Interview with Shlomi Daskal

Where are you from and how did you start doing this work?

I’m from Hadera1 originally. I’ve always been interested in Arabic. I don’t know why but I loved it from an early age, and planned to major in it in high school. My high school’s department of Middle Eastern studies wasn’t the most successful, so I didn’t do that. I studied other subjects: mathematics, physics, chemistry, things like that. Before the army, I went to study Arabic at Givat Haviva.2 They used to have a one-year program which no longer exists, a year that was considered a pre-military program. It was only Arabic language studies. That’s how I started out. That’s where the connection began. After high school I did my B.A in Arabic and then a Masters. During that period I met all kinds of people. One of them was Matti Steinberg. He was Ami Ayalon’s3 advisor during the period he was head of the GSS.4 That was two and a half years ago, July 2002. He said, “Listen, Ami is working on a project, come join us, try it out.“ That’s how I joined The People’s Voice.5

Was this the first time you were involved in joint work?

It was the first project I took part in officially. I did other things prior to that but they don’t count. It was the first project I really participated in.

You said that you don’t know what sparked your interest in Arabic, what do you think in retrospect?

I was always told at home how important it is to speak that language. My grandparents spoke European languages because they were European and that’s what was appropriate for the place. Arabic is the relevant language for this region, so my family was always very encouraging. Why me? I don’t know. I remember it as being something I was always drawn to because it seemed interesting.

Please explain the project and your work.

The project is a civilian, joint Israel-Palestinian initiative that is an attempt to achieve peace. The initiative states a very simple thing. All the former initiatives failed for a simple reason, because we never set a target. For the first time we’re saying that we aim to arrive at a certain place. The document includes six principles. It was drafted by Israelis and Palestinians together, not by only one side. It is based on six ideas: two states for two peoples, accepting the pre-’67 borders6 and evacuating settlements,7 Jerusalem8 as a free city; Palestinian neighborhoods will be governed by Palestinian rule and Jewish neighborhoods will be governed by Israel. The right of return will apply only to the Palestinian state, just as Jews will have the right of return to Israel.9 The Palestinian state will be a demilitarized zone. After all this happens comes the sixth clause, which pronounces the conflict over and the mutual claims fulfilled.

Our next step is to prove that this move will have the public’s support, now that we’ve drafted the proposal. We travel all over the country; the Palestinians do the same throughout Judea and Samaria,10 the West Bank11 and the Gaza Strip.12 We offer the petition13 to people and give them the option to sign it, which signifies, “Yes, that’s where I want to go.” The goal is to create pressure that will come from underneath and will force the leaders to negotiate and to arrive at the red lines we’ve drawn up. My job is to coordinate with the Palestinian side. I report on what’s happening on our side and receive updates regarding their activities. I follow the Palestinian media, websites, and check their responses to the initiative. I’m responsible for our volunteer programs all over Israel.

Do you also participate in gathering signatures?

Of course, that’s part of my job. For example, we were in different cities every Friday last summer. We would arrive, kick up a commotion, put up our stall and get people to sign. We encounter hardly any opposition. The problem is that people are apathetic, they have no faith. People say, “We don’t have the power to change things, only the politicians do.” We’re saying that’s not true. If we create the right type of pressure the change will occur.

What’s the most difficult part of this project?

The most difficult thing is to convince the Israelis that there is a Palestinian partner. That’s the most difficult thing. They don’t believe it because there’s a problem: The media in Israel airs only negative things, just as I see the Palestinian media covering a lot of negative affairs here. I believe that the Palestinian and Israeli societies are a mirror image of each other and that identical processes are taking place in both societies. They can’t believe there’s an Israeli partner and we can’t believe there’s a Palestinian partner. That’s why convincing them that there’s a Palestinian partner is the most difficult thing.

How can you convince people that “there is a partner” on the other side?

We present the fact that we collected 160,000 Palestinian signatures, and those are not from the intelligentsia. We’re talking hard-core Fatah,14 people who served prison sentences in Israel, people who have paid a price for resistance and for their past actions. They’re saying, “We tried one way but it failed.” It’s important to remember that peace is the default option for both sides. At first each side tried to hurt each other. That didn’t work, now we must go on to the other option: peace. The other strategy, and it’s very difficult, is showing the other side. For example, we created movies about our meetings with the Palestinians for our website. I edited them. We did that so people could see it through photos and video clips. Our problem is that our Palestinian partners have what we call in Hebrew a “problematic security background,” meaning ex-convicts, problematic people who aren’t allowed into Israel.15 My dream is to bring fifty of them to visit Tel-Aviv. But that won’t happen, ever! So we attempt to create meetings.

