Article that was sent by Dr. Sari Hanafi to friends, and the response of Ben-Dror Yemini 
November, 2000
Really excellent article. Sari   

No, we are not who you thought we are  / By Musa Budeiri

In democracies, soldiers - characterized by a Teutonic mind set - are not usually reincarnated as political leaders. This is another area in which Israel does not conform to the dominant West European model. Perhaps this explains the ease with which the state opens fire on and kills its own citizens, and the near total consensus of its citizens with regard to the righteousness of such actions. What is even more puzzling is the inability of Israel's political leaders - whether they are embarking on murder missions (Barak in Beirut) or on negotiated settlements (Barak at Camp David) - to comprehend the Palestinian "other."  
After more than a century of Zionist emigration to a land without a people - with discoveries at various historical junctures that there are indeed forms of human life in this pocket-sized piece of territory, only to be followed by lapses of memory - there seems to be a sense of shock and betrayal pervading all shades of the political spectrum in light of the discovery that over the past seven years, the erstwhile enemy hesitantly transformed into a "peace partner," very unlike the partner it was perceived to be. The shock is real; the wound is deep!  Barak and the rest of the Zionist "peace camp" are indeed correct. The Palestinians are not who they thought they were. Some 50 years after the expulsion from Palestine and its dismemberment; 33 years after the onset of the occupation and the colonial regime instituted by the Jewish state; 18 years after the onslaught on Beirut, the siege and the bombardment; and eight years since the beginning of the Oslo process, which appeared to be the only practical alternative to Gaza refusing to "sink into the sea," the Palestinians are still the same. 
Whether in Jerusalem, Nablus, Acre, Damascus, Nazareth, Beirut or Amman, and whether traditional or modern, religious or secular, faithful or adulterous, left or right, apathetic or political, middle of the road or lunatic fringe, pragmatists or seekers of paradise, straight or gay, they have not become Zionists nor have they acquiesced  to their own dispossession and dehumanization.  Their grudging  support for the peace process, initiated at Madrid and Oslo, was their acceptance of a historic compromise to partition Palestine and to afford Israel and Israelis the opportunity to integrate themselves into the neighborhood. Notwithstanding the frequent disparaging references to the "unsuitability" of the neighborhood, Israelis are well advised to remember that they were not invited guests, but arrived here on the tailcoats of British bayonets. Those who are fond of referring to their aversion to the neighborhood are obviously suffering from historical amnesia.  The nature of the Central and Eastern European neighborhood from where their parents originated was the very reason that forced them to leave that particular neighborhood in the first place. 
To be sure, most went to "the new Jerusalem," but some made their way to Palestine, embarking on a colonial, nation-building project under the banner of a secular religion, Zionism, which was meant to liberate them from the shtetl and its medieval shackles. 
In any case, an earthquake soon overtook their original neighborhood and it was no more.  The perception of the Palestinians' current "betrayal" and consequent disqualification as "peace partners" says more about the substance of the "peace process" Israel wishes to impose both on the Palestinians and the region than all the proposals and agreements that have been circulating since a short-sighted and opportunistic Palestinian leadership acquiesced to Israeli dictates at Oslo.  Israeli politicians of all hues, buttressed by an ideological media reminiscent of the conformist-peddlers and opinion-enforcers of the recently-departed authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe, do not tire of repeating, parrot-style, the Barak/Ben-Ami line about the generosity of Israel's "for a limited time only" offer at Camp David. 
This has been handed to the Palestinians in the form of an ultimatum, with the implied, and often stated, rider that this is more than they justly deserve.  Israeli self-perception is that it is giving of itself. Whereas Palestinians perceive it as a compromise between Israelis and that the only serious negotiations in which the Israelis are prepared to indulge are negotiations among themselves.  
What is on offer is Sharon's plan of autonomy: no sovereignty, no territorial contiguity, the permanence of settlements, window-dressing in Jerusalem and, in effect, the establishment of a Palestistan, with a free option for the Palestinians to call it a state or even an empire if they so choose.  
Israel, variously characterized as "the only democracy in the Middle East," an ethnic democracy and a garrison democracy - among other laudatory titles - is openly transforming itself into an apartheid state. 
This is clearly evident in its treatment of its Palestinian minority, a million strong, who for fifty years were "tolerated" by a secular Zionist mindset, only to be redefined as "a cancer" and "a fifth column" the moment they dared express their identity as a Palestinian national minority in a state in which the intellectual elite are celebrating the arrival of multi-culturalism and post-Zionism.  
The Palestinians are not who you thought they are. Surprising or even shocking as it may appear, their perceptions of a peace settlement do not stem from the needs and requirements of Israeli security or the ever-lasting debate over the Jewish character of the state.  Perhaps foolishly, they view themselves as victims, initially of superpower rivalries and European conflicts. Since 1948, and in an age of nation states, they alone were deemed to be non-deserving.  Having arrived at Oslo, still foolish, they assumed that their acceptance of a two-state solution and their making do with less than a quarter of the territory of historic Palestine would satisfy Israeli demands for recognition and legitimation. This was the historic compromise and "peace of the brave" that would satisfy Israel and enable them to begin the reconstruction of their national life, shattered since 1948. All that was left was to negotiate the modalities of ending the occupation.  What transpired in the seven years since has made Palestinians realize that the Israelis are not who they thought they were. The Israeli search for a peace partner was confined to candidates within the Israeli political spectrum - the Likud, and perhaps the National Religious Party or Shas.   From an Israeli perspective, the task was not to end the occupation of the territories conquered in June 1967, but to reach a set-up that would enhance Israel's security by getting rid of the maximum number of Palestinian Arabs while retaining the maximum amount of Palestinian territory.  Authority over the Palestinians would be handed to Palestinians who would be entrusted with the task of safeguarding Israel's security, without being hampered by democratic niceties, contradictory as this may seem, in that Israel is probably the only country in the world which has legally sanctioned the use of torture and where assassination squads operate openly.  
The sense of betrayal felt in light of the Palestinians' refusal to continue with the charade of a peace process, the guiding light of which is the preponderance of military might and the use of force to pound the "peace partner" into submission, would be laughable, were it not for the tragedy it portends for all the inhabitants of the region.  
Israelis could do worse than re-read Hannah Arendt's trenchant critique, written as far back as 1945: "It will not be easy either to save the Jews or to save Palestine in the twentieth century; that it can be done with categories and methods of the nineteenth century seems, at the very least, highly improbable."    

