
The first thing I noticed about Israel was the flags. Everywhere. Like Europe during the world cup. Little cotton symbols of nationalism flying from flag poles, car aerials, balconies. The icon of Judaism - a symbol of religion and one of a nation, draped across the windows of stores and across the side of buildings. You are constantly reminded whose country you are in. Like that the presence of a flag marks something permanent and valid.
The second thing I noticed was the guns. Everywhere. Young military conscripts brandishing their semi-automatics like extensions of their ego - patrolling the streets, the airports, the shopping centres. Standing in groups, talking, leering. I felt uneasy. Comically, while on a bus to Akko I heard a young American pilgrim comment to her friend “when I arrived in Tel Aviv and saw the military guy with his huuuge gun, I thought, wow, this is a really safe country”. If only the presence of weapons made people safer. History teaches us much different.
A few hundred kilometres south lies Palestine. Palestine. How can one even begin to talk about this issue? The information on the subject is immense. That is, if you choose to look for it. It is a topic that polarises views, that sparks sensitivities, that provokes anger and hurt and if one does not tread carefully in the quagmire of debate, it is all too easy to be branded as anti-semitic, or a sympathiser with terrorists, or another equally loaded stereotype. It seems that one cannot be a neutral body on this subject. You must choose: one side or the other. You’re either with me, or against me. If only life was really that black and white.
As I weave my way through the multi-shaded greys of reality in an effort to better understand this conflict, I am helped by three brave and inspirational people who I met in Haifa. Three of the unsung heroes of conflict worldwide: peace activists. People who give their lives, their freedom, their finances, their energies; all in the defence of those who are marginalised and oppressed through conflict and occupation. What makes these people sacrifice so willingly that which others have had taken from them by force? What motivates them to enter conflict zones in assistance of those with whom they have no family or ethnic associations? And what would the world be like if these people did not act?
David Lisbona, director of “Middleway”
“The victims in all of this are the Palestinian public; the ordinary people who just want a free and dignified life.”
Escaping the baking Middle Eastern sun under the shade of a tree on Haifa’s Ben Gurion Street, David shared his knowledge on the history of the region – the conquest of this small area of arid land firstly by the Romans, whose domination was the catalyst for the original dispersement of the Jewish people, and then by the Ottoman Empire, finally being “won” by the Allied Forces in World War I and, reminiscent of the carving up of Africa, Britain and France took “mandates” over various areas of the Middle East; France controlling Syria and what is now known as the Lebanon, and Britain obtaining a mandate over the areas now known as Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. In 1921 the area of Palestine was formed when the British divided the region into two, the area east of the River Jordan becoming Jordan and the west of the river becoming Palestine.
The population of Jewish people in this area had been growing since the late 19th century with the birth of the movement for Zionism (the Jewish nationalist movement). By 1914 the population of the area of Palestine stood at 60,000 Jews and 683,000 Arabs. Most of the original Jewish population were centred around areas of religious significance and Arabs and Jews coexisted in relative peace. During the period prior to World War II, Jewish immigration increased sharply with the persecution of Jews in Europe. This began to cause more hostility between the populations as the Arabs felt threatened by the increasing number of immigrants. British interest in the repatriation, or immigration, of Jewish people oscillated because of this and in the mid 1930s the British curtailed Jewish immigration following the escalation of race riots.
Following the end of World War II and under pressure from America, a weary Britain allowed the immigration of Jewish refugees under the contentious 1917 Balfour Declaration (hyperlink) but limited the number of refugees to 100,000. There was also illegal Jewish immigration during this period, largely from camps in Cyprus. Racial tensions and fighting escalated between the two groups as the Arabs felt their land and sovereignty under threat from the immigration.
On May 15th, 1948 Britain withdrew from Palestine due to the escalating conflict. The situation was largely turned over to the United Nations who in 1947 had voted for the creation of two separate states in Palestine; one for the Arab population, and one for the Jewish (this of course was never realised). Following the British withdrawal, the Jewish population (who were, by and large, more organised than the Arab) declared the state of Israel, effectively dissolving Palestine and creating a new nation state. Neighbouring Arab states then invaded the new state of Israel but following the arrival of superior weaponry, the state of Israel conquered territories even beyond the original borders. In 1949 an armistice was drawn between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states and the new government of the state of Israel then opened the floodgates for Jewish immigration to the region.
