The Israeli army's display of overwhelming force in Gaza during the three-week war of 2008-09 has not achieved its stated goal, as rockets continue to fall on southern Israel. This campaign by one of the world's best-equipped military machines, which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and destroyed over 18,000 homes, has not been enough to provide the Israelis with the security they desperately seek.
Lucy Nusseibeh lives and works in East Jerusalem. She is founder-director of Middle East Nonviolence and Democracy (MEND) and director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al-Quds University. She is also a member of the International Governance Council Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP), and co-chair of the Awareness Raising Working Group at the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)
Why is this? The answer is in part that the kind of power the Israelis excel in goes nowhere near to solving the heart of the problem they face - which lies inside themselves as much as in the Palestinians, their "other". Perhaps the answer has to be sought not - or not just - "externally" (in actions) but "internally" (in perceptions of self and other). After all, when a system is dysfunctional, more of the same does not work: it needs to change from the inside out.
In the light of this approach, the massive Israeli attacks on Gaza - only the latest episode of a deep-rooted and increasingly dangerous conflict - offer four lessons that must be learned:
* demilitarising minds
* creating reciprocity and dignity
* overcoming fear and victimhood
* forging human connections
Lesson one: demilitarising minds
The massive destruction unleashed against the people of Gaza, their houses and institutions, has not only created rage and despair, but also destroyed for most Palestinians the last vestiges of belief in the possibility of peace - and therewith the belief that it is worth making the effort to reach out to Israelis.
This rage and despair make the Israelis less
secure. The result of the massive and indiscriminate use of force is to
diminish Israelis' as well as Palestinians' human security. Both are locked in a (very asymmetrical)
system that is dominated by fear, victimhood, violence, and (for most) a
striking lack of empathy.Among openDemocracy's
articles on the Gaza conflict of 2008-09:
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: hope after attack" (1 January 2009)
Ghassan Khatib, "Gaza: outlines of an endgame" (6 January 2009)
Avi Shlaim, "Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and
reality" (7 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the Israel-United States
connection"
(7 January 2009)
Tarek Osman, "Egypt's dilemma: Gaza and beyond" (12 January 2009)
Mary Robinson, "A crisis of dignity in Gaza" (13 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the wider war" (13 January 2009)
Menachem Kellner, "Israel's Gaza war: five
asymmetries"
(14 January 2009)
Khaled Hroub, "Hamas after the Gaza war" (15 January 2009)
Prince Hassan of Jordan, "The failure of force: an
alternative option"
(16 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "After Gaza: Israel's last chance" (17 January 2009)
Martin Shaw, "Israel's politics of war" (19 January 2009)
Conor Gearty, "Israel, Gaza and international
law" (21 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the war after the war" (22 January 2009)
Hugo Slim, "NGOs in Gaza: humanitarianism vs
politics" (30 January 2009)
A commitment to militarism and a belief in force permeate every aspect of the relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis. The vast influx of weapons and investments in armed security services among the Palestinians (a key part of the peace agreements from 1994 onwards) have also significantly raised the dangers that men with guns always present.
The dangers are mutual; they cross the gulf of power. Yet a huge majority of Israelis were in favour of their army's operation. Many argue that showers of rockets had been fired from Gaza that made life unbearable for citizens in southern Israel; that therefore the Israelis had to attack Gaza for their security.
It is true that there have been a great many rockets, and it is terrible that the inhabitants of towns such as Sderot and Beersheba live in danger and fear. But the trouble with this response is that it implies a parity of power and of levels of peril and fear. The denial of the scale of the suffering being inflicted on Gaza reveals a failure of recognition of the "other" community as composed of equal human beings.
The moral problem is interwoven with inequalities of power; power that is reflected in Israel's control of Palestinian lives. But these inequalities must also be disentangled for progress to become possible.
Lesson two: creating reciprocity and dignity
This inequality of power-relations permeates attitudes too. The Israelis' control over the Palestinians, expressed in many forms of humiliation by their army and institutions, works against the attitude of respect for the equal dignity of all humans that is essential for sound relationships at all levels. The Palestinians' subjection in turn is expressed in resentment and hatred - which will in time only make the Israelis less secure.