(Dr. Budeiri lives in Jerusalem and teaches political science at Bir Zeit University) 

The response of Ben-Dror Yemini:
Dear Sari,
How are you? I know that we are having bad days. Bad days might take us back. We all, or at least many of us, tend to justify ourselves. The drums of war prevent us from thinking or listening. We might sacrifice everything, mainly our tolerance and common sense, because of passion of sorrow and enthusiasm. But we have to stop, to reconsider, and to wonder. The alternative is the very dangerous trap of self-convincing. I admit that it happened to me, and I'm afraid, not only one time. I'm afraid that it happened to you, after I red the article of Dr. Budeiri, and your enthusiasm. So, I felt that I must comment. 
I have no doubt that we are not going to agree, but assuming that you have some integrity (otherwise I wouldn't write), I dare to tell you that I'm disappointed. Well, the English of the Budeiri's article that you so much excited about is excellent, but the article, I'm sorry to say, is really horrible, and mainly disappointing. I'm not going to compete with the cynicism and the language, but yet, let me explain you why.
Maybe I'm a strange guy, but I think, with my strangeness, that we cannot ignore facts, while building argumentation. Yes, no doubt that the Palestinians are suffering from the occupation, humiliation, and some other awful and stupid actions from the Israeli part. But is it the whole picture? Can we ignore or forget who said so many times "NO"??? Can we forget the big 'no' to the partition resolution? Can we forget who declared war, that led to the 'nakba"? Can we forget who cold all the Arabs (they were not Palestinians in that days) to get out of the very young Israel, because they will get the houses of the Jews while coming back, very soon? 
Please, don't misunderstand me, I red the books of Morris and Pepe. But I must ask who helped the tragedy, which included deportation, take place. 
Let's keep on. 20 years there was no occupation. War declared, but not because of occupation. The main goal was to exterminate the Jewish State. No less. So yes, we were allowed to be paranoids. 
And then began the occupation. The very consensus in Israel, in those first days, was to return the territories, for peace. I hope you remember the 'no', 'no', 'no' of Khartoum. During all this years the extermination of Israel was the official and declared aim of the P.L.O. and most of the Arab world. So yes, we were allowed to be paranoids. 
Since we made awful things. I cannot deny it. I'm shame. 
It took long, but both sides came to conclusion that we cannot keep on like that anymore. We didn't agree, but from total denial of the 'other', we made a long progress. The Palestinians no longer declare that they dream to exterminate Israel, and Israel begun to understand that Palestinians have the right for self-determination and independence. 
I'm not going to argue about the Oslo process. I know that Palestinians hoped to some peace, and got almost nothing, in return. But I know that change will not come in one day. Barak offered 95% of the territories. You may say that it's not enough; but to say that "What is on offer (of Barak) is Sharon's plan" is disregard not only from reality, but also from integrity; but worth: it reminds me the very same argument of the right wingers in Israel: Arafat and Hamas are the same. So yes, I'm disappointed. 
I always hear that Israel is so strong, almost superpower; well, it's a lie. Israel is a very small country in the Middle East. Israel never wished to exterminate the Arabs, but so many times, till now, was threatened to be exterminated. So yes, it might look like if we are strong, but no, we are paranoids, and we get, almost every day, justifications. 
