Speech of Noam Livne, israelian peace activist, on Humanist Forum in Milano.

Saturday, October 18, 2008.

Hello to everyone, and thanks for coming.

I was born in a kibbutz in Israel. I was always what is called in Israel a "leftist". But, in Israel, due to its unique history, a special kind of "leftism" was formed. It is an attempt to combine humanism with nationalism. So, I always opposed the settlements in the occupied territories (OT) in Israel, and thought a Palestinian state should be established next to Israel. I deeply believed that all people are born equal, and deserve equal rights.

But, I was also raised on the worship to the army. In Israel, the army is the most popular brand. The army is injected to your blood from the day you are born. From your first days, you know you are going to serve 3 years in the army when you get older. Wherever you go, you see young people in uniform. There are children' books about the army, and during high school you have a week's training in an army base. They use the army to advertise cheese and cellular phones. So, as a teenager in a kibbutz, I knew in what unit everyone in the kibbutz served, and knew in what units I want to serve. I will discuss the reason for this phenomenon later.

During my service, I became an officer, so I had to serve another extra year. During this time I spent some periods in the occupied territories. This was opposed to my beliefs, but a few reasons enabled me to do it:

1) It was during the Oslo peace talks, and it seemed these are the last days of the conflict, and we just need to "keep things quiet" until the final resolution.

2) On the face of it, locally, my missions were not immoral to my opinion: I had to escort children to school, command ambushes against Palestinian attempts to attack the settlers, etc.

3) I was part of a big "herd" of men. It takes a lot of courage and strength to go against it. It's easier to run into the enemy's bullets than turn against your social surrounding.

After I enlisted from the army, I traveled around the world for a while. When I came back, I read a lot on what's going on in the OT, and just after I finished reading Elsa Morante's la historia, eight years ago, I was summoned, as a reserve soldier, to serve in the OT. I was older, wiser, and it was just after the Camp David peace negotiations had failed. This time I had no illusions. I believed the army's presence in the OT has got nothing to do with Israel's security, and that there is simply no justification for the occupation. In fact, the only reason for the presence of the army in the OT is the settlements, which I deeply object.

Yet, deciding to refuse was extremely hard. It was one of the hardest decisions I had ever took. I guess no one that hasn't been there can really understand it. It was going against all I was raised upon. It was pulling myself out of society, and turning "against" it. It was implicitly saying "you are all wrong". It was knowing I will be called a "traitor", a "coward", an "egoist". But, once I understood the moral choice here, I could not lie to myself. I could have chosen an easier way out. Some people go to the psychiatrist and act mad, others buy a ticket abroad for the time period of the service. But, I decided I'm going to declare my refusal upfront. I knew the meaning would be that I will be jailed, but this was my intention. I wanted to be able to say, to others and to myself, that I didn't take the easy way out, that my choice was not made out of convenience. I wanted to be able to declare that my choice was a moral choice, and by this to challenge my objectors.

So I refused. I informed my commanders that I am willing to perform any task which is defensive, but my feet will not cross the green line. I will not take any part in the occupation. Of course, my commanders did not accept it, and I was jailed. Later, together with other refuseniks, we formed a group, Courage to Refuse, and became very enthusiastic peace activists. We defined our main objective as to end the occupation. We organized dozens of demos and activities, which delivered focused messages against the occupation. We raised a lot of attention from the media.

My refusal, together with my activism, started a very long and deep process, in which I reconsidered everything I was taught and raised upon all my life. Once you start disconnecting yourself from the brain washing and indoctrination you absorbed all your life, you can never stop. (At least I can't…) It took me a lot of time to feel the same pain when I hear about a Palestinian casualty, as when I hear about an Israeli one. Today, I believe, I am much closer to observing reality without preconditions caused by my formal nationality, by my personal history, by the Israeli indoctrination. Thus, I think my ability to see clearly the Israeli-Arab conflict is much greater. And this is what I see:

● When the Camp David negotiations failed, people asked "what went wrong". But the problems were not in the details. The problems were much deeper. Peace could not be achieved in Camp David, because the two peoples were not, and still are not, in a situation where they can agree on a solution. They cannot "meet in the middle". There is a certain extent to how much a leader can go towards the other side, while still feeling the people are behind him. He will never go further, because he doesn't want to loose his support. So, the two leaders could not "meet in the middle".

● Thus, today, as an activist, I don't believe in trying to affect the leaders' decisions, but rather try to affect the people's perceptions. Consequently, I don't think in perspective of days, but rather of decades.

