By Joel Magalnick, Editor, JTNews
Ami Ayalon, who in his 66 years has been an Israeli naval commander, head of the Shin Bet security services, and a Knesset member, joined with Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh eight years ago to promote a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite both sides’ moves in opposite directions in that time, Ayalon continues to promote his solution. He visited Seattle on Oct. 24 to speak at a fundraising event for J Street. He met with JTNews prior to his appearance.
JTNews: What makes you believe that two states is the only workable solution to this conflict?
Ami Ayalon: The whole idea of Israel is to see Israel as a Jewish democracy. We will not be able to accomplish it unless we create a reality of two states. Because otherwise, if we are not a majority in our state, we do not have the right to dictate the language, the culture, the stories that we tell our children in school.
I think that although it is very difficult and it didn’t work for the last 20 years, we don’t have the luxury to give up and to give up on hope. And I believe that by creating this reality the immediate result will be the [reduction] of instability and violence.
It’s a stormy area, but I think to the people who live in the Middle East,
probably even the United States, it is obvious that the main source of immediate instability in the Arab street is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a way, many groups are using it in order to create hatred. So I think that by doing it, we shall not only achieve our goal, which is to come closer to see Israel as a true democracy, but we shall create more stability, [and] we shall be able to create a more pragmatic atmosphere in which on a shared interest we will be able to bring together some players like Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan to face Iran, to face fundamentalism, radicalism. This is the whole idea.
JT: What avenue must be taken for new peace or friendship to be reached?
AA: First of all, peace is a term that I am not sure we understand in the region. We speak of political agreements and reducing violence, stability, whatever you call it. Peace is still far away. I believe that we Israelis — and in a way this is the center of all of what I’m saying — even in the middle of a storm, we cannot stop the wind and we cannot control and stop the storm. But we can decide on the course of our ship.
The time for direct negotiations is over. The window of opportunity is closed. In a way, we were marching backward in the last two years.
I don’t think that Abu Mazen can give us what he could give us three years ago or two years ago. We lost the support of the pragmatic leadership: Egypt, [Ehud] Barak. On the other hand, I don’t think that Bibi Netanyahu will offer what Ehud Olmert offered three years ago.
It is too important for us to wait. Since all of us know what will be the parameters of the negotiated agreement, even if it will take five or 10 years, it will be based on Clinton parameters, or Ayalon-Nusseibeh — it’s all the same.
We should head independently in this direction. For example, tomorrow we should pass a resolution to stop every construction of settlements on the eastern side of the fence, but we should go on building in the major settlements on the western side of the fence that will be even with the exchange of territory. We should stop building in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, but we should go on building in the Jewish neighborhoods. We can and we should pass the law of bringing back the settlers who wish to return who are living on the east side of the fence. According to our polls, 20,000 of them would do it tomorrow. They are looking for legitimacy and compensation.
Imagine for the first time since ‘67, Palestinians and the international community will see settlers coming back. So I believe it will create the missing part. It will create some confidence and trust.
JT: Bibi stood up in front of the UN and said “We’re ready, let’s start doing something.” Wasn’t that movement?
AA: I do not believe the words anymore, or the promises. I want to see action on the ground. If somebody is ready to move forward he should not oppose to bring back those settlers who are living in a territory that everybody understands will not be under sovereignty of Israel. I think that morally we do not have the right to send troops to fight there.
Anybody who tells me, “Look, I want to move forward but I don’t have a partner,” this is the dictionary of blame. We are doing it during the last 20 years, 60 years, 100 years. We are killing each other and we feel great because we blame them, and they are doing the same for us.
JT: So how do you move forward when the right players are not in place?
AA: I believe that in a time of confusion, and when the storm reaches us, the people are looking for new ideas. And this is why it is very important to create these ideas. I used to hope that we should understand before we reach the storm. Probably we can avoid the storm. But I have to admit that sometimes people do not understand before we face the storm itself.
JT: If the UN body votes for an independent Palestine, how does that change this equation?
AA: If this will be the decision, I think we should say, “Okay, we accept it, now let’s negotiate the borders.” I think that if we shall not do it, I’m afraid that when 80 percent or 85 percent of the states in the world accept Palestine along the lines of ‘67, if we shall not join this process I believe that Israel will be more isolated and the idea of two states will be more difficult to achieve.
I’d prefer to negotiate with a state than with an organization. With a state, for example, the right of return, the state cannot demand sending people to Israel. If you are a state, it is your duty to bring back your people exactly the same that Israel [has done] since ‘48. I believe that the first law they will pass will be the law of return for Palestinian refugees to Palestine. It’s okay. It’s great. I just want to see it happening.