(4 June 2024) In this interview, Avraham Burg describes a possible but long road to a solution, because decades of fear and hatred need time to heal.
Seewald: Mr. Burg you were invited by VIDC to Vienna in 2010 on the occasion of the conference: What kind of Palestinian State for what kind of Peace? We discussed the two-state solution and possible alternatives in order to achieve peace in the region. Today, some 14 years later, neither the security for Israel has increased, as October 7th last year showed, nor has the situation for the Palestinians improved – quite the opposite is the case.
Burg: Let's begin with something very basic and hope that in 15 years, we won't be discussing the same question. This is a very long conflict, and any solution will be a long process. Personally, I've stopped counting states. I don't care if it's one state, two states, five states, or 25 states. I'm looking at the big picture and the overarching principle: every individual between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea should have equal rights. That's the principle upon which you can build one state, two states, a federation, or a confederation. It requires Jews to relinquish privileges (20% of Israelis are non-Jews) and Palestinians to build capabilities. I'm focused on the principle rather than counting states.
For the past 5 to 7 years, people thought the Palestinian issue had disappeared. Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem and removed Jerusalem from the table. In Israel, there was a belief in managing rather than solving the conflict. But the events of October 7th brought the Palestinian issue back to the forefront. Managing the problem is managing illusions; it must be solved one way or another. The need to run Gaza without Israeli reoccupation revived the two-state solution. Is it solid? Is it here to stay? Who will constitute this state? These questions remain unclear. One thing is certain: the right-wing Israeli government is completely against it. Beyond that, the situation is too muddy and murky to predict.
Seewald: On the other hand, states like Spain, Ireland, and Norway have recognized Palestine as a state. Do you think this is helpful?
Burg: In situations like this, every move can be seen as both right and wrong, depending on who you ask and how you ask. From the perspective of those who support the two-state solution, it’s a positive step. However, if Hamas tries to veto the two-state solution with religious fundamentalism and Netanyahu’s government undermines it with strategic maneuvers, achieving this goal through dialogue seems impossible. Unilateral recognition, like Spain’s, aims to prompt dialogue rather than replace it. They believe it’s the right thing to do. Whether it helps or not depends on perspective. It’s largely symbolic and won’t change the immediate reality for millions of Palestinians.
Seewald: But do you personally think that the two-state solution is still possible with the settlements?
Burg:Every vision seems far off. The two-state solution seems impossible, and the one-state solution seems equally unreachable. Everything feels distant, especially in the wake of the October 7th shock. The trauma affects everyone deeply, myself, my family, friends, and colleagues. For the collective, it's even harder.
Before October 7th, the debate wasn't really between a two-state solution and a one-state solution. It was a struggle between two different one-state visions. One vision, like mine, believes in equal rights for everyone. The other vision, supported by the right wing, envisions one state with two regimes: privileges for Jews and discrimination against Palestinians. The real fight was about what kind of one state it would be—a state of fairness, justice, and equality, or one based on discrimination.
Now, after October 7th, all options are on the table. Israel intensifying the occupation is possible. The two-state solution, preferred by the Western world, is also back on the table. Another possibility is a one-state scenario with two national communities. For the first time in many years, every suggestion seems as plausible as the next. The future direction depends a lot on the personal futures of Netanyahu, Biden, and Mahmoud Abbas.
Seewald: That brings me to another question: who could be the leaders in Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the US who might bring any solution forward? Or who might lead us to a democratic solution?
Burg: I cannot and do not want to speak on behalf of the Palestinians or the Americans. Every nation, including the American nation, has the right to choose its own president, even if that choice is disastrous. If they decide to vote for a problematic candidate again, we'll have to live with that.
As for Israel, let me draw a parallel to Helmut Kohl’s Germany. For many political generations, it seemed like there was no alternative to Kohl. Then Angela Merkel came along, and people wondered who could follow her. Similarly, in Israel and a few other places, unlimited terms for the head of state create a sense of irreplaceability. But history has shown that no one is irreplaceable; cemeteries are full of people once considered irreplaceable. Netanyahu will eventually go, and someone else will take over.
