|
BETHLEHEM
DIARY (33)
Toine van
Teeffelen
July
2 - July 9, 2001
Lately I joined political visitors on a
tour along damaged houses in Beit Jala. Our taxi driver, who is familiar with
the various targeted places because he is involved in providing relief to the
suffering families, effortlessly takes on the cloak of an experienced guide
who knows the precise difference between the holes caused by 200, 300 and 500
mm mortars. He points out the places where the Tanzim used to hide and
shoot; where the Israeli army threw its shells, and where the German Dr
Fischer walked, where he helped his neighbor, hid, and was killed. All these
places now carry an enhanced, almost timeless meaning. I myself am a guide and
used to point out the places associated with the Nativity. Now there are other
guides who, equally authoritatively, show sites of suffering and death, a kind
of modern Via Dolorosa. The visitors take pictures. It is an alienating
experience, in part due to the peaceful silence which now is enveloping the
town, and which so sharply contrasts with the memory of bombings and
destruction that the sites themselves evoke. A certain timelessness descends
over the Bethlehem area, perhaps because of the heat of the summer and the
slowing down of life at the arrival of the holiday period.
Timelessness and pastoral quiet are basic
attributes of Bethlehem. The name of the town is known allover the world and
has a universal, unquestionable meaning to hundreds of millions of people.
During the 19th and the first half of the 20th century
many photographers, mainly European but also Arab ones, tried to catch and
appropriate this timelessness in pictures in which local Palestinians, perhaps
against some payment, stood model for the Nativity Scene and for the Shepherds
hearing the good tiding. Pictures that have been rightly criticized for their
tendency to over-romanticize the image of Bethlehem. They turned people into
objects of a Western gaze only interested in “seeing” eternal Biblical
scenes where in reality a thriving community was struggling to survive in the
face of war and occupation.
The timelessness of the message of
Bethlehem blends with the rhythm of a pastoral life adapted to the
agricultural cycle and the manual skills typical for Palestinian traditional
crafts. Once glassblowers and pottery makers told me how the rhythmic
movements of their hands was learned in the early years and could not really
be acquired by adults, in the same way as learning to play the piano is best
done when young. Some even told that the kinetic capacity for performing a
special skill was genetically transmitted.
* * *
My Arabic teacher tells how her mother
used to have vivid memories of the times when she and the women of her
extended family and neighbors sat next to each other in the courtyard of the
house, working on the difficult cross-stitch patterns typical for the
Bethlehem embroidery. They looked over each shoulder and jealously watched
whether their neighbor was faster, their tongues telling the stories of the
day, their hands creating colorful products of art. It is these and similar
scenes that old people remember when evoking the good old days.
Some years ago I discussed with students
at Birzeit University images of Palestine as expressed in Palestinian
literature. We were astonished to see how writers, even in the very rhythm of
their language, evoked the pleasant daily life of a quiet, undisturbed
Palestine. In a recollection of his youth in Bethlehem, the writer Jabra
Ibrahim Jabra, author of the restless novel “The Ship”, lovingly tells
about the life among the orchards and trees when the people at the harvest
time climbed in the trees and sang their refrains while picking the fruits,
one “tree” rhythmically responding to the other’s sung questions. A
fragment of Jabra’s life story that touches me especially now is a
description of his father just before the man became ill and weak. A tire was
accidentally lost, rolling down a Bethlehem hill. The father ran after it and
proudly caught it in the eyesight of the son who observed that his father was
still energetic and strong. I myself often run after Jara’s balls which
repeatedly threaten to roll down the steep hill near my mother in law’s
house. Unconsciously I want to show her that her father is still well and
running, as if time does not pass by.
* * *
The Palestinian feel of timelessness is
not flat, so to speak, but punctuated by bursts of vivid, dramatic emotion and
lack of patience. Some of the words most used in Palestine are the impatient chalas
(stop it) and yalla (move on) which stands in opposition to the also
frequently used istanna (wait). Lately Mary and I, while waiting in a
taxi, observed a discussion interspersed with those words that took place
between a taxi driver and peasant women who wanted to bring their large
baskets and boxes with vegetables and fruits into the car but balked at the
price they needed to pay for the space taken. A big discussion ensued, with
concomitant gestures and shouts. But not before long all were laughing. The
taxi driver helped bringing in the heavy boxes telling the women: “after I
have put them all inside, I will have a backache and women will refuse
marrying me.” Later on we get out of the car but can only do so by climbing
and jumping over the fruits. The driver tells Mary that a little exercise will
be good for her.