This is not all the story, but it's part of the story. I'm almost tired from writing articles, justifying the Palestinian point of view, understanding their misery, and condemning the humiliation, the settlements and occupation. I do it even if I'm not the most extremist in the peace camp. Some of us sound like if they are the spokesmen of the Fatach or the Tanzim. And what is your comment? You are mocking to the Israeli peace camp. You want us to be more religious then the Pop. I accept some aspects of the criticism, mainly about the western fundamentalism of the Israeli left, which remind me Kipling's poetry, about the march of the white man. But it doesn't purify the article, and even not the attitude towards the Israeli left. 
One more thing about western paternalism of the Israeli left: some of us "understand" the Palestinians point of view, about the holly places, like Haram Al Sharif. I don't really appreciate it. I think it's paternalistic. I think Jerusalem is holly, not only for Muslims, but also for Jews and Christians. But sometimes, you have to admit, you encourage this kind of paternalism, wich is disguised or pretend as "understanding". 
After all, the most important is that the Israeli left is not dealing with self-convincing, like you do. We criticize our government, we ask for more understanding, we lead the public opinion in the big and long fight for just peace. Yes, sometimes, allow me, we dare to criticize Arafat. We don't think, automatically, that he is saint and honest and fair. But what is wrong with it? Do you want us to be robots? 
What I expect is that you, Palestinian intellectuals, will give your people more then self-convincing. Don't ignore the refusal. Don't ignore the reasons of Israeli Paranoia. Don't be fond of us; it's not what we are asking. We are asking only for some understanding, like the understanding that we have for the Palestinian cause. No, we are not so strong, and the real picture that we see isn't an only little child with stones, confronting armed soldiers. The picture is much more complicated. We feel weak. We feel threatened, about our existence. And yes, we are looking for some integrity about the real facts, which led to the tragedy of the Palestinian people. It's our fault. We have to recognize it. We didn't do all the way, but we are not the only one to blame. If you have integrity, don't deny it. We all created the tragedy. We all should unite powers in easing it. 
These kinds of articles, like the Budeiri's article, are not excellent. The argumentation is completely the same argumentation of the right wingers in Israel: "All the Arabs are the same … Arafat and Yasin are the same … It's a betrayal to understand the Arabs … Arafat is a murderer", and so on. It does not serve any cause. It's childish. It serve the very same syndrome which the article is complaining about: it can be only part of internal self-convincing of Palestinians. This kind of article will never promote peace, or the end of occupation, but only will convince your people why not to make end to tragedy. I'm crying for any little Palestinian boy who is killed by Israelis. I don't want you to keep on justifying and sanctifying the death, but giving some hope, instead of justifications. 
Dear Sari, I write it to you, not because I think that you are going to agree with me; we both know that it's not going to happen. I address it to you, because in the very few times that we met, I didn't see an enemy. I saw a human being, with a huge desire to life, to humanity. So I want you to understand, that I write it because I want you to listen to the 'other', the very same way you want us to listen to your voice. 
I know that our common friend, Lisa, will not like us to enter to political debate. Maybe she is right. But just like you, we too, sometimes, wish to be understood. Yes, I know that it's your children who are killed, every day in these days. I cannot forget it, neither to ignore it. But yet I feel the very human need to communicate, to understand, and to be understood. 
I wish you the best, and I do hope that very soon it will be possible to meet. 

Best Regards,

Ben-Dror Yemini