Major guerrilla fighting ensued and Arab states began to persecute their Jewish populations and support the Arab resistance within Palestine / Israel. As a consequence of the war, about 700,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees in neighbouring areas. The hostilities between Israel and the Arab states continued despite the armistice which culminated in the 1967 “six day war” in which Israel showed definite military superiority (largely with the assistance of American military financing and weaponry) and conquered territories including the West Bank (which had been controlled by Jordan following the 1948 war), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (from Eygpt) and the Golan Heights (from Syria).
The majority of Palestinian Arabs now live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A minority of Palestinian Arabs live in Israel, mostly as second-rate citizens and whose allegiances are questioned by both sides. The resistance to occupation by the Palestinian Arabs has been continual and increasing, and numerous attempts at resolution have occurred with little success and much disintegration of trust between the Palestinian authorities and the Israeli government. As it currently stands, the political situation in Palestine is divided between two major groups – Hamas and Fatah. Fatah is a secular organisation that was created following the disintegration of the PLO and is led by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. Fatah’s reputation has been sullied with corruption and collaboration which led Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) to win the 2006 elections in Palestine, an election result not recognised by the “international community” due to Hamas’ “extremist” policies and involvement in acts of terrorism such as suicide bombings in Israel. And here lies the current impasse.
Hamas now controls the Gaza Strip and Fatah controls the West Bank. A large concrete wall encircles both areas with Israeli soldiers manning all entry and exit points and controlling all that enters or leaves – in effect creating the largest prison in the modern world and restricting the most basic human right, the freedom of movement.
The diaspora of Palestinians living as refugees in neighbouring Arab countries number around three million, with the largest percentage living in Jordan (about 1.3 million). Most of these people still live in dire conditions in the refugee camps initially set up in 1949; the problem being equally that of the host country’s unwillingness to effectively integrate the refugees and the refugees’ unwillingness to rescind their ties with their historical lands and their desire to return.
Dani Grimblat, ex-soldier, current activist.
“What we have today is a reality that I know. What I am asking for is a very dramatic change in that reality.”
Aung San Suu Kyi once wrote that the courage she most admires is not fearlessness, but conviction. A courage of the mind. I think courage of the mind is exactly what Dani Grimblat must possess in order to have transcended from the role of a soldier in the Israeli army to that of a peace activist, putting himself on the line for a people with which his nation is at war.
In Israel, military service is obligatory for all who reach 18. Dani described joining the army in complete belief of what he terms as the Israeli narrative – the glorification of the Israelis and the demonisation of the Palestinians (who are referred to as savages, driven by hatred and whose only motivation is to kill). Dani was initially posted to the Ketziot prison camp on the border with Eygpt in the early 1990s. About 3,000 Palestinians were held here at this time, with two-thirds of these people being “administrative” detainees (i.e. without charge). They were held in very poor conditions which didn’t even comply with Israel’s own laws for detainment, restrained in tents and cages and used as labour for the building of the prison. Interrogation and torture were commonplace, with specially built huts on the outskirts of the prison camp being used for interrogation by members of the Israeli secret service. Common tactics of division amongst prisoners were used, with specific prisoners being authorised to speak to guards and monitor their fellow detainees. Isolation cells were frequently used, there being 16 of these concrete and solid rock chambers with a small opening in the door used for communication.
Prisoners could be held here as administrative detainees for up to six months at a time, which clearly is in breach of international human rights law. This detention without charge could be extended for periods of up to three years on orders from a military General. When prisoners were to be released, they would be blindfolded and transported, threatened by soldiers that if they “caused trouble” they would remain in the prison. Bullying and abuse was daily routine.
