Israel’s Future in the Region: Conflict or Cooperation?
David Kimche1

I will get to the subject of Israel’s future in this region - conflict or cooperation - in a round-about manner. Since the beginning of Israel’s existence as a state, it has had the following four fundamental foreign policy ob­jectives:

1)       to obtain peace and security;

2)       to establish the economic well-being of its people;

3)       to politically consolidate its legitimacy (i.e. to achieve acceptance, understand­ing, and alliance with as many countries in the world as possible); and

4)       to fulfill the Zionist ideology and in par­ticular to encourage Jewish immigration.

Specific governmental policies, implemented by Labor or Likud, have reflected different emphases of these four national objectives. In the early days of Ben-Gurion, nation building and the fulfillment of the Zionist ide­ology were on top of the list; today peace and security are the first priority. Throughout most of Israel’s history, the goal of obtaining peace was an unrealistic fantasy rather than a clear, achievable objective, due to the complete and utter enmity between Israel and the Arab countries. The conflict between Israel and the Arab World was so deep that peace was not considered possible. The PLO’s declarations in the 1970s and early 1980s reveal the depth of the enmity and hatred that the PLO felt towards Israel. Although peace had been one of Israel’s four objectives, to a large ex­tent it had been merely wishful thinking for some far, distant future.

The big change came in 1977 with President Sadat’s incredible visit to Jerusalem. There was absolute ecstasy in Israel at Sadat’s re­ception; people went out of their minds. From that visit, Israel moved toward the peace agreement with Egypt. This was an extremely important step for Israel and, due to the lon­gevity of this treaty the relationship between the two countries serves as a useful model. Shortly after that visit I became director gen­eral in the Foreign Ministry and was largely responsible for the negotiations between Is­rael and Egypt both for the establishment of the Multi-National Force in the Sinai and, more importantly, for the normalization agree­ments between our two countries. In my first year of this position I went to Egypt 13 times, and in 1981 we made more than 40 different agreements, which shows the inten­sity of the dialogue. There was great enthusi­asm on both sides, and besides the political negotiations there was much talk about ex­change of youth, academic cooperation and other cultural ini­tiatives. In the first euphoria there was no limit to the extent to which Israel was willing to cooperate with Egypt. How­ever, for various reasons, the situation changed very rapidly.

Israel began to see that Egypt did not have the same enthusiasm for cooperation. I spent many hours asking the Egyptian foreign min­ister and other officials why not more effort was being made to eradicate the scars that fifty years of wars and hostility had left on both of our societies. I felt there was need to incorporate peace education as part of the school curricula in both countries, to initiate positive television programs and articles in the press. We complained about the lack of television time allocated to the Israeli ambas­sador to Egypt. One of the earliest agree­ments involved the establishment of an Israeli academic center in Cairo, and we invited Egypt to set up a similar academic center in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, offering all kind of help in establishing a strong Egyptian academic presence in Israel. However, the Egyptians rejected the idea and the Israeli academic center in Cairo became limited. We also be­gan to notice that any Egyptian who wished to trade with Israel would be questioned by the mukhabarat, which reflected the hostile climate towards peace within Egypt.

At that time, the Egyptian intellectuals under the leadership of the left-wing parties decided that Egyptians should not have anything to do with Israel, and should reject any normaliza­tion of relations between the Egyptian and Israeli people. Normalization became a hated word in Egypt, and many Egyptian intellectu­als consequently refused contact with all Is­raelis, even with those who believed strongly in peace such as the Peace Now organiza­tion. The lack of warmth in the peace with Egypt has become a weapon in the hands of those Israeli extremists who oppose the peace process; they point to the cold peace with Egypt as proof that Israel cannot hope to have normal relations with its Arab neighbors.

