Mine Enemy

"One mountain can not approach another mountain. But a human being can approach another human being. "

with Aharon & Amalia Barnea

Aharon and Amalia Barnea are the authors of Mine Enemy: The Moving Friendship of Two Couples~ Israeli & Arab. The book chronicles the story of how-- against many odds and numerous obstacles-- these two brave Israeli journalists befriended PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) commander Salah Ta'mari and his wife, Princess Dina, the former queen of Jordan.

Ta'mari-- who inspired a character in John le Carre's The Little Drummer Girl-- was being held prisoner in an Israeli POW camp when Aharon Barnea came to interview him for the Israel Broadcasting Authority. Expecting to find just another "terrorist" with the "same story", Barnea was surprised to discover an intelligent, educated, and articulate man whom he couldn't help himself from liking. This encounter set into motion a series of meetings between the two men, and a strong friendship developed. Aharon's wife Amalia, also a journalist, and Ta'mari's wife Princess Dina also became quite close, and the two couples arranged a series of clandestine meetings in London.

Mine Enemy details this amazing story, illuminating the potential for peace and understanding between opposing cultures in the Middle East. It was a bestseller in Israel and throughout the Arab world.

Aharon received his Ph.D. in Arabic languages from UC Berkeley, and taught for years at Tel Aviv University. He was Israel's first ambassador to Egypt in 1980. He has also been a newscaster since he was in college, and was on Israeli radio for many years. Currently he appears on the Channel 2 news in Israel, and his television show is one of the country's most watched programs.

Amalia is a journalist and writer. She was the Israeli correspondent in Hollywood for Yediot Achronot-- Israel's largest newspaper-- which she still writes regularly for. She is also the author of two popular Israeli children's books, and a book of poetry. Her refrigerator-- which is casually plastered with photographs that she has taken with numerous celebrities, political leaders, and royalty-- looks like a collage of People magazine covers.

I interviewed Amalia and Aharon on May 15th and 16th of 1997, at the home of our mutual friend Rivka Shafran in Herzliya, Israel. Aharon has a strong charismatic voice, often wears a cynical smile, and commands an air of rugged self-assurance. Amalia has an intensely focused presence, with piercing eyes, and puts great care into how she phrases each sentence. They are both extremely passionate people. I was deeply impressed by my meeting with them, and their book gave me a strong sense of hope that peace could one day be achieved in this rather volatile region of the world.

David: What was your personal motivation for writing Mine Enemy?

Aharon: First of all, I had a good story. It's the kind of a story that you come across as a journalist or as a writer maybe once in a life time. I had to write about it. I had to see to it that it would not remain my private property, that everybody would know about. That was my main goal.

Secondly, the story by itself was so amazing in terms of the very long Arab-Israeli conflict. I thought that it was very important for people in Israel and the Arab world-- as well as anyone else who is interested-- to see that the conflict is resolvable, that it can be resolved on the human basis. There's a proverb in Arabic which says "a mountain can not approach a mountain." Because mountains are always there, they don't move. One mountain can not approach another mountain. But a human being can approach another human being.

So the idea that I wanted to learn Arabic stemmed from an understanding that I developed at a very young age, maybe even before high school. My primitive concept as a young boy was that if Israel is going to exist in the Middle East, surrounded by so many Arab countries, it needed to understand Arabic. This is the reason why I later became so interested in language and linguistics.

What is the difference between a human being and an animal? The principal advantage that humans have over other animals is the ability to communicate so well. And what is the vehicle? The vehicle is language. And what is language? It's a way to express what goes in one's mind, in one's brain. We don't know exactly what happens biophysically and biochemically in one's brain that creates the end product that we call language, although we understand a lot about it today, much more than we used to understand years ago.

But if we are going to continue to exist here then we must recognize that we are human beings and so are they. This is the advantage that we have over animals-- we love to communicate. And if the only vehicle to communicate between human beings is language one has to know the other's language. You could not expect more than a hundred million Arabs at that time to learn Hebrew-- especially when around 50 or 60% of the Arab world until this very day is illiterate. They don't know they're own language. But you can expect four million Jews at that time-- you have to expect-- that they will learn Arabic in order to communicate with their neighbors. Otherwise there will be no communication. And if there is no communication between human beings the conflict will continue. That was my primitive idea.

