Policy Brief #9 (June 2002)

by Mohammed Abu-Nimer

In Brief In addition to supporting an immediate cease-fire, moderates on both sides of the Middle East conflict should develop joint initiatives that acknowledge a shared sense of humanity. Cross-ethnic projects to provide aid to all victims of violence and interfaith efforts to acknowledge the loss of human lives on both sides would reduce complacency in the face of continued violence. Further, a popular, nonviolent campaign to promote compliance with human rights standards would strengthen civil and political participation and marginalize the radicals

A discouraged Palestinian friend declared to me recently, "We are back to early 1970s political reality. No one has faith in the Israelis and their intentions; negotiations will not produce a resolution. The Israelis aim to exterminate us." The Israeli Jews with whom I have worked for peace feel isolated, marginalized and voiceless in their society.

Yes, the voices of Arabs and Jews who believe in the possibility of living together in two independent and separate states have been squelched by the return to the rhetoric of war and violence of the 1970s and 80s. As in the years before the Oslo agreement of 1993, when the ruling Likud Party, under Yitzhak Shamir, refused to negotiate with PLO leaders, feelings of helplessness and hopelessness have invaded people on both sides. Many are left asking what can be done to return to negotiations or even to reach a cease-fire.

Through indirect cooperation, the radicals—Hamas and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—have succeeded in hijacking the peace process, or what was left of it after Netanyahu came to power in 1996. The key problems now are, first, to stop the Israeli army campaign of violence and the killing of innocent Israelis, and then to get the moderates off the sidelines and back into the dialogue.

Securing a Cease-fire
To put an immediate stop to the cycle of violence clearly will require the serious intervention of a third party to provide protection for Palestinians and to assure the Israelis of their security. Dispatching a U.S., European or UN-led force is the first step. The involvement of Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia might ensure serious commitment for a cease-fire. And, as the visit by Colin Powell demonstrated during April 2002, the United States must play a more aggressive role, pressuring the leadership on both sides. The release of Arafat from his besieged compound and the declaration of U.S. policymakers that Israel must negotiate with Palestinians under his leadership are two positive steps that might provide an opportunity for resuming negotiation. On the other hand, the lack of an international investigation of the events in Jenin adds to the animosity and mistrust towards Israel and the United States, which appears to have supported the disbanding of the investigation.

Under the current circumstances in which Sharon's government has not put forward any peace plan and has rejected the Saudi proposal, while the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure has been destroyed, it is unrealistic to expect a breakthrough or even a return to the Oslo track. A cease-fire and withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Palestinian cities is the most realistic and immediate need. The United States and the European community can play a crucial role in establishing such an agreement. Arafat and Sharon cannot bring themselves or their communities to that arrangement alone. The recent invasion and destruction of the Palestinian Authority's forces has added to the delegitimation of the Palestinian Authority's credibility and negotiation strategies with various Israeli governments. The alternatives to the Palestinian Authority are forces that will refuse to engage in negotiation. Thus if this is the last chance for Arafat's leadership to reestablish its credibility, as U.S. and Israeli officials declared when Arafat was allowed to leave his compound, it is also the last chance for U.S. and Israeli policymakers to support and negotiate with a strong, moderate Palestinian force.

Calling Moderates to Action
The role for people in the Middle East who still believe in peace is less obvious, but there is much that they can do. Based on the progress made toward Arab-Jewish peace in the last 20 years, we know that violence is not going to resolve this deep-rooted conflict. More bloodshed of Palestinians or Israeli Jews will only make it more difficult. In an interview with the BBC, a Palestinian fighter who had survived the recent massacre and battle in Jenin thanked Sharon for helping him to instill more hatred of the occupation and Israelis in every Palestinian child. The more Sharon humiliates Arafat and Palestinian leaders, and the longer Israeli tanks remain in Palestinian cities, the easier it will be to recruit suicide bombers among Palestinians. On the other side, the more support suicide bombing receives from Palestinians of all ranks, the less likely it is that Israeli society will trust any proposal for compromise.

Moderates can assert themselves by initiating actions on a person-to-person level, rising up against radical leaders and those who preach that killing the other is a way to survive. Moderates must reframe the conflict from a holy war against Israelis or a war for survival against Palestinians and Muslims, into a political conflict over self-determination and viable statehood for Palestinians and security for Israelis.

