Yahad leader Yossi Beilin was a guest of Q&A on Wednesday, July 28. Many thanks to the thousands of people who participated in this live event.
Beilin, who heads the left-wing Yahad party, last year engineered the Geneva Accord, along with Palestinian leader Yasser Abed Rabbo. The unofficial initiative called for a Palestinian concession on the right of return to lands within the State of Israel, in exchange for sovereignty over the Temple Mount. The plan also calls for an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip.
The proposal was met with furious disapproval by the Sharon government.
Beilin, who served as justice minister in the government headed by Ehud Barak, was also one of the architects of the Oslo Accord.
It seems to me that disengagement from Gaza, still
not being the best solution, is the only one possible to conduct under the circumstances. Do you support disengagement from Gaza?
I agree with your assessment that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is far from the Peace Camp's vision of a permanent status peace agreement, in
line with the Geneva Accord. It is very clear that Sharon is heading down the path of a unilateral withdrawal in order to prevent an agreement.
Yet, as you suggest in your question, one cannot ignore that right now it is the main game in town. Furthermore, the fact that Sharon, father of the settlement movement, will dismantle settlements is an important one. Therefore, the Peace Camp, and Yachad Party in particular, will support the plan once it is put forth in the Knesset, and will do its outmost to use the
withdrawal's momentum to renew the peace process.
Do you think that Sharon and his government will
withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank so the Palestinians can start to build a state, or will the withdrawal plan just turn Gaza into a big prison for the Palestinians?
Listening to Sharon and being acquainted with his school of thought, I suspect that he is leading the unilateral withdrawal plan in order to prevent the Geneva vision from becoming a reality and to promote his old Bantustan plan for the West Bank and Gaza.
Yet, I believe that such processes have lives of their own, and it is up to the peace camps - both the Israeli and the Arab ones - together with the
world, to make the plan a "Gaza First" instead of "Gaza Last".
Most Palestinians only see an Israeli land grab
onslaught with the West Bank wall, relentless settlement activity, and aggressive military presence by the IDF. Therefore, for Palestinians,
the two-state solution is a non-starter. Can you say anything to make a dent in this Palestinian perception?
I think that during the mid 90s Israelis and Palestinians experienced a glimpse of the atmosphere a peace agreement between the two peoples would create. Unfortunately, the cycle of violence that started on September 2000 undermined severely the trust between the two peoples. Nevertheless, I can tell the Palestinians and the Israelis that they should not give up hope. There is no real alternative to the two state solution that will bring peace
and stability to our region. The two sides should not give up on their partners for peace but rather strengthen them.
Do you feel at all personally responsible for the
tens of thousands of dead and injured Israelis who were victims of your failed Oslo policy?
Los Angeles, USA
The Oslo process is the only hope for a win-win solution between Israel and the Palestinians. It became victim to extremists on both sides (the
first was Baruch Goldstein and the Palestinian suicide bombers followed him). When sanity returns, it will become again the only solution, whether we call it the Clinton Plan, The Geneva Initiative or the Bush Plan. When you refer to numbers, you should be more careful, but when you try to attribute them, you better refer them to the unwillingness to make peace rather than to efforts of making it.
In view of the chaotic situation in the Palestinian street, how would you propose starting
negotiations for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and with whom?
Shimon Z. Klein
Bat Hefer, Israel
For the last three and a half years Sharon's government is doing all it can in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Nevertheless, the
pragmatic camp within the Palestinians draws its strength from the status of the peace process: when it is on track - the pragmatics prevail; when there is no process - the extremists take control. There is a Palestinian Prime Minister by the name of Abu Ala - he is our official partner and we should negotiate with him and the pragmatic Palestinian leadership he represents.
According to many observers it is impossible to
conclude a stable Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty with Arafat. For this reason the Israeli and American governments have isolated him, both physically and diplomatically. What is your viewpoint on this? Have you written him off as well?
The Hague, The Netherlands
I think this policy is a mistaken one. Isolating him like a wounded animal while knowing he is still the most relevant Palestinian leader, is
certainly not going to make him less of an obstacle. As problematic as Arafat is as a leader, Abu A`la, Abu Mazen and the rest of the pragmatic group within the Palestinians still need his legitimacy to reach an agreement with Israel.
