A Report on the Proceedings of a One-Day International Peace Conference
held on August 4, 2002 at the University of Rhode Island, Kingston
Compiled by
Mohammed Sharif, Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, and Gregory McNab
Introduction
The goal of this first of a two-phase conference was to educate the general public on various aspects of the conflict. The intent of the second, to be scheduled sometime next year, is to get a group of Israeli and Palestinian citizens together with conflict resolution specialists of international stature to work on developing grass roots solutions to their own problems. The conference was organized by the Southern Rhode Island Islamic Society. Its planning committee members came from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith backgrounds as well as from peace and nonviolence organizations. The first phase of the conference was sponsored by the Rhode Island Foundation, the Rhode Island Committee for the Humanities, the American Friends Service Committee, the John Hazen White Sr. Center for Ethics in Public Policy, the University of Rhode Island Athletics Department, and the Office of the President of the University of Rhode Island. More than 200 people of diverse backgrounds attended.
Discussions throughout the day were divided into three sessions each of two hours duration. The first two sessions had three panelists, and the third session had four. In respective order, the sessions were (1) History of the Conflict and Previous Attempts at Peace, (2) the Role of the US in Fostering a Just Peace-Past and Present, and (3) What is Happening Now? Which Way Forward?-New Voices for Peace with Justice. A fourth session, Vision for Justice and Peace-Setting the Tone for the Second Phase of the Conference, concluded the day of deliberations in the evening.
The panelists in the first session were Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Yale University professor of genetics; Dr. Lev Luis Grinberg, a Ben-Gurion University (Israel) professor of political sociology; and Dr. Azzam Tamimi, a native of Hebron and Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought in London. The second session included the following panelists: Dr. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, a professor of anthropology from Rhode Island College; Dr. Lamis Andoni, an award-winning journalist from the West Bank and professor of journalism at the University of California-Berkeley; and Rabbi Joyce Galaski of Rabbis for Human Rights of North America. Dr. Grinberg; Dr. Hussein Ibish of the American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee; Dr. Seif Da'Na, a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside; and Mr. Yair Bustan, an Israeli combat reservist and member of the Courage to Refuse group, were the third session panelists. The fourth session was addressed by representatives of different faith communities and of peace and nonviolence organizations.
History of the Conflict and Previous Attempts at Peace
All three panelists at this session provided an exhaustive analysis of the historical development of the conflict and the causes of the failure of past attempts to achieve peace. Azzam Tamimi noted that in ancient times Israel did rule over parts of Palestine for about 400 years (1,000 BCE - 586 BCE), that the people of Israel were disappearing from Palestine starting 70 CE and that by 135 CE the Jewish Diaspora was a reality, as a result of the acts of others, not of the Palestinians. Mazin Qumsiyeh traced the germination of the conflict to the conception of the state of Israel in Theodore Hertzel's fateful 1897 book, to the first Zionist conference in 1898, and to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which endorsed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The British, mostly as their colonialist solution to the "Jewish problem," implemented the proposal by facilitating Jewish settlement in Palestine. That there were over 700,000 Palestinians on the land at the time did not matter to the British. Lev Grinberg examined the Exodus-Holocaust perspective on why the world community owed Jews a kind of "reparation" homeland. Tamimi acknowledged that the Jews who came to Palestine after World War II were indeed victims of Nazi oppression, but also insisted that the Palestinian people were made to pay for Nazi crimes.
The League of Nations gave the mandate to the British, and British rules and regulations helped to implement the transfer of land to the Jews. By 1947, Qumsiyeh argued, six percent of the land in Palestine was owned by the Jews; and by 1948, Israel had acquired 78 percent-not the 55 percent that had been mandated to it-and kept it reserved for a Jewish population which had grown from five percent at the turn of the twentieth century to 30 percent. A large part of the Palestinian refugee problem was created between the end of the mandate and 1949, not as a result of the invasion of Arab armies, but by expulsion through targeted attacks and terrorizing the population by publicizing these attacks, Tamimi stated. As a result, 450 to 500 Palestinian villages had been depopulated. The Arab states were mostly newly established. King Abdullah even colluded to get non-Israeli Palestine for his own territory and there was no Arab Palestine for the refugees to seek out, Qumsiyeh asserted.
