After I had started with my partnership initiative in November 1974, Zwi Zohar, a neighbor and friend at Ramat-Hadar, where I lived, attacked me: "You have no idea, what's going on. I suggest you do two things if you are serious! Join the village security guard at night and spend a weekend with soldiers in Sinai." My youngest then was 8 years old, but yes I went to the rifle exercise and was disgustingly proud that I was good in aiming the target. Then I would go out for four hours at night, every 2 weeks or so, with Zwi or with other, more boring neighbors, and "guard the village". And I was taken to Sinai by an army plane....

Outlines of a lecture to Israeli Soldiers in Sinai, In February 1975
(Translation by Mirjam Frish, Jerusalem)

What can I, the individual, do
(a) for lifting the public's morale,
(b) for Israel's long range security?

(1) Why is every individual politically responsible?

I approached my task as a mother would. The task of the mother is not restricted to giving life to her child but it involves guarding this life. The day-by-day care (short range responsibility) is not enough, nor is bringing her child up to cope independently with his life, or bestowing it with self-security, self-esteem and independence. A child's life is dependent on the fate of the community around it. Fathers and mothers may state "I don't care for politics", yet is this not as if they were saying "I don't care for education - that is the teacher's concern; I don't care for national defence- that is the experts' concern?" Politics = my responsibility toward the public - my concern with my personal interest (with the life of my child ) - - long range responsibility.

(2) What are the conditions for achieving real security? Who has to attain it and how?

At present we are fortifying our fortress, though this grants merely short range security. It is imperative as long as there is no true security. Yet concurrently we have to care for true security - that can be achieved only when there are no enemies any longer. To attain such a state, a high level of morale is needed just as at war time the soldiers' morale is one of the important conditions for victory.

"Morale" means that I am implementing "If I am not for myself, who is?" (Hillel 2000 years ago) which implies that I regard myself as lord of my destiny and that I would depend merely on myself rather than on others, either foes or friends. I will forever be initiative rather than responsive. The fathers of Zionism proved that armed with such a belief they succeeded in realizing a dream that had seemed impossible.

(3) Example of a man who removes hostility, who "turns an enemy into a partner".

Itzchak and Moshe used to beat up each other murderously. Who had started the blows and for what reason was of no importance any longer. One day Itzchak felt that he was fed up with depending each day on what Moshe might do to him and he decided to pluck up his courage and take the initiative to change this state.

He went to Moshe's home, together with his girlfriend Rivkah who might lessen the tension. "Honour but suspect him", he thought but decided to hide the "suspicion" and put forth the "honour". After all, if he put himself into Moshe's shoes, .... Cain too killed Abel for one single reason: Abel was the one to gain esteem while Cain did not. Showing that the confirmation of self-esteem (=Honour) is essential to man since his very existence.

-- They knock. Moshe opens the door and stands surprised, bewildered and suspicious yet not aggressive.

"How to dispel his suspicion?", thinks Itzchak, and here Rivkah comes to his help: "You know, Moshe, I heard what a great fighter you are. But I think the two of you have wasted enough time on blows. Now show your might and put it to some better use."

Itzchak falls in and proposes: "Since you are such a clever chap, I thought we could make an old dream of mine come truel- to build a race-car. We could then just fly over all the roads in the country and show off before all the gang." Moshe asks them to come in, still suspicious though somewhat less gloomy.

So at first, Ibrahim Simaan was supposed to be the one and even advertised on the registration form for participants on one of the two most prestigious events, to which we were invited , the
LOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL,
A few weeks earlier
King Hussein of Jordan
had appeared in front of this Forum !

But then it was decided, that Ibrahim, with all his real , objective contribution to "Partnership" from the very beginning, was "not representative enough",
neither because of his small physical stature, nor because he was a Christian.

Viewing these two stumbling blocks can convey on how many fronts we were struggling.
As to the physical appearance, for instance:
In 1977 I was invited as a facilitator to an interreligious workshop - Christians, Jews, Muslims - in Bendorf, Germany. Of course, I demanded, that my Arab partner, Nimr Ismir, would be invited too, and we both went there and then to other places to which we got invitations to speak.
Nimr too is of small stature and in addition not exactly slim. His great beauty was in his face, when it showed compassion and understanding. But who would see that?

