. I'm sure the army wouldn't allow it because of the tension and violence. I'm sure that if I were a man I would have been beaten up by soldiers at the checkpoints by now because there is a lot of stress and anger. Those are the practicalities, but I think that beyond that we like being in an organization that belongs only to women. It gives us more power, allows us to do the things we want to. Personally, it suits me. I think that in mixed organizations men are often the ones who become the decision makers and determine things and women are pushed aside. I feel that I have a better sense of partnership and equality.

Does the army endorse your activity? How does it work?

The army officially permits our presence at checkpoints-- I mean the high ranks do. The soldiers in the field continuously try to get rid of us. They say, "No, closed military zone, you can't be here, move away, move there, don't speak to them." But we have a permit from the high ranks. Sometimes they allow our presence there because even they understand that they won't be able to get rid of us and that if they do, there will be a heave price to pay publicity-wise, which won't serve them well.

What is your approach as women? I know there are women who come as mothers of soldiers and as maternal figures. How did you approach it? How do others?

As I explained, that's not our approach towards soldiers. We adopt a businesslike approach in order to understand the situation and to receive information. As an organization we don't have a common approach to the issue of military service in the Occupied Territories. Obviously every woman has her own personal style, but the organization continuously attempts to manage the manner of activity so as not to become aggressive towards the soldiers, but not embrace them either. A kind of neutrality. We don't call upon them to refuse to serve,25 nor do we strengthen them in their "national mission." Personally, it's hard for me. It was really a major problem I had-- standing at checkpoints I got very irritated at the soldiers! I know it doesn't serve the purpose; it doesn't serve anything, but we are human beings and it's difficult because of the frustration that there is a person who tells people not to pass or to wait, detaining them or worse things than I've described. Again, I have nothing personal against the soldiers but that's the situation. It's also our claim that in such a situation you and I would become very inhumane and immoral. I don't think that there's something wrong with the soldiers as soldiers but rather that the situation is wrong.

Can you tell me about a confrontation you had with a soldier?

I can't recall anything special, I've had many; I don't know whether confrontation is the right term; we argue over people being detained for long periods at the checkpoints. There was one time when one soldier wanted all the people who were standing and waiting at the checkpoint to move, I don't know, maybe 200 meters back and wait there. The people didn't really feel like moving back. They couldn't really understand what he wanted and ultimately they wanted to stay close by in order to hear the soldier who would call to them that it was their turn. So then he decided to punish them and close the checkpoint completely until they moved. I found myself not quite attempting to convince him, but maybe more yelling at him, "What are you doing, why are you punishing these people, stop it immediately." It got to the point where he was firing into the air. That was very stressful. Of course he couldn't close the checkpoint, and his commander came and opened the checkpoint. There are things where a person has personal ambitions like that, and it's hard to watch.

What are your goals as media coordinator?

As spokeswoman - I'm talking about Machsom Watch still - that's really a difficult question. I think that initially it was very clear to me that I wanted the international audiences and the Israeli public to know that that the checkpoints aren't a security measure but rather a form of collective punishment, an infringement of human rights. Today I'm more skeptical regarding the public, especially the Israeli public. I think that we succeeded very nicely in reaching the international audiences and received a lot of coverage, but in general I see that making the Israeli public take an interest in what happens on the Palestinian side isn't working that well…I'm debating the matter. It's undecided. There's another approach that's gaining momentum: showing the effects of the checkpoints and the occupation on soldiers and on the army, showing the extent of the harm to our side. Perhaps this is an effective approach but it doesn't really appeal to me; however I see that it's something the press is always interested in.

Are you referring to Shovrim Shtika?26 [literally 'breaking the silence']

Yes, for example. But we also have something to contribute there because the press is always interested if I bring them a story about something involving a soldier at a checkpoint, a soldier who fired [his gun], injured, or abused. If there is a soldier involved they are interested. If I tell them that there's been a closure in Nablus27 for a month, or something general like that - closure is such an arbitrary act - they are less interested in that. Frankly I'm indecisive; I'm not sure what the objectives are. There is the approach of trying to change the concept that there is no choice of being in this situation-- that we must be there and we must fight -- but what the objectives are is a question that hasn't really got an answer currently.

Do you have a specific strategy concerning the Israeli audience?

Like I said, not really. We've tried all different approaches; some are pushing for discussing the harm caused to Israeli society and some want us to present the damage done to the Palestinians. We're a large organization and there are many women and many different voices. It's like a choir that sings in many parts, it isn't that focused.

