War Zone or Comfort Zone?

My last internship visit was to the Geneva Initiative, a non-governmental organization that “provides realistic and achievable solutions on all issues [related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], based on previous official negotiations, international resolutions, the Quartet Roadmap, Clinton Parameters, Bush Vision, and Arab Peace Initiative.” This according to their mission statement. My roommate was primarily involved in revamping their English-language website (http://www.geneva-accord.org), as well as coordinating operations with the Palestinian office.

Interestingly, the Palestine office is not called “Geneva Initiative – Palestine” but rather the “Palestinian Peace Coalition.” When I asked one of her coworkers about the name disparity, he gave a thorough (though unofficial) rationale. Apparently, in some polls, Palestinians given a comprehensive peace agreement resembling the Geneva Accord but called something else are generally favorable to the approach. When given the same agreement under the name “Geneva Accord,” the favorability decreases significantly. It seems that the foreign-sounding name, along with the relationship to European and US benefactors, is distasteful to many Palestinians. Also, although both Arafat and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) supported much of the substance of the Geneva Accord, they couldn’t officially state their support since doing so would compromise their initial bargaining stance, leaving them no fallback position.

This same coworker also mentioned that although no Palestinian leader has been brave enough to confront their public’s wishful thinking about the “right of return,” Arafat did attempt indirectly replace the refugee issue with the promise of Jerusalem. Since it is more likely that part of Jerusalem will come under Palestinian sovereignty than it is that Israel will allow a return of all refugees displaced in 1948 (which, frankly, will never happen), Arafat was attempting to shift his public’s expectations and also their priorities. In all his public appearances, Arafat repeated three times “Jerusalem al-Quds” or “Jerusalem the Holy.” It was the issue of Jerusalem that sank the Camp David talks of July 2000, not the right of return. In the Geneva Accord, Israel must absorb some number of refugees, equivalent in proportion to the average accepted by other third countries. However, the exact number is up to the Israeli state to determine. The fact is that no comprehensive refugee return policy can coexist with the reality of Israel as a Jewish state. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

The Accord also stipulates that Jerusalem would be divided, with the Christian, Muslim and parts of the Armenian Quarters coming under Palestinian sovereignty, and the Jewish Quarter and other parts of the Armenian Quarter to be left in Israeli hands. Palestinians would also gain the right to fly their flag on the Haram al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, where the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are located. The main document of the Geneva Accord can’t be more than 50 pages (the Annexes, as yet unpublished, run into the hundreds). I’ve read it, and, as anyone will tell you, there are no real surprises or innovations. It is roughly based on the Clinton Parameters of 2000, a short document (all of two pages), that provided the basic ingredients of a compromised peace.

I say “compromised peace” intentionally, for it will not be a true compromise, a good-faith give-and-take. Rather, both parties will be morally compromised by whatever political agreement is eventually hashed out. Why do I say this? Because the situation as it now stands only lends itself to cold peace (i.e. a formal one without cultural interaction), a cessation of hostilities maybe, but not a true restitution of life. I spoke in an earlier entry about the lack of imagination on both sides. But the capacity for imagination is more than the invention of new and better peace deals. Its true value lies as a mechanism for becoming more self-aware by becoming less self-centered. Imagination cultivates empathy because it lets us truly inhabit, albeit virtually, another mode of living, another set of circumstances, trials and triumphs. Without imagination there is no empathy, and without empathy there is no peace. I’ve waited a long time to bring up empathy. It’s a trait I consider vital to the human experience, but it’s also one (along with compassion, conscience, courage, etc.) that can be overused and lose its core value.

Going to the Geneva Initiative was not my first experience with the “peace industry,” as they call it here. But it did drive home for me just how much conflict and peace – cold peace, cessation of hostilities – feed off each other, reinforce each other, and, ultimately, defeat each other. There is a fatigue among the activists I’ve met, and (I would assume) among the politicians and militants too. A fatigue and a fear. “What will we do if there actually is peace? Where will my retirement pension go?” the activists ask, half-joking. Conflict and the broken promise of peace are the norm here, and humans are creatures of habit. The faculty of imagination requires practice and here it is dulled by decades of disuse. I’ve said before that this is a land of paradoxes, but for me this is the greatest: In addition to a war zone, this conflict is a comfort zone, a place where two people maintain an unsustainable status quo, killing themselves slowly while fighting for the right to exist.