(In fact, Mary took his advice at heart
and is going to learn to swim with some other members of the family. With the
anticipated upsurge of visitors for Bethlehem 2000 several clubs and hotels
had opened swimming pools for the tourists who after the Intifada stopped
coming. The local Palestinians are now profiting from the not unreasonable
fees).
I will forever remember the scenes in
which Mary and Jara, both playing as if exasperate at each other, call yalla,
meaning that Jara has to come and eat. Jara, who does not want to eat, shouts
at her turn yalla as if to say that she hears what mother is saying,
understands the importance and urgency of what is said, but has her own
private considerations that dictate her not to go and eat, at least not right
at this moment. It sometimes happens here that people who want each other to
do something, tell in a crescendo of apparent mutual agreement, yalla, yalla!,
but stay unmoved and continue to do their things for another while. A certain
stubbornness is definitely another Palestinian cultural trait.
While sitting in a taxi, a few women pass
by graciously but very slowly. The taxi driver bends backwards in the chair,
put his hands in relaxation on the back of his head and remarks that the women
walk “like the Patriarch.” At Christmas time, the patriarch and the
procession move solemnly through the Star Street to the Church, as if
emphasizing the message of Bethlehem. The deep values of Palestinian culture
are likely those values associated with an uncomplicated, quiet rhythm of
life. I can’t count the times that people told me “Don’t complicate
things!” a sin which is somehow connected to doing things hastily and
unreflectively.
* * *
Together with my Arabic teacher I read a
local story about King Suleiman, the snake and the mole. (King Suleyman is
King Solomon of the Old Testament). While the King is in Damascus, the snake
and the mole wish to know why they are without legs and without sight. The
King tells them that he will speak justice only on his throne in Jerusalem.
The mole and the snake break records in speeding to Jerusalem where they
arrive even before the King riding his famous horse. The King tells them that
if without legs or sight they even go faster than his horse, how much
destruction would they bestow upon the world if they would receive what they
ask for? God created them like they are in order to protect the world against
their eagerness to speed.
* * *
The slow harmony of Palestinian life has
been uprooted not just by the Nakbeh, the wars and the settlements, but also
by a capitalism breaking up a peasant economy and the accompanying life
rhythm. The quietness of a rural lifestyle has now been superseded by a
tenseness that is escaped by few. On my way back home yesterday, I witnessed a
discussion between two taxi drivers who complained that their colleagues were
all busily going after money. Whatever one’s opinion about capitalism and
earning good money, it to some extent contradicts basic cultural values, and
you can see that many Palestinians don’t feel at ease with the associated
“fast” lifestyle. As if they are doubly uprooted, politically and
culturally. The driver who takes me back to Bethlehem, and who doesn’t have
any other passengers apart from me, refuses to accept money as if he
momentarily wants to say “no” to everything that has corrupted the
Palestinian lifestyle. In essence, people long for the good life to come back,
if only fleetingly or dreamlike.
This week, we escape the reality of the
political situation somehow. Only a few political stories come in, except for
the ever-continuing traveling problems imposed by Israel. (At Tel Aviv
Airport, five young Bethlehemites, with the required permits, were sent back
home to leave through Jordan, the security police ostentatiously tearing apart
the permits in front of the youths’ eyes.
Mary relays that three late afternoon marriage ceremonies in the Church
of Nativity were delayed till deep in the evening because of the traveling
problems of the couples and their families). Mary mockingly puts her arms in
celebration in the air saying: “Chalas, it’s peace!”
* * *
Karishma announces that she will got
engaged in a few weeks’ time to a Palestinian from Bethlehem, an electrical
engineer. They met each other while discussing “the situation.” I think
that she, like me, is fond of the rhythms of Palestinian life but it is her
fate that she cannot stay here long due to visa problems from which Africans
suffer more than Europeans. The engagement party will be at the swimming pool
of the Freres School where she used to teach.