A healthy and secure human society is based on reciprocity, and reciprocity assumes that each human being has the same right to dignity and respect. When that fundamental right is destroyed, so is society itself. Moreover, those who deny the dignity of others destroy their own dignity and self-respect in the process. Without reciprocal respect there can be no security.
This implies that the Israeli belief in the possibility of achieving security through military action is an illusion. Israel currently exercises overwhelming dominance over the Palestinians; yet the more it tries to build its security on the insecurity of its neighbours, the more insecure it in fact becomes.
The principles of reciprocity and dignity are relevant at every level of the conflict, from the most immediate cases of justice to larger questions of war crimes.
Lesson three: overcoming fear and victimhood
What can allow people, often educated and otherwise sensitive people, to react so callously to the killing of innocents, and the deprivation of their means of life?
The psychology of fear and victimhood is central to the answer. The levels of trauma in both Israeli and Palestinian society reinforce both these feelings - with terrible effects for the other. The emotion of fear can make morally reprehensible actions seem justifiable. The sense of victimhood tends to exclude the possibility of the victim being also a perpetrator, and to project all evil onto the other. The violence inflicted out of a sense of victimhood is perceived as justifiable self-defence even when perpetrated against a weaker party.
The result is to cancel the perception of the reality of violent acts and of the need for empathy. This moral blindness is increased when the conflict is misrepresented as a war between equals; for this belief leads the stronger side, the Israelis, to regard the weaker, Palestinian, side as even more threatening.
The tendency of "new wars" across the world is to become increasingly cruel and terroristic, targeting civilians more than combatants. All members of the "other" community in effect become enemies and all casualties are excused. This destructive dynamic has to be broken from the inside.
Lesson four: forging human connections
What is left in seeking a way forward for peace? Who can talk to whom? When bombs and rockets have become the chosen method of communication, is talk even worthwhile?
The Palestinian "problem" is fundamentally political, not humanitarian. It needs a sustainable political solution. This must involve satisfying the national aspirations, the security and the dignity of the Palestinians amid a broader agreement that guarantees Israeli security too. Many years of Israeli occupation, settlement, and assaults such as in Gaza have made such an outcome seem further away than ever.
Even to talk about it may appear empty, a form of self-indulgence and delusion. Yet where people are without empathy for others, including their enemies, this will in the end deprive themselves of any possibility of empathy from others. It is in the Israelis' own interest, as well as right in itself, that they begin to "see" and recognise the Palestinians and their predicament.
The implication is that people inside the conflict need to be encouraged to make every effort to maintain their human connectivity, even perhaps taught to consciously cultivate empathy - in order precisely to overcome its dehumanising and polarising effects, and create a possible space for peace.
The working solution
Despite everything, it is still worth hoping for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is still worth believing that - with constructive support and pressure from outside - a viable two-state solution can still be achieved, and that this is far more realistic than the "one-state" option. It is still worth trying to be creative in finding ways to transform mindsets away from militarism.
By doing all this, we can rekindle the innate human connections between peoples who have lived side-by-side in this region for many centuries, and begin to transform a desperate situation from war towards peace.
50.50 Podcasts
Later this month | How do we dismantle the institution of war?
Comments
For Zionists there is a major hurdle to take in order to develop empathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians feel that Zionism has done them many injustices. The Zionists however are convinced of their moral supriority. In order for the Zionists to feel empathy they should get rid of their feeling of moral superiority. This is difficult, because it entails recognising that Zionism has done many bad things to the Palestinians. Most important are the ethnic cleansings in 1948.
Developing empathy for the Palestinians means investigating the moral side of the exodus of 1948 with an open mind. Investigating it with an open mind means developing empathy for the Palestinians. These things go together.
I hope it will happen, but I expect that Zionism will dig in.
Excellent article. My favorite line which the preceding poster may have missed as follows. "The sense of victimhood tends to exclude the possibility of the victim being also a perpetrator, and to project all evil onto the other. The violence inflicted out of a sense of victimhood is perceived as justifiable self-defence even when perpetrated against a weaker party." The only correction I would make to that statement would be, "...even when perpetrated against or by a weaker party."
It is incumbant upon Palestinians to develop empathy for Israelis as well and stop using their victimhood as rationalization for "self-defense" in the form of rocket attacks, kidnappings and suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets.
