The conference still continues for 2 days more after the Palestinian group leaves us. We keep having the structure of “workshops” in the morning and open mikes in the early afternoon. The result is a monopolization of the Conference by the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This conference was supposed to be about tools for Conflict Transformation, like this or this especially oriented for youth. This is the field I am especially interested in and the reason why I came to the Middle East. The result, however, has been very useless in this sense. In the personal level things worked normally, at least. We all celebrated Shabbath with the Israeli group (not all Arabs were present, but some were) and we all went out together (here all mixed and all together) during the nights in Amman. However, I don't feel satisfied with the contents and development of the conference, and considered we might have taken advantage of this special situation of having Arabs and Israelis in the same room, ready to have some kind of dialogue.I am happy that at least I have had the chance to experience what happens when you have groups in conflict and there is not an appropriate mediation or conduction of the discussion by someone, that is, I learnt what we should never do. Those who were supposed to be expert mediators reduced their role in the discussions to maintaining an order for the speakers and handing the microphone to the person talking. Mediation, to my understanding, is much more than that. The result is that by the end of the 4th day, the discussions were stuck at the same place that they were on the 1st day, or even worse (read a bit more and you will see). Both sides focusing on their own pain but refusing to identify or understand the other, not to mention to find the possibilities to work together. And the rest (non-Middle-Easterners) most of the time watching in silence. It is a fact that the Israeli-Palestinian is not at all a balanced conflict. The occupation implies a big dose of structural violence on the Palestinian people everyday and you can tell the erosion that this has in their lack of hope. However, people seemed to have forgotten that this conference was not between political leaders but between normal people from both sides. This was the chance to talk in person with "the others" and try to understand why the think like they think. This conference, if focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, should have dealt with peoples' necessities, fears, hopes, personal conceptions of peace and justice and possibilities to discuss them. The participants however forgot this and, of course, the mediators also forgot to remind them.
In fact, the last open-mike session really left me petrified, as it really ended up showing the typical stereotypes and tags used on both sides of this conflict, and proving the conference had not changed anything in the participants. A Jordanian participant took the microphone and said he and most Arabs were in favor of peace and had never had any problem with the Jews, they only had problems with Zionism, as the root of the oppression of Palestinians and other Arabs in the region. Then an Israeli participant took the microphone and said she was really astonished at the things she had heard in the conference about her country. She said she was a proud Jew and a proud and convinced Zionist. I wonder if the tag “Zionist” meant the same for both of them, and I am sure it did not (see for example the big difference between this and this understanding of the same term for two Israeli writers). However, we will never know what they really meant with it, as without proper mediation we witnessed a basic conflict of absolutes (pro-, anti-, with or without, us or them, etc…), where no solution seems to be possible.
After this, another of the Israeli participants took the microphone and gave his final speech. He wanted to leave clear that there could not be any peace in the Middle East until all the Arab States acknowledged the right of Jewish People to have a state. After that, he emphasized that the opinion of most Israeli population and of their representatives there was not so different to that of the Israeli government, and that everyone should accept that in order to reach any agreement.
Once again, I felt like hearing the words of a politician, rather than those of a civilian seeking for dialogue with “the other”. I did not understand the appropriateness of this man to consider himself as a representative of the Israeli population, or even, the Israeli government. I wonder how we can expect any civil peace iniciative to work if we still repeat what our governments say, and cannot think for ourselves. I wonder how we can expect any civil peace initiative to work if we acknowledge the fact that we do not speak for ourselves but for our government (would he then consider all Palestinians there voters of Hamas and therefore fierce anti-Israelis or even Judeophobes?).
After some time in this area I am starting to understand that conflicts here are not so different to conflicts anywhere else. I remember when some former and current politicians in Spain were strongly prasing peace, while going to an Iraq war we never were called to, expanding Spanish weapon’s industry with people like Gadafi, or talking about the end of Basque terrorism, while infuriating the whole national political scene and confronting all the regions in the country, and taking part in human rights violations against Basque prisoners or illegal war on terrorism. Can someone really believe in the good intentions of the political class? Why do policy-makers never listen or accept what experts in conflict resolution say, and usually do just the opposite? I can only see two kinds of people here: it’s not about Palestinians and Israelis, it’s not about Jews and Muslims, it’s not about Westerners and Easterners, it’s just about those who really want a real Peace at any price, and those who say that want Peace but also have other agendas (political interests, economic benefits, etc…). Most politicians (anywhere in the world) belong to the second group, but until we don’t realize it and work from the grassroots level, people to people, focusing on our real needs and fears, and not on our ideologies or believes, they will be the ones deciding for us.
I see you've been quite demanding with that conference, that's a good thing. I'd like you to tell us which were your points of view (as a person not directly involved in a political conflict) and how your ideas were perceived by others.
ResponEliminaAs an observer of Arab culture, I notice that there is a mainstream acceptable view on any specific subject that is black and white and in theory, all are expected to adopt themselves. When someone does not (for example, “bringing” Zionists to an Arab conference), it is met with harsh reactions meant to put the collective in line with the mainstream view- much like a father reprimanding a child. What amazes me in Arab culture is that it mostly works- is not tolerated or accepted to do something different and fear of stepping out of one’s cultural appropriate viewpoints are, at least in public, not allowed.
ResponEliminaThis conference seemed like a perfect microcosm of the conflict. Everyone feels this need to be a representative of their entire people, their entire history as if somehow if they didn’t, all their history and identity would be destroyed. You then have individuals speaking in the name of the collective in abstract speech (anti- pro- Zionist, Jewish state). There is nothing you can do with abstractions because they are messy balls of multiple needs mixed with specific history and identity that each person will understand differently based on their own history and identity.
ResponEliminaCorwin, I agree with what you say in the first commentary. However, I do not think this is exclusive to Arab Culture. I think this is part of the way in which conflicts become a cultural issue, rather than a political-social, that is, in the end, you become more into hating your enemy rather than into trying to find a solution/agreement to your differences and a way to solve to your real problems-needs.
ResponEliminaAbout your second comment, I couldn't agree more with you and liked very much the way you phrased it. Abstractions do not represent any particular needs and are very seldom common ground between the parties in conflict. However, they flood the political and mediatic spheres, perpetuating opposition and making reconciliation seemingly impossible.