Now to go back to your question. You see, when you live in a situation of conflict for so many years the main phenomena that develop are myths and stereotypes about the people on the other side of the conflict. A human being can not sustain himself in a conflict situation if he does not develop these stereotypes and myths about the people on the other side of the conflict-- because if the other side is okay, why am I in a conflict with it? You know your enemy-- not through meeting him-- but through what you develop in your mind about him.

What struck me so much-- and why I was so inspired to write the book-- is that I met the enemy par excellence, and I found out (already in the first meeting, and then, as we have met more and more, it became clearer) that behind this enemy there is a human being, who is exactly like me. Maybe we have different interests that are national and historical and so forth. Great. But he's a human being. You see, people within the conflict do not see the other side as composed of human beings-- especially in this vicious conflict happening here in the Middle East.

Israelis used to look, and some of them still do, at Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular as stupid or intoxicated. One of our ministers, who used to be Chief of Staff, while in office said something like, all the Palestinians are stoned long-legged animals walking around inside closed bottles.The process of demonization is very obvious on each side of the conflict, and we have seen our enemies for many years as demons. All of a sudden you come face-to-face with the one who is supposed to be the demon, and he is the most human human being that you have ever met. I had to bring this story out.

Amalia: I didn't have any motivation when I became involved in the story itself. When we started the process of this friendship-- and this whole turmoil of becoming close to the enemy-- we didn't know that we were going to write a book. Later on we knew that we were sharing a unique experience. This is a story in which every one of the protagonists is alive. The difference between this book and many others is that everything that is written in it really happened-- much more even than we could say, because we couldn't tell everything. But everything is real, although sometimes it seems like fiction.

The friendship was much bigger than the four of us. It began to effect others. For example, Dina participated with the Israeli Mosad and brought home Israeli prisoners of war that were being held by the PLO She participated because she wanted to pay us back for what we did for her. And we-- as a government, as a state, and as army-- couldn't do it, because we ignore the existence of the PLO. So if the PLO doesn't exist, with whom do you argue? Whom do you negotiate with?

So we were trapped. Then here comes Dina, who helped the Israelis out of personal motivation towards us for being kind to call her, and telling her that her husband was alive. She wanted to pay the same coin, and that's how we got eight of our soldiers back home. So the story become larger than our friendship, bigger than our own world. We felt like we had to share it. We wanted as many people in Israel as possible to be exposed to this unbelievable experience, and see the good results of this friendship.

David: What would you say was the most important thing that you learned from your experience with Salah and Dina?

Aharon: That on a human level-- leave aside politics and national interests-- you can reach understanding very quickly and easily.

Amalia: I learned a lot, and I'm still learning. The most important thing of all that I learned may sound rather banal. But I was raised in a traditionally Jewish family, and I had a very strict stereotype about an Arab, and about the enemy. And here every part of the stereotype was shattered. I learned that personal relationship between people-- no matter where they come from-- is most important.

We are like hostages in the hands of our leaders, who play politics with us. We-- as people-- want to live in peace, most of us. There are no bad guys or good guys. There are only people who are desperate, and people that have no equal right to live and support a family-- to live, to love, to just be. I also learned that there is hope somewhere. Until I met them I didn't believe that there was hope, because changing my mind was dangerous.

For example, I used to be one of the mothers in Israel who would stand guard at the children's kindergarten by the gate. This is part of our nature. It's how we live. And if-- all of a sudden-- you change your mind, it doesn't feel very safe. So the distance that I've traveled from my traditional, very right-wing home is far.

My father was a survivor of the holocaust, and-- of course-- he believed that all of Israel belonged to us, and the Arabs want to kill us and put chavas to the sea. So I made a real leap. Of course, I was lucky to befriend an enemy who was so human and so honest that those changes could be made in me without me feeling that I betrayed something. Because there is a thin line here.

David: What sort of reactions have you received since your book was released?

Amaila: We were amazed. Aharon and I were ready to dig a bunker under our house in order to run away from the people who-- we thought-- wanted to kill us. I'm joking, but we were preparing ourselves for this terrible criticism from the people of Israel, because we became friends with the enemy. But there was none-- no bad reactions at all-- because the story is so human. All of them understood that it's not a political book.

So we amazed even by the right-wing in the settlements. It become a bestseller in the Laberizism settlements all over. It's extraordinary because he's an enemy. He's a Palestinian. He represents the root of all evil. He's the demon of all demons. And what we did was to try and de-demonize him-- and through him-- all Arabs. But we were amazed to see that most of the people in Israel accepted it in a very positive way, which means they wanted to find this piece of hope.

