'October 7 made me realize the need to divide this land.' Interview with former head of Meretz, Haim Oron

The tragic events of October 7 have revived the discussion on the future of relations with Palestinian Arabs. Some believe the war has made political settlement based on the 'two states for two peoples' principle impossible. Others argue that the necessity for separation has become more urgent than before.

The editorial team of The News of Israel discussed this issue with the former Minister of Agriculture and former head of the Meretz party, Haim "Jumes" Oron. In the coming days, we will present an opposing point of view.

Interviewed by Gabi Wolfson.

You are one of the most prominent representatives of the left-wing movement in Israel. In this context, what did you experience on October 7?

You're complimenting me, but I indeed adhere to left-wing views and have never changed or abandoned them. I know dozens, if not hundreds, of members of kibbutzim located on the Gaza Strip border. I was twice the head of the Hakibbutz Ha'artzi movement, and 11 kibbutzim – from Karmia, Zikim, and Nir Am to Gvulot and Nir Yitzhak – were part of the movement. I personally know some of the elderly individuals, including those killed and those abducted to Gaza. So, in addition to the shock we all experienced, for several days, I was trying to find out the names. And the photos that still appear in the media are not just names and surnames for me; they are people I know.

I'm afraid to ask how many funerals you attended.

I've been to many funerals. Farewell ceremonies for some of the deceased took place in Kibbutz Lahav. This kibbutz, of which I am a member, is located in the eastern Negev. After ceremonies attended by dozens and hundreds of people, only the family and the closest ones went to the funerals in Nir Oz. Funerals were different, and there were many of them.

Those were your feelings as a person. How did these events affect you at the ideological level?

At the personal level, it's a horrific blow. That kind of blow that seems to come back harder almost every day. I know these people; I know their parents, sometimes grandparents. The second level is the communities I helped, where I participated in their creation, like Kerem Shalom and Nir Oz. People who were guiding me in the youth movement live there today. They are near 90, and some of them live in Kibbutz Zikim. The next level is political, ideological, and civic. And this is probably the heaviest. There's a mix of terrible anger and a sense that all of this could have been avoided. Besides, there is an understanding that we are going back to the crucial and the most challenging question of Zionism, which has been with us since the decision on the partition of Palestine and beyond, especially acute after the Six-Day War.

Mr. Oron, but the dispute regarding the Gaza Strip seemed settled. We withdrew from there altogether. We are not occupiers there; our settlements were destroyed, our people were evacuated, some would say expelled. And still, we got what we got on October 7.

Who told you that the dispute was settled? We still rule over the Gaza Strip. We control the Rafah crossing, we control the Erez crossing, we determine how much water and electricity they get, and we even control where the sewage flows. Does it mean we left Gaza? The conflict remains; it's here, it hasn't gone anywhere. I had a dispute with Ariel Sharon about the unilateral Gaza withdrawal, but the Meretz party supported it. But what has the policy of the Israeli government been in the last 15 years? Let's call things by their names. The Israeli government, for the last 15 years, has done everything to keep the Gaza Strip as a separate political entity and prevent it from uniting with the West Bank. As long as Gaza and the West Bank are not a single political entity, there's no one to negotiate with. We're happy as long as there's no one to negotiate with. We celebrate. We are self-assured. We make peace with the entire Arab world without the Palestinians. I bring you back to Netanyahu's speeches in recent months. But why go so far back? He spoke just last Saturday. What was his main idea? We need to separate Gaza and the West Bank and weaken Mahmoud Abbas. Everyone is happy if there's no partner. He boasted of removing the Palestinian issue from the agenda.

I see your perspective. I don't understand how it relates to the events of October 7. Did Sinwar decide to attack Israel because we didn't engage in political dialogue with the autonomy in Ramallah?

Heaven forbid. Netanyahu saw Yahya Sinwar as a partner and an ally under the agreement of 'you let me live – I'll let you live' and as an alternative to those with whom the dialogue is based on the question of 'how do we divide this land.' It could be Mahmoud Abbas; it could be Marwan Barghouti; the name could be anybody's. Sinwar can share control over the territories. But that shouldn't be on the agenda. We should talk again about how to divide this land, not about how to divide control over the occupied territories.

Yet, I bring you back to October 7. How did the attempt to manage the conflict rather than resolve it and the absence of negotiations on dividing the land lead us to the fact that 3,000 terrorists from Gaza poured into our territory? Could you explain to me the connection?

I want to be very clear in my choice of words. I never thought of Hamas as a negotiating partner; I never thought that Hamas was an alternative to autonomy. And I don't believe that Hamas did what it did because of the absence of negotiations. Hamas did what it did because it didn't want us to be here. And that's why we must fight against it and bring about a situation where Hamas is not the force that controls the Gaza Strip. Until October 7, Bibi Netanyahu wanted Hamas to remain in the Gaza Strip, to control the Gaza Strip, and to assist Hamas in doing so. I want to say it very clearly: there is no cause-and-effect relationship between the absence of negotiations and Hamas's decision to attack Be'eri and Nir Oz. Hamas did it because its fundamentalist worldview says that territory cannot be divided, meaning Palestinians must own the entire territory. One way to achieve this goal is to commit a massacre, to slaughter residents so that Jews flee. That's why six of my sons and grandsons are fighting in Gaza today, participating in the war, with which I completely and wholly agree. I don't entirely agree with how it's being conducted, but I fully agree with the war. But this cannot hide the primary dispute. You asked me about October 7. Your next question will be about what should happen after the war ends.