● I believe today the two peoples are far from being able to end the conflict. Both sides are dominated by misconceptions. I will now list the major ones, to my opinion.

The Israelis:

● Since the Israeli narrative is dominated by the shoah (holocaust), they cannot understand that what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 (the nakba) was a terrible disaster. Sure, the shoah was much a bigger disaster, one of the biggests in the history, but the Palestinians are not responsible for it. From their point of view, they didn't do anything to deserve the 1948 nakba. And since the Israelis don't see this, they cannot understand major concerns of the Palestinian people, for example:
- That the "refugees problem" is not just a "negotiation card", but a major problem, concerning millions of people, which is caused as a result of the way Israel was formed. The Palestinians won't accept any solution that does not deal with this issue.
- That even if Israel evacuates absolutely all of the territories occupied in 1967, still, from the Palestinian point of view, they give up 78% of the historical Palestine.

● Since the Israelis don't really understand these issues, they think the Palestinian demands are unreasonable.

● In addition, regular misconceptions of colonialist countries eliminate the Israelis from seeing the reality objectively. For example, Israelis refer to Gillad Shalit as a "hostage", while young Palestinians that are kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night, and held in prison, sometimes for years, without a trial, are called "prisoners".

● Military-wise, Israel is extremely stronger than the Palestinians. Thus, it expects this to be reflected in any resolution. As if, if Israel doesn't get anything for ending the occupation, the resolution is not "balanced". But, the occupation should be ended because it's immoral, not because any other reason. The Israeli attitude towards the Palestinians is often patronizing, as if ending the occupation is doing them a favor. This is a big obstacle for peace.

Given the above, I believe the direction for activism should be more educational, pointed towards making each side familiar with the story of the other. The time range should be defined in matters of years and decades, and the messages should be deeper and more general. I think that today each side dehumanizes the other side, and our goal is to help each side understand it's humans in the other side. Only in this way can each side understand the other side, accept its demands, and be willing to "meet in the middle".

I think the Europeans can support causes that are aimed towards the direction outlined above. Naturally, since Israel is stronger, and is the oppressing side, most of the criticism is pointed at it. But the Europeans should be very careful. They need to deeply understand the role of the shoah in the Israeli narrative.

The shoah is a real trauma in the Israeli narrative. It is still a living memory for thousands of Israelis, and continues to live in the memories of their descendents. For example, 7 siblings of my grandfather and both his parents were murdered in the death camps. My grandmother also had part of her family murdered in the shoah. They both immigrated to Israel, and this is the house my mother was raised in. Thousands of other Israelis were raised in similar surroundings.

The major lesson the Jews took from the shoah is that they should be strong enough as a nation, so that such a thing will never happen again. This explains the attempt to combine humanism with nationalism, and the worship to the army. There is a real authentic fear in Israel for the very existence of the state. This fear lies on the trauma of the shoah. Israel is a traumatized country. Whoever doesn't understand this, is not even close to understanding Israel.

The shoah was caused by the Europeans. Most countries took an active part in it, the rest didn't do anything to prevent it. Moreover, nearly all European countries were colonialists until very recently. Thus, it is hard for the Israelis to accept criticism from the Europeans. This leads the Israelis to react to every criticism as "anti-Semitism", and to use the shoah as an excuse for atrocities. But, Europe is not free of responsibility for this reaction.

Thus, to my opinion, the Europeans should be very careful when taking part in the conflict resolution. They should avoid being self-righteous, they should be aware and take responsibility for their part in the history, and yet, be sharp and clear with their disapproval of the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. The Europeans should not disconnect their criticism against Israel from a deep and brave dealing with their past, which should be reflected in their criticism. The second important lesson from the shoah, besides "what should we do so it won't happen to us again", that the Israelis refuse to learn, is "what should we do so we won't do it to others". Europe, and Italy in particular, as a state which did take part in the shoah, should help Israel learn this lesson by sharing it with its bad experience. Straightforward accusations will not work on Israel, because it will be perceived as self-righteousness. A better message is something like "we are taking responsibility for our history and dealing with it, and we encourage you to learn from our bad experience and avoid the mistakes we did".

I want to end by thanking you once again for coming. Israel-Palestine might be a small and distanced peace of land, but, in some sense, all the tension between the west and the Islam is concentrated there. A success in solving the conflict there may send a message of peace and hope to all over the world.