Note: This article will be followed by an experiment. In an effort to foster rational dialogue, Talkback responses to this piece will be subject to stringent new guidelines, as specified below.

	Advertisement

Let's hear it for No.

It is a word that oozes manliness. It is the verbal equivalent of testosterone poisoning. It has the well-worn leather feeling of reins, of riding crops, of the illusion of having control over our lives and our destinies.

It is the motto of the modern Middle East. It has become the watchword of holy men, Jewish and Muslim alike.

We have come to believe, Arab and Jew both, that intransigence is next to godliness.

It is what we now most closely hold in common. It is our only consensus. It puts us on the same page.

We, all of us in the Holy Land, Israel and Palestine together, are the united states of No. We live in the subcontinent of No. So enamored are we of the word, that in any negotiation over the return of captives, the disposition of land, the future of our peoples, our opening bargaining position boils down to No.

Negotiate with the elected government of the Palestinian people? No way - they're terrorists. Recognize the state of Israel? No way - it is occupying the land of Palestine.

We were raised in the consciousness of the reflex of No. It is our first line of defense, our default setting, our first resort, our comfort zone.

Everything in our experience now augurs for rejectionism. The profoundly human need for revenge, the unraveling of peace agreements, the lack of trust in the intentions and actions of the other side, all of these are persuasive lobbyists for No.

No has become our golden calf. We revel in rejection. For Israeli and Palestinian alike, No has become the drug of choice, the national liquor. No does for us what a stiff drink should: it soothes us even as it impairs our judgment.

No is a democratic word. In time of war, it is a rallying cry that cuts across chasms of class and belief and ideology.

No may be an ugly word, but it feels so oddly soothing when you try it on. It feels empowering, like a toddler's first stab at assertion of independence. The child knows in his bones what we may have forgotten: If you can't get your own way, you can at least say No to someone else's.

Hereabouts, the origin of the word is, in a fact, a noble one. It comes from the phrases "No, I will not allow you to kill me" and "No, I will not allow you to displace me."

But how well has it really worked for us? How well is it working now?

We have seen the best minds of our generation destroyed by No, by love of No, by the consequences of No, by the death of hope, by the death of peace. And still we put our trust in it.

It is a human instinct, when life has taken a turn for the sewer, to fear any change, lest that change make matters even worse.

But that is precisely why a new form of bravery, a new expression of machismo, is needed here and now.

It may, in fact, be realism that drives us to cling to No as our life raft. But it is not courage. Macho displays aside, we put our faith and trust in No because we are terrified of its alternatives.

It is time that Israel's first response to a Hamas-Fatah unity government be something more open, more creative, more courageous than "There is no basis for negotiations with this government."

It is time that Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, asked if a new PA administration would negotiate with Israel, would reply with something more groundbreaking, more positive, than "No. Negotiations have to do with the PLO and not with the government."

It is time, in fact, for everyday people to take a stand in favor of alternatives to No. It will take every ounce of guts to do so. Everyone who advocates the possibility of peace is guaranteed to come in for abuse as a simpleton, a self-hater, a defeatist, a nut.

In the end, rather than keeping us afloat, the reliance on No will take us to the bottom. In the long run, if we are to have societies that can address poverty, joblessness, hunger, and the needs of children, the elderly and the handicapped, Israel and Palestine both will need peace as a prerequisite to critical investment and economic growth. Either that, or both Israel and Palestine will go under.

It is time for private individuals to do what they can to foster this, by seeking a separate peace. It is time for private individuals to take the initiative to talk to one another, to argue their differences with evident respect for the other. Despite a state of war, there are many avenues for this. This space is one of them.