A Mess or a Masterpiece?

Despite the turmoil of opinions we’ve been privy to over the past ten days, it was positively refreshing – not to say clarifying, unexpected, and motivating – that our last lecture provided hope and closure in a very artful way. The topic was “Israeli and Arab/Palestinian NGO Efforts and Coexistence Projects.” Ok, I thought at first. It will either be a bland catalogue of all the enriching but minimally-impactful grassroots initiatives to bring the two sides together. Or it will be a jargon-ridden attempt to provide the not-profit sector a more technical and quantitative (and less soft and qualitative) gloss. I am happy to report that I was wrong on both fronts.

Dr. Raviv Schwartz of Ben Gurion University of the Negev spoke first. Although I typically dislike Powerpoint-heavy presentations, his slideshow really broke down the Israeli NGO sector, organizing and analyzing its structure, character, ideological features, and impact. He emphasized the fact that while Israeli civil society is expanding and gaining in prominence, it is still very beholden to the government. In terms of future relations with the Palestinians, most NGOs advance a vision of separation (“divorce”) over any kind of political or cultural “togetherness.” He also delineated three main types of peace NGOs: those focused on policy development; service providers; and the classic peace/protest groups. In the pre-Oslo period, protest groups were the most dominant form. Interaction between Israelis and Palestinians usually took place abroad with strong third party support. Post-Oslo, the emphasis shifted to regional, bilateral talks, while policy development organizations took the lead. Finally, after the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000, there was a reemergence of the pre-Oslo pattern – interaction abroad, third party support, and protest group involvement.

Next, Dr. Walid Salem, Director of the Center for Democracy and Community Development in Jerusalem, spoke about the Arab/Palestinian peace NGO sector. Interestingly, he took the long view – beginning with pre-1948 history, when Palestinian culture was more dynamic and not yet under the stultifying effects of prolonged occupation. While civil society usually interacts with the state, in the case of Palestine, civil society actually emerged in the absence of a state. This endowed it with a double burden – NGOs had to fulfill both state and civil society functions. 1919 to 1948 represented the “Liberal Age” of this Palestinian civil society. Even the 1936 Arab Revolt began as a united non-violent protest. After 1948, all previous institutions disappeared. From 1967 to 1976, NGOs adopted an ideology of “steadfastness” with a focus on charity not sustainable development. Over time, civil society expanded to include service delivery, bottom-up state building, and professionalism.

But this is just a basic description of the content of the lecture. More intriguing was the question and answer session. Both men asserted the difficulty of integrating the work of peace NGOs with the more conservative religious elements of their respective societies. In Palestine, of course, you have a spectrum ranging from the extremes of Al-Qaeda on the right, to the slightly more mainstream Hamas, to moderates and centrists, to the secular left. In Israel, it is the ultra-Orthodox Jews who typically espouse the most hawkish and anti-peace sentiments, though ardent Zionists often promote peace as a way to preserve the Jewish state from the Arab/Palestinian demographic threat. Dr. Salem also suggested that to bridge the divide between secular civil society and religious society, a blending of terminology and tradition is in order. Instead of speaking of a “peace agreement,” perhaps some spokespeople should speak of “hudna” (cessation of hostilities within a given time period).

But peace is more than the absence of war. One group member commented on this distinction, vocalizing a confusion with all the parsing of “war” and “peace” until both blur into each other and become functionally meaningless. Dr. Raviv picked up on the frustration embedded in the question. “Everyone wants peace, so why is it so elusive?” he asked, putting words to the thought foremost in all our minds. “But peace is not what we are talking about. In this conflict, when either side speaks of peace, they are speaking of it conditionally – peace with caveats.

“For the Israelis, peace is always coupled with security. We want ‘peace and security,’ or, if I may put it more crudely, ‘peace and quiet.’ The Palestinians talk about ‘peace and justice.’ There is no peace, period. There is only ‘peace and…’ Israelis are usually more committed to security than to peace, and Palestinians often care more about justice than peace. The problem is not with peace. The problem is with security and justice and how the two often clash.”

I remember hearing this (and my quotation is a paraphrase of Dr. Schwartz’s comments) and glancing around the room to see if anyone else felt as enlightened as I did. Finally, here was a description of the core problem that was simple, profound, and straightforward. I had always been frustrated by the demand for absolutes by both Israelis and Palestinians, but the division between security and justice had never been so radically – and calmly – laid out.

So thus ends a very preliminary account of my first eleven days in the Holy Land. Politicians, ideologues, zealots, academics, journalists, activists, parents, professors, executives, soldiers, students, historians, curators, negotiators, guides. It would be hard to get a more comprehensive and balanced look at the conflict. It’s really been like living inside a prism for two weeks, with every color, every gradation enhanced. Imagine living red for a half a day, then switching to purple. You wake up blue and go to sleep green. Sometimes you get the chance to mix hues – what do yellow and orange make? Or black and vermillion? Right now, I’m not sure if we’ve made a masterpiece or a great bloody mess. But whatever it is, the experience was priceless.