Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 2003, pages 18, 67

Special Report

 

Making Peace in the Middle East

 

By Samah Jabr

My understanding of the political dynamics of "peacemaking" in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was enhanced recently when I participated in an international peace gathering organized by the Global Peace Initiative of Women, Religious and Spiritual Leaders.

Under the auspices of international women activists, I was invited to Oslo for a meeting with a group of Palestinian and Israeli women, previously unknown to me, who share an interest in ending the conflict.

The hopeful wording of the invitation enticed me to go, and I was particularly eager to meet, on an equal footing, Israeli civilians, from whom I'm separated by the occupation's physical and metaphoric walls. It seemed like a good opportunity to expound, in a safe location, a less frequently heard Palestinian vision of peace. At the time I was assured of neutrality and objectivity, and the protection of an international buffer zone.

Our first meeting was at Oslo's Nobel Peace Institute. Attending were nine Palestinians, 20 Israelis—including four Knesset members—and about 40 internationals. Many of these were Jewish, as were many of the conference staff. As is usual in international meetings, the Israeli left had a massive representation. One has to wonder, then, about their total absence from the conference on Developing Strategies for Nonviolence and Democracy held one month ago at Ein Karem's Notre Dame de Sion, and their ineffectuality at home.

The theme of the Oslo conference was peace, business and spirituality—quite a complex mix, I must say. To me the conference had no apparent focus or purpose. Although I'm a spiritual person, I thought the spiritual dimension of the conference excluded the voices of many of those who want peace, but have different views of the role of religion in human life.

The conference featured much speechifying, but very little personal interaction. The political and economic clout of a few participants, and especially the presence of an American congresswoman, precluded what could have been a more fruitful exchange among ordinary people. Many of us went home without even learning each other's first names, let alone achieving a therapeutic, open-hearted sharing. Because there was no attempt to understand the dynamics of the social, political and economic conflicts that set us at each other's throats, an opportunity was lost to move away from mutual stereotyping and blame-throwing, and toward mutual accommodation and constructive change.

Another classic obstacle at such interactions is the refusal, be it misguided or deliberate, of some self-described peace activists to allow themselves to encounter and acknowledge our true and free nature. They impose a limit to Palestinian demands while attempting to overwhelm us with sweetness and fine-sounding phrases on forgiveness, love and kindness. Self-righteously, and perhaps subconsciously, they ask us to live submissively, acquiescing to our present injustice, and expect us to allow ourselves to be exploited at the will of the occupier. They ignore the fact that equality is the key, and that a sprinkling of personal loving-kindness is nowhere near enough to heal the wounds of inequality without addressing and removing its cause. Despite the careful planning, sumptuous settings, fancy halls and noble programs of these meetings, the attempt to inflate the participants and influence their behavior, moving them to profess high-sounding yet hollow sentiments, are simply wasted on those of us who live under the yoke of oppression.

This is not to say that there were not a few remarkable women of true conscience, commitment and ability, toward whom I feel profound gratitude and admiration for the extraordinary work they are doing.

Some "neutral" participants, however, failed entirely in their third-party role, concerned as they were only for power and influence. They echoed the Israeli criminalization of Palestinian politics and politicizing of Israeli crimes, reiterating the inane phrases "Palestinian terrorism" and "Israel's painful compromises." They parroted the assertion that the one-state solution is suicide for Israelis, and could not have cared less about Palestinians' welfare in the ghettos which they might be allowed to call their state.

The conference seriously compromised its credibility when it allowed selected delegates to speak on everyone else's behalf, and when it released to the media such misleading headlines as: "Women Take Up Road Map for a Way Forward," or "Women from the Israeli Parliament, the Palestinian Authority and the American Congress talk about peace." The international media, of course, dutifully mentioned that the conference opened to news of a suicide bombing, but ignored the Israeli military operation that killed 20 in Gaza the following day. The false mandate offered to some delegates and withheld from others constituted an explosive contradiction of the very principles which the meeting claimed to uphold.

The conference was yet another example of attempts by the shapers of the international community's policies to select some elements of the Palestinian Authority as representative of the whole nation—ignoring the facts that only 33 percent of the population was permitted to vote for them, and that their terms expired in 2000.

The occupation has stratified our people, creating social prejudices in order to defeat us from within. It has manufactured an Anglophonic elite, walking lies whose souls are enslaved by fear and greed. These are the domesticated Palestinians who bend their language to their masters' requirements. Acting contrary to our values and our reality, they alienate us, yet are allowed to speak in our names.

As long as they are willing to "sell out," the international community is willing to give them every right, and the right to everything. Once they fail to impose on us the agreements they signed, however, the world will dismiss them as unworthy and irrelevant.

In my world people speak cynically of the "P- word"—peace—and the shame associated with the truce the world wishes to foist upon us. The result of hypocrisy and political manipulation is war, not peace. Passive, subdued and compliant partners will make the job easy at the beginning, but not for very long. Making peace is about inviting everyone, the man in the street and the grassroots activist, to be wholly involved. It is about honesty, compassion and a deep level of trust. We have no more time to lose in playing games and putting together another peace show to win people's applause. Only meaningful connection and a safe environment can move us forward toward significant change.

I came across to my fellow conferees as a confident, fearless young woman who articulated a position that people don't want to hear. Those who did listen now know that Palestinians like me exist, and that we want peace and freedom, not a sell-out.

In the too little time I was given to speak, I refrained from the sugary statements people like to hear. I explained that I worked in great proximity to death and violence, and that I strive for peace. I pointed out the reasons why I'm against the road map and proposed another peace based on equity, equality and freedom for all.

When they failed to refute my logic and facts, my opponents dismissed what I said as "emotional talk burning with fury." Well, truthful pain and anger are better than fake sentiments and hollow words. The anger of the oppressed and the shame of the oppressor are natural sentiments, genuine responses to their shared degradation. Pain and anger are the last refuge for aching humanity.

I was equally distraught by the attempt of some to bully me by saying: "Yours is a voice of war, not peace, and it needs to be eliminated," and the kindness of others who, offering protection, gave me their cards.

Nevertheless, I do not regret attending the conference. For one thing, it is not bad to be among opponents: it is an opportunity to exercise one's inner resilience. Better yet, there are always unintended positive outcomes if one looks for them. A single fruitful human encounter with an objective participant and a healthy interpersonal relationship makes it worthwhile. I believe in leaving doors open for that moment when, through a change of minds or circumstances, the perceived "enemy" might become a friend, when we try to understand our opponents as human beings much like us. This should especially be the case in time of war, when it is very important to anticipate each other's moves and motives correctly. Conflicting parties can cooperate once their common humanity speaks and works against the structures of oppression. I left the meeting with the hope that some of us would develop a common humanistic stance and find and foster elective affinities between ourselves to organize and mobilize.

Making peace is an historical and human responsibility. If we do it right, we could become a model to other nations. After all, peacemaking should not remain the monopoly of a few disengaged do-gooders who go about it in too self-righteous a manner. It is our model of peace, and we must take an active role in constructing it. We must recreate ourselves and establish new concepts, new models and examples, new venues and strategies. We need truthful people with courage and perseverance to embark on a struggle for peace that goes hand in hand with the moral prerogative of resistance to oppression.

I know that these reflections might upset many and could cost me greatly, but I remain committed to the hope of peace in a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and equality. I will continue to work actively against everything that exemplifies discrimination and oppression. It is an ideal for which I hope to live, and it's the noblest cause that one might die attempting to achieve.

Samah Jabr, a native Jerusalemite, is a junior resident of psychiatry at a Bethlehem hospital.

< Prev		Next >