The first conference about Europe’s role in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Hamburg in August 2002 showed the importance of mutual trust, and how the perception of the “other” and of the conflict itself can prevent its resolution and a rapprochement of both
societies. In the latest conference in Hofgeismar, 30 Palestinian, Israeli and European students and young activists, some of whom participated in the first conference, came together to deepen their
understanding of the conflict, and of each others’ fears and dreams. The participants were divided into three workshop groups, each dealing with a core problem: narratives of the conflict, refugees and settlements, and
shared responsibilities beyond borders. In a common workshop at the beginning of the conference, all participants articulated a common vision.
Our Vision…
We could see,
not so far ahead in the future, a new Middle East in which regional cooperation, security and prosperity is made possible as a result of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A few of us had the long-term vision of a
binational state for both peoples. The majority, however, saw two democratic states living side by side. The participants reached an unanimous agreement that Europe, and the EU in particular, should play a more active
role in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Especially nowadays, as a result of the eminent enlargement of the EU, the EU is becoming a closer neighbour to the Middle East, and this should serve as an
important incentive in order to strengthen partnership and cooperation.
Within and among these two states, human rights and mutual trust will be maintained, people will not be afraid anymore, and the
dignity of everybody will be respected and protected. There will be cultural and educational exchange between the two states and security and freedom of movement for all will be guaranteed. The problem of the refugees
will be resolved, and illegal settlements will be dismantled. We all agreed, Palestinians, Israelis and Europeans, that peace is possible, and that prosperity for all will be achieved through economic cooperation
underpinned by mutually accepted and enforceable principles of justice.
We also agreed that Jerusalem will be the capital of both states, Israel and Palestine, which eventually will serve as cultural,
economic and political role models not just for the region but for the whole world.
But Obstacles Still Remain…
Regarding the Narratives of the Conflict, three
interdependent narratives were recognised: Palestinian-Israeli-European. We divided the obstacles into three main clusters: “reflective”, “contradictive” and “communicative”. Key elements regarding the problem of
missing reflection included the complacency of oneself, as an individual in a community, and feeling comfortable enough not to challenge your identity. The existential fear on both sides is central towards an
understanding of the other. Institutionally rooted narratives and the need to maintain consensus in the face of adversity also play an important role. Also, the seeming invisibility or inaccessibility of alternatives
limits oneself from entering a process of self-reflection.
The contradictive elements of one’s own narratives are an exclusionary identity, the devaluation and even dehumanisation of the other,
prejudices and stereotypes and a zero-sum outlook.
The third cluster – communicative – includes the interaction between one’s narrative and the narrative of the other. Hence, the lack of communication, the
competition of sufferings, and the lack of mutual recognition represent core obstacles that stand between us in order to achieve our vision.
As for the second workshop, Refugees and Settlements, nine
obstacles were identified. Some of these are obstacles represented by the issues of refugees and settlements, which block us from achieving our vision. Others were obstacles that prevent the resolution of the problems
of refugees and settlements.
The first set of obstacles includes:
1. Denial of individual rights and humiliation. Especially for the refugees, their freedom of movement is impaired,
they lose their dignity, and on the whole, maintaining their present condition is a violation of some of their basic human rights.
2. Settlements prevent a full functioning state. There was no consensus
on whether all settlements or only certain settlements prevented us from achieving the vision of two democratic states. However, we reached a consensus that under current conditions, Palestinians are being deprived of
their land, and that any agreement without solving the settlements problem legitimises their growth.
3. Continuation of the cycle of violence. Without resolving the problems of settlements and refugees,
attacks will continue, check points will remain, humiliation will continue, attacks will increase, and the conflict ends up becoming a vicious circle.
The other set of obstacles includes:
1. Fear of losing the identity of the Jewish state, specifically, a massive return of refugees to Israel is a threat to the purpose of the existence and the identity of a Jewish state.
2.
Insufficient resources to absorb refugees. The massive return of refugees to the new Palestinian state might cause widespread poverty if resources were not made available.
3. Ambiguity of terms, which
in previous agreements were too general and subject to different interpretations.
4. Internal Israeli and Palestinian political constraints. On the Israeli side, the nature of the political system
impedes consensus, settlements are perceived as a solution to Israeli future demographic problems, and the Israeli government is not willing to dismantle settlements. On the Palestinian side, power struggles among
different factions, particularly religious and secular impedes consensus building over a solution.
5. Deepening of mutual mistrust, which we agreed is both a cause and effect for continuing the cycle of
violence. Historical background makes both Palestinians and Israelis less willing to understand each other’s point of view. Mutual mistrust is exacerbated by non-compliance with international law.
The
third workshop “Shared responsibilities beyond borders” began by defining what a border is. A border is not necessarily something physical but rather a concept, which is used to define “something”; we discussed the
different kinds of possible characteristics of a border: physical or psychological, static or dynamic, open or closed. In addition, borders can be open for people and/or goods. Borders can be open to both sides.
The obstacles are divided into four clusters:
1. “Mistrust and fear prevent a peaceful solution”, especially respect for borders can create a feeling of safety.
2.
“Borders are a potential cause for conflict”, primarily because they create negative identities. Secondly, when they are imposed and impair freedom of movement, they violate the sense of dignity.
3.
“Lack of agreement on common interests results in a lack of mutually acceptable borders”, in particular, occupation prevents installation of normal, legal and accepted borders. The lack of agreement on common interests
derives from certain ideologies on both sides which reject the idea of a two-state solution and from the fact that both people claim the same land as their own.
4. “Borders limit cooperation”, they
represent obstacles for economic, cultural, environmental and educational cooperation.