What successes do you see regarding international audiences?

Again, I am usually in touch with the press and ever since I've been in this position, foreign journalists join us at least twice a week at the checkpoints. My estimate is that the checkpoint story has coverage all over Europe, the United States, and I recall journalists from places such as Australia, South Africa, and Brazil. We're told that people hear and know about it and that it receives a lot of coverage.

What do you hope will happen in the future?

Well, the optimal situation would be that it would bring countries to apply pressure on Israel to enter negotiations, to withdraw from the Territories,28 and to do what it takes to make these things happen. Again, after four years I'm pretty skeptical. I'm not sure it'll happen, but we do what we can. I don't know!

How does the connection between the organizations work in the Coalition?

A coalition is more intricate because there are many voices, many approaches, and many directions. All in all, I think it's working nicely and that the common denominator is very large. A joint organization strengthens the individual organizations, especially the smaller and perhaps more active ones, and that strengthens joint activities. What we also try to do in the coalition is to strengthen the groups - the organizations - and also to use all the organizations' resources for the joint work.

What are the drawbacks to the way you currently operate?

The issue of strategy, what the goals are. I think you were there on the day when we talked about the media campaign, I really didn't think that up myself; I was at a media workshop and that was raised. They really stressed the issue of strategy, of naming your objectives and choosing activities accordingly, and not doing scattered activities hoping that they will have some impact. It's even more difficult at the Coalition because every organization has a different emphasis. Sometimes there are issues that are important for women from Machsom Watch that women from New Profile aren't interested in, and the other way round. So there needs to be something that is common yet focused: a statement.

It's also difficult finding a statement that the Israeli public will be able to relate to, and then there's the constant tension between what we really think - our most profound truths - and what the public can grasp and digest. I think what we lack is strategy, as well as a better connection with the Israeli public. That's a difficult matter because we're a radical organization that is very distant from the consensus. The million dollar question is how to relate-how to influence people and not alienate ourselves-without deterring people. There is the sense of being perceived as an out of touch minority.

Your idea for a media strategy was to pick an issue and focus on it for a certain amount of time. Have you figured out what that issue will be?

Yes. All sorts of ideas have been raised, and we're going to dedicate the next meeting to that matter. Again, because I deal with the matter of the media I know how difficult that is. Beyond the fundamental decision we need to do some copywriting work and decide how to present the issues. The Israeli society is so diverse. The question of which connections and links can be made to bring people to relate to the issues is a very difficult one. There are many women in the coalition that have been active for many years. They are used to certain thought patterns. There are people that think that if they simply state their truth then people will say "wow--" they'll faint dead away and say, "Now, why didn't I think of that!?" But things don't work that way. You have to go the route of persuasion, and for that you need to touch upon things that worry people and not things they aren't concerned with. It's a difficult matter, but I think that if we want to work with the Israeli public that's what needs to be done.

What do you think you should choose to focus on?

I don't know, I'm really debating the options.

What are the options?

I don't know, maybe whether to adopt the approach of talking to Israelis about what the true economic costs of the occupation are on the personal level. What did I contribute and what did I receive from the occupation is a slogan showing that it comes to one huge minus sign. There's the approach of showing that there really is a peaceful solution and someone to talk to. We have a sticker with the slogan There is a Partner [in Hebrew with a feminine ending on 'partner' - Yesh Partnerit], taking the approach of talking about Palestinian women and ourselves, for instance. I don't know. It's something that needs to be thought through thoroughly in order to come up with something successful. I have examples of successful campaigns: the issue of poverty combined with the workers' socio-economic campaign against Netanyahu's29 policy. He talked about 'parasites' - the people who weren't working and yet were receiving allowances from the state - and how it must be ended. It was a very successful campaign on his part. The counter-campaign did a spin on it, raising the issue of people who are employed and yet are still poor. That's a fine example of how an important and central issue can be shaped into a campaign. The poor workers were the subject for discussion over the past few months. It takes a lot of wisdom to find an approach that can be readily accepted.

What do you think is the difference between the slogan There is a Partner and the approach of talking about the cost of the occupation for Israeli society? What do you think would be the effect of each?