Dani served in the army for one year before being given leave for health reasons. During this time he visited America and went through a self-imposed period of restriction from all forms of media. It was during this period that thoughts began to enter Dani’s mind about the brutalities he had witnessed and his “programisation” by the state began to unravel. After a period of imprisonment for his refusal to serve in the army, Dani began to visit the West Bank to see for himself the people that lived there and the conditions that they lived under. Sometimes his access would be blocked by Israeli soldiers manning the borders which only increased his interest at what these soldiers so vehemently didn’t want to be seen.
During these visits Dani saw the huge disparity between his world and the world of the Palestinians. The poverty was stark and real – a lack of sewage systems, a lack of electricity, a lack of water resources. The basics of hygiene and the necessities of life simply were absent for these people. The memories of the treatment of Palestinian prisoners began to integrate with the reality of treatment of the Palestinians.
Dani’s activism went from strength to strength, initially co-ordinating groups with Amnesty International he began to become involved with more direct forms of activism, joining the anti-war groups Peace Now and Peace Block. He has helped with the reconstruction of houses demolished by Israeli tanks, become involved with direct intervention and confrontation of the military and protested in many forms, including being involved with various protests that have been attacked by the military. Protestors in Palestine are frequently arrested, imprisoned, tear-gassed and shot at with rubber bullets. Freedom of speech and freedom of public assembly? Apparently not in Palestine.
For some, international human rights “law” like the rights to freedom of speech, or public assembly, can seem a bit abstract, especially in times of conflict. So here are some good old fashioned statistics to ground ourselves in the disparate reality of this war: between September 2000 and August 2007, records taken by the Israeli human rights’ organisation B’teslem show that 69.84% of the 4,274 Palestinian deaths were civilians, 20.05% of which were children. During a two year period (2000 to 2002) 25% of the 2,570 killed were the result of heavy weaponry and 75% from live ammunition. During the same two year period more than 41,000 Palestinians were injured, 35.7% of which were children and a significant portion of which now have permanent debilitating disabilities (like the loss of limbs).
The essential (and extremely limited) health services to assist these people also come under attack. Hospitals have been shelled, fired at and refused access to (resulting in the deaths of injured people and creating damages of infrastructure costing into the tens of thousands). 197 ambulances (clearly marked) were fired at, 432 denied through-access at roadblocks and two were deliberately crushed by tanks while attempting to provide medical assistance to the injured. In the two year period outlined above 15 doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers were killed while on duty, 275 medical personnel were injured and 70 emergency personnel and medical volunteers were arrested.
International journalists and peace activists have also been killed including the famous cases of the 23 year old American, Rachel Corrie and the 24 year old British photography student, Tom Hurndall. 295 journalists were wounded in the two year period above, with nine journalists killed.
Damages to land and property include attacks on schools, churches, mosques, water wells, orchards and olive groves. Agricultural land is bulldozed and burned, taking with it the livelihoods and heritage of many families who rely heavily on the crops in an area where unemployment is extraordinarily high, and nearly half the population lives on less than $2 per day.
When we cast our eyes to the other side of this war, we begin to see the disparity. Most Israelis live in relative comfort and security with ready access to all services and a strong economy supported by the United States. 1,024 Israelis were killed in the same seven year period, just 23% of the number of Palestinians, with no attacks on hospitals, schools or emergency personnel. Certainly there have been breaches of international law and ethics with the use of suicide bombers in public areas by Palestinian groups like Hamas and I do not want to detract from the legitimate Israeli victims of conflict but instead simply highlight the disproportion of force and the breaches of international covenants like the Geneva Convention.
Looking to the future – what hope can be found?
“When I went through the process I supported the two state solution, or variations on that. Now I don’t choose one or the other. I choose to step back. The solution should be reached by dialogue – the refugees deserve the right of return, or financial compensation and recognition. I only act against what I oppose. I haven’t decided what I am for. It should still be negotiated. The Israelis are into hard-line negotiations, like being in a market. Negotiations should be respectful and wanted and no side should dictate who will sit and who will not.” Dani Grimblat.