Given your experience at Camp David and Taba, what is necessary on the Palestinian side for the peace process to move forward. And if those necessary developments materialize, how could the Israeli public be convinced that progress is
Before October 12th 2003, my answer to this question would have been an assumption. However, now, after achieving the Geneva Accord on that date, I know what both prominent Israelis and Palestinians can agree upon. Whilst this accord was not an official one, it still gets a steady 40% support on both sides. I strongly believe that should such an agreement be presented by
the official leaderships, it would win a vast majority.
In regards to the issue of Syria, we don't hear
anything about any negotiations. All dialogue
seems to be frozen. I am wondering about the status of the Golan Heights negotiations. Is Israel prepared to turn over the complete Golan Heights?
Los Angeles, USA
It depends on which Israel we are discussing. Four Israeli Prime Ministers - Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak - have agreed to withdraw from
the Golan Heights in a context of a peace agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. Sharon did not even try to see whether President Assad's call for a renewal of the negotiations was a serious one or not.
What makes you think that you have the right to
negotiate with Palestinians or with anybody else since you are not an elected representative of the Israeli people? In any other country you would have to face charges of treason.
I am proud of the Israeli democracy that enables such an endeavor. As you probably know, we never pretended to sign an agreement but rather a letter
to the Swiss Foreign Minister, with a model agreement attached to it.
Why are there significant differences between what the Geneva Accord says in English and Hebrew and what they say in Arabic, particularly in regards to the "Right of Return?"
Lakeland, FL, U.S.A.
I think you are mistaken. There is no such difference. The obligatory version is the English one, but the Arabic and Hebrew versions have both
been examined by experts from each side.
The separation wall has proven to be an effective means to counter terror attacks. Given the present situation, do you see a real alternative to completing the wall?
The separation wall is by its nature a short-term solution. It will not defend Israel for good. And its only route should be the 1967 borders.
What explains Europe's seemingly extreme anti-Israel position?
The political question for Israel is how to make out the EU a friend of Israel rather than an adversary. And I believe that in the last three and half years, Israel did all that it could in order to prevent such a development.
How much financial help have you received from the EU, or other European sources, over the past two years?
Dr. Jack Chivo
West Vancouver, Canada
I forgot to bring my budget papers with me.
Why doesn't the left have a campaign to gain the support in development towns? For years it seems that you have ignored them as if they do not exists.
There is no party which invested in the development towns more than Yahad and I believe that all the males of these towns would be the first to testify. The problem for us is to translate their general support into votes and this is something that we have to overcome in the run up to the elections.
How much of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem are you willing to cede as part of final status agreement?
Colorado , U.S.A.
According to the map we agreed upon in the Geneva initiative, the basis of the future borders will be the 1967 borders. And the land swaps are equal and based on this presumption.
Why doesn't any leader in the peace camp initiate the same kind of action as the anti-disengagement human chain to counter the initiative of the settlers?
Tel Aviv, Israel
I don't believe in gimmicks, and I believe that an initiative like the Geneva Initiative - which is a proposal agreeed upon by both Israelis and Palestinians after three years of tough negotiations - is much more important and influential than young settlers creating this nice chain in their summer vacation.
Do you detect signs of ideological decay in Israel. It seems that Zionism as a pioneering ideology has run its course and now needs to be redefined if it is going to survive. What are your views?
Jerusalem , Israel
The main idea of Zionism has not changed in the last 100 years. It is an ideal of having a Jewish state which will be democratic and will assure its Jewish majority.
Shalom Mr. Beilin. Do you think that the Palestinian leadership will ultimately agree to give up on the right of return for Palestinian refugees as part of a final peace deal? Thank you
Wellington , New Zealand
The Palestinians understand that insistence on the right of return will prevent an agreement with any future Israeli government. And I believe that it was proven in the Geneva Initiative that one can agree with them on a permanent solution without any reference to the right of return.
How realistic is the prospect of a two-state solution on the lines of Oslo, considering the religious fundamentalist hatreds on both sides of the divide, as well as the irredentism of both hard-line Likud and Fatah elements? (A similar question was asked by Eyal, from Boston, U.S.A.)