Do Palestinian Israelis16 also sign the agreement?

Israeli Arabs sign as Israelis. It’s interesting that since I’ve worked a lot with Israeli Arabs and every time I've spokes about this initiative I've been tempted to address them as “Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.“ They said, “Sir! We’re Israeli citizens!”17 Clearly they sign on the Israeli side. By the way, what happens with the Israeli-Arabs is happening to the Jews here as well: apathy, weariness, and wariness. This all stems from what we’ve been through in the past decade.

How come Arab Israelis sign on the Israeli side?

We see Israeli Arabs as Israeli citizens. They see themselves as Israeli citizens. That’s why they sign on the Israeli side. Our rules state that every Israeli citizen who is 16 years old--who will have the right to vote in the upcoming Israeli elections in November 2006--is allowed to sign. Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, although carrying a blue i.d. card, are not allowed to participate in the general election, only in the local/municipal elections.18 That is why they don’t sign on our side. In fact, they sign our initiative on the Palestinian side.

Getting back to the 160,000 signatures-that’s still only signatures, what do you think the impact can be?

When we started out, many wise people and experts told us it wouldn’t work and that we wouldn’t collect 100 signatures. A well-known persona said to me that he’d cut off his hand if we collected 1,000 signatures. We currently have 160,000 signatures. That is powerful. I agree that it’s but a drop in the sea. There’s a beautiful poem in Hebrew about one drop and another drop, how they become an ocean. We’ll get there ultimately. We need to be patient; the pressure will build up. The figure we have, 160,000 Palestinians, is very impressive to me. We expected the ratio would be 1:2 or 1:3, two or three Israeli signatures for every Palestinian signature. It seems not to be the case. Their interest and their willingness to operate are much greater than on the Israeli side. Another comment on the subject - the requirements for signing the document are fairly complex. You must give your name, ID number and a phone number. For the Palestinians divulging so much information is risky.

Why is it risky for Palestinians to divulge that information-their ID number and phone number?

It’s not risky, but people are wary of it. It’s not a good thing to do; one never knows where the information will go. Consider the fact that the head of the Israeli side is the former director of the GSS!19 Palestinians are afraid of this sort of thing, given the years that Israel has been controlling the Territories,20 and it is suspect to them.

I can tell you a story about one of our most dedicated Palestinian activists in Ramallah.21 He went to lecture in Tulkarm.22 He served a few years’ prison sentence in Israel in the past. As he was leaving Ramallah, he was detained at a checkpoint. Even though we arranged all the permits he was still detained. We pressured the authorities to have him released. He continued to Tulkarm and was detained again. From a Palestinian state of mind, that must be a plot or conspiracy. He couldn’t be detained twice just like that. It must be the Director of the GSS, he must have arranged this, he doesn’t agree with it. Once a brother of one of our Palestinian activists, who was high on the ’wanted’ list23 was later assassinated by Israel. The activist wouldn’t talk to me for a while because he claimed that he was being followed because he was talking to me. So it is difficult. But 160,000 is a very large number and that’s important.

I noticed that people can sign the petition via your website, even people from abroad. How does that work?

Only if a person has an Israeli ID card. That’s one of our main problems. The only system of ensuring the person who signed is who he or she claims to be, and to avoid multiple signatures, is by using the ID number. We tried all sorts of other methods and understood it’s the only way. Many people have said, I won’t disclose my ID number, it’s justified, but…

Why would Israelis be reluctant to give out their identity card numbers?

Giving your ID number out on the Internet is a little risky; it’s problematic information. If someone were to come up to me on the street and say, “do you support peace? Yes, come sign,” I’m not sure I would. I’d want to see what it was, and that’s a problem. It’s an even bigger problem, like I said earlier, with the Palestinians. It’s problematic giving so much information.

Who are the people that collect signatures?

