Normalization- Israelis and Palestinians working together

Posted by Corey Gil-Shuster on April 25, 2008 at 8:32pm in Israel and Palestine

I wanted to start a conversation that I am surprised hasn’t been mentioned yet. The idea of normalization.

I have seen a similar dynamic repeat itself over and over again through the years. Palestinians will create or join joint initiatives between Israelis and Palestinians and there will be criticism from other Palestinians that they are normalizing relations with Israelis. The idea (as I came to learn) being that normalization efforts will only deteriorate Palestinian rights and somehow “normalize” the occupation. It is a very real fear for Palestinians and many joint efforts have fallen apart.

Is this a fear for Palestinians on mepeace?

My opinion:
Frankly, I think this argument makes no sense from an Israeli perspective. Working together and therefore creating understanding of the Palestinian reality can only lead to finding solutions to Palestinian’s needs. The more Israelis who realize that there are people on the other side of the fence who want to live in peace, the more support there will be for our politicians to find solutions with Palestinians as equals.

What I observed is that currently many Palestinians rally for a bi-national state in all of historic Palestine as a way towards justice (justice meaning ending the occupation and the right of return). These are often the same people who are against normalization because they don’t find elements of justice in normalization. This is mainly because Israelis are oblivious to the justice argument and fearful of its impacts when faced with it. The irony is that through normalization between the two peoples, the likelihood of the average Israeli being comfortable with a Palestinians state (and even, eventually, the right of return), grows. So the Palestinians find themselves in a loop of demanding something that Israel is not willing to give but refusing to invest in making the other side feel comfortable so their demand is not seen as threatening.

Tags: normalization

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nitsana on May 15, 2008 at 6:39am: Adam - There are many issues and problems that have great rational reasons why they can never be solved. The climate issue. I can make compelling arguments why we will never ever be able to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions to make a difference. And maybe we wont. But I have been amazed and awed by the amount of change the world has already undergone because of the work of a few individuals who did not look at the problem and say it was impossible but found a way.
I dont know enough about Islamic theology to agree or disagree with your perception of the problem. I think its great that you brought it up - but I suggest that it is an issue to discuss with Palestinians how we can overcome it. And maybe we wont find an answer right away, maybe we will. We are a species that has found a way to travel to outer space, we have wiped out diseases that plagued the planet. We can certainly find a solution to a problem between peoples - especially when it is so gravely in all our best interestst to do so, and even if it is not a solution that is presently apparant. There is no insurmountable problem.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on June 3, 2008 at 10:51pm: Corey,
I hate to have to say this, but your quote:
"Arabs seem much more concerned with the idea of rights and the concept of justice- righting the wrongs that they perceive Zionism to have committed."
seems to me to require qualification.
It is not the priniciple of rights and justice with which most Arabs (excepting some here who really do seem principled) seem to be concerned, so much as the principle of rights and justice - for them.
Not for everyone; or they'd be arguing these issues in terms of universal rights, and not just proprietary rights. And they'd defend the rights of others, in the abstract, justy as vigorously as their own.
I'm afraid we're just not seeing enough of that.
Please, prove me wrong.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Corey Gil-Shuster on June 6, 2008 at 6:01pm: Apologies for not replying sooner. Life got busy.

I feel like you are making me the spokesman for the Arabs. I don’t think they want me as their spokesman. :-) I only write about what I experience and what I observe. And my observations may be completely wrong.

From meeting Palestinians and Arabs in Canada, they seem to focus on the concepts of rights and justice when talking about being Palestinian. So they talk about their right to live in Palestine (what is today Israel), their right to movement in their homeland (checkpoints), etc. Obviously the rights and justice they have in mind are for their benefit. Like all people, they are focused on their needs and if my needs as an Israeli Jew lines up with their concept of rights, they will defend them. If they do not, they will not. Not very surprising since we all look out for our own interests. That is one reason I don’t speak about rights- whose rights? what do you do when your rights trample my rights? who decides whose rights are more important? etc.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on June 6, 2008 at 7:06pm: Hi Corey,
I think that is the catch.
"whose rights? what do you do when your rights trample my rights? who decides whose rights are more important? etc."
is the most important question of all regarding rights.
No one's rights can trample anyone else's rights. Rights should be equal.
But we must be able to broach the concept of "rights in the abstract."
Not so much focusing on "my rights" or "your rights" or "the other guy's rights" as on the issue of rights in general.
So whose rights have 'priority' depends, among other things, on
1) if anyone's conception of rights requires them to deny rights to others; and
2) who is being "active" and who "passive."
The passive party has the right not to be subjected to the active party. The right of people not to be disturbed trumps any 'right' which will disturb them.
So the Muezzin's 'right' to broadcast the call to prayer at 120 decibels (or the religious Jews' right to blast the siren before Sabbath) cannot trump the rights of people who want to be left alone in silence.
The 'right' to exclusive possession of the Temple Mount cannot trump the 'right' to shared possession of the Mount, because the 'more inclusive' course which affords more rights in sum, must trump the 'more exclusive' course which affords feweer rights in sum.
My 'right' to throw a punch ends where someone else's nose begins. And no matter how strongly I have the right to throw that punch, I would simply be wrong if I felt I had the 'right' to punch whomever I chose.
So, there are some tools we can use to guage the applicability or existence of rights in given situations. And there must be a way to guage whether a 'claim of right' is justified by being based on a real right, or not. Because it happens that some people do claim it to be their 'right' to do things which are not really a right, and which in actuality violate the rights of others.
If we can't even determine what are people's rights, then this conflict will always simply be a matter of 'might makes right.'
Which is not acceptable.