The two-state is the only realistic solution and the even the right-wing prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, understands it and says so. Any other solution will mean the end of the Zionist idea.
How successful and efficient would be a Palestinian state managed on the two separate areas of Gaza and the West Bank?
Of course it is preferable that the state has full contiguity, but in the case of the future Palestinian state the connection between the West Bank and Gaza will have to be different. Either by a special road that is under Israeli sovereignty, or by a tunnel or a bridge. Nevertheless, I believe that such a state can be viable, especially if the world, including Israel, assists it.
What made you offer to give up the Jaffa Gate and Efrat in the Geneva Accord?
You need two to tango and you can't negotiate without a partner. We got much in the Geneva negotiations and we also had to concede.
How distressing is the growing anti-Semitism in Europe? How do you think Israel should act with regards to it?
New York, U.S.A.
Anti-Semitism all around the world is a very distressing phenomenon. It might be difficult or even impossible to uproot it. But it is the role of the Jewish state to do whatever possible in order not to wake up this sometimes dormant beast and to ensure that the deeds of Israel are not increasing the prospects of anti-Semitism. I believe that the current government is not taking it into account. Israel, for example, should be very careful when it decides to assassinate an enemy leader and his family knowing that something like that might provoke a terrorist attack on Jewish communities, like the one that happened at the AMIA building in Buenos Aires in 1994.
I would like to hear your opinion regarding Mr. Arafat. Do you agree with the widespread assumption that until he goes nothing can really happen?
I do not have any information about the successor of Mr. Arafat and I am far from being sure that when he goes there will be a successor who will make peace with Israel. For the time being, whether we like it or not, he is calling the shots on the Palestinian side. I believe that we should negotiate with his prime minister, with the members of his government, knowing eventually there won't be an agreement without his confirmation, without his signature.
Dear Mr. Beilin, You have written on the subject of the relationship between American and Israeli Jewry. What, in your opinion, is the biggest challenge facing the two major population centers of world Jewry today?
Palo Alto, U.S.A.
The biggest challenge is not patronize each other to understand that we are the two big Jewish communities, where 85 percent of Jews live, that the financial assistance of the American Jewry is not going to determine the relationship between the two parties and that Israel should be pivotal in helping the American Jewish community to ensure its continuity.
Do you think it moral to forcibly transfer anybody from their home based on ethnicity?
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I can only quote the High Court of Justice, which ruled years ago that an Arab family which had lived for ages in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem should leave this quarter in order to keep the Jewish nature of the quarter.
Despite the fact that social and economic issues have become a central issue in Israeli politics, it seems that your own positions on these matters are not entirely clear. Regarding this issue, with which European (or American) party do you most identify?
Oxford , U.K.
I don't believe that many other Israeli leaders have bothered to write books about their social and economic views. I can refer you to my book, which was published in 1999, and is called "From Socialism to Social Liberalism." I see myself as part of the socialist international, and identify with policies of social democratic parties in Europe like the Swedish one and many others.
Demographically, since the birth rate for Israeli Arabs is much higher than that of the Jewish citizens they could become a majority in Israel and a result in their representation in the Knesset. Therefore, how do you see the future and existence of Israel as a Jewish state, and what is your suggestion for preventing this?
Tel Aviv, Israel
According to the forecasting of Prof. Dela Pergolla, there will be 65 percent Jews and 35 percent non-Jews in Israel in the year 2050. This means that we are speaking about a solid Jewish majority in Israel in the foreseeable future, if we are able to agree to the borders of the Geneva initiative.
Do you think that Iran is an existential threat to Israel? Do Israeli threats to attack Iran make Israel safer?
Miami , U.S.A.
Nobody can ignore the Iranian threats. Israel should taken it seriously into account and provocations will not help us.
How should rational, peace-seeking Israel supporters react to the news that Arab states rejected a UN call to speak out against anti-Semitism? It seems to me that this move by Arab states proves the right-wing theories that the Arab states are still simply interested in removing all Jews from the Holy Land.
I cannot be sure that the Arab world doesn't prefer a world without Israel. Actually, I believe it does prefer this. So the question for us is how to live in this situation and to create normal bonds with these countries, rather than to complain about them, and to give up on changing their attitude toward Israel.