Sitting in the current impasse of Palestinian politics can only lead to further disintegration of unity and the prolongation of this conflict, with all of the very real suffering it entails. I watched in horror a television broadcast that showed children at schools in the Gaza Strip being segregated into “Hamas” and “Fatah” supporters, with equal hatred being directed to the opposing side. How many generations will it now take to breed out these new divisions? How much more innocent blood needs to be spilt on this already soaked earth? The resolution of this now 60 year old conflict is imperative not only for peace within the region, but for peace within the greater world in which we all live. Osama bin Laden frequently refers to “his brothers in Palestine” and it is a common foundation for the arguments of injustice from Islamic extremist groups who resort to methods of geo-terrorism. Resolving this conflict removes one (quite substantial) theoretical leg for these groups to stand on.
But just how to resolve this seems an age old and largely impossible question. The impossibility of which seems to lie more in the unwillingness to enter meaningful dialogue than the impossibility of reaching a satisfactory resolution. Hamas currently refuses to negotiate, either with the Israeli government, or with any Israeli group (including pro-Palestinian peace groups!). Fatah will negotiate, but lacks the peoples’ support due to allegations of corruption and collaboration. And there is also the substantial issue with the diaspora of Palestinian refugees...
According to David, Israel could never allow the refugees to return as this would cause the Palestinian Arab population to be larger than the Jewish and thus, restricting the ability of the Jewish to maintain political domination. On that basis, and for other reasons, a bi-national state isn’t particularly feasible. The creation of two states may result in the massive developmental differences leading to new conflicts and the requirement for huge infrastructure investment and meaningful development and may take many decades to effectively implement. (Which is certainly no reason not to start!)
Meaningful and open dialogue seems the key to resolution. What currently limits this is the dictating of terms before dialogue is entered into: who will speak to whom, and on what basis. As we have seen from recent American policy in “mediating” such talks, the invitations go to those who they consider ‘deserving’ of an invitation, as opposed to those who have a real ability to end the conflict.
From what I can see, some strong and charismatic leaders are required, on both sides: leaders to unite their people, to facilitate real dialogue and to begin to re-humanise these deep divisions. At the end of the day, whether we are Muslim, Christian or Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist, we are all human beings. We all love our children and want somewhere secure to rest at night and some meaningful work during our days. We want safety and peace and enough food to eat and if we cannot find common ground even on this basis, then in an increasingly mutual world, what hope can exist for our future?
The second thing I noticed was the guns. Everywhere. Young military conscripts brandishing their semi-automatics like extensions of their ego - patrolling the streets, the airports, the shopping centres. Standing in groups, talking, leering. I felt uneasy. Comically, while on a bus to Akko I heard a young American pilgrim comment to her friend “when I arrived in Tel Aviv and saw the military guy with his huuuge gun, I thought, wow, this is a really safe country”. If only the presence of weapons made people safer. History teaches us much different.
A few hundred kilometres south lies Palestine. Palestine. How can one even begin to talk about this issue? The information on the subject is immense. That is, if you choose to look for it. It is a topic that polarises views, that sparks sensitivities, that provokes anger and hurt and if one does not tread carefully in the quagmire of debate, it is all too easy to be branded as anti-semitic, or a sympathiser with terrorists, or another equally loaded stereotype. It seems that one cannot be a neutral body on this subject. You must choose: one side or the other. You’re either with me, or against me. If only life was really that black and white.
As I weave my way through the multi-shaded greys of reality in an effort to better understand this conflict, I am helped by three brave and inspirational people who I met in Haifa. Three of the unsung heroes of conflict worldwide: peace activists. People who give their lives, their freedom, their finances, their energies; all in the defence of those who are marginalised and oppressed through conflict and occupation. What makes these people sacrifice so willingly that which others have had taken from them by force? What motivates them to enter conflict zones in assistance of those with whom they have no family or ethnic associations? And what would the world be like if these people did not act?
David Lisbona, director of “Middleway”
“The victims in all of this are the Palestinian public; the ordinary people who just want a free and dignified life.”