* * *
Sunday morning Jara wants to go out to
make her habitual drawing. It is beautiful weather, the priceless gift of our
region. This week, we meet Mary’s cousins who have come over from abroad,
one of them from Canada where his nose froze during evenings with minus 20
degrees Celsius, another from Dubai with temperatures up to over 50. Once in a
while Jara looks backwards, her head slightly tilted as if professionally
gauging her drawing. We hear the ordinary sounds; the man calling ka’ek,
ka’ek (a type of bread), and the muezzin of the mosque. (Once, out on
the street, Jara started to loudly sing Allahu Akbar on the melody of
the mu’ezzin, to my prompt embarrassment). We also hear the church bells,
and the ever-present tazziz (cicada). A timeless and priceless scene.
For the moment, Jara does not talk about politics nor draws a gun. In the
evening, when I am tired and she is not, she is willing to tell me a story to
let me sleep. Papa, mama and Jara are going to buy vegetables in the Jibrin
shop near ‘Azza camp, suddenly a wolf appears, bites her, and Jara has to be
brought to the doctor. At the end, she tells me in Dutch welterusten
(good night).
For her part, Mary dreams about soldiers
shooting Palestinian kids. She imagines herself sobbing softly. Politics is
never far from the surface. The people still expect some kind of war happening
in the near future, possibly the re-occupation of some of the Palestinian
areas by Israel. Today’s Haaretz says that, according to existing
military plans, some 100 Israelis and 1000 Palestinians would be expected to
die.
Wild
Cards in Conflict Resolution?
by
Dr
Harry Hagopian, LL.D
The
road is tortuous, but the future is bright!
Mao Tse Tung, Chairman
There is no
doubt that the past few weeks have witnessed another flurry of high-octane
efforts by the United States, the United Nations and the European Union to
shore up the truce that was recently concluded between Israel and the
Palestinians. This diplomatic cease-fire was reached on 13 June 2001 by George
Tenet, CIA Director, given that the new US Administration had become
increasingly concerned with the ascending number of Israeli and Palestinian
fatalities. After all, in the nine-month period between September 2000 and
July 2001, the spectre of death has claimed no less than 472 Palestinian
Arabs, 122 Israeli Jews and 13 Israeli Arabs.
I was reminded
yet again of the human crisis engulfing Israelis and Palestinians alike when I
came across a recent article by Dr Ron Pundak, one of the architects of the
now [allegedly dead] Oslo accord. In his comprehensive analysis, Pundak points
out to the mistakes that occurred under Oslo and the lack of good faith in the
implementation of many of its provisions. Though mild-mannered and academic in
his style, Pundak does not pull his punches! He accuses former Israeli Prime
Minister Benyamin Netanyahu of a lack of good will and lays a large portion of
the blame for the failure of Oslo at his doorstep! He also attributes haughty
arrogance to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, adding that Barak was
intent on reaching an agreement with the Palestinians but did not manage to
carry his own people with him - let alone inspire confidence in the
Palestinian camp. He also opines that the Palestinian leadership did not know
how to respond to the Israeli expectations, and alienated the Israeli
‘street’ with their incitement, double-speak and corruption.
True, the
diplomatic efforts being deployed to consolidate the ‘peace’ between
Israel and the Palestinians are laudable. Ron Pundak’s article - a defence
of Oslo in some shape or form - is also a welcome contribution toward
regurgitating a modicum of reason between two warring peace partners. But what
both lack is a vision, a focus, an afterward! The comings and goings of so
many politicians like Colin Powell, Kofi Annan or Javier Solana to Jerusalem
and Ramallah are meant to cool the cinders of another confrontation that might
unleash more violence. But peace is becoming perilously synonymous with
appeasement, and Oslo is being promoted in some quarters as a re-marketed
option. Where is the irenic focus of the whole process? How does one transcend
short-termism and aim instead for a long-term accord?
Every time I
write on issues of conflict resolution, I recall one of my law lecturers at
the London School of Economics. Professor Simon Roberts and I were discussing
my LL.M thesis on the conflict over the enclave of Nagorny-Karabagh [between
Armenia and Azerbaidjan] when he expounded the conceptual difference between
the ‘settlement of a dispute’ and the ‘resolution of a conflict’. He
told me that the former required merely papering over the cracks whilst the
latter meant filling those cracks first before papering over them. Otherwise
put, one dealt with ephemeral and collapsible answers, whereas the other
offered radical solutions that tackled the core issues themselves. What
worries me today with all those political manoeuvres and
academic dissertations is that this distinction is wanting. Peace
cannot be attained simply by papering over the cracks! Peace will only be
achieved once the cracks are filled - and only then covered with wall paper!