These are all serious obstacles, but for every obstacle there is a solution…
The following are not solutions as such, but rather broad strategic directions leading to concrete solutions.
Regarding the narratives of the conflict, instead of speaking about “solutions”
we preferred to speak in terms of an ongoing process, or a circle:
Admit, define and conquer your own fear. Confront fear first with yourself, then with the other. Come to terms with your fear and start
building trust.
Building upon the obstacles elaborated before, we have developed a model, which is relevant to dealing with all three narratives. The process represented by the model encompasses three
elements: reflective (within oneself and society), also described by the concept of the self and the concept of one’s own society, contradictive, the concept of the other society, and communicative – i.e. communication.
Within a virtuous circle, we can develop trust. We could not, however, agree on the motives and incentives, which make us, enter this process of self-reflection and questioning of one’s own perception. We still have to
resolve the question: What are our motives and incentives to enter the virtuous circle of building trust? A possible incentive could be a third actor, such as the European Union, in order to “facilitate” each society to
enter into this circle.
Core elements for self-reflection are: overcoming the fear of being “problematic” or different, self-criticism and questioning, reforming the memory culture, extracting marginalized
histories, connecting with “socially outcast” narratives and addressing taboos. Moreover, it helps to put ourselves in the others’ shoes and point out different aspects of identity and not oppressing different voices.
Regarding society it is important to allow a public discourse to empower people and to show how they can play a role.
Our perception of the other society can be changed by seeing the human face of the other. Moreover, the approach plays an important role: to realize
that your own benefit depends on the benefit of the other and therefore to try to focus on solutions that benefit both sides: “win-win”. Furthermore, a step towards a different narrative can be reached by moving from an
exclusionary identity to an inclusionary identity and, by this, to articulate a wider definition of identity.
Communication with the other and encountering the other’s historical
narrative is the third core element of the solution process. We have to acknowledge the other’s history and the interconnection between the narratives. Truly listening, questioning and understanding (“intercultural
dialogue”) are very crucial. Everyone should express and show his/her needs and think of means to prevent further suffering. We agreed that the recognition of the other’s dignity and suffering is crucial.
In the second workshop, Refugees and Settlements, we divided the solutions into five clusters:
1. Confidence building measures. For example, funding for suicide bombers
should stop, establishment of a commission dealing mainly with charges of humiliation against Palestinians, and the removal of all check points. Although we did not reach consensus on this last point, the majority of us
believe that this measure would decrease violence, the same way a decrease in violence could lead to a removal of checkpoints, and thus a virtuous circle could be developed.
2. Settlements: The majority agreed that all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza should be gradually removed, and that an empowered PA should ensure security during this process. A committee must be set up in the
Israeli government to deal with the settlements’ problem, and that there should be a freeze in the mean time of building settlements for new settlers. Funds for returning settlers should be made available.
3. Non-violent communication. We reached consensus on three points. a) Not responding to terror, in the sense that “real strength is restraint”, b)
Promotion of civil disobedience and non-violent resistance, and c) The gain and loss through collective punishment needs to be reconsidered.
4. Political reform in both societies, which includes reforms in political structures to achieve stability in the decision making process, and the decrease of the indirect influence of the Israeli Defence Forces on the
political process in Israel.
5. Refugees. There was a consensus that all refugees should be given the full right of return to the newly created Palestinian state, if they choose to,
and that individual refugees should be given the right to decide whether they should return or be compensated. The majority of us agreed that the
Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government should agree on a certain number of refugees who can return to Israel, however, we didn’t manage to
reach a consensus over this last point. We also agreed that an international body should be set up to deal with the future financial solution of the
refugees’ issue. As temporary and immediate measures, we agreed that the international community should put pressure on host countries to improve living conditions of Palestinians living there, and that refugees’ family
meetings, at borders of host countries, should be made possible. After their return, the safety and dignity of the returnees should be guaranteed.
As for the third workshop, Shared Responsibilities beyond Borders, the solutions are divided into six clusters:
1. “Promote cooperation” in the economic field mainly by creating a free
trade area, initiating common projects on shared resources and encouraging bilateral and foreign tourism.
2. “Agree on the nature and location of borders”, primarily, the peace
agreement should be achieved in accordance with international law. An additional solution might be to talk about “seams”, which connect, instead of “borders”, which divide.
3. “Install trust building measures” mainly by the abolishment of the arbitrary and humiliating characteristics of checkpoints. Furthermore, the awareness
for shared interests should be heightened, and visits of Israelis to the West Bank and Gaza arranged.
4. “Decrease the potential for conflict” by creating a situation where all
sides are aware that they have something to lose. The influence of radical movements on both sides should be reduced. One should live the life of the other for a short period of time to achieve mutual understanding.
5. “Increase EU involvement” especially with respect to the promotion of democracy and human rights protection. The EU should invest in both states
and support peace education projects. In addition, the process of the European integration could be used as a model to reach mutual prosperity and security.
6. “Solve technical problems” by guaranteeing a safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank. An additional important element is creating an open border which contains protected border crossings.
Our Resolve…
We believe that peace is possible. Actually, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has already been resolved many times over, on paper. We need a new
language to describe this senseless conflict. We believe that the Israeli and Palestinian people can and should trust each other, and this has been our experience in the few days we spent together here in Hofgeismar, in
Germany. We have gone through an intense and painful process, a process that has brought us closer to each other’s fears and dreams. Our resolve is
to continue with this process, and to replicate it and take it as far as we can. Perhaps we are young and naïve, but we are the future, and here we have expressed our longing for peace, independence and security. And we
declare our intention that we will not stop until we ensure that the future is better than the past.