What should be there after the war ends?

We should strive for a structure involving Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority with the participation of the United States, Europe, and the entire world. At the same time, everyone should know that this is a stage in the process of dividing the land into two states — Israel and the Palestinian state, living side by side. This is what we should aim for.

In other words, despite October 7, you still believe in the necessity and possibility of dividing this land.

It didn't change anything. Not only did it not change anything, but on October 7, I became convinced of the need to divide this land. If we don't divide this land, the Zionist project has no chance of existence. I know I'm saying something difficult to hear. But the situation where Israel governs a country with 50% Jews and 50% Arabs, and some say the ratio will be 45% Jews, 55% Arabs—that's not my Zionism. I don't believe in such Zionism.

You are talking about a situation where Judea and Samaria, what you call the West Bank, are part of the state of Israel. Gaza will no longer be part of it.

You cannot look at Gaza separately from the West Bank. We invented this idea, and no one in the world supports it. Name one serious political force and politician who supports such an idea. Just don't name Trump. Well, Trump doesn't support it either. Egyptians don't need Gaza. Jordanians are deadly afraid that refugees from Gaza and the West Bank will flood their country. Who will own Gaza, and who will govern there?

The Palestinian Authority does not control what is happening in Jenin. Without Israel's help, it cannot control the situation in Judea and Samaria. Can it handle Gaza?

It can control Gaza with the help of the whole world. With the help of Saudi Arabia, with the help of Qatar, with the help of Egypt, with the help of Jordan, with the help of the United States, and with the help of Israel. That's how it can control Gaza. But let me tell you more. I am talking to you from Kibbutz Lahav. I am sitting on the balcony because my grandchildren are in the house, and I don't want to be disturbed. From where I am, it's 800 meters to the border with the West Bank. I see a wall ten kilometers long. I want there to be a Palestinian state there, with Palestinian authority, with Palestinian police, and everything necessary.

Aren't you afraid that two days after this state is created, the same thing that happened in Gaza in 2007 will occur, and your kibbutz will become Hebron?

I am afraid of that. Not only am I afraid of that, but I am also fearful of what happened in Be'eri. Because right now, with our hands, we are creating a situation where this becomes possible. Unless you believe, like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich do, that the Palestinian people will leave this land or that they can be expelled from here. That is an alternative.

And you disagree with the assertion that the presence of IDF soldiers on the territory makes it safer and prevents it from becoming a platform for attacks on the state of Israel?

I hear that the same IDF soldiers who protect us in the West Bank are begging members of the military-political cabinet to allow 80,000 Palestinians from the West Bank to work in the territory of the state of Israel. And they are not allowed.

What does it prove?

It proves that the current policy is senseless and unpromising. In the army, they understand that controlling Hebron, for example, leads to Arabs from Hebron working in Be'er Sheva. But now they are not allowed to, and they stay unemployed in Hebron. What is it going to lead to? I'm telling you this not as a leftist who, eight months after the end of the Six-Day War, went out to protest in Hebron when Elyakim Haetzni began building Kiryat Arba. People with entirely different views tell you this. Are they leftists, too?

I still want to understand your position. You reject the assumption that the territory where IDF soldiers are located cannot become a base from which an attack, similar to what happened on October 7, will begin?

No, I don't reject it. I believe that this way, we can prevent it. The question is whether we want to live like this until the end of our days.

Yes, I want to live until the end of my days in a situation where what happened in Be'eri cannot be repeated.

I'll tell you something; I know it's hazardous to say such things today. I hope that what came from Gaza to Be'eri cannot come from Jenin to the Jezreel Valley. I want to believe in this. And I don't want to live in such a reality.

This cannot happen because IDF soldiers are controlling the territory. Right.

Yes, but I say this very carefully and less confidently, as IDF was also on the Gaza border. We built a wall that went from the abyss to the heavens. An officer of a high rank showed me this wall and said that not even a bird could fly over it.

Yes, there was a failure, a catastrophic failure. But I return to my question. You are saying the following – even if holding the territory, at least controlling security there, can prevent another October 7, you still don't want to live in such a reality.

I don't want to live in such a reality because I don't believe in it. I faced the same questions when I rallied in support of peace with Egypt, and Likud members and right-wingers called me a traitor, saying that the agreement wouldn't last a year. It has been forty years, and the same was said about the deal with Jordan. I reject the assumption that there is only one possible form of existence in this land – with a sword in our hands, and our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren must fight their entire lives. I'm not ready to live with such an assumption. I believe that if we reached any agreement on the creation of a Palestinian state – demilitarized, without an army, without weapons – there would be enough countries in the Arab world and people in Palestinian society who would support it. I hear this with my ears; I talk to Palestinians today. And the contours are well-known: Ehud Olmert's peace offer, the Geneva Initiative, and Clinton's parameters.