David: How did the Arabs react to the book?

Amalia: It was mixed. The book was published in Arabic for the Israeli Arabs. It sold very well, and we got very nice reviews. For example, Anton Shamas-- who is one of the biggest Arab-Israeli authors-- liked the book very much. But there were others that said things like, it's not fair in a way to represent an Arab couple where she's a former queen, and he's a gorgeous and very intelligent man, because it doesn't mean that all Palestinians are like this. So this was this was the only point that they criticized us on. But it was nothing. The Arab world accepted it, and even the official magazine of the PLO published serialized excerpts from the book.

Aharon: We were very afraid of the reactions from both sides-- from Israelis and from Arabs. From Israelis we were afraid that the right-wing side of the political arena would say that we are traitors. How could we paint such a vicious enemy in bright colors? The fear escalated to the extent that we had to consider the possibility that our lives could be threatened. It's happened before. I mean, the fact that many years later an Israeli assassinated a Prime Minister in Israel is only proof that the fear was in place. It was not something imaginary.

On the Arab side-- especially on the Palestinian side-- we were afraid that the protagonists of the book (both he and she) will be regarded as traitors, as collaborators with the Jewish enemy. By the way, this is the reason why we said to them, after you read the manuscript, if you don't approve it, and if you tell us don't publish it, we will not. Or if you want to change things, you're free to change anything you want. We will go with you on that.

To our astonishment the reactions were exactly the opposite-- even from the right-wing part of the Israeli political arena. We learned from this experience that when you approach people from the human point of view they can not resist it. They can not fight you back, because they have no ammunition. On the Palestinian side I was shaking until I saw an article about the book in-- what was at that time the official Palestinian weekly publication of the PLO-- praising the book and the protagonist. That was like an official stamp that the highest Palestinian authority had given, and I was able to relax after I saw that article.

That is that the big bosses of the Palestinian Liberation Organization are saying the protagonist was okay. He was not a traitor or a collaborator. On the contrary there were so many articles published in so many magazines throughout the Arab world. One serialized chapters from the book, another praised him as a real leader in a state of crisis-- both psychological personal crisis and national crisis.

To go back to the Israeli side-- it was so amazing. I'll tell you a story and you'll understand. After the book was published in Israel the publisher said, in Israel if you publish 10,000 books you are a super bestseller. It's similar to a few million books in America. In America you have 150 to 200 million potential readers. In Israel you have 2 million potential readers. Okay, if you sell 10,000 or 20,000 it's a super super bestseller. So our publisher-- although he knew it was a good story-- said I'll publish 6,000 for the first edition. I said to him publish double, because you're going to run out it in a week. He said, no, we'll publish 6,000 then we'll see. He sold more than 35,000 or 40,000 in just two weeks. The printer was working like hell.

Now, of course, many of those books were read by people who didn't share my political ideas. By the way, the book is not political.

David: Well, it's a personal story.

Aharon: Right. It's not trying to hide a political idea behind a story. The story is told as it was. We did not have to create anything. I mean, everything that was told in the book happened. However, not everything that happened is told.

David: There were certain things you couldn't tell.

Aharon: There were many things. Some of them today we can tell, but some things-- until this very day-- the Israeli military censorship will not allow.

David: How did young people react to the book?

Amalia: Most of the feedback we got was from young people. It was interesting to know that it became like a comic book among the young generation. Soldiers in the army and other young Israelis passed it along to one another. Israelis have this habit of going to the Far East after the army. A lot of Israelis go to India. We got a copy of a book that was signed by like forty or fifty Israelis in Goya. They pass it around. Most of the schools have them write essays and papers about our book. The people in Israel were moved very much by this book. One thing I can tell you for sure is that it was ahead of its time.

David: How did the right-wing react?

Aharon: After the book was published I was called every evening to lecture about the book somewhere else. I used to run around like crazy for four or five years I ran around like crazy, lecturing about the story behind the book. People were so keen to hear and interested. One day I get a call from a settlement in the West Bank-- orthodox right-wingers. They asked me to come and give a lecture about the book. I said, I'm not coming. He said, so many people have read your book, and they want to have you for an evening. Come give a lecture. I said, I'm not coming.

David: Why?

Aharon: I said, first of all I'm not crossing the green light between Israel and the occupied territories without a visa and passport voluntarily, only if I have to. Secondly, I said, I'm not interested in talking to you because I know that it's like talking to the walls. I will talk, and you will come and you will go the same as you were before. And they kept calling me and calling me and calling me. It was the start of the Intifada, and actually I was even afraid to go through all those Arab villages you had to pass through at the time of Intifada. One could be stoned by rocks, and this was dangerous.