It seems as though the more the settler movement suceeds, the more likely a single-state solution becomes the most viable long term alternative. What steps must be taken to ensure that a two-state solution re-emerges as the preferred alternative by both sides?
Albert A. Gregorio
Rochester, New York , U.S.A.
I think you are right and that the success of the settlement movement will put an end to the Zionist dream. They embrace Greater Israel and by that they are giving up on the Jewish state. Only a government which is determined to have an agreement with the Palestinians based on the two-state solution will change this trend. And we don't have too much time.
My understanding is that Yahad opposes the Palestinian right of return, but also opposes the ammendment to immigration laws that cancels the possibility of Palestinians becoming Israelis through marrige, known as the "crawling right of return." How do you explain the discrepancy?
Detroit , U.S.A.
There is a big difference between opposing the "right of return" and accepting draconian laws of immigration. In our era of globalization and openness, even if we cannot accept an idea of free entrance to Israel we should be very careful not to build here a Jewish ghetto, eventually we may pay the price for it.
Do Jews have any right to live in Hebron if the Palestinians don't want them to?
According to the Geneva initiative, Israelis will have a special permit to visit Hebron. But they will not live there.
Why is there no Palestinian Peace Now?
Givat Shmuel, Israel
One should just follow the developments on the Palestinian side, the ads which were published in the last month against violence and against taking revenge, the work which is done in order to support the Geneva Initiative, the signatures which were collected in support of the Ami Ayalon-Sari Nusseibeh initiative, to understand that this question belongs to another era.
What do you think of the Labor Party entering a national union government with Likud?
The Labor Party is committing a grave mistake by trying to rejoin the Sharon government. The experience of 2001 through 2002 was traumatic for the national interests of Israel and for Labor itself. If Labor wants to support the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, it can give the Likud a safety net rather than to get ministerial portfolios and to share the collective responsibility for policies on the economic, social and religious level that are contrary to its own ideology.
Do you agree that the Israeli left, and Yahad in particular, are perceived by most Israelis to represent the upper middle class, alienated from the mainstream of Israelis who feel economic insecurity? If so, do you have a plan to overcome this perception?
Amsterdam , The Netherlands
I agree that this perception is right vis-a-vis the Jewish urban sector. It is very wrong when you speak about the agricultural sector in Israel or when you speak about the Arab sector. The policy of Yahad is a policy of solidarity, of equality and against the cruel capitalism of the current government. We plan to continue this policy and to pursue it.
Our role will be to convince as many people as we can that the current policy of Netanyahu and his colleagues is the worst for them and that our policy may put an end to their misery.
European Jews are now in a difficult situation. As they try to convince their communities to support left wing political and peace positions, they become less and less clear over issues such as the fence and the refusniks. Do you have any advice for them?
Stephane N. Ginsburgh
Yahad's policy on the fence is very clear: We don't object to the idea of the fence, provided it is erected on the '67 borders. One doesn't build a fence on the lot of his neighbor.
As for the refuseniks, Yahad is firmly against collective disobedience, we do respect those soldiers who decide to disobey because of illegal orders and are ready to pay the price for it.
Do you see a brand new political map being formed, with the Likud and Labor breaking up to form new right/left alliances - right-wing Likudniks joining National Union, left-wing Labor MKs joining with you, and a third middle of the road party led by Olmert?
I don't believe in the Big Bang theory. I do believe that in every normal political system you have left and right and you will always have it in Israel. The left is the movement which is never happy with the reality and which wants always to improve it. The right is the movement that justifies the current situation. There might be an agreement between right and left on specific issues and that happens in every society. But one should not draw any lesson from that, believing it is a wide enough common denominator to enable a unification between the two.
Muslims and Jews once lived in relative peace-- for example in Spain where the great Maimonides lived and worked. However today, thanks to a legacy of war and terrorism Muslim-Jewish relations are very poor. As a courageous pro-peace Israeli, what do you think can be done to improve relations between Muslims and Jews?
I don't have the panacea and I cannot ignore the hatred and the distrust which have evolved in the last generation between Muslims and Jews. But I do believe that if we find a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and if we hand over the sovereignty over Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif to the Palestinians it might open a new chapter in the relationships between the two peoples and the two religions.