Reason would
therefore dictate that both parties aim for a crack-filling process rather
than a wall-papering one! But that sort of bold conclusion also needs to
address serious issues of historical justice, collective memories, religious
values and moral ethics as well as strategic or security needs. Pretending
that six decades of history did not exist is a non-starter! Discussing maps
that do not reflect the existential reality on the ground is self-defeating.
Claiming that religion is not one factor in the equation of the ‘holy
land’ is facile! Alleging that security will come solely as a by-product of
peace is an aphorism! Altering the facts on the ground, or establishing new
ones, do not foster mutual trust. It is time that the parties are compelled to
look beyond their noses! It is
time they swallow the bullet and make some hard and gut-wrenching decisions!
But where does
one start? How does one address
the issues in ways that are both credible and workable?
Be
careful who you choose for an enemy because that is who you become most like!
F W Nietzsche, Philosopher
The answer -
both easy and difficult - depends on the perspective one adopts of the overall
conflict. As I elicited in an earlier article, Israel and the Palestinians
view the conflict from fundamentally different premises. Indeed, one major
obstacle toward any real progress is that the perspectives and premises are
often mutually exclusive - particularly given the atmosphere of malignant
distrust existent between the two sides today.
In their own
[different] ways and as a function of their own [different] interpretations,
most Israelis and Palestinians are traumatised by the failure of the Oslo
process, as much as the Camp David and Taba talks, after seven years of
so-called diplomacy and negotiations. Israelis feel harried and in a state of
siege. Palestinians are battered and in a state of siege. Any confidence that
might have existed between both sides has evaporated or been severely
compromised since September 2000. The leadership of Israel and Palestine
needed the support of both their streets for the possible implementation of
all the painful decisions inherent in peace. Now, the hardening of both
streets is being matched by a re-hardening of positions by the leaders
themselves. But invectives and accusations cannot work, and flexing muscles in
order to bludgeon a people into submission is counter-productive to any
solution. An honest re-assessment is quintessential - perhaps by taking Oslo
as a framework of collective ideas, and then interpreting the reasons for its
failure to deliver peace.
So how can
such a mammoth task be achieved at this stage? I would like to start with a
brief review of the up-ward spiral in violence, and then to seek out the
bodies that are best suited to help nudge the process forward.
Since I have
already analysed [in previous articles that are available on this web-site]
the reasons for this latest bout of confrontations, I will only remind the
readers of three immediate measures that need to be undertaken simultaneously
by both parties. These are the cessation mutatis
mutandis of all violent confrontations (which includes inter
alia personal vilification as much as extra-judicial killings / active
self-defence and public incitement), the cessation of any new or expanded
Israeli Jewish settlements on all Palestinian land and the lifting of the
blockades imposed by Israel on a large number of Palestinian cities and
villages. These three sine qua non
provisions are rooted in the Mitchell Commission Report, and they establish
the rudimentary steps necessary to move forward again. Martin Indyk, outgoing
US ambassador in Israel, highlighted two of those in an interview on 3 July
2001 in Jerusalem. He blamed both sides anto
tanto for not freezing settlement-building (the number of settlers has
doubled to 200,000 since the DOP in 1993) and for not forswearing violence.
But let me
stress that those three pre-requisites must go hand in hand together. I
listened recently to an interview on Radio France Inter with MK Colette
Avital, member of the Labour Party in Israel. Whilst endorsing the
recommendations of the Mitchell Commission Report, she likened its provisions
to a train. She said that each one of those provisions constitutes a station.
The first stop is the violence station, the second one is the period dealing
with confidence-building measures, the third one is new settlements. Her train
also stopped at a fourth station for international observers who would provide
a buffer zone between the two sides. I was much more encouraged by the way she
dealt with some of the issues than with their sequence.