They called me many times saying it wasn't fair. Why does the settlement that lives inside the green line deserve a lecture from you, and because we live behind the green line, we don't? In the end I finally said, okay-- provided you send a shielded car to Jerusalem for me, and you come pick me up at the end of the evening, then you get me back back to Jerusalem in this shielded car-- I'll do it. So I went.

They arranged a huge hall and invited all the settlers from the surrounding communities. There were a few hundred people in the hall that evening. I started at 10:00. Usually by midnight or 1:00 it's over, because people ask questions and so forth-- not only regarding the book, but also the application of what it means. It was 3:00 in the morning when the last one left. Then the general secretary of the community-- who had invited me-- said to me, Mr Barnea, can I talk to you in private for minute? I said, yes, go ahead.

We went to a corner and he said to me, listen, I must tell you one thing. I said, what do you want tell me? He said, I want to tell you that I hate you. There's nothing in the world I hate more than you. So I said, why? He said, because all those hundreds of people who came into this hall in the beginning of the evening were absolutely sure and positive about their way in life. Many, many of them left this hall after your words with question marks. So you took their exclamation marks-- about their way in life-- he said to me, and you bent them.

I said, you made me the happiest person in the world now. There's nothing I'm more happy about than you hating me, if this is the reason, because that was my goal-- to put question marks in front of people. So the kind of reaction that I'm telling you about occurs because on the human level you can not argue. The man who is the enemy-- the enemy-- began to change. People started to read the book and saw that this person is a human being exactly like me. He's smart. He's wise. He's intelligent. He's fighting for a cause like we do. And it started to puzzle them. If he's okay, so why am I in a conflict with him? And that's the best way to get a conflict to an end-- when you are puzzled between you and yourself.

David: What do you think is needed to bring peace between the Jews and the Arabs?

Aharon: First of all, to solve the political issues, because without solving the political issues you can not go forward. But what I'm saying is that even after solving the political issues, the psychological barriers that exist will take years to bring down, because of what I've just mentioned about developing myths and stereotypes on the other side because you are in a state of conflict. To uproot myths and stereotypes is a very long and difficult process.

I can not tell you that I have a recipe of what should be done exactly-- like what to do, and what's the schedule to do it. I don't think that anyone can tell you. I have a notion of what must be done. Each side needs to learn more-- not only about the other side, but more about itself. Why am I in this conflict? How did this conflict develop? First of all, to come to the awareness that I have developed stereotypes, that I have myths, and I have demonized the other side-- to understand that I've done it, and admit it to myself.

Once you have admitted it, then you can start looking at the pieces-- taking things part by part. This is the kind of work that has to be done on both sides. It's got to with education, and with education you must start with the younger generation. The younger generation has a plus and a minus. The plus, of course, is that the mind is open. The minus is that they-- unlike the older generation-- have no criteria to make comparisons.

For example, take the Palestinians that were occupied by Israel in 1967. The leadership of the Palestinians in the occupied territories after the Israeli occupation were usually elderly people, as a result of the social structure of the Arab society-- the patriarchal family and this whole thing. When certain national elements had asked the population to start revolting against the Israeli occupation they did not want to do it.

The reason why they did not want to do it that time was because they had the criteria to make comparisons. With what? With the past. With their life under the Jordanian regime. With their life under the British mandate. Because some of the leaders were old enough, they even had the ability to make comparisons of their life under Israeli occupation with the lives they had under the Awtomon empire with the Turks.

When they did the comparison they saw that life under Israeli occupation was not so bad in relation to what was before. That's why I was claiming that Intifada-- which became a wholesale word in the whole world during the end of 87-- actually started twenty years earlier in 67, immediately after the war. But at that time it failed. Twenty years later it succeeded. Why? Because twenty years later the leadership became the younger generation. And the younger generation-- that was born, either under occupation already, or were kids when they were occupied-- did not have any criteria to compare their lives with. They don't know any other state of being but to be occupied.

Amalia: It's a very long way to peace. If I were to give you a real answer it might take two days. I agree that the primary obstacles are psychological. I think that the most important thing is one's state of mind. You must be open enough. It's like the requirements for going through analysis, to be able to work on yourself and change your life.

