RB: Mairead Maguire made a statement today in which she said that one of the major defects of democratic states is that we have empowered our governments to use state violence, denouncing Israel's war on Gaza alongside the US and UK military campaign in Afghanistan, and that of Russia in Chechnya. She said that we had to put a stop to this: there must be non-violence and non-killing in our democracies. How do you respond to this challenge? Galia Golan-Gild is Professor and Director of Conflict Resolution at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel. Galia founded the first program in women's studies for Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and is a leader of Peace Now (the Israeli peace movement), Bat Shalom (a Palestinian and Israeli women's joint venture for peace) and the International Women's Commission for a Just Peace. Galia is also a member of the executive of Meretz (Social Democratic Party) and is the author of nine books.
Galia Golan: What she said is very, very strong: but I think I agree with her. When you start to think of it, clearly the whole idea of sovereignty is the monopoly on the use of power - that is what modern states are built on. States are in the hands of men and men seem to have this ‘power' thing, whether it is hormonal or exactly what it is - I mean this very seriously: it is an issue of ‘power' - a horrifying state of affairs. You have to look at all these acts of warfare and ask: is it justified, and perhaps there are some differences between these instances, but maybe it comes down to the same thing.
I was horrified by the use of firepower by Israel on Gaza. From the very first moment I was really opposed to that war. Firstly, I don't think there are military solutions to these issues. There are times when you have to defend yourself. I recognise that a state, including Israel, can't permit its citizens to be subjected to rocket attacks all the time, and people living in the border areas were frightened. You can say that these Qassam rockets weren't very effective and that they only came over every so often, but the truth is that people were in fear and it is a government's right and obligation to do something. But I don't think that the military answer is the way to go. It wasn't going to stop the rockets, and the government and army have even admitted that they knew that this wasn't going to stop it, destroy Hamas or put an end to weapons smuggling through the tunnels. Even from their point of view it wasn't going to succeed.
There is no military answer to this issue: I said the same thing about the second Lebanon war - it simply is not the answer. But this went further. This was far worse because here you had one of the most densely populated areas in the world and we attacked this area from the air, from the sea, from the land, artillery, ships, planes, one-ton bombs - this, where the people had no place to run. Israel distributed leaflets saying 'Leave your home' - but they had no place to go to.
This was terrible. I must admit, I have never felt worse in terms of my own government. There was no justification for it, no justification.
RB: But there was majority support...
GG: Not only majority support. In the first days, 94% of the Jews of Israel supported it, and I must tell you very frankly, this was even in some ways worse for me than the act itself. It is not the majoritarian emphasis that we need to be singling out here: because one of the in-built essentials of any democracy is protecting the minority. No, but the support of the Israeli people came from two sources. One, it came from propaganda by the Government - everything was one-sided, almost brainwashing. Our private television channels were only showing how the occasional rocket would fall on Israel.
The second thing, though, is that for years and years, all the Israeli governments in succession, whether Labor or Likud, have played on people's fears. We see ourselves as victims - perpetual victims - and given our history, it is very easy to play on these fears. So this is what has happened. People were very disillusioned by the failure of the Oslo peace process. The second intifada had a traumatic effect on Israelis: we really did live in fear. The second intifada was very, very serious. Almost every day there was a terror attack, and it could happen anywhere. It didn't change people's opinions: you know, in Israel a majority of people still favour a two-state solution and negotiations. But they became persuaded that we had tried all of these things and - what did we get: terrorism. Israeli people really believe that there is no partner, and that Palestinians don'\t want peace.
If you argue with this, they say, well they elected Hamas! This is true - we in the peace movement have tried to have talks with Hamas too and they are not interested. What they want is a long-term ceasefire - a hudna - but they won't recognise Israel. They've said that - and that's true. Many Israelis, including people in the Israeli security forces, as well ( and I myself), have said that nevertheless you must talk to Hamas who have the support of more than 30% of the Palestinian people.) However, there is no denying that Hamas doesn't want negotiations or recognition of Israel's right to exist. This, I think, is what has led to this support for the military action, "It's against Hamas: they send over rockets!"
And it is also what has led to our recent elections and the failure of the left in those elections. It is almost a mirror image of what has happened to the Palestinians. In both societies, the disillusionment over the peace process, the failure of negotiations, whatever the reasons, end up with each side using force against the other. It has fed this extremism on both sides.
