The Right Way to Play The Game: Keep Our True
Goals In Mind By Rabbi DONNIEL HARTMAN
(president Hartman institute Jerusalem )
The game, Red Light, Green Light 1-2-3, like most children's
games, has clear rules, an achievable goal, and is relatively easy to play. The
goal is to be the first one to touch the wall without one's progress being
detected. To succeed one must take small, incremental steps, coupled with
moments of boldness when the opportunity arises. An interesting feature of this
game is that one doesn’t get to determine for oneself whether one has been
caught moving. It is a game of interaction in which someone else reviews one's
actions and calls you on them. Individual protests, such as, "I wasn't
moving," or "You didn't see me," are of no avail, unless, of
course, one wants to break up the game.
There is often something very childish about the way Middle
Eastern politics plays itself out, and it has often been compared to playground
squabbles. The problem with this analogy is two-fold. The deadly consequences
of "the game" and what is at stake is one of them. The second is that
in the playground, one's actions are defined by the goals, which are agreed
upon and very clear: for example, in "Red Light, Green Light," to be the
first to touch the wall. One of the great failings of both Palestinian and
Israeli actions this past week is that we aren't functioning adequately even by
playground standards.
Both Israeli and Palestinian leadership have professed loyalty
to the following aspirations and goals: for Palestinians, to achieve real,
national independence and prosperity for their people alongside Israel ;
for Israelis, to attain real peace and viable security within the context of a
two-state solution. If this is truly agreed upon, the question is, "how to
touch the wall" together.
If Palestinians are really committed to national independence alongside Israel ,
negotiations with Israel
would be the self-evident and recognized path to achieve this end. Unilateral
action is never conducive to the cooperation and partnership essential for a
viable Palestinian entity alongside Israel . If Israel 's
aim is to achieve peace and security within the context of a two-state
solution, at the very least, no policy would be adopted which would sabotage
this aspiration. Settlement expansion which undermines the viability of an
independent Palestinian state and our ability to one day separate from each
other into two distinct entities is simply self-destructive to Israel 's
own stated goals. Instead of playing with each other we seem to be more
committed to playing by ourselves, to adopting actions which "play
well" to the home audiences but get us no closer to our goals.
As a Jew and as an Israeli, I am deeply frustrated by much of
the actions of the Palestinian Authority and leadership and have serious doubts
as to the Palestinian people's commitment to live alongside me in mutual peace
and security. This has caused many of us here in Israel to question whether our
goals are achievable in our lifetime. In this context, it is understandable to
respond with caution and to avoid potentially self-destructive policies which
put Israel
at risk. It is another thing altogether, to be self-destructive and to put our
own goals at risk.
The dramatic declaration of Israel 's government on settlement
expansion this week is akin to making a bold dash in "Red Light, Green
Light," but running in the wrong direction.
Settlement expansion within the settlement blocs and in Jerusalem is one thing, and is in accord with
a very broad Israeli consensus, commensurate with our and much of the world's
notion of the borders which will ultimately demarcate the two-state solution.
Settlement building in E-1 or in any area which will eventually be a part of
the future Palestinian state is simply stupid, harmful to Israel , and legitimately questions
what game we are really playing.
When Israel 's
actions reflect our legitimate security concerns and we act in a measured and
thoughtful manner toward a clear and justifiable goal, as we saw in the recent
Operation Pillar of Defense, not only are we not called "out," but we
find ourselves supported by our friends around the world. We can make a case
regarding our significant security concerns in the context of a future
Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria alongside
Israel .
We can also make a case that realities on the ground, such as the settlement
blocs and Jerusalem
where 80 percent of the settlers live, whether initially justifiable or not,
must factor into any future border demarcations. When we make these cases, and
only these cases, we clearly align ourselves with the values of peace, human
dignity, freedom, and democracy on which the State of Israel is founded. When
we make these cases, and only these cases, we align ourselves with the best of
what our tradition stands for. When we do so we are also not alone.
However, when we align ourselves with policies devoid of vision
and hope, policies grounded on our own internal narratives of holiness of the
land and messianic politics, policies which pander to shallow nationalistic
delusions in an election season, we have no case to make. It should not take us
by surprise, therefore, that in light of our recent decision we find ourselves
aligned with no one and playing alone. Just as in “Red Light, Green Light” it
is useless to argue, "I didn't move," it will be futile for Israel
to attempt to justify its recent decision. This is not faulty public relations
but faulty policy. It was a power play aimed at responding to a Palestinian
power play. It was not merely inappropriate for the playground, but unbefitting
to the State of Israel and our values.