It is a
legitimate right for Israel to seek a reassuring period of quiet. By the same
token, though, Israel cannot turn around and deny the Palestinians their own
right for reassurances too. After all the deaths and casualties, the
Palestinian leadership simply cannot stop their decolonisation movement whilst
Israel continues with its settlements and blockades. When involved with
political negotiations of this sort, neither party can subscribe to the
American pedestrian dictum of ‘My way or the highway’! A quid
pro quo has to be established, or else the whole process will either not
crank up or simply falter once again!
Apart from
those three preliminary pre-requisites that precede a tackling of the core
issues themselves, there is also a need to focus for a few moments on the
facilitators or arbiters who are involved with this process. Until now, the
USA has taken upon itself the task of fulfilling this role. But its efforts
have flopped, and will flop again in future. This is why I am increasingly
convinced that the European Union must now gird up its political loins and
play a more active and enhanced role in the conflict. Such an involvement is
neither inconceivable nor impossible. And it certainly is not inadmissible
either - for four basic reasons.
If
we expect the truth from others, we have to live in truth ourselves first!
Jerzy Popieluszko, Priest
·
Israel and the Palestinians cannot go it alone. The asymmetry in the
bargaining positions and power bases between both sides is so sharp, and the
distrust so profound, that the outcome cannot work on the ground.
·
The Arab countries are far too absorbed by their own national, regional
or economic concerns to bring any further substantive input into the process.
Besides, Egypt and Jordan are the only two credible states which can now open
official channels of communication with Israel by virtue of their peace
treaties.
·
The USA itself cannot unilaterally act as an honest broker. Its vested
interests tilt heavily toward Israel, and there are no effective
counter-weights to lobby against such a position. And I do not see why anyone
would expect the US present policies to be altered given that its
geo-strategic interests are aligned with Israel.
·
The United Nations - despite the valiant efforts of its
secretary-general Kofi Annan - is perceived as an anti-Israel organisation. It
cannot serve as mediator despite the fact that the kernel of the whole
solution lies within the principle of international legality as embodied in
the UN Security Council resolutions.
In my opinion,
this reality provides a platform for the European Union to assume a more
proactive role. But can they? What are the pros and cons of their involvement?
Can the EU fill the cracks, or does it not even possess the wall-paper? Let me
first skim briefly over the strengths and weaknesses of this club.
To start with,
one must always remember that the EU consists of fifteen member states. It is
not a monolith power base, nor does it reflect monochromatic positions on
various issues - including foreign policy. One hopes that the EU Laeken summit
in December 2001 will initiate a document of crucial reforms to include a
directly elected Commission president, enhanced powers for the European
Parliament, a Constitution for Europe and new ways of funding its
institutions. These are vital for the forthcoming wave of accessions. But what
is cardinal for the future - if the EU is to function properly and fulfil some
of its goals - is a reduction of national vetoes in decision-making processes.
This will place EU foreign policy on a consensus-driven platform.
The dynamics
of the EU should also not be held up against it! It is possible that Israel
would feel happier with a unilateral American intervention, whilst the
Palestinians will be encouraged by a more proactive UN involvement. But
neither side is entirely justified - in their concerns or expectations. If
France and Greece are assumed to be pro-Palestinian, then Holland and Denmark
are assumed to be pro-Israeli! The middle ground - ranging from the UK to
Italy - is assumed to be porous. So a joint EU policy - drafted by the
Commission and adopted by the Council of Ministers - can provide a diplomatic
egress to the present stalemate.
The strongest
card the EU can play today is the economic one. It is the largest financial
contributor to the Palestinian Authority, but it also enjoys a large trade
movement with Israel. Given that a large portion of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict - in terms of peace or war - is played on the economic field, the EU
can exercise enough weight through its financial grants as much as trade
agreements to offer a supportive role to peace-making. I remember years ago
some political commentators writing that the next Middle Eastern war will be
over water rather than over oil. But I tend to widen this projection. I think
it will be fought out much more on the economic plane. After all, economics
(boycotted products, trade relations, cheap manpower versus high-tech
industry) encouraged the processes of Madrid and Oslo. It should do the same
again today.