Some individuals are ready to go through therapy in order to have a better quality of life. We as a nation are not ready to follow this process in order to check and to see why the hatred is so extreme. Why is the other side so bad? At least make this check with ourselves.

I think that if you are ready psychologically to check the sources of the terrible conflict, and say, to hell with it, why should we live like this all the time? And then to try to understand what's behind it, and not to be addicted to those slogans-- like that the Palestinians want to through us to the sea, and we need to be a brave country. But just to check it again. To check and see if maybe we're missing something.

I've been lucky enough to see that peace is possible. I've seen it in Egypt and Jordan, and we fostered this friendship with the enemy. And I know that only emotion brought me to this kind of understanding. It takes not being afraid to give up some of the fanatical standards about ourselves, and also to not be afraid to know that there will be change in the world. I mean, you give up something, but you gain something in return.

I think the world is tired of these conflicts-- like in Bosnia and the Middle East-- but they don't want to spend the time, energy and people's lives on tribes who fight with each other. It's only tribes fighting. You see, in Bosnia nobody cares because there is no oil there. In Israel they are very interested in those tribes. The Americans are interested in this conflict because there is oil in the Middle East. Otherwise who cares? So I think that it's time to open our minds and get ready to change things-- even though we are a very stubborn nation, carrying a really heavy history. It's not easy, but to be open, and see that the person on the other side is a human being-- that's it.

David: Are you optimistic about the future of Israeli Arab relations?

Amalia: I'm less optimistic than I was when I wrote the book, to tell you the truth.

David: Why?

Amalia: Because I've witnessed the process-- how close we were to the "Mountain Nevo"-- the place that Moses was standing when he brought his people to Israel, but he never got in. He stayed on the mountain, and this was the closest point that he got-- but he could see Israel from there. We were so close to a resolution, and I think that our leaders were not brave enough to go for the final solution. This horrible experience has to do with the holocaust. But at the end of this conflict a Palestinian state will be established, and we'll give back the territories that we conquered in 67, and let them be their own country. We live among ourselves here, and they do so there, as we have enough land and resources.

I lived here before 67, and we were very happy. Of course, Jerusalem was divided, but that's ancient. I can not say this in front of religious people-- but what does the ancient grave of one of our fathers or mothers mean to me? When this ancient way of life means that my son has to go to the army, I don't care about it. I don't want my son to be a brave pilot. I don't want him to give his life. I'm really ready to give up all these places and blame, because there is always another fight.

For Arabs, land means something else than it does to us, and we Israelis have to-- at least- have that knowledge. When we spoke with the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and the whole Sinai was given back, we saw that's how peace could be arranged. Now, we as Israelis know that, for Arabs, there is no peace for peace-- there is peace for land. Okay, so if we don't like it, the other choice is to send your son to the army. I mean, you are not going to change their mentality.

They are our enemies. You can choose your friends, but you can not choose your enemies. So at least trying to understand them, and trying to find some mutual ground. At least to exchange land for peace. Let them have the land. I don't want my son to get killed. I don't want him to be in danger-- to be killed or to kill. That's it. And what I'm saying is what every woman in Israel-- every Israeli mother-- has said since the nation was established. And we keep on saying it, and they keep on going to the army-- for the fiftieth year now. So how can I be optimistic?

Aharon: Today, I don't know. Those words optimistic and pessimistic don't mean very much to me. I know that the problem can be solved. But in order for the problem to be solved both sides have to give up things to find a middle ground. And today-- as an Israeli-- I can see more readiness on the Arab side than on the Israeli side to come to the middle of the road.

David: Why do you think that is?

Aharon: Because I think the Arab world-- especially the Palestinians, but not only the Palestinians-- in the last two three decades has gone through a process of developing a kind of awareness-- human awareness and political awareness-- that Israelis have not gone through. There may be various reasons for that-- why the Arabs went through through this process and the Israelis did not. When I talk to Palestinians today, or when I talk to somebody like the president of Egypt, they make more sense to me than the leaders of the state of Israel.

David: Why is that?

Aharon: Because they are willing. Let me put it the other way around and you'll understand me better. Look, let's talk realistically, instead of trying to be too philosophical about it.

My father came to this country from Poland in the early thirties, just before the Nazis came to power in Germany, without knowing that Europe was going to be ruled by the Nazis. He came to this country, to this land (it was not a country yet) because he had one goal in his mind-- the Jews deserve a state. (I'm using him as an example, but I'll trying by his example to present an idea.)