Escaping the baking Middle Eastern sun under the shade of a tree on Haifa’s Ben Gurion Street, David shared his knowledge on the history of the region – the conquest of this small area of arid land firstly by the Romans, whose domination was the catalyst for the original dispersement of the Jewish people, and then by the Ottoman Empire, finally being “won” by the Allied Forces in World War I and, reminiscent of the carving up of Africa, Britain and France took “mandates” over various areas of the Middle East; France controlling Syria and what is now known as the Lebanon, and Britain obtaining a mandate over the areas now known as Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. In 1921 the area of Palestine was formed when the British divided the region into two, the area east of the River Jordan becoming Jordan and the west of the river becoming Palestine.
The population of Jewish people in this area had been growing since the late 19th century with the birth of the movement for Zionism (the Jewish nationalist movement). By 1914 the population of the area of Palestine stood at 60,000 Jews and 683,000 Arabs. Most of the original Jewish population were centred around areas of religious significance and Arabs and Jews coexisted in relative peace. During the period prior to World War II, Jewish immigration increased sharply with the persecution of Jews in Europe. This began to cause more hostility between the populations as the Arabs felt threatened by the increasing number of immigrants. British interest in the repatriation, or immigration, of Jewish people oscillated because of this and in the mid 1930s the British curtailed Jewish immigration following the escalation of race riots.
Following the end of World War II and under pressure from America, a weary Britain allowed the immigration of Jewish refugees under the contentious 1917 Balfour Declaration (hyperlink) but limited the number of refugees to 100,000. There was also illegal Jewish immigration during this period, largely from camps in Cyprus. Racial tensions and fighting escalated between the two groups as the Arabs felt their land and sovereignty under threat from the immigration.
On May 15th, 1948 Britain withdrew from Palestine due to the escalating conflict. The situation was largely turned over to the United Nations who in 1947 had voted for the creation of two separate states in Palestine; one for the Arab population, and one for the Jewish (this of course was never realised). Following the British withdrawal, the Jewish population (who were, by and large, more organised than the Arab) declared the state of Israel, effectively dissolving Palestine and creating a new nation state. Neighbouring Arab states then invaded the new state of Israel but following the arrival of superior weaponry, the state of Israel conquered territories even beyond the original borders. In 1949 an armistice was drawn between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states and the new government of the state of Israel then opened the floodgates for Jewish immigration to the region.
Major guerrilla fighting ensued and Arab states began to persecute their Jewish populations and support the Arab resistance within Palestine / Israel. As a consequence of the war, about 700,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees in neighbouring areas. The hostilities between Israel and the Arab states continued despite the armistice which culminated in the 1967 “six day war” in which Israel showed definite military superiority (largely with the assistance of American military financing and weaponry) and conquered territories including the West Bank (which had been controlled by Jordan following the 1948 war), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (from Eygpt) and the Golan Heights (from Syria).
The majority of Palestinian Arabs now live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A minority of Palestinian Arabs live in Israel, mostly as second-rate citizens and whose allegiances are questioned by both sides. The resistance to occupation by the Palestinian Arabs has been continual and increasing, and numerous attempts at resolution have occurred with little success and much disintegration of trust between the Palestinian authorities and the Israeli government. As it currently stands, the political situation in Palestine is divided between two major groups – Hamas and Fatah. Fatah is a secular organisation that was created following the disintegration of the PLO and is led by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. Fatah’s reputation has been sullied with corruption and collaboration which led Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) to win the 2006 elections in Palestine, an election result not recognised by the “international community” due to Hamas’ “extremist” policies and involvement in acts of terrorism such as suicide bombings in Israel. And here lies the current impasse.
Hamas now controls the Gaza Strip and Fatah controls the West Bank. A large concrete wall encircles both areas with Israeli soldiers manning all entry and exit points and controlling all that enters or leaves – in effect creating the largest prison in the modern world and restricting the most basic human right, the freedom of movement.
The diaspora of Palestinians living as refugees in neighbouring Arab countries number around three million, with the largest percentage living in Jordan (about 1.3 million). Most of these people still live in dire conditions in the refugee camps initially set up in 1949; the problem being equally that of the host country’s unwillingness to effectively integrate the refugees and the refugees’ unwillingness to rescind their ties with their historical lands and their desire to return.
Dani Grimblat, ex-soldier, current activist.