The important question isn't who the individual leader is, but what their policy is. There are people ready to execute different policies, even within the right-wing, in Israel. Some ideologies are awful, marked by messianic, eschatological, and religious fundamentalism. Others are more liberal than we've seen before. We just need to overcome the feeling of eternal leadership embodied by figures like Netanyahu, and then new possibilities will open.
Seewald: Let’s discuss the kind of state you favor, as I read recently in an interview, a binational federal state. Can you explain this concept?
Burg: I don't use the term "binational" because I'm more aligned with the idea of universalism, akin to John Lennon's "Imagine." I believe in moving beyond the nation-state model, which many in the West still rely on. The future doesn't belong to nation-states; it's about universalism.
Despite this, I believe, especially after October 7th, that the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, including Gaza, is ultimately one space. Dividing it into two states is impractical due to geographic, political, and cultural complexities. It makes more sense to have a shared space. Building trust is essential, and correcting the wrongs will take less time than creating them.
It will be a slow process, as generations of fear and hatred need time to heal. But ultimately, the structure would have three levels:
1. Ground Floor: A constitutional level where everyone is equal and has the same rights.
2. Mezzanine Floor: Two political entities where the Jewish and Palestinian national communities address their political issues separately.
3. Third Floor: A level of federation or confederation for cooperation on shared issues like infrastructure, environment, and natural resources.
Starting with simple cooperation on non-political issues like infrastructure and environment can build trust. Over time, this trust can extend to more complex issues. In a generation or two, what seems impossible now will become natural.
Seewald: The main two important questions in any solution are Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return. How do you think these should be addressed?
Burg: There are many possible solutions for these issues, but it's more about psychological readiness than technical formulations. Whether Jerusalem becomes an international dominion, a corpus separatum, or a shared space is less important than the willingness to move from trauma to trust. Once we move toward trust, what seems impossible becomes possible.
For refugees, the principle should be to correct as many past wrongs as possible without creating new ones. Solutions might include returning people to their lands if feasible, compensation (similar to Germany's compensation to Jews), or supporting Palestinian refugees in third countries, where they have already developed new roots. Addressing refugee issues both within and outside of Israel in a respectful way is crucial. The exact formula is less important than the principle of addressing wrongs with recognition, compassion, and readiness to contain the trauma. This approach will make any solution possible.
Seewald: Confidence-building measures and legal processes are needed. Recently the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal court, Karim Khan has applied for a warrant of arrest for Hamas leaders, as well as for the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister. Do you think that is helpful in this situation?
Burg: International law should not be judged by its utility but by its justice. If the actions are justified, they should proceed regardless of pressure or threats. If Karim Khan believes that issuing sanctions against Hamas and Israeli leadership is justified, he should do so.
The international community, especially the Western liberal democratic civilization, must uphold international law consistently. Israel should not be an exception. Claiming to be the only democracy in the Middle East while depriving millions of democratic rights and failing to investigate its leaders' actions is contradictory.
And now the reality is clear to me. Nothing Israel has done to the Palestinians since 1948 justifies Hamas's actions on October 7th, and nothing Hamas did on that day justifies Israel's current actions in Gaza. Both sides' actions should be evaluated by international justice.
Seewald: How would you assess the attitudes within Israeli society towards a federal state?
Burg: Any suggestion for reconciliation or living together is largely ignored in Israel right now. Most Israelis are still in a revenge mindset. Those who understand that revenge is not a policy are overwhelmed by sadness, oppression, and the silencing reality of hostages, loss of villages, and family members. They can't focus on any kind of solution. We're not there yet.
Seewald: Would that have been different before October 7th?
Burg: Before October 7th, it was different. People didn't feel an urgent need to solve the problem. Now, they recognize the need but are unable to focus on it. Many are preoccupied with issues like extended reserve service, family losses, and dealing with a corrupt Prime Minister. They know something needs to be done but lack the capacity to invest in it.
Seewald: Would there be any role for Jews outside Israel in changing minds or finding a solution?
