Although it is readily apparent who ‘they’ are in Vaculík’s statement, it is not always as clear as snow.  When we first got to know each other and started talking about our shared vision of what the Israeli-Palestinian resolutionwould look like, it was obvious that we all have not only different narratives of the conflict, but also different ways of understanding each other.  Palestinians, Israelis, and Europeans all have different pragmatisms, but we all share remarkably similar ethics.  These ethics come down to the issue of respect.  Yet, when the structures of violence pervade almost all aspects of life, respecting others in Israel-Palestine is not always easy.  Nevertheless, respect is possible.

 Who could have imagined a group of future leaders from opposing sides, dancing together, drinking together, and sharing each other’s fears and concerns during a time of such tension in the region?  Although our activities could not have taken place in Israel or Palestine, the fact that they are possible is itself a sign of mutual respect, a sign of hope.  The conclusions which we reached are another.  We did solve the conflict, even if our current leaders seem to be incapable of it.  And we did it by respecting what each other has to say.

 The immense progress which we made in our work groups leads me to ask whether trusting each other is not such a distant possibility.  Trust is a leap of faith, it reveals the self more than it does the other, but it relies on the other’s actions.  Does this mean that to trust you have to take a chance on the other, or does this mean that you have to be willing to risk your own security?  I have no answer to this question, but I believe that ultimately trust is possible.  Trust is possible because in the end, Israelis and Palestinians are asking for the same thing.

 Often the claims made by both Israelis and Palestinians sound right.  Israelis are correct in saying that it is intolerable to live under the conditions of suicide bombings.  Palestinians are correct in saying that it is intolerable to live under the conditions of a humiliating occupation.  Why should one people privilege their claims at the expense of the other when both sides are making reasonable demands: end suicide bombings and end the occupation.  Jerusalem, the refugee problem, and land rights are not the underlying issue.  The underlying issue is about life.  What sort of life do ‘I’ want in Israel or in Palestine?  What has happened is that property rights have trumped human rights, on both sides.  As a member of the security and fear working group, the radical solution which we agreed on is, I believe, proof that we can trust, and that we ultimately recognize that what is at stake is life itself.  Moreover, we are aware that life is about understanding as best one can, and respecting the other.  It is a respect and an engagement with difference which underlies life, politics, peace, and security.

It was Edward Said who wrote that, “…just as no Jew in the last hundred years has been untouched by Zionism, so too no Palestinian has been unmarked by it.”  As controversial as it sounds, I would propose that this touch and this mark can be a source for possibility for all sides.  In my last conversation at the conference I said that as a Zionist I have to believe in the right of Palestinian statehood; the logic of Zionism, as an ideology of statehood, compels me to.  Emmanuel Lévinas, one of my favourite thinkers, wrote that the question about life itself is not, “Is my life righteous?” but “Is it righteous to be?”  He tells us that life is about the other, that life is about ethics, and that an ethical obligation to the other is the commandment of life itself.  I believe, as a human being, and as a Jew, that we have an obligation to take the mark and touch of Zionism and make if flourish for everyone, not only a privileged few. 

I believe that the conference was proof that it is possible for us to flourish together, although it is not always easy or even apparent how to do so.  The proof is that we saw solutions to be creating sites of understanding and conditions of possibility for togetherness, instead of drawing lines (or walls) in the sand.

However as we also learned, it is all too easy to slip back into an us versus them logic, to revert to uncertainty and mistrust, and attempt to claim the truth of what is really going on and why.  “Yes, but”, was probably one of the most often used combination of words, and it proved to be one of the most destructive combinations.  At once it responds to what the other said, and yet ignores what the other said, trying to colonize his or her voice to suit an alternative impression of reality; in uttering these two words both speech and listening are at risk because these two words are contrary to real communication, and instead find as their audience a solipsistic morality, however noble the intentions might be.