We don't have an economic crisis yet. We are heading for it and maybe this too will exacerbate the situation. But we in Israel have been living in fear since 1948; and when it looked like maybe things with the Palestinians were going to be resolved, we discovered the Iranian bomb. We somehow need an enemy and we need to feel threatened. It is this that is so hard to change in the mind-set of the Israeli public. There is a visceral Jewish attitude: we are in danger! And governments have really exploited that something terrible - in the obsession with the holocaust, and the way in which the holocaust is used - which is a travesty actually! The holocaust of course should never be forgotten. People should never be forgotten. But this has been exploited in a way that is unacceptable.
The truth is - our conflict is solvable. I've said this before. Since 1988, when the PLO accepted the two-state solution, we have been able to solve this conflict. There are issues - there's no question, issues of the refugees and Jerusalem - but the answers are out there. There have been so many blueprints and peace plans. I wrote a book about them. They are out there.
More tragic is the fact that the Israeli population is ready to do so. Even those who supported the Gaza war - the majority - are ready for various reasons to proceed with a two-state solution. You get exactly the same thing in Palestine. The majority are in favour of a two-state solution and of negotiation. And in both cases you also get a majority in favour of the use of force, or in the Palestinian case, violence. So what do you do with both of those things? In my opinion, if we had a leadership which would just go that extra mile, this could be solved. I thought we had it, frankly, with Olmert - that he was going in the right direction. But he didn't do it, and he could have done it. Meanwhile, Abu Mazen has been losing strength, which is our fault in my opinion. Hamas gets stronger, and our right wing gets stronger; and it is exactly the same process that is taking place on both sides.
RB: How do you view US-led international community support for Israel, and the Durban Review Conference walk-out and so forth ?
GG: Criticism of Israel at the Durban World Conference on Racism always played into the hands of the Israeli right wing. It is the same story, in my view, as all the talk of boycott and divestment. These are very serious issues that must be addressed, but I'm afraid that this will just play straight into the hands of the right wing: "You see, they all hate us. We are isolated. Rally around the flagpole!" I'm very concerned that it wouldn't work.
But I do think that we stand a chance with the United States, because the United States is the only international actor that really has influence over Israel. The relationship between Israel and the United States is very important to Israelis. The deterioration in that relationship that occurred under Shamir was a factor in the 1992 elections that brought Rabin and the Labour Party back to power, and Netanyahu knows this, which is why he got the Labour Party on board and has tried to get a more moderate government. He knows that the public is not happy with poor relations with the United States. I think he is going to go to Washington and we will be told that we are continuing with the negotiations. I only hope that the Americans will continue in the direction in which they seem to be going - ‘We don't want any of your stalling and rhetoric' - They can do it: they can press for it. Of course, it's not very wise to count on outside help to come and save us. But I really don't see what other factor would make a difference within Israel, if not the international community.
RB: A few years ago, we are told, Israelis would have been concerned about Palestinian civilians being killed in Gaza and that this is no longer the case.
GG: That's right: that's absolutely true. It's horrifying. One reason is Hamas - Hamas gives you the freedom to say or think anything that you want. They don't want peace and they don't want negotiations. The other reason is the second intifada. It is this sense, "They kill our civilians - why should we care about their civilians?" It is as if what has happened in Israel is that the restraints that are on every human being have been taken off. As if any evil thought you might ever have entertained is now legitimate to say out loud. Things are being said today, and said by officials today - that people wouldn't have dreamt of saying ten years ago.
But to be very frank with you, although there might be a lot of psychological issues here that are going to take a long time to heal, I always go back to Sadat's visit. Two days before he came to Jerusalem, no-one would give you the time of day for the Egyptians - "What! You can't trust them! Golda Meir used to say that any Arab leader who made an agreement with Israel would be assassinated and so on..." Sadat came. It was an extraordinary act. When he came and spoke in the Knesset, he didn't say anything he hadn't said before, ‘A Palestinian state - pre-1967 borders - Jerusalem the capital', but he said over and over again, ‘We accept you in the region ... we welcome you here... you are part of the region.' And overnight there was a transformation. So, I am not concerned about putting the genie back into the bottle. I saw the change: all of a sudden my neighbours - I didn't know, they were Israelis - were proud to say, ‘Ah yes. We were born in Egypt. We are Egyptian Jews.' I also remember during Oslo. All of a sudden there was this outpouring, all of these people who wanted to do joint things with Palestinians. Not for money. They just wanted to meet Palestinians. Overnight.