Israel's public image has never been worse- whether rightly or wrongly. What must Israel do to improve its public image, especially in the Arab world?
The question is not one of an image, but one of policy. Although I don't believe that Israel deserves the attitude which it gets, I have to admit that the Israeli government is contributing to the current situation by unneeded provocation - from the famous visit of Mr. Sharon to the Temple Mount on Sept. 28, 2000 to the way he is speaking about leaders of other countries. I believe that a much more modest government, which doesn't provoke the world and which is ready to make peace with our neighbors will change the situation drastically, as we did in the government under Yitzhak Rabin.
What do you think will happen to those Arab residents of East Jerusalem and in particular those law-abiding residents that live in the Old City and within close vicinity of the Old City walls? Will they become Israeli citizens? Many of the residents are stateless and are merely considered permanent residents even though they've lived all their lives under the jurisdiction of the Israeli government.
According to the Geneva Initiative, all the Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem will become citizens of the Palestinian state and none of them will remain stateless.
Since the Palestinian Arabs never had a country from which Israel took land, and Jerusalem has never been the capitol of any Arab country, including when Jerusalem was under Jordanian and Ottoman occupation, why would you offer to give away sovereignty of Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount, and divide Israel's capitol to Palestinian Arabs, especially since Israel allows Muslim prayer at the Temple Mount while Jordan turned the Western Wall into a garbage dump during their occupation?
I am afraid that you are right about the past and wrong about the future. The question for us here in Israel is not necessarily who has the rights, but who is going to have the majority. And if as a result of the dispute about history, we will find ourselves as a Jewish minority dominating a Palestinian majority, we won't be able to have a Jewish state anymore.
The concessions that you are referring to are a must for those who believe in the necessity of a Jewish democratic state.
Why can't Israelis and Palestinians live together in a unified, secular state? This would avoid so much violence and would be a blow to both Moslem and Jewish fundamentalists. Above all, it would get rid of the alternative- an apartheid Israel as the Palestinian population is set to overtake the Jewish population in the next 20 years and would mean that there need not be long, drawn-out and divisive deals about right of return, borders and Jerusalem which a two state solution would involve.
The Zionist idea was about the Jewish state. If we give up on this idea, then there is no advantage of living in this country for many of us. There are much nicer countries than Israel in which we can be a minority as Jews, and the whole idea is to have both a Jewish majority and democracy, which means equal rights for all the non-Jewish citizens of the country.
The fulfillment of self-determination for the Palestinians and for the Israelis is a noble cause in my opinion and I won't trade it for an idea of a democratic secular country in which the two peoples will continue their conflict on culture, on symbols and on national ideas.
How can the Oslo process, during which there were massive land confiscations, the creation of checkpoints, the doubling of settler populations and the 'legalization' of the Israeli occupation through laws serve as a model for peace? Shouldn't the Israeli left, which controlled the government during the Oslo years, take responsibility for the failure of the peace process?
The right is blaming the Oslo process for the victims of terrorism and the extreme left is criticizing the Oslo process for the enlargement of the settlements. The truth is that Oslo doesn't deserve either criticism. The Oslo process has been an attempt to implement the Camp David accords of 1978 and to get, during five years of an interim solution, to a permanent solution based on UN resolutions 242 and 338.
The two parties to this agreement have violated its implementation and in many ways one can say that this process was assassinated on November 4, 1995. What we have to do right now is to reach a permanent solution as soon as possible, based on the same ideas of two states, along the 1967 borders with minor modifications, two capitals in Jerusalem, compensation for the Palestinian refugees and security arrangements for both parties.
Do you think that terror groups will topple Yasser Arafat's government?
The disorder in the Palestinian territories may be conducive to many developments. There is no question that the national interest of Israel is stability on the Palestinian side, and I hope the decision of Prime Minister Abu Ala [Ahmed Qureia] to withdraw his resignation will contribute to the stability on the Palestinian side.
How do you explain the simple fact that in the last ten years, since the Israeli-Palestinian peace process started, the number of Israeli casualties is significantly higher than in the 30 years prior to that. Isn't that the true reason why Israelis are skeptics about the so- called "Peace Process?"