Burg: I don't think so. I'm against the notion that Israel is the state of the entire Jewish people. Politically and morally, it doesn't work. Israel belongs to Israelis—those who live there, pay taxes, serve in the army, vote, and bear the consequences of their decisions. It's unfair for someone living in San Francisco or Vienna to claim ownership and influence over Israel without sharing the same risks and responsibilities. If you want to be part of the decision-making process, become a citizen and be part of the game.
On the other hand, when Israelis claim that Israel is the state of all Jews, it extends the concept of Israel beyond its physical borders to places like Vienna, New York, London, and Paris. This could inadvertently make Jews in the diaspora targets, as our enemies might see them as part of Israel. Jews in the diaspora, as much as they may support Israel, are citizens of their own countries.
Seewald: Many critiqued Israel's national law; one side argued for Israel as a Jewish state, while others questioned its compatibility with democracy. What's your opinion on that? Could it be part of that house you draw in your vision of the future?
Burg: The law should be voted against and removed from Israel's book of laws. It is racist, xenophobic, and patronizing, sanctifying Jewish white supremacy over others and redefining the Jewish people in a way that is not consistent with the historic Jewish identity. This unnecessary measure can be understood as part of Jewish populism within the broader context of global populism. If Israel aims to emulate Viktor Orban's Hungary, Poland, or Trump's America, this law makes sense. However, if it wants to remain part of the progressive, liberal world, it does not.
Feeling devastated, I applied to the court, arguing that this law redefines the Jewish people without my consent. I requested the court remove my registration as a Jew from the population registry. Unlike Austria, which prohibits governmental registries of faith, genetics, or origin, Israel documents religious affiliation in its population registry.
After a prolonged and bitter exchange with the government, the court ruled in my favor, allowing me to apply to the Ministry of Interior to remove my registry as a Jew. The ministry hesitated, but I insisted, threatening further legal action. After years of struggle over the nation law, I am now the only individual in Israel not registered as a Jew in the population registry. I'm an Israeli that's my citizenship but you cannot document me as a Jew if the definition of the Jew is part of the nation law.
Seewald: I recently read an interview of you and there you mentioned that Israel has lost its independence with 7th October. Can you explain that?
Burg: Let's assume that tomorrow morning Austria declares war against France due to dissatisfaction with Napoleon. The Ministry of Defense would run the war, with the Austrian chief of staff planning the attack routes and presenting the plan to the Minister of Defense, who then submits it to the government for approval. Once approved, Austria goes to war and advances towards Paris.
In contrast, on October 7th in Israel, U.S. Secretary Blinken was involved in the Israeli cabinet's war decisions, ensuring everything aligned with President Joe Biden's policies. This indicates that while Israel may conduct the fighting, the final decisions about what is allowed come from the American administration.
Additionally, emotionally, the U.S. has been more supportive. The American president, not the Israeli Prime Minister, was the one who received, hugged, and supported the families of the abducted. The American president also announced Israel's offer for negotiations with Hamas, not the Israeli Prime Minister.
Seewald: and Netanyahu rejected it?
Burg: He’s a liar who can accept and reject the same thing in the same breath. But what I'm saying is that the United States, specifically the Biden administration, is really running the Israeli war.
Seewald: What will happen after the U.S. elections? I hope the war will be over by then.
Burg: I don't know. Let's discuss it when it happens.
Seewald: My final question since we're in Europe. Europe is divided on the Israel-Palestine issue. In your opinion, what role should the European Union or European states play in finding a solution?
Burg: There are three potential measures. First, coordinate fully with the Americans to ensure a unified Western policy. We can't expect China and Russia to align with us, but at least the West should be united. Second, continue and intensify sanctions on individual settlers, certain organizations, and possibly government ministries that do not align with Western values. These entities should be rejected by both the EU and the US. Lastly, after the conflict, there will be a huge need for recovery and restoration for both societies, especially in Gaza. The international community should be there to support them.
Seewald: If a warrant is confirmed by the court, does that mean European governments should arrest Netanyahu?
Burg: EU governments should act according to international law, just as Israel should. No country should be exempt from international norms. Many of these laws were created after World War II because of what happened to the Jews, conceived by Jews like Raphael Lemkin. It's a bitter irony that these laws might now be used against Jews, but this is due to the Israeli government's policies, not because the laws are bad.