I don't know. I'm really debating it; it's not simple at all. The There is a Partner campaign relates to the matter that we discuss often: the need to give people hope, meaning we have to say there's an alternative, there's something better to be achieved. On the other hand, having talked to people - you know, taxi drivers - people are very cynical and what has happened over the past four years is that people really don't believe [in a solution] anymore, so we don't want to come across as being fantasists and as having very unrealistic and unfounded ideas. Those are the pros and cons of that. The price approach - on one hand it's been discussed so much and the truth is that a large part of the Israeli public is willing to make compromises and what is missing is the political leadership to carry it out. On the other hand I think that we must reach Israelis through their pockets. That's an issue that concerns many people: where the money is going. People are very upset about the economic situation. It's always a problem because these topics are always extremely complex and doing a campaign is very complicated… I envy people who are sure of what they want to say. Take other issues you've [Just Vision has] dealt with - the Bereaved Families Forum30 - they're a part of a more humane and emotional sphere, maybe it's more complicated in the field of politics.

What does the slogan There is a Partner mean? What are you trying to say?

It's the basic issue of having someone to talk to on the other side and there being a partner for peace;31 there aren't only people there who want to throw us into the sea. Regarding the matter of the partner [female], that's part of the Coalition's message about women's roles in a resolution - that feminist women have much to contribute. It's also to remind people that there are women and civilians there, because all that Israelis hear is about armed terrorists, even female terrorists.32 That was the idea of the sticker.

Which specific roles can women play in a peace process?

I think that women, drawing on feminist approaches - not necessarily every woman by default - contribute to solutions that aren't based on force in which the strong side imposes its will on the other side, but rather to a more equality-based approach. This approach addresses the other side's needs. It doesn't just focus on how I can convince the other side to relinquish those needs. It's an approach that views the range of aspects of life and not just security, territory, things like that; it asks rather what the implications are on other aspects of life.

You have been active in the project of tours of the wall. Can you tell me about that?

It's a project run by the Coalition of Women for Peace that invites the broad public to meet the wall; we call it "seeing and talking about it." We have a very special approach and I think a very successful one, and also a very unusual one for left-wing organizations. It is that we both provide people with information - of course that's information we deem important, and our position is being opposed to the wall and we don't hide anything - but we also certainly give people a chance to talk and discuss what they think and to cope, to process what they had thought up until then, together with having visited the wall, how it contrasts or doesn't.

The approach is true dialogue-you know when you say dialogue everyone imagines us all in harmony, hearing the same views and emerging alike, and that's not the way it is. In my opinion it's a fantastic opportunity. I stand in front of a group and I can tell them what I think, I can listen to what they think, and when they leave maybe something inside them will change but with all the respect and understanding of people in another frame of thought. They won't leave the tour thinking as I do, but maybe in some slight way I'll succeed in influencing them or undermining what they thought prior to that, and make them think more critically and differently. I really love this project. I think it's very successful and has proven to be successful because people are very pleased with the tours and they are also people who aren't convinced, who don't share our opinions. People come from all over. They are pleased with the information they receive, from the reality they don't know and didn't recognize earlier, and from the chance to discuss things.

Who comes to the tours?

It travels by word of mouth. People hear about it from other people and groups come. We've had high school classes -of course they don't come through the Ministry of Education or the principal. Some teacher heard about it and decided that in the course of a three-day seminar in Jerusalem, studying the Holocaust,33 she'd get in a tour of the wall. That's a true story. Those poor kids came straight from Yad Vashem34 to the wall. But there were youth movements, such as Beitar,35 a right-wing youth movement with kids from Hebron [Jewish settler children], something completely… We've had groups from kibbutzes.36 Now we're beginning a series of tours for students in Jerusalem, together with Hacampus lo Shotek [The Campus Will not Stay Silent] and Ta'ayush37 to take tours from the university to a neighborhood in Jerusalem where there's a wall, such as A-Ram or Abu Dis.38 There are people who sign up on their own, and we gather a group of people and take them.

Why would groups like Beitar bring kids to the tour of the wall?

An interesting question. The tour with Beitar was in Lod.39 We give tours in Lod and Ramle40 because there are separation walls there too. I don't know, there must have been a very open counselor there. I don't think that morality belongs only to the left-wing. There are thoughtful and moral people on the other side too [the right wing]. I think it's nice that people from all over seek information that they aren't receiving any other way. The atmosphere during the tours is that every person will do whatever they want with the information and take it where they want to and not be brainwashed or anything. I think that people think it contributes to their thinking regardless of their opinions. There were amazing processes. There were youths that said they wanted to volunteer in Lod and assist in Arab neighborhoods! It goes to show that anything is possible, that this is really the right approach. It wasn't easy. We had a Palestinian guide from Lod and he had a difficult encounter with the children, but there's much to be gained.