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on June 3, 2008 at 10:45pm: Adam,
That is an excellent analysis. Period.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Corey Gil-Shuster on June 6, 2008 at 8:22pm: Acchhh, it won’t let me respond to the thread above so I’ll respond here.
As a person who seems to use rights as a framework, do you agree to the Palestinian right of return? If no, why? If yes, does it apply to all descendants of the original 1948 refugees?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on June 6, 2008 at 8:48pm: Nice question Corey.
First off, there is no "human right of return."
There are property rights which must be defended; and if anyone can show that their land was expropriated unfairly, they have a right to compensation or a return of that property. Including all Jews who were expelled from Arab countries as well.

Using the idea of rights as a basis, I actually favor the right of return for all whose ancestors lived in what is now Israel before 1948, but only when qualified by the idea of human rights.

Meaning, I would welcome anyone who wants to 'return' to Israel, and accept the duties and responsibilities of Israeli citizenship, including respecting the rights of all other Israelis. Any Palestinian who would support the rights of Jews to pray peacefully at all Jewish holy sites, and to buy land on the open market even from Muslims or Christians and even in the Old City, and who would be willing to serve or have their children serve in the IDF or national service (and who would not support forcing the muezzin call on those who consider it a nuisance, or forcing women to wear the hejab if they don't want to, or throw rocks at Ethiopian childern and tell them they are not Jewish!) - I would welcome them and invite them to come pray at the Kotel with me, and visit my home for coffee and/or a meal, if they like.
Then again, I still also favor a one-state solution under the same qualification. Which I don't see happening anytime soon.

But I do not think that it is practical - or would serve to increase the sum total of human rights being exercised in Israel - to allow those who would become a divisive force within Israel by advocating for the denial of any rights to Israel's Jews once they had obtained those rights for themselves, to return under any theory, no matter how it is framed to make it appear as if it is in the interest of promoting rights .

I haven't touched on another issue - the right of return to Paestine, not Israel.
There is a valid argument to be made that if there is to be a Palestinian state, Palestinians should be returned to there. Certainly, those Palestinians whose ancestors lived within the boundaries of whatever will be the Palestinian state (let's say Jenin, just for example) have no 'right' to settle in Israel - to which it could not be accurately said that they were 'returning.' To 'return,' they would have to return to (Jenin) where their ancestors came from.
And as this should not be a giant experiment in social engineering, but rather an attempt to redress old wrongs, we cannot let the process grow through 'mission creep' into something far beyond that which is justified by the circumstances of each individual situation.

I hope that helps explain my position here.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Libby and Len Traubman on May 2, 2008 at 8:59am: Mahmoud asked what we can do together. In our experience, first we must actually BE together over time - have the personal, human experience of engaging each other with a new quality of listening. It is our experience that "an enemy is one whose story we have not heard." So the "action" is building relationships. Yet, what is "normal" after decades is that almost no Palestinains and almost no Jews have ever engaged with any quality of listening, except for a tiny handful for short times. So, staying apart is what perpetuates "normalization." Engaging, changing in vastly larger numbers that changes hearts and minds is what will be new, and what remains "abnormal" for almost all Jews and Palestinians. Mahmoud, once we come together, after time we get so, so cretaive together. Please see all the "actions" that are possible at http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm. Or just search Google for "Jewish Palestinian Progress" or, to see over 500 success stories, search for "Jewish Palestinian Success" to see http://traubman.igc.org/messages.htm . Ma'asalaama, Mahmoud. - Libby and Len; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mor Harnik Blum on May 17, 2008 at 2:40pm: can't agree more.
we must start to cooperate in every matter.
i think it is one of the best ways to bring the peace faster.
i regret to say that i can't see how it is going to happen soon.

in a huge hope,,,
yours,
mor; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jafra W. on June 3, 2008 at 2:23pm: Corey .. we should replace the world Normalization with Naturalization !!!!
Naturally there is a relationship with every one. It is up to each one of us to regulate it.
Any one will ignore or willing to kill that relationship is some kind of racist.
Does that make sense?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Corey Gil-Shuster on June 3, 2008 at 10:22pm: Absolutely! Making connections between us natural can only work for both peoples.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yigal D. Kahana on June 4, 2008 at 8:14pm: Hi Jafra,
I agree with you in general, but I must point out for the sake of clarity that it is not "racism" but discrimination or ethnocentrism in general to which you really refer.
But yes, you are making sense.; ▶ Reply to This