David abrahams – Blog

I was happy to read the other day that President Obama has finally taken the reigns in the faltering carriage of the peace process in the Middle East. Obama decided to take advantage of the coming UN General Assembly that will take place in New York late September, in order to coordinate a tripartite meeting with Netanyahu and Abu Mazen (both will attend the UN Assembly). Maybe by putting those two rivals in one room, until white smoke is seen, Obama will achieve a breakthrough.

 
I am a strong believer in dialogue in the Middle East, and I think one should talk first and foremost with one’s bitter rivals. Being a peace activist, I have followed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for quite a while. In recent years, I was very sorry to see how both sides are entrenched in their positions, refusing to talk with the other side. Alas, they even fail to reach a dialogue with their own inner opposition – Netanyahu with the extremists among the settlers, Abu Mazen with Hamas.

 
I recall a beautiful allegory originally said in the context of Northern Ireland: let’s suppose that you live in a room, and in the same room there is a cage with a lion caged in it. Now, let’s suppose that in two weeks time, the cage door is going to be opened. Well, don’t you think it’s time to start talking with the lion?

 
If we ignore the problems, they do not disappear; on the contrary, they grow more complex. Both Netanyahu and Abu Mazen are indeed brave leaders, but they have not yet walked the extra mile. Netanyahu did not freeze settlements or free Palestinian prisoners, nor has he recognized the Palestinian tragedy at 1948. Abu Mazen has not given up the idea of “Right of Return”.

 
Maybe now, with an American leader that puts cold interests prior to fierce ideology or religious belief (as Bush did), the stalemate will be broken.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, following the Palestinian Conference, expressed his objection to future evacuation of Israeli settlements. Referring to the fourth anniversary of the unilateral disengagement from Gaza Strip, Netanyahu described the disengagement as a “mistake”, and made it clear that Israel is interested in a bilateral agreement with the Palestinians.  At the same time, other senior Ministers including Defense Minister Ehud Barak fiercely attacked the rhetoric and the anti-Israeli statements spread by the Palestinian leaders at the Fatah Sixth Congress in Bethlehem.

In his speech to the Palestinian Conference delegates, Abu Mazen resented the moderate Fatah political platform, which stresses peace as the relevant strategic option for Palestinians whilst simultaneously reserving the rights to armed struggle. Moreover, the delegates approved the political platform which contains blurred and not unequivocal references to some of the core issues of the Palestinian struggle mainly by mentioning the ‘Right of Return’ which has always been a sticking point in negotiations. The delegates also accused Israel of assassinating Arafat (View my previous post).

The core problem is the unwillingness of each side to better understand the other side’s motives and fears; the Palestinians and Israelis create a fantasy of an imaginary peace partner. Many amongst Israeli political leaders conceive Israel as a European “enclave” in “Levantine” surroundings, besieged by hostile, homogenous Arab states. This concept has been expressed by many Israeli leaders, and it reflects a historic Jewish consciousness of external threats combined with a lack of real understanding of Israel’s immediate geo-political neighbourhood, Israel feels that as a country with a unique blend of military power drenched in existential fear. When Ehud Barak served as PM in 2006, he compared Israel to a “villa in the jungle”. The subtext is clear: as long as the Middle East in general and the Palestinians in particular are the “jungle” – that is wild, untamed, and unruly – there is no reason for the inhabitants of the “villa” to open up the gates.

The Palestinians, on their side dream of Israeli governments that will be just happy to evacuate all settlements and give up Jerusalem. Moreover, many Palestinian leaders still cling to the “Right of Return”, an idea which Israel consider to be socially unreasonable as they see the lion’s share of the Palestinian Diaspora was born after 1948.

This distorted perception of reality leads, eventually, to unavoidable disappointments that create a dialogue of two deaf political entities.

I think it is high time that both sides begin “reading between the lines”, that is: to listen carefully not only to the rhetoric, but also to the content; to understand the specific political contexts of the statements that are made; to analyze speeches; and most importantly – to pay attention to what kinds of things were not said or done, especially when the contrary was anticipated.
Only by doing so – by listening without prejudice – will both sides be able to hear mutual motives, fears and aspirations.