What do you think about progression in the case of the teacher who brought children from a tour of Yad Vashem to a tour of the wall?

That was an example of a teacher's initiative. I think that ideally if she had planned it, or we had planned it, we wouldn't have brought 16 year olds to the wall right after they were at Yad Vashem. That isn't justified and doesn't serve a purpose; that's the way things worked out. Schools are brought for a seminar in Jerusalem and that's our chance to fit in, but it [that progression] isn't justified in any special way.

Who do you most want to take on a tour of the wall in Jerusalem?

Actually, from the Israelis - anybody. We had a preliminary tour, just us tour guides in Jerusalem and my immediate response after was that I wanted my family to see it, or my friends, meaning people who mean a lot to me, so that they could understand what I was talking about. But I'm glad to see any group from the Israeli public. We discovered that people's political opinions don't predict how they will behave during a tour or what will come up, because it raises very profound issues of identity, separation and security, and all sorts of issues that aren't only relevant for the Center or the right-wing, all Israelis have them. That's why the tours I guide with Israelis are fascinating, interesting, and important. It's important for me that people from abroad know about the wall but it's less urgent for me.

Can you give an example of a group you presumed would react a certain way and that surprised you?

Well, the example of the kid from Beitar who said, "I want to volunteer here and help." That was something we never expected to happen. There are people from the left-wing who suddenly say, "Yes, but we need a wall against suicide bombings" or such things. We've learned there's no way to predict certain responses and that there's a wide range of responses. That's the beauty of it, and that's what's interesting about it. The encounter with the wall is like a psychological projection, people see it as things from their fantasies or nightmares. So that's very enriching and interesting.

What do you say to somebody who says, "No, we really do need the wall" during the tour?

My approach is not to argue. I won't say, "It's not true that we need the wall." I do my part during every tour. My approach is to undercut and challenge [people's previous perceptions]. I talk about the misery it causes the Palestinians; on the political level I ask them where they think this is leading, what kind of reality is being created here for us all, which is a very important level I think. Also on the level of security and the solutions: is this really a good or effective solution? I try to examine all the levels and hope that part of that will reach people. But if somebody were to say that to me I wouldn't respond, and what's nice is that the last hour of the tour is a discussion group. We sit together for a discussion after people have eaten, and they can talk. Often this type of reaction will come up during the group's discussion and then the group responds. People talk amongst themselves and I'm merely a facilitator. I'm there to ensure people speak in turn and that everyone has spoken and that people don't scream at each other. I enable the process, but at this point I don't participate.

Do people yell at each other during these discussions?

No, people don't yell but rather they articulate very painful and intense experiences and really talk to one another. In mixed groups, say a group of Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, the dialogue is very powerful.

What challenges does the project pose to you as a spokesperson? In what ways do you think the project needs to be developed?

Advertising the project in the media is what I'm working on now. My goal is focused and clear: I want people to come to the tours. That's also the indication of success. If I've given a television interview two weeks ago I check how many people came following that with Orit, the project coordinator. I have a very specific goal and I'm not trying to convince the media to discuss the issue of the wall but rather to encourage people to come to the tours.

Who are you trying to reach through the media?

Everybody really. We intended the project for the Israeli public and we stress that it's appropriate for anyone. It's not intended for people that we want to mobilize or people who share our beliefs, but to anyone who wishes to learn about the wall. Lots of people haven't seen it, aren't familiar with its route or why its construction has been halted in certain places. People are very curious and they don't usually get an opportunity to satisfy it, so it's a chance.

What would you like to see happen after people go home from the tours?

As I said, we believe that people can shift their opinions a little. A person who's completely opposed to the wall may become active after the tour. Somebody who didn't know a thing about the wall knows a little bit more, and when they see it on television they will be able to analyze things according to the frame of knowledge they received. We've had groups of right-wing people and during the tour they face the wall's price that simply cannot be ignored. We aim to make people think beyond, within the frameworks of their opinions, and undermine the banal concepts of brainwashing and what people hear from the media concerning these issues.

How has being active changed or affected your life?

First of all, it's very intense; over the past six months I think it's really taken over my life. I'm very busy doing things and sometimes I feel that it's becoming my life and that can be a concern. I think I'm continuously becoming more conscious and aware of my environment, and that's not simple.