Given the hostility between Palestinians and Israelis, many Palestinians consider the Egyp­tian attitude to be justified. However, the Egyp­tian rejection of Israel was a very com­plex process, not only or even mainly due to the Palestine Question. Many Egyptian intel­lectu­als used Israel as a stick with which to hit the Egyptian government. Though many of these intellectuals were against the Sadat regime, they were unable to openly display their op­position. Thus Israel was used as a way of criticizing the government. Addition­ally, many Egyptian intellectuals felt very strongly that Israel was a rival and a threat to Egypt’s leadership in the Arab World. The fears of Egyp­tian intellectuals are vividly ex­pressed by the journalist Mohammed Heikal in an article that appeared in Al-Ahram:

Israel’s position on the question of Egyptian leadership is clear. Israel has always wanted to sideline Egypt, and has partially succeeded. The imposition of an Israeli peace on the re­gion neces­sarily implies that Egypt will even­tually be totally isolated. It will be ignored be­cause all the focus will be on the Fertile Cres­cent region and the Gulf. Egypt will find its sphere of influence confined to Africa, made unwelcome by the North African group, and forced to look south to the Sudan. We have a real conflict of interests here, which will give rise to an ongoing, long-term conflict. In the case of Egypt and Israel, conflict exists of ne­cessity, irrespective of our wishes. The con­tradictions between Egypt and Israel will exist even if we disregard the usur­pation of Pales­tine and the disposses­sion of the Palestinians. For many years to come, Egypt will be obliged to man­age a conflict of fundamental contradic­tion with Israel; one that has not ended and will not end in peace, at least not in our time.

For real cooperation, there has to be willing­ness from both sides. After 20 years of peace with Egypt, Israel has not managed to obtain cooperation from the Egyptians to the extent that they desire. However it must be stressed that the peace is solid, there are numerous contacts between Egyptians and Israelis in the economic field, Israeli tourists to Egypt are received warmly and there are no secu­rity problems between the two countries. This situation is likely to improve even more when Egypt realizes that Israel is not a threat to its leading position in the Middle East. Such change for the better is beginning with groups like the International Alliance for Arab-Israeli Peace, of which I am a member. This group was initiated in 1997 in cooperation with the Danes and functioned as a dialogue forum for Israeli and Egyptian intellectuals. After more than a year of regular meetings in Copenha­gen Jordanians and Palestinians were invited to participate, and this has brought about real communication between intellectuals from each of these countries. Today many Egyp­tian intellectuals have turned their backs to the ideology of silence toward Israelis, and there is a very lively dialogue going on through this Copenhagen Group.

In terms of dialogues between Israel and other Arab countries, I have had the opportu­nity to meet with many Arab leaders. In my discus­sions with them, I have been able to witness first-hand how they view the subject of coop­eration or conflict. Surprisingly, I have found curiosity instead of hostility in many countries in the Gulf and North Africa. I have explained Israel’s viewpoints and striven to improve its relations in numerous encounters with Arab ministers and heads of states. Al­though it cannot yet emerge openly, the Arab World’s perception of Israel is clearly chang­ing.

Cooperation serves the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. There is no con­ceivable alternative to cooperation. How­ever, this is much easier said than done. Unfortu­nately, both sides have displayed a tremen­dous amount of prejudice, ignorance, hostility, and stereotypical thinking. The aver­age Israeli has virtually no knowledge about Palestinians in particular or Arabs in general and, vice versa, this is the case for Palestini­ans as well. The average Israeli equates “Palestinian” with “terrorist”, which is the un­fortunate result of years of enmity and hostil­ity. Both peoples will have to work diligently in order to think in terms of the future and not in terms of the past. Only by thinking in terms of the future can proper cooperation be reached. There has certainly been injustice, but sometimes one has to put a big X on the past. That is what Germany and France did after World War II, what Israelis are doing with regard to Germany for all the pain and suffering experi­enced there, and what has to be done here. Shared civil activities and co­operative efforts in NGOs such as the Co­penhagen Group will pave the way toward true cooperation and the overcoming of prejudices.