I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about getting there: having an agreement, and then we can change attitudes. But, although I'm not one who believes hugely in leadership: for that, we need leadership. I am convinced that the population is ready and would go for it. But I don't know what it is that has prevented it at the top level.
Let me say one more thing about the international community. Tzipi Livni, as you know, comes from this very right wing family and certainly is right wing. She came out and believes very firmly now in a two-state solution - whatever the exact borders would be, however she envisages it. She has a way to go yet, but she is convinced that Israel must have a two-state solution, that we must have a Palestinian state. Why? Because she is a Zionist. She doesn't use the demographic argument like Sharon, Olmert and the others. (Let them use it. It's a little racist, but if that convinces them - OK.) No - her conviction came from something else. I heard her speak to a group of Peace Now people from abroad, and what she said was this: that Israel was losing its legitimacy as a state in Europe. People are questioning the legitimacy of the state of Israel and that was for her the critical point of no return. Something had to be done about it. And it is true. As a Zionist - and by the way, I am still a Zionist - I do believe that as Jews we have a right to self-determination and I do believe we have a right to a state. I am horrified that it is at this price to the Palestinians, and therefore of course I work for an end to the Occupation and a peaceful solution. But in Livni's case it is very, very interesting that it is the realisation that we are losing, certainly our moral legitimacy, and now possibly our legitimacy as a state - this is what has decided her.
Unfortunately, she too was unwilling when it came to it to make the necessary compromises. The word ‘compromise' here is a euphemism. One very interesting thing that has emerged clearly from our work with Palestinian women is the whole issue of asymmetry. We are the powerful ones and they are under occupation. Israel only ever goes into negotiations in which there is no recognition of that asymmetry. It is the same for the Israeli public: we are constantly told and we assume that we are equals, and so - each side has to compromise. That has been a fatal flaw. The true Israeli position on the West Bank and to some extent Gaza (though not of course the official position) does not view our presence as an occupation. What they say is that this is disputed territory because there was no sovereign before, nobody recognised Jordan's annexation and so on and so forth. So the attitude going into negotiations is that we are equal sides in conflict over this disputed piece of land.
The creation of a Palestinian Authority with its leaders calling themselves a Government and Ministers, only fuelled this delusion of equal status. It was a serious mistake. They are under occupation. They are not equal. And when I say that Israel has to make certain ‘compromises' - what I really mean to say is that what Israel has to do is only what is due to the Palestinian people. Nevertheless, this is how Israelis see it, that they are going to have to ‘give up something'. You need a strong leadership to get something like that across. Rabin could have done it. Livni, I don't think, was strong enough.
As for Netanyahu, there is no chance at all. It is conceivable - not very likely - that he will go for a deal with the Syrians. I'm very, very pessimistic. If the Palestinians can get their national unity government back together, and the Quartet can change their position about Hamas, perhaps we may see some progress. This was one of our critical mistakes on the part of Israel and the international community - not to deal with the national unity government of Hamas and Fateh.
Finally, there is one other glimmer of light. That is the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab Peace Initiative is I think, for us, the most significant thing that has happened to us since the creation of the state of Israel. It is an extraordinary document, and there are people in Israel who realise it. It offers us everything we should want: to get out of these territories, an end to conflict, normal relations, security, an agreed solution to the refugee question, - what more does Israel want? What more did Sadat offer? It is acceptance in the region and the end of conflict. You have the whole Arab League, the entire Arab world behind it - how could even Hamas stop it?
The problem is, to believe in the Arab Peace Initiative, Israelis must have a partner they can believe in and we have destroyed the partner: the partner was first Arafat, then Abu Mazen, and the tactic was to strengthen Abu Mazen so that Hamas would wither away - but we didn't strengthen him. We didn't do anything except make a laughing stock out of him. If anything, Abu Mazen is now viewed as a collaborator in the war on Gaza. So Hamas has got stronger and not weaker: maybe also slightly weaker in Gaza now because of the war - but Hamas is stronger now on the West Bank. Now we have a new reason for saying that Israel has no partner. The internal Palestinian situation which we helped to create is a great excuse and a terrible mess. We may be in for some dark times.
But as I say the conflict could be resolved within weeks, days. And it almost was a few times.