Do you have any doubts regarding the things you do?

My main doubts concern how effective all this is; how much of a chance this has of being influential, whether it's pointless-maybe what we're doing is nothing more than a drop in the sea.

What do you say to yourself when you think about that?

I tell myself that as long as I live here, this is my way of living here. This is my way of coping with the situation and influencing it. I can't stand on the sidelines or ignore what's happening. There are occasional moments of hope, but not many!

How does your family react to what you do?

They support me and are very proud of what I do. They don't necessarily agree with all the things I say, but they are very much in favor of my being involved and active. They view it as a positive thing.

Do they participate too?

No.

How would you define your community?

In the field of activism or in general? I don't know, what do you mean, how do I define it?

Are you part of Israeli society in any way? Do you live within Israeli society or within one of its groups?

I think that the job I chose for myself is an attempt at being a middleperson or in a mediating position - creating a link between the ideological group I belong to and the rest of society. I have a profound sense of belonging to my group, meaning I'm not stuck in between. I come from that group but I'm trying to bridge and link it to other groups and to the public, but I certainly regard myself as representing my group.

How does the conflict affect your life?

It generally affects it for the worse because I find myself telling myself that I can't believe that this is the state of our lives, that these are the things we must occupy ourselves with. Enough! I want to live in a normal place where people can busy themselves with more positive tasks, like creative initiatives and things that feed the soul and the mind. I feel like we are involved in such a primitive - I hate that term - conflict, a blood feud over land. I don't share those sentiments; that's so remote from the way I want to live. Sometimes I just can't believe that this is how I'm spending my time; I truly believe that this won't occupy me for the rest of my life, I have no intention of it. But who knows; I know many women who work with me who are 50, 60 years old and they've been doing this for 30 years.

On the other hand I see the positive aspects the conflict has on me. I think it forces me to make a huge effort and stimulates creativity and other things, and that's also important to me. We are truly dealing with life and death situations - human rights and vastly important issues. I feel that I'm lucky to be able to take part in it and that I'm not completely helpless, like in many places in the world where people are. The situation in Africa is so terrible and nobody takes an interest in it. That's something too. We call it empowerment in our field. I'm discovering things about myself that maybe I wouldn't have in other circumstances. I hope this way of life will be over soon. I'm willing to do this but I don't think it's the right way to live in the long term.

How do you view peace?

That's a very difficult question. I think that the first stage is ending the occupation in the Territories and then some sort of self-determination and liberation for the Palestinians in the Territories. But I don't think that can be the end of the process. I view peace as being a confederation or cooperation so that neither side exploits the other, and to avoid us resuming control in an indirect way. This is so that all people will be able to live here and feel secure and be free and enjoy equality. I think that these elements are indispensable; without them we will remain at the level of empty slogans. That's why I feel that we're light years away from peace.

What will the region look life when there is peace?

According to my vision of what peace is, it gets very complicated to even define this country. If there will be a real peace with the Palestinians and with the neighboring countries then it will resemble Europe, and people from all over will immigrate to the region. It's a known fact that after the peace accords were signed with Jordan, Jordanians came to work at the Dead Sea and drew illegal workers here because they can earn more here. I can imagine that if there are more or less open borders, people will be able to pass freely and come here from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. That of course undermines everything this country claims it wants to be - Jewish and democratic. This is why I'm skeptical about us ever achieving this kind of peace, skeptical about there being a mass aspiration here towards that. I think that the result would be that this country would lose the character it's trying to protect.

Unfortunately, what preserves the state's character is the conflict; it is the conflict that enables people to use excuses and become entrenched in a collective identity that would be likely to melt away and diverge in a state of peace. Currently there isn't much of a collective identity; there are specific groups and sectors - Russian speakers, Arab citizens,41 Mizrachis,42 Ashkenazis43 - but the sense of besiegement and risk is something that unites these people. At the checkpoints you can see a soldier who just arrived from the Ukraine; he isn't even Jewish and barely speaks a word of Hebrew yet he is yelling 'don't pass' at a Palestinian. This is a form of socialization that keeps people together here. I think that once the conflict is resolved we will have to face all the internal conflicts, and that includes such intense conflicts that who knows what will happen.

What do you view as the roots of the conflict?

I think the root of the conflict is Zionism.44 I'm very interested in this subject now, far more than the occupation. That's a topic for a very long conversation, I don't know whether this is the time for it.