People like you and me, there are all kinds. On the Israeli side we have many volunteers coming from all over the country. I know our volunteers personally; I traveled all over in order to organize the volunteers. Here in Jerusalem we have someone who has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience and is writing his post-doc at Harvard. He’s in Israel now and every Friday that he’s in Jerusalem he collects signatures. That’s one example. We also have high school kids, students. On the Palestinian side it’s a little different. There are many volunteers there, too, but people are cut off because of the wall24 and the checkpoints.25 Every district works autonomously, from a regional office. The program director, I’m not sure that’s what they call it, is responsible for gathering signatures. That’s the difference.

What is the effect of the head of the Israeli side being the former director of the GSS? Is it important?

Unfortunately it’s very important! It’s very important because in Israel the state of affairs is still one in which people believe the former director of the GSS more than an academic or a professor at the university. To put it more colloquially, you might say that a person tends to have more credibility as a peacemaker if they have a record showing they killed Arabs in the past [laughs]. It’s very sad but that’s how things are. Interestingly enough, the Palestinian side also prefers this type of candidate. First of all, if you compare him [Ayalon] to Yossi Beilin,26 while Yossi Beilin is appreciated, it is agreed that Yossi Beilin could never receive the support that Ami Ayalon will, on account of his resume. Palestinian society views people who fought in the past and are now peacemakers as being honorable; it’s something that can be appreciated. That was the case with Rabin,27 as well as with Barak28 at the beginning. That’s why it is important.

Sari Nusseibeh29 comes from academia, how is that effective?

Like I said, the Palestinian side operates differently. They use the chaos in the PA30 and in Fatah, which was the central structure and is now collapsing, has collapsed. They duplicated Fatah’s mechanisms and they work according to it. Although Nusseibeh is part of academia, those below him are Fatah activists, like I said earlier, people who did time in prison. Once there was a meeting on the Palestinian side, for example, and each person introduced himself. It was amazing; a person would say, “My name is so-and-so and I spent 7 years in jail, 9 years in prison, two years.” Every second person has that record, meaning that our field operatives are people who were sentenced to prison because of our security reasons.

What have you learned from working with your colleagues?

You should stop your recording now. I’m going to say a few bad things [laughs]. I learned that the Israeli public is tired and apathetic, and lacks energy. The majority agrees with us, but in general, the term “the silent majority” applies. On the one hand, the public is best described as not doing anything, lacking hope; on the other hand, I met a lot of very good people who believe in this dream and are willing to work for it. That’s why I still believe there is hope, thanks to these people.

I learned a lot about the Palestinian side. I never doubted it before, but I learned just how much they want an agreement. I’m stressing peace less because unfortunately the word has acquired a bad reputation over the past few years. People don’t believe in it, so for instance when I am gathering signatures, I don’t say, “You’re signing a peace agreement,” rather that we’re attempting to reach a settlement, or in other words, a dignified divorce settlement. That’s our line. I also learned that people believe in the necessity of achieving an agreement.

I learned that though we’re now in a difficult period, there is a window of opportunity that is on the verge of being closed. Soon the chance will have passed. I don’t know when this ’soon’ will be, maybe a year or two years, five years from now. I learned that it’s now or never. When people ask me whether I’m optimistic or pessimistic, I say that in Israel people who are right-wing are pessimistic for the short term but optimistic in the long run. People who are left-wing are optimistic in the short term because they’re pessimistic regarding the long run [laughs]. In certain terms I’m neither here nor there, because I’m pessimistic in both the short and long run! [laughs] But someone once said to me that people involved in such a field can’t be pessimists. I’m not really pessimistic. There’s a book by Emile Habibi called The Opsimist, meaning a little pessimistic and a little bit optimistic. That’s me right now.

What’s the most difficult thing for your group to agree on?

The most difficult thing, on the Palestinian side, is the right of return. It’s the most difficult because the right of return is a dream, and what we’re saying is, relinquish it. Relinquish that dream for a more realistic one; that’s the hardest aspect for the Palestinians. They are doing it because they say that the bottom line is that they know it’s a dream too. It’s a strategy for negotiations, but nothing more. At the end of the day we know we’ll need to settle and our estimation is that there won’t be a return. For the sake of the dream of having a state we have to settle.

And does everyone who signs know that the agreement gives up or limits the right of return for Palestinians?

