How can we include in our future the guys who hate us? Can peace be one sided?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on November 4, 2009 at 9:17am

Richard Goldstone UN Gaza report accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes.

The public sphere is full with one-side accusations of Israel or Hamas.

in parallel of that, Obama initiative is slow, some tend to balme Israel government, other blame Fatah.

the more we have progress toward change, the more we will see and experience the one-sided analysis of people who think peace is a one side win over the other side.

but the reality is that we are all in it together, and that the future of peace is one and must include every one. it doesnot mean that the people who believe today that Israel must control all the territory will be happy, or the people who believe that only one-arab state over the territory will be happy. they are minority.

most people know that the outcome of a peace process will be two state solution atleast in the first few generations, most people recognize that extremists idealistic ideas of heavely one sided peace are unreal.

for the comming month I guess we will experience some violance, Palestinain violance and Israeli violance. I am sad that this is what ahead of us, but I know that this is a reaction for the deep true current toward change, and we can wish it be harmonious it is going to be human and confusing.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JC | WorriedLebanese on November 4, 2009 at 10:39am

Hey Neri.
You raise three important questions here.
The first one, I believe, is the polysemic character of the word "Peace". As you rightly put it, the word is used by a number of groups who have a very different understanding of it.
I've noticed that for most Jewish-Israelis (I insist on adding Jewish here to counter the general tendency to ignore the fact that Israel society is multinational), "peace" means to be left alone (in French, this understanding is perfectly expressed by the expression "Foutez-moi la paix"). I think that this understanding of peace is a by product of an extremely insular mentality and self-absorbed culture that zionism has brought about (the dark side of a vibrant and dynamic culture and society).
For most Palestinians, "peace" means restoration (reparation that excludes monetary compensation) to the antebellum situation. I believe this understanding is due to historical and institutional considerations (just like it's the case for Jewish-Israelis) and the development of a culture that ignores the behind the facts on the grounds that the Israeli military has violently imposed lies a culture and a society that is committed to its self-preservation and that feels threatened by restoration.

The second important question you raise is that of resistance.
Yes, you are right. It is important to resist the extremely rigid cultural and national frameworks in which are minds trapped. But how? you insist on unity (or commonalities). I'd like to add dialogue (as a process, not as a goal) to be able to look at the point of view and share our own.

The third important question you raise is that of the claims that are used. And here I disagree with you. I've noticed in your recent postings that every time people speak of grievances or express their anger or condemnation of some acts or policies, you equate this with blame mechanisms.
I do agree with you that most of us indulge in blame games. It is after all a simple and efficient mechanism to release oneself from any responsibility and accuse the other of his wrong doings (and even ours because they are interpreted as mechanical reactions to the other's wrong doings).
But when we brush off every condemnation as "blame", aren't we excusing the acts that are being condemned and ignoring the responsibility of their perpetrators? which is exactly what the blame game aims at...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on November 4, 2009 at 1:47pm

JC you are real pleasure :)
Thank you for your comments, and I'll try to dig deeper.

polysemic character of the word "Peace" language and world are culture elements, as the global humanistic culture spread, it interact with the rooted cultures as Arab, Jewish here in this conflict and in other "cultural structure" exists for thousands of years in our planet.
Peace has different meaning and different use, and I think we should avoid the use of it and focus on change and development knowing that in a more complex culture many of the issues may be resolved ... and many issues we do not expect will raise as conflict.

For the jewish (Zionist) Israeli psyche, as much as I can tell, Peace is some harmonious and autonomous left alone, this is why so many Israeli see the wall that is built and believe that the Palestinians will be disappear behind and we, the Israeli jews, will accomplish our goal of creating a state that will autonomously keep the Jewish heritage.
From my Arab friends, and especially the Muslim ones, Peace is more a union of all humans; as no arab I experience it in the hospitality and conversation I have with Arabs.

but as we are in conflict Peace is used many times as claims to justify aggression; the connection to justice is clear - we expect peace a state that reject any motivation for aggression hence we expect this stability to be outcome of some perfect justice. with this perspective many ask peace to be some kind of rewind to pre-crime state. it used to be used by the Zionists when they claim the territory as many continue talk about historic existence of jewish community here. It is used today by the Palestinians (or even Hizbulla) and many Arabs who seek to return the arab centric state of pre-zionist era.



resistance
I see the resistance as actions to preserve the identity, you can take it to personal, tribal and national identity. some times you need to use force, but as you wish to preserve your identity for ever and have "peace" identity for yourself family and nation it is clear you need to seek ways of resistance that can be sustainable.