Just examine
the facts! Israeli credit ratings have surged during times of regional
stability and resulted in a host of new trade agreements. Such a flow of
foreign investment turned the high-tech sector into an engine of growth. As
Aluf Benn, diplomatic correspondent of the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz,
wrote in his editorial on 29 June 2001, ‘By reaching out to the
Palestinians, Israel went from a pariah state to an integrated member of the
global economy. As long as there was a peace process and no final settlement,
Israel could have the best of both worlds: economic benefits without
territorial concessions.’ But Benn went on by warning that ‘Sharon wants a
return to the status quo of the last decade: a never-ending peace process that
is more profitable than war, but that side-steps the bold concessions
necessary for peace.’
Peace
will be the fruit of Justice and my people will dwell in the beauty of Peace
Is 32:18, Prophet
This is where
the role of the EU kicks in. Its efforts will be based on the UNSC resolutions
- namely 242 and 338. These resolutions are recognised by the EU and are
predicated upon the principle of land for peace. Indeed, if a solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ever meant to work - so that the cracks can be
filled before papering over them - it has to be based on this principle of
land for peace. Whichever way one looks - from international resolutions to
the Mitchell Commission Report - what emerges as a steady underlying option to
all efforts at conciliation is this bipolar principle. Israel acquires its
security at the same time that Palestinians acquire their sovereign state on
their land. The EU-managed trade-off - and it is a trade-off akin to many
other trade-offs in other geographical conflict situations across the world -
is quite clear.
Within this
framework, the religious institutions and organisations also have a role to
play in buttressing up the struggle toward peace. Where the EU is a political
force, the Churches - and I speak here as a Christian - are a moral force.
Where nations deal in terms of vested interests, religious institutions and
organizations deal in terms of morality. Churches and church-related
organisations are the vane that gauges the pressures on their society. From an
alarming emigrant trend to financial burdens on their parishes, schools,
hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages and hostels, they help reflect - and at
times deflect - the concerns of their indigenous parishioners.
But how do the
religious institutions work hand-in-hand together?
How do they address the political spheres of power? The answer is
two-fold, and blends the role of those local Churches and church-related
organisations in the Holy Land with their counterparts abroad.
It is defined with one broad but complex word - partnership.
On the local
level, the Churches and their affiliated organisations must galvanise the EU
into action through a multi-pronged approach. The Assembly of the Heads of
Churches of Jerusalem - a college of thirteen patriarchs, archbishops, bishops
and priests - can appeal to the EU Heads of States for a more proactive role
in the conflict. Between them, those religious hierarchs address in equal
measure the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches world-wide. They can
also form a committee of clergy and laity in order to liaise with the
international church-related organisations and to streamline their efforts
toward an advocacy role that undergirds the principles for peace and justice
that are anchored firmly within the Christian tradition.
The
international church-related organisations can play a dual role too. On the
one hand, they can sensitise their own political institutions and
constituencies - namely the EU, Churches and parishioners in the context of
this article - of the dire realities in the Holy Land. On the other, they can
also use their first-hand contacts within the EU to trigger measures of
solidarity and support with the local communities in the Holy Land.
This is far
from easy! Over and above the deleterious physical manifestations of the
conflict, there is today also an impenetrable psychological barrier separating
Israelis and Palestinians. Most Israelis do not trust the Palestinians, and
their willingness to resume any real dialogue is made conditional upon the
halting of the Intifada. Israel is asking the Palestinians to prove their good
will first! Conversely, and taking the past seven years as ample proof, most
Palestinians do not trust the Israelis either. They believe that once they
stop the Intifada, Israel will simply drag its feet and refuse to undo the
occupation. The Palestinians are in turn asking Israel to prove its good
faith! Both sides have dug their
heels in, but this costly stand-off can be unpicked if the three preliminary
measures lead to negotiations on the solid basis of the principles of
international legality.
My ideas
mirror perhaps the fabled vision of a bumble-bee! They cannot alter many facts
on the ground. Yet, it is a vision that dares to dream. It is what
distinguishes the living from the living dead! I pray that it might help
create an environment healthy enough to reset the organic nexus between those
political and moral forces.
Can the cracks
be filled, or will the wall-papering continue?
Will a just ‘afterward’ be discovered?
There
is room for everyone at the rendez-vous with victory!
(Aime Cesaire, Poet)
æ
harry-bvH @
6 July 2001
|
