Citizens’ Choices, Politicians’
Mandates!
Dr
Harry Hagopian, LL.D-KSL
W
B Yeats
‘The
face of the Church of Jerusalem is a torn face, torn by pain and sufferings …
We wait for the day when God will respond to the prayers of all those who
implore him for the peace of Jerusalem. We implore him to make his own love the
dominating sovereignty over all human conflicts and disputes, in the city he
chose to be the city of redemption and reconciliation of all humankind with
himself.’
This
is one short excerpt of the powerful message that HB Patriarch Michel Sabbah of
Jerusalem carried with him to the Sioux Falls diocesan gathering of the
Catholic Church in the USA. The message was crystal clear - a plea for peace,
as much as an affirmation that Christ’s crucifixion was also a manifestation of
his divinity and of the power of his love. This pacific plea also coincided
this week with the ecumenical prayers for peace in the Holy Land undertaken by
the Churches of Jerusalem. The challenging theme of those prayers comes from St
John’s gospel ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you; Do not let your
heart be troubled, or afraid (Jn 14:27).’
So
what is happening in the land of the prophets today in the face of such pleas
for peace? True, there has been a lull in the fighting. But this temporary lull
between the two sides could also lead to another chapter of painful deaths and
injuries if the opportunity is not seized to redress the situation. But can we
any longer rely solely on the old formulaic approaches to peacemaking? Or is
there perhaps a need to introduce another fresh dimension into the whole
process? Have the various initiatives that have encroached upon both parties
helped nudge them toward conciliation? Has a new and bold vision appeared on
the horizon?
Hardly!
And this negative reality reminds me of Albert Einstein’s warning that trying
the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result is the
definition of insanity! So if we postulate for one moment that the proposals
currently on the table - including the Mitchell Commission report - are also
part of an ‘old same thing’, what fresh alternatives are available, feasible
and credible? As the process for peace unravels with serious ease, and as
obduracy and arrogance take hold, is there any possibility of devolving a
different scheme?
I
have repeated on many occasions that the eleven-month Intifada is a Palestinian
decolonisation process. It is a war between two peoples rather than between two
armies. It therefore follows that any decisions undertaken to cease all the
violence and move forward in the process must not only include the political
and military establishments but also the people. Otherwise put, it should also
include representatives from both communities. The ordinary people -
Palestinians and Israelis alike - must be made to feel they have an investment
in the decisions that impact their own futures. Therefore, why not involve the
peoples of both communities in this process? Let me suggest a structure that
borrows its creative foundation from the writings of eminent International
lawyers such as Professors Andrew Strauss and Robin Mead and calls upon the
jurisprudence available in the Orartu case.
I
propose taking the jury system as a frame of reference, and drawing upon the
demography of this small parcel of land, in order to have the leadership from
both communities choose [say] seven citizen committees. Each committee will
consist of typical Palestinians and Israelis chosen in accordance with a
mutually agreed and representative formula. Each of those committees, led by a
facilitator trained in the principles of conflict resolution, would be
instructed to develop a workable plan on those issues that constitute the
conflict. The meetings of the committees would be televised so that both
communities would become engaged in the process. Once the mutual recriminations
are over and done with, the hope is that some progress could begin to be made.
This format is not too removed from the beginnings of the Oslo meetings, but
involves more people and at a higher public level.
If
the committees were successful in proposing some terms of reference, the
consolidation of those proposals would then be left to the politicians. And
although the authorities on either side would not be compelled to accept those
proposals, the mere fact that they enjoy a popular base would give the
political leadership adequate cover for difficult concessions. Conversely, they
would also make it more arduous for the extreme fringes to spurn or undermine
those proposals, and would counter the argument that the political leaders are
chary of being upstaged by their own peoples.
Mind
you, I acknowledge freely that this suggestion might appear clumsy or arbitrary
in some ways. But what I am proposing is merely a concept - or even a paradigm
- which is grounded in a vision. It is up to the experts in the field to flesh
out the methodology and rules. However, this approach has been used on
different scales and levels in conflict resolution in the past. It could thus
become a powerful tool if it manages to connect the personal with the
diplomatic, and then begins a healing process at the level of the individual
citizens that will lead toward reconciliation. Indeed, one challenge within the
Israeli-Palestinian axis is to encourage the silent members of society to
overcome their cynicism and participate directly in what has been considered
the exclusive realm of seasoned and professional politicians. This process
might eventually strengthen democracy.
But
it is also obvious that the success of this approach as one way of tackling the
conflict is far from certain. To be truthful, and given the intractable nature
of the core issues as much as the asymmetry between the two parties, it is
perhaps wise to predict that this process imports with it a high rate of
failure. After all, people-to-people initiatives - the lucrative industry of
the last decade - were also predicated on those same variables. Yet, they
failed to introduce any credible breakthroughs. But is it possible that a
people-centred approach, that goes hand-in-hand with the diplomatic and
international efforts being deployed to defuse the tensions, might help draw
the parties closer together?
What
is the genuine alternative? More bloodshed between one entity that refuses to
give the other party its legitimate rights, and another entity that has not yet
succeeded in claiming those rights? At this stage, the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict seems to be prolonging the sacrifices of both peoples and thereby
making stones of the hearts of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Alas, the face
of Jerusalem – with its synagogues, churches and mosques - is still being torn
asunder by pain and suffering …
© harry-bvH
@ 19 August 2001