A few years ago, in the course of my work with an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue organization, I met with a group of Israeli army officers. I asked them: "Why does the Israel Defense Force draft young people to become soldiers at the age of eighteen? Why not wait until they are twenty-two? By that time they will have completed their college studies, gained maturity, and have more psychological tools for dealing with the stresses of being in the army." The officers looked at me as if I were a total idiot. "If we try to draft them when they are twenty-two," one of them said, "not a single Israeli would agree to join the military!" I looked him in the eye and asked, "Are you telling me that this one decision could pressure the Israeli government to put an end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Draft Israelis at twenty-two, and so many of them would refuse to serve that there would be no one to continue the war?" The officer smiled. He said, "That's interesting."
In Israel, as everywhere, there is a close connection between implicit national policies and "the normal way things are done" from day to day. When this link is named and questioned, new ideas can emerge.
This month, Prime Minister Netanyahu will not only ask the American administration to continue its annual support of Israel to the tune of over 3 billion dollars - he will go further and beg for additional grants, for a total of 5 billion annually, for at least ten years.
My question, as a concerned and peace-seeking Israeli, is this: Why are our American allies allowing their government to send Israel this kind of money, without any conditions attached? Why not say "Yes," but on the condition that the Israeli administration will provide a commitment - and clear evidence - that during the next ten years it will do everything in its power to end the Occupation and to give the option to restore a normal life for all of us?
In 2007, when Israel signed a ten-year military aid agreement with the U.S., then Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said that America "considers this 30 billion dollars in assistance to Israel to be an investment in ... long term peace." Today it is time to ask whether this investment has paid off. Is unconditional military aid really the right way to encourage Israel to pursue peace?
The role of the Israeli military is to provide safety for Israel, in order that the politicians can focus on diplomacy and creating peace. If the political administration of Israel is doing nothing for either diplomacy or peace, and can give us no clear vision of a better future, then how do you, as Americans, dare to send so much money for us to purchase more weapons of war? If you, as Americans, were to demand of the Israeli government a clear account of its strategy for peace, and only then send money to support that strategy, then you would see me and my colleagues, called tomorrow to the Israeli government to share with them our peace ideas and programs. As it is, with you never demanding of Israel any accountability, why would my government even think of speaking with us?
Or, why not say "Yes" to Israel's demands for American support, but on the condition that 0.1% of all these funds will be earmarked for peace organizations and initiatives? With that kind of support for the dialogue and activities for co-existence that we work so hard to create, we would be in a position to include so many youth and families, especially Palestinian, who are begging to join our programs, but for whom we have no budget. We would have the opportunity to respond to the religious and community leaders in Israel and Palestine who are asking us to open new chapters in their cities and areas. Can you begin to imagine how a deeper commitment to peace-building programs could be more effective at reducing terrorism and violence than billions of dollars invested in enhancing military hardware and extending the nightmare of the Occupation?
I understand that providing arms to Israel creates American jobs; I understand that Americans see Israel as an ally of American-style democracy in the Middle East. I also see how you might believe that supporting Israel unconditionally is a way to show solidarity with American Jewish communities. But don't you care, at least a little, about us, the Israelis and Palestinians who yearn for peace, but who have to live instead with the results of your lethal support? Peace movements, peace efforts and peace-building can become relevant in Israel only when American money comes to Israel with clear conditions. Without such conditions, the message you are sending to Israeli leaders is this: "We will support you blindly, forever, no matter what you do, no matter what the cost in human suffering, no matter what the cost to the work for peace and justice, and even if our support means endless war." You have the power to continue giving this message, or you can reverse it. I can't force you to attach conditions to your support of Israel and its policies; that is your responsibility.
Only by asking simple but new and honest questions, as I tried to do with those Israeli army officers, can we begin to challenge the status quo in this troubled land. Officers in the Israeli army are telling me all the time that the best way to protect Israelis from violence is through programs like ours. They urge us to double the scope of our activities. They know that investing in genuine dialogue among young Israelis and Palestinians is much more effective, and much less expensive, than investing in military power. They know that true dialogue is the only way to end violence and create peace for so many Images of God living here. This is not me, not my opinions; this is what high-ranking Israeli army officers are telling me. My American friends, if you can't listen to me, can you listen to them?