I take the dialog, I would say that the truth is that in future we need to let go and enable new pan-humanistic identity to raise up. I respect the national and tribale identity as I respect the personal identity of people and I see its importance to be protected and resist the forces from the outside. But, I think we need to be open for change and accept that major elements of our identity some times are not relevant any more.

for the Israelis there is a strong resistance to protect the jewish identity. at this time we cannot do much about it, and the arab-israelis are in confused situation of being citizens of nation state that they are not part of that nation. The jewish israelis need this idntity elemet and we can expect them to resist any threat (i.e. reject one state solution that can lead to loose the jewish majority). The Palestinian Identity is much more complex, as it emerge and need to be built. so the resistance become much more radicals.

so we need to manage the paradox of identity and resistance in a changing world.

blame mechanisms
This is a rhetoric effort to signal out claims that feed the conflict by blame one of the sides. I see that there are many people who do wrong, and some of them need to be punished. but I try to point out that many people (I would say most people) tend to be one sided, hence their claims of wrong doing is toward one of the sides, and they ignore the "system" we are in.

Hamas, Fatah, Israel all are responsible for condition in Gaza, you cannot remove one element and solve the problem. so who ever ask to end the Israeli blockade he/she must look on the system and not of "one cause" that need to be attacked and removed.

I do not think that enhancing the visibility of the blame game is the only act; I think that posts as you bring and other members bring. initiatives people do (and I found myself involved in some) are what we need to focus of. This is why I wrote We cannot blame the blamers its their "truth" after all.

as to emphasis the paradox and help few people to look to other path rather to blame any of the sides, or the blamers in what ever happened. we need to create a future, pointing fingers does not help.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JC | WorriedLebanese on November 5, 2009 at 10:10am

Thanks Neri for expanding on these topics.
I'd like to go back to the first part of your title: "How can we include in our future the guys who hate us?"
This is the billion dollar question. In most discussions, people insist on the political framework in which Palestinians and Israelis will live in: one state, two state, three or four bantoustans...
What is great about your question is that it applies regardless of the political/institutional solution adopted. Whatever it may be, there is the central question of "common future": the space is limited and so are the ressources, the territories are intertwined and so are religious and national mindscapes.

So the question remains: "how"?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on November 5, 2009 at 1:19pm

By negotiations. It's a hateful idea to someones. God forbid, someones would be necessary to make some concessions to someone, and we can't go that way. Even idea raises goose bumbs. ;)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JC | WorriedLebanese on November 6, 2009 at 10:11am

It is interesting Maika that you equate negotiation with concessions.
And I think that's quite pragmatic of you because this is how negotiations are being presented.
But I'm not sure it has to be that way.
Negotiations are not necessarily a zero sum game. And as long as they remain only that they are just another form of warfare, just as violent, but much more subtle.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on November 6, 2009 at 10:16am

Well in those negotiations both sides must make some concessions anyway.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JC | WorriedLebanese on November 6, 2009 at 10:58am

It depends. Games are about framing, role distribution, opportunities, challenges, perspectives, rules... and all those could be changed.

Let's take a polemical issue such as "the return of Palestinian refugees". Instead of looking into numbers and putting a ceiling to the return (this has been the policy of the Israeli negotiation teams) one could approach the question differently.
It could be reframed in many different manners. One could distinguish citizenship from nationality, one could also distinguish between property rights and citizenship rights. One could also try to see how this question could be detached from what Jewish-Israelis perceive as a demographical threat...
Instead of negotiating on numbers (which reinforces the polemical side of the issue and inflames hearts and minds), one could set up a permanent committee that would work on this issue bilaterally.

When Romania gave in to Israeli demands for jewish property restitution, there was no massive return of Romanian-Jews to Romania. There was no fear of massive emigration in Israel, and no fear of massive immigration in Romania (except in marginal antisemitic groups).
The Czech republic allows the restitution of property to non-German and Jewish Czechs but refuses it to the Sudetenland Germans. Nevertheless, these Germans are allowed to return and settle in their former region as EU citizens. Some have done that. Some have even bought back their property. But the numbers are not very significant.
Why wasn't there a massive return? Why do you think there would be a massive return of Palestinians to Israel today? These are important issues that need to be addressed, don't u think? And I'm sure solutions could be found.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on November 6, 2009 at 11:54am

Refugees ? There is 2 options, take all or some part of refugees back, or, pay compensation. Easy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by JC | WorriedLebanese on November 6, 2009 at 12:20pm

I think the two examples I gave show that the issue can be tackled in many different ways. You reduce it to its most polemical form. I don't think it's very productive.

Permalink Reply by Oliver Haack on November 5, 2009 at 4:12pm

To implement a "common future", to make it practical and sustainable, I think what is needed is a set of small, gradual steps towards reconciliation and trust. Bibi's 'economic peace' is one such step, although it mustn't be the only one, and thus, crucially, represents only one 'module'. Economic peace and regional economic cooperation mustn't be seen as substitutes for the honest willingness and readiness to approach the other side.

The 'Netizens' (net citizens) of the upcoming leader generation of both sides have already to an extent learned to do this. Hate is countered by getting to know one's enemy, by approaching the assumed enemy - and the 'global village' has in this context created something which was absent even 15 years ago.

Hate, however, won't just wither away. There will always be those who stick to hateful ideologies, however rusty and 'out of time' they may be. The degree of sustainability of any peace agreement will depend on the recourse these reactionaries get from the larger public.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Neri Bar-On on November 5, 2009 at 5:17pm

I like the 'Netizens' (net citizens) term :)

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page