Grinberg analyzed the conflict and attributed its continuation and the failure of any attempt at peace to the nature of the state of Israel and to Israeli politics. He noted that the Zionist founders established a national community with a controlled economy that allowed no bi-national society and promoted an undemocratic attitude toward the Palestinians. Israeli institutions were established in such a way that there was no place for non-Jews in the Israeli state. This explains the polarity between democracy in Israel, on the one hand, and the practice of expanding territorial and political control over the Palestinians, on the other. The continuous building of Israeli settlements in the occupied land has left the Palestinians little but a number of Bantustans on the West Bank.
Qumsiyeh added that for many years, the existence of Palestinians was denied. The late Prime Minister Golda Meier argued regularly that there was no Palestine and that there were no Palestinians. Current Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has argued that there were no Palestinians to go back to Jaffa and Haifa after the struggles attendant to the establishment of the Israeli state. Grinberg agreed that the Israelis have no tradition of viewing the Palestinians as an equal people, even though such a perspective goes against the essence of Judaism. Tamimi suggested that Zionism is the cause of the problem because its partisans were secularists and atheists with whom the religionists quickly joined. They established and perpetuated a system that is reprehensible by Jewish standards of morality, although Muslims and Jews share a common heritage and had coexisted peacefully for a long time before the development of Zionist plans for Palestine.
Role of the USA in Fostering Just Peace-Past and Present
The panelists in this session analyzed the US policy towards the conflict from different perspectives, suggesting, however, a similar conclusion that the policy is neither realistic nor conducive to peace. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban offered an anthropological analysis of a policy circumscribed by the Orientalists' view of the Arabs, the Muslims, and their leaders. This view dehumanizes the Arabs and Muslims, and the US and western policy-both past and present-is based on it. The roots of this dehumanization are deep and long-standing-they lie at the beginning of the European encounter with the Middle East and subsequent conquest and colonization almost two centuries ago.
Fluehr-Lobban cites examples of Orientalists' dehumanization of the Arabs and Muslims. Thus, Lord Cromer wrote, "...the Oriental acts, speaks, and thinks in a manner exactly opposite to the European" (quoted in Said, p.39). Lord Balfour and Cromer wrote of the Oriental "as irrational, depraved, chaotic, and in need of discipline and order" (quoted in Said, p.40). This Orientalist language coincided with the heyday of European colonialism in the Middle East (1815-1914), but the basic mindset continues mostly unchallenged into the present. The words and phrases read in editorial pages and overheard in Congressional chambers and policy institutes today are not much different from these written in 1907. When political commentators speak not only about not trusting Arafat, Ghaddafi, or Saddam Hussein but also about not trusting allies, tactical or otherwise, such as Musharraf or Saudi rulers, one cannot but think of what Lord Cromer's advice to his Governor-General of Sudan to utilize the ulema at the Kadi school, but not to trust them and to keep a close eye on them. In stereotypical terms, the Orientalist mindset dubs Arabs and Muslims as dark, shifty-eyed, double-talking despots whose values and cultures are "not our own." Added to this perspective is the broadly accepted political view of Islam as a terrorist religion-"violent in nature" (TV evangelist Pat Robertson)-and as "an evil and wicked religion" (Rev. Franklin Graham), and what we have is a chilling similarity to the attacks on Jews in World War II Europe.
Fluehr-Lobban noted that although Arabs and Jews are both Semites, "Anti-Semitism in the West only refers to Jews." The reason for this is that Jews in Europe were known, though the despised "Other" of Europe, while Arabs and Muslims were the imagined reality of the Orient, the "Other" to be conquered and colonized. This European racial attitude of superiority toward the Arabs deepened during colonial rule and left a powerful legacy that the United States bears as the inheritor. This prejudice is powerful, yet not openly discussed, as "objective" analysts try to grapple with the backward and puzzling Middle East.