Yes. They must. It’s important to say that Sari Nusseibeh has been openly saying this for the past four or five years. We are arguing about whether they mean it. Yes, anybody who joins this initiative knows he’s going with Sari Nusseibeh and Sari Nusseibeh has decidedly said he relinquishes the right of return. Let’s say that on the Israeli side it’s much less of a taboo. It used to be the issue of Jerusalem, now everybody assumes that Jerusalem will be divided.31 Everybody agrees on the ’67 border.32 The most difficult part for both sides is to give up the dream, or the idea of fulfilling it, the larger dream I mean.

What’s the larger dream that must be given up in order to compromise?

The larger dream is the whole Palestine, the whole Eretz Yisrael.33 That’s the dream, and we are choosing the smaller dream in order to fulfill national rights there.

You said "everybody agrees on the '67 borders." Who agrees--are you referring to the people who sign your statement, or to the two societies in general?

Polls show that the majority of the Israeli and Palestinian publics--70% on each side-- believe that eventually the solution will be a two state solution in which the borders are the '67 borders with minor changes. 100% of those who sign believe that this will be the solution-- otherwise they don't sign.

How far do you think this can go? What are your hopes for this stage, and this project?

My dream is that the Israeli and Palestinian leadership will adopt this document and use it as the framework, saying, this is what we want to achieve. That’s my dream, to reach a settlement.

What will have to happen to achieve that?

More people will join us. It will happen, the more people join us. It’s happening already, people are interested in our initiative. An Israeli politician, sadly enough, isn’t thinking in terms of next year, but rather about tomorrow--how he’ll appear in the newspaper. If he knows that the majority of the public wants it, that’s what he’ll support. We can see it beginning now.

Are you personally satisfied with the agreement?

Yes, I am. I would take it further to say that our hang-up is the right of return. I would be willing to acknowledge that right to a certain extent, but that’s not the point. Who knows if we do reach a peace agreement whether it will be structured identically to our agreement. If you take only the six articles, a single page, we won’t get anywhere. It’s only a frame, and I’m satisfied with it.

You are also involved with the Movement for Realistic Religious Zionism.34 What is that?

This movement is predominantly comprised of young people, religious people, and the Israeli term - national religious,35 from the mainstream of religious society. Some studied at the mainstream yeshivas,36 and what they’re saying is that religious society should shift the focus from being only on settling Eretz Yisrael. It should allocate its resources in new directions and renew itself. Focusing only on the settlements and things of the sort has led us to stagnation.

This movement also has other aspects to it; it criticizes religious education -- other things occurring in religious society -- not only pertaining to politics. Its banner is the settlements. We’ve failed. It’s time to let that go. The movement’s uniqueness is that it doesn’t come from outside, it’s a society that comes from within religious society. Its members don’t consider themselves strangers or outsiders but rather as a part of religious society that is fearful for its fate.

When did you get involved in this Movement?

I joined the Movement when it was officially launched a year and a half ago. At the time I considered linking them with the [Ayalon-Nusseibeh] Initiative. In retrospect, the Initiative became my job and the Movement is my hobby, where I volunteer after work. That’s how I began.

Why did you want to link the Movement for Realistic Religious Zionism to the People's Voice?

I discovered that many people in the Movement for Realistic Religious Zionism had signed the People’s Voice initiative, so the initial obstacle didn’t exist. The second problem addresses the religious person. Usually religious people in Israel relate to a certain party; they are affiliated with the right wing, with the settlers. In today’s demonstrations opposing the disengagement,37 90% to 99% of the participants are religious people.38 It’s important to me to show that there is an alternative, another side to it. When we achieve an agreement, religious Zionism39 will suffer a great blow, and one of its main pillars will crumble: the notion of Eretz Yisrael. That will be the blow. I believe that this movement can soften the blow by preparing religious Zionists and the rest of Israeli society for such a process.

What’s the most important thing for you, as a religious person, to move forward? Is leaving the settlements the focus? Is that enough?

It’s a beginning, the first step. That’s what brought me to the People’s Voice. We came to Israel to establish a democratic Jewish homeland. If we continue to occupy the Territories we will either cease to be a democracy or cease to be a Jewish homeland.40 We will have to relinquish one of the two and I’m not prepared to do that. I think that for us to realize the dream of a democratic Jewish homeland we must exit the Territories, for example. Religious society is led by the extreme factions, which do not acknowledge this idea. That’s why we are saying, “no, there’s a different option.” The biggest problem with religious society is that it’s founded on the notion of community -- it could be a synagogue, friends or neighbors. People don’t feel comfortable speaking out against their community. What we’re saying is that we represent a legitimate part of religious society. We want to legitimize that notion.

