Messiah in Jerusalem. Wow, I sure am glad I arrived in time, I thought.

Last Wednesday, when I returned to Jerusalem after working in the
Tel Aviv studio of IsraelSeen.com preparing a new audio program I was
struck by a sign carried on the side of a local Jerusalem Egged bus.

In big letters “Maseach b’Yerushaliyim”, Messiah in Jerusalem. Wow,
I sure am glad I arrived in time, I thought. Underneath it read;
“Messiah demands; not to give up one centimeter (less than half an
inch) of Jerusalem!”

jordan,west bank
Yesterday I traveled to
the village of Ba’tir to make a congratulations call on a friend and
his family. Batir village is a few hundred yards from my house in
Moshav Aminadav.

Its lies across the narrow valley that separated Israel from Jordan
for nineteen years, and through which the train to Jerusalem has
traveled for more than one hundred years.

Driving into the village I notice; on just about every available
building wall facing the road through Batir is a powerful political
image/icon.

What on this side of the valley is called “Eretz Yisrael HaShlemah”
The Whole of the Land of Israel, but in this case it’s the whole of
Palestine, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. It is
painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. The Galilee is in a kind
of speckled red, the remainder of the country is divided in thirds, one
rectangle black other white and the third green. A visually powerful
political educational statement.

Several months ago the current Minister of Education the Labor
Parties Yuli Tamir directed a change/addition to history text books
used by Israeli students. Evidently previously there was no mention of
the physical form the state took in its first nineteen years of
existence. If one did not know better, our children were educated to
believe as fact that the state called Israel, of which they were
citizens, had always consisted of all the lands between the
Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

In other words, from the point of view of our educational system
the state of Israel as it existed and functioned for its first nineteen
years was “Eretz Yisrael HaSheleama” the whole of the land of Israel.
The first nineteen years, in which more than a million emigrants were
absorbed from the ashes of Europe and the Arab world, cities were
built, villages were established and army developed, never existed.
Everything that had been accomplished has been within a state in the
physical form we have become accustomed to.

The announcement of this change, as could be expected, stimulated a
cascade of loud angry and outraged voices. Voices complaining of the
betrayal of the nation. Of abandoning Zionism. And so on. It seemed
that the reality as it existed for nineteen years was some kind of
illusion, rather than a verifiable historical fact. A whole segment of
our society seemed to believe that our children would simply not
believe anyone who told them anything different. How short sighted, how
foolish to think that we could by force of will change the facts
recorded in the history books and newspapers. Facts documented in
libraries and institutions all over the world.

If one was to believe that the Israel/Palestinian/Arab conflict
could be brought to a state of reconciliation in which the two peoples
could live as neighbors. Neighbors, each one focusing their primary
energies on the growth of their individual national welfare and
abilities. Invent the creative energies on bettering the lives of their
peoples. Contributing to the welfare of the living community of this
planet. Then we must understand and accept that compromises will have
to be made. We must acknowledge that over the years we have been guilty
of fostering beliefs in our respective peoples that were intended and
will succeed in preventing any such compromises from being possible.

On this side of the original border we will need to acknowledge the
limitations of our national geographic goals. We will need to “choose
life” over land so that we and our children can live.

On the other side the same choices will need to be made. It is not too soon to begin this necessary process.

We must also be aware that there are sections of the land that present particularly difficult challenges in redistributing.

A nice section of the main Tel Aviv – Jerusalem highway runs through the former Jordanian territory.

The road east, from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea can not be allowed to
become off limits to Israelis traveling to there. It is unacceptable
that Israelis would need again to drive east to Latrun, then south to
Arad, then east again to the southern end of the Dead Sea, then north
to Ein Gedi and Massada.

From our side of the valley there needs to be some hard sharp
concentrated objective conversations about our needs in relation to our
wants regarding lands we are willing and able to give up and turn over
to any future Palestinian entity. This needs to be done regardless of
the realistic possibility of a real lasting arrangement. If for no
other reason then for the sake of the exercise in rational discourse
that it would entail.

We have become all too accustomed to undertaking a difficult and
emotionally exhausting struggle between ourselves over the terms and
conditions under which we can and will relinquish lands we now have
control over. Ehud Barak underwent this same exercise before the 2000
Camp David encounter. He and we spent months in agonizing discourse
over our willingness to exchange which lands for an agreement with the
Palestinians. When he/we finally concluded the negotiations with
ourselves and turned to the Palestinians we were already exhausted and
could not understand how it was that they too did not understand that
we had already undergone a difficult period of discussions and our
conclusions, (with ourselves) were over and done!

Yes, there is need for us to arrive at our own bargaining positions
based on our understandings of our needs. But they must include a
realistic appraisal of the Palestinians needs as they understand them.

That means that they too must engage themselves in a difficult but
realistic process of understanding what is possible as opposed to what
is desired.

Are they capable, are we?

The challenge is: which of us will reach the age of maturity first?