|
A great commotion is
currently afoot in Zionism, caused by the community of the seekers of
peace, whose intention is to achieve (by way, of course, of preaching to
the Jews alone) agreement with the Arabs. Frankly, it is difficult to
avoid a feeling of nausea: so soon after such an abject and abominable
slaughter, and we are advised to plead guilty and beg that we not be
beaten again. Even I, with all my contempt for the mainstream Zionism of
our time, did not expect abject pleading of this kind. Despite this, it
is necessary to suppress the feeling of disgust and once more to deal in
detail with this matter.
Peace with the Arabs is, of course, to be desired. There is no need for
a discussion on this matter among the Jews. All of us, one hundred
percent of us, want peace. And there could have been peace already (true
peace, founded not on love, but on objective factors) if the ruling
regime in the Land of Israel had acted differently: if the Arabs had
seen England declare, in a determined way, its intention to aid Jewish
immigration, and not to tolerate violence. If they had seen such a
policy in action, indicated by positive signs in all aspects of the
activities of the government, then peace would already have come. The
Arabs are a relatively wise people, wise enough not to attempt to
demolish an iron wall with their bare hands, or even with a stick, if
they believe that it really is made of iron. If they believed this, then
none would pay attention to the inciters, and at their head would stand
moderate, reasonable leaders, and thank God, such people are not lacking
on our side, they exist, rather, in their multitudes, without reference
to the circumstances of the time. Thus, the two sides would rapidly
reach understanding. The Arabs would then be given understandings
regarding equal rights, their right to earn a fair living, cultural
autonomy, and in general everything which we seek for ourselves in all
the countries of the world. And thus peace would be achieved.
Instead of this, however, the government acted as the chief inciter.
Consequently, there is no peace.
I have met with our peace-seekers many times, and at every meeting I
asked them: why do you spend all your time preaching morality to the
Jews? Go to the Arabs, and find out from them under what conditions they
are willing to come to terms with us. And I am certainly not the only
one to have asked this question. Nevertheless, they insist on not
approaching the Arabs. Rather, they are gravely insulted when others
approach the Arabs, and present to them the plans of the peace-seekers
and ask how they, the Arabs, view these plans. Three years ago Ernst
Davis, a correspondent for a Berlin newspaper in Jerusalem, visited the
offices of an Arab newspaper and interviewed the editor with regard to
these peace proposals. Davis published in full his own remarks and the
responses of the Arab editor. Davis` words faithfully reflected the
point of view of the advocates of compromise: so faithfully in fact,
that even the institutions of this camp did not find, despite their best
efforts, a single deviation. Despite this, they were furious with Davis,
because the answer of the Arab editor was absolutely clear: I do not
want peace, until you give up the Balfour Declaration, and most
importantly: the immigration which is being carried out without our
agreement. You want to make peace with us? Then agree to place all the
affairs of the country, most importantly the matter of your immigration,
before a parliament with an Arab majority.
We all want peace with the Arabs. But we cannot purchase it with this
concession which the Arabs demand of us. This must be taken into
account. Thus, the true road to peace in the country, that is to say to
the imposition of order in the country and the prevention of violence,
is to be found in the practical maintenance of order, and this is a
matter for the government, and a matter for the `political campaign`.
Another way does not exist.
|