In Israel we have an additional problem which is important to understand. The Jews are a peculiar people. Due to hundreds of years of persecution and of being considered as alien in many countries, they have developed an attitude of suspicion towards non-Jews. As a result of having lived together in ghettos, apart from others and unaccepted by the out­side world, the Jewish people have devel­oped an attitude of self-reliance: rely on other Jews, but not on other people. This is deeply embedded in the Jewish psyche and makes it all the more difficult for many Jews to accept close relations with non-Jews. Because of this and because of the years of enmity be­tween us and the Palestinians, a very thick layer of suspicion has built up; suspicion which Israelis have to cut through in order to ease their relationship with the Palestinians.

When Moses led the people out of Egypt he spent 40 years in the Sinai desert before he reached this country. The understanding was that the generation that had left Egypt had to die off, and that a new generation had to come in before they could live in this land. This is what has to happen in this country today as well. The old generation, that is, the people who came from Europe, the remnants from the Holocaust, and the people who came from other Arab countries are the gen­eration of the desert. The new generation that is born in this country will be able to reach out to the Pal­es­tinian neighbors. This task will be much easier for them, as they will not have all the psycho­logical burden that a person who survived Auschwitz still bears. The younger generation bears hope.

Another important factor in the future rela­tions is the changing world. Today’s world is very different than that which existed even 10 years ago. The Internet has brought a com­pletely new attitude, and in the new world of globalization, national borders and national­ism are becoming less important. In this global village, one has to learn to cooperate to avoid being left far behind. When com­pared with other parts of the world, the Middle East is already being left far behind. This can only change by looking ahead, and this is inher­ently connected with issues of regional­ism in its various meanings and in particular in the move toward the Mediterranean region, both in terms of trade and the Barcelona con­cept of ‘Mediterraneanism’ linked to the Euro­pean Union. Regionalism should thus relate to a Middle East that includes Israel, Turkey and maybe one day Iran, or even the Mediter­ranean region as a whole.

Ultimately, the key will be cooperation, par­ticularly between Palestinians and Israelis; everything else is secondary. The funda­mental issue is about this land and the inal­ienable rights of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is about finding a solution and I am optimis­tic in this regard, mainly because we are much closer to each other in ways of thinking, attitudes, and sense of humor than many people realize. I remember during the Oslo negotiations our legal expert once said, “It is unbelievable how close we became in those negotiations.” It may sound preposter­ous, but there is a great affinity between Pal­estinians and Israelis, we are much nearer to each other than we are to Europeans or Ameri­cans, and I believe that fact alone will eventually lead to mutual understanding.

Discussion

Participant: What are the fundamental things that changed your tradition from a man who worked in the Mossad to a man who works for peace and cooperation?

Dr. Kimche: In the founding meetings of the International Alliance for Arab-Israeli Peace, one participant had spent 17 years in an Is­raeli prison. I asked him exactly the same question - “What brought you to Copenhagen to look for ways to find peace with Israel after you have spent 17 years in an Israeli prison” - and he replied, “It is because I spent 17 years in prison. I was a fighter. I did everything I could for my people, and when there was a need to fight, I fought. And now I know that there is a need to make peace.”

It is exactly the same for me. When I was in the Mossad, I thought that what I was doing was good for my people. Today, I am also doing what I think is good for my people. In those days the PLO was our enemy, and we were frequently at war. I was working for my country in the same way that I am sure all of you would be willing to work for your own country. I believe it is time for peace now but even when I was in the Mossad I knew that one day we would have to live side-by-side in peace with the Palestinians.

Participant: How do Israelis perceive Islam?

Dr. Kimche: The tragedy is that Islam is hos­tile to Israel at the moment, and hopefully we can change this in the future. I know a bit about Islam from my studies and I do not consider it to be an extremist or violent relig­ion per se. In its purest form Islam does not condone violence as many Islamic move­ments do. Islam can be a moderating force, and I see no reason why Judaism and Islam cannot live together. However, the growth of the ex­tremist Muslim movements is a great danger. One of the reasons for the strength of these fundamentalist movements is the eco­nomic situation of their adherents, which will not change until there is real economic growth. A person who has no hope in the present world will look toward the future, the world to come. The economic problems in the Middle East region are one of the principal causes of the growth of Islamic fundamental­ism.