How does that connect to the People’s Voice?

It did connect, there were activists there, but the thing is that this movement includes aspects that are not relevant to the People’s Voice. The People’s Voice focuses on its six principles41 while the Movement has other agendas. They voiced their support, joined, signed, but there’s no point to fully merging. The Movement has a social agenda, an educational agenda. The People’s Voice has only the political agenda. That’s the difference.

Regarding the name Realistic Religious Zionism, what do you mean by realistic?

The name is derived from the opposition to messianism.42 We are the Realistic Religious Zionism, which sees reality for what it is.

What do you personally gain from being involved in this kind of work, in both projects?

A great deal of satisfaction. On the one hand I can convince a person that a partner for peace exists and that he or she can sign and join, and on the other showing that there’s a different kind of religious Zionism, and that brings me a great deal of satisfaction. I believe in the necessity of creating a change in Israel, and I believe it must come from below, from the people. Two years ago I never would have thought I’d be here dealing with these issues. It was clear then what I was about to do. I was certain I would be a part of academia, that I’d have my Ph.D. and become a lecturer at the university. That plan changed. Suddenly I’m looking beyond that; I never had considered NGOs.43 Now I know they’re very important, things can’t work without them.

What does your family think about your work?

They’re very supportive.

What about your community?

It varies. There are those who are supportive and those who reject it. Nothing more to report.

Are you hurt by people rejecting your ideas and opposing your work?

Yes, I’m a little disappointed. Not everyone can think the same way though, that would be boring.

How do the Israeli and Palestinian authorities approach the People's Voice?

The essence of our initiative is that we don’t aim to replace the government. We don’t care who gets there--Sharon,44 Barak, Netanyahu45--as long as it happens. For that reason we aren’t perceived as people who are undermining the government, we certainly are clear about not participating in the competition of parties. That’s the first thing. There has been an interest taken in us, because we aren’t political and we have civil support and we come from the people. Politicians from the Israeli leadership are interested in the initiative. The leadership, unfortunately, doesn’t lead the people, but rather it listens to what the people want and heads there. Since that is the case, now they are approaching us and showing an interest. So we aren’t perceived as undermining the government. I think the same applies to the Palestinian society. It’s completely novel there. It’s like that in the Israeli society too, but here we are somewhat accustomed to movements of this kind. There it’s all completely new, and they view it suspiciously. I was in Ramallah at talks with senior officials in the PA to present the initiative. They wanted to hear the Israeli side - they hear Nusseibeh all the time, “let’s hear you now.” That was very interesting. We aren’t perceived as opposition.

The Geneva Initiative46 was criticized for undermining the government.

That’s a big difference between us and Geneva Initiative. The Geneva Initiative presents itself as an alternative to the government, saying, we’ll implement this agreement. Second, they created a peace agreement, which we haven’t; we aren’t drawing up maps. Our approach is that the leadership will decide the maps. I’ll give you a concrete example: There’s the settlement of Alei Sinai47 in the Gaza Strip, situated 50 meters from the border. It is a widespread understanding that there will have to be territorial swaps, so why evacuate Alei Sinai if we can compensate with other territories in the Negev?48 That’s not a decision for me to make, not me or you or anybody, it’s a decision for the leaders to make. We don’t draw up borders, we aspire to achieve a retreat to the borders of ’67 and swap territory as necessary. That’s why we didn’t draw up maps. The Geneva Accords movement drew up maps and that’s why it’s perceived as subversive and much more dangerous. What right do you have signing on behalf of the state? That’s why they’re considered subversive.

The matter of the security forces is interesting. Once we went to Jericho,49 arrived there with our bus. An officer boarded the bus with his orders and before he got off he said, “Just so you know, I signed.” Another story is that Nusseibeh was detained at a checkpoint. One of the soldiers noticed who he was and said to him, “Tell Ami Ayalon I signed, too.” Another story is that one of Nusseibeh’s activists traveled with pamphlets and materials and was stopped at a checkpoint. The soldiers saw propaganda and thought it could be dangerous and called for a translator. The translator came, translated the material and said, “Wow this is great stuff!”