“What we have today is a reality that I know. What I am asking for is a very dramatic change in that reality.”
Aung San Suu Kyi once wrote that the courage she most admires is not fearlessness, but conviction. A courage of the mind. I think courage of the mind is exactly what Dani Grimblat must possess in order to have transcended from the role of a soldier in the Israeli army to that of a peace activist, putting himself on the line for a people with which his nation is at war.
In Israel, military service is obligatory for all who reach 18. Dani described joining the army in complete belief of what he terms as the Israeli narrative – the glorification of the Israelis and the demonisation of the Palestinians (who are referred to as savages, driven by hatred and whose only motivation is to kill). Dani was initially posted to the Ketziot prison camp on the border with Eygpt in the early 1990s. About 3,000 Palestinians were held here at this time, with two-thirds of these people being “administrative” detainees (i.e. without charge). They were held in very poor conditions which didn’t even comply with Israel’s own laws for detainment, restrained in tents and cages and used as labour for the building of the prison. Interrogation and torture were commonplace, with specially built huts on the outskirts of the prison camp being used for interrogation by members of the Israeli secret service. Common tactics of division amongst prisoners were used, with specific prisoners being authorised to speak to guards and monitor their fellow detainees. Isolation cells were frequently used, there being 16 of these concrete and solid rock chambers with a small opening in the door used for communication.
Prisoners could be held here as administrative detainees for up to six months at a time, which clearly is in breach of international human rights law. This detention without charge could be extended for periods of up to three years on orders from a military General. When prisoners were to be released, they would be blindfolded and transported, threatened by soldiers that if they “caused trouble” they would remain in the prison. Bullying and abuse was daily routine.
Dani served in the army for one year before being given leave for health reasons. During this time he visited America and went through a self-imposed period of restriction from all forms of media. It was during this period that thoughts began to enter Dani’s mind about the brutalities he had witnessed and his “programisation” by the state began to unravel. After a period of imprisonment for his refusal to serve in the army, Dani began to visit the West Bank to see for himself the people that lived there and the conditions that they lived under. Sometimes his access would be blocked by Israeli soldiers manning the borders which only increased his interest at what these soldiers so vehemently didn’t want to be seen.
During these visits Dani saw the huge disparity between his world and the world of the Palestinians. The poverty was stark and real – a lack of sewage systems, a lack of electricity, a lack of water resources. The basics of hygiene and the necessities of life simply were absent for these people. The memories of the treatment of Palestinian prisoners began to integrate with the reality of treatment of the Palestinians.
Dani’s activism went from strength to strength, initially co-ordinating groups with Amnesty International he began to become involved with more direct forms of activism, joining the anti-war groups Peace Now and Peace Block. He has helped with the reconstruction of houses demolished by Israeli tanks, become involved with direct intervention and confrontation of the military and protested in many forms, including being involved with various protests that have been attacked by the military. Protestors in Palestine are frequently arrested, imprisoned, tear-gassed and shot at with rubber bullets. Freedom of speech and freedom of public assembly? Apparently not in Palestine.
For some, international human rights “law” like the rights to freedom of speech, or public assembly, can seem a bit abstract, especially in times of conflict. So here are some good old fashioned statistics to ground ourselves in the disparate reality of this war: between September 2000 and August 2007, records taken by the Israeli human rights’ organisation B’teslem show that 69.84% of the 4,274 Palestinian deaths were civilians, 20.05% of which were children. During a two year period (2000 to 2002) 25% of the 2,570 killed were the result of heavy weaponry and 75% from live ammunition. During the same two year period more than 41,000 Palestinians were injured, 35.7% of which were children and a significant portion of which now have permanent debilitating disabilities (like the loss of limbs).
The essential (and extremely limited) health services to assist these people also come under attack. Hospitals have been shelled, fired at and refused access to (resulting in the deaths of injured people and creating damages of infrastructure costing into the tens of thousands). 197 ambulances (clearly marked) were fired at, 432 denied through-access at roadblocks and two were deliberately crushed by tanks while attempting to provide medical assistance to the injured. In the two year period outlined above 15 doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers were killed while on duty, 275 medical personnel were injured and 70 emergency personnel and medical volunteers were arrested.