Israel is making a big effort, in its own way, to encourage countries in the West to give eco­nomic assistance to its neighbors in this re­gion. If you had said to an Israeli Likudnik 20 years ago that Israelis would be begging the Americans, French and English to give more help to the Palestinians he would have thought you were crazy, but this is exactly what is happening today. We understand that to achieve real peace everything must be done to improve the economic situation - es­pecially among the Palestinians.

Participant: Have you ever thought about Pal­es­tinian security?

Dr. Kimche In my opinion, the Palestinians are double victims: victims of the Jewish his­tory and victims of the last 50 years of en­mity. This is not completely the Israelis’ fault, but is also due to the terror acts perpetrated against Israel and Israelis for so many years. The Israelis who want peace try to do what they can, although it is not very much at the moment. However, I do believe very strongly that before the end of the year 2000 you will have your independent Palestinian state, not least because of the pressure those peace activists are putting on Israel. There is almost a consensus in Israel that there has to be a Palestinian state.

Participant: What does peace mean to you?

Dr. Kimche: For me peace means that we can develop close relations and cooperation with our neighbors. It means that the dangers of another war will diminish, people will have greater freedom of movement, and there will be better economic development. It means that we can become an integral part of this region and that eventually Arabs and Jews will become real cousins, neighbors who can live side by side in peace and tranquility without fearing one another.

Israelis have been brought up to yearn for peace. In the Jewish religion, the word ‘peace’ and the need for peace is very strong. This may sound paradoxical because it is often the religious Jews who are the most outspoken anti-peace faction in Israel. Many Israelis have lost relatives in the wars, and the people long for the day when it will no longer be necessary for every Israeli boy to join the army for at least three years and every Israeli girl for at least two. Unfortu­nately, there are still many who do not see the need for peace. For example, the majority of the Russian immi­grants are against giving back the Golan Heights to Syria. To them the mere idea of giving back land is very strange. This is different from mainstream Israelis.

Participant: Why should the Palestinians al­low the Israelis to benefit more than they do in the peace process?

Dr. Kimche: A large number of Israelis would say this exactly the other way around: “Why are we going to allow the Palestinians to benefit more than we do? Why should we give back tangible things like land for the sake of something we actually have already?” One must understand that people are living fairly well in Israel, even without the peace. We do not have the same problems of road­blocks and things like that. We need security and we have security, not because of peace, but because we have a strong army. Conse­quently, many Israelis feel that the Arab neighbors are benefiting more. The truth is that both sides are going to benefit, because peace is a win-win situation.

Peace will ease the Palestinians’ situation be­cause they will be living in their own state. With regard to the settlements, it is a tragedy that many Israelis are prisoners of the settle­ment policy. However, everything must be viewed in perspective. Although settlement activity may be increasing at the moment, with the advent of a Palestinian state some of the settlements will have to be disbanded, others will have to live under Palestinian law, and the rest will have to become a part of Israel. In other words, there is a solution and I hope in Sep­tember a capable PA will enable you to de­velop a strong dynamic country next to Israel, and that we will live in peace and cooperation.

While there is no ideal complete solution un­der which everybody can live happily ever after, there has been a gradual move forward to­wards a solution. With regard to the refu­gees, for instance, there is no possible way that all the Palestinians who want to return will be able to do so. It is a physical impossi­bility, which most Palestinian leaders under­stand and accept. Thus, there has to be a different solution, beginning with the removal of refu­gees from camps. It is a great shame that the refugee camps have remained for so many years despite the enormous wealth of the Arab world. Israel certainly has a respon­sibility to help find a solution for the Palestin­ian refugees.

The majority of Israelis want peace and un­derstand that in order to get there they have to give back territory. What I beg of you, as Palestinians, is to not be influenced by the extremists among the Jewish people whom you see on television. They make a lot of noise, but they are a minority and not repre­sentative of all Israelis. The majority of Is­raelis feel revulsion for the extremists among the settlers, especially for those in Hebron. The strongest element of Israeli society is still the secular element.