The army is a part of the people in Israel. Army people who serve in the defense forces have also signed, we know this. We know that high-ranking officers say that they can’t sign because of their positions but that they believe in it. “We’ll sign once we’re finished with our army service, we promise.” So we don’t encounter problems with the political authorities or with the security authorities.

Do Ami Ayalon’s connections help?

There were a few occasions, not many. Our power is limited. There are matters in which the soldier at the checkpoint is more powerful than the former director of the GSS. That can’t be helped. On the trip to Jericho there was an incident. We requested a permit only for the bus, and suddenly four of Sari’s activists joined us. It was May or June and it was hot. You could see they were sweating, coming on foot to arrive. We shook hands. They wanted to take a taxi and go to Jericho. They were told they couldn’t, that they had a permit but not the taxi. It was several kilometers from the checkpoint and we wondered how they would get there. [The Soldier] said, no problem, go with the bus! [laughs] He said to them, I can’t let you in except if you go by foot or take that vehicle that has a permit, then it’s okay. That was because Ami Ayalon and the rest of us were there. I don’t know what would have happened had we not been there.

Do you see the disengagement as being an important issue? How do you regard it?

I view it as being negative; it isn’t a wise step. First, it presumes that there is no partner for dialogue, and I believe we have one. Second, the only chance the disengagement has for achieving something good is if it isn’t limited to disengagement. Where will it lead? As a first step with others following it can achieve something positive. As a unilateral step it is a very bad thing in my opinion.

Do you think the damage will exceed the benefits?

Of course! The unilateral disengagement is a victory for Hamas50 and for all extreme factions. The main group in the PLO--Fatah--has been trying for years to prove that we need dialogue with the Israelis to achieve anything. What they’re hearing is, you talked but to no avail! “We’re firing Qassam missiles,51 shooting soldiers, that’s what does the job.” They view it as being a negative step.

As a religious person, can you justify evacuating the Territories? Can you justify it according to halacha [Jewish religious law] or do you feel the need to?

No. In general I don’t see a connection between halacha and retreating from the Territories. There are explanations, but personally I don’t see a connection. The State of Israel is a secular, rather than religious, body. There shouldn’t be a link between policy and halacha. That’s my opinion. Halacha pertains to people; if this country were a halacha state that conducted itself according to halacha, then it would make sense to consider halachic considerations, but it isn’t, so that’s not relevant.

Would a halachic state be preferable?

In theory, I don’t know. I have never considered the matter. A halachic state is a slogan. It doesn’t hold water. You can’t construct a halachic state now--it’s impossible.

Do you think that the National Religious community needs to confront these questions?

It’s interesting that the halachic argument isn’t present in the religious community. The personal aspect, the question of security, the emotional aspect is much more prominent than halacha. I mean, there are adjudicators that favor a retreat and those who don’t. So what? The tool exists for justifying the issue, so it’s not relevant. For the religious community the aspect of security and the aspect of the state’s future are more important than anything else.

Does either the Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative52 or the Movement address the issue of the Temple Mount?53

Certainly. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative addresses the issue of the Temple Mount. They say the following: it is a holy site. For Israelis it will always be the Temple Mount, the site of the Temple. This is part of what I mentioned about a process of rehabilitation. For the Palestinians it’s the site from where the Prophet ascended to the heavens and where the mosques are situated. Neither side is ready yet to accept the other’s narrative. This is why the Ayalon-Nusseibeh initiative says we will waive authority over the Temple Mount, and they will do the same for the Western Wall.54 We say that the authority there will be divine authority. He’s responsible. The Israelis will serve as administrators for the Western Wall and the Palestinians for the Temple Mount. This is the solution; it is a utopian solution, but we must detonate a massive landmine. That’s why we’re taking a different approach.

What is the percentage of religious people who sign on the Israeli side?

11%. That’s been researched. We did a survey recently. I can’t remember the precise data; it’s very hard to determine. Some evidence, we weren’t surprised, shows that 50% vote left-wing, Labor Party,55 Meretz.56 More than 50%. That was foreseeable. But we don’t have an unequivocal profile put together of those who sign. I witnessed it when we toured the country and there was very little resistance and it was very easy to convince people to sign. Once I explained what we were, they signed. Everyone did. There’s no profile for someone who wouldn’t sign. Even settlers have signed, though not many.

How has the conflict affected your life?

It hasn’t much. On a personal level I’m not affected much, I served in the Territories when I was in the army. I don’t live beyond the Green Line;57 I don’t stand at checkpoints.