International journalists and peace activists have also been killed including the famous cases of the 23 year old American, Rachel Corrie and the 24 year old British photography student, Tom Hurndall. 295 journalists were wounded in the two year period above, with nine journalists killed.
Damages to land and property include attacks on schools, churches, mosques, water wells, orchards and olive groves. Agricultural land is bulldozed and burned, taking with it the livelihoods and heritage of many families who rely heavily on the crops in an area where unemployment is extraordinarily high, and nearly half the population lives on less than $2 per day.
When we cast our eyes to the other side of this war, we begin to see the disparity. Most Israelis live in relative comfort and security with ready access to all services and a strong economy supported by the United States. 1,024 Israelis were killed in the same seven year period, just 23% of the number of Palestinians, with no attacks on hospitals, schools or emergency personnel. Certainly there have been breaches of international law and ethics with the use of suicide bombers in public areas by Palestinian groups like Hamas and I do not want to detract from the legitimate Israeli victims of conflict but instead simply highlight the disproportion of force and the breaches of international covenants like the Geneva Convention.
Looking to the future – what hope can be found?
“When I went through the process I supported the two state solution, or variations on that. Now I don’t choose one or the other. I choose to step back. The solution should be reached by dialogue – the refugees deserve the right of return, or financial compensation and recognition. I only act against what I oppose. I haven’t decided what I am for. It should still be negotiated. The Israelis are into hard-line negotiations, like being in a market. Negotiations should be respectful and wanted and no side should dictate who will sit and who will not.” Dani Grimblat.
Sitting in the current impasse of Palestinian politics can only lead to further disintegration of unity and the prolongation of this conflict, with all of the very real suffering it entails. I watched in horror a television broadcast that showed children at schools in the Gaza Strip being segregated into “Hamas” and “Fatah” supporters, with equal hatred being directed to the opposing side. How many generations will it now take to breed out these new divisions? How much more innocent blood needs to be spilt on this already soaked earth? The resolution of this now 60 year old conflict is imperative not only for peace within the region, but for peace within the greater world in which we all live. Osama bin Laden frequently refers to “his brothers in Palestine” and it is a common foundation for the arguments of injustice from Islamic extremist groups who resort to methods of geo-terrorism. Resolving this conflict removes one (quite substantial) theoretical leg for these groups to stand on.
But just how to resolve this seems an age old and largely impossible question. The impossibility of which seems to lie more in the unwillingness to enter meaningful dialogue than the impossibility of reaching a satisfactory resolution. Hamas currently refuses to negotiate, either with the Israeli government, or with any Israeli group (including pro-Palestinian peace groups!). Fatah will negotiate, but lacks the peoples’ support due to allegations of corruption and collaboration. And there is also the substantial issue with the diaspora of Palestinian refugees...
According to David, Israel could never allow the refugees to return as this would cause the Palestinian Arab population to be larger than the Jewish and thus, restricting the ability of the Jewish to maintain political domination. On that basis, and for other reasons, a bi-national state isn’t particularly feasible. The creation of two states may result in the massive developmental differences leading to new conflicts and the requirement for huge infrastructure investment and meaningful development and may take many decades to effectively implement. (Which is certainly no reason not to start!)
Meaningful and open dialogue seems the key to resolution. What currently limits this is the dictating of terms before dialogue is entered into: who will speak to whom, and on what basis. As we have seen from recent American policy in “mediating” such talks, the invitations go to those who they consider ‘deserving’ of an invitation, as opposed to those who have a real ability to end the conflict.
From what I can see, some strong and charismatic leaders are required, on both sides: leaders to unite their people, to facilitate real dialogue and to begin to re-humanise these deep divisions. At the end of the day, whether we are Muslim, Christian or Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist, we are all human beings. We all love our children and want somewhere secure to rest at night and some meaningful work during our days. We want safety and peace and enough food to eat and if we cannot find common ground even on this basis, then in an increasingly mutual world, what hope can exist for our future?