The bottom line in western and US foreign policy is that it is better to deal with European Jews whose state has been made into an outpost of "western civilization" and democracy than with untrustworthy Arab and Muslim leaders, despite evidence of Israeli spying on the US and documented attacks on the US like the USS Liberty incident in the '67 war (there is as yet no instance of an expression of lack of trust toward Israeli leaders). So, while the Palestinians languish under Israeli occupation, Bush continues to give the benefit of every doubt to the Israelis and fails to trust the words, deeds, and efforts of the Arab Palestinians. Democracy is demanded of Arafat while the concrete buildings and institutions of democracy in occupied Palestine are demolished in an ever expanding occupation. Civil society exists in Israel but the Arabs have to prove themselves worthy of a trust that they can build a civil society. While young Israeli soldiers who served and witnessed the dehumanization of the Palestinians under occupation are in the vanguard of those saying so, Israel under Netanyahu and Sharon is favored as a reliable ally and the only democracy in the region.
These prejudicial and unbalanced policies are responsible for the continuation of the conflict, the failure of the peace process, the fueling of fires of anger and hate, and the widespread belief that America despises Arabs and Muslim.
Lamis Andoni spoke passionately about the role of the US media in the failure of the peace process in the region. As a journalist who covered the conflict for a long time, she suggested that there is little similarity between what happens there and what is reported here by the US media. The coverage has been and still is one-sided and biased mostly depicting the Israelis as suffering victims and the Palestinians as perpetrating terrorists. She reminded the audience that suicide bombing is of recent origin, starting with the second intifada sparked by Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa mosque. Before that, Palestinian children were fighting the occupation tanks and guns with rocks and sling shots and dying from a single bullet in the head shot at close range. Andoni also talked about the incredible power of the US Jewish lobby.
Joyce Galaski spoke of the great empathy a typical American Jew feels toward Israel. She talked at length about the sufferings of the Jewish people throughout history and the Nazi war crimes against Jews. She emphasized, however, that the Jewish people cannot sacrifice Jewish values and that groups of Jewish people are getting organized under the banners of peace and human rights and working to achieve those objectives.
What is Happening Now? Which Way Forward?-New Voices for Peace with Justice
Speaking from his experience as a soldier, Yair Bustan said he has first hand knowledge of what is happening in the occupied territories, while most Israelis are segregated and shielded from the realities on the ground. In his judgment, Israeli soldiers face the dilemma of risking their comrades' lives or protecting the civilian human rights of the Palestinians. In his view, it is the occupation that has created this difficult situation. He emphasized that Zionism was an ethical movement, but it has strayed and Jews now have to ask questions not only about the occupied territories but also about human beings. The belief among Israelis that the occupation is primarily defensive is a misconception because it is clear that occupation does not help Israeli security. Instead it is encouraging the Palestinian attacks. More importantly, one has to understand that it is impossible to have a democratic state while occupying another people: occupation is immoral, unjust, and undemocratic.
"It is not easy to say I will not obey my commander," said Bustan, "but we find that the occupation is the source of terror." Bustan and other soldiers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories are criticized for weakening Israel's unity. "But the bombings have only escalated during the Israeli attacks," Bustan quickly pointed out.
Seif Da'Na emphasized that what is happening now in Israel and Palestine is the result of the failure of the Oslo Peace Initiative. He cited the 1.5 percent of the total Palestinian population either killed or wounded in the last two years since the second intifada, at the ratio of 6:1 of Palestinian to Israeli. Although in smaller numbers, the fact is that the Israelis are also suffering and dying. Quoting Benny Morris and T. Segev, Da'Na suggested that the founding of the state of Israel has not solved the Jewish question (only 37 percent of the world's Jews live in Israel). Zionism has rather placed their lives in a less secure living situation; Jews are safer outside of Israel in other parts of the world.