Do you still do reserve service?

Yes, but not in the Territories.

Do you not do reserve service in the Territories because you refuse to?

No! It’s just not my job anymore. I don’t go there anymore, so it’s not relevant for me. In the Movement for Realistic Religious Zionism we have people who’ve gone to jail for refusing to serve in the Territories,58 not many, but there are some.

What is most important for you to achieve?

My ideal is a democratic homeland for the Jewish people.

What does "a democratic homeland for the Jewish people" mean?

It means I live in my nation state, Israel; it’s my home and can be a shelter for any Jew, and be a democracy at the same time. I want to lead a normal life here in Israel.

Do you think that is contradictory - a democratic Jewish homeland?

It’s not in the political sense. There are problems on the level of religion, but they can be resolved. We have the technical tools. It isn’t a contradiction in my opinion.

Which external agents from abroad can influence the region in a positive manner?

There are many. The EU59 can exert its influence; the United States could change a lot here. There’s a lecturer at Ben-Gurion University60 who says that it’s simple: Israel’s policies are formed by external pressures. Everything is influenced, even legislation in the Knesset61; governments are ousted and established, so maybe it’s very influential.

I believe in the power vested in the people. The problem in Israel is that we haven’t yet internalized the concept of a civil society. We don’t believe in it yet, we don’t understand how much power the people hold. We work with leadership abroad on the initiative. We present it and hope to succeed in organizing a conference of some sort, an international conference that will deal with these issues.

Can you talk a little about previous peace processes and where you think they failed?

The point where we failed is what I talked about earlier. We never discussed the price tag or what we aspired to achieve in the end. We always put things off until the end and there was never any reason to, things should be discussed at present. That’s why we failed, we never talked things through. We never discussed the Palestinian State or what its borders would be. We discussed Jerusalem but things were never upfront, we never said, ”the straight talk is that Jerusalem will have to be divided“. Currents running through the country said this, rather than leadership. That’s the first place where the processes failed.

The next aspect is that talks were always held abroad, in Oslo, Geneva. They should have taken place here, no two ways about it. Talks should have been held here in order to avoid a sense of alienation, and they must not be secretive. The talks were secretive almost throughout the process and then suddenly we got the Oslo Accords.62 It should have been a gradual process, manifest; I mean gradual in the sense of exposure. That’s were I locate its biggest failure.

The failure in general was that you could say we didn’t comprehend the Palestinians and they didn’t understand us. We believed we were entering a process for peace in order to gain security, the Palestinians believed they entered the peace process in order to achieve a state. In 2000 we reached the state where there was neither security for the Israelis nor a state for the Palestinians. Neither side fulfilled its obligations in the agreement.

It’s a very interesting fact that between 1993 and 2000, while everyone talked of peace, traveled to Ramallah and Nablus,63 we never noticed the settler population multiplied. In 1992-3 there were some 100,000 settlers and in 2000 they became 200,000.64 The Palestinians witnessed this and couldn’t believe that we were discussing peace and on the other hand enlarging the settlements. They felt cheated! The same thing happened here. We couldn’t understand how they didn’t operate against Hamas. How could someone be in jail one day then released after two days and then in again? It’s what’s termed the ”revolving door policy.“ The Palestinians didn’t fight terrorism and we didn’t stop settlements.

Do you see any signs that it will be different next time around?

I told you I’m pessimistic. If it happens soon it will be because it is inevitable and not due to good will. That’s why I’m somewhat pessimistic. I’m positive that there are some terms that must exist in order for it to work: the process must be open, it must take place here and we must understand exactly what its toll will be. The people must partake in the process in terms of knowledge and awareness. We have to learn to put ourselves in the Palestinians’ shoes and they in ours. It’s difficult; there are many issues that can impinge. That’s why I’m pessimistic. I have hope-I haven’t stopped working in this field.

There’s something else of relevance here, more for Palestinian society. I’ll introduce it with a story. When I was young and handsome I served in Gaza. There was a watchtower that overlooked the soccer field. There was a game every Saturday, and it was a known fact that the losing side would get angry and throw stones at our watchtower. Why? By the way, if it was a tie there was a 50% chance -- either both teams’ fans stoned us together or they did nothing. Why? They couldn’t fight with each other, so they let loose at the first thing they saw, which was the Israeli Occupation. It’s an interesting phenomenon, but that’s pretty much what happened in 2000. There was a lot of pressure within Palestinian society. Prior to 2000 there were more articles in the Palestinian media that attacked the PA’s corruption than Israel. So the pressure was vented against Israel and not the Authority, because they are brothers.