Are Zionism and a Jewish state important to you?

I think that before the state's establishment the goal was to create a normal state for the Jews. From that aspect Zionism served its purpose, it did create a state where Jews live as equal citizens. I think that after a certain point, after Zionism achieved the state's establishment and aliyah,45 the immigration that brought so many Jews here, and greatly reduced security risks by making peace with some of the neighboring countries, it became an obstacle for normal life here. To me living in a normal country can't include adopting apartheid and racist and religious discrimination.

I think Zionism is an obstacle to normal life here and that's why I'm not in favor of retaining the definition of a Jewish state. I assume there can be a state with a Jewish majority; I'm not opposed to that. I'm not saying we need to get rid of the Jewish majority at any cost. I think that my aspirations have changed, and that I want this to be a normal country where equality isn't sanctioned by religion and for there not to be an ever present census - how many of them and how many of us. I feel I'm always being reminded I'm Jewish; if it isn't in the religious sense then it's in the ethnic sense and I'm very uncomfortable living this way. I want to live somewhere where nobody will care about my religion. That was also Zionism's aspiration: a normal life, people not being conscious which group they belong to, that's what really went on in the Diaspora. That's what's problematic. There isn't a significant difference between what is being done to Palestinians in the Territories under the occupation to what's being done to Palestinians in Lod in terms of inequality and viewing them as people who deserve less, excluding them from "us." I don't think we can keep going on like this.

What do you think needs to change in order to change the situation?

What needs to change is the perception of "us" and "them," Jews versus others. We need to use civic concepts, and this does happen quite often in practice. I have Arab friends and I feel we are close in terms of being Israeli. I feel there is a lot in common with Israeli Arabs - a certain closeness. We really do live in the same place. Culturally we share a lot, but on the level of consciousness there is a very large barrier between "us" and "them." Thai "others" or Arab "others" - those are a perceived as a real threat. This needs to change, and I think in practice it is changing because there are many people here that are "others"; it's still very far from the current situation though. I'm aware that that's a sort of utopia.

Which international audience is the most influential in the region?

That's pretty obvious I think, the United States.

Why?

In many areas-- in their political and financial support of Israel. People say we're the 51st state. We're not entirely an independent country. We depend on the States for many things. It's also the largest force in the world so all the surrounding countries - Syria, Egypt, Jordan - are influenced by it. I'm not saying that Europe or other places have no impact. Unfortunately, the United States is a deciding element and we are paying the price for being their extension in the Middle East.46

Do you think the US has misconceptions regarding the conflict?

The US prioritizes Israeli interests, or alleged interests, over Palestinians interests. The US isn't blind to their interests, it doesn't ignore them, but in terms of importance they see Israel as coming first and not incidentally, since Israel also serves their interests.

Why did former peace processes fail?

I think they failed in truly addressing the other side's needs. In processes such as Oslo47 and Camp David,48 there was an attempt to gain as much as possible. We want as few Palestinians on our lands and to annex as much land as possible. We want to profit financially but not to invest anything. That's the approach, but there needs to be a win-win approach. That means I win but the other side does too, even because of the practical reason that this is how it can succeed or be sustainable. I don't think I see that in any peace process or in any leader here.

Can you give an example of an attitude that needs to change?

Yes, for example the issue of the settlement blocs. Both Likud49 and Labor50 are in favor of them, they say it is annexing only 3% of the lands, 5% of the lands, land exchange etc. But people who deal more deeply with the matter and are in the field understand that for example, Ma'ale Adumim51 or Gush Etzion52 are places that strategically speaking enable continuing the control over the entire West Bank. I think it's manipulative to talk about land exchange in these places. This is the embodiment of the power-based approach of maintaining as much as possible at the expense of the other side, hoping it'll give in and accept these terms because its situation is so terrible. I don't think that can really serve any kind of stability.

Is a two-state solution53 an acceptable solution according to the vision of peace you mentioned earlier?

Yes. As an initial stage I think it's pretty much the only solution that can be considered because I think that most Israelis and most Palestinians wouldn't want to live in a joint framework; it's problematic after a history of prolonged struggle and imbalance. I think that in the long term separation will be difficult to maintain, especially in such a small area that is so densely populated, and also according to my vision. Peace means cooperation and open borders and much more freedom. Take the EU,54 where people can live in any of the countries, work in any country there. I think that's the meaning of peace.