Peace?

So, the vast majority of our trip focused on social/environmental issues in Israel, but one day was devoted solely to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for which we attended an all-day conference entitled "Toward a Lasting Solution: Evaluation of the Peace Process, One Year After Annapolis." Some very reputable and important figures spoke including Ron Ponduk, Yair Hirschfeld, Lucy Nusseibeh, the former PM of Jordan, and other academics and politicians. I was obviously really excited about attending and wasn't disappointed with what I heard. Of course, there were some speakers who didn't say much of anything, but I thought there was a surprising amount of substance given the forum and constraints placed on the participants.

I was a bit frustrated and upset when I heard from others today that they felt the conference was a waste of time, that they didn't see the point in us going as this is an environmental studies program, and that nothing concrete was said about how to change the facts on the ground now. First of all, I understand that a lot of people are here primarily for the environmental aspects of the program, but the whole point is that environmental issues are inherently social issues, and we can't make any significant environmental impact without regional cooperation, which would require some sort of peace agreement. Second, there is an explicit peace building/coexistence component to the program - that's why Israelis, Jordanians, Palestinians, and Americans are here together. We are doing on the grassroots level what needs to be done at other levels of society.

In terms of failing to hear anything concrete or any immediate measures that can affect conditions on the ground, that wasn't really what the conference was about. The first session basically set the stage for the rest of the conference giving us background on the current situation, measures that the PA have taken thus far, the current political situation in Israel, etc. The rest of the speakers focused on the alternative solutions to the Annapolis conference and other efforts that have been made in the past. The point was to look at how negotiations could be more effective and how leaders can approach negotiations and the conflict differently. We weren't hearing from grassroots activists, we were listening to academics and politicians. I'm not saying that it is the best way to come at the issues, but people need to consider the purpose of the conference.

I also think that straightforward, rational proposals have been tried before and failed, and the point was to look at the underlying causes for the failure of those ideas and of the conflict itself. For example, Lucy Nusseibeh discussed psychological barriers to negotiation, particularly the notion of splitting and projection. The idea is that people or groups develop a sense of victimhood due to traumas they have experienced and that they get stuck in that mentality. It leads one to divide emotions into "all good" and "all bad" - splitting - and then attributing the bad emotions to the other. This defense mechanism allows one to externalize an internal conflict. I realize that this discussion is fairly abstract, but it also enables us to gain a deeper understanding for why conflict persists and becomes more entrenched, which might give us an opportunity to figure out how to address these issues.

We also heard a really interesting discussion regarding the language used in the Arab Peace Initiative. Ilai Alon suggested that the document was credible based on his reading of the Arabic text. I won't get into details, but there are some important conclusions to be drawn...the Peace Initiative can be seen as a confidence building measure on behalf of the Arab League, Israel and the West failed to understand the enormity of the effort made by the Arab leaders, and that we should be promoting the significance of the document as a way to propel negotiations forward.

There were definitely some speakers that did not contribute much to the conference including Knesset Member Amira Dotan who just kept saying that it is important for the two sides to talk to one another, that people-to-people activities are crucial. I wasn't very impressed until one of the audience members asked her to come to a protest that was occurring outside of a Palestinian home in Jerusalem because the family had been forcefully evicted. I was expecting her to politely decline, but her response was, "of course I will come." If that isn't trying to affect some real change, I don't know what is.

If you're interested in reading more, information about the conference, bios of the participants, and the full papers can be found at http://www.bringingpeacetogether.org//default.asp?mode=page&pageID=22

- M