Narratives

In this week's PELS (peace-building and environmental leadership) seminar, Dr. Sami Adwan, co-founder of PRIME, Peace Research Institute in the Middle East, spoke to us about historical narratives and how they affect one's perception of a conflict. Through his work at PRIME, he and a number of Israeli and Palestinian teachers developed a history text that places the two narratives side by side. The goal was for the teachers to take the booklet back to their students and teach both narratives in class. The project was conceived in the late 1990s, but it did not begin until 2002, during the Intifada. The timing created a special challenge for the teachers - not only logistically, but psychologically and emotionally as well. It was very difficult for the Palestinian teachers to travel to the meetings, and the act of doing so created tension within their communities - how can you be working with the enemy? The teachers faced many other challenges: writing and compiling the narratives, hearing the other side's narrative in their native language, and finally teaching it to their students.

Dr. Adwan emphasized that the purpose is not to convince one side that the other is right, or to delegitimize one's own narrative, but to expose each side to the other's perspective. It allows people to see the "other" as human beings, not simply as the evil enemy. The goal is to provoke thought, to make one more critical of his own perspective, and to realize that there is another legitimate side to the story.

We not only heard Dr. Adwan speak, we also had the opportunity of sharing our collective narratives. We broke into three groups - Arabic-, Hebrew-, and English-speaking students. We were asked to discuss our narratives regarding Jerusalem - how does our community portray Jerusalem? I was clearly in the English-speaking group, which really meant the American-Jewish group (aside from one person who was raised Christian and is now converting to Judaism). We discussed how a lot of us grew up with the notion that we were supposed to have a deep connection to Jerusalem, to have a strong love for it, etc. and evolved into a conversation about how many of us actually felt when we arrived in Jerusalem. Many of us still had very strong emotions, but they weren't what we were expecting or what had been built up from childhood. We commented on how jarring it was to be in such a holy place and walking by someone holding a machine gun; the fact that it is a city of great importance to three major religions, but it has a decidedly Jewish feel to it; and the fact that there is a particular type of Judaism that is the norm in the City, creating a tension between the unique experience of being in the majority as a Jew, but that one's way of practice is not necessarily accepted (i.e. the mehitzah at the Kotel). We also discussed how loving this place brought sadness because of the injustices that exist because of it. Our conversation about the American-Jewish narrative of Jerusalem continued, but the more interesting part of the experience was listening to the Israeli and Arab narratives.

One thing that struck me was how the Israelis and Palestinians both equated the City to their heart and soul. This theme ran throughout the description of each of their narratives. For the Israelis, they are taught growing up that without Jerusalem, they are only a shell. It starts with King David, and today the soldiers are inducted into the Army in front of the Kotel - a reminder that this is what they are protecting. There was a clear visceral response to the question of Jerusalem. Culturally, historically, spiritually, it is central to the Israelis.

While the Palestinians had a similar visceral response, it was from the perspective of longing. It was said multiple times that being denied entrance to Jerusalem only strengthens their resolve to enter it. That they are missing a part of themselves, of their souls, of their beings. There was a strong sense of pain and frustration when Jerusalem was discussed.

At the end of this exercise, we were told to return to our respective groups to see if we wanted to revise our narratives after hearing the other ones. The American group mostly felt the need for clarification of some of our previous statements. Some also felt they could now express a sense of guilt over the current situation. Others stated that they did not feel guilt but a sense of responsibility to change the reality of the situation in the future. In our second discussion, it became clear how varied the narratives really were within our group. We had people on opposite ends of the spectrum with any statement that was made. Guilt, no guilt. Zionist, anti-Zionist. Deep connection to Jerusalem, little direct connection, etc. I know we're all Jews - two Jews, three opinions, right?

None of the narratives were completely homogeneous of course, but Dr. Adwan made a point that really stuck with me. The American group definitely had the most varied narrative, there were some significant differences within the Israeli group, and there was the greatest amount of consensus in the Arab group. Dr. Adwan noted that the group coming with the most power has the most varied narrative. What else can the Palestinian narrative be? They long for Jerusalem because of its historical, religious, and cultural significance. What will they do other than develop this and instill it into the hearts and minds of their children? Israelis, similarly, have a deep historical, religious, and cultural connection to the City, but it is theirs right now. Instilling a love and respect for the place is crucial, but as individuals, they can see the inconsistencies with the virtues and values taught and the reality on the ground. This contradiction can cause one to question, to begin developing a different narrative. And the American Jews, while also having a connection to the City, don't have the same practical concerns that face the other two groups. We are further removed from it, our survival as a people or a state does not depend on it.

The day was intense and it brought up some sensitive issues, but it really made people think about things. We face even more challenges, because after exercises like these, we can't just go our separate ways as those ways happen to lead to the same place...our rooms, or the classroom, or the dining hall. Because we all live together. We have to figure out how to deal with these issues inside a formal setting, and then how to move on from them after the fact.