Taking the Guidance of Hillel on Israel and Palestine Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself, who will

be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? Mishnah Avot 1:14 Hillels words outline a healthy framework for Zionism. If I am not for myself, who will be for me? These words characterize important elements of Zionism: survival, the right to self-determination within our historic homeland, and rebirth after the Holocaust. In Israel today we feel the self-esteem, living energy, creativity and dignity that characterize this precious and remarkable country. We've created a safe haven and rediscovered our connection to our roots in ancient Israel. If I am only for myself, what am I? Its not enough to survive in a fortress. For Israel to fulfill its aspirations, it needs to express the humanitarian impulse that sits at the core of Judaism, and give from the heart to others. Indeed, Israel has done that for decades by sharing technological, medical, and organizational expertise with poor and disadvantaged nations. But theres another aspect of this part of the Hillel formula. We cant only be for ourselves in our conflict with the Palestinians. We cant erase the legitimacy of the Other, of our neighbors, of their basic rights and legitimate aspirations either. Thats why the twostate solution, despite all its detractors on both sides, remains the best hope for a dignified, secure, and more just future. And if not now, when? Hillels third plank speaks to the current moment. The window for a two-state solution has been closing and may disappear within the next months. Israels choice is between a future with one state or two. As many Israeli leaders, including Ehud Olmert, are saying, a one-state-solution in which Israel annexes the territories will spell the end of the Zionist dream, requiring Israel to become either a state with a voting

majority of Arab citizens, or a bona fide apartheid state refusing to give its new Palestinian citizens the right to vote. Given that there is so little time to achieve a genuine two-state agreement, what is the wisdom of the Israeli governments recent announcement of plans to build new housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, beyond the Green Line? Some Israeli officials argue that the Palestinians have already conceded that Gilo will end up annexed to Israel in a final peace deal, so they shouldnt really care. This argument ignores the fact that the plan just authorized by Israel includes expropriating more West Bank land to enlarge Gilo, and thus unilaterally changes what the final boundaries of a two-state solution would look like. The reality is that Israels leaders know that, in the political world that their Palestinian negotiating partners inhabit, it is not possible for them to come to the table in the same moment that Israel is unveiling new plans to enlarge its footprint in the West Bank. The real question isnt whether Israel has the right to build in Gilo; it is whether or not its helpful to the peace process for Israel to insist on doing so now. If Israel knows that it is going to end up with Gilo anyway, then there is no urgency to add housing there right now. There is urgency, however, to get the peace talks moving forward towards a final agreement tremendous urgency and dire consequences for failure. Israel can build in Gilo to its hearts content, without controversy, as soon as the peace deal is concluded. The Gilo announcement is reason to wonder whether Netanyahu is serious about moving things forward. He knows that the Gilo announcement throws cold water on President Abbass ability to resume talks with dignity and credibility among his own people. He must know that the Gilo announcement is also quite a slight to the US, the EU, and the Quartet, all of whom just concluded months of working at a fever pitch to support Israel in the face of the Palestinian request for statehood in the UN.

The Gilo announcement lacks larger vision, putting small potatoes above the whole enchilada. Some leaders in the Jewish community are saying that Abbass unwillingness to accept the Quartets invitation to resume peace talks similarly lacks larger vision, and they may be right. But as Jews our first concern is with our sides actions the side we have the greatest possibility to influence. So I ask: isnt it enough of a win for Israel that the Palestinian leadership, the US, the EU, and the UN are already on board with the notion of land swaps that are designed to allow areas like Gilo to be annexed by Israel once a peace deal is concluded? Is it so important to build over the Green Line right now, potentially causing the two-state solution (and Israels future viability as a Jewish and democratic state) to be sacrificed? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?