The internalized oppression, to which I gave some expression in "Azmeeyeh", which causes not only the famous "Jewish Self-Hatred", but also "Arab-Self-Hatred", made an English-Palestinian woman, who participated in the workshop, say terribly derisive things about my Arab partner, and how the very discrepancy in our common appearance demonstrated for everyone to see, how despised and humiliated Arabs were made to feel towards Israelis.

With Rushdi Fadila there was no such problem.
We made the best "couple" of the world,
which then had the contrary effect, that none of the Arabs in Israel (and I don't know about all those who attended our meetings in the USA) believed, that we did not sleep together.

Itzchak realizes that he has to make a third step. Moshe will never forgive him if he, Itzchak, will appear the sole initiator who is forthcoming and active in this matter. "You know, perhaps the race-car may just be a lofty dream of mine, and you know something better, or you will perhaps be able to resolve some problems that are too hard for me. "

Moshe laughts: "Five minutes ago I just wanted to cut your throat, and now you already want me to solve your problems?"

Rivkah is afraid that they may be stranded on the rocks of the past and she quickly cuts in: "Surely, it's more useful to solve problems and even more satisfactory." And her smile adds to lessen the tension that is still being felt. Itzchak, too, gathers all his wits to make Moshe concentrate on their common goal, and after a short while only they are immersed in their work. When Itzchak and Rivkah leave, there are no huggings and friendly handshakes - they are not yet friends but partners to a matter of common interest, and they are proud of their courage and success.

What was the secret of their success?

(a) That they had decided on their part to change the state of affairs, to gain independence from the moves of the enemy.

(b) That they related to Moshe with respect and esteem.

(c) That they turned Moshe's attention away from the past and proposed a common activity in the future.

(d) That they did their best to make Moshe an equal partner.

"What a wonderful way to start the eighties",
said Robert Farrell,
who had one of the highest positions in the Municipality of Los Angeles ,


and for once,
Rushdi and I, were balming in all the recognition we got.
Of course, after that Rushdi could not imagine
to ever go back to his dreary situation as an Arab in Israel ,
as an aware person in an underdeveloped society,
and as an individual who was "crazy" in the eyes of his village,
and he sometimes was just that...

But looking back now, I am sad-happy, that Rushdi got this recognition,
even if it was short-lived
and even if it did not contribute to our goal one tiny bit.

(4) The morale of the example: To turn an enemy into a partner.

If I believe that achieving what is best for me ( my best interest) does depend on myself and if I know that it is in my best interest to uproot hostility, I have to draw the conclusion that I must turn adversaries into partners. The present extent of hostility or the present intentions of the enemy do not count. There is no condition on earth that is not changing and there is no person in this world who is not changing. It is only important n o t to let the change develop on its own volition but to become an active factor in change: I have to arouse in my enemy's mind that interest which he shares with me and is not opposed to.

This way is right not merely for conquering an exterior enemy and turning him into a partner but also to conquer the inner foe and make it a partner.... The old political method - fighting the Government and any political antagonist, trying to achieve one's aim through accusations, protests, demonstrations, pushing others from their strongholds --- is of no help, either inside or outside the nation. Once your fellow-man's dignity has been offended, he can't be expected to hear you and to do what you want him to do. Only he who is sure of his value does not need to offend the other. That is why I must strengthen the morale of my opponent - not merely my own - if I want him to strive toward a common interest.

(5) The relationship between this approach and the problem of the "Territories".

[At the time people still discussed, if the "territories" conquered in 1967 and occupied ever since, should be "given back" or not. This discussion has long since stopped, and what I talked with the soldiers then, is not relevant any more]

(6) Putting the method to use.

This subject was dealt with more extensively in particular after the lecture. I won't do it in writing, which is too risky as long as the basic approach
("If I believe in being master of my destiny
and since true security will be achieved only by uprooting hostility, I must turn enemies into partners")
has not yet been fully understood in all its implications.
Hence any concrete proposal will be easily refuted by just the statement "This is impossible".

Furthermore, in order to succeed in achieving long range security, the same effort is needed that is invested in attaining short range (military) security:

Many experts will have to work in a systematic-scientific way to think up many plans and different initiatives and alternative proposal for each different situation and condition.

For a start everybody can contribute his share to lift the morale by honouring himself, i.e. learning the meaning of being master of his destiny, a free man depending only on himself, who does not complain about all the darkness but discerns the small light and strengthens it.

Out of such a morale everyone can start doing something for Israel's long range security and this by honouring his enemy and trying to turn him into his partner.

