Winning Friends in the Middle East
Rebecca Miller Friday, 27 June 2003
Who is the greatest hero among heroes? He who turns his enemy into a friend.
— Avot of Rabbi Nathan 23:1
When was the last time an enemy was turned into a friend in the Middle East? Certainly not when Arafat and Netanyahu shook hands. Certainly not at the last peace summit, photo-op, or Camp David convention. For too long the emphasis of the Middle East peace process has been on transient gestures and political illusions. If our goal is a durable peace, one that withstands the tests of time, politics, and religious fervor, we must reshape the way we think about conflict resolution and its role in the Middle East peace process. We must move from a narrow conception of conflict resolution, which defines peace as bulletproof vests for both parties, to one of reconciliation. We must envision not merely an end to war, but rather the day when every descendent of Abraham can become the "greatest hero among heroes."
The most recent attempt at conflict resolution in the Middle East is the Quartet's roadmap, which at first glance appears to be the long-awaited solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The roadmap, however, is only half the solution; on its own it will not bring about the peace and security it promises. The course it charts may have a different name, and its timeline and guidelines may be a little different, but its essence remains the same as that of all the failed peace plans that have gone before it. Why? The roadmap addresses political and military reforms, but continues to ignore the underlying issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alone, the roadmap is doomed to fail because it defines peace as nonviolent coexistence. In the Middle East, however, as Jewish scholar Aviva Zornberg once said, mere coexistence is "brothers playing together with murder in the wind."[1]
In order to achieve true peace, therefore, there must be a plan not only for the cessation of violence but for true reconciliation between peoples. Maximal reconciliation, the attempt to engender between former enemies shared goals and hopes for the future, must be the goal of the Middle East peace process, because only this sort of reconciliation will bring about sustainable peace.[2] A peace that is built on the sandy foundation of political rhetoric and conditional ceasefires will not endure if the hearts of those involved are not changed, if children are still learning, both at school and at home, to hate and demonize "the other", and if both sides still view each other as the enemy. What is needed is a shift from an emphasis on immediate outcomes to an emphasis on lasting results, from coercing enemies to put down their guns, to turning enemies into friends.
I write this knowing that many people find maximal reconciliation and the idea of political forgiveness to be foolish; in the wake of 9/11, power politics seem to have gained the upper hand. Indeed, there are certain political realities in the Middle East that must be addressed before the reconciliation process can be fully implemented. Ceasefire negotiations, withdrawals, and a renunciation of violence are necessary steps in the peace process. The problem, however, lies in attempting to address only hard-power political realities such as terrorism and occupation, while ignoring the social, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of instability in the region, namely, long-standing hatred and mutual animosity. These deeper realities must be addressed before true peace can be achieved. In Thoreau's words, we must strike at the root of the evil, instead of hacking at its leaves.
The notion of using maximal reconciliation to solve deeply imbedded conflicts is not an altogether new idea. Other countries, most notably South Africa, have emphasized maximal over minimal reconciliation. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Chair of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), contends that in addressing past wrongs "the central concern is the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships, a seeking to rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator, who should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community that he has injured by his offense."[3] In a conflict where everyone is both victim and perpetrator, the need for restoration and reintegration is even greater.
There are several lessons learned from South Africa's TRC that should guide the process of reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. First, the reconciliation process must clearly emphasize the importance of truth-telling on both sides. Palestinians must face Israelis and say "we blew up your innocents and sought your destruction" and Israelis must stand before Palestinians and say "we razed your homes and treated you with indignity." Truth-telling is important to the process of reconciliation because it reintroduces the human element into the conflict, allowing enemies to view each other as fellow human beings who hurt and feel as they do, and inhibiting them from demonizing the other. Truth-telling is painful and difficult, but it is indispensable to the process of reconciliation and forgiveness. And, as Raymond Helmick, and Rodney L. Peterson have astutely observed, "without forgiveness there is no progress, no linear history, only a return to conflict and cycles of conflict."[4]
South Africa's experiment with reconciliation also serves as a reminder that the role of religious leadership in the reconciliation process cannot be overemphasized. Archbishop Tutu was an integral part of the success of the TRC; his character, moral leadership, and religious fervor lent him not only credibility, but also the invaluable support of the people. The same principle holds true in the Middle East. People are drawn to inspirational religious leadership. The only question is what kind of religious leadership they are going to get. If the reconciliation process is to be both genuine and sustainable, it must be guided by the moderate religious communities on both sides of the conflict because they are the ones that will bring about either the degeneration or the preservation of peace.[5]
Despite some right-wing evangelical arguments to the contrary, there are ample resources for reconciliation and forgiveness within the traditions of both Judaism and Islam. Judaism, for instance, espouses the idea of teshuva, or repentance, which is comprised of five parts: recognition of one's sins as sins, remorse, desisting from sin, restitution, and confession.[6] The first two elements of teshuva are private acts, while the last three are public. Jewish tradition mandates that in order for true reconciliation to take place one must not only privately express remorse for ones sins, but one must also actively desist from committing the sin, recompense for any damage done, and make a public confession that one has sinned. The latter, in essence, embodies the principle of truth-telling.
Islam, too, emphasizes the restoration of friendship in its traditional sulha ritual. Sulha takes place after four requirements have been met: the offender publicly confesses the wrong he has committed; the jaha, or mediator, petitions the offended household on behalf of the offender; opposing parties declare a temporary truce agreement; and finally, after a period of grieving and repentance, the offender pays diya, a symbolic compensation to the family of the offended. After these four steps have been completed, the community carries out the formal sulha ritual, which involves both verbal pledges and symbolic gestures, including the knotting of a ceremonial cloth and the joint partaking of a meal.[7] With the completion of the ceremony, it is publicly understood that the two families are reconciled, and that their relationship has been restored.
