In the Bible, Isaiah, in one of his more memorable prophesies, says that there will come a time when, "...They beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation does not lift a sword against nation, and they no longer learn war." Quite a profound sentiment, if you ask me, but how realistic is it, given the recent violence in Gaza?

 

In recent days, in the midst of the ghastly fighting in Gaza, I've heard about a proposal to build an industrial zone on Gaza's border with Israel, which will employ as many as 200,000 Palestinians. At first blush I thought, "That's crazy." But upon further reflection I thought, "That's brilliant." And actually, come to think of it, the line between "crazy and brilliant," is often a thin line.

 

As we speak, Hamas and Israel seem very close to concluding a truce. Israel is probably facing insurmountable international pressure to the point where further military gains will be outweighed by extremely bad PR. And Hamas has probably reached the point where it can still claim some sort of victory, having survived the onslaught, without tipping the balance toward utter military defeat. So both sides may have reached the point where a truce makes sense.

 

My guess is that the truce will call for an end to the rocket fire by Hamas, in exchange for an easing of borders on the part of Israel. To that end, international monitors would probably be put in place to verify compliance on both sides. But what if we could use this opportunity to create new realities on the ground, realities which will help to insure the continuity of the ceasefire, without having to rely solely on the agreements reached?

 

And so, in recent days, an unusual idea has surfaced; Why not build an industrial zone on the border between Gaza and Israel. The more I think about it, the more I think it could work, not only to help the people in Gaza, but actually, as a symbol of hope which will point in a new direction for the Middle East, a new direction that points to the possibility of peace.

 

As part of the ceasefire, and of the truce, a demilitarized zone will have to be created between Israel and Gaza. Why not use this zone to build an industrial zone? Such an outcome will afford ordinary Palestinians the opportunity to find employment, and to support their families. Gaza, by implication, will no longer face the prospects of an economic blockade. Economic prosperity would breathe new life into that troubled region. People on the street will begin to embrace the possibility of hope, and with hope, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.

 

But will Hamas buy in? Believe it or not, I think there's at least a good chance they will. Hamas may spew forth a lot of ideological rhetoric, but in the final analysis, what they are most interested in is power, raw political power. An industrial zone, with its resulting economic prosperity, may be the easiest way for Hamas to consolidate its hold on political power.

 

Every political party needs some basis for its political legitimacy. If Hamas continue to rely on its hatred of Israel, and on its campaign of terror, they will continue to face Israel's retaliation, and they run the risk that ordinary Palestinians will become fed up. But if Hamas can show that its efforts have brought about economic prosperity, then now they have a source of legitimacy which actually satisfies the man on the street. Hamas may then find it comfortable to rule on the basis of political and economic gains, as opposed to empty rhetoric and terror.

 

Will Israel buy in? I think they will. To many around the world, Israel's military attack may seem irrational, and certainly not related to any reasonable notion of self-defense. But Israel may look at self-defense from a different point of view than most. For example, in light of its 2006 defeat in Lebanon, Israel may sense that she is losing her credibility with regard to military deterrence. She may conclude that if her enemies see her as weak, then she is done for. In addition, Israel may have launched the attack in Gaza for internal consumption. If her own citizens see her as weak, in response to Hamas' barrage of missiles, how could she hope to maintain her legitimacy to rule her own people?

 

However, having launched and concluded the military onslaught, Israel may quickly come to the realization that in the final analysis, only peace will bring her security. And therefore, peace may ultimately be the best form of self-defense. If an industrial zone on Gaza's border could help secure the peace, by creating jobs and by giving Palestinians a place at the table, a stake in their future, then Israel will not only buy in, but will help to make it happen as well. The most dangerous man is a man with nothing to lose. Give Palestinians a sense of hope that their lives could indeed get better, and they will give you back their hearts in return.

 

What about Abbas? An industrial zone in Gaza, along with its resulting economic prosperity, could well threaten the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, in its existential struggle with Hamas. Hamas sees the West Bank as the ultimate prize. Therefore, as has been suggested, it will be important as well, to grow the Palestinian economy in the West Bank, so that both territories will come to enjoy the hope that comes from job creation and economic growth.

 

Business creates its own ideological imperative. When people are making money, they have little time or inclination for ideological nonsense. And people will think twice about allowing violence to rock the boat. If both leaderships, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority, come to embrace economic growth and political freedom as their legitimate sources of power, then it will be up to the people to decide who should rule the new nation, and under what terms. And no matter who wins, the decision will be left to the people, who will have to live with the decision they made. Such an outcome is at least preferable to the irrationality and unpredictability of war.