Tel Aviv, Israel
Actually, it is a matter of your decision from when you want to begin the counting of casualties. For example, in the period between 1957 and 1967, there were only about two dozen casualties in Israel. Since our big victory in 1967, the number has multiplied itself several times. The first intifada began after a long period of stalemate in the relations between Israelis and Palestinians. The wave of suicide bombers on the Palestinian side began exactly 40 days after the massacre of Baruch Goldstein in Hebron.
The second intifada was very much related to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, only one day before it began. So I believe that if you want to blame Israelis for the casualties, there are much more tangible events connected to the waves of violence than the Oslo process.
How is the peace camp, including the Labor Party, trying to come back to power in Israel, and what do you personally think John Kerry, if elected, can do?
We don't have any magic theory on how to win the next election, but we know that we must work hard. We are dedicating all out time to meet with people, as many as we can, to share with them our views about peace and social justice and believe that only through such encounters in town halls and in other frameworks we will increase our power.
I know John Kerry, I appreciate him and I believe that generally speaking, he is expressing the views of the moderate and pragmatic wing in the United States and elsewhere.
What do you think of Ami Ayalon's and Sari Nusseibeh's plan? What do you make of Ayalon's comment, arguing that the Israeli left-wing alienated much of Israeli society? Do you think that your party has the right answer for this alienation?
I signed Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh's initiative, but I cannot subscribe to your quotation of Ami Ayalon. Nobody did for the weaker strata in Israel what we did for them as ministers, as legislators or as political leaders. The fact that we do not get many votes among this strata doesn't make us necessarily wrong. The close connection between economic weakness and nationalism is something which was not invented in Israel.
Do you believe that an international forum with an American influence would stand a greater chance (than the Camp David Summit of 2000) as a forum for comprehensive negotiations?
Los Angeles, U.S.A.
I don't exclude this possibility but I don't believe that this will make the solution easier for Israelis and Palestinians. Eventually, it will be the decisions of both sides, which will make it possible to have peace in our part of the world.
Do you think Israel's immigration policy is correct? As a non-Jew, willing to live in Israel, I was surprised to learn that immigration policies change depending on the weight of the ultra-Orthodox in the government. Do you really think allowing only Orthodox-converted Jews is a correct policy?
As a Jewish and democratic state Israel should be open to every Jew who wants to live here, but it doesn't mean we have to have closed gates for all the others. I think that the recent changes which were made to Israel's immigration policy are wrong.
Since September 2000, I have heard you several times condemn the IDF's actions (targeted killings, road blocks and blockades) since there is no military solution to the terror. Is it possible that all those actions that you disapproved of saved hundreds of lives by now? Is it possible that there is a military solution?
Tel Aviv, Israel
Any such solution is a temporary one and might provoke even harsher violence on the other side. Only an agreement with our partners on the Palestinian side will enable us to live in a different situation, which I believe will be much more quiet.
Are you not worried that the Geneva Accord will become the basis for new negotiations? Ahmed Qureia has already stated that he thinks it's a good 'starting point' for an agreement. It seems Geneva has all the concessions on the Israeli side and very vague, murky concessions on the Palestinian side. Hasn't this been the story of Oslo?
Since the same criticism is heard against our Palestinian partners on the Palestinian side, I believe that it is just fair to say that the Geneva initiative is a fair deal. If it is perceived as a starting point for Israel, it will also be a starting point for the Palestinians, because both sides manifested their readiness to subscribe to this initiative and this is the big advantage of Geneva.
How long will the peace camps be held hostage by extremists on both sides? If you believe that the majority in Israel supports the two state solution, what really has to happen for the Israeli peace camp to be re-energized and get the support of the majority solidly behind it?
Saint Louis, U.S.A.
The situation of Israel has been a situation of a pendulum between right and left, I believe that the failure of the current government may be conducive to the victory of the left.
The 9/11 Commission concluded its report by naming Islamist terror as the enemy the U.S. is fighting. Why do you still refuse to accept that Israel is facing the same enemy - militant Islam?
Be'er Sheva, Israel
One should be very careful not to turn our conflict with the Palestinians into a cultural one or a religious one, because if that happens we should give up on a solution, and if we give up on a solution, we give up on ourselves.