Middle-East Crisis: Can It Be Solved?
The 44th US President, Barack.Hussein 0bama, in his inaugural speech mentioned that: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace. To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”The depth of these words, I feel are very refreshing indeed and ushers in the “Change” from the previous 43rd President’s moral words, “Either you are for us or against us”. Congratulations Mr. President. Credit is also due for selecting Middle-East convoy, George Mitchell, who according to Los Angeles Times, is no stranger to conflicts. Mitchell received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton in 1999 for his work on reaching a peace accord in Northern Ireland. (Ref: latimes.com dated 24/1/2009). There is no doubt of the good intentions of the President. “Change” is good; deciding to make change is the easy part, getting people to do that are the difficult task. Let us analyze.The same issue of Los Angeles Times mentions that, “ In his new role, Mitchell will once again be working with Tony Blair, who was British Prime Minister at the time of Good Friday agreement.” Why and what is the necessity when Tony, towards the end of his career became controversial and unpopular, both at home and abroad due to his part in creating the turmoil in Iraq. On Middle East peace, Mr. Obama reiterated his administration's support for Israel and its security but also suggested Israelis would have to make some tough choices. "Ultimately we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what is best for them. They are going to have to make some decisions," he said. "But I do believe the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table."(Globalnews24.com dated January27, 2009). This sounds more realistic but what, if I may ask, will they do, at the negotiating table? Will Mitchell be brave enough to remind the Israelis the fact that in the 19th century this land of Palestine was inherited by Multicultural population –approximately 86 percent Muslim,10 percent Christians and 4 percent Jews—all living in peace? But a group of Jews in Europe decided to form a Jewish land and they considered locations in Africa and America before settling on Palestine. Hitler’s rise to power combined with the Zionists activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine and the conflict began.(Ref:ifamericansknew.org/history) In 1938 Mohandas.K.Gandhi, widely acclaimed as the worlds most humane Leader and Statesman, in response to queries on Arab-Jew question in Palestine and Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in Germany, he wrote an article “Jews & Middle-East: A Non-Violent look at Conflict & Violence”. (Ref:kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm) Due to space constraints I highlight the necessary wordings that President of the US and all other world leaders would sincerely benefit from as a guideline for permanent peace.
“My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.
And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs. They will find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.
I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.
Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen races prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home including Palestine, not by aggression but by loving service. Given the will, the Jews can refuse to be treated as the outcaste of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the attention and respect of the world by being man, the chosen creation of God, instead of being man who is fast sinking to the brute and forsaken by God. They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.”
I feel confident that if Mitchell can place this non-violent action plan on the “negotiating table”, it should enlighten both. warring parties as it comes from a honorable person who himself was a victim of the aggressive administrators in South African .
The President concluded his speech with the following words, “Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations”These words offer confidence that President.0bama could be trusted to achieve the goal of permanent peace so that children’s children of Israel and Palestine could breathe fresh air and not gun powder and when an child of Israel meets a child of Palestine the Israeli child wouldn’t say” My father said you hate Jews and plan to kill us all.” In reply the child of Palestine wouldn’t have to reply “I don’t know about that; my father was killed by an Israeli soldier.
The second war ended in 1945,but its effects are still seen in Kashmir, Plaestine and Korea are the unsolved by-products of the war.And it looks in the near future it will not be solved. The attacks in Mumbai all stand testimony to this.These problems started just when the war ended and has stayed on.
Once again though the article completely misses the core issue:
the illegality and immorality of the foundation of Israel on palestinian land and the illegallity and immorality of the occupation and continued colonisation combined with the most vicious brutalisation of the Palestinian people.
It is not about how Palestinians react, it is about what Israel did, does and continues to do as occupier and coloniser with all of the power and therefore all of the responsibility.
11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:
One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.
And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’
From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:
“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)
“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)
If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.
“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)
Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.
“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)
Now, Can any law be more idealistic!?
And above all, this is not a nicety to be taken or left by the state. It is a binding religious dictate overruling emotion and prejudice: otherwise it would be a grave violation of Islam.”
The above quotation is excerpted with slight modifications from www.islamset.com
Post new comment