The most effective tool in such a process is to reach out to the other side, even in the darkest moments, and acknowledge a shared sense of humanity. Palestinians as well as Israelis need to call upon each other. Providing support and concrete aid to victims of this offensive, perhaps by organizing a joint campaign to raise relief funds, is one possibility. Small-scale, cross-ethnic initiatives such as this can keep both sides linked to each other as human. Especially when fuses are short, as they currently are, this can help reduce the complacency of most Israelis in the face of killings and destruction and the apathy, in many cases, of Palestinians toward suicide bombings inside Israel.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam preach justice, and all prohibit excessive use of violence and destruction when pursuing it. Thus, using religious rituals to remind both sides of shared roots and commonalities is another way to cope with the new level of hatred. Israeli-Palestinian interfaith encounters are crucial to illustrate the possibility of reaching out to the other side. Such gestures are needed now more than ever to restore some trust and faith. Stopping the abuse of human lives is a deep, basic need among both Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel. Religious leaders can take leadership in conveying such a message to their followers. NGOs on both sides can also take part in campaigns which help the cry for peace and justice overcome the cry for war and violence.

To think of the victims on the other side every time each side buries their own victims, for example, is a brave act that only few can carry out. But it is a powerful signal and a tool to fight the dehumanization of the other that has infiltrated minds on both sides. An Irish Catholic colleague began such a tradition in his church in Northern Ireland and soon found a Protestant minister on the other side who invited his congregation to pray for Catholic victims. Their two local communities managed to recognize each other's victimhood and form a common front against violence and for justice.

Moderates can also engage in advocacy for the protection of basic human rights. During a period of constant violence and violation of Palestinian individual and collective human rights, there is a need for more witnessing and reporting of such violations. In January 2001, a few months after the start of the current Palestinian Intifada, a group of Israeli rabbis came to one besieged Palestinian village in the West Bank and tried to remove a blockade with their bare hands. Even though their efforts were in vain, they gained respect and appreciation from the Palestinian villagers. Other examples include Israeli peace activists, such as Gush Shalom, who provided human shield and basic food supplies to Palestinians families.

On the Palestinian side, there is a need for a principled nonviolent resistance campaign against the Israeli forces. Palestinians must undertake serious democratic reforms of the Palestinian Authority that lead to stronger civil and political participation in decision-making. This will in turn promote greater participation of the entire Palestinian people and the marginalization of the radicals. For many, it might be heroic to resist the occupation by suicide bombs or until death; however the Israeli military machine and political leaders are well prepared to handle this kind of resistance. The previous Likud governments have mastered the art of maintaining their constituencies under a siege mentality and instilling the feeling of existential war. But a principled, nonviolent campaign by Palestinians would leave the Israeli government and military powerless.

Such a campaign would be more effective than the destruction and loss of Palestinian life inflicted by the Israeli security forces who justify their attacks by "fighting Palestinian terrorism and violence." A massive Palestinian nonviolent and popular campaign to resist the military in the reoccupied territories would leave no room for the accusation that Palestinians support terrorism. It would also draw the entire community into actively resisting the new Israeli military presence and the Jewish settlements.

The loss of human face and connection is one of several factors which allows soldiers, leaders, as well as people in the streets, to engage in atrocities and violence, and gives credence to the presumption that the larger conflict can eventually be resolved by humiliating and killing Palestinian leaders and people or by killing Israeli children in the streets. Efforts to develop alternative approaches are essential before both sides forget that there is any other way to exist. We have learned from the Oslo experience that regardless of whether politicians succeed or fail in signing settlements, efforts for peace by communities at the grassroots continue to be essential. Peacemaking should not be relegated solely to the political leaders.

About the Author
Mohammed Abu-Nimer is a conflict resolution specialist at the School of International Service at American University. As a Rockefeller Visiting Fellow at the Kroc Institute during the spring semester of 2002, he conducted research for a book on Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam. Prof. Abu-Nimer may be contacted at abunim@american.edu. A shorter version of this Policy Brief was previously published in Newsday on April 14, 2002.

 

Top of Page

Home > Publications > Policy Briefs