There is a difference between Clinton's parameters and Olmert's proposals, but let's not delve into details.

Do you know whose proposals are more far-reaching?

Olmert's, of course.

I participated in creating the map of the Geneva Initiative. When Olmert showed me what he intended to offer Mahmoud Abbas, I told him, 'Ehud, you've lost your mind.' He offered them twice as much sovereign territory of Israel as we were. We offered 2.3% of the territory, and he offered over 4%. Yet, there was no agreement.

Mr. Oron, doesn't this raise questions for you? Barak proposed what he proposed, you presented the Geneva Initiative, and Olmert offered his generous version. They didn't agree on anything.

Then why does Olmert want to continue negotiations today, and Barak intends to return to what we discussed in the Geneva Initiative?

Suppose they still believe in what they proposed. Don't these failures make you want to start looking for an answer to the question that you dislike so much – is there someone to negotiate with?

This raises a lot of questions and a lot of fear for me. So I want Biden to be with us. And I'm not going to behave like Bibi, who received four planes with weapons yesterday and says today he doesn't need Biden. That's not how you do it.

So, do you believe that with Biden's help, we can realize Olmert's plan, the Geneva Initiative, or any other similar project in the Middle East?

Even before I answer your question, I want every Jew in this country, including you, to answer a question. Let's assume there is someone to negotiate with. I want everyone to answer the question. There are two possibilities: negotiations for the division of this land and the demand to keep it all to oneself because it is holy land. What do you choose? That's the main question. I often talk to religious people, and they present their arguments to me. Like, we don't have a negotiating partner, and so on. And then I ask, suppose I returned from Ramallah and firmly know that there are people there ready to reach an agreement with us based on the principles of Olmert, the Geneva Initiative, and so on. Are you ready? They answer, 'No, it's my land.' Let's agree on this.

Olmert was willing to relinquish sovereignty over the Western Wall. Are you ready for that for the sake of a settlement?

Regarding the Western Wall, I always say something should stay for negotiations and future generations. I deliberately don't go into details now – where the border will be and things like that. Believe me, I'm well-versed in the details, but the conversation is not about them now. I want Israeli society to make a decision on the scale of Ben-Gurion. In his time, after the Peel Commission, he decided he was ready to realize the Zionist idea in part of Eretz Yisrael and share the other part. By the way, the Hashomer Hatzair movement, of which I was a disciple, initially disagreed with this idea. They only accepted it in 1947. Until then, they advocated for a unified Jewish-Arab state.

I don't want to go back to 1947. Let's talk about 2009. Back then, you said we needed to negotiate with Hamas. Have you changed your opinion since then?

Firstly, I changed my opinion. Secondly, I was discussing negotiations in the context of Marwan Barghouti's Prisoner's Document. Some claimed that I wrote that document, which is nonsense. It addressed the continuation of the Oslo process. Hamas would participate, and when an agreement is reached, a comprehensive Palestinian referendum would take place. I still believe in this; you may call it an illusion, but I believe there would be a majority, as we had after the agreements of Rabin and Arafat.

After the Rabin-Arafat agreements, there were the 1996 elections, and supporters of the agreements suffered defeat in those elections.

It was after Rabin's assassination. But right after signing the agreement, there was a majority in the Knesset and society. There was no majority before the deal.

Then, the terror attacks started, and the rest is well-known.

True.

Let's go back to 2023. You communicate a lot with Palestinian Arabs. You know well that not only Hamas militants participated in the attack on Israel. There were so-called peaceful citizens, residents of Gaza. What do you think about this?

I think it's terrible. Madness makes me ponder the extent of evil embedded in a person. But forgive me for saying this; I have seen similar things in many nations. I have seen it, and you have seen it, and anyone who knows history has seen it. I intentionally avoid drawing parallels with the Holocaust. But it's madness.

And you still think it's possible to agree, to make peace with these people?

It's impossible with those who did that. With the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, it is possible.

Even after seeing polls where over 70% of Arab residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza support the violence in the south, is it still possible?

I believe we must make them and us face the necessity of choice. Let me tell you more. Send me and Yossi Beilin, two leftists, to negotiate. And then we return and tell you, "You were right in your questions. There is no partner." What to do? I answer. Here is the wall I see from my balcony. Withdraw from all territories beyond that wall. Leave them there as Ariel Sharon did in Gaza.

So, if there's no negotiating partner, withdraw unilaterally.

If, after a complex process, not just after one article in a newspaper, it turns out there's no partner, though I'm convinced there is one – yes. I don't want to rule over five, six, or seven million Palestinians who don't want me. I don't want to enter their homes at night, and I don't want to fight with them. I don't want that life for us and our children. But don't misunderstand me. I don't want the headline of this interview to be "Haim Oron supports unilateral steps." First and foremost, I hope the left-center camp will win the elections shortly. Not everyone there thinks like me. My task is to convince my people of the necessity of Ben-Gurion's compromise on the division of Eretz Yisrael. And if we take it seriously, I'm convinced we will find partners. In Israel, in the Arab world, in the Western world. Everywhere. Yes, it's harder to achieve now than before, but I believe it's possible.