What is happening in Palestine is more than occupation: it is continued colonization. Israelis have drained the scarce water resources and monopolized them at the expense of Palestinian needs. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (three million) equals 47 percent of the population in Israel (6.2 million). At the same time, the Palestinian GNP is less than 14 percent of the Israeli GNP. Almost 50 percent of the people of Gaza live below the poverty line. The situation worsens when collective sanctions, blockades, and curfews are imposed for almost indefinite periods of time leaving no other option for the Palestinians but to fight the occupation. Da'Na recommended that one state solution might be the best for both the Israelis and Palestinians.
Grinberg agreed that the present stalemate is the result of the failure of the Oslo Initiative, but he squarely put the blame on Ehud Barak for undermining the Initiative and planning attacks on Palestine two months before signing the Accord. What Oslo actually offered Palestine was land broken into a
hundred pieces, a proposal no sane leader could accept. Israel under Sharon with support from Bush is bent upon solving the problem militarily, but real peace is impossible without Palestinian independence and justice. Grinberg recommends a two-state solution: dismantle the settlements which most of the Israelis see as the root of the problem and establish a viable Palestinian state protected by the United Nations Peacekeeping forces. After those steps have been taken, remaining issues, such as the status of holy places, the return of refugees, and mutual collaboration should be addressed.
Hussein Ibish put the issue directly: the fundamental political problem is one of a colonial relationship between master and subordinate. People under occupation have only one struggle, the one for liberation. In his assessment, there are three options. A two-state solution would begin the process of decolonization and make the Palestinians the citizens of an equally sovereign state. A single-state solution based on one person, one vote would be overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Israelis. Ibish emphasized that, except for brief periods, Palestine has been a single country, and is now a single country called Israel with the West Bank and the Gaza under occupation. The problem is the Palestinians have no citizenship rights. A third option is ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, similar to what the Serbs did in Bosnia pushing 800,000 Bosnian Muslims out in less than a week. There are advocates in Israel for this ominous possibility. Ibish concluded that the first option offers the most viable solution because real peace would be impossible without independence and justice for Palestine.
Vision for Justice and Peace: Setting the Tone for the Second Phase of the Conference
Representatives of different faith communities and peace and nonviolence organizations offered their perspectives of peace and justice in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conference organizing committee put forward its proposal for the second phase of the conference. The plan is to bring equal numbers of Israeli and Palestinian citizens who are already working for justice and peace and are willing to live in peace side by side and to put them in contact with conflict resolution specialists of international stature to deliberate between themselves and to resolve the issues between them. The committee will incorporate the findings of the deliberations into a declaration that will be forwarded to various authorities, to the media, and to international peace organizations. The rationale here was that the political leaders do not change the status quo unless they are moved to do so by the public opinion. The objective is two fold: to empower the people of Israel and Palestine who are willing to live in peace instead of subjugating and killing each other and to provide a document to peace organizations around the world to mobilize public opinion and create an environment which will compel politicians to an acceptance of peace with justice.
Conclusions
This conference has offered the general public the opportunity to hear about the actual nature of the conflict from speakers from both Israel and Palestine. The general consensus that emerged from the day's deliberations was very clear. The settlements and the occupation are the main causes of the problem. Removing them and establishing an independent Palestinian state would go a long way toward diffusing the conflict, assuring the Palestinians the hope for a future, and ensuring the security of Israel.
Although the proceedings were not formally evaluated, a few unsolicited reviews were received from the audience. One member of the audience wrote, "This was the best conference I have ever attended and I have attended many." Another attendee wrote, "The conference most assuredly did a very competent job of providing us with a far deeper understanding of the conflict than I am sure most of us brought to the conference." Still another from the audience wrote, the organizers "�managed to orchestrate a series of presentations and discussions that illuminated the historical background of the current conflict. What might have been a series of flash points for strife and vituperation remained, under the gentle guidance of moderators and with the audience's polite respect for divergent views, a peaceful opportunity to learn." The same reviewer concluded, "Those who put together this conference deserve credit for diplomacy and for skill in bringing about a "miracle of the loaves and fishes" to educate a diverse audience in a constructive way...."