Rabbi Marc Gopin, a long-time peace worker in the Middle East and professor of international diplomacy at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, advocates the possibility of incorporating sulha and teshuva ceremonies into the Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation process:
Forgiveness ceremonies, apologies, sulha and teshuva-type ceremonies remain only a theoretical possibility at this point, but we are closer than ever to preparing the political/religious ground for such a possibility. The symbolic and transformative power of leading sheikhs and rabbis embracing in such a ceremony is an image that drives all of us forward in this difficult work, because we believe that this is the missing ingredient of the so-called peace process. It is the human element that is needed to transform this bitter, merciless, haggling struggle into a deeper process of trust-building, honest bilateral conversations about justice, and even reconciliation.[8]
The emphasis on cultural and religious traditions is an integral part of the reconciliation process, whether or not those involved in the process consider themselves religious. Despite the increasing secularization of the Middle East, and especially of Israel, these cultural and religious traditions are deeply embedded in the identity of every Jew and Muslim. Rabbi Gopin explains that in the reconciliation process, one must "tap into the deepest spiritual consciousness" of individuals on both sides of the conflict, because it is in the discovery of their deepest identity that their hearts will open to the possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness.[9]
In light of the lessons learned from South Africa's TRC and in light of the cultural and religious models of forgiveness that already exist in the Middle East, how can the U.S. encourage reconciliation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? First, alongside any political strategy such as the roadmap, the U.S. must actively encourage grassroots dialogue between communities. For example, Herbert Kelman, a social psychologist who has done extensive peace work in the Middle East, uses interactive problem-solving workshops to bring together important members from both the Israeli and Palestinian communities to discuss the issues at the heart of the conflict. With the guidance and direction of a third party, participants are encouraged to propose joint solutions to their respective governments, effectively engaging in what has come to be known as "track one-and-a-half" diplomacy.[10] In order for such an initiative to be as effective as possible, it must have ample financial support. The U.S. should therefore lend its support to such dialogues and initiatives.[11]
Along with financial support, suggests Rabbi Gopin, the U.S. should use the bully pulpit of the American Presidency to elevate and honor those who are actively involved in the reconciliation process. There are dozens of reconciliation programs doing effective work on the ground, yet their accomplishments are rarely honored or celebrated.[12] Instead of idolizing security and government officials as the cultural icons of the region, the U.S. should use its international influence to elevate cultural and spiritual figures who have been courageous in promoting democracy, healing, and reconciliation, and make them international figures—heroes to be celebrated.
Finally, Christians can and should play a constructive role in the reconciliation process in the Middle East. All too often Christians either zealously defend one side, or completely ignore the issue in an attempt to remain non-partisan. Neither of these approaches represents the appropriate Christian response. Christians carry a profound responsibility to advocate reconciliation in the Middle East. Regardless of eschatological beliefs, Christians should be involved in the reconciliation process between Israelis and Palestinians because they are called to be reconcilers in every conflict-ridden region of the world. As the Apostle Paul writes:
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us.[13]
We must reconcile, because we, ourselves, have been reconciled. Our gospel is the gospel of reconciliation, for it reconciles us to God and to our fellow human beings. The ministry of reconciliation has been entrusted to us. God is pleading through us. Therefore, not only is reconciliation a Christian calling, it is a Christian imperative, both in the Middle East and in every hate-torn corner of the world.
1. Aviva Zornberg, Genesis: The Beginning of Desire (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), p. 134-136
2. David A. Crocker coined the terms "maximal reconciliation" and "minimal reconciliation", in order to differentiate between a process that attempts to engender between former enemies shared goals and hopes for the future, as described above, and a process that simply seeks to arrive at nonviolent coexistence. See "Retribution and Reconciliation" Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy (Winter/Spring 2000), p.6
3. Quoted in Crocker, "Retribution and Reconciliation".
4. Raymond Helmick, S.J., and Rodney L. Peterson, Forgiveness and Reconciliation. (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2001), p.xxvii
5. For a further exploration of the role of religion in conflict resolution, see Marc Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion can bring Peace to the Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
6. David Blumenthal, Repentance and Forgiveness (Cross Currents, Spring 1998) p. 75-81
7. Elias Jabbour, Sulha: Palestinian Traditional Peacemaking Process (Shefar'Am, Israel: House of Hope Publications, 1996) p.31-45
8. Marc Gopin, "Forgiveness as an Element of Conflict Resolution in Religious Cultures: Walking the Tightrope of Reconciliation and Justice" in Reconciliation, Coexistence, and Justice in Interethnic Conflicts: Theory and Practice, ed. Mohammed Abu-Nimer (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001).
9. Marc Gopin interview: June 18, 2003
10. Track I diplomacy involves the participation and interaction of state and/or official actors in areas of conflict, usually government-to-government diplomacy. Track II diplomacy involves actors representing non-governmental organizations engaged in activity at the grassroots level.
11. For more information on interactive problem solving, see Herbert Kelman "Interactive Problem Solving: An Approach to Conflict Resolution and its Application in the Middle East", Political Science & Politics, June 1998.
12. For more information on grassroots reconciliation projects, visit the websites of Musalaha; Seeds of Peace; Neve-Shalom~Wahat al-Salaam; Givat Haviva; Sulha Peace Project; The Abraham Fund and many more found at http://www.coexistence.org/html/grants%20booklet.pdf.
13. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, NKJV. Emphasis added.