The classic example is Marwan Barghouti.65 He is currently in an Israeli prison, but we forget that this man was a man of peace, someone who supported the peace processes, a partner in all sorts of projects. How did he suddenly become…he symbolizes the frustration of a certain class in Palestinian society. A class that felt it lost in both the intifada66 and the peace process. The “corrupted outsiders came and took over the finances”, and they vented that anger at Israel. That’s what’s being said today, we didn’t understand that in 2000, and we’re beginning to now. That’s an internal issue for the Palestinians, less an Israeli-Palestinian issue.

What are the roots of this conflict?

I don’t know what the roots are. Some will say a hundred years ago, some will say 1948.67 Others will claim that it all began in 570 upon the birth of Mohammed.68 Some will pinpoint it as starting on account of Abraham exiling Ishmael. I don’t know what the roots are! I don’t have an answer.

Does religion play an important role? Is it your classic conflict among nations?

It’s a nationalistic conflict that assumed religious characteristics; once it becomes a religious conflict there’s no chance because then there can be no middle way, it can only end in the triumph of one religion. Personally, I don’t view the conflict as being a religious one; it’s a proper conflict between nations in the approximately 100 years it’s existed.

What does the word peace mean for you?

It doesn’t have the best connotations. It connotes something very bad. Let’s put it this way: Israelis and Palestinians don’t believe in peace nowadays. It’s a term that we’ve exploited over the past 10 years, and we’ve tainted it. We kept speaking of peace and nothing happened. That’s why when I come to sell the Israeli society my views I don’t talk of peace because then I’d be told, “You’re talking nonsense.“ No, I talk of a divorce settlement. I believe that currently the two societies, Israeli and Palestinian, are ill societies. They are in critical condition, even if peace as it were arrived tomorrow morning and we were to reach a settlement, both societies would have to undergo rehabilitation, painful and difficult. If that’s what happens tomorrow morning then I really hope that my grandchildren will be able to live in ideal peace. But it will take a long time; I’m sure that when it does happen we’ll witness people going here and there but it won’t be a process and it won’t be profound. It will take a long time for us to emerge from this. Peace for me is an ideal I wish we could achieve.

Is there anything you’d like to add?

Maybe just one sentence. In the People’s Voice, our main advantage is that every side works with their people. That’s the mantra. We’re doing it for Israel and they’re doing it for a Palestinian State. They aren’t doing this for the Israelis and we aren’t doing it for the Palestinians. This is a patriotic initiative on the part of Israeli patriots and Palestinian patriots, each looking out for their own national interests. That’s the basis of our uniqueness and also perhaps our success.

In terms of peace processes and peace organizations’ failures, are there any successes to mention? Are there any people or movements that you appreciate, that you consider role models or have made any breakthrough progress?

On the Palestinian side, Fatah is a movement that made a breakthrough in general. If you look at Fatah today, in light of the movement in the 50’s, it’s come a long way, making large-scale changes, and it has succeeded. There’s a beginning of a Palestinian state. Aside from that, Palestinian extra-parliamentary movements are a new concept. There’s nothing to weigh it against. There are movements on the Israeli side that have succeeded; I believe in the drops adding up to become a sea. So one drop is the Geneva Initiative, and the People’s Voice, the conscientious objectors and Anarchists Against the Wall.69 Those drops add up and something will come of it. People always say that Four Mothers70 got the IDF71 out of Lebanon. True, there was a group called Four Mothers, but let’s not forget that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and withdrew in 2000. There were always protest movements over the period of 18 years. Four Mothers entered the picture at the end and gave the final push. There are groups that succeeded, but it’s very much about timing, when you act. People in Israel aren’t aware of the power of civil action. It’s a new concept here.

You mentioned the conscientious objectors. What do you think their effect is?

I mean generally, without referring to myself, the objectors’ movement is another bumper for halting the Occupation. I’m not saying it’s the most important. I don’t believe in revolutions, I believe in processes that take place gradually. If there are 10, 20 movements, each will contribute its own unique aspect, its touch, and there will be an agreement in the end.

End.