When he came here in the early thirties, in his mind, the state must carry two conditions that are not mutually exclusive, and without which a Jew-- who really knows what Judaism is as a value, not as a religious practice, but as a value-- can not live in this country or this place. The two conditions are that it must be Jewish, and it must be democratic.

Now, as things have developed, especially after 67, we have occupied almost all the Palestinian people. If we do change this geo-political situation, we are doomed to get to a situation where my father's dream can never be fulfilled. Why? Because we won't be able to keep the Jewish nature of this country. Every beginner statistician will tell you that in twenty, thirty, or fifty years from now the Arabs will be the majority.

David: If present trends continue as they are.

Aharon: Because natural birth among Arabs is much higher than among Jews, and Jewish immigration from the outside world is almost zero. It is zero because the world has changed. Immigration to Israel was a result of people living in oppressed regimes-- whether it was North Africa, the Soviet Union, or behind the Iron Curtain. But now there is no Iron Curtain. There is no oppression in the Soviet Union. Those who have decided to immigrate to Israel are those who are here. We can have ten, twenty, or thirty thousand a year, which is natural. It's nothing. So every beginner statistician will tell you, if it stays as it is, in fifty or sixty years from now, maybe even less, the majority of the inhabitants of this land will be Arabs.

David: That's going to be the situation regardless.

Aharon: Regardless of whatever happens. Now, if you wanted to keep the nature of the state Jewish and democratic you have a problem. If they are Arabs, and you are democratic, you have to give them the right to elect and be elected. If they are the majority, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel with be an Arab. The president of the state of Israel will be an Arab. The majority of the Israeli Parliament will be Arabs, because they will be the majority. That's not my father's idea of a Jewish state. If I want to keep the Jewish nature then I will have to not let those Arabs who are the majority have the right to elect and be elected. Then that means that it will not be a democracy-- it will like South African Apairtaid.

So this is a real problem. That's why I said let's talk realistically when you asked me about pessimism. This is why I'm saying, everybody who understands this knows that there are only two possible solutions to this problem-- only two possible solutions. There is no third solution, and there is no one solution. There are only two.

David: Tell me what you think the two are?

Aharon: There are only two. One is to divide the country into two states-- one Jewish state, and one Palestinian state. The Palestinians will have the majority in their state, and the Jews will have the majority in their state. One would be a pure Jewish state, and the other would be a pure Palestinian state. Two states side by side. That is, this is your land, and this is mine. I say all of this is mine, and you say all of it is mine. You have more people than I have. Okay, let's split it in half.

In your half you do whatever you want, and in my half I do what I want. When I say half I don't really mean half. I mean the boarders need to be negotiated. The other solution is, of course, to take all the Arabs, kick them out, and send them on the east side of the Jordan river. We give an order that all the Arabs that live on the West of the Jordan river have twenty four hours to cross to the other side. There are political parties in Israel who believe that this is the solution.

The question is which one of the two solutions is feasible? Which one of the two solutions is a solution that we-- as Jews-- with what we understand about Judaism as a value, and I repeat it many times, can do, and are able to do? Can you take two million people, and uproot them from their homes after everything that happened to you as a Jew in your history, and drive them out? Is that what Judaism is all about? Therefore, by way of elimination the only one solution that is left is the only solution that says two states for two people.

David: What about the possibility of limiting the birth rate for everyone?

Aharon: Maybe in the future it would be workable, but we have a sociological process throughout the Arab and Islamic world that makes this very difficult. Egypt suffers from birth explosion, and they have tried everything that people have tried all over the world-- education, women's education-- and it doesn't work. Also there's a well-known social process that occurs in conjunction with socio-economic status-- the higher your social status becomes, the less children you produce. The more poor you are economically, or your socioeconomic situation is, the more children you tend to produce. You have to up-grade the socio-economic status of the whole Middle East, which will take many years. Also, even when you do that, the natural birth production will be higher among the Arab society than among the Jewish society.

David: What are you currently working on?

Aharon: I have another personal story that has to do with Israel and the Arab world, and actually the outer Middle East-- more towards Iran-- which is the real big threat of the future as far as I'm concerned. The real threat of the future-- not only for Israel, but the West-- is Iran. The radical ideas of the Islamic revolution are the real threat of humanity in the future. Therefore, I want to do a human story that's got to do with Iran. I found out as a result of my experience that the best way to reach people's hearts and minds is to bring the story to the human level-- tell a human story, a personal story.