[AS
ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO
READ GOOD ARTICLES IN FULL: HELP
SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and
conversations) THAT EMPOWER
DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE &
PEACE... and hopefully
Palestine]
Tuesday January 21, 2014
In a meeting I had this week with a congressional candidate, I
was reminded of the power of the myths that define conventional wisdom
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the challenge they pose for
rational discourse. In rapid succession my visitor rattled off a number
of statements revealing how much he didn't know about the conflict and
how steep the climb for those who seek a just peace.
My guest's views of the conflict were both distorted and unshakable.
They also reflected the attitudes of too many lawmakers in Washington.
He was convinced, for example, that "Arafat turned down the best offer
ever and turned to violence;" that "Palestinians would never accept to
live at peace with Israel;" and that "President Abbas was incapable of
selling any peace agreement to his people."
Despite holding firm with these mind-numbing negative views, my
visitor insisted that he was a "peacenik" and expressed hope that US
Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts would bear fruit, helping to
bring about an end of the conflict. As disconcerting and irrational as
this disconnect might be, it represents for many candidates an easy way
out. It puts them in a position where they don't have to challenge the
most hardline elements among pro-Israel voters, while at the same time
still feigning support for peace.
I argued, for a time, with my visitor knowing full well that I
wouldn't make a dent. After deciding I'd had enough, we parted and I
resolved to write about this frustrating encounter.
My first observation is that the myths that defined my visitor's
views of the conflict are ahistorical. A prime example is the fervently
held notion that "Arafat turned down the best offer ever and turned to
violence." This was first put forward by then President Clinton in 2000.
It was a great applause line, but it just wasn't true. Rob Malley (a
Clinton NSC official who was at the Camp David negotiations) debunked
this "best offer ever" myth in his brilliant debate with former Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the New York Review of Books (August, 9,
2001). The Mitchell Report (commissioned by Clinton and presented to
President Bush in 2001) put to rest the "turned to violence" portion of
this myth.
Reality is far more complex than the myth would allow. Barak's offer
at Camp David was never clear -- he wouldn't commit it to writing.
Nevertheless, despite the impasse at Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian
teams continued to engage in prolonged negotiations at Taba that came
quite close to an agreement. But with elections looming, Barak suspended
the Taba talks. He lost the election and that was the end of the
negotiations. Arafat didn't reject a "deal;" negotiations were aborted
before they could conclude with a "deal."
Arafat did not start the violence in response to Camp David. The
spark that ignited the second Intifada was Sharon's provocative
demonstration at Jerusalem's Haram ash-Sharif. After Palestinian
demonstrators were killed by Israeli guards, the Palestinian street
erupted, quite spontaneously, owing largely to pent up frustrations with
the hardships of the occupation and failure of the peace process to
deliver much hoped-for change.
The myths are also disturbingly racist since they imply that
Palestinians are, by their nature, angry, violent and not to be trusted.
The pervasiveness of this myth is, by itself, one of the major
impediments to peace. The reality is that Palestinians are real people
who have endured dislocation, dispossession and decades of a cruel
occupation. Of course they are bitter and angry -- not by their nature,
but by the reality of their circumstance. By suggesting that it is the
Palestinian nature, the myth absolves the Israelis of any responsibility
and implies that no matter what changes might occur, Palestinians will
always be a threat.
My visitor's myths are also apolitical, implying that the conflict is
existential and not a political matter that can be resolved. The
problem, in the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been framed in
the West, is that Israelis are seen as the full human beings with hopes,
rights and the need for security, while the Palestinians are seen only
as a problem to be managed and dealt with so that the Israelis can live
in peace.
If Palestinian rights are acknowledged, then just solutions can be
found to issues like property rights, sovereignty and
self-determination. To the extent that these rights are trumped by
Israeli concerns, then Palestinian concerns are ignored or given short
shrift. To the extent that proposed solutions only address the needs of
Israelis, Palestinians will reject them and no self-respecting
Palestinian leader will be able to "sell crumbs" to his constituency.
In the end, these myths are also self-justifying and self-defeating.
If we say we want peace, but treat Palestinians as less deserving of
rights than other people and, therefore, offer them "take it or leave
it" proposals that are humiliating, then, of course, they will be
rejected. The believers of the myths can then feel justified in their
conviction that Palestinians really don't want peace and the conflict
will continue. That is why holding these views about Palestinians while
still claiming to support peace and a "two state solution" is also
self-defeating.
The real challenge for peacemakers is to reflect on the vision
projected by President Obama in his Cairo and Jerusalem speeches -- to
recognize the equal humanity and rights of both peoples and to forge
solutions based on that reality and not on myths.
