(Jerusalem) Since I last posted, we have met with an Arab member of the Knesset, Ahmad Tibi, in the Knesset building. One of the founders of the settler movement, Israel Harel, showed us around his controversial West Bank settlement of Ofra (within sight of the settler outpost that is being evacuated today). We’ve also talked with Vice Commander Bentzi Gruber, who led a brigade into Gaza in the last Israeli operation there; Tal Becker, chief of the Israeli team in the Annapolis negotiations; and Yossi Klein Halevi, journalist and scholar. Tomorrow, we’re going to Ramallah, where we’ll hear more from the Palestinian leadership.

After experiencing all these personalities and perspectives–and so much pain, pride, sorrow, and fear–I’ll just mention one theme that recurred in at least four of the conversations: Arab moral recognition for Israel. Tal Becker said that Israel needs to acknowledge Palestinian suffering much more than it has, and Palestinians must recognize that Jews were a nation in Israel in ancient times (even if they contest the legitimacy of the modern state).

By the way, I am withholding judgment on whether Palestinians deny the Jews’ historic connection to the region. In 2000, the Palestinian negotiating team told Bill Clinton there was no evidence that Jews had lived in Israel in ancient times, but I am not sure whether that remains their position or how widely it is shared. What I do know is that we have met Israelis who hold at least four views on the topic:

1. Palestinian recognition of the Jews’ historical role in Israel (and hence the sincerity of Israelis’ claims to the land) is a precondition for any kind of serious peace negotiation. I told Halevi I understood why he wanted this recognition–as a moral and emotional matter–but I didn’t see what it had to do with his security. He replied that open recognition of the validity of the Jewish position would reduce the danger to Israel in the whole Arab world.
2. Palestinian recognition of the historical link should be part of a deal, combined with Israeli recognition of Palestinian sovereignty over their territory. This pair of statements is not a precondition for negotiations but should be part of the outcome. I think this was Tal Becker’s view. [Later: I should partly correct that. I think Becker would like the Israeli side to start acknowledging Palestinian suffering now, because it is the right thing to do. He just doesn’t think that Palestinian acknowledgement of Israeli historicity should be a precondition for negotiation.]
3. Palestinians’ views about Israel’s status really aren’t important. A deal is all that’s needed, and a deal should be accepted if it protects Israel’s security. I think Commander Gruber took that position.
4. Palestinians do not have a legitimate claim to sovereignty, so recognizing their nationhood certainly should not be traded for Palestinian recognition of the Jewish people’s connection to the land, which is manifest and absolute. I am reading between the lines in thinking that would be Israel Harel’s view.

I am not sure about the strategic implications of these options, but it’s true that the Palestinians have suffered and been humiliated, and it’s true that the Jews lived in the Holy Land in ancient times and now experience their presence as a “return.” Acknowledging the truth is generally good for the speaker; it’s a matter of integrity, in the root sense of wholeness or oneness. In general, one ought to speak truth regardless of whether truth is spoken in return.

I am in Jerusalem. I have traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territories with a group of Americans. We will be meeting with about 20 people here, including Members of the Knesset and a Vice Prime Minister, military and intelligence officers, journalists and academics, diplomats, peace activists and human rights lawyers, both Jews and Arabs. The tour is organized by the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston, but the visiting group is diverse with respect to religion and ethnicity. If one thinks in terms of the Arab/Israeli conflict, this visit is not neutral; it has a Jewish/Israeli perspective. I deliberated for rather a long time before deciding to participate and checked some aspects of the itinerary with Arab friends, who pointed out biases. I ultimately decided that neutrality may be impossible, and in any case, this is my only opportunity to visit the Middle East as the guest of a very well organized and well connected organization. The tour is pluralist and unscripted; we are encouraged to ask critical questions. I am hoping that it will mostly be on the record, and I plan to blog.

This morning, my colleague Vanessa and I participated in a videoconference with Arab students in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. They are members of the Watan movement, which, as they presented it to us, exists to celebrate Palestinian culture and identity. “Watan” means “homeland” or “nation,” and clearly to assert Palestinian national/cultural identity within an Israeli university is a political act. But in general, asserting, defining, explaining, defending, debating, and developing a cultural identity is a political act–or at least has political aspects. Not all identities are commendable (think of fascist nationalism), but the act of asserting an identity through culture is both natural and appropriate.

The Watan students reported to us that their requests to hold a “Palestinian Heritage Day” on campus have been denied, even though other cultural days (e.g., for Chinese students) are frequent. They said they were told that the university should not be a political zone; politics belongs outside.

Of course, I do not know the whole story here–we just spoke to three students from thousands of miles away for a few minutes. And I make no comment about the local laws and policies regarding student events on campus. But I do think that universities exist to be places of creativity, contestation, and nonviolent politics–politics by word, not act. Those are central goods in a university, not optional. Thus a university should welcome a student-organized cultural day even if it offends other students. In fact, the majority (in this case, Jewish Israeli students) are potentially the prime beneficiaries, since they would have the most to learn from Palestinian Heritage Day even if it left them just as hostile to the Watan Movement as they had begun.

The Hebrew University is a world-famous institution, known for its liberal values of free expression. I think blocking a Palestinian Heritage Day should be an embarrassment.

I am at the Aspen Institute along the Wye River on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Think of tidy fields with picket fences, Georgian brick houses, placid reaches of salt water at every turn, great flocks of starlings on the mowed fields, bald eagles, neat rows of trees aflame in red and gold against the wide pale sky. The last time I was here–for an entirely different meeting–was May 2004. The Abu Ghraib torture story was breaking, and something about the classic American landscape and the bitter news from Iraq prompted me to write these lines, which came back to me today.