What Will It Take?

The longer we’re here, the more I feel that this conflict is beyond the scope of mere politics and politicians. This is not to say that they have no role to play, but the areas where the disagreements run deepest are those secret spaces untouched by compromise and caveats and official cooperation. One of the most refreshing opinions I’ve heard so far was yesterday at the Rabin Center. One of the students asked whether justice has to come before peace, and Dr. Ron Pundak, Executive Director of the Peres Center [and yes, he was giving his presentation at the Rabin Center; I was not just over-tired and confused] said no. Justice – in the sense that is being sought by the ideologues on both sides – is a poetic construct and a practical impossibility. He said that justice is something taken away that cannot usually be returned. The dead child or soldier cannot be brought back to life. The seized home or field may be transformed into a skyscraper or an airport or covered over by an asphalt road. Peace should be fair, in the sense that it must recognize and legitimate all sides. It should be as equitable as possible – but just? Is peace ever just?

As we continue to meet with politicians, journalists, activists and representatives from many points on the conflict spectrum, absolute justice is only ever demanded by those tending toward the extremes – and mainly by those advocating a more conservative or right-wing solution. Touring the settlements with settlers, there was a clear sense of black and white, right and wrong. Jews were fulfilling the prophecy laid down by the Old Testament and Arabs were acting at bet as an obstacle. When we toured the settlements the next day with Dror Etkis, the former Peace Now activist, his left-leaning views allowed at least for nuance, and an approximation but never a realization of justice. I found the same contrast when I listened, on the one hand, to the official line as professed by the ministers and ambassadors and representatives of either the Palestinian Authority or the Israeli government, and on the other, to the “facts on the ground” – the actual people effected by the conflict.

Going to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and listening to three very articulate, very moderate speakers, I felt almost exactly as I did when we were presented by the official Palestinian line in Ramallah on Monday. I was semi-convinced, quite optimistic – left wondering what all the fuss was about really. And then I reminded myself of where I was and who was talking. First, Mr. Haim Asaf from the Palestinian Desk told us some of the following (from my notes):

• Obama’s latest speech in Cairo has changed the direction of US and hopefully Israeli policy regarding the conflict.
• Netanyahu is to propose a new peace plan next week. He has professed an intention not to implement a two-state solution, but with the new administration in the States pushing for it, as well as a total freeze on settlement activity, everything is up in the air.
• Asaf’s personal opinion is that a two-state solution is the only way.
• Some of the settlements must be removed but not all. For those not removed, a land exchange will be agreed upon, probably composed of a land bridge between Gaza and the West Bank.
• The Israeli security wall does not interfere with the Palestinians’ access to the underground aquafers. Any problems on the water front are due to mismanagement on their side.
• The Palestinian Authority has limited if not severed communication between itself and the Israeli government since the Gaza war of late 2008. This makes it difficult to move forward on issues of mutual concern.

This last point is a perfect instance in which both sides profess exactly opposite storylines. When we met with the Palestinian Negotiations Department, their story was that Israel was the recalcitrant party – that Israel was the one not talking to them. Can they both have official policies of non-communication with the other side? I think it’s more like an official policy of mis-communication.

In terms of water resources, I am amazed by the Israeli continued insistence that their wall is not interfering with Palestinian water rights. In the first place, with or without the wall, Israel controls nearly all water in the conflict zone. The wall is just a physical manifestation of their continued dominance. While there may indeed be mismanagement on the Palestinian side, their infrastructure is so stunted and their capacity-building so limited that water management is probably rudimentary at best. This is not to excuse Palestinian corruption, but it is so some extend to complicate the situation with a few mitigating circumstances (i.e. continued occupation).

So far, I have been most impressed by the shortage of nuance and the scarcity of real recognition and understanding of the other side’s viewpoint. The people who have stood out for these two traits have been (and here I’m excluding all government officials, who seem balanced, but whose true colors may or may not be hidden): Gershom Gorenberg, journalist, historian, author (The Accidental Empire), and senior correspondent (American Prospect); Dror Etkis, former Peace Now “Settlement Watch” coordinator and current member of Yesh Din; Karen Oren of the Yitzhak Rabin Museum; and Ron Pundak, Executive Director of the Peres Center for Peace and one of the Oslo Accord negotiators.

I know I’m supposed to have more questions than answers at this point, so here are a few of the most pressing: Why are people so afraid of being wrong? Why do we try so very hard to harmonize all cognitive dissonance, even when our strategies and solutions prove counterproductive? Why are do we find solace in dogma and security in homogenization? Why do we project our own darkness onto others?

What will it take for the next generations born into this conflict to stop accepting conventional wisdom and to start ferociously seeking truth? For when independent thought trumps dogma, and “thinking together” (to solve collective dilemmas) implies something other than “group think,” that’s when we will have reached a new level of maturity: an ability to think on more than one level at once, a blending of opposites that does not presuppose chaos but rather a richer and more variegated whole.

That’s what I mean by “third way” – it’s never one or the other but both.