 

Isaiah's vision may still be a long way off. But an industrial zone in Gaza may well be a step in the right direction. What do you think?

On the surface, at least, the purpose of a system of justice is to bring justice. In America, however, every defendant has the right to legal counsel. Every once in a while a sharp and crafty lawyer can get the defendant off, even if he was caught with blood on his hands. Such is the power of a persuasive argument. But is justice served when legal arguments and loopholes are used to subvert the truth?

 

We see unfolding before our eyes a tragedy in Gaza. Innocent civilians are losing their lives even as we speak. And as we witness the events of recent days, we also hear some rather persuasive arguments on both sides of the conflict. And since there are strong equities on both sides, and since the arguments are often equally persuasive, depending which side you're on, then the same question arises once again: Is the cause of justice being served?

 

From the Palestinian side we hear arguments which would constitute a strong case in a court of law: that Israel is responding disproportionately in relation to the initial provocation of the firing of the homemade rockets and mortars, that the rockets were fired as an act of self-defense in the face of the closures and the economic boycott of Gaza, that only a few Israelis have died as opposed to hundreds of Palestinians, that the targeting of civilians violates international law, and so forth, and so on.

 

Likewise, those in support of Israel could counter these charges with equally persuasive arguments: that in the face of mortal enemies Israel is forced to project a strong image of deterrence, that the closure and boycott of Gaza came in response to a constant barrage of rocket fire which can potentially target as many as 500,000 Israelis, that the respective number of casualties on either side does not negate the right to self-defense, that the civilian casualties are not intended but are inevitable when the militants choose to position themselves among civilians, and so forth, and so on.

 

These are just some of the arguments that are volleyed back and forth like ping pong balls. And yet, where is the justice? What do you say to a mother who lost five beautiful daughters who were only trying to make their way on a horse-drawn carriage? We can continue to argue back and forth, and satisfy ourselves that we are out doing one another in the blame game. Or we can be a bit more original, and bring forth peace, instead.

 

For peace to happen, a lot of things will have to change. Foremost, as far as I can tell, is the way we think. In a way, when we go about gingerly arguing our positions endlessly, with no clear outcome in sight, aren't we being just a little bit selfish? It's about what I believe and what I think. In other words, it's about me. And what is lost in the focus on me, is we.

 

We are all entitled to our beliefs, and to our ways of seeing the world. But are we entitled to trap ourselves in a vicious cycle of recriminations, a cycle that has no beginning, and no end, a cycle that will deprive our children of their right to a decent and peaceful life? It may well be time, before time runs out, and believe me, time is running out, to step out of ourselves and beyond our differences. It may be time to put on a shelf at least some of who we are and what we believe, in favor of something we can believe in even more, in favor of peace, in favor of sustainability, in favor of what makes sense.

 

Imagine, if we continue down the path we're going, we may well find ourselves all dead, and even in death, arguing our case before God: "Oh God," we'll say, "We were right about this or that, and we had no choice but to do what we did, in your name no less." And what do you think God would say in response? "I gave you life so that you could live, not kill, and not die, before your time. I gave you the common sense to bring a semblance of order to your lives. I gave you a wondrous world, full of beauty, so that you could create a paradise right here and right now.  And what did you do instead? You took what could have been a heaven on earth, and made it into a living hell. And you did all that in My name? Well guess what...thanks but no thanks."

 

Here is my dream for the Palestinian people for the New Year: a country of their own, side by side Israel, a country which enjoys the blessings of peace, prosperity, and freedom, where every citizen has the opportunity to pursue his or her dreams, and where every child dares to reach for the stars.

 

This war, tragic as it is, will soon come to an end, God willing. And then, hard as it may be to believe, because of many factors which are converging as we speak, there will be an opportunity to broker a lasting peace. Things can be done, right here and right now, by Palestinians, Israelis, and the rest of us around the world, to improve the chances for peace. But in order to do what we have to do, we will have to let go of some of our beliefs, of some of the history, and of some of who we are. We will let go of this, however reluctantly, so that we can realize a better version of ourselves, a version of ourselves that gives fuller expression to the potential for good that is within each and every one of us.

 

We were created in God's image. And so, like Him, we too are creators. It is time to create a version of ourselves that allows God to see His image in us.