DOCUMENT III: Statements by Martin
Buber
1. Jews and Arabs in Israel-Palestine
We have not settled Palestine together with the Arabs but alongside
them. Settlement alongside, when two nations inhabit the same country,
which fails to become settlement together with, must necessarily become
a state against. This is bound to happen here -- and there will be no
return to a mere alongside. But despite all the obstacles in our path,
the way is still open for reaching a settlement together with. And I
do not know how much time is left to us. What I do know is that if we
do not attain [such a relationship with the Arabs of Palestine], we
will never realize the aims of Zionism. We are being put to the test
for the third time in this country. (October 1929)
We considered it a fundamental point that in this case two vital claims
are opposed to each other, two claims of a different nature and a different
origin which cannot objectively be pitted against one another and between
which no objective decision can be made as to which is just, which unjust.
We considered and still consider it our duty to understand and to honor
the claim which is opposed to us and to endeavor to reconcile both claims.
We could not and cannot renounce the Jewish claim; something even higher
than the life of our people is bound up with this land, namely its work,
its divine mission. But we have been and are still convinced that it
must be possible to find some compromise between this claim and the
other, for we love this land and we believe in its future; since such
love and such faith are surely present on the other side as well, a
union in the common service of the land must be within the range of
possibility. Where there is faith and love, a solution may be found
even to what appears to be a tragic opposition. (1939)
2. On Dialogue
During the First World War it became clear to me that a process was
going on which before then I had only surmised. This was the growing
difficulty of genuine dialogue, and most especially of genuine dialogue
between people of different kinds and convictions. Direct, frank dialogue
is becoming ever more difficult and more rare; the abysses between human
beings threaten ever more pitilessly to become unbridgeable. I began
to understand at that time . . . that this is the central question for
the fate of humanity. Since then I have continually pointed out that
the future of our humanity depends upon a rebirth of dialogue. I know
three kinds [of dialogue]. There is genuine dialogue -- no matter whether
spoken or silent -- where each of the participants really has in mind
the other or others in their present and particular being and turns
to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relation
between himself and them. There is technical dialogue, which is prompted
solely by the need for objective understanding. And there is monologue
disguised as dialogue, [i.e.,] . . . a debate in which the speaker's
thoughts are not expressed in the way in which they existed in the speaker's
mind but instead are so pointed that they may strike home in the sharpest
way; [in this monologue/debate disguised as dialogue] the people who
are being spoken to are not regarded as being present as persons . .
. Now, let us take two societies opposed to one another. Let them sit
together and come to a compromise. I do not think that a compromise
must be as negative as that compromise we call coexistence. It must
be something positive, a kind of cooperation in solving the enormous
problems that face humanity today. The way to reach that point would
be for the two opposing sides to talk as good merchants. Let them make
a list, so to speak, of those interests which are common and those which
are antagonistic. If. . . they find that the common interests are really
bigger, against all appearances, than the opposing interests, then they
must try to reach an understanding to overcome the problems they have
in common. . . . I do not see that any of the politicians have ever
tried this. I believe, despite all, that the peoples in this hour can
enter into dialogue, into a genuine dialogue with one another. In a
genuine dialogue each of the partners, even when he stands in opposition
to the other, heeds, affirms, and confirms his opponent as an existing
other. Only so can conflict certainly not be eliminated from the world,
but be humanly arbitrated and led toward its overcoming.
3. Brit Shalom: A Covenant of Peace
In the spring of 1925 a group of intellectuals inspired by the thought
of Martin Buber gathered in Jerusalem to establish Brit Shalom (Covenant
of Peace,) an association that would promote a democratic multi-cultural
Zionism rooted in the complex reality of the land of Israel-Palestine.
In the founding statement the members of Brit Shalom wrote:
"The object of the Association is to arrive at an understanding
between Jews and Arabs as to the form of their mutual social relations
in Palestine on the basis of the absolute political equality of two
culturally autonomous peoples, and to determine the lines of their cooperation
for the development of the country." Brit Shalom promoted the idea
of a bi-national state. One of its members, Gershon Scholem, stated
"that the land of Israel belongs to two peoples, and these peoples
need to find a way to live together . . . and to work for a common future."
Over seventy-five years later Scholem's words ring truer than ever.
We stand for a two-state solution, but if we are ever to reach this
goal, our two peoples must find a way to live together and to work for
our common future.