Instead of stumbling over past offenses, prestige, secondary interest, I shall find a way tol serve the interest common to both, which is - that they may all live.

Leaflets distributed to the soldiers after the discussion, which presented a number of slogans as memory aid (in Hebrew the slogans rhyme).

"Who is a hero? He who turns his foe into a friend" (Ancient rabbinic saying)

1 Our interest - life for all of us.

2 Short range security - in fortifying the fortress.
   Long range security - in abolishing hostility!

3 You want to stay alive -
    stake your enemy's honour high!

4 We are all responsible for the State,
   together with the Government

5 Don't fight the Government --- talk to them;
   Don't slander your opponents - talk to them;
   Don't humiliate your enemy - talk to him!

6 Don't falter over stumbling stones
   - build up corner stones;
   Don't grumble about darkness
   - see the light and strengthen it.

7 Who is free and master of his destiny?
   He who tries to turn his enemy into his partner.

2003_06_26
I also wrote a report about all the interactions with the soldiers and officers on that weekend in Sinai, but it's only in Hebrew.

What I remember vividly up to this day - is a long communication I had with an officer over dinner.
He voiced the familiar slogan: "A good Arab is a dead Arab."
I went along with him saying:
"Fine, let's do it, let's kill them all. How will you go about it."
I did not oppose him once.
I only encouraged him to imagine, that he would implement his idea of a solution, and after each step I asked: "and then what, go on!"
After half an hour of following this line, he said :
" In fact, it won't be a solution at all."
And then he started to outline the opposite approach...

Years later I had the same experience with an old Arab in the illage of Ara.
He lamented about the Jews and what they had done to him, how they had confiscated his land etc. etc. I went along with him, until the lament had exhausted itself, and he would say : "IN fact, this does not lead us anywhere, we have to..." and he too started to outline the opposite approach.

After the first big terror attack - on a bus on the sea road - (in 1978?) - when all the country was on fire (not like now, when everyone goes about his own business) - I was called to work with a group of Arab Scouts Teachers. I let them express their pride in what "our people have done", and their pain about "the Jews", until one teacher said: "But I have other feelings too, I must admit: There was a little girl of five among the killed. I have a daughter of five. There must be another way." And all of a sudden the others too joined in , thinking about "another way"....

Franz Wolf, who was one of Franz Rosenzweig's pupils,
a Jewish emigrant from Nazi Germany and by then 80 years old , organized a speech for us
in front of the Congress and the Senate in the White House in Washington.

All Senators and Congressmen got an invitation, which was important in itself,
and among the people who came, there were indeed 3 congressmen!
We talked about this important ((????)) meeting the next morning,
when Ruth Dayan, the widow of Moshe Dayan, at whose place I slept,
brought us to a museum, the Renwick Gallery. I fell in love with this picture:


Emile Renouf, French , 1845-98, The Helping Hand

I wrote the following in 1980 shortly after our return as a recommendation for Rushdi,
who wanted to emigrate to the United States, and I copy this now as ~~~

In memoriam Rushdi Fadila

I met Rushdi in 1972, when I wished to attend lessons in an Arabic school ,
in order to improve my Arabic.
Rushdi was recommended to me by the principal in a way that I understood,
that he considered him to be the best teacher to represent his school.

I was very impressed by the kind and understanding attitude
which Rushdi showed towards the little ones,
an extraordinary attitude towards young people in a developing society ~~~

Since then we have been helping each other in understanding
what stops both our peoples from taking responsibility
for really coping with the Arab-Jewish conflict which endangers us both,
and in 1974 we started to develop and apply an approach
which is called "the Partnership-Way".
It was also in Rushdi's house in Tira, in 1977,
where the organisation "Partnership" was founded.
Ever since we have been trying to find the most effective way
of helping and teaching people (citizens and politicians),
how not to act on their feelings but pursue their own enlightened self-interest
and how to be effective in this.

Two months ago the two of us went on a speaking-tour
(75 audiences and many individuals and media) in the USA.
Rushdi was chosen by the organisation as the best Arab partner to go with me.
In the USA we not only talked about Partnership
(the approach and the models of Partnership, which we had created),
and we not only worked there for bringing about the partnership between the two peoples,
- the most important test was,
that we  l i v e d   the partnership during the tour under big stress,
forced by our task
to constantly represent to each other the Palestinian and the Jewish people.